HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/01/11 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, January 11, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of November 30 and December 14, 1988
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning
Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction
but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may
not exceed five minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-3: Consideration of amendments to Titles
17 and 19 of the Municipal Code relating to off-
site advertising signs (Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-3: Consideration of tentative subdivision
map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3
Ladera Villas Development (Continued)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-12: Consideration of proposed amendments to
the certified Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific
Plan - City Initiated
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-2: Consideration of amendment to the Municipal
Code to allow mixed commercial-residential projects by
conditional use permit in the C-C zone - Appel Development
Company
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of January 18, 1989
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 11, 1989 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Various Amendments to Titles 17 and 19 of the
Municipal Code relating to off-site advertising signs
A. HISTORY
1. At the request of the City Council, staff has prepared various
revisions to the sign provisions of the Municipal Code relating to
off-site advertising signs {billboards). This effort is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan as well as to
assure necessary First Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution.
2. On September 14, 1971, the City Council, adopted Ordinance No. 1360,
which prohibited billboards throughout the city and provided an
amortization schedule for their removal without compensation.
3. Since 1971, various cities have adopted sign ordinances that limit or
prohibit the installation of off-site advertising signs. A few of
these ordinances have been tested through litigation with varying
results. Most notable has been the City of San Diego Sign Ordinance
(Metromedia, Inc. vs. the City of San Diego). In 1981, the U.S.
Supreme Court found that the City of San Diego's comprehensive
billboard ordinance, which prohibited billboards, resulted in a
violation of first amendment rights {U.S. Constitutional guarantee of
free speech) by providing greater protection for commercial signs
than for non-commercial signs. The judicial system, however, has
consistently supported a City's police power to regulate signs on the
basis of aesthetic considerations and traffic safety provided that
first amendment rights are protected.
4. The State of California Department of Transportation has had the
responsibility for regulating billboards located along the State's
freeways since adoption of the Billboard Control Act of 1933. In
1965, the United States Congress enacted the Federal Highway
Beautification Act, which required individual states to enact
legislation governing freeway-oriented billboards. In 1970,
California passed the Outdoor Advertising Act which established a
buffer zone of 660 feet where off-site advertising signs {billboards)
cannot occur if the freeway is officially designated as a "landscaped
freeway." An amendment to the Act in 1982 requires that compensation
be paid for the compelled removal of any offsite advertising signs
(freeway-oriented or otherwise) that were existing prior to
November 6, 1978.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 11, 1989 Page 2
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study, IS-89-28, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed amendments was conducted, and the Environmental Review
Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant effects and
recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and Addendum.
C. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-28 and Addendum.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
D. DISCUSSION
Part IV of the City's present General Plan Text (adopted in 1970 and
currently under revision) discusses how the City plans to implement the
General Plan by the adoption of new zoning regulations. Among the
provisions discussed is a statement that billboards are unnecessary in
Chula Vista and are essentially prohibited. The General Plan text is
presently being revised to assure consistency with Code amendments
proposed herein.
Chapter 17.04 of the Municipal Code, Outdoor Advertising, presently
prohibits the installation of outdoor advertising structures (billboards)
throughout the entire City. The present code requirements, adopted in
1971, also provide an amortization period for the removal of existing
non-conforming billboards without compensation. In 1982, the California
Legislature enacted into law Section 5412 of the Business and Professions
Code (see attached Exhibit B) which made the compelled removal of any
offsite outdoor advertising structures in a city or county subject to the
payment of compensation to the owners of a sign and the property on which
the sign is located. The use of amortization periods for the abatement of
non-conforming outdoor advertisin9 signs located in commercial or
industrial zones is no longer a valid exercise of a City's police power.
The signs located within residential or agricultural zones may be
compelled to be removed without compensation subject to the amortization
schedule contained in Section 5412.1 and 5412.2 of the California Business
and Professions Code Isee attached Exhibit C). None of the above
requirements affect onsite signs.
Offsite outdoor advertising structures are an aesthetically undesirable
feature along the City's roadways. Many existing offsite sign structures
are large and imposing features blocking or disrupting views and
infringing on the aesthetics of pleasing architecture. The City Council
has recognized this since the adoption of Title 17.04 in 1971. The
purpose of the proposed repeal of Title 17 is to eliminate the
amortization schedule and process (found to be no longer enforceable since
the adoption of Section 5412 of the California Business and Professions
Code in 1982).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 11, 1989 Page 3
Offsite outdoor advertising structures contribute to traffic safety
hazards as well as visual blight within commercial and residential areas.
There is a demonstrated need for on-site commercial identification to
direct the traveling public to a particular business location and by
providing this identification it enables customers to get off the often
congested thoroughfares sooner without the disruption that can occur when
a driver has difficulty finding a business or other destination. Offsite
advertising si§ns, however, do not provide this necessary site
identification, but rather are designed to attract the driver's attention
or occupants of a vehicle to convey a message that has little or no
bearing on where the driver is headed. This distraction can result in a
driver's lack of concentration at a time when a myriad of traffic safety
signs must be dealt with as well as pedestrians and other vehicles on or
adjacent to the public roadway.
The economic viability and overall quality of a commercial area can be
adversely impacted by the allowance of offsite outdoor advertising
structures. The desirability of locating commercial interests where
onsite identification has high visibility is reduced where offsite
advertising structures partially, or in some cases, completely obscure or
compete with the business identification for prospective patrons.
Offsite advertising signs presently located within the recently-annexed
Montgomery Community will be brought under the purview of Title 19 (Zoning
Ordinance) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code upon the adoption of zoning
intended to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan. The transitional
rezoning efforts from the present County of San Diego zoning to the City
of Chula Vista zoning will result in the deletion of zones which permit
offsite advertising signs. Offsite advertising signs located within the
Montgomery Community will become non-conformin9 and subject to
modification or abatement.
In addition to the repeal of Title 17.04, staff is recommending that
non-commercial messages be permitted on signs wherever commercial messages
are permitted to protect first amendment (freedom of speech)
constitutional rights.
Local representatives of the billboard sign industry have submitted a
modified proposal to be considered by the Planning Commission (see
attached letter). Their proposal recommends that the City consider a
conditional use permit procedure for the relocation of existing
non-conforming offsite signs in lieu of paying compensation for their
removal. Staff does not agree with this proposal because the relocation
of non-conforming offsite signs will only serve to transfer the problem to
another location where offsite advertising signs are not presently
permitted.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 11, 1989 Page 4
E. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The following Municipal Code modifications are proposed (see attached
Exhibit A):
1. £hapter 17.04, OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, is being repealed due to changes
in State law which make provisions for amortization of commercial
offsite signs within this chapter illegal.
2. Definitions are proposed to be added to Title 19 for "onsite" and
"offsite" advertising signs for clarification.
3. A provision permitting non-commercial sign messages wherever
commercial sign messages are now permitted is proposed.
4. A provision for amortizing non-conforming offsite signs located
within residential and agricultural zones is proposed. Amortization
of non-conforming offsite signs in these zones is permitted by State
law.
The affect of the above would be to preclude commercial sign messages
offsite or most traditional oversized billboard structures.
WPC 4877P
EXHIBIT A
OFFSITE ADVERTISING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 AND 19
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Chapter 17.04 in
its entirety as follows:
¢~117/¢~
~JIf~I~tI~I~I~IIIIIILILILILILILILILILILI~L~I~tI~Jt~II~
~tI~I~I~I~IIIllLIIILILILILILILILILILILII~L~I~tI~t~If~
7~1~/~ ~l~ ~/~1~
-4-
-5-
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section
19.04.222 and adding 19.04.251 as follows:
Section 19.04.222 Sign, business or onsite advertising.
"Business sign" or "onsite advertising sign" (used synonymously in this code)
means a sign which directs attention to a business, profession, commodity,
service or entertainment conducted or manufactured upon the same lot. A sign
advertising a particular product or line of products sold on the premises, but
not constituting the principal activity of the establishment may be included,
provided that not more than fifty percent of the area of the sign is devoted
to such advertising.
Section 19.04.251 Sign, offsite advertising.
"Offsite advertising sign" means a freestanding sign whose sponsor does not
maintain offices and/or provide services at the site of the sign.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 19.60.590
as follows:
Section 19.60.590 Non-commercial Signs.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, any sign sponsor may
allocate any sign area authorized by this title to a non-commercial message.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 19.60.Il1
as follows:
Section 19.60.111 Nonconforming signs-offsite advertising displays located in
residential or agricultural zones-amortization period.
All offsite advertising display signs which are located in residential or
agricultural zones wherein they are not permitted shall be construed as
non-conforming offsite advertising displays. It is the intent of this section
to allow such non-conforming offsite advertising display signs to be continued
or maintained for a reasonable period of time in order to amortize the
investment in such signs. The amortization schedule shall conform to Sections
5412.1 and 5412.2 of the California Business and Professions Code.
WPC 4870P
-6-
EXHIBIT B
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 5412
Note 2
§ 5411. Repealed by Stats. 1983, c. 653, § 16
§ 5112. Displays; removal or limitation of use; compensation; application of section; reloca-
lion
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no advertising display which was lawfully
erected anywhere within this state shall be compelled to be removed, nor shall its customary
maintenance or use be limited, whether or not the removal or limitation is pursuant to or because of
this chapter or any other law, ordinance, or regulation of any governments ent ty, without payment
of compensation, as defined in the Eminent Domain Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010)
of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure), except as provided in Sections 5412.1, 5412.2, and 5412.3.
The compensation shall be paid to the owner or owners of the advertising display and the owner or
owners of the land upon which the display is located.
This section applies to all displays which were lawfully erected in compliance with state laws and
local ordinances in effect when the displays were erected if the displays were in existence on
November 6, 1975, or lawfully erected after November 6, 1978, regardless of whether the displays
have become nonconforming or have been provided an amortization period. This section dyes not
apply to on-premise displays as specified in Section 5272 or to displays which are relocated by mutual
agreement between the display owner and the local entity.
"Relocation," as used in this section, includes removal of a display and construction of a new
display to substitute for the display removed
It is a policy of this state to encourage local entities and display owners to enter into relocation
agreements which allow local entities to continue development in a planned manner without
expenditure of public funds wbile allowing the continued maintenance of private investment and a
medium of public communication. Cities, counties, cities and counties, and all other local entities are
specifically empowerc~ to enter into relocation agreements on whatever terms are agreeable to the
display owner and the city, county, city and county, or other local entity~ and to adopt ordinances or
resolutions providing for relocation of displays.
(Added by Stats.1982, c. 494, p. 2112, § 4. Amended by Stata.19$4, c. 5.54, § 1.)
EXHIBIT C
§ 5412.1. Removal without compensation; displays on residential zoned property; requirements;
adjustments
A city, county, or city and county, whose ordinances or regulations are otherwise in full compliance
with Section 5412, is not in violation of that section if the entity elects to require the removal without
compensation of any display which meets all the following r~quirements:
la) The display is located within an area shown as residential on a local general plan as of either
the date an ordinance or regulation is enacted or becomes applicable to the area which incorporates
the provisions of this section.
lb) The display is located within an area zoned for residential use either on the date on which the
removal requirement is adopted or becomes applicable to the area.
lc) The display is not located within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of an interstate or
primary highway with its copy visible from the highway, nor is placed or maintained beyond 660 feet
from the edge of the right-of-way of an interstate or primary highway with the purpose of its
message being read from the main traveled way.
(d) The display is not required to be removed because of an overlay zone, combining zone, or any
other special zoning district whose primary purpose is the removal or control of signs.
(e) The display is allowed to remain in existence for the period of time set forth below after the
enactment or amendment after January 1, 1983, of any ordinance or regulation necessary to bring
the entity requiring removal into compliance with Section 5412, and after giving notice of the removal
requirement:
Fair Market Value on Date of Notice Minimum Years
of Removal Requirement Allowed
Under $1,999 .................................................................. 2
$ 2,000 to $3,999 ................................................................. 3
$ 4,000 to $5,999 ................................................................. 4
$ 6,000 to $7,999 ................................................................. 5
$ 8,000 to $9,999 ................................................................. 6
$I0,000 and over ................................................................. 7
The amounts provided in this section shall be adjusted each January 1 after January 1, 1983, in
accordance with the changes in building costs, as indicated in the United States Department of
Commerce Composite Gost Index for Gonstruction Costs.
tAdded by Stats.1982, c. 494, p. 2113, § 5.)
§ 5412.2. Removal without compensation; displays on incorporated agricultural areas; require-
ments; adjustments
A city or city and county, whose ordinances or regulations are otherwise in full compliance with
Section 5412, is not in violation of that section if the entity elects to require the removal Without
compensation of any display which meets all the following requirements:
la) The display is located within an incorporated area shown as agricultural on a local general plan
as of either the date an ordinance or regulation is enacted or becomes applicable to the area which
incorporates the provisions of this section.
lb) The display is located within an area zoned for agricultural use either on the date on which the
removal requirement is adopted or becomes applicable to the area.
lc) The display is not located within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of an interstate or
primary highway with its copy visible from the highway, nor is piseed or maintained beyond 660 feet
from the edge of the right-of-way of an interstate or primary highway with the purpose of its
message being read from the main traveled way.
(d) The display is not required to be removed because of an overlay zone, combining zone, or any
other special zoning district whose primary purpose is the removal or control of signs.
(e) The display is allowed to remain in existence for the period of time set forth below after the
enactment or amendment after January 1, t983, of any ordinance or regulation necessary to bring
the entity requiring removal into compliance with Section 5412, and after giving notice of the removal
Fair Market Value on Date of Notice Minimum Years
of Removal Requirement Allowed
Under $1,999 2
$ 2,0{)0 to $3,999 ....................................................... 3
$ 4,000 to $5,999 ........................................................... 4
$ 6,000 to $7,999 ............................................................... 5
$ 8,000 to $9,999 .................................................................. 6
$10,000 and over .................................................................. 7
The amounts provided in this section shall be adjusted each January 1 after Janua.D' 1, 1983, in
accordance with the changes in building costs as indicated in the United States Department of
Cornmerce Composite Cost Index for Construction Cosk~.
(Added by Stats. 1982, c. 494, p. 2113, § 6.)
SAN DIEGO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING TASK FORCE
December 14, 1988
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
JoAnne Carson
Chairperson
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Chairperson Carson,
The outdoor industry respectfully submits a proposal that we feel
will offer an alternative to the Chula Vista municipal codes re-
vision proposed by the Planning Department.
The industry's proposal speaks to an alternative to the payment of
compensation for sign removal only. The industry is aware of the
city's legal rights to the compensable acquisition or removal of
private property through its eminant domain power, but also real-
izes that increased costs of property have caused cities to look
at alternative methods of acquisition rather than through the pay-
ment of compensation. Our proposal opens the door to other methods.
The industry's proposal for the creation of a conditional use per-
mit procedure allows the city the opportunity of granting the re-
location of an existing sign to a mutually acceptable location
rather than pay compensation that may run into the tens of thou-
sands of dollars.
This provision as written could only be implemented at the city's
request with complete discretionary control and not be used by the
industry to increase its numbers in Chula Vista.
We feel this proposal would be most advantageous to Chula Vista
and request your favorable consideration.
Gannett Outdoor Patrick Media Group Martin Outdoor
cc: William S. Cannon
Tom Shipe
Shirley Grasser
Robert Tergenberg
Susan Fuller
Joe Casillas
Mayor Gregory Cox
Chula Vista City Council
6065 MISSION GORGE ROAD SUITE 220 " SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 · (619) 283-1850
ATTACHMENT ONE
Section 19.44.060 - Strike "I-L Limited Industrial Zone"
Section 19.44.060, Subsection A, Strike: and/or offsite
advertising signs
Section 19.44.060, Subsection A, Item 2, Strike: (either
onsite or offsite advertising)
Section 19.44.060, Subsection A, Item 2, Letter F. Strike:
(offsite advertising signs shall maintain
a 100 ft. setback from any residential zone).
Section 19.44.060, Subsection A, ADD:
* 4. Offsite advertising structures are prohibited
except by a Conditional Use Permit process for
the purpose of relocation of existinq structures
as encouraqed by the State of California Outdoor
Advertisinq Act, Article 7, Section 5412.
* Outdoor Advertising Industry Proposed Language
ADDENDUM TO IS-89-28
FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-89-28
A. BACKGROUND
The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide
that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant
project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for
significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated
in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC
finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact
or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may
recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the
environmental document for the project.
Previous Project
The previous project evaluated in IS-89-25 on October 19, 1988, involved
the repeal of Chapter 17.04 of the Municipal Code relating to offsite
advertising and added provisions in Title 19 for allowing offsite
advertising structures in the I-L zone subject to size and locational
standards as well as provisions for non-commercial sign messages.
Proposed Project
The proposed project has been revised by deleting proposed revisions to
Chapter 19 allowing offsite advertising signs in the I-L zone.
B. AMALYSIS
Since the Code amendments now proposed involve the deletion of Chapter
17.04 and minor amendments to Title 19 permitting non-commercial messages
any~here commercial sign messages are allowed, there will be no potential
for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously
evaluated in IS-89-28.
C. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Gui delines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and based upon the above discussion,
I hereby find that the proposed revisions to the propose~ I~lunicipal Code
Amendments will result in the same or less impacts as the previous
amendments and recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council
adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-89-28 prior to taking
action on the project.
DOUGLAS'.'D. REID
ENVIRONI~IENT2L PEVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 5751P
negativ declaration
PROJECT NAME: Hunicipal Code Amendments to Titles 17 and 19 relating to
off-site advertising
PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-89-28 DATE: October 19, 1988
A. Project Setting
The Municipal Code presently considers existing off-site advertising signs
non-conforming in all zones throughout the City. The proposed amendments
to the Code will provide for off-site advertising signs within the I-L
(Limited Industrial) zone subject to size and location standards. In
addition, wherever commercial messages are permitted in the City,
non-commercial messages will be permitted in lieu thereof.
B. Project ~escription
OFFSITE ADVERTISING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 AND 19
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
The Chula Vista ~qunicipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Chapter 17.04 in
its entirety and adding the following to Title 19:
Section 19.04.222 Sign, business or onsite advertising.
"Business sign" or "onsite advertising sign" (used synonymously in this code)
means a sign ~vhich
~P~$~X directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service
or entertainment conduc%ed or manufactured upon the same lot. A sien
advertising a rarticular produc~ or line of proeucts sold on the premises, b~=
not constituting t~e principal activity of the establishment may be included,
provided ~hat not more than fifty percent of the area of the sign is devotee
to such advertising.
Section 19.04.2~1 Sign, offsite adver~isinQ
~'Offsite advertising sign" means a freestandine sien ~hose SpOnsor does ~lot
maintain offices ano/or provide services at %he site of ~e s~en.
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section EH[JLA VISTA
-2-
Section 19.44.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by
modifying Subsection A as follows:
I-L Limited Industrial Zone
19.44.060 Sign Regulations
See Sections 19.60.020 and 19.60.030 for permit requirement and approval
procedure.
A. Types of Mens allowed: Business /wall and/or marquee and a freestanding
sign) and/o~ offsite advertisino si ns su .' .
1. Wall and/or marou ~. ~.~ ~ g. bJ~ct to the following:
~ e~. ~a~n Uuslness shall be allowed a combined sign
area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a
deqicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to
a maximum of three Square feet per lineal foot of building frontage
provided that the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the
background area on which the sign is applied as set forth in Section
19.60.250.
Each business shall also be allowed signs facino on-site parking
areas for five cars or more and walkways ten feet o~ more in width.
Such Signs shall be allowed an area of one square foot per lineal
foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be
increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontag~
provided that the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the
background area on which the sign is applied as set forth in Section
19.60.250. The maximum sign area shall not exceed one hunqrea square
feet;
2. Freestanoing /pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanqing Sign
(either onsite or offsite advertisinG) subject to the following:
aT-- ~Slgns are restric~ea ~o those ~ots having a minimum frontage of
one hundred feet on a dedicated street. ]n the case of Corner
lots only one frontage shall be counted.
b. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal
foot of street frontage but shall not exceed one hundred fifty
square feet. ]n the case of corner lots or through lots, only
the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be CoUnted toward th~
allowaDle sign area.
c. !.iaximum height, thirty-five feet.
d. ~inimum ground clearance, eight feet.
e. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public
right-of-way.
f. The sign shall maintain a t~enty-foot setback from all interior
property lines (pffsite .advertising siqns shall maintain a 100
g. ft. setback from any res~aential~
Fr~bs~anoT~ ~ble signs less~ e-ioh · -
restricted to a maximum area o~ -- ~ ~ t feet in height are
ma,nta,n a m,n~mum setback of five feet 4-fg~lqe ~eet aha shall
.,u~ di/ streets.
city ol Chula vl~ta planning department CIWO~:
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
-3-
h. Only the name of the complex and four tenant signs, or a total
of five tenant signs may be displayed on the sign. Where the
pole sign is used to identify the name of the complex or the
major tenant, the sign ~l~ may be designed to identify all
proposed tenants up to the maximum number allowed herein. The
minimum sign area allocated for each tenant shall be not less
than ten square feet.
3. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of
a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following:
a. t,~aximum height, eight feet.
b. Maximum sign area, fifty square feet.
c. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all
streets and ten feet from all interior property lines.
d. The sign structure shall be desioned to be architecturally
compatible with the main building a~d constructed with the same
or similar materials. Where the ~l~ ground sign is used to
identify the name of the complex or the major tenant, the sign
~} may be designed to identify all proposed tenants up to
the maximum number allowed herein. The minimum sign area
allocated for each tenant shall be not less than ten square feet.
The Chula Vista r,~unicipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 19.60.590
as follows:
Section 19.60.590 Non-commercial Signs.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, any si~n sponsor may
allocate a sign area authorized by this title to a non-commercia~ message.
The Chula Vista l-!unicipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 19.60.Il1
as follows:
Section 19.~O.111 ~onconforming signs-offsite advertising displays located
residential or agricultural zones-amortization period.
All offsite advertising display signs which are located in residential
agricultural zones wherein tl~ey are not permitted shall Oe construed as
non-conforF~ing offsite advertising displays. It is the intent of this section
to allow SUCh non-conforming offsite aovertisinm display signs Co be corl[inued
or maintained for a reasonable period o? time in order [o amortize th~,
investment~in such signs. The amortization schedule sha~l con~rm ~o Sections
5412.1 and~tP,,_.~o ot the California ~usiness and Professions Code.
1/11 - ~elete
- Sdd
city of chula vista planning department ¢11¥0~:
environmental review section (~H~[.~
-4-
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
This project involves a zoning text amendment and therefore, will be
compatible with Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance). The allowance of off-site
advertising within the I-L zone is compatible with the current draft
update of the General Plan.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
The project involves municipal code amendments and is not site specific,
therefore, will not impact the thresholds/standards policy established by
the City.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
The limitation of off-site advertising structures to those standards
outlined for permitted freestanding signs within the I-L zone will assure
that no significant adverse aesthetic impacts occur.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the
environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are
no significant aeverse environmental effects associated with the
proposed Municipal Code changes.
2. The project will not achieve short-term at the expense of long-term
environmental goals. -
3. The project will not result in potential cumulative adverse
environmental impacts if compliance with proposed code standards
occur. No significant environmental impacts will result with the
a~option of the Code amendments.
4. The project does not have environmental impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on i~uman beings, either eirectly or
indirectly.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Crganization~
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and t!ousinm
Carol Gove, Fire ~arshal ~
ilal ~osenberg, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
city of Chule Vlmta planning department CIIYO~
environmental review IlCtlOn [HULA VISTA
-5-
2. Documents
Chula Vista Municipal Code
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Stuoy and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
ENVIRON~/~NTAL REVIEW COCRDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 5611P
[~J city of Chula visla planning department ('11¥0~
environmental review lection
FOR OFFICE USE
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No. F~-~'~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Ot-rmiT~ ~4Z~l~s~J~
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4. Name of Applicant ~l-rW' o~ ~UL~N
Address $~F~ ~c~Jo.~-~ Av~-~ Phone
City ~ v~ State ~. Zip
5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~u~ ~. ~., ~~
Address ~ ~ AV~ Phone
City ~ ~ State ~. Zip
Relation to Applicant
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator,
a. Permits or approvals required:
~General Plan Revision ~ Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexation
~Precise Plan Grading Permit ~ Design Review Board
Specific Plan ~ Tentative Parcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit ~ Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance ~ Other ~m~c~PA~ ~
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator),
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng, Geology Report
Grading Plan ~ Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other ~gency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
(Rev. ~2/82)
EXHIBIT A
OFFSITE ADVERTISING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 AND 19
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Chapter 17.04 in
its entirety as follows:
-5-
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section
19.04.222 and adding 19.04.251 as follows:
Section 19.04.222 Sign, business or onsite advertising.
"Business sign" or "onsite advertising sign" (used synonymously in this code)
means a sign which
~$~X directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service
or entertainment conducted or manufactured upon the same lot. A sign
advertising a particular product or line of products sold on the premises, but
not constituting the principal activity of the establishment may be included,
provided that not more than fifty percent of the area of the sign is devoted
to such advertising.
Section 19.04.251 Sign, offsite advertising
"0ffsite advertising sign" means a freestanding sign whose sponsor does not
maintain offices and/or provide services at the site of the sign.
Section 19.44.060 of the Chula Vista ~unicipal Code is hereby amended by
modifying Subsection A as follows:
I-L Limited Industrial Zone
19.44.060 Sign Regulations
See Sec%ions 19.60.020 and 19.60.030 for permit requirement and approval
procedure.
A. Types of signs allowed: Business (wall and/or marquee and a freestanding
sign) and/or offsite advertising signs subject to the following:
1. Wall and/or marquee: Each business shall be allowed a combined sign
area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a
dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to
a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage
provided ~at the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background
area on which the sign is applied as set forth in Section 19.60.250.
Each business shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking
areas for five cars or more and walkways ten feet or more in width.
Such signs shall be alloweo an area of one square foot per lineal foot
of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be
increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage
provided that the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background
area on ~hic~ %he sign is applied as set forth in Section 19.60.250.
The maximum sign area shall not exceed one hundred square feet;
-6-
2. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign
(either onsite or offsite advertising) subject to the following:
a. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of
one hundred feet on a dedicated street. In the case of corner
lots only one frontage shall be counted.
b. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal
foot of street frontage but shall not exceed one hundred fifty
square feet. In the case of corner lots or through lots, only
the frontage the sign is oriente~ to shall be counted toward the
allowable sign area.
c. Maximum height, thirty-five feet.
d. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet.
e. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public
right-of-way.
f. The sign shall maintain a twenty-foot setback from all interior
property lines (offsite advertising signs shall maintain a lO~
ft. setback from any residential zone).
g. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are
restricted to a maximum area of twelve square feet anO shall
maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets.
h. Only the name of the complex and four tenant signs, or a total
of five tenant signs may be displayed on the sign. Where the
pole sign is used to identify the name of the complex or the
major tenant, the sign ~ll may be designed to identify all
proposed tenants up to the maximum number allowed herein. The
minimum sign area allocated for each tenant shall be not less
than ten square feet.
3. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of
a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following:
a. Maximum height, eight feet.
b. Maximum sign area, fifty square feet.
c. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all
streets and ten feet from all interior property lines.
d. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the main building and constructed with the same
or similar materials. Where the ~l~ ground sign is used to
identify the name of the complex or the major tenant, the sign
~l} may be designed to identify all proposed tenants up to
the maximum number allowed herein. The minimum sign area
allocated for each tenant shall be not less than ten square feet.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereOy amended by adding Section 19.60.590
as follow,s:
Section 19.60.590 ~lon-commercial Signs.
I~otwithstanding any other provisions of this title, any siQn sponsor may
allocate a sign area authorized by this title to a non-commercia~ message.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 19.60.Il1
as follows:
Section 19.60.111 Nonconforming signs-offsite advertising displays located in
residential or agricultural zones-amortization period.
All offsite advertising display signs which are located in residential or
agricultural zones wherein they are not permitte~ shall be construed as
non-conforming offsite advertising displays. It is the intent of this section
to allow such non-conforming offsite advertising display signs to be continued
or maintaine~ for a reasonable perioO of time in oroer to amortize the
investment in such signs. The amortization sc~eoule shall conform to Sections
5412.1 and 5412.2 of the California Business and Professions Code.
WPC 4870P
-8-
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
consultant or ~ent
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: q/2~-/~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ~-%~
C ! TY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~o~ ~l-F_.
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 Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~o~ ~-~- ~FC
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 parkland 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.)
- 9 -
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. Remarks:
Director of Planning ~Representative Date
- lO -
Case No. ~--~-
G. ~NGINEERI~G DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? ~/.A.
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. l~hat is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transoortation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What ~s 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.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
IF not, explain briefly.
e. :.lill 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.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report n - y to evaluate the
project? ec s
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? ~-~
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? /
c. Zs a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. ,.hat is the average natural slope of the site?
b. ~4hat is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. ~loise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No. ~]~ _~C~_~
7. Air Ouality
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
~lOx (1~02) X 20.0
Particulates ~~ ~ 1.5 =
Sulfur X .78 :
v
8. wa~e Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid .<~.~ , Liquid ~]~
J~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
~?:y z gO e or ~epresen~agive
- 13 -
Case No. jj_~f~_~j=
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? J, /~.
/
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? ~.j
3. Remarks, ~ (
-13(a)-
Case No../m_~_~
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood /
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
' / F'~ .~
Parks and Recreation Director or
Representative Date
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-89-3 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3 - Lader~
Villas Development Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has resubmitted a tentative subdivision map known as
Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3, in order to subdivide 10 acres at the
easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada in the P-C Planned Community zone into 29
single family lots. The Commission and Council recently denied a 46 lot
{later 41 lot) single family subdivision for the same property.
2. This item was continued from the meeting of December 14, 1988, in
order to update the environmental document with regard to schools, traffic and
water. These matters have been addressed in an Addendum to EIR-81-1, which is
attached hereto.
3. The Envirenmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior
Environmental Impact Report on the property, EIR-81-1, and has prepared an
Addendum thereto. It has been found that the project would result in
significant land form alteration and aesthetic impact adjacent to a scenic
corridor (Telegraph Canyon Road). The Plannin9 Commission must therefore
certify EIR-81-1 with Addendum, adopt CEQA findings regarding the significant
impacts, and adopt a statement of Overriding Consideration in order to approve
the project.
B. RECOMMENDATIOR
1. Certify EIR-81-1 with Addendum and adopt the CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit A of this
report.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3, subject to
the following conditions:
a. The slopes on the rear of lots 13-15 and 21-29, as well as Lot A
and the area between future Paseo Ranchero and the residential
lots, shall be included within an open space maintenance
district.
b. The development standards for the site shall be the same as
those for standard R-l-7 lots, with the exception that lots of
less than 6,000 sq. ft. may reduce the rearyard setback from 20
ft. to 15 ft., and will be allowed an exemption from the FAR for
open patio covers of 300 sq. ft. or less.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 2
c. The usable area of Lot #7 shall be expanded by a retaining wall
or other means subject to review and approval of the Director of
Planning prior to approval of a final map.
d. A common fence/wall program shall be submitted for the rear of
lots 15-29 prior to approval of building permits and subject to
review and approval of the Director of Planning.
e. Fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the Fire Marshal, and shall be installed, tested
and operational prior to any combustible materials being placed
on site.
f. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that an
agreement has been reached to satisfy school district
requirements prior to approval of a final map.
g. The approval of all final maps bye the City Council will require
the compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to
the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning.
h. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full
street improvements in all the streets shown on the Tentative
Map within the subdivision boundary. All streets shall conform
to the requirements contained in the Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual.
i. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of Paseo
Entrada to provide a minimum roadway width of 28 feet. Offsite
right-of-way necessary for said improvements shall be dedicated
prior to approval of the Final Map.
j. Improvements listed above shall include but not be limited to:
A.C. pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer
and water facilities, drainage facilities, traffic signals,
pedestrian ramps, street lights and fire hydrants. The
developer shall also be responsible for the construction of all
necessary transitions to provide for safe driving conditions.
k. A grading study for Paseo Ranchero in the vicinity of the
subdivision shall be submitted in conjunction with grading plans
for the subdivision. The rear property lines for lots 21 thru
29 shall be established based on the location of the future top
of slope adjacent to Paseo Ranchero as identified in the subject
study. The area encompassing the future slope shall be granted
to the City for open space, public utilities and other public
purposes on the Subdivision Map.
1. A paved access road conforming to City Standards shall be
provided to all sewer manholes. An easement for said access
road shall be granted to the City prior to approval of the Final
Map. Any fence crossing said easement shall be provided with
drive gates acceptable to the City Engineer.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 3
m. A graded access road conforming to City Standards shall be
provided to public storm drain outlets and cleanout structures.
The access road to the storm drain cleanout located in the rear
of lot 20 shall be paved with asphalt or Portland Cement
Concrete. An easement for said access shall be granted to the
City prior to approval of the Final Map. Any fence crossing
said easement shall be provided with drive gates acceptable to
the City Engineer.
n. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and
maintenance easements along all public streets within the
Subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from
the back of sidewalk.
o. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as
part of the grading plans.
p. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street. Drainage
shall not flow over slopes.
q. The developer shall prepare a plan for financial participation
in the construction of Paseo Ranchero and the planting and
irrigation of related slopes from Telegraph Canyon Road to East
"H" Street. Said plan shall include the cost of engineering,
right-of-way, surface improvements, utilities, storm drain, and
planting and irrigation, and shall identify benefiting
properties and the method of distributing the cost among said
properties. The developer shall deposit with the City the
amount indicated in the above described plan as the developer's
obligation for the construction of Paseo Ranchero.
r. All construction traffic for the subject project shall utilize
an access road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the project site.
No construction related traffic will be permitted to sue Paseo
Entrada. The alignment of said access road shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
s. The storm drain located southerly of lot 20 shall be extended to
the flow line of Telegraph Canyon Channel.
t. The developer shall be responsible for a landscape/irrigation
plan (includin§ installation) for all of the open space areas
located within the subdivision ownership except as noted under
condition q above.
u. The developer shall reach an agreement with the Otay Water
District with regard to the provision of terminal water storage
and other major facilities to assure water availability to the
project.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 4
The following are Code requirements provided by the Engineering Department
and are listed for information only:
1. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in
accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building
permits.
2. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not
limited to: sewer participation fee, prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities
lying within the Subdivision. All utilities serving the Subdivision
shall be undergrounded.
4. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended.
5. The developer shall install street trees in accordance with Section
18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
6. The Developer shall pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with
Ordinance 2251 prior to issuance of building permits.
7. The developer shall comply with the applicable sections of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans
shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of
Chula Vista.
C. DISCUSSION
The 10-acre site is located on the northerly slopes above Telegraph Canyon
Road, at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada. A steep "finger" canyon
which drops 110 ft. from north to south occupies the westerly 40% of the
site. Additional slopes are located to the east and south of a narrow
knoll which occupies the north-central portion of the property. The
average natural slope of the property is approximately 26%.
The property is bounded by single-family dwellings to the west, and vacant
lands to the north, east and south. The site is designated on the E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan for residential development at 6-8 dwelling
units per acre, or a maximum allowable yield of 80 units for the 10-acre
site. The ERdR Specific Plan designates adjoining areas as follows: West
residential (2-4 du/ac); North - elementary school site; East - Paseo
Ranchero and junior high school site; South - open space.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 5
The present proposal includes 29 single family lots, which is, 17 fewer
than the original proposal of 46 and 12 fewer than the final submittal
considered by City Council with the previous map (five lots were deleted
between the prior Commission and Council hearings -- please see attached
exhibits). Of the 29 lots, 24 are 7,000 sq. ft. or greater, and five lots
are between 6,000-6,500 sq. ft. A 1.75 acre open space lot is proposed
along the southerly boundary to supplement the Telegraph Canyon Road open
space corridor to the south.
The map also indicates the dedication and improvement of the southerly
one-half of Paseo Entrada, which would end at the project rather than
connect through with future Paseo Ranchero as shown on the previous map.
The westerly one-half of Paseo Ranchero would be dedicated but not
improved. The applicant proposes to use the standards of the City's R-l-7
zone to regulate the subsequent development of the lots, including
standard setbacks, coverage and FAR.
D. ANALYSIS
There were several issues which contributed to the denial of the prior map
which have been addressed on the resubmittal:
1. The prior map was a small-lot development without common facilities
or usable open space, and without a product type or development
package. The provision of common amenities to compensate for reduced
private open space, and the ability to review and approve an entire
development package, including the design and placement of the
dwellings, has been considered essential for small-lot developments.
The present map, as proposed, would meet all of the City's
regulations for standard R-l-7 development, which require an average
lot size of at least 7,000 sq. ft., with 70% of the lots at 7,000 sq.
ft. or greater, 20% at between 6,000-7,000, and 10% at between
5,000-6,000 sq. ft. The map shows an average lot size of 8,400 sq.
ft., with 83% of the lots at 7,000 sq. ft. or above, and 17% of the
lots at between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. As a result, there would be
adequate private open space, and the basic R-1 development standards,
as proposed, would adequately address site development.
Staff has included within the recommended conditions of approval that
the down slopes on the rear of the lots abutting future Paseo
Ranchero, as well as the up slopes abutting the existing open space
maintenance district at the rear of lots 13, 14 and 15, be included
within an open space maintenance district in order to achieve a
consistent treatment and level of maintenance for these areas. This
would result in reducing six of the lots abutting future Paseo
Ranchero to below 6,000 sq. ft., which is three more than would be
allowed under the R-1 zone.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 6
We believe the consistent treatment and maintenance of these slopes
is more significant than the modest increase in smaller lots,
particularly in light of the gross project density of 2.9 du/ac, and
the fact that the smaller lots would be located on the easterly
boundary of the project, adjacent to an open space maintenance
district and Paseo Ranchero. We've also included a recommendation to
authorize a reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 ft. to 15 ft.
and an FAR exemption for open patio covers of 300 sq. ft. or less for
those lots of less than 6,000 sq. ft. which abut a permanent public
open space. These adjustments will allow the lots to comfortably
accommodate dwellings commensurate with the balance of the
neighborhood.
2. The prior plan required extensive land form modification, with total
grading of 140,000 cu. yds. and "fills" as deep as 50 ft. on the
southerly boundary of the property. The difficult topography,
coupled with a detached product at a higher density also resulted in
a modest open space reservation and poor interface with the Telegraph
Canyon Road open space corridor to the south.
Although the total amount of grading remains significant, it has been
reduced substantially and has been concentrated more on the northerly
portion of the property with a much larger open space reservation on
the southerly portion of the site. This has allowed all grading to
be contained on-site rather than the creation of fill slopes which
extended southerly into the open space corridor on the prior plan.
It also allows a broader and more contoured expansion of the corridor
consistent with the configuration of the corridor to the west.
The extensive grading on the northerly portion of the property is
largely dictated by the severe topography and the constraints of
existing and proposed grades and streets surrounding the site. But
also, it is now the recommendation not to connect Paseo Entrada with
Paseo Ranchero (please see following item), but to direct project
traffic back through the neighborhood to the west. For this reason,
we believe it is most appropriate for the site to develop in a manner
consistent with the balance of the neighborhood, as proposed, rather
than with a clustered-attached product or large-lot single family,
either of which could reduce the need for grading.
For example, the application of the Hillside Modifier would allow a
total of 15 units on the 10 acres, and would limit grading to no more
than 32% of the site. It would probably be inappropriate, however,
to establish a large-lot, custom or semi-custom development with sole
access through a standard-lot subdivision. Similarly, an
attached-clustered product should have a separate orientation and
access.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 7
3. The City received several letters and public testimony from residents
to the west opposing the connection of Paseo Entrada with future
Paseo Ranchero as shown on the prior map. The objection being that
this connection would allow Paseo Entrada to become a throughway and
generate excessive outside traffic through the neighborhood between
Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ladera.
The City Traffic Engineer concurs with those residents opposed to the
connection, and the Engineering Department reports that the steep
topography coupled with the necessity to meet preestablished street
grades, would result in a traffic safety problem if the connection
were made. As a result, the project will have sole access from Paseo
Entrada. A condition of approval has been recommended, however,
which would require construction traffic to use a temporary access
road to Telegraph Canyon Road rather than Paseo Entrada in order not
to direct such traffic through the existing neighborhood to the west.
E. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 89-3, is found to be in
conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the
following:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The proposal is consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan which designates the site for residential
development at 6-8 du/ac.
b. Circulation The subdivision will provide streets in
conformance with City standards.
c. Housing - The project will provide standard single family lots
consistent with the adjoining development to the west.
d. Conservation - The site does not contain any identifiable
natural resources.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will be required
to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of the
dedication and improvement of park land.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 8
f. Seismic Safety - The site is not directly impacted by any known
or inferred faults.
g. Safety The project will be within existing or proposed
response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with
the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to
the approval of a final map.
h. Noise - All dwelling units will be designed so as not to exceed
an interior noise level of 45 dBA. A sound wall will be
established along the rear of the lots abutting future Paseo
Ranchero.
i. Scenic Highway - The project will increase the depth of the open
space corridor along Telegraph Canyon Road.
j. Bicycle Routes - All of the major roads within ERdR have been
designed to accommodate bicycles.
k. Public Buildings - The developer must show compliance with the
City's threshold standards prior to approval of a final map.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this
approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those
needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City
and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
WPC 5776P/2659P
(
-- ,,~,/" PRESENT 29-lOT PROPOSAl
PASEO ENTRADA
REVISED 4i-LOT PROPOSAL DENIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL JULY 12, 1988
~/~-~ ~* ~-- , 'ENTRA'
~ ....... ~ .~,~ . ~,,..'
'
...... '"'i "' "' ~---~-~/ ~' - ' '
?' ,:-.. ~, ,
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY Il, 1988
$
EIR-81-1(B)
ADDENDUM TO EIR-81-1
(IS-89-47)
A. INTRODUCTION
This addendum has been prepared to determine if the EIR, prepared for the
original Ladera Villas project, adequately addresses the potential
environmental effects of the project as currently proposed and under
existing circumstances. The subjects addressed by this addendum are:
1. school facilities
2. water supply
3. traffic
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Original proposed
The project is located about 500 ft. to the north of Telegraph Canyon
Road between the Casa del Rey subdivision and the future extension of
Paseo ~anchero. Access to the property is proposed to be via Paseo
Ladera and Paseo Entrada in the Casa del Rey subdivision.
The project proponent proposes to subdivide the property into 27
lots, 26 to be developed with single family detached dwellings and
one open space lot along the southern portion of the site. The
dwelling units would have 3 and 4 bedrooms with 1,800-2,000 sq. ft.
of floor area. The residential lots would have 8,700-18,000~ sq. ft.
of area and the open space lot would have 2.3 acres.
The grading of the property will require 52,000 cubic yards of cut
and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. These figures would likely
change with implementation of the Engineering Department's
recommendation. The borrow site for the fill material has not been
identified. If it is within the City's jurisdiction, additional
environmental review will be required. The maximum height of the cut
slopes will be 24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case ef fill slopes.
If Paseo Ranchero has not been constructed prior to the development
of the project, an 8" sewer will be extended to Telegraph Canyon Road
along the future alignment of Paseo Ranchero.
2. Revised project
The new proposed project involves the subdivision of the property
into 29 lots. Of the 29 lots, 24 are 7,000 sq. ft. or greater, and
five lots are between 6,000-6,500 sq. ft. A 1.75 acre open space lot
is proposed along the southerly boundary to supplement the Telegraph
Canyon £oad open space corridor to the south.
The map also indicates the dedication and improvement of the
southerly one-half of Paseo Entrada, which would end at the project
rather than connect through with future Paseo Ranchero. The westerly
one-half of Paseo Ranchero would be dedicated but not improved. The
applicant proposes to use the standards of the City's R-l-7 zone to
regulate the subsequent development of the lots, including standard
setbacks, coverage and FAR.
The present map, as proposed, would meet all of the City's
regulations for standard R-l-7 development, which require an average
lot size of at least 7,000 sq. ft., with 70% of the lots at 7,000 sq.
ft. or greater, 20% at between 6,000-7,000, and 10% at between
5,000-6,000 sq. ft. The map shows an average lot size of 8,400 sq.
ft., with 83% of the lots at 7,000 sq. ft. or above, and 17% of the
lots at between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft.
Staff has included within the recommended conditions of approval that
the down slopes on the rear of the lots abutting future Paseo
Ranchero, as well as the up slopes abutting the existing open space
maintenance district at the rear of lots 13, 14 and 15, be included
within an open space maintenance district in order to achieve a
consistent treatment and level of maintenance for these areas. This
would result in reducing six of the lots abutting future Paseo
Ranchero to below 6,000 sq. ft., which is three more than would be
allowed under the R-1 zone.
Although the total amount of grading remains significant, it has been
reduced substantially and has been concentrated more on the northerly
portion of the property with a much larger open space reservation on
the southerly portion of the site. This has allowed all grading to
be contained on-site rather than the creation of fill slopes which
extended southerly into the open space corridor on the prior plan.
It also allows a broader and more contoured expansion of the corridor
consistent with the configuration of the corridor to the west.
The extensive grading on the northerly portion of the property is
largely dictated by the severe topography and the constraints of
existing and proposed grades and streets surrounding the site.
C. EVALUATION
1. Elementary school
This project will be served by the Chula Vista Hills Elementary which
will open for its first students January 23, 1989. The first student
body is being housed at five "host" elementary schools in the Chula
Vista area. When the transition from the "host" schools to the Buena
Vista site is complete, there will be about 322 students at the
facility. The capacity, given a standard school schedule, is 600
students. If a year round schedule were imposed, the capacity would
increase to 900 students.
-2-
It is estimated that the project will generate about 15 elementary
school aged students.
Although the elementary school district is operating over its current
permanent capacity, through the use of relocatable classrooms and the
development of new schools through Mello-Roos community facilities
districts, the elementary school district appears to be keeping pace
with development. This year two elementary schools will be opened;
Chula Vista Hills as noted above and a site currently under
construction in the Hills Community of £astLake.
Because of these changes in circumstances since the original EIR was
prepared, the elementary school district is in a better financial
position to provide educational services and is proceeding with the
planning and construction of new facilities. Therefore, the analysis
in the existing report IEIR-81-1) is adequate, there is no new
unreported significant environmental impact and no further CEQA
notification is necessary.
It should also be noted that implementation of these measures is
under the authority of another jurisdiction, the Chula Vista City
School ~istrict and not the City of Chula Vista.
2. Secondary schools
The project site is located within the attendance areas of Bonita
Vista Jr. and Sr. High schools. The current capacities and
enrollments are as follows:
SCHOOL CAPACITY
School ~elo's Permanent Total Enrollment (10/88)
BV Jr High School 240 1,284 1,524 1,525
BV High School 300 1,632 1,932 1,740
Overall the Sweetwater Union High School District (SWUHSD) has an
enrollment (10/88) of 26,845 students with a permanent capacity of
22,648, 2,880 relocatable classrooms and 1,020 students in trailers.
It is estimated that the project will generate about seven junior
high and six senior high school aged students.
Early in 1989 grading/construction will begin on the high school site
in the EastLake project and the SWUHSD has a 3-4 year planning
development schedule for a junior high school facility on the Rancho
del Rey site located just to the east (across Paseo Ranchero) from
the project site.
-3-
On both an interim and long range basis, the SWUHSD plans to maximize
the utilization of senior high schools through the use of relocatable
classrooms and support facilities and by changing to a four year
program. This would allow the current three year junior high schools
to become two year mid-schools with a resultant increase in overall
"capacity." The district is also considering the utilization of year
around school schedules although that policy decision has not yet
been reached.
The district has established five Mello-Roos community facilities
districts which have produced the financial resources necessary to
provide the physical facilities to provide secondary educational
services. The SWUHSD is proceeding with the planning and
construction of these facilities along with other programs to better
utilize existing facilities. Therefore the analysis in the existing
report (EIR-81-1) is adequate, there is no new unreported significant
environmental impact and no further CEQA notification is necessary.
In this case, it should be noted that implementation of these
mitigation measures are under the authority of another jurisdiction,
the Sweetwater Union High School District.
3. Water
The Otay Water District provides water services for this area. It is
in what the district terms the central area. The Otay District is
proceeding with the formation of Improvement District No. 27 to set
up a financial vehicle for the construction of regional terminal
storage facilities. These storage resources will be designed to
retain a 5-day emergency supply of water for users within the service
area. Details on the financing mechanism for these facilities are
expected to be finalized within 30 days. Approval of the tentative
map is contingent upon the developer reaching an agreement with the
Otay Water District regarding participation in the provision of this
overall water system.
This additional information does not alter any of the conclusions of
EIR-81-1.
4. Transportation/access
The City received several letters and public testimony from residents
to the west opposing the connection of Paseo Entrada with future
Paseo Ranchero as shown on a prior map. The objection being that
this connection would allow Paseo Entrada to become a throughway and
generate excessive outside traffic through the neighborhood between
Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ladera.
-4-
The City Traffic Engineer concurs with those residents opposed to the
connection, and the Engineering Department reports that the steep
topography coupled with the necessity to meet preestablished street
grades, would result in a traffic safety problem if the connection
were made. As a result, the project will have sole access from Paseo
Entrada. A condition of approval has been recommended, however,
which would require construction traffic to use a temporary access
road to Telegraph Canyon Road rather than Paseo Entrada in order not
to direct such traffic through the existing neighborhood to the west.
General access to this area is via Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo
Ladera. Traffic volumes on these roads in November of 1988 were as
follows:
Telegraph Canyon Road 23,290 ADT
Paseo Ladera 2,480 ADT
These volumes are well within acceptable levels of service (i.e., "C"
or better). The project will generate about 290 ADT which will not
significantly alter the existing level of service on either road.
Therefore, the conclusion in EIR-81-1 that there will be not
significant impact on the City's circulation system is valid, there
is no new unreported significant environmental impact and no further
CEQA notification is necessary.
D. CONCLUSION
This evaluation is an addendum to EIR-81-1. It has concluded that there
is no need for any significant new information to be added to the text of
the EIR. ICalifornia Environmental Quality Act), no further notification
or public/agency review is required.
Doug Rei~/ _
Environmental Review Coordinator
DATE
WPC 5837P
-5-
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LADERA VILLAS
EIR-81-1
Issued for review by the
Chula Vista
Environmental Review Committee
Certified by the
Chula Vista Planning Commission
October 22, 1980
Prepared by the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department, Environmental Review Section
Duane E. Bazzel, Assistant Planner
PROJECT PROPONENTS
Mr. J. Bordi & Mr. G. Lalande
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction page 1
2.0 Project Description page 1
3.0 Impact Analysis page 7
3.1 Land Form page 7
3.2 Geology/Soils page 7
3.3 Biology page 10
3.4 Archaeology page 12
3.5 Schools page 14
4.0 Insignificant Effects page 17
5.0 Significant Adverse Impacts page 17
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action page 17
7.0 Growth Inducing Impacts page 18
8.0 Consultation page 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig, 1 Locator/Topographic Map page 2
Fig. 2 Topographic Map page 3
Fig. 3 Tentative Subdivision Map page 4
Fig. 4 E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan page 6
Fig. 5 Biological Map page 11
Fig. 6 Archaeological Map page 13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 E1 Rancho del Rey Land Use Table page 5
Table 2 School District Conditions page 7
Table 3 School Data page 8
Appendices on file and available for review at the Chula Vista
Planning Department.
a. Geological Investigation of Landslide Conditions,
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, July 25, 1980
b. Biological Reconnaissance, WESTEC Services, Inc. Dec. 11, 1979
c. Archaeological Survey~ WESTEC Services, Inc. Dec. 6, 1979
1.0 Introduction
It is the purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
to determine what significant environmental impacts would result
from implementation of the project, propose mitigation measures
to reduce the adversity of the impacts, and consider alternatives
to the project as proposed.
This EIR was required by the Environmental Review Committee
of the City of Chula Vista after conducting an Initial Study on
the project (IS-80-50) and reviewing the current development plans
for the property. The Committee concluded that there could be
one or more significant impacts, including land form alteration,
and required that the EIR be focused on the issues identified in
the Initial Study (IS-80-50).
This EIR is an informational report for decision making authorities
and the public. It is not an engineering document nor is it a report
which recommends approval or denial of the project.
2.0 Project Description
The project is located about 500 ft. to the north of Telegraph
Canyon Rd. between the Casa del Rey subdivision and the future
extension of Paseo Ranchero. Access to the property is proposed
to be via Paseo Ladera and Paseo Entrada in the Casa del Rey
subdivision. The Chula Vista Public Works Department/Engineering
Division is recommending that Paseo Entrada be extended to the east
to the future right-of-way of Paseo Ranchero and that appropriate
grade revisions be made to effectuate this change. The developer
would also be required to participate in a district for the cost of
improving Paseo Ranchero.
The project proponent proposes to subdivide the property into
27 lots, 26 to be developed with single family detached dwellings
and one open space lot along the southern portion of the site.
The dwelling units would have 3 and 4 bedrooms with 1800-2000 sq. ft.
of floor area. The residential lots would have 8700-18,000~ sq. ft.
of area and the open space lot would have 2.3 acres.
The grading of the property will require 52,000 cubic yards of
cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. These figures would
likely change with implementation of the Engineering Department's
recommendation. The borrow site for the fill material has not been
identified. If it is within the City's jurisdiction, additional
environmental review will be required. The maximum height of the
cut slopes will be 24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case of fill slopes.
If Paseo Ranchero has not been constructed prior to the develop-
ment of the project, an 8" sewer will be extended to Telegraph Canyon
Rd. along the future alignment of Paseo Ranchero.
:/.-', x.:~ ,~ /,~-'~ ~-. --
'"~'"'": : ..... ':~ "" '""" : '/:': c: : -
~ =-.'_.'"
_ .~ ,"'/
:~ ~ ' ....... ~ ....... ~"-' ~ '~ ':, q 2000
~ ~-~' FEET
.,~aD 6~owlr~g uae~zon oi the i~rojeet Site (Port~ons of
Nation~ City. Jamul .',lountam, imperial Ue~en ant Otav Mesa 7.5'
USGS Quaarang[e~
F'IG I
TABLE 1 E1 Rancho del Rey
HOUSING ,; DWE:LI_ING UNITS I DWFt I IN<; i i NUMBE~ OFi'
CATEGORIES pF'R GROSS ACR'I~: TYPES . ACRES , DWIF[_LING UNITS , POPULATION
7.
3.0 Impact Analysis
3.1 Land Form
3.1.1 Project Setting
The topography of the site ranges from gentle
slopes to areas of 2 to 1 and 1 1/2 to 1 steepness. The
property is transected by one draw extending northerly
along the western property line and a smaller draw along
the eastern boundary.
3.1.2 Impact
The project will require the moving of approximately
52,000 cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill
material. The maximum height of the cut slopes will be
24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case of fill slopes. A portion
of the fill slopes encroach into the designated open space
area shown on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, which
is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Rd., a "scenic highway",
as designated by the Chula Vista General Plan. The
appearance of the upper natural slope areas will be
irreversably altered by the proposed project.
3.1.3 Mitigation
The rounding and blending of the proposed variable
slopes, facing Telegraph Canyon Rd. would assist in creating
a more natural appearing land form. In addition, these
manufactured slopes should be planted with native plant
materials to reduce the visual contrast with adjacent
natural open space areas and also to reduce water consumption.
3.1.4 Analysis of Significance
Regardless of how the property is graded to
accommodate the proposed use, there will be an irreversible
land form change of a substantial character. This impact
could be reduced, although not eliminated, through the
use of grading concepts which would result in a more
natural appearing finished product, and by the planting
of native plant materials on manufactured slopes.
3.2 Geology/Soils (See Geological Investigation Appendix A)
3.2.1 Project Setting
The site is underlain by three geologic formational
units (Woodward-Clyde, 1980). The enclosed Geologic Map
and Site Plan (Appx. A) shows the approximate areal extent
of each of the various geologic and soil units, which are
described below in order of increasing age. The geologic
map symbol for each unit is given after the formal name
for the unit.
Alluvium (Qal) - This unit consists of gray or
brown silt, sand, and gravel deposited along the bottom
of the drainage draw. Alluvium typically grades into
slopewash along valley sides. Typically alluvium is in a
relatively loose state and may be porous and potentially
compressible. This unit may be up to 10 ft. thick on the
site.
Overburden Soils (not a mapped unit) - A residual
soil mantle blankets the site. Exposures in nearby areas
indicate that the depth of the soil on the site could range
from less than 1 foot to 5 feet. A poorly to well
developed residual clay ("B") soil horizon is less than
8 inches thick, and is most commonly associated with
soils formed on the upper terrace (Lindavista Formation).
Lindavista Formation (Qln) - This unit predominantly
consists of marine and nonmarine sediments composed of
medium dense to very dense, red-brown to brown, silty,
medium to coarse grained sand and sandy gravels, which are
locally cemented. In general, the materials in this unit
are nonexpansive, however, on occasion layers and lenses
of potentially expansive materials have been noted in
nearby areas. This unit is located generally above an
elevation of 450 ft. (MLS Datum).
San Diego Formation (Tsd) - This formation pre-
dominantly consists of marine sediments composed of dense
to very dense, light yellow-brown to light gray, silty
very fine to medium grained sand containing thin layers and
lenses of cobbles. The base of the formation is often
marked by a thin pebble to cobble conglomerate. The unit
is located generally between the elevations of 400 and 450
feet (MLS Datum).
Otay Member of the Rosarito Beach Formation (Trb) -
This unit consists of very dense, light gray to light
brown, silty to clayey, fine to coarse grained sand
(sandstone) and hard, light gray to red-brown silty clay
(siltstone and mudstone). This unit appears to underlie
the site below an elevation of 400 ft. (MLS Datum).
The sandstones of this section are composed of a
white to light gray very fine to coarse silty sandstone.
Many coarse grained and pebble size, rounded, red-brown,
bentonite clay are contained in the sandstone. Inter-
bedded with the sandstones are thin to moderately bedded,
light gray to redish-brown siltstones and mudstones, which
contain lenses (on the order of 3 inches thick) of nearly
pure, redish-brown to white bentonitic clay, which are
highly expansive.
3.2.1.1 Faulting
No faults were observed during the field
reconnaissance. In addition, an examination of
aerial photographs of this site did not disclose
any lineations, scarps, or other types of topo-
graphic features that could be indicative of, or
construed to be, faults. A review of Map Sheet
29, prepared by the State of California shows a
north-south dashed lineation that would project
across the extreme northwest corner of the site,
and would approximately transect the backs of Lots
1 through 4. A reconnaissance map done by Kuper
and Gastil in 1977 shows no fault in the general
area. In addition, no stratigraphic disconformaties
are shown in the area.
3.2.1.2 Landslides
Review of aerial photographs did not dis-
close any significant or pronounced topographic
features that was interpreted to indicate landslides.
However, the Rosarito Beach Formation in other areas
has been subject to landslides, and review of the
topographic map of the site and the site reconnais-
sance indicated possible shallow slides of thick
colluvial deposits in the south-drainage draw.
Three borings were made in this area below the
approximate elevation of 425 ft., which is the
approximate location of the contact of Otay Member
of the Rosarito Beach Formation. The borings
indicated thick alluvial deposits and topsoils in
the bottom and sides of the subcanyon. Although
remolded clay seams, which suggest relatively
weak strength, were observed in the Otay Member,
no evidence of landsliding was observed. (Woodward-
Clyde 1980)
3.2.1.3 Expansive Soils
The geotechnical investigation indicates
that portions of the site are underlain by
potentially expansive soils.
3.2.2 Impacts
Southern California is susceptible to seismic hazards.
The project site does not lie close to any known active
faults and carries no greater risk of seismic damage than
most areas of the County. No other geologic hazards
pose a significant risk to the proposed project.
Because landslides were not found during the
investigation, the project is not expected to be impacted
by landslide hazards.
10.
The placement of structures on expansive soil
could have serious impacts due to cracking and differential
settling.
3.2.3 Mitigation
Grading plans and/or foundations must be designed
to reduce the impact of expansive soils on finished
structures.
3.2.4 Analysis of Significance
If recommendations of a soils and foundations
investigation are incorporated into the project, no
significant impacts are expected to result.
3.3 Biology (See Biological Survey Report, Appendix B)
3.3.1 Project Setting
A biological reconnaissance of the subject property
was made in order to assess the significance of adverse
effects on biological resources which would result from
the proposed project. (WESTEC Services, Inc.) Most of
the 10 acre site is covered by a derivative of the Coastal
sage scrub floral community. Three floral species present
are considered rare and endangered by the California Native
Plant Society. These include coast barrel cactus (Fero-
cactus viridescens), San Diego sunflower (Virguiera
laciniata) and Mesa Clubmoss (Salaginella cinerascens).
No rare or endangered faunal species were observed.
3.3.2 Impacts
Project implementation will result in construction
and landscaped manufactured slopes over approximately
75% of the site. As a result, most of the on-site
foraging habitat for predatory birds will be removed.
In addition~ approximately 2/3 of the existing on-site San Diego
sunflower and 3/4 of the existing Coastal sage scrub will
be removed. A proposed open space area adjacent to
Telegraph Canyon Rd. will contain the remainder of these
plant communities. The small stands of Coast barrel
cactus will be entirely eliminated from the project site.
3.3.3 Mitigation
No major mitigating measures are required, however,
native plants should be used on manufactured slope areas
adjacent to natural open space areas. Care shall be taken
to prevent construction equipment from entering and
scarring the natural open space area.
·
Locaticn o[' HJ%n Interest PIant Species and Open
Sgace
FIG 5
12.
3.3.4 Analysis of Significance
The small on-site populations of the rare and
endangered Ferocactus viridescens (37 individuals) and
Selaginella cinerascens will be 10st as a result of
project development. The majority of the on-site
population of Viguiera laciniata will also be lost. A
small portion (approximately 25%) of the Viguiera
population will be retained in natural open space.
Project development will eliminate potential foraging
habitat for the cactus wren. However,the property is not
considered prims nesting habitat for this species due to the
absence of dense cactus thickets. The incremental loss of
the low scrub cover and wildlife habitat and three
sensitive plant species is considered an adverse though_
non-significant biological effect. Their loss is not
considered significant due to the small numbers and dis-
junct nature of the populations of the sensitive plants and
the fact that representative stands of the low scrub
including these species will be retained in designated
areas within the Rancho del Rey Specific Development Plan.
3.4 Archaeology (See Archaeological Survey, Appendix C)
3.4.1 Project Setting
The subject property was intensively surveyed for
the presence of archaeological resources under the
supervision of Richard L. Carrico, WESTEC Services, Inc.
project archaeologist. Patrice Ballinger and Brian
Hunter served as associate archaeologists.
The field investigation was conducted on December
6, 1979 and consisted of an intensive on-foot reconnaissance
of the property. The results of the field investigation
was positive as one newly recorded site (W-2390) was noted
within the boundaries of the project. This site (W-2390)
is located at an elevation of approxiamtely 460 ft. above
mean sea level in the northeastern quarter of the property.
As far as can be ascertained by preliminary reconnaissance
the site consists of a single locus approximately 30 meters
by 30 meters in area, situated on a south trending knoll
overlooking Telegraph Canyon. Culturally intrusive surface
material present includes one chopping tool and one dozen
flakes. Lithic materials evident are available locally.
The site generally maintains a static contour and because
of that, it is U-shaped.
3.4.2 Impact
Because the one archaeological site (W-2390) is
a fragile surface site, any earth removal, vehicular
traffic or other disruptive activities could seriously
impair or destroy the data compiled to date.
Project Lcca[~on aad A~sociated Archaeological bites
WIG ~
14.
3.4.3 Mitigation
The following program is proposed to ensure that
direct adverse impacts to archaeological site W-2390, can
be mitigated:
1) Instrument location of site.
2) A micro-mapping of surface artifacts and
collection of these artifacts.
3) Excavation of four test units, each one meter
by one meter square, to assess possible sub-
surface cultural debris.
4) Laboratory analysis and cataloging of material
collected.
5) A written report submitted.
3.4.4 Analysis of Significance
Analysis of archaeological site W-2390 suggests
that the limited lithic scatter is the result of minimal
use of the area by prehistoric people. All of the cultural
debris were found in association with a static elevation
around the edge of a knoll as if eroding out at that level.
This would seem to indicate a potential depth to the site,
particularly in the interior of the U-shape suggested by
the surface artifacts. As other sites are known in the
area~ further investigation may serve to delineate native
American land-use patterns, band territoriality, cultural
affinity, and inter-site relationships.
Potential adverse impacts could occur to site W-2390
due to any landform alteration or change in land use as
a result of construction related activities and increased
human population.
3.5 Schools
3.5.1 Project Setting
The project site lies within the district boundaries
of the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater
Union High School District.
Table 2 shows the current operating characteristics
of these districts and Table 3 indicates the areas schools
capacities.
Table 2. School District Conditions
Current Dist. Current Dist. Annual
District Enrollment Capacity Cost/Student
Chula Vista
Elementary School
District, 1980 14,646 14,420 $1812
Sweetwater Union
High School Dist. 23,200 24,036 $2000
1980
15.
Table 3 School Data1 (Fall, 1979)
Distance from School School Project
School Level Project(Miles) Capacity Enroll. Students
Valley Vista K-6 5.4 420 436
Tiffany K-6 2.2 728 645
Allen K-6 4.3 420 354 16
Bonita Vista 7-9 2.5 1410 1506 8
Bonita Vista 10-12 2.2 1512 1677 5
1Chula Vista City School District, 1979; Sweetwater
Union High School District, 1979
3.5.2 Impact/Mitigation
The project will generate 16 elementary and 13 secondary
school students. The schools nearest the project site are
characterized in Table 2. It should be noted that both
districts have policies, for reasons of capacity utilization
and racial integration, whereby students miqht not attend
the school which is geographically nearest ~heir home.
The new students would require the equivalent of
approximately one classroom and one teacher plus the
related facilities and other personnel.
The developer will be required to provide the City
with written assurance from the school districts that they
will have the ability to provide educational services
to students from this project. This usually involves
the developer providing the school district with financial
assistance for temporary facilities.
In addition to the project in question, there are
various projects approved, under consideration or under
construction which could effect the provision of educational
services. Those projects currently under construction in
the vicinity of the project will result in the following
estimated number of students:
Elementary 514
Jr. High 280
Sr. High 187
There are also several hundred dwelling units under
construction in the nearby County and City of San Diego
areas which would add to the potential of higher enrollment
levels.
Other projects have been given some level of
project approval. The largest of these communities is
the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. With its 6000+
dwelling units, the project would result in 2290 elementary
school children, 1747 Jr. high school students and 1166
Sr. high students. These projects in the City of Chula
Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego would
result in the following approximate number of students
(including E1 Rancho del Rey):
Elementary 2900-3000 Students
Jr. High 1700-1800
Sr. High 1100-1200
It must be pointed out that these are long range
projects which will be "built out" over many years if not
more than a decade.
There are also projects which have been proposed but
which have not yet been considered. The Janal Ranch
or "Western Salt" property, east of Chula Vista is currently
under a private planning effort. No generalities of the
development proposals are available at this time.
The Otay Mesa East Community Plan is currently
under consideration by the City of San Diego. A portion
of the project is within the Chula Vista Elementary
School District and all of the property is within the
Sweetwater Union High School District. The plan envisions
9 elementary school sites, two junior high sites and one
senior high school site. No precise plans have been
formulated.
As these projects develop over the years, the
significance of the impact will depend on the rate at
which development takes place in relationship to the
availability of facilities in these districts which have
experienced declining enrollments over the past few
years. The determination of the significance of this
impact can only be judged to be problematic at this time.
The mitigation of this impact can only be dealt with as
part of an ongoing planning process including the current
ongoing oordlnatlon between the school districts and the
City.
Evaluation of the significance of an impact at any
given time must be based on an evaluation provided by the
school districts at that time. It must be noted however,
that the provision of educational facilities (in addition
to other public facilities) should be carried out ina
manner consistent with the planning for these facilities.
This advanced planning process is currently provided
through community plans of the County and City of San
Diego, the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista, the
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the Public Buildings
Element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
3.5.3 Analysis of Significance
As long as the school districts can provide
adequate educational services, no significant impact
will result. If a condition of overcrowding does develop,
additional conditions of approval can be imposed on
specific projects.
4.0 Insignificant Effects
The following is a list of impacts which have been found to be
of little or no concern, (Ref. IS-80-50) :
4.1 Ground Water
4.2 Drainage Pattern
4.3 Mineral Resources
4.4 Air Quality
4.5 Water Quality
4.6 Mobile Noise Source
4.7 Stationary Noise Source
4.8 Paleontological Resources
4.9 Historical Resources
4.10 Land Uses
4.11 Aesthetics
4.12 Community Social Factors
4.13 Community Tax Structure
4.14 Parks, Recreation and Open Space
4.15 Fire & Police
4.16 Waste Disposal
4.17 Utilities/Energy
4.18 General Government Support
4.19 Transportation/Access
5.0 Significant Adverse Impacts
The implementation of the Ladera Villas Project, as shown on
the Tentative Map, and including proposed off-site improvements,
would have the following unavoidable adverse impact:
Landform alterations, totaling 189,000 cubic yards, would
take place. Manufactured slopes abutting an open space area
would front on Telegraph Canyon Rd. (a designated Scenic
Highway) and cause an irreversible ~hange in the appearance of
the existing natural slopes.
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
6.1 No Project
Under this alternative, no development would proceed
at this time. In that the E1 Rancho del Rey Development Plan
calls for the development of the project site at 3-5 dwelling
units per acre, it is likely that future projects of unspecified
density, design, and impact potential would result. In the
short term, "No Project" would reduce or eliminate impacts in
all of the factor categories. However, such an alternative
would also mean that additional development pressure would
result elsewhere in the area to meet existing housing demands.
6.2 Project of Reduced Scope
This alternative would result in the reduction of the
number of dwelling units, when compared against the current
design of the Ladera Villas project. If the streets and lots
were carefully placed, the implementation of this alternative
would result in the avoidance of sensitive habitat areas and
the disturbance of potential archaeologic finds, in addition
to a reduction of unit volume related impacts of landform
modification and schools. Again, additional development
pressure, equal to the nur~ber of units lost through this
alternative, would result.
6.3 Project of Increased Scope
Under this alternative, an increase in residential
density would mean more extensive landform modification and
impacts to biological sensitivities than the present project.
In addition, increased cumulative impacts to public facilities,
air quality, and local streets would result as a result of
implementation of this alternative.
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
In that the project was a part of the E1 Rancho del Rey Develop-
ment Plan, and was shown in that plan as applicable to the use
suggested by the project, the growth represented by the Ladera
Villas Development has been accounted for in earlier planning and
environmental review processes.
The proposed development would influence growth of the
surrounding area, although the impact is not considered significant.
The project conforms to the public policy expressed in the E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan which is specifically designed to
manage growth within the project area.
The provision of sewer and educational services to the project
would necessitate an increase in their respective facilities. The
growth expected to take place in the sewer treatment facilities
of the Metropolitan Sewer System would not be directly related to
the project and is expected to occur independent of the proposed
development. The growth impact on local educational facilities
would be offset by fees.
8.0 Consultation
8.1 The following individuals and organizations have been
consulted in the preparation of the draft EIR:
D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Wm. Ullrich, Assoc. Eng.
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Merritt Hodson, Environmental Control Commissioner
James Hutchison, Project Design Consultants
John Linn, Chula Vista Elementary School District
8.2 The following documents were used in the preparation of
this EIR:
EIR-78-2 E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
EIR-78-5 Casa del Rey
EIR-79-8 Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area, including
various technical appendices
EIR-80-4 Charter Point Subdivision
IS-80-50 Ladera Villas
ATTACHMENT A
CANDIDATE
FINDINGS OF FACT ,
LADERA VILLAS SUBDIVISION
EIR-81-1
City of Chula Vista
(California Public Resource Code Sec. 21081)
California Administrative Code Sec. 15088)
I. INTRODUCTION
The following findings have been prepared in accordance with Section 15088
of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, and Section 6.10 of the Environ-
mental Review Procedures of Chula Vista. These two directives both state that,
in order to approve a project which has one or more significant environmental
effects, a finding within at least one of the following categories must be made:
Category 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the final EIR.
Category 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the body making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
Category 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR.
For the Ladera Villas project, a sun~ary of impacts and findings has been
prepared which, if adopted, indicate that response to all significant impacts can
be placed into these categories. These impacts and findings are stated below.
II. IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The Ladera Villas project represents a subsequent development proposal within
the context of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The project will subdivide
a 10 acre parcel of land into 27 lots, 26 to be developed with single family
detached dwellings and one open space lot. The number and type of units proposed
has been found to be consistent with the Specific Plan. Within this background
the following factor-specific impacts and findings are set forth.
A. Land form (EIR Sec. 3.1)
1. Impact: The project will require the moving of approximately 52,000
cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. The maximum height of
the cut slopes will be 24 feet and 60 feet in the case of fill slopes. A portion
of the fill slopes encroach into the designated open space area shown on the E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, which is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, a "scenic
highway," as designated by the Chula Vista General Plan. The appearance of the
upper natural slope areas will be irreversibly altered by the proposed project.
-2-
Since the review of the original proposed subdivision, the grading plan has
been modified to remove fill from the off-site properties to the south and
generally reduces the amount of grading required to implement the project.
However, the impact of grading on natural land forms and the view shed of
Telegraph Canyon Road remains significant.
2. Finding (Category 3): The impact of the project on existing land form
would be significant and at leas{ partially mitigable. The alternative of a
"project of reduced scope" (discussed in EIR Section 6.2) is an alternative that
would reduce significant impacts of land form modification. However, such a reduc-
tion in this case is unwarranted for the following reasons:
a. More significant canyons than the minor canyon near the westerly
edge of this tract have been filled in conjunction with develop-
ments to the west.
b. Council decided in its approval of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan to preserve the major canyon areas in E1 Rancho del Rey and
in exchange therefor to allow filling and alteration of many of
the minor canyons.
c. A cluster development in order to minimize the grading is not
appropriate in this location at the end of a cul-de-sac when the
only access to the cul-de-sac is through a single family area.
d. A reduction in the number of units is not justified as the adopted
Specific Plan for the area allows 3-5 DU/acre and the proposal is
for only 2.6 DU/acre.
e. Because of the requirement for participation in the cost of
extending Paseo Ranchero, a lower density probably would not
be economically feasible.
B. Geology/Soils (EIR Sec. 3.2)
1. Impact: Southern California is susceptible to seismic hazards. The
project site does not lie close to any known active faults and carries no greater
risk of seismic damage than most areas of the county. No other geologic hazards
pose a significant risk to the proposed project.
Because landslides were not found during the investigation, the project
is not expected to be impacted by landslide hazards.
The placement of structures on expansive soil could have serious impacts
due to cracking and differential settling.
2. Finding (Category 1): The expansive soil hazard present on site is
potentially significant, but mitigable.
-3-
C. Archaeologs (EIR Sec. 3.4)
1. Impact: A field investigation was conducted on December 6, 1979 and
consisted of an intensive on-foot reconnaissance of the property. The results of
the field investigation was positive as one newly recorded site (W-2390) was noted
within the boundaries of the project. This site (W-2390) is located at an elevation
of approximately 460 Feet above mean sea level in the northeastern quarter of the
property. As far as can be ascertained by preliminary reconnaissance, the site
consists of a single locus approximately 30 meters by 30 meters in area, situated
on a south trending knoll overlooking Telegraph Canyon. Culturally intrusive
surface material present includes one chopping tool and one dozen flakes. Lithic
materials evident are available locally. The site generally maintains a static
contour and because of that, it is U shaped.
Because the one archaeological site (W-2390) is a fragile surface site,
any earth removed, vehicular traffic or other disruptive activities could seriously
impair or destroy the data compiled to date. Mitigation will consist of the follow-
ing program: 1) Establishing an accurate location for the site; 2) A micro-mapping
of surface artifacts and collection of these artifacts; 3) Excavation of four test
units, each one meter by one meter square, to assess possible subsurface cultural
debris; 4) Laboratory analysis and cataloging of material collected' 5) Preparation
and submittal of a written report. '
2. Finding (Category l): The impact of the project on archaeological
resources is potentially significant, but mitigable.
D. Schools (EIR Sec. 3.5)
1. Impact: The new students generated by this project would require the
equivalent of approximately one classroom and one teacher, plus the related facilities
and other personnel. Mitigation will require the developer to provide the City with
written assurance from the school districts that they will have the ability to
provide educational services.
2. Finding (Cate~orS 2): The dedication of land and/or the payment of
developer fees are methods adopted by the school districts for obtaining assistance
from private developers to reduce the impacts of incremental growth. The respon-
sibility for obtaining developer assistance to mitigate school impacts rests with
the school districts.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
LADERA VILLAS SUBDIVISION
EIR-81-1
(California Administrative Code Sec. 15093)
The implementation of the Ladera Villas project will result in a significant
alteration of the natural land form. The project incorporates various design
features and techniques that substantially lessens the significance of this
land form/visual impact.
Although this impact has been substantially mitigated to a level acceptable
to the City of Chula Vista, a significant impact will nevertheless result.
The following specific considerations override this significant impact:
1. More significant canyons than the minor canyon near the westerly edge
of this tract have been filled in conjunction with developments to the
west.
2. Council determined in its approval of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
to preserve the major canyon areas in E1 Rancho del Rey and in exchange
thereof to allow the filling and alteration of many of the minor canyons.
3. A cluster development in order to minimize the grading is not appropriate
in this location at the end of a cul-de-sac when the only access to the
cul-de-sac is through a single family area.
4. A reduction in the number of units is not justified as the adopted Specific
plan for the area allows 6-8 DU/acre and the proposal is for only 2.9 DU/acre.
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
ICOMMISSION 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.
Lod~ra Vill~$ D~¥~lgpment
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Gerald R. Lalande Joe Bordi
Rita Y. LaLande Murielle N. Bordi
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.
Max A. S~w~r~
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Con~nissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, e~tate, 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.)~,~,
'~lign~ture of Jp~l~cant/date '
Cnarmes R. Pearson, President
WPC 0701P PEARSOn; PLANNING, INC.
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January ll, lg89 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-12: Consideration of proposed amendments to
the certified Local Coastal Program and Bayfront
Specific Plan - City initiated
A. BACKGROUND
The following amendments to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program are being proposed: Part I of the amendments concerns only the
property located north and south of "J" Street between Interstate 5 and
Bay Boulevard. It entails a new provision to allow a maximum increase in
development intensity and building height if development meets certain
conditions. Part II of the amendment includes: 1) new provisions
allowing de minimus waivers for minor projects located in the
non-appealable areas of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; 2) revised grading
and drainage provisions; and, 3) adding provisions for using a hearing
officer to conduct public hearings on Coastal Development Permit
applications. (See Exhibit B for Amendments - Part I and Part II.)
A six-week local review period for these amendments began December 11,
1988. A City Council public hearing will be held on January 24, 1989, at
which time the Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to
Council members. Subsequently, the amendments will be forwarded to the
Coastal Commission for review.
Since the Coastal Commission's review process has been determined by the
State Resources Agency to be the functional equivalent of CEQA, no
environmental review of the amendments is required prior to submission of
the proposal to the State Commission.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing
and adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving the proposed LCP Amendments as presented.
C. DISCUSSION
PART I
Part I of the proposed amendments to the certified Local Coastal Program
affects approximately 4.8 acres of property located north and south of J
Street between Bay Boulevard and Interstate 5. The property consists of
three separate parcels (total of 3.22 acres) and two segments of an open,
concrete drainage channel (total of 1.4 acres). (See Exhibit A for site
location.) The parcels are currently undeveloped but are designated in
the certified LCP for highway related commercial use with a maximum
building height of two stories and .25 F.A.R.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 2
The subject sites are located at the southern entry to the Chula Vista
Bayfront, a main gateway as designated in the certified LCP. Currently,
due to the limited sizes and configuration of the parcels and their
locations relative to the open drainage facilities, quality development
potential is tenuous. To enhance the opportunity for quality development
to occur, the possibility of covering the drainage channel adjacent to the
subject parcels has been explored. It was found that covering portions of
the channel would result in additional developable land area and the
consolidation and reconfiguration of the two parcels south of J Street.
In addition, aesthetics of the gateway generally would be improved.
A drawback to the channel improvements would be the related cost
(estimated at $1 million plus) which would result in increased cost to
develop the overall property. If the improvements are undertaken,
development within the current height and density requirements may not be
financially feasible. Therefore, an amendment to allow the potential for
an increase in height and density on these properties is proposed. The
amendment would allow a maximum increase in height to four stories and
maximum increase in F.A.R. to .-~5 (parcel 2) and .5 (parcel 3 & 4). Any
i~-gree of increase would be dependent on specific development plans
meeting strict design criteria (page § & 6 of Amendment Part I) and
review by both the Design Review Committee and Redevelopment Agency.
Also, a finding of consistency with the objectives of the overall
certified Local Coastal Program would be required prior to approval of
development proposals.
PART II
Part II of the amendments includes changes to the LCP which would:
1) Modify the seasonal grading restrictions in the Chula Vista Coastal
Zone.
2) Provide for the issuance of de minimus permit waivers in
non-appealable areas of the Coastal Zone.
3) Allow the Planning Director or his/her designee to act as a hearing
officer for public hearings on coastal development permit
applications.
4) Pequire public hearings for projects that are in the non-appealable
areas of the Coastal zone which require conditional use permits.
5) Require special information from applicants for coastal development
permits for uses that involve toxic waste storage.
Item I prohibits all grading and stockpiling of earthen materials within
the Coastal Zone between November 1 and March 31 except when the proposed
development meets special requirements that are proposed to be added to
Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The existing Local
Coastal Program includes a blanket prohibition on grading between
November 1 and March 31, but it is unclear to which portions of the
Coastal Zone that prohibition applies. The purpose of the prohibition is
to minimize the potential for siltation in wetlands.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 3
The addition to Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan will allow
grading to occur in the Coastal Zone during the rainy season provided
certain special requirements are met. The special requirements that must
be met for grading to be permitted are:
(a) Erosion control devices must be installed prior to on-site grading.
(b) The applicant must post a deposit to cover the cost of remedial work
in areas adversely affected by the failure of required erosion
control measures.
(c) The applicant must provide daily documentation of the condition of
the erosion control procedures for any 24 hour period in which the
precipitation exceeds .25 inch. The purpose of this documentation is
to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the required erosion
control measures are functioning properly.
In addition to the special requirements listed above, the City Engineer
will conduct field inspections of grading operations prior to and during
the rainy season to monitor compliance. Non-compliance with erosion
control and reporting requirements will be documented and any physical
damage will be repaired using deposit funds posted by the applicant.
Items 2 and 3 are proposed at this time in an effort to streamline the
coastal development permitting process. Item 2 will allow coastal
development permit requirements to be waived for certain projects in the
non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The Director of Planning must
make the determination that the proposed development involves no adverse
effects on coastal resources and is consistent with the certified LCP
prior to issuance of a waiver. Item 3 will allow the Director of Planning
to act as a hearing officer for public hearings on issuance of coastal
development permits. At the present time all public hearings on coastal
development permits are heard by the City Council. The permit decision
made by the Director of Planning may be appealed to the City Council
pursuant to Section 19.92.16 of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
Item 4 provides clarification that public hearings are required for
Conditional Use Permits in the Coastal Zone. Although public hearings are
not required for most projects in non-appealable areas of the Coastal
Zone, consistent with City policy they are required for conditional uses
in non-appealable areas.
Item ~ adds a provision to the LCP requiring special information from
applicants proposing to store toxic wastes. The coastal development
permit for such projects would be required to include an analysis of
liability and responsibility for removing the toxic wastes and an
implementable program for their removal.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 4
The amendments in Part II are intended to streamline the coastal
development permitting process. The changes proposed to the grading
requirements clarify that the prohibition on grading during the rainy
season applies throughout the Coastal Zone. Grading would, however, be
allowed during the rainy season provided the conditions requiring the
installation of erosion control devices are met and a deposit is posted to
cover the cost of rectifying any environmental damage resulting from
failure of the erosion control devices.
PRB:RP:aq
WPC 3910H
SAN
DIEGO
BAY
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
to the
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Parts I and I1
December 12, 1988
PART I
DRAFT
Amendments to Certified Chula Vista LCP (Part I)
The following amendments (Part I) to the certified City of Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program concern only the property located north and south of "J"
Street between Interstate 5 and Bay Boulevard. These new provisions allow a
maximum increase in development intensity and building height if development
meets certain conditions Ilisted in attached Appendix C).
Additions to the existing Local Coastal Program are indicated by underlining.
ISpecific Plan)
Section 19.85.01 - Building Height
The maximum heights of buildings shall be controlled by Map 2, Building Height
Controls, and shall be measured in stories or feet, whichever is less:
Two-story maximum - 22 feet.
Four-story maximum - 44 feet.
Five-story maximum - 55 feet.
Eight-story maximum - 88 feet.
Twelve-story conditional - a maximum of 132 feet, provided that the
increase in height above 88 feet can be shown to produce a visually and
environmentally superior solution for a visually prominent and
resource-sensitive location, and which adheres to the following standards:
a. Linear slab or cruciform design shall be avoided in favor of a
stepped building form.
b. The building shall enclose a south facing public outdoor space.
Special Condition #1 - a maximum height of 70 feet is allowed within 400
feet of the intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard in the southwest
corner of such intersection.
An architectural focal point such as a tower or other vertical form
reaching a height of (up to) 70 feet shall be permitted in the office park
north of Marina Parkway subject to site and design review to consider and
protect public views from Marina Parkway to San Diego Bay. This vertical
element will be a visual landmark iOentifying the core area of the
Midbayfront.
-1-
Special Condition #2 - A maximum height of 44' is allowed in the northwest
quadrant of Bay Boulevard and "E" Street, provided that said structure is
at least 400' north of "E" Street and does not contain more than 20% of
the allowed FAR for the total site.
Special Condition #3 - A maximum building height shall be 45 feet provided
specific site development plans are recommended by the Chula Vista Design
Review Committee and approved by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
based on guidelines listed in Appendix C.
-2-
(Specific Plan)
Ir~)LE !
E)EVF-LO~A&EIqT mNTEJ,4SITY AND S!TIN(;
Usable
M~nimum Exterior Floor- Open
Lot Area Residential Front Side Side Area Space per
(s.f.) Density Yards Yards Yards Ratio Res. d.u.
Residential 3,500 15-30 d.u./acre tS 10 -- -- /~00
Commercial: Office Park 7,000 -- 10 10 - 0. sl -
Commercial: Highway Related 5,000 -- 10 2 _ 2 _ 2 0.25 2 _
Commercial: Marine Related 3,000 -- ~0 -- -- 0.25 --
Commercial: Specialty Related 10,000 -- 20 [0 -- 0.25 --
Commercial'. Hotel 20~000 -- S0 30 -- 0.S --
Industrial: Business Park I 0,000 -- 30 IS 20 0.$ --
Industrial:,. General 20,000 -- 20 I 5 20 0.5 --
1Transfer of development rights shall be permitted to allow a FAR of .65 in portions of
the office park north of Marina Parkway with a reduction of FAR on parcels of equal size
in the office park area south of Marina Parkway to .35 to maintain an overall FAR of
2In the event additional land area is gained for development of properties located at
the northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and J Street by covering the
adjacent drainage channel, the on-site F.A.R. and setbacks may vary in accordance with
sp~cia! condition #3 (sec. 19.85.01) and appendix C.
TABLE 2
PERMITTED SIC, NS
(See also Ekiyfront Sign Program)
Land Use
/ /
F~SID~-NTIAL · · · · ·
COMMERCIAL: 0F'FIC~ PAR~ · · · · ·
COMMERCIAL~ HIGHWAY RFI ATED · · · .· ·
COMMERCIAL: MARINA RELATED · · · .· ·
COMMERCIAL; SI:)ECIALTY R,ETAIL · · · · ·
COMMERCIAL; HOTEL · · ·
INDUSTRIAL: BUSINESS PARK · · · · ·
INDUSTRIAL.. C~INI~ RAL · · · · ·
-4-
(Specific Plan)
Appendix C
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF
BAY BOULEVARD AND "J" STREET
Specific development plans for the development of property located at the
northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street shall be
subject to Design Review Committee recommendation and Agency approval base~ on
the to~owing guidelines:
1. Building setbacks shall be:
Parcel 2 Parcels 3/4
~t (Southeast
Corner) Corner)
a. "j" Street (to maintain view 50 ft. 30 ft.*
-- corridor)
b. Bay Boulevard 30 ft. 30 ft.
c. Adjacent to I-5 Freeway 50 ft. 25 ft.
d. From intersection of
"J" Street and Bay
Boulevard {measured
perpendicular to an-
gular corner property
line) 60 ft. 60 ft.
*50 ft. setback required for construction exceeding a building height of
28 feet.
2. Maximum building height shall be 45 feet.
3. Architectural features such as a tower, with floor areas not exceeding 10%
of the ground floor area, may exceed the 45 ft. height limit by 15 ft.
Note: For calculation of the tower area, land over the drainage channel
between Lots 3 and 4 shall be included in ground floor calculations to the
extent the second tloor spans the channel.
One architectural tower shall be allowed on Parcel 2 and one on the
combined Parcels 3 and 4.
4. Landscaping of the site shall be 15 - 20% of the total lot area.
5. Minimum landscaping depths along street frontages shall be 15 ft. in width.
-5-
6. Elevations facing the freeway shall be articulated in massing or
architectural treatment.
7. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to connect both sides of "J" Street
-- as well as linking the projects to the Bayfront development.
8. The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for Lot 2 and the aOjoining lot to
the east ("the channel") when combined shall be ,55.
9. Tile maximum F.A.R. for Lots 3 and 4 (the southeast parcel) when combined
-- with the adjoining parcel ("the channel") shall be .50.
10. Compact parking stalls shall be permitted with dimensions of 7.5 feet wide
by 16 feet in length. The number of these stalls may be authorized to a
maximum of 20% of the required parking.
WPC 3807H
-6-
ILand Use Plan)
TABLF 2: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
DEVELOPABLE
ACRES DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Subarea I--D Street Fill 73.5
Residential 19.0 15 to 30 du/acre
Commercial--Marine-Related 21.1 FAR 0.25
Commercial--Marina +6.0 NA
Subarea II--Gunpowder Point 40.8
Commercial--Hotel/Conference 14.03 FAR 0,52
Subarea III--Midbayfront 99.0
Residential 18.1 15 to 30 du/acre
Commercial--Office/Park and 44,7 FAR 0,55
Specialty Retail
Commercial--Highway-Related 15.2 FAR 0.25
Industrial Business Park 21.0 FAR 0.5
Landscaped Parking Bonus Provisions3
Subarea IV--Industrial Area 26.2
Commercial--Highway-Related 3.1 FAR 0.25~
Industrial/Utilities 14.2 Per Existing Zoning4
Landscaped Parking 8.9 Bonus Provisions3
Subarea VI--Outparcels 18.8
Industrial 18.8 Per Existing Zoning4
du/acre = Dwelling units per net acre of developable land.
FAR = Floor area ratio or ratio of gross building area to net developable land
area.
NA : Not applicable.
1 Marina: An allowance of approximately 6.0 acres site is made for a
recreational boating marina or a small commercial marina repair and
storage facility. This area does not include upland support facilities
covered by the marine commercial designation.
2 26,8 acres of upland area are excluded for purposes of establishing
permitted FAR.
3 Bonus Provisions: Increased development is proposed on parcels adjacent
to the areas where long term provisions are secured to utilize the ROW
for parking and parking areas are landscaped per prevailing standards.
4 Existing Zoning: Intensity of use does not vary from existing Chula
Vista zoning code.
-7-
Transfer of development rights shall be permitted to allow a FAR of .65
in portions of the office park area north of Marina Parkway with a
reduction of FAR on parcels of equal size in the office park area south
of Marina Parkway to .35 to maintain an overall FAR of .5.
In the event additional land area is gained for development of properties
located at the northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J"
Street by covering adjacent drainage channels, the onsite FAR and
setbacks may vary in accordance with Special Condition #3 (Sec, 19.85.01)
and Appendix C of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
-8-
(Land Use Plan)
I ~ ~-
I ~ '~
ILand Use Plan)
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
The proposed intensity of development is based on height limitations, parking
requirements, on-site open space or landscape provisions, traffic capacity,
and economic feasibility. The intensity of development consequently varies by
land use type.
1. Height Limits. The recommended building heights for the Bayfront are
indicated in Figure 5. The prevailing height limit is four stories
throughout most of the Bayfront. This limit allows for extensive open
space and landscape provisions without exceeding the traffic capacity of
the proposed circulation improvements. There are areas in which the
height limit varies from prevailing provisions, calling for both lower
and taller height recommendations, due to program requirements,
environmental management objectives, or physical form and appearance
objectives. These variances include the following:
Gateways. To achieve a "gateway," or sense of entry to the Bayfront and
relate it to the existing new development along Bay Boulevard, the areas
immediately adjacent to the E Street and J Street bridges are recommended
to stay between one and two stories~ except in accordance with special
conditions set forth in Section 19.85.01 of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
-10-
PART II
Draft
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LCP (PART II)
The following amendments to the certified City of Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program are proposed to clarify and simplify the performance standards
and processing requirements for coastal development permits. These amendments
do not provide for any changes in the type, location, density, or intensity of
uses permitted by the existing Local Coastal Program.
Additions to existing language in the Local Coastal Program are indicated
by underlining; deletions are indicated by
1. Amendment 1: Grading
[A. Land Use Plan:]
BASIC UTILITY SERVICE AND GRADING OBJECTIVES
The following general objectives are proposed to guide the future design and
implementation of utility services and areawide grading:
1. Provide adequate sizing of utility lines to assure sufficient capacity for
the most intensive users.
2. Minimize the import of soil to that necessary for the protection of
developable areas from flooding during ¢~¢~% the 100 year design
storm~. ~¢1~/%~1¢~1
3. Protect existing natural resources from ~ any significant adverse
impact~during %~ construction ~.
4. Provide for an adequate on-site storm drainage system to preclude
stormwater ~Y~ from development from draining directly into
wetland habitat without adequate filtering of sediments or
pollutants.
5. Prohibit all grading and stockpiling of earthen materials between
November 1 and March 31 except where proposed land development meets the
requirements of Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
BASIC UTILITY SERVICE AND GRADING OBJECTIVES (CHAPTER III)
Objective 4. "Provide for an adequate on-site storm drainage system
to preclude drainage from development from entering directly into
wetland habitat without adequate filtering of sediments or
pollutants."
Objective 5. Prohibit all grading and stockpiling of earthen
materials between November 1 and March 31 except where proposed land
development meets the requirements of Section 19.87.07 of the
Bayfront Specific Plan.
-1-
[B. Specific Plan:]
Section 19.87.03 - Utility Service and Grading Objectives
Map 4, Utility System, shall control the location of sewered water systems.
The following objectives shall guide the design and implementation of utility
services and areawide grading:
1. Provide adequate sizing of utility lines to assure sufficient capacity for
the most intensive users.
2. Minimize the import of soil to that necessary for the protection of
developable areas from flooding during concurrent storms and high-tide
conditions.
3. Protect existing natural resources from ~ any significant adverse
impact~ during construction ~.
4. Provide for an adequate on-site storm drainage system to preclude drainage
from development from entering directly into wetland habitat without
adequate filtering of sediments or %~/~% pollutants.
5. Provide appropriate slope gradients in critical locations to ensure proper
drainage.
6. Prohibit all grading and stockpiling of earthen materials between
November 1 an~ March 31 except where proposed land development meets the
requirements of Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
Section 19.87.07-Grading anO Drainage
1. Development on the Midbayfront ~b~d/~ shall import earth to ensure
building pads above the lO0-year flood level (about elevation I0 6) and
above higher high-tide level. The grading concept for imported fill for
the Midbayfront is shown in Map 5, Land Form and Drainage.
2. Special care shall be taken in development proposals ~/~ adjacent to
~etland habitat ~$~ to avoid or minimize ~ problems of
silting and oil or chemical leakage. Some diversion of ~l~ water is
necessary and one or more desilting/retention basin(s) may be required in
development projects to protect and enhance the biological and wate~
quality of the wetland habitat. A major ~%~ desiltation basin
shall be built in the Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide
for desilting~ during and after construction of development projects
and f~r oil and chemical entrapment. LPage 38]
-2-
~JJ~JJ~JJ~JJ~JJ~JJe~JJ~~JJ~
~J/~JJ~$~J/~JJJZ~JJ~/JJ~]~JJ~J/]~
~K~l~i [Page 38]
3. All development for proper%ies within the coastal zone shall comply with
the following requirements:
a. A grading plan that incorporates runoff and erosion control
procedures to be utilized during all phases of project development
shall be prepared and submitted concurrently with subdivision
improvement plans or planned unit developmen% plans where such
developmen~ is proposed to occur on lands that will be graded or
filled. Such a plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer
and sha~l be designed to assure t~at runoff rates w~l be controlled
to minimize the potential for silta%ion ~n ~et~ands. Runo~ contro~
shall be accomplished by establishing on-site or at suitable nearby
locations catchment basins, detention basins, and siltation trap~
along with energy dissipating measures at the terminus of
drains, or other similar means o~ equal or greater effectiveness.
b. Sediment basins (debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps)
shall be installed in conjunction with the initial grading operation~
and maintained through the development process as necessary to remove
sediment from runoff waters draining from the land undergoing
development. Areas disturbed but not completed prior to ~ovember 1
incluOing graded pads and stockpiles, shall be suitably prepared to
prevent excessive soil loss during the late fall and winter seasons.
All graded areas shall be stabilized prior to November 1, by means of
native vegetation, if feasible, or by other suitable means approved
by the City. The use of vegetation as a means to control site
erosion sha~l be accomplished pursuan~ to plans and specifications
prepared by a licensed landscape architect or other qualified
professional. Erosion control utilizing vegetation may incluoe,
is not limite~ to, seeding, mulching, fertilization, anO irrigation
within sufficient ~ime prior to November 1 to provide landscape
-3-
coverage that is adequate to achieve the provisions of this policy.
Temporary erosion control measures, shall include the use of berms,
interceptor ditches, filtered inlets, debris basins, silt traps, or-
other similar means of equal or ~reater effectiveness. From November-
1 to March 31, gradin9 may be permitted provided the applica,L
conforms to the requirements of subsection C and submits monthly
documentation within two weeks following the end of the precedin~
month to the City Engineer of the condition of the erosion control
procedures for ~raded pads, slopes and stockpiles whenever
precipitation during the month exceeds two (2) inches.
c. From November 1 to March 31, ~rading may occur in phased increments
as determined by the City Engineer provided all of the followiny
requirements have been met:
(1) The increments shall be limited to those areas that have been
prepared to control the effects of soil erosion. Cont~
measures, such as sedimentation basins, detention basins and
other facilities, shall be scheduled and placed in a sequence
that shall minimize and control the offsite transportation ot
sediments. Such erosion control measures shall be installed for
such increments prior to commencing any ~radin~ that would be
performed durin~ the period between November 1 and March 31.
(2) The applicant shall post a deposit, for such areas to be ~raded,
which shall remain in force and effect for one year after final
inspection approval of grading by the City. The deposit shall
be sufficient to cover the costs of any remedial ~rading and
~-~planting of vegetation, including any restoration of wetlands,
or ot~er environmentally sensitive habitat areas aoversely
affected by the failure of the erosion control measures required
herein, as determined by the City Engineer. The deposit will
inure to the benefit of the City in case of noncompliance as
determined by the City Engineer.
(3) The applicant a~rees to provide daily documentation to the City
Engineer of the condition of the erosion control procedures for
any 24-~our period in which precipitation exceeds 0.25 inches.
Such documentation shall be provided within five working days ot
~aid 2~-hour period. Failure to provide suc~ documentation o~
the occurrence of any significant discharge of sediments or
Silts in violation o~ this policy small constitute automatic
grounds for suspension of the applicant's grading permits(s)
during the period of November 1 to March 31.
4. Erosion Control Monitoring Program for Chula Vista Coastal Zone Areas
-- Drainin9 Directly Into Wetlands.
a. Overall field review of grading operations will be performed by the
-- City Engineer on each grading project in the Coastal Zone.
-4-
b. Field review of erosion control devices, sedimentation basins,
-- detention basins, and landscaping will be made by the City Engineer
prior to the advent of the rainy season, and throughout the rainy
season as necessary to monitor grading operations phased between
November 1 and March 31. The City Engineer shall document
non-compliance o~ projects with the grading and erosion control
requirements and correct problems with funds from the deposit posted
by the applicant.
2. Amendment 2: De Minimis Permit Waivers
[Specific Plan]
Section 19.92.03-Applicability
(a) Except as provided in Section 19.92.03 and Section 19.92.04 ~, any
~J¢~% person wishing to undertake a development in the coastal zone
shall obtain a coastal development permit in accordance with the
provisions of this article, in addition to any other permit required by
law. Development undertaken pursuant to a coastal development permit
shall conform to the plans, specifications, terms and conditions approved
in granting the permit. The procedures described herein may be used in
conjunction with other procedural requirements of the City ~y¢~
~%~yJ%~ provided that the minimum requirements as specified herein
are assured. [Page 87]
(b) The Director of Planning may issue a written waiver from the coastal
development permit requirements of this article for any development tha~
is de minimis. A proposed development is de minimis if the Director o~
Planning determines, based on a review of an application for a coasta~
development permit, that the development involves no potential for any
adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coas~a~ resource~
and that it will be consistent with all applicable objectives, policies,
and standards of the certified Local Coastal Program. The determination
shal~ be made ~n writing and based upon factual evidence.
lc) De minimis waivers shall be permitted only in the non-appealable area of
the City's coastal development permitting jurisdiction when no local
public hearing is required.
-5-
(d) The Director of Planning will consider the following types of projects for
possible permit waivers:
Il) Projects which would have been placed on the consent calendar without
special conditions;
/2) Projects fully consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program
(LCP) and for which all applicable policies of the LCP are objective
in nature, such that staff does not have to exercise its judgment as
to satisfaction of subjective criteria;
(3) Projects located in areas where similar projects have been approved
as a routine matter without conditions or opposition.
le) The following projects will not be considered for possible waivers:
(1) Projects which involve questions as to conformity with the certified
LCP, or which may result in potential impacts on coastal resources
and public access;
/2) Projects with known opposition or probable public controversy;
(3) Projects which involve divisions of land including condominiums.
(f) If, upon review of the coastal development permit application, the
Director of Planning determines that the development is de minimis, the
applicant, within 48 hours, sha~l post public notice of the de minimis
waiver on the property. Notice of intent to issue a de m~n~m~s waiver
shall also be made to the Coastal Commission and to persons known to be
interested in the proposed development in the following manner:
Within ten Il0) calendar days of accepting an application for a de minimis
waiver or at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the decision on the
application, the Director of Planning shall provide notice, by first class
mail, of pending waiver of permit requirements. This
notice shall be provided to all persons who have requested to be on the
mailing list for that development project or site or for coastal decisions
within the local jurisdiction, to all property owners an~ residents within
100 feet of the perimeters of the parcel on which the development is
proposed, and to the Coastal Commission.
(g) The notice shall contain the following information:
A description of the proposed project and location;
(2) A statement that the development is within the coastal zone;
The date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant;
(4) The number assigned to the application;
-6-
The date of the hearing at which the waiver may become effective;
/6) The general procedure concerning the submission of public comments
either in writing or orally prior to the decision;
(71 A statement that a public comment period of sufficient time to allow
for the submission of comments by mail will be held prior to the
decision.
The Director of Planning shall report to the City Council at its next
available public meeting those ~rojects for which waivers are proposed,
with sufficient description to give notice of the proposed development to
the City Council. A list of waivers issued by the Director of Planning
shall be available for public inspection at the public counter of the
Community Development Department and at the City Council meeting during
which any waivers are reported. A waiver shall not take effect until
after the Planning Director makes his/her report to the City Council. If
a majority of the City Council so requests, such issuance shall not be
effective and, instead, the application for a coastal development permit
shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this article.
3. Amendment 3: Hearing Officer
[Specific Plan]
Section 19.92.07-Public Hearing on Appealable Developments
At least one public hearing shall be held on application for an appealable
development, thereby affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the
hearing and inform the City of the nature of his or her %~1~ concerns
regarding the project. Such hearing shall occur no earlier than seven (7)
calendar days following the mailing of the notice required in Section
19.92.0~6 and shall normally be conducted by the Planning Director or
his/her --designee. The public hearing may be conducted in accordance ~ith
local procedures or in any other manner reasonably calculated to give
interested persons, including the applicant, an opportunity to appear and
present their viewpoints, either orally or in writing.
Section 19.92.09.5-Public Hearing on Non-Appealable ~evelopments: Conditional
Uses
At least one public hearing shall be held on each application for a
non-appealable development involving a conditional use, thereby affording any
persons the opportunity %o appear at the hearing and inform the City of the
nature o~ i~is ~r her concerns regaroing the project. Such hearin~ shall occur
no earlier than ten (10) calendar days followin~ the mailing o~ the notice
required in Section 19.92.06 and shall normally be conducted by the Director
of Gommunity Developmen~ or his/her designee. The public hearing may be
conducted in accordance with local procedures or in any other manner
-7-
reasonably calculated to give interested persons, including the applicant, an
opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints, either orally or in
writing.
4. Land Use: Toxic Wastes
[Specific Plan].
Section 19.81.04-Land Use
Permitted land uses in the $~X~/~/Vd~/~ City's coastal zone shall be
controlled by Map 1, the Land Use Controls Map. Land use designations
include: industrial: general; industrial: business park; residential;
~l~//~¢~d~ commercial: office park; commercial: highway-related;
commercial: marine-related; commercial: specialty retail; commercial: hotel;
landscaped parking; public open space and wetlands.
The specific land uses allowed in each of these designations shall be
determined using the use classifications and definitions and listings found
therein, provided that in the event subsequent data or findings of a
geotechnical, toxic waste, or biological nature on developable areas render
the acceptability of such land uses infeasible, dangerous to public health and
safety, or so environmentally damaging as to nullify the balanced character of
the Bayfront Local Coastal Program ~l~, such uses shall not be permitted
in those areas. Any application for a coastal development permit for any land
utilized to store such toxic wastes shall include an analysis of liability and
responsibility for removing such toxic wastes, including an implementable
program therefor.
All land uses shall also adhere to the Performance Standards, Chapter 19.66 of
the City %~$ Zoning Ordinance, whic~ is incorporated by reference.
WPC 3843H
-8-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF' CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS i
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.
Ratner Corporation
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Ratner Corporation
GreenwoOd/McDonald & Co.
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.
Stanley FQ~ter P. Michael McDonald
Abe Kassam
Bennet B.
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 x If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, ~opartnershtp, Joint ventu?,'association,
soc--6El'~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,, trust, rece~ve~, syndicate,
thi? ?d any o~her county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
pol~t~cal subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
~vTNER~ p Rfli~J~T T~ ~
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) y: /~*~ceen?~nald & Co,Gen. Paz
By: XYZ Corporate- G~q. Pa~cner
WPC 070IP P. Michael McDona~, President
A-110 Print or type name of appllcant
P. Michael McDonald, President
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 1
4, PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-2; Consideration of an amendment to the
Municipal Code to allow mixed commercial-residentia~
projects by conditional use permit in the C-C zone -
Appe~ Development Corporation
A. BACKGROUND
Appel Development Corporation has submitted this request for the City to
consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow mixed-use
(commercial-residential) projects by conditional use permit in the C-C
Central Commercial zone. If the amendment is approved, Appel will seek
approval of a rezoning (from C-T to C-C) and conditional use permit for a
mixed-use project at the southwest corner of Broadway and Flower Street.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section
15061(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal Code
to allow mixed commercial-residential projects by conditional use permit
in the C-C-P zone as shown in Exhibit A.
C. DISCUSSION
When the present zoning ordinance was adopted in 1969, provisions were
included to allow multiple family development by conditional use permit in
the C-O Commercial Office and C-B Central Business District zones. The
ordinance was later amended to allow multiple family development by CUP in
the C-N Neighborhood Commercial, C-C Central Commercial, and C-T
Thoroughfare Commercial zones as well. Projects were guided by reference
to the density and development standards of the R-3 zone. A provision
unique to the C-T zone was a prohibition against multiple family projects
within 200 feet of the front property line.
In 1986, the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to remove the
provision for multiple family in the C-N, C-C and C-T zones based on the
belief that residential use in these zones constituted a significant and
permanent change in land use which should be evaluated and implemented via
a rezoning rather than a CUP. The provision was retained in the C-O and
C-B zones on the basis that: (1) residential use is more consistent with
the uses and business hours in the C-O zone, and (2) all C-B zoned areas
lie within the area governed by the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan which
allows for mixed-use projects.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 2
C. ANALYSIS
There are several factors which favor the proposal:
1. Mixed-use projects can presently be considered only in the C-B and
C-O zones. The amendment would allow such projects to be considered
on a wider scale, outside the central business district and involving
retail and service commercial as well as office commercial uses.
The approach should be used selectively and on sites which are large
enough to ensure the integrity of each use; but the benefits of
mixed-use development can be si§nificant. It can facilitate the
development/redevelopment of otherwise underutilized commercial
sites. It can foster mutually supportive projects such as senior
housing in conjunction with convenience retail and service commercial
uses. And it can also provide the opportunity to ease the transition
between commercial properties and abutting residential areas.
2. The amendment would only allow for true mixed-use projects, with the
commercial and residential components planned and implemented as a
unit. The ability to convert commercial acreage to residential use
without the benefit of a rezoning was the primary reason for the
prior amendment which deleted residential as a conditional use in the
C-C as well as the C-T and C-N zones. In the present case, there
would be no authority to establish residential use in place of or as
a first phase to commercial development.
3. It would be impractical and in some cases impossible to implement a
mixed-use project via separate zones. For instance, it would be
confusing to draw separate zones for a mixed-use development where
the uses interface in a complex or irregular manner. It would be
impossible to use zoning to reflect second-story residential over
first-floor commercial.
4. The amendment would only involve the C-C Central Commercial zone--or,
as recommended here, the C-C-P zone, which would require a precise
plan and review and approval of the DRC. It would not apply to
either C-T zoned areas which involve "heavier" commercial uses which
would present more difficult compatibility problems, nor to C-N zoned
areas which are usually not large enough to accommodate mixed-use
projects in an appropriate manner. Also, as noted above, the C-C
zone is more flexible and generally applicable than the C-O and C-B
zones which presently allow residential use by CUP.
The amendment includes several standards for mixed-use projects including the
requirement for simultaneous implementation of both use components as
discussed above. The standards also address residential density. The maximum
allowable density would be governed by the provisions of the R-3 zone based on
the project area less any area devoted exclusively to commercial use,
including commercial parking and circulation areas. The actual density
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January ll, 1989 Page 3
approved under the CUP could be significantly less than the maximum depending
on site specific factors including the density and relationship of surrounding
residential areas, if any.
The residential component would be required to meet other applicable standards
of the R-3 zone, including private and common open space and independent
off-street parking. An additional provision requires largely independent
access and circulation in order to avoid traffic conflicts between the
commercial and residential components. Another provision refers to the
possibility of a restriction on commercial uses and/or business hours
depending on the interface with residential units.
The amendment would, therefore, provide basic standards and guidelines for
mixed-use development, but many issues will need to be refined and addressed
through the CUP process. Because of the nature of the land use decision
involved, we have also included a requirement for review and approval by the
City Council following the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
WPC 5824P
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 19.36
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
19.36.030 Conditional Uses.
o. Mixed commercial-residential projects, subject to the provisions of
Section 19.58.205.
CHAPTER 19.58
USES
19.58.205 Mixed commercial-residential projects in the C-C-P zone
Mixed commercial-residential projects may be allowed in the C-C-P zone upon
the issuance of a conditional use permit and subject to the followin~
standards and guidelines:
A. The conditional use permit shall be subject to review and approval of the
-- City Council following the recommendation of the Planning Commission;
B. The commercial and residential components shall be planned and implemented
-- together;
£. The maximum allowable residential density will be governed by the
~rovisions of the R-3 zone based on the total project area, less any area
evoted exclusively to commercial use, including commercial parking and
circulation areas. The approved density may be significantly less than
the maximum allowable density depending on site specific factors,
including the density and relationship of surrounding residential areas,
if any;
D. Parking, access and circulation shall be largely independent for the
commercial and residential components of the project. Each use componenL
shall provide off-street parking in accordance with City standards;
E. The residential component shall meet the private and common open space
-- requirements of the R-3 zone;
F. The conditional use permit may include a restriction on commercial uses
-- and/or business hours in order to avoid conflicts with residential units.
WPC 5825P
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.
Bert and Bob Investment Company ~
Appel Development Company
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Bert Epstien Steve Appel
Bob Epstein Dan APPel
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than I0% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Con~issions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No xx If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-~E-f~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or ? ~
any other group or co bin ion acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pa ge s as necessary.) x/~~
WPC 0701P Ron Barefield, Appel De lvkej~dment Corporation
A-110 Print or type name of applicant