HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/04/26 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 26, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
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: DRC-89-42; Request to construct three single family
dwellings in the Hillside Modifying District at the
northwest quadrant of East 'J' Street and the 1-805
Freeway - George Cunradi
2, PUBLIC HEARING: P-87-9; Request to modify Sunbow Precise Plan to
increase allowable floor area from 2,550 sq.ft, or
45% to 55% on 12 lots within Chula Vista Tract 87-8,
Unit No. 3 - The Fieldstone Company
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-27; Request to increase F.A.R. from
45% to 55% and to decrease rear yard setback from 20 ft.
to 14 ft. at 740 Baylor Avenue - Joseph Propati
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-19; Appeal of Zoning Administrator decision
denying proposed two-story addition which does not
meet R-1 requirements for attaching at least 50% of
the commons wall to the main building - Mrs. Dorothy
Dowdle - 730 Second Avenue
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-31; Request to allow for a 6-foot high
wall to be located in the front setback area at 9 L
Street - W. H. Barton
AGENDA -2- April 26, 1989
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of May 10, 1989
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-89-42: Request to construct three single family
dwellings in the Hillside Modifying District at thu
northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and the 1-80b
Freeway - Chula Vista 3 Venture
A. BACKGROUND
The proposal is to construct three single-family dwellings on 0.62 acres
at the northwest quadrant of East "J" Street and the 1-805 Freeway in the
R-1-H-P zone. The "H" Hillside Modifying District requires Commission and
Council review of all development proposals.
The item was continued from the meeting of March 22, 1989, at which time
the Commission voted unanimously not to certify EIR-75-4 with Addendum.
The Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the EIR in regard to school
impacts, and also its failure to address precise plan guidelines relating
to view retention and building setbacks. These matters are discussed
below.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior Environmental
Impact Report on the property, EIR-75-4, and has prepared an Addendum
thereto. The Addendum finds that the project will result in no
significant environmental impacts not already discussed in EIR-75-4 and
previously addressed by conditions attached to a prior rezoning and parcel
map.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a motion to certify EIR-75-4 ~ith Addendum.
2. Adopt a motion to approve DRC-89-42 based on the finding that the
proposal conforms to the Hillside Modifying District as well as the
Development Policy and Design Criteria for hillside developments, and
subject to the condition that the dwelling on Parcel 3 shall be
lowered by approximately 4 ft., per the applicant's letter of April
ll, 1989, and as reflected on revised plans to be submitted prior to
consideration of the project by the City Council and Design Review
Committee.
C. DISCUSSION
The proposal involves three separate parcels with a total area of 1.62
acres. The property has a triangular, elongated shape with topography
that slopes steeply down from south to north. The property has 300 ft. of
frontage on East "J" Street and abuts the 1-805 Freeway for a distance of
approximately 830 ft. A vacant 4.66-acre parcel with similar terrain and
also zoned R-1-H-P adjoins the westerly boundary of the property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 2
The 1.62 acres was acquired as excess freeway right-of-way and zoned to
R-1-H in 1976. The parcel map creating the three lots was approved one
year later in 1977. As a condition of the rezoning and parcel map, the
applicant was required to establish a permanent open space easement
involving approximately one acre of the northerly and steepest portion of
the property. This has left 0.62 developable acres distributed among the
three parcels as follows: Parcel #1 10,972 sq. ft.; Parcel #2 7,315 sq.
ft.; and Parcel #3 8,798 sq. ft.
In 1982, the subject property, as well as the adjoining 4.66 acre parcel,
were rezoned to R-1-H-P with the following development guidelines:
l. Any development shall be subject to Design Review Committee approval
to assure retention of the view.
2. All structures shall maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from East "J"
Street.
3. All dwelling units, regardless of type, shall be designed to meet the
State of California Administrative Code Title 25 noise insulation
standard for a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA. All exterior
private open space areas exposed to approximately 65 dBA level or
higher shall be provided ~ith a line-of-sight barrier protection.
4. Any development plan approval will require that an open space lot
with an access easement to the San Diego formation soils be provided
for qualified paleontologists to gain access and conduct necessary
excavations at some future date.
5. Access to "J" Street shall be designed to minimize traffic conflicts.
The development proposal shows three split-level dwellings served by a
common driveway which connects with East "J" Street at the far westerly
boundary of the property. The building pads and driveway were
rough-graded in conjunction with the earlier 1977 parcel map. The
dwellings would be depressed from street grade so that the roof peaks
would extend from 2.5 ft. (parcel 1 & 2) to 4 ft. (parcel 3) above the
level of East "J" Street. Each unit shows an upper-level rear deck rather
than a graded rear yard.
D. ANALYSIS
The Hillside analysis for density and grading was accomplished in
conjunction with the earlier rezonlng and parcel map. With an average
natural slope of 20.5%, the 1.62 acres could accommodate a maximum of 4
dwelling units and grading of 55% or 0.9 acres of the site. The proposal
is for three dwelling units, and the open space easement restricts grading
to a maximum of 0.62 acres, although the actual grading is significantly
less.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 3
The Hillside Modifying District also includes design criteria for hillside
developments. The proposal has incorporated several of the suggested
design solutions, including split-level construction, common driveways,
reduced side yard setbacks (5'/5' rather than 10'/3'), and the use of
decks rather than graded rear yards -- all in order to better confom with
the terrain and reduce the need for grading. The manufactured slopes
between the units and the street would be subject to a common landscape
treatment and maintenance.
The Commission previously expressed concern that the project did not
reflect total compliance with the precise plan guidelines for view
retention and building setbacks, and that these issues, therefore, should
have been discussed in the EIR. However, the California Environmental
Quality Act specifically excludes the obstruction of private views or the
reduction of building setbacks as potentially significant environmental
impacts. These are planning issues outside the scope of CEQA.
With regard to view retention, the plans show the roof peaks on parcels 1
& 2 at 2.5 ft. above the level of East "J" Street, and the roof peak on
parcel 3 at 8 ft. above street grade. Since the last meeting, the
applicant has reevaluated the plan and submitted a proposal to lower the
dwelling on parcel 3 an additional 4 ft. by moving the structure
northerly, increasing the slope of the driveway and reducing the pitch of
the roof. The applicant has stated this will retain the "horizon" view
for all of the residents on the opposite side of the street (please see
attached letter).
Some members of the Commission expressed the opinion that the guideline
"Any development shall assure retention of the view" should be
interpreted literally to'prOhibit any view incursion. This may or may not
have been the intent of the City Council when the guideline was adopted,
but we believe it is not unreasonable to balance this guideline against
the basic purpose of the "H" District to preserve the hillsides.
Accordingly, we believe the project is supportable on the basis that it
preserves a large majority of the view shed, which could be enhanced only
marginally by further grading and fill on the hillside to accommodate
dwellings deeper into the ca~on.
Another precise plan guideline states that "All structures shall maintain
a minimum 25 ft. setback from East "J" Street." Although the dwellings
are located within 10 ft. of the East "J" Street right-of-way, they are
located more than 60 ft. from the "improved" portion of the right-of-way,
which includes the roadway and sidewalk. The reason for this is the
extraordinary right-of-way width (80 ft. from center line) inherited from
the State at this particular location as compared to the width of the
right-of-way to the west and east of the site (40 ft. from center line).
East "J" Street is shown as a Class II Collector in the new Circulation
Element (72 ft. right-of-way), and therefore the right-of-way will not be
widened in the foreseeable future. The roadway is also not anticipated to
be widened unless a large scale project for widening all the way to
Hilltop Drive is approved at some future time. In essence, then, t,~e,
dwellings will maintain a setback from the paved portion of East
Street more than twice as great as called for by the guideline.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 4
The location of the driveway access point at the far westerly boundary of
the project will ameliorate sight distance conflicts with west bound
traffic and the East "J" Street bridge. This is consistent with the
guideline to minimize traffic conflicts. The guideline related to noise
insulation will be incorporated into the construction plans, and access
for future paleontologic excavations, which is the final precise plan
guideline, has been addressed by the existing open space easement.
The Commission failed to certify the EIR largely on the basis that
standard developer fees as requested by both school districts would not
mitigate the finding that there would be a significant impact on schools
as stated in the original EIR Addendum. The Addendum was prepared by an
outside consultant and contained incorrect information on school
overcrowding. It has since been corrected to show that the project will
not have a significant impact on schools.
More importantly, however, the City Attorney's Office has issued an
opinion which states in part, "We also conclude it would be inappropriate
for the Planning Commission to refuse to certify an EIR or to adopt a
negative declaration under CEQA and the City's Environmental Review
Procedures (Council Resolution No. 11086) solely on the basis of the
adequacy of school facilities where it is being considered in conjunction
with a "project" which cannot be denied on that basis because of Section
65996" (please see attached). Since Section 65996 refers to standard
developer fees -- which is the preference of both school districts in this
case -- and since the proposal is a "project" as opposed to a legislative
act, it would be inappropriate, in the City Attorney's opinion, to refuse
to certify EIR-75-4 with Addendum on the basis of the adequacy of school
facilities. The Attorney's opinion on school fees will be forwarded to
the California Attorney General per the Commission's request.
Finally, for the Commission's information, the property owner has
submitted documentation of an offer to sell the adjoining 4.66 acres to
the surrounding residents or the City as permanent open space for
$150,000. As an alternative, the largest, westerly portion of the 4.66
acres could be purchased as permanent open space for $90,000, with the
remainder to be incorporated into parcel 3 of the present request (please
see attached).
E. FINDING
The Hillside Modifying District requires a finding that the development
conforms to the provisions of the District as well as the provisions of
the Development Policy and Design criteria for hillside developments. We
believe this finding can be made based on the factors discussed above.
WPC 6054P
~ ,~ iNOI/V~IOd~IOD /N]WdO-I]A]O SO/VIS .-_' <
5465 MOREHOUSE DR
SUITE 220
SAN DIEGO CA
DOMINY CECIL ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
11 April 1989
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Mr. George Krempl
Director of Planning
Dear Mr. Krempl:
My office has reviewed the possible alternatives for the lowering of the westerly house
(Parcel 3) of the Stratos Chula Vista (3) venture for Mr. Rod McPherson and Mr. Don
Taylor.
By increasing the driveway slope to a maximum feasible %, and by shifting the house
eight feet further north, we are able to lower the finish floor approximately 2-1/2'. This
causes us to have a driveway that is 22% on its inside radius and 15% at its center. This
is an extremely steep driveway, possible only by using concrete.
By lowering the roof pitch from 4 in 12 to 3 in 12, we also lower the ridge almost
another 1-1/2'. Less than 3 in 12 requires special waterproofing.
The cumulative effect of these two significant changes is to lower the overall silhouette
almost 4'.
Short of a total redesign or using gravel hot-mopped roofs, this is the maximum reduction
possible.
By actual measured observations and story poles, we have been able to determine that this
reduction will restore the horizon view from across the street and allow the view of the
Coronado Bridge and Mt. Soledad beyond to remain.
We trust this modification satisfies the concerns raised. Thank you for your assistance in
this matter. If any questions reamin, please contact our office.
Sincerely,/ ~
A. Lewis Dominy, ~IA s/.
cDc~miny Ce c iRlo ~ s~a2~:sT~itects
Cle!? of Chula Vista
Pl'~lng Department
At erolcn. Steve Grlff!tb
F_esv Steve.
please te advised that ! nave offered to sell m,','
· ,.estertv pcrtle~'ef Parcel Wo. ~9-020-26 tc Jackle
pa~,~e add her reid%bors. (Please see exhibit A)
ded%c.~te~ as open space, ~d ~s being nffered to
Sincerely,
GeorF~ Cu~r a~ I
Received from ~,~ of C, hl]l~ V~sta 07' at~v Interasted resident
herein caged Buyer, thesumof CT~e tbousa~ Doltars $
evidenced by cash ~, casbiecs check Q, or ~, personal check ~ ~ayable to ~SC~OW
~Z~ ~ ~ ,tobehelduncasheduntilacceptanceofthis°ffer, asdep°sit°nacc°unt°fDurchaseorice°f
O~ hu~d~e~a~d fift~ t~ous~d ............................ ~o~rs$[~0'000'00
forthepurchaseofproperty, situatedin ~bl~ Vist~ .Countyof San Dle~o California
described as follows: ~A~ ~1 of Parcel NC. 639-020-26 (D}ease see attached exhibit A~
1. Buyerwgldepositinescrowwith Escrow co. of ~yeTs choice thebalanceofpurchasepriceasfollows:
T%[S offe~ is made to the cit~ of Cbula Vista or an~ Interested resident
~nd is open for ae, ce~tance uDtll 6-15-R9 A~d must be closed
cpflc~ A, Fur~nse nf Pa~e E[ e~0,000.
~/] c/~o,
Set forth above any terms and conditions of a factual nature applicable to this sale, such as financing, prior sale of other property, the matter
of structural peat control Inspection, repairs and personal property to be included in the sale.
2. Deposit will [] will not ~] be increased by $ to $ within days of
acceptance of this offer.
3. Buyer does [] does not [~ intend to occupy subject property as his residence. N/A
4. The fogowing supplements are incorporated as part of this agreement:
Other
[] Structural Pest Control Certification Agreement [] Occupancy Agreement []
[] Special Studies Zone Disclosure [] VA Amendment ~].
[] Flood Insurance Disclosure [~ FHA Amendment []
5. Buyer and Seller shall deliver signed instructions to the escrow holder within days from Seller's acceptance which
shall provide for closing within days from Seller's acceptance, Escrow fees to be paid as follows:
6. Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page, which constitutes Page 1 of Pages.
Seller Ge,qr~e Cunrad ~ '
CI]Y OF
CHUI.A VISI'A
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DATE: April 12, 1989
TO: Chula Vista Planning Commission
FROM: ~'~. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: School Fees
You have requested our opinion on what appears to be a conflict
between the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the provisions of Government Code Sectio~ 65996~
which prohibit the City from denying approval on a project on the
basis of adequacy of school facilities. It is our opinion that
Section 65996 precludes the city from denying, on the basis of
'inadequate schools, any "project" as defined in Section 65928,
including a permit for construction, or any activity involving
the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other
entitlement for use, as well as subdivision approvals, variances,
and conditional use permits (which are adjudicative in nature).
We also conclude it would be inappropriate for the Planning
Commission to refuse to certify an EIR or to adopt a negative
declaration under CEQA and the City's Environmental Review
Procedures (Council Resolution No. 11086) solely on the basis of
the adequacy of school facilities where it is being considered in
conjunction with a "project" which can not be denied on that
basis because of Section 65996. At your request, we are
forwarding this opinion to the California Attorney General
requesting his opinion on this question.
DISCUSSION:
We understand the facts constituting the context for this
question to be as follows:
l/
Hereafter all section references are to the Government Code
unless otherwise specified.
F~ 'WEN E CHULA VISTA C;,LrFC:NiA }2'310 1619~ 69~-5037
2_76 FOU TH ,, U
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 2
Although the issue has been generally discussed with the Planning
Commission on previous occasioDs involving negative declarations
relating to development projects, those negative declarations did
not state that there were overcrowded school conditions which
were not mitigated by either temporary school fees or a
Mello-Roos District. Development of the Terra Nova school site
more narrowly focuses the issue. The proposal is for residential
development of a 26.2 acre parcel known as Hidden Vista Village
(Terra Nova), which had been designated in the Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan as a school site. Because of school construction
elsewhere in the District, by the Sweetwater Union High School
District, the District determined the parcel was surplus and sold
it to the City for the express purpose of its resale to this
developer for residential development. The negative declaration
is based on an initial study which finds no significant
environmental impacts, but includes a discussion regarding
schools which states that interim school fees may be inadequate
and a Mello-Roos District may be necessary to mitigate an
apparently cumulative adverse effect resulting in district-wide
overcrowding. It states that "no mitigation measures are
required" with regard to its discussion of geology and land use
issues and indicates the project is not in conformity with the
General Plan or the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan because of its
designation of the site as a potential school site, rather than
"residential use. Accordingly, a General Plan or Specific Plan
amendment will be one of the approvals required by the project in
addition to tentative map approval.
ANALYSIS:
A. The CEQA Process:
The Third District Court of Appeal nicely summarized the state of
the law regarding the application of the California Environmental
Quality Act in Perley v. County of Calavera~ (1982) 137 C.A.3d
424; 187 Cal. Rptr. 53 at 56 as follows:
"To achieve its objective of protecting the
environment by the establishment of administrative
procedures that '[e]nsure that the long-term
protection of the environment...shall be the guiding
criterion in public decisions' (Pub. Resources Code
§21001, subd. (d)), 'CEQA [the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Pub. Resources
Code §21000 et seq.] and the guidelines issued by the
State Resources Agency to implement CEQA [Cal.Admin.
Code, tit. 14 ~15000 et seq.] establish a
three-tiered structure. If a project falls within a
CITY CF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 3
category exempt by administrative regulation (see
Pub. Resources Code, ~21~84, 21085), or "it can be
seen with certainty that [there is no possibility
that] the activity in question [may] have a
significant effect on the environment" (Cal.Admin.
~ Code, tit. 14, §15060), no further agency evaluation
is required. If there is a possibility that the
project may have a significant effect, the agency
undertakes an initial threshold study (Cal.Admin.
Code, tit. 14, §15080); if that study demonstrates
that the project "will not have a significant
effect," the agency may so declare in a brief
Negative Declaration. (Cal.Admin. Code, tit. 14,
§15083.) If the project is one "which may have a
significant effect on the environment," an EIR is
required. (Pub. Resources Code, ~§21100, 21151; see
Cal.Admin. Code, tit. 14, ~15080.)' (Fn. omitted.)
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d
68, 74, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66.)"
Following the process described above, in Perley the county board
of supervisors approved a "mitigated negative declaration",
authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) and
California Administrative Code Title 14 ~15080(d) (2) with regard
'to a proposed mining operation. The administrative regulations
authorize the mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR
"where the significant effects of a project identified in an
Initial Study are clearly mitigated to a point where no
significant environmental effects would occur." Despite the
plaintiff's characterization of the "mitigated negative
declaration" as a clever invention to cut the public out of the
process of environmental review, the Court of Appeal stated:
"Clearly, the distinction between a 'mitigated' and
an 'unmitigated' negative declaration is merely a
question of whether the mitigating measures were
adopted before or after the project was first
proposed, and it seems eminently reasonable to us
that the determination of the effect of a project on
the environment should relate to the form in which it
is submitted for approval, not as it might otherwise
have been constructed or conducted." Perley v.
County of Calaveras, supra, 187 Cal.Rptr. at 56-57.
The court then upheld the challenged CEQA regulation.
If an initial study identifies a potential significant effect on
the environment which is not mitigated sufficiently to authorize
CI1-Y OF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 4
a mitigated negative declaration, an EIR is required. The
project cannot be approved ~nless the agency finds, after
consideration of the EIR, one of more of the following:
'(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such project which mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as
identified in the completed environmental impact
report.
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
(c) Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report." (Public Resources Code
~21081)
That is, under subdivision (a), if an EIR is prepared and
identifies one or more significant environmental effects, and
-specifies changes required or incorporated into the project to
"mitigate or avoid" them, the project can be approved. If
insufficient mitigation measures exist, findings of overriding
considerations under subdivision (c) must be made in order to
approve the project.
B. School Fees.
Prior to the California Supreme Court decision in Candid
Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District 71985)
39 C.3d 878, 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, cities and counties were
authorized by the School Facilities Act (Government Code §65970
et seq.), after January 1, 1978, to enact ordinances to require
developers to pay fees for temporary school facilities (§65974).
Utilizing their constitutional police power, some cities also
imposed additional fees or entered into secured agreements for
the payment of fees for temporary or permanent school facilities
in lieu of School Facilities Act fees. In Candid Enterprise~,
the California Supreme Court concluded that those fees or
agreements for fees in lieu of School Facilities Act fees were
lawful and not preempted by state law.
CIT~' OF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 5
In response to that decision, the legislature enacted Section
65995, effective January 1, ~1987, which precludes any fee,
charge, dedication or other form of requirement levied by a city
against a development project for the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities except for a dedication or
fee, or both, required under Section 53080, or under the School
Facilities Act. The section expressly stated that the subject
of financing of school facilities with development fees was a
matter of statewide concern which the legislature occupied "to
the exclusion of all local measures on the subject." This
section also established a mandatory limit on "the amount of any
fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement, as
described in Subdivision (a) including the amount of fees to be
paid or the value of land to be dedicated or both, under Chapter
4.7 (commencing with Section 65970),...", subject to mandatory
annual inflation adjustments as prescribed in the statute.
The same chapter law enacting Section 65995 (Stats. 1986 Chapter
887) also added Section 65996 which provides in relevant part:
"The following provisions shall be the exclusive
methods of mitigating environmental effects related
to the adequacy of school facilities when considering
the approval or the establishment of conditions for
the approval of a development project, as defined by
Section 65928 of the Government Code pursuant to
Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
PuDlic Resources Code:...
No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section
66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on
the basis of the adequacy of school facilities."
(emphasis added).
Among the "exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects
related to the adequacy of school facilities" for the purposes of
CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code) or the
Subdivision £~ap Act (Division 2 of the Government Code) are the
provisions relating to Mello-Roos districts (Section 53311 et
seq.) and the School Facilities Act (Section 65970 et seq.).
Under the School Facilities Act, school district boards are
required to notify the city council if it makes both of the
following findings supported by "clear and convincing evidence":
(1) that conditions of overcrowding exist in one or more
attendance areas within the district which will impair the normal
functioning of educational programs including the reasons for the
CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 6
existence of those conditions; and (2) that all reasonable
methods of mitigating condi~{ons of overcrowding have been
evaluated and no feasible method for reducing these conditions
exist."
Pursuant to the statutory scheme, under Section 65971, the school
district is required to give notice of those findings to the city
council which must then concur or not concur with the school
district board's findings within 61 to 150 days after the date of
the receipt of the findings. If the council concurs in the
findings, then the council must proceed in accordance with
Section 65972, which in turn requires the council to deny an
application for a rezone, application for a discretionary permit
for residential use, or a tentative subdivision map, unless the
council finds either that there are specific overriding fiscal,
economic, social or environmental factors which would benefit the
city in the council's judgment, thereby justifying approval of
the development; or that an ordinance has been adopted pursuant
to Section 65974. In Chula Vista, the Council has adopted an
ordinance pursuant to Section 65974 for the purpose of
establishing an interim method of providing classroom facilities
where overcrowded conditions exist (Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Chapter 17.11). Accordingly, Section 65972 could not be the
basis for the denial of a rezone, discretionary permit for
'residential use, or a tentative subdivision map.
The last sentence of Section 65996 expressly prohibits the City
from denying approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities pursuant to provisions of either CEQA or the
Subdivision Map Act. Section 66474 of the Government Code (in
the Subdivision Map Act) specifies the findings required in order
to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for which a
tentative map was not required. As discussed above, CEQA
authorizes disapproval of a "project" if there are significant
unmitigated adverse environmental impacts which the public agency
is unwilling or unable to consider acceptable by adopting a
statement of overriding considerations (Public Resources Code
§21002).
C. The Mira Decision.
On November 3, 1988, the Fourth District Court of Appeal filed
its decision in Mira Development Corporation v. City of San
~iego, (1988) 205 C.A.3d 1201, 252 Cat. Rptr. 825. That decisio~
comes closest to addressing the issue of concern here. However,
that decision is dicta on the CEQA issue, since the City Council
denied the rezone application, and thus no CEQA compliance was
required. (Public Resources Code ~21080 (b)(5)).
CITY CF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 7
However, an initial study and ~gative declaration were prepared,
and approved by the Planning Commission. The rezone was for an
increase in density for a 9.65 acre site to allow 140 apartments
in nine two-story buildings in Nestor. The initial study
identified noise as a significant impact, which the negative
dec±aration concluded was reduced to a level of insignificance by
developer-agreed-to mitigating measures. The traffic impact was
not deemed significant, and the "checklist" indicated no problems
in such areas as excess traffic, increase traffic hazards, or new
schools or parks. One week after the Planning Commission
approved the rezone and certified the negative declaration, the
Planning Department received a letter from the Sweetwater Union
High School District. It stated the project would have an
adverse environmental impact and that the District opposed any
rezoning or other land use amendments which would increase
density. It stated that the school board had adopted a
resolution in May, 1986 requesting a building moratorium in the
area because of the already overcrowded schools. The resolution,
in turn, stated that the schools were experiencing severe
overcrowding and that the City Council representative had been
requested in April, 1986 to address the issue of excessive
multi-family construction in the South Bay, to which request, the
school district had not received an adequate response. The City
'~Council ultimately determined to deny the rezone application for
a variety of reasons, specifically including inadequate schools.
The court discussed the developer's assertion that Section 65996
prohibited school overcrowding as a basis for denying the
rezone. The court focused on the use of the term "project" and
its statutory cross-reference to Section 65928 and, based on that
language, and the decision in Landi v. County of Monterey (1983)
139 C.A.3d 934, concluded that a rezone was a legislative, not an
adjudicative, act, and therefore was not included within the
meaning of "project" in Section 65996:
"We conclude that City was not restricted by the terms
of section 65996 when making a zoning decision, and
could deny the application based on the lack of school
facilities." (Mira Development v. City of San Diego,
supra 252 Cal.Rptr. 825 at 835.)
The court also construed the provisions of Section 65589.5, which
is found in Chapter 3 of the Planning and Zoning Law, relating to
the Housing Element of the General Plan. It requires written
findings supported by substantial evidence to disapprove or
reduce the density of a proposed housing development, if it
complies with the applicable General Plan, zoning, and
development policies in effect at the time the application is
CITY CF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 8
complete. One of the findings required is that there be no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
impact on the public health or safety by the proposed housing
development project. The court stated:
."Even assuming arguendo that section 65589.5 is
applicable to the City's zoning decision and the City
should therefore have rendered written findings, the
failure to do so would be harmless error in this case
making a remand unnecessary. As delineated in our
discussion above, there is substantial evidence that
the project would have a specific, adverse effect upon
the pedestrian safety and traffic conditions on 27th
Street, crowding at the schools, and the lack of park
space .... Thus, the evidence supports an inference that
there is no feasible method to immediately mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact so as to allow approval of
the project at the time of application." (Mira
Development Corporation v. City of San Die$o, supra,
252 Cal.Rptr. 825 at 835.)
One other recent decision is worthy of mention. In California
Building Industry Assoc. v. Governing Board of the Newhall School
District (1988) 206 C.A.3d 1384A, 253 Cal.Rptr. 497, the Second
District Court of Appeal struck down "special taxes" imposed by
the school district on developers of new residential housing.
The court concluded they were not authorized by Proposition 13,
but required authorizing legislation which had not been provided
by the legislature; and that they could not be sustained as
"development fees", which are authorized, because they were in
excess of the amount statutorily authorized:
"As result, the total exactions imposed by the
school districts substantially exceed the statutory
dollar limitation on development fees allowed by
subdivision (b) of Section 65995. If, as we hold,
these exactions must be viewed as development fees,
then they are clearly preempted by state law because
they conflict with Sections 53080 and 65996,
subdivisions (b) and (d) by taking an amount in
excess of the maximum provided for in those
sections." (California Building Industry Association
v. Governing Board of the Newhall School District,
supra, 253 Cal.Rptr. 497 at 513).
Thus, although the case does not discuss Section 65996, its
treatment of Section 65995 as constituting state law preemption
is consistent with the express preemption language of Section
65996, and the general understanding of the status of school fees
CI'FY OF CHULA VISTA
Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 12, 1989
Page 9
after the legislature enacted Section 65995 and prior to the Mira
decision. Mira is also consistent with the preemption language
of Section 65995, except for its carving out of the limited area
of land use legislative decisions. We understand legislation is
being introduced to override the Mira holding.
CONCLUSION:
There is no case law, nor Attorney General's opinion directly
addressing the potential conflict between the provisions of CEQA
(requiring disapproval of a project where there are unmitigated
substantial adverse impacts) and Section 65996 limiting the
methods of mitigation, and (prohibiting denial of approval of a
project on the basis of inadequate school facilities, on the
basis of CEQA). The statutory language in Sections 65995 and
65996 seem to clearly, expressly, prohibit the denial of a
project based on CEQA, due solely to inadequate schools. The
only thing that could be more clear about that language is if it
would appear in CEQA itself, rather than someplace else in the
codes. In light of the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision
in Mira Development and the Second District decision in Newhall,
we believe a court, if faced with a case involving project
approval where the negative declaration or the EIR specified
mitigation of an adverse impact on schools by interim school fees
'imposed by the school district pursuant to Section 65970, et seq.
and/or a Mello-Roos District, established pursuant to §53311, et
seq. would conclude that the project was properly approved, or
could not properly be denied solely on the basis of inadequate
school facilities. As currently presented, the tentative map
could not be denied, but the General Plan or Specific Plan
amendment (a legislative act) could be denied if the record
established inadequate schools, unless Mira is legislatively
overturned.
We are forwarding our analysis and conclusion to the Attorney
General, with a request for his opinion on this subject.
DRR:lgk
5536a
cc: City Manager
Director of Planning
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADDENDUM TO EIR-75-4
1-805 & East J Street
Hillside Development Permit
Prepared in accordance with Section 15164
CEQA Guidelines
Prepared for
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92012
Prepared by
Affinis
Shadow Valley Center
839 Jamacha Road
E1 Cajon, CA 92019
March 1989
(Revised April 1989)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.O INTRODUCTION .............. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............. 2
3.0 ISSUE ANALYSIS .............. 3
A. NOISE .............. 3
B. TRAFFIC ............. 3
C. SCHOOLS ............. 4
4.0 CERTIFICATION .............. 5
5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ........ 6
1.O INTRODUCTION
In 1975, an EIR was issued by the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review
Committee for the proposed 1-805 and East "J" Street Rezonin9 and Lot Split.
The report was subsequently adopted by the Planning Commission.
However, development of the property was postponed and no Hillside development
permit was issued. In 1989, the applicant filed with the City to develop the
parcel as previously approved. Given the length of time between the original
EIR's completion and the present application, the City of Chula Vista
reevaluated the project, and determined three areas for reconsideration:
noise, traffic, and schools. Noise impacts were analyzed in the original EIR,
but needed to be updated. Traffic and school issues were not dealt with in
the original EIR; but because of changes in circumstances, there was now a
potential for significant impact and they should be evaluated.
Section 5.9 of the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures and
Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines require preparation of a subsequent EIR if
substantial changes are involved with implementation of a revised project or
if there have been substantial changes in the circumstances underwhich a
project is being undertaken and there will be a significant environmental
impact. As the revised project nor the circumstances underwhich it is to be
undertaken involve such changes, therefore, this document has been prepared as
an addendum to EIR-75-4, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. It
has further been determined that there is no significant new information which
needs to be added to the text of the original EIR. Thus, the addendum need
not be circulated for public review and will be included with the original EIR
for consideration by the decision-making body.
The original EIR includes a detailed discussion and maps of the project
location and site conditions.
-1-
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ORIGINAL PROJECT
The original project proposed to divide the property into three lots for
single-family homes. Access would have been provided via a driveway
encroaching in the right-of-way between the parcel and East J Street. The
City of Chula Vista had initiated a rezone of the property from Planned
Community (PC) to R-1-H-P (Single family, subject to hillside development
regulations and a precise plan). The original EIR noted that if the rezone
was not adopted, the applicant would be required to Obtain a Planned
Development Permit.
The original EIR noted the area to be developed contained chaparral, with no
endemic, rare, or endangered species destroyed by the project. While the
topography is steep in places, no soils or geological constraints were found.
No substantial changes in these environmental conditions; biological,
topographical, soil or geology ~ere found and, therefore, no further
environmental analysis of these effects nor the circumstances underwhich they
are being undertaken needs to be conducted.
REVISED PROJECT
The revised project differs very little from the original project. It also
involves the placement of three detached, single family dwellings on the
southeastern section of the property. Two of the dwelling units have been
enlarged, and the architecture and design have been updated. The same access
is proposed. Native vegetation and a small draw on the northern half of the
parcel would be preserved in open space. The tiered grading along J Street,
in the area to be developed, was done at some time in the past. The project
area is presently zoned R-1-H-P.
-2-
3.0 ISSUE ANALYSIS
A. NOISE
Original Project. The original EIR reported the project area was subject to
unacceptable noise levels from vehicular traffic on 1-805. It noted outdoor
areas with acceptable noise levels could be provided, and that interior noise
levels could be reduced to acceptable levels through acoustical insulation
techniques, such as forced air circulation, three-inch fibrous thermal
insulation, solid core exterior doors, and double glazed window glass.
Revised Project. The City of Chula Vista's General Plan is presently being
updated, and the most recent noise contours for the project area are still in
the draft stage. The numbers indicate the area to be developed will likely
fall within the 65 or 70 dBA CNEL contours. The updated project has included
all steps mentioned in the original EIR to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
The usable private open space of the balcony areas would be enclosed with a
combination of wall and glass or plexiglas to reduce sound to acceptable
levels. The insulation presently proposed exceeds that suggested in the
original EIR. The exterior doors will be solid core, the windows will be
double glazed, and the houses will incorporate forced air circulation. These
measures would reduce the noise impact to below a level of significance.
B. TRAFFIC
Original Project. No specific traffic analyses was done in the original EIR,
but, because of the increase in traffic volumes which has occurred, a brief
analysis based on today's higher daily traffic is warranted.
Revised Project. The project would have access to J Street, off a single
driveway descending the slope to the houses. The project would generate
approximately 30 ADT to "J" Street. The most recent traffic counts by the
City of Chula Vista are 7580 ADT on "J" Street between Hilltop and Nacion
Avenues (near Hilltop Drive), and 5480 ADT between Nacion and Floyd Avenues,
(east of and crossing 1-805).
The project-generated ADT would be an increase of approximately one-half of
one percent on either segment of East "J" Street. During peak hours this
would be one additional car every 20 ~linutes. This would not constitute a
significant impact to traffic.
C. SCHOOLS
Original Project. No analysis of effects to schools was done in the original
EIR because there was no potential impact on school capacities at that time.
Circumstances I~ave changed and further analysis is now necessary.
Revised Project. Students generated by the proposed project would attend
Halecrest Elementary School, Hilltop Junior High School, and Hilltop Senior
High School. Overall, both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the
Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and are operating over
capacity.
-3-
Table 1. School Enrollments and Capacities
Permanent
School Name Capacity Total Capacity Enrollment
Halecrest Elementary 599 599 595 (4/14/89)
Hilltop Jr. High* 1,386 1,506 1,378 111/2/88)
Hilltop Sr. High 1,388 1,508 1,478 111/2/88)
The Sweetwater Union High School District uses a generation rate of 0.29
students per single family dwelling unit; the Chula Vista City School District
uses a 0.27 rate. Thus., the Proposed Project would generate an estimated .87
junior and senior high school students, and .81 elementary school students.
As all of the affected schools are presently operating below their total
capacity and, therefore, there is no significant impact. The school districts
accept the payment of developer fees as mitigation for this impact. The
applicant would be responsible payment of standard developer fees ($1.53 per
square foot of habitable living space). The applicant would be required to
pay these fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
*Additional relocatable class rooms are proposed to be located at Hilltop Jr.
High this fall (1989).
-4-
4.0 CERTIFICATION
This EIR Addendum was prepared by the City of Chula Vista and Affinis. We
hereby affirm that, to the best of our knowledge, the statements and
infomation in this analysis are true and correct, and that all known
information concerning the potentially significant environmental effects of
the revised project have been included and fully evaluated.
Michael Busdosh, PhD Dduglas ~.} Reid
Project Manager Environme~ltal Review Coordinator
-5-
5.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
Ken Lee City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
Shirley McBride Chula Vista Elementary School District
Dr. Montgomery Halecrest School
Doug Reid City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
Dennis Wolfe City of Chula Vista, Traffic Engineering Department
Sandy Young Sweetwater Union High School District
WPC 6156P
-6-
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-75-4
(
1-805 & East "J" Street
Rezoning and Lot Split
(Cunradi)
Issued by the
Environmental Review Committee
Oct. 16, 1975
Adopted by
The Chula Vista Planning Commission
Dec. 8, 1975
City of Chula Vista
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
1.1 Purpose & Introduction. . .
1.2 Executive Summary ............ 1
2.0 Project Setting ............
3.0 Project Description .......... 7
4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ......... 12
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ....... 14
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......
· · 14
7.0 The Relationship between local short-term use of
man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity ........ 15
8.0 Any irreversible environmental changes which
would be involved in the proposed action should
it be implemented ...........
9.0 The Growth inducing impact of the proposed action · · 15
lO.O Organizations & Persons Consulted ........
ll.O Input ............
.... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure lA Locator Map ........ 3
Figure lB Aerial Map ............. 4
Figure 2 Noise Impact Contours ....... 5
Figure 3 Topography Map ......
Figure 4 Geological Map ..............
· · l0
Figure 5 Development Plan ..........
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Initial Study IS-75-65
Appendix B Hillside Development Regulations
Appendix C HUD Noise Guidelines Evaluation
Appendix D Soils/GeoloQy Site Inspection & Reconnaissance Report
These Appendices are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Department
EIR-75-4 CUNRADI LOT SPLIT & ASSOCIATED REZONING ACTIONS
1.1 Purpose and Introduction
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to fulfill the
requirements of the Calif. Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in
disclosing all significant environmental impacts of the proposed project
to the decision making authority of the City of Chula Vista and the public.
This EIR is a result of an Initial Study {IS-75-65) which determined that the
proposed project could have a possible significant impact on the environment
because of the following conditions:
1. The close proximity of the site to 1-805 with its unacceptable
noise levels.
2. The high quality stands of native vegetation on the site, and
3. The very rough topography of the site.
4. Proximity to the Sweetwater Earthquake Fault
The environmental impact analysis is therefore limited to these above noted
topics. It was the conclusion of the Initial Study that the project would
clearly have no other possible significant impact on the environment.
(See Appendix A for IS-75-65)
Also as part of this EIR, an analysis of the rezoning from P-C to R-1-H of the
entire 6.28 acre P-C zoned area, north of East J Street and west of 1-805
presented.
1.2 Executive Sun,nary
The proposed division of the subject property would place the project population
in areas of clearly unacceptable noise levels. It would be possible through
alternative development techniques and insulation requirements to shield some
outside areas from acoustical impact and reduce interior noise levels to that
of a livable environment. (See Sec. 4.1)
The southern portion of the site contains a high quality stand of native
Chaparral that will be removed due to the grading necessary to implement the
project and clearing of fire prone materials to insure adequate fire protection.
This clearing will cover 1/4 to 1/2 of the site and will involve some of the
most mature and dense stands of Chaparral. There will be no endemic, rare or
endapgered species destroyed by the project.
The basic topographical integrity of the site will be retained through the
implementation of the project. The development proposal for the 1.62 Cunradi
Parcel utilizes "step down - stilt home" type of development that will insure
little disruption of the site by grading. The imposition of the hillside
development regulations (See Appendix B ) on the western 4.66 acre parcel will
1
insure the retention of land forms through grading restrictions and density
limitations. ~
Because the Sweetwater Fault is located west of the proposed 1.62 Cunradi Lot
Split and due to the general stability of soils on the site, any significant
hazard is precluded.
There will be an overall significant impact on the environment due to ambient
noise levels in the project setting. The adverse effects of human habitation
of this site can be overcome by alternative design techniques which could make
interior and some exterior noise levels acceptable.
NOTE: This analysis on the western 4.66 parcel is limited to rezoning activities
and not precise development plan review.
2.0 Project Setting
2.1 Location
The project site is located on 6.28 acres of moderately modified land at the
northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J St. See the following location map.,
(Fig. 1 )
2.2 Acoustical Setting
The project is located at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and J St. The
freeway is immediately located east and north of the project site with single
family dwellings to the west and south.
1-805 produces noise levels which have been analyzed in accordance with th6 ~
HUD guidelines as follows: (See Appendix C for Calculations).
Auto
Normally unacceptable 200'~
Truck
Clearly unacceptable 45'+
Normally unacceptable 400'~
These noise levels are based on a Cal Trans estimation of an ADT of 51,800, one
year after the freeway opening. (See attached Fig. 2, for noise impact contours.)
Because the site has full line of sight exposure to the freeway, no adjustments
to the noise level contours was made for barriers or topographical differences.
2.3 Biology
Vegetation in this area is typical of many large open areas around the eastern
portion of Chula Vista. Generally the vegetation is comprised of coastal sage
scrub with various grasses and introduced weeds and ornamentals. The native
plant community is dominated by Rhus inteorifolia with a number of large
Heteromeles arbutifolia. The introduced species include one large Myoporum
laetum, Carpobrotus edule, and Yucca aloifolia 'varie~ata' There are two kinds
2
'ION
COOK
1' page 3
". A. Clearly Unacceptable
~ ..~ Truck Noise
B. Normally Unacceptable
Auto Noise
m i C. Normally Unacceptable
Truck Noise
of Opuntia on the property; the Prickly-pear, Opuntia fiscus - indica, which is
fairly common, and; the native Opuntia parrsi var. serpentina or Snake Cholla,
which is on the rare and endangered species list. Another native plant of note
is the Simmondsia chinensis which is known for its edible nuts (from the female
plant) that are also valuable for the oil they contain.
It should be noted that a portion of the property has been burned,
but, as it is their nature to do, many of the shrubs are
returning from the base. The narrow channel running through the center of the
property creates an inviting microclimate for most plants, although the runoff
water is highly polluted. This collection area is also the site of the single
Msoporun and the Chaparral Broom, Baccharis Sarothroides.
Plants identified:
Natives
Artemisia californica - Sage brush
£riogonum fasciculatum - Flat-top Buckwheat
Encelia californica - Encelia
Simmondsia chinensi$ - Simmondsia
Opuntia ficus-indica - Prickly Pear
Opuntia parryi var. serpentina - Snake Cholla
Isomeris arborea - Bladder Pod
Heteromeles arbutifolia - Toyon
Rhu$ integrifolia - Lemonade Berry
Baccharis sarrothroides - Chaparral Broom
Ornamentals
Myoporum laetum - Myoporum
Yucca aloifolia variegata - Spanish Bayonet
Carpobrotus edule - Hottentot Fig
Wildlife diversity on the site is greatly reduced because of the disruptions
caused by the adjacent residential uses, East J St. and 1-805. The following
mammals have been identified from areas near the site with similar vegetation
and are likely to be found on the site:
Dipodomys agilis Agile Kangaroo Rat
Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk
Microtus californicus California Vole
Neotoma fuscipes Dusky-footed Woodrat
Perognathus fallax San Diego Pocket Mouse
P. eremicus Cactus Mouse
P. maniculatus White-footed Mouse
Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
Sylviligus sp. Cottontail Rabbit
Thomomys bottae Valley Pocket Gopher
The following reptiles are likely to be found on the project site.
Cneunidophoris hyperythrus Orange-throated Whiptail
Crotalus viridis Western Diamondback ~--
Eumeces skiltonianus Western Skink
6
Gerrhonotus multicarinata Alligator Lizard
Lampropeltis getulus Common Kingsnake
Masticophis lateralis Striped Racer
Phrynosoma coronatus Coast Horned Lizard
Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher Snake
Rhinocheilus lecontei Long-Nosed Snake
Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard
The following species of birds have been identified near the subject property
in acres of similar natural vegetation.
American Kestrel House Finch
Anna's Hummingbird Killdeer
Barn Owl Lesser Goldfinch
Black-chinned Sparrow Mountain Bluebird
Brown Towhee MOurning Dove
Burrowing Owl Red-tailed Hawk
California Quail
Roadrunner
California Thrasher White-crowned Sparrow
Common Flicker White-tailed Kite
Golden Eagle Wrentit
Yellow-rumped Warbler
In addition, the site may be hunting territory for the Cooper's Hawk and the
Red-shouldered Hawk which are suffering population declines and are designated
as Blue List species.
2.4 Topography
The site has a very rough natural topography with an average natural slope of
20.5% for the easterly parcel and 33.2% for the westerly parcel. (See Fig. 3)
2.5 Soils & Geology
A preliminary soils/geologic site inspection and reconnaissance of the 1.62
eastern parcel has been conducted. Ground surface elevations on the property
vary from a low of approximately 160 feet in the canyon bottom along the
freeway boundary of the site to a high along the southerly property line adjacent
to J Street of approximately 250 feet. The site is situated on the westerly
side slope of a small tributary canyon and includes a portion of the small
ridge and northward draining draw to the west. The slopes on the property
are moderate to steep.
The reconnaissance of the property as well as a review of existing geologic
maps, literature and photos indicates that there are two distinct geologic
and/or soil units present on the property. These are, from youngest to oldest,
alluvium and the San Diego Formation. The latter being the bedrock of the
general area. A brief description of each of the units is given below:
Alluvium: The alluvium is mainly confined to the canyon bottom and locally
extends up the small draws on the site. The materials consist for the most
part of clayey sands. Although the actual depth of the alluvium is not known,
typically the materials are compressible and have thicknesses on the order of
2 to 4 feet.
San Diego Formation: The San Diego Formation of Pliocene age is the dominant
geologic unit on the property. Within the general site area, the unit consists
of what appears to be nearly horizontal stratified series of silty sands and
relatively clean sands. Characteristically, this formation has proven to be
a competent foundation material and stability wise, stands well in high cuts;
however, slopes are subject to extensive rilling and/or gullying.
In regards to faults in the area, the review of the existing geologic literature
as well as the field reconnaissance indicates that the potentially active
Sweetwater Fault appears to lie in close proximity to the site. Current
mapping being done by others in the general area seems to indicate that the
north trending Sweetwater Fault parallels the western boundary of the subject
property to the west. (See Fig. 4) The width of the fault zone is not known
but is estimated to be approximately 100 feet or more. The reconnaissance
disclosed nothingto suggest the fault traverses the property.
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Cunradi Lot Split
The applicant proposes to divide this property into three lots for single ~
family dwellings. Access would be via a drive encroaching in the city right-
of-way between the subject property and East J St. and connecting to the East J
St. travel lanes at the western portion of the property. Grading would be kept
to a minimum through the use of "stilt" type construction. Fill would be placed
to support driveways and garages. Fire retaKdent plantings will be required
within 50' of the dwelling units. (See Fig. 4 for an illustration of the
development plan}
In accordance with the existing Planned Community (PC) zoning of the site, the
applicant would have to obtain a Planned Development Permit to develop the property.
If the rezoning proposed in the following section of this EIR is adopted, a
Planned Development Permit would not have to be obtained.
3.2 Rezonin9
The Chula Vista Planning Dept. is initiating a rezoning of the property from the
P-C zone to R-1-H (Single family residential subject to the hillside development
regulations). Development would be allowed subject to the following regulations:
8
t~ ' '/~" ~ Sweetwater Community Planning
..... · :: ,'~; Program - Geological Map
Westerly Parcel Easterly Parcel {~
Size 4.66 AC 1.62 AC
Average Natural Slope 33.2% 20.5%
No. of DU's 2 units 4 units
Max. % of lot graded 10% 55%
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
4.1 Noise
4.1.1 Impact
The subject property is subject to an unacceptable noise impact due to
both auto and truck noise from 1-805.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Alternative site plan techniques could be utilized to place structures
between some areas of usable open space and the freeway, thus functioning
as an acoustical barriPr. Outdoor areas with acceptable noise levels can
thePefore be provided by this project
The interior noise levels can be reduced to acceptable levels through
acoustical insulation techniques. Examples of these techniques are as
follows:
A forced air circulation system in order that all windows can be kept k,_
closed.
Three inch fibrous thermal insulation.
Solid core exterior doors
Double glazed window glass set in an elastomer gasket.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only provides examples of
acoustical impact reduction techniques that could be utilized to provide
a suitable interior living environment.
4.1.3 Analysis
Unless adequate acoustical barriers and insulation techniques are
incorporated into the project, there will be a significant impact on the
environment by placing increased population densities in an area of
unacceptable noise levels.
4.2 Biology
4.2.1 Impact
The project will remove about 50,000 sq. ft. of coastal sage scrub
vegetation. The rare and endangered Opuntia parryi var. serpentina - ~-'
(Snake Cholla) is located near the northwestern portion of the property
and is not likely to be directly effected by the project. The increase
in population in this area is likely to have an indirect impact due to
12
a more frequent human use of the property.
4.2.2 Analysis
Due to the very minimal disturbance of any rare or endangered species,
there will be an overall insignificant impact on biological forms.
4.3 Topography
4.3.1 ,Impact
The development proposal for the easterly parcel minimizes the area of
grading to that immediately adjacent to East J St. Only about 320 cu.
yards will be moved; 300 cu. yards of import and 20 cu. yards of excavation
will be required.
The grading restrictions which are proposed to be imposed on the westerly
parcel will limit the area which can be graded to 10% of the site (.466
acres). This limitation will insure that there will be no substantial
alteration of the natural land form.
4.3.2 Analysis
There will be no significant change in land form due to the minimal
amount of grading as proposed in the applicant's plan. However, the
proposed access is unacceptable to the traffic engineer and access
alternatives may necessitate substantial grading.
4.4 S~oils & Geology
4.4.1 ~mpact
Due to the apparent location of the Sweetwater Fault to the west of the
project and the general stability of the soils, limit the potential for
any significant impact.
4.4.2 Mitigation
A detailed soil investigation with a geologic study is recommended to
locate or define the limits of subsurface soil formation, potentially
compressible soils and possible limits of any faults. Such an investi-
gation would cover those items together with determining the following:
a. The characteristics of proposed fill material
b. The embankment shrinkage factor, '
c. The presence and effect of any expansive soils,
d. The most suitable type and depth of foundation,
e. Allowable soil bearing pressures,
f. Design pressures for retaining walls,
g. Pavement requirements, and
h. Any construction problems that can be anticipated.
4.4.3 Analysis
There will be no significant impact due to existing geologic or soil
conditions.
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
5.1 The project, ,I be subjected to unacceptable .,~ise levels.
5.2 The project will remove an insignificant amount of coastal scrub.
5.3 The project will make an insignificant alteration of land form.
5.4 There will be a reduction of natural open space by approximately 50,000
sq. ft.
5.5 There will be an increase in traffic by up to 60 daily trips.
5.6 There will be an insignificant increase in runoff.
5.7 There will be a snort tem increase in noise and dust during construction
activities.
5.8 There will be a higher level of carbon monoxide (CO) near the freeway,
however, there will be no violation of any CO health standards.
5.9 There will be an incremental increase in air pollutants.
5.10 There will be a nominal increase in the demand for public services.
5.11 There will be an insignificant increase in resource consumption due to the
construction and operation of this facility. Some of these resources are
non renewable.
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
6.1 Alternative Design
If an alternative access route is found to be necessary as a result
of the traffic engineers recommendations, then lot design configuration
will need to be environmentally rereviewed.
6.2 No Pro~ect
Implementation of the no project option would preclude the placement of additional
people in this area of unacceptable noise level. This option would require the
purchase of development rights or fee ownership by a public agency.
6.3 Development as a Park
The property could be purchased by the City of Chula Vista for park purposes.
The current population within the park service district as delineated in the
Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan requires 9.4 acres of park land
for an adequate level of service. There is currently no parks in the service
district. The topography of the site and its full exposure to the freeway, do
not enhance the potential of this property for park purposes.
6.4 Standard Single family Development
Development of the site under standard R-1 single family regulations would result
in 15-20 dwelling units and the importation of a very large volume of earth would
be required to create individual home sites. This development scheme would result
in a more adverse impact on the environment.
~.~ Alternative Analysis
It is apparent from ~ '-'
s analysis that the private p) :ct which would be least
environmentally disruptive would be a low density development designed in
accordance with hillside development regulations, incorporating some area of
acoustically protected exterior usable open space and adequate interior acoustical
protection from freeway noise.
7.0 The Relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
On a long term basis, as State and Federal regulations lower the noise levels
emitted by autos and trucks, the noise impact may be lowered. However, as the
volume of traffic increases on 1-805 the acoustical emission factor is likely to
be off set by increasing traffic volumes. Much of the natural vegetation on the
site will be retained through the implementation of the project. Among these
species is the Snake Cholla which is a rare and endangered species.
The owner of the eastern parcel desires to proceed now with development of the
project which he has purchased from the Calif. Dept. of Transportation for this
purpose. The City of Chula Vista wishes to proceed with the rezoning of the
property from PC to R-1-H to insure that development of the site will respect the
natural form and features of the site.
8.0 Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.
The project will result in the consumption of materials, energy and labor. Some
of these resources are non-renewable. This development will commit the site to
the proposed use on a long term basis, there is little likelyhood that the use will
be removed and the commitment of resources make non-use unlikely. The proposed
development and its commitment of resources will provide housing opportunities
for upper middle income families.
9.0 The growth inducing impact of the proposed action.
The project will have no growth inducing impacts. The entire area of the project
is developed with stable residential dwellings and a freeway. There is little
prospect that any of these parcels will be redeveloped to a different use.
The project does not involve any facilities that could be used to stimulate
growth in near by areas. The project will not increase the demand on service
requirements of the urban infrastructure to a level that will result in secondary
projects necessary to serve the project.
However, the construction of the proposed drive in the City's right-of
way for East "J" Street would preclude the use of this land for any future
widening of the street.
lO.O Organizations & Persons consulted
Current Planning Division, Planning Dept.
Ken Lee, Current Planning Supervisor
Lu Quinney, Associate Planner
Tom Davis, Landscape Planner
Environmental Review Section, Planning Dept.
Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Larry Yamagata, Associate Planner
California Dept. of Transportation
Division of Engineering, Dept. of Public Works
Fire Dept.
Eugene Dean, Fire Marshal
George W. Cunradi
Thomas S.W. Wong
Inter-City Soils, Inc.
Richard K. Smith, Vice Pres/General Mgr.
Norris E. Luedtke, REC 11063
16
ll.O INPUT
'~TACI~gNT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CO,~4[SSION SPECIALMEETING MINUTES OF 10/10/75
(ATTAC~I£NT I - EIR-75-4)
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Environmental Control Commission
SUBJECT: EIR-75-4
While the Environmental Control Commission would prefer to see the land
involved in EIR-75-4 remain as undisturbed open space, and as a buffer
zone between 1-805 and residential areas immediately adjacent, we realize
that this may not be economically feasible. We, therefore, would go along
with a proposal which would retain as much of the physical integrity of
=he site as possible.
The rezoning of the 6.28 acres from P.C. (Planned Community) to R-1-H
(Single Family Dwelling subject to Hillside Regulations, and the "discussed
lot split") seem to serve this purpose reasonably well.
Regardless of how attractive architecturally and in terms of surrounding
landscaping, it must be noted that the three residential units still
represent physical intrusion on previously open space dominated by mature
coastal sage scrub and providing habitat for a variety of wildlife. We
feel that this point should be emphasized. Likewise, we echo the EIR
finding in terms of noise level impact for this site. The fewer people
it is necessary to expose to this problem, the better environmentally.
If this proposal can best accomplish these two goals, i.e., keeping the
physical intrusion at a small a scale as possible, and limiting density
to the lowest possible figure due to noise levels, that the ECC supports
it.
Respectfully submitted, R ~c C E I ~/.c O
NOV 2
ontrol Commission
.... ~ .... '?NIA
STATE OF CALIfORNIA--BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Gove,'nor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
DISTRICT 11, P.O. ~OX 81406, SA, DIEGO 92138
November 6, 1975
11-SD-805
Various
11212-600199
Mr. Douglas Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EIR-75-~, concerning
a proposed development northwest of "J" Street and 1-805.
We concur most strongly that traffic noise will severely impact
any residences on this property, and that stringent mitigation
measures be a condition of approval of any subdivision plan for
this property.
Sincerely,
J.acob Dg~ema ~
D~stri;%) Director of/Transportation
By '
D. L. Dickson
District Project Development Engineer
DLD: rs
RECEIVED
~UV 10 19'/5
18
?L ,d qlt.,~_, DEPAR'(f'¢iEItT
.,,.,_..,r.n,,I ,, V~S[.% CALIFOR["J
Appendix
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~[NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEM'~NT OF DISCLOSURE OF'"'~C
:nmos. vw~mlv ZNIERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
~WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL
iCOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. , PLANNING
The following information must be disclosed:
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
_ ~-eo~O-~ ~. ~ ~.
-'~'~ ~ ~, C,
L~s~ ~he n~es of ~11 persons h~vSng ~n~ o~ne~sh~p ~nte~es~ ~n the p~ope~ Snvolve~,
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.
. Geor/.-~ ~_~. ~,u~ot "
3. If any person identified pursuant to il) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organizati~as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
'
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Bo~ Comissions, Comittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes.. If yes, please indicate person(s)
~O~ion. or a~th~r .~n -~,:Y, olstrlct or other
(~: Attach additional pages as ne~ssa~.)~~ ~~
S~gnature of a~an~/date
WPC O701P
Print or type name of applicant ~:~.~ .~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: P-87-9; Request to modify Sunbow Precise Plan to
increase allowable floor area from 2,550 sq. ft. o,
45% to 55% on 12 lots within Chula Vista Tract 87-8,
Unit No. 3 - The Fieldstone Company
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a request to modify the Sunbow Precise Plan, P-87-9, in order
to increase the maximum allowable floor area from 2,550 sq. ft. or 45% of
the lot area (whichever is greater) to 55% of the lot area for 12 lots
within Chula Vista Tract 87-8, Unit No. 3, located at the southwest
quadrant of East Naples Street and Medical Center Drive in the P-C Planned
Community zone.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the following
amendment ~o the Sunbow Precise Plan, P-87-9, for Planning Area 3:
Maximum Building Area: 2,550 square feet or 45% of the lot
area, whichever is greater; except that lots 22 (50%), 23
(50%), 43 (51%), 44 (52%), 49 (49%) and 53 {49%) shall be
permitted the maximum building area as noted.
C. DISCUSSION
Chula Vista Tract 87-8, Unit No. 3, is a 54-1ot single family subdivision
within the lO0-acre Sunbow (Rancho del Sur) project currently under
development on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road at Medical Center
Drive. The lots in Unit 3 range from 4,589 sq. ft. to 11,867 sq. ft.,
with an average lot size of 6,540 sq. ft. The development standards for
Unit 3 call for a maximum floor area of 2,550 sq. ft. or 45% of the lot
area, whichever is greater.
At the time the tentative map and precise plan for Sunbow was approved in
1987, residents from the adjoining Foxhill project successfully argued
that the 19 lots abutting their single-story homes should also be limited
to single-story dwellings, and the precise plan was conditioned
accordingly. All of the affected 19 lots are within Unit 3, which is
being developed by the Fieldstone Company.
Fieldstone argues that the single-story restriction on 35% of the
project's lots represents a hardship in establishing a reasonable mix of
single- and two-story floor plans. As a result, they have requested an
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 2
amendment to the development standards which would allow up to 55% floor
areas in order to accommodate two-story dwellings on 12 alternate lots --
which vary in size from 5,024 sq. ft. 5,774 sq. ft., and which would
result in floor areas ranging from 45% to 51% using the 2,550 sq. ft.
building maximum. (Note: The 19 lots adjacent to Foxhill would not be
effected by the amendment -- they will each contain a 2,183 sq. ft.
single-story dwelling with floor areas ranging from 18% to 48% depending
on lot size).
The City's basic 45% F.A.R. was adopted to address in-fill situations and
dwelling additions in established single family areas in order to ensure
the retention of homes with compatible building bulk. It does not apply
to planned community areas such as Sunbow, which are planned and developed
as a unit, and which are subject to site plan and architectural review as
part of the permit process. In these cases, the development standards are
based on factors unique to the project, and are adopted as part of the
entire development package.
D. ANALYSIS
Staff agrees that the single-story restriction on 35% of the lots
represents an extraordinary and limiting measure in that several of the
affected lots are large enough to have accommodated larger units under the
development standards if it were not for this restriction. An evaluation
of the 19 restricted lots, however, indicates that only eight are of
sufficient size to have accommodated one of Fieldstone's two 2-story plans
(Model 2 ~ 2,715 sq. ft., and Model 3 @ 2,963 sq. ft.), whereas the
remaining ll lots are only large enough to accommodate the single-story
plan (Model 1 @ 2,183 sq. ft.) even without the restriction.
As a result, we believe the hardship is limited to 8 lots rather than 12
lots as requested. Also, Fieldstone proposes single-story units on two
lots which are large enough under the existing standards to accommodate
either of the two-story plans (Lots 1 & 3). If the hardship is overall
unit mix, as stated, then these lots could be planned for two-story units;
leaving six lots as the subject of the amendment.
Finally, it is staff's conclusion that the six lots should be those that
result in the least increase in floor area percentage (the unit mix for
the 12-lot proposal results in floor areas ranging from 49-55%). This
would limit the modification to Lots 22, 23, 43, 44, 49 and 53, with
ratios which range from 49-52%. Also, the amendment should be worded as a
lot-by-lot as-built maximum rather than as an upper limit of 55% for all
the lots.
WPC 61 69P
%
R-I-P-5.5 \
CV
% HILL
C'O'P
:'; :-,. ,
R-S-4
(COUNTY)
, ~. : ~.
VAC, ~'
March 14, 1989 File (3)
JN 4760-084
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Mr. Ken Lee, Principal Planner
Re: Justification for Modification to
Precise Plan 87-9
Dear Ken,
Our submittal for an amendment to the above referenced
Precise Plan is based upon the following factors:
o Requirements of the Plan call for single story
homes on the lots adjacent to Foxhills. This
totals 19 homes and creates a significant
hardship for the developer in establishing a
reasonable mix of dwellings. The single story
requirement represents 35% or over a third of
the total number of homes in Area 3.
o The requirements for single story homes along
Foxhills came late in the approval process for
the Precise Plan and as such, the consequences
of this action, on the entire Area 3
development mix were not thoroughly analyzed.
o A 55% building area coverage is requested and,
to our knowledge has been granted previously
and furthermore is requested for selected lots
within Area 3.
o 55% building area coverage still permits more
than reasonable yards without sacrificing good
design or adding to the appearance of
excessive "bulk" on the individual lots.
LOS A N G E L E S · I R V I N E · C A R L S B A D · SAN DIEGO
Mr. Ken Lee
City Of Chuls Vista
March 14, 1989
Page 2
We hope that these justifications will prove helpful in your
recommendations and deliberations in our request.
V~y truly yours,
~ ~ n~V N PI~A :~0
cc: John Barone, The Fieldstone Company
REQUESTED AMENDMENT FOR
LOTS 5,16,20,22 23,43 44,49-53
FOR 55~g BUILDING AREA COVERAGE
ADDRESS
LOT NO. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
6 640-250-06 1201 Halley Court
15 640-250-15 1215 Sundrop Court
20 640-250-20 1214 Sundrop Court
22 640-250-22 1221 Equinox Way
23 640-250-23 1225 Equinox Way
43 640-272-38 628 Diamond Drive
44 640-272-39 624 Diamond Drive
49 640-272-44 609 Diamond Drive
50 640-272-45 613 Diamond Drive
51 640-272-46 617 Diamond Drive
52 640-272-47 621 Diamond Drive
53 640-272-48 625 Diamond Drive
EXHIBIT 2
LOT 1 5
~ LLEY Cr .~
, ,, '~.~.1, ~,
' 3 -~ ~'~
~.~' /~ ~"~ /2
INDROP CT. ~
~ St/N~ OP G T.
EXHIBIT 4
LOTS 43,44
EXHIBIT 5
LOTS 49-53
ELEVATIONS PLAN
BULTHUI$
8-Mar-89
RANCHO DEL SUR SHEET 1 OF 2
CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-8 W.O.88-003-3
NO. 3
CRAIG, BULTHUIS & STELMAR
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LANO PLANNERS & SURVEYORS
2611 ADAMS AVENUE - PHONE (619)297-3974
LOT COVERAGE CHART
MODEL 1 st FLOOR 2nd FLOOR ~ TOTAL FLOOR
TYPE AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA
SQ, FT. SQ, FT, SQ. FT. SQ, FT, SQ, FT,
1 1~780 403 21183 21183
2 11066 11035 614 2~715 11680
3 1~300 1~072 591 : 2~963 11891
LOT MODEL LOT AREA FLOOR ARE/~ LOT COVF. RAO~'
NUMBER TYPE SQ. FT. RATIO - % %
1 1R 7~340 30 30
2 3 7~038 42 27
3 1 7~059 31 31
4 2 61218 44 27
5 3R 7~049 42 27
6 ? 3R 5~602 53 34
7 3 7~572 39 25
8 3R 7~595 39 25
9 3 7~845 38 24
10 3R 7~760 38 24
11 3 8~855 33 21
12 2R 6~001 45 28
13 3 6~640 45 28
14 2R 6~623 41 25
15 -? 3 5~340 55 35
?
16 3 9~033 33 21
17 3 8~413 35 22
18 2R 7~489 36 22
19 3 8~468 35 22
20 '-*~ 2R 51024 54 33
21 ' 2 6~229 43 27
22 3R 5~774 51 33
23 2 5~447 50 31
24 3R 9~920 30 19
25 3 7~107 42 27.
26 1R 6~2. 61 35 35
27 1 5~273 41 41
28 1R 5~132 43 43
29 1 5~932 37 37
30 I 4~820 45 45
See page for signature, date and stamp.
dULTHUI$ 8~ STELMT,.EL No 2~'7 '~=,~R -"-'
· : -,-~,- n.18,89 13:45 P.03
RANCHO DEL SUR 8-Mar-89
CHULA VISTA TRACT 87.8 SHEET2OF2
UNIT NO.3 W.O.88-003-3
CRAIG, BULTHUIS & STELMAR
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND PLANNERS & SURVEYORS
2611 ADAMS AVENUE - PHONE (619)297-3974
LOT COVERAGE CHART
LOT MODEL LOT F1.OOR AREA LOT OOVEP, AGI~
NUMBER TYPE AREA RATIO. % %
31 1 4~678 47 47
32 1R 41589 48 48
33 I 4~628 47 47
34 1R 4~802 45 45
35 1 5~049 43 43
36 1R 5~299 41 41
37 1 5~675 38 38
38 1R 71392 30 30
39 1 , 6~407 34 34
40 1 81701 25 25
41 1R 8~562 25 25
42 2R 6~262 43 27
43 3 5~761 51 33
44 2R 51210 52 32
45 1 61 t5,6 35 , 35
46 1 7~453 29 29
47 1R 11~867 18 1,8
48 3 7~279 41 26
49 2R 5~589 49 ,30
50 2 5~053 54 33
51 2R 5~100 53 33
52 2 5~100 63 33
53 2R 5~517 49 30
54 2 6r146 44 27
/ CITY OF CHVLA VISTA
DISCLOSUR£ STAT': I'~. NT
W~I~M WILL ~EQU~ D~SCR~T]ON~RY ACI'~ON ON TH~ PA~T OF TN~ CITY COUNC1L, PLANN]~
OMMISSION AND ACk OTHER O~FICIAL BODIES.
"'~, L~ ~he names of ~]i per,on5 h~v~ng a f~n~ncJ~ ~ntere~t in the
~. ~ any per,On Ident~f~e~ pursuant to (1) ~bov~ ~s ~ co~porat~on or ~r~nershtp,
the n~mE~ ot ~11 individuals owning mo~ %ban I0~ of the shares t~.the corporation
~ own(m~ any p~rtner~hlp interest tn the partnership.
m
3. I~ any person ~dentifted pursuant to (l) above I~ a non-profit o)~gan~z~t~on o~.~
trust, I($~ th~ nmmem of mny per)on se~v~n~ a~ dlre:tor of the non-pror~:
organization or ~$ trustee or benmF)cimry or trustor of the trust.
,,m
~. Hmve you had mora than $2~0 wowth of business t~an~acted with anY)member of C~ty
~t~¢f, Board)~ Co~t~$1on~, 6o~(ttee~ mhd Council within the p8~(. twelve months?
P~rson i~ defined as: "Any tnd(vtSual~ firm, copmrtner~htp, Joint venture,
~T club, fraternal oroani~at(on, corporation, estate, trust~ Pecegver~
th() and amy other co~nt~, city mhd county, City, municipality, di~trlct or other
pollt(ca) subd~v($4on, or ~ny other ~g.oup or combination ~cting as a unt~," . ..~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-27; request to increase F.A.R. from
45% to 55% and to decrease rear yard setback from 2u
ft. to 15. ft. at 740 Baylor Avenue - Joseph Propati
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item is a request to increase the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) from
45% to 55%, and to decrease the rear yard setback from 20 ft. to 15
ft., in order to construct two 2-story additions to the single family
dwelling at 740 Baylor Avenue in the P-C zone.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a)
exemption.
B. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North - P-C - Single family
South - R-1 - Single family
East - P-C - Single family
West - R-1 - High school
Existing site characteristics.
The lot in question contains 5,880 sq. ft. of land area and a two-story
dwelling with 2,652 sq. ft. of floor area -- resulting in an existing
F.A.R. of 45%. The property is subject to the requirements of the R-1
zone as specified in the development standards for Bonita Long Canyon
Estates, of which this lot is a part. The R-1 zone calls for a maximum
F.A.R. of 45%.
Proposed request.
The proposal is to construct two 2-story additions -- one to the rear and
one to the side of the existing dwelling. At the first level, the
additions would expand a dining room and recreation room. At the second
level, they would expand a bedroom, and add a den and two decks. The
total expansion would add 575 sq. ft., and increase the F.A.R. to 55%.
Also, the rear addition would extend 5 ft. into the rear yard setback area
at the second level.
D. ANALYSIS
The City has used a floor area ratio since 1986. The F.A.R. is designed
to limit a dwelling to a reasonable bulk and scale relative to
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 2
the size of the lot. In the present case, the F.A.R. sets an ultimate
limit to the amount of square footage of floor area which may be
constructed to 45% of the size of the lot. This standard, along with
height and setback restrictions, is designed to allow ample interior
residential living space, while at the same time limiting the size and
location of structures consistent with the light, air, privacy, and open
space standards and aesthetic values which have come to be expected in
typical single-family residential living environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The
granting of a variance is...to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of
property having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location,
design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or
surrounding properties and developments. The purpose of the variance is
to bring a particular parcel up to parity with other property in the same
zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not
to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other
properties in the same zone and vicinity..." Since the floor area limit
imposed by the F.A.R. is solely based on the square footage of a
particular lot, the only apparent "unique characteristic" or "hardship"
which would justify a variance would be a substandard sized lot in
comparison to other lots in the same zone and vicinity.
In this instance, the development of which this lot is a part contains a
variety of lot sizes which range from less than 6,000 sq. ft. to well over
9,000 sq. ft. The subject lot is smaller than most, but shares this
distinction with seven other immediately adjacent lots, which range from
5,870 sq. ft. to 6,100 sq. ft. Also, the 45% F.A.R. allows for a total
floor area of 2,652 sq. ft., which would appear to provide for the
reasonable use of a lot of this size. Finally, with these factors in
mind, the very purpose in using a "ratio" is to relate the bulk of
structures to variations in lot size.
The companion request to reduce the rear yard setback is also not
supported by a hardship in our opinion. The lot is not narrow nor
constricted by topography -- either of which could be found to support a
rear yard incursion. The R-1 standards allow for a 10 ft. reduction for
single-story additions subject to the F.A.R. and certain rear yard
coverage limitations. However, there is no such provision for
second-story additions.
For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request.
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
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 3
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 not inordinately small in relation to other lots in
the same zone or immediate vicinity, nor is it narrow or constrained
''s
by slopes. The restriction allow for 2,652 sq. ft. of floor area,
which is consistent with other single family dwellings throughout the
City.
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 F.A.R. and rear yard standards are designed to relate the floor
area and bulk of a dwelling to the size of the lot, and to provide
for adequate open space, separation and privacy from other
dwellings. All of the lots within the vicinity share these standards
and rights based on the size of the lot they chose to purchase.
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 granting of the variance would result in greater relative bulk
and less open space on this lot than surrounding lots. It would also
decrease the light, air and privacy for adjoining properties.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The granting of the variance is not consistent with City policies for
single family areas for light, air, privacy and open space.
WPC 6172P/O426P
·
REDLANDS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of' any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards,~Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No-v/If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc--6-~T~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)_ £~-~ (
S{_~atu~e of appl(icant/date
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-19; Appeal of Zonin~ Administrator decision
addition which does noL
denying proposed two-story
meet R-1 requirements for attaching at least §0% oF
~he commons wall to the main building - Mrs. Dorothy
Dowdle - 730 Second Avenue
A. BACKGROUND
1. Earlier this year, Mrs. Dorothy Dowdle of 730 Second Avenue submitted
an application for a building permit for a two-story room addition to
her home at 730 Second Avenue.
2. On February 27, 1989, she was advised by the Planning Department that
in accordance with the regulations in the R-1 zone (Section
19.24.020(c), she would need to attach the proposed addition to the
main building by at least 50% of the common wall area.
3. On February 28, 1989, Mrs. Dowdle met with the Zoning Administrator
to discuss the same.
At that meeting and in a letter to the applicant dated February 28,
1989, the Zoning Administrator indicated that Mrs. Dowdle's request
had been denied.
4. On March 13, 1989, Stephen H. Kirby (representing Mrs Dowdle) filed
a letter and application for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision (letter attached).
5. The project is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis contained in Section D of this report, adopt a
motion to deny PCM-89-19.
C. DISCUSSION
The site presently contains a 2,199 square foot Spanish Colonial home
which fronts on Second Avenue. The 13,278 square foot lot in and R-1
zoned area is located on the west side of Second Avenue, between J and K
Street.
Mrs. Dowdle proposes to add a 650 sq. ft. two-story addition on the north
side of her lot; attached to the existing dwelling by a 4 ft. wide
hallway. The proposed addition consists of a master bedroom and bathroom.
At issue is the application of Municipal Code Section 19.24.020(c) which
requires that all portions of a dwelling used for living or sleeping
purposes shall be attached by common walls.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
1. Integrity of Existing Structure
In contractor Stephen Kirby's letter, he states that because the home
at 730 Second Avenue is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory
for the City of Chula Vista and because he wishes to preserve the
integrity of the existing structure, he is opposing the attachment
requirement. His contention is that, by waiving the attachment
requirement, the architectural integrity of the structure will be
preserved.
The home has been listed on the Chula Vista Historic Resources
Inventory because of its Spanish Colonial architecture. It features
a cross gable red tile roof, square wood frame, recessed casement
windows and a heavy front door with large strap hinges.
The addition on the other hand has Spanish-ecletic windows which are
not recessed. The addition of a two-story structure is not
consistent with the existing architecture and design.
It does not appear, in fact, that the proposed addition maintains the
integrity of the existing dwelling.
2. Intent of Section 19.24.020(c) Requirement that all Living Quarters
be Attached
Stephen Kirby's letter further states, "We were aware of the
requirements for common walls when we initially prepared the plans
and felt that we complied with the section in question. He further
states that the heavy landscaping of the site will "mitigate" the
"separate structure intent" of the section.
Section 19.24.020(c) was adopted in 1986, in order to address a
continuous problem with the conversion of detached or semi-detached
living quarters for use as a separate dwelling unit, either with or
without the addition of a "boot-legged" kitchen.
The proposed 4-foot hallway between the main building and the
proposed addition does not provide an adequate attachment and, in
effect, an adequate discouragement to the potential use of the
addition as "separate quarters." The proposed addition does have
outside access or, in effect, a separate entrance. Heavy landscaping
does not address the problem. The 50% common wall requirement does
address the "separate quarter" problem.
WPC 6175P
To: City of Chula vista Planning Commission
We would like to request relief from the Zoning
Administration's interpretation of Section 19.24.020 (C) as
outlined in the attached City of Chula Vista letter dated February
27, 1989. We have had meetings with Ken Lee and- George Krempl
regarding this matter, and it was at their suggestion that we now
present this unique situation to the full Planning Commission.
At the onset, we want the Commission to understand that we
are fully aware of the spirit and intent behind the reasoning that
went into the formulation of this Section of the Zoning Ordinance,
and we fully concur with that reasoning. We feel that we have a
mitigating circumstance which makes our situation unique. The
structure in question, at 730 Second Avenue, is listed on the
Historic Resources Inventory for the City of Chula Vista. The
house was constructed in 1929 and is indeed one of the lovliest
residences in the City. Please see attached letter from the City
of Chula Vista.
The current owner, Mrs. Dorothy Dowdle, is very
interested in preserving the integrity of the existing structure
and therefore is opposed to the stringent attachment requirement of
the Zoning Administration. We were aware of the requirement for
common walls when we initially prepared the plans and felt that we
complied with the Section in question, and we do comply with
the literal interpretation of the wording of the Section.
Thus, when the Zoning Administration alerted us to their
interpretation of the Section, we were floored.
We have enclosed slides of the property which show that the
area for the addition is heavily landscaped and screened quite well
from the street, which we feel would mitigate the 'seperate
structure' intent of the Section. Planning staff should feel free
to include these slides in their presentation to the Commission.
Mrs Dowdle has been a longstanding member of the Chula
Vista community, having been raised here and having owned this
residence since 1959, and as you can see from the design of the
addition, is in no way interested in producing a 'Guest
Quarter's/Rental Unit' on her property. She is much more interested
in preserving the ambiance of the property and as we have said
before, in maintaining the integrity of the structure, so much so
that she has expressed an interest in not proceeding with the
addition if the Planning Commission will not grant relief from the
interpretation of the Section as requested.
Again, we state that we believe that the Historic Status of
the existing Structure is a compelling reason to grant the relief
that we have requested, and that we feel that our request is a
minor deviation from the spirit and intent of the Section and would
not serve as a precedent for others to request deviations of a
larger nature from the spirit and intent of the Section.
Thank You for your consideration of this matter.
~te~nen hh~. 'Kirby for
Mrs Dorothy Dowdle
=R'OJEC't'
WICE
AN-UP
)R
~ iNSTAt-L
CTOR
' CONTRACTOP
~y CONTRACT~
LEGAE DESCRIPTJCN
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
FRONT
:~-' "'"'" ' Ar;[} ~IMENSIOt,t$
CoNTr~AcTOR ~'O ¥~RtI:Y ALL ~, '~ NS
SiTE j,,,,O;, t'~
I
~ ow~- ,. STR~
~ v, ~ ~ -- ~, ~1. EXtST'G
= STRAP ~ ..
( ~ EXIST'G
I
I~L~''
SECOND~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-31; request to allow for a 6-foot high
wall to be located in the front setback area at 9 L
Street - W. H. Barton
A. BACKGROUND
1. On July 6, 1988, Walter H. Barton, owner and resident of 9 L Street,
wrote to City Council requesting an amendment to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code to allow 6-foot high walls in front setback areas for
homes fronting on thoroughfare roads.
2. At its meeting of July 12, 1988, Council referred the matter to
staff, directing staff to discuss the matter with Mr. Barton and
report back on the same.
3. On December 6, 1988, Council considered the report, and referred the
matter back to staff requesting that a draft ordinance be prepared
with an explanation of the criteria to be considered by the City.
Also attached is a copy of the applicant's (Mr. Barton's letter which
came back with the report.
4. On April 4, 1989, Council reviewed staff's draft ordinance and
explanation of the criteria to be considered by the City. At that
time, Council referred the ordinance back to staff for further study
and directed staff to consider a variance for Mr. Barton's specific
property.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
to deny ZAV-89-31.
C. DISCUSSION
Mr. Barton's house is located at 9 L Street near the intersection of
Hilltop and L Street. The area is zoned R-1. Front yard setbacks in this
vicinity are 15 feet. The height limitation for fences in the front
setback is 3-1/2 feet.
Mr. Barton wishes to obtain a variance to construct a 6-foot high wall in
his front yard setback located within 6 feet of the sidewalk as a noise
barrier to the thoroughfare traffic on L Street.
Two front bedrooms are located approximately 15 feet from the front
property line with the remainder of the house set back 25 feet or more.
The house is located on a lot which is 77 feet in width and 133 ft. in
depth, placing the rear of the house approximately 70 feet from the rear
property line.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
There are several factors the Planning Commission may wish to consider in
reviewing this request for a variance.
1. Front Yard Setbacks
Front setbacks are established in all areas of the City to provide
light, air and a feeling of openness along roadways. A barrier,
almost twice the height of other fences in the neighborhood, located
within the front yard setback would limit that sense of openness. If
this variance were allowed, the ability to provide landscaping would
be limited to the 6 ft. width between the wall and the sidewalk. The
draft ordinance prepared for Council consideration which was not
endorsed by staff calls for a minimum landscaping width of lO feet.
Walls up to 6 ft. in height are authorized in exterior side yards
(corner lots facing more than one street). Various planned community
zones provide options for increased wall heights in the front setback
based on specific design standards.
2. Noise
Noise readings taken by City staff during peak traffic conditions
both inside and outside of the dwelling resulted in an inside dBA
reading of 61 and the outside dBA reading at 74. The primary source
of noise is traffic along "L" Street. Typical acceptable standards
for a single family residence are 65 dba outside and an inside
reading of 45 dBA. It should be noted that exemption under
Performance Standards include motor vehicles operating within a
public right-of-way.
To provide the Planning Commission with the best perception of the
meaning relating to the dBA readings cited, we have included a table
of sound levels from the City's Performance Standards which provides
a comparison of various common sounds and their effect.
The original staff's analysis submitted to the City Council in a
December 1988 report cited the cost involved in constructing a solid
masonry wall when the money might be better spent to insulate the
house effectively to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. Staff
research at that time indicated that insulating the house, providing
dual glaze windows, and even the installation of an air conditioning
unit, would likely result in a dBA loss of approximately 30 and a
cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. The cost of constructing the
6-foot high solid grouted wall for a distance of approximately 100
feet was also estimated at approximately $10,000.
Mr. Barton previously indicated in our discussion with him that he
was in the process of preparing to restucco the house which would be
an ideal time to provide insulation and change any necessary windows
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 3
from single pane to dual glaze. The wall proposed by the applicant
should effectively reduce the noise reading by approximately 6-7 dBA
(see attached noise analysis Phoenix, Arizona) thus offering some
relief although not totally mitigating the problem.
3. Traffic
Mr. Barton cites part of the problem relating to the traffic
increases on L Street and its designation as a truck route. It
should be pointed out that Mr. Barton moved into the house in 1981
and that traffic counts in this area along L Street were in excess of
17,000 in 1978, in excess of 15,000 in 1982 through 1985, and from
1987 to present are in excess of 17,000. Thus, we can find no
substantial change in traffic counts to justify any significant
increase in noise. L Street has been designated a truck route since
1978.
Traffic volumes with an emphasis on trucks can be a constant irritant
in a residential area. New subdivisions are designed to back onto
major and collector road systems. However, existing older
subdivision developments are more adversely affected since the houses
typically front onto the street. Expanding easterly development in
the Chula Vista area will likely increase traffic counts on "L"
Street in the near future.
E. ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Should the Planning Commission decide in favor of this variance, staff
would'suggest the following conditions:
1. The 6 ft. high wall shall be constructed as a decorative wall (i.e.,
split face block, stucco facing, brick).
2. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect.
3. A maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City and recorded on
the deed stipulating that the owner and successors of interest agree
to maintain the landscaping and the wall in accordance with City
standards and plans on file with the City. Failure to perform said
maintenance to the satisfaction of the City will authorize the City
to enter the property and perform said maintenance upon written
notice to the owner ten days prior to any action. All costs incurred
by the City shall be charged to the owner and a lien placed on the
property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 4
Alternative findings for approval are also provides for your consideration.
1. Hardship
Property is located on high volume, noise collector street within
close proximity to major intersection resulting in noise reading
which far exceed acceptable City standards.
2. Preservation
Wall is need to preserve an acceptable living environment. Other
properties in this area have not indicated similar noise issues.
3. Substantial Detail
The proposed wall design, setback and landscaping will enhance the
design and thus add the improvement of area which is not landscaped
or maintained.
4. General Plan
The variance applies to one lot and, therefore, will have not adverse
affect on the General Plan of the City.
F. CONCLUSION
Consideration to amend the City's zoning ordinance to allow noise ~alls on
specific thoroughfare roads has been presented to City Council on two
occasions. As stated earlier, Council has asked for further review of the
matter. Staff is not questioning that there is a noise issue here.
However, we are unable to make the necessary variance hardship findings.
There is nothing particularly unique to Mr. Barton's situation. The
traffic noise problem on main thoroughfares is common along road systems
throughout the City of Chula Vista. It is staff's opinion that approval
of this variance by the Planning Commission would set a precedent for
virtually all other residents in Chula Vista where homes front on prime,
major, or class I collector roads.
As noted earlier in the report, sound issues area more typically addressed
through construction insulation and glazing; thus, retaining landscaping
with the front setback.
G. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
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
nmrits.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 26, 1989 Page 5
There is no hardship peculiar to the property. Certainly, within the
block on L between Hilltop and Country Club Drive, where this home is
located, at least 20 other homes experience high levels of traffic
noise. Throughout the City, high noise impacts are experienced along
many prime, major and Class I collector streets.
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 granting of this variance is not necessary fro the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same zoning district and same vicinity.
If this variance were granted, it would constitute a special
privilege to the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
As stated previously, the noise problem is not in question, but the
granting of a variance is not the appropriate solution. The granting
of a variance would set precedent throughout the City. For all homes
located on major thoroughfares.
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 authorizing of such a variance could be a detriment to adjacent
property. There could be problems from adjacent residents trying to
back onto L Street. A 6-foot high fence could affect a neighbor's
visibility. In addition, the 6-foot high fence could affect the
"open feeling" of a neighborhood where, at the present time, the only
structures that exist in peoples front yards, beside "allowed"
fences, are trees.
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 authorizing of such a variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency. However, if this variance were approved and it set a
precedent there could be an adverse affect on the General Plan. If 6
ft. high fences were allowed throughout the City, the City's image
could change from one of "openness" and a "tree city" to a more
enclosed or "walled city."
WPC 6157P/O426P
After Council direction on 12 July 1988, 6 December 1988,
and 7 March 1989, City Staff presented on 4 April an amend-
ment to Chapter 19.58.150 to the Municipal Code to allow owners
on prime, major, or class 1 collectors to construct at owner's
expense a sound attenuation wall inside a 15 foot setback
to protect home and resident from excessive decibel levels
of noise created by increased traffic volume in a residential
zone.
The present zoning ordinance does not permit the construction
of this type of barrier inside a 15 foot setback.
9 L Street is a 30+ year old, 3 bedroom house with the master
bedroom and the second largest bedroom located on the street
side of the property and at the 15 foot setback. Exhibit
A shows the location of the property and Exhibit B shows the
arrangement of the house.
Options to dual pane windows and increase the insullation
would require major reconstruction of the front of the home
and the exterior of the home was recently recoated.
County and State noise abatement officials report a cinder
block wall (hollow) will reduce the decibel level by approxi-
mately 28 dBA if the location of the wall is properly placed.
Since the home sets on the 15 foot setback, a variance to
the Municipal Code is requested to allow for the reduction
of the decibel level created by traffic to a reasonable level
within this residential zone. Exhibit B shows the location
of the wall and Exhibit C demonstrates proper placement of
the wall in order to obtain maximum effect and still allow
room for landscaping and the appearance of an open landscaped
street.
Walter H. Barton
EXHIBIT A
Lot 13 Block D
Country Club Villas
9 L St
L STREET
4 lanes O63~Traffic
-------------- Light
EXHIBIT B
6 foot wall to be constructed of cinder block with appropriate
offset in center of front wall and at each corner located
6 feet from sidewalk and coated to match house exterior.
Neighbors on both side support the construction as proposed.
Wall to be angled at drive so to allow appropriate pedestrian
safety at a distance of 15 feet down the sidewalk and 10 feet
up the driveway.
~>T~T
EXHIBIT C
9'2 3/4" ~
,, ~Ma ~oom Window
8'10 Top of
6'10" Bottom of Master
10'8 3/4"6' 4~" 9'3" ~
House Wall Sidewalk Curb Noise
Edge Source
RATIO
HEIGHT OF WALL = HEIGHT OF COVERAGE
DISTANCE FM SOUND SOURCE DISTANCE FROM SOUND SOURCE
Height of wall = 6' = 72"
Distance of wall from sound source = 19'11" = 239"
Distance of house from sound source = 30'7.8" = 367.8"
72 = HEIGHT OF COVERAGE
239 367.8
Amount of protection 6 foot wall provides on house = 110.8"
=9'2.8"
O July 1988 ¢-~1~
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Chuia Vista
From: Walze~ H. Barton
Subj: TRAFFIC NOISE IN A RESIDENCE ZONE AND A ZONE VARIANCE TO REDUCE NOISE
I wzsh to address the traffic noise problem in a residence zone and a
zone variance for citizens of 0hula Vista who have the same problem and
desire to reduce the level of noise in order %o improve their health and
welfare and upgrade their quality of life.
S~nce 1981 ! have owned a single-family dwelling at 9 L Street.
Enclosure (1) will assist you in the location and enclosure (2) will allow
you %o visualize the floor plan of this 30 year old home.
i am requesting the City Council to implement Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 19. i2.020 to create, amend, supplement, or change by ordinance the
regulations of the comprehensive zonin~ law fop the ~eneral welfare of those
people living on a street designated as a thoroughfare, i,e. "E" , "H",
etc.
According to the City's Engineering Department, 17,580 vehicles pep day
use L Street at Hilltop and L. PeP the Environmental Section ab City
Planning and per the C~ty'~ latest environmental study on noise (Noise
Element of the General Plan, City of Chuia Visba, Cailfornla, June 1974) , the
ground transportation level of noise at 9 L Street is ~5 dBA measured as an
average over a 24-hour period.
Noise from moLor vehicles depends partly on the vehicles themselves and
partly on the traffic conditions, the surroundings, and %he weather. Noise
from t~ucks and buses ~s considerably hi~h~P than that of private
automobiles; but i have rotund no statzstacs IoF the number of trucks and
buses usln~ L Street. Acceleration can result in 10-QO dBA higher no,se
levels than at Town cruisln~ speedS, Noise peaks and sharp variat!ons are
the basic causes of annoyance and psychological effects such aS fatigue,
irritability, interrupted sleep, etc. The noises come primarily from two
factors--the presence of heavy commerclai traffic as well as certain
motorcycles and sports cars, and the rapid acceleration due to the traffic
ii,hr at Hilltop and L Street.
Chapter 19.68. Performance Standards and Noise Control, declares ...the
people have a rlght to and should be ensured an environment free from noise
and vibrations that may jeopardize their health or welfare or degrade
quallty of life. · ·'' and goes on to say that this is the City's policy.
Furthermore, 19.68.010 states, "Note that 70 dB is the point at which noise
beglnS to harm hearing, that ~0 dB is the threshold of stress response and 45
dB disturbs sleep." Table III, Exterior Noise Limits, for ali residential
(except multiple dwelling) lists the maximum noise level from i0 p.m. to 7
a.m. as 45 dBA and from 7 a.m. to !0 p,m. aS 55 dBA. I a~aln would l~ke
point ou% that at 9 L Street the noise level is 65 dBA average over a 24-hour
period exceedin~ the set limits and that t7.580 vehicles per day drive by my
home.
Now, i would like to direct your attention to Chapter !9.58.i50. Th~s
para2raph in conjunction with 12.12.i20 and 12.12.130 restrict the
construction of any type of battler to a height of 3 i/2 feet. t9.58.150A
does allow a ~ foot structure if it IS located to the rear of the required
front setback which for my home is located in i~.24.070B under the
oiasslflcaLion of R-i-7 where the front minimum dlmer~slon is 15 feet.
if you would look at enclosure (2) , you will see the measured distances.
Since the Git}' took 17 feet, of the front property to eniar~e L Street, the
front of the house whlch contains the Master Bedroom and the medium size
bedroom falls on ohe 15 foot setback thus preventing, under present policy,
the construction of a wall over 3 1/2 feet to reduce the traffic noise.
I recognize that i9.68.060C(5) exempts motor vehicles operating on L
Street from the exterior noise standards: however, by the City's own study
the no~se created by the traffic exceeds that standard which is established
aS poticv. Additionally, I recognize the importance of public safety in that
if a 6 foot wail were constructed in the front that this wail cannot block or
obstruct the view of a neighbor in his driveway to be able to see 250 feet (35
MPH speed limit) down the street in order to safely back out. California
Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual germane.
The purpose of the R-1 Single-Family Residence Zone as described in
prior code 33.503 is in part to promote and encourage a suitable environment
for family life. I feel that a variance to allow for the construction of a ~
foot wall on streets where the traffic noise level exceeds the standard would
enhance family life twofold: (1) reduce the noise levels and thus reduce the
psychological effects of stress caused by that noise, and (~) allow useful
employment of front yards, especially for those families with children who
would be protected from the 17,000 plus vehicles passing each day.
Enclosure (3) establishes the sight line requirement as mentioned above
and places the position of the corner of a ~ foot wall. Enclosure (4)
demonstraves the sound reduction of a 3 1/2 foot wall verses a ~ foo% wall
placed an additional !'3" inside the position determined in enclosure (3).
An amendment %o Chapter i9. iO, Exceptions and Modifications, could allow
for the construction of a 6 foot wall for noise reduction purposes by addin~
an additional paragraph numbered I~. 16.090. The following is an example of
the type of paragraph which could be used:
19.16.090 R-1 Zone Front Yard Requirement.
In any R-! zone resident on streets that exceed the
exterior noise limitations set forth in Table III of Chapter
i9.68 may maintain a fence, wall or hedge not more than six
feet in height and locate it on any part of an interior or
corner lot to the rear of a two feet setback in order to
reduce the noise levels from traffic. This exception in no
way may alter the sight line restrictions for street traffic
if on a corner or for nel~hborln~ drives if on an interior
lot.
Additionally, a comment to this exception would need to be entered into
i9.58.150 and 19,24.070.
i thank you for your time and consideration on this subject.
Sincerely,
Walter H. Barton
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12/6/88
ITEM TITLE: Report: Request for 6' high wall in front setback areas for
homes fronting on thoroughfare roads
SUBMII~ED BY: Director of Planning ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 14/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
In July of this year, the City Council received written communication from Mr.
Walter Barton citing a traffic noise problem at 9 "L" Street. Mr. Barton
requested that Council consider amending or supplementing the Municipal Code
to allow citizens to construct 6' high ~alls in the front setback areas where
property is located along thoroughfare such as "L" Street, "E" Street and "H"
Street. He noted that the noise along these streets is higher than
recommended in the General Plan and that such a wall would not only reduce
noise to the residents but would provide a useful, safe front yard area for
children. This item was referred to staff for a response with the direction
that staff was to meet with Mr. Barton for follow-up and to keep him informed
of the specific Council meeting when this report would be considered.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report and direct no change to the Municipal
Code.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Barton's house located at 9 "L" Street is approximately 36 years old
featuring a stucco exterior with metal casement windows and a relatively
low-pitch asphalt single roof. Mr. Barton indicated that ceiling insulation
was added a few years ago. Two front bedrooms are located approximately 15'
from the front property line with the remainder of the house set back 25' or
more. The house is located on a lot which is 77' in width and 133' in depth,
placing the rear of the house approximately 70' from the rear property line.
Noise readings were taken by City staff during peak traffic conditions both
inside and outside of the dwelling with the inside dBA reading of 61 and the
outside dBA reading at 74. The primary source of noise being traffic along
"L" Street, it should be noted in the City's zoning regulations under
performance standards which address noise problems that exemptions include,
among others, motor vehicles operating within a public right-of-way. To
provide the Council with the best perception of the meaning relating to the
dBA readings cited, we have included a table of sound levels from the City's
performance standard which provide a comparison of various common sounds and
their effect.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date~
DISCUSSION:
In meeting with Mr. Barton, he indicated that from his perspective, allowing
citizens to construct walls adjacent to the sidewalk will not only reduce the
noise into the residence but will also provide privacy and more usable lot
area. From the City Planning perspective, allowing carte blanche construction
of 6' high walls along the property line of some ll identified thoroughfares
in the City would create a very closed-in walled appearance. Setbacks are
established in all areas of the City to provide light and air and the feeling
of openness along roadways.
The City of Chula Vista, like other jurisdictions within the County, limits
fence heights to 3-1/2' in order to maintain an open landscape look. There
are some modifications to this policy as the City moves into newer
developments where overall planning schemes can be implemented allowing
developments to interface with thoroughfare roads by backing onto the road
where combinations of slope banks, walls, and coordinated landscaping programs
are used to create attractive entryways. Contrary, the use of individual 6'
high walls on separate lots in the established residential areas of Chula
Vista would not represent prudent planning.
In the case of Mr. Barton's lot, adequate room exists on the lot to the rear
of his dwelling where expansion is feasible. In addition, from the staff's
analysis of the cost involved in constructing a solid masonry wall, the money
might be better spent to insulate the house effectively to reduce the noise to
an acceptable level. Staff research has shown that insulating the house,
providing dual glaze windows and even the installation of an air conditioning
unit would likely result in a dBA loss of approximately 30 and a cost in the
neighborhood of $10,000. The cost of constructing the 6' high solid grouted
wall for a distance of approximately 100' is also estimated at approximately
$10,000.
There are several other factors the Council may wish to consider; namely, that
Mr. Barton cites part of the problem relating to the traffic increases on "L"
Street and its designation as a truck route. It should be pointed out that
Mr. Barton moved into the house in 1981 anO that traffic counts in this area
along "L" Street were in excess of 17,000 in 1978, in excess of 15,000 in 1982
through 1985, and from 1987 to present are in excess of 17,000. Thus, we can
find no substantial change in traffic counts to justify any significant
increase in noise. "L" Street has been designated a truck route since 1978.
Mr. Barton also indicated in our discussion ~vith him that he is in the process
of preparing to restucco the house which is an ideal time to provide
insulation and change any necessary windows from single pane to dual glaze.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 5618P
TABLE I
..%
SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE
Noise
Common Sounds Level (dB) Effect
Carrier deck 140 Painfully loud
Jet operation
Air raid siren
Jet takeoff (200 feet) 130
Thunderclap
Discotheque 120 Maximum vocal effort
Auto horn (3 feet)
Pile drivers llO
Chain saw (2 feet)
Garbage truck 100
Power lawn mower (4 feet)
Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 Very annoying
City traffic Hearing damage (8 hours)
'~ Alarm clock (2 feet) 80 Annoying
Hair dryer
Vacuum cleaner (5 feet)
Noisy restaurant 70 Telephone use difficult
Freeway traffic
Man's voices (3 feet)
Air conditioning unit 60 Intrusive
(20 feet)
Light auto traffic 50 Quiet
(100 feet)
Living room 40
Bedroom
Quiet Office
Library 30 Very quiet
Soft whisper (15 feet)
Broadcasting studio 20
lO Just audible
..... 0 · Hearing begins
953
Traffic Noise Attenuation by.a
Masonry Suodivision Perimeter Fence
Richard G. Thurman, Arizona Dept. of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona
This article sets forth a simple practical procedure i~.r in Phoenix npproximate]y one-quarter mile east of the
measuring the effective a~enuation attributable to an exist- m~lized intersectim~ at 51st Avenue. The site is fiat
lng ba~er in the field. Sound level measurements were considerable distance in all directinns. At this point,
made for a masonry subdivision perimeter fence along an McDowell Road is approximately 50 feet in ~idth and is
a~erial street in Phoenix, Arizona. The field data was striped fbr tw. movin~ lanes in each directim~. Parking is
analyzed for comparison with predicted harrier attenuation not permitted. A speed Ii mit .t'45 miles per hour is posted.
values, giving consideration to real-xvorld sound transmis- The site met all of the stated site selection conditions.
sion effects, ttowever, the percentage of heavy diesel trnck traffiu, 1,4
This study was conducted for the purpose of measuring The site laynut is illustrated in Fignre 1.
the effectiveness ora fi)ur-inch-thick, six-foot-high masonry
fence in attenuating noise emtmating h'om trall~u tm nn Methodology
urban a~erial street. Snch t~nces are commonly installed at Fiekl observations of traffic sound levels were made hy
the margin of residential subdivisinns as a means ofphbsi- two experienced observers nsing Pulsar Model 40 type 2
cally controlling access frnm the suhdivision to adji~cent smmd lext, I meters. The sound level meters were call-
arterial streets and as a memos of shielding residences fi'mn hrated ht, t}}ro and id}er the ohservation period nsit~g a Pul-
such streets both visually and acoustically, sar Model 10 sound level calibrator. The microphones
Varions methods are availahJe tbr estimating the attenua- were positioned tlve ii'et above the surrounding ground
tion afforded hy such structures. However~ in-field mca- sm'J~tce tbr all observations. Wind screens were used on the
tenuation device will provide the 1hOSt valid indicati,, .f Simultaneous observations were tlrst made with I)oth
its effectiveness in attenuating trntllc noise, micrnphones located tlve Jget hehind the flmce line, one
shielded hy the J~nce and one unshielded. Observations
$il~ S~l*otio~ were then made with bnth microphones IDeated fifteen
A site was sought xvhich wotdd meet the JblJowing con- behind the tZmce line, then twenty-five feet, then thirty-
ditions, five t~'et. At end~ distance, observations were taken every
l. The site should prnvide shielded lind nnshieJded mca- twelve seconds tbr a period of twenty minutes ti)r a total of
along the salne side of the nt[jacent street. Traffic tl~xx' was not counted during the pm'iud ~fl'sotmd
2. The site should be located at least 1000 feet {Yom any lexel nlt, aStllOmellt, The reported traffic data, brokt, n down
4. The site shmdd he located alongside a major arterial hea¥5r dub diesel xehicles were counted separatel).
street having trattlc tlows of 1000 vehicles per hour or
m~ re i d ssg nhcan p ~ ~ s ofdieselized xelficles. Data
Conditions l add ~ above are intended to assure an equal For partially shielded and partially unshielded micro-
noise snurce tbr hoth the shielded and tmshielded IDea- phones, Iouated fiw, t~'et behind the fence line, the
. tlbns so that noise source variations wnnld he minimized, t~fllowing data were obtained.
Condition 3 is similarly intended to limit variations in
to the presence nf the sound screen. Condition 4 is in- Time: 3:00 - 3:20 p.m., Tuesday, December 2, 1975
where envirnnmental walls wnuld he required [~n' noise L~0 ........... 74.4 dBA 68.0 dBA 6.4 dB
abatement purposes. A si~nificnnt proportion ofdieselized Ll0 ........... 73.0 65.4 7.6
vehicles, which generally exhaust high above the road L~0 ........... 72.1 64.5 7.6
rather than near pavement level, is necessary to permit an L40 ........... 70.6 63.7 6.9
evaluation of the realistic potential ora sonnd screen. Be- Ls0 ........... 69.1 62.~ 7.0
Ls0 ........... 67,8 60.8 7.0
cause of the height of the exhaust, it is muuh more difficult L~0 .......... 66.3 59.7 6.6
to shield truck noise eli~,ctively. In the Plsouuix utmtt,xt,
heavy diesel trucks seldom comprist' as much ns three per- Unshieldod field of view , .. 177°
cent of the traffic flow except on numbered through- Tr~lfie: 3051i~htdutyv~hiclos
high~vays and in the immediate vicinity .[ industrial uom- ~4 h~avy duty ~asolin~ whi~l~s (4.3 p0reont)
plexes. ~0 h~avy duty di~s*l vohiel*s (3.0
The selected site is located along West McDoxvell Boad W*~m~r: Ol~ar. light bro~z*, tom~*raturo n,ar 70~
For partially shielded and partially unshielded micro-
ph{~nes located fitteen feet bale'''4 the tbnce lille, the for
lowing clat;t were obtained.
Location: Fifteen feet behind fence line
Time: 3:25 * 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, December 2, 1975
Sound Levels Unehlelded Shielded Difference
LIe ........... 74.4 dba 68.3 dba 6.1 db
!~o ........... 72.2 65.6 6.6
Lac ........... 70.4 64.7 5.7
I~0 ........... 69.4 63.9 5.5
l-so ........... 67.9 63.0 4.9
L~o ........... 67.0 61.8 5.2
L7o ........... 65.5 60.9 4.6
Shielded field of view ..... 8* 166'
Uriah(aided field of view ... 172° 14'
Traffic: 399 light duty vehicles
17 heavy duty gasoline vehicles (4.1 percent)
3 heavy duty diesel vehicles (0.7 percent)
Weather: Clear, light breeze, temperature near 70* Figure I -- Plan uielc of measllret)lent sJt~.
For partially shielded and partially unshielded micro- McDowell Road trafllc noise over 150° out of the total 180°
· phones located twenty-Ilea feet behind the tbnce line, the field of view. The other 30* of this field of view was cum-
following data were obtained, pletely unshielded. Conversely, the "unshielded" micro-
phone was exposed to unshielded traffic noise over only
Location: Twenty-fivefeet behind fenceline 161°°fits field°fview°fMcD°wellR°adwhile lg°°fthis
Time: 3:50 - 4:10 p.m., Tuesday, December 2, 1975 field was shielded. Therefore, it is necessary to attempt to
Sound Levels Unehlelded Shielded Difference estimate the sound levels which would have been ob-
L~0 ........... 73.5 dba 66.6 dba 6.9 db served at each microphone site under the condition of a
Lac ........... 72.6 65.2 7.4 completely shielded field of view, in which case sound
Lac ........... 71.8 64.1 7.7 levels somewhat lower than the observed shielded levels
1.40 ........... 70.9 63.4 7.5 would be obtained. Similarly, it is necessary to attempt to
Leo ........... 69.8 62.7 7.1
I~o ........... 68.6 62.0 6.6 estiinate the levels which would bave been observed
L~o ........... 66.8 60.7 6.1 under the condition of a completely unshielded field of
Shielded field of view ..... 14' 157" view, in which case sonnd levels somewhat higher than
Unshiolded field of view... 166° 23° the observed unshielded levels would be obtained. 'File
Traffic: 408 light duty vehicles difl~_.rence between these estimated sound levels would
10 heavy duty gasoline vehicles (2.5 percent) represent tile actual attenuation afforded by the masonry
8 heavy duty diesel vehicles (2.0 percent) t~:nec under study,
Weather: Clear, light breeze, temperature near 70* I n theory tile energy received from a line sonrce of noise
is equal tbr equal sul)tended angles in the 180° field of
For partially shielded and partially nnshiehled micro- view of the line source. This means that simple equations
phones located thirty-tlve feet behind the fence lille', the may he constructed to deduce est m ted t~lly-shielded and
tbllowing data were obtained, fully-unshielded sonnd levels from the observed data.
Such calculations were made for L~o values and compared
Location: Thirty-five feet behind fence line to obtain the estimated attenuation afforded by the fence,
Time: 4:15 - 4:35 p.m., Tuesday, December 2, 1975
Sound Levele Unshielded Shielded Difference
Meaeured Attenuation As
L~o ........... 72.8 dba 67.3 dba 5.5 db Attenuation Calculated From Data
Lac ........... 70.9 65.8 5.1 (Partially Shielded ve (Fully Shielded ve
!.4o ........... 69.7 64.5 5.2 Partially Unehielded) Fully Unshlelded)
L~o ........... 68.8 63.4 5.4
L,o ........... 68.0 62.5 5.5 5' From Fence .......6.4 db 6.9 db
L~o ........... 66.6 61.5 5.1 15' From Fence ....... 6.1 7.7
L?o ..... 65.1 60.5 4.6 25' From Fence ....... 6.9 11.5
...... 35.' From Fence ....... 5.5 9.7
Shielded field of view ..... 19' 150"
Uriah(aided field of view... 161° 30°
Discounting the data obtained from microphones
Traffic: 441 light duty vehicles twenty-live feet fi'om the fence line, the measured data
6 heavy duty gasoline vehicles (1.3 percent)
5 heavy duty diesel vehicles (1.1 percent) displays a logical trend. The attenuation decreases with
Weather: Clear, light breeze, temperature near 70° distance from the fence due to the previously mentioned
mixing of shielded and unshielded noise at each micro-
Analysis of Data phone location. At five feet lycra the fence, file shielded
Because file shielded and unshielded microphone sites microphone is exposed to unshielded noise over 30° of the
were only 165 (~eet apart, tile observed sound levels actu- fiekl of view.
ally represent a combination of shielded and unshiehled Given tilt' site geometry, it is illogical to expect tht' c;t]-
traffic noises in all cases. For example, when the micro- culated attenuation values ti) increase with increased dis-
phones were )cared thirty-ilea teat behind tile fence line, tahoe t~onl the ti. ncc. With increased distance in this case,
the "shielded" microphone was exposed to shielded the path lengffi difference wmdd decrease with tbe result
Sound and Vibration · December 1978 17
that attenuation values would decrease, though perhaps hy the Federal Highway Administration derives from
only slightly. '~' NCHRP 1172 ~ vever, the barrier a~enuatio~ treatment
- Assuming that ffie McDo~vel. .oad traffic constituted a in NCHRP 11, ~as seeh to need fu~her study and re-
truncated line source occupying less than a full 180° field finement, A study conducted for this purpose resulted in
of view, the estimated fiflly-shielded t ~cl 'ullv-nnshielded the pnblication of NCHRP 1447 The method of NCHRP
sound levels were recalcnlated. Atmospheric impediments 144 is based more nearly on Z, Maekawa's analytical ap-
to sound transmission over fimg distances, the presence of proximation of experimental data as modal]ed to acco~ ~-
disruptions in the paths of sound waves nero' the limits ora modate line sources of noise. Another attempt to provide
180~ field of view, and other real-world considerations a suitable method for estimating barrier aRenuation of
would be inconsistent with line-source theory and wonld noise was made as a result of NCHRP 3-7/3.a Estimates of
support consideration of traffic noise as emanating from a the attenuation provided by an infinitely hmg six-foot-
t~ncatedline source. Following are the results obtained high masonry fence ~vere made using these three
from recalculating the frilly-shielded and fully-unshielded methods.
5' From Berrler 35' From ~rrier
sound levels assuming a field of view which is truncated Method Autos Trucks Auto~ Trucks
symmetrically in increments of 10°.
NCHRP 117 -12.5 dB -7.5 dB -9.0 dB -4.0 dB
NCHRP 144 - 8.3 -5.3 -7,5 -4.5
Assumed Field of View NCHRP 3-7/3 homo. - 8.0 -5.7 -8.0 -0.0
A~enuation 180' 170~ 160' 150' 140~
Observed (150* field) -6.4 dB -7.1 dB
5'From Fence 69dB 6.4dB 6.4dB 6.4dB 6.4dB
15' From Fence 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.1 6.1
25' From Fence 11.5 10.0 8.9 8.0 7.4 Conclusions
35' From Fence 9.7 8.7 7.8 7.1 6.4 1, A six-ibot-high nmsonry wall along a major arterial
street in Phoenix is seen to be able to effect a ~7 dB rednc-
The calculated values above appear more logical as the tidn in sound levels fi)r points behind the wall during the
assumed field of view is truncated. That an infinite fine hours when diesel trucks constitute a significant portion of
source does not effectively occupy a full 180' field of view the traffic flow. Because this study dealt with an urban
is alluded to in the literature. NCHRP 117~ defines an arterial street, as opposed to a through highway, it may he
infinite roadway element as having a length greater ffian expected that the eflbctiveness of ffie wall in screening
eight times the distance to the near hme. This corre- traffic noise would improve during the night hours. Virtu-
sponds to a field of view of 152° or more, ally all of the tracks observed during the measurement
Various methods are avaihd)le fin' estimating the at- periods were h)cal delivery trncks, most of which xvould
tenuation aflBrded by a sound screen. A method approved not operate during the night hours. Greater overall sound
attenuation is generally afforded in the absence of large'
trucks. (Oo throngh highways, the proportion of large
trucks in the traffic stream often increases at night, with a
· MB Shakers when screeuing is most ueeded t}~r sleeping.)
· MB Power Amplifiers 2. Thc t'ichl data indicated that significant soun(l ]t~xt'[
one-sixth o['the field ()[view was unshiehle(1. (Howt'vt'r, ;t
long would base resulted in complete shichling Jot thc'
SYSTEMS hackyard in ,vhich measurements were
~. The NCHRP 144 method [br estimating the sound
level reduction afforded by a sound screen prodnced val-
e MB Facto~ Paas and Semice. even when the direct line of sight between source and
· Systems for Mil, Spec. Compliance. References
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. if any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards,/C6mmissions, Con~nittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ]
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city! municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.]~? /~/~_~ ~~ J Signature of applicant/date
A-110 ~r nt or type name of applicant