HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/11/30 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, November 30, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of October 12 and October 26, 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 outdoor
advertising signs (Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N: Consideration to rezone 1.78 acres located
between 'C' Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue
extended from R-1 to R-3-P-12 - County of San Diego
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-D: Consideration to rezone 2.09 acres located
on the west side of Otay Lakes Road between Bonita
Road and Allen School Lane from R-3-P-8 to C-O
Bob Crane and Jeff Phair
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-89-19 and ZAV-89-15: Request to establish a
child day care center and erect a 5 ft. high wrought
iron fence in the setback area at 380 Telegraph
Canyon Road - Child Development Associates, Inc.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-8: Request to legitimize two studio
apartment units at 675/681 Sea Vale Street -
Henry N. Klies
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of December 14, 1988
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
November 23, 1988
TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning~~
SUBJECT: Item #1 for the regular meeting of November 30, 1988
Various Amendments to Titles 17 and 19 of the Municipal
Code relating to offsite advertising signs
Due to new information received relating to billboard litigation,
staff requests that the Commission continue Item #1 to the regular
meeting of December 14, 1988.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N - Consideration to rezone 1.78 acres located
between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue
extended from R-1 to R-3-P-12 San Diego County
Housing Authority
A. BACKGROUND
This is a request by the County Housing Authority to rezone 1.59 acres
located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue extended
from R-1 (single family residential/7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to
R-3-P-12 (Multiple family residential/12 dwelling units per acre/precise
plan) in order to construct 18 units of low-rent public housing. The
staff has included within the proposed rezoning from R-1 to R-3-P-12 a
strip of property measuring 20 ft. by 421 ft. 10.19 acres) which adjoins
the northerly boundary of the 1.59-acre site.
The item was continued indefinitely from the meeting of June 22, 1988,
pending final Council consideration of a zoning study involving this site
and the surrounding area.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-74,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-88-74.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-88-74.
2. Adopt a motion denying PCZ-88-N.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North I-L Light industrial
South R-1 Vacant
East R-1 Single family
west M-H-P Mobile home park
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 2
Existing site characteristics.
The property consists of 1.78 acres located approximately 800 ft. north of
"C" Street on a 30 ft.-wide partially improved extension of Third Avenue.
The westerly 3/4's of the site is generally level and at the same grade as
a mobile home park to the west, the Sweetwater Industrial Park to the
north, and vacant property to the south. The easterly 1/4 of the site
consists of 2:1 slopes which rise some 55 ft. to a single family dwelling
at the top of the hill.
The County Housing Authority site is part of the Las Brisas Del Mar
tentative subdivision map which authorized the 1.59-acre parcel as well as
four standard single family lots at the top of the hill to the east with
access off Del Mar Avenue (the final map has not yet been submitted). The
remaining 0.19 acres is a 20 ft. x 421 ft. strip of land abutting the
northerly boundary of the site which is owned by the mobile home park to
the west.
General plan.
The General Plan designates the site for High Density Residential (13-26
du/ac). The line of the slope running from north to south generally
represents the General Plan demarcation line in this area between High
Density Residential on the west and Medium Density Residential (4-12
du/ac) on the east.
Prior application.
In late 1987, the City considered an application to rezone the property
from R-1 to R-3-P-21 in order to construct 35 apartment units in one
2-story and two 3-story buildings. The staff and Commission had
recommended approval, but the City Council denied the request on the basis
the project was too dense, and further directed staff to return with a
study on the appropriate intensity, bulk and pattern for development in
the 14-acre area north of "C" Street between Del Mar Avenue and Third
Avenue extended. This study is discussed under the ANALYSIS section below.
Proposed project.
The precise plan shows a total of 18 units in six 3-plex buildings, plus a
meeting/laundry building and adjoining play area and tot lot, all arranged
around the perimeter of the site with a central parking area containing 40
off-street spaces. The majority of the easterly slope will be retained as
open space, and 12,000 cu. yds. of imported fill will be used to raise the
balance of the site above the lO0-year flood level.
The project would provide low-rent public housing for families. Sixteen
of the 18 units are 3-bedroom/2-bath two-story townhouse units with 1,170
sq. ft. of floor area. The remaining two units are 3-bedroom/2-bath
single-story handicap units with 1,098 sq. ft. of floor area. The
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 3
applicant has stated that the units may have to be downsized to 925 sq.
ft. in order to meet HUD's design requirements, but this would not change
the elevations or site plan significantly. The meeting/laundry building
contains just over 800 sq. ft. of floor area.
Third Avenue would be improved for a distance of some 800 ft. from "C"
Street to the southerly boundary of the site in order to provide access to
the project. Since this is a narrow 30-ft.-wide right-of-way, the street
will provide a 22-ft.-wide roadway with no on-street parking and sidewalk
on one side only. The 20'x421' strip of land abutting the northerly
boundary of the site is separately owned and is not part of the project
plans.
D. ANALYSIS
Proposal Analysis
The site is designated on the General Plan for High Density multiple
family use and is located at a much lower elevation than single family
areas to the east -- the closest dwelling is located 80 ft. distant and 50
ft. above the developable portion of the site. The property is physically
more closely associated with the industrial park to the north, the mobile
home park to the west, and apartment units to the south (at the northeast
corner of "C" Street and Third Avenue extended) which are developed at 29
du/ac.
In terms of density, the request for 18 units on 1.59 acres results in a
density of approximately 12 du/ac, which is nearly one-half the density
proposed with the prior application, and one-third the 32 du/ac density
which could be authorized under the existing General Plan designation.
The precise plan has also addressed Council's earlier concern with bulk
and scale by using seven structures at a maximum height of 2-stories,
rather than one 2-story and two 3-story structures as proposed with the
previous application.
The precise plan would be subject to review and approval of the Design
Review Committee. Staff has concerns with the architectural elevations of
the buildings, and also with the relationship of the dwellings to the
parking area which dominates the central portion of the site. In early
discussions with the applicant, we have suggested that the architect
consider establishing a central courtyard and relocate the parking to the
north of the site to act as a buffer from the li§ht industrial park. A
public cul-de-sac will also have to be provided at the end of Third Avenue.
The staff has included the 0.19 acres of adjoining land to the north
within the rezoning in order not to create a remainder strip of R-1
zoning. The applicant has been unsuccessful in negotiating for this piece
with the owners of the mobile home park. If this 20'x421' strip of land
is not incorporated into this project, it will likely remain vacant and
virtually unusable. However, the rezoning would create a consistent
zoning pattern and boundary between the multiple family and light
industrial to the north.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 4
Zoning Study
The zoning study referred to earlier was considered by the City Council on
August 16, 1988. In an earlier neighborhood meeting, the residents of the
area had expressed support for retaining R-1 zoning for the entire study
area (please see attached exhibit). It was their opinion that the
neighborhood has been overburdened with non-single family uses which are
eroding away the single family character of the neighborhood. They cited
the industrial area to the north, the mobilehome park to the west, the
condominiums an~ mental health facility to the northeast on Second Avenue
and, more recently, the senior housing project and the South Bay Pioneers
multiple family project directly to the west and south of the area on "C"
Street.
The staff generally concurred with the concerns of the residents, but as
noted above under the "proposal analysis" believed that the northwest
portion of the study area including the property in question would lend
itself to some development pattern other than single family homes because
of its location at a much lower elevation than the balance of the area and
its consequent association with the mobilehome park to the west and
industrial area to the north. As a result, staff had recommended in each
of the three scenarios considered that the northwest portion of the study
area be rezoned to R-3-P-12 (please see attached exhibits).
The Council chose to take no further action on the report, and therefore
retain the existing R-1 zone for the entire study area. As a result of
this action, we are recommending denial of the present request.
WPC 5273P
~i~xON PL.
LOCATOR
SCENARIO OCATOR
i/
FUR OFFICE
Case No.
Fee ~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by-
Application Form Project
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Third Ave. Ext. Public Housing Project
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) North end of
the extension of Third Ave.
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 563-290-14
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construct 20 three]bedroom apartments of
low rent public housinq.
4. Name of Applicant County of San Diego H~u~ing Authnrity
Address 7917 ~trnw ~t . Phone ~q~-4812
City San Diego State CA Zip 92111
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Clifton Largess
Address 7917 Ostrow St. Phone 694-4812
City San Diego State CA Zip 92111
Relation to Applicant Project Manager
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision X Design Review Committee Public Project
X Rezoning/Prezoning X Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
X Precise Plan X Grading Permit Design Review Board
__ Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit X Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. EnclosuFes or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map X Arch. Elevations X Eng. Geology Report ~
Grading Plan X Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
X Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
× Precise Plan X Tentative Subd. Map 85-5 Noise Assessment
Specific Plan X Improvement Plans to follow Traffic Impact Report
X Other Agency Permit or X Soils Report ,~. ~. Other
Approvals Required
Army Corp. of Engineers
for flood hazard clearance
(Rev. I2/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
7. [and Area: sq. footage__69 4~65' or acreage ~.594
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
~50 sQ~_;[~;, i~ dedicated for Third Ave. extension.
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family _ X Townhouse ~ Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights 18 two-story townhome apartments not to
exceed 35' in heigh~e-stor~handicapped units and l one-stoPy recreation building.
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms __20 _ 4 bedrooms Total units 20
d. Gross ~ensity {DU/total acres) 12.54 D/U AC
e. Net density {DU/total acres minus any dedication) 13.50 D/U AC
f. Estimated project population 90
g. Estimated sale or rental price range $200/month
h. Square footage of floor area{s) _!175 typical unit. 1100 handicapped
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 30.54%
J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 40
k. Percent of site in road and paved sbrface 19.16%
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type{s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure{s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of
shifts Total --
g- Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis of estimate
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i. Type/extent of'operations not in enclosed buildings
j. Hours of operation
k. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, /hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
None
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated yes
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? 3,825 c.y.
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 11,475 c.y.
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 51,645 sq. ft.
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 2'
Average depth .of cut 2'
Maximum depth of fill 6' + 7' surcharche
Average depth of fill 4'
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating ~quipment, etc.) §as FAU, gas stove,
electrical refri~omestic hot water boiler
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
Isq. ft. or acres) _12,375 sq. ft.
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. None
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? No
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 160
8. Describe ~if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Improve Third Ave. sidewalk access north of C St., install 6"
waterline~ install 8" sewer line, install underground utilities.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Nas a geology study been conducted on the property? yes, updated report to
~If yes, please attach) follow
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? yes, updated report to
IIf yes, please attach) '-~ollow
2. ~ydrolo§y
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? yes (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? yes, water table 2-3 ft. below grade
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? No
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? Yes
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. A trapezoidal channel will be required to convey water downstrean
to existing improvs, at Glover Ave. Severa~ cath basins and a 24" pipe also form part of solutior
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
Yes, natural state
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. 6 mature trees in
Third Ave. ext.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? No
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? No
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe'all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Vacant
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Developed industrial park
South vacant
East vacant
West Developed Mobilehome park
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) No
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) No
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
Tentative subdivision Map No. 85-5 (Las Brisas Del Mar) was approved
by City Council Resolution No. 12363 on Feb. 4, 1986 to create this
site and four other single family lots to the east.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
Larqess
Project ~lanamer or
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. / ~ ~o~'~ ~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. Current Zoning on site:
North ~7-_ ~_
South ~ - }
East '~ -)
West /9~ ~/_), T~
Does the project conform to the ~urrent zoning? /l~ , ~
2. General Plan land use
oesignation on site: -~J~.j~ ~L~
North /~ ~ ,~-.k~_~ ,/~._~Z~ ~
South ~-J~ ~
East /,o ~ ~ , ~
West m x~
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protector 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. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary ~,, ~c
Sr. High ~:-.t t ,..~- ~ ~ .... ~ j
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
dariance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) j~ (]~ ~ ~' ~ ~
S. 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:
/
Direc,%or of Planning or Rep~-esentative Date
- 10 -
: Case NO..T,~'
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~'~
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flo~din§ hazards?'~-~-~
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location an~ d,escription of existing on-site
drainage facilities? /~/~, _~m./-~/~ ~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? /J~
f. What is the location and .d~scription of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~//~
2. Transportation
a. What rpads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way au~to_ trips to be
generated by the project {per day)? /~0
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. .~ ~ ~) .~ ~.~c>
L.O.S. ,~ ,~
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly. __ ~{~)0
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? ~'~1
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
-11
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault ~azards?/~)~
·
Liquefaction? /_.~)~ -~ f~/'~q~ ~2~71~f
Landslide or slippage? ~ I ~/~
b. Is an engineerin~ ~eolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project?~0 .
4. Soils
a. Are there~any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are the.se adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~ ·
5. Land Form ~/ ~ ~,~ I-
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough t~ justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? ~-~ C~/~
-12-
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
Iper day) Factor Pollution
co I¢0 x 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons ' X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) ~l X 20.0 :
Particulates ff X 1.5 :
Sul fur 1~ X .78 =
8. Naste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
~~ Liquid - ~C~
J~hat is the locatio~and size of exist~g sewer l~s on or adjacent
to the site? ~ ~~1~ ~1~~
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
File # YS-296
COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY 88-74
On February 4, 1986, the City Council by Resolution 12363
approved the Tentative Map for Chula Vista Tract 85-5, Las Brisas
Del Mar Subdivision. Proposed Development is located in Unit 2
of CVT 85-5.
Although the Final Map has not been yet approved by Council, it
has been determined that government agencies, in this case the
County of San Diego, are exempt from the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act (see enclosures) and consequently, approval
of Final Map is not required for development of unit 2 of the
subdivision. Nevertheless, conditions of approval 4, 5, 6 and 12
of Resolution 12363 shall be incorporated into the conditions of
approval for the rezoning and precise plan filed with the
Planning Department.
LdT:ljr
(L~LAURAkIS88-74.DOC)
RESOLUTION NO. 12363
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR LAS BRISAS DEL MAR, CHULA VISTA TRACT
85-5
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Pioneer Mortgage Company has submitted a
tentative subdivision map known as Las Brisas Del Mar, Chula
Vista Tract 85-5, in order to subdivide 2.34 acres into five lots
at 188 N. Del Mar Avenue in the R-1 zone, and
~- w~ER~, on January 8, 1986, after a public hearing, the
Plannin~ Commission, by a vote of 6-0 with one absent,
recommended that the City Council adopt' a resolution approving
the tentative map for Las Brisas Del Mar, Chula Vista Tract 85-5,
in accordance with Resolution PCS-85-5 and adopt the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-85-12.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the tentative
subdivision map for Las Brisas Del Mar, Chula Vista Tract 85-5,
subject to the following conditions: ~
1. _The developer shall be responsible for the construction of a
modified knuckle at the intersection of Bayview and Del Mar
Avenue in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standard (6) in
~. conjunction with the development of units as shown~on the
Tentative Map. Said construction shall include, but not be
~l-i-~'i-~-d~. A.C. pavement, curb, gutter and ~dewal_ k,
relocation of an existing storm drain inlet, and a driveway
approach in accordance with CVCS 1.
2. The structural section of the private driveway shall be
designed to meet flexible pavement structural design based on
"R" Values and a mini'mum traffic index of 4. All onsite
paving including parking areas except those within carports
will be inspected by the Engineering Department.
The design of the structural section shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
Private drive construction is subject to standard design
review and inspection fees.
-1-
~ ~,~ .... znall be maintained at an elevation of not less
~-~ [.~ fee~ below the 100 year flood elevation to allow
~.~ ~_nc access during periods of flooding. This condition
~D!~es only to Unit 2 as shown on the Tentative Map.
· .. · ...... r of permission from the owner of the land containing
~ne proposed channel shall be obtained in order to drain the
property to Glover Street as proposed.
5. In conjunction with the development of Unit 2, the developer
shall be responsible for the improvement of Third Avenue as
shown on the Tentative Map. Said improvement shall include,
but not be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, monolithic
curb, gutter and sidewalk, fire hydrants, street lights,
drainage facilities, and construction of retaining walls.
6. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of the
existing F.H. on the northeast corner of "C" Street and the
proposed Third Avenue in conjunction with the development of
Unit 2 as shown on the Tentative Map.
7. The access drive off Del Mar Avenue and Bayview ~ay shall be
a minimum of 22' wide in order to provide adequate access
for fire equipment.
8. Lots 1 through 4 (Unit No. 1) shall comply with the
Panhandle lot provisions of Section 19.22.150 of the
Municipal Code.
9. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted prior to the
approval of the Final Map. Said CC&R's shall include the
following:
(a) The installation of T.V. or radio antennas shall be
prohibited.
(b No garage conversions shall be permitted.
(c Statement regarding City participation and enforcement
rights in accordance with Section 18.44.010 of the
Municipal Code.
10. Prior to the approval of the final map, and in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, the City shall receive from
the developer a metes and bounds open space easement
covering Unit No. 2 which shall preclude development of that
Unit until the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel is graded to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement shall
include an agreement by the City to extinguish the easement
by quitclaim deed to the developer at the completion of the
channel. The easement and agreement shall be recorded prior
to the recordation of Unit No. 2.
-2-
11. No~e 21 on the tentative map shall be revised to explicitly
state that no development of Unit No. 2 shall occur until
the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel is graded.
12. The developer shall take such actions as deemed necessary by
the Director of Planning and City Engineer to insure that
adequate noise mitigation is provided for this development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
find that in accordance with Negative Declaration IS-85-12, and
the findings therein, the tentative map will not have a
significant impact upon the environment, and certifies that the
Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
Presented by Approved as to form by
· /s/George Krempl
George Krempl, Director of ~Thomas J~rron, City Attorney
Planning
1207a
-3-
REVISED 11/10/87 (B-A24:ROUTE.ENG)
ROUIING SLIP
Action Info To From Date
LIPPITT
GARIBAY ~
DAOUST / ~ (~'
GOLDK~P
GUST~SONi
SWANSON
Franco
Hanson
Ouadah
Saucedo
~:~--' Thomas
Roller
Nuhail~
Younis
Donnell7
I~'!! Sepehri
~ .... Hardest7
~ Pain~
ANGEL
LAURA
YEELIN
~TANA,,
FILE NO.
NTY HOUSING AUTItORITY
7917 Ostrow Street. San Diego.(A 92111-3694 · (619)694-4831
June 7, 1988
Roger Daoust
Senior Engineer
Engineering Department
City of Chula Vista '
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA
Subject: County Housing Project on Third Ave. extension site. rS,
Dear Roger;
With respect to the County's proposed acquisition of lot 1 of approved
Tenative Map No. 85-51 for development of a public housing project, County
Counsel has indicated that Government Code Section 66426.5 exempts
conveyances of land to government agencies from the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66424 et. seq.). Further, County
Counsel's previous opinions of 1977 and 1980 regarding this issue have
concluded that the County is exempt from the requirements of Subdivision Map
Act (see enclosures).
As we discussed, the conditions o£ approval of the tentative map can be
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the rezoning and precise plan
approval for lot I that the County has filed with the City Planning Department.
Please have your City Attorney review the legal opinions and call County
Counsel William D. Smith at 531-4898 for any clarification.
Sincerely,
Clfff'R. Largess
Project Manager
Serving the cities of Chulo l'ista. Coronado. Del '~l~tr. I'll Cqjon. Encinitas. I';scondido, Iraperial Beach, La Mesa,
Lemon Grove. Oceonside. Powav. Nan ~[ttrcos. ?at* t t,t,. ?4t~lrtr~¢t Ilvoch, I i~trt, arid I ',inct~rporated Cotttl t)' .'1 reas
Div. 2
§ 66426.5 SU OlVlSlO S *iae 7
§ 66426.5. Conveyances to governraental ~gencies, public enti- L ~.
ties or pnblic utilities for rights-of-way; comput~ Coaver~io~ of
Jug ituInb~r of parcels rt.qt~iremen;a of tl
(§ 68,410 et
Any conveyance of land to a governmental agency, public entity,
public utility or subsidiary of a public utility for conveyance to such
public utility for rights-of-way shall not be considered a division of § 66427.1.
land for purposes of computing the number of parcels.
(Added by Stats.1982, c. 87, § 6. urgency, elf. March 1. 1982.)
§ 66427. Map of condominium, communiD' apartment project, The legisl~
stock cooperative project =: "'~
sion to be
A map of a condominitma project, a community apartment proj .... ': ~ into a condom
oct, or of the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units to a '' stock cooperati
stock cooperative project need not show the buildings or the manner 'f! > (a) Each
in which the buildings or the airspace above the property shown on ~, ty apartment p
the map are to be divided, nor shall the govermng body have the ':. :' ant to Section
right to refuse approval of a parcel, tentative or final map of such a >>:'Q least 60 days
project on account of design or location of buildings on the property
· :': 66452. There
shown on the map not violative of local ordinances or on account of .:~?-% -
:,,~--: each person aF
the manner in w~ich airspace is to be divided in conveying the condo- ' ;""':
- ,.~<,... c property, has,
minium. Fees and lot design r~luirements shah be computed and Sm- /:-.'.~
· ~::~.~:,. now or hereaft
posed with respect to such maps on the basis of parcels or lots of the ',~ ~., '.
,:,,~ with Section 6~
surface of the land shown thereon as included in the project. Noth- "';~:'~':" tenant has reo
lng herein shall be deemed to limit ti~e power of the legislative body ~;~'~r';-',~ for a public roi
to regulate the design or location of buildings in such a project by or ;y~¢ :.' of Real Extate
pursuant to local acdinances. The written
(Added by Stats. 1974, c. 1536, p, 3,167, § 4, operative March 1, 1975. deemed satisfi(
Amended by Stats.1979, c. 1192, p. 4692, § 3.) for seiwice by n
Ilistotlcal Note (b) Each,
Amendment of this section by § 4.2 of eot", and inserted "oroj~*, or of tho con- ty apartment
of
Law Review Commeutatte~ ~ obligations of
obligations
Library Reterence~ Civil Cede.
212
June lg, 19,~0
Honorable ~oard of~upe~c .-x.'~I~o~-s Ref: 6/3/80
County of San Dic~3c
335 County Administration Ccnter
San Disco, C~_i~o ...... 92101
.. J..o~ a~ 1_ Board:
Re: ;,ppitcakion of Subdivision Ma~ Ach
to the County'~ Acquisition of
On June 3, ...... ]eqe ,,cur l'o!r~! ,~irected ~'-'~h,._ .'. Xctica .-v~.
intention to acquire a parcel of land in Valley de Oro for
a ~, c~ s Substation bc ~.u~!ishec. ,]uno ~6, ~980
set as the date for concatenation of the acquisition. 'four
t.ll- tae ,}arcel pro,.os_, to se acquired
' ,..ich a ~eutative map
was a part of a ma]or subdivision for '"~,
is now pending. This offic-u advised that the pentinq
tentative map complicated the acquisition but that we would
review the legal_..~"n~.'n~ on~o and resort to your Roard wh:~n
the acquisition was proposed to be cons~n.%ted, wu have
concluded that the County's acquisition is not subject to
the Subdivision Map Act and is ex~pt from the County
Subdivision Ordinancu. %;e have also concluded that a final
~p on the grantor's re~aLning property, exclud~n~ the parcel
acquired by the County, may be approved if in all
respects it is in .,ul ~a.~,.ial con~}liancc with the p~.ev_ous~y
tc~ ~a~lV_ map.
Boa'rd of Supervisors - 2 - June In, 1980
IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION that your Board consider
this letter in conjunction with the recommendations
of the Department of General Services regarding
the acquisition of the proposed site for the
Valley dc Ore Sheriff's Substation.
DISCUSSION
Any conveyance of land to the county is not considered
division of land for purpo:;cs of computing the number of pa~3cels
(Gev. Co~le ~ 66424). Consequently, a final map ~.~; not required
(Gev. Code 566426) and a parcel map is only required if a local
ordinance requires it upon a showing in individual cases, upon
substantial evidence, that public policy nocessitatc~ nnch a
parcel map (Gev. Code ~ 66425; 58 Ops.Cai. Atty. Gen~ 594-595
[1975]). The County of San Diego exempts conveyance's o£ land
to or from a governmental agency from the required, eats of filing
a parcel mae (San Diego County Code § 81.60113]). T]~crcfore,
the County's acquisition of the Valley de Ore site fo~- the
Sheriff's Substation rcqu~'os no final or p~rcc! ma~, at all.
However, the question remains as to what effect tho acquisition
will have u2sn the tentative ;nap the granto~ has received on the
property acquired by thc Coun[y and a larqc~- p.~rc:cl rc:aincd
by the greaser. The grantor wishc_~ to be able to f.; lc. ~ £~nal
map on the portion not acq~].rcd by thc County without ;-t being disappro'
because of the County's acquisition. We believe this may be
most readily ~ccomplished by the grantor filing a revised tcntative
map excluding the portion acquired by the County (San Diego County
Code § 81.310). Filing a revised tentative map is un~cceptab!e
to the grantor because it would likely be subject to additional
regulatory requirements and conditions which wcse not applic.~ble
when the original tentA[ivu map was approved. The grantor,
therefore, suggests that a final map be recorded which wo~,,!d be
in substential compliance with the tentative map except that the
parcel acquired by thc County would be excluded. Wc believe such
a solution is legally possible.
Your Doard must review the final map (Gev. Ccie ~ 66457;
San Diego County Code 5 8!.30[;). If the final map fail:; to -v '
meet or p-~rform any of the rcqP. irement.~ or cond~ tion~
by the Subdivision ~iap Act (nov. Code § 66410 et s{'~'.) or.' the
Subdivision Ordinance (Snn Diego Count}' Code .q g].l(,l ct seq.), it
must be disapproved (Gev. Cod,~ 5 66473). A fin.:!inq c)~ substantial
Board of Supervisors - 3 - June 18, 1980
compliance with the previously approved tentative map i~ sufficient
to permit approval (Gov. Code § 66~74.1). The determination would
be essentially a factual one based upon the recommendation of the
County Engineer, i.e., the Director of Transportation. If the
County Engineer concludes that the £inal map meets all the
requirements or conditions contained in the previously approved
tentative map except that the boundaries of the final m~p have been
revised to exclude the portion acquired by the County, then we
believe that the final map could be found in substantial compliance
with the previously approved tentative map.
Since the grantor's final map is not before your Board
for review and approval at this time, it can not b~ d~t,_~r~ined
to be in substantial complia~ce ~ith the previously
tentative map. t!owever, your Board ~ay fin! that tbs,
acquisition represents no si¢:nificant change in thc previously
approved tentative map and will net effect the filing o~ the f~nal
map for the property retain{~d by the grantor.
Rcnpectfu]ly submitted,
DO:~ALD L. CI,ARK, County Counsc!
FISCAL II~IPACT: None as a result of this recommendation
ADVISORY BOARD STATEMEUT: Not requirdd
BOAP~ POLICY APPLICZ~LE: None
LPZ/lm
County Counsel
No. 1977-136
Mr. Robert J. Pflimlin
Director of Real Property
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
Dear Mr. Pflimlin:
Re: Request for O~..inion Regarding Application
of the Subdivision Map Act to Sales and
Leases of Real Property
Owned by the County
In 1973 this office issued a memorandum opinion
concluding that the Subdivision Map Act was not applicable
to sales of land by a governmental agency (S.D.C.C.Op. No.
1973-26~). After that memorand~T was written there occurred
legislative changes which we believed compelled a change
in that opinion. This conclusion was expressed in our
memcrandum to you dated !4ay 24, 1977. Since writing the
~.!ay 24, 1977 memorandum we have had occasion to reexamine
the basis for our conclusion therein and to df£cuss it
with othmr affected governme~:al agencies. We are, as a
result, issuing this opinion reaffir-ming the conclusion
reached in San Diego County Counsel Opinion ~o. 1973-26M.
Our opinion may be summarized as fellows:
Goverr~ent agencies, including the County of San
Diego, are not subject to compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act when dividing property owned
by the gcvernmental agency for the purpose of
sale or lease.
Mr. Pflimlin -2- June 22, 1977
DISCUSSION
A. Analysis of the Express Language
of the Subdivision Map Act
The Subdivision Map Act appears in the Government Code
commencing with Section 66410.* Section 66424 was amended,
effective January 1, 1977, to provide in relevant part that:
"Any conveyance of land to a governmental
acency, oublic entity, o~--public utility shal~:
not be considered a division of land for any
purpose." (Emphasis added.)
We previously stated our belief that such amen~-ent was
significant since the Legis!eu~re did not exempt sales or
leases from a gover~v, ental a~ency to any person or other
entity, t~reby including such sales or leases by implica%ion.
Our subsequent analysis and co~unications from the con-
sultants for the Assembly Corurittee on Local Government
indicate that the reason that sales from a govern.mental
agency were not specifically exempt i-~hat such sales were
never intended to be included in the regulatory scheme of
the Subdivision Map Act and in fact are not so included.
The basic prohibition against the sale or lease of real
property-unless it complies with the Subdivision Map Act
appears at Section 66499.30 which provides in relev~tt part
that:
"(a) No person shall offer to sell or lease, to
contract to sell or lease, to sell or lease, or
to f~nance any parcel or parcels of real property for
which a final map is require~ by this division
or local ordinance, until such map thereof in
full compliance with the provisions of thzs
division and any local ordinance has been filed
for record by the reccrder of the count~' in
which any portion of the ~bdivision is located."
Subparagraph (b) of Section 66499.30 contains a similar
prohibi[ion ~'ith respect to divisions for which a parcel map
is required.
Pursuant to Sections 66426 and 66428 a final map or a
parcel map need only be filed in those instances where a
* Ail code sectic:~ citations shall be to the California
Government Code unless csherwise indicated.
Mr. Pflimlin -3- - June 22, 1977
subdivision is created. In determining whether or not a
subdivision is created one must rely on the definition of
"subdivision" at Section 66424 of the Government Code. The
significant portions of that definition provide as follows:
"'Subdivision' means the division of any
improved or unimproved land, shown on the
latest equalized county assessment roll as a
unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of
sale, lease or financing. ." (Emphasis
added.)
Property which is owned by a governmental agency does
not appear on the latest equaiize~ assessment roll (Redevelopment
A~ency v. Malakai [1963] 216 cal. App.2d 4S0, 499; Revenue
and Taxation Code Secs. 6C1, ~C2) because such property is
not subject to ta>[aticn except under certain circumstances
when located outside the boundaries cf the governmental
agency (Cal. Const. Art.13, ~ 3, ~ lla). It follows, therefore,
that the division of property owned by a governmental agency
does not fall within the definition of 'subdivision" ~nd
consequently none of the statu%ory requirements impesed upcn
the creation of the subdivision apply.
B. Legislative Intent
Although we believe that the foregoing analysis supports
our conclusion herein, we have In addition determined to
include a-discussion of legislative ~ntent as a further
clarification. A discussion of legislative intent becomes
significant when a regulatory statute fails to mention
governmental aqencies specifically but includes in the ara. it
of those covered by the ac% an}' "person" (as in Sec. 6649~.3~,
supra, p. 2). There is substantial case law relating to
whether or. not use of the term 'person" includes govern-
mental entities. The early California cases concluded that
in the absence of express words to the contrary, neither the
state nor its subdivisions are included within general words
of the statute. (In re ~i!!er's Estate [1936! 5 Cal.2d
588.) This rule was based upon United States Supreme Court
decisions which were premise~ u~n the "familiar principle
that the king is not bound ky any act of parliament unless
he be na~e~ therein by special and particular words."
(Dollar Savings Bank v. Unite~ States, ~6 U.S. 227 [1873].)
This principle was recognized as a rule of construction,
ko,ever, and was subsequently modified both Dy the U.S.
Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. In State cf
California v. !~arin Municipal %~ater District (~941) !7
Cai.2d 69~, the court e×pr~ss?~ the rule as follows:
77-136
Mr. Pflimlin -4- June 22, 1977
"It is a well established doctrine that general
words in a statute will not be construed to
limit the otherwise valid power of the state or
its subdivisions unless that result was specifically
intended by the Legislature." (Emphasis added.)
This rule was further explained and modified by
the California Supreme Court in .Hoyt v. Board of
Civil.Service Commissioners (1942) 21 Cal.2d 399 in
which the court explained the rule as follows:
"This general rule of statutory construction,
which is supported by n'~merous cases, is founded
upon the principle that statutory; languaTe
should not be interpretad to apply to agencies
of goverr~ent, in the absence of a specific
expression of legislative intent, where the
results of such construction would be to in-
fringe sovereign governmental powers.
~ere, however, no impairment of sovereign
powers would result, the reason underlying this
rule of construction ceases to exist and the
Legislature may properly be held to have in-
tended that the statute apply to governmental
bodies even though it used g'enera!, statutory
language only." (21 Cal.2d at p.402.)
Th~ rule as modified in the Hoyt case (supra) has
been followed in a variety of cases in California when the
court determined that the Legislature must kave intended
to include governmental agencies in the regulatory scheme
through the use of the term "person" (University of
California v. Superior Court ~!976] 17 Cal.3d 533, 536;
City of Los ;~geles v. City of San Fernando [1975] 14
Cal.3d 199, 276-277; Flournoy v. State of California
[1962] 57 Cal.2d 497, 498). The necessary conclusion
resulting from the survey of the above cases is that the
use of the word "person" in the definition of "subdivider"
(Sec. 66423) ~nd in Section 6~499.30 (supra, p.2) does not
in itself dictate the inclusion or exclusion of govern-
mental agencies frcm application of the Subdivision Map
Act. The determination must ultimately turn on legislative
intent based on the language and purposes of the statute.
The use of the "latest equalized assessment roll" in
the definition of "subdivision" operates not only to
expressly exclude the division of most l~nd o~med by
government from the act, but it also indicates a legis-
lative intent to exclude governmental agencies generally
Mr. Pflimlin -5- June 22, 1977
from compliance with the act. It should also be noted
that if the Legislature intended that governmental agencies
comply with the Subdivision Map Act the tools to clearly
require such compliance were readily available in that
"county", "city", and "local agency" are defined in the
Government Code at Sections 19, 20, and 66420, respectively.
The County Counsel for the County of Los Angeles has
advised the officers of that county that public agencies
are not subject to compliance with~the Subdivision Map
Act. In response to an inquiry from the County of Los
Angeles regardin~ clarifying the application of the
Subdivision Map Act the consultants to the Assembly
Committee on Local Government responded in writing on
February 1!, 1977 that:
"Such a conveyance (from a governmental a~ency) does
not fall within the scope of the Map Act."
The consultant went on to state:
I do not think the ~ap Act is ambiguous on
this point and therefore have not recommended your
suggested amendment to either Assemblyman Chim~ole or
Assembl}~an Craven." (Suggested amendment included
clarifying that conveyances from a governr,ental
agency are exempt.)
A copy o~ the letter from the Assembly Committee Consultants
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Although we do not agree with the statement in the
attached letter that there is no purpose to be served by
requiring a public entity to prepare a parcel map (such
purposes migh~ include definite land descriptions, recorded
map, street improvements, lot design, continuity of community
planning standards [See Pratt v. Adams (t9~4) 229 Cal.App.2d
602, 605-606]), cur investigation and analysis herein
indicate to our satisfaction that the legislature elected
not to re~aire ~over~menta] agencies, includ~ the County
of San Diego, to comply with the Subdivision Ma~ Act when
dividing property c~ed by such governmental agency for
the purpose of sale or lease.
very truly yours,
DONALD,S:. CLA.RK>~unty Counsel
KH/coc _..~.~ MARVEY~ Deputv
I,X
Enc.
~ INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: ~ ~m~ ~4. X97~
DSrecto= of Real Pro~rty
Attention Carlos Telleria
FSOM:
County Counsel
Inapplicability of the Division of Land
Ordinance to purchases of land by ~e County
This is to confirm our prior oral advice to the effect
that the Division of Land Ordinance does not apply ~nd wo~ld
t%ot be enforced with respect to purchases of portions of
e.g~r ~arculs of real property by.public agencies hay/rig
pOwer of eminent.d~main. As was indicated earlier, it
is clear that the ordinance would not apply to those situa-
tions in which property was taken by Condemnation inasmuch
as no affirmative act is requircd of the seller. It appears
to us to be within reason and the law to conclude that pur-
chases of property by agencies having the power of e~inent
domain but which are negotiated short of condcmnation, are
not subject to regulation by the Division of Land Ordinance.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact the undersigned.
ROBERT G. BERR~Y, County Counsel
KENT HARVEY, Deputy
KII: dd
¢¢~ AttorDoy Allan ~erry
~SSTATE SUBDIVIDED LANDS § 11010.6
Div. 4 1~. 2
~division § 11010.4. Certain proposed offerings of subdivided iand; notice excep~
case of tlon
~stantive The notice of intention specified in Section 11010 is not required for a
ision (b) proposed offering of subdivided land which satisfies all of the following
may be criteria:
(a) The or, ncr, subdivider, or agent has complied with Sections 11013.1,
ion, that 11013.2, and 11013.4, if applicable.
~e or she (b) The subdivided land is not a subdixfsion as defined in Section 11000.1,
~ of such 11000.5, or 11004.5.
are not (c) Each lot, parcel or unil of the subdivision is located entirely within the
boundaries of a city.
:pier 3.5 :'i (d) Each tot, parcel or unit of the subdivision will be sold or offered for
2rnment sate improved with a completed residential structure and with all other
require- improvements completed that are necessary to occupancy or with fiuancial
qsidered arrangements determined to be adequate by the city to ensure completion of
such improvements.
Section (Added by Stats.1980, c. 1336, p. 4686, § 6.)
issue a HL~torlcal Note
e cause Former § 11010.4, added by Shats. 1980, c. matter, was repealed by Sta~s.1981. c. 714, p.
1105, p. 3555, § 4, relaling to similar subject 2585, § 34.
Library Referenc~
Zoning and Planning ~s=-372.2.
C.J.$. Zoning and Land Planning § 191.
§ 11010.5. Necessity of filing second notice and report; conditions
G. The filing of a second notice of intention to sell and a second report of the
,n.: llm-
- -':;-: commissioner under this article shall not be required when all the following
';2~: conditions have been met: (a) where there has been a previous subdivision
~. report and the lots are subsequently acquired through any foreclosure action,
, use to ":~ or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure, by a bank, life insurance company, or
ich are ~;':';i saviugs and loan association licensed or operating under the provisions of a
:'i;~'": state or federal law if the acquired lots, either improved or unimproved, will
§ I, eft. :j~:, be sold in conformance with the previously issued subdivision public report;
:~ (b) the orighml public report is given to the first purchasers of the lots in the
--~.. foreclosed subdivision: and (c) the commissioner is notified of thc change of
'~'~' ownership within 30 days of thc acquisition of the title to such property.
by those ..~
aot affect :'~!': (Added by Stats. 1961, c. 1175, p. 2914, § 2.)
as added
so. ' § 11010.6. Lands offered or proposed to be offered for sale, lease or
~'~?' financing by public agencies; applicability of chapter
The provisions of this chapter shall not be applicable to subdivided land
which is offered or proposed to be offered for sale, lease, or financing by a
277
§ 11010.6 RE. AL F_,STATE ',.';; SUBDMDE, D LAN
Div. 4 l~. 2
state agencJ, including the University of California, a local agency, or other (b) "Separate sub,
public agency, meaning as "subdiw
(Added by Stats. 1980, c. 1336, p. 4686, § 7. Amended by Stats. 1982, c. 148, p. 490. § 2, ! 1000.1, or 11004.5.
eft. Aprii 5, 1982.) (Added by Stats. 19$6,
HlstorlcM Note
The 1982 amendment provided that the pro- requirements of § 11010, are not applicable to § 11011. Rcgulw
visions of the chapter, instead of the notice sales, leases or financing by public agencies, posit
§ 11010.7. Nonblnding expression of intent to purch~e or lease; notice (a) The cormnissi
with applications
exception of this chapter whi,
The notice of intention sl~cified in Section 11010 shall not apply to
sion (b) if the corn
nonbinding expressions of intent to purchase or lease which an owner, agent, offset the costs ant
or subdivider is required to obtain from the tenants of units which are The commissioner
proposed to be converted to a condominium, community apartment projezt, determine if lowe~
or stock cooperative project, by ordinance, or as a condition to the approval
of a tentative or parcel map pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section -'-;~: ' ' prescribed.
66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code. .,' j. (b) The filing
-'~-~:.~ · authority of tiffs ct
(Added by Stats. 1981, c. 519, p. 1879, § t.) ~' .' or phase of a subd~
Llbnu'y Reference, - :,:,. ~ (I) A notice of i'
Condominium ~='3. "~':!~.~i5 lift3' dollars ($150)
C.J.S. Estates § 148. . 3~t¢4~..; . .
:.<:?~.. (2) An otaglnal I
§ 11010.8. Notice of intention to seU or lense: exception; purch~t~ of .i~.~<2.:'~ ':.,.,::.,. 11004.5: One...th°u.
. . ~{.'. ,' each subd~mston
mobllehome park by nonprofit corporation; sepm'ate s~b- ...,:..:..
divided Interest .' .:,&~& ,:' · (3) An original
i'~.!~5. ~' described in Secti
(a) The requirement that a notice of intention be filed pursuant to Section : "~'"f'. ($10) for each sub
11010 is not applicable to the purchase of a mobilehome park by a nonprofit ,.- ..,...
corporation if aU of the fgllowing occur: ..;'cc,~., ,.~ . (4) A preiimina
': '~'. tioa 11004.5: Five
(1) A majority of the shareholders or members of the nonprofit corporation
constitute a majority of the tenants of the mobilehome park and majority of ,.~., (5) A prelimina
~. ~: 5 ' . described in Secu
the members of the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation are ..... ...
tenants of the mobilehome park. ..~,... L6) A renewal
·' v.:"?, 11004.5: Ftve hm
(2) The shareholders or members of the nonprofit corp6ration do rot ';!/:".~i,: '
represent expressly or by implication that any shareholder or member of the 'z.~'.?~-' ' (7) A renewal
corporation w/Il receive a separate subdivided interest in any portion of the !.~c." described ~n Sect,
mobiiehome park as a result of the purchase. .i~.:'~,., . (8) An amende,
(3) The nonprofit corporation does not sell or lease, or offer for sale or ~.:;~i~?':.': 11004.5: Three h:
lease, or otherwise transfer any separate su~tivided interest in an)' portion of ,':3~ :~i./.. sion interest to b
the mobilehome park without first obtaining a public report from the R~al c~,':': has not prevtousl
Estate Commissioner. ...~:,-~ ..~ (9) An amende,
(4) All funds of tenants for the purchase of the mobilehome park are ~-,~,:.... descrtbed in Sec,
;$;"i "' ($10) for each st
deposited in escrow until the document transferring title of the mobilehor:~e -'?i";:"' report for which
park to the nonprofit corporation is recorded. ..:,....
278 ,". ....
Case No.
FIRE DEPART~IENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? I ~,~L~ - ~ ~.,.~_-~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment
or personnel? )~. $ · ·
Project Name Housing Authority, County of San Diego Date 5-12-88
Project Address North end of Third Avenue Extension
To: Planning Department
Environmental Review Coordinator
John Hardesty, Engineering
Engineering, Subdivisions
Building and Housing
From: Fire Prevention Bureau
This department has reviewed the information or plans referred to us by you. Please
note the following comments:
1. Project will require the installation of fire hydrants.
2. Turnaround area for fire apparatus is inadequate.
-13(a)-
Case No. _]~ ~-? ~,
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 .~.'~-~-~-L~, ::,,,~'"~,~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
AP~CANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
IWHi~ WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The folTowing information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to.purchase)
Donald & Amalia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murphree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
County of San Diego Housing Authority (option to purchase)
Donald & P~alia Alexander 794-98 Dorthy St. (fee owner)
Vera Murhpree 778-82 Dorthy St. (fee ~nmr)
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 interes~ in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director oF the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Itave you had more' than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municfpality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOT.___~E: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
STgnature of applicant
WPC 0701P
r~nc or Type name of applicant
Housing and Community Development
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-D - Consideration to rezone 2.09 acres located
on the west side of Otay Lakes Road between Bonita
Road and Allen School Lane from R-3-P-8 to C-O-P - Bob
Crane and Jeff Phair
A. BACKGROUND
This is a request to rezone 2.09 acres located on the west side of Otay
Lakes Road, between Bonita Road and Allen School Lane, from R-3-P-8
(multiple-family residential/precise plan/8 dwelling units per acre) to
C-O-P (commercial office/precise plan).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCZ-89-D.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North C-C-D Shopping Center
South R-R-1 SDG&E Substation
East R-E & R-2-20-D Single Family
West R-R-1 Single Family
Existing site characteristics.
The 2.09-acre site slopes downward from south to north towards Bonita
Road. The property to the south is approximately 15 ft. higher in
elevation, and the single family properties to the west range from 25-30
ft. higher in elevation. The property presently contains a large
commercial feed barn on the northerly portion, a storage shed on the
westerly portion, and two houses on the southerly portion.
General plan.
On July 19, 1988, the City Council approved a General Plan amendment which
redesignated the site from Medium Density Residential to Professional and
Administrative Commercial. The Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the redesignation at their meeting of June 22, 1988.
D. ANALYSIS
The proposed rezonin9 to C-O-P would implement the prior General Plan
amendment approved by the Commission and Council. The redesignation and
now the rezoning are supported by three factors: (1) the long-term use of
the site as a commercial feed store with no apparent adverse impact on
nearby residences, (2) the topographic separation from adjoining dwellings
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 2
which provides a physical and visual buffer from potential impacts, and
(3) a market study which showed less than a 2% vacancy rate and a growing
demand for "suburban office space" in Chula Vista.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary precise plan which will be
subject to detail review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The
plans show a three-story building on the west-central portion of the site,
oriented to the east, with parking to the front and both sides of the
structure. The plans indicate the substantial horizontal and vertical
separation from the single-family homes to the west. The preliminary
building shape and design and substantial areas proposed for landscaping
should result in an attractive, quality project.
For the reasons noted, we are recommending approval of the request.
WPC 5709P
I"'ILINI ClPAL
I ~1 ~1 ~;.., Ii' I ~1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Bob Crane Jeff Pha±r
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Carl Berg Lillian Berg
Bob Crane Jeff Phair
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.
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.
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)
~ defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnershi-, ~oint ventur-
I~.oc~al ~lub, fraternal organization, corporation, estateF t~ust, receiv~,as~j~jj~
Ith?..an~ any other county, city and county, city; municipality, district or othe~
Ipolitical subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." o~J~
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~
~ignature of app1~a~t/dat~-
WPC O7OIP Bob Crane
A-1lO Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 1
4. Public Hearing: PCC-89-19 and ZAV-89-15; Request to establish a child
day care center and erect a 5 ft.-high wf~u~
fence in the setback area at 380 Telegraph Canyon Road
- Child Development Associates, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
This item involves a conditional use permit to establish a child day care
center for 46 children ages 2-5 at 380 Telegraph Canyon Road, and a
variance to erect a 5 ft.-high wrought iron fence in the front and
exterior sideyard setback areas in order to enclose the proposed play area
for the center.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-40,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-89-40.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-89-40.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-19 subject to the
following conditions:
a. The center shall accommodate a maximum total enrollment of 46
children and a staff of six employees at any one time without
the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator.
b. Outdoor play activities, including the number of children and
hours, shall be limited to those indicated on the proposed
schedule of activities submitted with the application without
the prior written approval of tile Zoning Administrator.
c. The applicant shall submit plans for site plan review and
approval prior to the issuance of building or occupancy
permits. These plans shall include landscaping and irrigation
plans, fence design and details, the placement, height and
design of permanent playground equipment, sign program, and
restriping program for the parking. The plans will be subject
to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator with appeal
to the Planning Commission.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 2
3. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion to approve ZAV-89-15 for a variance to reduce the frontyard
setback from 15 ft. to 2 ft. (Telegraph Canyon Road) and the exterior
side yar~ setback from 10 ft. to 0 ft. I"L" Street) for a 5 ft.-high
open wrought iron fence with pilasters at 20 ft. centers.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North: R-3 Multiple family
South: R-1 Single family
East: C-N Neighborhood commercial
West: R-1 Single family
Existing site characteristics
The site is abutting Telegraph Canyon Road on the east, "L" Street on the
south, multiple family dwellings to the north, and single family dwellings
to the west. The property contains 15,250 sq. ft. of land area, with a
1,920 sq. ft. single-story office structure and 13 off-street parking
spaces. The site is at a lower elevation than "L" Street and the single
family homes to the west, and at a somewhat higher elevation than
Telegraph Canyon Road and the multiple family parcel to the north.
Proposed use
The proposal is to convert the property to a child day care center. The
facility would accommodate 46 children and a staff of six employees. The
only structural change would be the conversion of the interior to
classrooms and offices. A 5 ft.-high wrought iron fence with pilasters
and vine plantings would be established to enclose and secure the grounds
around the building as play space, and ground cover would be replaced with
turf for the play surface. The 5 ft. fence is proposed at the front and
exterior side property lines, while the Code specifies that any fence over
3.5 ft. high must observe the setbacks, which are 15 ft. on Telegraph
Canyon Road and l0 ft. on "L" Street.
The center would operate between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Arrivals and departures are expected to be staggered between the
hours of 6:30-8:30 a.m. and 3:00-6:00 p.m., although most children will
not depart until 5:00-6:00 p.m. An outdoor activity schedule (please see
attached) anticipates no more than 29 children outside at any one time. A
noise analysis required in conjunction with the initial environmental
study concludes that the 9 ft. elevation difference and the solid wall at
top of slope along the boundary with single family homes provides noise
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 3
attenuation consistent with City standards. The multiple family units are
separated from the play areas by their own parking lot and the parking lot
of the center -- a distance of 130 ft.
D. ANALYSIS
The site appears generally well suited for day care use. It is
conveniently located and presents minimal potential for friction with
adjacent uses. The multiple family units to the north are well separated
from the playground areas, and the noise analysis has shown that the grade
separation and existing walls at top of slope will provide the adjoining
single family dwellings with an adequate noise buffer. The site also
provides 13 off-street parking spaces, which should be more than ample to
accommodate six employees plus staggered arrivals and departures.
We also believe the fence height variance is supportable based on the
limitations imposed by the topography of this parcel in relation to other
C-O zoned parcels in the City. In this instance the slopes along the
westerly and southerly boundaries occupy approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of
what would otherwise be usable, unrestricted outdoor play area. This is
greater than the approximately 2,300 sq. ft. of outdoor play area gained
by establishing the higher fencing within the front and exterior sideyard
setbacks. Also, the fencing is open wrought iron with decorative
pilasters and thus will not visually close down the street scene or
materially impair views into the site as would be the case with solid
fencing. An additional factor is the broad parkway fronting the site
along Telegraph Canyon Road.
Despite these positive factors, we believe the fence should be setback an
adequate distance to provide a greater separation and depth of landscaping
between the playgrounO and sidewalk along Telegraph Canyon Road. The
proposal has the fence on the property line, which is 2 ft. back of
sidewalk, and vines planted at 8 ft. centers to eventually cover the open
fencing. The City's Landscape Architect has recommended that a minimum
depth of 4 ft. be required to allow selected shrub and ground cover
plantings rather than vines to act as a foreground and partial screen for
the playground. Shrub heights can can easily be maintained at a height of
3-3.5 ft. in order not to defeat the purpose in using an open fence
design. A 24 ft. wide grassed parkway area exists along Telegraph Canyon
Road providing additional separation from traffic. Street trees within
the parkway will be required as part of the approved landscape plan.
As a result, we have recommended approval of the variance with a modified
setback reduction for a 13 ft. rather than the 15 ft. encroachment
requested. The 13 ft. variance will result in a 4 ft. wide planting strip
outside the fence line on Telegraph Canyon Road. The distance between the
fence line and back of sidewalk along "L" STreet cannot be increased
because of the topography, but the topography itself provides a natural
separation and screen from the street. We have also recommended that the
fence pilasters be placed at 20 ft. rather than 30 ft. centers as
proposed. This spacing is consistent with the City standard for
decorative fencing in exterior sideyards.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 4
Additional recommendations include site plan review to include landscaping
and irrigation plans, fence design and details, placement, height and
design of permanent playground equipment, and treatment of the parking
area in terms of surfacing, restriping, etc. This would also include
review and approval of the sign program for the center which presently
shows three signs -- one on the building and two attached to the wrought
iron fence. We have suggested for instance that any signs on the fence
should be incorporated into the design rather than simply placed as an
attachment.
The Engineering Department and the Fire Marshal have submitted the
following comments:
1. The tree on the south side of the lot shall be trimmed to alleviate
any sight distance problems.
2. The following list of items will be required as part of the building
permit under the authority of the City Code:
a. Sewer and traffic signal fees based on the new use will be
assessed when the building permit is issued.
b. A construction permit is required by this department to perform
any work in th right-of-way.
3. Provide a fully automatic fire alarm system. Submit plans to Fire
Department for review and approval.
4. All carpeting, wall and window coverings shall be flame retardant.
5. Provide smoke detectors for all areas.
6. Provide two 2AIOBC rated fire extinguishers.
7. Provide and post an evacuation plan.
8. All required exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the
use of a key or any special knowledge.
E. FINDINGS
Conditional use permit
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well
being of the neighborhood or the community.
Approval of the request will provide the opportunity for day care at
a convenient location for a greater number of families within the
community.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 5
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
A noise study has shown that the proposal can be designed to comply
with the noise ordinance. Adequate parking shall be provided to
accommodate both employees and clients.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
Compliance with all conditions and applicable codes and regulations
shall be required prior to the issuance of permits or occupancy of
the site.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The General Plan designation on the property allows for child day
care facilities upon the approval of a conditional use permit.
Variance
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or
financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous
variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered
only on its individual merits.
The slopes on the site occupy approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of what
would otherwise be usable, unrestricted outdoor play area to the rear
and side of the building.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by
his neighbors.
The approval of the variance will partially offset the loss in usable
yard space due to the slopes, and thereby bring this parcel up to
parity with the vast majority of other C-O zoned properties which are
not constrained by slopes.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 6
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the
purposes of this chapter or the public interest.
The proposal is for a 5 ft.-high open wrought iron fence with
pilasters in order to minimize the visual impact of the
encroachment. Also, the broad parkway and 4 ft. landscape strip
along Telegraph Canyon Road will further ameliorate any potential for
a detrimental impact.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Approval of the variance is consistent with the aesthetic values
embodied in the General Plan.
WPC 5723P
~0
FOR OFFICE USE
Case No. /.~_
Fee ~,~ ~ ~/
INITIAL STUDY Receipt ,1o.
Da te Rec ' d
City of Chula Vista Accepted
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
t. PROJECT TITLE Child Development Associates, Inc. The Children's Company
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
380 Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, CA 92010
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 639-490-20
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Child care center to serve approximately
46 children ages 2 to 5.
4. Name of Applicant Child Development Associates, Inc.
Address 1196 Third Avenue, Suite 202 Phone 427-441t
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92011
5. Name of Preparer/Agent RBR & Associates, Inc. - Warren Coalson
Address 233 "A" Street, Suite 210 Phone 233-5454
City San Die$o State CA Zip 92101
Relation to Applicant Contractor
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision × Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning -- Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan -- Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map -- Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit × Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance " Other
b. ~nclosures or documents Ias required by the Environmental Review
Coorainator).
Location MaD Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Graaing Plan __ Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel MaD Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan __ Tentative Subd. Map ~ Noise Assessment
Specific Plan __ Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
ADprovais Requirea
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sa. footage i5,246 or acreage
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
~/^
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. ComDlete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Commercial
b. Floor area 1920 sq. feet Height of structure(s) 14 ft. ±
c. Type of construction used in the structure
Factory built coach
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Located on the
. Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Access ~s from
Telegraph Canyon Road ' ~
e. ~lumber of on-site Darking spaces provided ~5
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 6 Number of
shifts 1.5 Total 9
g. Estimated number of customers /per day) and basis of estimate
Average of 46 children per day.
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
Chula VisC~
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Childrens play yard.
j. Hours of operation 6:30 A.M. to 6:0Q P.M.
k. Type of exterior lighting Incandescent
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. lype of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
N/A
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated No
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used /air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.)Air conditionin.~_~microwave,
refri erator electrical ' heater hot water heater - (liquid natural
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres} N/A
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Will ~rovide approximately
teachin 'ob~zncludin ~i1 and ~t~ositions. 9
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or Stored within the project
site? No
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
t~e project? 92 tri~s ~er day
8. Describe ~if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
None
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTA[ SETTING
1. Geolooy
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach}
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? ~o (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? No
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location.
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? Some impact may be expected to the adiacen~
property to the west. Source would be from children at play.
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. None
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? No
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? No
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existino on the
project site. One building which is currently used for
office storage.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Apartment buildings located across Telegraph Canyon Road.
South Single family residences located across "L" Street.
East Neighborhood commercial and Interstate 805 beyonm.
West Single family residences and apartment buildings .
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? /If so, how many?) No
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? IIf so,
how many and what type?) No
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
As proposed, the Children's Company would provide for day care
and child development for the two to five year age group. Activities
would be closely supervised with an average of one credentialed
teacher per eight students. Typical activities would include
structured play developmentally appropriate for the particular
age groups. Activities are designed to enhance the childs social
and mental skills.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
I, Warren Coalson
Principal Associate, RBR & Associateur, Inc.
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: /L) .... ~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ,~A~-~ ~
CITY DATA
f. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: f~-~
North ~ ~,,
South
East ~
West /~-/ m{/¢ ~
Does the, projec~t conform t,o the current~ ., zoning?~ ~.¢~ ~ ,. ~.~
2. General Plan land use
designation on site:
North ~ ,'
South
East
West ,,
Is the ~roject compatible with the General Pla~.Land Use Diagram?
Is ~he p~o~ec~ area ~es~gna~ed for conseffvat~on o~ open space o~ adjacent
~o an orea so designated? ,.-~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pr~iect or enhance
t e scenic quality of Chula Wst~.) .>~/_z~,~Z~, ~/?~:~
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 ~-/J//~
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. Hi gh
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 Iper year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water Iper day)
6. Remarks:
rector o~ P!anning or'Representative Date ~'"'
- 10 -
Case No.
G. ~NGINE£RING DEPARTM£NT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any lflooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ,~/~ ~o~(;~ ~op~-~'~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primavy access ~o___the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
^.D.T. -Zz_o 8 =J
L.O.S. D ~
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? -(~=-
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? _. ~c~.
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
-ll -
Case No.
3. _Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?~ ~ K~o 'v~kF k~
Landslide or slippage? ~ ~c~ ~
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project? ~e~
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? ~ ~- ~m $~x~ ~0~
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~,
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
-12-
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
Hydrocarbons ~% X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) C~b- X 20.0 =
Particulates ~ 1.5
=
Sul fur ~X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
%~hatto theiSsite~the location~,~and size of_existing~o'~sewer lines, on or adja~e~
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
- 13-
Case No. /~_~s~
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? /.~- ~,~- ~- ~,~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? ~ ~
Fi~rMarsha, ~ - D~a~/f
-13(a)-
Case No../.~-~..~-
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood , ~
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ,,,~ ~ ~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
IPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
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.
Child Development Associates, Inc.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Dr. A.B. Salqanick
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.
Officers: Charlene Tressler
Jane Mc Masters
Jorqe HBrnandez
3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) 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.
?aide Casey Jan Le Blanc
Violet Hoffower Gladys Storaasli
Herb Geier
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s)
~i~ ~efl~ed. as:.,,Any i~rship' joint~
I~?~a~ c~u~, ~ra~erna~ organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicatej
l po)itical~ ~~subdivisi°n' or any other group or combination, acting as aa unit." unit." -
(NOTE Attach add~t .... -- ~
: ' ional pages as necessary.) .
Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P
Print or type na~e'6~ applicant
City Planning Con~ission
Agenda Item for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-8; request to legitimize two studio
apartment units at 67b/681 Sea Vale Street - Henry N.
Kleis
A. BACKGROUND
1. This a request to legitimize two studio apartment units at 675/681
Sea Vale Street in the R-3 zone. The units are converted garage
space and are substandard with regard to minimum floor area and rear
yard setback.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5Ia)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to deny ZAV-89-8.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North - R-3 - Multiple family
South - R-3 - Multiple family
East - R-3 - Multiple family
West - R-3 - Multiple family
Existing site characteristics.
The site measures 130' x 150' 119,500 sq. ft.) and contains four
single-story structures. Two larger residential structures containing
three apartment units each are located on the front of the site, with two
detached garage structures to the rear (4'9" from the rear property
line). A portion of each of the garage structures has been converted to
living space, resulting in two studio units of 288 sq. ft. and 380 sq. ft.
respectively. Five garage spaces have been retained and are served by
driveways which extend down both sides of the property.
The property was issued building permits for the six apartment units and
two detached garage structures (6 parking spaces total) in 1955. Sometime
after that date, but at least as early as 1964 according to information
supplied by the applicant, the illegal conversions occurred (City records
reveal only one permit subsequent to 1955 -- for a bathroom in the garage
at 675 Sea Vale, dated September 1959). The existence of the units was
discovered when the applicant recently requested a compliance survey in
anticipation of selling the property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 2
Proposed request.
The request is to legitimize the units with regard to zoning standards for
minimum floor area and rear yard setback. It is the policy of the City to
evaluate illegal construction with regard to zoning requirements based on
the standards which applied when the construction occurred. Assuming that
the conversions occurred sometime after September 1959, but before 1969,
the applicable standards are 400 sq. ft. minimum floor area and 15 ft.
rear yard setback for living areas Iboth of which are the same as current
standards), and one parking space per unit (which is less than currently
required).
Note: Provided the variance is approved, the units would still be subject
to extensive modifications in order to comply with the Uniform Building
Code
The applicant has advanced several arguments in support of the variance
request Iplease see attached). These arguments can be summarized as
follows:
1. The present owner purchased the property in 1982, an estimated 18
years after the units were converted. Compliance with the size and
setback standards or reconversion of the units would therefore
represent an undue economic hardship to an innocent party.
2. The two additional studio units result in a total of only eight units
on 19,500 sq. ft. This is significantly less than the 12-14 units
that the R-3 zone allows on a lot of this size.
3. The units abut the parking lot of an adjoining apartment complex and
thus will not have an adverse impact on adjacent dwellings or
residents. The owners of the adjoining property have submitted a
letter of support for the request.
4. Retention of the units is consistent with the public interest in
providing efficient, affordable housing in an area which is in need
of such housing.
D. ANALYSIS
In our opinion, the question which must be asked in cases such as this is
whether or not the request would be approved as a plan proposal rather
than as an after-the-fact application. A1 though the applicant may have
been an unwitting buyer, the Code is very clear that personal or financial
difficulties, or loss of prospective profits, are not hardships justifying
a variance. The hardship must be related to the property itself, in which
case the variance is used to bring the parcel up to parity with other
properties in the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is
concerned.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 3
In the present case, the property is rectangular and level and there is
nothing unique or unusual about its location or relationship to
surrounding properties or developments which would prevent its reasonable
use under the applicable standards of the R-3 zone. The project was
designed and constructed in 1955 as an apartment "court," with six 750 sq.
ft. apartment units and six enclosed parking spaces with adequate access
and circulation.
There is no apparent hardship to justify the creation of two small,
irregularly-shaped units which provide, at best, a marginal living
environment, or to convert one conforming garage space into a living unit,
and, at the same time, create the need for three open parking spaces
(based on the old ratio of one space per unit) which are nonconforming as
to location, size and circulation. (A field inspection and discussion
with the apartment manager revealed that four of the five garage spaces
are rented out to non-tenants for storage purposes, leaving the back-up
and circulation areas for tenant parking.)
For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request based on the
findings listed below.
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The property is rectangular and level, and there is nothing unique
about its relationship to surrounding properties. It is not a
hardship that the property was developed in the 1950's at a density
below the maximum allowed in the R-3 zone. The standards would not
prohibit the owner from achieving a yield commensurate with higher
density R-3 projects should he choose to redevelop the property. Any
financial burden to an "innocent" party in complying with the City's
zoning standards is also not a hardship justifying a variance.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
There is nothing inherent to the property which deprives this parcel
of the property rights enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone and
vicinity. It suffers no disadvantage in relation to other R-3
properties which develop at densities below that authorized by the
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1988 Page 4
underlying R-3 zone. It would be a special privilege to allow this
property to maintain substandard units in order to achieve densities
similar to properties which must fully comply with City zoning
standards.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
It is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance nor in
the public interest to maintain unusually small, irregularly-shaped
dwelling units which can only offer a marginal living environment for
their occupants.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The Housing Element calls for the provision of good, sound housing
for all economic groups, and states that low and moderate income
households are entitled to the same residential and environmental
amenities as those which are standard to other families. Approval of
the variance is not consistent with this policy.
WPC 5704P/O426P
~ I CHULA VISTA
Freeway R/W
~4 SEA VALE STREET
Mm M~ ~ MPD SFD
MFD M~D Z
' SFD
CHULA VISTA
"D" ~ STREET
ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION REPORT
FOR APARTMENTS AT 675 & 681 SEA VALE STREET
CHULA VISTAt CALIFORNIA 92010
OWNER:
HENRY N. KLEIS
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES AND
SAVITCH, ATTORNEYS
530 ~ STREET, SUITE 1900
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
CONTACT PERSON:
Paul J. Mehnert
(619)238-1900
RECEI~WED~
SEP 2:'~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHULA VISTA, OAUFORNIA
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1
II. ZONE VARIANCE CRITERIA ......................... 2
III. DISCUSSION OF REAR YARD SETBACK ................ 3
A. It Is Inappropriate to Strictly Apply
the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to
Studio Units Which Have Been In Place
For At Least 24 Years Where Undue
Economic Hardship to an Innocent Owner
Results ................................... 3
B. Granting a Rear Yard Setback Variance
Will Allow Mr. Kleis the Same Property
Rights as Other Owners Who Enjoy
Comparable Setbacks and Multi-family
Residential Use on Similar Properties ..... 5
C. Granting a Rear Yard Setback Variance
Will Create No Detriment to the Adja-
cent Parking Lot .......................... 6
D. Granting a Rear Yard Setback variance
Will Serve the Public Interest By
Retaining Low Cost Housing and By Sat-
isfying the Chula vista General Plan
Without Conflicting With Other Policies ... 6
IV. DISCUSSION OF REAR STUDIO APARTMENTS ........... 7
A. It is Inappropriate to Strictly Apply
the Minimum Square Footage Requirement
to Studio Units Which Have Been Occu-
pied At Least 24 Years Where Economic
Hardship For An Innocent Owner Results .... 7
B. Granting a Variance of the Minimum
Square Footage Requirement Will Allow
Mr. Kleis the Same Property Rights as
Other Apartment Owners in the R-3 Zone .... 9
C. Granting a Variance of the Minimum
Square Footage Requirement Will Create
No Detriment to the Adjacent Parking
Lot ........................................ 10
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
D. Granting a Variance of the Minimum
Square Footage Requirement Will Serve
the Public Interest By Retaining Low
Cost Housing and By Satisfying the
Chula Vista General Plan Without Con-
flicting With Other Policies .............. 11
V. CONCLUSION ..................................... 12
VI. EXHIBITS ....................................... 12
A. Declaration of Marguerite E. Moore ........ 13
B. Letter of Support from Adjacent Property
Owners ..................................... 14
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The subject property consists of 8 existing apartment
units located within the R-3 Apartment Residential Zone at
675 and 681 Sea Vale Street in Chula Vista (#Kleis prop-
erty"). Mr. Kleis purchased the apartments in August 1982.
This application requests recognition of the existing apart-
ments through approval of the following variances: (1) a
variance approving a setback of approximately 4 feet,
9 inches, where a 15-foot rear yard setback is required by
~unicipal Code 19.28.070(A); and (2) a variance approving the
two existing rear studio apartment units containing approxi-
mately 380 square feet (Apartment #675C), and 288 square feet
(Apartment #681C), where 400 square feet is required by
Municipal Code 19.28.080.
It is only the status of the two rear studio apartments
which is at issue. The other six units (Apartment Nos. 675,
675A, 675B, 681, 681A and 681B) clearly conform to all zoning
requirements. The site plan which accompanies this applica-
tion illustrates the existing improvements and specified
parking spaces on the Kteis property. It is the objective of
the applicant in submitting this application to obtain the
City's recognition of the existing apartments and a certifi-
cate of compliance for the 8 units.
The applicant's representative has met with the Chula
Vista Planning Department to evaluate the possible non-
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
conforming use status of the two rear studio apartments. It
was determined that the applicant could either (1) document
the existence of the studio apartments since 1959 in order to
achieve non-conforming use status, or, (2) apply for a
variance with respect to the square footage and rear setback
requirements. Although the applicant can document the
existence of the studio units since July 1964, it has become
difficult to prove their status prior to that date because of
the death of prior owners and the passage of time.
Therefore, it now appears most practical to use the City's
variance process as the method by which to legitimize the
existing rear studio apartments.
II. VARIANCE CRITERIA
The Chula Vista Municipal Code specifies at Section
19.14.190 that a zoning variance shall be granted when the
following facts are found: (A) a hardship peculiar to the
property exists which was not created by any act of the
owner; (B) the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same zoning district and in the same
vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed
by his neighbors; (c) the authorizing of such variance will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and
will not materially impair the purposes of Chapter 19.14 or
2
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
the public interest; and (D) the authorizing of such variance
will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any governmental agency. As discussed in
Sections III and IV of this report, each of these criteria
are satisfied when applied to the Kleis property.
III. DISCUSSION OF REAR YARD SETBACK
A.
It Is Inappropriate to Strictly Apply the Rear Yard
Setback Requirement to Studio Units Which Have Been
In Place For At Least 24 Years Where Undue Economic
Hardship to An Innocent Owner Results.
It would be an undue economic hardship on Mr. Kleis to
comply with the 15-foot rear yard setback currently require
by Municipal Code Section 19.28.070(A). The rear studio
units, constructed by a prior owner at least 24 years ago,
were built at the closest point approximately 4 feet, 9
inches from the rear property line. Compliance with the
later adopted 15-foot rear yard setback would create a hard-
ship peculiar to the subject property. The costs involved in
complying with the new 15-foot setback would be excessive.
Furthermore, compliance with the setback requirement is
physically impracticable because of the lot size, location
and surroundings.
- 3 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
The owner of the subject property from July 1964 through
January 1974 was Mrs. Lorene Craig Lakes. Mrs. Lakes indi-
cates that there were tenants living in the rear studio units
at the time she acquired the property in July 1964, and that
they had apparently been living there for some time. The
declaration of Marguerite E. Moore, attached as Exhibit A,
documents occupancy of the rear studio units when she first
moved into the front unit at 681 Sea Vale Street in 1966. It
has been difficult to determine an exact date when the rear
studio units were established as the property owners prior to
Mrs. Lakes are either deceased or cannot be located.
Based on the available city records and the statements
of prior owners and residents, the studio units appear to
have been constructed prior to the initial adoption of the
15-foot rear yard setback in August 1959. Although some
building permits were located in the Chula Vista Department
of Building and Housing for work within the rear studio
units, the complete set of old permits is no longer
available. It would be inappropriate for Chula Vista to now
strictly apply the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement to
these long established rear studio units. Such required
compliance would create a hardship peculiar to the subject
property which was clearly not created by any act of the
owner.
- 4 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
Granting a Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Allow
Mr. Kleis the Same Property Rights as Other Owners
Who Enjoy Comparable Setbacks and Multi-family
Residential Use on Similar Properties.
The Kleis property is located in a neighborhood of high
density residential and apartment development within the R-3
zone. The eight units on the Kleis property (.45 acres) are
at a density well below the 26 units per acre allowed by the
High Density Residential designation within the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Other apartment buildings in the same neighborhood
appear to have minimal setbacks either equivalent to, or less
than, the current 15 foot requirement of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. Such setbacks are compatible with the high
density residential character of the neighborhood.
The Kleis rear studio units have been in place for many
years with a setback of approximately 4 feet, 9 inches.
Approval of the requested variance will allow Mr. Kleis to
enjoy the same rights as other property owners in his neigh-
borhood, and within the R-3 Zone, who have been granted
variances or non-conforming use status in recognition of
special circumstances such as those existing on the subject
property.
- 5 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
Ce
Granting a Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Create
No Detriment to the Adjacent Parking Lot.
The Kleis property is adjacent to other high density
apartment buildings to the south, east and west. The property
adjacent to the Kleis rear yard setback consists of a parking
lot for the apartment complex to the north. There are no
structures on adjacent parcels which would be adversely
affected by approval of the variance. The letter of support
from adjacent property owners, attached as Exhibit B,
documents that the existing rear studio apartment setback is
compatible with adjacent properties. In a meeting between the
applicant and the Chula Vista Planning Department on
March 31, 1988, it was agreed that the existing rear yard
setback creates no problems between the rear studio apart-
ments and existing or potential land uses on adjacent
parcels.
Granting a Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Serve
the Public Interest By Retaining Low Cost Housing
and By Satisfying the Chula Vista General Plan
Without Conflicting With Other Policies.
- 6
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
The granting of a variance to the 15-foot rear yard set-
back requirement is in the public interest as it will allow
the two rear studio units to remain on the housing market in
an area which needs reasonably priced housing opportunities.
The variance is also in the public interest as it will
allow Mr. Kleis to continue providing housing at a density
which satisfies the Chula Vista General Plan. The eight
units on the Kleis property (.45 acres) are consistent with
the 13 to 26 units called for by the High Density Residential
designation and housing policies of the General Plan.
Approval of the rear yard setback variance will simply
recognize the two rear studio units which have been in place,
and have provided reasonably priced housing opportunities to
Chula Vista residents, for many years.
IV. DISCUSSION OF REAR STUDIO APARTMENTS
A.
It is Inappropriate to Strictly Apply the Minimum
Square Footage Requirement to Studio Units Which
Have Been Occupied At Least 24 Years Where Economic
Hardship For An Innocent Owner Results.
Mr. Kleis purchased the eight apartment units in August
1982. The rear studio units were in existence at that time
as they had been for many years. The available city records
and statements of prior owners and residents, as discussed in
- 7 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
Section IIIA, indicate that the rear studio units were built
prior to the initial adoption of a 400 square foot minimum
for R-3 dwelling units in August 1959. It would be an undue
hardship on Mr. Kleis to comply with the 400 square foot
minimum floor area for each "efficiency dwelling unit," as
currently required by Municipal Code Section 19.28.080. The
rear studio apartment units, containing approximately 380
square feet (Apartment No. 675C), and 288 square feet
(Apartment No. 681C), have in no way decreased the quality
of life for residents of the Kleis property. The units
provide attractive and efficient living quarters for their
residents.
Strict application of the R-3 zoning regulations to the
Kleis property would pose practical difficulties. The rear
studio units cannot be expanded without further imposing on
the rear yard setback or adversely impacting the location of
specified tenant parking. The subject property's size and
shape do not make such alterations feasible.
It would be inappropriate to strictly apply the minimum
square footage requirement to Mr. Kleis, an innocent buyer,
whose apartment units have been in use for many years.
Strict application of the current standard would impose undue
financial hardship on such owner, in a situation where
structural changes are not practicable because of the prop-
erty's size and other existing improvements.
- 8 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
Be
Granting a Variance of the Minimum Square Footage
Requirement Will Allow Mr. Kleis the Same Property
Rights as Other Apartment Owners in the R-3 Zone.
The Kleis property is located in a neighborhood of high
density residential and apartment development within the R-3
zone. The eight units on the Kleis property (.45 acres) are
at a density well below the 26 units per acre allowed by the
High Density Residential designation within the Chula Vista
General Plan. Other apartment complexes in the neighborhood
have equivalent or higher densities.
Strict application of the current 400 square foot min-
imum requirement to the rear studio apartments would deprive
Mr. Kleis and his tenants the use of a substantial portion of
the property. Approval of the requested variance would only
recognize and maintain the long established residential use
of the rear studio units. Approval will also allow the
entire 8 unit property to retain the status quo at a density
which is equivalent to or below other similar properties in
the vicinity and in the R-3 zone.
- 9 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
Granting a Variance of the Minimum Square Footage
Requirement Will Create No Detriment to the
Adjacent Parking Lot.
The Kleis property is adjacent to other high density
apartment buildings to the south, east and west. The rear
studio apartments are located next to a parking lot serving
the apartment complex to the north. Granting a variance to
the minimum square footage requirement will create no detri-
ment to the adjacent parking lot. Approval of the variance
is also appropriate because it will not be of detriment to
other adjacent properties. The rear studio units do not
impact the parking lot and have been in existence and compa-
tible with the other apartment buildings for many years. The
letter of support from adjacent property owners, attached as
Exhibit B, documents that the existing rear studio apartments
are compatible with adjacent properties. As agreed in a
meeting between the applicant and the Chula Vista Planning
Department on March 31, 1988, the rear studio apartments
create no problems with existing or potential land uses in
the area.
- 10 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
De
Granting a Variance of the Minimum Square Footage
Requirement Will Serve the Public Interest By
Retaining Low Cost Housinq and By Satisfying the
Chula Vista General Plan Without Conflicting With
Other Policies.
The granting of a variance to the minimum square footage
requirement will allow the two rear studio units to remain on
the housing market in an area which demands reasonably priced
housing opportunities. It would be in the public interest to
retain such housing opportunities.
It would also be in the public interest to retain the
rear studio units as the Chula Vista General Plan designates
the subject property for High Density Residential use with 13
to 26 units per acre. The eight units on the Kleis property
(.45 acres) are well within the density range allowed by the
General Plan designation and housing policies, as such plan
would allow up to 11 units.
Because the Kleis property is less dense than that which
would be allowed under the General Plan, there is more open
space and fewer people sharing the lot. Though the living
area within the two rear studio units may be smaller than the
current 400 square foot minimum, this has not led to a reduc-
tion in the qualify of life. As shown on the site plan which
accompanies this report, the Kleis property has substantial
11 -
46 101542 00000 (9/23/88)
open space and green grass areas. The granting of the
requested variance will allow the Kleis property to continue
providing, as it has for many years, attractive and reason-
ably priced housing for residents of Chula Vista.
Furthermore, the requested variance is consistent with
the variance provisions found within Chapter 19.14 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code. The purpose of a variance is to
bring particular parcels up to parity with other property in
the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is
concerned. The request is reasonable and consistent with such
purpose as its approval will allow Mr. Kleis to retain the
subject property as it has been for many years, and in parity
with other apartment complexes in the neighborhood.
V. CONCLUSION
The applicant has shown that each of the variance cri-
teria set forth at Section 19.14.190 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code have been satisfied when applied to the Kleis
property. On this basis, as documented by the information
presented within this application report, the applicant res-
pectfully requests that the Planning Commission grant the
requested variances.
VI. EXHIBITS
- 12 -
46 101542 00000 (10/26/88)
1 I, Marguerite E. Moore, declare:
2 1. I presently reside at 327 Bettencourt Street in
Sonoma, California.
4 2. From 1966 until July 1986, I resided, as a tenant,
5 at 681 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, California.
6 3. I can attest to the fact that the studio units at
7 675C and 681C Sea Vale Street were present when I moved into
8 the unit at 681 Sea Vale. Mrs. Lorene Lakes was the owner
9 and my landlady at that time, and she lived in a house behind
10 the units.
11 4. During the first several years I lived at 681 Sea
12 Vale (1966, 1967 and 1968), I remember speaking with the ten-
ants in the studio units, though I cannot now remember their
14 names. I do remember that a man who lived in one of the
15 studios did the lawn work for the units during this period.
16 The above is true of my own knowledge and, if called
17 upon to do so, ! would competently testify to the facts
18 stated.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is
20 true and correct and that this declaration is executed on
21 June ~_, 1987, at Sonoma, California.
22
24 Marguerite E. Moore
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
SEA VALE BLUFF APARTMENTS
c/o William J. Maxam
P.O. Box 182036
Coronado, CA 92118
September 21, 1988
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Kleis Variance Application
Dear Planning Department:
We are the owners and builders of the two year old 20 unit
apartment complex at 671 Sea Vale Street.
Our apartments and parking lot are contiguous with and
immediately north of the apartments owned by Henry Kleis at 675
and 681 Sea Vale Street.
We understand that Mr. Kleis is requesting a variance
which would approve the 8 apartment units on his property,
including the two rear studio units and existing setback.
We fully support the approval of the variance.
The rear apartments have existed for many years and create no
conflict with our property.
There is a large parking lot between our apartments and
those owned by Mr. Kleis. The Kleis apartments are compatible
with our apartments and parking lot and with other properties in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Kleis has worked together with us to coordinate color
schemes and other improvements on both of our properties which make
the neighborhood more attractive. The Kleis apartments provide
clean and affordable housing.
Approval of the variance will benefit our neighborhood and
the City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
William J. Maxam
Geoffrey A. Clough
EXHIBIT B
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:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Henry and Susan Kleis
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Henry and Susan Kleis
2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. if any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson i{ ~efi~e~as: ."Any i~diy!dua], firm,.~opartnership, joint venture, association,
soc~a~ CRUD, rra~erna~ organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city? municipality, ~istrict or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) /~ ///~/~/(K..~/~"'/~'
Signature of applicant/date
wac
A-ll0 Print or type'name of applicant