Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/02/13 AGENDA ~_. City Planning Commission ~ Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 13, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 23, 1980 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-B - Rezoning two parcels on south side of "D" Street, east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T - McMillin Development, Inc. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-80-D - Rezone approximately 4100 sq. ft. at northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street from R-1 to C-O - Peter's Home and Garden Center b. PCC-80-12 - Conditional use permit application to relocate plant nursery in C-O zone at northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street c. PCV-80-8 - Variance application for reduction of of front yard and rear yard setbacks for development of plant nursery at the northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street 3. Consideration of final EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area (The Terrace) 4. Consideration of final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies 5. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Consideration of proposed Phased Growth Policies 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-7 - Proposed amendments to the Municipal code relating to bicycle storage facilities, off-street parking, rideshare parking and pedestrian ways 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-6 - Proposed amendment to zoning procedure for Redevelopment Plans 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 February 13, 1980 1. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-B - Rezoning two parcels on south side of "D" Street~ east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T McMillin Development, Inc. A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a request to rezone approximately .6 acres, consisting of two parcels, located on the south side of "D" Street, 90 feet east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T. 2. An Initial Study, IS-80-33, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on December 27, 1979. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. 3. This item was before the Planning Commission on January 9, 1980 and was continued to this meeting on the recommendation of staff. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-33 and find that this rezoning will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance rezoning the subject property from R-3 to C-T-P and establishing the following precise plan guidelines: a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the approximately one acre site fronting on Broadway and ,D" shall be consolidated into one parcel. (The subject property is .6 acre and the adjacent .4 acre property is along Broadway, is zoned C-T, and is under the same ownership.) b. All development shall be oriented as much as possible toward Broadway and shall be designed so as to minimize the necessity of access from "D" Street. At such time as either of the buildings along Broadway adjacent to the drive thru may be remodeled, staff shall work with the owner to increase the width of the drive thru by four or five feet. c. Access from "D" Street shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and the Traffic Engineer. d. Signs along "D" Street shall be limited to those signs which are deemed necessary by the Director of Planning for the purpose of providing infor- mation and direction rather than for identification of the business. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 2 e. A zoning wall (minimum 6' height) shall be constructed adjacent to the R-3 zone and landscape screening {trees) as approved by the City, shall be planted within 90 days after the zoning becomes final. The portion of the zoning wall along the south property line {adjacent to the vacant area) may be deferred until the vacant area is developed. The wall shall be carried along the "D" Street frontage up to the location of the gates. f. The storage garages shall be considered as conforming buildings for the purposes of the zoning ordinance since their location was approved as accessory buildings in the R-3 zone. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North - R-3 Apartments South - R-3 Vacant East - R-3 Apartments West - C-T Automotive uses 2. Existing site characteristics. a. The subject property, consisting of two parcels, has 129 feet of frontage along "D" Street and a depth of approximately 192 feet. Although the adjacent commercial developments along Broadway are located on separate parcels, the two R-3 parcels are under the same ownership as the Broadway properties. Certain portions of the existing commercial structures physically encroach into the R-3 zone. The encroachment is due, in part, to the fact that the property was used in years past as part of an automobile towing and storage operation and the use overlapped into the residential zone. The City approved a use variance some 25 years ago authorizing the R-3 area to be used for commercial vehicle storage. b. In addition to the existing commercial structures on Broadway, the City recently approved a building permit for two accessory structures on the site and the addition of restrooms in one of the existing buildings. The structure on the east property line is completed and the one on the south property line is nearing completion. Under the present R-3 zoning these structures are allowed on the property line but they are restricted to use as private vehicle storage areas. If the property is rezoned to C-T the structures could be put to commercial use but their use for repair of vehicles would not be allowed unless the Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit for such use. They have been designed and are being constructed to standards which would enable them to be used for commercial purposes. c. The R-3 area is enclosed with chainlink fencing on the north and south property lines and a wood fence along the east property line. The area is being used for the storage of vehicles but is not paved. _ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 3 D. ANALYSIS 1. The depth of the C-T zone along Broadway in this area is only 90 feet. A staff study conducted several years ago on the Broadway commercial area recommended that the depth of the commercial zone be increased in certain areas to allow for a more practical development of the site. The primary concern in increasing commercial depth is to insure that the development is oriented toward Broadway rather than side streets in order to avoid adversely affecting adjoining residential areas. However, in the subject case, the property has had access via "D" Street for approximately 25 years as a storage area for disabled vehicles. 2. While the proposed increase in commercial depth would provide a more acceptable minimum commercial depth, the location of existing structures on this site makes it necessary to adopt standards which will insure as much of a Broadway orientation as possible to minimize impacts on adjacent residential land uses. Staff is recommending that landscape screening (trees) be required in addition to a zoning wall along the east and north property lines. 3. The established setback along "D" Street reflected on the Building Line _ Map is 20 feet. This setback should be retained for buildings in order to minimize the impact on the adjoining residential area. Note: A zone variance was granted 20 years ago to allow the fence to be constructed at a 4 foot setback along "D" Street. A similar 4 foot setback for the recommended masonry wall would be appropriate. 4. If the property is zoned C-T, the recently completed accessory structure on the east property line and the one under construction on the south property line would be nonconforming as to location although they conform to building and fire codes for commercial use. At this point, it seems to staff that these buildings should simply be acknowledged. Their future use for automobile repair would be authorized only if the Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit for such use. 5. Establishment of the "P" Modifying District in conjunction with the C-T zone is justified because of the proximity to the residential area adjacent on the east and the need to control access and signs along "D" Street. E. CONCLUSION All things considered, it seems to staff that the subject property should be rezoned to C-T. The disadvantage to this is that the property would continue to take its access from "D" Street, which is primarily a residential street. The advantage to rezoning the property to C-T is that approved zoning walls and land- scaping can be required and the site would be cleaned up. The existence of commercial buildings which cross the present zone boundary line, the use of the - property for commercial purposes for the last 25 years and the fact that the property does not lend itself to multiple family development all argue for a chance in zoning from R-3 to C-T. MC INTOSH I I I ! 0 I I I I t I I J ~ I , CA$$ELMAN t ~ I __.~ ~- .4.-.~ ~ ..... I I I i I I t I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ L~ I I' I I I ~ FLOWER i I I I I' I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~od "D" STREET EXISTING ' BI,IILDING~ ~ NORTH CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Paxton Garage Rezone Project Location: 107 Broadway Project Proponent: McMillin Development, Inc. 30th & B Sts. National City, CA 92050 CASE NO. IS-80-33 DATE: January 3, 1980 A. Pro~ect Settin~ The proposed project includes 0.96 acres of property located adjacent to the easterly boundary of 107 Broadway with frontage on D St. The property is presently being used for automobile storage, approved by a Use Variance in 1954. Three storage garages exist on the property at this time. Multiple family units are presently existing north and east of the site and a vacant lot is located to the south. The existing use west of the project site is auto repair and storage. B. Pro~ect Description The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the project site from R-3 to C-T and plans to construct an additional 1840 sq. ft. auto repair facility along the southerly side.of the project. C. Compatibility with zonin9 and plans The proposed development, which is an expansion of the present use at 107 Broadway, is in conformance with the General Plan. The proposed use will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the auto repair facility. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Noise Due to the orientation of the existing structures which are to be used for.auto repair, and the separation from adjacent multiple family units, the problem of increased ambient noise levels appears neglibible. The construction of a 6 ft. high zoning wall along the east and south property line and conformance with the Performance Standards.putlined in Chapter 19.66 of the Municiple Code should hold nolse levels to an acceptable level. 2. Aesthetics The applicant.proposes providing spot lights for nightsecurity. These lights shall be shielded to prevent excess glare on the adjacent street right-of-way and adjacent residential areas. E. Mitigation n~cessary to avoid significa,_ impact 1. A 6' high zoning wall shall be constructed on the east and south property lines adjacent to the residential zoned property. 2. Exterior security lights shall be shielded to prevent excess glare on the adjacent right-of-way and residential areas. F. Findings of insignificant impact 1. There are no significant natural resources present within the project area that could be impacted. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. The Conditional Use process will insure conformance with zoning regulations. No impacts are anticipated that could interact to create any substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4, The project will not cause the emission of any hazardous substance or noise which could be detrimental to human beings. There are no natural hazards on or near the project site which could result in a substantial and adverse impct. G. Consultation 1. Individuals & Organizations City of Chula Vista D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Eng. Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg. Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Commission Applicant, Corky McMillan Ken Baumgartner 2. Documents Use Variance ~or 594 D St., dated 11/1/54 Chapter 19, Municiple Code of the City of Chula Vista 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. ~ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 3 (rev. 5/77) I ' ~ Ir---'2, .,---*.-------.,*--,--,I / <1 / I"'-', r I P I I I I I I I ) I I I , ~ II I I I I I I I I I I ~ ',~ Ir ~ ST .... -_,~__. ,:, , ~-:-Dg - MC INTOSH ST. CASSELMAN STREET ._.__. , .. . ,,,,,,, S ., : ,_,_.~ ........ , , : , ~-£- I I] IItllt L~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-80-D - Rezone approximately 4100 sq: ft. at northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street from R-1 to C-O - Peter's Home and Garden Center A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to rezone approximately 3700 sq. ft. of property located immediately to the south of 315 Sea Vale Street from R-1 to C-O. (See locator) 2. An Initial Study (IS 80-39) of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on January 17, 1980. The ERC concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS 80-39 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCZ-80-D, rezoning approximately 4100 sq. ft. as shown on Exhibit "A" from R-1 to C-O. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Single family dwelling South R-3-P-12 Vacant East R-1 Single family dwellings West C-O Commercial offices 2. Subject property. The area proposed for rezoning is currently a part of an ll,947'sq, ft. parcel located at 315 Sea Vale Street in the R-1 zone. The owner of this parcel has agreed to sell the southerly triangular shaped 3,696 sq. ft. to the applicant. The R-1 parcel would retain 8,251 sq. ft. of lot area which exceeds the 7000 sq. ft. minimum lot size of the R-1 zone. By the acquisition of the property, the depth of the commercial lot immediately to the south of the R-1 parcel would be increased to a depth of llO feet, the same as the adjacent commercial lot to the west which is also owned by the applicant. The present depth of the affected commercial property varies from 67 feet to 93 feet. 3. Proposed zone change. The purpose of this request is to adjust the zone boundary to coincide with the proposed lot line adjustment between properties. The increase in lot dePth will re- sult in a more effective use of the existing commercial property which is, at best, marginal. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. I , '~:" (R I) ( PREZONE ) , "C ~'==' STREET SFD VAC COMMERCIAL OFlqC~$ ,' / VAC I SFD ,.. SEA I _j I I I i I I . KIMBALL I , ~ I r I i ~ I I I ~ I' I I "D" STREt I ~od ( PCV-80-8 " NORTH VAC V&C SFD S F D ZONE CHANGE SEA VALE ST. VAC SFD VAC 17.91 g. VAC 8FD sFo'. KIMBALL TERR. R:.--3-P-I NORTH City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page $ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: b. PCC-80-12 - Conditional use permit application to relocate plant nursery in C-O zone at northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit in order to locate and operate a plant nursery with related hardware items at the northwesterly corner of Sea Vale Street and Third Avenue Extension in the C-O zone. 2. The environmental concerns of this project have been considered as part of the preceding agenda item. B. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-80-12, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install street improvements {curb, gutter, sidewalk) along Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street. A 5 foot transition shall be provided from the existing 8 foot wide sidewalk on the west to the required 5-1/2 foot curb and sidewalk along the subject property. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a 5 foot street tree planting easement along Third Avenue Extension. 3. The applicant shall install a street light at a location to be deter- mined by the Engineering Division. 4. The applicant shall submit a grading plan and improvement plans for approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 5. All signs shall be redesigned to conform with the design criteria set forth in the Code for such signs and shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 6. This applicant shall be required to comply with all Building Code requirements which includes the installation of parapet walls and one hour construction within 10' of a property line unless waived or modified by the City's Board of Permit Appeals. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Single family dwellings South R-3-P-12 Vacant East R-1 single family dwelling West C-O Commercial office City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 6 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site is a 0.74 acre {32,341 sq. ft.) vacant parcel located at the northwesterly corner of Sea Vale Street and Third Avenue Extension in the C-O zone. (The rezoning of approximately 3700 sq. ft. is the pre- ceding agenda item.) The property has approximately 306 feet of frontage along Third Avenue Extension and a lot depth of llO feet. The property slopes gently from east to west (4% grade) and has severe slopes {approximately 60%) on the north and east sides of the property. Except for the paved street and an asphalt bem at the street's edge, standard public improvements such as curbs, gutters, and sidewalk do not exist. 3. Proposed development. The applicant proposes to construct an 8050 sq. ft. commercial structure with approximately 2850 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to storage, a 250 sq. ft. office and the remaining 4950 sq. ft. devoted to retail sales. The proposed structure, which will be set into the north slope bank through the use of re- taining walls, will be essentially single story except for the office which will be located at the mezzanine level over the sales area. The building will set back 24 feet from Third Avenue Extension, 60 feet from Sea Vale Street, 88 feet from the west property line and 3 feet from the rear north property line. (The applicant is also requesting a variance for a reduction in the rear yard setback which is the next agenda item.) The outdoor nursery area will be located on the south and east sides of' the building and will be en- closed by a 6 foot high combination wall and wrought iron fence. Offstreet parking for 23 cars with two 24 foot access driveways will be provided on the west side of the building. 4. Architecture. The building will be a very attractive contemporary ranch style design with wood siding and an asphalt shingle roof. While the roof is essentially a pitched roof, a portion of the roof will extend beyond giving the appearance of a shed type roof. An overhead wood trellis will provide shade for plants along the east side. The exterior colors will be in the brown earth tone shades. 5. Signing. The applicant proposed to place a sign consisting of cut out letters on top of the front edge of the roof facing Third Avenue Extension over the entrance to the building. In addition, a 15 foot high, 32 sq. ft. free- standing sign is proposed between the two driveways. The freestanding sign has approximately 12 sq. ft. devoted to a reader board. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 7 D. ANALYSIS 1. Plant nurseries in the C-O zone must be located on the periphery of the zone and are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The sale of related hardware items must be clearly incidental and secondary to the plant nursery. The subject property is located at the extreme easterly edge of the C-O zone along Third Avenue Extension and is separated from the adjoining residential uses to the east and south by streets and from the adjoining single family dwelling to the north by a difference in elevation of approximately 20 feet. The horizontal distance between the closest dwelling to the north and the proposed commercial structure is 47 feet. 2. The proposed use meets the locational requirements and should not adversely affect adjoining properties because of the separation afforded by the streets and the difference in topography. The sale of related hard- ware items is incidental and secondary to the plant nursery use. 3. The proposed signs meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height and area, but do not meet the design criteria. The sign on the roof must set back 3 feet from the front edge of the roof instead of the proposed one foot. The two sides of the freestanding sign should have a ratio of approximately 3 to 5 and the height should not be less than twice its width. The ratio is 3 to l0 and is wider than 7-1/2 feet which is half the 15 foot height proposed. The sign on the roof can be easily moved back an additional 2 feet, but the freestanding sign will have to be redesigned to comply with the design guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The applicant has applied for an adjustment plat to acquire 3700 sq. ft. of the adjoining parcel to the north and for the consolidation of the ultimate property into one parcel. The adjustment plat procedure does not afford the opportunity to dedicate property for street purposes or easements such as tree planting. Each of these items should be re- quired and will be a condition of approval of this permit. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed u~e at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the co~unity. There are no similar uses in general vicinity and the proposed use is located on the periphery of the C-O zone as required by the Code. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case~ be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinityj or injurious to property or i~prove- ments in the vicinity. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 8 The proposed use is separated from the residential uses to the south and east by streets and is 20 feet lower than the adjoining single family dwelling to the north. Inasmuch as the use is located on the extreme edge of the C-O zone, it will not disrupt the continuity of office uses in the area. The use, therefore, will not be detrimental or adversely affect the adjoining and adjacent uses. 3. That the proposeduse will co~ply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Cods for such use. The proposed use meets the locational requirements as well as the mode of operation relating to the sale of hardware items. 4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this use. / / _~_ '// / I ,,/ ,,!~...~.~!~ / ~ ..;.. ,~ ~-~ . / / ~ ~ . '~ /~' %-: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for February 13, 1980 page 9 2. PUBLIC HEARING: c. PCV-80-8 - Variance application for reduction of front yard and rear yard setbacks for development of plant nursery at the northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front and rear yard setback requirements of the C-O zone in order to construct a 6 foot high fence 5 feet from the front property line {the Code requires l0 feet) and to locate a proposed commercial structure 3 feet from the rear property line {the Code requires 15 feet}. The subject property is located at the north- westerly corner of Third Avenue Extension and Sea Vale Street. 2. The environmental concerns of this project have been considered as part of an earlier agenda item. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCV-80-8, subject to approval of the design and materials by the Director of Planning. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is an elongated 32,341 sq. ft. vacant parcel with approximately 306 feet of frontage along Third Avenue Extension and a depth of llO feet. The site slopes from east to west and has slopes of approxi- mately 60% along the north and east sides of the property. The slopes along the north side essentially reduces the usable depth to approximately gO feet. 2. Proposed development. The applicant proposes to construct an 8,050 sq. ft. building on the property to be used as a plant nursery. Because of the shallow depth of the lot and the slopes along the north side, the building will be set into the slopes through the use of retaining walls. As proposed, the building will observe the following setbacks: north - 3 feet; south - 24 feet; east - 60 feet; and, west - 88 feet. The outdoor plant area will be located on the east and south sides of the building and 5 feet from Third Avenue Extension. The plant area will be enclosed by a 6 foot high fence (combination wall and wrought iron). 3. Setback requirements. The Code requires a 15 foot rear yard in the C-O zone adjacent to residential areas. The maximum height of a fence in the l0 foot front yard setback of the C-O zone is 3-1/2 feet. The proposed development - City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 10 plan has prompted the applicant to request a variance from the Code require- ments in order to maintain a 3 foot rear yard setback and to construct a 6 foot fence within the front yard setback. D. ANALYSIS 1. The lot depth at llO feet is marginal for proper commercial develop- ment. The problem is compounded by the existence of slopes further reducing the usability of the lot. In this instance the single family dwelling on the adjoining property is located 44 feet from the common property line and 20 feet higher in elevation. A reduction in the required rear yard should not adversely affect the adjoining residential use which is protected by distance and topography. 2. In addition, moving the building toward the rear property line allows the applicant to use the rear wall of the building as a retaining wall, thus freeing the area in front for display of plants. While the build- ing could be located closer to the street, separate retaining walls would have to be utilized in the rear in order to achieve the same amount of usable space for plants. This coincides with the applicant's request to place a 6 foot fence 5 feet from the front property line. This will result in a larger nursery area. The wrought iron open fencing design will be attractive while providing the desired visibility for the plants. In addition, the fence will offer a certain degree of security. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the ownsr consistent with the regulations of the zones but in this contextj personals f~ily or financial diffic~ltiesj loss of prospective profits~ and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. ~urther~ a previous variance can never have set a precedent~ for each case must be considered only on its individual metis. The depth of the property is too shallow for the proper development of commercial uses. The problem is compounded by the existence of steep slope banks along the northerly property line. 2. That such variance is necessary for ~he preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the sa~ zoning district and in the 8ame vicinity~ and that a variance~ if granted~ would not constitute a special privilege of the re~pient not enjoyed by his neighbor~. The adjacent commercial property to the west has a depth of 200' while the commercial zoning on the south side of Third Avenue has a depth of 240'. In addition to the limited depth of this site (llO'), the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 11 topography further restricts development of the property. Therefore, the granting of this request will enable the applicant to more fully utilize what v~uld otherwise be considered a marginally usable site. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The adjoining properties are protected by an elevation difference and horizontal distance and should therefore not be adversely affected. 4. That tho authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the Gensral Plan of tho City or tho adopted plan of any gover~nental agency. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 12 3. Consideration of final EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area (The Terrace) A. BACKGROUND 1. This EIR was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January g, 1980. Written comments from the San Diego County Archaeological Society and substantial testimony at the public hearing was received. 2. All comments on the Draft EIR including a transcript of the public hearing have been included in the final EIR, along with a response to testi- mony which was prepared by MSA. A representative from MSA will be present at this meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that EIR-80-6 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in the final EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. C. PROJECT IMPACT The EIR concludes that the project will not result in any substantial and adverse environmental impact. There are several areas of concern (traffic, school capacity, soils and geology) for which mitigation in proposed. It should be pointed out, however, that views of the rolling hills to the south would be blocked by several buildings near the western portion of the project (Buildings l, 2 and 3). Under CEQA, view blockage is not considered as an impact on the environment. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 13 4. Consideration of final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies A. BACKGROUND 1. This EIR has been the subject of several public hearings since September of 1979 and the document was circulated through the State Clearinghouse. 2. All of the letters of comment and transcripts of public hearings have been added as Section 9.0 of the final EIR and a response to those comments has been provided in Section lO.O of the final EIR. 3. It is the policy of the state of California that every public agency, such as the City of Chula Vista, should not approve a project, if it would result in a significant environmental impact and it is feasible to sub- stantially lessen the effect. Only when there are specific economic, social or technical reasons which make it infeasible to mitigate an impact, can a project with significant impact, be approved. Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, one of the following findings must be made: a. Changes or alternatives have been required of, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR. b. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Certify that EIR-80-1 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in the document as it reaches a decision on the project. 2. Find in accordance with Section D of this staff report that the potentially significant impacts will be mitigated or avoided, that such action is the responsibility of another agency, that there are specific economic and technical considerations which make full mitigation infeasible, and adopt the overriding considerations specified in Section E. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 14 C. PROJECT IMPACT The policies would focus initial development in areas of environmental sensitivity. The phase I development area, and small portions of other phases, contain significant resources and hazards in the following categories: geology, soils, drainage, land form, noise, biology and archaeology; while overall growth management would provide some environmental advantage insofar as air quality, schools, safety services, energy and conservation. D. CEQA FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in £IR-80-1 finds that the implementation of the conservation section of the text of the Specific Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan for Chula Vista and standard development regulations will mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR in the following areas: a. Geology (Ref. Sec. 3.1) b. Soils (Ref. Sec. 3.2) c. Drainage (Ref. Sec. 3.4) d. Noise (Ref. Sec. 3.8) e. Biology (Ref. Sec. 3.9) f. Archaeology {Ref. Sec. 3.10) g. Transportation and access Additional environmental analysis of proposed projects will assure the implementation of measures adequate to avoid significant environmental impacts. 2. The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in EIR-80-1, finds that the mitigation of cumulative impacts on water quality is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Specifically, the City of San Diego is responsible for providing adequate sewage treatment and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has the responsibility of assuring adequate water quality throughout the San Diego region. 3. The Planning Commission, having reviewed the information in EIR-80-1, finds that there are specific economic and technical considerations which make infeasible the full mitigation of land form alteration indirectly associated with the project. Specifically: a. Satisfactory mitigation of the topographic and visual effects is not possible except through the no project alternative. This alternative is infeasible due to the specific overriding economic and social conditions relative to anticipated growth demands placed on the San Diego Region over the 20-year period from 1975 to 1995. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 15 b. Housing development in this area will include housing affordable to middle income families and senior citizens. If development did not take place in accordance with the management policies, this much needed housing could take place in an outlying more environmentally sensitive area and require longer vehicle trips and greater energy consumption. c. In order to provide safe and convenient roadways through the property with grades and curves which are adequate for use by emergency vehicles, substantial land form alteration is neces- sary in some areas. d. If the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan is to be implemented with its conservation provisions, open space network and land use/density patterns, substantial land form alteration will be necessary. E. FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The project will result in a more compact urban form and a resultant reduction in energy consumption, air pollutants and a greater ease in providing urban services. 2. The project would provide for an increase in the housing stock in areas close to the center of metropolitan San Diego. This increase will include housing for moderate income families and senior citizens. This will be of social benefit to the community. 3. By encouraging development in the phase I area first, important elements of the City's circulation system (such as E."H" Street to Southwestern College) will be provided. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 16 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed Growth Management Policies A. BACKGROUND 1. Pursuant to City Council instructions, the City Planning Department has restudied and reevaluated the text and diagrams of the Chula Vista General Plan on an ongoing basis. The first project produced by this program was the recently adopted Omnibus Amendment to the General Plan. The program has now produced draft growth phasing policies, which are designed to promote the orderly and economic growth and conservation of the Chula Vista Planning Area. 2. The proposed growth phasing addendum to the Chula Vista General Plan is evaluated under the "Analysis" section of this report. 3. EIR-80-1 has been considered at a public hearing and consideration of the final draft is the previous agenda item. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Phased Growth Policies recited in Exhibit A and graphically depicted on Exhibit B, and recommend that the City Council adopt such as an addendum to the Chula Vista General Plan. C. ANALYSIS 1. Under the proposed addendum, grov~ch phasing policies would be estab- lished within the framework of the Chula Vista General Plan, and would provide this municipality with its first comprehensive growth phasing plan. These policies incorporate by reference the adopted growth phasing provisions of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, but go beyond the Specific Plan's purview of 2300 acres and cover an additional 17,000 acres, or about 26 square miles of territory. 2. While the proposed p~ased growth policies embod~ guidelines which would promote the orderly, sequential development and phased (timeu} growth of the Chula Vista Planning Area, they do not constitute a detailed growth management program similar to those established at Petaluma, Ramapo (New York), or Boulder (Colorado). Furthermore, the proposed policies are not entirely based upon the availability of public facilities. Under several growth management programs even leapfrogging and sprawl are permitted, provided that the developers under- write essential public facilities and infrastructure or meet a pressing social need. These programs fail to recognize that the availability of facilities and services does not cure the structural and townscape problems inherent in leap- frogging, sprawl, and oaher amorphous patterns of growth and development. Los Angeles is a case in point; its public facilities and services are excellent, but its urban pattern, order, and amenity are deplorable. The proposed policies, in sort, are physical planning context and scope and are oriented, without compromise, towards the long range improvement of the urban pattern and structure of the Chula Vista Planning Area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 17 3. The proposed addendum does not incorporate special implementation proposals or machinery. Chula Vista's existing zoning, subdivision, capital improvement, and public works planning regulations and programs could effec- tively bring the proposed policies to fruition. It should also be noted that additional effectuating plans could always be adopted or enacted where the need for such becomes patent. 4. The addendum is consistent with the growth management programs of the Comprehensive Planning Organization, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. Since the County of San Diego is substantially responsible for the guidance of the growth, development, and conservation of the unincorporated territories of the 60 square mile Planning Area, the Chula Vista Planning Depart- ment relied heavily upon the fundamental principles of the County Growth Manage- ment Plan during its preparation of the proposed phased growth policies. 5. The proposed policies are confined to the Planning Area's eastern territories, called the Telegraph Canyon, Bonita, and Lakes Communities. They do not address the Bayfront Community which is governed by its own specific and redevelopment plans. It also does not cover the Castle Park (Montgomery) Community, which is substantially developed and must look to the redevelopment process for the restoration of its urban fabric. 6. The location, boundaries, and geometry of the territories constituent to the subject plan's several phases are partially based upon the existing policies of the Chula Vista General Plan and partially upon geographical considerations. Phase 1, which is composed of the E1 Rancho del Rey District and the Long Canyon drainage basin, are governed by the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the 1970 E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan, respectively. The develop- ment of the territory within Phase 1 has been sanctioned on a west to east basis. The determination of the location and geometrics of Phases 2 and 3, on the other hand, are geographical. As Chula Vista expands from west to east, it is important that the expanded urban pattern be orderly and methodical, and not predicated upon leapfrogging and piecemeal sprawl. Therefore, it is logical that the lands of Phase 2, which are situated in the Bonita-Sunnyside Community, be developed prior to those in Phase 3, which are located to the east of the proposed San Miguel-Proctor Valley artery. The delineation of Phases 4 and 5, once again, has been determined by policy. The territory of these phases is designated "agriculture and reserve" open space on the Plan Diagram of the Chula Vista General Plan, and constitutes a large part of the Chula Vista Planning Area's peripheral "greenbelt." This greenbelt provides the urban pattern of Chula Vista form, direction and integrity. In the original draft the prerequisite growth and development percentage standards for phase advancement increased from 80% to 95% between Phase 1 and Phase 4. This intentional increase was designed to foster close-in development and "in-filling," and to dissuade disorderly patterns of urban expansion. In particular, this sliding scale protected the Lakes Community greenbelt from premature growth and development. This protection is now provided by the relo- cation of the said greenbelt from Phase 4 to Phase 5. It should be noted, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 18 therefore, that the proposed growth management plan now has a single phase advance- ment coefficient--80%. Staff believes that this standard reflects substantial phasic growth and development while still providing some flexibility to property owners and developers. The westernmost lands of the Telegraph Canyon Community south of Telegraph Canyon Road are designated as Phase 4 under this phased growth plan. This designation is based on the often stated desire of the involved landowner to continue agricultural use of his land and on the existing plan diagram of the General Plan which designates the property as "Agriculture and Reserve." While it is acknowledged that it may be appropriate to change this designation to allow for earlier urbanization of this area, staff does not recommend such a change at this time. Retention of this beautiful rolling area in open space adds immeasurably to the beauty and amenity of the community so that it is appro- priate to continue to respect the desires of the property owner and to provide this definition to the urban form of Chula Vista for a number of years yet. Should the desires of the property owner change, an amendment to the General Plan could be appropriate. From the standpoint of efficiently serving the city, it may even be appropriate to designate portions of the area for earlier development against the wishes of the property owner, but such an action should not be considered, at least until Phase 1 is largely developed. 7. Paragraph 6 of the "General Growth and Development Schedule" expressly - authorizes the City Council to approve "out-of-phase" developments where it finds that such developments would promote orderly growth or resolve major land use problems which confront the city. The provisions of this paragraph are intended to ameliorate the stringency of the subject schedule, where amelioration would be beneficial to the public, and to discourage in-phase landowners from withhold- ing their real property from the development market. 8. In order to clarify the plan's development schedule and its triggering mechanism for phase advancement, the revised draft now provides that the City Council shall determine, "subsequent to its evaluation of data and information furnished by the City Planning Department," when the lands within a certain phase have achieved the prescribed growth and development to sanction the development of the territory within the next scheduled phase. D. CONCLUSION The proposed addendum of phased growth policies would add the dimensions of "time" and "sequence" to the existing growth and development policies of the Chula Vista General Plan and would broaden the utility, effectiveness, and viability thereof. The said policies, furthermore, are comprehensive and stress the continuing importance of urban and townscape planning as well as the need to synchronize growth and the availability of public facilities and services. EXHIBIT A · Proposed statements of Phase Growth Policy, for inclusion under the heading of PRINCIPAL PROPOSALS OF THE PLAN at page 34 of the text of the Chula Vista General Plan--1990 Phased Growth Policies pertainin9 to the Growth and Development of the Eastern Territories of the Chula Vista Planning Area The growth and development of the "eastern territories," namely the Bonita, Telegraph Canyon, and Lakes Communities shall be governed by the principles of sound growth management and control. This growth and development shall be sequenced and timed in order to protect the urban pattern and environ- mental quality of the Planning Area. No lands within the Bonita, Telegraph Canyon, or Lakes Communities shall be developed unless they can be adequately served by schools, public utilities, and public facilities. The provision of the necessary schools, utilities and facilities in new areas shall primarily be the responsibility of land developers and the school districts. The City of Chula Vista should partici- pate where the involved facilities would directly or substantially benefit the general public, and then only to the extent that such participation would be financially feasible. The City of Chula Vista will not authorize growth and development which would overburden existing facilities or services, or which would overburden the agencies which provide such. All growth and development within the eastern territories shall be cohesive and compact, and shall not be based upon leapfrog, haphazard, or amorphous patterns of urbanization. The said growth and development shall generally progress from west to east, even within the areas covered by each of the five phases of the General Growth and Development Schedule. The order, amenity, and environmental quality of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Planning Area are dependent upon the preclusion of urban sprawl and the erosion of its natural greenbelt, which is composed of those areas designated "Open Space" on the plan diagram of the Chula Vista General Plan. Developments which are not responsive to structural and open space needs of Chula Vista shall be denied approval, even though they can be adequately served by public facilities. From a geographical standpoint, the Chula Vista Planning Area is part of the world's Mediterranean-Scrub Forest Region. While this region's climatic conditions tend to attract human settlement, its chronic lack of fresh (domestic) water must be a limiting factor in connection therewith. Therefore, the City of Chula Vista shall pace growth in the eastern territories of the Planning Area to the long range availability of fresh water. The City of Chula Vista shall coordinate its growth management efforts with those of the Comprehensive Planning Organization, the County of San Diego, and the City of San Diego, as well as the developmental programs of the Chula Vista City School District, the Sweetwater Union High School District, and other local agencies and municipalities. Exhibit A Page 2 As a general rule, growth within the eastern territories shall be phased and development shall be sequenced in accordance with the following schedule. General Growth and Development Schedule: Bonita, Lakes, and Telegraph Canyo~ Communities 1. Development within the E1 Rancho del Rey District and the Long Canyon drainage basin is now appropriate, provided that it generally progresses from west to east and is consonant with the growth and development policies of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and subsequently adopted policies related thereto. -Reference: The E1 Rancho del Rey District and the Long Canyon drainage basin are designated Phase 1 on the accompanying Plan Diagram of Growth Management Policies. 2. Until 80% of the E1 Rancho del Rey District and the Long Canyon drainage basin are developed, and 80% of the forecasted growth of these areas is achieved, as determined by the City Council subsequent to its evaluation of data and information furnished by the City Planning Department, the development of large holdings to the east of the Long Canyon basin shall not be approved. -Reference: The developable territory situated to the east of the Long Canyon basin and to the west of Proctor Valley Road is designated Phase 2 on the Plan Diagram. While this territory is primarily located within the Bonita Community, it also occupies a part of the Telegraph Canyon Community. 3. Until 80% of the Bonita Community and 80% of the portion of the Telegraph Canyon Community north of Telegraph Canyon Road are developed, and 80% of the forecasted growth of these areas is achieved, as determined by the City Council subsequent to its evaluation of data and information furnished by the City Planning Department, substantial growth and development shall not take place in the Proctor Valley area to the west of Wild Man's Canyon. -Reference: The Proctor Valley area is situated to the east of the proposed San Miguel-Proctor Valley Artery. This area is designated Phase 3 on the Plan Diagram of Growth Management Policies. 4. The lands within the Telegraph Canyon Community lying south of Telegraph Canyon Road comprise an important portion of the open space system which defines the urban area. The City of Chula Vista will not authorize the substantial development or urbanization of these lands in the absence of its official finding that 80% of the Phase l, Phase 2, and Phase 3 areas are developed, as determined by the City Council subsequent to its evaluation of data and information furnished by the City Planning Department, or that its earlier development is essential to the overall physical, social and economic improvement of the Planning Area. -Reference: The "Agriculture and Reserve" lands, located to the south of Telegraph Canyon Road, are designated Phase 4 on the accompanying Plan Diagram of Growth Management Policies. Exhibit A Page 3 5. The lands within the Lakes Community lying east of Wild Man's Canyon and the future San Miguel-Proctor Valley Road comprise an important element of the open space system defining the eastern boundary of the urban area. The City of Chula Vista will not authorize the substantial development or urbanization of these lands in the absence of its official finding that 80% of the portion of the Telegraph Canyon Community lying south of Telegraph Canyon Road is developed and 80% of the forecasted growth of these areas is achieved, as determined by the City Council subsequent to its evaluation of data and information furnished by the City Planning Department. -Reference: The Lakes Community is shown on the Plan Diagram of the General Plan as "Agriculture and Reserve" and is more remote from the urbanized portions of Chula Vista than the Telegraph Canyon Community; accordingly, it is designated as Phase 5. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of this schedule, the City Council may authorize out-of-phase development, on a case-by-case basis, where it finds that such development would substantially promote the orderly growth of Chula Vista, resolve major land use problems therein, be ecomically more beneficial to the city or provide needed public services to existing residents of the community as well as to the developing area. ~It is clear that ~any of us--rural and urban residents alike--sense a decline in the quality of life in the nation, When ble~ne is placed on one sources it is generally pinned on ~urbaniza~ion t . . . According to George Gellup~ only one of every five urban dwellers like cities. ~ -Lance Mars~on ~No Growth~r: Panacea or Problem? Ma,nagement and Control of Growth The Urban Land Institute · · · · · · · City Planning Con)nission page 19 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 HEARING: COnsid~me~ Mu~n~c!+a~l~ 6. PUBLIC ~ING~cillties, off-street parking, rideshare parking and pedestrian wans A. BACKGROUND 1. The Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) has prepared model state- ments of transportation policy and model transportation ordinances, and has submitted such to the region's several municipalities for their adoption and enactment. These proposals, which would promote bicycle transportation, ride- sharing, and public transit, and which would resultantly foster a reduction in the use of automobiles, are primarily designed to implement the transportation tactics contained in the Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy (R-RAQS). An important by-product of CPO's proposals would be energy conservation. (CPO's several proposals are attached to this report as Exhibit C.) 2. The City Council recently instructed the Planning Department to review and evaluate the proposals of CPO and to recommend appropriate action. On January 15, 1980, Council considered staff's report on CPO's Model Proposals for the implementation of R-RAQS tactics, and staff's recommendation related thereto. Council then referred staff's proposals for amendments to Chula Vista's sub- division and zoning regulations to the City Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendatory action. 3. The proposed amendments to the subdivision and zoning regulations are major elements of staff's proposed local R-RAQS implementation program. This program also involves proposed amendments to the Building Code which will be officially considered by the Board of Appeals. 4. The proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations do not fall within the purview of the provisions of CEQA, as amended, and the proposed zoning amendments are covered by Class 3 and Class ll exemptions. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an amendment to Section 18.32.0g0 relating to subdivision design in accordance with Exhibit A and the,addendum of Sections 19.62.200 through 19.62.280 to the zoning ordinance pertaining to preferential rideshare parking and bicycle storage requirements in accordance with Exhibit B. C. ANALYSIS 1. CPO's requestdf~r local implementation of the transportation tactics in R-RAQS was accompanie y a package which includes the following items: (a) A medel zoning ordinance amendment to provide bicycle storage facilities at new buildings and uses. (b) A model zoning ordinance amendment to provide preferential rideshare parking at major new buildings and uses. (c) A model subdivision ordinance amendment to provide transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements at new developments. City Planning Commission page 20 Agenda Items for the Meeting of February 13, 1980 {d) A model building code amendment to provide shower and changing room facilities for bicyclists at new buildings. (e) A model resolution to encourage ridesharing and related transpor- tation programs by private employers. nnin. Building and Housing, and Engineering Departments have 2. The City Pla g' ....... ~- ~+ ements and legislation sub- - - 11 revieweo :ne mooe~ pu,,~ ~at . jointly and seve~a, y ...... ~h, .... --osals could adequately ~mplement mitted by CPO, ano nave rouna ~n~ ~-o~ ~-~ R-RAQS tactics. Staff has also found that the said proposals would be substan- tially harmonious with Council Resolution No. 9043, adopted in March, 1978. Under this resolution the City Council endorsed the RAQS implementation program and Tactic T-l, which is designed to foster coordinated land use and transporta- tion planning and action. . ' and refined CPO's proposals in order to improve their 3. Staff has revised .... f t Chula Vista Municipal Code and applicability to the tormat and >ubstance o_ _he olic . While staff's proposals are substantially adopted state.ments of p Y ....... ~*~ntive differences between the congruous with those of CPO, t~ere are sum: ~-~- tW°'cPO's proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations also requires modif- ication. For example, the said amendment would require the provision of bikeways in all new residential subdivisions. This requirement tends to be in conflict with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, which requires the estab- lishment of bicycle paths only in those new residential subdivisions which con- tain a minimum of 200 lots. City staff's proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, resolves this conflict by allowing the city to require the dedication of pedestrian ways which could also be used as bicycle routes. 4. Under CPO's model amendments to the zoning regulations, an adjustment to the off-street parking requirements for non-residential uses is proposed. This adjustment would require the city to reduce a given land use's mandated vehicular off-street parking by one space for each three Type 1 (long-term) bicycle spaces provided on the premises and by one space for each six Type 2 (short-term) · hereon. City staff is of the opinion t~at the proposed bicycle spaces.~v~ded t .__ ¢~-~ also feels that the provis?Q of_bic~ adjustment wouio ~e exces~l for off-street parking for ~- storage does not necessarily reduce the demand vehicles, especially during inclement periods or where the circulatory routes are not safe for bicycle transportation. Chula Vista is an automobile-oriented municipality and it lacks a well ordered system of safe bikeways. When this system is developed, CPO's adjustment standards will be more supportable. Staff's recommendation that one required off-street parking space be waived for each ten Type 1 or twenty Type 2 bicycle spaces provided is incorporated in Exhibit B. 's model zoning proposal, which calls for preferential 5. Staff has found CPO ~ .,-~ ..... ~ uses to be acceptable under local rideshare parking at major new DUlmumn~m ~-~ , circumstances, and recommends the inclusion of the said proposal's provisions in the zoning regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. (See Exhibit B.) City Planning Commission - Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 21 D. CONCLUSION The City Planning, Building and Housing, and Engineering Departments feel that Chula Vista's enactment of CPO's subdivision and zoning proposals, as modified and refined by staff, would broaden this city's transportation program and encourage air quality and energy conservation within the Chula Vista Planning Area. It should be noted that the proposed municipal legislation would not be oper- ationally retroactive. It would apply only to new buildings and land uses, enlarged buildings and land use, and new subdivisions. EXHIBIT A Proposed modifications to Chapter 18.32 of the Municipal Code relating to subdivision design requirements Section 18.32.090 Curbs, sidewalks and pedestrian ways-- Principles and standards. Delete the single sentence in subsection A and substitute the following: · ..... , ~ ......... - SI ......... ~"~'' n ..... In ~,, ~.w.,.,~,~..~ Curb~, gutters and sidewalks shall be required in all subdivisions with a gross density exceeding two dwelling units per acre. Side- walks shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards set forth in the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, Drawings l, 2, 3 and 4. For subdivisions with a gross density of less than two dwelling units per acre exceptions may be made as noted in subsec- tion B, below. Delete the first sentence of subsection C and substitute the following: ...... ~ ................... , other · ' cf ' When (1) identified on adopted community and regional plans, or (2) for access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation facilities, other community facilities, or for unusually long blocks, the Planning Commission may require pedestrian ways not less than eight feet in right-of-way width and paved with Portland cement concrete a minimum of five feet in width. EXHIBIT B Proposed zoning text amendments adding preferential rideshare parking requirements and bicycle storage requirements for new buildings and land uses Add the following sections to Chapter 19.62 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the zoning ordinance: 19.62.200 Preferential rideshare parking--Purpose. Sections 19.62.200 through 19.62.240, inclusive, shall be known as the preferential rideshare parking requirements. The purpose of the preferential rideshare parking requirements is to reserve the most convenient parking spaces at major employment or school sites for employee or student rideshare vehicles. 19.62.210 Preferential rideshare parking--Definition. "Rideshare" - means to arrive at place of work or school in a motor vehicle transporting not less than three persons. 19.62.220 Preferential rideshare parking--General provisions. A. Preferential rideshare parking shall be provided for any new building constructed; and for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use, or for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional parking facilities being required subject to the provisions of Section 19.62.050, where the total number of spaces prescribed in Section 19.62.050 exceeds 250 spaces. B. No existing use or structure shall be deemed non-conforming solely because of the lack of preferential rideshare parking in Section 19.62.230, provided that rideshare parking facilities existing on the effective date of the preferential rideshare parking requirements shall not be reduced in capacity design or function to less than the minimum standards prescribed in Section 19.62.230. C. For additions or enlargements of any buildings or use, or any change of occupancy or manner of operation that would increase rideshare parking required, rideshare parking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement or change, and not for the entire building or use. D. Rideshare parking required by the preferential rideshare parking require- ments shall be maintained by the owner for the duration of the use requiring such facilities and shall not be used for any other purposes. E. Rideshare parking spaces as required by Section 19.62.230 shall be provided out of the total number of parking spaces as required by Section 19.62.050 and shall not constitute additional parking space requirements. F. The Director of Planning shall be permitted to reduce the minimum rideshare parking spaces prescribed in Section 19.62.230 by up to ten percent if the applicant can show that unusual circumstances reduce the potential for ride- share commuting to the site. B-2 19.62.230 Preferential rideshare parking--Schedule of space requirements. A. Business or use and number of spaces required: 1. Residential: None. 2. Manufacturing: One rideshare space for every 20 total parking spaces. 3. Retail and services: One rideshare space for every 100 total parking spaces. 4. Administrative and professional offices: One rideshare space for every 20 total parking spaces 5. Educational: Elementary/junior high - One rideshare space for every 20 total parking spaces. Senior high - One rideshare space for every 4 total parking spaces. Post-secondary - One rideshare space for every 20 total parking spaces. 6. Other: In the case of any building, structure or premises, the use of which is not specifically mentioned herein, the provisions for a use which is mentioned and to which said use is similar, in the opinion of the Planning Director, shall apply. Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional requirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be resolved to the higher whole number. B. The number of automobile parking spaces as required by Section 19.62.050 shall be permitted to be reduced by one space for every ten rideshare spaces provided as specified in Section 19.62.230. Where application of the formula results in fractional units, fractions greater than 0.5 shall be resolved to the higher whole number. 19.62.240 Preferential rideshare parking--Design standards. A. Design standards are established by this section to set basic guidelines for preferential rideshare parking. Such standards shall be used by the Director of Planning and any other authorities, departments, boards, or commissions responsible for application and administration of parking regulations. B. Preferential rideshare parking spaces shall be those parking spaces located closest to entrances used by employees at work places or students at educa- tional facilities. Where such spaces conflict with parking for patrons of the use, then the most convenient spaces as practical will be designated as preferential rideshare parking. The requirements of this section shall not be interpreted as preempting the disabled parking provisions of California Vehicle Code sections 9105, 22511.7 and 22511.8. C. Preferential rideshare parking spaces shall consist of standard parking spaces signed for use by rideshare vehicles only. 19.62.250 Bicycle storage requirements--Purpose. Sections 19.62.250 through 19.62.280, inclusive, shall be known as the bicycle storage requirements. The purpose of the bicycle storage requirements is to provide an adequate number of secure, convenient bicycle storage facilities for employees, residents and other users of each building or use. 19.62.260 Bicycle storage requirements--General provisions. A. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed; and for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use or for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use or for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional parking facilities being required subject to the provisions of Section 19.62.050. B. No existing use or structure shall be deemed non-conforming solely because of the lack of bicycle facilities prescribed in Section 19.62.270, provided that bicycle facilities existing on the effective date of the bicycle storage requirements shall not be reduced in capacity, design, or function to less than the minimum standards prescribed in Section 19.62.270. C. For additions or enlargements of any building or use, or any change of occupancy or manner of operation that would increase the bicycle facilities required, the additional facilities shall be required only for such addition, enlargement or change, and not for the entire building or use. D. Bicycle facilities required by the bicycle storage requirements shall be maintained by the owner for the duration of the use requiring such facilities and shall not be used for any other purposes. E. The Director of Planning shall be permitted to replace the minimum bicycle storage facilities prescribed in Section 19.62.270 by up to ten percent if the applicant can show that unusual circumstances reduce the potential for bicycle use at the site. 19.62.270 Bicycle storage requirements--Schedule of storage requirements. A. Business or use and storage space requirement: 1. Residential: a. Multi-family, such as apartments, condominiums, boarding houses: One type 1 space for every two units. b. Single family, duplex: None. 2. Manufacturing: One Type 1 space for every 20 auto spaces; minimum, 2 spaces; maximum, lO0 spaces. 3. Retail and services: a. Major complex (lO0,O00 or greater square foot floor area): One Type 1 space and one Type 2 space for every 40 auto spaces. b. Other (less than lO0,O00 square foot floor area), such as neighbor- hood shopping centers, convenience shopping, restaurants, financial services, personal services, government services: One Type 1 space and four Type 2 spaces for every 50 auto spaces; minimum 2 spaces of each type. 4. Administrative office: Four Type 1 spaces and one Type 2 space for every lO0 auto spaces; minimum 2 spaces of each type; maximum 100 spaces of each type. B-4 5. Education: a. Elementary/Junior High: One Type 1 space for every 300 students; one covered Type 2 space (can be enclosed compound) for every 3 students. b. Senior High: One Type 1 space for every 300 students; one covered Type 2 space for every 4 students. 6. Recreation, such as sports activities, playgrounds, swimming areas, parks: One Type 1 space and one Type 2 space for every 10 auto spaces; minimum, 2 spaces of each type; maximum, 100 spaces of each type. 7. Theaters: One Type 1 space and one Type 2 space for every 20 auto spaces; minimum, 2 spaces of each type; maximum, 100 spaces of each type. 8. Commercial parking lot or garage: One Type 1 space for every 20 auto spaces. 9. Other, such as hospitals, religious assembly, museums, stadiums, auto- motive retail and service, funeral service, hotels, motels: To be determined by classification of use. Type 1 storage: Locker, check-in system, or other lockable weather protected facility. Type 2 storage: Rack which locks both wheels and frame with a user supplied lock. Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional requirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be resolved to the higher whole number. B. Where uses or activities subject to differing requirements are located in the same structure or on the same site or are intended to be served by the same parking facility, then the total requirement shall be the sum of the requirement for each use or activity computed separately. C. The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the Director of Planning on the basis of the requirement for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in Chula Vista and elsewhere, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the establishment of a minimum standard, with the intent of providing one Type 1 space for every 20 employees and a sufficient number of Type 1 and Type 2 spaces to meet projected storage needs at the site. D. At non-residential uses the number of automobile parking spaces as required by Section 19.62.050 shall be permitted to be reduced by one space for every ten Type 1 bicycle spaces and one space for every twenty Type 2 bicycle spaces provided as specified in Section 19.62.270. 19.62.280 Bicycle storage requirements--Design standards. A. The minimum type of bicycle storage facility required in Section 19.62.270 is defined as follows: 1. Type 1 storage is intended for long-term use and shall be a locker; check-in system; or other high security, totally weather protected facility such as a lockable garage at a multi-family residential use. 2. Type 2 storage is intended for short-term use and shall be a rack which locks both wheels and frame with a user supplied lock. B-5 B. Bicycle spaces shall be racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed. Racks shall be so designed that both wheels and frame of a bicycle can be locked with a padlock. Lockers shall be so designed that an unauthorized person cannot remove a bicycle from them. C. If a room or common locker not divided into individual lockers or rack spaces is used, one bicycle space shall consist of a rectangular area not less than 0.6 meters (2 feet) wide by 1.8 meters (6 feet) long. There should be a minimum aisle width of 1.5 meters (5 feet). D. Bicycle storage facilities shall be located at least as convenient as the most convenient automobile parking and as close to the building entrances as possible without interfering with pedestrian traffic. This requirement shall not be interpreted as preempting the disabled parking provisions of California Vehicle Code sections 9105, 22511.7, and 22511.8. Bicycle storage facilities shall be located at ground level. Bicycle and auto parking areas should be separated by some form of barrier to reduce the likelihood of a bicycle being struck by a motor vehicle. E. Bicycle storage facilities shall be clearly signed, designating the facilities as being for bicycle storage only, and shall be used for such use only. F. The Director of Planning shall have the authority to review bicycle storage facility designs based on the criteria specified in this section. EXHIBIT C CPO'S model statements of transportation policy and model transportation ordinances; ~%e lack of secure bicycle parking facilities was identified in CPO Bicycle C~,,,uter Survey as a very important problem by 27 percent of the co~muters ~no bicycle at least once a week. This ordinance attempts to alleviate this p~o~lem by ensuring that an adequate n~ber of bicycle parking spaces are provided tD meet existing and projected bicycle demand. Facility standards are also included to provide necessary levels of security, convenience and w~ather protection. In the ordinance, most new land uses are required to provide bicycle storage spaces sufficient to accommodate five percent of projected auto usage. More bicycle storage is required at neighborhood shopping facilities, schools and recreational uses, which tend to attract more bicycle tripe. A minim~ number of storage ~;paces is required at all establishments except single-f~mily snd duplex residences. "~ types of storage are required: lockers (x other high- security storage for employees, residents and other long-term parkers; and bicycle racks for shat-term parkers where security is less of a problem. A provision has been added to allow the waiver o~ reduction of storage require- ments if unusual circumstances exist. Auto~ile parking space requirements are mest often contained within a zoning ordinance and, ccnsequently, the bicycle sto~age requirements are incorporated into a model zoning c~dinance amendment to g~oup these two types of parking requirements. The model ordinance is patterned after the bicycle storage requirements in Palo Alto, which reports no significant implementation problems. The (Dst of required facilities will be modest. Currently, bicycle 1Dckers, the most expensive type of storage, cost about $160 per space. This cost could be reduced if bicycle sto~age is incorporated into the building design. Bicycle racks cost about $25 per space. A provision can be added to the ordinance that allows required automabile parking spaces to be r~duced to offset the cost of providing bicycle storage facilities. 1 MODE[, ZONING ORDINANCE Providing Bicycle Storage Facilities at New Buildings and Uses Secticn (1000) Purpose Section (1000) through Section (1004), inclusive, shall be known as the Bicycle Storage Requirements. The purpose of the Bicycle Storage Nequirements is to provide an adequate nt~ber of secure, convenient bicycle storage facilities for ~ployees, residents and other users of each building or use. Section (1001) General Provisions a. Bicycle sto~age facilities shall be provided for any new building oonstructed; and f~r any addition or en- largement of an existing building or use or for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional perking facilities being required subject to the provisions of Section (perking space requirements). b. No existing use or structure shall be deemed non-conforming solely because of the lack of bicycle facilities prescribed in Section (.10_~02), provided th.at bicycle facilities existing on the effective date of the Blcycle Storage R~quirements shall not be reduced in capecity, design, or function to less than the minimu~ standards prescribed in Section (1002). c. For additions or enlargements of any building or use, or any change of occupancy or manner of operation that would increase the bicycle facilities required, the additional facilities shall be required cnly for such addition, enlargement or change, and n~t for the entire building or use. d. Bicycle facilities required by the Bicycle Sto~age Nequire- ments shall be maintained by the owner for the d~ation of the use requiring such facilities and shall not be used for any other purposes. e. The (Director of Planning) shall be permitted to reduce the minimu~ bicycle st~age facilities ~escribed in Section (1002) by up to ten (10) percent if the ;%pplicant can show that unusual circ~m~stances reduce the potential for bicycle use at the site. 2 Section (1002) Schedule of Bicycle Storage Requirements a. The schedule of bicycle facility requirements established by subsection (b) shall be applied as follows: 1) Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional r~quirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be resolved to the higher whole number. 2) Where uses or activities subject to differing requirements are located in the same structure or on the same site or are intended to be served by the same parking facility, then the total requirement shall be the su~ of the requirement for each use or activity c~mputed separately. b. In each zone bicycle storage facilities for each use shall be provided in accord with the following schedule. The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the (Director of Planning) on the basis of the requirement for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in (city na~e) and elsewhere, amd sud~ other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the establishment of a minimum standard, with the intent of providing one (1) Type 1 space for every twenty (20) e~ploy~es and a sufficient nt~ber of Type 1 and ~ype 2 spaces to meet projected storage needs at the site. Section (100__~3) Adjustment to Autcmobile Parkin~ S~ace Requirements At non-residential uses the nunber of automobile parking spaces as required by Section (parking space requirements) shall be permitted to be reduced by one (1) sl~ce for every three (3) Type 1 bicycle spaces and one (1) space for every six (6) Type 2 bicycle spaces provided as specified in Section (1002). Where application of this fo~l~ula results in a re- du--~on of less than cne autcmobile space, a reduction of one automobile space mhall be granted. Where application of the formula results in fractional units, fractions greater than 0.5 shall be resolved to the higher whole number. In no case shall the maximum allo~able aut~,ub~le parking spaces to be reduced exceed (a percentage or number of spaces to be deter- mined by the jurisdiction) the spaces required in Section (parking space requirements). Section (1004) Design Standards a. The minimum type of bicycle storage facility required in Section (1002) is defined as follows.. 1) Type 1 stc~age is intended for long-term use and shall be a lock~r; check-in system; or other high Section (1002) (b) L,::~ ...... _SJ!q._ _ _r~_ _~ ~p~c~ ?u: _~ z.~.~u ~rl .'s Minim~n ,, 2 spaces. A. Major Cc~nplex (100,000 or greater <~e Type 1 space and c~e ~ 2 space for e~ry sq. ft. floor area). 40 auto Maximum - 100 spaces of each t~pe. B. O~J~er (less than 100,000 sq. ft. (~ ~ 1 space and four ~ype 2 ~paces fo~ every £1~or area), such as neighborhood 50 auto spaces. shopping centers, ccnvenience Minim~m~ = 2 spaces of each type. IV. ;~inistrative office Four ~¥pe 1 spaces and c~e ~ 2 sp~ce for every 100 auto spaces. Miniz~mn - 2 s~es of each type. Maximum = 100 spaces of each type. A. Elementary/J~ior High O~e Type I space for every 300 students. Gne oover~d (*) ~¥pe 2 space fo~ every 3 students. 8. Senior High Gne Type 1 space for every 300 students. Cne ~overed T~pe 2 space for every 4 students. C. Post-sectary (~e ~ 1 space for e~ry 250 stud~ts. Oae cove~ed ~¥pe 2 space for every 5 students. (**) VI. ~ecreation, such as spo~ts activities, Gne Type 1 space and one ~ype 2 space for every p~ro~s, s~i~ing areas, [arks. 10 auto spaces. Minimum = 2 spaces of each type. Maximum - 100 spaces of each type. VII. Theaters ~ne Type 1 space and one ~5?pe 2 s~ce for every 20 auto spaces. Minim~ - 2 spaces of each type. Maximu~ - 100 spaces of each VIII. (~rcial parkin~ Gne ~ 1 space for every 20 auto spaces. IX. Other, such as hc~pitals, religious ~ be determined by classification of use. assembly, museums, stadik~s, autc~tive ~¥pe 1 Storage: I~er, check-in system, or other lockable ~ather-protected facility. Type 2 Storage: Back which locks ~oth wheels and frame with a user-supplied l~k. (*) Can be ~atisfied with enclosed ot~d. {**);~justments in distributiou may be aLlo~ to provide mo~e ~¥~e 1 facilities cear dormitories and mo~e ~ 2 facilities ~ar c. lsssroc~s a~d c~ offices. 4 security, totally weather protected facility such as a lockable garage at a multi-fanily r~sidential use. 2) Type 2 sto~age is intended for short-term use and shall be a rack which locks both wheels and frame with a user-supplied lock. b. Bicycle spaces shall be racks o~ lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily r~poved. Racks shall be so designed that both wheels and frame of a bicycle can be locked with a padlock. Lockers shall be so designed that an unauth(~ized person cannot re, Dye a bicycle from them. c. If a room c~ c(mmom locker not divided into individual lockers c~ rack spaces is used, one (1) bicycle ~pace shall consist of a rectangular area not less than 0.6 meters (2 feet) wide by 1.8 meters (6 feet) long. There should be a minimtm aisle width of 1.5 meters (5 feet). d. Bicycle storage facilities ~hall be located at least es convenient as the most convenient autcm~obile parking and as close to the building entrances as possible without interfering with pedestrian traffic. This requirement shall not be interpreted as preempting the disabled parking provisions of California Vehicle Code sections 9105, 22511.7, and 22511.8. Bicycle storage facilities shall be located at ground level. Bicycle and auto parking areas should be separated by scme fo~m of barrier to reduce the likeli- hood of a bicycle being struck by a motor vehicle. e. Bicycle storage facilities shall be clearly signed, designating the facilities as being for bicycle storage only, and shall be used for such use cnly. f. The (Director of Planning) shall have the authority to review bicycle storage facility designs based on the criteria specified in this section. 5 MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE ;~M}~I~T Providing Preferential Rideshare parking at Major New Buildings and Uses Tnis ordinance provides an incentive to share rides by r~serving the most venient parking spaces at major employment sites and schools for use by ~nploy~es amd students who rideshare. It also attempts to make ridesharing mo~e visible as an alternative to driving alone. Reserved ridesharing parking space require- ments are set to accc~nodate a five percent increase in ridesharing. It is suggested that preferential parking r~quiren~nts be enacted through the model zoning ordimance ~m~endment to oonsolidate all parking requirements in cne place. The cost of providing self-enforcing preferential parking spaces would be minimal since installation of signs designating a portion of available parking spaces for ridesharers' use omly would be the major expense. A more formal program with registration procedures and vehicle stick~rs for participants ~Duld be more costly, but would be easier to enforce. An option is included in the model ordinance which w~uld give a property owner an incentive to pro- vide preferential parking spaces by allowing the total n~m~er of required parking spaoes to be reduced if minimum [~eferential parking space requirements were met. 6 MODF~, ZONING G~DINANCE AMENII~NT Presiding Preferential Rideshare Parking at Major New Buildings and uses Sect i~n (1000) Purpose Sections (1000) through (1004), inclusive shall be known as the Prefere--~al Rideshare parking B~quirements. The purpose of the Preferential Rideshare parking ~equirements is to reserve the most oonvenient parking spaces at major employ- ment Or school sites f(x employee Or student rideshare vehicles. Section (1001) Definitions "Rideshare" - m~ans to arrive at place of work or school in a motor vehicle transporting not less than three (3) persons. Section (1002) General Provisions a. Preferential rideshare parking shall be provided for any new building constructed; and for ~y addition or enlarge- ment of an existing building c~ use or for any change in the ~ccupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional parking facilities being required subject to the provisions of Section (parking space requirements), where the total number of spaces pr~scribed in Section (parking space requirements) exceeds 250 spa~es. b. No existing use or structure shall be deemed non-conforming solely because of the lack of preferential rideshare parking in Section (1003), provided that rideshare parking fa- cilities existing on the effective date of the Preferential Rideshare parking l~equirements shall not be reduced in capacity design, or funotion to less than the minim~ standards presoribed in Section (1003). c. For additions Or enlargements of any buildings Or use, or any change of o~cupancy or manner of operation that would increase rideshare parking required, rideshare parking shall be required only for such addition, en- largement Or dgange, and not for the entire building or use. d. Rideshare parking required by the preferential Rideshare _ parking Requirements shall be maintained by the owner for the d~ation of the use rL:~uiring such facilities and shall not be used for any other purposes. e. Rideshare parking spaces as require~ by Sectioa (1003) shall be provided out of the total n~ber of parking spaces as required by Section (~arking space requir~Nents) ar~ shall not constitute additional parking space require- ments. f. The (Director of Planning) shall be ~ermitted bo reduce the minimu~ rideshare p~rking spaces prescribed in Sectio~ (1003) by up to ten (10) pe~uent if the Applicant can show that unusual circumstances reduce the potential for ride- share u~,,~,uting to the site. Section (1003) Scbea~ u]e of Preferential Rideshare Space Bequirements a. The schedule of preferential rideshare space requirements established by subsection (b) shall be applied as follows: 1) Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional requirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater mhall be resolved tD the higher whole SC~DULE OF MINIMLIM PREFERenTIAL I~IDESHARE PARKING SPA(~ I~[II~ - SBCTI(]N (1003)(b) use Minimun Space Requirement I. Residential None II. Manufacturir~ 1 rideshare space for every 20 total auto spaces III. Retail and Services 1 rideshare space for every 100 total auto spaces IV. Administrative Service 1 rideshare space for every 20 total auto spaces V. ~]ucational A. Elementary/Junior High 1 rideshare space for every 20 total auto spaces B. Senior High 1 rideshare ~pace for every 4 total auto spaces C. Post-seccndary 1 rideshare space f~ every 20 total auto spaces VI. Other To be determined by (Plannin~ Director) 8 ~ction (1004) Adjush~nts to AutCmobile Parkin~ S~ace R~quirements The number of autcmcbile parking spaces as required by Section (parking space requirements) shall be permitted to be reduced by one (1) space fo~ every ten (10) rideshare spaces provided as specified in Section (1003), but in no case shall exceed (a number or percentage to be determined by the jurisdiction). Where application of the formula results in fractional units, fractions greater than 0.5 shall be resolved to the higher whole number. Section (1005) Design standards a. Design standards are established by this section to set basic guidelines for preferential rideshare parking. Such standards shall he used by the (Director of Planning.) .and any other authorities, departments, boards, or ~u,,,,lsslons responsible for application ~nd administration of parking regulations. b. Preferential rideshare parking spaces shall he those parking spaces located closest to entrances used by enployees at work places or students at educational facilities. Where such spaces conflict with parking for patrons of the use, then the most convenient spaces as practical will be designated as preferential rideshare parking. The requirements of this section shall not be interpreted as preempting the disabled p~rking provisions of Calif(~nia vehicle O0de sections 9105, 22511.7 and 22511.8. c. Preferential rideshare parking spaces shall consist of standard parking spaces signed for use by rideshare vehicles only. 9 MfDEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ~M~IIWL~NT Providing Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements New development presents a unique opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the transportation system. The proposed subdivision regulation requires that facilities be provided for transit, bicycles and ~lking just as autO- mobile-related improvements are required. Provisions of the model o~dinance include requiring bicycle and pedestrian ~ys for access to local activity centers and for regional and community circulation as identified on plans. sidewalks are required in urbanized areas. The approlxiate transit agency is also given review authority to determine if the project design is compatible with existing and proposed transit service. Design standards are suggested in the ordinance, although ~Dst jurisdictions have existing design standards which could be used instead. The cost of improvements r~quired by the regu- lation will be quite high. However, it is much less exl~nsive to oonstruct facilities as a develolm~ent is being built than to do so after streets and buildings are in place. Given the complexity and diversity of topics covered by this measure, local jursidctions my consider it ,pre approlxiate to incorporate the ~rovisions - of this measure into their subdivision ordinances at appropriate places, rather than adopt the proo~c~ed measu~ in toto. 10 R]D~J RJBDIVISION O~DINANCE AMF~D~NT R~-ovidiE~g Transit, Bicycle and Pc~estrian ]],prov~ents Section (1000) Puq0ose (1002) The intent to Section (1000) through Section , inclusive, is bp increase the use of low-polluting, e~er%~----~ficient modes of transportation (transit, bicycles, and walking) by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in new subdivisions and by establishing a review ~ucedure to determine if pmoject designs will facilitate the use of transit, bicycles, and walking. Section (1001) General Provisions a. In new subdivisions rights-of-way shall be dedicated for bikeways, and bikeways shall be oonstructed therein: (1) as identified on adopted u~,,L,o~ity a~d regional plans, a~d (2) as neoessary bp ~tovide convenient access residential areas to local activity centers. b. In new subdivisions rights-of-way shall be dedicated for pedestrian ways, and pedestrian paths shall be constructed therein: (1) as identified on adopted general and specific plans, and (2) as ~ecessary b~ provide convenient access from residential areas to local activity centers. c. In new subdivisions with a gross density exceeding two dwelling units per acre, sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards sst forth in Section (1002). d. Maps for subdivisions shall be referred bp (transit agency) for review and co~waent to determine if subdivisions are designed to facilitate existing cr proposed transit use. Section (1002) Design Standards a. Bikeways shall conform to the design criteria and signing criteria set forth in "plarning and Design Criteria fo~ Bikeways in California", published by the State of Califot~,ia, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation. b. sidewalks shall have a minimun clear unobstructed width (excludes curb bpp width, fire hydrants, light poles, transformers, etc.) of four (4) feet in residential areas and five (5) feet in co~nercial and industrial areas. 11 MODEL BUILDING (]ODE A~II~NT providing Sho~r and (hanging Bocm Facilities fo~ Use by Bicyclists CPO's Bicycle Omanuter Survey found that 30 percent of commuters interviewed rated the lack of ~ho~rs and clothes lockers as a very ir~sortant p~oblem. The p~oposed building ~ode anendment requires shower and clothes storage and changing facilities in new buildings with design occupancy lc~ds of 400 or more persons as a first step in eliminating this deterrent to bicycling. The 400 person cut-off point and bicycle usage rate of five percent translates into a requirement for facilities where 20 or ~Dre bicyclists are expected. Given today's fitness consciousness, such facilities might be used mc~e extensively than expected and ~Duld be an important a~enity which would attract tenants. 12 MO~EL BUILDING CODE AMF~4D~ENT Providing Sho~r ~d (hanging ND~n Facilities fo~ Use by Bicyclists Section (1000) Section (1105) of the Uniform Building Code ~faemded. Section (1105) Ail new buildings with design occupamcy loads of 400 or more persons shall be provided with at least one shower room and one changing room for each sex. Changing rooms shall be provided with clothes storage facilities sufficient to accom- modate at least five (5) percent of the occupancy load, and show~rs shall be provided to acco~medate at least one (1) percent of the occupancy load. The total facilities provided shall be divided equally fo~ use by each sex. 13 MODEL RESOLUTICN ~couraging Private E~ployer Transportation Programs Active ~ooperation of private employers is essential to the success of ride- sharing and related programs aimed at altering e~ployee o~,,,uting patterns. This resolution adopts ~luntary guidelines for employer programs. The reso- lution p~cposes that the guidelines be posted where business licenses are renewed and be mailed with business license renewals to provide a periodic r~inder cf a business's responsibility to enoourage the use of alternative methods of transportation. One of the most important p~ovisions of the guidelines is to encourage busi- ness with more than 50 employees to designate a transportatio~ ~oordinator ~ho would act as liaiscn with O'-,muter ~puter and be responsible for other employee transportatic~ functions. Businesses with 50 or more employees are encouraged to work with O~,uter O:mputer's program or to c~erate a similar in-house program. Other provisions include encouraging businesses to display transit, ridesharing and bicycling information and to allow flexible work hours ~o encourage use of transit and ridesharing. The cost to a business of i~pl~m~enti~g the guidelines wo~ld be small and many of the functions could be coordinated with other routine personnel tasks. 14 MODEL R~qOLUTION ~]cou~aging ~ploy~r Transportation Progr~s WHEREAS, voluntary guidelines have been prepared describing actions which private employers can take ~o facilitate the use of ridesharing, transit and bicycling by employees co~a~uting to and fr~m work; and WHEREAS, active cooperation of employers is essential tD increased use of alternative methods of commuting to and from work; and WHEREAS, increased use of ridesharing, transit and bicycling will reduce consum%ption of gasoline, improve the efficiency of the transportation system and result in personal savings to cc~muters, in addition to ~.~oving air quality; NDW ~[HEREF~RE BE IT RESOLVED that the (jurisdiction) adopts the guidelines oontained in Attachment A which describe actions private employers can take to facilitate and encourage the use of transit, ridesharing and bicycling by employees com- muting to and fr~m work; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (Division of Licenses and Permits) is instructed to include the guidelines with business license rene~ls and post the guidelines at the (Business License office). PASSED kND ADO~.~D by this __ day of , 1979. 15 ATTACHMENT A ~3IDELINES FCR ~4PLOYER TRANSPORTATION PNOGRAMS 1. Mmployers are urged to help dissemir~te information cn ridesharing programs by displaying, in a location r~gularly frequented by most or all employees, informational and promotional material relating to transit, ridesharing or bicycling as provided by O~,,,Luber Ccmputer (transit agency), or other agencies or groups involved in promoting ridesharing. 2. M~ployers are urged to actively support ridesharing by allowing flexible work hours where necessary for employees to participate in a ridesharing arrangement or to use scheduled bus service. 3. ~nplc~ers with fifty (50) or more ~mployees are urged to designate an ~mployee to coordinate transportation functions. It would be the responsi- bility of the transportatio~ coordinator to: a. Assist fellow employees in formir~3 ridesharing arrangements. b. Serve as a liaison with O~L,uuter (~p~/ter. c. Administer preferential rideshare parking program as specified in Secticn (5), if applicable. d. Distribute to fellow employees bicycle comnuting information as provided by O~,,i, uter O~nputer or other groups. e. Distribute to fellow employees transit information as provided by C~,,~,uber Computer or (transit agency). f. Distribute, collect, and forward to O~,,~,uter O~mputer rideshare application forms for new employees and existing employees who reqvest a new match list, or to perform a similar function using an in-house matching system. 4. Mmployers in employment sites with fifty (50) or more total employees are urged to make a pceitive commitment to O~l,,uter Ccmputer as follows: a. Pemit representatives of C~,,uter Ocmputer to work closely with transpor ration coordinator. b. Allow questionnaires and rideshare application forms to be distributed at least annually during working hours; or c.Operate an in-hour rideshare matching program comperable to Om~putsr' s program. 5. ~,ployers at sites with 250 or more total perking spaces are urged ~o assign preferential parking spaces for use by employees who regularly o~,,,,ute to work with two or more additional persons. 16 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1980 page 22 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-6 - Proposed amendment to zoning procedure for Redevelopment Plans A. BACKGROUND 1. Case law in California has pretty well determined that when a city adopts a redevelopment plan for an area, the provisions of the redevelopment plan supersede the zoning regulations which would otherwise apply. The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate this legal determination into the Zoning Ordinance so that it is clear that the redevelopment plan supersedes the zoning. 2. In most cases the redevelopment plan is not as detailed or as compre- hensive as the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed amendment specifies that the most applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance do apply unless the redevelopment plan sets forth its own provisions. 3. This City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposed amendment will not have any significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to the requirements of CEQA. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Chapter 19.12 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code adding a new Section 19.12.150 to read as follows: Sec. 19.12.150 Adopted Redevelopment Plans. If, and in the event that, the City Council adopts a redevelopment plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 33000 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California and said plan has been adopted in general conformance with the procedures as set fort~ in this chapter for the adoption of zoning ordinances as applicable to particular pieces of land, said redevelopment plan shall constitute the zoning requirements regulating permitted uses and the manner of development of the land and shall supersede any zoning regulations previously adopted regulating such permitted 'uses and development standards~ provided~ however~ ~f any aspect or element of development of the property has not been delineated in the redevelopment plan, the regulations contained in the under- lying zoning or in the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the particular use involved shall be deemed to be applicable.