Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/02/09 A G E N D A City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 9, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 12, 1983 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of request for extension of conditional use permit, PCC-82-4, to construct 48 one-bedroom senior citizen condos located at 5th & Parkway - Bordi, Sutherland, Palumbo 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) EIR-79-6(a) Sammis Property, North of 'E' Street, west of I-5 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) GPA-83-2, Consideration of General Plan Amendment to redesignate approximately 4.30 acres located at the northwesterly corner of 'E' Street and Bay Boulevard from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Visitor Commercial" 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-83-D, rezoning approximately 4 acres at 321 Rancho Drive from R-3-P-11 to R-3-P-13 - Carl Salatino 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan - Shell Oil Company 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of appeal of Design Review Committee's denial of the architectural design for four 2-bedroom units at 494 'F' Street - Michael and Nellie Anastasi 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-1, Proposed amendment to zoning ordinance relating to the definition of a "family" DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 1983 1. Consideration of request for extension of conditional use permits PCC-82-4~ for a 48 unit senior citizen housinq project at the northwest corner of 5th & Parkway - Bordi~ Sutherland~ Palumbo A. BACKGROUND 1. In February 1982, the City Council approved a conditional use permit (PCC-82-4) for the construction of a 48 unit senior citizen housing project at the northwest corner of 5th Avenue and Parkway in the R-3 zone. 2. The applicant has requested a two year extension of the conditional use permit citing present economic conditions as the reason for not beginning construction. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to grant a two year extension of PCC-82-4, the permit to expire on February 2, 1985. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant changes or development in the immediate area affecting the original findings and conditions of approval. Because of the present economic situation in the housing industry, it is appropriate to extend the permit for a period of two years to allow for a sufficient amount of time for the project to begin construction. r-T M I MF ~ I I i i i I I I I __-'--.-'"pARKWAY ~' I ~ ~- -- - - SF I SF ~ It'1 , r~llI i J ~~~~Sut~rlond ~ ~bmbc ~~ I PCC-82-4 · I Page 2 City Planning Commissio~ Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) EIR-79-6(a) Sammis Property~ North of 'E' Street~ west of I-5 A. BACKGROUND 1. The public hearing on this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1983 for the traffic consultant to reevaluate the traffic study because of new information that has been made available. Additionally, the project applicant requested a further continuance until the February 9, 1983 meeting so that a consultant, hired by the applicant, could conduct their own traffic study. That report was not available at the time this staff report was prepared. 2. The new traffic study, which has been analyzed by a traffic engineer under contract with the City, involved a 6-plex theater in Rancho Bernardo. That study, undertaken by the City of San Diego, concluded that up to 2.0 vehicle trips per seat, per day was generated by that facility at the time of the counts. That compares to a factor of 0.4 per seat, per day, which was used in the draft EIR for the theater proposed as part of this project. The traffic consultant verified the accuracy of the generation factor from the San Diego report by utilizing such information as vehicle occupancy and theater attendance. The total number of trips, their distribution and all intersection capacities were then recalculated and revised levels of service established. The conclusion of this analysis was that although some levels of service were lowered even further, the same mitigation measures, outlined in the draft EIR, are adequate and would result in the maintenance of the existing levels of service. The EIR is, therefore, adequate insofar as an evaluation of traffic impacts assuming a generation factor by the theater of from 0.4 to 2.0 vehicle trips per day per seat. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Take testimony relevant to the adequacy of the EIR and close the public hearing. 2. Certify that EIR-79-6(a) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and further that the Planning Commission is considering the informa- tion in that document as it reaches a decision on the project. C. REVISIONS TO THE EIR 1. Page 1-9 Archaeological Resources In response to requests from the San Diego County Archaeological Society a records search for sites on or near the project was conducted and is now summarized on page 1-9 and included as Appendix C to the EIR. City Planning Commisslo), Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 2. Page 3-15 As was noted above, the traffic study on the project has been revised insofar as the theater portion of the project is concerned. Therefore, in the text of the EIR and on Tables 3-2, 3, 4, and 5 appropriate revisions have been made in trip generation, trip totals, and levels of service. As was noted earlier, although there are substantial changes in the total ADT, the affect insofar as levels of service is minor and insofar as required mitigation measures, there are no changes necessary. 3. Page 11-1 A section containing comments on the draft EIR and a response to each issue has been included as Section 11 of the EIR. With one exception, all of the letters of comment were provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 12, 1983. The one addition is a letter from Sammis Properties which is divided into basically two parts. The first section of the letter contains comments on the letters received commenting on the draft EIR. The second section includes comments on the draft EIR itself. Comments on all of the major issues presented in this letter have been responded to where appropriate. The areas of concern included: Traffic (comments 21 through 25) Marsh buffer (comment 26) Visual quality (comment 28) Project alternatives (comments 29 and 30) Several modifications of the appendices have also been made. These modifications are in the traffic and archaeological sections and include the following: Traffic The calculations in the traffic section have been revised as noted above and data and evaluation from the Rancho Bernardo theater study have been included. Archaeological A new appendices on the archaeological records searches have been included as Appendices C in the document. D. CONCLUSION The environmental 'impacts of the project can be mitigated to a level of insigni- ficance through the implementation of mitigation measures or project alternatives. The feasibility of these mitigation measures or project alternatives will be further evaluated through the preparation of CEQA findings as the project moves through the planning process. At this point in the consideration of the project, it can be said that the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts and that it appears that these impacts can be adequately dealt with during consideration of the project. (See attached staff report from the January 12, 1983 meeting and proposed final EIR.) To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 12, 1983 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EtR-79-6(a) Sammis Property, North of 'E' Street West of I-5 A. BACKGROUND This is a Focused Environmental Impact Report prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc~ under contract to the City of Chula Vista. It addresses the proposed commercial development of an area totalling about 14 acres, located north of 'E' Street and west of Interstate 5. In order to develop the site as proposed, a General Plan Amendment is required. This amendment will be before the Planning Commission at their January 26, t983 meeting. Other actions by the City of Chula Vista include design review by the Design Review Committee and an owner participation agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Other discretionary actions to be carried out by other agencies include a coastal development permit by the California Coastal Commission and approval of the proposed railroad crossings by the Public Utilities Commission, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad Board and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and take testimony that is germane to the issue of the Environmental Impact Report, continue the public hearing and schedule consideration of the final Environmental Impact Report for January 26, 1983. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sammis Properties proposes to develop various commercial uses on a 14 acre site that includes land under private ownership, the Bay Boulevard right-of-way, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad right-of-way and land within a 150 foot wide utility easement owned by San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Included in the project is the development of a motel with approximately 100 rooms, two restaurants with about 7500 sq. ft. each, a5 8-plex theater with 40,000 sq. ft. of office space at the second and third level above the theater and a 60,000 sq. ft. office building with three floors. Parking would be provided within the Bay Boulevard right-of-way, the SDG&E easement and on the privately owned parcel. Vehicular and pedestrian crossings of the railroad are proposed across the railroad right-of-way between the western and eastern portions of the project site. D. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Land Use. The proposed project requires an amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan which would change the land use designation of about 4.3 acres within the SDG&£ right-of-way from "Park and Open Space" to "Visitor Commercial." The City Planning Commissior. Pa9e 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 12, 1983 easement area could then be used to provide parking for the development easterly of the SD&AE Railroad. The intent of this open space designation is to provide an open space area in conjunction with the 'E' Street Gateway to the Bayfront and to provide a pedestrian access corridor that would connect portions of the Bayfront north and south of the project. The development plan as submitted includes a 28 foot landscape area along the western edge of the project, which includes a landscape berm, screening, landscaping and a winding pedestrian access. The development plan, therefore, mitigates potential impacts due to the amendment of the General Plan to a level of insignificance. The development of the eastern portion of the site is consistent with the General Plan and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. The inclusion of office space within the area is, however, inconsistent with the highway commercial designation of the draft Local Coastal Program and Coastal Commission policies. Due to the additional parking provided in the SDG&E right-of-way, a higher density development can be considered on the eastern portion of the property, thereby allowing a substantial amount of visitor serving commercial uses in addition to the office uses which make the project more economically feasible. The proposed land uses for the eastern portion of this site are not considered to have a significant land use impact. 2. Biological Resources. The Sweetwater Marsh located adjacent to the north of the site is a highly sensitive biological resource. The interface of the proposed development with the adjacent marsh complex as currently planned would result in a significant indirect adverse affect. The main concerns are the lack of adequate buffering distance, lack of physical buffering elements, the direct loss of salt marsh vegetation due to placement of a drainage outlet, elimination of adjacent upland habitat in the SDG&E right-of-way and the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts. Mitigation of these impacts which are associated with the encroachment of urban development in an area adjacent to the marsh will require a rede§ign of the project. A buffering area with a minimum distance of 100 feet from the wetland with appropriate landscaping and berms or walls will be necessary. This will require a redesign of the parking and circulation plans in addition to proposed building locations. Impacts associated with runoff and the drainage structure can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through a redesign of the drainage structure. 3. Drainage/Water Quality. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the SDG&E easement would result in a potential adverse affect on the water quality in the Sweetwater Marsh by allowing the construction of impervious surfaces as opposed to the current open space designation. Due to the existing oil soaked condition of the eastern portion of the project site due to its past use as auto wrecking facilities, it is likely contributing oil and other pollutants to the marsh. The overall level of contaminants being discharged from the site is not expected to increase significantly and in effect, may be decreased due to its past use. The proposed drainage system would direct nearly all of the site drainage into the Sweetwater Marsh where it would be discharged into the wetland via two City Planning Commissior, Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 12, 1983 outlet structures on either side of the railroad. Each drainage outlet consists of a drain pipe with riprap below the mouth of the pipe. Potentially significant adverse impacts of the drainage system include the location of the westerly structure in the salt marsh habitat and potential erosion of the slope located between the drainage structure and the marsh. In order to mitigate these concerns it is recommended that a comprehensive drainage control plan be developed for the project site. The primary elements of the erosion control plan would be the use of sedimentation, basins or other control measures in order to adequately reduce potential erosion and sedimentation and an energy dissipater adequate to reduce the rate of runoff from the project site to existing levels. In keeping with the mitigation measures recommended for biological impacts, the drainage structures should be set back from the marsh. These structures could be located within the 100 foot buffer zone. 4. Aesthetics. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the SDG&£ right-of-way would allow urban development in an area currently designated for open space. Since the easement area is related to the gateway concept for '£' Street and is a highly visible component of the Bayfront Plan, if and when Tidelands Avenue is extended to the north, the change in land use designation represents a potentially significant impact to visual quality and aesthetics. This impact has been mitigated to a level of insigificance at the project level due to features of the landscape plan which are responsive to visual concerns and have been incorporated into the project. The development plan for the eastern portion of the site includes at least two 3-story buildings up to 50 feet in height. These structures are, in part, located adjacent to the Interstate 5 frontage. The proposed buildings are in conflict with the redevelopment plan guidelines relating to the 'E' Street Gateway to the Bayfront, visibility from I-5 and would intrude on the bay view shed as seen from the eastern areas. This visual impact is considered to be a significant adverse affect of the project. Mitigation of this impact can be accomplished by a reduction in the height, bulk and scale of the proposed buildings and possibly increasing building setbacks from I-5. 5. Noise. Using current and projected traffic volumes for roadways in the vicinity traffic noise contours were calculated for existing and future conditions. The dominant source of acoustical impact on the project site resulted from traffic volumes on I-5 and related interchanges. Upper stories of buildings along the eastern edge of the site would be subject to noise levels in access of 70 dB, while the remainder of the site would be subject to noise levels of 65 dB or higher. These impacts are above the threshold boise criteria thereby creating a potentially significant impact. This impact can be mitigated through the implementation of conventional acoustical engineering designs. 6. Archaeological Resources. The project site has been surveyed several times in the past. Results of these surveys indicate the presence of one badly disturbed prehistoric site located City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of January 12, 1983 on the easterly parcel between I-5 and Bay Boulevard (SDi-5512a). Although this site is highly disturbed it may possess important data about prehistoric life in the Chula Vista area. In conjunction with the San Diego Bay Route bikeway project CalTrans performed an investigation of historical and archaeological resources on the western parcel. An additional site (DOT-11-BKWY-1) was found on the western portion of the proposed project site. This area has been impacted by farming activities and by the construction of paved and dirt roads and the SD&A£ Railroad. Mitigation of the impacts to these resources will be primarily surface collection, salvage and preservation of artifacts with some subsurface testing to determine if there is any need for further studies. 7. Traffic/Access. The traffic section of the EIR uses a generation factor of 0.4 per seat for the theater. Since the preparation of the original traffic study, better information regarding multi-screened theater traffic generation has been developed. This data seems to indicate that the generation for theater traffic may be underestimated and the peak hour values should be changed. The traffic consultant is therefore reevaluating the traffic study and may conduct original field work. It is anticipated that any changes in the EIR will be ready for Planning Commission action on January 26, 1983. E. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EiR Attached is a letter from the San Diego County Archaeological Society which will be fully responded to in the final EIR, however, the above discussion regarding the various surveys of the project site should be noted. This draft EIR is being circulated through the State Clearinghouse. Their review period ends on January 10, 1983 and any comments from State agencies will be provided to the Commission at the January 12 meeting. - ~lcy ~annlng bomm~ss~on Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting 'A~ebruary 9, 1983 ~ 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to amend the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan by the redesignation of a certain parcel of land~ located within the northwesterly quadrant of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard, from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Visitor Commercial;" and~ to amend theBayfrontSpecific and Redevelopment Plans and the Draft Local Coastal Program in order to bring them into a state of consistency with the proposed redesignation. A, BACKGROUND 1. The applicant owns 7 acres of land, located at the northeasterly corner of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard, in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. It is the applicant's intent to establish a visitor commercial-commercial office complex, and to develop motel, theater, restaurant, and office uses. 2. It is also the intent of the applicant to utilize lands located within the northwesterly quadrant of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard as the site of much of the off-street parking required to serve the proposed complex. This site, which contains approximately 4.30 acres of land, is owned by SDG&E, and is traversed by high-power transmission lines and towers. The proposed utilization of the site for parking will be partially governed by an agreement between the applicant and SDG&E. 3. The applicant's use of the SDG&E site for parking purposes will also require several changes to local plans. These changes are addressed in the "Analysis" section of this report. B. RECOI~qENDATION 1. Recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the proposal to amend the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan by the redesignation of a 4.30-acre parcel of land from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Visitor Commercial." 2. Recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed amendments to the plan di'agram and Land Use Chart of the Local Coastal Plan, and direct the Community Development Department to submit such to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. (The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, and Draft Local Coastal Program are depicted in Exhibits A, B and C, respectivelS. C. DISCUSSION 1. Planning and Zoning Information The subject site is designated "Parks and Public Open Space" on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, and is zoned P-C, "Planned Community." It is designated "Park-Open Space" on the policy diagram of Area D of the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, and "Park" on the diagram of the Local Coastal Plan. The 4.30 acres in question are level, and presently under cultivation. They are also traversed by power transmission lines and towers. City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Item for Meeting of February 9, 1983 2. Existin9 ~neral Plan Designations (Please see Exhibit D.) North - Park and Public Open Space South - Park and Public Open Space East - Visitor Commercial West - Park and Public Open Space; Visitor Commercial 3. Adjacent Zonin9 and Land Use (Please see Exhibit E.) North - P-C, Planned Community Power Transmission South - P-C, Planned Con~nunity Power Transmission/Agriculture East - C-V-P, Visitor Commercial Vacant West - P-C, Planned Community Agriculture (Truck Crops) ANALYSIS 1. While the proposed amendment would divert more than 4 acres of potential open space to parking use, it would merely reduce the Bayfront Project Area's public open space area by 2.0 percent. This reduction would not significantly alter the Project Area's dominance by open space, which would continue to occupy more than 36 percent of the Bayfront Community.* 2. The proposed redesignation, on the other hand, would increase the economic viability of the Bay Boulevard subarea of the Bayfront. This improvement could assist the City's effectuation of the parks and recreation element of the Bayfront Plan, as well as the general improvement of the Project Area's public landscaping and streetscape. 3. The proposed project is situated at an important gateway to the Bayfront Community, and therefore should be improved in a manner which would promote the order and beauty ofChula ¥ista's emerging bayshore. 4. The use of this strip of land is extremely limited by virtue of the SDG&E easement and existing high voltage power transmission lines. The presence of the power lines severely impacts any potential for public park purposes and, therefore, this strip of land is more suitable for the requested use. The development of the subject acreage will be guided by the urban-design standards of the City and reviewed by the Design Review Committee, as well as the criteria of the Bayfront RedeveloPment Plan. The application of these standards and criteria should protect the Bayfront gateway interests of the people of Chula Vista. (Exhibit F embodies the applicant's request for the proposed amendment to the General Plan, and a sketch plan for the improvement of the site. This sketch plan reflects the applicant's interest in providing a high level of landscaping and visual amenity in conjunction with the proposed parking facility.) * The statistics used in this paragraph are based upon the Local Coastal Plan's "Land Use Chart." \ \ Interstate 54 South Freeway Proposed .-.-:.:-:-:.:-:-:<.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:.:<.:-.-.-. . r · · Visitor Commercial ..... . LAND US£ I.£G£ND ............... £XItlBII A  ':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':' General Plan Amendment 83-2 Vi si tot Commercial .: :.:.:.:::::.............  ' Existin9 General Plan Parks & Public Open Space Designations ~'~ General Industrial Proposed redesignation of approx. 4.30 acres from  "Parks & Public Open Space" Research & Ltd. Industrial "-o,,, to "Visitor Commercial" High Density Residential :::~...t.:-.:: O' .... :.:.:.:.. ~r I I I Chart Excerpted from ~e Te~t of the Draft Local Coastal Pro,ram ol o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Land Use Chart ////~0~o~ ~~ 6 Proposed Adden~FI G U R E~ VAC. CHULA ........ VAC. PARK I - -- ~ Z Z Z Z_-_-______ j_. "D" STREET ~ARK SUBJECT PROPERTY VAC. ~ AGRI CULTURE TRAILER , ~ PA SALES O Q REALTY i:REST': ~ STA. I i '~;' "~ © "E" STREET AGRICULTURE REST .... n MOTEL !BOWLIN( !:ALLEY >_ REST. EXHIBIT D ~ REST. ' ~ PUBLIC GPA-83-2 ~ WORKS -- ~ Adjacent Zonin§ and Land Use ~ VAC. C[NTER ] Proposed redesignatton of m approx. 4.30 acres from "Parks & Public Open Space" to "Visitor Commercial" i. i1 , O' ZOO' 4~' North I I I P R 0 P E R T I E S September 28, 1982 R E C ~ ~ V E D Mr, Paul Deroschers 0lC ~ 0 7~8Z Ms. Para Buchan C0mmu0ity Development Dept. City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 We do hereby formally request a General Plan amendment to change the proposed San Diego Gas and Electric easement area from "open space" to "parking". This will coincide with our proposals to the City and the Redevelopment Agency in respect to the subject property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. - '-~ Sincerely, Jl,*: tm Exhibit E Oneqalnm~s,,a/a ' San D[~go, C,~Ufor,fia 92108 · (714) 298-7112 City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-83-D~ rezoninQ approximately 4 acres at 321 Rancho Drive from R-3-P-11 to R-3-P-13 - Carl Salatino A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 3.89 acres located at 321 Rancho Drive from R-3-P-11 (Multiple family residential at a density of 11 units per acre and subject to the Precise Plan Modifying District) to R-3-P-13 (13 dwelling units per acre). 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-14, of possible environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on January 20, 1983, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-14. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section 'F' of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the change of zone for 3.89 acres at 321 Rancho Drive from R-3-P-11 to R-3-P-13 subject to the following precise plan guidelines: a. The precise plan guidelines contained in Planning Commission Resolution PCZ-77-H shall remain in effect. b. Unless the entire property is redeveloped, all new structures'shall be architecturally identical to the existing structures on the property and the landscaping theme carried onto the area of new development. c. All existing accessory structures (including carport-garages) shall be repainted and restained with quality material to prevent or minimize future staining of buildings. d. The precise plan shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator instead of the Design Review Committee except on appeal. e. The maximum number of units shall not exceed 48 units. f. The existing driveways shall be repaired in accordance with city standards. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. City Planning Commission Page 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 North C-V-P Vacant (Approved precise plan for a motel) South A-1-10 (City of S.D.) Vacant (floodway) East Unzoned Interstate 805 West R-2 Attached residential (Playmor) 2. Existing site characteristics. a. The northerly 2.89 acres of the subject property is developed with a 40-unit apartment complex approved by the City in 1977. The complex consists of six residential structures (2 fourplexes and 4 eightplexes), four garage-carport structures (63 parking spaces and a swimming pool area located to the north of the units.) b. The southerly one acre is vacant and is in a state of disrepair (debris, discarded furniture and dumpings were observed during a survey of the site). The area is encumbered by two 20-foot wide power line easements. 3. General Plan and proposed zoning. The subject property is designated for Medium Density Residential at a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre which converts into a maximum density of 14.4 dwelling units per new acre. (Note: Net acreage is the amount of land available for development after the dedication of streets (usually 15-20% of the gross acreage.) The density of 13 units per net acre proposed under the R-3-P-13 zoning is, therefore, consistent with the General Plan designation. D. ANALYSIS 1. Based on a density of 11 units per acre, a maximum of 42 units could have been constructed originally. However, because the southerly one acre was encumbered by easements and the developer desired to keep his buildings close together for better construction efficiency, he chose to limit the development to 40 units. Under the present zoning classification only two additional units could be added which would be impractical because of improvement costs (access, landscaping, etc.) 2. The applicant wishes to construct 8 additional units (2 fourplexes) on the vacant one-acre area for a total of 48 units on the 3.89 acres. This is a density of approximately 12 1/3 units per acre. The proposed rezoning to R-3-P-13 could permit a maximum of 50 units (13 x 3.89 = 50.57 units). However, the maximum number of units can be limited to 48 units through the establishment of a precise plan standard. 3. The existing apartment buildings appear to be well maintained. However, the existing driveway is in need of repair and the freestanding accessory buildings (including garage-carports) are badly stained from a combination of weather and a poor quality paint or stain on the wood trim fascia. Conditions of repair are included in the recommendations section. E. CONCLUSION The proposed density is consistent with the General Plan and in keeping with the density of the adjacent residential area. It is therefore appropriate to recommend Page 8 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 approval of this request. The development of the vacant area will also result in the removal of a blighted area caused by a lack of maintenance and littering. F. FINDINGS The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. The attachment of the precise plan modifying district will enable the City to establish additional regulations to insure that the new structures will be architecturally identical to the existing structures and that the development will not exceed 48 units as proposed. Vallex R~. Retail $~a~$ Vas ~1 Multifomily Residerrtiol (Condos) c~ DR. B B B BIB BBII III BBB BBB IIIBI negative -cleclaration PROJECT NAME: Glenwood Rezoning PROJECT LOCATION: 321 Rancho Drive, Chula Vista, California PROJECT APPLICANT: Carl Salatino 7329 Turnford Road San Diego, CA CASE NO: IS-83-14 DATE: January 20, 1983 A. Project SettinQ The project site involves approximately 4 acres of property located adjacent to the Otay River Floodplain between Rancho Drive and 1-805, south of 321 Rancho Drive. The site is currently developed with 40 apartment units and is void of any significant wildlife or mineral resources. There are no known geologic hazards present within the vicinity of the subject property. Approximately .9 acres of vacant property is situated at the southern end of the subject site. Adjacent land uses include vacant visitor commercial property to the north, 1-805 to the east, the Otay River Floodplain is located to the south and a townhouse development is located to the west. Access to the site is provided via Rancho Drive and public utilities and sewer system are available. Bo Project Description The proposed project consists of the rezoning of approximately 4 acres of property from R-3-P-11 (Multi-family, 11 du's per acre) to R-3-P-13 (13 du's per acre), which will allow the construction of 8 additional dwelling units and 8 new garages on the subject property. C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and ~lans The proposed rezoning from R-3-P-11 to R-3-P-13 and the construction of additional units are consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (12 du's per acre, gross - 14 du's per acre, net). Architectural compatibility will be assured by the Design Review Committee. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Noise A Noise Analysis (San Diego Acoustics, 1977) was conducted for the existing condominium development located on the project site. The location of the 8 proposed units fall within the measurements and standards discussed in the report. No new analysis is required if identical structure types are constructed, as proposed. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-83-14 Page 2 ~ E. Findin§s of Insignificant Effects 1. The proposed rezoning and development of 8 units will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The proposed unibwill not achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals.. 3. The proposed project will not have impacts that will be cumulatively considerable. 4. The project will not have an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Robert Thompson, Applicant's designer 2. Documents IS-77-12, Salatino Apartments Acoustical Analysis, S.D. Acoustics, March, 1977 The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW C~D~IATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) m RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-77-H RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CHANGE OR ZONE FOR 3.89 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF P, ANCHO DRIVE, ADJACENT TO 1-805 AND THE OTAY VALLEY FLOOD PLAIN, FROM R-2 AND R-2-F TO R-3-P-11 WHEREAS, a duly verified application for change of zone was filed with the Planning Department by Carl Salatino on March ll, 1977, application No. PCZ-77-H, and WHEREAS, said application requested a change of zone for 3.89 acres located on the east side of Rancho Drive, adjacent to 1-805 and the Otay Valley Flood Plain, more particularly described in said application, from R-2 and R-2-F to R-3-P-11, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least l0 days prior to the date of said hearing, and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at said time and place, namely 7:00 p.m., April 6, 1977, before the Planning Commission, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEO AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-77-12 and the findings stated therein, tNis change of zone will have no significant envirommental impacts, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with C£qA, lg70, as amended. 2. F~om facts presented to the Cor~nission, the Commission finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the change of zone from R-2 and R-2-F to R-3-P-11 for 3.8g acres located on the east side of Rancho Drive, adjacent to 1-805 and the Otay Valley Flood Plain, subject to the following precise plan guidelines: a. The development shall be architecturally compatible with the adjacent development (Rancho Rios) through the use of similar materials, colors, architectural styling and fencing. b. The landscaping shall be made compatible with adjacent develop- ment through the use of similar plant materials with emphasis on turf for the majority of the usable open space. c. The site shall be graded so that the transition between the slope bank and the usable lot area is blended by rounding and rolling the break areas. Maximum slope for these transition areas shall not exceed a 4:1 ratio. 3. The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows: a. The proposed zone change will provide the opportunity to introduce a different structure type into an area which is currently developed with only one type of structure. The proposed density is in substantial conformance with the existing density in the area. b. The density of ll dwelling units per acre is in conformance with the General Plan designation for the area of 4-12 dwelling units per acre. c. The "P" Modifying District is appropriate since the basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. The transition from one and two-story combined, fourplex units on the adjoining property to multi-family develop- ment on the subject site warrants careful architectural review with appropriate guidelines established to insure compatibility. All of the adjoining area is either precise plan zoned or developed as a planned unit development. Therefode, the "P" zone conforms to the surrounding zoning. 4. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said change of zone be approved. 5. That this resolution be transmitted to the City Council and a copy be transmitted to the owner of the property. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 6th day of April, 1977, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Renneisen, Starr, Smith and G. Johnson NOES: None ABSENT: Con~nissioners R. Johnson and Chandler Chairman Pro Tempore ATTEST: Secretary City Planning Commission Page 9 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an amendment to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan - Shell Oil Company A. BACKGROUND 1. Shell Oil Company is requesting an amendment to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan by adding gas stations and car washes to the list of permitted uses. The Bonita Glen Specific Plan governs the development of 8.74 acres located at the southwest quadrant of Bonita Road and Interstate 805. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-13, has been submitted to determine whether the information contained in EIR-77-2 prepared for the Bonita Glen Specific Plan adequately addresses the affects of the proposed amendment. The ERC has found that EIR-77-2 is adequate and satisfies CEQA review requirements and recommends that it be certified. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that EIR-77-2 is adequate and satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed amendment and certify the EIR. 2. Adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-V-P Restaurant, motel, gas station and visitor information South Specific Plan Vacant East Unzoned Interstate 805 West C-N-P Full service gas station 2. Bonita Glen Specific Plan. The Bonita Glen Specific Plan was adopted in order to promote higher levels of land use innovation and design flexibility not afforded by conventional zoning regulations. The Plan identifies specific land uses and has established standards for building bulk, height, off-street parking, signing, and design which reflect the fact that the property is located on a major gateway to the City. The permitted land uses of the specific plan are a limited combination of uses found in both the C-C and C-V zones. 3. History. The Shell Oil Company has owned a 17,000 sq. ft. parcel at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen for approximately 16 years. In 1966, a conditional use permit was granted to Shell Oil which was allowed to expire, and in 1975, a subsequent request was denied by the City Council. The Bonita Glen Specific Plan approved in 1977 does not include service stations or car washes as appropriate land uses for the area. City Planning Commission Pag~ l0 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 The applicant has submitted a report responding to the reasons for the denial of the 1975 conditional use permit application. It also contains information on the average daily traffic and an analysis on the marketing trade area which the proposed land use is to serve. (See attached.) D. ANALYSIS 1. When the Bonita Glen Specific Plan was adopted over five years ago, it was recognized that the 13 parcels and four ownerships, which were in existence at that time, could complicate development. It was pointed out that the Shell property might result in the construction of a separate freestanding building if the adjacent property owners failed to acquire ownership. Since the plan was adopted, there has been a consolidation of parcels along Bonita Road resulting in three land owners now controlling the nine acres within the plan area (see Exhibit A). 2. As stated earlier in this report, the Bonita Glen Specific Plan area of nearly nine acres provides for limited land uses derived from the C-C (Community Shopping Zone) with the C-V (Visitor Commercial Zone). The General Plan designation is for retail commercial. The introduction to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan cites the need to provide for retail commercial uses of a compatible nature characterized by a strong emphasis on community design. The plan notes that these nine acres are at the gateway to Bonita and are virtually self. contained and, therefore, there is a need for a coordinated design effort. The land uses specified in the plan are: a. Book, stationery, clothing, shoe, variety, and jewelry stores. b. Pharmacies, saddle shops, cycleries, travel agencies, and restaurants. c. Specialty food stores, markets, antique shops, and dry cleaning agencies. d. Small theatres and artists' studios. e. Banks, savings and loan offices, insurance offices, general business, professional, and real estate offices. f. Apartments, condominiums, residential hotels, motels, motor hotels. g. Other retail stores and services approved by the Planning Commission. The only project approved and under construction within the Bonita Glen Specific Plan is the Denny's restaurant which will be located immediately east of the Shell Oil parcel. 3. The reasons for amending the Bonita Glen Specific Plan to add land uses should oonsider the following: a. The purpose and intent of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan; b. The compatibility of the proposed use with the other uses specified in the plan; and c. The ability of the proposed use to complement permitted uses both functionally and architecturally. City Planning Commission Page ll Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 Shell Oil's report addresses the demand for their service by citing a need to serve the increased traffic flow of the area, including the 1-805 freeway. Shell has stated with the construction of Denny's restaurant and the stated plans of the developer to the south to construct a large motel, that the area will not develop as a single ownership. Shell believes their station will complement the uses proposed. We concur with their thoughts that the area will not develop under a single ownership. However, designating the corner lot for a service station will, in the Planning Department's opinion, do little to enhance the architecture of the area. Self-service stations, by their nature (including the plans submitted by Shell for this site), typically have limited landscaping, four- curb openings, a preponderance of asphalt paving, and a limited canopy, covering the pump island/kiosk area. This station has also included a small single staff car wash building to complete the plan. One of the Planning Commission's reasons for denying Shell's conditional use permit application in 1975 noted that motorists'needs could be served by the two existing stations. Other than a generalized statement by Shell, no evidence has been submitted to address that finding. E. CONCLUSION The Bonita Glen Specific Plan should not be amended because: 1. The existing land uses identified in the plan are uses which can best serve this interchange, offering the traveling public and area residents a variety of services. 2. Locating a service station/car wash at this corner could be detrimental to the development of future buildings attempting to achieve a compatible architectural package including landscaping and access. 3. There is no clearly demonstrated need to have a third service station in this immediate area. F. ALTERNATIVE TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Pind that EIR-77-2 is adequate and satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed amendment and certify the EIR. 2. Adopt a motion to approve the request to add service stations and car washes as permitted uses within the Bonita Glen Specific Plan. G. FACTORS TO SUPPORT THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION 1. The site has been previously approved as a service station site in 1966 which subsequently expired. City Planning Commission Page 12 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 2. The site has been owned by the Shell Oil Company for over 16 years. 3. Traffic volumes on Bonita Road have increased substantially since the construction of 1-805 in 1975 to justify the need for additional service stations in the area. 4. The project will be subject to design review by the City's Design Review Committee to insure quality architectural and site planning. ~Ot~L c~u~c~ _~ I I O~IC~ I ac ~ AREA BONITA ROAD Z Z Z Shell OIl' 'ompany 0 P.O. Box 4848 511 N Brookhurst Street Anaheim, California 92803 December 27, 1982 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission The City of Chula Vista Civic Center Complex 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Members and Commission: SUBJECT: PROCESS AND PROCEDURE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE BONITA GLEN SPECIFIC PLAN SHELL SELF- SERVE GASOLINE STATION WITH A CAR WASH: S/E BONITA ROAD/BONITA GLEN DRIVE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA We respectfully request your consideration of Shell's desire to construct a self-serve type gasoline station with a wet rollover car wash at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive in the city of Chula Vista, California. To complete our goal of developing the Shell owned property, it is necessary that the Bonita Glen Specific Plan be amended to include this use. Enclosed with the request is an analysis of the area that reinforces our conclusion that the subject site will mmke an outstanding gasoline location. We stand ready to give our complete assistance to you in expediting this request to amend the Specific Plan and ask you to telephone me, or C. T. Hart, at 1-800-422-4181 at your earliest convenience. Yo~rr~/ver '~r~ y, / ~ J. B. Bird} Manager Southern California Retail District Enclosure RECEIVED DEC 4)1982 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, C LIFORNIA Shell Oil Company desires to build an automated self serve gasoline facility with a car wash on our property located on Bonita Road at Bonita Glen Drive in Chula Vista, California. This particular site is within the boundaries of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan. Standards and Regulations for the planned development of the area have been identified by the city of Chula Vista and Shell desires to develop the property in accordance with the Standards and Regulations. The Bonita Glen Specific Plan proposes the unified development of residential/ retail projects. Since there are three parcels with different owners, the unified development of the area may be difficult. Shell Oil requests that you allow us a separate freestanding use of the site since it is our desire not to sell the property to any of the parties having a larger interest in the overall 8.74 acre area. The subject location was acquired by Shell in April 1967. Shell's purchase of the property was contingent on the city of Chula Vista granting Shell a Conditional Use Permit. The Permit was approved by the City Council on September 13, 1966, as Resolution 4185. The Chula Vista Planning Commission granted extension to the Conditional Use Permit on four different occasions; the last of which expired in July 1974. Some of the factors that precluded our development of the site under this Conditional Use Permit are as follows: 1. Delayed opening of Interstate 805 freeway. 2. Premature business potential in the market area. 3. The oil embargo and resulting severe gasoline shortage that interrupted Shell's long range marketing plans. Shell again filed application with the City of Chula Vista for a Conditional Use Permit in 1975 and that request number P.C.C.-75-19 was subsequently denied by the Chula Vista City Council. Shell believes that it is timely to review the reasons for denial of the Conditional Use Permit and to present a response to those denial contentions. 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONTENTION WAS: "The gasoline needs of the surrounding neighborhood can be met by the existing service station across Bonita Glen Drive from the subject property. The site is poorly suited to serve the needs of northbound traffic on 1-805 and is somewhat inconvenient to south- bound traffic on 1-805. Eastbound traffic on B~nita Road and Bonita Road traffic entering the southbound 1-850 on-ramp can be served by the existing service station across Bonita Glen Drive from the subject property." SHELL'S RESPONSE It has become a fact of life that freeway interchanges attract development that serves the need of a local and tourist oriented public. These freeway interchanges have become an oasis for the free~ay tourist traveler and are convenient for members of the communi~-~ leaving or entering the area. It appears that free~ay interchanges have become identified as areas where the public expects a satisfactor~ choice of ~oods and services and conven- iences that accomodate their traveling needs. The existing ser- vice stations are not adequate to serve the approximately 28,600 vehicles per day that are on Bonita Road and to serve the growing traffic on Interstate 805. We have determined the past, present and projected average daily traffic count on the Interstate 805 freeway and have it listed for your review. Traffic Statistics (Averase Daily Traffic) Interstate 805/Bonita Road 1975 1981 1982 1990 2000 49,000 72,000 77,000 130,000 160,000 +47% + 7% +68% +23% While these statistics are clearly the best projections of the San Diego Association of Governments in their determination of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, they do point out that local, as well as tourist traffic will be increasing significantly in the area. Shell's justification for building the proposed facility is to serve the needs of this growing cormnunity and the traffic generated by the freeway, 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTENTION WAS: "Construction of a service station on the subject site would adversely affect a desireable design for a mini-commercial/residential village on the adjacent property. The subject site should be developed as a part of the anticipated larger development on the adjacent properties." SHELL'S RESPONSE: The property owner to the east of the subject property has been granted a C.U.P. to construct a Denny's restaurant and the property owner to the south of our site has expressed "that he is negotiating with two national motel chains to develop the property." Shell believes that the Bonita Glen area will not develop as a single ownership development and that our development will compliment the designated and proposed uses of the adjacent properties. 3. THE PLANNING CO~MISSION CONTENTION WAS: "The proposed use could be detrimental to the apartments to the west in terms of noise, glare, and traffic turnover. If the mini- commercial/residential village concept is valid on the adjacent property, the proposed station would be considered to be injurious to that property." SHELL' S RESPONSE: This project will have no detrimental effect on the apartment complex across Bonita Glen Drive. The proposed facility will be a greater distance from the apartmsnts than the existing Union Oil station. Self serve gasoline stations are not a source of noise, smoke or glaring lights. This type of facility does not provide for automotive mechanical repairs. MARKETING TRADE AREA Shell has recently completed an economic study of the area and the information acquired from that study assures us that construction of the station and car wash is now justified. The marketing area that the facility will serve consists of the following areas. Ail of the residential and commercial areas in the northwesterly portion of the city limits of Chula Vista, and will include the total area of the Bonita Valley east of the proposed location. Listed below are the three census tracts that contribute significantly to the population of this market area: City of Chula Vista Count~ of San Diego Census Tract #123.01 & 134.01 Census Tract #134.03 & 32.04 *Population Count 19 75 1980 15,829 Population Increase 19,195 22% This marketing area, for the proposed project, has been determined on the basis that the various interests within this area responds to similar economic and social conditions and the shopping and commuter habits follow traffic patterns that are influenced by the network of streets and freeways .in this area. Attached as E~hibit "A" is a map of Chula Vista outlining the market area; the subject property being centrally located within those boundaries. Areas of the attached Exhibit "A" have been numbered to identify activities within, and we submit the following for each numbered area: "ACTIVITY"-COMMERCIAL - AREA #1 Strip Commercial and neighborhood convenience centers serve the residents of this trade area. This type of activity is being augmented by the regional shopping center located in the south~ westerly section of the city of Chula Vista. The demand for goods and services not available in the neighborhood convenience d~nters generates a large volume of traffic to and from the re- sidential areas east of the subject property and the regional shopping center and the established strip commercial in downtown Chula Vista. Traffic must use Bonita Road which is the major east/west surface arterial serving Chula Vista. Increased commercial activity is also noted in the immediate area of the subject location due to the opening of the Plaza Bonita Regional Shopping Center that is located one mile to the north of this location. "ACTIVITY" - RESIDENTIAL - AREA #3 This area represents established single family residences and has open space that will be conducive to large scale residential growth. Inadequate public transportation forces the residents in this area to rely on the automobile for their shopping and commuting needs, creating a large demand and increasing the potential for petroleum products. "ACTIVITY" - MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL - AREA #3 A growing number of multiple residential developments have been built in this marketing area during the past several years. There are apartment complexes one block south of the subject location and there are large apartment complexes that have been developed in the Bonita Village area which is 2.4 miles east of the site. "ACTIVITY" - EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS - AREA #4 Eastlake I is the first phase of a proposed 3,073 acre planned community between southwestern College Estates and Otay Lakes. The first phase has been given the go ahead by the City Council and the city's general plan has been amended to accommodate sub- sequent expansion. Eastlake I will have about 3,700 residential units. THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE has compared population trends of: 1982 1970 % Increase Sweetwat er 28,220 14,105 100.1 Chula Vista 89,210 75,916 17.5 So uth Bay 83,390 48,988 70.2 Sumit Point is another ambitious project taking place in the marketing area of this site. The project will include a full range of condominiums and single family homes. In addition, a community shopping center is planned for construction in the southwest section of the property. Equally as important is the E1 Rancho Del Rey Community Plan which is approximately 2,500 acreas of anticipated residential development. CHULA VISTA RELIMQUISHMENTS Since 1977, Shell Oil has permanently closed the following locations that have Chula Vista addresses. The locations are listed as follows: Locations Date Closed 1302 Broadway/Palomar November 30, 1977 899 Broadway/"L" July 13, 1978 3218 Main Street/Third September 15, 1978 692 "H" Street/Oak_lawn February 11, 1979 1296 Third A-enue/Palomar March 13, 1980 THE PROJECT Shell Oil is adding car washes to many of our automated self serve gasoline stations in order to enhance the volume of the station by offering an addi- tional service to the customer. A survey of car washes in Chula Vista revealed that there are two that serve the entire community. One of the locations is a full service car wash with gasoline that is located at Broadway/"K", the other one is located at Broadway/"H" and is a prototype of the model that we choose to place in our development. A continued analysis of car washes in the area revealed that there are none in the eastern area of the city that we believe our prdject will serve. Shell believes that a car wash with this development will have beneficial effects on the community. No. 1 - A service will be provided to the customer/residents of this area where NONE EXISTS. No. 2 - The car wash at this fuel stop allows the customer to consolidate his purchases and foster fuel efficiency. No. 3 - Facilitates maximizing the development of the property. No. 4 - Enhances the tax base of the property. No. 5 - This type of EXTERIOR ONLY car wash precludes: A. Multiple manpower usage. B. Cars stacking or being parked on the lot. (Facilitates traffic flow.) C. Excessive noise levels (the sound level of the car wash during operations is quiet enough that normal conversation can be carried on by people standing next to the unit.) CONCLUSION Shell does not believe that we are adding "just another retail gasoline facility to the community'!, but, that we are adding this unit in the growth area of the city to recover the lost selling capacity that has resulted by an ambitious program to permanently close marginal operations. May we have your approval to this proposal? City Planning Commission Page 13 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of appeal of Design Review Committee's denial of the architectural desi§n for four 2-bedroom units at 494 "F" Street - Michael and Nellie Anastasi A. BACKGROUND 1. The proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on November 4, 1982, and previously by a Design Review Subcommittee. The Design Review Committee continued review of the project to allow applicant's designer time to incorporate the Committee's suggestions and review their concerns re- garding the exterior elevations and building bulk. 2. On December 2, 1982, by a vote of 4-0, the Design Review Committee denied a revised application requesting approval to construct four 2-bedroom, multiple-family units to be located in the R-3 zone. 3. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review (class 3b). B. RECOMMENDATION Deny the applicant's appeal based on the following findings: a. The developer has failed to adequately address the long, plain wall on the west side of the proposed structure and the dominant mass of the proposed structure. b. There is a general lack of architectural features on the proposed structure. c. The proposed architectural theme is not extended to all four elevations. C. DISCUSSION 1. The project site consists of a 7,500 square foot lot containing one single-family dwelling and a detached garage. Two-story apartment projects are located to the east of the site and across "F" Street to the north. Single-family dwellings are located to the west and south of the site, although the properties are currently zoned for multiple-family development. 2. The applicant proposes to remove the existing single-family dwelling and detached garage and construct four two-bedroom multiple-family units. A total of seven on-site parking spaces will be provided. 3. The Design Review Committee expressed some initial concerns with the applicant's proposal and after reviewing the proposal, the Committee and staff recommended that the applicant make revisions to the exterior design of the structure and site plan and return to the Committee for approval. Some of the con- cerns expressed, involved the roof design and the straight-line facade presented on the llO-foot long, westerly side of the building. In addition, it was felt that the project had a box-like appearance and a recommendation was made to explore the use of a single roof design throughout the structure. City Planning Commission Page 14 Agenda Items for Meeting of February 9, 1983 The applicant returned the plans to the Design Review Committee with the present gable roof design and some treatment (wood shutters} around the windows on the north and east sides of the buildings. That design was still lacking in any effort to provide building off-sets or shadow lines to create visual interest on the building's west elevation. The Committee found that, aside from the roof, little substantive change had been made to the building elevations and, therefore, the design was not approved. 4. The Zoning Ordinance establishes certain minimum front, rear and side yard building setbacks as a limit for designing a structure. The proposed structure has been designed to fully extend to these limitations which is one reason that the box-like, straight-line facade along the westerly property line has been created. These ordinance limitations are designed as a worst-case limitation and are not intended to be design solutions, tt is difficult to design offsets in a structure if the structure is pushed to the maximum allowable limits without sensitive design considerations. Exterior design and structure massing must be a primary consideration when designing a structure to ordinance limits. D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Staff concurs with the findings of the Design Review Committee and agrees that if the applicant chooses not to revise the proposed project to address the long plain, wall on the west side of the building, general lack of architectural features, and the problems with the massing of the structure, then the project should be disapproved. 2. Should the applicant decide to modify the design of the structure, or if the Commission decides to approve the project, the applicant should still address and comply with the site plan problems identified in the summary staff report to the Design Review Committee, dated December 2, 1982. (See attached.) 3. If the Planning Commission concurs with the Design Review Committee and the staff, then it is suggested that the project designer re-examine the design of the building and address the problems stated above before re-submitting architectural plans to the City. I' I-/,,,,, ,-,--I~,/ I i I I r' STREET I~¢j i~ ~ ST. I I ~r PARK WAY City Planning Commission~ ~ Agenda Items for Meeti% ? February 9, 1983 Page 15 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-1 Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code relating to the definition of family A. BACKGROUND In the City of Chula Vista versus Pagard and the City of Santa Barbara versus Adamson the courts ruled that jurisdictions can no longer limit the number of unrelated persons living together as a bonified family unit. The court stated that, "As long as a group bears the generic character of a family unit as a rela- tively permanent household it should be equally entitled to occupy a single family dwelling as its biologically related neighbors." As a result, the City Attorney has determined that it is necessary to redefine the present definitions of a "family." B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recon~nending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as follows: 1. Amend Section 19.04.092 (DEFINITIONS) 19.04.092 Family "Family" means an individual; or two or more persons, ~l~ 4% ~ ~ related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group ~ ~% t~ ~ %~ ~$ ~ ~J~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $~JlJ~J~ including unrelated individuals bearing the generic character of and living together as a relatively permanent bona fide housekeeping unit sharin9 such needs as cooking facilities. 2. Delete Section 19.04.105 Group residence (DEFINITIONS). See attached. 3. Delete Section 19.28.040 Conditional uses (R-3 ZONE), paragraph B, and change the alphabetical sequence of the following uses. See attached. 4. Delete Section 19.58.172 (USES) pertaining to Group residences. See attached. ////// deletions additions C. DISCUSSION 1. The Municipal Code presently limits the number of unrelated persons in a single dwelling unit to three persons. Since the court ruling against this limitation, the City has been attempting to determine if standards could be developed which would ensure that the basic integrity of the single family zones could be maintained without being at odds with the decision of the courts. Staff has explore the possibility of placing a limitation on the number of persons all owed in a house based on a square footage per person ratio. However, another court decision (East Cleveland) ruled that a household of unrelated persons could not be treated any differently than a household of related persons which.historically could exceed the floor area per person ratio as stipulated in the Uniform Building Code. Another consideration was to use a parking to person ratio. This too presented problems as it too affected conventional family units. The staff concluded that other standards being City Planning Commission~'~ -~ Agenda Items for Meeting . February 9, 1983 Page 16 considered were also unsatisfactory or ineffective thus prompting the amend- ments as proposed. 2. Group occupancy or "Group Residences" (as presently referred to in the Code) involving more than three persons may only be allowed by conditional use permit in the R-3 zone and are subject to several additional standards, such as offstreet parking and a maximum number of persons predicated on R-3 density. 3. The proposed definition of a "family" deletes the three person limitation and provides for groups which have the generic characteristics of a traditional family, such as permanency and sharing of resources. The proposed revision renders any provision for "Group Residences" obsolete. For that reason, the proposed amendment deletes all provision relating to such land uses. f ~9.0,4.105 , Group r,~,idence. 'Group'residcncc means a dwelling or part Del ete -~ thereof where meals and/or lodging are provided ,/ or shared by more than three persons, excluding I servants, Who are not related by blood, marriage, ~ or adoption. (Ord. 1697 § 2, 1976.) 19.28.040 Conditional uses. Site plan and architectural approval as provided - in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480 shall be required for all of the following conditional uses in the R-3 zone: A. Single-family ho~es; Delete ~ -/~ B. Group residences, subject to the requirements of Section 19.58.172; B.~E. Except in R-3-T, day nurseries; C.~. Except in R-3-T, incidental services, such as restaurants and retail sales to serve residents, provided there is no exterior display or advertising and such activities are conducted in spaces which are integral parts of a main building; D.~E. Commercial parking garages and off-street parking lots, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.130; [.]:. Electric substations and gas regulators subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.140; F.!G. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;' 6.14. Family day care homes, as defined in Section 19.04.094; H.¥. Private, noncommercial recreational fa- cilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and clubhouses (for additional p[ovisions see Sections 19.58.100 and 19.58.270); 1.1. Professional offices (for additional provisions see Section 19.58.244). (Ord. 1822 § 2, 1978; Ord. 1697 § I (part), 1976: Ord. 1542 § 2 (part), 1974: Ord. 1494 § 3 (part), 1973; Ord. 1356 § I (partL 1971; Ord. 1212 § I (part), 1969: prior code § 33.505(D).) Del ete: 19.58.172 t Group residence. A. Density. The maximum number ofrcsidents H. Bathrooms. There shall bca minimum of allowed in a group residence shall be one bathroom for every three bedrooms or deterTnined by calculating the number of fraction thereof, but not fewer than one for dwelling units which would be allowed on every six persons or l¥:~ction thereof. the site under R-3 district regulations and I. Periodic lnspectiou. City inspectors multiplying that number by the average (building. fire and zoniug)shall inspect each family household size per unit (1.94 based group residence from time to time, but at on 1975 census data), least twice yearly, to determine compliance Note: Calculations shall be rounded to with the conditional use permit and code the nearest whole number, requirements. B. Parking. Parking requirements shall be J. Time Period. The issuance of a conditional calculated on tile basis of R-3 standards for use permit shall be valid for a period of three one bedroom apartment units (resident and years, at the end of which time the planning guest). The planning commission may commission shall review the operation of the increase thc number of space? required based use for compliance with all conditions. In on the facts presented in the conditional use the interim period, violations of any permit application. Tandem parking shall be condition cited, or receipt of verified prohibited, complaints, will constitute grounds for C. Separation. Upon ~eview of each conditional review and possible revocation of the permit use permit application, the planning by the planning commission. commission shall consider the number of ~Ord. 1697 § 2, 1976.) group residences and tile distance between them in determining the need for an additional group residence. D. Garage Conversions In structures used for group residence, garage conversions shall be prohibited. E. Compliance with R-3 Standards. Group residences shall comply with all of the ordinance requirements as set forth in the R-3 zone. Ol3en space shall be calculated on the basis of four hundred square feet thnes the number of units which could be constructed under R-3 regulations. F. Code Compliance (Other). A structure used as a group res!dencc shall comply with the requirements of the latest effiective Unilbrm Housing ('ode and Fire Code. G. License. Proper licenses shall be obtained by anyone living in the group residence.