HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/06/22 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 22, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 25, 1988
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. (a) Consideration of Final EIR-88-3 Town Centre II Expansion (Continued)
(b) Finding of Conformance of the Town Centre II Redevelopment
District expansion areas with the Chula Vista General Plan
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-1: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment
for the redesignation of 2.09 acres located on the
westerly side of Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road
and Allen School Lane at 3956 Otay Lakes Road -
Robert E. Crane and John D. Dauz
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N: Consideration to rezone 1.78 acres located
between 'C' Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue
extended from R-1 to R-3-P-12 County of San Diego
4. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PUD-88-1M: Request for a Planned Unit Development
to construct 22 townhomes for low income public housing
at 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street - San Diego County
Housing Authority
(b) PCC-88-52M: Request to construct 22 townhome units
for low income public housing at 778-82 and 794-98
Dorothy Street - San Diego County Housing Authority
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-87-39M Conditional Use Permit: Request to allow
continuance of an RV storage lot located at 1483 Broadway
Broadway Equities Ltd.
AGENDA -2- June 22, 1988
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-23M Conditional Use Permit: Request to expand
a mini warehouse facility at 340 Naples Street -
Naples Street Investors Ltd. (Continued)
7. OTHER BUSINESS: Density Bonus request for a proposed 60-unit
apartment complex at 1053 Broadway
Appointment of Representative Growth Management
Oversight Committee
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 13, 1988
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting
of June 22, 1988
1. Consideration of Final EIR-88-3, Town Centre II - Redevelopment
Plan Amendment
A. Back§round
The public review period for the draft of this EIR began on
May 6, 1988 and concluded with a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on June 8, 1988. Comments were received from the County
of San Diego and has been included in the comments/response section
of the final EIR. Other comments from City staff were for purposes
of clarification or correcting minor errors/typos. Any changes in the
text are indicated in bold type and crossouts. The instruction page
lists pages where changes in the text have been made.
The State Clearinghouse had indicated that comments from California
Fish & Game have been received. However, those comments were on
Notices of Preparation that the Clearinghouse had circulated on other
City projects. There are no State agency comments on the draft EIR.
B. Recommendation
Certify that EIR-88-3 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the
State Guidelines and the environmental Review procedures of Chula Vista
and that the Planning Commission will review and consider the information
in the EIR as it reaches a decision on the project.
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 22, 1988
DATE: JUNE 14, 1988
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
TOWN CENTRE NO. II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAKING FINDINGS
OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN AND TRANSMITTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BACKGROUND: The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has undertaken the
necessary actions to create a Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II
Redevelopment Plan ("Project"). Pursuant to Section 33346 of the California Health and
Safety Code (Redevelopment Law), the Redevelopment Agenqy is required to submit the
Project to the Planning Commission. The Redevelopment Law also states that the
Planning Commission shall make recommendations concerning the Project and its
conformance to the General Plan.
RE(~OMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution recommending approval of the Project, making its report as to
conformance with the General Plan, and transmitting the report to the Redevelopment
Agency and City Council.
DISCUSSION: The contents of the Project are specifically outlined by the
Redevelopment Law. The Project is purposely general in nature (due to its 45 year
duration) and provides the basic framework to guide the Redevelopment Agency in
implementing the proposed redevelopment program. The Project does not propose any
changes to the land uses or street s. ystem as shown in the General Plan. Instead the
Project provides a new vehicle (tax ~ncrement financing) to fund economic development
and public facility, utility and infrastructure projects.
In addition to findings of General Plan conformance, the Commission may make a
recommendation for or against the proposed Project. A joint public hearing is scheduled
for July 12, 1988 at which time the Council and Agency will consider the Final EIR and
adoption of the proposed Project. AIl reports and comments by the Planning
Commission will be considered at this joint public hearing prior to adoption of the
Project.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE NO. II
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAKING A REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN'S CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND
TRANSMI'I-I'ING THE REPORT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, proceedings have been initiated for the adoption of the Second
Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a regular meeting June 22,
1988 to consider the Project, to make a report and recommendation as to its conformity
with the General Plan and to transmit the report to the Redevelopment Agency and the
City Council; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission has reviewed the Project with particular
regard to its conformity with the General Plan of the C ty of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the following findings of facts have been made in regard to the Project
and its conformity with the General Plan:
1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the Project is in
conformity with the General Plan of the City of?hula Vista.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the location, purpose
and extent of any acquisition or disposition of real property for street, park, public
space or other public purpose by the Redevelopment Agency for the purposes of
carrying out the Project conforms w th the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the Project.
4. This Resolution shall constitute the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Section
33346 of the Health and Safety Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plannin.g Commission of the City of
Chula Vista that based upon said findings of fact, the Chula V~sta Planning Commission
hereby recommends to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council APPROVAL of
the Project.
1. The Director of Planning will submit the Second Amendment to the Town Centre
No. II Redevelopment Plan and the Planning Commission's report and
recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council.
2. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and transmit a copy to the Redevelopment Agency and the City
Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22th day of June, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Roy R. Johnson, Chairman
A'FI'EST:
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
THE TEXTOFTHE
PROPOSEDSECONDAMENDMENT
TO THE
TOWN CENTREII
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Prepared for:
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
(619) 691-5141
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
414 West 4th Street, Suite E
SantaAna, California 92701
(714) 541-4585
June, 1988
PREFACE
The Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project ("Project") was adopted by the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 15, 1978, by Ordinance No. 1827. The
Project established a Redevelopment Project Area consisting of the Chula Vista
Shopping Center and the Sears retail center; the Project Area encompasses 65.41 acres
of property.
Although the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project was adopted in accordance
with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33000 e.t. seq. of the Health
and Safety Code) then in effect, sub-section 710.1 of Section 700, ARTICLE VII -
METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT of the Project's Redevelopment Plan
relating to "tax increments" stated, "the use of tax increment for the financing of this
Project is not provided for in this Plan."
Since the Project's adoption, several attempts were made to revitalize and redevelop
both the Chula Vista Shopping Center and the Sears retail center without success, either
individually or jointly between private enterprise and the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency ("Agency"). The constraints on implementation were directly related to the
inability of the Agency to provide the financial resources required for on- and off-site
improvements and to create the public/private partnership necessary for
implementation.
In order to relieve this constraint, the Agency adopted the First Amendment to the Town
Centre No. II Redevelopment Project on May 19, 1987. The First Amendment
incorporated therein the authority to obtain tax increment revenues in accordance with
Section 33670 of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
Additionally, as part of the negotiations with the affected taxing agencies pertaining to '
the inclusion of tax increment financing, the Agency received authorization to amend the
Project a second time, at a future date, to add additional territory ("Amendment Area").
The Second Amendment facilitates various school district projects and the
redevelopment and expansion of uses in both the existing Project Area and the
Amendment Area.
For convenience and clarification purposes, both the current text of the Redevelopment
Plan and the proposed changes, deletions and/or additions to such text as proposed by
the Second Amendment are outlined in this document. Words to be deleted are shown
lined through, thus: elelete. Words to be added are shown underlined, thus: add. It is
intended that upon adoption of the Second Amendment and the subsequent printing of
the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan thereafter, the deleted words shall be
omitted and the added words shall not be underlined.
THE TEXTOFTHE
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
TOWN CENTRE NO. IIREDEVELOPMENTPLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 1
That the title page be amended to show the dates of adoption and adopting
ordinance numbers for the original adoption and each amendment to the Plan.
AMENDMENT NO. 2
That the pages of the Redevelopment Plan as amended by this Second
Amendment be renumbered to reflect correct pagination and that the Table of Contents
be modified as appropriate.
AMENDMENT NO. 3
That Section 110 of ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTION be amended to read as follows:
'q'he aoal of this redevelopment project is to revitalize the original Town
Centre No. I~'Project Area as the'principal regional shopping center of the South
Bay; to facilitate various school district projects and to promote the
redev-~lop---~-~-~ pr~~in the Project Ar~'~.
AMENDMENT NO. 4
That the following term be added to Section 200 of ARTICLE II - GENERAL
DEFINITIONS:
"Amendment Area" - The Amendment Area, as approved b_y the Second
Amendment, consists of ten (10) areas as shown on the attached Map, Exhibit A.
The legal descriotion of the Amendment Area is contained in Section 300 of this
Plan.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
The sub-section 220.7 of Section 200, ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITION be
amended to read as follows:
"Project Area" - The Redevelopment Project Area consists of the Chula
Vista Shopping Center/Sears retail center and the ten (10) areas added by the
Second Amendment (Amendment Area)_. The legal description of th~ aroa these
areas is contained in Section 300 of this document.
AMENDMENT NO. 6
That the following legal description be added to the end of sub-section 300.1 of
Section 300, ARTICLE III - PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES:
AMENDMENT AREA
AREA 1
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, being a portion of the Rancho De La Nacion according to Map No.
505, filed in the Office_ of the County Recorder of San Diego County, described as
follows:
Commencinq _at the intersection of the centedines of Oxford Street and Fifth
Avenue as shown on the record of Survey Map No. 6866, records of said County:
thence, along said centedine, N18 21 '10"W, 330.42 feet to the easterly
prolon(3ation of the southerly line of lot 26 of quarter section 145 as shown on said
Map No. 505, and the true point of beoinnin(3; thence, along said easterly
prolongation _and said southerly line, ~71 38'52"W, 315.00 feet to the westerly line
of the easterly 275.00 feet of said lot 26; thence, along said westerly line N18
21 '10"W, 330.40 feet to the southerly line of lot 23 of said quarter .section 145;
thence, along said southerly line S71 38'45"W, 345.20 to the southwesterly corner
of lot 23 as shown on said Record of Survey Map No. 6866; thence, alonq the
easterly and southerly line of the land shown on said Record of Survey Map No.
6866. N18 22'30"W, 132.17 feet; thence, N71 38'42"E, 307.75 feet; thence, N18
21 '10"W, 198.24 feet; thence, N71 38'38"E. 2.5 feet; thence, N18 21'10"W, 148.40
feet to the southerly line of the northerly 142.00 feet of lot 18 of said_ guarterlv
section 145; thence, alonq said southerly line and the easterly prolongation
thereof, N71 38'30"E, 390.00 feet to the easterly line of said Fifth Avenue (82.00
feet wide); thence, along said easterly line, S18 21 '10"E, 809.23 to the above said
easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 26; thence, along said easterly
prolongation. S71 38'52"W, 40.00 feet to the point of true beginning.
Containinq an area of 7.93 acres, more or less.
AREA2
That certain area within the City _of Chula Vista, County of San Dieqo, State of
California, being _a_ portion of the Rancho De La Nacion, accordino to Map No.
505, filed in the Office of the County_ Recorder of San Dieqo County, described, as
follows:
Beqinninq at _a point on the northerly line of said City of Chula Vista, said point
being the intersection of the centerlines of Broadway (National Avenue) and "C"
Street, said point also being alonq said centerline of "C" Street, S71 18'05"W,
10.00 feet from the northeasterly corner of quarter section 161 as shown on said
Map No. 505; thence, alonq said northerly line of said City of Chula Vista and said
centedine of "C" Street, N71 18'05"E, 50.00 feet to the easterly line of said
Broadway (100.00 feet wide); thence, alonq said easterly line, S18 42'36"E,
360.00 feet .to the easterly prolonqation of the southerly line of Sea Vale Street
(60.00 feet wide); thence, along said easterly prolonqation and said southerly line,
S71 18'05"W. 700.00 feet to the westerly line of the easterly 600 feet of said
quarter section 161; thence, alonq said westerly line, N18 42'36"W. 360.00 feet to
the northerly line of said quarter section 161 and said northerly line of said City of
Chula Vista; thence, along said northerly line, N71 18'05"E. 650.00 feet to the
point of beoinning.
Containing an .area of 5.79 acres, more or less.
AREA3
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, being _a portion of the Rancho De La Nacion, accordino to Map No.
505, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. described as
follows:
Commencinq at a point on the northerly !ine of said City of Chul.___._~a Vista, said point
beinq the intersection of the centedines of National Avenue (Broadway) and "C"
Street, sai__~d point also beinq along said .centerline of "C" Street, S71 18'05"W,
10.00 feet from the southwesterly corner of quarter section 151 as shown on said
Map No. 505; thence, alonq said northerly line of said City of Chula Vista and said
centerline of "C" Street, N71 18'05"E, 50.00 feet to a point on the easterly line of
said National Avenue (100.00 feet wide}, sai._~d point beinq the southerly terminus
of course no. 11 of the Huntinqton Annexation to said City of Chula Vista; thence
alonq said easterly line and said course No. 11. N 18 09'18"W, 220.00 feet to the
northwesterly corner of Hodge Bros. Industrial Park as shown o~Qn Map No___~. 8755,
records of said County. sa__jid northwesterly corner beinq the true point of
beqinninq; thence, continuinq alonq said easterly line of National Avenue and
along said course no. 11, N18 09'18"W, 1060.00 feet to the southerly line of "B"
Street, said southerly line also being the southerly line of proposed State Hiqhway
54; thence along said southerly line N71 46'24"E, 1320.00 feet to the easterly line
of Fifth Avenue (80.00 feet wide); thence, alonq said easterly line S18 05'23"E,
1060.00 feet to the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of above said Hodge
Bros. Industrial Park; thence, alonq said, easterly prolongation and atong said
northerly tine. S71 46'24"W, 1320.00 feet to the true point of beginninq.
Containinq _an area pf 32.12 acres, more or less.
AREA4andAREA9
That certain area within the City of Chula ~ County of San Dieqo, State of
California, beinq _a portion of the Rancho De La Nacion, accordinq to Map No.
505, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, described as
.follows:
Beqinninq _at the northeasterly corner of the Town Centre II Proiect Area, said
corner being the southwesterly corner of Parcel "A" of Parcel Map No. 155.
records of said County, and also being a point of the northerly line of "H" Street
(80.00 feet wide); thence, along said northerly line, S71 20'20"W,700.62 feet t.o the
westerly line of .Fifth Avenue (80.00 feet wide); thence, alonq said westedy line,
N18 36'26"W, 1322.18 feet to the northerly line of "G" Street (80.00 feet wide);
thence, along said northerly line. N71 20'25"E, 1030.00 feet to the northerly
prolongation of the westerly line of Kuebler Terrace No. 6. Map No. 2857, records
of said County: thence, alonq said northerly proionaation and along said westerly
line, S19 02'20"E, .370.52 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Kuebler Terrace
No. 6, thence, along the southerly line of said Kuebler Terrace_ No. 6, N70
59'03"E. 141.51 feet to the westerly line _of the easterly 188.00 feet of .Lot 15 of
quarter section 148 as shown on said Map No. 505; thence, along said westerly
line S19 02'20"E, 198.00 feet to the northerly line of the 0.882 acres parcel shown
on record of survev Map No_. 9396 records of said Countv: thence, along said
northerly iine, S71 90'02"W, 142.00 feet; thence, along th~ wester y ne of said
parcel, S18 40'57"E, 1.32.44 feet to the northerly line of Lot 14 of said quarter
section 148; thence, along said northerly line, S71 19'40"W, 330.19 feet to the
easterly line of the westerly one-half of Lot 14 of said quarter section 148; thence,
alonq said easterly line and the easterly line of the westerly one-half of Lot 13 of
said c~uarter section 148, S18 37'40"E, 620.90 feet to the point of beginning.
Containinq an area of 27.38 acres, more or less.
AREA 5 and AREA 8
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County ef San Diego, State of
California, beinq a portion of the Rancho De La Nacion, accordino to Map No.
505, filed in the Office of the County_ Recorder of San Diego County. described as
follows:
Beqinning _at the intersection of the easterly line of Woodlawn Avenue (60.00 feet
wide) and the southerly line of "F" Street (80.00 feet wide), said intersection being
N71 51 '40"E, 30.00 feet and S19 00'00"E 40.00 feet of the center of quarter
section 162 as shown on Map 505; thence, along said southerly line of "F" Street,
S71 51 '40"W, 550.00 feet to the easterly line of the S.D. & A.E. railroad right-of-
way; thence, alonq said right-of-way, N19 01'10"W, 1404.86 feet to the northerly
line of "E" Street (80.00 feet wide); thence, along said northerly line, N70 56'10"E,
289.99 feet to the northerly prolongation of a line parallel to and 230.00 feet
westerly, measured at right anc~les of the centerline_ of above said Woodlawn
Avenue; thence, alo~'~ said northerly prolongation and alonq sa d para el line S19
00'00"E, 220.00 feet to a line parallel to and 180.00 feet southerly, measured at
right angles, from the centerline of above said "E" Street; thence, atonq last said
parallel line S70 56'10"W, 42.93 feet to the easterly line of parcel 1 of Parcel Map
14, records of said County; thence, alonq said easterly line, S19 01'10"E, 162.45
feet; thence, N70 51'50"E, .3.00 feet; thence, S19 01 '10"E, 320.00 feet to the
~outherly line of the northeasterly one-quarter of the northwesterly one-quarter of
said quarter section 162; thence, along said southerly line, N70 51'50E, 299.78
feet to the above said easterly line of Woodlawn Avenue (60.00 feet wide); thence,
~lonq said easterly line S19 00'00"E. 702.10 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing an area .of 13.20 acres, more or !ess.
AREA6
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County of Sa__Qn Diego, State of
California, being a portion of tt'ie Ranch__Do De La Nacion, accordina to Map No.
505, filed in the Office _of the County Recorder of San Dieqo County. described as
follows:
Beqinninq at the intersection of th__.~_e easterly line of Broadway (100.00 feet wide)
and the southerly line of "E" Street (80.00 feet wide), said intersection being N71
00'00"E, _40.00 feet and S18 54'10"E, 40.00 feet of the southeasterly corner of
guarter sectio__Qn 161 as shown on Map 505; thence, alonq said southerly line of "E"
Street (80.00 feet wid'~), S71 00'00"W, 740.89 feet to the southeasterly
prolongation of the westerly line of Jefferson Avenue (60.00 fee__jt wide); thence,
along said southeasterly prolonq~tion and said westerly line, N18 57'41"W, 734.53
feet to the northerly line of .Flower Street (60.00 feet wide); thence, alonq said
northerly line, N70 59'12"E, 740.89 feet to the abov_~e said easterly line of
Broadway (100.00 fee__~t wide); thence, alonq sa~d easterly line, S18 54'10"E,
734.68 feet to the point of beqinninq.
Containinq _an area 12.49 acres, more o_[r less.
~REA7
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, beinq _a portion-~of the Rancho De La Nacion, accordinq t__o Map No.
505, filed in the Office of th__~e County Recorder of San Dieqo County, described as
.follows:
Beginninq a.._t the intersection of the centerline of Fourth Avenu~ and the southerly
line of "F" Street (80.00 fee__~t wide), said intersection being S19 00'00"E 40.00 feet
of the southeasterly corne_____[r of quarter section 149 as shown on said Map No. 505;
thence, alonq said southerly line, S71 ~)0'30"W, 734.00 feet to the southerly
prolonqation of _a line parallel to and 74.00 feet westerly, measured at right anqles,
of the ~asterl~ iine'-~_f the west~ly one-half pf Lot 13 of said Q_u_arter sectio__.Q 149;
{,h~,n?,,e,, alonq sa d souther y prolonqation and alonq said parallel line, N18
40 45 W, 370.00 feet to the northerl~ line of said Lo{ 13; thence, a onq said
northerly line, N71 00'22"E, 74.00 feet to the westerly line of FL.q Avenu~e (60.00
feet wide}; thence, along said westerly line and the northerly prolongation thereof
N18 40'22"W, 360.00 to the northerly line of Davidson Street f60.00 feet wide};
thence, along said northerly line and the easterly prolongation thereof, N71
00' 15"E, 700.00 feet to the easterly line of Fourth Avenue (80.00 feet wide);
thence, along said easterly line. S19 00'00"E, 30.00 feet to the northwesterly
corner -of Lot 9 of the quarter section 137 as shown .on said Map 505; thence.
alonq the northerly line -of said Lot 9 and the easterly prolongation thereof, N70
59'30"E, 650.00 feet to the easterly line of Garrett Avenue (60.00 feet wide};
thence, alono said easterly line and the southerly prolonaation thereof, S18
46'14"E, 700.00 feet to the above said southerly line of "F" Street (80.00 feet wide};
thence, along said southerly line, S70 59'18"W. 690.00 feet to the point of
beginninq.
Containing an area of 23.11 acres, more or less.
AREA 10
That certain area within the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, being a portion of the Rancho De La Nacion, ~ to Map No.
505. filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieqo County, described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the northerly line of "C" Street and the easterly line
of Fourth Avenue, said intersection beinq N71 18'00"E, 40.00 feet and N18
36'15"W, 40.00 feet of the northeasterly corner of quarter section 150 as shown
on said Map 505; thence, along said easterly line of said Fourth Avenue (80.00
feet wide) S18 36'15"E, 705.43 feet .to the easterly prolongation of the southerly
line of Lot 15 of said (~uarter section 105 as shown on Parcel Map No. 4619,
records of said County; thence, along said easterly prolonoation and along said
southerly line, S71 21 '16"W, 1013.75 feet; thence, S18 32'27"E, 232.00 feet;
thence, S63 31 '00"E, 42.44 feet; thence, S18 32'27"E, 18.00 feet; thence, S71
21 '16"W, 185.00 feet; thence N18 32'27"W, 30.00 feet; thence, S71 21 '16"W,
235.00 feet to the westerly line of Fifth Avenue (80.00 feet wide~; thence, alonq
said westerly line, N18 32'27"W, 954.30 feet to the northerly line of above said "C"
Street (80.00 feet wide}; thence, alonq said northerly line. N71 18'00"E, 1403.02
feet to the point of beginninq.
Containing an area of 25.09 acres, more or less.
\chul&~s\legeJdes 6
AMENDMENT NO. 7
That sub-section 440.4 (a) of Section 440, ARTICLE IV - PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) be amended to read as follows:
440.4 a. Whenever dwelling units, housing persons and families of Iow or
moderate income are destroyed or removed form the Iow- and
moderate-income housing market as part of the Town Centre # II
redevelopment project, the Agency shall, within four years of such
destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or constructed, for
rental or sale to persons and families of Iow or moderate income an
equal number of replacement dwelling units at affordable rafts
w~t~R the P~ojec-t Area or w~,t,~iR the Oity of Ohu~a ¥ist~ housing
costs within the territorial !urisdiction of the Agency or within the City
_of Chula Vista. The Agency may replace destroyed or removed
dwellinq units housing persons and families of Iow or moderate
income with a fewer number of dwelling units if the units have a
greater or equal number of bedrooms and are available to the same
Iow and moderate income groups.
AMENDMENT NO. 8
That sub-section 450.2 of Section 450, ARTICLE IV ~ PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) be amended to read as follows:
450.2 The Agency is authorized to cause, provide, undertake or to make
provisions with any person or public entity for the installation or
construction of such public improvements or public utilities, either within or
outside of the project area as are necessary to carry out the plan. Such
public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, street lights, sewers, storm drains, traffic signals, street trees,
electrical distribution systems, natural gas distribution systems, water
distribution systems, fire hydrants, parks, plazas, motor vehicle parking
facilities, landscaping pedestrian malls, bridges, underpasses, and
development of airspace. Specific projects which may be constructed
through the use of redevelopment actions and/or financinq include
Eucalyptus Park improvements, Civic Center expansion and parkinq, City
corporate yard relocation, School District corporate yard relocation, trolley
station improvements, School District headquarters relocation, and Chula
Vista Junior High School improvements.
The Agency, with the prior consent of the City Council, may pay all or part
of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction
of any buildinq, facility, _or other improvement which is publicly owned
either within or outside the project area upon ~determination by..resolution of
the Aaency and City Council; 1.~ that such buildings, facilities, structures
and other improvements are of benefit to the project area or the immediate
neiqhborhood in which the project area is located; (2) that no other
reasonable me~'ns~n~c~ing such bui~ings, facilitie~ ~-~ures or other
improvements are available to the City.
When the value of such land or the cost of the installation and construction
~f such building, facility Qr other improvement, or both, has been, _or will
be, paid or provided for initially by the community or other public
corporation, the Agency may enter into a contract with the City or other
public corporation under which it agrees to reimburse the City or other
Public corporation for all or part of the value of such land or all or part of
the cost of such building, facility or other improvements, or both, ~
periodic payments over a ~)eriod of years.
Any ob_q._~jgation of the Agency under such contract shall constitute an
indebtedness of the Agency for the puroose of carrvina out the
redevelopment proiect for the project area.
AMENDMENT NO. 9
That sub-section 460.8 of Section 460, ARTICLE IV - PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) be amended to read as follows:
460.8 A time limit of twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of the Second
Amendment to this Plan, shall herein be established within which time the
Agency may commence eminent domain proceedings as herein above set
forth. Such time limit may be extended only by amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan.
AMENDMENT NO. 10
That sub-section 600.1 of Section 600, ARTICLE VI - PERMI'FrED USES AND
CONTROLS be amended to read as follows:
The Plan Diagram, Exhibit "B", graphically depicts the projected patterns of
land use and circulation within the Project Area. The permitted land uses will be
those desiqnated b_.y the Chula Vista General Plan as they currently exist or are
hereinafter amended.
AMENDMENT NO. 11
That sub-section 600.2 of Section 600, ARTICLE VI - PERMITTED USES AND
CONTROLS be amended to read as follows:
"All of the area within the RFojeet Area original Town Centre No. II Project
Area (Chula Vista Sho[}Dina Center and Sears retail center) is designated "Central
Commercial" on the Plan, and may be used as a mixture of regional-type
commercial uses, including but not limited to retail, office, service, entertainment,
educational, and auxiliary uses. The areas within the Amendment Area are
designated as follows:
Area
No. General Plan Designations
1_.Medium_ Residential
High Residential
3. Research and Limited Industrial/Local Coastal Proaram (General
Industrial)
Retail Commercial
5-.Research and Limited Industrial
6_.Throuqhfare Commercial/High Residential
.Civic Center
8_.Visitor Commercial./Research and Limited Industrial
9_.Junior High School
10. Parks and Public Open Soace
Hiqh Residential
AMENDMENT NO. 12
That sub-section 1000.1 of Section 1000, ARTICLE X - DURATION OF THIS PLAN
be amended as follows:
Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions, which
shall run in perpetuity the provisions of this plan shall be effective and the
provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to th s P an may be made
effective for forty-five (45) years from the date of the adoption of the Second
Amendment of this Plan by the City Council; orovided, however, tha~t the Agency
may issue bonds and incur obliqations pursuant to this Plan which extends
beyond the termination date, and in such event, this Plan shall continue in effect
for the purpose of repayinq such bonds or other obligations as determined by the
City Council. Unless projects contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan are
un~iertaken within ten (10) years of the date of the amendment of the
Redeve opment Plan then said projects will not be undertaken thereafter unless a
public hearing is conducted by the Redeve opment Agency and the City Council
with notice of the public hearing given by publication nd distribution. The purpose
of said public hearing is to consider the desirability of undertaking the proposed
projects in light of the conditions as the then exist.
AMENDMENT NO. 13
That the Town Centre II Boundary Map (Exhibit "A") be modified to add the area
described in Amendment No. 6 above. The existing Exhibit "A" shall be substituted for
the modified Exhibit "A" that is attached hereto.
AMENDMENT NO. 14
That the Town Centre II Land Use Plan (Exhibit "B") be modified to add the area
described in Amendment No. 6 above. The existing Exhibit "B" shall be substituted for
the modified Exhibit "B" that is attached hereto.
AMENDMENT NO. 14
That the Town Centre II Land Use Plan/Exhibit "B") be modified to add the area
described in Amendment No. 6 above. The ex~sting Exhibit "B" shall be substituted for
the modified Exhibit "B" that is attached hereto.
~.~ ~'~ ~ "' -
L~ AMENDME~ ~EA CI~ OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
--~- BOUND~Y ~ s~"~e"'
~ .... ¢,~ ~ou.~.. ~ ~ MAST~ KEY
~,.~ ~o~ ~, ~DME~ ~EA ~T~G ~JECT AREA SHEET
EXHIBIT
~cn~ ~ MOSS STREET
CHUI. A VISTA ~.~
--~ NAPLES STREET
.... DRIVE
~*~.~ AMENDME~ ~EA CI~ OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGEN~
.... BOUNDARY
~ ~[~ ~ AMENDMENT AREA
o-~uLa v~s'tA
/
/
/
/
~-"* AMENDME~ ~EA CI~ OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
owo~ DAVIDSON
CHUI. A VISTA
" .... '- -~ MEMORIAL PARK'
?!-.'"'
PARK WAY
IS'fA j. , · II
VANCE ST.
t III1],, ti! II II
ROOSF_VELT
BAY
GENERAL
EET ' '
5 T
_ ~--
.-.,~.. AMENDMENT AREA CiTY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
.... BOUNDARY
t~,,~ -,o,,[~ ,,.~* AMENDMENT AREA
FLOWER
~EASTER ' I I
SCHOOL
STREET
'--,.o AMENDMENT AREA CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
-----BOUNDARY ~'r[w..o., .,~, · ~,,[.c~
I~ ,~,s'r ,.o~[cT *.t*, AMENDMENT ~EA
.... ~OUNDARY
CHULA VISTA
Lt~,.o AMENDMENT AREA CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
.... BOUNDARY
Ex,g* .woJt~ ~z~ AMENDMENT AREA
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-1, proposal to amend the plan diagram of the
Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan by
the redesignation of 2.09 acres on the westerly sid~
of Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and Allen
School Lane at 3956 Otay Lakes Road from "Medium
Density Residential" {4-12 du's acre) to "Professional'
and Administrative Commercial"
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicants, Robert E. Crane and John D. Dauz, propose to acquire
and develop a 2.09 acre site on the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road
between Bonita Road and Allen School Lane with an office complex.
2. The proposed General Plan amendment is prerequisite to the zoning of
the site to a zoning classification which would permit the proposed
office commercial use. However, an application for rezoning has not
been submitted at this time.
3. In July 1985, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista denied a
proposed general plan request (GPA-84-6) to redesignate the subject
property from Low Density Residential to "Retail Commercial" and
"Professional and Administrative Commercial" on the plan diagram of
the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. Instead,
Council approved the redesignation from "Low Density Residential" (1
to 3 DU's acre) to "Medium Density Residential" (4-12 DU's acre).
4. An Initial Study, IS-88-38 of the possible adverse environmental
impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review
Coordinator on May 16, 1988, who concluded there would be no
significant environmental effects.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration for IS-88-38.
2. Adopt a motion to approve GPA-88-1.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing Site Characteristics
The subject property is currently developed with two houses located
on the southerly portion of the site, a storage shed on the westerly
portion and a large red barn located on the northerly portion. The
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 2
site slopes downward in a northerly direction towards Bonita Road.
The property immediately to the south is approximately 15 feet higher
in elevation and the properties to the west range from 15 feet to 25
feet higher. The property line between the westerly properties and
the subject site lies within the slope between the properties. The
easterly 50 feet of the property is a public road easement, but is
not dedicated. Another 20 foot easement also traverses the easterly
portion of the site as well as the northerly side.
2. General Plan Designations (See Exhibit A)
The plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
designates the project site as Medium Density Residential, 4-12
dwelling units per gross acre. The adjacent designations are as
follows:
North: Retail Commercial
South: Low Density Residential (1-3 DU/ac)
East: Low Density (1-3 DU/ac), Medium Density (4-12 DU/ac)
and High Density (13-26 DU/ac) residential designations
West: Low Density Residential (1-3 DU/ac)
Otay Lakes Road proposed as a prime arterial (128 foot right-of-way)
has been designated as a scenic route in the City of Chula Vista's
Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan.
3. Zoning and Land Use (See Exhibit B)
The property is currently zoned R-3-P-8 (Multiple-Family Residential
at 8 DU's/ac subject to a precise plan)
North: C-C-D "Bonita Centre" Shopping Center
South: R-R-1 ICounty) SDG&E Substation
East: R-2-20-D Single Family Dwellings
R-E Single Family Dwellings
R-3-P-8 Condos
West: R-R-1 Single Family Dwellings
(County)
4. Proposed Development
If the proposed general plan amendment is approved, it is the
applicant's plan to purchase the property, demolish the existing
buildings and build an office building on the site.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 3
D. DISCUSSION
1. The proposed amendment would authorize an increase in the territory
designated for commercial-office development, and thereby would
address the growing demand for "suburban office space" within the
City of Chula Vista and its Bonita Community. According to the
market report prepared for the applicant, Chula vista has less than a
2% vacancy rate in conjunction with office uses.
2. The proposed amendment would preclude the southerly extension of the
Bonita Road retail strip, along the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road,
and would preclude any effort to increase Chula Vista's substantial
retail overcommercialization. Furthermore, the subject site is
physically isolated from other, potential commercial sites. Its
redesignation to "Professional and Administrative Commercial,"
therefore, should not result in the initation of an "Otay Lakes Road
Commercial Strip."
3. The parcel's isolation is partially predicated upon its topography.
It is situated in a depression, and its development with an office
building would not visually or functionally affect adjacent
residential uses.
4. The subject parcel presently accommodates a large red barn, which
has, for several years, housed a commercial feed business. This
business's operation has not materially impacted nearby residences,
and there is no evidence that a well-planned office building on the
site would increase local land-use friction.
E. CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment would partially meet the Chula Vista Planning
Area's increasing need for suburban office space, without increasing its
retail-commercial overzoning or adversely affecting adjacent residential
areas.
WPC 5127P
I.'..' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .'~.'~11~7.'C ~,"-~-.,'~'~,~ ,,.~! ' · .' · ..'..'
!. ' '.' '.' '. ' '. ' '. ' '. ' '.' '.._..~.~..~pr~: .,.., ,....,. ~ ::~,., ,.,~ ,,~ I · '. · ' , · ' · ' · ' '.
I · .' .' .' .~-~¢~~~'~:'~ ~"c ~' ~ · · ' · · '
I.......~~;E-¢?~.. .'., ...... ·
1. '.'. '.'. '.'. '~~5.~;.'. '.'.'.'. '...'.. '.. '.'. '.'.
~......~~ '. ~ ~ ~,-:~..(.' .... . .......
.......~~,~.-.-., .... . .... ....
E' .' .'~~ ~-' ~,- ~ ~.'h'~'' .' .' .' .'' .' .' .'
- ' .' .~~~ '.. '.~ V.' '.. '.. ' .' · · '.. '..' ·
' .'~ ~~'. ~~h~ .' .' .' · .' .' .' .' ,
...~~~.~.~.....'.. .' .... · .
. ~. ~~:.'. ~ .... . .... . . ...
. .~~?~_'.......-.................
. · ~~.:.h · h · h · h · · . · · . · ... · . ·
..~~h.~.~'.' . .. · · .' · ·
· E~~.'....'. ~.. .. .. .. ....
· · ' · ' , ,' ~ L '-' :~ ".'.' .'' · ' · ' · ' . · · ' · ' · ' . '
· E~'~?".". ..... · · .
.~ -~~.._.;' ~ .. -.... ...' . . .- .. :
· ~~. '.~ ~2..~ .... '......
~~~~'UUUa~CT SITE~.' .' ..'
~'~ ~._~ ~ ~ .. _, - ~. .. .. ..
~~~ ~_./. ~.09 ac.~s~ ..'.. '......,
..............
~~~~'2' 2.(.~W .' .' .' .. . · .. .,
/'~.. ~ ~ .. ~'..~.~ _.' .~ .. ,' .. . .. ..
~ J~~ ~~~~'~ X ~ · ~'_ ' .' . · · · ' · ' ' · ·
~.~.~5~.'..'../g~ ..'~&
--)?;. . . ......' ...
~-~xm )." .' ."."..'..' .' ' .'' "..' .' .' .''." .' .' .'
~'. '-~' ' ~,2 ,,~,. ' · ' · . ' · · '
~-'.~,~, ~ ~''' ........ .. ..'..'
METER).~,
,.~; ;.1,~¥..4,-
.ow CENS,TY RES. GPA'88--1
MED. DENSITY RES. ~ CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL
HIGH DENSITY RES.
soo AND ADMINISTRATIVE
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
o ~ooo COMMERCIAL
VISITOR COMMERCIAL
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT A~
EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-5/31/88
station Bonita Centre East
~o
\ sfa
\\ ~ R-3-P-,
\ Bonita Centre ,~
\ sfd '~ '" ~
sfd
sfd
vac //~ sfd
vac CALLE MESITA ':
SUBJECT SITE
2.09 ACRESI
~ .. ~ vac
va? j~ sfd
sfd vac /
vac
sfd ~
i-E-P
D
EXISTING ZONING GPA-88- 1
~;~ CHANGE FRoM MEDIUM DENSITY
I. ANO USE; ~ RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL
50 too AND ADMINISTRATIVE
o. 200 COMMERCIAL
EXHIBIT
City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-5/31188
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Business Center
PROJECT LOCATION: 3956 Otay Lakes Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: Robert E. Crane and John D. Dauz
CASE NO: IS-88-38 DATE: May 16, 1988
A. Project Settin9
The project site is located on the west side of Otay Lakes Road on the
north side of the San Diego Gas and Electric substation at the corner of
Allen School Lane and Otay Lakes Road. The irregular shaped lot 114,445
sq. ft. in area is lower in elevation that the surrounding terrain. The
property currently contains a residence, horse corrals, and the retail
sales of hay and equestrian oriented products.
Adjoining land uses include a shopping center to the north of the
property, single-family residential uses to the west of the site, other
residential uses across Otay Lakes Road to the east of the property, and
the San Diego Gas and Electric substation to the south of the site. Otay
Lakes Road adjacent to the property currently has an average daily traffic
count of 16,680 trips.
The existing on-site drainage facilities are minor and are not adequate to
serve the project. The Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith study of drainage
in the Chula Vista area indicates that under a developed condition, 747
cubic feet of water per second would enter the property from the south.
.The same volume of water would be discharged to the north of the project
site.
Standard development requirements implemented prior to construction
include the following:
1. A grading plan will be required for the project with an evaluation of
off-site as well as on-site drainage facilities.
2. Otay Lakes Road adjacent to the project site shall be developed to
major street standards which include but are not limited to:
a. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for street purposes to Prime
Arterial standards to allow future widening of Otay Lakes Road.
b. Installation of AC paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk, relocation
of existing power poles and overhead lines to approved
locations, street lights, and transitions to existing off-site
improvements.
3. The developer shall provide one public and one on-site fire hydrant,
and two AIOBC rated fire extinguishers, as required by the uniform
fire code and the City Fire Marshal. ,~.~{f~
city of chula vista planning department CIW OF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a request for an amendment to the General
Plan from Low Density Residential uses to Professional and Administrative
Offices. A companion rezoning request from R-1 to C-O-P zoning is
anticipated.
In addition the project involves demolition of existing structures and
construction of three structures totaling 23,700 sq. ft. Two of the
buildings would be designed for office uses, with the third to be designed
as a bank building. A total of 107 parking spaces would be provided on
site. -
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
This project involves an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to permit proposed office commercial uses, in addition to a companion
change in zoning. Plans would also have to be reviewed for conformance to
the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Soils
A soils investigation performed on the site by Santa Fe Soils Inc. on
May 6, 1985, identified the presence of loose existing fill soils and
loose underlying topsoils and alluvium which presents the potential for
the occurrence of liquifaction on site albeit a low potential since no
water table was found on the site to a depth of 25 feet, and the loose
fill and alluvial soils found are primarily well graded sands and gravelly
sands.
However, the report outlines two methods for mitigating the potential
problem: (1) the loose fills and underlying soils could be removed to
firm natural ground and replaced as compacted fill, and (2) structures
~ i~-b6'supported on a concrete, cast-in-place, pier and grade beam
system with structural floor slabs. Mitigation of the problem of loose
fill soils and alluvium are required prior to issuance of a grading permit
or building permits as standard development regulations.
Drainage
The Engineering Department has indicated that off-site and on-site
drainage facilities may not be adequate to serve the project in their
existing state and present site plans do not contain enough detail to
determine the adequacy of proposed facilities. However, standard
regulations require that a grading plan be approved for the project
guaranteeing implementation of adequate drainage facilities. Submission
of a grading plan will initiate the requirement for further environmental
review at that time.
Aesthetics
The project is located adjacent to a scenic route (Otay Lakes Road) which
requires increased setbacks and landscaping, and reviewed by the Design
Review Committee via the Design Review Manual and the City Landscape
E. F~ndings of Insignificant Impact
The proposed commercial project does not have a potential to degrade the
quality or curtail the diversity of the environment because of its
adaptabili~ to the surrounding urbanized area.
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals due to compliance with
requirements for an off-site water drainage system.
This project does not have environmental impacts that are individually
limited, but accumulatively considerable since all potential adverse
environmental effects have been mitigated below a level of significance.
This project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings due to the project's
conformance With standard development requirements which prevent adverse
environmental effects from offsite flooding.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Jay Olivas, Planning Intern
Documents
Drainage Basin Maps, Chula Vista, California
Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith, 1964
......... Chula Vista General Plan
~.~.. Title 19 (Zoning) Municipal Code
Soil Investigation For Proposed Kindercare Learning Center
3956 Otay Lakes Rd., Santa Fe Soils Inc. 1985
This determination, that the project will not have any 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 5205P
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review lect on. CHULA VISTA
! . ,.~ ~ FOR OFFICE
" " " Case No.
", Fee Z/~.
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE BONI?A BUSINESS CEN'rv.~
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 3956 Otay
Lakes Road ( see at~m~hed legal description )
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 593-090-16
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Commercial office buildin9 r 2 stories ,
containing 21 ~550 square feet
4. Name of Applicant Robert E. Crane and John D. Dauz
Address 4045 Bonita Road , Suite 103 Phone (619) 475-5555
City Bonita State Ca. Zip 92002
5. Name of Preparer/Agent (sang, as above)
Address Phone
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant "same"
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision X 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 X 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
m 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 114,445 or acreage 2.63
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
Proposed street dedication for OtayLakes Rd.(31,460 S.F.)
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 Co~nercial office buildinq
b. Floor area 21,550 S.F. Height of structure(s) 2 stories
c. Type of construction used in the structure wood frame construction
w/red brick and glass finished exterior.
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Access frcma 30'
wide driveway +1050' south of Bonita Road .
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 73 spaces
f. Estimated number of employees per shift ~ 42 , Number of
shifts one lotal ~42 (4.66 ay. work areas per ea. of 6 (see#l)
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
+30 customers (Office Building contains 6 lease spaces, it is
estimated that 5 clients will visit each lease area each day
Mon.-Fri.).
#1 lease areas and t.5 ~mployees per work area.)
- 3 -
h. [~timated range of service area and basis of estimate The additional
jobs will be filled by local residents, clients could come in from ?
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings All brininess
shall be conducted within the proposed builcling.
j. Hours of operation 7:00 a.m.-6:OOp.m. Mon.-Fri.
k. Type of exterior lighting Low pressure sodium lighting(per light ~]?]_Z-¥~f_?-3
p~llution ordinance.)
4. If pro~e~t is other than residential, commercial or industrial
compl~_this section.
Type of project ................................
b. ~Typeof facilities provided .......................
c. Square feet of enclosed structures .................
H~ight of structure(s) - maximum .....................
e. 'Ul~fmate occupancy load of project ...................
~f. 4~umber 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.
none
k. ~s any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated yes
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfi]led, how many cubic yards of
earth wi]] be excavated? cut = 18o c.Y.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? Fill = 9,680 C.Y.
C. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) wi]] be graded? 70,000 S.F.
d. ~What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 3 Feet
Average depth of cut o.] Fnn~
Maximum depth of fill 9 Feet
~ Average depth of fill ~.~ Feet
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Fluorescent lighting will be ~ed
office machines (~lec.) - ~'
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) none ( no natural space exists )
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Office type employment
will be provided.
6. Will hi§h]y flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? no
7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, wi]] be generated by
the project? with anestimated +__30 custc~aers per day , +--30.
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: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fi]] slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
within the proposed 2 4' wide street dedication~' Relocation of existing
power poles, 33' of additional street pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter,
sewer lateral and water service.
D. DESCRIPTION OF EN¥IRONMENTAt $£11ING
]. ~eo]ogy
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? none
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? yes
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or ad3acent to the
site? yes (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
tab]e? No water table was encountered,(see soils report).
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? yes, an existing 72" C.I.P.P. runs along
the easterly propertyline, +_42'west of the centerline of Otay Lakes
Road.
-5-
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
no
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
~ - adjacent areas? no
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Site presently drains from south to north alonq the westerly
side of the site, proposed development will do the same, however
3. Noise
small (18"sq.) area drains will be required.
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? no
- 4. Biology _~
-~a~ r'I-s]%~e project site in a natural or partially natural state?
no
' '~P.' In6icate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. Two dozen De~x~r trees
~ ~ oak t_res will be removed by the project. ( 4" - 24" ),
5. Past Use of the Land
· a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? none
Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? none
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. One house, Horse boarding stabels and corrals,
and a large red barn with a hay feed shelter structure.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Sb~opping C~enter
South Single Fmmily Hon~s
East Single Fmmily H(~s
West Single FarailyHc~es
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) one
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) Horse Boardinq Stables.
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
The proposed BON~I'A BUSINESS C~l~'l'~ will be on the southerly ~315' of
the lot. The northerly portion of the lot is to remain "as-is" under an
existing lease agreement (the lease agree~-nt re~ins in affect for
approxin%~tely 5 ymmrs). The large red ba~n and hay feed shelter
structure exist on this portion of the site.
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
d~onsu¥cant ]or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein~contafned 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.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
Case No. ./~ ~-~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~-I
North
South
East
West 2- ~
Does the projec~ conform to t~e current zoning. ~F) -~PP~m/
Y/Pm,
2. General Plan land use
~esignation on site: ~/~Ou~ .)~)~.,/~J'-(V ~F~&(-L"~-~t
North C~ ~tr~-) - ~,~ ~ ~r(;' ~, ~
South ,'(0~*~ h~/-ly ~ ~ide.,~ {
East £~,~j ~h e~ s;~¥
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? /~)o
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent.
to an area so designated? J)O
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to prot6ct or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
lamd~ r~?6 _
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as show~nnthe Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acre~e ~equirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are ne~[~s~ry to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to//~%vide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
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 /~&--
Sr. High
4. Aes[he~cs
Does the p~o~ec~ contain lea[utes ~h~ch could be cons[~ued [o be a~ a
var~ance~f~omnearby features due ~o bu~k, fo~m, ~ex~u~e o~ co~o~?
~. Energ~ Consump¢ion
ProvJde Che esdm~ted consumption b~ Che proposed project of Che follo~Jng
~ou~s:
Electricity (per year) ~l
Natural Gas (per year) ~ '
_ ~L~t~r ]per day) //S~
Director ot Planing or'Rep esentative Da~?
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? PO
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
~ c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? k)oq~ '-
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? /~)//~
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? /~ ~]-~'~.~-. ~ ~/~ >~_q ~£./~.. ~
' J '
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?
Before After
A.D.T. [~'0 /~{((
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? ~df
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?~ ~
Liquefaction? ( ~lm~ ~ ~¢~
Landslide or slippage? ~-~ ~d~/~ .
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any ~nt~cipated adyerse soil conditions on the projec~
site? (}~~ ~o ~//~
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 %o justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? ~
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 /F X 18.3 :
HOx (NO2) # X 20.0 :
Par ticul ares ~f X 1.5 :
Sulfur ~r X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per d~y?
Solid l~-0 f/~/c::~"f. Liquid · I ~-bZ
/
~hat is the local;ion and size. of.~xis, tjng sewer ,lines. on or adjacent
to the site? ~ ~' V'~__A'/ ~.-/m~a~r-q ff-p
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
sign'ificant 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
C-ty 'k gi~er o~ R p~se ' e
-13-
Case No. IS-88-38
FIRE D£PARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Departm~t'~ estJmate.d reaction time? ~_~x~/~.~2
/
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the_~rop~sed facility without an increase .in equipment
· ' or personnel? _/~/~' ' ..
· Remarks ....
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Address ~q~ /~-~]~an File No.__ Checker ~ Date
Type Constr. ~ O~cupancy. No. Stories Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
FPB-29
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCREIIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Robert E. Crane John D. Dauz
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Carl & Lillian Berg
Robert E. Crane
John D. Dauz
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes__ No XX If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trus~, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) _
Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P Robert E. Crane
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N - Consideration to rezone 1.78 acres located
between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue
extended from R-1 to R-3-P-12 - San Diego County
Housing Authority
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a request by the County Housing Authority to rezone 1.59
acres located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue
extended from R-1 (single family residential/7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot
size) to R-3-P-12 {Multiple family residential/12 dwelling units per
acre/precise plan) in order to construct 18 units of low-rent public
housing. The staff has included within the proposed rezoning from R-1 to
R-3-P-12 a strip of property measuring 20 ft. by 421 ft. (0.19 acres)
which adjoins the northerly boundary of the 1.59-acre site.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the City Council action for additional information {see page 2
prior action) continue this matter until August 10, 1988.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North I-L Light industrial
South R-1 Vacant
East R-1 Single family
West M-H-P Mobile home park
Existing site characteristics.
The property consists of 1.78 acres located approximately 800 ft. north of
"C" Street on a 30 ft.-wide partially improved extension of Third Avenue.
The westerly 3/4's of the site is generally level and at the same grade as
a mobile home park to the west, the Sweetwater Industrial Park to the
north, and vacant property to the south. The easterly 1/4 of the site
consists of 2:1 slopes which rise some 55 ft. to a single family dwelling
at the top of the hill.
The County Housing Authority site is part of the Las Brisas Del Mar
tentative subdivision map which authorized the 1.59-acre parcel as well as
four standard single family lots at the top of the hill to the east with
access off Del Mar Avenue {the final map has not yet been submitted). The
remaining 0.19 acres is a 20 ft. x 421 ft. strip of land abutting the
northerly boundary of the site which is owned by the mobile home park to
the west.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 2
General plan.
The General Plan designates the site for High Density Residential (13-26
du/ac). The line of the slope running from north to south generally
represents the General Plan demarcation line in this area between High
Density Residential on the west and Medium Density Residential (4-12
du/ac) on the east.
Prior application.
In late 1987, the City considered an application to rezone the property
from R-1 to R-3-P-21 in order to construct 35 apartment units in one
2-story and two 3-story buildings. The staff and Commission had
recommended approval, but the City Council denied the request on the basis
the project was too dense, and directed staff to return with a report on
the appropriate intensity, bulk and pattern for development in the area.
The City Council considered the report on June 14, 1988, and concluded
that more information was needed on traffic issues facing this general
area. The City Engineer indicated that a report could be returned to the
City Council by July 26; therefore, it is suggested that this item be
continued until August 10, 1988.
Proposed project.
The precise plan shows a total of 18 units in six 3-plex buildings, plus a
meeting/laundry building and adjoining play area and tot lot, all arranged
around the perimeter of the site with a central parking area containing 40
off-street spaces. The majority of the easterly slope will be retained as
open space, and 12,000 cu. yds. of imported fill will be used to raise the
balance of the site above the lO0-year flood level.
The project will provide low-rent public housing for families. Sixteen of
the 18 units are 3-bedroom/2-bath two-story townhouse units with 1,170 sq.
ft. of floor area. The remaining two units are 3-bedroom/2-bath
single-story handicap units with 1,098 sq. ft. of floor area. The
applicant has stated that the units may have to be downsized to 925 sq.
ft. in order to meet HUD's design requirements, but this would not change
the elevations or site plan significantly. The meeting/laundry building
contains just over 800 sq. ft. of floor area.
Third Avenue would be improved for a distance of some 800 ft. from "C"
Street to the southerly boundary of the site in order to provide access to
the project. Since this is a narrow 30-ft.-wide right-of-way, the street
will provide a 22-ft.-wide roadway with no on-street parking and sidewalk
on one side only. The 20'x421' strip of land abutting the northerly
boundary of the site is separately owned and is not part of the project
plans.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 3
D. ANALYSIS
The site is designated on the General Plan for High Density multiple
family use and is located at a much lower elevation than single family
areas to the east -- the closest dwelling is located 80 ft. distant and 50
ft. above the developable portion of the site. The property is physically
more closely associated with the industrial park to the north, the mobile
home park to the west, and apartment units to the south (at the northeast
corner of "C" Street and Third Avenue extended) which are developed at 29
du/ac.
In terms of density, the request for 18 units on 1.59 acres results in a
density of approximately 12 du/ac, which is nearly one-half the density
proposed with the prior application, and one-third the 32 du/ac density
which could be authorized under the existing General Plan designation.
The precise plan has also addressed Council's earlier concern with bulk
and scale by using seven structures at a maximum height of 2-stories,
rather than one 2-story and two 3-story structures as proposed with the
previous application.
The precise plan is subject to review and approval of the Design Review
Committee. Staff has concerns with the architectural elevations of the
buildings, and also with the relationship of the dwellings to the parking
area which dominates the central portion of the site. In early
discussions with the applicant, we have suggested that the architect
consider establishing a central courtyard and relocate the parking to the
north of the site to act as a buffer from the light industrial park. A
public cul-de-sac will also have to be provided at the end of Third Avenue.
The staff has included the 0.19 acres of adjoining land to the north
within the rezoning in order not to create a remainder strip of R-1
zoning. The applicant has been unsuccessful in negotiating for this piece
with the owners of the mobile home park. If this 20'x421' strip of land
is not incorporated into this project, it will likely remain vacant and
virtually unusable. However, the rezoning would create a consistent
zoning pattern and boundary between the multiple family and light
industrial to the north.
For the reasons noted above, we recommend approval of the rezoning from
R-1 to R-3-P-12.
WPC 5273P/O837P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) Planned Unit Development PUD 88-1M; request for a
planned unit development to construct 22 townhome$ on
one lot for low income public housin~ at 778-82 and
794-98 Dorothy Street County of San Diego Housin~
Authority.
(b) Conditional Use Permit PCC 88-52M; request to
construct 22 townhome units for low income publi~
housing at 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street.
A. BACKGROUND
The County of San Diego Housing Authority is proposing to develop 22 units
in ll duplexes on 2.47 acres located on the north side of Dorothy Street
between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard. The proposed project lies
within an RV-15 residential zone, as well as the Low/Medium Density
residential land use designation outlined by the Montgomery Specific
Plan. The project is intended to provide additional units for the HUD-
sponsored low-income public housing program.
An Initial Study, IS-88-75M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
May 20, 1988. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988, voted
5-2 to recommend approval of the request for a Planned Unit Development
and major use permit to construct 22 townhomes at 778-82 and 794-98
Dorothy Street, as contained in the staff recommendation below. The
recommendation for approval included both the site plan for ll duplexes on
the project site and the alternate site plan for 22 units arranged in
three, four and five plexes.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-75M.
?. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PUD 88-1M for a planned unit
development for 22 townhomes at 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street,
granting an exception to allow construction without subdividing the
property into 11 lots.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 2
3. Based on the findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt
a motion to approve the request, PCC 88-52M to construct 22 units at
778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain approval of a parcel map in order to separate an existing
residential dwelling from the parcel and create the lot
configuration shown on the proposed site plan.
b. Construction of greater than 18 dwelling units on the 2.47 acre
site shall require approval of a density bonus request under the
State of California Density Bonus Program (Government Code
Section 65915).
c. The developer shall provide adequate turnaround for fire
vehicles and on-site fire hydrants, type and locations subject
to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal.
d. Project design, including fencing and signage, and any future
alterations or additions are subject to review and approval by
the Design Review Committee prior to application for building
permits.
e. Fencing along all interior sideyards shall be solid wood six
feet in height, the type to be determined by the Design Review
Committee.
f. Street improvements required along the frontage of the property
shall include but not be limited to: two feet of additional
street dedication.
g. Grading on site shall not result in slope banks greater than 3:1.
h. Parking on site shall meet all the requirements of Section 6758
of Chapter 19.70 of the zoning ordinance.
i. The site shown in Exhibit A attached shall constitute the
approved site plan for the project; however, upon confirmation
of a determination by HUD that the site plan using duplexes is
not acceptable, the site plan shown in Exhibit B shall
constitute the approved site plan for the project.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North RV-15 Single-family residences, duplexes
South RV-15 Single-family residences, duplexes
East RV-15 Single-family residences, duplexes
West RV-15 Single-family residences, duplexes
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 3
Existing site characteristics
The project site consists of two rectangular parcels 2.81 acres in size
with four single-family dwellings and five out buildings present on site.
The dwelling on the west side of the property would be placed in a
separate lot through the parcel map process and is not part of the
proposed project. The remainder of the site to be developed totals 2.47
acres. The site slopes gradually towards the rear of the property into a
drainage swale on the north property boundary.
Proposed use
The proposed project would consist of demolition of existing structures
and construction of 22 units in 11 duplexes, 20 of which are proposed as
two-story townhomes and two units as single-story handicap units. A
50-space parking lot would serve the project, along with a hard court play
area, a tot lot, laundry room and meeting room. Each unit would be
provided with an 80 sq. ft. patio in addition to common open space areas.
The proposed site plan is included in Exhibit A.
The site plan proposing ll duplexes is the one preferred by the County
Housing Authority for this site. However, HUD requirements usually
discourage duplex construction in favor of buildings with three or more
attached units due to economic reasons. The County Housing Authority has
requested a waiver of HUD requirements in order to construct duplexes;
however, should the waiver be denied, the Housing Authority is requesting
that the alternative site plan shown in Exhibit B be approved subject to
the same conditions of approval contained in the staff report. The
alternate site plan contains the same number of units with the same
general design, but groups them into clusters of three, four, and five
units to meet HUD requirements.
D. ANALYSIS
The zoning ordinance presently in effect in Montgomery contains provisions
for construction of planned developments, which are defined as integrated
developments constructed in accordance with a detailed comprehensive plan
which identifies the location of structures, the circulation pattern,
parking facilities, open space, utilities, together with a program for
maintaining common areas and facilities. Many of the standard zoning
regulations such as the minimum lot size and building types can be
modified to fit a more individualized plan in the planned development
process.
The proposed 22 unit project on the north side of Dorothy Street requires
approval of a planned development permit and conditional use permit
because the project involves 11 duplexes on one lot in the RV-15
residential zone. Under normal circumstances, building type requirements
restrict development to one duplex per legal lot, so that a subdivision
into ll lots would have to take place to achieve 22 units.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 4
The planned development request in place of a subdivision takes into
account the specific site characteristics and provides private and common
open space and amenities which might not be included in a subdivision of
this small scale.
Staff has reviewed the proposed 22 unit townhome project and recommends
approval of the requested planned development and CUP subject to the
conditions of approval previously listed.
The townhome design in duplexes keeps the project in scale with the
surrounding single-family character of the neighborhood; placement of the
two single-story handicapped units at the front of the project along
Dorothy Street aids in stepping the overall height of the project back
from the street.
Approximately 60% of the project area is open space, 30% of which would be
usable common area. In addition each unit would be provided 80 square
feet of private patio area. A hard court play area, tot lot, laundry room
and meeting room are other amenities provided.
The Montgomery Specific Plan permits a maximum of 18 dwelling units on the
2.47 acre site. The County Housing Authority proposes 22, as shown in the
site plan, for a net density of 9 du/ac. In order to construct the units
requested the applicant would need to utilize the State Low and Moderate
Income Density Bonus Program which permits a minimum of a 25% increase in
density in exchange for reservation of units for low and moderate income
tenants. Since this is a public housing project for low income tenants
the rent restrictions under the State Density Bonus Program would
automatically be met.
The conditions of approval proposed by staff outline requirements for
design review, and fencing, street and fire protection requirements. A
parcel map is required to legally separate the single-family home on the
west side of the project site from the proposed project.
In summary, the proposed planned residential development is designed at a
scale which compliments the surrounding neighborhood while providing low
income public housing, and as such it is recommended for approval.
E. FINDINGS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
1. The approval of 11 duplexes on 2.47 acres without subdivision into
individual lots is necessary in order to carry out the intent of the
RV-15 zoning standards while providing adequate open space and
recreational amenities.
2. The granting of the building type exception still provides for
adequate spacing between buildings, parking and open space and
therefore does not impair the intent of any requirement of the RV-15
zone, or the Low/Medium Density land use designation for the
Montgomery Specific Plan.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 5
3. The granting of the building type exception does not result in
substantial detriment to the subject property or any adjacent
properties in that the scale of the development remains in keeping
with the low density residential character of the neighborhood.
4. The authorization of the building type exception to the RV-15 zone
will not adversely affect the Montgomery Specific Plan.
F. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed public housing project will provide well designed low
income housing which complements the residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The 22-unit public housing project provides adequate parking
facilities and maintains all setbacks required by the underlying
zone, and therefore will not be detrimental to persons residing
within the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
Except for the exception to the building type regulations authorized
by approval of a planned unit development, the proposed public
housing project complies with the regulations of Chapter 19.70 of
Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The granting of this permit for 22 townhomes on 2.47 acres will not
adversely affect the Montgomery Specific Plan.
WPC 5221P/2652P
I
I ~
ADA I.
I
F-T-1
I ~
)ROTHY ST. DOROTHY ST,
I
I
ST.
CouN'f'f OF 5AM
Tow t,,1 HOM P_.~
negativ= declaration
PROJECT NAME: Dorothy Street Public Housing
PROJECT LOCATION: 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: County of San Diego Housing Authority
CASE NO: IS-88-75M DATE: May 20, 1988
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of 2.47 acres of land located at 778-82 and
794-98 Dorothy Street in the Montgomery Community of the City of Chula
Vista.
Existing on the site are a total of three single-family residences housing
eight individuals along with five out-structures. All eight of these
structures will be removed. Five individuals living on the site will
receive relocation benefits.
A drainage swale exists on the north side of the site.
Because the site has a maximum slope of 18%, a grading permit will be
required. A soils report has indicated that the site contains expansive
soils. This fact may require revision of the current project plans.
Surrounding land use consists of variable family residential on all sides.
B. Project Description
The project consists of the removal of on-site structures and the
construction of 22 townhomes, each housing two three-bedroom units. An
additional structure will house a laundry and meeting room. A total of 50
parking spaces will serve the project which is expected to house 90-99
residents.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project site, as governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, would allow
for 18 units on 2.47 acres. However, the project will be constructed
under the California State Density Bonus Program for Low and Moderate
Income Housing. Under this program as many as 22 units may exist on the
property.
Dorothy Street is classified as a residential street. A 2-foot street
dedication along the front of the property will be required.
Additionally, existing overhead electrical lines shall be undergrounded.
The project conforms with the RV-15 residential zone given the area in the
zoning ordinance.
city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF
~ environmental review section CHULA VISTA
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Schools
The project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School
District and school fees will be imposed at the time of building permit
issuance.
Fire Protection
The project will require the installation of fire hydrants. The existing
water line to the project is 4" cast iron and will not provide the
required fire flow to these hydrants. A water line of 6" to 8" will
therefore be necessary. The Fire Marshal has also indicated that the
current project plan provides inadequate turn-around area for fire
apparatus and that revisions will be required to meet fire codes.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The proposed low income housing development is designed at a bulk and
scale in keeping with the single-family character of the
neighborhood, and will not result in the degradation of the
environment.
2. The project will provide a public need for low-income family housing
and will not result in adverse long-term environmental effects.
3. The 22 unit development will not result in significant cumulative
environmental effects, as all potential adverse effects are mitigated
to a level below significance.
4. The project will not result in significant noise impacts that will
adversely affect human beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Clifton Largess, Project Manager
2. Documents
Montgomery Specific Plan
Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review lection. CHULAVISTA
This determination, that the project will not have any 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
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 521 9P
city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF
environmental review section. CHUb& VISTA
~t)R OFFICE USE
Case No .__~'
Fe e_~/~7.
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
City of Chula Vista Acrpnt~ i~,,~Date
Appl,cation Form
A. BACKGROUND
l. PROJECT TITLE Dorthy Street Public Housing
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
778-82 and 794-98 Dorthy Street
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 622-07l_19_2n
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construct 20 D/U of public housing
for larqe~ families (all 3 bedrooms~
4. Name of Applicant County of San Dieqo Housinq Authority
Address 7917 Ostrow Street Phone 6q4-aRl?
C, ty san Dieqo State CA Zip q?lll
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Clifton Larqess
Address 7917 Ostrow Street Phone 694-4812
City San'DJ.ego State ..CA Zip 92111
Relation to Applicant Pro~ect Manaqer
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 . X Grading Permit -' Design Review Board
.~ Specific Plan -.X Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
. ~ Cond. Use Permit - X Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map X Arch. Elevations X Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan --~'Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
X Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
X 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
E~,' 3 {Rev. 12/82)
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage lnq:344 or acreage '2.5l
If land area to be ded$cated~ state acreage and purpose..
1325 sq. ft. (.030 ac.) street widening
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family X
Multi family Townhouse X Condominium
b. Number of structures and height~''lO two sto~y residential blds.
maximum heiqht of 35' and l one story community bldq.
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 20 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 7.96
e. ~Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 8.06
f. Estimated project population 90
§. Estimated sale or rental price range Rent $200/unit
h. Square footage of floor area(s) 1175 sq. ft. typical ll00 sq. ft. handicapped
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 18.7%
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 56
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 16.6%
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure{s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of
shifts Total
9- Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Hours of operation
k. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section. _-
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. tteight 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.
None
2. is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated__
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? l?nO c,¥~
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 1260 c.y,
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 3R:G76 ~ ft.
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 2" parking'lot
Average depth of cut ~2' parkino lot
Maximum depth of fill ~5' buildin~ pad
Average depth of fill ,~' buildinq pad
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) gas FAU heating, gas boiler
domestic~hot water, gas range, refrigerator
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) 70,668 sq. ft.
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. None
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? No
7. How many estimated automobile trips, pfr day, will be generated by
the project? '160
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: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Extension of water main from Industrial Blvd. to project site.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? in process
(If yes, please attach) -
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? in process
(If yes, please attach)
2. .Hydrology
Are any of the f611owing features present on or adjacent to the
site? yes (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? None
b. Are there any watercourses or drainaqe improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Drainage swaTe in rear of site.
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
Yes, there is a doublp 4' hy 5' hnx drainage structure west of this site that accepts water from
the drainage course in the rear of the site and conducts it under Interstate 5 to San Diego Bay.
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Site drainage to Dorth¥ St. and existing swale in rear
of site. Concrete swale on slope bank may be required.
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? NO
4. Biology
a. is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
Real slope bank is in partially natural state.
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. Ten 4" to 12" diameter
mature trees,.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? No
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? No
6. .Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. 3 SFR~ 5 OUT buildings~ 8 structure~ to be
removed,
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North SFR and Duplex
South SFR and Duplex
East SFR and Duplex
West SFR and Duplex
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, ho~ many?) 8
Five individuals will be receiving relocation benefits.
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? IIf so,
how many and what type?) No
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
This project is an infill construction in established urban
residential area. The project will be developed under Planned
Development Permit to eliminate requirement for separate legal
lots for each duplex unit.
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
I, Clifl~,~n~R. Largess
Project Manager 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 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.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case NO. ~-]-- ~-~/
CITY DATA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~--~
North n ~
South ,, , ~
East 1 ~ ~,
West ~,
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use '~//zg~/~ -~
designation on site: 7~
North /~ / ! ~ ~
South /~ {~ /~
East /4 //
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated~for conservation 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 prote'ct-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 curren~_rk acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~S)~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to T~e
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capaci~ From Project
Elementary ' ' ~d~u~ '(~C~ ~
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.) ~ ,j~ ~Fm~ /~ ~s}¢~ ~u,~.
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) q~,~O0 ~,~-~
Natural Gas (per year) ~'00 ~ ~ mS
Water (per day) I1,,~0~ ~ I~0~$
6. Remarks:
- 10 -
' Case ¢t': fffYI
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and desqr, iption of e_xisting on-site
drainage facilities? _'~/~o~ =y~ ~7' ~.
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
g. Are they adequate to serve _
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? ~) 'z-
~~ Before After
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.
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction? J, JO ~ ~,~-
Landslide or slippage?~ot~
b. Is an engineering ~olo~ 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?
~"~.,aa~,~ s~/~ ·
c. ts a soils report ,ecessary? ,.~+~,-m~
S. 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 tojusti~ 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 ~(~ X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons # X 18.3 =
ilOx (NO2) * X 20.0 :
Particulates ~' X 1.5 :
Sul fur /, X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~7..~ /~/~7 Liquid · ~'~,~00
What is the loc_ation~Dd size of existing sewer, lines on or adjacent
to the s~te? ~,~. ~P .~,-~'//~ .~o~.,~,~-'4 *'~
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.)
Remark s/necessary mi ti gati on measures
City ~g~neer or.Representa~3ve l~ate /
Case No. /_~-~2~" 7J----
FIRE DEPARTMENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? /,~"~,/~t '
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire "
protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment
or personnel? ~f · ' ~
Project Name Public Housing Date S-12-88
Project Address 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street
To: Planning 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:
1. Project will reqiore the installation of fire hydrants.
2, Project has inadequate turnaround area for fire apparatus.
.% '~ - . '~ ~
F
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA. CALIFO.NIA 92011
(619) 691-5553 ~ E C E i V E D
ChULA VISTA, ~.u ~.,x,~,-
16, 1988
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
Chula Vista Planning Department
Public Service Building
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
RE: Construction of 20 units for low income public housing
??8-82 and ?94-98 Dorothy Street
The above projects will have an impact on the Sweetwater
Union High School District. School fees will be imposed at
the time of building permit request.
Respectfully, --
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sly
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to.purchase)
Donald & Amalia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murphree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to purchase)
Donald & 2~alia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murhpree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
2. If any person identified pursuant t~ (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 interes~ in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant .to 1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more' than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc--6-~-i-~l club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or Other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages asnecessary..~..~_.~ ~-~~-~-- ~ ;ary.~~~ ~ ~___~' .
Signature of app~icant/~~~
WPC 0701P _.Gabriel G. Rodriguez, Director f
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
Housing and Community Development
~ s13~l!q3~¥ SNOI.~.V^=I'I=1
~ ~ml~ "~'~ ~ .LINfl Q~ddVOIQNVH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEIVENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to.purchase)
Donald & Amalia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murphree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to purchase)
Donald & ~alia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murhpree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of a~l individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interes~ in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant .to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Itave you had mor~ than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or Other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.~ ~ :. ~ ~ ~_~. ~
S,gnature of app~cant/~~
WPC 0701P Gabriel G. Rodriguez, Director f
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
Housing and Community Development
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Major Use Permit PCC-87-39M; request to maintain an
existing R.V. storage lot now operating illegally at
lq83 Broadway - Broadway Equities Ltd. (Continued)
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Broadway Equities Ltd. established an R.V. storage lot two
years ago without obtaining a major use permit from the County. Upon
annexation to the City of Chula Vista, zoning enforcement personnel
received complaints that storage contained within this lot was unsightly.
The owners were notified that the lot was established illegally and that a
major use permit must be obtained or the use must be abated. The storage
lot is located on San Diego Gas and Electric utility property on the east
side of Broadway, south of Palomar Street.
The 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 their 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 to implement partial improvements in exchange for
interim approval of the major use permit.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988,
considered the alternate proposals referred by Council along with
testimony from the appellent and from San Diego Gas and Electric. The
Committee voted 7-0 to reaffirm their prior recommendation for denial of
the major use permit as contained in the staff recommendation below.
An Initial Study, IS-8?-56M of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
May 22, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings contained in the Analysis section of this report,
reaffirm the prior recommendation for denial of the major use permit to
maintain an RV storage lot at 1483 Broadway and set an abatement period
for the use to cease operation and vacate the property within 120 days, (4
months).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 2
C. ANALYSIS
Staff's position regarding the major use permit application has been
consistent in recommending denial of the permit and setting a final
abatement date. The major use permit application is not consistent with
the Montgomery Specific Plan Planning and Design Proposals (page 20) which
are shown in Exhibit A attached. Staff has been opposed to this
commercial use of the SDG&E easement east of Broadway, where an open space
system adjacent to the residential community is contemplated. Carrying
that open space out to Broadway is an important visual as well as
functional linkage.
However, prior to the Council hearing, the applicant submitted alternate
proposals in which they would be allowed to remain for an interim period
in exchange for implementation of specified improvements at the site.
Those proposals and staff's response were presented to Council under three
options. Those options are: 1) deny the permit and set a final abatement
date, 2) allow continuance for an interim period with partial
improvements, and 3) allow continuance for a longer period with full
improvements. Discussion of the option are as follows:
Option 1
Deny the permit and set a final abatement date.
Option 2
Allow the existing operation of the business to continue until completion
of the special study with partial improvement (landscape requirements).
This option would allow for the implementation portion of the Montgomery
Specific Plan to further define long term land uses appropriate within
this section of the SDG&E right-of-way. At this point, we are not
optimistic that RV storage would be considered an appropriate use under
the goals and objectives now set for the area. In addition, there is a
fairness question. The Planning Commission heard testimony from an owner
of an RV storage yard within the vicinity of Broadway Equities, who stated
that they were required as part of their use permit to pave their yard and
provide solid screen fencing, and that Broadway Equities should be
required to do the same if they are allowed to remain. The applicant
would like seven years to amortize the $12,000 cost of landscape
improvements; staff would recommend two years (the business has been in
operation for two years already illegally), if this option is selected.
This option, as proposed by the applicant would not allow for adequate
fire protection systems to be installed on the lot.
O~ti on 3
Approve with full improvement condition requirements for a specified time
period. These conditions are as follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 3
a. Paving within the storage area.
b. Adequate solid fencing on all sides of the lot, since the lot is
visible from Broadway, Palomar Street, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park,
and the retail auto center adjacent to the lot.
c. Installation of three fire hydrants on site accompanied by adequate
water supply.
d. Landscaping along the Broadway frontage consistent with the City
Landscape Manual and approved by the City Landscape Architect.
e. A limitation on the height of storage items.
f. Sign subject to Design Review Committee approval.
If the Commission chooses to follow this alternate and approve the major
use permit for a short period of time, subject to the conditions listed,
the yard could be brought into conformance with City standards. The
applicant has requested 20 years to amortize the estimated $91,000 full
improvement cost. The Montgomery ordinance sets a time limit for major
use permits within utility right-of-ways at no more than 10 years. Given
the uncertainties regarding the implementation of the plan, three to four
years would appear to be more appropriate. However, staff is not
recommending this alternative since a grant of approval accompanied by
provision of permanent improvements sets the development pattern and
precludes some options for providing an open space corridor as discussed
within the Plan; and findings would need to be made that the RV storage
use would be considered an appropriate use under the Parks and Open Space
designation set by the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Since the applicant's proposals were not presented to the Montgomery
Planning Committee and the Committee had not had the opportunity to
comment on the options, the matter was referred back to the Committee and
Planning Commission for further input.
The site plan submitted by the applicant showing landscaping along the
frontage of the lot and street improvements reflects the second option
discussed. Full improvements under Option 3 would include the addition of
solid fencing along the perimeter of the lot, paving, and installation of
fire hydrants.
D. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general
well being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use is in conflict with the adopted specific plan
for the Montgomery area. The proposed alterations to the
existing use are inadequate to shield unsightly views of the use
from the vicinity, and will not contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 4
2. That such use wilt not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity.
Lack of effective visual screening and provision of adequate
fire protection systems would be detrimental to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposed use does not meet regulations outlined within the
City Landscape Manual or, and as such does not comply with the
regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any
government agency.
The granting of this major use permit would conflict with the
Planning and Design Proposals of the Montgomery Specific Plan,
and therefore, will adversely affect the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista.
WPC 5216P
Exhibit A
g. Over a period of many years, Montgomery has evolved from
a rural community to an urban settlement. This has
occurred with minimum of governmental planning.
Consequently, drainage and infrastructure improvements
were installed in a piece-meal, uncoordinated manner.
This has resulted in a drainage and infrastructure system
which is largely substandard and does not adequately
serve the ~lontgomery Community-at-large. Therefore,
predicated upon Chula Vista's Master Public Facilities
Plan and the ~lontgomery Street Analysis Study (Master
Transportation Plan), it is proposed that a 5-10 year
capital improvement pregram be prepared for Montgomery.
This program should address the storm sewerage and
related infrastructural needs of the community.
5. Open Space and Parks
Public open space and parks give substance and meaning to the
urban form. They provide visual and psychological relief from
the stresses and strains of urban life, and replenish oxygen
consumed by the paraphernalia of urban living. The Montgomery
Survey revealed that the community has a critical shortage of
public open space and park land. Therefore, the following
proposals are recommended to correct this serious deficiency:
a. The SDG&E right-of-way crosses the central spine of
Montgomery, in an east-west direction. This crossing
presents an opportunity to establish a green belt in an
area that is substantially built out. Therefore, where
feasible, it is proposed that the SDG&E right-of-way be
reserved and improved for public parks or open space.
-20-
Exhibit A
The SDG&E right-of-way could accommodate a broad spectrum
of recreational uses, including bike and pedestrian
paths, plant nurseries and arboreta, community gardens,
and related off-street parking.
The said right-of-way could provide a recreational
linkage between the parksite suggested for the Orange
Avenue/Hermosa Avenue Area and the MTDB Station at
Palomar Street.
b. The property located at the southeast corner of Hermosa
and Orange Avenues should be acquired for a park site,
which should incorporate the adjacent SDG&E right-of-way.
c. The portion of Telegraph Canyon Creek lying between Third
and Fourth Avenues may have open space potential. The
City should investigate the feasibility of using this
part of Telegraph Canyon Creek as a nature preserve,
public open space, or linear park.
d. The plan diagram of the Specific Plan designates the
flood plain of the Otay River as "Public Parks and Open
Space," and "White Lands." The White Lands designation
indicates that much additional study is required before a
permanent land use designation can be assigned to the
involved territory.
Portions of the floodplain of the Otay River may be
valuable wetland areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Any dredge or fill in wetlands
would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
California Department of Fish and Game are also
interested in planned development of wetland areas, as
they provide a valuable t~ildlife habitat resource.
negativ declaration '-
PROJECT NAME: Broadway RV Center
PROJECT LOCATION: ~-Broadway
PROJECT APPLICANT: Broadway Equities Ltd.
1431 Stratford Court
Del Mar, CA 92121
CASE NO: IS 87-56N DATE: May 22, 1987
A. Project Settin~
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. Compatibilit~ 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
)? ~he 2~'.)2~rty. A ~),~,~ s?m:i~ic plan is currently being drafted for the
'loa~)..~)ry area which is scheduled for completion in December.
Continuation of the existing use for a short interim period pending
completion of the plan document would represent compliance with the
General Plans policy of gradual conversion of the subject area to the long
tem uses outlined in the new specific plan.
D. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Fire Protection
The Fire Marshal for the City of Chula Vista requires provision of a
maximum of two fire hydrants on site and access to the site via a
knox box. These are standard development regulations required by
sections lO.301(c) and 10.209 of the Uniform Fire Code. Since these
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
~ environmental review section CHULAVIS-TA
¢.~cillti~s are required through standard development regulations, any
a,i~erse 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.
?. The l~r,)ject is exi~tiqg a,ld, as a short interim use, will not create
~ ~:iverse impact to long term environmental goals.
3. ~ll potential adverse environmental impacts associated, with
continuing the RV storage lot are mitigated below significance and
are not cumulative in nature.
4. The continuance of the existing RV storage yard, with adequate fire
protection measures incorporated, will not cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gore, Fire Marshal
" Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant"s Agent: HedenJ(amp and Associates
1331 India Street
San Diego, CA 92121
2. Documents
l) Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code
2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRON}IENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 4057P/O175P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) ,.~.~I~..
city of chula vista planning department CIWOF
environmental review section CHUL~ VJ~'J~,
,. .' CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
. , [APPLICANT'S STATE~£HT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLI~
~'ii~ mWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL. PL
~AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:'
). List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
BROADWAY EOUITI~ LIMITED,
A C~llfor~La Limited Pa~nershlp
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property tnve
San' Diego Gas & Electric
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership,
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corpor~
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
,Beaty Development ~.Dmpany - /v~a~ag[ng C~raI Partner
Arthur E. F_ngle - Limited Partner
3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a non-profit organization (
trust, list the names of any person serving as dfrector of the non-pr,
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 C
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve mont~
Yes No...x If yes, please indicate person(s)
is defined ~s: "Any i~vidu~l ~-- ~ .... ~
club, fraternal or~--~--~-''L -,,m,.?par~ne~s~p, joint venture, associatl~
vo,~:c~un, corporation, estate, trust, recet
this and an . . . vet, syndicat
c?.t
~s~on, or any o~ner group or combination acting as a unit.'
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~a~C~EOUITIES LI~D --
',L~, ~lopm~p4~-~:~mi}~y~'~-,~e~r~ PaF
W~C 0701P TI-~DMAS R. BE~kTY, PRESIDEN~/
A'llO P~int or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 22, 1988 Page 1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-23m; request to expand a
mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street
Naples Street Investors, Inc.
The City Council, at their meeting of April 26, 1988, considered an appeal of
a denial of a major use permit to expand an existing mini-warehouse at 340
Naples Street and was presented with revised plans and elevations enhancing
the architecture of the proposed expansion. Council voted to continue the
hearing on the appeal until the Montgomery Planning Committee had reviewed the
new architectural design and had an opportunity to comment.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988, voted to
continue the hearing on the Council referral until July 20, 1988, in order to
allow staff to formulate proposed conditions of approval and findings for
approval of the major use permit (staff's recommendation to the Committee was
for denial of the major use permit, therefore, conditions of approval were not
available).
Staff is requesting that the hearing before the Planning Commission on the
Council referral be continued to the meeting of July 27, 1988, to allow time
for the Montgomery Planning Committee to formalize their recommendation.
WPC 5276P/2652P
June 16, 1988
TO: Chairman, Members of the City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Planning Director ~i.£~ .~j.
Paul Desrochers, Community Development Departmen
Subject: Density Bonus request for a proposed 60 unit apartment
complex at 1053 Broadway
Attached for your review is the staff report for Council consideration of
a density bonus request for eight units under State Government Code Section
65915. As is mentioned in the staff report, the applicant proposes to
construct 60 apartment units at 1053 Broadway; 52 units are permitted under
the present RV-29 residential zone and 8 units are allowed under the State
density bonus program which mandates increases in density in exchange for
restriction of rents for a percentage of the total units as affordable housing
for low and moderate income households.
Recommendation:
1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impact
and adopt NEgative Declaration IS-88-31M.
2. That the Planning Commission recommend approval of a density bonus
of eight units for the proposed apartment project at 1053 Broadway,
and that the City Council approve the Housing Cooperation Agreement
with the developers outlining the terms and conditions of the density
bonus.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 7/12/88
ITEM TITLE: Density Bonus request for a proposed sixty-unit apartment
complex at 1053 Broadway
Resolution Approving a density bonus of eight
units for a total of sixty units at 1053 Broadway and
approving a Housing Cooperation Agreement with Mitre
Financial, property owners
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager {4/Sths Vote: Yes No X )
Mitre Financial, developers of a proposed apartment project at 1053 Broadway,
has requested a density bonus of eight units under State Government Code
Section 65915. Under this law, a local entity is required to either approve a
density bonus or grant the developers other incentives of equivalent economic
value.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-31M, of
potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the
project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the
Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-88-31M.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution (1) finding that the
project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopting the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-31M, and {2) that the City Council
approve a density bonus of eight units for the proposed apartment project at
1053 Broadway, and approve the Housing Cooperation Agreement with the
developers outlining the terms and conditions of the density bonus.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee approved the
project design with the additional density bonus units at their May 5, 1988
meeting, subject to staff conditions and City Council approval of the density
bonus.
DISCUSSION:
Mitre Financial is proposing to develop a sixty-unit apartment project for
families at 1053 Broadway. Current zoning allows fifty two units, and the
developer requests an additional eight units under the State's Density Bonus
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date-~-/)~-~
Program. The proposed project would consist of 16 one-bedroom apartments, and
44 two-bedroom apartments. Section 65915 of the California Government Code
provides that a developer of multi-family rental housing can request a density
bonus over the underlying zone. In exchange for the density bonus, a
developer must provide a percentage of the total units as affordable housing
for low and moderate income households.
In 1985, the City enacted Ordinance 12135 which provides a procedure for the
City to respond to requests by developers for density bonuses under the
provisions of California Government Code Section 65915. Under our policy, a
developer must provide 20% of the total project units prior to the granting of
a density bonus as affordable to low-income households {households at or below
80% of the area median income), and 5% of the pre-density project units as
affordable to moderate income households (households at or below 120% and
above 80% of the area median income). Rents on affordable units are
restricted for 25 years. Affordability is defined as rent levels not
exceeding 25% of the monthly income of households in those low and moderate
income categories. As an alternative to granting the density bonus, the City
has the option to grant to the developer other incentives of equivalent
economic value. A copy of the City's ordinance is attached for your review.
If the City Council grants the requested density bonus, the developer has
agreed to rent three, 1-bedroom apartments for no more than $460 a month, and
seven, 2 bedroom apartments for no more than $575 a month to low-income
households. Additionally, one, 1-bedroom apartment would have a rent cap of
$691 a month; and two 2-bedroom apartments would have a rent cap of $863 a
month and both would be reserved for moderate-income households. Our
ordinance sets maximum rents that can be charged for restricted units. In
reality, the market rate rents are below the maximum of $691 and $863 set for
the moderate-income units. The developer estimates that they will rent
non-low income restricted one-bedroom units for $500 a month and non-low
income two-bedroom apartments for $625 a month. The moderate-income
restriction would be beneficial if market conditions change in the future and
rents escalate. Currently, a family of four would have to have an income of
$27,600 a year or less to be eligible to rent the units reserved for
low-income households and $41,400 a year or less to qualify for
moderate-income restricted units. Rents could increase as the median income
figures for the County increase. The units would be restricted for a period
of 25 years. The other units can be rented at market rates. Maximum
restricted rents are calculated using the affordable rent formula described in
our family density bonus policy. According to this formula, monthly rental
rates cannot exceed 25% of the gross monthly income of a four person household
whose income falls at 80% and at 120% of the County median income.
Land Use Considerations
The Planning Department has reviewed the project, and the Design Review
Committee has approved the sixty-unit apartment project conditioned upon
Council approval of the eight-unit density bonus. The project would consist
of 44, two-bedroom, 2-bath and 16, one-bedroom, 1-bath apartments. The
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date~
1.80-acre parcel would contain four separate two-story buildings, with ll2
parking spaces (12 garages, 90 open stalls). The project also includes a
recreation area which features a swimming pool, sandbox, and large seating
area.
The project complies with the RU29 (Urban Residential 29 dwelling units per
acre~ zone in effect. Eight units over the 52 units permitted under this
zoning represents a density bonus increase of 15%. No further review is
required in terms of land use considerations.
The Design Review Committee felt that the proposed density was acceptable
based on the plans submitted by the developer. Parking, landscaping, open
space, and traffic flow are considered adequate for the 60 unit project.
Conclusion
The issue before the City Council is to decide whether or not to grant a
density bonus of eight units to the developers of 1053 Broadway or to agree to
offer equivalent financial incentives. According to State law, a local
jurisdiction does not have the option to deny a density bonus request without
offering equivalent financial incentives. All land issues have previously
been approved, and do not require City Council action. If the Council votes
to approve the density bonus, the City will gain 10 affordable housing units
for low-income households and a potential for three affordable moderate-income
household units (if market conditions change) both with a 25 year restriction.
Attached is a Housing Cooperation Agreement between the City and the developer
outlining the terms and conditions of the density bonus. It is recommended
that the Council approve this agreement if they approve the density bonus.
If Council votes to offer equivalent financial incentives, it is recommended
that they refer the issue to staff to consider various alternatives which
would be brought back to the Council for their approval. Financial
equivalency would have to be determined, and such options as cash payment to
the developer, waiver of associated fees, or provision by the City of public
improvements could then be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council grants the density bonus request, no funds
would be expended. If the Council votes to offer
equivalent financial incentives, Redevelopment Agency Low
and Moderate Income Housing Funds could be utilized.
WPC 3079H
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A HOUSING COOPERATION
AGREEMENT WITH MITRE FINANCIAL FOR AFFORDABLE
FAMILY HOUSING UNITS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, The City desires to promote the provision of affordable
housing units for families; and,
WHEREAS, State Civil Code Section 65915, and the City's Housing
Density Bonus Policy provide a mechanism whereby developers can request a
Density Bonus in exchange for renting a portion of their units at affordable
rents to low and moderate income tenants; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to approve a Density Bonus of eight
units in exchange for ten affordable low income units and three affordable
moderate income units at 1053 Broadway; and,
WHEREAS, The Family Density Bonus policy of the City of Chula Vista
calls for a written agreement between the City and the developer of low income
family housing to specify the tenancy requirements and term of commitment; and,
WHEREAS, such agreement, called a Housing Cooperation Agreement
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth has been
negotiated between the developers and the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby grant an eight-unit density bonus to Mitre Financial,
thereby allowing them to place a total of sixty units on their property at
1053 Broadway conditioned upon the developers entering into an agreement with
the City to rent ten units to low income households and three units to
moderate income households in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
City's Housing Density Bonus Policy, State Civil Code Section 65915, and the
attached Housing Cooperation Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista hereby approves that said Housing Cooperation Agreement
with said developers and authorizes the City Manager to execute that agreement
on behalf of the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said agreement shall be executed and
recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for 1053 Broadway.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Paul G. Desrochers Thomas J. Harron
Community Development Director City Attorney
WPC 3073H
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: 60-Unit Apartment Project
PROJECT LOCATION: 1053 Broadway
pROJECT APPLICANT: Charles A. Miller & Tom Murray
CASE NO: IS-88-31M DATE: December 28, 1987
A. Project Setting
The proposed project site is a 1.$ acre level, rectangular parcel located
on the east side of Broadway between Naples and Moss Street. The front
portion of the lot contains an upholstery shop while the rear portion of
the lot is vacant. The property is surrounded by apartments and
commercial facilities to the north and south, single family dwellings to
the east, and retail commercial buildings to the west.
B. Project Descriptio~
The proposed project consists of 60 unit apartments in 6 buildings, 52
would be market rate with 8 units provided through the State low and
moderate income family housing program. Proposed buildings would be a
combination of two stories and two stories with lofts. A total of 102
parking spaces would be provided on site, some of which are provided in
garages.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed 60-unit apartment project complies with the RU-29 residential
zone in accordance with the State's low and moderate income density bonus
program, which allow an increase in density not to exceed 25% over that
permitted by the zone.
The General Plan designates the project area for medium density
residential uses (4-12 du's per acre). However, the project may proceed
as long as no permit processes are required which necessitate compliance
with the General Plan.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Drainag~
The proposed project is located within a lO0-year flood plain for the
Telegraph Canyon Creek and may be subject to existing flooding hazards.
In addition, two 54-inch storm drains offsite flow into an onsite 60-inch
storm drain which flows west along the southerly property boundary. The
size of the onsite drain may be inadequate to serve the surface drainage
needs of the proposed project.
city of chula vista planning department crIYOF
environmental review section CHULA VI~A
-2-
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Drainage
Construction of buildings within any lO0-year floodplain requires that
first floor building elevations be at least 1 foot above the hydraulic
grade line of the floodplain on the property. This is a standard
development regulation required as part of the building permit process.
The issue of inadequate drainage facilities must be addressed through the
grading permit process prior to issuance of any building permits for the
project. The applicant is required to submit a grading and improvement
plans which show that adequate drainage facilities are present both onsite
and off to accommodate surface runoff from the project site. The
information presented at that time will be evaluated by the Environmental
Review Coordinator in order to determine whether or not adequate prior
environmental review has been performed, or if new information is
presented to warrant further enviror~mental review.
Since the issues of location in the floodplain and adequate drainage must
be addressed and mitigated through standard development code requirements,
no further mitigation is necessary at this time.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. Through standard development code which require raising proposed
buildings one foot above flood elevations, and provision of adequate
drainage facilities on site and off, the project will not degrade the
quality of the environment.
2. The provision of drainage improvements achieve both short and long
term environmental goals for the area.
3. The proposed 60 unit apartments contain no adverse environmental
effects that are cumulative in nature.
4. With provision of adequate drainage and standard construction
regulations, the proposed 60 unit apartments will not cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings.
~. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William ~heeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Charles Angyal, AIA.
2137 Pacific Highway, Suite "A"
San Diego, CA 92101
-3-
2. Documents
- Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code
- General Plan, City of Chula Vista
- Draft Montgomery Specific Plan 1987
- Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Panel 060284 2152,
National Flood Insurance Program, June 15, 1984.
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRQ~qENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
~PC 4652P
~ city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHUL~