HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/01/24 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, January 24, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of June 28, November 29 and December 13, 1989
OP~AL 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 five
minutes.
1.(a) PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-1M: Request to allow
vehicle parking and storage of equipment, office
storage and a temporary office at the southwest corner
of Beyer and Faivre Streets - H. G. Fenton Company
(b) PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-2M: Request to allow
vehicle parking and storage of equipment, office
storage and a temporary office on the south side of
Faivre Street at Jacqua - H. G. Fenton Company
(c) PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-3M: Request to allow
vehicle parking and storage of equipment and office
storage at the southwest corner of Mace Street -
H. G. Fenton Company
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-1, Otay Valley
Road Widening (Continued from 12-13-89)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-7: Consideration of Sunbow II SPA Plan, Public
Facilities Financing Plan, and PC Regulations - Rancho
Del Sur Partnership
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-03: Consideration of an amendment to Section
19.060.030 of the Municipal Code for development projects
affected by amendments to the General Plan - City Initiated
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-25M: Request for RV
storage at 1375 Broadway - Broadway Equities Ltd.
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of February 14, 1990
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
January 19, 1990
TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner~~-~
SUBJECT: PCC-90-1M, PCC-90-2M and PCC-90-3M
The above sited items were heard by the Montgomery Planning Committee
at their meeting of January 17, 1990. The Montgomery Planning Committee
failed to adopt the Negative Declarations for the projects, and requested
additional information and revisions and asked that the revised Negative
Declarations and applications for conditional use permits be returned to
them.
These items have not been continued to a specific date and, therefore, it
is recommended that the Planning Commission table these items.
BR:je
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR 89-1: Ota¥ Valley Road
Wideninq Project
A. BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report on the
Otay Valley Road Widening Project is to analyze the
environmental and social consequences of widening the
existing two lane Otay Valley Road to a six lane prime
arterial. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the
criteria, standards and procedures listed below.
-The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, Sections
21000 et. seq.);
-The State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative
Code, Sections 15000 et. seq.);
-The Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista; and
-The regulations and procedures of the California
Department of Fish and Game. In case of conflict, the
City of Chula Vista's requirements will prevail.
In accordance with Section 15367 of CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Chula Vista has been designated the Lead Agency
and, as such, has the principal responsibility for
processing the project in compliance with CEQA requirements.
The California Department of Fish and Game is a Responsible
Agency, and will be processing a Streambed Alteration
Agreement for the modifications to the Otay River Valley
east of Maxwell Road necessitated by the road widening
project.
The proposed project will also require a Section 404
Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because
construction of the southern slopes at the eastern end of
the project will require fill in wetland areas adjacent to
the Otay River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
responsible for preparing and processing any federal
environmental review documents that are required.
The Draft EIR on the Otay Valley Road widening was
issued for public review on August 21, 1989. The State
Clearinghouse review was completed on ~ber 13, 1~9 and the
City's comment period will conclude with the closing of this
public hearing.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Take any testimony relevant.to the EIR and close the
public hearing. The Final EIR and project consideration
will be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Otay Valley Road is proposed to be widened from Interstate
805 to the eastern City boundary. This portion of Otay
Valley Road is approximately 8,800 linear feet and traverses
properties within the City of Chula Vista's Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Area. The County of San Diego is located
adjacent to and east of the project, and City of San Diego
incorporated areas are between 750 and 3,900 feet south of
the proposed project.
The proposed project entails widening Otay Valley Road
to a six-lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-way.
The roadway will have a design speed of 55 miles per hour.
Project elements include a 16 foot landscaped median, six 12
foot driving lanes, two 8 foot emergency parking lanes, and
12 feet behind each shoulder curb for sidewalks,
landscaping, and utilities.
Paseo Ranchero will intersect with Otay Valley Road at
a point near the incorporated City limits. The design of
the eastern portion of Otay Valley Road would accommodate
numerous future alignments of Paseo Ranchero.
The proposed road widening will occur in two phases.
Construction of Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Nirvana is
expected to begin in 1990 and will require approximately six
months to complete. East of Nirvana, the widening of Otay
Valley Road will occur in conjunction with future
development needs and available financing. It is
anticipated that Phase II will be constructed within five
years of Phase I completion.
D. ANALYSIS
The Executive Summary from the EIR is attached as
Exhibit A. This table provides a summary of the potential
impacts and the mitigation measures necessary to reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
E. COMMENTS ON THE EIR
The comments that have been received to date are
attached as Exhibit B. The Resource Conservation Committee
met on October 23, 1989. The Committee recommended that the
Planning Commission find the EIR adequate.
RP:sc
Z z
~ s~ ~ ~.~ ~ I~ hsine#, Trsn~ortatlen and He4~lntl Agent/
emorandum
STATE CLE~INGHOUS~ D~ , October 13, 1989
Ft~ No. 11-SD-805
3.5-3.9
DEPARTMENT O1~ TRAN~'ORTATION
DEIR for the Otay Valley Road
W~dentng Project - SCH 89083004
The proposed widening of Otay Valley Road to 6-1ane~ will neces-
sitate the widening of that road through the Interstate Route 805
interchange and the widening of =he ramps, Also, a feasibility
study will be needed for the provision of sdequate left-turn
storage at the interchange, Restriping the existing four-lane
section to provide for two left turns does not meet Caltrans
standards and will not provide enough storage,
Our contact person for Inter~ta~e 805 at Otay Valley Road is Mike
MoManus, Project Manager, Local Funded Projects, (619) 237-7491,
/ -~AI~S T. CHESHmRE, Chief
~Environmen=al Planning Branch
MO: yg
172 4andale 4lee
gl Calan. CA g2olg
~r, DcuS Reid
2?6 Pour~h Avenue
Oh~la Vimta, OA g2010
that the prop~aad wtden~n~ of O~aZ Valley Road wtll have ~or our
Paros! ~o. 6440 40 O0 in [ha City ct Chula Vta[a.
meatan Island end inte~eeo~ione alan8 propoled Otay Valley ~oad,
P~ret and toremoe%, o~r pr[mary =enoern Is ~he o~penee o~
orea~[n~ · e~ ~·ne arterial wASh medians when · four [one road
w~thou~ mediano ia su~cXent for ~he needs o~ She redevelopment
~eoondly, ~ho ·boys mentioned repor~ Iii%el on P&~ea 3-38 ~ 39
tha~ our robert (Walker S=o%~) te not impacted. ,
~2 a~rea ct ndue%r[a[ly'zoned l·nd [s eo eevere]¥ impa~ted tha~
much o~ the prgperty will not be able ~o bo developed al ·
reeul~ o~ ~hie proposed widentnS,
Ptnall¥, tf tht~ proposal somehow become~ reality, the ptannod
access to our re arty [s unaooe table
P P p . There mua[ be Ii leal%
one tull~ signalized intersection into our proposed development
well o~ the proses% location o~ the enima! mheI[nr,
~ur property, and we canflo~ on~ will no~ acoep~ a plan ~ha~ dooe
not proper~y a~ese our land.
rmllrdinI ~hmwm i~sumn. We petition the Otmy
VSP/$OUTH BAY ~,P,
oat $~alo~ R. Cox
Gayla MaCmndliss
David Maloolm
Loonl~d Moore
Tim Nadir
Don Heys
O~¥ bioh~y
D~n
Dan Piss
Prod gallm~n
Robin P~nim
TO: Christine Keller, Keller Environmental
FROM: Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development
Specialist
SUBJECT: Comments from Ted Hale of H.G. Fenton Materials
Co. on the Otay Valley Road Widening Draft EIR
The following issues were raised by Mr. Hale at a meeting
with Doug Reid and I on Thursday September 21, 1989.
Mr. Hale expressed a concern with the last provision on page
3-28 under Mitiqation. He objected to the construction
corridor on the property under Fenton ownership being
recontoured to lower than existing levels following
construction. To respond to his concern, I suggest the
mitigation measure be modified to change the reference from
"...recontoured to natural or lower levels..." to simply
"...recontoured to natural levels..."
Mr. Hale was concerned about access to the property south of
the proposed Otay Valley Road. Leedshill-Herkenhoff will be
preparing a design for a driveway access which will be
completed for consideration in the Final EIR.
On page 3-48 and 3-50, there is an indication that the rock
plant is operated by Fenton Materials Co. Mr. Hale
clarified that the rock plant is operated by Nelson & Sloan.
On page 3-84 under Impacts, Mr. Hale requested clarification
on the width of the area to be landscaped east of Maxwell
Road. In the area east of Maxwell Road, the landscaping
will only cover the slopes down to the wetland boundary and
may not include the full 20-foot landscaped area.
OVRCOM
September 27, 1989
TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist
FROM: Fred Kassman, Acting Community Development.Specialist,~
SUBJECT: Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee comments concerning
the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Valley Road
Widening project
The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee discussed the Otay Valley Road
Widening project at their meeting of September 25~ 1989. I anl attaching
copies of the minutes of that meeting, most of which is devoted to discusssion
of the issues as they perceive them concerning the road widening project and
the Environmental Impact Report. Please consider this their official comments
pursuant to the request for public comments on the EIR.
FK:aq
Attachment
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Monday, September 25, 1989 Conference Rooms 2&3
9:00 a.m. Public Services Buildinq
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Heye, Members Colombo, Lichty, and Olguin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Casillas
ALSO PRESENT: Redevelopment Coordinator Fred Kassman; Principal
Planner Dan Pass; and Fred Borst, Property Owner in
the Project Area
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1989
MSUC (Heye/Lichty) to approve the minutes as mailed.
2. REVIEW OF THE EIR FOR OTAY VALLEY ROAD
Chairman Heye requested any comments from Committee members concerning the
Environmental Impact Report which was submitted to the Committee for
comment.
Member Olguin questioned the proposed traffic signals at Oleander and
Brandywine Avenue. These signals seem to be very close together.
Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman responded that, although the signals are
close together, they are supposed to be electronically timed and should
not hinder traffic flow.
Member Olguin questioned the height of the masonry sound barrier walls
which are going to be constructed adjacent to the residential properties.
Principal Planner Pass responded that that has not been determined as
yet. Member Lichty further questioned where the walls would be
constructed. Mr. Kassman responded that they would be constructed
adjacent to the residential properties along Otay Valley Road near the
crest of the embankment. It would be necessary to obtain permission from
the property owners to build the wall. Member Lichty further questioned
what protection the residents at the top of the hill had. Further
discussion followed concerning the placement and effectiveness of the
wall. Hember Polombo stated that it might be a waste to put the wall at
the bottom of the hill in terms of buffering noise to the residential
properties further to the north.
Mr. Fred Borst indicated that the EIR brings forth total issues to be
considered for construction of the road. He questioned the necessity of
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area Committee Minutes -2- September 25, 1989
having traffic signals close together at Maxwell Road and Nirvana Avenue
as well as Oleander and Brandywine. There are important safety issues for
consideration here, particularly for Oleander and ~axwell Road. Traffic
rounds a dangerous curve and will be confronted by two traffic signals
which may prove to be dangerous. Mr. Borst continued that there should
only be one traffic signal at Maxwell Road. Nirvana should be connected
to Maxwell by a new connector road.
Mr. Borst continued that he felt the entire concept of the six-lane major
arterial roadway was too financially ambitious for the project area. If
the ultimate development to the east and south requires a six-lane major
arterial road, then those people benefiting from that road should absorb
some of the cost. Four lanes are enough to provide service to the project
area. Mitigation for 2 acres of wetland alone has been estimated at
approximately $800,000 per acre. There is no justification for this
grandiose a road project in consideration of the few property owners that
will have to pay for it.
Chairman Heye agreed with Mr. Borst indicating that the whole road project
has gotten out of hand. It is imperative that a budget be prepared and
submitted now and that the cost needs to be considered since it may very
well be too great for the land owners in the project area. Member Lichty
questioned whether LAFCO can dictate how the financing of a road can be
apportioned out. Mr. Pass responded that there are some subventions which
are available and are handled through SANDAG. This body should have been
involved early in the planning process.
Chairman Heye continued that he feels deceived. When he first developed
in the project area years ago, there ~as nothing said about a 128-foot
wide major thoroughfare. If that large a facility is constructed in the
project area, it will encourage more traffic usage by people outside the
project area.
Mr. Borst continued that this subject was brought up a long time ago, and
City staff indicated that engineering studies required a six-lane major
arterial with a median strip. Member Polombo added that it may be better
to wait until there are more people in the project area to share the costs.
Chairman Heye summarized that there are three major issues which are
becoming apparent. The first is the size of the road and related cost,
the second are the location of the stop lights, and the third involved the
noise attenuation wall.
Member Lichty suggested that Principal Community Development Specialist
Robin Putnam and the consultant engineers come back for more discussions
concerning the road before a final decision is made. Fred Borst indicated
that Leedshill Herkenhoff, the consultinq engineering firm for the
project, should be preparing cost estimates ~t this time.
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area Committee Minutes -3- September 25, 1989
Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman indicated that review and approval of
the EIR was not tantamount to project approval. If the EIR is approved, a
four-lane road project could still be considered as well as a six-lane
project. Chairman Heye suggested it would be advisable to make comments
for the EIR which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on October
11. Chaimlan Heye further proposed that the Project Area Committee make
the following findings:
1) The road project is disproportionate in size to the development in
the project area and may be cost prohibitive.
2) Should traffic levels in the area increase to higher-than-anticipated
levels, noise barriers should be considered for the residential areas
to the north of Otay Valley Road including Bon Vivant and Brandywine
Townhomes.
3) Consideration should be given for the combining of traffic signals at
Maxwell and Nirvana and providing a pass-through roadway connecting
the two streets.
MSUC (Heye/Licty) to adopt these recommendations and direct staff to pass
them on to the Planning Commission for review and consideration of
adopting the EIR.
3. PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A 13,000 SQ. FT. INDUSTRIAL BUILDING BY JOSEF SEDIVE£
Principal Planner Pass indicated that the environmental clearance has not
been received as yet for this project. The Committee cannot review it
until the environmental documentation is complete. The project will be
placed on a subsequent agenda for review by the Committee.
Member Polombo indicated that he may have a conflict of interest in
reviewing this project since his property is contiguous to the subject
development site.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman Heye handed out copies of a recent editorial from the Star-News
on the proposed auto park on East "H" Street which also menti~y
Valley Road as a previously considered location.
Chairman Heye indicated that he had recently driven up Nirvana and Energy
Way and noticed that several of the auto recyclers had constructed stucco
walls with concertina wire on their sites. Mr. Kassman indicated that
staff had taken note of these and that they were not approved by the
Planning Department. Notices were sent to the property owners indicating
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-7, Consideration of Sunbow II SPA Plan, Public
Facilities Financing Plan, and PC Regulations; Rancho
Del Sur Partnership
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Rancho Del Sur Partnership, has submitted a Sectional
Planning Area {SPA) Plan and related items for a 602 acre property,
located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista
Medical Center, east of Greg Rogers Park.
Included for your consideration is the Sunbow II General Development Plan,
Sectional Planning Area Plan, the Public Facilities Financing Plan, the
Planned Community Development Regulations and Preliminary Design
Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are provided for information purposes,
and will be forwarded to the Commission for recommendation with the
Tentative Map at a subsequent hearing.
On October 25, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the Sunbow II
General Development Plan, pre-zoning to the Planned Community (PC)
District, and certified the Draft Environmental Impact Report. On December
5, 1989, the City Council approved the General Development Plan,
pre-zoning to the Planned Community (PC) District, and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
On January 8, 1990, the 602 acres contained within Sunbow II, was approved
by LAFCO for annexation to the City of Chula Vista.
The revised project has been evaluated in the addendum to EIR-88-1 (see
Attachment 2 to staff report). It is the conclusion of this evaluation
that the revised project would not result in any new significant
environmental effects and that no further environmental review is
necessary.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment 1), adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, subject to the conditions of
approval listed in this report; and
2. Adopt a motion recommending approval of the Public Facilities
Financing Plan; and
3. Adopt a motion recommending approval of the PC Development
Regulations; and
4. Direct staff to continue the review of the Preliminary Design
Guidelines, and resubmit to your Commission for consideration in
conjunction with the Tentative Subdivision Map(s) for the Sunbow II
SPA Plan.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
1. Sunbow II General Development Plan
The Sunbow II General Development Plan, as previously approved, is an
exhibit intended to show the general location of all proposed uses
and the general circulation system. Its purpose is to serve as the
bridge to connect the approved General Development Plan to the more
detailed descriptions proposed in the Sectional Planning Area.
The General Development Plan map is detailed as Exhibit A in the SPA
Plan document. It details that within the 602 acres of Sunbow II,
there is proposed 1946 dwelling units (lO61 Low-Medium Density units,
and 885 Medium Density units), a l0 acre Retail Commercial, a l0 acre
Community Recreation Center, a 46 acre Industrial Park, 176.6 acres
of Open Space, and a l0 acre candidate Elementary School site.
The General Development Plan, as approved, contains conditions of
approval specifically identifying on and off-site physical
improvements which will be committed to the timing of the various
phases of the project's construction. Also addressed in the document
is the recognition of the need for sites for such uses as churches
and day care centers.
The approved Sunbow General Development Plan calls for the
corresponding mix of land uses:
ACRES UNITS
LOW
MEDIUM 234.0 lO61
MEDIUM 73.4 885
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL lO.O 0
COMMUNITY RECREATION lO.O 0
SUBTOTAL 327.4 1946
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL 10. 0
INDUSTRIAL
R & D 46.0
OPEN SPACE AND
TRANS. CORRIDORS 21 8.6
TOTAL 602.0 AC 1946 DU
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 3
2. Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area {SPA) Plan
According to the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the purpose of the SPA
Plan, in a PC Planned Community zone, is to provide for orderly
pre-planning of large tracts of land containing a variety of land
uses which are under unified ownership or development control.
It is intended to provide reasonable assurance that Sectional
Development Plans prepared in accordance with approved General
Development Plans will be acceptable to the City.
The Sunbow II SPA Plan consists of 602 acres containing 1946 dwelling
units (1128 Low-Medium Density units, and 818 Medium Density units),
an ll acre Village Center, a l0 acre Community Recreation Center, a
46 acre Industrial Park, approximately 180 acres of Open Space, and
an ll acre candidate Elementary School site.
The plan contains 23 planning areas which are separated into three
development phases.
The Site Utilization Plan and report text constitute the Sunbow II
SPA Plan. It is intended to provide a more detailed plan for the
development project before subdivision maps and site plans are acted
upon.
The greater level of detail contained in the SPA plan serves as the
master planning document that will guide, and provide for the
evaluation of project plans which will be filed in the future.
The Sunbow II SPA PLan calls for the corresponding mix of land uses:
LAND USE GROSS TOTAL
DISTRICTS ACRES UNITS
RS Residential Single Family 258.2 1035
RP Residential Planned 19.0 93
Development
RM Residential Multi-Family 16.3 238
RC Residential Condominium 47.2 580
SUBTOTAL 340.~ 1946
VC Village Center 11.0
IP Industrial Park 46.0
OS Open Space - 10.0
Community Recreation
OS Open Space and Roads 194.3
GRAND TOTAL 602.0 AC. 1946 DU.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 4
Plan Structure and Design
Sunbow II is planned to be a residential community with a diversity
of housing types which will become available to families with various
income levels.
Approximately 457 acres, or 76 percent of the land use of the site is
in permanent open space and single family residential uses.
The plan features a high activity core area whose focus is an 11 acre
Village Center proposed to be developed in a manner reminiscent of a
California Spanish Village. It is envisioned that the village retail
element be characterized by mixed-use development that includes
office and service facilities as well as retail.
The Village and Recreation Center will appear much like a village
green which is surrounded by active and passive recreation uses, as
well as residential condominiums and multiple-family units in the
form of townhouses, flats and apartments.
The 10 acre Community Recreation Center, while providing facilities
similar to those in larger community parks such as Olympic swimming
pool, gymnasium and like activities, does not replace any community
park shown in the City General Plan. It remains essentially a
neighborhood park, as designated in the General Plan, only containing
more active recreation amenities than would ordinarily be found in
such parks. In this regard, this qualifies the project design to
account for this acreage into residential totals and density
computations.
All the multi-family residential dwellings, 818 in all {580
Residential Condominiums and 238 Residential Multi-Family units), are
located entirely within the central node which is bounded by
Telegraph Canyon Road, Medical Center Drive, East Palomar Street and
Paseo Ladera.
This core area concept is consistent with the Chula Vista General
Plan designation for this central location, inclusive of the
properties contained within the Chula Vista Medical Center, to be an
"Activity Center," which permits and encourages the clustering of a
variety of mixed land uses.
The residential acreage within the core area was reduced in size by
approximately l0 acres, from 83 to 73+ acres, from that shown in the
City General Plan, due to the realignment of East Palomar Street in a
more northerly position, resulting from grading considerations.
This reduction in size, in addition to the project's dedication of
additional acreage towards permanent open space, has resulted in a
smaller planning area available for residential construction within
the central node location.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 5
The total number of approved medium-density units has diminished by
67 from 885 to 818, while low-medium density unit count increased by
the same number, from 1,061 to 1,128. The gross residential density
in the core area computes to approximately ll dwellings per acre,
placing it at the higher end of the Medium Density Residential
classification.
Staff supports the core area being developed in the manner proposed,
and considers it to be consistent with the policies and guidelines
established in the General Plan, based on the following:
It is located in an Activity Center which permits higher land
use intensities and mixed uses.
The core area site was reduced through street relocation and
retention of additional open space based on sensitivity to
grading.
The dwelling unit total of the project matches the mid-point
total shown in the City General Plan, and corresponds with the
dwelling unit total in the approved General Development Plan.
There is predominance of townhouses and condominiums (580),
versus other multi-family units (280).
It is adjacent to, and relates directly with the urban village.
The majority of residential acreage in Sunbow II, 277.2 acres, or 46
percent of the site, is dedicated to the development of 1128
single-family detached homes. These are all situated outside the
interior core area just described.
With the exception of Planning Area 15, which contains 93 smaller
residential lots, averaging 4,900 square feet in area, the other 1035
single-family lots range in size from an average low of 6,225 square
feet in Planning Area 12, to an average high of 7,700 square feet in
Planning Area 16.
Approximately 180 acres, close to 30 percent of the entire site, will
remain in permanent open space.
The principal open space feature in the SPA Plan is Poggi Canyon,
which as shown in the City General Plan, forms the first increment of
a scenic corridor system which extends into the Otay Ranch, in the
Eastern Territories.
Located in the southernmost portion of the site is a 46 acre
Industrial Park. It is in a unique location, separated from the rest
of the project bs permanent open space on three sides, and it abuts a
sanitary landfill site along its southern property boundary.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 6
There is potential for a City Corporation Yard to be located in the
Industrial Park. It is estimated that approximately 15 acres may be
needed for this purpose. Should this happen, the facility can serve
as a buffer between the landfill site to the south, and the rest of
the business park.
A new two-bay fire station on approximately one acre of land will be
located off Medical Center Drive near Orange Avenue. This 3,600
square foot facility will be built and dedicated to the City the time
the residential occupancy in Sunbow II reaches 735 dwelling units.
Circulation
The principal roadways serving Sunbow II, of a Class I Collector
Street or greater classification, are Telegraph Canyon Road, East
Orange Avenue, East Palomar Street, Medical Center Drive and Paseo
Ladera.
The phased construction of streets will be in accordance with the
Certified EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and conditions of
approval established by the Planning Commission and City Council for
the Sunbow II General Development Plan.
This will ensure that all roads within Sunbow II, as well as certain
identified off-site street improvements, and 1-805 freeway
intersection improvements, which impact this development, will be
substantially completed, and usable for their function, prior to the
occupancy of the residential neighborhoods they are intended to serve.
Sunbow II will be required to construct on-site traffic signals, as
required by the City, as well as contribute to the traffic signal
fund whose revenues are applied to citywide traffic signalization
programs.
In the SPA Plan traffic circulation analysis, an access study for
Chula Vista Community Hospital and Vista Hill Hospital was
incorporated into the circulation system of the inner core area.
Traffic study alternatives show that an extension of Medical Center
Court from where it terminates in a cul-de-sac, in a southerly
direction to intersect with East Palomar Street, is desirable. In
addition to the convenience it provides for internal street linkage
between Medical Center facilities and Village/Recreation Center, from
an emergency services standpoint, it is highly desirable to provide a
secondary ingress/egress point so that access to and from the Medical
Center would not be interrupted by any temporary blockage to Medical
Center Drive.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 7
Public Facilities Financin9 Plan
The objective of the Public Facilities Financing Plan is to identify
all public facilities, such as, transportation, water, flood control,
sewage disposal, schools and parks, required to support the planned
development of the Sunbow II Project.
It proposes specific financing programs to ensure, and facilitate the
construction of the necessary improvements, as well as to identify
regional facilities needed to serve this SPA and its share of costs
to construct those regional improvements.
The improvements stated therein shall be requirements of subsequent
discretionary permits. In most cases, they will become conditions of
approval of tentative and final subdivision maps. In other cases,
building and occupancy permits will be the vehicles of
implementation. Improvements called for in any development phase are
intended to be completed such that they are usable for their
functions prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit within that
particular phase.
The plan provides guidance as to the available financing techniques.
Some facilities will be financed by the developer, and others can
better be financed through specific techniques available in state
law. For example, the financing of schools can be assured by the use
of Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing.
The plan also ties the project into the City's Development Impact Fee
(DIF) program. A principal purpose of the DIF program is to provide
for the financing of transportation improvements that will be
necessitated by development east of 1-805.
In addition, there are Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
which are needed for other City services such as Public Safety,
Libraries, Corporation Yard, Civic Center and Geographic Information
System.
The Financing Plan is dependent on citywide documents beyond the
General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report and SPA Plan.
It is also based on the Eastern Territories Transportation Phasing
Plan, the Development Impact Fee, and the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee of the City of Chula Vista.
With respect to public facilities such as parks and recreation,
schools, libraries, water, sewer, storm drainage, police and fire
facilities, the Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan makes the
following provisions:
a. Parks and Recreation Sunbow II provides for a Community
Recreation Center incorporating active recreation and passive
park uses. A l0 acre facility will be developed as a turnkey
project which will be turned over to the City.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 8
The Center will feature an 18,000 square foot gymnasium complex
with meeting rooms, day care, locker space, a 50 meter swimming
pool and ancillary uses. The total cost of improvements and
parkland proposed will be in excess of $5.0 million.
The developers will also make a separate contribution of
$100,000 toward improvements in Greg Rogers Park.
b. Schools - The Sunbow II property has been placed in a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District to finance elementary, junior and
high school facilities. One candidate elementary school site is
reserved for the Chula Vista Elementary School District which
will serve some of the 525 elementary schoolchildren that are
projected to be generated by the Sunbow II project.
No junior or high school sites are required within the project
boundaries. The Mello-Roos financing will be applied toward
development of new high school facilities elsewhere, but which
will serve the 195 junior, and 370 high school students that
will be generated by this project.
c. Water Facilities - The project will be served by the Otay Water
District. All of the project is within the recently formed
Improvement District #27. The formation of this district was
for the purpose of funding the construction of future reservoir
facilities to serve the central area of the Otay Water District
In addition to Sunbow II, the central area includes Rancho del
Rey and Eastlake Otay Water District and/or Sunbow, or other
developers of projects in the Otay Water District, will
construct additional terminal water reservoir storage for 54
million gallons. Water stored in this facility, or other Otay
Water District facilities, will provide the supply to the Sunbow
II project.
A reclaimed water system will be constructed within Sunbow II in
accordance with the master plan now being developed by the Otay
Water District
d. Sewer Facilities - The Sunbow II project currently lies within
three sanitary sewer basins, the Telegraph Canyon Basin, the
Palm Canyon Basin, and the Poggi Canyon Basin in which the
majority of the project is included.
To accomplish the Poggi Canyon sewer program, the design
requires considerable off-site improvements, more than what will
be needed to only carry sewer discharge generated by Sunbow II.
The estimated cost of off-site sewer improvements is $1.1
million. All upgraded sewer mains will provide capacity for the
estimated "ultimate buildout" of the Poggi Canyon sewer basin,
and the flow as diverted from the Palm Canyon Basin.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 9
Since the Sunbow II project will utilize only a portion of the
capacity in the upgraded Poggi Canyon Basin line, an agreement
will be entered with the City to provide for a fair share
reimbursement to the developer of Sunbow II from proceeds
collected at the time when future connections to the sewer
system are made
e. Stormwater System - Sunbow II will be served by several on-site
stormwater facilities that will drain the project area to
off-site downstream discharges in the Poggi Canyon, Loma Verde
and Telegraph Canyon drainage basins.
h. Other City Facilities - The City has adopted a Master Plan for
the expansion of the Civic Center for it to meet projected
demands through the year 2010. About $478 will be charged to
each equivalent dwelling unit for this purpose.
Sunbow II's share in the financing of an automated Geographic
Information System (GIS) for the City will be approximately
$95,200.
Implementation
Beyond the standard implementation methods utilized for this project,
such as Tentative Map and Site Plan approvals, there are several
other implementation tools which are applicable to this project.
1. Planned Community District Regulations - Planned Community {PC)
District Regulations specifically tailored to fit the proposed
development provide standards and regulations to guide the
development of Sunbow II. These regulations, which provide
specific implementation standards, should be applied in
conjunction with the design guidelines for both the residential
and landscape elements of the project.
2. Design Guidelines - As previously stated, the design guidelines
are an integral part of the Sunbow II SPA Plan. They are
presented in a preliminary form to permit input from the
Planning Commission prior to the review of the Tentative Map.
The proposed guidelines are meant to establish minimum standards
for the urban design theme and architectural character of Sunbow
II.
These will not be adopted by ordinance, but will serve to assist
City Staff and the Design Review Committee to guide and evaluate
future projects, while at the same time promoting innovative
planning and design techniques.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page l0
3. Monitoring Program Sunbow II will be required to submit
updated development summaries, forecasts and development data,
such as actual traffic counts and building permit information to
the City for evaluation and comparison to the Financing Plan as
adopted.
The Public Facilities Financing Plan needs to be updated
annually, as the actual amount, timing and location of the new
development takes place.
The monitoring plan shall also review the ongoing fiscal impact
on the City's Operation Budget. The Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Report, shows a
positive impact in the City due to the development of Sunbow
II. Should the fiscal impact in the City change in the future,
the annual monitoring program will provide the analysis for the
reasons, and the alternative courses of action which are to be
taken.
Conditions of Approval of Sunbow II SPA Plan
Sunbow II SPA and supporting documents are approved subject to the
following conditions:
I. Sunbow II shall submit annual building permit reports, traffic
counts and fiscal impact analysis to the City. This requirement
shall be in effect for five (5) years from the date of City
Council approval of the SPA Plan. However, it may be extended
at the discretion of the City Council.
2. The Public Facilities Financing Plan, and the conditions
contained therein, will further govern the subsequent approval
of any Tentative Map{s) or other projects within the SPA.
3. Sunbow II shall set aside, and hold in reservation, at least
five {5) acres of land for religious institutions whose
principal use shall be places of worship. The reservation shall
carry with the land for five (5) years from City Council
approval. If, within such time, said acreage is not secured at
fair market value, on either site, the developer may provide
evidence to the City Council of this situation, and request that
this acreage be permitted to be developed per the underlying
adopted Land Use District according to the provisions of the PC
District Regulations.
4. Sunbow shall incorporate into the spatial design program of the
Community Recreation Center, sufficient building floor space to
accommodate a 60-child day care center, as determined by the
Director of Parks and Recreation. Building costs associated
with this requirement will be limited to those amounts budgeted
in the the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page ll
5. The construction of the park site, exclusive of the gymnasium
and Olympic pool, but including all outdoor park and playground
areas, shall be commenced before or during the construction of
Planning Areas l0 and IOA. Dwelling units in these two areas
shall not be occupied prior to the park's completion.
The Recreation Center/Gymnasium shall be constructed before or
during development phases IC and IIA. It shall be completed, or
be otherwise acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation,
prior to building permits being issued for phase IIB.
The developer shall post a bond with the City of Chula Vista in
an acceptable amount to insure the development of the Community
Recreation Facility.
6. Sunbow II shall set aside a site, approximately one (1) acre in
size, acceptable to the City, for the placement of a future fire
station. All costs related to this turnkey project, shall be in
conformance with the parameters established in the adopted
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
7. The final lot and street design shown within the SPA PLan for
the residential areas may be modified by the Planning Commission
and City Council during Tentative Subdivision Map consideration.
8. All future grading shall be done in accordance with approved
City standards. Areas requiring specific grading and design
treatment, such as in the Poggi Canyon area, Paseo Ladera and
Telegraph Canyon Road, and in Planning Area 12, adjacent to Greg
Rogers Park, shall be treated in accordance with the directives
and requirements of the City Engineering Department, the
Department of Parks and Recreation and the City Landscape
Architect.
9. The sewer system design, inclusive of all maps and reports,
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 12
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS
SUNBOW II SPA PLAN
Standards adopted by City policy require that the Sunbow II SPA project be
analyzed to determine whether the approval of this project will have an
adverse impact on the thresholds formulated by the City. Review of the project
EIR and other supporting SPA documents provides evidence that the project is
consistent with the thresholds of the City as shown below:
1. Air Quality
No project specific threshold.
The project represents growth that was not considered when the air quality
attainment plans for the San Diego Region were being formulated. However,
it will generate less traffic and less air pollutants than would the site
under regional forecasts which have assumed higher development densities
in this area.
2. Economics
No project specific threshold.
The development of Sunbow II is projected to have an overall positive
impact on the City of Chula Vista. Operating revenues are projected to
exceed operating costs over a ten year period, as analyzed in the
project's Fiscal Impact Report. At buildout the annual net fiscal impact
is expected to be a positive $298,240 in 1989 dollars.
3. Police
Project Threshold: Emergency response with properly staffed and equipped
police units to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes, and maintain an
average response time of 4.5 minutes or less.
The Chula Vista Police Department is currently operating within the
threshold standards for service levels. The City is planning to add
additional officers, and police funding requirements for this project
shall be met by its contribution to the City's general fund. Under the
Department's beat structure, the Sunbow project will probably be served by
beats 29 and 32. Both beats are manned by one patrol car 24 hours a day,
and average response times for priority calls is approximately 4 minutes
and 5 seconds.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Service
Project Threshold: Fire and emergency medical service by properly
equipped units to respond to 85% of all emergency calls within 7 minutes.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 13
To meet threshold standards, and in accordance to the City's Fire Station
Master Plan, Fire Station #3, located on East Oneida will be relocated to
a new station proposed to be built in the Sunbow development along Medical
Center Drive just north of East Orange Avenue. It has been determined
that the developer will build and dedicate this facility to the City, and
receive development credit, by the time 735 dwelling units are occupied in
Sunbow II.
5. Schools
No project threshold.
The developers of Sunbow have entered into agreements with the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District
to form a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the purpose of
financing new school facilities. The Sunbow II SPA Plan has included a
candidate site for an elementary school. The High School District which
operates b~th junior and high schools has determined that school sites
will not be needed on the Sunbow property. The timing of the construction
of the elementary school to house Sunbow students will be determined by
the School District.
6. Library
No project threshold. Citywide threshold of 500 sq. ft. of adequately
equipped and staffed library facilities per 1,000 population.
The City's Library Master Plan calls for the addition of three large
branch libraries, two of which have been determined to be related to
growth and future development in the area east of 1-805. Although no
library site is planned in the Sunbow location, the Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee has included the financing of the two branch
libraries at a cost of approximately $10.0 million, of which Sunbow's
share is estimated to be $759,000.
7. Parks and Recreation
Project Threshold: 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities per 1,O00 residents east of 1-805.
Sunbow II exists in an area which can be considered "park rich" and
"facilities poor". Within a service area radius of 1.5 miles from the
center of Sunbow, there are 76.3 acres of park land serving a population
of 1,000 people. This equates to 3.3 acres per 1,O00 people, which is
higher than the threshold standard. In lieu of providing more park
acreage of this kind, a l0 acre Community Recreation Center is planned
which will provide much needed facilities such as an Olympic swimming
pool, gymnasium, meeting rooms, playground and passive recreation areas.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 14
8. Water
Project Threshold: Project to provide a service availability letter from
the Water District.
The Sunbow project lies within the jurisdiction of the Otay Water
District. Recently, the formation of Improvement District #27 was for the
principal purpose of funding the construction of future reservoir
facilities to serve the central area of the Otay Water District. In
addition to Sunbow, the central area includes Rancho del Rey and
Eastlake. The Otay Water District and/or other developers of projects in
the District will construct additional terminal reservoir storage for 54
million gallons of water. Water stored in this facility or other Otay
Water District facilities will provide the supply to the Sunbow project.
Water service availability letter will be required as a condition of
approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map.
9. Sewer
Project Threshold: Sewage flows shall not exceed City engineering
standards.
A detailed analysis of sewage generation, existing facilities' capacity,
cumulative sewage generation in the area, and proposed facilities'
transport and treatment has been prepared by Sunbow and subject to
approval by the City Public Works/Engineering Department. The Master Plan
ensures that all facilities will operate below design capacity with
project and cumulative flows.
10. Drainage
Project Threshold: Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City
engineering standards.
The proposed project includes on-site drainage to control runoff and
erosion, and prevent the degradation of downstream facilities. This
drainage system, which includes a series of detention basins in Poggi
Canyon, has been engineered and designed using City standards and criteria.
ll. Traffic Project Thresholds:
1. Citjavide: Maintain level of service (LOS) "C" or better at all
intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at
signalized intersections for a period not to exceed two hours per day.
2. West of 1-805: {not applicable)
3. Cit~ide: No intersection shall operate at level of service "F" as
measured for the average weekday peak hour.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page
The proposed project project is estimated to generate 28,708 average daily
trips with 2,260 and 2,934 trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hours
respectively.
With mitigation implemented, projected PM peak hour LOS for intersections
under existing conditions, existing plus project, and existing plus
project plus cumulative development, will operate at LOS "C" or better.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 16
ATTACHMENT 1
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SUNBOW
II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan reflects the land uses,
circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility
uses consistent with the Sunbow II General Development Plan and Chula
Vista General Plan.
2. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The
Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required
by Sunbow II, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it.
3. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
The land uses within Sunbow II show that the higher intensity uses are
located in the central core area, and single family residences are
situated adjacent to existing and future single family homes. The
Community Recreation Center will serve residents beyond those living in
the Sunbow II community. A comprehensive street network serves the
project, and which will also provide alternative travel routes to serve
the Eastern Territories. The proposed plan closely follows all existing
environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the
Sunbow II Environmental Impact Report.
WPC 7135P
~ -' ATTACHMENT 2
ADDENDUM TO
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 88-1
SUNBOW II DRAFT
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Planning Depa~'ta~enffEnvironmental Review Coordinator
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Prepared by:
ERC Envh'onmental and Energy Services Co.
55 I0 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California 92121-1709
Project No. 38157.000
January 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1 INTRODUCYION 1 - 1
A. Purpose, Scope and Environmental Procedures 1-1
B. Background 1-5
C. Project Description 1-5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2-1
A. Land Use 2-1
B. Aesthetics 2-3
C. Public Services and Utilities 2-3
D. Traffic and Circulation 2-5
E. Geology and Grading 2-7
F. Hydrology 2-7
G. Biological Resources 2-7
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Project Location 1-3
2 Approved General Development Plan 1-6
3 SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan 1-7
4 Site Construction Phasing 1-8
5 Grading Plan 1-9
6 Landscape Concept Plan 1-10
7 Orange Avenue Scenic Corridor Master Plan 2-4
8 Circulation 2-6
9 Detention Basin Locations 2-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLg~ PAGE
1 Sunbow SPA Plan Land Use Comparison 2-2
ii
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This Addendum to City of Chula Vista Final EIR 88-1 is prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15164. The
purpose of an addendum to an EIR is to comply with CEQA in instances in which
an environmental analysis and CEQA documentation require "minor technical
changes or additions that do not raise important new issues about the project's
significant effects on the environment," and where no factors are present that would
require the preparation of either a subsequent or supplemental EIR
(Section 15164,[a]). "An addendum need not be circulated for public review but
can be included in or attached to the Final EIR" (Section 15164 [bi). "The
decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to
making a decision on the project" (Section 15164 Ici).
The City has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for
this SPA Plan rather than a subsequent EIR because conditions warranting a
subsequent EIR are not present, as described below. Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines describes the circumstances under which subsequent EIR's are
necessary. Section 15162 (Public Resources Code Section 21166) specifically
states:
When an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for a
project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or or supplemental
Environmental Impact Report shall be required by the Lead Agency,
unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the Environmental Impact
Report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which
will require major revisions in the Environmental Impact Report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Environmental Impact Report
was certified as complete, becomes available.
I-1
The section also adds additional criteria, namely, that the new information must
show any of the following: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the original EIR; (2) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the lb'st EIR; (3) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more of the projecfs significant effects; or (4) mitigation
measures or alternatives that were not previously considered would substantially
lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (Guidelines, section
15162, sub& (a)(3)(B).)
Thc above conditions are not met in this case, as there have been no substantial
changes in the Sunbow project or conditions since Final EIR 88-I, therefore no
subsequent EIR is needed.
This Addendum to Final EIR 88-1 (State Clearinghouse No. 88121423; certified
December 5, 1989) evaluates the Sunbow SPA Plan, which is the planning
document supplemental to the approved Sunbow General Development Plan
(GDP). The Sunbow project was evaluated in Final EIR 88-1. The Sunbow
project location is shown is Figure 1. A full description of the submitted SPA Plan
and explanation of the project history are provided below, followed by a topic-by-
topic environmental evaluation of impacts. The City of Chula Vista will consider
this Addendum to EIR 88-1 when making decisions on the Sunbow II SPA Plan.
By definition, in the City of Chula Vista the SPA Plan process serves to implement
the General Development Plan (GDP), providing more detail and specifications in a
project's development program. SPA Plan approval requires conformance with the
regulating/approved GDP. Future subsequent plans must similarly conform to an
approved SPA Plan. The Sunbow SPA Plan has been prepared in accordance
with these procedures and requirements, and is currently under City review and
consideration. This CEQA document has been prepared to analyze potential
environmental impacts of the project and specifically to confirm and document the
adequacy of the Final EIR 88-1 analysis of the project's SPA Plan.
This Addendum to EIR 88-1 does not serve to analyze the SPA Plan's consistency
with all City codes, ordinances and other permit/procedures required for SPA Plan
approval; that review is conducted by City staff within specific departments (i.e.,
1-2
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: BHA, Inc.
FIGURE
:~ERC
Environmental Project Location
and Energy 1
Services Co.
1-3
detailed drainage and grading plans are reviewed by the City Public Works
Department for conformance with applicable codes). Rather, this Addendum
evaluates CEQA environmental topics in conjunction with the Final EIR 88-1
analyses, and documents SPA Plan conformance with Final EIR 88-1. Serving in
this fashion in conjunction with Final EIR 88-1, the City has determined that the
following topics are included in this Addendum to EIR 88-1:
· Land Use
· Aesthetics
· Public Services and Utilities: Water;, Sewer;, Parks/Recreation
· Traffic and Circulation
· Geology and Grading
· Hydrology
· Biological Resources
The topical issues and CEQA sections listed below are not specifically addressed in
this Addendum; the sections are incorporated by reference from Final EIR 88-1.
Issues are not analyzed herein either because the SPA Plan would result in no
change from the Final EIR analysis of the issue, and/or because the potential effect
has been found not to be significant.
· Noise: No substantial change.
· Air Quality: No substantial change.
· Public Services and Utilities (Fire and Police Services; Schools/Student
generation; Library; Gas/Electricity/Energy; and Solid Waste Disposal): No
substantial change.
· Cultural Resources: No impact is associated with the project due to a lack
of resources onsite.
· Fiscal Considerations: Effects are substantially unchanged.
· Alternatives: Section incorporated from EIR 88-1.
1-4
· Other required CEQA Sections (refer to Section 5 of Final EIR 88-I):
Sections incorporated from EIR 88-1.
B. BACKGROUND
Final EIR 88-1, certified in December 1989, evaluates the Sunbow project. The
December 1989 approved GDP is illustrated in Figure 2 of this Addendum. The
GDP approval established zoning and the General Development Plan allowed land
uses onsite as illustrated in Figure 2. The subject SPA Plan represents the next step
in the planning and approval process for the project as required by the City.
C. PROJECT DESCRIFrlON
The proposed SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan is shown in Figure 3. As shown in
Figure 3 and its land use tabulation, the SPA Plan proposes a total of 1946
residential units on 329.7 acres; 11.0 acres of "Village Center" commercial use;
46.0 acres of indusu-ial park; an 11.0 acre elementary school site; 10.0 acres of
community recreation; and 194.3 acres of open space and roads. Total project
acreage is 602.0 acres. The SPA Plan also establishes Planning Areas as required
by the City SPA Plan process, shown on Figure 3 as Planning Areas numbered 1
through 23. Other illustrations of the SPA Plan characteristics, specifically Site
Construction Phasing, Grading Plan and the Landscape Concept Plan are shown in
Figures 4, 5 and 6, respectively.
1.5
E~nRvlC. ronmentaI F I G U R E
and Energy Approved General Development Plan 2
Services Co.
1-6
1-"/
CANYON
CENTER
OLEANDER
AVENUE ORANGE
LEGEND
PHASE II
SOURCE: BHA, Inc. NOT TO SCALE
~ERC F I G U R E
Environmental
Servicesand Energyco. Site Construction Phasing 4
1-8
SOURCE: BHA, Inc,
~ERC
Environmental
and Energy Grading Plan
Services Co.
I-9
1-10
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following discussions are supplemental to sections in Final EIR 88-1.
Descriptions of existing conditions are incorporated by reference from EIR 88-1
and should be referenced as needed. The evaluations contained herein review the
SPA Plan's consistency with the approved GDP, note any differences between the
plans, and identify impacts associated with the SPA Plan, if any exist beyond those
effects analyzed in EIR 88-1. All mitigation from Final EIR 88-I is incorporated by
reference in this Addendum. All mitigation and monitoring requirements from the
previous GDP approval are also required for SPA Plan project implementation and
are incorporated into the SPA Plan and its conditions of approval.
A. LAt~ USE
The proposed SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan is illusu'ated in Figure 3. Planning
Areas are delineated, and land use acreages and units are quantified. Table 1
provides a land use quantified comparison between the proposed SPA Plan and
approved GDP. As shown, the total number of units proposed is consistent with
the GDP approved 1946 units. A variation in density mix exists between the SPA
Plan and GDP. The SPA Plan proposes 67 more Iow-medium density units than
the GDP and 67 fewer medium density units
Table I reflects a recent change in City methodology used to calculate development
and roadway acreages. Specifically, 4-lane streets and smaller roads are now
incorporated into City calculations for development area gross acreages; these roads
are now not included in roadway acreage calculations, as shown on Table 1. All
onsite roads with the exception of Orange Avenue are included in the SPA Plan
development area's gross acreages, measured from the roadway centerline. Actual
development acreages have not increased. This difference in Table 1 therefore does
not reflect a land use impact. Land development configurations are generally
similar between plans (Figures 2 and 3); the SPA Plan further refines development
enclave site design and lot layout, as shown on Figure 3.
Regarding other non-residential land uses, Table 1 also shows a variation in open
space and road acreages. The SPA Plan shows 3.7 more open space acres and 28
fewer roadway acres as compared to the GDP. This is due to a change in City/SPA
2.1
2-2
Plan land use and roadway acreage calculations as described above, and apull-back
in development edges responsive to grading concerns.
In summary, no substantial changes in acreages are reflected in the SPA Plan with
the exception of the increase in open space, resulting in a slight reduction in
impacts.
B. AESTHETICS
The SPA Plan presents site design and other criteria which must be consistent with
guidelines established in the GDP, required by the City. The SPA Plan further
identifies architectural guidelines, a landscape master plan, conceptual lighting and
fencing, a signage program, grading criteria and other provisions to ensure
acceptable aesthetic characteristics. These plans and guidelines are reviewed in
detail by the City Planning Department and other appropriate committees and
departments, to ensure conformity with City requirements.
Of specific aesthetic concern is the Poggi Canyon Open Space Con'idor along the
general alignment of Orange Avenue. The SPA Plan proposes treatment along this
Orange Avenue Scenic Corridor as illustrated in Figure 7. Grading (Figure 5)
along the corridor is actually more sensitive in the SPA Plan than in the GDP,
resulting in a slight reduction in impact significance. (Refer also to discussion under
Section 2.G, Biological Resources.)
Final EIR 88-I identifies an unavoidable cumulative adverse impact in regard to the
project's effects on the existing natural aesthetic character of the area. This impact
is viewed as unavoidable as with any urbanization of the site. The proposed SPA
Plan would implement the approved GDP, and does not present additional aesthetic
impacts beyond those identified in EIR 88-1. Mechanisms presented in the SPA
Plan identified above are created in part to minimize potential aesthetic impacts, but
cannot mitigate the cumulative aesthetic impact to below a level of significance.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Issues of CEQA interest in this SPA Plan analysis regarding services and utilities
include water, sewer, and parks/recreation. Water supply, storage and distribution,
2-3
and sewer generation and treatment issues are discussed in detail in Final EIR 88-1;
those sections are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed SPA Plan
presents no significant deviations from those issues reviewed in EIR 88-1, thus no
additional impacts are identified. Detailed water and sewer plans are under review
by the City Engineering/Public Works Depastu~ent to verify consistency with City
utility requirements.
The proposed SPA Plan Recreation and Open Space Master Plan reviews City park
and recreation requirements, and discusses in detail the area's recreation demands.
The SPA Plan and GDP will satisfy parks/recreation requirements by
implementation of the Sunbow Village Recreation Center and provision of open
space, as described in the SPA Plan. This issue has been reviewed by the City
Parks/Recreation and Planning Departments in detail through the project's history.
Park/recreation requirements will be more than satisfied by the proposed plan; no
impacts are identified.
D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The Sunbow GDP traffic analysis, included in Final EIR 88-1, set forth traffic
mitigation/circulation phasing requirements which have been coordinated with SPA
Plan project development phasing. This phasing plan was a result of a concentrated
team effort during the GDP process and has been carried through to the SPA Plan
level. The circulation system at buildout of the project is illustrated on Figure 8.
Shown in Figure 4 is the phasing of both development and roadway improvements.
The SPA Plan also delineates the phased roadway improvements in detail. These
plans are consistent with and pursuant to the mitigation measures cited in EIR 88-1,
which are conditions of GDP approval to be carried through SPA Plan and
subsequent project implementation stages. Consequently, no circulation impacts
are identified.
Regarding traffic generation associated with the Sunbow SPA Plan, a traffic
generation comparison between EIR 88-1 and the SPA Plan was performed. The
trips generated by the SPA Plan would be 2%104 average daily trips (ADT); the trip
generation presented in .EIR 88-1 is 28,708. This does not represent a significant
difference in trips. Consequently, no significant change in traffic impacts would be
2-5
ORANGE
LEGEND
~ SIX-LANE PRIME ARTERIAL
~11~ SIX-LANE MAJOR STREET
~'l,~'JJ,~ FOUR-LANE MAJOR STREET ~
II~ll CLASS I COLLECTOR STREET
Illlmllll CLASS Ill COLLECTOR STREET
Illlllllllllllllllll EXISTING FOUR-LANE MAJOR STREET SOURCE:BHA. Inc. NOTTOSCALE
FIGURE
~nRv~r°nment al Clrcu~lon
and Energy 8
Services Co.
2-6
realized, and no further traffic mitigation beyond that identified in EIR 88- ! and the
circulation phasing plan is necessary.
E. GEOLOGY AND GRADING
The SPA Plan proposed grading is illustrated in Figure 5. Grading is further
discussed and sections are illustrated in the SPA Plan text. Grading shall comply
with the City Grading Ordinance as required of the approved GDP and EIR 88-1.
Plans are reviewed in detail by the City Engineering Department, Planning
Depasiment and Environmental Review Coordinator to ensure conformance with
City criteria. No additional impacts beyond those identified in EIR 88-1 are
associated with the SPA Plan; impacts can be mitigated by adherence to City
requirements.
F. HYDROLOGY
Drainage of the proposed development is discussed in the SPA Plan's Grading and
Infrastructure Plan Section. Drainage plans are reviewed by the City Engineering
Depaxunent to ensure conformity with City regulations and requirements of the
approved GDP. Mitigation of potential drainage impacts shall be verified through
the City review of these detailed plans.
The project's proposed detention basins are illustrated in Figure 9. Implementation
of these drainage facilities will occur in conjunction with construction of Orange
Avenue. Sensitivity to aesthetic and natural open space considerations is proposed
in the SPA Plan. Grading and construction of drainage improvements in this area
should be coordinated with implementation of the open space and recreation
facilities for the Poggi Canyon/Orange Avenue Scenic Corridor area (see also
Section 2.G, Biological Resources). Provided City regulations are adhered to, no
further hydrological impacts beyond those identified in EIR 88-1 are expected;
impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance.
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Biological Resources Section of Final EIR 88-1 required biological mitigation.
During the Draft EIR public review period and prior to GDP approval, several
2-7
CANYON
SUR
ORANGE
DETENTION BASIN 2
iNLET DETENTION BASIN I DETENTION BASIN
SOURCE: BHA. Inc. NOT'ID SCALE
~ERC F I G U R E
Environmental Detention Basin Locations I
and Energy
Services Co. 9
2-8
concerns over project impacts were raised by resource agencies. Pursuant to
mitigation and/or reduction of the identified biological impacts, a detailed mitigation
plan was formulated via a team effort between the City, applicant, consultants and
resource agency staff. The resulting mitigation included in Final EIR 88-1 and its
Mitigation Monitoring Program is incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation
plan will serve as the framework from which to verify and implement biological
resource mitigation. (Note that the EIR 88-1 mitigation plan is unusually specific
for the GDP level process.) Unavoidable adverse impacts were nevertheless
identified after mitigation; CEQA findings are included in Final EIR 88-1,
incorporated by reference herein.
The open space corridor along Poggi Canyon/Orange Avenue (Figure 7) appears
consistent with FEIR 88-1 mitigation. Verification will occur prior to issuance of
grading permits in the Orange Avenue area. Items for specific review at design
stages in the Orange Avenue/Poggi Canyon area (prior to issuance of grading
permits in the area) include retention basin locations and configurations south of
Orange Avenue; landscaping and species mix; edge treatments adjacent to
native/natural open space; recreational trails; and transplantings/enhancement
programs. These items shall be reviewed by the City Landscape Architect and shall
be addressed in implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program No further
impacts are identified.
2.9
owo ATTACHMENT 3
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 12, 1990
Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman, Director
Dept. of Planning and Land Use
County of San Diego
$201 Ruffin Road, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123-1666
Subject: SUNBOW SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Dear Mr. Wasserman:
Thank you for your comments on the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan,
contained in your letter dated December 14, 1989.
We are hopeful this response will provide sufficient information on the
questions raised in your letter.
1. VILLAGE CENTER AREA.
The Village Center does permit the incorporation of residential dwellings.
As proposed, one-story residential flats may be constructed over
commercial, subject to site plan review.
The Plan states that the overall character of this area will be that of a
California Spanish village composed of small identifiable enclaves of
homes.
The Urban Design Plan for the Inner Core Area emphasizes an intimacy which
stresses pedestrian usage by means of well-defined residential and garden
walkways. These walkways are directly linked to the residential clusters
located in areas 7, 10 and lOA (updated Site Utilization Plan and Urban
Design Plan is enclosed for your reference).
The proposed park does have a lawn area, or "green", which may have
outdoor concerts and other activities. A water element is also planned
for this area. Although not the same, we believe this is complimentary to
your "village green" suggestion.
The Community Recreation Facility is planned to incorporate such uses as
meeting rooms, child care, recreation and other civic/cultural
activities. Area No.6 is a candidate site for a church.
276 FOURTH AVENUE 'CHULA VISTA. CAL)FORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5101
Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman -2- January 12, 1990
The Core Area has been planned, and is being designed in concert with the
needs and future expansion plans of the adjacent Community Medical
Center. Integration of mixed land uses and a comprehensive circulation
network for the inner core has been considered. Close communication
between all the property owners and the City are ongoing.
2. RESIDENTIAL AREAS 20, 21 and 22.
The average lot sizes in areas 20, 21 and 22 are currently at 7,375 s.f.,
7,175 s.f., and 7,200 s.f.
~ese areas are physically separated from the adjacent Otay Ranch, to the
east, by a canyon which which is designated in our General Plan as Open
Space.
?. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
The City of Chula Vista has a very stringent design/site plan review
process. Whereas, diversity of housing types is encouraged to stimulate
interest, and permit design innovation, we are conscious of the need for
"controlled" diversity lest the architectural intent becomes lost by the
overabundance of building styles. We believe this direction permits the
project to appear akin to custom-built dwellings more than mass-built
tract home developments.
4. POTENTIAL USE OF RECLAIMED WATER.
A reclaimed water system will be constructed within Sunbow in accordance
with the master plan now being developed by the Otay Water District.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN.
The City Landscape Architect, Public Works Department and the Developer's
Landscape Architect have been in continuing dialogue to address the use
of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation.
This matter is being monitored to incorporate drought-resistant plant
species, as well as those which are tolerant to salt content in the
reclaimed water.
6. PROPOSED GRADING.
The Developer has moved his project away from several steeper sites in
Poggi Canyon. Likewise, to the east of areas 20, 21 and 22, and, in the
vicinity of Paseo Ladera and Telegraph Canyon Road, the developable areas
have been scaled back to reduce grading. In all, over 30 acres have been
added to permanent open space due to these reductions.
In the Industrial Park, as in all developments that undergo City reviews,
the height of manufactured slopes are closely monitored by staff, and
alternative solutions are studied. The City Landscape Architect, with
sign-off authority on grading proposals, has been, and continues to review
all major grading proposals.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~4r. Lauren M. Wasserman -3- January 12, 1990
Terrain-fitting architecture is recommended as you suggest. In Area 16,
larger lots are preferred, so as to permit the transition from larger lots
located in in the project periphery, as in the Poggi Canyon area, to
smaller lots and higher residential densities, the closer one
approaches/transitions into the Core Area.
7. ORANGE AVENUE.
Orange Avenue is now aligned in as southerly a location in Poggi Canyon as
would be feasible. Drainage detention basins are required in Poggi Canyon
and these will be placed alongside a ribbon of riparian scrub which
parallels E. Orange Avenue, immediately south of its proposed right-of-way
position. The placement of this arterial street in a more southerly
location would interfere with the riparian scrub in a serious way.
Environmental consultants have recommended against this.
$. BICYCLE PLAN.
A separate path/trail system is designated to be placed on the north side
of E. Orange Avenue, in Poggi Canyon. This forms the first increment of a
scenic corridor and linear trail system, which is intended to be continued
onto the Otay Ranch property, to points east, in the direction of the
proposed Eastern Urban Center.
Currently, we are studying the most feasible route where bikers/joggers
are separated from vehicular traffic, and not disturb sensitive biological
resources in the vicinity. The project applicant has expressed
willingness to collaborate with the City to plan this system.
A separated bicycle pathway linkage, from E. Orange Avenue to the Village
Center, via Medical Center Drive, is less feasible due to the steepness of
the terrain.
~.~e have met with Gordon Howard of your Department to share the information in
chis letter with him, and, we trust that all your concerns will have been
addressed at this time.
If you have any questions, please contact our Consultant, Manuel Nunes, at
691-5101 or (714) 539-5929.
Si ncerely,
Robert Leiter
9irector of Planning
cc: Gordon Howard
Sunbow
Enclosures
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF P~NNING AND ~ND USE CA~IFOR~IA 9206926~
T~
December 14, 1989 ~
Mr. Robert Leiter, Director
Planning Department lEO ~Q 2~5
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue ~
Chula Vista, California 92010
SUBJECT: SUNBOW SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
Dear Mr. L~r:~t
The San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use is pleased to offer
the following comments on the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan:
1. VILLAGE CENTER AREA
The proposed Village Center and its integration with adjacent residential
areas and parks has some worthy design ideas and features. The following
suggestions would further implement the goals of the Village Center
concept:
a. The plan states that the concept of the Village Center is "mixed
use." However, residential uses remain physically segregated from
the commercial uses within the Village Center. The plan should
provide for residential and commercial uses to be truly integrated
within the same parcel of land, such as including second-story
residential uses above commercial store fronts.
b. The design of medium residential areas 7 and ]0 does not allow for
full integration of residential and commercial uses within the
Village Center.
c. The proposed park could function as a "village green" for the
village center area. This could be accomplished by spreading the
commercial areas as storefronts along the park frontage road to the
north of the proposed park, as well as to the west.
Mr. Robert Leiter -2- December 14, 1989
d. Provision should be made within the village center for necessary
civic or private community-serving uses, such as churches and child
care facilities. Often such necessary uses are not considered in
large-scale developemnts.
Many of these ideas for village centers are being considered as part of
the Otay Ranch joint city/county project to the east of Sunbow. Use of
such innovation within Sunbow itself would also be appropriate.
2. RESIDENTIAL AREAS 20, 21, AND 22
These single-family residential areas are on the eastern edge of the
Sunbow community, adjacent to the Otay Ranch. They will most likely be
adjacent to low density uses within Otay Ranch, and therefore should be
considered for lower density and larger lot residential uses. The 5,000
and 6,000 square foot lot development could pre-commit densities on
adjacent areas of Otay Ranch. Overall densities in these areas should be
adjusted to the low end of the three to six dwelling units per acre
permitted by the Chula Vista Low-Medium Residential Plan Designation.
Minimum lot sizes should be adjusted so as to be in the 8,000-10,000
square foot range in residential areas 20, 21, and 22.
3. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The proposed design standards for single-family residential areas within
Sunbow appear to call for significant diversity in housing types. We
would question how these design standards are to be implemented, as they
appear to call for model diversity in excess of that seen in typical
mass-built tract home developments.
4. POTENTIAL USE OF RECLAIMED WATER
If reclaimed water is not currently available, then the project should be
constructed so as to allow the use of reclaimed water in the future for
appropriate uses such as landscaping should such water become available.
Extensive use of reclaimed water, along with a water reclamation
facility, is expected to be a part of the Otay Ranch plan.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN
If reclaimed water is not feasible for use on the Sunbow project, then
the landscape plan should be adjusted to include the use of native
drought-resistant plant species.
6. PROPOSED GRADING
The proposed grading plan for the Sunbow project would create significant
manufactured slopes intruding into the Poggi Canyon open space area. The
following plan changes should be considered to reduce this grading:
Mr. Robert Leiter -3- December 14, ]989
a. The site layout for the industrial park should be altered to reduce
the height of manufactured slopes adjacent to Poggi Canyon.
b. The grading within Unit 16 (Single-Family Residential) should be
reduced by considering smaller pad areas, split pads, or use of
terrain-fitting architecture for those lots adjacent to the Poggi
Canyon open space area.
7. ORANGE AVENUE
Orange Avenue should be aligned to the southerly side of Poggi Canyon as
it exits onto the Otay Ranch property to the east. This is necessary in
order to achieve an environmentally sensitive alignment of Orange Avenue
on the Otay Ranch property.
8. BICYCLE PLAN
The Orange Avenue/Poggi Canyon corridor appears to be a natural area for
a separated bicycle pathway. A separate bicycle pathway connection north
along Medical Center Drive to the village center would also be
appropriate. A bicycle path along Orange Avenue or Poggi Canyon will
most likely be continued to the east on the Otay Ranch property.
If you have any questions about this letter of comment, please contact Gordon
Howard at 694-3681, or 422-7199.
L/Voq~EN M. WASSERMAN, Director
Department of Planning and Land Use
LMW:GH:jcr
cc: Baldwin Vista Company, 11995 E1 Camino Real, Suite 102, San Diego, CA, 92130
AUTHOR\SPLTRGH.129
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~NT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWN
I~.~_~ILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION nN T,~ ~J~I~INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS 1
CL~MMIbbION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. v ..... ~- ur THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNI~
The following information must be disclosed: ~
). List the names of al) persons having a financial interest in the application.
~ Great American Development Company 4~ Mathew Ronald Loonin
2) William Patrick Kruer
3) Jack A. Guttman
3) George Thomas Kruer
~) John W. Gardner~ Jr.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Same Six (6)
2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of al) individuals owning more than )0% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
~Great American First Savings Bank
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 twe)ve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person/s) .
~is defined as' "An,, indi
rn'a) or~aniza~;~'~o~;t~.°partnership, joint ve~
!_~,~C!iai( club, ~r~t~ countg c~ty and c~Jnt o~ estate,. ?us~, rece,ver, syndiJj~'
~a) subd~ws~on, or any o g p ' g
this and any other Y' them rou or %mbln~i'onm~PaJjt~,unqlts.~,rlct or othe~
{NOT~: Attach additional pages as necessary~/~.
WPC 070lp e
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 1
4, PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-03; Consideration of an amendment to Section
19.060.030 of the Municipal Code for development
projects affected by amendments to the General Plan -
City initiated
A. BACKGROUND
On July ll, 1989, the City Council adopted the Chula Vista General Plan
update which reflects a number of land use category changes in the
communities west of Interstate 805. Most of the land use category changes
call for a reduction in residential density for many areas within the
Central Chula Vista Community (see attached map). This has prompted the
undertaking of a General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study which is currently
underway.
In September 1989, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2327 amending
Sections 19.06.030 and 19.07.030 which restricts processing of development
projects on properties where the zoning is inconsistent with the General
Plan. The ordinance also allows certain projects which have progressed in
the approval process to proceed based on specific criteria. A number of
inquiries have been received since the adoption of the General Plan to
determine if the projects they were working on met the criteria to
proceed. In most cases, they did not meet the specific criteria but had
made some progress in the development process at the preliminary design
review stage. On January 9, 1990, the City Council directed the staff to
prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow for the projects to
proceed which is the purpose of this report.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-90-28, of potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study, the
Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-90-28.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study, IS-90-28 find that this project will
have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative
Declaration issued on the Initial Study.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
approving an amendment to Section 19.06.030 of the Municipal as shown
on attached Exhibit "B".
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
The current provisions of the Municipal Code allows those projects which
are consistent with the existing zoning but are affected by a General Plan
amendment, to proceed provided they have procured approved tentative
subdivision or parcel maps, building permits, conditional use permits, or
design review approval.
The design review process requires preliminary review of projects before
an application may be filed. Considerable time and expenditures could
result before an individual ever reaches the application submittal stage.
The rationale for the current exemptions in the Municipal Code in some
ways also apply to these projects.
Despite the number of public meetings and hearings on the newly adopted
General Plan, the public as well as the Planning Department were not fully
aware of the impact of the land use category changes within the areas west
of Interstate 805. As a result, a few projects were being reviewed on the
basis of the existing zoning without the knowledge that the zoning was now
inconsistent with the General Plan.
In recognition of the above situations, the City Council instructed that
an amendment be prepared to all ow for the continued processing of those
projects which fall into this category. To date, the number of projects
which the Planning Department has been able to identify in this category
is six {see Exhibit "A"). We anticipate very few, if any, other projects
to qualify for this category. It should be noted that the proposed
amendment provides a "grace" period only for the 1989 General Plan
amendment. It is anticipated that this will not be necessary for future
amendments to the General Plan.
WPC 6991P
EXHIBIT A
INQUIRIES REQUESTING PIPELINE STATUS
1. Name: Hector and Maria A. Zuniga
Project Location: 82 Fourth Avenue
Land Area: 0,34 ac
Zoning: R3 {32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium High 11-18 du/ac
Number of units proposed (including requested 33% density bonus): 12 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 7 units
Status: Property owner had submitted plans for design review
consideration. Would qualify for processing under draft amendment.
2. Name: Tom Money
Project Location: 109-115 Woodlawn Avenue
Land Area: 0.29 ac
Zoning: R3 {32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium High ll-18 du/ac
Number of units proposed: 8 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 6 units
Status: Plans had been submitted for design review. Project would
qualify for processing under draft amendment.
3. Name: James Osborn
Project Location: 506 Casselman Street
Land Area: 0.16 ac
Zoning: R3 {32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Number of units proposed: 4 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 1 unit
Status: Plan had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
4. Name: Angel Barba
Project Location: 232 Del Mar
Land Area: 0.14 ac
Zoning: R3 {32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Number of units proposed: 4 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 1 unit
Status: Plans had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2
5. Name: Jori Perry
Project Location: 518 McIntosh Street
Land Area: 0.15 ac
Zoning: R3 132 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Number of units proposed: 3 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 1 unit
Status: Plan had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
6. Name: Raymond Lucero
Project Location: 553 Flower Street
Land Area: 0.66 ac
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium 6-11 du/ac
Number of units proposed: 17 units
Number of units allowed under GP: 8 units
Status: Plan had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
7. Name: Maria V. Gallastequi
Project Location: 265 & 265-1/2 Twin Oaks Avenue
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Status: No plans submitted for design review. Would not qualify as
"pipeline" project.
8. Name: Sid Morris
Project Location: 236 "G" Street
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Status: Project owner has not submitted any plans for review. Not
considered a "pipeline" project.
WPC 6976P
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
SECTION 19.06.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.06.030 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 19.06.030 General plan-Implementation of.
The systematic implementation of the general plan or
any general plan element as provided in Section 65303 of
the Government Code of the state may be undertaken by
the adoption of specific plans, which shall include all
detailed regulations, conditions, programs and proposed
legislation which may be necessary or convenient for
such implementation. The general plan may also be
implemented by the adoption of zoning ordinances which
shall in accordance with Section 65860 of the Government
Code of the state be consistent with said general plan.
When a General Plan Amendment is adopted and existing
zoning is thereby inconsistent with the General Plan and
the developer desires to develop the property in
accordance with the existing zoning, the developer must
first submit a proposed amendment to the General Plan.
All such amendments shall be subject to public hearings
by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the
amendment is adopted, the developer can proceed with the
normal processing of the development proposal.
Nothwithstanding the above provisions, those projects
which have been substantially processed consistent with
existing zoning and which are affected by the General
Plan Amendment may proceed, provided that the Zoning
Administrator issues in each case, a permit to complete
processing based upon the findings that the
effectiveness of the General Plan and the order and
amenity of the community would not be substantially
impaired by the issuance of the permit.
Projects shall be deemed to be substantially
processed where the property owners have procured
approved tentative subdivision or parcel maps; building
permits; conditional use permits; or Design Review
Committee approvals, in furtherance of the proposed
projects. The Zoning Administrator, furthermore, may
-1-
deem that projects have been substantially processed
where the involved property owners have submitted
tentative subdivision or parcel maps or applications for
design review, but are awaiting consideration by the
appropriate City agency or official, as well as projects
which have been submitted to the Planning Department for
preliminary design review consideration not more than
six (6) months prior to the adoption of the General
Plan. The property owner shall provide evidence to the
Zoning Administrator not more than~ ninety (90) days
after the General Plan adoption that the submittal of
preliminary project plans has occurred within the
aforementioned specified period to qualify for this
provision.
In addition, projects which have been submitted to
the Planning Department for preliminary design review
consideration after the adoption of the 1989 Genera]
Plan Update (July 11, 1989) and before the adoption of
Ordinance 2327 (September 5, 1989) may be processed,
provided the property owners submit evidence that such
submittal has taken place.
Appeals from the actions of the Zoning Administrator
may be filed, within ten days after the dates of said
actions, with the Planning Commission. Further appeals
to the City Council may be submitted pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 19.14.110 and 19.14.130 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney
Planning
6545a
-2-
!
~od ¢¢-...1' A
IIII
im~
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Municipal Code amendment (Title 19 - Zoning) to allow a limited
number of development projects affected by the July ll, 1989
General Plan Update
PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-90-28 DATE: January 3, 1990
A. Project Setting
The proposQd project is an amendment to Title 19 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code pertaining to implementation of the General Plan.
Specifically, the proposed zoning text amendment would change the wording
in Section 19.06.030 of the Municipal Code to allow the processing of a
limited number of projects submitted prior to the approval of the General
Plan Update. The proposed project would affect approximately seven
development projects. These projects were submitted prior to the adoption
of the General Plan Update on July 11, 1989. These projects would
continue to be processed under the provisions of this zoning text
amendment.
B. Project Description
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would take the form of an ordinance
which would allow a limited number of development projects to be
processed, provided they were initiated between adoption of the General
Plan Update (July 11, 1989) and adoption of Ordinance No. 2327 (September
5, 1989). Ordinance No. 2327 restricts the processing of projects which
are inconsistent with the updated General Plan.
This proposed Municipal Code amendment would only apply to the limited
number of projects affected by the 1989 General Plan Update and would not
be applicable to future, proposed General Plan amendments. There are
approximately seven development projects which have been brought to the
City's attention and which would qualify for processing under this
provision.
Because of the limited number of projects which may qualify, the proposed
Municipal Code amendment would have little or no adverse effect on the
newly adopted General Plan. Compliance with the City's environmental
review procedures will be required so that each project will be required
to undergo additional, separate review under the provisions of CEQA.
city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF
environmental review section CHULAVISTA
-2-
C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans
The proposed project involves an amendment to Title 19 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code and, upon adoption, will be compatible with the underlying
zone designation on each individual site. Compatibility with the General
Plan will be ensured through the requirement that a General Plan Amendment
be processed subsequent to the physical development of any of the affected
parcels.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may result in
significant adverse environmental effects, as determined by an initial
study conducted by the City of Chula Vista. A negative declaration has
been issued in accordance with Section 15070 of State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and,
therefore, no environmental impact report is deemed to be necessary.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed amendment to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
would have no significant adverse effect upon the quality of the
natural environment, including the reduction of fish or wildlife
habitat. The proposed project will not have any significant effect
upon the City's cultural or paleontological resources. The project
proposes textual modifications to the existing zoning code only.
Discretionary approval and further, separate environmental review
will be required for each, individual project allowed under the
provisions of this zoning code amendment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
A General Plan Amendment will be required prior to the development of
any affected parcels. The proposed textual modifications will not
have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, since compliance with
the City's threshold standards policy is required.
-3-
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The project proposes only text and modifications to allow for the
processing of a limited number of development projects.
Approximately seven parcels may qualify under the proposed municipal
code amendment. Each individual project would be subject to further
discretionary approval and environmental review under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Further
findings would be required of each individual project. Therefore,
there are no cumulative impacts anticipated by the proposed project
at this time.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
There are no known hazardous materials on the seven proposed
parcels. The proposed will result in only textual modifications at
this stage and not the physical development of the parcel. The
emission of any hazardous gases, noise, vibration, or radiation are
not anticipated which could adversely impact human beings. No human
health impacts were identified in the initial study.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
Phil Landowski, Chula Vista Fire Department
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Mando Liuag, Planning Department
2. Documents
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19 (Section 19.06.030)
Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR, 1989
Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
IS-88-68
-4-
3. Response to Public Review
(x) The proposed project did not receive any comments from the
public or adjacent public agencies during the public review
period. A copy of the Initial Study is attached.
( ) The proposed project did receive comments from the public, but
did not address the Negative Declaration finding of the
accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is
necessary, and the letters are attached.
( ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative
Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study
were received during the public review period. The letters and
responses follows.
4. Initial Study
This determination, that the project will not have a significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration.
Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 7093P
FOR OFFICE
Case No.
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A,~ BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE ~.Z~c>~,~-6-j m,~AZ~ ~m;~--~ - ~/P ~i0~
2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or
description) ~p~/m
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No,
3, BRIEF PR~ECT DESCRIPTION ~ ~~ ~.~
4. Name of Applicant ~ P~ :~
Address ~ ~' ~~ Phone
CityC~ (h'~ State ~ Zip
5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~j~yj m~ ~, /~/'/~C~
City ~ ~ State ~ Zip
Relation to Applicant ~'~ ~?~ ~KJ.
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator,
a, Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee ~ Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoni ng Tentative Subd, Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan ~ Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cord, Use Permit Site Plan & Arch, Review
Variance ~ Other-~o~i~ ~~ ~Z~]
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng, Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan ~ Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd, Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan ~ Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
EN 3 (Rev. 12/82l
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
SECTION 19.06.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.06.030 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 19.06.030 General plan-Implementation of.
The systematic implementation of the general plan or
any general plan element as provided in Section 65303 of
the Government Code of the state may be undertaken by
the adoption of specific plans, which shall include all
detailed regulations, conditions, programs and proposed
legislation which may be necessary or convenient for
such implementation. The general plan may also be
implemented by the adoption of zoning ordinances which
shall in accordance with Section 65860 of the Government
Code of the state be consistent with said general plan.
When a General Plan Amendment is adopted and existing
zoning is thereby inconsistent with the General Plan and
the developer desires to develop the property in
accordance with the existing zoning, the developer must
first submit a proposed amendment to the General Plan.
All such amendments shall be subject to public hearings
by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the
amendment is adopted, the developer can proceed with the
normal processing of the development proposal.
Nothwithstanding the above provisions, those projects
which have been substantially processed consistent with
existing zoning and which are affected by the General
Plan Amendment may proceed, provided that the Zoning
Administrator issues in each case, a permit to complete
processing based upon the findings that the
effectiveness of the General Plan and the order and
amenity of the community would not be substantially
impaired by the issuance of the permit.
Projects shall be deemed to be substantially
processed where the property owners have procured
approved tentative subdivision or parcel maps; building
permits; conditional use permits; or Design Review
Committee approvals, in furtherance of the proposed
projects. The Zoning Administrator, furthermore, may
-1-
deem that projects have been substantially processed
where the involved property owners have submitted
tentative subdivision or parcel maps or applications for
design review, but are awaiting consideration by the
appropriate City agency or official; as well as projects
which have been submitted to the Planning Department for
preliminary design review consideration not more than
six (6) months prior to the adoption of the Genera]
Plan. The property owner shall provide evidence to th~
Zoning Administrator not more than ninety (90) days
after the General Plan adoption that the submittal of
preliminary project plans has occurred within th~
aforementioned specified period to qualify for this
provision.
In addition, projects which have been submitted to
the Planning Department for preliminary design review
consideration after the adoption of the 1989 General
Plan Update (July 11, 1989) and before the adoption of
Ordinance 2327 (September 5, 1989) may be processed,
provided the property owners submit evidence that such
submittal has taken place.
Appeals from the actions of the Zoning Administrator
may be filed, within ten days after the dates of said
actions, with the Planning Commission. Further appeals
to the City Council may be submitted pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 19.14.110 and 19.14.130 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney
Planning
6545a
-2-
EXHIBIT A
IrIQUIRIES REQUESTING PIPELINE STATUS
1. -Name: Hector and Maria A. Zuniga
Project Location: 82 Fourth Avenue
-Zoning: R3_(~32 du/ac) ....
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium High 11-18 du/ac
status: Property owner had submitted plans for design review
consideration. Would qualify for processing under draft amendment.
2. Name: Sid Morris
Project Location: 236 "G" Street
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac) .
General Planq~e$ignation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Status: Project owner has not submitted any plans for review. )lot
considered a "pipeline" project.
3. Name: Tom Money
Project Location: 109-115 Woodlawn Avenue
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium High 11-18 du/ac
Status: Plans had been submitted for design review. Project would
qualify for processing under draft amendment.
4. Name: James Osborn
Project Location: 506 Casselman Street
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low fledium 3-6 du/ac
Status: Plan had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
5. Name: Angel Barba
Project Location: 232 Del Mar
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low ~ledium 3-6 du/ac
Status: Plans had been submitted for design review. Would qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
6. Name: Jon Perry
Project Location: 518 McIntosh Street
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low !!edium 3-6 du/ac
Status: Plan had been submitted for design review. ¥1ould qualify for
processing under draft amendment.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2
7. Name: Maria V. Gallastequi
Project Location: 265 & 265-1/2 Twin Oaks Avenue
Zoning: R3 (32 du/ac)
General Plan Designation: Residential Low Medium 3-6 du/ac
Status: No plans submitted for design review. Would not qualify as
"pipeline" pr6Ject.
WPC 6976P
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12/5/89
ITEM TITLE: Report on proposed ordinance amendment for development
projects affected by the General Plan Update in the Central
Chula Vista Community
SUBMI1-FED BY: Director of Planning y~?~z
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X )
On November 7, 1989, the City Council accepted the report on the Central Chula
Vista General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Work Program. The Council also
directed staff to report back on the number of projects affected by the
ordinance which restricts processing of projects that are inconsistent with
the General Plan, and what criteria staff would use when reviewing those
projects if granted authority at the administrative level. This report is in
response to that direction.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept this report and direct staff to proceed with an
amendment to the Municipal Code to allow for processing of certain development
projects affected by the General Plan Update.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The area of concern expressed by Council at the November 7 meeting was
regarding those projects which were submitted to the Planning Department for
preliminary design review consideration after 'the adoption of the General Plan
and were not informed that the General Plan affected their development
proposal. While it cannot be determined for certain how many projects have
been affected in this manner, to the best of our knowledge only four projects
fit into this category. The projects which would be eligible and others of
which inquiries have been made are listed in attached Exhibit A.
Because of the limited number of these cases, the staff is of the opinion that
an amendment to the Municipal Code allowing for the processing of the projects
would have little or no adverse effect on the newly adopted General Plan and
is, therefore, supportable.
A copy of a draft amendment is attached (see Exhibit B). In essence, the
draft seeks to permit processing of projects which can be proven that some
reasonable progress in the design review process {e.g., submittal of
preliminary plans) has been made up to six 16) months prior to the General
Plan amendment. Proof of such progress is to be submitted no later than
ninety (90) days after adoption of the General Plan.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date~
The draft ordinance would also allow processing of those projects which were
initiated between the adoption of the recent General Plan Update (July ll,
1989) and the adoption of Ordinance No. 2327, which restricts processing of
projects which are inconsistent with the General Plan, on September 5, 1989.
This provision would only be in effect for the recent 1989 General Plan Update
~nd.wguld not be applicable for future General Plan amendments.
If the Council accepts this report, the draft amendment to Municipal Code will
be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the
City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
WPC 6968P
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
~ner/owner in escrow*
or
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concern~n§ the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. /._~--..~, - ~.-¢~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~.pu.~o.4> ~.~.~.~1~-.~ /~
North ,, ' '
South ~'
East l,
West f~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: ~/~~ ~A~
North ,,
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
I~ the project ~rea designated for conservation'or open 'space or aojacent~.~v~Z
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ~-~/~
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? /o//~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~/~d~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~a~ )~Lo.
- 9 -
3. School s --
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? {If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption -
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks: ~.~ ~
Direct6r o~ Planning or ep~ntative~ Date
-lO-
Case No.
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existin§ flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~/~..
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? b3 I~
f. ~hat is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~{~
2. Transportation ~,,~/~_
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Be fore After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- ll
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
{per day) Factor Pollution
CO bJ ~ X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 =
)lOx IN02) X 20.0 =
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid Liquid
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
{Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
Date
City En~neer or Representative
-13-
Case No. ~_s
Ho FIRE DEPART~IENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire. station and what is the Fire
?ep,a,r~tm.en, t.'.s.,e,s, timated~react~io.n' time? }~ Z~ {x~ _~, ,
2. Will the Fire Department ~; able to provide an~dequa-~te level of fire
protection for the prqposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?
3. Remarks ~_-O~.~[)f~ ~/~Oi,~9~z~- a~._~/~ ~]~.) /~.~
Fire M~rshal Date~ /
-13(a)-
Case No. /s ~-.~?
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Application for a major use permit for maintenance of
an R.V. storage lot at 1375 Broadway - PCC-90-25,
Broadway Equities, Ltd.
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Broadway Equities, Ltd., established an R.V. storage lot
five 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 the SDG&E right-of-way on the east side of Broadway,
south of Palomar Street.
Broadway Equities applied for a Conditional Use Permit to maintain their
RV storage lot.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, on August 5, 1987, voted to recommend
denial of the major use permit and to schedule abatement effective March
31, 1988.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 1988, voted to
deny the application for the major use permit and to schedule abatement
effective April 30, 1988.
The applicant appealed the denial of the major use permit to the City
Council, which heard the matter on May 3, 1988. The Council continued the
hearing until July 12, 1988, in order to allow the Montgomery Planning
Committee and Planning Commission to have the opportunity to review the
appellant's proposal. The proposal was to implement partial improvements,
in exchange for interim approval of the major use permit.
The Montgomery Planning Committee and Planning Commission reviewed the
proposal presented by the applicant. Both bodies again recommended denial
of the major use permit, primarily due to conflicts with the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
At the July 12, 1988 meeting of Council, after reviewing petitions
circulated by the applicant and signed by citizens using the R.V. storage
space, as well as hearing testimony from residents and representatives of
SDG&E and Broadway Equities, Council resolved that the storage facility
would be allowed to remain for 18 months or until a Special Study was
completed by the Advance Planning Division examining the long term land
use of the SDG&E easement, whichever comes first. Council indicated
acceptance of the major use permit for 18 months only if certain
conditions were completed within 60 days. In addition they requested that
all recreational vehicle space renters be notified that they have 18
months to remain at this location. The conditions for acceptance are as
follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 2
1. Paving within the storage area.
2. Adequate solid fencing be installed 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 three fire hydrants on site accompanied by adequate
water supply be completed.
4. Landscaping along the Broadway frontage consistent with the City
Landscape Manual and approved by the City Landscape Architect be
installed.
5. Adherence to a limitation on the height of storage items.
6. A sign subject to Design Review Committee approval be installed.
7. Install public street improvements which would include but not be
limited to: curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire frontage, two
250 watt HPSV street lights, asphalt concrete pavement to accommodate
41 feet from centerline to curb along entire frontage and driveways
in accordance with Chula Vista construction standards.
Upon review of the project approximately 14 months after Council's action,
none of the conditions had been completed. As a result, staff advertised
a public hearing by the Planning Commission for consideration of
revocation of the major use permit for September 27, 1989.
On September 21, 1989, the applicant submitted the attached letter
requesting additional time to complete all of the conditions. As a result
of that letter and the fact that work on the improvements had finally
commenced, staff recommended a continuance for one month to October 25,
1989, to determine if the applicant would be able to complete all of the
work.
At the October 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, staff reported that,
although some of the conditions had been met, specifically the
installation of improvements and landscaping and the installation of solid
fencing, other conditions such as the installation of fire hydrants and a
sign had not been completed. Subsequent to this meeting, staff discovered
that only the eastern half of the site had been completely fenced and that
the portion of the lot facing the mobilehome parking, and the back of the
retail auto center had not been fenced. At the time of the writing of
this report this area is still without a sign, one-half of the slatted
fencing and with over height RV's.
At the October 25, 1989 meeting, staff recommended that the Planning
Commission not revoke the major use permit PCC-8?-39M based on the
following facts that:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 3
1. Council's July 1988 resolution was to allow the storage facility to
remain for 18 months or until the special study was completed,
whichever came first. The special study had not been completed.
2. The applicant had made substantial progress toward the conditions
within the CUP.
3. The major use permit would expire on January 10, 1990.
The Planning Commission voted to revoke the conditional use permit
PCC-87-39M on the basis of the fact that Broadway Equities had taken an
inordinate amount of time to meet conditions set by Council 18 months
earlier.
An appeal of this revocation has been filed by Broadway Equities. As of
the date of this report, Broadway Equities has not informed the Planning
Department whether they intend to proceed with their appeal. PCC-87-39M
was expired and Broadway Equities did not apply for an extension, however,
they have applied for a new conditional use permit.
When IS-87-56M was first prepared by the Planning Department for this
proposed use on May 27, 1987, the Environmental Review Coordinator found
that the project would cause no significant environmental impact. As a
result, the Montgomery Planning Commission, Planning Commission and
Council adopted a negative declaration for the project.
As there are no proposed changes in land use, a new initial study is not
necessary. However, an addendum to the negative declaration was necessary
in order to update the report and it is attached.
On January 3, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee voted 6-0 to
re-adopt the Negative Declaration IS-87-56M issued on IS-90-19.
At the same meeting, the Montgomery Planning Committee unanimously voted
to deny PCC-90-25. The reasons given by various Committee members
included: the length of time that the applicant had taken to put in
improvements, the history of both the Montgomery Planning Committee and
Planning Commission recommending revocation of the permit~ the fact that
SDG&E had suggested approval of the project would reduce utility rates
(which has not occurred), the fact that the use is not seen as a pleasant
addition to the community and the project is viewed as a NIMBY {not in my
back yard). They also sited that the majority of users are other than
Chula Vista residents and thus the granting of this C.U.P. would not
remove Chula Vista R.V. vehicles from the streets. Finally, they noted
that approval of this Conditional Use Permit may encourage the applicant
to put in more improvements or apply for an extension and they want to
discourage both actions.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page 4
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. That the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission re-adopt the
Negative Declaration IS-87-56M finding that the proposed project will
have no significant environmental impact.
2. That the City Planning Commission approve the application for
PCC-90-25 for two years subject to the following conditions:
a. That abatement of the use occur at the end of the two year
period.
b. That the applicant disclose to all present and future clients
that they will need to relocate on or before the date that the
Conditional Use Permit is up.
c. That solid fencing be installed around the entire perimeter of
the project, and that a sign be installed within six weeks and
that all RV's over 10 feet be removed from the lot.
(Applicant's letter is attached.)
d. If condition {c) has not been met within six weeks, revocation
procedures will be initiated.
C. ANALYSIS
When the Montgomery Planning Committee and Planning Commission first
reviewed the application for a major use permit by Broadway Equities, the
records indicate that both bodies recommended denial of the major use
permit, primarily due to conflicts with the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Specifically, those conflicts had to do with the fact that the property is
shown as a special study area, possibly to be used for a greenbelt in the
future.
At the time Broadway Equities first applied for a major use permit, it was
thought that the special study of the area would be completed within 18
months. Subsequent to that time, the dispute in scientific communities as
to whether electro-magnetic fields that exist under hydro-electric lines
could cause health problems flared up. Although this issue has not been
resolved, significant progress is being made toward a resolution. As a
result, the Planning Department is recommending a two year time period for
Broadway Equities Conditional Use Permit. This will allow the Advance
Planning Division adequate time to further study the area and develop a
plan in conjunction with the Montgomery Planning Committee for review by
the Planning Commission and Council.
There can be no doubt that the installation of the improvements required
by the City were not done in a timely manner. The improvements at the
time of the writing of this report are complete with the exception of the
installation of the sign, one-half of the slats in the fence and the
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 24, 1990 Page
removal of over height vehicles. The fire department determined that two
rather than three hydrants would meet their needs and those have been
installed by Broadway Equities. The Engineering Department determined
that only one street light was needed, rather than the two specified in
the conditions. Even though they were not installed in a timely manner,
they are finally in.
The granting of the Conditional Use Permit for this two year period with
the conditions imposed by the staff and improvements as installed will
provide an acceptable interim land use for this property. Denial of the
project would not result in any significant visual change to the area.
D. FINDINGS
1. The proposed use as conditioned is not in conflict with the adopted
specific plan for the Montgomery area, "Special Study Area."
2. Effective visual screening, landscaping and the provision of adequate
fire protection systems are a benefit to the property and are an
improvement to the area.
3. The proposed use does meet with regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for landscaping, height limitations and visual screening
and as such complies with the regulations and conditions specified in
the Code for such use.
4. The granting of this major use permit as conditioned would not
conflict with the planning and design proposals of the Montgomery
Specific Plan and, therefore, will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista.
WPC 7150P
p~LoMAR
LOCATOR
~ I~C[''- cIC)-'9-~ ] ,]l,t.,~ ~Ow~Y .~
BEATY
January 17, 1990
Barbara Reid
Planning Department
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Broadway/Palomar R.V. & Auto Storage
1375 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Dear Barbara:
The purpose of this letter is to inform the City of Chula Vista,
Planning Department of our schedule for completion on the fence
screening and monument sign for the above referenced project.
Due to the rain this past week, we were put behind schedule by a
few days, however, we expect both the fence screening and signage
to be installed and complete by Tuesday, January 23, 1990.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED
BY: BEATY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
General Partner
Vicki Wyatt
V.P. Property Management
cc: Robert J. Kolodny of
KOLODNY & PRESSMAN
BEATY
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
September 21, 1989
Mr. George Krempl, Planning Director
CITY OF C~ULA VISTA PLANNING DEPT.
2?6 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, Californla 92010
RE: BROADWAY RV~tJOR USE PERMIT
PCC-B?-$9M
Dear George:
This letter is to follow up our discussion today regarding your
request for a Current status report regarding the imprOVements to
the SDG&E Property on Broadway known as the Broadway/Palomar
Center.
RV
We secured our i
. ~,,~oVement bond
inspection fees o- - . on August 28. le89 .....
~, ~U est 31 · ~nu a
dated SeDtemb~ ~ ~-~_ , 1989. The c~7J~. p 1~ Our
that t~m~ ~ J- ~, ~. Work o~ t . ~,,~ucclon per, it Was
~ ~- .... . x nave checked wit~ ~= he ~mprovements Comme~
~ ~ne various ltem~ ~-~ ~ - une contractor re~-~-
They are as fo]]nu,=~ .... ~ were conditions of ~h~=-~"~ une status
......... ma]or use permit.
1. The COncrete contractor has done all of his excavation
work and is currently setting forms to pour concrete for the curb,
gutter and sidewalk at this time. The concrete was SCheduled to be
poured this week, however, the rain caused damage to the trenches.
The trenches had to be excavate
to Pour the co d again. He is
27th% ~ ..... ~ nCrete next Tuesday or W~d~ C~rrently scheduled
· ~oum~ng everything goes well wi~"~ua~ (September 26th or
2. ,, une Inspection.
The fees were paid t? Sweetwater Aut ·
installation of private fire service for t~ ~- ~o~lty for the
as Well as the water meter lateral for the landscape irrigation in
-~ ~= nycrant on-site
November of 1988. Those services were installed at that time.
,~.,Se~:er~ber 21, 1989
George Krempl
~e 2
~' 3. We have contracted with Bradshaw Engineering to install
:'" the on-site fire hydrant. It is my understanding that our
-.~,/ contractor has a meeting with the fire marshall today on-site at
., / 3:00 p.m. Bradshaw Engineering will be present to confirm the
exact location of the hydrant so they can begin the installation
of the fire service immediately.
-.. 4. The landscape contractor is estimating to start landscape
~ .' '~ work on Monday or Tuesday of next week (September 2$th or 26th).
.... ~ He expects to be completed within two weeks.
5. Fleetwood Electric has been contracted to provide the
street light. Assuming they can get the materials, Fleetwood
expects to have the street light installed Within the next week.
6. The asphalt patching in the street is the only other item
that needs to be completed. This will .
following the completion f 9½ _.. be do~e within two weeks
to allow the cur~a-~ --~2_--~ c~rb, ~utter and sidewalk. We w nt
~ ~uu~er =o nave a
time prior to dotn~ the a-~-~- ..... Seven to ten days of curin
and gutter. = o~,,u~ wur~ ~o prevent damage to the cur~
7. We will provide a 2,000 gal. water tank to be located at
the rear of the RV storage facility as required by the fire
department. We expect the tank to be delivered to the site within
the next two weeks.
Based Upon the above schedule we have been given by the contractor,
we are estimating the total improvements, as re,tired by the
conditions to the major use permit, to be completed on or before
October 6, 1989.
We appreci~te your understandin~ and co ' ' .
th~ ~dditlonal time to ~-~^~ .... operation in allowlng us
satisfy th~ ~-~:~. _ ~W~=u~ one improvements in
~ = ~ ~-u~ulons that were set out by our major us~i~~
you know, there have been many delays in getting these
provements completed within the allowed time frame which were due
to many circumstances beyond our control in processing and dealing
with the various departments of the City of Chula Vista. Other
delays Were caused by consultants that were working for us in
designing and processing our plans.
We are hopeful we will be able to conttn%te operating the
Broadway/Palo~llar RV Storage facility providing we are able to
CO~ le
p te the improvements under this tight sched[lle that we have
outlined above. We hope to avoid any further time spent at public
hearing regarding this matter.
September 21, 1989
Mr. George Krem91
P_~e 3
Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding the
status of the tmprovement~ or our above schedule. We will be doing
everything we can to meet or improve upon the above time frame to
get the improvements comDlete'
Very Truly Yours, ~
~ROADWAy EQUITIEs, LTD.
- ThD~as R. Beaty
President
/lk
cc: Robert j. Kolodny, KOLODN¥ & PRESSMAN
Tom Duncan, SDG&E
-T---:- _~_ .. _ ~ EXISTING BUILDiNGS_TO REM/
U
-' negativu declaration---.
PROJECT NAME: Broadway RV Center
~Ia3JECT LOCA I~: ~-BroaUway ' ,
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' Zonin~ and Plans
The zoning in effect for the area is S-94, 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
~)~ ~). ,)r),j~,~, A ,few s?:ci~c plan is currently being drafted for the
'l:)~ttj ).t ?fy 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 Harshal 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 lO.~l(c) and 10.209 of the Uniform Fire Code. Since these
city of Chula vista planning department C~IYOF
environmental review section CHLJL~ ViSTa,
?.~,:;ii~:i!s are required ti~rough standard development regulations, any
.I,Iy.)rse 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.
2. ~.~ ;)r,)je,:t is ,~xis~i~t~ a,td, as a short interim use, will not create
~.t ~d~erse 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: Outie 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: Hede~kamp 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 impac~ are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
'.'PC 4057P/O175P
E,'l 6 (Rev. 5/85)
~._ ' city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF
environmental rewew section
Case No. / S- ~x_~__ ~(
~ ~ ,:~,~7~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.. ~ ~ ~ ~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Broadwa¥/Palomar R.V./Auto
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 1383 Broadway
Chula Vista. CA 92011
Parcel 4 Parcel 2
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 141-~7-51
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION · R.V. Vehicle and Boat Stora)~e Facility
4. Name of Applicant Broadwav Eouitie~ ),imit~d
Address 1431 Stratford Court Phone (619) 259-1700
City Del Mar State CA Zip q?nt4
S. Name of Preparer/Agent Hedenkamp & Associates
Address 1331 India Street Phone
City San Diego State CA Zip q?~?l
Relation to Applicant Archit~gt
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
,, Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
' Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geolog~ Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
EN 3 (Rev. 12/82)
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage lq~.n~n or acreage .4,5 acre,g,.. .~
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
N/A 2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family 'Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total-acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use R.V. Vehicle and Boat Storage
b. Floor area N/A Height of structure(s) N/A
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
Frant access from Broadway(west) fire access at rear property (east)
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 373 storage spaces and 35
cuatomer
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 0 , Number of pa~ln§
shifts 0 ~/t~/ Handled by Broadway/Palomar Storage manage
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
30 customers
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
3-5 miles (demo~ra~hics repnrt]
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
N/A
j. Hours of operation ?:00 am - ?:00 pm
k. Type of exterior lighting pole and build~n~
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project N/A
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
N/A
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:) N/A
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project' and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) Gravel-paved parking facility
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. N/A
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? N/A
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 60 trips per 30 customers
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: nekz
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Fire lane access on existin8 driveway curb cut
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. ~ology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? N/A
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? N/A
(If yes, please attach)
2. ~ydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table?
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site?
-5-
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
-a tomestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas?
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location.
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? vehicular noise
4. Biolo~ty
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
N/A
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. N/A
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site?
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? N/A
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. SDG~E easement
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Retail commercial center - near completion
South Broadwav/Palomar Auto Center
East R.V. Storage
West Broadway (street)
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If_so, hov~ many?) N/A
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
ho~ many and what type?) N/A
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
See attatched license agreement with SDG&E for R.V. storage.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED
I,BEATY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, General Partner
~0w~e ryo~ i n- escrow~,Z~
THOMAS R. BEATY, Presid~
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
1-21 8~ T''~ '
sm 'Diego Cram & Electric 2,617.59
T'aou~aad six btmrtred seventeen amd
I~. 402482-4--~5082 NOT NEGOTIABLE
BROADWAY EOUIT[ES, TD.
z*02~.SZ-4' 860[0017 JAN J.~., [98& $2,6L7=59
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SA:l DIEGD GAS & ELECTRIC
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SUNDRY INVOICE
PROPERTY TAXES, /985-1986:
z*.5 ACRES
MAPS: 1~1-37-51. PARCEL 4
141-37-52A, PARCEL
TOTAL TAXES:
INSTALLMENT
AMOUNT DUE
THIS BILL IS DUE AND PAYABLE UPON PRESENTATION
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIF),NS CONCERNING THIS INVOICE, PLEASE
CONTACT PAUL L. O'NEAL AT IR/g) bQb-22)l.
(~San Diego Gas 8, Electric Sundry Billing Invoice
Address Inquiries to: PO. Box 12, San Diego, CA 92112 ,o~,,
,~. ~: .m 'PAR.2 SBE' MAP' 141-37-52A
' ' ~ ~Oc~' ~O
~ ~ALMERS SUB.
' LOT 8
MAP 729
~BROADWAY' AUTO' CENTER~
,& PUBLIC STORA6E
OW~[R:.. . '
~ 'BROADWAY EQUITIES,LTD.,A' CALIF.. , ~MITED PARTNERSHIP . .
4.5 ACRES-19$020 SQ.FT
lAN DIEGO GM & ELE~RIC
IROADWAY AUTO CENTER &
PUBLIC STORAGE CHULA' VISTA
FXHIRIT
Case No. I$
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North f' - ,~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
Is..~he project compatible ,~/~e General Plt~ Lan.d Use Diagram:
Is the project area designated for cooservatio, or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? /~)~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes. describe the design techniques being used to protect or ennance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the?ar~s and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ./~)~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to sDKve~the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) '
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~(.lcb .
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
......... School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. High A
Sr. High ~
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain featureswhich could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby featuces due to bulk, form, texture or color? {?
so~ please describe.) y~ [~q~+~/ ~Jr<~r~e_-- s~)~.~¢(~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources: ear)~
Electricity {per y
Natural Gas (per year) ~
Water (per day) ~
'D- - 1 ' esentative Date'~-',~3- ~7
7'5 -'z.o:
- l0 -
Case .o.
G. E~GINEE~I~G DEPArTMEnT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?~C)
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
.drainage facilities?
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. ~What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project {per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion? ~.~,
Be fore After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature' of the necessary actions. ~'~
/
- 11 -
Case No.
3. Geology ~. ~)~ .
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. - Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be requi~ed
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality ~,~,
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
{per day) Factor Pollution
CO X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 :
HOx (NO2) X 20.0 :
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much so~id and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid Liquid
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
· If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
{Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
1 y Ln~jneer or Representative
- 13 -
FIRE DEPARTNENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? /
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? . ¥~ ~
Eir~/Marsna/J Date~/ / '
Project Name ~>~o~ R ~. C~"¥e'~- Date ~"/~/~ ?
Project ~ddress ~] ~o.~o~
To: Planning Department
Environmental Review Coordinator
John Hardest, Engineering
Engineering, Subdivisions
Building and Housing
From: Fire Prevention Bureau
This department has reviewed the information or plans referred to us by you. Please
note the following comments:
By:
Project Name /1 t .
Project Address
To: ~l arming Department
Environmental Review'Coordinator
John Hardesty, Engineering
Engineering, Subdivisions
Building and Housing
From: Fire Prevention Bureau
This department has reviewed the information or plans referred to us by you. Please
note the following comments:
EVALUATION OF'POTENTIaL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE IS
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure?
A significant modification of any unique
geological features?
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards?
2. Soils
a. Does the project s~te contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site?
A significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
- 15 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of ground water?
A significant alteration of direction o~ rate
of flow of ground water?
Any other significant affect on ground water?
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff?
Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either on-site or downstream?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? .~.~
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
waves? _C~
5. Resources
Could the project result in:
Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources which can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change,
in topography or ground surface relief features?
- 16 -
YES POTENTIAL NO
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source? ~
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke? ~-
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality? ~
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
or State ambient air quality standard? ~
Interference with the maintenance, of
standard air quality? ~
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally? _~
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies (RAQS)? _~
8. !Cater Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public water supplies? ~
9. I~oise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources? ~
b. Could the project directly or indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels? ~
- 17 -
YES POTENTIAL
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife?
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemic species?
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological resource?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use ~
Circulation -
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing ''
Noise
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety -
Public Facilities
- 18 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan? ,.
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a new light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect existing housing?
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the co~nunity or this project?
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
Fire Protection t/x/
Police Protection -~
Schools
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads
- 19 -
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy.
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy?
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy?
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources?
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas
Communications systems
Water
Sewer or septic tanks -'
Solid waste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard?
19. Transportation/Access
Could the project result in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns?
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level?
20. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-rene~Jable natural resources?
~ 20 -
YES POTENTIAL
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level?
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? IA short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? ~Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
- 21 -
J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the
design, construction or operation of the project:
r~ect Proponen~
~ 22 -
K. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
~t is recommended that the decision making authority find that
the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION Js hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
__ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an-ENVIRONMENTAL I~.~PACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
__ It is found that further information will be necessary to
determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
'Environmental Revie~xCoordi nator
WPC 0169P
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
iPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
OMMISSION 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.
Broadway Equities Limited, a
California limited 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.
Beaty Development Company - Mana~in9 General Partner
Arthur Engle - Limited 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, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes__ No X If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-5-~-f~'[ 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."
__ , B ROA_~~LIMiTED
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~3y~_~ce~y-D~e, ve~op~e~t._Co~p.c~3~y, Gert. Part.
>~gnature of appTicant/date
WPC 0701P THOM~ R. BEATY, PRESIDENT
A-110 P--~-r~-nt or type na~e of app)ican~
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIOHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in.use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITE~ TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORagE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYv CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it'would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantlal expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BRO~DWAYv CHUL~VIST~
I believe the City of Chula Vista doss not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
!
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY E~UITIES LIHITED TO
I,~NT~N EX~T~N~ RECREaTiONAL
VEHICLE 8TOI~E LOT OPEI~TIN~ &T
1483 BROAD~AY~ CHUL~VI~TA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in 'which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their '
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
CoUncil and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY# CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City ,of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
~ET~TION ~N ~UPPORT OF
CONT~NUBD R~HT OF
BROaDWaY E~UITIES B~HITED TO
~.. ~ MAiNTAiN BXI~T~N~ RECRBAT~ONAL
· ~EH~CBB'~TORA~B LOT OPERATIN~ AT
~483 BROADWAY~ CHULAVIBT&
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R,V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use, In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vlsta~ City
Council and city of chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway~ Chula Vista,
If Broadway EqUities Limited is ~°t allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R,V. starage space that is es convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best in~erest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V,'s in public streets,
However, I feel that the city must Work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited'and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R,V, storage appears to be appropriate Use Under
San Diego Gas &'Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of Use,
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V; storage facility and surrounding area, I support
the continued use of the'property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V,
storage facility and I urge and support the city of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION ~N SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY E~UIT~E~ LIHITED TO
~.. .~ MAXNTAXN EXXSTING RECREATIONAL
VEHXCLE STORAGE LOT OPERATXN~ AT
1483 BROADWAY~ CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in Use, In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the city of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continUe
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V, storage'
facility at 1483 Broadway~ Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R,V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R,V, storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it 'is not in the best' interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R,V,~s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R,V. storage appears to be appropriate Use Under
San Diego Gas &'Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V~ storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
o6/8.-103. ~,J(e) 112-18-80
~ETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LZMZTED TO
M~ZNTAZN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
' '" ~VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1485 BROADWAY~ CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in uae, In addi~ion~ for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly Urge the' City of ChUla Vista~ City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the Use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V, storage
facility at 1483 Broadway~ chula Vista.
If BroadWay EqUities'Limited ia 'not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V, storage space that ie ae convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my .neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets,
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use Under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving .and beautifying the
existing R.~. storage facility and surroundi~g area, I support
the continued uae of the property at 1483 Broadway as an
storage facility and I urge and support the City of chula Vista
to continue to allow such use,
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIQRT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXIBTINQ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATIN~ ~T
L483 BROADWAY; CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and i urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINQ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not'have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXIBTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BRO~DWAYv CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not'have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
CoUncil and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed, to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
Bowever, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V,
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Date: ~ ~
Address
FENTON K SMITH
87 K ~T~EET
CHUL~VISI^.¢g92011.1400
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYv CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIN~TED TO
],~INT~IN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STOI~,GE LOT OPEI~T~NG ~T
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
CoUncil and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, CAula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF'
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYv CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway E~lities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with indlviduals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
!
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATINg AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and.
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
NAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
I believe the city of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe ir'would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also belleve that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
~INTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYt CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the city of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADW&Y E~UITIES LIHITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it'would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTIN~ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the city of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use,
F
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXIBTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility ~t 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best' interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
COVERTS AUTO BODY &
1409 BROADWAY AVE., ST 109
Date, .. ! ?_ -- ~ ~ -- ~ 7 CHULA VISTA, ..... CA 920~
Address~~
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City. of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
NAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYv CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use..In addition, for public necessity and
co. nvenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commiss~on to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Date:
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAYt CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
~n which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited ie not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHUL~VISTA
I belleve the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use off Broadway Equities Limited's. R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGNTOF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
CoUncil and C~ty of_Chula vis~a__Planning Commission to continue.
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I. also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substahtial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R,V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED'RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
co~venience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
._to~.approve.the use of. Broadway. Equities Limited's R.V. storage_ ..
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of 'my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATINg ~T
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity an~
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it'would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable.
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
/+'Dr) AD 'w4//O
06 ;84-3,03.43 Ce); X2-X8*89
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY E~UITIE8 LIHITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTIN~ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE 8TOI~GE LOT 0PER'TING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Eroadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
06/84-103 o &3(e)/12-18-89
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway aB an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
'
Address
PETITION IN BUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
14S3 BROADWAY, CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is-as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
/ 7 .
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY; CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not'have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Lim~.ted's R.V. etorage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
AddreSs 6 ' '
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATINg AT
1483 BROADWAY~ CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula VisCa Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities'Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
·
PETITION ~N SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROAD~AY E~U~T~ES LIHITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTIN~ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATIN~ ~T
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and city of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORagE LOT OPEI~ATIN~ ~T
1483 BHO~DWAY~ CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the H.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
i agree that it is not in the best' interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
06/84-103.43(e)/32-).8-89
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STO~AGE LOT OPERATING AT
14S3 BROADWAY; CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not'have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chule Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use_of Broadway Equities_~Limited's R.V.. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for ~.
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA ~
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
coDvenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chule Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that le as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V~storgge apDegrs to be apDr0Driate us~under
San .~iego Gas & Electric electric lin6s which are not sui~'abl~
for other types of use~
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTIN~ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATIN~ AT
1483 BRO~DWAYt CHUL~VIST~
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
06;84-103.43((*)/12-18-89
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXIBTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STOI~tgE LOT OPEPJtTINg aT
1483 BROADWAYv CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STOIIAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
Bowever, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING ~ECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STOI~AGE LOT OPEI~ATING AT
148S BROADWAYt CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the city to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATINg AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the city of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V. fs in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
06;84-103. &3(e) 712o18-89
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHULAVISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage --
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it' would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the city must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATINg AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~ VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIQHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIES LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINQ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORagE LOT OPEEATIN~ AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~VIBTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and city of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY EQUITIEB LIMITED TO
MAINTAIN EXISTINg RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE BTORAgE LOT OPERATINg AT
1483 BROADWAY, CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway E~ities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it'would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also belleve that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BROADWAY E~UITIES LIMITED TO
M~INTAIN EXISTING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATING AT
14S3 BROADWAY# CHULA VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED RIGHT OF
BRO~D~AY E~UITIE8 LIHITED TO
M~IqT~N EX~T~N~ RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE STORAGE LOT OPERATIN~ ~T
1483 BRO~DWAYt CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chula Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
PETiTiON ~N SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED R~GHT OF
BROaDWaY E~U~T~ES L~H~TED TO
M~NT~N EX~ST~NG RECREaTiONaL
VEHICLE STORagE LOT OPEI~T~N~ ~T
1483 BRO~DWAYt CHUL~VISTA
I believe the City of Chula Vista does not have sufficient space
in which recreational vehicle (R.V.) owners can store their
vehicles when not in use. In addition, for public necessity and
convenience, I strongly urge the City of Chula Vista, City
Council and City of Chuls Vista Planning Commission to continue
to approve the use of Broadway Equities Limited's R.V. storage
facility at 1483 Broadway, Chula Vista.
If Broadway Equities Limited is not allowed to maintain the R.V.
storage facility, I believe it would be very difficult to find
other adequate R.V. storage space that is as convenient and
economical.
I agree that it is not in the best interest of my neighbors
and/or the City to allow parking of R.V.'s in public streets.
However, I feel that the City must work with individuals like
Broadway Equities Limited and try to provide alternatives for
R.V. owners. R.V. storage appears to be appropriate use under
San Diego Gas & Electric electric lines which are not suitable
for other types of use.
I also believe that Broadway Equities Limited has incurred
substantial expenditures in improving and beautifying the
existing R.V. storage facility and surrounding area. I support
the continued use of the property at 1483 Broadway as an R.V.
storage facility and I urge and support the City of Chula Vista
to continue to allow such use.
Address