Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/08/22 Item 26 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item olG Meeting Date 11/22/06 SUBMITTED BY: Report on requests by the Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association and residents to amend the Truck Route designations on Lane Avenue, Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway Acting Director of Engineering -W Chief of Police Interim City Manager ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes~o~ ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: Due to new major roadways in the eastern part of the City, there was a need to update the City's truck routes per Chapter 10.64 (Truck Routes) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. On March 21, 2006, Ordinance 3033 was introduced to the City Council for a first reading and on March 28, 2006 this Ordinance was adopted by the City Council, thereby amending Ordinance 2482 dated 1991 Tonight, Council will discuss the residents' concerns about Truck Route designations on Lane Avenue, Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway RECOMMENDATION: Based upon agreements made with the community at a meeting on July 31,2006, that Council: 1) Maintain the designation of Lane Avenue, Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway as Truck Routes; 2) Direct staff to proceed with a review of Truck Route signage along Lane Avenue; and, 3) Direct staff to proceed with implementation of trial traffic safety alternatives for Lane Avenue as agreed to with the community and to return with recommendations for Council's consideration after a minimum two-month trial period. BOARD/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Ordinance 3033 (March 2006) added various major streets to the truck circulation plan for the city, including Proctor Valley Road (east of SR 125), Hunte Parkway (from Proctor Valley Road to Olympic Parkway) and Lane Avenue (between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road). At the June 6, 2006 City Council Meeting, residents of properties abutting Lane Avenue asked the City Council to reconsider the decision to designate Lane A venue as a Truck Route. This request was later expanded by a letter from the Rolling Hills Ranch Association (June 19, 2006) to include Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway (see Attachment 1). The concerns of the residents were further explored during a Community Meeting on July 31, 2006 at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School. While the viewpoints of the residents are understood and appreciated, should the Truck Route designation be removed from Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and/or Lane Avenue, truck traffic would be prohibited on these and all surrounding streets, 26-1 Page 2, Item ;Z G Meeting Date Oll/22/01i per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.64.010. Furthermore, without designated Truck Routes in the northeastern portion of the city, trucks would be allowed to choose and travel upon whatever street provides the most direct route to and from their destination opening streets such as MacKenzie Creek Road and Rocking Horse Drive to truck traffic. Therefore, it is recommended that the Truck Route designations remain as adopted in March 2006 given the framework provided by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and Chula Vista Municipal Code (discussed in detail below), but also that the temporary traffic controls agreed to with the residents be put into place along Lane Avenue. R~ckgrollnci California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section 35701 grants local agencies the authority (by ordinance) to establish "Truck Routes." Section 10.64.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code states, 'it is unlawful to operate a vehicle weighing in excess of 10,000 pounds except upon a truck route designated within the city limits. This section is effective when signs marked "truck route" have been installed along the designated truck routes, and the city engineer has installed signage at each vehicular point of entry into Chula Vista restricting vehicles in excess of 10,000 pounds to designated truck routes. The city engineer shall maintain within a register Schedule VII listing all streets or portions of streets that are designated "truck routes.'" Furthermore, Section 35703 of the CVC states, "No ordinance adopted pursuant to section 35701 shall prohibit any commercial vehicles coming from an unrestricted street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods. " (see Attachment 2). The circulation plan for truck traffic (Truck Routes) in a city should be regularly reviewed and updated as required. With the adoption of the General Plan, including a traffic circulation plan (see Attachment 3), in December and significant changes to the Chula Vista street network since designated Truck Routes were last updated in 1991, a review of the city's Truck Routes was recently completed. The City has experienced many changes since 1991 including the opening of a large number of roadways east of the 1-805 Freeway The 1991 Truck Route designations essentially did not include the area south of Telegraph Canyon RoadlOtay Lakes Road or anything east of the SR 125 The updated citywide Truck Route designations were implemented with the adoption of Ordinance 3033 on March 28,2006 (see Attachment 4). In selecting roads for Truck Route designation, the City's Traffic Engineer considers the CVC, the Municipal Code, the General Plan, the General Plan (Traffic) Circulation Element, roadway design, connectivity needs/most direct routes, citywide consistency and accepted engineering practices. The Truck Routes designated with this latest action are all on major circulation roadways and avoid Page 3, Item ;JJv Meeting Date OR/22/n1i trucks, have wider lanes, less grades and larger centerline curves to better accommodate turns. Truck use on any City street is permitted, regardless of Truck Routes designations or truck prohibitions, if it is necessary to use such a street to deliver or pick-up merchandise or engage in any construction activities on private property, buildings, etc. Therefore, designated truck routes are intended to connect major City streets and do not automatically prohibit trucks from using any other City streets not designated as truck routes if those streets are necessary for egress and ingress by direct route to and from restricted streets for the purpose of loading or unloading. Within the Circulation Plan of the updated Chula Vista General Plan, Proctor Valley Road is identified as a six-lane Prime Road; Hunte Parkway as a four-lane Major Road and Lane Avenue as a Class I Collector. These major roadways were planned, designed and constructed to handle significant traffic, including trucks, and were designated as Truck Routes with this latest action in order to connect the northeastern part of the city to the road network for the transportation of goods to and from that part of the city All homes along these roads are buffered by adjacent open space lots with no residential driveways fronting the roadway and five-foot masonry walls along their backyard boundaries. Northbound Lane Avenue north of McKenzie Creek Road looking west Southbound Lane Avenue at Stone Canyon Road looking east Currently, trucks rated 10,000 pounds (five-tons) and above in gross vehicle weight use Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and Lane Avenue regularly to deliver goods to businesses, shops and residences located nearby. Restricting truck use on these roads would displace truck traffic from one roadway to another, perhaps onto streets such as MacKenzie Creek Road and Rocking Horse, which run adjacent to Thurgood Marshall Elementary and where homes and driveways front the roadways, and would be in conflict with the planned function of the roadway Communication from residents indicates the area of most concern is Lane Avenue; therefore, the information that follows provides additional detail specific to Lane Avenue. Lane Avenue varies in width from 64 feet to 74 feet. Street classifications for Lane Avenue have remained the same since the adoption of the General Plan in July of 1989, including the land use 26-3 Page 4, Item ;2& Meeting Date OIl/22/01i zoning in this area. The southern portion of Lane Avenue is located within the East Lake Business Center and is surrounded by light industrial and commercial businesses, while the northern half is within the Rolling Hills Ranch subdivision. South of MacKenzie Creek Road, Lane A venue is currently zoned as Business Center (BC), which includes commercial and light industrial uses per the 1998 General Plan and the General Plan update of December 2005. Fnv1rnnmP.l1t::ll r()n~iClf':TMi()n~ · On January 29,1985 the City Council approved the Eastlake I SPA and certified the project EIR. The Eastlake I SPA designated the land between Otay Lakes Road and MacKenzie Creek Road as Light Industrial. · On July 11, 1989 Resolution No. 15176 for the General Plan was adopted which classified Lane Avenue as a four-lane Class I Collector Street between Otay Lakes Road and Proctor Valley Road, which it rernains today · On March 24, 1992, the Salt Creek Ranch (now called Rolling Hills Ranch) SPA was approved and the project EIR was certified. The EIR for Salt Creek Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch) (91-03) contained an analysis of all potentially significant impacts related to the project, including noise. For purposes of the noise analysis, the EIR assumed the following: - Lane A venue south of East "H" Street (Proctor V alley Road) would be classified as a Class I Collector roadway with a vehicle mix of 97% cars, 2% medium trucks and 1 % heavy trucks; - East "H" Street (Procter Valley Road) west of Hunte Parkway would be classified as a Prime Road with a vehicle mix of 94% cars, 4% medium trucks and 2% heavy trucks with a vehicle speed of 50 mph. The EIR identified areas where traffic-related noise impacts would occur. Mitigation measures were included to require noise walls in those areas. All noise walls identified in the EIR have been constructed. The mitigation measures stipulated that noise walls would be required on East "H" Street from the bOlmdary of the project to Lane Avenue and then down a short way along Lane Avenue. It should be noted that in fact noise walls were constructed by the Developer on Lane Avenue all of the way to MacKenzie Creek Road even though their construction was not identified as a required mitigation measure. As a result of concerns about the Truck Route designation raised by the residents, an updated analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the Truck Route designation was done using the following trucks to vehicle mix based on the actual counts done by the Engineering Department after the Truck Route designation was implemented (see more detailed information below in "Field Data" section). The actual count for Lane Avenue over a 12-hour period (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) totaled 5,388 vehicles (1 74% medium trucks, 0.9% heavy trucks WIth the remainder, 97% cars). Actual present day counts were lower than the vehicle to truck mix anticipated in the Salt Creek Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch) EIR. A significant amount of the heavy truck activity in the most 26-4 Page 5, Item )0 Meeting Date Oll/22101'i recent COWlt appeared to be construction related. To assess the noise effects caused by the trucks on the roadway, the noise contribution with the actual cOWlted trucks was compared to the noise levels that would occur without trucks. Given the volume of trucks/vehicles on the road currently the noise levels would be less than one decibel louder than a roadway with no trucks. If the truck volumes were double the current levels, the noise increase would be between one and two decibels. Changes ofless than three decibels are in general not noticeable in the outdoor environment, which is consistent with the City's threshold for determining if there is a significant noise impact. The City's General Plan noise standard is a CNEL. This is a 24-hour average that penalizes noise levels during evening and nighttime hours. The use of the CNEL is intended to accoWlt for the sensitivity of noise occurring during the evening and nighttime. Of course, noise levels vary As such, each individual truck occurrence may result in a noise level that could be perceived as an annoyance. Because the City standard is a 24-hour weighted average, individual occurrences are evened out and do not result in a significant impact in this case. T "ne A venne Fidel D"I" On Tuesday, July 11, 2006, City staff conducted traffic cOWltS and vehicle classification COWltS in order to determine the amoWlt of heavy trucks in the neighborhood. A total of 5,388 vehicles were classified for the 12- hour period from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. using the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) classifications shown below. Note that Class 3 vehicles are usually pick up trucks and sport utility vehicles and Class 4 vehicles (buses) are not excluded from truck routes. Class 5 vehicles can be rated at less than or more than five-tons. Heavy trucks are those identified with an (H) and are rated at over five-tons: Lane Avenue Vehicle Count & Tvnes Class Definition Volume Volume Total % Northbound Southbound I Motorcvcles 12 10 22 0.41 2 PassenQer Cars 1707 1542 3249 60.30 3 Sinole Unit Vehicle Two-Axle Four-Tire 961 1014 1975 36.66 4 Buses 2 4 6 0.11 5 SinQle-Unit Trucks Two-Axle Six-Tire 48 39 87 1.61 61R1 Sinole-Unit Truck Three Axle 19 14 33 0.61 71Hl SinQle-Unit Truck. Four or More Axle 6 I 7 0.13 81R1 Single-Trailer Truck Four or Fewer Axle 2 2 4 0.07 9 (H) SinQle- Trailer Truck Five Axle 2 0 2 0.04 10lHl Sinole-Trailer Truck Six or More Axle 0 2 2 0.04 11 lID Multi-Trailer Truck. Five or fewer Axle 0 0 0 0.00 121Hl Multi-Trailer Truck Six-Axle I 0 I 0.02 13 (H) Multi-Trailer Truck Seven or More Axle 0 0 0 0.0 Heavv Trucks IHl total 0.91 % oflolal TOTAL VEIDCLES 2760 2628 5388 100.00 26-5 Page 6, Item :2b Meeting Date Oll/22/Oli (Celifornie Vehide (Cone enn Fnfor~""'P.nt Since public roadways are subject to the regulations within the CVC, the City must always ensure that local regulations do not conflict with the CVC so that safety and enforceability can be accomplished. To that end, Sections 35700, 35701 and 35703 of the CVC authorize cities to prohibit the use of a street by any commercial vehicle or any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit, such as 10,000 pounds, with exceptions. The 10,000-pound restriction applies to all commercial vehicles with exceptions, including buses, govemmental fire service vehicles, public utility vehicles and trash trucks. Chula Vista's Municipal Code essentially makes it unlawful to operate a vehicle weighing in excess of 10,000 pounds except upon a truck route designated within the city limits. Therefore, should the truck route designation be removed from Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and/or Lane Avenue, truck traffic would be prohibited on these streets (and surrounding streets), per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.64.010 leaving the northeastern portion of the city open to trucks choosing whatever street provides the most direct route to and from their destination. The CVC does allow the prohibition of any commercial vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight of 14,000 pounds if, by accepted engineering standards, the bridge, defective roadway structure, street, road or highway cannot support such vehicle. There are no such conditions in this area of the city Residents expressed their viewpoint that Lane Avenue is residential in nature and therefore, trucks should be prohibited from using this street. The California Vehicle Code specifically defmes a residential street as one where homes have direct frontage onto a street. Since these major roadways of Hunte Parkway, Lane Avenue and Proctor Valley Road have landscaped common areas as separate parcels located between the homes and the major roadway and the rear of the homes abut the roadway, the definition is not met. Rf':~lc1p.nt~' ~:1fp.ty r()nc.?m" for T ;;:!np. AVp.nllf;~ Residents have also expressed concerns about pedestrian safety on Lane Avenue. On Monday, July 31 st, City staff from the Engineering, Planning & Building, and Police Departments met with a group of about 18 residents to discuss the Truck Route designations. At that meeting, residents further voiced their concerns and indicated a desire to pursue legal action. The community was noticed via hand posted meeting postcards placed on doors of almost 200 residences, email contact with two residents who had agreed to be communication linkages, posting on the Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association web page and an information item to City Council. The residents further emphasized their concerns regarding traffic safety and truck traffic noise in the Rolling Hills Ranch community in general and specifically on Lane A venue. The group was able to reach consensus for installation of potential roadway enhancements, given the Truck Route designation, which the City Council is asked to authorize for trial installation (see Attachment 5). These include: · All-Way Stop control with painted crosswalks at Lane Avenue and MacKenzie Creek Road. 26-6 Page 7, Item ~ (p Meeting Date OR/22/O/i . All-Way Stop control with painted crosswalks at Lane Avenue and Boswell Road. All-way stop control at Stone Canyon Road was also recommended by City staff, however this option was eliminated by attendees because of the vehicle noise concerns voiced by a family living on that particular comer. Residents have previously requested all-way stops and crosswalks on Lane Avenue at Stone Canyon Road and MacKenzie Creek Road. These possibilities were considered by the Safety Commission and were not approved since requirements were not met. However, the designation of this road as a Truck Route changes the condition and thus staff recommends that we proceed with trial installation of all-way stop controls as described above. The residents have agreed to a trial period of 60 days after which staff would return to the City Council with a recommendation for a [mal disposition pursuant to CYMC 10.12.030.D whereby the City Engineer may test traffic control devices under actual traffic conditions. A review of the accident rate on this roadway shows that the accident rate of 0.77 accidents per million vehicle miles is 76% below the statewide accident rate of 3 18 for similar roadways in California. The speed limit is posted at 35 MPH within the industrial zone and at 40 MPH within the subdivision. The difference in speed limits is due to the fact that the roadway is wider within the subdivision at 74- feet and the 85th percentile speed is at 41 MPH while the south end of the street is 64-feet in width with an 85th percentile speed of38 MPH. Speed limits are generally set at the closest five-mile per hour interval to the 85th percentile speed. rnndm:;:lon An efficient truck route network is one that has been established so that the need for trucks that exceed five-tons in weight to travel on residential streets will be reduced as much as possible. It is undesirable to have heavy trucks on MacKenzie Creek Road, River Rock Road, Rocking Horse Drive, Stone Canyon Road or any other residential collector road (40- feet wide) or minor residential roadway (36-feet or less) within this subdivision. Removing the Truck Route designations on Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and/or Lane Avenue would likely increase truck traffic on smaller local streets which homes and driveways front. Due to the proximity of the industrial park and the soon to open commercial complex at the comer of Proctor Valley Road and Mount Miguel Road, even without a Truck Route designation, Lane Avenue would likely continue to experience similar volumes of trucks legally traveling the most direct route to their destination. Should the truck route designation be removed from Proctor Valley Road, Hunte Parkway and/or Lane A venue, truck traffic would be prohibited on these streets (and surrounding streets), per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.64010 leaving the northeastern portion of the city open to trucks choosing whatever street provides the most direct route to their destination. Eliminating the Truck Route designations would also hamper the Police Department's ability to cite heavy trucks deviating from major streets. Therefore, it is recommended that the Truck Route designations as adopted with Ordinance 3033 remain on the major streets identified within the Rolling Hills Ranch subdivision. 26-7 Page 8, Item 02~ Meeting Date OR/22101i However, it is further recommended that trial traffic control devices agreed to by the residents in attendance at the July 31, 2006 community meeting be installed for a trial period of at least 60 days to be evaluated at that time by the community After that point, staff will return to the City Council with any related recommendations. Additionally, residents voiced concerns about the noticing procedures associated with the March Agenda Item. Although the March items met all noticing requirements, staff will be investigating the implementation of broader notification procedures for future situations such as this. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Staffhas reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no such holdings within 500' ofthe property that is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund with this project at this time. Attachments: I - Rolling Hills Ranch Letter 2 - California Vehicle Code (CVe) Sections 515, 35700, 35701, and 35703 3 - Circulation Plan East and West of2005 General Plan 4 - Approved Truck Route per Ordinance 3033 5 - Potential Roadway Enhancement locations (File No.. TF339/KY-158) J'\EngineerIAGENDA\CAS2006\08-22-06\TRUCKROUTE.doc 26-8 ATTACHMENT \ . Rolling-HillsRanch RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2006 June 19, 2006 The Honorable ~n C. Padilla Mayor, CityyrChula Vista 276 Fou;:tI1Avenue Ch~ista, CA 91910 RE: Truck Route through the Rolling Hills Ranch Community Dear Mayor Padilla: We are writing on behalf of the residents and homeowners of Rolling Hills Ranch. Rolling Hills Ranch is a Master Planned Community with about 1,650 homes, with several times that number of residents. It has five multi-million dollar Swim Clubs and extensive landscaping. Rolling Hills Ranch is also located in the vicinity of a Light Industrial Park and both north and south of Proctor Valley Road, east of the East H Street ingress and egress intersection of the new SR-125. While the residents of Rolling Hills Ranch knew that these conditions existed when they purchased their homes, the businesses located in the Light Industrial Park also knew that there was a residential neighborhood abutting this area. Until recently, the route for trucks over 5,000 pounds traveling east from 1- 805 was east on Otay Lakes Road, and then north on either EastLake Parkway or Lane Avenue, with the northern boundary street of Boswell Rd. However, with no prior notice to the homeowners of Rolling Hills Ranch, the 5,000 lb. weight limit signs on Lane Ave. north of Boswell as well as on Hunte Parkway and Proctor Valley Rd. east of SR-125 have been replaced with "Truck Route" signs. Upon investigation by some of the homeowners in the community, it was discovered that this change was made at the March 21, 2006 meeting of the City Council, at which an amendment to Chapter 10.64 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code was approved. This change now means that trucks in excess of 10,000 Ibs. will be able to operate on the streets within this entirely residential area. It also appears that this change enables heavy trucks, with no time constraints, to follow either Lane Ave., or Hunte Parkway to Proctor Valley Rd. in order to access the on or off ramps SR-125. Corporate Office 9665 Chesapem Drive. Suite 300 San Diego. CA 92123-1364 (858) 495-0900 . Fax (858) 495-0909 ,. 26-9 Regional Office 2300 Boswell Road. Suite 209 Chuia Vista, CA 91914-3534 (619) 656-3220 . Fax (619) 656-6617 The Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association Board of Directors and its homeowners respectfully request that this decision be revisited and reversed. There is still adequate access on Lane Ave. and EastLake Parkway for these heavy trucks to go to Otay Lakes Road and then to SR-125 without traveling through a residential neighborhood. The increased traffic, noise, and pollution at all hours of the day and night will be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of the homes in Rolling Hills Ranch. From what we have seen, it does not appear these environmental impacts were properly considered prior to establishing the new truck routes. More importantly, there is a significant public safety issue. There are several schools in the area, as well as the new Montevalle Park. Requiring that children travel to and from school or to the park across streets where 10,000 Ib _ plus trucks are traveling is unquestionably unsafe. This matter is one that needs the immediate and decisive attention of you and the City Council. As mentioned above, the existing truck routes to the commercial areas are more than adequate, and avoid the Rolling Hills Ranch neighborhoods. The plan to run these same trucks through an entirely residential neighborhood is not acceptable to those living there. The Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association Board of Directors, the homeowners, and indeed the entire community, looks forward to the reversal of this change and the restoration of the 5,000 lb. weight limit in their neighborhood. David M. Stuc President Rolling Hills Ranch Community Assn. Cc: Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association Board of Directors Chula Vista City Council Chula Vista Engineering Department City of Chula Vista Planning Department City of Chula Vista Police Department Walters Management RHR Web Page 26-10 ATIACHMENT 2 Residence District 515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists. Article 4. Local Authorities Increases 35700. (a) The legislative body of any county or city may by ordinance permit the operation and moving of vehicles and loads upon highways under their respective jurisdictions of a maximum gross weight in excess of the maximum gross weight of vehicles and loads specified in this code. Decreases by Local Authorities 35701 (a) Any city, or county for a residence district, may, by ordinance, prohibit the use of a street by any commercial vehicle or by any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit, except with respect to any vehicle which is SUbject to Sections 1031 to 1036, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code, and except with respect to vehicles used for the collection and transportation of garbage, rubbish, or refuse uSing traditionally used routes in San Diego County when the solid waste management plan prepared under Section 66780.1 of the Govemment Code is amended to designate each traditionC!lIy used route used for the purpose of transporting garbage, rubbish, or refuse which intersects with a local or regional arterial circulation route contained within a City or county's traffic circulation element and which provides access to a solid waste disposal site. (b) The ordinance shall not be effective until appropriate signs are erected indicating either the streets affected by the ordinance or the streets not affected, as the local authority determines will best serve to give notice of the ordinance. (c) No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section after November 10,1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been approved by a two-thirds vote of the California Transportation Commission. 26-11 (d) The solid waste management plan prepared under Section 66780.1 of the Government Code by San Diego County may designate the traditionally used routes. (e) "Traditionally used route," for purposes of this section, means any street used for a period of one year or more as access to or from a solid waste disposal site. Amended Ch. 616, Slats. 1987 Effective January 1, 1988. 35703. No ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 35701 shall prohibit any commercial vehicles coming from an unrestricted street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. 26-12 ATTACHMENT .3 ~!~Chula f~ Vista ~Vision , 2020 Circulation Plan. East f"~-'-- i__ -, , I Bin 'Stioe/ ( , " I }J "; ,~ I .'-:.. .1 ....\ ;:l'.t~: .-".~~ Legend =F,~ =<::JExp",o.war \l or $ U.ne) :JIJD Hone Prime === .6 une Major = 4 une Major *** Cia... I Coneetcr ...... G;a\e'WaySlre.t.(6 41ne) ~ G;a\e'Way Slreet(214 ..ne) = Town q,!!~rMerlsl - C1her ROe... . ,Sll1251nm,:hange . ! :: "\ ( ~,i ) ,'l r--- , , i,..__, ~'__ ..~___ ~ - ...-w"'-' ,."... ....... . ~ f-- ._......--r,....~ -.. .">..,. I -:0..... f ''-._.....-.......~....e \ Figure 5-13E Page LUT-64 01>' of (hula V1sta General Plan 26-13 Circulation Plan. West ~l,';" ~,).<' ....... =F~1f === is une Major =:m, 4 lane Major *'*'ir_ ctaal Cof1actor" .- Ga.....y S_(6 Lane) <H>H~ ~tavJaY Stneet (4 Lane) .... Urban Arielial (4 Lane) '~)i,,-, Commei'cial Boulevard (4 Lane) "'".. Cilwntcwn PtOtmtnade (214 Lanes) - OlherRoads -..-' -- ,- /~ -I< ___, t - -q.. .. "',.. * ,,,,>i-* << 'it >- "'19/$ , \"~~"-'" ;l, ~ ,.> J ...~f ~# ~ '.' !t- o> .~ :i - <I> Cd \6.) 1- Street .. .. .. .. 01 .. .""'....-. Figure 5-13W Page LUT-63 ~l~ ~ od\~ 26-14 ''''- '" ' ~,,\i " '. ." ';-'~,,>:i m{~? "" ~.. ;~ 'k ~ "., "~V 2 ~: t). ,~ .'~ ........ >' b - ,;:> :- "~ cr , ,~' ~ ~, i'::\ '~~ ,'" .,. ,~,...' '. ., . .t1 .,~~,:FJ! ::<;. 1'. , ~'~ :< .. ." ~. '~I~> C. ~i '6~ '~;:~~'O ,'>" ;tri,r, il1 ~I$ . ~ #5~ ~ ". '-' , .3 fIJ .B ;:l I') ~ ~ u ~ ! .g fIJ ... ~ ,g 1! l;J ~ "i ~ ... ... l;J F (t i '" 2 ~ ." :! .. .. .. .g ~ . < ~ ,- . t: ~ . ,- ~ - " .. ., :z II! ;,; " ,i." '5 0 '" '" <.> 2 ... , " ". .'. ,. 1 I , I I , , I , I,. " " :~~ 'Ii '" ~ ~__.....-o;,"",~~".~,~:-; 0 .. " '~~~ , ~;<f' ,,-,,-:; .,. .~ -M ):l-, " ; , $ ~ 8 ..J % > '" 53 '" ~ "' '" "- :;;0 "0 Q. 01 " 'M >. ";;J ......, ,.,-;";:. f' ,'''<- i"""!" ~.. (I), i' ',e,,;: _ "",/1' 'E, "'-" 11"- "~, f.'t ~.," '~ 0: .c ~' :l", ,'~ :', ',,: -""';- '.' ":..,,' '1l:.,,' "iii::.. '~ '0" -",-":;;::,, ,~ t;., Q' ;';1,;,!/ ;':"'-';".'i'f"': '0" J\."_",:: ~"''', """."":', c';., -.n,_ n',"".. "...." ;'" ,~i".:. '--".", JI"~ ~\I .~> ,; .---- ..j!::.. -,,' '~I ,c~, .',.,;10 ""'.:;..: