Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/03/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 9, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 24, 1988 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. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-36M: Consideration of a major use permit for an auto dismantling yard to allow leasing two acres of the site to store truck trailers at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - Strick Leasing 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-16: Consideration of amendments to allow new car dealerships and accessory uses by conditional use permit on the property bounded by Broadway, Fifth Avenue, 'C' Street, and State Route 54 - National Avenue Associates 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-I: Consideration to rezone 3.19 acres from R-3-G-D, C-T and C-T-D to C-T-P at the southeast corner of Broadway and 'K' Street - Travis A. Reneau 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-10: Request to waive requirement to provide a new two-car garage for the existing dwelling at 1275 Banner Avenue - Fred Drew DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting on March 16, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 1988 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-36M: Consideration of a major use permit for an auto dismantlin9 yard to allow leasing two acres of the site to store truck trailers at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - Strick Leasing The applicant, Strick Leasing, has requested that this application be withdrawn. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-16; Consideration of amendments to allow new car dealerships and accessory uses by conditional use permit on the property bounded by Broadway, Fifth Avenue, "C" Street, and State Route 54 National Avenue Associates A. BACKGROUND At the meeting of January 13, 1988, the Planning Commission authorized staff to proceed with a report and recommendation on the applicant's proposal to allow new car dealerships and accessory uses on the property bounded by Broadway, Fifth Avenue, "C" Street, and State Route 54. An Initial Study, IS-88-39, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator. It was concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-39. 2. Adopt a motion amending the Land Use Chart to allow new car dealerships by conditional use permit in the I-L zone. 3. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The property in question involves a total of just over 35 acres. Approximately five acres are developed with various light industrial uses located along the "C" Street frontage between Broadway and Fifth Avenue; the remaining 30 acres are vacant. The entire acreage is zoned I-L, Limited Industrial The westerly half of the property is also within the coastal zone, and 'is designated for General Industrial development in the Bayfront Specific Plan. The property appears generally well suited to accommodate new car dealerships. There is a substantial amount of available acreage with frontage on Broadway and a good relationship to the freeway and the National City Mile of Cars to the north. There also appears to be little potential for conflict with surrounding areas, which are primarily zoned and developed with light industrial and heavy commercial uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 2 New car dealerships are not presently allowed in either the I-L zone or the General Industrial designation of the Bayfront Specific Plan. A review of the use provisions of the zone, however, reveals that retail sales of bulky items such as furniture, carpets and other similar items are allowed by conditional use permit. Further, the zone permits truck, trailer and boat sales, open auto storage and minor auto repair by right, and also allows major auto repair and paint shops by conditional use permit. The purpose in providing for retail sales of bulky items {by conditional use permit) is because many such uses require extensive areas for the display and storage of merchandise, and are often low-volume businesses which do not create typical retail traffic and activity impacts which would conflict with light industrial operations. Auto dealerships are consistent with these characteristics, as well as with the nature and character of the remaining permitted and conditional "heavy commercial" uses noted above. Because of these factors, we are recommending that the Commission render an interpretation that new car dealerships are consistent with the nature and character of other conditional uses allowed for in the I-L zone. This interpretation would take the form of an amendment to the City's Land Use Chart, which is adopted by Commission resolution for the purpose of refining and clarifying the general land use categories in the City's Zoning Ordinance. (The Chart may be amended upon individual request, and is also reviewed and updated periodically by the Commission to reflect current land use characteristics.) The Proposal will also require an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan which controls development on the westerly half of the property. The Plan refers to this area as the "Inland Parcel" because it is the only property east of I-5 which is in the coastal zone. The amendment to the Specific Plan would relate to the Inland Parcel only (please see Exhibit A), while the Land Use Chart amendment would apply to any I-L zoned area within the City. In any case, development proposals for new car dealerships would be subject to detailed review and approval of a conditional use permit. WPC 4777P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Local Coastal Program Amendment #5: Conditionally Permitted Land Uses PROJECT LOCATION: Chula Vista Coastal Zone - Inland Parcel PROJECT APPLICANT: National Avenue Associates CASE NO: IS-88-39 DATE: February 25, 1988 A. Project Setting In a letter dated December 9, 1987, National Avenue Associates requested that the Ci'ty of Chula Vista Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan. The letter proposed an amendment which would add the following permitted uses in the Industrial:General zone within the inland parcel: Automotive Sales, Rental and Delivery Commercial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.21; Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.22; and Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.23. Following staff review of the proposed amendment, it was determined that allowing the proposed additional uses by Conditional Use Permit would be a preferred approach because it provides the opportunity to review specific proposals on a case-by-case basis. In addition, two similar categories, Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.25 and Boat Servicing Commercial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.26, are also included for consideration in the proposed LCP amendment. B. Project Description The proposed project entails the addition of the following language in the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan: Section 19.84.13 - Industrial: General Conditionally Permitted Uses All lands within the inland parcel designated on Map l, Land Use Controls, for Industrial: General Use, shall be permitted to accommodate thc following use classifications pursuant to t~e Conditional Use Procedure aL Chapter 19.14: Automotive Sales, Rental and Delivery Commercial Activities Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities Automotive Pepair and Cleaning Commercial Activities Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities Boat servicing Commercial Activities city of chula vista planning department CI~Y OF environmental review section CHU[A VISI-A -2- The inland parcel is located east of Broadway and north of "C" Street. Its precise configuration and location are shown on the grey area indicated in Figure 1. Amendment of the Bayfront Specific Plan as outlined above would allow the automotive and boat sales and related uses specified above within the inland parcel by Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit approval would be according to the normal City procedures which are detailed in Chapter 19.14. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the existing Specific Plan (zoning) or Land Use Plan designation for the inland parcel. Both designations would remain Industrial: General, but specified additional automotive and boat related uses would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process provides the opportunity to review proposed projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that conditionally permitted uses would be compatible with adjacent land uses. Automotive related uses appear to be a logical use at this location because they would result in a southerly extension of the National City car dealerships. Several of the uses that are permitted under the Industrial: General land use category currently permit the sale of automobile parts and accessories. The major new use that would be permitted by Conditional Use Permit is the sale of motor vehicles and boats. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The potential environmental effect of allowing automobile and boat sales and related uses within the inland parcel is that these uses may be incompatible with the General and Limited Industrial Uses on adjacent parcels. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following circumstances, the potential environmental effects were found to be less than significant: - Each application for automobile and boat sales or related uses will require separate review under the Conditional Use Permit process. This case-by-case review will enable City staff to identify any potential land use conflicts resulting from incompatible adjacent land uses. At that time, appropriate mitigation measures, if any, can be required prior to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. - The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity of the environment because the proposed project is an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan which would allow selected automotive and boat sales and related uses by Conditional Use Permit. The specific uses proposed by an applicant will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that environmental quality will not be degraded and that environmental diversity will not be curtailed. -3- - The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Because the proposed project is a plan amendment that would allow additional land uses by Conditional Use Permit, no such conflicts between the realization of short-term vs. long-term environmental goals are anticipated. - The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because allowing automotive and boat sales ~and related uses by CUP, only within the inland parcel would minimize the potential for cumulative impacts. In addition, the case-by-case review required by the CUP process would facilitate the identification of any adverse cumulative impacts. - The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly because the proposed specific plan amendment will only allow additional, related land uses within the inland parcel by Conditional Use Permit. It is unlikely that the proposed related land uses will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, but each CUP application will be reviewed separately for potential adverse effects on human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Robin Putnam, Community Development Applicant's Agent: Mr. Jerald Alford, National Avenue Associates 2. Documents EIR-85-1, Bayfront Specific Plan Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan (Sedway Cooke Associates 1983) Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan (City of Chula Vista 1984) The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. AL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 f, Rev. 5/85) PC 3447H city of chuia vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section CHULA VJ~'~ CHULA VIST EXHIBIT A PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT #5 The following amendment is proposed for the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP Specific Plan: Section 19.84.13 - Industrial General ConditionallS Permitted Uses All lands within the inland parcel designated on Map 1, Land Use Controls, for Industrial: General uses shall be permitted to accommodate the following use classification~pursuant to the Conditional Use Procedure at Chapter 19.14: Automotive Sales, Rental and DeliverS Commercial Activities Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities Boat Servicing Commercial Activities IUIIIAL STUDY 1. PRPJ ECT TI]'[ E None 2. Pf!(XlECI' IOCAIlOtl (Street address or de~'-' ' o(.t l[)tlOll) SoUtheast corne~- of_N_f_tion.~l City Boulevard and proposed St~-54 Assessors Book, I)age & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PR[~ECT DESERIPTIOH Improvement o~' v~o~nt l~nd for use A~ ~UtOlnOtive related ret~l ~Ales. 4. Ilame of Applicant National Avenue Associates Address 2643 Fourth Ave. Ph0ne(619) 231-36_3~_ City _~_a__n [_)i_?go .... State CA ~ Zip 92103 ~. [lalle of Preparer/Agent Je~'ald A. All'oral Address 2643 Fourth Ave. Phone (619) 231-3637 City San Diego State CA. Zip 92103 Relation t.o Applicant Pax'trier 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents req[lire(I [))' tho [[}vironl~lonta] Revieu Coordinator. d. PeYl~lits or approvals required: General Plan Revision -~ Design Revieu Con,niEtee Pnblic Project x Eezoning/PreFoning Tentative Snbd. Hap ~-- Annexation _ Precise Plan Grading Permit I)esign Review Board _~_ Specific Plan .... Tentative Parcel Hap ~ Redevelopment Agency Eond. Use Permit Variance x Other b. Enclosnres or documents (as required by the Environmental Revieu CooFdi nator). x location Map Arch. Elevations ~__ Eng. Geology Report _ __ gradi n9 P1 an Landscape PI ant Hydrological Study _ Site Plan --- Photos of Site 6 ~ Bioloflical Study _. Parcel Hap -- Setting ~ Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Hap .... tloJse Assessment Specilic Plan - .__ Impruvement Plans - --Traffic Impact Report Other ~gerlcy Permit or Soil s Report -~ Other Apl)revolt Required - 2 - PROPOSED PRFNIECT 1. l. and Area: sq. Footage 608,097.60 or acreage 13.96 If ]and area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Col!lple~e this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single Family Two family__ llulti 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 he provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. £omplete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use AUtomotive rel~ted_~et~i]. b. Floor area Onknow~ Height of structure(s) ,un'_qowa - c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to tile structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets From tntersectio~ o~ 35th Street and National City Boulevard e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided ~p_er city reqL~ire, me~ts f. Estimated number of enlployees per shift unknown , Number of shi frs Total g. Estimated number of custor, lers /per day) and basis of estimate U Ill,: llOWtl - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate l~egiona[ to county wide based on customers for National ~ atl~no ,,v~. IH CI/L/USeJJ DUI/dingS A~to storage, parked vehicles for service j. Hours o~ operation ~_~as~ - 7:00am to lO:OOpm k. Type of exterior lighting Unknown .~ ,1. If project is j~th~er tbai~ residential, commercial or industrial con~plete U~is section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Ileight of structure(s) - maximum e. IJlti~:tate occupancy load of project f. Humber of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PP, OJ ECT CltARACTERI STICS '1. If the project could r'esult 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 Yes (If' yes, col~ll}'lete tile following:) ,~ee grading permit #l)G-139 a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How parly cubic yards of fill w~ll he placed? c. Ilow much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. ~,~hat will be the - tlaximum depth of cut Average depth of cut llaxil]um depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical apt]l~ance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or Stored within the project site? 7. Ilow many estimated automobile trips, per day will be generated by tile project? 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connectio~ to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widc~ning; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and Fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPI'I~qN OF EUVIRONMEHTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No (IF yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Ye~ (If yes, please attach) 2. I ly d I?] o g~ Are any of the Following Features present on or adjacent to the site? Ye~ (If yes, please explain in detail.) d. IS there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? S~veetw:~Ce¥ l~ive~, channel - 5 - Dues Fum>ll IrUlZl Lhe project site. dl'~Jn dirnctly into or toward a Uomestic wat~,r supply, lake, reservoir or hay? Ye~, through storm drain system d. Could drainage from the site cause eros'ion or siltation to adjacen~ areas? Ne e. Describe all drainage facilities to he provided and their location. ~torm dr~ln ~t northeast cornez:~ o~ properCy 3. Hoise 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? Yes b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. None 5. Past_ U~_e__o f _.$11e~ La~]L_I a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near tile project sile? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near tile project site? No 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. None. L~nd i~ v~¢~nt. ~. CERTIFICATIOI! or Co~-tant or Agent* ltEREBY AFFIRH, 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 envir(mmental impact and any enclosures For attachments thereto. DATE: ":' / / // ~i / *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -lO- Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project si!~.~within a flood plain? ~(~_~o~O~>~_~_~,~3c>~-3,~s b. [,~.,15 ~e project be subject to any ~tng ~o~azards?~(~, c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the locafion and~description of existing on-site drainage faciliqies? NA e. A~e ~ey a~e~qa~e ~o zer~e ~be pro~ect? ~at ~s the %~cat~oD a~d desc~pt~oo o~ ex~st~ng o~-s~te / g. Are they a~quate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. ~st roads provide primaryjccess ~ the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~A - P~mXF~W C. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. -- -- L.O.S. - -- d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?__ If not, explain briefly. ~,. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. __ - 11 - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? ~ ~ ]']~0 ~r..-~ Landslide or slippage? ~)~ ~[~ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~ 4. Soils a. Are there a~anticipated adverse soil conditions on the~roject site? ~- ~o~ ~c~ t~ ~ ~ ~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~ c. Is a soils report necessary? ~. 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? 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 Iper day) Factor Pollution CO 0 X 118.3 : ~ Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : ~ NOx (NO2) dbx 20.0 : ~ Particulates oX 1.5 : ~ Sulfur oX .78 : ~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~]) Liquid 6]]) What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~ ~ ~2~_~- %)~>~ k~ ~ -~,bA~J Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City E~inee~Ydr lk~el~nt61ive - ' Case No. -~'~-~-- H. FIRE DEPARIMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station aqd what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? /--~/~ ~_~ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the p~oposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? ~.J 3. Remarks ~_p~ ~j~) EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. IS-88-39 I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed.for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) ~ YES POTENTIAL NO 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? X b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? X A significant modification of any unique geological features? X Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? X 2.' Soils a. Does the project site contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? X b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? X A significant amount of siltation? X 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? X YES POTENTIAL NO b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? ,~ X A significant alteration of direction or rate X of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? X 4. Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? X b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, .' drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? X Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? X Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X Change in amount of surface water in any water body? X Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? X 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources which can be economically extracted? X The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? X 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES POTENTIAL NO 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? X b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? X Emissions which could degrade the ambient .r quality? X Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? X Interference with the maintenance of standard air quality? X The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? X A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? X 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public water supplies? X 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? X b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? X YES POTENTIAL NO 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the ' habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? X b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemi~ cies? X ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use X Circulation X Scenic Highways X Conservation X Housing X Noise X Park and Recreation X Open Space X Safety X Seismic Safety X Public Facilities X YES POTENTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? X 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards X Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? X Will the proposal result in a new light .-r source or glare? X ~' 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? X A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? X The substantial demand for addi]ional housing or affect existing housing? X 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? X b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection X Police Protection Schools X X Parks or Recreational Facilities X Maintenance of Public Facilities Including Roads X YES POTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consump'tion of energy? X A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? X A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? X 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems ~ or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas X Communications systems l Water ~ Sewer or septic tanks l Solid waste & disposal X 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? X An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? X 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? X YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? X b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? X 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail '- the diversity of the environment? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X t. - 21 - J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: ~ro3ect Proponent uate K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: t// It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. __ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARF" ~ is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for' consideration and adoption. __ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. __ It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. Environme~l Review Coordinator Date ' WPC O169P Case No. q~Z$ -%~ - ~)~t CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT North F - ~ t Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~ 2. General Plan land use North South ~ ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagr.am? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent t~ an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? N/~ ~ ~ - ~L~ ~ ¢~.~-~-, c~~ \ ~J_ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of,~arkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 3. Schools ~JIA- ~Jo~ ~- ~io~g,~L ~o]c~ 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. 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.) ~,o ~c~q-~-~ to~¢~ o-~- ~-L~ ~_<~_~ .. 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: v~o Electricity (per year) Natumal Gas (per year) Wa~cer (per day) 6. Remarks: t~a ~/ Di nning or Representative Date CITY OF C}~ULA VISlA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALE APPLICATIONS !~HIC!I" WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF TI~E CITY COUIICIL, PLANNING [COM?.ISSIO~ 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. National Avenue Associates A California General Partnership List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. National Avenue Associates Metropolitan Properties, inc. Robert Penner, M.D. 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. William Patrick Kruer, Partner Jerald A. Al£ord, Partner Mathew R. Loo~in, Partner George T. Kruer, Partner 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. None 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 twelw months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) Person ~s defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint v-~nt~re, 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~ign~~/~ WPC 0701P Jerald A. Alford A-Il0 P'rint or type name of applican{~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-I Consideration to rezone 3.19 acres from ~-3-G-D, ¢-T and C-T-D to C-T-P at the southeasL corner of Broadway and "K" Street - Travis A. Reneau A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to rezone 0.29 acres at 825 Broadway from R-3-G-D (multiple family/17 dwelling units per acre) to C-T-P (thoroughfare commercial with precise plan). The City, with the applicant's concurrence, has included within the request an adjoining 2.9 acres at the southeast corner of Broadway and "K" Street for consideration of rezonin9 from C-T and C-T-D to C-T-P. 2. An Initial Study, IS-88-49 of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on February 25, 1988, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-49. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 3.19 acres from R-3-G-D, C-T and C-T-D to C-T-P as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-T Commercial South C-T, C-T-D & R-3-G-D Commercial and plant nursery East R-3-G-D Plant nursery West C-T Commercial Existing site characteristics. The 0.29 acre site presently contains a single-family dwelling, and constitutes a portion of a larger parcel which serves as employee parking for South Bay Chevrolet. The property is located behind a pizza restaurant and takes access off Broadway. The remainin9 2.19 acres consists of a portion of the main South Bay Chevrolet complex, the pizza restaurant site, and the employee parking area described above. All of these properties are owned by the applicant. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 2 General plan. The General Plan designates these properties for Thoroughfare Commercial use. The proposed rezonings to C-T-P are consistent with this designation. D. ANALYSIS The 0.29 acre site represents a logical extension of the South Bay Chevrolet facility, and the rezoning is consistent with the depth of the C-T zoning directly to the north. The site is also well separated from single family areas to the east by the existing plant nursery which is zoned for multiple-family development. The property is expected to be used to expand the adjoining employee parking area. The adjoining 2.9 acres has been included in the proposal in order to clean-up the C-T zoning pattern on the balance of the applicant's holdings. The existing designations include the basic C-T, C-T with design control, and C-T-P. The rezoning would place all of the property within the C-T-P district. Any proposal for the 0.29 acre site or the balance of the property would, therefore, be subject to review and approval of a precise plan by the Design Review Committee. The Municipal Code requires certain circumstances to exist in order to apply the P Precise Plan modifying district. In this instance, the property consists of several separate parcels, the development of which should be coordinated and controlled in terms of access and its relationship to adjoining residential areas to the north, south and east. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request. WPC 4857P PROJECT AR t PCZ 88-~. , EXHIBIT A K STREET I SERVICE BAYS DISPLAY ROOM :; OFFICESt I. I I I AUTO STORAGE AUTO DISPLAY ~ 20 S AKEY'S RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE PARKING ~ ¢Y= (Jo ~e remc~vedj -' ~l~ PARKING O .=O 125~ Location: Southeast of the southeast corner of Broadway and K Street Legal Description: Northerly 100' of lot 8, quarter section 146, excepting westerly 370' and easterly 125'. APN: 572-270-60 Property Owner: Travis A. Reneau, 801 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA 92012 Site Plan: Manganelli and Associates Zoming: R-3-G-D General Plan: General Commercial N Scale 1/20( negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Reneau Rezoning PROJECT LOCATION: 825 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Travis A. Reneau 801 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-88-49 DATE: February 23, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is located near the southeast corner of Broadway and "K" Street. This is within the urbanized area of Chula Vista. There are no rare or endangered species of plants or wildlife present. All urban services are present to serve the proposed project. There are no cultural or historic resources in the project vicinity which could be adversely affected by the proposal. Geological and soils conditions will not adversely impact the project to a significant degree. The 0.29 acre site presently contains a single-family dwelling, and constitutes a portion of a larger parcel which serves as employee parking for South Bay Chevrolet. The property is located behind a pizza restaurant and takes access off Broadway. The remaining 2.19 acres consists of a portion of the main South Bay Chevrolet complex, the pizza restaurant site, and the employee parking area described above. All of these properties are owned by the applicant. The City, with the applicant's concurrence, has included within the request an adjoining 2.9 acres at the southeast corner of Broadway and "K" Street for consideration of rezoning from C-T and C-T-D to C-T-P. The adjoining 2.9 acres has been included in the proposal in order to clean-up the C-T zoning pattern on the balance of the applicant's holdings. The existing designations include the basic C-T, C-T with design control, and C-T-P. The rezoning would place all of the property within the C-T-P district. Any proposal for the 0.29 acre site or the balance of the property would, therefore, be subject to review and approval of a precise plan by the Design Review Committee. city of chula vista planning department Q'IY OF environmental review section { HUtA VISTA B. Project Description The project consists of a rezoning of the property from R-3-G-D to C-T-P to permit the use of the property for automobile storage in conjunction with South Bay Chevrolet. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The General Plan designates these properties for Thoroughfare Commercial use. The proposed rezonings to C-T-P are consistent with this designation. D. Identification of Environmental Effects In accordance with the Initial Study on this project there are no significant environmental effects. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The 0.29 acre site represents a logical extension of the South Bay Chevrolet facility, and the rezoning is consistent with the depth of the C-T zoning directly to the north. The site is also well separated from single family areas to the east by the existing plant nursery which is zoned for multiple-family development. The property is expected to be used to expand the adjoining employee parking area. 2. The project is very minor in nature and, therefore, will not have any substantial cumulative impacts. 3. The project is consistent with the General Plan and, therefore, will not achieve any short-term goal to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 4. The property is well separated from residential properties, will conform to the City's performance standards and will not result in the emission of any substantial amount of pollutants which could adversely affect human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Paul S. Manganelli 9903-B Businesspark Ave. San Diego, CA 92131 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 {Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHULA VJ~J', Case No. /J o~-~/~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. ~T~9~x~ Date Rec'd z -~J'-.S~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by _~zio Application Form Project No..~ ~-- A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Reneau Rezone 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 82~Broadway, Chula Vista, CA 92012 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 572-270-60 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone from R-3-G-D to C-T-P 4. Name of Applicant Travis A. Reneau Address 801Broadwa7 Phone (619) 420-5900 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92012 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Paul A. M~n~anelli Address 9903-B Businesspark Avenue Phone (619) ~66-5128 City San Diego State CA Zip 92131 Relation to Applicant Consultant 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 x 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 mOther b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). x Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study X Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan -- Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report -- Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 12,500 or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage a~d purpose. N/A 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density {DU/total acres) e. Net density {DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area{s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Typels) of land use Automobile storage b. Floor area N/A Height of structure(s) N/A c. Type of construction used in the structure N/A d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets N/A e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided N/A f. Estimated number of employees per shift N/A , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate N/A i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Open automobile storage j. Hours of operation N/A k. Type of exterior lighting N/A 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. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 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. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated No (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth wilt be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used {air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) None 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project {sq. ft. or acres) None 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, per day, will be generated by the project? None 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. N/A D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE1-FING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No {If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? {If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No - 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. None 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? No b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. Three 18-24" Palms, one 8" California Pe~per, and one 8" Eucalyptus 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. Single famil~ dwellin~ - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Automobile storage South Plant nursery East Plant nursery West Automobile parking 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, how many?) 1 b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* -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 ~n Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ~- ~- % J~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: /~-]~_~ North ~ -~--~ South ~ - ~ ~:~ - .p West ~_ _ -~- Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~ North South ~ East ~9~;-~J, ~ West ~*~~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent t~ an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~-~ How many acres of park~an~ are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Aes~etics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director~f P~annin§ or R~esentat' e Date February 18, 1988 File # YS-268 TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator FROM: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer ~ SUBJECT: IS 88-49, 825 Broadway, Rezone from R-3-6-D to C-T-P for Use as Automobile Storage The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject study and submits the following comment: Our records do not show that the subject lot has legal access. SMN:ljr/yc (L~MEMOS~IS88-49) - lO - Case No. ,~'~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? NO 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? ~_ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.~ . f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~_ m_ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? N.~ . 2. Transportation N.~. 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. Wh'at is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils N.~ . a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? ) b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?1 ~1=' ~ ~'~ 6. Noise ~.~ . Are thJre any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to 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 Iper day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons X 18.3 = NOx (NO2) X 20.0 : Particulates X 1.5 : Sulfur X .78 : 8. Waste Generation ~.~ . How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ Liquid l~hat is the location and size of existing ., sewer lines on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the,project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City EJnee~y o~ RLkpl=esentatite Case No. FIRE DEPARIMENI . 1. What is the dista, nce to the n. eares, t fire station and what is the Fire Depar~ment's estimated reaction time? ~y~e~ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire -' protection for the proposed facility ~ithout an increase.in equipment. or personnel? ~dfi ~ ' "" Fire Marshal EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. I~-~{~ I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a. Does the project site contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? , A significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? YES POTENTIAL b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water in any water body? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources which can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? YES POTENTIAL 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? F~issions which could degrade the ambient .r quality? Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference with the maintenance of standard air quality? The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? __~ 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public water supplies? 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? YES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemi~ cies? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Circulation Scenic Highways Conservation Housing Noise Park and Recreation Open Space Safety Seismic Safety Public Facilities YES POTENTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? ~6 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards . ~X Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? ~k Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? ~ 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? ~(~ A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? ~( The substantial demand for additional housing or affect existing housing? /~ F 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? ~ / b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection ~ Police Protection Schools Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public Facilities Including Roads X YES POTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of ener~v? ~ A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? __~ A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? _~ l?. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas ~ Communications systems Water Sewer or septic tanks Solid waste & disposal 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ){~ 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? ~< An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? ?(' 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? ~ /, YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ~(~ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) / d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 21 - J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: Project Proponent 1ia te K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. __ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR.'" ~ is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. __ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. __ It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. nv~ ~J Da~e~ ,~ F. E ]~o~nmen~eview Coordinator ~ /~ WPC O169P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP ~NTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE 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: : ). List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Travis A. Reneau Dawn Walton List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.- Travis A. Reneau Dawn Walton 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than )0% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. ' 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--6E-~-T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting/~s a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~ ~ Signature of ap'p~F~tant/date WPC 0701P Travis A. Reneau A-1)O Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-10; request to waive requirement to provide a new two-car garage for the existing dwelling at ~2/b Banner Avenue - Fred Drew A. BACKGROUND 1. On February 12, 1988, the Zoning Administrator approved a conditional use permit to add a second single family dwelling to the R-1 lot at 1275 Banner Avenue. The proposal requires a two-car garage for the new dwelling as well as for the existing dwelling which presently has no garage. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny ZAV-88-10. C. DISCUSSION The property in question is a 16,000 sq. ft., double-frontage R-1 lot located between Orange Avenue and the westerly terminus of Bethune Way; the parcel previously fronted on a section of Banner Avenue which has since been vacated. The surrounding neighborhood to the east and south is within the Montgomery annexation area and is currently regulated under the County R-S-7 zone (single family/6,000 sq. ft. lots). The dwelling group would consist of an existing 2,000 sq. ft. dwelling, and a new 1,200 sq. ft. move-on dwelling. At issue is the application of Municipal Code Section 19.22.170, which requires existing dwellings to comply with current ordinance standards where remodelings or additions add 50% or more to the original floor area authorized for a lot. This provision was added to the Code in 1986, primarily to address the problem of significant building intensification on existing lots without regard to upgrading the property to current enclosed parkin9 standards. The 50% figure is used to establish when a remodeling or addition reaches such a scale as to constitute new construction. In the present case, the additional dwelling exceeds the 50% figure, and therefore the existing dwelling, which presently has no enclosed parking, is required to be provided with a two-car garage. The Commission considered the intent of Section 19.22.170 at the meetings of January 13 and 27, 1988, and concurred with staff's interpretation that the provision applies to dwelling groups as well as to more typical remodelings and additions. Several Commissioners raised issues, however, regarding the equity of this requirement in general and as it relates to the applicant's property in particular. These issues are discussed below in the context of the variance request. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS 1. Garage space for four cars seems excessive in comparison to the two-car ~arage required for other single family lots in the City. The dwelling group provisions are not intended to authorize an "accessory" living unit. Dwelling groups are only all owed in cases where the lot size is twice the minimum required by the underlying zone, and subject to conditions and requirements regarding setbacks, access, guest parking, pad size and so on, which are designed to provide for the full array of single family accommodations and amenities for each dwelling. Consequently, although the property remains under a single ownership, the appropriate comparison for a dwelling group is with two single family lots rather than one. Although the additional dwelling may be intended for relatives of the applicant, this does not necessarily reduce the demand for parking or storage space, nor does it ensure that the dwellings will not be occupied by unrelated households in the future. It should also be noted that an attached addition of several thousand square feet -- along with a single two-car garage -- would be permitted by right; the only limitation being that the dwelling could contain no more than one kitchen. This would appear to represent a reasonable alternative for accommodating an extended-family living arrangement. 2. The existin~ dwelling was not required to provide ~ara§e parking when it was originally constructed under the County's jurisdiction. The very purpose of Section 19.22.170 is to bring properties into conformance with present City standards where there is substantial building intensification, or, conversely, to prohibit substantial building intensification where present standards cannot be met. Any dwelling constructed in the City prior to 1961 was also not required to provide enclosed parking, but such dwellings are now subject to the provisions of Section 19.22.170. 3. The balance of the neighborhood is within the Montgomery annexation area and is presently regulated by the County R-S-7 zone which does not require enclosed parking. The applicant annexed his property to the City several years prior to the Montgomery annexation, and it will remain the only R-1 lot in the neighborhood until the balance of the properties are brought under City zoning sometime toward the end of this year. Considering the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan, there is no reason to believe that these properties won't soon also be subject to enclosed parking standards and the provisions of Section 19.22.170 in an effort to upgrade the area to accepted urban standards for residential development. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March g, 1988 Page 3 Although garages are not presently required in the balance of the neighborhood, of the 16 properties with frontage on Bethune Way, five have two-car garages {31%) and two have single-car garages (13%); thus a garage would not be unique to the neighborhood. It is also true that this property is not alone -- there are several properties and neighborhoods within the City that currently interface with areas still regulated under County zoning. For any particular situation, City zoning may carry with it both perceived advantages and disadvantages. For instance, there is no provision in the County R-S-7 zone for establishing a dwelling group -- only one single-family dwelling is allowed per lot. 4. The ~ara~e will never be used for parking, and will displace open space t~at could be used in better ways. These issues were raised by the applicant. First, the City can only require the availability of garage space but cannot mandate its use for parking, and in 1986 the City amended the Code to ensure availability by prohibiting garage conversions. Secondly, in the present case, there is ample area to accommodate a new dwelling and garage plus a garage for the existing dwelling in a logical manner consistent with R-1 open space standards. For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request in accordance with the findings listed below. The City has also received one objection to the request -- by phone from a party representing the Guadalupano Irrevocable Trust which owns the property at 189 Bethune Way. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. There is ample area on the property to accommodate the new dwelling and garage, as well as a garage for the existing dwelling, in a logical manner consistent with the R-1 standards for setbacks and open space. The property is the only parcel in the immediate neighborhood presently zoned R-1 and thus subject to the two-car garage requirement and the provisions of Section 19.22.170. The property is zoned as such, however, because the applicant petitioned-for and was granted annexation to the City in 1971 -- at a time when two-car garages were required for all new dwellings in the R-1 zone. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1988 Page 4 would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The granting of the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district, including other City properties which were not required to have enclosed parking when they were originally developed. The properties within the immediate neighborhood will likely be subject to these same R-1 standards within the year, and five of the 16 lots fronting on Bethune Way are presently served by two-car garages. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The Municipal Code states that an enclosed two-car garage is necessary to protect the general welfare of residential areas by alleviating the congestion on residential streets, preventing the establishment of parking spaces in an open parking lot situation inappropriate to residential development, and preventing the open and disorderly display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes and other materials which should be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly appearance. The approval of the variance would be contrary to these purposes. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the policies of the General Plan as they relate to the order and stability of residential areas. WPC 4854P/O426P PROJECT HUNE WAY -.· county CARVER ST. ANITA ST. mmmms~ 1751E "' %./ \ £I - ~_. ' -- ' ~ ~'-~d~ ~~-- ~_I I ~[ -- ~ ~' I I ~r ~ I / ~ II ~ I 1 ~ Z ~ ~ ~ I , ~~ ~ I k II I I Frederick A. R. Drew 1275 Banner Avenue Chula Vista, California 92011 January 27, 1988 Planning Commission City of Chula Vista Dear Commissioners, I was telephoned yesterday by Deputy City Attorney Ann Moore who then asked if I had yet received a copy of her statement to you, dated Jan. 22, '88. I advised her I had not yet received it, but that I was very anxious to see it. I told her I would be at the Municipal Center by 5:00 p.m. (yesterday) to get a copy. That proved to be uneccessary because a copy came to my home by mail later in the day. Inasmuch as your meeting will commence today, I am not allowed much time to prepare my response. So that you can at least consider my initial reaction, I will attempt to read to you what I write here, following: 'Section 19.22.170 was adopted by the city of Chula Vista,... on April 15, 1988. The amendments to the Municipal Code were the result of concern by City Council that the bulk and scale of dwellings were increasing in the residential zones. The intent of the ordinance was to establish a more effective means of controlling the bulk and scale of residential dwellings, as well as clarifying when remodeling reaches such a scale as to constitute new construction. "At (a) council meeting, a resident voiced a concern that the ordinances should contain 'a requirement to increase a garage space and other facilities if a resident's living area is increased.' Principal Planner Lee responded to this concern by stating that 'the new requirement is for a two car garage if the expansion exceeds the present square footage by 50% or more.'' 'Section 19.22.170 was created to provide that in instances when an individual intensifies the use of his property by additions to his existing dwelling, he would be required to provide a two car garage to accommodate this intensification of use. To interpret this statute as not applying to instances in which the person is increasing the use of his property by moving an additional building onto his lot merely because it is not attached to the existing building, would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.' I wholeheartely concur with everything stated above but I argue that the statements require an increase in garage space relative to an increase in living area. What the City Attorney wants you to require would be an increase in garage space wholly out of proportion to the increase in living area - where one home previously (and presently) exists without any garage whatsoever, the addition of one more home would require require the addition of two more two-car garages. Planning Commission - Jan. 27, '88 - page 2 The reference (above) to the 'intent of the ordinance to establish a more effective means of controlling the bulk and scale of residential dwellings .... itself refers to the legislative history of the ordinance - which involved consideration of matters such as building density as compared to adjacent roadway parking availability. The council wanted a tool by which it could legally require that new garages be built to accommodate new vehicular population generated by new construction/living-space additions. No consideration was provided at the time for situations like that of the instant case - wherein additional building (in a neighborhood with homes far apart from each other and with adequate street parking available) would not create the kind of problems the ordinances sought to address. Traditionally, the council of this city has adopted an 'if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it' policy, (i.e., it doesn't {often) legislate to problems which should not develop). In this case, there is obviously no need for any additional garages). Applicant Drew is willing to build the one two-car garage which the ordinance at issue appears to mandate for any new construction, but argues that the ordinance does not really require that more garages than one only - be built - whether or not the existing structure includes a garage already. He further argues that the original 'intent' does not apply to his case. He does not believe he should be expected to request a variance from an interpretation of an ordinance where the ordinance is unclea~ on the issue of concern. If what is wrritten in the ordinance is not understandable, it should be made clear before any attempt is made to enforce it. (The ordinances do not say specifically that a garage must be built for an existing home when a second home is built, and a second garage must also be built for the new home). As quoted (above), Principal Planner Lee stated that 'the new requirement is for a two car garage if the expansion exceeds the present square footage by 80% or more.' Obviously, the requirement concerns a two-car garage where living space would increase so much that there would likely be an increase in the number of cars to be parked there. The 'new requirement' does not even begin to suggest any concern for housing the cars which are already in residence there, unless it can be imagined that the already existing cars should not be crowded out of their rightful parking spaces by newcomer cars. The 'new requirement' does not, in fact itself - displace the already existing caps from wherever they were parked prior to the 50M or mope increase of square footage - by forcing them to reside in garages thereafter. Again, I request abandonment of the requirement in my case, and a clearly defined and accurate interpretation of the ordinances at question. Fred Drew /~ Frede ~k A. R. Drew / 127B Banner Avenue  Chula Vista, California g2011 ..... December 14, 1988 Planning Commission City of Chula Vista Dear Members, My wife (June) told me that she had never known me to publicly display so much rage as I did, last night, at your meeting. She was not suggesting that I owed any apology - rather, she was pointing out that I sacrificed my 'famous' ability to think on my feet. That may have prevented me from making myself fully understood. I think you should know that what caused my lapse was the fact that your assistant attorney allowed a full conversation between your staff members who stated their case in detail, before advising you that you should not allow me to state mine - or even to respond to any staff statements I wished to challenge. A problem was that I thought back over the whole history of our home and you should know some of it to understand why I blew my cool last night. June and I brought our family, including very small children and we needed living quarters immediately. (We did not then have time to argue about what may have been the reasons for why it was difficult for us to buy a home in Chula Vista - even with cash in hand). Of the several realtors we saw, none had any homes to show us except in Woodlawn Park and other parts of 0ray. We wound up with the property about which we came to you last night for permission to improve. As you know, I became interested in the plight of my neighbors in the Otay area --and I have been fightin~ in what I see as our common causes since. In large part, the community problems are connected with problems in housing, and those are tied to governmental red tape, and unreasonable, unrealistic restrictions regarding property improvements. The personal problem I bring to your attention provides an example. I can see no duty more meaningful for your body than to unscramble some of the difficulties with your rules and regulations which make it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to improve their lifestyles where the improvement of their homes is a factor. Last night, for example, I believe I heard two of you state that people are expected to 'convert' their ~arages. one of those two even suggested that there was no law which could prevent people from doing so. The natural question then was, (as it was expressed by someone) - why make people build garages if they can be and will be legally converted. (If you know that what people want to build is extra bedrooms, you should allow them to do so - and to build the extra bedrooms - as bedPoonu~ rather than as unnecessarily required ~ara~es) . That way, at least the extra bedrooms will meet the codes and standards of bedrooms instead of the standards of car-rooms. /ln fact, my reading of bhe ordinance~ a~ issue clearly indicate an existing requirement that people who build garages must not thereafter convert them. I think you should re-examine the need for an ordinance requiring something which is likely to be converted into less than adequate living space. You should consider what kinds of homes may or may not need bona-fide garages, and what kinds of garages may be needed at specific kinds of sites - to fit specific circumstances. I note (for your interest) that certain kinds of apartment complexes need garages because the tenants would be deprived of any parking spaces otherwise. Generally, they provide assigned spaces in open-face garages which, because they are open-face, cannot be used as living space, or for storage. The fact that you allow such car-ports for certain kinds of housing in Chula Vista already establishes a precedent which this letter requests you follow through to logical conclusions. ~ There are people in parts of Chula Vista - or its sphere of influence, who own very large plots of land on the order of farms or ranches. The owners' family vehicles may be trucks instead of rolls royces, and the trucks would not fit into garages. Certainly you would agree that no garages should be required for them. logically, then, anyone who owns a home which is larger than the average apartment cell within a complex, and distant enough from next-door neighbors that even the street parking there would present no problems should be allowed the freedom to chose to own no garage (or garages). The analogy I attempted to present when I compared my case with the dog case you heard prior to mine was closer than I could make clear while I was angry last night. You cannot (or should not expect the dwellers of such one-room units as are provided by the JLJ group - to keep three dogs (and) three cats (of non-defined sizes) because of a law which allows that many such animals for any dwelling. You should not require specifically, a 2 car garage per every dwelling regardless of the character and use of that, specific dwelling. My recommendation is that you take another look at the ordinances at question and reconunend to the city council that they be amended to become logical, reasonable, and sane. There are times when (as a politician, or as a fighter for the rights and needs of people) I am deliberately abrasive. Because I pre-calculate the effect, I perhaps, should apologize for that sort of conduct. The rage I felt last night was genuine and honest. Although I admire most of you and I would rather not offend any of you, I consider that if you allow people like me to suffer via thoughtless or inconsiderate ordinance, you may deserve to b~e offended occasionally, and I am grateful that I was ready to serve as instrument. Please move to change the law in time for me to build play-room for my grandchildren before they graduate college. Fred Drew 1279 Banner Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 December 9, 1987 Dear Commissioners, My father became very ill during January 1987, and he remains so now. He needs the kind of care his family can provide but he cannot be brought here from Washington, D. C. to live with us until we can provide adequate quarters. One of my sons has a wife and two small children living in an apartment in Chula Vista. They are crowded there, but its all they can afford. We need to provide livin~ space for them also. To solve both those problems, my wife and I selected a 'move-on' home and we paid half of its cost in the early sprin~ (the final half to be paid when it is on our property). That solution seemed ideal because we have a large lot around our existin~ home, and we are in a quiet, ~aceful area with respectful neighbors. Our plans were delayed somewhat, however, because of the terrible expenses we paid for the several trips I was required to make to my dad's bedside. My dad's own expenses are so ~reat that we will likely lose the family home in D.C. In part, his expenses are that high because I refuse to allow anyone in my close family to be taken to a 'home', - especially in that part of this country where people do not care very much about each other. Dad has been livin~ in a mental hospital almost all of this year. Otherwise, my plans are being delayed by the 'bureaucratic shuffle' right here in Chula Vista. That may prove to be an especially cruel fact because much more delay may cost my father's life. The ~entleman who sold us the 'move-on' explained that any contractor who will set it down would take a very lon~ time ~ettin~ through the paper- work jungle at any local municipal center - and he advised me to do as much as I could to expedite on my own. I got the 'plans' drawn by an architectural draftsman and I attempted to present them in the Buildin~ Department but I was told to go first to the En~ineerin~ Department. There, I was told to submit this, and then that, - and then another version of this and that and the other (ad nauseam) until, finally, I got my four lots consolidated into one lot as they said I must do. Then I was sent to the next stop in my tour of city hall the Plannin~ Department. I feel as though I have experienced a full career there so far - and I do not seem much farther ahead. The issues I have had %o face (one by one, so far) seem to have been endless, and they have been very time-consumin~. I would have settled for that, but I came at last to a point from where I must rebel. I was told that I needed to build a two-car garage for the new home on my property. I argued that no one in my family ever used a ~arage nor ever would, at least not to park any car in. Flanning Commissi~. Dec. 9, page 2 We are concerned more about housing our family than cars. Anyway, we have a great amount of land which is already paved which we use for parking our cars, - and we do not park them on the streets near home. We do not even have our guests park their cars on the streets. Still, as I have already pointed out in this letter, our need for the ne~ housing is urgent, and in order to expedite as much as possible, I re-drew our plans to include a two-car garage. (I decided that after I get it built, would try to come before your commission for permission to tear it down. Then, the Planning Department head dropped another bombshell. He told me that we need to build two - (2), two-car garages, - one of them fop the home that our family has been living in (without any garage)- for 21 years. I think that is an outrageous requirement. There is no logical reason why we should clutter up our property with so many garages that there would not be enough room for my grandchildren to play anymore or for my father to sit out in the sun in peace and quiet. There will not be room for any lawn or trees or birds, just empty ~arages. What makes matters worse, ours is the only home in the entire ~ommunity, not 3ust on this block which has the kind of zoning that restricts and inhibits almost any way to use the property - but that is because I purposefully had my property annexed to Chula Vista many long years ago. My reward fop having done that seems to be that I must, single-handedly suffer the very fate which the other residents of the 'Montgomery' area most feared when they resisted annexation all these years. What makes matters still worse is that because of my special zoning, my property may be incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, even if in a reverse sort of way. I am not simply trying to build on my property what is needed here by my family, but I am trying to upgrade the property by putting something nice here. I do not want to cover over the whole place with garages - or any other useless thin~. I request to be heard by you - whereupon I will request an abandonment of the Planning Director's requirement that I put un-needed ~arages on my property. I further beg you to take note that no other property in this neighborhood can does or will meet your requirements which were apparently designed for other kinds of neighborhoods than this one. I am advised that I will be put on your agenda for your first meetin~ of 1988. I intend to be present. Be advised that all of the personnel of Chula Vista were courteous and polite in dealing with me. This is no complaint of them or of the conduct of their services. Frederick A. R. Drew -ADDENDUM TO LETTEA fO PLANNING COMMISSION DATED Dec. 9, 1987 Date of this Addendum - Dec. 28, 1987 On this date, I have contracted for new drawings which will include provisions for a four-caP garage to be built as the supporting structure for the move-on house I have purchased. By telephone conversation with the Planning staff today, I understand that I may now meet any objections to the Conditional Use Permit I seek, and I will attempt to present my formal application by close of business today. The move-on house which I have already purchased was originally built as the upstairs portion of a home and was built onto (and above) It is very strong and well built, apparently, and will be ideally suited to the purpose I now intend for it. Inasmuch as the required garage will now occupy the same land area as the house itself will occupy, my primary objections to the requirement for garage are less severe. (I did not want to lose any of the land area on which my grandchildren will play, and on which my father will ~sit and sun himself - which I originally planned). I still do want to appear at your first scheduled meeting of 1988 because I still would like permission to avoid any garage at all or at --~ least to reduce the number of garage spaces that the staff requires. If I am allowed to eliminate any of the garage area which I now plan to have built, I would elect to use the space now devoted to garage space, as indoor play area, (family room sort of thing), including a full bathroom and something like a study or a family library. I also want to appear before you to describe the problem I am having because of this new garage requirement because I expect other citizens will have the same sort of problem - especially those who recently annexed to Chula Vista, and those who may be annexed if Bonita becomes an incorporate part of our city. Many of those properties have enough space to build second homes on a lot (for use by family members such as children who have grown, or such as parents who cannot conveniently live too far away from the families who will need to care for them). I hope that your analysis of my problems may lead to some change in the new ordinance(s) which would accommodate those human needs. Frederick A. R. Drew CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION 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. Frederick A. R. Drew, and June T. Drew (husband & wife) List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involYed. Frederick A. R. Drew, and June T. Drew 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, Boardj, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? YesNoA If yes, please indicate person{s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, I ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Nov. 30, 1987 Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P ~fB~f~aW A. ~. A-110 Print or type name of applicant