Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1979/04/25 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, April 25, 1979 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR A~l matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may all be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the Con~nission votes on the motion. 2. Consideration of request for extension of time for tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates 3. Consideration of request for vacation of Madison Avenue from "H" Street to 290 feet south REGULAR'CALENDAR 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan PCM-79-22 for development of 0.88 acre parcel in the 1800 block of Nirvana in Otay Industrial Park - Rafael Ficachi and Oscar D. Cruz 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for revision of precise plan to permit erection of a freestanding sign at 410 "H" Street - First National Bank of San Diego County 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for revision of grading plan approved under precise plan for 152 unit condominium project at 500-630 Telegraph Canyon Road - Jlen, Inc. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-79-5 to amend the Municipal Code relating to panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-79-9 to amend the Municipal Code relating to dwelling groups in R-E and R-1 zones 9. Consideration of staff recommendation for implementing Booz, Allen and Hamilton Report OP~qL COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 1979 1. Annual report of Design Review Committee A. BACKGROUND City Ordinance #1771 establishing the Design Review Committee specifies that an annual report to the Planning Commission will be required. In addition, the City Council requested that the annual report be submitted to them. The attached report has been s~bmitted by the Design Review Committee for your review as well as the City Council. B. RECOMMENDATION Accept report. To: Honorable City Council and City Planning Commission From: Chula Vista Design Review Committee Subject: Design Review Committee's Annual Report The Design Review Committee was created by the City Council in the latter part of 1977 to administer and effectuate the Chula Vista Design Manual governing residential developments located in the R-3 zones. Site plan and architectural approval previously acted on by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission and City Council for those areas which had the precise plan modifying district attached have become the responsibility of the Committee. During the first year of operation (April 1978 - April 1979) the Committee held a total of 20 meetings and considered 31 projects. Twenty-nine of the projects were approved or conditionally approved and two projects were denied. The two projects which were denied did not conform to the Design Manual guidelines and upon denial the Committee gave the applicants specific suggestions which would aid them in redesigning the project to meet the guidelines. It should be noted that no appeals have been filed regarding the Committee's decisions. The Committee has emphasized to each applicant its desire to work out solutions to any disagreements or differences of opinions which might arise on a given project. The most difficult problem to date has been generated by the applicant's desire to retain existing structures while constructing new units as well. The problem of coordinating the architecture has proven extremely difficult in many cases. The Committee has adopted a policy requiring the developers of such projects to insure that both existing and new buildings will comply with the Design Manual standards. Since the Committee has been in the process of reviewing plans for only one year, very few of the projects are far enough along in construction to evaluate on the ground. The Committee will be planning field trips within the next three to four months to review some of the completed projects to assess the review process and the design standards. We wish to thank the City Council at this time for having the foresight to establish the Committee which affords developers a more comprehensive review while at the same time helps to insure more attractive and livable mult~e,, family projects. ,_______~-~ ----~,./_~ __~ Chai rman~Ic k L o h~Ta n Member ~xj ~t ev.e. Owens ' Tom Money John Nash Wayne Swal low City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 2 2. Consideration of request for extension of time for tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates A. BACKGROUND 1. On November 22, 1977 the City Council adopted Resolution 8892 approving the tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates, PCS-77-10, for 18 months. The subdivision would divide 4.34 acres located between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive in the R-1 zone into ll single family lots with an average lot size of 16,360 sq. ft. The tentative subdivision map is due to expire on May 22, 1979. 2. The developer has requested a two year extension of the tentative map because of the requirement for a sewer main extension. The sewer main is not scheduled for construction as of this date but is likely to be constructed by late 1979 or early 1980. 3. Action to extend the tentative map requires no additional environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to approve a two year extension, from May 22, 1979 to May 22, 1981, for the Hudson Valley Estates tentative subdivision map (PCS-77-10). C. DISCUSSION 1. The extension of the sewer main is a condition of approval of the tentative map. The amount of time thus far required to install said sewer main has delayed the filing of the final map. 2. There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original findings or conditions of approval, therefore, an extension is justified for the two year period. LOCATOR PCS-77-10 ~ II LOT SUBDIVISICN- ~)-I00 BLK. OE FUTURE LAS FLORES DR. o' i~' 2od City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 3 3. CONSIDERATION OF RE~EST FOR VACATION OF MADISON AVE. FROM "H" ST. TO 290 FT. SOUTH I. Background A. On Dec. 12, 1978, Harriet Pubin Stone submitted a request to vacate the subject portion of Madison Ave. This portion of Madison Ave. is a dead-end street bounded by commercial properties, all owned by petitioner. B. The owner is planning to renovate the property on the west side of Madison Ave. and will use the vacated portion for additional parking and landscaping purposes. II. Recommendation Based on the findings contained in this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the vacation of the subject street. III. Findings The Engineering Division has reviewed the request for this proposed street vacation and recommends approval based on the following: A. At present, the only traffic on this portion of Madison Ave. is comprised of vehicles travelling to and from retail ~ businesses which will benefit from increased parking cre- ated by the vacation. B. The closing of the street will not be detrimental to the flow of traffic in the area. C. The street was dedicated as an easement for street pur- poses by the owner in 1955 with the possibility of connecting this portion of Madison Ave. to an existing portion 330 ft. to the south. Since that time, however, the southerly por- tion has been modified to a cul de sac and the property be- t%~een the north and south portions has become a retail shopping center. D. The petitioner has arranged to dedicate utility easements by separate instrument with the respective utility com- panies, therefore no reservations are needed for facilities. 'H' $TREET . VACA T~O ~ ~ II II ii II II II II II II 'Il V/CINITY MAP L. M. G. STREET VACATION MAD/SON AVE ~ SOUTH OF "H" STREET City Planning Commission page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan PCM-79-22 for development of 0.88 acre parcel in the 1800 block of Nirvana in Otay Industrial Park - Rafael Ficachi and Oscar D. Cruz A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a precise plan for the development of a 38,500 sq. ft. (0.88 acre) parcel located at 1887 Nirvana Avenue in the Otay Industrial Park in the I-P zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS~79-52, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on April 12, 1979. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declara- tion. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-79-52 and find that this project will have no significant enviror~ental impact. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the precise plan, PCM-79-22, subject to the following conditions: a. A Landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan shall indicate that the existing slopes along Nirvana Avenue will be cleared of weeds and debris and all other slopes brought into conformance with the approved landscape plan for the Otay Industrial Park. b. Fencing in accordance with the precise plan guidelines shall be provided on each side property line. c. The grading shall be adjusted so that the top of the slope bank on the east side coincides with the side property line. d? The parking area shall be revised to provide a minimum 15 ft. wide one-way drive for the angled parking stalls, with curb planters designed in accordance with standard city drawings (ref. Landscape Manual). C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a vacant 38,500 sq. ft. (0.88 acre) through lot situated between Nirvana Avenue and Otay Valley Road. Access to the site is by way of Nirvana-Avenue as the property is approximately 17 to 20 feet above Otay Valley Road and there is an existing 2:1 slope adjacent to the road. The remainder of the site is relatively level, sloping gently to the southwest corner of the property. The only improvements on the property consist of a 6 ft. high wood fence located at the top of the slope adjacent to Otay Valley Road and patchy landscaping on the slopes which have been overrun by weeds due to lack of maintenance. City Planning Commission page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 2. Proposed plan. The applicant proposes to construct a 13,000 sq. ft. steel and rock veneer trim "L" shaped building on the easterly and southerly portions of the site. Inasmuch as the building contains more than 5,000 sq. ft., Planning Commission and City Council action are required prior to issuance of a building permit. The building will set back 25 feet from the front property line on Nirvana Avenue, 10 feet from both side property lines and a minimum of 6 feet from the existing wood fence located above Otay Valley Road. Parking for 28 cars will be located on the northwest portion of the site with access provided by two driveways. A 6 foot high cedar fence is proposed 10 feet from the inside edge of the existing sidewalk, with landscaping in front and behind the fence as well as within the parking area. The proposed project meets the recently adopted precise plan guidelines. A landscaping concept plan was submitted for staff review. D. FINDINGS 1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The site will be upgraded, including existing landscaped slopes. The structure is in keeping with the development in the Otay Industrial Park and will, therefore, not be detrimental or injurious to adjoining properties or improvements. 2. That such plansatisfies the principles of the application of the '~" Modifying District as set forth in Section 19.46.041. The proposed plan meets the adopted precise plan guidelines for the Otay Industrial Park. 3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the '~" Precise Plan Modifying District. No exceptions are requested. 4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of the city. The proposed uses are in keeping with the General Plan. ' · CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: CRUZ/FICACHI PRECISE PLAN Project Location: 1887 NIRVANA AVE. Project Proponent: O. CRUZ & R. FICACHI 395 H ST. CHULA VISTA, CA 92~I~ CASE NO. IS-79-52 DATE: APRIL I2, 1979 PROJECT SETTING THE PROJECT INVOLVES 38,25~ SQ FT. OF VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1887 NIRVANA AVE. WITHIN THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK. ADJACENT PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY VACANT, HOWEVER, SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL USES ARE PROPOSED FOR SOME OF THESE SITES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DENSELY COVERED WITH NATIVE AND INTRODUCED VEGETATION, BUT NO RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE KNOWN TO BE PRESENT. BENTONITE, A MINERAL USED IN THE PROCESSING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, HAS BEEN MINED IN THE GENERAL VICINITY. MINING OPERATIONS WERE DISCONTINUED HOWEVER, DUE TO THE INFERIOR OUALITY OF THE RESOURCE PRESENT AND ECONOMICS INVOLVED. ACCORDING TO SPECIAL REPORT 123, PREPARED BY THE CALIF. DIV. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, A VERIFIED SEGMENT OF THE LA NACION EARTHQUAKE FAULT SYSTEM IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE PROJECT SITE. ALSO, AN INFERRED FAULT TRACE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LA NACION SYSTEM IS SUSPECTED TO BE LOCATED TO THE EAST. A GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE WAS PREPARED ON THE INFERRED OTAY VALLEY FAULT JUST SOUTH OF THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK. THIS REPORT INDICATES NEGLIGIBLE HAZARD. IN ADDITION, A SOILS REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ORIGINAL INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION CONCLUDED THAT EXPANSIVE SOILS ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 13,~ SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE AS A WAREHOUSE AND LIGHT INDUSIRIAL LEASE SPACE. THE BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL AND WILL NOT EXCEED 18 FT. IN HEIGHT. ADEOUATE PARKING FOR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL USE HAS BEEN PLANNED AND LANDSCAPING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PRECISE PLAN GUIDELINES. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL USE IS IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT I-P ZONE AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THE "P", PRECISE PLAN, MODIFYING DISTRICT WILL REQUIRE CONFORMANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS AND THAT DUE TO THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT IT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. SOILS A SOILS REPORT PREPARED FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION INDICATES THAT EXPANSIVE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT ON-SITE. TO INSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION, A SOILS REPORT SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. 2. SEWERS PRELIMINARY STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE SEWER MAIN IN OTAY VALLEY RD. WEST OF OLEANDER AVE. IS NEAR OR AT CAPACITY. STUDIES ARE CONTINUING AND IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE, TO RESTRICT CERTAIN TYPES OF BUILDING OR REQUIRE A MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD BE SERVED BY THE OTAY VALLEY MAIN WEST OF OLEANDER UNTIL CAPACITY IS INCREASED. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. A DETAILED SOILS INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. THE PROJECT SITE IS VOID OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL OR MAN- MADE RESOURCES. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION WILL ENSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION. EARTHQUAKE FAULTING SUSPECTED OF BEING PRESENT (oTAY VALLEY FAULT) HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE AN ANOMALY OTHER THAN A FAULT AND DOES NOT POSE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT. 2. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTANT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO ACHIEVE SHORT TERM TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG TERM ENVIR- ONMENTAL GOALS. 3. VISUAL IMPACT DUE TO THE PROJECTS INDUSTRIAL NATURE WILL BE AVOIDED THROUGH THE PRECISE PLAN PROCESS AND THERE ARE NO IMPACTS ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR WHICH COULD INTERACT TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AT THIS TIME. 4. NO SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC OR RELATED EMISSIONS IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR NOR WILL ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE BE EMITTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AS A RESULT OF PROJECT IMPLE- MENTATION. PROJECT PERSPECTIVE PRELIMINARY STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE SEWER MAIN WHICH SERVICES THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NEARING OR AT CAPACITY AT A POINT DOWN- STREAM OF THE SUBJECT SITE. IF FURTHER STUDY VERIFIES THIS CONCLUSION, FUTURE PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THIS SERVICE AREA MAY BE REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT APPROPRIATE MITIGATION OF THE PROBLEM TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. 3 CONSULTATION 1. CITY OF CHULA VISTA D. J. PETERSON DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BILL ULLRICH ASSOC. ENG. TED MONSELL FIRE CAPTAIN GENE GRADY DIR. OF BLDG. & HOUSING MERRITT HODSON ENV. CONTROL COMMISSIONER 2. DOCUMENTS IS-78-63 CURRIS/CROWN STORAGE FACILITY IS-79-9 TOWER STRUCTURES INC. EIR-73-7 OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK - AUTO RECYCLING FACILITY The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. ~ T~AL REVIEW COORDINATOR (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for revision of precise plan to permit erection of a freestanding sign at 410 "H" Street - First National Bank of San Diego County A. BACKGROUND 1. The First National Bank of San Diego County (formerly Balboa Bank) located at 410 "H" Street in the C-O-P zone is requesting approval of a proposed revision to their precise plan for the purpose of erecting a 14 foot high, 15 sq. ft. interior illuminated freestanding pole sign at the northwest corner of the site. 2. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review as a class 11 (a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion denying the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing signs In late 1973, prior to the adoption of the present sign regulations of the C-O zone, the 'bank requested a variance for an increase in sign area for two wall signs located on the east and west elevations of the building. The increase was from 40 sq. ft. to 112 sq. ft. The Planning Commission approved a 50 sq. ft. wall sign for each side of the building. This decision was appealed to the City Council which granted an 84 sq. ft. sign on the east side of the building and 120 sq. ft. on the west side. Since then, the staff has approved an additional wall sign (12 sq. ft.) providing identification of their "24 Hour Teller" service. 2. Present sign regulations The present sign regulations of the C-O zone allow a maximum sign area for wall sign of 50 sq. ft. facing the street and 25 sq. ft. facing interior parking areas. The two existing signs are therefore larger than presently permitted by ~rdinance. Businesses on a major street or collector street are also permitted a freestanding pole sign not to exceed 16 feet in height and 32 sq. ft. of sign area. 3. Proposed sign The proposed pole sign is 14 feet in height and contains 15 sq. ft. of area which includes a digital time and temperature display and logo area. The sign is essentially rectangular, however, the two faces in the vicinity of the logo are approximately at a 60 degree angle to each other. The sign is to be placed at a 45 degree angle to the intersection of the two streets. A 35 foot high flag pole is also to be erected in the same vicinity and will extend up and through the 60 degree "V" section of the sign. City Planning Commission page~ 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 D. ANALYSIS 1. One of the original findings in granting the variance request to increase the area of the wall signs related to the fact that the building was set back 175 feet from Fourth Avenue creating a visibility problem. The larger wall signs were intended to correct that problem so that an additional freestand- ing sign should not be necessary. In addition, since the granting of the variance, the bank has acquired the property at the northwest corner Shasta Street and Fourth Avenue for additional parking. The house previously located on the lot has been removed resulting in greater visibility of the bank from Fourth Avenue. 2. The staff normally would be hesitant to recommend denial of a request to erect a freestanding sign which is allowed by ordinance; however, since the applicant already has wall signs more than twice as large as the maximum allowed for the zone, we cannot support the additional signing. The applicant has the option of reducing the wall signs to 50 square feet each and erecting the sign as proposed. NORTH LOCATOR PCM-79-24 FREI~S',F~NDING SIGN 410 H ~ page 8 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for revision of ~radin~ plan approved under precise plan for 152 unit condominium project at 500-630 Telegraph Canyon Road - Jlen~ Inc. A. BACKGROUND 1. In August, 1973 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for the development of 179 apartment units for the subdivided 15+ acres. At the time of approval neither a public hearing nor Council review were required as part of the precise plan process. The precise plan was later modified by the present owners who reduced the density to 152 units while maintaining the same basic site plan. 2. In June of last year the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject map which authorized the applicants to proceed with a condominium conversion of the proposed apartments. 3. After the site was graded and the units were well along in construction the City found that the subject property had not been graded in accordance with approved plans. All work was stopped and a revised grading plan was submitted. Because of the significant changes to the plan, staff required the developer to submit a revised precise plan for Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. The EIR on this project (73-9) was adopted by the City Council in 1973; however, due to the substantial change in the grading plan, the project was again reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on April 12, 1979. The Committee determined that while the change in grading was significant in itself, the major impact involved the views from adjoining single family lots which was not a significant environmental issue. The Committee therefore determined that no additional environmental review would be required. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the revised precise plan for Telegraph Canyon Terraces subject to the following conditions: (Note: These conditions shall apply to the entire 152 unit project.) 1. The upper two units on the three buildings located in the southwest corner of the development lying east of the cul-de-sac access road shall be removed and the roof revised, using a maximum 2½ to 12 pitch or a false gable design which will allow for a reduction in height of approximately 8-10 feet. (Note: The deletion of Six units will allow for a reduction of 12 parking spaces in the upper area, which shall be redesigned for usable open space. A new site plan and elevation changes shall be submitted for staff approval. The new submittal shall include line of sight studies from the rear yards of the homes adjacent to the south so that the views to the west-northwest from those yards can be accurately determined.) 2. All retaining walls shall be constructed of brown slumpstone to match the other units of the project under construction east of Oleander Road. City Planning Commission page 9 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 3. A minimum 42" high wrought iron fence (subject to Planning Department approval) shall be installed adjacent to the top of all slope banks judged by the Planning Department to pose a safety problem to residents within the subject property. 4. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted incorporating the following: a) Slopes shall be planted with numerous specimen sized trees set in 36" augered holes with buttress treatment, such as boulders or railroad ties. b) Jute matting shall be required at locations determined by the City's Landscape Architect. c) Additional shrub planting is needed along Oleander Avenue to mitigate the dominance of the needlepoint ivy. The 3 ft. area at the base of the wall should be planted with a combination of ground cover and vines. d) The areas adjacent to the top of the retaining walls shall be planted with cascading plant materials. e) The applicant shall be required to retain a registered landscape architect for project supervision and plant placement. A copy of the contract must be filed with the City prior to commencement of landscaping. 5. The central recreation/pool area and the designated recreation areas specified at the west and east ends of the project shall be protected by a minimum 5 ft. block wall or combination of mounding and wall equal to 5 feet in height to mitigate noise for those areas. 6. While occupancy of buildings may be issued in phases, no occupancy for any unit shall be issued until all of the landscaping and irrigation system for the entire phase has been installed and accepted by the City. C. DISCUSSION 1. As indicated in the background portion of this report, the applicant received approval from the City last June to proceed with a subject map for 152 condominum units designed for the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805. The developer graded the site and submitted certification from his engineer that the property was graded in accordance with the plans on file with the City. After the project was well along in construction, the staff received several phone calls from adjoining single family home owners questioning the height of the buildings under construction, noting that they seemed much higher than the elevations quoted by the developer when the public hearings were held to consider the project. Finally, the City was contacted by the developer's engineer who indicated the project had not been graded in accordance with approved plans. 2. The Engineering Department put a stop work order on all inspections and several meetings were held with the developer to determine the extent of the problem and to explore possible solutions. A plan was finally submitted to the City City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page l0 reflecting the as-built conditions of the buildings, together with a possible grading solution involving the regrading of slopes in combination with the construction of numerous retaining walls. 3. After careful study the staff reviewed and released for inspection the area lying east of Oleander Avenue since the changes to that side of the street were relatively insignificant. However, the changes occurring west of Oleander were considered significant and, therefore, the applicant was asked to file a revised precise plan for the area. The significant changes included: a) One building near Oleander was moved 80 feet closer to Oleander, essentially changing places with a parking area, and the site was elevated approximately 5 feet causing the need for a retaining wall to be constructed along Telegraph Canyon Road. b) The westerly four buildings (32 units) adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road and 1-805 are now 2 feet to 12 feet above the approved grade. c) The primary access drive to Telegraph Canyon Road originally varied in steepness from 10% to 14%; it was constructed at a constant grade of approximately 14% for its entire length. d) The changes of grade resulted in the use of a 3½ foot high retaining wall for the entire length of the Telegraph Canyon frontage (2400) feet plus combination retaining walls up to 8 feet high around parking and garage areas equal to the Telegraph Canyon frontage. e) The most significant change in grading occurred in the southwest portion of the site where the four buildings(32 units) closest to adjoining single family developments were elevated as much as 23 feet above their approved grade with one of the buildings moved 45 feet closer to the rear property line which abuts the homes. f) The flat areas adjacent to the building entrances adjacent to the top of the slope banks were reduced so significantly that the top of slope bank and the necessary pedestrian walk literally coincide--thus, safety protection of those areas is critical. D. ANALYSIS 1. The initial errors in this case were those pertaining to the grading of the site. To a large extent buildings were changed from their approved location in order to fit the erroneous grading of the site. As the result of this experience, the City has developed a procedure for determining the status of the grading and no building permit is issued until the grading has been determined to be satisfactory. Procedures for establishing points of reference to determine the proper location of buildings have also been revised. 2. The most significant change from the approved plan involves the increase in height of the southwest building pad which creates a definite adverse effect on City Planning Commission page ll Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 the adjoining single family dwellings to the south. The developer testified in the public hearings held by the City last year that construction in this area would do nothing to block the views of single family lots, which then had a commanding view of the ocean and Point Loma. The construction of the three buildings lying easterly of the primary entrance road do, in fact, significantly block or reduce the view of homes lying to the southeast. In addition, as mentioned previously, the most easterly building was moved some 45 feet closer, to within 40 feet of the single family area. The retention of someone's view is usually not the most significant planning issue in a project. In fact, the City often times cannot control blockage of views, depending on the terrain. However, in this case both the staff and the applicant endeavored to plan the project to preserve the views from the single family area to the south and this was one of the main issues discussed at the public hearings held on the subject map. The developer promised and the approved plans insured that the views from the adjoining single family dwellings would not be obstructed. 3. After viewing the site from the rear yards of the various single family homes located along the south property line and reviewing the building plans, staff has concluded that the top two units in the three most easterly buildings on the upper pad should be removed to insure the views and minimize the impact on the adjoining R-1 area. 4. The revised grading of the site has brought about the need for the extensive construction of retaining walls, just under 4 feet in height, along Telegraph Canyon Road and 8 feet high around the parking area and toe of slopes near the garages and units. In addition, the reduction of level areas adjacent to the walk entry areas has prompted staff to place additional conditions of landscaping and fencing on the project to insure safety and an aesthetically pleasing project. E. FINDINGS 1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular oase, be detrimental to the health, safet~ or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicini~, or injuriou~ to improvements in the vicinity.. The plan with changes as recommended by the staff will be a well designed project for the location, The plan offers amenities and more than ample offstreet parking. With the conditions recommended by staff, views from the single family homes to the south will be substantially restored. 2. That such plan satisfies the principles of the appZication of the Modi~ing~ District as set forth in Section 56.041. The applicant has designed a project incorporating split level units which help reduce the impact of the gradin9 on a severe slope. Additional land- scaping conditions have been recommended by staff to help alleviate erosion problems which may occur due to the 1½:1 slope conditions. 3. That a~J exceptio~ granted ~hich deviate from the underling zoning requirements shall be warranted on~ ~hen necessary to meet the purpose and application of the '~" Precise Plan Modi~ing Dis trict. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 12 The project meets the requirements of the underlying zone. 4. That approval of thi~ plan will conform to the General Plan an~ the adopted policies of the ci~. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan designation of high density residential development for this site. Special emphasis will be placed on the landscaping along Telegraph Canyon Road which has been designated as a Scenic Route in the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan. LOCATOR PCM-'79-2~ REVISION OF GRADING PLAN FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS SHOFPING CENTER COf~DQMINIUM S VACANT MANZ . City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 13 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-79-5 to amend the Municipal Code relatin~ to panhandle lots, fla~ lots, or lots served by an easement A. BACKGROUND 1. Over the past years the Planning Commission has granted variances from the minimum lot frontage requirements in the single family and two family residen- tial zones permitting the creation of panhandle (flag) lots and lots served by an easement. Section 19.14.200 of the Municipal Code states in part that, "No grant of variance shall be authorized if the Zoning Administrator finds that the conditions or situation of the specific piece of property or the intended use of said property for which variance is sought, or one or the other in combination, is so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonably practical the formula- tion of a general regulation for such condition or situation." The variance re- quests which have been granted are similar in nature and it is anticipated other requests will be forthcoming, so staff prepared these proposed amendments to the Code establishing regulations and guidelines governing the development of pan- handle lots. 2. An Initial Study, IS-79-49, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed amendment was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinater on April 2, 1979. It was concluded that there would be no significant environ- mental effects and it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-79-49 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code as indicated in Exhibit A (attached). C. DISCUSSION The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance will allow for the processing of the occasional request for development of a lot which lacks frontage on a public street but which has access from an easement without the need to apply for a variance. In the past, the variance procedure has been used but the classical variance findings are difficult to make in this type of case. Procedurally, it is preferable to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for the development of such pre-existing lots subject to the appropriate conditions of approval. In drafting the language of the ordinance, staff utilized the conditions of approval previously established by the Planning Commission as guidelines. EXHIBIT A Proposed zoning text amendments relating to panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement Chapter 19.22 R-E--RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE Amend Section 19.22.080 to read as follows: 19.22.080 Minimum lot frontage. Every lot in the R-E zone shall have a minimum frontage upon a dedicated street of one hundred feet, unless such lot fronts upon an approved easement or private road as provided in this chapter (see Section 19.22.150) or unless such lot has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this Code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets. Add new Section 19.22.150 to read as follows: 19.22.150 Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement--Requirements and conditions. A. Panhandle lots, flag lots or lots served by an easement proposed within a subdivision shall meet the criteria contained herein. B. No lot may be created or developed under this provision which could otherwise be served by a public street unless approved by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. C. All development permitted under this provision shall be subject to the regulations and requirements of this title except as otherwise regulated in this section. D. The division of any property under this provision shall be subject to the regulations of the State Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Chula V~Sta. E. Not more than four lots served by a private road or easement shall be allowed under this provision unless this restriction is waived by the Director of Planning or City Council. F. The responsibility for the maintenance and cost of maintenance of all common areas, roads or easements and guest parking areas shall be equally shared by the property owner of each lot; this shall be accom- plished through the formation of a homeowner's association. G. Development criteria: 1. Road and easement widths: one lot - 15 feet* two or more lots - 20 feet*. *These widths may be increased if it is determined by the Director of Planning that a sidewalk is required. Exhibit A Page 2 2. All driveways, guest parking areas and roadways.shall be paved with a minimum of 5" of portland concrete cement. 3. Each lot shall contain an area not less than the minimum lot size of the underlying zone exclusive of all private roads, common areas and guest parking areas. 4. All onsite utilities shall be undergrounded. 5. Each dwelling shall be connected to a gravity sewer unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 6. An onsite fire hydrant may be required by the Fire Department when such is deemed necessary. 7. Guest parking shall be provided as follows: one lot - one space two lots - three spaces three lots - five spaces four lots - six spaces The individual driveways to the garage shall not be construed as meeting the guest parking requirement. 8. Accessory structures shall not be located closer than ten feet to any dwelling located on adjacent property. 9. The following setbacks shall be observed: Front yard - 15 feet from any access drive and guest parking areas. Any garage facing an access drive shall be a minimum of 22 feet from the drive. Side yard -Not less than that required by the underlying zone. Rear yard - Not less than that required by the underlying zone upon initial construction. 10. A minimum five foot high fence shall be provided on each side of the private drive behind the front setback and on those property lines abutting adjoining properties. This requirement may be modified or waived by the Director of Planning if it is found that said fence is not necessary for the protection of the adjoining properties. ll. If the property is graded to create a building pad for each lot, the minimum level area (no slope over 5%) of each pad shall be not less than 80% of the minimum lot size of the underlying zone, but in no case shall the minimum area be less than 5,000 square feet. Development proposed on existing natural topography, having an average natural slope of 10% or greater, and with less than 10% of the site to be graded, shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, who shall consider whether such development will adversely affect adjacent properties or development. 12. Guest parking areas shall be adequately screened from onsite and adjacent residential properties. Exhibit A Page 3 H. No garage conversions shall be permitted. I. Development shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval of the Director of Planning. Chapter 19.24 R-l--SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Amend Section 19.24.110 to read as follows: 19.24.110 Frontage requirements. Every lot in the R-1 zone having an area between 5,000 square feet and 5,999 square feet shall have a minimum lot frontage upon a dedicated street of fifty feet, and every lot having an area of 6,000 square feet or greater shall have a minimum lot frontage upon a dedicated street of sixty feet, unless such lots front upon an approved easement or private road as provided for in this chapter (see Section 19.24.170) or unless such lots have been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets. Add new Section 19.24.170 to read as follows: 19.24.170 Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an' easement--Requirements and conditions. Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement shall be provided in the R-1 zone subject to the requirements and conditions of Section 19.22.150. Chapter 19.26 R-2--ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Add new Section 19.26.160 to read as follows: 19.26.160 Frontage requirements. Every lot in the R-2 and R-2-X zone shall have a minimum frontage upon a dedicated street of sixty feet, unless such lot fronts upon an approved easement or private road as provided in this chapter (see Section 19.26.170) or unless such lot has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets. Add new Section 19.26.170 to read as follows: 19.26.170 Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement--Requirements and conditions. Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement shall be provided in the R-2 and R-2-X zone subject to the requirements and conditions of Section 19.22.150. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Zoning Text Amendment relating to panhandle and easement lots Project Location: Not site specific Project Proponent: City of Chula Vista CASE NO. IS-79-49 DATE: April 2, 1979 A. Background Over the past years the Planning Commission has granted variances from the minimum lot frontage requirements in the single family and two family residential zones permitting the creation of panhandle (flag) lots and lots served by an easement. Section 19.14.200 of the Municipal Code states in part that "No 9rant of variance shall be authorized if the Zoning Administrator finds that the conditions or situation of the specific piece of oroperty or the intended use of said property for which variance is sought, or one or the other in combination, is so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation." The variance requests which have been granted are so similar in nature that it is anticipated other requests will be forthcoming, prompting staff to prepare these proposed amendments to the Code establishing regulations and guidelines governing the development of panhandle lots. B. Project Proposal The following are proposed Zoning Text Amendments relating to panhandle lots, fl.ag lots or lots served by an easement. Chapter 19.22 R-E - RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE Amend Section 19.22.080 to read as follows: "Every lot in the R-E zone shall have a minimum frontage upon a dedicated street of one hundred feet (100'), unless such lots front upon an approved easement or private road as provided in this Chapter (See Section 10.22.150) or unless such lot has been approved'by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this Code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets." Add new Section 19.22.150 (See attached) Chapter 19.24 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIgENCE ZONE Amend Section 19.24.070 B to read as follows: "B. Minimum dimensions: The following minimum dimensions shall be observed; provided however, that such dimensions may be modified by the granting of a variance. The minimum requirements shall be one of the following district classifications as designated on the zoning map." Amend Section 19.14.110 to read as follows: "Every lot in the R-1 zone having an area between 5000 sq. ft. and 5999 s~. ft. shall have a minimum lot frontage upon a dedicated street of fifty fret (50') and every lot having an area of 6000 sq. ft. or greater shall have a minimum lot frontage upon a dedicated street of sixty feet (60') unless such lots front upon an approved easement or private road as provided for in this chapter (See Section 19.24.170) or unless such lots have been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this Code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets.~' Add new Section 19.24.170 (See attached) Chapter 19.26 R-2 - ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Amend Section 19.26.070 to read as follows: "The following minimum dimensions shall be observed; provided however, that ~uch dimensions may be modified by the granting of a variance. The minimum requirements shall be one of the following district classifications as designated on the zoning map. (For exceptions see Sections 19.16.020, 19.16.060 and 19.16.080)." Add new Section 19.26.150 to read as follows: "19.26.150 Frontage requirements Every lot in the R-2 and R-2-X zone shall have a minimum frontage upon a dedicated street of sixty feet (60'), unless such lot fronts upon an approved easement or private road as provided in this Chapter (See Section 19.26.160) or unless such lot has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the provisions of this Code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision of land or the dedication of public streets." Add new Section 19.26.160 (see attached). C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance and is not at variance with the intent of the General Plan. D. Findinqs of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed ordinance.amendments are not site specific, therefore will not adversely effect any natural or man-made resources. 2. The project proposal is not at variance with the General Plan or associated elements and will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. This type of use is currently being permitted by the variance procedure, this amendment would only change the procedure for obtaining approval of the proposals. 4. No significant increase in vehicle traffic or related noise or emissions is expected to occur due to project implementation. 2 E. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista - D.J. Peterson Dir. of Planning Bill Ullrich Assoc. Engineer Gene Grady Dir. of Building & Housing Peggy Donovan Environmental Control Commission ~. Documents Title 19, Zoning - Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. ENVIRON~ T~L REVIE~ COORDINATOR FiN ] (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission page 14 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-79-9 to amend the Municipal Code relating to dwelling groups in R-E and R-1 zones A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a proposed zoning text amendment regarding the "dwelling group" provision of the Municipal Code (Section 19.58.130). The amendment has been prompted by the present ambiguity in the language of the code and difficulty in its application. 2. An Initial Study, IS-79-50, of possible adverse environmental impacts of this project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on April 2, 1979. It was concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-79-50 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A (attached). C. DISCUSSION 1. Section 19.04.076 of the code defines a "dwelling group" as a "group of two or more detached buildings used for dwelling purposes located on a parcel of land in one ownership and having any yard or court in common." 2. "Dwelling groups" are allowed in the R-E and R-1 zones subject to approval of a conditional use permit and are a principal permitted use in the R-2 zone. The original intent of the "dwelling group" provision was to allow additional dwelling units on a parcel when the additional unit would not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. For example, a 14,000 sq. ft. lot would be allowed two single family dwellings to be constructed, provided, of course, a conditional use permit was approved by the Planning Department. 3. The "dwelling group" provision of the code (Section 19.58.130) has been poorly drafted. The conditions and requirements are difficult to understand and interpret, resulting in problems in implementation and potential development not in accordance with the original intent of the provision. As an example, a 28,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-1 zone could be developed with one detached single family home and one triplex as the code is presently written, even though a triplex is not a permitted use in the R-1 zone. Another example is a 21,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-2 zone. Since "dwelling groups" are a permitted use in the R-2 zone, an individual may apply for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling and a 5 unit apartment structure on the property, and if the development meets the requirements of the code the building permit would be issued. These hypothetical situations do not meet the intent of the "dwelling group" provision which was to allow a clustering of units within a zone, provided those units are of the type permitted in the zone; i.e. detached single family in the R-1 zone and duplex in the R-2 zone. City Planning Commission page 15 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 4. It is also possible to interpret the "aggregate of the minimum lot area for the individual dwelling in the group" to mean that in the case of the R-2 zone, one unit would be permitted for each 3500 sq. ft. of lot area. This interpretation could result in three dwelling units on a 10,500 sq. ft. lot. This, too, does not meet the original intent. 5. Other difficulties related to interpretation make it imperative to amend the section by clearly stating the conditions and requirements and under what circumstances a "dwelling group" may be developed. 6. The staff has also completed a draft amendment to the code establishing conditions, requirements and regulations governing the development of panhandle lots. The amendment was prompted by the repeated approval of variances creating such lots. The proposed amendment to the "dwelling group" provision has incor- porated many of the provisions of the "panhandle lot" amendment. This is in anticipation of the lot being split in the future and to offset any variance requests which may arise because of differences between the two provisions. 7. Since "panhandle lots" may be created without a variance, it would no longer be appropriate to require a conditional use permit to develop property in the same manner due to the ownership. For this reason, it is recommended that a conditional use permit no longer be required for a "dwelling group" in the R-E and R-1 zones. The procedure is not required for the R-2 zone. EXHIBIT "A" Proposed zoning text amendments to the R-E, R-l, and R-2 zones relating to dwelling groups Chapter 19.22 R-E--RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE Section 19.22.020 Permitted uses. Add new paragraph C to read as follows: C. Dwelling groups subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130 of this title. Section 19.22.040 Conditional uses. Amend by deleting paragraph D for dwelling groups. Chapter 19.24 R-l--SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Section 19.24.020 Permitted uses. Add new paragraph B to read as follows: B. Dwelling groups subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130 of this title. Section 19.24.040 Conditional uses. Amend by deleting paragraph A for dwelling groups and r~ettering paragraphs B and C to A and B. Section 19.24.120 Setbacks--Rear yards--Exceptions permitted when. Amend this section by adding a new sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows: This provision shall not apply to initial construction on the site. Chapter 19.26 R-2--ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Section 19.26.020 Permitted uses. Amend this section to read as follows: The following are the principal permitted uses in an R-2 zone: A. One or two single family dwellings on any lot; B. One duplex or two family dwelling on any lot; C. Attached single-family dwelling units; D. Dwelling groups subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130 of this title; E. Other accessory uses and accessory building customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the requirements of Section 19.58.020; F. Agricultural uses as provided in Section 19.16.030. Exhibit A Page 2 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 Section 19.26.110 Floor area per unit--Minimum--Regulatory provisions Amend this section by deleting the last sentence which reads as follows: The minimum floor area for a single family residence in the R-2 zone shall be the same as in the R-1 zone. Add new Section 19.26.160 to read as follows: 19.26.160 Distance between dwellings The minimum distance between detached single family dwellings shall be ten feet except when the dwelling group provision is used as provided in Section 19.58.130 of this title. Revise Section 19.58.130 to read as follows: 19.58.130 Dwelling groups A dwelling group as defined in Section 19.04.076 of this title may be permitted provided that all of the following conditions and requirements are met: A. The area of the lot devoted to each structure used for dwelling purposes shall be equal to the minimum lot size of the underlying zone exclusive of the access road and guest parking areas. B. Each dwelling shall be connected to a gravity sewer or any other means approved by the City Engineer. C. All onsite utilities shall be undergrounded. D. No garage conversions shall be permitted. E. All roadways, driveways and guest parking areas shall be paved with a minimum 5 inches of portland concrete cement. F. The minimum width of an access roadway serving one dwelling structure shall be 15 feet and 20 feet for two or more structures. G. Guest parking shall be provided for those dwellings served by an access roadway. The number of spaces shall be as follows: 1. One dwelling structure - one space. 2. Two or more dwelling structures - one and one-half space per dwelling structure. H. An onsite fire hydrant may be required by the Fire Department when it is deemed necessary. Exhibit A City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 I. If the property is graded to create a building pad for each dwelling structure, the minimum level pad area (no slope over 5%) of each pad shall be not less than 80% of the minimum lot size required for said dwelling, but in no case shall the minimum level area be less than 5000 square feet. J. Development proposed on existing natural topography having an average natural slope of 10% or greater, and with less than 10% of the site to be graded shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, who shall consider whether such development will adversely affect adjacent properties or development. K. The following yards shall be based upon the front orientation of the structures: Front yard - 15 feet from the access roadway and from any setback line set forth in this section. Any garage facing the access roadway shall be a minimum of 22 feet from the access roadway. Side yard - Not less than that required by the underlying zone. Rear yard - Not less than that required by the underlying zone upon initial construction. L. In addition to the setbacks established in this section, the minimum separation between dwellings shall not be less than the combined total of the yards required by the underlying zone, except where the dwellings face each other, in which case an additional 20 feet shall be provided between dwellings. M. All development permitted under this provision shall be subject to the requlations and requirements of this title except as otherwise regulated in this section. N. The development shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval of the Director of Planning. O. The types of dwelling structures permitted under this provision shall be limited to those listed under the permitted uses of the underlying zone. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Zoning Text Amendment relating to standards for dwelling groups Project Location: Not site specific Project Proponent: City of Chula Vista CASE NO. IS-79-50 DATE: April 4, 1979 A. Project Proposal The following are proposed zoning text amendments regarding the "dwelling group" provision of the R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones within the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.58.130). These amendments were prompted by the ambiguity in the language of the Code and difficulty in its application. Chapter 19.22 R-E - RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONES Section 19.22,020 Permitted Uses. Add new paragraph C to read as follows: C. Dwelling groups subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130 of this title, Section 19.22,040 Conditional Uses. Amend by deleting paragraph for dwelling groups. Chapter 19.24 R-1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Section 19.22,020 Permitted Uses. Add new paragraph B to read as follows: B. Dwelling groupssubjmt to the provisions of Section 19.58,130 of this title. Section 19.22,040 Conditional Uses. Amend by deleting paragraph A for dwelling groups and relettering paragraphs B and C to A and B. Section 19.24.120 Setbacks - Rear yards - Exceptions permitted when. Amend this section by adding a new sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows: "This provision shall not apply to initial construction on the site." IS-79-50 page 2 Chapter 19.26 R-2 - ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Section 19.26.020 Permitted uses. Amend this section to read as follows: "The following are the principal permitted 'uses in an R-2 zone: A. One or two single family dwellings on any lot; B. One duplex or two family dwelling on any lot; C. Attached single-family dwelling units; D. Dwelling groups subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130 of this title; E. Other accessory uses and accessory building customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the requirements of Section 19.58.020; F. Agricultural uses as provided in Section 19.16.030. Section 19.26.110 Floor area per unit - Minimum - Regulatory provisions Amend this section by deleting the last sentence which reads as follows: "The minimum floor area for a single family residence in the R-2 zone shall be the same as in the R-1 zone." Add new Section 19.26.160 to read as follows: Section 19.26.160 Distance between dwellings. The minimum distance between detached single family dwellings shall be ten feet (10') except when the dwelling group provision is used as provided in Section 19.58.130 of this title. Proposed zoning text amendment for dwelling groups: 19.58.130 Dwelling groups. A dwelling group as defined in Section 19.04.076 of this title may be permitted provided that all of the following conditions and requirements are met: A. The area of the lot devoted to each structure used for dwelling purposes shall be equal to the minimum lot size of the underlying zone exclusive of the access road and guest parking areas. B. Each dwelling shall be connected to a gravity sewer. C. All on-site utilities shall be undergrounded. D. No garage conversions shall be permitted. IS-79-50 page 3 E. All roadways, driveways and guest parking areas shall be paved with a minimum 5 inches of portland concrete cement. F. The minimum width of an access roadway serving one dwelling structure shall be 15 feet and 20 feet for two or more structures. G. Guest parking shall be provided for those dwellings served by an access roadway. The number of spaces shall be as follows: 1. One dwelling structure - one space 2. Two or more dwelling structures - one and one-half space per dwelling structure. H. An on-site fire hydrant may be required by the Fire Department when it is deemed necessary. I. If the property is graded to create a building pad for each dwelling structure, the minimum level pad area (no slope over 5%) of each pad shall be not less than 80% of the minimum lot size required for said dwelling, but in no case shall the minimum level area be less than 5000 sq. ft. J. Development proposed on existing natural topography having an average natural slope of 10% or greater, and with less than 10% of the site to be graded shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, who shall consider whether such development will adversely affect adjacent properties or development. K. The following yards shall be based upon the front orientation of the structures: Front yard - 15 feet from the access roadway and from any setback line set forth in this section. Any garage facing the access roadway shall be a minimum of 22 feet from the access roadway. Side yard - Not less than that required by the underlying zone. Rear yard - Not less than that required by the underlying zone upon initial construction. L. In addition to the setbacks established in this section, the minimum separation between dwellings shall not be less than the combined total of the yards required by the underlying~zone, except where the dwellings face each other, in which case an additional 20 feet shall be provided between dwellings. M. All development permitted under this provision shall be subject to the regulations and requirements of this title except as otherwise regulated in this section. N. The development shall be subject to architectural approval of the Director of Planning. IS-79-50 page 4 O. The types of dwelling structures permitted under this provision shall be limited to those listed under the permitted uses of the Underlying zen%. B. ~gZ~lti_bili~ with 7onin~.an~_~!an%. The project proposed is consistent with the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance and is not at variance with the General Plan or associated elements. C. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project is not site specific, therefore will not adversely affect any natural or manmade resources. 2. The proposed amendments are net at variance with the General Plan or asso- ciated.elements nor will the project achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. The project is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. No significant increase in vehicle traffic nor related noise or emissions are expected to result from project implementation. D~ Consultation 1. Individual and Organizations. City of Chula Vista D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Associate Engineer Peggy Donovan, Environmental Control Commissioner Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing 2. Documents. Title 19, Zoning - Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. ENVIRON~E-~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 16 9. Consideration of staff recommendation for implementin9 Booz, Allen and Hamilton Repor~ A. BACKGROUND The attached memo from the City Manager was considered by the Council on March 20, 1979. Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission and determined to take it up in a Council Conference after the Commission had evaluated it and formulated a recommendation. B. DISCUSSION 1. The most significant portion of the memo is the Recommendation Section on the last page of the memo. Implementation of the recommendations would relieve the Planning Commission from the responsibility of acting on the following types of applications: a. Variances. b. Precise Plans in the commercial and industrial zones. c. Requests for deferral of public improvements. d. Determining architectural compatibility of structures to be moved into a new location within the city. 2. While implementation of the recommendations would alleviate the work load of the Planning Commission and in some (if not all) cases expedite the processing of applications, it probably would not significantly reduce the work load of the staff. Thus, while the Planning Commission would have more time to devote to long range planning matters and policy considerations, the staff would not be similarly relieved so that it is unlikely that substantial progress could be made in such areas as revising the General Plan. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Discuss the recommendations. 2. Formulate a recommendation to Council on each of the five recommendations contained on page 4 of the City Manager's memo of March 20, 1979 to the City Council. At this point staff would recommend adoption of all five of the recom- mentations. March 20, 1979 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Lane F. Cole, City Manage~ Subject: Implementation of the recommendations of the Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report A. The Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report and Conclusions The Booz~ Allen & Hamilton report made nine basic recommendations, some of which overlap. Each recommendation was considered by a task force, consisting of the City Manager, the Director of Public Works, the Director of Planning and a representative of the Planning Commission (Jack O'Neill). In general, the task force reached two conclusions: 1. The size of the community and the level of land development activity are such that Council should continue to make final decisions on such impor- tant matters as rezonings and tentative subdivision maps. 2. Several types of items which do not involve broad discretionary decisions or matters of substantial significance can be delegated from the Council to the Planning Commission or Design Review Committee, or from the Planning Commission to the staff. B. Discussion of Booz, Allen & Hamilton Recommendations The Booz, Allen & Hamilton recommendations deal with the kind of processing now required by the various types of applications, the organization and manage- ment of the Planning Department, and related matters. Many of the recommendations are designed to expedite the processing of various types of applications. A dis- cussion of each of the recommendations is presented below. 1. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN COORDINATING THE PREPARA- TION OF A NEW GENERAL PLAN. There is no disagreement with this recommendation. The problem is finding a way to accomplish it with existing staff. This is being evaluated as part of the larger reorganization involving Public Works, Community Development, Building and Housing, and Planning. A proposal on this recommendation will be submitted at a later date. 2. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RULING ON CURRENT PLANNING PROPOSALS. The City Manager's task force recommended that decisions on variance applications be assigned to the Zoning Administrator rather than to the Planning Commission. The present language in the Zoning Ordinance provides for action by the Zoning Administrator on some but not all types of variances without a public hearing. Items requiring a public hearing are acted on by the Planning Commission. The findings required in order to approve a variance are well spelled out in both State law and our own Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, the task force recommended that conditional use permits remain with the Planning Commission as these decisions are quite discretionary and the findings are more judgmental. 3. THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED. This is a laudable objective but most planning items are quite complex and require the preparation of an interdepartmental comprehensive report which leads to a logical conclusion and recommendation. Separate, uncoor- dinated reports from the individual departments on a given application, as suggested by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, would make it more difficult and and time consuming for t'he Planning Commission and City Council to digest the information and make a decision. 4. CERTAIN CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE STRUCTURE AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPON- SIBILITIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. Some adjustments in the work done by the Director of Planning and Assistant Director of Planning were accomplished, but with the resignation of the Assistant Director of Planning and the larger multi-departmental reorgan- ization, further assessment will be required. 5. THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN MAKING THE INTERNAL CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENT AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD. The City Manager's office, together with the new Deputy City Manager in charge of the Public Services Departments, will be evaluating possible changes in the light of the resignation of the Assistant Director of Planning and other alternatives available due to the resignation and reorganization. 6. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR GUIDING ITS DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES. 7. SEVERAL CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE TO THE PROJECT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IF IT IS TO BE USED AS A CONTROL TOOL. These two recommendations by Booz, Allen,& Hamilton are related and will be discussed together. Essentially, Booz, Allen & Hamilton were recommending that the Planning Department attempt to predict the number and type of applications and special studies that would be filed or requested in a given fiscal year, and the number of man hours that would be required to complete each item. Then, during the fiscal year, the number of actual items and the man hours required to complete the work would be evaluated and compared with the estimate. Also, at the end of the fiscal year, the number of items and hours required for completion would be compared with the earlier predictions. This information would then be used to evaluate work performance and to formulate the work program for the next fiscal year. For several years the Planning Department operated under a system similar to that suggested by Booz, Allen & Hamilton. It was found that the number and type~of applications and special studies that would come up in a given fiscal year is not very predictable and that even applications of the same type may require widely varying times to complete. The Department discontinued the system of predicting, but continues to monitor the number of man hours spent on the various applications and studies. Items which have required more time than would normally be expected are evaluated. It has been found that faulty submittals by applicants, con- tinuances by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the time required for inter-departmental and inter-agency coordination are the most common factors which contribute to delays in completing an item. We have concluded that while greater effort will be spent in developing specific annual work programs, predictions of numbers, types and man hours required to complete the various work items is not of sufficient value to warrant spending the time it takes. 8. THE CITY SHOULD REGULARLY EVALUATE AND MONITOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS PHYSICAL PLANNING AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES. Under this recommendation, the Booz, Allen & Hamilton report listed a number of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of the planning program. In staff's opinion the criteria were mostly irrelevant. By evaluating the Department's reports and recommendations to Council and Council's reaction to them, and the Department's record of meeting deadlines, the City Manager's office has adequate knowledge of the effectiveness of the planning program. 9. THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXPANDED AND STRENGTHENED. Booz, Allen & Hamilton's primary recommendation in this area is that the Planning Commission should make final decisions on tentative subdivision maps and rezonings unless items are appealed to Council. The City Manager's task force felt that these are important decisions which deserve consider- ation by the Council. However, the task force felt that some types of items which now require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council (notably, precise plans in commercial and industrial zones) can be delegated to either the Planning Commission or Design Review~Committee, with appeals to be heard by the City Council. Because of the architectural expertise on the Design Review Committee, I feel that this review should be handled by them. 10. Aside from the Booz, Allen & Hamilton report, staff has been concerned about the amount of processing required of a condominium development in the redevelopment area. At present, the Design Review Board reviews the site plan and architectural treatment, the Redevelopment Agency approves the owner participation agreement, and both the Planning Commission and City Council review the tentative map. While staff does not expect many condominium developments in the redevelopment area, the required processing is burdensome. Two improvements are possible: (a) Time the consideration of the owner participation agreement by the Redevelopment Agency so that it occurs on the same evening Council considers the tentative map. (b) Delegate approval of one lot subdivisions (condominium developments) to the Planning Commission. However, staff recommends that Council not delegate this to the Planning Commission until additional experience is gained with the new condominium development and apartment conversion ordinance and Council policy solidifies to the point where it can provide guidance to the staff and Planning Commission. C. Recommendation. It is my recommendation that the operations of the Planning Department and its use of the project accounting system continue to be evaluated. Under the new organization the Deputy City Manager will have more time to evaluate and coordinate the activities of the four departments under him than was available under the old organizational structure. In addition, ! recommend that Council authorize the preparation of the necessary ordinances to effect the following changes in the processing of several items: 1. Make the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on all variances. 2. Make the City Engineer rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on requests for deferral of public improvements. Requests for waivers would remain wi~ Planning Commission. Decisions on requests for deferral or waiver of the requirement to underground utilities would remain with the City Council. 3. Make the Design Review Committee responsible for review of precise plans in commercial and industrial zones in addition to their present authority in the R-3 zones. It is recommended that this authority not be extended to the review of developments in the P-C zone at this time. 4. Make the Zoning Administrator responsible for the site planning and architectural compatibility aspects of the moving of structures within the city and the Director of Building and Housing responsible for seeing to it that such structures meet present codes. 5. For condominium developments within the redevelopment area, direct staff to schedule owner participation agreements so that they can be considered by the Agency the same evening the Council considers the tentative map, where the applicant desires such dual consideration. DJP:hm