Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/01/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 9, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 12, 1979 1. Consideration of final EIR-80-5 on Ranchero Sectional Planning Area (El Rancho del Rey Unit 6) a. Update of air quality section of EIR-76-3 b. Supplement to EIR-78-2 for development of Ranchero SPA 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Environmental impact report EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental impact report EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area (The Terrace) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-B - Rezoning two parcels on south side of "D" Street, east of Broadway, from R-3 to C-T - McMillin Development, Inc. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCV~80-6 - Request for reduction of lot frontage and increase in density on the west side of Fifth Avenue between "F" Street and Parkway in the R-3 zone - Dean T. Bowden 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-80-8 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Parkway Place, Chula Vista Tract 80-8 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-5 - Consideration of amendment to zoning ordinance relating to alternatives to on-site parking ORAL COIQ~IUNICATIONS 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 January 9, 19~ 1. Consideration of final EIR-80-5 on Ranchero Sectional Plannin9 Area (El Rancho del ReS Unit 6) a. Update of air quality section of EIR-76-3 b. Supplement to EIR-78-2 for development of Ranchero SPA A. BACKGROUND 1. This composite environmental impact report was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 12, 1979. There are two documents involved: the first is an update of the air quality section of the E1 Rancho del Rey Master £IR, and the second is a site specific analysis of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area. 2. Letters commenting on the Draft EIR and testimony on the document were received. They have been included in Section ll.O of the EIR along with a response to those comments in Section 12.0. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that EIR-80-5 and the air quality update of EIR-76-3 have 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 With one exception the impacts of this project can be mitigated to a level below that of significance. The one exception is the destruction of a major portion, including the most significant portion, of biological sensitivity area "B". Staff studies have indicated that this is a mitigable impact. Staff is currently working with the developer toward a solution for this problem. It is anticipated that this issue will be resolved. City Planning Con, mission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Environmental impact report EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies A. BACKGROUND The hearing on this EIR was continued from the December 12, 1979 Commission meeting. During the interim, Cadillac Fairview Homes West has indicated that they wanted to clarify their previous comments. A letter received from Cadillac Fairview is attached and they intend to make a presentation at the Commission meeting. B. RECOMMENDATION At the conclusion of the public hearing, close the heading and schedule consideration of the final EIR for January 23, 1980. January 2, 1980 PIann~ng Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Subject: Environmental Impact Report, Control Policies (EIR-80-1) Dear Planning Commissioners: Cadillac Fairview Homes West has previously provided commentary to the Planning Commission regarding the subject EIR. The purpose of this letter is not to introduce new comments at this time, but rather to clarify certain of our earlier points. As stated in earlier testimony, Cadillac Fairview Homes West and Western Salt Company acknowledge and support growth manage- ment and control as essential elements of modern land use policy. The Urban Land Institute, an independent, non-profit research and educational organization recognized as one of America's most highly respected sources of objective information on urban planning, growth management and development, introduces their three-volume reference work titled: "Management and Control of Growth" with the statement that "Ideally, managed growth consists of a well- integrated, efficient, and affirmative system where choices or decisions are made explicitly and with full knowledge of the variables and trade-offs involved, and where the programs are co- ordinated in furtherance of clear community growth and land use objective." Our intent to date has been to identify alternative techniques available for use by the City of Chula Vista to achieve objectives contemplated in a "west-to-east" development policy but with less negative impact potential from an evironmental stand- point. The mitigation measure/alternative project advocated by CFHW represents performance criteria concerned with leaving "flexible" the City's determination of the growth management tools, systems and methodologies most appropriate to achieve public goals. Our earlier testimony endeavored to identify certain significant negative environmental impacts of the subject project and to demonstrate the need for consideration of both mitigation measures and alternative projects. Based on related questions posed by the Planning Commission during the public hearing, we have endeavored to develop a series of graphics to better illustrate the potentially negative environmental impacts which are, in our opinion, inherent to the currently proposed Project. Since explanation of the graphics and the underlying concerns can most effectively be accomplished in the form of an audio-visual presentation, a very brief slide- show with narration is being prepared for the January 9, 1980 public hearing. It should be emphasized that the presentation shall present no new testimony in terms of additional concerns and is intended only to clarify our earlier testimony. The presentation shall be Planning Commission January 2, 1980 Page 2 previewed with City s%aff such that staff can be prepared to comment if appropriate. At the November 28, 1979 Planning Commission public hearing, CFfIW made reference to negative long-term environmental effects of the present policies as a result of encouraging incremental (i.e. tract-by-tract) planning and development versus large-scale land development approaches. The Urban Land Institute's research document titled; "Large-Scale Development: Benefits, Constraints, and State and Local Policy Incentives" references to two studies to compare environmental impacts of incremental versus planned community development models. As stated in the ULI document, the Real Estate Research Corporation study entitled the "Costs of Sprawl" and the Charles County, Maryland study reached the following conclusions regarding the significant environmental advantages of large-scale planning approaches: '1. Twenty to thirty percent less air pollution (due to reduced auto- mobile travel). 2. Substantially greater amount of land conserved as open space. 3. Creater preservation of significant wildlife and vegatation habitats. 4. Less paved areas and better site design resulting in reduced stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and water pollution. 5. Reduced impact of noise through buffering the residential areas from major arterials. The above should clarify our comment that growth management policies which provide disincentives to large-scale development approaches would result in attaining certain short-term environmental goals to the detriment of attaining long-term environmental goals. ^ final point of clarification pertains to CFHW's previous comment that there are economic consequences associted with the growth control policies contemplated by the City. The ULI document on large-scale land development references to certain comparative cost studies which support the conclusion that there are substantial public capital infrastructure cost savings in large-scale development, as well as o~erating and maintenance cost savings for such items as school bus-type services and road and utility maintenance. The full range of public costs including police and fire protection, parks and recreation costs, public works and school costs are all keyed to growth management and should be addressed and an attempt made to measure short and long-term costs against revenues at the time fiscal impacts are evaluated. Our intent is not to suggest that such a comprehensive cost/benefical analysis be performed at this time but January 2, 1980 Planning Commission Page 3 rather to again amplify our point that growth control policies which discourage large-scale planning and development for the eastern study area would likely result in sub-optimum fiscal situations as the area develops. I trust that the above information as well as that to be presented graphically at the January 9 public hearing will serve to clarify certain portions of our previous testimony. The documents quoted herein shall be provided to the City upon request. Sincerely, CADILLAC FAIRVIEW HOMES WEST Robert L. Santos Project Director cc: Chula Vista City Council (~) Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Coordinator City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 page 3 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental impact report EIR-80-6 on East College Sectional Planning Area (The Terrace) A. BACKGROUND This environmental impact report was prepared by MSA under a contract with the City of Chula Vista. The draft EIR was issued by the Environmental Review Committee for review on November 29, 1979. Comments on the draft EIR were received from the San Diego County Archaeological Society (attached) and will require the preparation of a response. Testimony is anticipated at the public hearing. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and receive testimony, close the hearing and schedule consideration of the final EIR for January 23, 1980. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The project will be constructed on 34.3 acres and, when completed, will consist of 256 clustered apartments apportioned into 22 buildings, with parking spaces for 441 cars and a recreational complex consisting of two tennis courts, a swimming pool and a recreational building. Two access roads to the site are planned. One road will provide access at the northwestern corner of the project and will intersect with Otay Lakes Road north of Telegraph Canyon Road. A second access will be provided to the south, via a road intersecting Otay Lakes Road east of Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. Grading on the site will consist of 175,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. That portion of the site bordering Otay Lakes Road east of Telegraph Canyon Road will be cut in order to widen Otay Lakes Road. The site will essentially be terraced with buildings placed near the top of the slopes. All manufactured slopes will be 2:1 or flatter. The maximum cut slopes will be approximately 40 feet high and the maximum fill slopes will be approximately 62 feet high. 3. The project proponent will participate in the improvement to four lanes of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road from the eastern project boundary west to the Casa del Rey improvements which are under construction at this time. D. ANALYSIS Analysis of the proposed project has not revealed any major adverse impacts although there are a number of factors of substantial concern. 1. Traffic - The streets and intersections near the project carry daily and hourly traffic volumes which exceed design capacities at some locations. Because of this, any project that generates traffic would make the situation worse. The Terrace Apartments will generate 2,560 daily vehicle trips which will further tax the existing road system. Participation in improvements to T~egraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road as proposed by the applicant, coupled with the payment of City signalization fees, will mitigate traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 page 4 2. Schools - In addition to the schools' financial problems, many of the area's schools are at or over capacity. Should the project generate the approxi- mately 230 students as predicted by the school districts, there may be consider- able problems in accommodating them. Mitigation of nearby school capacity prob- lems can be accomplished by bussing students to underutilized schools and/or expanding over-capacity schools. In either case, the project proponent will provide $44,800 in fees. 3. Aesthetics - The project site consists of a portion of the Scenic Route for Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road. This factor, plus the general public concern for the visual treatment of any long-vacant space, raises an issue which may be resolved through the appropriate design. Grading will affect approximately 80% of the designated open space. In addition, the project will be visible from 30 lots adjacent on the north and east. Mitigation of aesthetic concerns can be accomplished through thoughtful and careful grading, placement of structures, and building and landscape architecture. These items are all wi thin the control of the City. In general, the skyline as viewed from the lots on the north will not be blocked. However, the upper portions of the closest buildings, plus the mature landscaping, will be visible from most of the lots. The terraced grading will result in most of the project being below the line-of-sight of most adjacent residents. In general, views of the horizon will be maintained but some views of the terrain below the horizon will be blocked. 4. Geology - The presence or absence of the northeast trending fault on the site will not affect the project, as no structures are planned for the area through which the fault may potentially pass. Construction on potentially expansive soils and uncompacted alluvial soils could have serious consequences, such as cracking of foundations due to soil movement. It is not expected that the project will be impacted by landslide hazards. During and after grading it is possible that seepages will develop. A complete geotechnical report must be completed prior to grading. Following this report, grading plans must be designed to reduce impacts of construction on either expansive soils or soils which are compressible. It is recommended that a geologist be present during the grading operation to insure that the known potential impacts are minimized, and that should any conditions develop during grading which were not anticipated, that the impacts can be assessed and appro- priate measures taken to minimize them. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ~ ~ Environmental Impact Report Review Committee 2325 Loring Street San Diego, Cal. 92109 ~O ~OO December 26, 1979 To: Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Department of Planning City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report East College Sectional Planning Area EIR-80-6 Dear Mr. Reid: I have reviewed the archaeological aspects of the subject report on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County Archaeological Society. The archaeological survey report (appendix) does not indicate the number of hours expended in the field work for the project. This information would give some indication of the thoroughness of the field investigations. Also, the report does not include the record searches from the San Diego Museum of Man and San Diego State University. This omission makes it im- possible to verify that no recorded sites occur on the subject property, or close to it. Both the technical appendix and the IEIR itself (p. 27) state that indirect impacts "cannot be addressed by this study". This is not correct. Quite aside from the CEQA requirements to consider both direct and indirect impacts of a project, there are possible mitigatory actions possible for indirect impacts. For example, if an archaeological site were to occur immediately adjacent to the project boundaries, impacts to off-project areas could be prevented or reduced by fencing that portion of the parcel line. In an extreme case, a consulting archaeologist might recommend a project redesign to mitigate indirect impacts. We have no information to indicate that any indirect impacts are likely to occur. We only ask that the possibility of such impacts be addressed, as required by CEQA. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, _.James W. Royled~r.¢/ Chairperson, EIR Review Committee cc: SDCAS President file GOTHA~,J HARVARD I FHACA VACANT DIEGO VACANT A-I (8) county ~o0' 4oo' NORTH City Planning Commission page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 4. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 acre, 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. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-33 and find that this rezoning will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "£" of this report, 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 ~recise 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 toward Broadway and shall be so designed as to minimize the necessity of access from "D" Street; primary access shall be from Broadway. 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. 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. 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. City Planning Commission page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 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 two new accessory structures located in the R-3 zone are restricted to private vehicle storage. The structures were to be constructed on the east and south property lines, however, only the proposed structure abutting the east property line is under construction. 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 R-3 area is being used for the storage of vehicles but is not paved. 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 of 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. The orientation of the development can best be controlled under the Precise Plan Modifying District. 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 a Broadway orientation 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 south property lines. City Planning Commission page 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 3. The established setback along "D" Street reflected on the Building Line Map is 20 feet. This setback should be retained 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. 4. Rezoning the property to C-T creates a problem for the existing and planned accessory structures since they can be built on the side and rear property lines in the R-3 zone, whereas, the C-T zone requires a 25 foot setback. Therefore, staff is recommending that the building locations be acknowledged and approved as part of the "P" guidelines. 5. Rezoning the property from R-3 to C-T-P will not appreciably change the existing use of the site since the area has functioned as part of the adjacent commercial Broadway frontage for the past 25 years. It is possible in the future that some form of automotive repair would be contemplated to coincide with the Broadway activities; however, any such expansion would require the approval of a conditional use permit. E. FINDINGS 1. The increase in retail commercial depth will bring the property more in keeping with minimum acceptable commercial standards. The existing depth of 90 feet is inadequate to accommodate new and expanded commercial development. 2. The subject property is adjacent to a residential area, therefore, the "P" zone should be attached to insure that the orientation of the commercial development will be toward Broadway rather than the adjacent residential area. MC INTOSH . _~, .... CASSELMAN MF J VACANT IMFISFIMF ISE ,~UrO PAR'~S I I I I CH/~GI z I I I ~ VAC I I I I I t ~ I FLOWER I I N TH "D" 5'~EET EXISTING 'BUILDINGS NO SC~i.E NORTH Chula Vista Planning Commission page 8 Agenda Items for meeting of January 9, 1980 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCV-80-6 - Request for reduction of lot frontage and increase in density on the west side of Fifth Avenue between "F" Street and Parkway in the R-3 zone - Dean T. Bowden A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has requested a variance in order to subdivide 3.08 acres into five lots in the R-3 zone. The applicant proposes to create four lots, each containing 7,320 sq. ft. and having a minimum frontage of 60 feet on the west side of Fifth Avenue between Park Way and "F" Street. The Municipal Code requires a minimum lot frontage of 65 feet in the R-3 zone. The applicant has also requested an increase in density from one unit/1,O00 sq.ft, to one unit/820 sq.ft, in order to create the fifth lot, containing 2.41 acres, on which there are 128 existing units at 511 Park Way (see locator). 2. In 1976 a similar variance request (PCV-76-5) was granted for the property, however,the variance expired without being used. Prior to the approval of the variance granted in 1976, another variance (PCV-76-1) to allow for an additional 20 units to be built on the area adjacent to Fifth Avenue was denied. 3. The applicant has also resubmitted a tentative subdivision map, Parkway Place, which was originally approved in 1976 and has since expired. The tentative map will be considered as a separate agenda item if the variance is approved. 4. An Initial Study (IS-75-78) of possible adverse environmental impact was conducted for the previous variance request to develop the property with a 20 unit apartment project. The Environmental Review Committee concluded, on December 11, 1975, that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended a draft Negative Declaration which was certified by the Commission on January 26, 1976. The Committee concluded on April 6, 1976 that, although the revised project was substantially different than originally proposed, the effects of the revision would reduce the insignificant impacts to an even lower level. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion finding that this project and the construction of four additional single family dwelling units would not have any significant impact on the environment and adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-75-78. 2. Adopt a motion approving the request allowing an increase in density on the 2.41 acre parcel from one unit/lO00 sq.ft, to one unit/820 sq.ft., and a reduction in the minimum lot frontage from 65 feet to 60 feet for the four lots proposed on Fifth Avenue, subject to the following conditions: a. The drainage on the 2.41 acre parcel shall be designed as an enclosed system for a minimum distance of 15 feet extending northerly from Park Way. This area shall also be landscaped. b. A six foot high solid fence shall be located at the easterly edge of the easement line behind the lots on Fifth Avenue and behind the 15 foot setback on Park Way. c. The four lots on Fifth Avenue shall be restricted to single family dwelling uses only. The CC&R's shall also restruct the use of the City Planning Commission page 9 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 property to single family dwellings. The developer shall submit the CC&R's to the Planning Department prior to approval of the final subdivision map. d. The plot plan for lot #1 (the most northerly parcel) shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-3 Single family residence South R-3 Single family residence East R-3 Single family residences West R-3 Apartments 2. The 3.08 acres under consideration is developed with 128 apartments on the westerly 2.41 acre portion with the remaining .67 acre, facing Fifth Avenue, vacant. A portion of the Central Area Basin drainage system extends down the westerly side of the vacant area and under Park Way (see Exhibit A). 3. The proposed project would leave the 128 units on the westerly 2.41 acres (1 unit/820 sq.ft.) intact with the remaining .67 acre of vacant land to be divided into four 7,320 sq. ft. lots, each with a minimum street frontage of 60 feet. Although the 128 units would be technically substandard with respect to the present regulations of the Municipal Code, they have existed in this condition for the past 15 years without any evidence of problems. The vacant land is separated from the apartments by a natural drainage area and has never been a functional part of the apartment complex. Because of its location and condition, the vacant land has appeared to be a separate parcel. If the vacant area were allowed to be subdivided from the apartment complex, it would not affect the present condition or situation of the existing apartments. 4. When the apartments were first constructed, the developer would have been allowed to build an additional 6 units (1 unit/lO00 sq.ft, would have permitted 134 units). Under the present density regulations (1 unit/1350 sq. ft.), only 99 units could be built. If the variance were denied the only probable remaining use for the area proposed to be devoted to the four lots would be for additional parking or as a recreational area. Because of its location and poor relationship to the apartments to the west, the area does not lend itself to these uses. 5. The intent to develop the four lots on Fifth AVenue is consistent with the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the proposed lot width of 60 feet corresponds with the minimum lot frontage required in single family zones. There are a number of existing lots close by with less than 60 feet of frontage (typically closer to 50 feet) including the adjacent corner lot (57 feet). Reduction of the lot width to 60 feet should therefore not adversely affect the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. City Planning Commission page l0 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 D. CONCLUSION The staff has some concerns regarding the usable lot area proposed for the most northerly lot, however, conditions imposed on this variance and the subdivision map will make it acceptable. The granting of the variance will allow the compatible development of this vacant area without exacerbating the pre-existing density situa- tion to the west. In addition, there have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which would alter the circumstances relating to the original approval of a variance on the property. E. FINDINGS 1. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. Development of the vacant land in a manner that would serve the existing apartments would be impractical because of the natural drainage channel separating the two areas and the orientation of the apartments with regard to the vacant parcel. The required lot frontage of 65 feet in the R-3 zone is unnecessary for these lots which are contemplated for single family use. Other properties in the immediate vicinity have lot widths which are narrower. 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substan- tial property rights possessed by other properties in the s~ne zoning district and in the same vicinity, and a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. Other properties in the Central Area of Chula Vista have been developed at densities of one unit/1,O00 sq. ft. The granting of this variance would result in a density of one unit/1,O16 sq. ft. on the entire 3.08 acres. The reduction in lot width on the four lots is consistent with single family development. Restricting the use of the four lots on Fifth Avenue to single family dwelling will insure that the development will not exceed the density approved by this request, and placing this limitation in the deed restrictions will alert future owners to the maximum use of the property. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to a~acent property, and will not materially impair the purpose of the Municipal Code or the public interest. The granting of this variance will not alter the conditions of the existing apartments and should therefore not be detrimental to adjacent properties. The 60 foot lot width is consistent with adjacent lot widths and with single family development. 4. Authorizing such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The construction of four additional units in this location will not adversely affect the General Plan. City Planning Commission page 11 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 6, PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-80-8 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Parkway Place, Chula Vista Tract 80-8 A. BACKGROUND 1. In May, 1976 the City Council approved a tentative subdivision map PCS-76-3, known as Parkway Place, for the division of 3.08 acres located at the northwest quadrant of Park Way and Fifth Avenue into five lots. The tentative map has since expired and the applicant has resubmitted it. 2. Also, in 1976 the Planning Commission granted a variance allowing an increase in density and reduction in lot width which also has expired. The applicant has reapplied for a similar variance which is the preceding agenda item. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. In the event the variance request, PCV-80-6, is denied, tile Planning Commission should adopt a motion filing this item. 2. If the variance is approved, the Planning Commission should adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision for Parkway Place, Chula Vista Tract 80-8, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of improved drainage facilities from the northerly property line of lot 1 to the southerly property line of lot 4. The improved drainage facilities shall be capable of carrying a design flow of 586 cubic feet per second. The developer shall also be responsible for the cost of drainage improve- ments from the southerly property line of lot 4 to the northerly right of way line of Park Way. Said improvements will be constructed in conjunction with a City project and the developer shall post a cash bond deposit with the City for the estimated cost of these improvements prior to approval of the final map. After the installation of these improvements is complete and actual costs are known, the developer will either pay an additional amount or receive a refund so as to adjust the cash deposit to cover exact costs. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide for this method of payment prior to approval of the final map. b. The developer shall be responsible for planting a street tree along Fifth Avenue in front of parcel 1. The specie of tree to be planted shall be as specified by the City Engineer. The street tree is to be planted prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any structures on parcel 1. If the street tree is not planted by this time, then the the developer will be required to post a street tree deposit with the City Finance Officer guaranteeing the installation. c. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the issuance of a building permit on parcels 1 through 4, inclusive. d. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code prior to approval of the final map. The final map, improvement plans and grading plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. City Planning Commiss.~n page 12 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1979 e. All utilities serving parcels 1 through 4 inclusive shall be under- grounded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code. f. The final map shall not be approved by the City Council until a plot plan (including floor plan) for lot 1 has been approved by the Director of Planning to insure that adequate usable open space will result, in the rear yard. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-3 Single family residence South R-3 Single family residence East R-3 Single family residences West R-3 Apartments 2. The proposed subdivision contains 3.08 acres. Lots 1 through 4 each contain 7,320 sq. ft. and measure 61' x 120'. Lot 5 contains 2.41 acres and is already developed with 128 apartment units. Lots 1-4 will be developed with single family dwellings. A portion of the city's Central Area Basin drainage system extends down the westerly side of lots 1-4. Therefore, a drainage easement will be required on the tentative map. The drainage easement is 25 feet wide through lots 2-4 and a portion of lot l, however, the easement increases in width to 50 feet at the north end of lot 1. The increase in width is necessary to accommodate a change in the flow of drainage. Because the applicant plans an open drainage channel, a substantial portion of the lot (25%) will be devoted to the channel. In order to insure that lot 1 will have sufficient usable open space in the rear yard the staff is recommending approval of a plot plan prior to the City Council's approval of the final map. 3. There are four existing specimen carob trees on Fifth Avenue in front of lots 2-4. Care should be taken to assure that these trees remain and the driveways for the lots be designed to avoid any conflict with the trees. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Parkway Place, Chula Vista Tract 80-8, is recommended for approval based on the following findings: 1. The site is physically suited for single family residential development and the proposed project conforms to all standards established by the City for such use. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing or proposed improvements: streets, sewers, drainage, etc., which have been designed to avoid any serious health problems. 3. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Elements as follows: Land Use Element - The General Plan designates this area as High Density Residential, 13-26 dwelling units per gross acre. Although lot 5 will have a density of 53 units to the acre, the development is already estab- lished at that density. Construction of single family homes on the four City Planning Commission page 13 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1979 lots will have the effect of bringing the property more closely into conformance with the General Plan. Lots 1-4 will be developed at a density of approximately 6 units per acre, well within the density designated by the General Plan. Circulation Element - The proposed project is served by existing streets. Housing Element - The proposed project will provide additional decent housing in the Central Area of Chula Vista, thereby providing residents a choice of living accommodations. Conservation, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation Elements - The developer will pay the required fees for the development of parks in the service area. Seismic Safety and Safety Elements - The proposed project is not close to any known geological hazard. Noise Element - The proposed project will not result in the generation of substantial noise pollution nor will it be subject to unacceptable levels of noise. Bicycle Routes Element - The proposed project is not required to provide a bicycle route nor will it result in the interference of continuity of any proposed or existing routes. Public Building Element - The proposed project will not result in the relocation of any existing or proposed public facilities. City Planning Commission page 14 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-80-5 - Consideration of amendment to zoning ordinanc~ relating to alternatives to on-site p~rking A. BACKGROUND 1. The City Council, for several years, has expressed concern over the lack of offstreet parking in the urban core of Chula Vista. The continuing success of the Town Centre No. I redevelopment effort, and the resultant increase in the demand for offstreet parking, have augmented the Council's concern. 2. The parking problem in the urban core of Chula Vista (Subarea 1 of Town Centre No. I) is predicated upon the core's historical pattern of development. The subject area developed prior to the city's adoption of effective city-planning policies and zoning regulations, and therefore provided inadequate space for the onsite parking of automobiles. 3. The City Council, in 1963, created the Downtown Parking District in an effort to promote the development of public parking in the core. Section 19.62.040~ which exempts the lands within the District from the offstreet parking requirement of the Municipal Code, recognizes that, from a practical standpoint, the solution to the core's chronic parking problem lies in the development of ample public parking. 4. The City Council, in June, 1978, instructed staff to evaluate the several methods available for the financing of public parking in Subarea 1 of the Town Centre No. I Project Area, and to recommend a parking plan for official adoption. This plan, entitled Draft Town Centre Public Parking Development Plan, was com- pleted by the Planning and Community Development Departments on May 21, 1979 and, with minor changes, was subsequently approved by the Town Centre Business and Professional Association, the Town Centre Project Area Committee, the Parking Place Commission, and the Chula Vista Recevelopment Agency. (See Exhibit A, which contains the text of the D~aft Town Centre Public Parking Development Plan.) 5. The Public Parking Development Plan includes a statement of "In Lieu Parking Fee Policy for Subarea 1 of the Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area No. I," which, in its adopted form, is submitted herewith as Exhibit B, and a proposed amendment to Section 19.62.040 of the Municipal Code, which would legislatively implement the said statement of policy. The proposed amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. An Initial Study, IS-80-32, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed amendment was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on December 24, 1979, who concluded that the said project would not produce signif- icant environmental effects, and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-32 and find that the subject amendment would not significantly impact the environment. 2. Adopt a resolution and thereby recommend that the City Council enact the proposed amendment to Section 19.62.040 of the Municipal Code into ordinance. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1980 page 15 C. ANALYSIS 1. Under the proposed amendment, a developer of a new commercial building or a commercial addition to an existing building within the territory of the Downtown Parking District would be required to pay an in lieu parking fee to the City of Chula Vista. The revenue produced by the in lieu fees would be used to provide public parking for the urban core of this municipality. 2. Since the in lieu parking fee is predicated upon 25% of the cost of the land which would be required to accommodate the offstreet parking which a developer would be required to provide if his real property were not situated within the Downtown Parking District, the proposed amendment would not place a heavy burden on developers within Subarea 1. If the said developers built commercial buildings outside of Subarea 1, their costs of providing the required offstreet parking would be more than four times as great as the in lieu parking fee charged for corresponding development within the said area.* 3. The proposed amendment would not be applicable to the seventeen acres of land constituent to the Townsite Focus Area. The developers of the Townsite will provide ample, private offstreet parking, and are therefore exempted from the payment of the in lieu parking fee. 4. The proposed amendment does not affect residential construction in Subarea l, since residential uses must meet the offstreet parking requirements of the Municipal Code, even though the lands in question are located within the Downtown Parking District. It should also be noted that the proposed amendment would not be retroactive, and would not be operational with respect to authorized projects, in the absence of proposals to expand such. E. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment would substantially help the City of Chula Vista provide adequate public parking in Subarea 1 of the Town Centre No. I Redevelop- ment Project Area, and thereby promote the revitalization thereof. While the amendment would require commercial developers to pay in lieu parking fees, the said fees would be fair and equitable under the circumstances. By fostering public offstreet parking as a substitute for private offstreet parking, the proposed amendment would protect the compact urban form of Chula Vista's core area, and encourage the said area's physical, social, and economic resurgence in accordance with the goal and objectives of the Town Centre No. I Redevelopment Plan, and the criteria and guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual. *The commercial territory of Subarea 1 and the Downtown Parking District are substantially coterminous. These terms are interchangeably used in this report. Exhibit A May 21, 1979 To: The Town Center Project Area Committee, Parking Place Commission, and Town Centre Business and Professional Association From: Paul C. Desrochers, Community Development Director Subject: Draft Town Centre Public Parking Development Plan A. BACKGROUND 1. The Chula Vista City Council, in June, 1978, instructed staff to evaluate the several methods available for the financing of public parking in Subarea I of the Town Centre No. I Project Area, and to recommend a public parking plan for official adoption by the Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Council also instructed staff to submit its draft plan to the Town Centre Project Area Committee, the Parking Place Commission, and the Town Centre Business and Professional Association for their commentary, input, and recommendations prior to the submittal of the said draft plan to the Council and Agency. 2. Pursuant to Council instructions, the Community Development, City Planning, and Engineering staffs have jointly and severally studied the public parking needs of Subarea 1, and have perused the various financial programs which would meet these needs. This study and perusal are the bases of the manifold financing plan proposed under the "Recommendation" section of this report. 3. This report does not address the problem of site selection. The general location of future public parking facilities is now being studied by city staff, and will constitute the subject matter of a future report. It is anticipated that this future report will be published in about six to seven months. In order to avoid allegations of inverse condemnation, this report will generally, but not specifically, recommend future public parking sites. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends that the City of Chula Vista adopt a manifold public parking financing plan which includes the following proposals and action programs. a. An In Lieu Parking Fee Policy for new development in Subarea 1 of Town Centre No. I (Please see Exhibit A.) b. The Amendment of Section 19.62.040, "Alternatives to on-siteparking," in order to provide the legal machinery essential to the effective implementation of the In Lieu Policy (Please see Exhibit B.) c. The Downtown Parking District's issuance and sale of revenue bonds for parking facility acquisition and development d. The Continuance of Chula Vista's active effort to procure an Urban Development Action Grant (U.D.A.G.) for the construction of a parking structure in the Townsite Focus Area D~P: je -2- e. The City of Chula Vista's expenditure of General Revenue Sharing and Block Grant funds for parking site acquisition and development, where such is essential to the execution of the adopted "Commercial Parking Pattern for Subarea 1 of the Town Centre Project Area" and the Town Centre No. I Redevelopment Plan; and, where such expenditure would augment and not replace funds produced by the effectuation of the above policies and programs. 2. Staff further recommends that the above policies and programs be adopted as a package, but implemented in accordance with the following schedule of phasing. Phase 1. In Lieu Parking Policy; Amendment to the Municipal Code; Effort to procure U.D.A.G. Grant Phase 2. Downtown Parking District's Issuance and Sale of Revenue Bonds Phase 3. City's Expenditure of General Revenue Sharing and Block Grant Funds C. ANALYSIS 1. The Commercial Parking Pattern*prescribes about 2,000 parking spaces for Subarea I, upon the ultimate redevelopment of the Town Centre Project Area in approximately twenty years. Nearly one-half of these spaces are to be situated within public parking facilities. It should be noted that only 300 of these spaces exist at the present time, and that 700 spaces, at a cost of about $3,500,000, must be provided in the future. 2. The In Lieu Parking Fee Policy is an equitable proposal. It requires the developers of new projects to pay one-third of the capital outlay which they would normally be required to devote to off-street parking, if their real property were situated outside of the Downtown Parking District. A 67% savings is still a bargain. While staff considered the expansion of the Parking District to all of the territory within Subarea 1, it found that such expansion would not significantly improve the parking picture. Most of Subarea I which is external to the Parking District is within the Townsite Focus Area, or slated for residential development. In either case, there would have to be full compliance with the parking requirements of the Municipal Code, and the In Lieu Fee Policy would not be operational. 3. Staff also considered, but rejected the assessment district concept for Subarea 1. Under this concept, existing development, as well as new development, would be assessed for parking. In a way the assessment district concept is fair; in another way it isn't. Subarea I is the urban core of Chula Vista, and the birthplace of the municipality. As the city expanded in the pre-World War II period, the existing developments in Subarea 1 underwrote and partially financed such expansion. Staff, therefore, feels that existing development has paid its fair share for the improvement of Chula Vista. Furthermore, staff is concerned that the establishment of an assessment district in Subarea I would divert private funds which could be utilized for the remodeling and beautification of existing land uses. (The proposed In Lieu Fee Policy would not be applicable to remodelings, but would be confined to new buildings and new additions.)-~- ~ *The "Suggested Commercial Parking Pattern for Subarea 1 of the Town Centre Project Area," as approved by the Town Centre Project Area Committee and the Parking Place Commission, is embodied in Exhibit C. -3- 4. The Downtown Parking District's issuance and sale of revenue bonds should be relatively painless. The District has an excellent cost-revenue picture, despite its low parking fees, and has managed to provide Chula Vista 300 public parking spaces. The revenue bond program proposed under this plan would enable the District to ameliorate the impact of inflation on its acquisition and development program. 5. The City's effort to procure a Federal U.D.A.G. grant for the development of a parking structure at the Townsite has been preliminarily successful. Final success would augment Sub~rea l's off-street parking stock by more than two-hundred spaces. The proposed parking structure could be managed by the Parking Place Commission, and provide the City of Chula Vista substantial revenue. 6. The Draft Plan calls for the City's continuing commitment to the resolution of Subarea l's parking problems. General Revenue Sharing and Block Grant funds could be used to bolster the implementation of the entire Town Centre Public Parking Develop- ment Plan. In Lieu Parking Fee Policy for Subarea, 1 of the Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area No. 1 1. Any developer of a new commercial building within the Downtown Parkin~ District, in Subarea t of the Chula Vista Town Centre HO. 1 Project Area or any develeper of an addition to an existing commercial building therein, shall pay an In-lieu Parking Fee to the City ef Chula Vista prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for such new building or addition. 2. The In Lieu ?arking Fee, which shall be computed by the Director of Finance in each applicable case, is predicated upon one-third of the fair market value of the land which the developer would normally be required to devote to off-street parking, and shall be based upon the following formula: In Lieu Fee ($) = No. of required spaces x 350 x fair market value of land ($/SQ.Ft.) 4 Notes, Values, and Terms No. of required spaces = Offstreet parking spaces required for a new building or addition under the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations, if the building or addition were not within the Downtown Parking District. 350 = The square footage of a standard parking space and appurtenant maneuvering area, landscaping, and driveways. Fair market value : Recently appraised or estimated value. Where acceptable to the developer, the Director of Finance shall accept $10.00 per square foot as the fair market value of commercial land within the Town Centre No. I Project Area. If an appraisal is required, the developer shall pax the cost of such. 3. All of the fees collected under this policy shall be credited to the account of the ?arking Place Commission, and shall be use~ for the purchase or develops,lent of parking sites which ~.~ill generally and directly benefit Subarea I of the Town Centre No. I Project Area. 4. The In Lieu Parkin~ Fee Policy is not applicable to development ~.~ithin the Townsite Focus Area. 5. The Director of Community Development shall have the continuing responsibility of monitoring land values within the Town Centre Project Area, and of recommending changes in the In Lieu Fee's formula, where such are indicated. EXHIBI'T Proposed Amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19 ZONING Chapter 19.62 Off-Street Parking and Loading 19.62.040 Alternatives to On-Site Parking For any new non-residential use, structure or building, required off-street parking which, due to the size or location of the parcel, cannot be provided on the premises, may be provided on other property not more than two-hundred feet distant by publicly available pedestrian access from said use, structure or building, subject to a binding agreement with the City as to permanent reservation of said space and access thereto; or if the proposed non-residential use lies within the boundary of a parking district, off-street parking requirements shall be considered to be met/ , provided that anS developer of a new commercial build- in9 within a parkin9 district, or a developer of a commercial addition to an existin9 buildin9 therein, shall pay the requisite fee established under the Cit__~_ Council's In Lieu Parkin9 Fee Policy. / Proposed deletion Proposed addenda EXHIBIT ST~gi:~r : ;: r' TOWN CENTRE ~V~O~NT PR~ECT P~dECT B~RES EXHIBIT"A" "rER .............. CENTER ~;~' ~'-~"::', CY PRESS ~:' '.: MEMORIAL PARK PA R K ~VAY MA DRONA , aG,, ~od [ CONSIDERATION OF ~EN~T' B ~ NORTH ~R~TIVE TO ON S,~ ~ NEGATIVE DECLARAi'ION PROJECT TITLE: ZTA Alternative to Onsite Parking Project Location: Town Centre No. I Redevelopment Area Project Proponent: City of Chula Vista/Redevelopment Agency CASE NO. IS-80-32 DATE: December 24, 1979 A. BACKGROUND 1. The City CounCil, for several years, has expressed concern over the lack of off-street parking in the urban core of Chula Vista. The continuing success of the Town Centre No. I redevelopment effort, and the resultant increase in the demand for off-street parking, have augmented the Council's concern. 2. The City Council, in 1963, created the Downtown Parking District, in an effort to promote the development of public parking in the core. Section 19.62.040, which exempts the lands within the District from the off-street parking requirement of the Municipal Code, recognizes that, from a practical standpoint, the solution to the core's chronic parking problem lies in the development of ample public parking. 3. The City Council, in June, 1978, instructed staff to evaluate the several methods available for the financing of public parking in Subarea I of the Town Centre No. I Project Area, and to recommem; a parking plan for official adoption. This plan, entitled Draft Town Centre Public Parking Development Plan, was completed by the Planning and Community Development Departments on May 21, 1979, and, with minor changes, was subsequently approved by the Town Centre Business and Professional Association, the Town Centre Project Area Committee, the Parking Place Commission, and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. 4. The Public Parking Development Plan includes a statement of'"In Lieu Parking Fee Policy for Subarea I of the Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area No. I," which this proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code is intended to legislatively implement. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The following amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code is proposed: Chapter 19.62 Off-Street Parking and Loading 19.62.040 Alternatives to On-Site Parking For any new non-residential use, structure or building, required off-street parking which, due to the size or location of the parcel, cannot be provided on the premises, may be provided on other property not more than two-hundred feet distant by publicly available pedestrian access from said use, structure or building, subject to a binding agreement with the City as to permanent reservation of said space and access thereto; or if the proposed non-residential use lies within the boundary of a parking district, off-street parking requirements shall be considered to be met/., provided that any developer of a new commercial buildin§ within a parkin~ district~ or a developer of a commercial addition to an existin~ buildinq therein~ shall pay the requisite fee established under the City Council's In Lieu Parking Fee Policy. C. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS The proposed ZTA is not inconsistent with the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance and is not at variance with the General Plan or associated elements. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Air Quality The anticipated concentration of pollutants eminating from future parking facilities has been examined in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR-79-10). The subject parking facility, also within the Town Centre ! Focus Area, displayed CO concentrations well below the Federal standards, as registered on adjacent property. Pollutants will decrease with increased distance from a parking area. Parking facilities constructed with funds generated from this ordinance amendment will likely be of a smaller scale than the Town Centre ! Focus Area parking structure, and therefore will have a less severe impact. Site specific proposals w~ll be subject to additional environmental review. Noise The potential for adverse noise impacts on areas adjacent to future parking facilities is one environmental effect that should be addressed. A previous noise analysis was conducted on the proposed parking facility located within the Town Centre I Focus Area (EIR-79-5). The results of that analysis, should be consistent with future projects, funded through this ordinance amendment. Exterior noise levels in the vicinity of the parking facilities will be within the standards of the City of Chula Vista and interior residential noise levels will be reduced by sta~ard construction methods to acceptable levels 4~ dB(A). Aesthetics The parking, wh~e~ncentrated into strategic locations, can be properly screened with landscaping ano~kwill free commercial building designs from the visual detriment of adjacent parking ~cilities. Social The convenience of additional parking facilities, proportional to added commercial uses in the Town Centre area, should provide a more desirable shopping atmosphere. E. FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 1. The project is not site specific, therefore will not result in any adverse effect on any biological or other natural resource. Each proposed site will be subject to additional environmental analysis. 2. The proposed zoning text amendment is not inconsistent with .the goals and policies of the General Plan and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. There are no impacts anticipated to occur which could result in a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The proposed ZTA is designed to provide adequate parking facilities for future patrons and is not expected to cause a substantial increase in traffic or related emissions. F. CONSULTATION 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Planning Department D. J. Peterson, Director Public Works Department Bill Ullrich, Associate Engineer Environmental Control Commission Merritt Hodson, Commissioner Building & Housing Department Gene Grady, Director Community Development Department Pam Buchan, Administrative Analyst 2. Documents City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 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. ~ ~ (r~v. 5,'773