HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/07/23 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 23, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 9, 1980
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of plans for Seven Gables office building
in Bonita Glen Specific Plan area - Frank Ferreira
2. Consideration of request for modification of precise plan relating to
fence design and location in Vista De Otay subdivision
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Bayfront Sign Program
4. Election of Officers
ORAL 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 July 23, 1980
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of plans for Seven Gables office building in Bonita Glen Specific Plan area - Frank Ferreira
A. BACKGROUND
1. In 1977 the City Council approved the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (Resolution
No. 8670) to govern the development of 8.74 acres of property located at the
southwest quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road.
2. The applicant is seeking approval of a proposed office complex located
on the south side of Bonita Glen Drive west of Vista Drive within the boundaries
of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan area. The proposal represents the first develop-
ment under the Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
3. An Initial Study, IS-80-63, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was reviewed for compliance with the previously certified EIR-77-2
(Bonita Glen Specific Plan) by the Environmental Review Committee on June 12, 1980.
The Committee requested additional information regarding the surface drainage. On
July 3, 1980, the Environmental Review Committee found that the EIR-77-2 and the
drainage study are adequate to satisfy the CEQA requirements for the proposed
project. The Committee recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR-77-2
subject to the condition that the proposed drainage system be connected to the
extension of the proposed drainage facilities from the Villa San Miguel development.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a motion certifying EIR-77-2.
2. Adopt a motion approving the proposed plan, PCM-80-21, subject to the
following conditions:
a. A grading plan shall be submitted upon application for a building
permit; the proposed drainage system shall be connected to the
extension of the proposed drainage facilities from the Villa San
Miguel development.
b. A 7.5 foot wide tree planting easement along Bonita Glen Drive shall
be dedicated to the City.
c. The most easterly driveway shall be appropriately signed to designate
it for ingress only.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North Specific Plan (C-C-P) Vacant
South County E-1 (acre estates) Single family dwelling
East County E-1 Single family dwellings
West R-3-D Road easement and vacant
City Planning Commission Page 2
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site is a vacant elongated parcel approximately 98 feet in depth
with 352 feet of frontage along the south side of Bonita Glen Drive. The property
generally lies below the level of the street and slopes to the west. Bonita Glen
Drive is a fully improved street with the exception of sidewalks. In addition,
the curb and gutter does not extend for the full length of the property, stopping
some 30 feet short of the east end.
3. Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
The Bonita Glen Specific Plan encompasses 8.74 acres of C-C-P zoned land
located at the southwest quadrant of 1-805 and Bonita Road. The regulations of the
C-C-P zone are applicable only in those areas where the Specific Plan is silent.
Briefly, the Specific Plan development guidelines are as follows:
a. The subject property is designated for professional office use;
b. Parking is required at the ratio of one space per 300 sq. ft. of
office space;
c. Building height - 30 feet maximum;
d. Front setback - 25 feet;
e. Lot coverage - 40%;
f. Landscaping - 15% of the site;
g. Signs - one sq. ft. per lineal foot of building, not to exceed a
maximum of 50 sq. ft.;
h. Rear setback - not covered by the guidelines. The C-C regulations
would require a 20 foot setback when abutting residential development.
4. Proposed development.
a. The applicant proposes to construct a two story, 30 foot high (measured
from street level), 15,000 sq. ft. office complex with subterranean parking for
50 cars located underneath the building. Access to the parking is provided at each
end of the building with the easterly driveway designated for ingress only while the
westerly drive will accommodate two-way traffic.
b. The building, which is 200 feet in length, will maintain a 10 foot
minimum front setback from Bonita Glen Drive. Approximately 60 feet of the rear
of the building will be located very nearly on the rear property line with the
remaining portions of the building set back 18 to 24 feet. The wall near the rear
property line will be treated with texture to provide visual relief.
c. The proposed architecture of contemporary European country design
consists of a wood shake shingle roof and exterior elevations whichcom~ne used
brick and stucco with wood trim. A terrace surrounds the lower floor of the building
and encroaches into the 10 foot front setback. The exterior elevations have
numerous offsets and changing planes to create interest and a pleasing appearance.
d. The building coverage is approximately 40%. A 50 sq. ft. wooden wall
sign is proposed on the front (north elevation) of the building to identify the
complex.
City Planning Commission Page 3
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980
D. ANALYSIS
Architecturally the proposed development will be compatible with the adjacent
apartment complexes. The compatibility is being accomplished through the use of
similar building materials. The applicant is requesting two modifications of the
Bonita Glen Specific Plan guidelines as follows:
a. Modification to the front setback (10 feet instead of 25 feet)
b. Reduction in rear yard setback (zero instead of 20 feet).
Because of the rather shallow depth of the lot (98 feet) and the proposed
office land use, staff concurs with the requested front yard setback change.
The 25 foot setback established in the Bonita Glen Specific Plan is appropriate for
larger retail/office areas, such as planned for the area north of this site.
However, a l0 foot setback is consistent with commercial office zoning and use.
The proposed encroachment into the rear yard occurs in an area which is approximately
175 feet from the adjacent single family residence which is located on a 1~ acre lot
that cannot be split under present county zoning standards. The portion of the
building on the property line will be architecturally treated (brick and stucco
with wood trim) and, in staff's opinion, will not adversely effect the nearby
single family residence. Therefore, staff supports the plan with the requested
modifications to the guidelines.
VI STA
COUNTY ~ OF SAN DIEGO
LOCATOR
PCM- 80-
PRECISE PL~ ~ OF~
BUILDINO
City planning Comission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980 Page 4
2. Consideration of request for modification of precise plan relating to
fence design and location in Vista De Otay subdivision
A. BACKGROUND
1. In May, 1978 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for the
construction of a 50 unit condominium project (Vista De Otay) at 1720 Melrose
Avenue.
2. Later, upon completion of the project, the Planning Department noted the
existence of a chainlink fence which was not installed in accordance with the
approved precise plan. On May 19, 1980 the Department sent a letter to the Vista
De Otay Home Owners Association advising that the chainlink fence was illegally
installed in a designated common open space area.
3. On June 18, 1980 the Planning Department received a letter from the
president of the home owners association, now identified as Melrose Park, request-
ing a modification to the approved precise plan, PCM-78-23, seeking permission to
retain the fence in its presently installed location (see exhibit A).
4. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review as a class 3(e)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the request and to allow for the installation of a
decorative wall, fence, or combination thereof, to be located at the top of the
westerly slope, subject to staff approval.
Note: Gates may be installed to provide access to the open space and the chainlink
fence located on the north and south property lines not within the swale area may
remain.
C. DISCUSSION
1. The westerly property line of the project is located between the bottom of
a swale and the top of a slope which forms an integral part of a larger grassed
open space area common to the adjacent Playmor condominium development (Rancho Rios).
A 5 foot high chainlink fence has been installed on the westerly portion of the
north and south property lines extending along the full length of the westerly
property line. That portion of the fence located on the grass swale area disrupts
both the physical and visual continuity of the open space common to this project
and the adjoining Playmor development.
2. The applicant has indicated that the fence company that installed the fence
made inquiries to the City as to whether or not a permit was required, and when
they were informed that a permit was not required, they proceeded with the
installation. The applicant has stated that neither the fence company nor the
association was aware that site plan approval by the Planning Department, based
on the precise plan, was still necessary. The Building Department has assured the
Planning staff that all inquiries regarding fencing approval are referred to the
Planning Department for clearance. Since the elimination of fence permits approxi-
mately one year ago, violations of zoning regulations regarding fence construction
have been on the increase, although the previous permit process did very little to
enforce compliance with City regulations.
City Planning Commission Page 5
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980
3. The primary reason the fence was installed stems from the fact that
residents of the project were facing vandalism, burglaries and litter, largely
attributed to the direct open access to the common open space area to the west.
In addition, the project was subject to foot traffic from the adjacent residen-
tial area using the development as a shortcut to reach adjoining commercial
areas.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The staff can sympathize with the residents of the condominium development
in wanting to provide as much protection and privacy as possible for the develop-
ment, however, it is staff's opinion that this can be achieved by the installation
of a decorative open fence (wrought iron or a combination of iron and concrete
block) located at the top of the slope which would avoid encroachment into the
common open space. Locked gates should be provided to allow for the maintenance
of the slope areas lying westerly of the proposed security fence.
2. The staff contacted the original developer of this project who submitted
the site plan and architectural drawings in conjunction with the approved precise
plan, and although the developer is no longer involved in the project, he did
indicate that he provided certain financial assistance to the home owners associa-
tion to allow for the fence to be installed. It is unfortunate that neither the
fence company nor the. developer advised the home owners association that a modifica-
tion to the approved precise plan would be necessary before the fence could be
installed.
3. While the staff has little reason to doubt that the residents of the area
were experiencing problems serious enough to warrant the installation of the fence,
it should be pointed out that the adjoining Playmor development, which has more
units and a much larger area abutting the common open space, has retained open
acces~ to the open space area.
4. The adjoining Playmor subdivision is divided into two separate home owners
associations. Also, there are a number of separate lot lines which traverse the
common open area since the original Playmor development was constructed in six or
seven phases. If the City were not involved in the review and design of proposed
fencing installations it is conceivable that the entire open space area could be
divided into a series of smaller increments which would totally disrupt the physical
and visual flow of the open space. Therefore, the staff feels it is extremely
important to be involved and closely monitor any proposed fencing plan for this
type of development.
STREET OTAY VALLEY RI).
OTAY
RE.GE1
F~ RANCHO DR.
FFI ~ .................... FF:I FF::I F~
CITY OF
LEGEND
CHANNEL
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980 Page 6
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Bayfront Sign Pro~ram
A. BACKGROUND
1. In April 1980, at the recommendation of the Community Development Department,
the Redevelopment Agency engaged the services of a private consultant to prepare
a detailed sign program for the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment area. The
deci§ion to prepare the program came about partially as a result of a denial by
the Agency for a multiple tenant identification sign involving the Ramada Inn, a
restaurant and RV park, proposed at the ~nterchange of I-5 and "E" Street. The
sign criteria set forth in the original Sedway-Cooke plan was more general in nature
and did not cover design. In addition, certain land use changes have evolved
which necessitates additional sign criteria. The consultant has completed the
proposed sign program which is being submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency.
2. An Initial Study, IS-80-68, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
program was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on July 10, 1980. The
Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and
recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-68 and find that this sign program
will have no significant environmental impact.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Redevelopment Agency: (a) Approve the
proposed Bayfront Sign Program subject to the condition that the total sign area
for a private sign be increased to a maximum of 100 sq. ft., provided that no one
sign exceed a maximum of 50 sq~ ft. in area; (b) Designate the Design Review Committee
as the official design review board to carry out the Bayfront Sign Program.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Scope of the sign program.
The consultant was directed to prepare a sign program which focuses primarily
on the area along Bay Boulevard from "E" Street south to "L" Street and the gateways
into the Bayfront. The sign program has been prepared in such a manner that it
can be expanded to include the other areas of the Bayfront. Some of the major
proposals of the program involve:
a. Sign criteria for private signs;
b. More liberal private sign regulations on an interim basis during the
development of the Bayfront;
c. Sign criteria for public signs;
d. Formation of a design review board; and
e. Offsite promotional signs on a temporary basis.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980 Page 7
2. Private signs.
The proposed sign criteria for private signs has been developed with the goal
of creating and achieving an atmosphere and character similar to quality commercial
and industrial developments such as Harbor Island and Sorrento Valley Industrial
Park. The quality of these areas has been enhanced by requiring conformance with
relatively stringent sign controls. The consultants have proposed limiting free-
standing signs to a monument type not more than 10 feet in height with the area
of all onsite signs limited to a maximum of 40 to 50 sq. ft. depending on the land
use. Certain uses, such as establishments which offer live entertainment, are
permitted additional area for changeable copy signs. Freeway oriented signs are
prohibited.
3. Interim private signs.
Recognizing that development of Chula Vista's Bayfront is likely to occur over
a considerable period of time, the consultant is recommending that additional
signage be permitted on an interim basis. Uses which back up to the freeway would
be permitted wall or ground signs oriented to the freeway which would be subject
to removal at a time so specified by the Redevelopment Agency.
4. Public signs.
The consultant is recommending that a design theme be established for all
public signs within the Bayfront area in order to create a "sense of place." For
example, both directional and standard street name signs will use a block letter
(Bookman Bold) style and will be framed with wood trim which would have at the top
an element of the proposed Bayfront logo, such as the sun, bird, or sail. Traffic
and parking control signs will be trimmed in wood using standard or traditional
copy face. Cal Trans signs, such as "gas," "food," and "lodgingS' would be modified
by incorporating a Bayfront I.D. sign on top of the sign (see exhibit one). Cal
Trans has approved such signs in the past provided they do not incur any cost
regarding installation and maintenance; they have not, however, taken an official
position on the suggested proposal.
5. Design Review Board.
The consultant has indicated that the establishment of a design review board
is essential to the sign program. As mentioned earlier, the proposed sign regulations
are relatively stringent. A design review board would have some flexibility in
adapting the regulations to particular circumstances. The board would be empowered
to grant variations from the established guidelines predicated on creative design,
diversity, and need.
6. Promotional signs.
The consultant has indicated that the approved Bayfront identify structure is
not in keeping with the proposed sign program; therefore, they are recommending that
in its place signs be placed along the freeway at key locations featuring develop-
ments within the Bayfront. These off-premise promotional signs have been attractively
designed and measure approximately 14 feet in height and 20 feet in length. The
area at the base of the sign will be landscaped to create a setting for the sign.
The copy of the sign will change from time to time to reflect some new business or
event. Once the Bayfront is near full development, the signs will be removed.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 23, 1980 Page 8
D. ANALYSIS
1. The consultant will make a presentation to the Planning Conmnission and
to the Redevelopment Agency to elaborate on the program and the points covered
in this report.
2. It is staff's conclusion that the proposed sign program is workable and
will be part of the overall process necessary to create the desired atmosphere
for the Bayfront. The guidelines, although more stringent than the sign regula-
tions governing the rest of the city, do provide the necessary identification for
businesses proposed within the Bayfront. The design review process will provide
the necessary flexibility in the sign program.
3. After viewing other Bayfront developments in the San Diego area, the
Planning staff has concluded that the proposed 50 sq. ft. sign area allowed for
both a monument and a wall sign is overly restrictive. Therefore, staff is recom-
mending that the total area allowed be increased to 100 sq. ft. provided that no
one sign be allowed to contain more than 50 sq. ft. of sign area.
4. The existing Design Review Committee is responsible for architectural
and site plan review in the Bayfront area and the makeup of its membership
fulfills the requirements recommended by the consultant for a design review board.
Therefore, to avoid the establishment of an entirely new board and to retain
continuity with building design, it is staff's recommendation that the Design
Review Committee be designated as the design review board for the Bayfront.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Bayfront Sign Program
Project Location: Bayfront Redevelopment Area
Project Proponent: Community Development Department
CASE NO. IS-80-68 DATE: July 10, 1980
A. Project Setting
The project involves the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment project area shown
on the attached "map one". This general area has been the subject of several
Environmental Impact Reports since 1973. The most relevant are the "Chula Vista
Bayfront Plan and program master Environmental Impact Report (EIR-73-6) and The
Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR-77-4).
These documents provide a data base for the analysis of this specific action.
These documents identified several potential impacts that could result from
development of the bayfront area. They are:
1. Geology (liquifactor)
2. Soils (alluvial)
3. Groundwater
4. Drainage (marsh/wetlands habitat)
5. Noise
6. Scenic route
7. Aesthetics
· 8. Energy
9. Growth Inducement
Any impacts on these resources would generally be indirect in nature due to the
assumed success of the sign program and the growth inducing impact thereof. Direct
impacts could result from aesthetic impacts and conflict with the objectives of the
scenic routes element of the General Plan. These would be in addition to the
growth inducing impacts.
The bayfront area is largely undeveloped at this time with the major exception being
Rohr Industries and several smaller adjacent structures. There are excellent views
of the bay, downtown San Diego and other development along the waterfront.
B. Project Description
1. ~o__a]~s _&~O b j e__c_tj ~ e_s~
a. The goal of the Chula Vista Bayfront Sign Program is to control signs--
eliminating obtrusive ones and encouraging creative, interesting ones--
while establishing a sense of place for the area.
b. To accomplish the goal, the following objectives must be achieved:
(1) Establish a theme for public signs.
(2) Establish guidelines for the design, construction and installation
of all signs.
(3) Establish a Design Review Board and process for implementing the
sign criteria and interpreting the intent of the Bayfront image.
2. Provisions of the Sign Program
(1) The existing Chula Vista sign ordinance is not appropriate for controlling
signs in the Bayfront. A new set of regulations and concepts must be
established for this specific area.
(2) A Design Review Board must be established and consist of qualified
individuals to interpret and make decisions on the appropriateness of
public and private signs. Their charge is to preserve the integrity of
the Bayfront and to encourage creative sign design.
(3) Vitality is created in a development by variety in sign design. This
should be encouraged in the Bayfront.
(4) We recommend a "low-key" sign program. Such a program complies with the
California Coast Regional Commission's 10 foot height limitation, with
the natural qualities of the terrain, and with the expressed intentions
of the City.
(5) Because the needs of businesses in the Bayfront will be different in its
early stages and in the final development, guidelines should be adopted to
accommodate their needs during both these phases. The interim phase
(early in Bayfront development) should receive additional signage.
Once the Bayfront is sufficient developed, the need for this additional
signage will be lessened because the Bayfront's identity will be established
and will help to attract business traffic. We recommend that more "low key"
sign program should be adopted for the final development phase.
(6) In the ultimate, final development of the Bayfront, we recommend that no
private business signs be visible from the freeway. This is to prevent a
crass, commercial image for this area.
(7) The combined symbols of sun, sail, and bird in the Bayfront logo, as proposed,
are too complex for sign use. We suggest splitting up the images, using
the sun as the primary logo for the Bayfront used in con]unction with a
distinctive type style (Bookman Bold). The bird and sail images can be
used for water-oriented activities.
(8) The Bayfront identity structure as proposed is a multi-copy freeway-oriented
sign designed to be a landmark for the Bayfront and promote individual
businesses.
We feel that the structure is out of scale with the Bayfront topography
and is incompatible with the City's own vision for Bayfront redevelopment.
As a sign, it is a poor communicator of business identification at free-
way speeds.
In addition, the cost of the cast-in-place concrete construction involved
will exceed the $80,000 quoted to the Redevelopment Agency. We recommend
it not be utilized.
(9) We suggest an alternative device: a limited number of temporary, smaller
scale, wood-trimmed (to fit the Bayfront theme) Bayfront promotional signs
placed along the north and southbound lanes of Freeway 5. These would
promote Bayfront development progress, special events, and also include
identifications for new businesses coming into the area. Copy on these
signs would change periodically.
(10) Establishment of the Bayfront identity is to be further assisted by adding
a special Bayfront section including logo to the existing Cal-Trans signs,
generic directional signs located at the sides of the freeway ("FOOD, GAS,
LODGING, ETC.").
(11) To help establish the new Bayfront identity, we recommend the use of
natural stained (Olympic semi-transparent 901) cedar frames to enclose all
public signs. The Bayfront logo and Bookman Bold type-style should be used
throughout. Specific reds, yellows and browns are the principal logo
colores. (Frazee Z47-23,3,29).
(12) We recommend the use of directional signs with clustered copy located at
major intersections (or gateways) on the Bayfront. They will be wood-
trimmed and fit in with the theme of Bayfront public signs.
(13) To assure equality in sign impact, we have specified maximum size and
heights for private signs.
(14) Additional signage is recommended in multi-tenant situations.
C. CompatibilitZ with zoning a_nd plans
The project is within a redevelopment area and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
are superceded by the redevelopment plan. The proposed project implements that plan.
D. Identification and discussion of potential ~mpacts
The secondary environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the sign
program have been discussed in the previous impact analysis of this area. Readers
of this document are referred to EIR-73-6 and EIR-77-4 for additional discussion.
The direct impacts are primarily aesthetic in nature. The controls proposed for
public and private on-site signs would be of aesthetic benefit because they would
reduce the number and size of signs to achieve identification and direction rather
than advertisement.
During an interim phase, off-site freeway oriented identification signs are proposed.
Measures guaranteeing the maintenance and removal of these signs are necessary to
avoid any demonstrable negative aesthetic impact. Otherwise the signs could fall
into an unsightly state of disrepair which could continue far in excess of the
time period assumed by this sign program.
v
E. Findings
The proposed sign program will not result in a significant environmental impact
for the following reasons:
1. The indirect impacts associated with the project have been addressed in
previous environmental analysis and substantial impacts are being avoided
where feasible. The direct impacts are generally beneficial because they
will result in stricter regulations of signs and provide for a process to
review the design of projects.
2. The assurance of the maintenance and eventual removal of off-site signs
will achieve the long term goal of aesthetic improvement which implements
the short term goal of project identification.
3. The impacts of the project are so minor there will be no interaction nor
cumulative affect that would be significant.
4. The project would not increase any emissions such as air pollutants or
noise that would create any hazard for human beings. The aesthetic
improvement which will result from the project will be of benefit to
human beings.
F. Consultation
1. Documents
a. EIR-73-6, Chula Vista Bayfront Plan and Program Master EIR
b. EIRL77-4, Chulc Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project
c. Bayfront Redevelopment Plan
d. Bayfront Identity Structure Case File - Community Development
e. EIR-lg-o, Bay Boulevard and Assoc. Technical Reports
f. Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
g. EIR-75-8, Union Oil Company Sign
h. IS-79-43, DaVinci's Restaurant Sign
i. IS-79-64, BayFront Identity Structure
2. Individuals
a. D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
b. Shabda Roy, Assoc. Civil Engineer, Engineering Department
c. Thomas Dyke, Plan Checker, Department of Building & Housing
d. Merritt liodson, Environlnental Control Committee Member
e. Pamela R. Buchan, Administrative Analyst, Communit$, Develonment Dept.
f. Robert Sennett, landscape Architect, Planning Department
Th~ [:tit inl ::t,hly A:>[~I ic,tt ion ~nd ~va]uahion Forms documentinq the
[indin. w~ o~ no :;[qn~f[icant [ln[)act ar~? o~ file an([ available for public
review at the Chula V].sta ~dann]nq De?t., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA.
ENVIRO~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR