Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/03/22 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 22, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 8, 1989 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. Consideration of Extension of PCC-88-34; Request to construct 24-hour convenience store with self-serve gas at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street - The Southland Corporation 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-89-42; Request to construct three single family dwellings in the Hillside Modifying District at the northwest quadrant of East 'J' Street and the 1-805 Freeway - George Cunradi 3, PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-1; Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to the authority and jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee and certain development standards in multiple family zones - City initiated OTHER BUSINESS BayFront Discussions DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 1 1. Consideration of Extension of PCC-88-34; request to construct 24-hour convenience store with self-serve gas at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street - The Southland Corporation. A. BACKGROUND On March 23, 1988, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-34 to construct a 24-hour convenience store with self-serve gas at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street in the C-N zone. The applicant has failed to commence construction wi thin the required one-year period, and thus is requesting an extension of the permit. The request is for a one-year extension. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion approving a one-year extension of PCC-88-34. C. DISCUSSION The project has been delayed because the prior user of the property, Mobile Oil Corporation, has been required to decontaminate the soil. The major clean-up is now complete and Southland has applied for a building permit which is expected to be issued in the near future. D. ANALYSIS There has been no material change of circumstances since the granting of the conditional use permit which would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, or which would effect the original findings/conditions of approval (please see resolution attached hereto). It is appropriate therefore to grant the extension. Although the request and recommendation is for one year, construction should be underway within the next few months. WPC 6043P January 13, 1989 'JAN 1 7 1989 Stephen Griffin, AICP City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: 7-Eleven Store #2021-29540 NWC Hilltop @ Naples Drive Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Griffin: This letter is a follow-up to our conversation at your office January 12, 1989. Please use this letter as our request for extension of "Resolution No. PCC-88-34" from the date of expiration, March 23, 1989 for an additional one year. The reason for our request is the clean-up by Mobil Oil Corporation is nearing its final completion, and final approval of our plans is in the the last stages of review from the City of Chula Vista. I thank you in advance for your cooperation and consideration. Sincerely, S Development Manager MS/tp cc: Romona de Camara Larry Luhnow Stephen Ray 7-Eleven Stores / San Diego Division 7811 University Avenue / P.O. Box 698 / La Mesa, California 92044-0311 / Phone (619) 466-0711 THE SOUTHLAND ~ · ~ CORPORATION HilltOp Drive & E. Naples ILOCATOR ~ ..~ tPcc-88-34 ~ RESOLUTION NO. PCC-88-34 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 12, 1988, by the Southland Corporation, and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct a 24-hour convenience store with two self-service gas islands and freestanding canopy on 0.48 acres located at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street in the C-N zone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and ~ WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., March 23, 1988, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-43. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The availability of 24-hour self-service gas will provide a convenience to surrounding residents. There are no other service stations within the immediate area. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of yersons residing or wgrking in the vicinity or injurious to property or mprovements in the vicinity. The pump islands are located across public streets from adjacent residents. Circulation and stacking areas appear adequate to avoid traffic hazards or congestion. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposal complies with all conditions specified in the Code for service stations. Compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and conditions will be required prior to the issuance of development permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The General Plan recognizes the need for service station facilities at appropriate locations convenient to the motoring public. The proposal in question is such a facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby grants the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: a. Should any problems arise and/or any complaints be received regarding the extended hours, the matter shall be returned to the Commission for review and reconsideration. b. The site plan and architecture are subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, whose decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee. c. The abutting project curbs, gutter and sidewalk shall be relocated to a line 32-feet along Hilltop Drive and 26 feet along Naples measured from the existing centerline of the two streets as specified by the City. The length of the curb relocation shall be for the full length of the project frontage. d. The curb transition between the project frontage and the existing curbs along Hilltop Drive shall be limited to about llO feet to minimize impacts on the corner residential parcel fronting on Hilltop Court. e. The signal standard in the northwest corner of the intersection shall be relocated behind the new curb and gutter. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. -2- PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd day of March, 1988, by 'the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Carson, Tugenberg, Casillas, Fuller, Shipe and Cannon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser (with notification) d~i~ne E. Carson, Chairman ATTEST: Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 1641P/4929P -3- CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION 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. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION) A TEXAS CORP List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION 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. JODIE THOMPSON JERE THOMPSON JOHN THOMP~QN 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 'N/A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc-~-E-f~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination ac~j~g as a unit." {NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.! ~~j ~ 1/12/~ STgnatur~.~' applican~'~ WPC 0701P ,~TEPHEN R, RAY A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for ~eeting of March 22, 1989 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-89-42: Request to construct three single family dwellings in the Hillside Modifying District at the northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and the 1-80b Freeway - George Cunradi A. BACKGROUND This item is a request to construct three single-family dwellings on 0.62 acres at the northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and the 1-805 Freeway in the R-1-H-P zone. The "H" Hillside Modifying District requires Commission and Council review of all development proposals. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior Environmental Impact Report on the property, EIR-75-4, and has prepared an Addendum thereto. The Addendum finds that the project will result in no significant environmental impacts not already discussed in EIR-75-4 and previously addressed by conditions attached to a prior rezoning and parcel map. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion to certify EIR-75-4 with Addendum. 2. Adopt a motion to approve DRC-89-42 based on the finding that the proposal conforms to the Hillside Modifying District as well as the Development Policy and Design Criteria for hillside developments. C. DISCUSSION The proposal involves three separate parcels with a total area of 1.62 acres. The property has a triangular, elongated shape with topography that slopes steeply down from south to north. The property has 300 ft. of frontage on East "J" Street and abuts the 1-805 Freeway for a distance of approximately 830 ft. A vacant 4.66-acre parcel with similar terrain and also zoned R-1-H-P adjoins the westerly boundary of the property. The 1.62 acres was acquired as excess freeway right-of-way and zoned to R-1-H in 1976. The parcel map creating the three lots was approved one year later in 1977. As a condition of the rezoning and parcel map, the applicant was required to establish a permanent open space easement involving approximately one acre of the northerly and steepest portion of the property. This has left 0.62 developable acres distributed among the three parcels as follows: Parcel #1 10,972 sq. ft.; Parcel #2 7,315 sq. ft.; and Parcel #3 8,798 sq. ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page In 1982, the subject property, as well as the adjoining 4.66 acre parcel, were rezoned to R-1-H-P with the following development guidelines: 1. Any development shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval to assure retention of the view. 2. All structures shall maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from East "J" Street. 3. All dwelling units, regardless of type, shall be designed to meet the State of California Administrative Code Title 25 noise insulation standard for a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA. All exterior private open space areas exposed to approximately 65 dBA level or higher shall be provided with a line-of-sight barrier protection. 4. Any development plan approval will require that an open space lot with an access easement to the San Diego formation soils be provided for qualified paleontologists to gain access and conduct necessary excavations at some future date. 5. Access to "J" Street shall be designed to minimize traffic conflicts. The development proposal shows three split-level dwellings served by a common driveway which connects with East "J" Street at the far westerly boundary of the property. The building pads and driveway were rough-graded in conjunction with the earlier 1977 parcel map. The dwellings would be depressed from street grade so that the roof peaks would extend from 2.5 ft. (parcel 1 & 2) to 8 ft. (parcel 3) above the level of East "J" Street. Each unit shows an upper-level rear deck rather than a graded rear yard. ANALYSIS The Hillside analysis for density and grading was accomplished in conjunction with the earlier rezoning and parcel map. With an average natural slope of 20.5%, the 1.62 acres could accommodate a maximum of 4 dwelling units and grading of 55% or 0.9 acres of the site. The proposal is for three dwelling units, and the open space easement restricts grading to a maximum of 0.62 acres, although the actual grading is significantly less. The Hillside Modifying District also includes design criteria for hillside developments. The proposal has incorporated several of the su§gested design solutions, including split-level construction, common driveways, reduced side yard setbacks (5'/5' rather than 10'/3'), and the use of decks rather than graded rear yards -- all in order to better conform with the terrain and reduce grading. The manufactured slopes between the units and the street would be subject to a common landscape treatment and maintenance. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 3 The dwellings have also been situated so as to minimize the obstruction of adjacent views -- subject only to constraints regarding vehicular access. The peak roof lines on parcels 2 & 3 are just 2.5 ft. above the level of East "J" Street, while the roof line on parcel 1 is eight feet above street grade. This is consistent with the development standards noted above, as is the location of the driveway access point at the far westerly boundary in order to minimize traffic conflicts. The standard related to noise insulation will be incorporated into the construction plans, and access for future paleontologic excavations has been addressed by the open space easement. The dwellings are located within 10 ft. of the East "J" Street right-of-way, rather than 25 ft. as called for by the standards. However, East "J" has 50 ft. of excess right-of-way at this location and is not expected to have more than a 40 ft. travelway west of 1-805. The minimum setback from the "street", therefore, should remain as 60 ft. as shown on the plans. CC&R's will establish joint responsibility among the three parcels for maintaining all improvements, including landscaping, in the public right-of-way. The Design Review Committee will consider the project on April 6, 1989. The Engineering Department has submitted the following for information only. The following is a list of items which will be required in conjunction with the building permit in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code: 1. Sewer and Traffic Signal Fees will be assessed on the Building Permit. 2. A construction permit will be required for the installation of a driveway approach. 3. A grading permit is required for this project. Hence, a new grading plant must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer showing the proposed pads which do not match those shown on Grading Plan No. 76-246. 4. There is an encroachment permit on file to cover the proposed private driveway and sewer force laterals. However, a new permit must be issued to include the retaining wall, guard rail and barricade as shown on Grading Plan No. 76-246D, since the City will not be responsible for the maintenance of these items. The new General Plan Circulation Element (not yet adopted) shows East "J" Street as a Class II Collector and as such should have a center line-to-curb width of 26 feet. However, due to the project's proximity to the bridge over 1-805 (which will not be widened within the foreseeable future), we feel that the requirement to widen the street along the frontage of this property is not warranted. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 4 E. FINDING The Hillside Modifying District requires a finding that the development conforms to the provisions of the District as well as the provisions of the Development Policy and Design criteria for hillside developments. We believe this finding can be made based on the factors discussed above, WPC 6054P [ - [NOIJ. V'~Od~O~) .LN::IWdOI:IA](] SO.LV.LS ~ Z ~ ~ ~t NOl.l.¥~lOd~O~) /N3WdO]3A:If~ $0.1.¥/$ {_ ADDENDUM TO EIR-75-4 1-805 & East J Street Rezone and Lot Split Prepared in accordance with Section 15164 CEQA Guidelines Prepared for City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92012 Prepared by Affinis Shadow Valley Center 839 Jamacha Road E1 Cajon CA 92019 March 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 ISSUE ANALYSIS 3 A. NOISE 3 B. TRAFFIC 3 C. SCHOOLS 4 4.0 CERTIFICATION 5 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 1975, an EIR was issued by the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Committee for the proposed 1-805 and East "J" Street Rezoning and Lot Split. The report was subsequently adopted by the Planning Commission, also in 1975. However, development of the property was postponed. In 1989, the applicant filed with the City to develop the parcel as previously approved. Given the length of time between the original EIR's completion and the present application, the City of Chula Vista reevaluated the project, and determined three areas for reconsideration: noise, traffic, and schools. Noise impacts were analyzed in the original EIR, but needed to be updated. Traffic and school issues were not dealt with in the original EIR. Section 5.9 of the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures and Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines require preparation of a subsequent EIR if substantial changes are involved with implementation of a revised project. As the revised project does not involve such changes, this document has been prepared as an addendum to EIR-75-4, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. It has further been determined that there is no significant new information to be added to the text of the original EIR. Thus, the addendum need not be circulated for public review and will be included with the original EIR for consideration by the decision-making body. The original EIR includes a detailed discussion and maps of the project location and site conditions. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL PROJECT The original project proposed to divide the property into three lots for single-family homes. Access would have been provided via a driveway encroaching in the right-of-way between the parcel and East J Street. The City of Chula Vista had initiated a rezone of the property from Planned Community (PC) to R-1-H (Single family, subject to hillside development regulations). The original EIR noted that if the rezone was not adopted, the applicant would be required to obtain a Planned Development Permit. The original EIR noted the area to be developed contained chaparral, with no endemic, rare, or endangered species destroyed by the project. While the topography is steep in places, no soils or geological constraints were found. REVISED PROJECT The revised project differs very little from the original project. It also involves the placement of three detached, single family dwellings on the southeastern section of the property. Two of the dwelling units have been enlarged, and the architecture and design have been updated. The same access is proposed. Native vegetation and a small draw on the northern half of the parcel would be preserved in open space. The tiered grading along J Street, in the area to be developed, was done at some time in the past. The project area is presently zoned R-1-H. 3.0 ISSUE ANALYSIS A. NOISE Original Pre~ect. The original EIR reported the project area was subject to unacceptable noise levels from vehicular traffic on 1- 805. It noted outdoor areas with acceptable noise levels could be provided, and that interior noise levels could be reduced to acceptable levels through acoustical insulation techniques, such as forced air circulation, three-inch fibrous thermal insulation, solid core exterior doors, and double glazed window glass. Revised Pro~ect. The City of Chula Vista's General Plan is presently being updated, and the most recent noise contours for the project area are still in the draft stage. The numbers indicate the area to be developed will likely fall within the 65 or 70 dBA CNEL contours. The updated project has included all steps mentioned in the original EIR to reduce noise to acceptable levels. The usable private open space of the balcony areas would be enclosed with a combination of wall and glass or plexiglas to reduce sound to acceptable levels. The insulation presently proposed exceeds that suggested in the original EIR. The exterior doors will be solid core, the windows will be double glazed, and the houses will incorporate forced air circulation. These measures would reduce the noise impact to below a level of significance. B. TRAFFIC Orisinal Pro~ect. No specific traffic analyses were done in the original EIR. Revised Pro~ect. The project would have access to J Street, off a single driveway descending the slope to the houses. The project would generate approximately 30 ADT to ~J" Street. The most recent traffic counts by the City of Chula Vista are 7580 ADT on "J" Street between Hilltop and Nacion Avenues (west of 1- 805 and adjacent to the project), and 5480 ADT between Nacion and Floyd Avenues, (east of and crossing 1-805). The project-generated ADT would be an increase of approximately one-half of one percent on either segment of "J" Street. This would not constitute a significant impact to traffic. 3 C. SCHOOLS Original Project. No analyses of effects to schools were done in the original EIR. Revised Pro~ect. Students generated by the proposed project would attend Halecrest Elementary School, Hilltop Junior High School, and Hilltop Senior High School. Overall, both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and are operating over capacity. Table 1. School Enrollments and Capacities School Name Capacity 1988-1989 Enrollment Halecrest Elementary 599 599 Hilltop Jr. High 1,386 1,506 Hilltop Sr. High 1,388 1,508 The Sweetwater Union High School District uses a generation rate of 0.29 students per single family dwelling unit; the Chula Vista City School District uses a 0.4 rate. Thus, the proposed project would generate an estimated .87 junior and senior high school students, and 1.2 elementary school students. As all of the affected schools are presently operating at or above capacity, any increase in students is a significant impact. The City of Chala Vista accepts the payment of developer fees as mitigation for this impact. The project is not within a Mello- Roos district, so the applicant would be responsible payment of standard developer fees ($1.53 per square foot of habitable living space). The applicant would be required to pay these fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 4.0 CERTIFICATION This EIR Addendum was prepared by the City of Chula Vista and Affinis. We hereby affirm that, to the best of our knowledge, the statements and information in this analysis are true and correct, and that all known information concerning the potentially significant environmental effects of the revised project have been included and fully evaluated. Michael Busdosh, PhD /D~las D. Rekd Project Manager Environmental Review Coordinator 5 5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED Ken Lee City of Chula Vista Shirley McBride Chula Vista Elementary School District Dr. Montgomery Halecrest School Doug Reid City of Chula Vista Dennis Wolfe City of Chula Vista Sandy Young Sweetwater Union High School District FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-75-4 1-805 & East "J" Street Rezoning and Lot Split (Cunradi) Issued by the Environmental Review Committee Oct. 16, 1975 Adopted by The Chula Vista Planning Commission Dec. 8, 1975 City of Chula Vista TABLE OF CONTENTS page 1.l Purpose & Introduction ............. 1 1.2 Executive Summary ................ 1 2.0 Project Setting ...................... 2 3.0 Project Description ................. 7 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ............ 12 5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ......... 14 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......... 14 7.0 The Relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity .......... 15 8.0 Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented ................. 15 9.0 The Growth inducing impact of the proposed action ..... 15 lO.O Organizations & Persons Consulted ....... ]5 ll.O Input ..................... 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure lA Locator Map .................... 3 Figure lB Aerial Map ................. 4 Figure 2 Noise Impact Contours .......... 5 Figure 3 Topography Map ............ 9 Figure 4 Geological Map ............ 10 Figure 5 Development Plan .............. II LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Initial Study IS-75-65 Appendix B Hillside Development Regulations Appendix C HUD Noise Guidelines Evaluation Appendix D Soils/Geology Site Inspection & Reconnaissance Report These Appendices are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Department EIR-75-4 CUNRADI LOT SPLIT & ASSOCIATED REZONING ACTIONS 1.1 Purpose and Introduction The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Calif. Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in disclosing all significant environmental impacts of the proposed project to the decision making authority of the City of Chula Vista and the public. This EIR is a result of an Initial Study (IS-75-65) which determined that the proposed project could have a possible significant impact on the environment because of the following conditions: 1. The close proximity of the site to 1-805 with its unacceptable noise levels. 2. The high quality stands of native vegetation on the site, and 3. The very rough topography of the site. 4. Proximity to the Sweetwater Earthquake Fault The environmental impact analysis is therefore limited to these above noted topics. It was the conclusion of the Initial Study that the project would clearly have no other possible significant impact on the environment. (See Appendix A for IS-75-65) Also as part of this EIR, an analysis of the rezoning from P-C to R-1-H of the entire 6.28 acre P-C zoned area, north of East J Street and west of 1-805 presented. 1.2 Executive Summary The proposed division of the subject property would place the project population in areas of clearly unacceptable noise levels. It would be possible through alternative development techniques and insulation requirements to shield some outside areas from acoustical impact and reduce interior noise levels to that of a livable environment. (See Sec. 4.1) The southern portion of the site contains a high quality stand of native Chaparral that will be removed due to the grading necessary to implement the project and clearing of fire prone materials to insure adequate fire protection. This clearing will cover 1/4 to 1/2 of the site and will involve some of the most mature and dense stands of Chaparral. There will be no endemic, rare or endangered species destroyed by the project. The basic topographical integrity of the site will be retained through the implementation of the project. The development proposal for the 1.62 Cunradi Parcel utilizes "step down - stilt home" type of development that will insure little disruption of the site by grading. The imposition of the hillside development regulations (See Appendix B ) on the western 4.66 acre parcel will insure the retention of land forms through grading restrictions and density limitations. Because the Sweetwater Fault is located west of the proposed 1.62 Cunradi Lot Split and due to the general stability of soils on the site, any significant hazard is precluded. There will be an overall significant impact on the environment due to ambient noise levels in the project setting. The adverse effects of human habitation of this site can be overcome by alternative design techniques which could make interior and some exterior noise levels acceptable. NOTE: This analysis on the western 4.66 parcel is limited to rezoning activities and not precise development plan review. 2.0 Project Setting 2.1 Location The project site is located on 6.28 acres of moderately modified land at the northw6st quadrant of 1-805 and East J St. See the following location map., (Fig. l) 2.2 Acoustical Settin~ The project is located at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and J St. The freeway is immediately located east and north of the project site with single family dwellings to the west and south. 1-805 produces noise levels which have been analyzed in accordance with th~ HUD guidelines as follows: (See Appendix C for Calculations). Auto Normally unacceptable 200'~ Truck Clearly unacceptable 45'+ Normally unacceptable 400'~ These noise levels are based on a Cal Trans estimation of an ADT of 61,800, one year after the freeway opening. (See attached Fig. 2, for noise impact contours.) Because the site has full line of sight exposure to the freeway, no adjustments to the noise level contours was made for barriers or topographical differences. 2.3 Biology Vegetation in this area is typical of many large open areas around the eastern portion of Chula Vista. Generally the vegetation is comprised of coastal sage scrub with various grasses and introduced weeds and ornamentals. The native plant community is dominated by Rhus inteorifolia with a number of large Heteromeles arbutifolia. The introduced species include one large Msoporum laetum, Carpobrotus edule, and Yucca aloifolia 'variegata' There are two kinds page 3 ^. Clearly Unacceptable lruck B. ~ormally ~nacceptable C. ~ormally ~nacceptable ~ Truck Noise of Opuntia on the property; the Prickly-pear, Opuntia fiscus - indica, which is fairly common, and; the native Opuntia parryi var. serpentina or Snake Cholla, which is on the rare and endangered species list. Another native plant of note is the Simmondsia chinensis which is known for its edible nuts (from the female plant) that are also valuable for the oil they contain. It should be noted that a portion of the property has been burned, but, as it is their nature to do, many of the shrubs are returning from the base. The narrow channel running through the center of the property creates an inviting microclimate for most plants, although the runoff water is highly polluted. This collection area is also the site of the single Myoporun and the Chaparral Broom, Baccharis Sarothroides. Plants identified: Natives Artemisia californica - Sage brush Eriogonum fasciculatum - Flat-top Buckwheat Encelia californica - Encelia Sim~ndsia chinensis - Simmondsia Opuntia ficus-indica - Prickly Pear Opuntia parryi var. serpentina - Snake Cholla Isomeris arborea - Bladder Pod Heteromeles arbutifolia - Toyon Rhus integrifolia - Lemonade Berry Baccharis sarrothroides - Chaparral Broom Ornamentals Myoporum laetum - Myoporum Yucca aloifolia variegata - Spanish Bayonet Carpobrotus edule - Hottentot Fig Wildlife diversity on the site is greatly reduced because of the disruptions caused by the adjacent residential uses, East J St. and 1-805. The following mammals have been identified from areas near the site with similar vegetation and are likely to be found on the site: Dipodomys agilis Agile Kangaroo Rat Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Microtus californicus California Vole Neotoma fuscipes Dusky-footed Woodrat Perognathus fallax San Diego Pocket Mouse P. eremicus Cactus Mouse P. maniculatus White-footed Mouse Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel Sylviligus sp. Cottontail Rabbit Thomomys bottae Valley Pocket Gopher The following reptiles are likely to be found on the project site. Cneunidophoris hyperythrus Orange-throated Whiptail Crotalus viridis Western Diamondback Eumeces skiltonianus Western Skink 6 Gerrhonotus multicarinata Alligator Lizard Lampropeltis getulus Common Kingsnake Masticophis lateralis Striped Racer Phrynosoma coronatus Coast Horned Lizard Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Long-Nosed Snake Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard The following species of birds have been identified near the subject property in acres of similar natural vegetation. American Kestrel House Finch Anna's Hummingbird Killdeer Barn Owl Lesser Goldfinch Black-chinned Sparrow Mountain Bluebird Brown Towhee Mourning Dove Burrowing Owl Red-tailed Hawk California Quail Roadrunner California Thrasher White-crowned Sparrow Common Flicker White-tailed Kite Golden Eagle Wrentit Yellow-rumped Warbler In addition, the site may be hunting territory for the Cooper's Hawk and the Red-shouldered Hawk which are suffering population declines and are designated as Blue List species. 2.4 Topography The site has a very rough natural topography with an average natural slope of 20.5% for the easterly parcel and 33.2% for the westerly parcel. (See Fig. 3) 2.5 Soils & Geology A preliminary soils/geologic site inspection and reconnaissance of the 1.62 eastern parcel has been conducted. Ground surface elevations on the property vary from a low of approximately 160 feet in the canyon bottom along the freeway boundary of the site to a high along the southerly property line adjacent to J Street of approximately 250 feet. The site is situated on the westerly side slope of a small tributary canyon and includes a portion of the small ridge and northward draining draw to the west. The slopes on the property are moderate to steep. The reconnaissance of the property as well as a review of existing geologic maps, literature and photos indicates that there are two distinct geologic and/or soil units present on the property. These are, from youngest to oldest, alluvium and the San Diego Formation. The latter being the bedrock of the general area. A brief description of each of the units is given below: Alluvium: The alluvium is mainly confined to the canyon bottom and locally extends up the small draws on the site. The materials consist for the most part of clayey sands. Although the actual depth of the alluvium is not known, typically the materials are compressible and have thicknesses on the order of 2 to 4 feet. 7 San Diego Formation: The San Diego Formation of Pliocene age is the dominant geologic unit on the property. Within the general site area, the unit consists of what appears to be nearly horizontal stratified series of silty sands and relatively clean sands. Characteristically, this formation has proven to be a competent foundation material and stability wise, stands well in high cuts; however, slopes are subject to extensive rilling and/or gullying. In regards to faults in the area, the review of the existing geologic literature as well as the field reconnaissance indicates that the potentially active Sweetwater Fault appears to lie in close proximity to the site. Current mapping being done by others in the general area seems to indicate that the north trending Sweetwater Fault parallels the western boundary of the subject property to the west. (See Fig. 4) The width of the fault zone is not known but is estimated to be approximately 100 feet or more. The reconnaissance disclosed nothingto suggest the fault traverses the property. 3.0 Project Description 3.1 Cunradi Lot Split The applicant proposes to divide this property into three lots for single family dwellings. Access would be via a drive encroaching in the city right- of-way between the subject property and East J St. and connecting to the East J St. travel lanes at the western portion of the property. Grading would be kept to a minimum through the use of "stilt" type construction. Fill would be nlaced to support driveways and garages. Fire retandent plantings will be required within 50' of the dwelling units. (See Fig. 4 for an illustration of the development plan) In accordance with the existing Planned Community (PC) zoning of the site, the applicant would have to obtain a Planned Development Permit to develop the property. If the rezoning proposed in the following section of this EIR is adopted, a Planned Development Permit would not have to be obtained. 3.2 Rezonin9 The Chula Vista Planning Dept. is initiating a rezoning of the property from the P-C zone to R-1-H (Single family residential subject to the hillside development regulations). Development would be allowed subject to the following regulations: : , , F,~. ¥ '/'" ~ Sweetwater Community Planning ~ ...... · :.' , .'~-' Program - Geological Map page 11 Westerly Parcel Easterly Parcel Size 4.66 AC 1.62 AC Average Natural Slope 33.2% 20.5% No. of DU's 2 units 4 units Max. % of lot graded 10% 55% 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Noise 4.1.1 Impact The subject property is subject to an unacceptable noise impact due to both auto and truck noise from 1-805. 4.1.2 Mitigation Alternative site plan techniques could be utilized to place structures between some areas of usable open space and the freeway, thus functioning as an acoustical barrier. Outdoor areas with acceptable noise levels can therefore be provided by this project The interior noise levels can be reduced to acceptable levels through acoustical insulation techniques. Examples of these techniques are as follows: A forced air circulation system in order that all windows can be kept closed, Three inch fibrous thermal insulation. Solid core exterior doors Double glazed window glass set in an elastomer gasket. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only provides examples of acoustical impact reduction techniques that could be utilized to provide a suitable interior living environment. 4.1.3 Analysis Unless adequate acoustical barriers and insulation techniques are incorporated into the project, there will be a significant impact on the environment by placing increased population densities in an area of unacceptable noise levels. 4.2 . Biology 4.2.1 Impact The project will remove about 50,000 sq. ft. of coastal sage scrub vegetation. The rare and endangered Opuntia parryi var. serpentina - (Snake Cholla) is located near the northwestern portion of the property and is not likely to be directly effected by the project. The increase in population in this area is likely to have an indirect impact due to a more frequent human use of the property. 4.2.2 Analysis Due to the very minimal disturbance of any rare or endangered species, there will be an overall insignificant impact on biological forms. 4.3 Topography 4.3.1 Impact The development proposal for the easterly parcel minimizes the area of grading to that immediately adjacent to East J St. Only about 320 cu. yards will be moved; 300 cu. yards of import and 20 cu. yards of excavation will be required. The grading restrictions which are proposed to be imposed on the westerly parcel will limit the area which can be graded to 10% of the site (.466 acres). This limitation will insure that there will be no substantial alteration of the natural land form. 4.3.2 Analysis There will be no significant change in land form due to the minimal amount of grading as proposed in the applicant's plan. However, the proposed access is unacceptable to the traffic engineer and access alternatives may necessitate substantial grading. 4.4 Soils & Geology 4.4.1 Impact Due to the apparent location of the Sweetwater Fault to the west of the project and the general stability of the soils, limit the potential for any significant impact. 4.4.2 Mitigation A detailed soil investigation with a geologic study is recommended to locate or define the limits of subsurface soil formation, potentially compressible soils and possible limits of any faults. Such an investi- gation would cover those items together with determining the following: a. The characteristics of proposed fill material, b. The embankment shrinkage factor, c. The presence and effect of any expansive soils, d. The most suitable type and depth of foundation, e. Allowable soil bearing pressures, f. Design pressures for retaining walls, g. Pavement requirements, and h. Any construction problems that can be anticipated. 4.4.3 Analysis There will be no significant impact due to existing geologic or soil conditions. 13 5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5.1 The project wi~. be subjected to unacceptable no,se levels. 5.2 The project will remove an insignificant amount of coastal scrub. 5.3 The project will make an insignificant alteration of land form. 5.4 There will be a reduction of natural open space by approximately 50,000 sq. ft. 5.5 There will be an increase in traffic by up to 60 daily trips. 5.6 There will be an insignificant increase in runoff. 5.7 There will be a short term increase in noise and dust during construction activities. 5.8 There will be a higher level of carbon monoxide (CO) near the freeway, however, there will be no violation of any CO health standards. 5.9 There will be an incremental increase in air pollutants. 5.10 There will be a nominal increase in the demand for public services. 5.11 There will be an insignificant increase in resource consumption due to the construction and operation of this facility. Some of these resources are non renewable. 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 6.1 Alternative Design If an alternative access route is found to be necessary as a result of the traffic engineers recommendations, then lot design configuration will need to be environmentally rereviewed. 6.2 No Project Implementation of the no project option would preclude the placement of additional people in this area of unacceptable noise level. This option would require the purchase of development rights or fee ownership by a public agency. 6.3 Development as a Park The property could be purchased by the City of Chula Vista for park purposes. The current population within the park service district as delineated in the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan requires 9.4 acres of park land for an adequate level of service. There is currently no parks in the service district. The topography of the site and its full exposure to the freeway, do not enhance the potential of this property for park purposes. 6.4 Standard Single family Development Development of the site under standard R-1 single family regulations would result in 15-20 dwelling units and the importation of a very large volume of earth would be required to create individual home sites. This development scheme would result in a more adverse impact on the environment. 6.5 Alternative Analysis It is apparent from t~ analysis that the private pro~ t which would be least environmentally disruptive would be a low density development designed in accordance with hillside development regulations, incorporating some area of acoustically protected exterior usable open space and adequate interior acoustical protection from freeway noise. 7.0 The Relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of lon~-term productivity. On a long term basis, as State and Federal regulations lower the noise levels emitted by autos and trucks, the noise impact may be lowered. However, as the volume of traffic increases on 1-805 the acoustical emission factor is likely to be off set by increasing traffic volumes. Much of the natural vegetation on the site will be retained through the implementation of the project. Among these species is the Snake Cholla which is a rare and endangered species. The owner of the eastern parcel desires to proceed now with development of the project which he has purchased from the Calif. Dept. of Transportation for this purpose. The City of Chula Vista wishes to proceed with the rezoning of the property from PC to R-1-H to insure that development of the site will respect the natural form and features of the site. 8.0 Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The project will result in the consumption of materials, energy and labor. Some of these resources are non-renewable. This development will commit the site to the proposed use on a long term basis, there is little likelyhood that the use will be removed and the commitment of resources make non-use unlikely. The proposed development and its commitment of resources will provide housing opportunities for upper middle income families. 9.0 The growth inducing impact of the proposed action. The project will have no growth inducing impacts. The entire area of the project is developed with stable residential dwellings and a freeway. There is little prospect that any of these parcels will be redeveloped to a different use. The project does not involve any facilities that could be used to stimulate growth in near by areas. The project will not increase the demand on service requirements of the urban infrastructure to a level that will result in secondary projects necessary to serve the project. However, the construction of the proposed drive in the City's right-of way for East "J" Street would preclude the use of this land for any future widening of the street. lO.O Organizations & Persons consulted Current Planning Division, Planning Dept. Ken Lee, Current Planning Supervisor Lu Quinney, Associate Planner Tom Davis, Landscape Planner Environmental Review Section, Planning Dept. Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Larry Yamagata, Associate Planner California Dept. of Transportation Division of Engineering, Dept. of Public Works Fire Dept. Eugene Dean, Fire Marshal George W. Cunradi Thomas S.W. Won§ Inter-City Soils, Inc. Richard K. Smith, Vice Pres/General Mgr. Norris E. Luedtke, REC 11063 16 ll.O INPUT ~,TTAClhMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMM[SSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF 10/10/75 (ATTAC}LMENT 1 - EIR-75-4) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Environmental Control Commission SUBJECT: EIR-75-4 While the Environmental Control Commission wouId prefer to see the land involved in EIR-75-4 remain as undisturbed open space, and as a buffer zone between 1-805 and residential areas immediately adjacent, we realize that this may not be economically feasible. We, therefore, would go along with a proposal which would retain as much of the physical integrity of the site as possible. The rezoning of the 6.28 acres from P.C. (Planned Community) to R-1-H (Single Family Dwelling subject to Hillside Regulations, and the "discussed lot split") seem to serve this purpose reasonably well. Regardless of how attractive architecturally and in terms of surrounding landscaping, it must be noted that the three residential units still represent physical intrusion on previously open space dominated by mature coastal sage scrub and providing habitat for a variety of wildlife. We feel that this point should be emphasized. Likewise, we echo the EIR finding in terms of noise level impact for this site. The fewer people it is necessary to expose to this problem, the better environmentally. If this proposal can best accomplish these two goals, i.e., keeping the physical intrusion at a small a scale as possible, and limiting density to the lowest possible figure due to noise level~, that the ECC supports it. Respectfully submitted, R ~ C E J ~ ~ 0 er, Member NOV2 5 1975 Environmental Control Commission STATE OF CALI'~ORNIA--BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G, BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 81406, SAN DIEGO 92138 November 6, 1925 11-SD-805 Various 11212-600199 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EIR-25-~, concerning a proposed development northwest of "J" Street and 1-805. We concur most strongly that traffic noise will severely impact any residences on this property, and that stringent mitigation measures be a condition of approval of any subdivision plan for this proper~y. Sincerely, Jacob. D~ema ~ DistriCt) Director of/Transportation D. L. Dickson District Project Development Engineer DLD: rs RECEIVED lel 10 lg/li ? L/\['I fq I I",'G O EPA[,~'I'W~ENT ~ V!,ST.'L 0ALIFORI~H'~ Appendix C CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT ~PF~"~-~'~NT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN WH ............ .r ~--~ ON ALL APPLICATIONS )~U}.EU.~ILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTIDN ON THE PART OF THE ~L BODIES. CITY COUNCIL, ,~ The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. C. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) 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. organizati~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, Bo~ Co~issions, Co~it~ees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ If yes, please indicate person(s) ~vidua), firm, copartn~ )~y~other count~ ~ty and county, c~ty, mun,c~pali(y, district or other ..... ~vision, ~ffgy ~er group or combination actin (~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~~ Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P ~ A- )O -- Print or type name' of appliCant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-1; Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relatin9 to the authority and jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee and certain development standards in multiple family zones - City initiated A. BACKGROUND In their annual report to the City Council, the Design Review Committee outlined several issues and concerns regarding development standards and jurisdictional and procedural matters related to the design review process. The Council accepted a follow-up report by staff which recommended that hearings be set to consider ordinance amendments addressing several of the issues. These amendments are the subject of this report. The remaining issues raised by the Committee were recommended for additional study and are not further addressed here. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-59, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-59. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-59. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact the amendments contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION Following is a discussion of the five recommended amendments. The amendments themselves are contained in Exhibit A. 1. Place a one-year limitation on DRC approvals. Unlike conditional use permits and zone variances, once a project receives DRC approval, the approved plans can be built at any time in the future. The plans supercede any subsequent changes in the City's zoning regulations or design manual and any changes to the character of the surrounding area which could have had a bearing on the original design solutions. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 2 A one-year time limit for approved plans, with the opportunity for extensions similar to the conditional use permit and variance procedures, would avoid these problems and provide better control. The master fee schedule would be amended to include a fee for extension requests in order to account for noticing and staff hours. 2. Provide the DRC with the discretion to approve a transfer of open space from the rearyard to other locations on R-3 lots. The R-3 zone presently requires setbacks of 5 ft. on the sides and 15 ft. in the rear. Since the configuration of R-3 lots is typically 2-4 times as deep as they are wide, the largest portions of the building and the greatest number of units are often oriented to the narrow 5 ft. sideyards, while the deeper 15 ft. rearyard benefits few if any units at the rear of the lot. This space could often be more effectively used on the sides or in the center of a project. The proposal is to amend the Code to allow the DRC the discretion to reduce the rearyard by as much as 10 ft. Ifrom 15 ft. to 5 ft.) provided the open space is transferred to another more beneficial location on the lot. The transfer would only be available in cases where the rearyard abutted a mul tiple-family, commercial or industrial zone, and only after consideration of such factors as the size and orientation of on-site as well as adjacent structures and yards, and the on-site benefits to be gained by the transfer. The transfer option would not be available for rearyards abutting single- or two-family zones. 3. Reduce the height limit in R-3 zones from 3.5 stories or 45 ft. in height to 2.5 stories or 28 ft. in height, with the ability to increase to the higher limit at the discretion of the DRC. The R-3 zones presently allow for buildings 3.5 stories or 45 ft. in height (although three story projects typically range between 30-35 ft. in overall height). While three-story projects were not that common in the past due to the disproportionate cost of adding a third story, the increased demand for housing and higher land costs have increased pressures to maximize densities, resulting in more three-story developments. These projects are often out of scale with the surrounding area -- both in terms of appearance and also in terms of obstructing light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed amendment would authorize projects of 2.5 stories/28 ft. in height az a matter of right and allow project~ of 3.5 stories/d5 ft. high only at the discretion of the DRC. The first item under Principles and Standards in the City's Design Manual states that "the height, bulk, mass and proportion of all structures should be compatible with the site, as well as in scale with adjacent structures on adjourning properties in the area." Thus the DRC now has the authority to reject or down-size three story projects based on issues of scale and compatibility, but the amendment would have the significant advantage of placing the responsibility of addressing these issues with the developer rather than with the staff and Committee. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 22, 1989 Page 3 There are several measures which can be taken alone or in combination to ameliorate the mass and bulk of three-story structures short of reducing the height to two stories. For instance, increasing the setbacks, either overall or for second and third story portions of the building; breakin§ the mass into smaller units by using two or more separate structures rather than one or two large buildings; varying the setback/elevations on a horizontal plane to suggest less mass than stark, unrelieved elevations; and roof lines and treatment can also be used to reduce mass and bulk. 4. Provide the Zoning Administrator with the authority to address minor design review projects. The DRC presently has design review authority over more than 2,900 acres, and the current workload is such that it now requires approximately 12 weeks from initial application to DRC consideration. The proposed amendment would streamline the process for the benefit of applicants, staff and the DRC by authorizing the Zoning Administrator, with the applicants concurrence, to act upon minor proposals, including signs, commercial and industrial additions which constitute less than a 25 percent increase in floor area, and residential additions of two units or less. The Zoning Administrator's decisions would be guided by the design manual, and could be appealed to the DRC and on to the Planning Commission and City Council, if necessary. Also, either the applicant or the Zoning Administrator could choose to forward a minor proposal directly to the DRC. The master fee schedule would be amended to include a fee for Zoning Administrator design review. 5. Provide the DRC with the authority to address reductions in sign area. The City's sign ordinance is very liberal by today's standards. It was adopted 14 years ago as a compromise between the City and the business community, and results in signs which are several times too large and out-of-scale with the building and site. The Design Manual presently contains general sign criteria which could be used in support of sign area reductions. But without the stated authority and more specific guidelines, it would be extremely controversial and time consuming to attempt to reduce sign areas below that which is authorized by the ordinance. It is the intention of this amendment to provide the DRC with the stated authority to address reductions in si9n area. The authority would not be used, however, until the adoption of the revised Design Manual which would contain more specific guidelines and criteria under which to address sign reductions. The revised manual and sign criteria would be subject to review and approval by the Commission and Council. WPC 5878P EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.14 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 19.14.600 Design review approval-Time limit for implementation-Extensions Design review approval shall be conditioned upon the plan being implemented within one year after the effective approval date thereof. Implementation of the plan would include completion of construction or substantial expenditures of money by the property owner preparatory to construction. If there has been a lapse of work for three months after commencement, the approved plans shall be void. The Design Review Committee or the Zoning Administrator may grant an extension of time for a currently valid plan upon appea! of the property owner provlded that there has been no material change of circumstances since the original grant of approval which would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Fhe fee for an extension of time shall be as setforth in the master fee schedule. CHAPTER 19.28 R-3 ZONE 19.28.070 Area, lot width and yard requirements. 2. Side and rear yards: Side and rear yard requirements shall be increased an additional two feet for twenty-five-foot high structures (this dimension shall include the roof), and shall be increased at the rate of two feet for each story above twenty-five feet. Exception: When adjacent to an R-l, R-E or R-2 zone, the side yard setback shall be increased to fifteen feet for any structure over one story or fifteen feet in height, with an additional two-foot setback required for each story above twenty-five feet in height. In those cases where the rear yard abuts an R-3, commercial or industrial zone, the Design Review Committee may grant up to a ten foot reduction in the rear yard setback provided it is found that the effected open space has been transferred to a more beneficial location on the lot. CHAPTER 1 9.28 R-3 ZONE 19.28.060 Height regulations. A. Height regulations in the R-3 zone and R-3-M, R-3-T and R-3-G classifications are as follows: No principal building shall exceed either ~6~ two and one-half stories or f¢~%y~f%~6 twenty-eight feet in height and no accessory building shall exceed either two stories or twenty-five feet in height, except as provided in Section 19.16.040. Principal buildings up to three and one-half stories or forty-five feet in height maS be approved by the Design Review Committee provided it is found that the height, bulk, mass and proportion of all structures is compatible with the site, as well as in scale with structures on adjoining and surrounding properties in the area. CHAPTER 19.14 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 19.14.582 Design review committee - Duties and responsibilities. G~. The zoning administrator has the discretion, with the concurrence of the applicant, to act in the place of the design review committee in the case of minor projects, including signs, commercial and industrial additions which constitute less than a 25 percent increase in floor area, and residential additions of two units or less. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the design review committee in the same manner as setforth in Section 19.14.583. The fee for zoning administrator design review shall be as setforth in the master fee schedule. CHAPTER 19.30 C-O ZONE 19.30.050 Sign regulations. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.32 C-B ZONE 19.32.050 Sign regulations. E_~. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.34 C-N ZONE 19.34.040 Sign regulations. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign ~uidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.36 C-C ZONE 19.36.040 Sign regulations. E_~. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign 9uidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.38 C-V ZONE 19.38.040 Sign regulations. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.40 C-T ZONE 19.40.040 Sign regulations. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.42 I-R ZONE 19.42.060 Sign regulations. E~. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.44 I-L ZONE 19.44.060 Sign regulations. E~. The design review committee may reduce si~n areas below those authorized above based on the si~n ~uidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. CHAPTER 19.46 I ZONE 19.46.050 Sign regulations. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign 9uidelines and criteria contained in the design manual. WPC 5881 P negative declaration_-- PROJECT NAHE: DEC ZTA's PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-89-59 DATE: March 8, 1989 A. Project Settin~ The project is a proposed set of Zoning Text Amendments. B. Project Description The project consists of Zoning Text Amendments as follows: 1. Section 19.14.600 Design Review approval time limit for implementation/extension. 2. Section 19.28.070 R-3 rear yard setback reduction provision. 3. Section 19.28.060 height limit reduction from 3-1/2 stories to 2-1/2 stories and a provision for exceptions. 4. Section 19.14 Zoning Administrator approval of minor projects. 5. A provision to allow the Design Review Committee to reduce allowable sign area. C. Compatibilit~ with Zonin~ and Plans The project is compatible with zoning and planning. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS Upon review of the project, staf~ has concluded that the Fire/EMS threshold/standards policy does not apply. 2. Police Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Police threshold/standards policy does not apply. 3. Traffic Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Traffic threshold/standards policy does not apply. city of chula vista planning department Ob'O I: e~v_lronmental review section (~H~[A~ VJ~UI[ -2- 4. Park/Recreation Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Park/Recreation threshold/standards policy does not apply. 5. Drainage Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Drainage threshold/standards policy does not apply. 6. Sewer Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Sewer threshold/standards policy does not apply. 7. Water Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Water threshold/standards policy does not apply. E. Identification of Environmental Effects The project proposes a set of zoning amendments, therefore, there are no environmental effects involved. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation is necessary due to the nature of the project. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have. a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project has no potential to reduce or otherwise negatively affect the quality of the environment. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of any long-term,,, environmental goals. ~ city of chula vlata planning department . environmental review aectlon. CHULA VI. I'A -3- 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project has no possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not cause any substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Michael J. Mezey, Planning Intern Applicant's Agent: Steve Griffin, 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 2. Documents General Plan of the City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Municipal Cod~ This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information r?~g~arding the environmental review of the project is available from the~a )ista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,.Chula Vista, CA ENVIRONMEN~EVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 {Rev. 3/88) WPC 6033P city of chula vista planning department CrlYOF environmental review lectlon. CHL!LA~ VISTA FUR OFFICE USE Fee -- INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd ~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by _ Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE ~)~C ~'-jl~ '5 2, PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. -"" 3.BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4. Name of Applicant'(~,.cm~- Address~~--APh°ne City C~kL~::7~ qk~'~3~ State ~ ZipS__ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent~ Address ~.. Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant ' 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance X Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map -- Setting Archaeological Survey' Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Approvals Required EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) -8- Case I~o. C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North , ,,/~ South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: North South East West Is the project compatible with the General Pla~ Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservat}on or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? y~//~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?6r'e~//~nhance (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect o _ 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 Park~ and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary ~o 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.) - g - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High /~ Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) ~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ~./~ Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) ' ' 6. Rem~r~s: ~0~~'~ ~ ~ ~5~,~ ~6~''~ ~ ,~,'~'f,y'~,'~'f,~Y'J' ;~ Di rector . ntati ve Date YS-36?- Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. .Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~k~./~ . 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? Are they adequate to serve ~he project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? /~J./~ 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~,/_/X~ . b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. /k/-/~ _ ¢x~/~/~ 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, ~d~tng and/or Improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the ~'ecessary actions. - ll - Case No. 3. ~eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?. AJF] Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? , 4. Soils ; a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? "'"' Y5 -562.. - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 = ~JOx (NO2) X 20.0 : Particulates ~ 1.5 = Sulfur : X .78 = 8. W~{e Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid /%3./A~_ ~iquid I~hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? - 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures "i~g~neer O~~ative - 13 - Case'No. × ~_~ FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? lJ/~-? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provid~ an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? y ~ . Fire Marshal Date CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENTJ BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION FEB I 4 1989 ~,.,~ .~.,,+_ PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB~29