Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Comm Reports/1987/01/14
To: City Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~J~/~ Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 1987 1. REPORT: Variance ZAV-87-10; request to increase floor area ratio at 59 "K" Street - Jack and Marla Kuta On January 6, 1987, the Chula Vista City Council considered an appeal of your denial (November 19, 1986) for a variance for Jack and Marla Kuta for property at 59 "K" Street. The Council continued the matter to Tuesday, January 20, 1987, with a referral back to the Planning Commission for your further consideration on January 14, 1987. Between the Commission Hearing and Council appeal, the applicant scaled down the proposal resulting in a favorable staff recommendation. Council said they wanted the benefit of the Commission's thinking on this modified request prior to taking action. A copy of the Council report and your prior minutes on this item are enclosed. WPC 3500P L I"gl SIERRA WAY WAY '~ .,~ PALOMAR D~_ ,.', '-~ '":- ',~ I ~.~.-~.-...,~: - .- . - ._~ ~._-: ~.,...~.. p.... j :,?. .~ ~GE I~ ~'m,! :',::' .q-...,:.: ','..I. ':, - .~ . ~',.'- ' 0 BE REMOVED, · ...... -:,:~. '~:~ .., ..; ~ ~..~'~'F " "' ~ ",!'.:: '., ,, . .' ,': .'-!. COUNCIL. AGENDA STATEHENT Item Meeting Date 1/6/87 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Variance ZAV-87-10; Appeal from Planning Commission denial of variance at 59 "K" Street Jack and Marla Kuta Resolution Granting appeal and approving variance for floor area ratio of 45.5% SUBMITTED BY: Planning Director~/O REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No X .) This is an appeal from a Planning Commission denial of an original request to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 46% to 52% at 59 "K" Street in the R-1 zone. The applicant, however, has substantially reduced the scope of the project for consideration by Council on appeal, and approval of the present request would actually reduce the FAR from 46% to 45.5%. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class l(e) exemption. RECOMNENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution granting the appeal and thereby approve the variance for a floor area ratio of 45.5% based upon the findings enumerated at the end of this report. BOARDS/COMHISSIONS RECO}~fENDATION: On November ]9, 1986, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0 with one Con~issioner absent and one abstention, denied the variance request as originally filed. DISCUSSION: Adjacent zonln~ and land use. North R-1 Single family dwelling South R-1 Single family dwelling East R-1 Single family dwelling West R-1 single family dwelling ExistinK site characteristics. The lot in question is 50 feet wide and 160 feet in depth, for a total area of 8,000 sq. ft. The existing two-story dwelling contains 3,109 sq. ft. of floor area, and an existing detached garage contains an additional 540 sq. ft. for a total floor area of 3,649 sq. ft. and existing FAR of 46%. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 1/6/87 Ori51nal request The original request was to add a first floor family room, extend the second floor master bedroom, and make other minor modifications which together would have added 543 sq. ft. of floor area to the dwelling. The request also included a new 528 sq. ft. garage on the rear of the lot, while the existing 540 sq. ft. garage would be removed to make way for an extended driveway and pool/patio area. The size difference between the new and existing garage would deduct 12 sq. ft., resulting in a total floor area increase of 531 sq. ft. The 531 sq. ft. of new floor area originally proposed would have increased the total floor area from the existing 3,649 sq. ft. (46% FAR) to 4,180 sq. ft. (52% FAR). The Code limits the FAR for single family lots to 45%, which would translate to 3,600 sq. fro of allowable floor area for this 8,000 sq. ft. lot. Basis for denial of ori5inal request The City has used a floor area ratio (FAR) standard since May of this year. The FAR limits a dwelling to a reasonable bulk and scale relative to the size of the lot. In the case of the R-1 zone, the FAR of 45% sets an ultimate limit to the amount of square footage of floor area which may be constructed to 45% of the size of the lot. This standard, along with height and setback restrictions, is designed to allow ample interior residential living space, while at the same time limiting the size and location of structures consistent with the light, air, privacy, and open space standards and aesthetic values which have come to be expected in R-1 single-family residential living environments. Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The granting of a variance is...to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments. The purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel up to parity with other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is concerned, and'it is not to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the s~me zone and vicinity..." Since the floor area limitation imposed by the FAR is solely based on the square footage of a particular lot, the only apparent "unique characteristic" or "hardship" which would justify a variance would be a substandard sized lot in comparison to other lots in the same zone and vicinity. In the present case, the subject 8,000 sq. ft. lot exceeds the City's ?,000 sq. ft. standard for R-1 lots by 1,000 sq. ft. Although it is smaller than several other lots in the in~ediate vicinity, it shares this distinction with five other lots on the same block face and thus is not unique in this regard. Also, the 45% FAR allows for a total floor area of 3,600 sq. ft., which would appear to provide for the reasonable use of a single family parcel of this Page 3, Item Heeting Date 1/6/87 size (while the applicant's original proposal called for 4,180 sq. ft.). Finally, with these factors in mind, the very purpose in using a "ratio" is to relate the hulk of structures to the variations in single family lot size typically encountered in the City. Thus, it was the conclusion of staff and the Commission that there is nothing unique about the subject parcel that presents a hardship or prevents the reasonable use of the property under the R-1 zone FAR restriction and the granting of the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. A petition signed by 57 residents representing 35 properties in the area had also been submitted in opposition to the original request. Present request The appellant has deleted from the request all of the previously proposed additions to the dwelling, and now requests Council consideration only of the proposal to replace the existing 540 sq. ft. detached garage. Although this would actually reduce the FAR from 46% to 45.5%, the FAR would still exceed the 45% allowed, and the Code prohibits any such "alteration" to a nonconforming use unless the alteration conforms with present standards or unless a variance is granted. ANALYSIS: The existing garage has a depth of 30 ft. but a width of only 18 ft. which restricts the ability to comfortably accon~odate two vehicles. The present Code requires a minimum 20' x 20' two-car garage for single family dwellings. The new garage would measure 24 ft. in depth and 22 ft. in width. Secondly, the existing garage occupies a good portion of the rear yard closest to the dwelling. The new garage would be located to the rear of the lot and thus open-up the rear yard area most convenient to the dwelling for outside activitles. At the same time, the new garage would cover 374 sq. ft. in the rear yard setback area, while the Code allows up to 400 sq. ft. of coverage in this area. Finally, approval of the variance would result in a modest reduction in the structural bulk on the lot and is therefore consistent with the purpose of the floor area ratio limitation. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request based upon the following findings: 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not Created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring Pa&e 4, Item Heetin& Date 1/6/87 violations are not hardships justifyinE a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The width of the existin§ §ara§e is substandard, and the ~araEe occupies a substantial portion of the rear yard area closest to the dwelling. The new §ara§e is dimensioned to accommodate two vehicles and is located so as to maximize the use of the rear yard for outdoor activities. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if §ranted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. Most properties in the same zone and vicinity have garaEes that will conveniently accon~odate two-cars and are located outside the rear yard area. Also, the new gara§e retains some of the extra floor area for storaEe or workshop activities presently available in the existln§ §stage. Other properties which exceed the new FAR limitation but which are not faced with the same garaEe dimension and location hardships can continue to enjoy the extra space without the necessity of a variance. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The new gara§e covers less of the rear yard setback area than allowed by Code, and will result in a modest reduction in the structural bulk on the lot consistent with 'the purpose of the FAR limitation. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. Approval of the variance is consistent with the policies of the General Plan as they relate to sound standards for residential development. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable WPC 3471P 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-10 REQUEST TO IHCREASE FLOOR ARE& RATIO AT 59 'K' STREET JACK AND MARIA KUTA ~ (continued) Associate Planner Griffin noted that this item was continued from the meeting of November 5, 1986 because of lack of a quorum. Since the continuance, the applicant has amended his original request by reducing the size of the proposed detached garage. This reduces the request for an increase in floor area ratio from 46% to 52% instead of 54%. The request is to add a first floor family room, extend the second floor master bedroom plus other minor modifications that would add 543 square feet of floor area to the dwelling. The new garage would be constructed on the rear of the lot and would replace the existing one. The subject 8,000 square foot lot exceeds the City's ?,000 square foot standard for R-1 lots by 1,O00 square feet and is no smaller than five other lots in the same block. It is staffls conclusion that there is nothing unique about the subject parcel that presents a hardship or prevents a reasonable use of the property under the R-1 zone FAR restriction; therefore, granting the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. For that reason, staff recommends denial of the request. He continued that a petition in opposition signed by 5? residents representing 35 properties in the area had been received. In response to Commissioner Cannon's question if the covered porch on the front had been included in the total lot coverage by way of the house footprint, he replied yes. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jack Kuta, 59 'K' Street, owner, stated that the subject property was built in lgSO with the exception of the garage. He was requesting a variance essentially to enclose an existing second-floor balcony and porch area; took issue with the front porch area being included in the FAR as it was not a liveable area since it was open on three sides, represents 232 square feet or 3 percent of the FAR; considered that such situations need to be addressed in the FAR Ordinance which was enacted because of two overpowering structures erected in Chula Vista during the year; his neighbors on either side and across the street were supportive of the project; a great deal of the lot, which is 60 x 150, is left untouched. He asked the Commission's consideration in recognizing that the Kutas are only enclosing a structure that already exists; the garage is being down-sized and being made to accommodate vehicles more easily; that longer roof overhangs are computed at full face value in the FAR which is understandable if the sides were enclosed - but they are not. In response to a question, the Commission was informed that if the porch were excluded, the FAR would be 49 percent and if it were included, the FAR would be 52 percent. ~en Aginiga, 66 Millan Court, identified himself as the owner of a single-family home adjacent and to the north of the proposed structure; he represented himself, family and neighbors; had submitted the petition of 57 signatures representing 35 properties opposing the increase from a6 percent to 52 percent of the FAR and the request to increase the allowable rear yard setback coverage for construction of a garage, work room, bath and patio close to the rear property line; he contended that the FAR would be exceeded, the structure would not be compatible with adjacent residences; the size and location of the existing structures would not conform with the light, air, privacy and open space standards of the area; it would remove the openness and distance between houses; the privacy of his patio would be diminished; and there was a possibility of drainage or flood damage since his property was at a lower elevation. He also inquired about the disposition of the large tree located in the proposed garage construction vicinity. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would uphold the denial as the present structure is overpowering in size; and because he could not make findings of "hardship" with regard to the land. Commissioner Cannon stated he would also support the denial since he was unable to make the findings necessary to permit a variance; that the owners have problems similar to those on other two-story houses. Commissioner Shipe said that he would also support tile denial as the item does not meet the variance criteria and he views the house as a "Junior Raso" house. HSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) - Green and Carson out - to deny the variance. Commissioner Carson returned to the Chambers and the dais at 7:47 p.m. AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 14, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 3, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. REPORT: Variance ZAV-87-10: Request to increase floor area ratio at 59 'K' Street - Jack and Marla Kuta 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-5M: Consideration of request to construct a new clubhouse at 88 'L' Street - San Diego Country Club (continued) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-3: Consideration of a tentative subdivision map for Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3 located at 325-345 'K' Street 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-4: Consideration of a tentative subdivision map for Bayfront Units No. 1-10, Chula Vista Tract 87-4, located between the I-5 Freeway, the mean high tide line of San Diego Bay, 'G' Street and 'D' Street extended - Chula Vista Investment Company 5. PUBLIC HEARING: P79-O13/PCC-86-34M: Consideration of revocation of major use permit allowing auto dismantling operaiton located at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - John and Carole Marquez 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-10: Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow off premise real estate open house sign for the resale of homes in residential zones 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-3: Consideration of an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to repeal certain portions of Section 19.12.110 which require a City Council override of a Planning Commission denial AGENDA -2- January 14, 1987 DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of January 21, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 1 TO: Chairman and Members Planning Commission/~ FROM: George Krempl, Di rector of P1 ann i n<y~"/'/~4/C~ SUBJECT: Consideration of Major Use Permit for San Diego Country Club The Board of the San Diego Country Club has selected a consultant to perform a structural and architectural survey on the existing clubhouse based upon the Historical Building Code. Staff anticipates receipt of the analysis at the end of January. Therefore, staff is requesting continuance of the hearing to the meeting of February 25, 1987 to allow the additional information to be included in the hearing on the application scheduled for the Montgomery Planning Committee for February 4, 1987. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-87-3 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3 Alkiviadis Vassiliadis A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3 in order to subdivide for a one-lot condominium project consisting of 65 units on 2.15 acres on the north side of "K" Street between Third and Fourth Avenues. The development is currently under construction as apartment units. 2. Initial studies, IS-84-9 and IS-86-12, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project have been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommends readoption of the Negative Declarations. B. RECO~MENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declarations issued on IS-84-9 and IS-86-12. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the tentative subdivision map for Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall remove existing driveway approaches from "K" Street and replace with monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk, except at the new driveway locations. The new driveways shall be of a width approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The minimum radii for all curb return shall be lO feet. A construction permit will be required for all work done within the public right of way. b. The structural section of the private driveway shall be designed to meet flexible pavement structural design criteria based on "R" Values and a minimum traffic index of 4. All onsite paving including parking areas except those within carports will be inspected by the Engineering Department. c. The design of the structural section shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. d. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of a 250 watt HPSV street light at the west end of the property on "K" Street. The location of said street light shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 2 e. The developer shall dedicate to the City an additional two feet of right of way along the north side of "K" Street adjacent to the subdivision as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. f. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of the fire hydrant on the proposed western driveway to an approved location. g. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along "K" Street adjacent to the subdivision. Said easement shall extend from the property line to a line l0 feet from the back of the sidewalk. h. The school districts shall notify the City in writing that they have reached on equitable agreement with the subdivider regarding school facilities prior to Council action on the final map. i. In addition, the following map revisions are required: {1) Show alley-type driveways with pedestrian ramps at both entrances to the subdivision. {2) Show proposed sewer and drainage facilities. C. DISCUSSION The project has been approved by the Design Review committee and is currently under construction as apartment units. The one standard unique to condominiums and not required of apartments is the provision of private storage. Since this has been designed into the project, it is appropriate to recommend approval of the tentative map based upon the following findings. D. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Theoka Village, Chula Vista Tract 87-3, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 3 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use The project received authorization for location within a commercial designation under PCC-84-6 and PCC-86-7. b. Circulation - The project is served by existing streets and no streets are required across the property to serve adjacent uses. c. Housing The project will provide additional home ownership opportunities for residents of the community. d. Conservation - The site is located within an urbanized area and was previously developed. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The developer is required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. f. Seismic Safety - The property is not near any known earthquake faults. g. Safety - The site is well within the response time of existing fire stations. h. Noise The units meet the requirements of the U.B.C. with regarding to noise. i. Scenic Highway - The site is not adjacent to a designated scenic route. j. Bicycle Routes - The adjoining street is not a designated bike route but will accommodate bicycles. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are proposed on the site. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 3468P/2659P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tenta~tive map for CVT-87-4; Chula Vista Bayfront - Units 1 through 10 A. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Chula Vista Investment Company (CVIC), has filed a tentative map identified as Chula Vista Bayfront Units 1 through 10, CVT-87-4, and is proposing to subdivide approximately 125 acres located in the Chula Vista Midbayfront area. In the latter part of 1986, the Chula Vista Planning Commission and Chula Vista City Council approved the amended Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Plan of wl~ich the Midbayfront is a part thereof. Prior to approval of both items, the Planning Commission and City Council certified the various EIRs and supplement thereto; therefore, no additional environmental process is required to approve this subdivision map in accordance with the conditions being reco~ended. B. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve tentative subdivision map for the Chula Vista Bayfront Area - Units 1 through lO, reference CVT-87-4, subject to the following: 1. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full public improvements for all streets shown on the Tentative Map within the Subdivision. Said improvements shall include but not be limited to: A.C. pavement, base, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaped medians, sewer and water facilities, drainage facilities, street trees, street lights and signs. Said improvements shall be guaranteed prior to approval of any Final Subdivision maps. 2. The grades on all public streets shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Said streets shall be constructed at such elevations as to meet the dry lane requirements contained in the Subdivision Manual and shall be passable by vehicles during the lO0-year storm event. 3. The developer shall be responsible for the right-of-way dedications, design and guarantee of construction of the following streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and prior to approval of the first final map: a. Gunpowder Point Drive between Marina Parkway and the subdivision boundary. b. Tidelands Avenue between Marina Parkway and the railroad right-of-way. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be required at the north end of Tidelands Avenue at the easterly property line. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 2 c. Lagoon Drive between Marina Parkway and the "F" Street bridge crossing I-5. d. Bay Boulevard between "F" Street and north of the new I-5 southbound freeway ramps. e. "E" Street/Marina Parkway from the easterly subdivision boundary to and including the northbound I-5 freeway ramps. For purposes of approval of the Tentative ~ap, the alignment of Tidelands Avenue shall be as shown on the Tentative Map as submitted October 24, 1986. 4. Prior to approval of any Final Map for the subject property, the developer shall deposit with the City a cash bond sufficient to guarantee the construction of full improvements in Marina Parkway from the southerly subdivision line of the subject property to the existing Tidelands Avenue alignment south of "G" Street. Conceptual Plans for said alignment shall be prepared and shall be the basis of determination of the cash bond amount. The cash deposit and conceptual plans shall include required pedestrian signals and fencing along Marina Parkway/Tidelands Avenue to safely control pedestrian traffic between the Rohr facility and the parking lots west of the roadway. Said facilities to be located and constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5. The following improvements shall be constructed or guaranteed with approval of the first final map. a. Provide exclusive "free" right turn lanes at the freeway ramps for the following turning movements: I-5 N/B off to E/B "E" Street I-5 S/B off to W/B "E" Street I-5 N/B on from W/B "E" Street I-5 S/B on from W/B "E" Street I-5 S/B on from E/B "E" Street b. Provide six traffic lanes and raised median on "E" Street between the I-5 northbound on-off ramps and the easterly trolley station entrance. c. Reconstruct the southbound I-5 freeway on-off ramps to connect directly with Bay Boulevard south of "E" Street including the addition of a southbound to westbound right-turn lane. d. Provide dual left turn lanes at the I-5 N/B off-ramp to W/B "E" Street. e. Widen the "E" Street bridge to provide a wider pedestrian walkway. f. Widen the "E" Street bridge to provide two additional..l~anes of traffic. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 3 6. The developer shall provide bus turnout lanes on Marina Parkway. Locations and design standards to be determined by the Director of Public Works. The design of the bus shall be included in the Bayfront Design Manual. 7. Developer shall provide street striping plans and street lighting plans with all street improvement plans. 8. All on-street parking shall be prohibited on Marina Parkway, Lagoon Drive, Gunpowder Point Drive, Tidelands Avenue, Bay Boulevard, "A" Street, "Private Drive" and "E" Street. 9. Marina Parkway shall be designed to Chula Vista Major Street Standards except that the typical section shall be as shown on the revised tentative map and in accordance with the Certified Local Coastal Program. 10. Lagoon Drive, and Tidelands Avenue north of Marina Parkway shall be designed to Chula Vista Collector Street Standards, except that the typical sections shall be as shown on the revised tentative map and in accordance with the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. ll. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be revised as follows: a. Show tree planting and maintenance easements on cross sections of all public streets. b. Provide typical sections for Tidelands Avenue at the 63 ft. and 64 ft. right-of-way segments. c. Show Tidelands Avenue, Bay Boulevard and the ultimate southbound I-5 on- and off-ramps as currently approved in the Local Coastal Plan. d. Provide details showing Bay Boulevard and the interim southbound I-5 on- and off-ramp configurations per current CalTrans plans. e. Revise the typical section of the proposed "E" Street section. Eastbound curb to curb dimensions vary from 50 to 61 ft. Westbound curb-to-curb dimensions vary from 46 to 77 ft. f. All typical sections listed above, and those provided on the revised Tentative Map submitted to the Engineering Department on January 5, 1987, are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 12. The owner shall make irrevocable offers of dedication for the private drive between Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive and Street "A". "Private Drives" shall be designed to City Collector street standards (except for typical section). Plans for the Private Drive and Street "A" shall be approved by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 4 13. The following vehicular access restrictions shall apply to this tract: a. Unit l, Lots 3 and 6 - No vehicular access to Lagoon Drive. b. Unit 6, Lot 1 - No vehicular access to Lagoon Drive. c. Unit 4, Lots l, 2, and 3 - No vehicular access to Marina Parkway. d. Unit 8, Lot 1 - No vehicular access on Tidelands Avenue within 350 feet of the centerline of Marina Parkway, or on Marina Parkway within 200 feet of the centerline of Gunpowder Point Drive. Any other direct vehicular access to Marina Parkway or Tidelands Avenue shall be restricted to right-turn only ingress and egress. e. Unit 7, Lot 2 - No vehicular access on Lagoon Drive within 200 feet of the centerline of Marina Parkway. f. Unit 7, Lots 1 and 2, and Unit 5, Lot 1 - All vehicular access on Marina Parkway shall be restricted to "right-turn only" ingress and egress, except that one driveway with a median break to allow left-turn ingress and egress will be permitted in proximity to the common lot line between Unit 7, Lot 1 and Unit 5, Lot 1. g. Unit 5, Lot 2 Vehicular access to Marina Parkway shall be restricted to "right-turn only" ingress and egress, except directly opposite Gunpowder Point Drive. h. Unit 3, Lot 2 - No vehicular access to Marina Parkway within 200 feet of the centerline of Tidelands Avenue. i. Unit 3, Lots 1 and 2 - All direct vehicular access to Marina Parkway shall be restricted to "right-turn only" ingress and egress. 14. Direct vehicular access from any public street to any off-street parking lot shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. Access to and the design of any future off-street parking areas using SDG&E right-of-way shall be subject to Director of Public Works approval. 15. The developer shall be responsible for design and construction of railroad safety protection devices at the railroad crossings on Marina Parkway, Lagoon Drive, and Bay Boulevard, including obtaining all required approvals and/or easements, rights of entry, etc. (PUC, MTDB, etc.), prior to occupancy of any buildings. 16. No development or parking lot designs shall be permitted which encourage mid-block pedestrian crossings of public streets. 17. No driveways shall be permitted within bus turnout lanes or within right turn lanes on public streets. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 5 18. Provide vehicular access easements to Lot 1 in Unit 4 from Tidelands Avenue through Lot 2 and/or Lot 3 or design Unit 4 so that all lots have vehicular access frontage on Tidelands Avenue. 19. A traffic signal shall be installed by the developer at the intersection of Tidelands Avenue and Marina Parkway prior to the issuance of building permits for Unit 8. The design and construction of the signal installation shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 20. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all direct and incidental costs for provision of two sewage metering stations to the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System interceptor line as shown on the Tentative Map. Said stations are to be provided under the terms of a pending agreement between the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista for the acquisition, installation and maintenance of metering devices to measure sewer flow. 21. The gravity sewer main in Lagoon Drive shall be extended to the westerly property line of Unit 1 unless the force main is constructed in conjunction with the surface improvements for Unit 1. 22. The sewer pump station shall have an overflow storage capacity to retain peak sewer flows for a period of three hours without spillover into the bay or wetlands in the event of pump system malfunction. 23. Developer shall provide for the perpetual maintenance of all sewer and storm drain pump stations prior to approval of Final Maps for units which require these systems. 24. Paved access shall be provided to all sanitary sewer manholes and sewer and storm drain pump stations. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. 25. Private streets within each unit will be subject to detailed review for compliance with City standards. Preliminary plans for said private streets shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 26. The developer shall grant easements for all off-site public sewer and storm drain prior to approval of any final map requiring those facilities. A joint use agreement with SDG&E may be required within SDG&E easement. 27. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving l0 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. 28. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (#1797 as amended) and in accordance with the ~Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 6 29. Storm drain pump and force main shall be capable of handling the runoff from a design storm of 100 year frequency. Provisions shall be made for trapping debris at all pumps. Developer shall provide evidence that the downstream channel is capable of accepting storm drainage generated by the project. Developer shall provide evidence that pump stations have sufficient storage capacity to retain the in flow of a lO0-year design storm for a two-hour period in the event of pump failure. 30. Storm drains to be maintained by the City shall have a minimum of 1 foot of cover over the top of pipe. 31. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk except as noted for meandering walk designs. 32. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or approved drainage systems. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. 33. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes. 34. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for any off-site grading prior to issuance of grading permits. 35. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans and shall be prepared in accordance with the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. 36. All buildings subject to inundation on a design storm of lO0 year frequency shall meet current Federal Flood insurance standards and the Local Coastal Program conditions. 37. A concrete brow ditch will be required along the easterly boundary of Unit 1. All concrete drainage ditches shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Manual. 38. Developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City to accomplish the following: a. Provide a phasing program specifying off-site improvement requirements. b. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. c. Concurrent or prior to final map recordation all park and open space identified on a tentative map shall be addressed in the Development Agreement concerning dedication and improvements identifying the timing and responsibility between the developer City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 7 and the Redevelopment Agency. Said improvements shall include all pedestrian and bicycle routes as identified in the Bayfront Specific Plan. 39. The developer shall request vacation of right-of-way and shall remove all existing street improvements along Tidelands Avenue within Unit 2 and the City of Chula Vista owned parcel to the north of said Unit 2 at a time agreeable to the City. 40. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring maintenance of the private drive within Units 3 and 6 and shall require that the private drive be kept open to through traffic at all times, unless said closure is approved by the City Engineer. The CC&Rs shall also require that any traffic or speed control devices shall not be install ed until permission is obtained from the City Engineer. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as a party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. A hold harmless agreement for the City shall be approved by the Chula Vista City Attorney. 41. Developer shall submit preliminary development plans for subsequent development of each unit to the City Engineer. The City Engineer and City Planning Director shall review said preliminary plans and determine whether to recommend that the streets within the development should be public or private. 42. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of signs directing the public to public coastal parklands concurrent with the development of the parks. 43. A Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the subdivider identifying the parties responsible for financina and implementation of public improvements and facilities and the wetland/upland enhancement plans shall be approved by the City prior to the recordation of the final map. 44. All measures in the FEIR, SEIR, and related environmental documents required to mitigate potential environmental impacts due to the implementation of the proposed subdivision map must be incorporated into the subdivision map prior to the recordation of final map. 45. All public improvement plans must conform to designs and requirements set forth in the Certified LCP, reference Section 19.87 of the Bayfront Specific Plan must be reviewed, and regulations applied. Special note should be made of Section 19.87.07 which regulates grading and drainage. Rights-of-way, licenses, easements, etc. necessary to implement public improvements and utilities must be obtained prior to the recordation of final map. 46. Approval of the wetland/upland enhancement plans must be achieved and incorporated into the subdivision map prior to the recordation of the final map. Implementation of the plan relative to Units l, 8, 9, and l0 of this map must be implemented prior to unit development or the widening of "F" Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 8 47. All land areas to be publicly owned shall be dedicated to the appropriate public body and accepted via the subdivision map. This should be accomplished prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the final map. 48. All grading and drainage improvements within the wetlands area such as shown on lots l, 2, and 3 of Unit 1 will require permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Development in and adjacent to these areas will not be permitted until the required federal permits are obtained. Said areas will be identified on any grading, drainage, or site plan submitted to the City. 49. Any intended use of the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way for use of parking shall be subject to a specific site plan approval involving all necessary easements and control of access points. 50. A master landscaping concept plan encompassing all of the park areas, public open spgce, and street median shall be developed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include cost estimates as well as the responsibility for development. All park planning shall be coordinated through the Parks and Recreation Commission. Prior to the recordation of any final map, a design manual shall be approved by the Agency addressing design issues such as street furniture, fencing standards, hardscape, entry points, lighting, and design principles for building and site planning. 51. Additional 10 foot right-of-way or easement shall be provided adjacent to Marina Parkway to provide for a meandering sidewalk design. 52. A maintenance district shall be established for, but not limited to, park, open space, street sweeping, and drainage maintenance. 53. Residential area Units 4 and 5 shall be retained as a single lot until such time as a development plan is approved by the City. Said plan must incorporate 2 acres of open space to provide public connection, both physical and visual, between Unit 9, the bayside park area, and Unit 10, the central park area. The developer shall record an easement on the final map acknowledging the 2 acre connection. 54. All storm water detention facilities shall be removed from the public parkland area. 55. The maximum slope angle for the berm areas shown throughout the bayfront area shall be 3:1 or less. 56. All public and private streets shall be named concurrent with the recordation of the final map. 57. Street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the design and materials specified in the sign program of the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 9 58. The following map revisions are required: a. Show tree planting and maintenance easements on cross sections of all public streets. b. Provide typical sections for Tidelands Avenue at the 63 ft. and 64 ft. right-of-way segments. c. Show Tidelands Avenue, Bay Boulevard and the ultimate southbound I-5 on- and off-ramps as currently approved in the Local Coastal Program. d. Provide details showing Bay Boulevard and the interim southbound I-5 on- and off-ramp configurations per current CalTrans plans. e. Revise the typical section of the proposed "E" Street section. Eastbound curb to curb dimensions vary from 50 to 61 ft. Westbound curb-to-curb dimensions vary from 46 to 77 ft. f. All typical sections listed above, and those provided on the revised Tentative Map submitted to the Engineering Department on Januar~y 5, 1987, are subject to approval by the City Engineer. C. ANALYSIS: 1. Basic land description and location. The subject 125 acres proposed for subdividing represents a majority of the Midbayfront area bounded by the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way to the east, San Diego Bay to the west, Rohr Corporation to the south, and the undeveloped wetlands area to the north. Unit 1 includes ll-1/2 acres, the balance of the industrial land identified in the plan. Unit 2 and a portion of Unit 9 total approximately 24 acres of wetland and buffer area. Units 3, 6, and 8 comprise all of the 45 acres of office park planned for the Midbayfront which includes a commitment to approximately 4 acres of specialty retail per the Local Coastal Program. Unit 4 consists of 3-1/2 acres of highway commercial use. Units 5 and 7 are identified as 16-1/2 acres of residential development which is obligated to provide 2 acres of parkland open to the public. Units 9, lO, and a portion of Unit 2 complete the approximately 21 acres of identifiable parkland located within the subdivision boundaries. 2. Development Agreement. A Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the subdivider identifying the parties responsible for financing and implementation of various improvements and facilities, including the wetland/upland enhancement plans, is the specific condition placed on the map. This must be accomplished prior to recordation of the final map. All conditions of approval outlined and identified in this report shall be the responsibility of the subdivider unless separately addressed in the Development Agreement with responsibility assigned elsewhere. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page l0 3. Parks. The approved Local Coastal Program for the Midbayfront area identified 26+ acres of parkland. As indicated in the BACKGROUND portion of this report, the subdivision boundaries include approximately 21 acres of identifiable parkland with an additional 2 acres to be either dedicated for park purposes or developed with a visual landscaping element through the residential area providing a public accessway from the park in the center of Unit 10 west to the bayside park adjacent to Marina Parkway. In addition, there are approximately 4 acres of parkland identified on the south side of Lagoon Drive, both west and east of Marina Parkway. Further, there is an existing 1 acre park at the northwest corner of Lagoon Drive ("F" Street) and Bay Boulevard. Thus, the subdivision map, in conjunction with the adjacent parklands outside the boundaries of the subdivision, would comply with the park requirements of 26+ acres outlined in the LCP without dedication of 2 acres of park within the residential area. Based on the City's Park Ordinance and predicated on the actual number of residential units to be constructed on Units 5 and 7, the developer would be obligated to improve between 2 and 3 acres of parkland. Thus, the amount of park area shown within the subdivision boundaries and that identified on the LCP substantially exceed the obligations typically required of a developer. Based on this information, the actual park improvement to be required of the developer should be negotiated in the Development Agreement. The proposed grading plan and lack of any identifiable phasing program has resulted in the developer proposing to use the identified park areas as detention basins during storm conditions. The City's Director of Parks and Recreation has clearly stated that such a program is not acceptable to his department. Therefore, a condition is being placed on the plan precluding the use of the parks as detention basins and requiring that prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Midbayfront area that a revised grading plan be approved by the City Engineer identifying private property to be used for detention basins for an interim period. An EIR/EIS is being prepared for the Bayfront projects requiring federal approvals, and it is anticipated that in approximately 1 year a Section 404 permit would be issued eliminating the need for the detention basins and, thus, allowing construction to proceed on the lots designated for this interim use. It is staff's recommendation that public parkland not be used as detention basins. The Parks and Recreation Director is further recommending that a concept plan be developed at this time to identify the intended use and design for the park and open space areas. The Planning Department concurs that it would be advisable to develop a concept plan at the earliest possible date and that the actual timing for both design and construction of the parkland and open space areas should be clearly identified in the Development Agreement. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page ll 4. Phasing. When asked to submit a phasing program, the developer responded with an improvement phasing document which outlines their intended improvements for each of the units identified in the tentative map. The program, as a developer envisions it, would allow for each of the units to be developed independent of the others. Therefore, the Planning and Engineering Departments of the City felt there was no alternative but to require that all improvements required for the entire subdivision be guaranteed, if not installed, with the recordation of any map. Should a true phasing map be submitted for consideration, City could reconsider the matter. 5. Improvements. l) There are a number of significant public improvements being required as part of this subdivision map process, many of which relate to the proposed circulation element. Marina Parkway is stubbed to the south property line of the subdivision boundary interfacing with property under the jurisdiction of the Port District. The approved LCP design extends Marina Parkway to the south with an alignment continuing further to the east to connect with Tidelands Avenue. The Port District has indicated that they are generally agreeable to such a connection; however, the specific design solution has not been agreed upon at this time. Because of the uncertainty of the design solution and the fact that the extension of the road represents an off-site improvement necessary for the recordation of this subdivision map, staff is recommending that a cash deposit be set aside to ensure the acquisition and development for the necessary road improvements to make the connection satisfactory to the City Engineer. 2} The developer is proposing that Street "A" which serves the industrial development south of Lagoon Drive and the private drive identified to connect Marina Parkway with Lagoon Drive both be identified as private streets rather than public. Both the Planning and Engineering Department have no specific objections as long as the proper easements and structural sections are designed in accordance with approved Planning and Engineering standards and recorded prior to any development of any of the parcels affected by those private streets. The developer should recognize that the utilization of private streets in these areas will not cause any adjustments to required setbacks or limits on floor area ratios since those figures will be based on the net lot area exclusive of these private streets which would function the same as a public street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 12 3) In the Certified LCP (as amended), a condition was established for the applicant to prepare a feasibility study addressing the potential widening of the "E" Street bridge at I-5 to accommodate seven to nine lanes concurrent or prior to the Midbayfront tentative subdivision map approval. The applicant's tentative map reflects a six-lane bridge in conjunction with a modified loop design located on the west side of the freeway. Based on the fact that no feasibility study has been submitted at this time, it is our recommendation that the applicant be obligated to provide the necessary funding to widen the bridge and provide the necessary transition acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer for the area lying east of the bridge along "E" Street extending to at least Woodlawn Avenue. Such construction will likely involve the acquisition of additional right-of-way to comply with the design criteria. 4) The tentative map has recently been revised to reflect a change at the northwest quadrant of I-5 and "E" Street representing a substantial departure from the approved LCP. The I-5 southbound off-ramp as depicted in the LCP would "T" into "E" Street aligned with Bay Boulevard to the south. Under the new revised tentative map, the southbound off-ramp actually "T"s into Bay Boulevard several hundred feet north of "E" Street. This was done to accommodate a design change based partially on the fact that utilities exist within Bay Boulevard which cannot be modified at this time and would require easements which are unacceptable to CalTrans because of their linear nature. The second part of the design change provides one northbound lane of traffic from "E" Street extending to the highway commercial property located between the I-5 freeway and the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. In addition, Tidelands Avenue, which was shown in the Certified LCP as extending northerly from Marina Parkway in a curvilinear manner then extending parallel with the easterly boundary of the San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way to the north, has been modified resulting in Tidelands Avenue "T"ing into an extension of Bay Boulevard. This combination of changes, which is neither acceptable to CalTrans nor the City Traffic Engineer, would result in a group of traffic signals in a small quadrant of land encompassed by Bay Boulevard, Tidelands Avenue, and Marina Parkway, which has not been addressed from the standpoint of traffic impacts or an amended LCP. Therefore, the staff is recommending that Tidelands Avenue be realigned in accordance with the alignment shown on the Certified Local Coastal Program and that the northbound traffic shown on Bay Boulevard for the area north of "E" Street be eliminated. These changes would bring the map into conformance with the adopted LCP. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 13 5) Pedestrian Overpass. The LCP required that the developer submit a feasibility study regarding the construction and the location of a pedestrian overpass to provide pedestrian access between residential Units 5 and ? and the proposed bayside park. The intent of such study was to determine the cost and both the feasibility and desirability of having a pedestrian connection between the central park area identified in Unit 10 and the bayside park area identified as Unit 9. The developer has submitted a very brief analysis and design study showing that a pedestrian bridge located at this point would cost between $500,000 and $600,000 and, in their opinion, would represent a rather negative visual impact due to the required ramping necessary to meet the handicapped standards. The pedestrian bridge itself would have to have a minimum of an 18-1/2 foot clearance from the road bed because of the road classification of Marina Parkway. It is staff's opinion that the linear nature of the bayside park and the logical location of parking and activity areas, which would be located closer to the Marina Parkway/Gunpowder Point Drive intersection and also Marina Parkway/Lagoon Drive intersection, negate the need for the pedestrian overpass. On-street parking is prohibited on all of the public streets including Marina Parkway, and it is anticipated that signalization will occur both at the Lagoon Drive/Marina Parkway intersection and the Marina Parkway/Gunpowder Point Drive intersection. Pedestrians will be able to cross at those two points which are within reasonable walking distance from any point along the bayside park area. 6) San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way. The 150 foot wide San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way which runs along the easterly boundary of the subdivision map is not included as part of the subdivision; however, it is shown in the Certified LCP as a heavily landscaped parking area. The opportunity for the Midbayfront lots to utilize this parking area and increase the development potential on the lots is something that needs to be explored by the developer. San Diego Gas & Electric representatives have indicated that discussions with the applicant regarding the use of the right-of-way for parking have not taken place to date. The adjacent lots created within the subdivision would certainly benefit if this area could be utilized for parking; therefore, we would encourage the mutual cooperation of the applicant and SDG&E. 7) Residential. The residential area identified as Unit 5 and ? on the map is proposed to be divided into five lots ranging from just under 3 acres in size to just over 4 acres in size. It is staff's recommendation that this area should remain as a single lot until such time as a Development Plan is submitted giving staff an opportunity to review the location of buildings, open space, parking areas, and the landscaped park area which will City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 14 connect the public park identified in Unit 10 and the bayside park identified in Unit 9. This linkage can be accomplished on private property through the use of easements with the adjacent landscaping to be maintained by a homeowners' association or an apartment owner, if a condominium map is not filed. However, in absence of any plan submitted, it is our opinion that the project should remain as a single lot. It should also be noted that the LCP includes a residential area just over 18 acres in size with a density range of between 15 and 30 dwelling units per acre authorized resulting in a project of 270 - 540 units. With the area reduced to 16-1/2 acres and a commitment of approximately 2 acres for the public accessway, the developable area is only approximately 14-1/2 acres. Therefore, the minimum number of dwelling units per acre should be established at 20, which would result in a project of approximately 280 units. This would allow the development to remain within the density range established in the LCP. The following are Code requirements: 1. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the Subdivision. All utilities serving the subdivision shall be undergrounded. 4. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. 5. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of Final Maps and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. 6. Fire Department - see attached. D. FINDINGS: 1. Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act Tentative Map for Chula Vista Bayfront Subdivision, Reference CVT-87-4 is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the Chula Vista General Plan, which is the Certified Local Coastal Program, based on the following: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 15 a. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development and conforms to all of the standards established by the City for such projects based on the recommended conditions. Such determination is based on the approval of the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Land Use Plan which are consistent with the proposed Tentative Map. b. The design of the Subdivision will not affect the existing improvements, street service, etc. which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. The Subdivision has been designed to connect into and complement existing streets and drainage systems, and the services have been designed to handle the proposed capacities. c. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan elements as follows: 1) Land Use. The proposed development is in keeping with the land use pattern as adopted by the Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan. 2) Circulation The proposed route connections and off-site street improvements as noted on the conditions of approval will provide the necessary grid pattern to link this project with existing and proposed developments which abut on all sides. The proposed conditions of approval will allow the project to proceed by mitigating all adverse impacts identified in the environmental review documents. 3) Housing The proposed development is designed to provide housing at a medium density for the upper middle to middle income categories. This represents an extension of the densities of the closest residential area now existing on the east side of the I-5 freeway. The residential area is surrounded by open space which will be part of the wetlands program and land proposed to be developed for park purposes, 4) Forest Conservation The map identifies over 24 acres of wetland and buffer areas to be incorporated within this project as well an additional 23 acres of park land. In addition, conditions are imposed to ensure that the land will be developed in accordance with the certified LCP and the wetlands enhancement plans now being prepared. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 16 5) Parks and Recreation Open Space The plan reflects approximately 23 acres of parkland which is well in excess of the amount of parkland required by the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The proposed park and open space area is consistent with the Certified LCP. 6) Seismic Safety The subject property is not traversed by any known earthquake faults or traces, although the San Diego Bay Fault lies approximately a mile to the west in the middle of San Diego Bay running approximately in a north-south direction. 7) Safety The development is located within the acceptable response time of the Chula Vista Fire Station located near the corner of Fourth and "F" Streets in Chula Vista. The proposed conditions of approval and standard requirements as set forth by the City Ordinances will provide for the proper water pressure and access routes for emergency vehicles to the various projects proposed within the subdivision. 8) Noise Those portions of development which are adjacent to major road systems will require additional environmental review depending on the type of project proposed to ensure compliance with City and State noise regulations. The proposed dwelling units will be required to meet the standards specified in the Uniform Building Code for noise criteria. 9) Scenic Highways Both the extension of "E" Street and Marina Parkway are identified on the Scenic Route Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. The Design Manual being developed for the Chula Vista Bayfront area will set forth the design criteria for landscaping and building elements necessary to carry out the intent of the Scenic Route Plan. Recordation of this subdivision map is predicated upon completion and incorporation of the Design Manual as part of the Subdivision Map Process. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 17 10) Bike Routes The proposed street sections and open space areas identified on this subdivision map together with the conditions imposed will ensure the continued linkage of the bike system within the Midbayfront area to the adjoining Bayfront properties to the south as well as the remaining City area to the east. Bicycle lanes and paths will be provided in accordance with the Certified LCP. ll) Public Buildings Public buildings are neither proposed or required on the project site with the exception of limited bus shelters which will be provided at major loading areas. WPC 3501 P Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-34M/P79-O13; consideration of action to conditionally revoke major use permits for operation of an auto dismantling firm at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - John and Carol Marguez A. BACKGROUND The Planning Department has initiated proceedings to conditionally revoke the major use permits granted for J and C Auto Wreckers, located at 3513 and 3517 Main Street, for failure to fulfill the conditions of the permit. The following conditions have been violated or unfulfilled: B(3) Install all landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan including the watering system. F. All landscaping shall be adequately watered and well maintained at all times. G. No dismantling or open storage shall be allowed within 400 feet of the front property line. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed action is exempt from the regulations outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act and requires no further environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion to revoke major use permits P79-013 and PCC-86-34M and direct J and C Auto Wreckers to cease operations at 3513 and 3517 Main Street as of March 31, 1987, subject to the following conditions: a. Authorize the Zoning Administrator to stay the revocation if it is shown that: l) A landscape plan has been submitted and approved by the City Landscape Architect. 2) The landscaping has been installed and inspected for compliance with the approved plan. 3) Storage of junk cars and all auto dismantling remains within the area designated in the major use permit for those activities, outside of the front portion of the property designated for parking, landscape and used parts sales, subject to random on-site inspection and confirmation by City staff. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 2 4) The landscaping is adequately watered and well maintained at all times, subject to random on-site inspection and confirmation by City staff. The Zoning Administrator may grant a maximum of four 90-day stays based upon a showing of compliance as outlined above. If compliance is thus confirmed for a one-year period, major use permits P79-013 and PCC-86-34M will be set for rehearing before the Commission to reconsider the revocation. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of January 7, 1987, voted to recommend conditional revocation of the major use permit in concert with staff's recommendation. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North I-L and M-52 SDG&E substation, used truck and equipment sales and repair South A-70-8 Otay River East M-54, M-58 Auto dismantling West M-54 Auto dismantling, car wash D. ANALYSIS On May 4, 1979, the County of San Diego granted an application for a major use permit subject to certain conditions to allow an auto dismantling operation on approximately 13.78 acres of property located at 3513 and 3517 Main Street, in the Montgomery community. The property had been previously used as a dairy farm. The zoning at the time was M-52 Limited Industrial and M-54 General Industrial. Among the conditions of the major use permit were requirements to submit a landscaping and irrigation plan for approval by County Planning, install the landscaping as shown on the plan submitted and adequately water and maintain the landscaping at all times. In addition to this, because the front 400 feet of the property adjacent to Main Street was zoned M-52, which did not allow auto dismantling, and because auto dismantling is typically an unsightly operation unless shielded from view by a combination of fencing and landscaping, auto dismantling was restricted to confinement behind an 8-foot fence and designated only on the property then zoned M-54. That dismantling and storage area constitutes approximately 10.6 acres of land. The applicant submitted a landscape plan which was approved by County staff and constructed an 8-foot fence along the perimeter of the dismantling area. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 3 In March of 1986, the owners of J and C Auto Wreckers approached staff with a preliminary proposal to remove th caretaker's residence from the front of the property and place a prefabricated building in its place, either for sales of used auto parts or to be used in conjunction with a used car lot. The front 400 feet of the property had been rezoned to an M-54 zone in May of 1985 to conform with the dismantling operation allowed by P79-013. The owners were informed that in order to accomplish their proposal, their major use permit would need to be modified and a specific use identified for the proposed building. An application was not filed at that time. On May 9, 1986, zoning enforcement cited the owners of the property for engaging in construction of the metal building without building permits or planning department approval. It was noted at that time that the landscaping had not been maintained and had disappeared, and that large numbers of junked cars were routinely being stored in the front portion of the lot designated for parking. The following is a chronology of the actions taken in 1986 by the owners and by staff with respect to the problem: )lay 12-June 12: The owners met with staff several times to prepare a modification to their major use permit to allow a metal building for used parts sales. They were informed by staff that the wrecked cars must be removed from the front of the lot and that landscaping must be upgraded. June 12-July 7: The owners filed an application for a major use permit modification, PCC-86-34M, to allow a metal building for used parts sales. The modification was approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to the condition that a plan for upgrading the existing areas designated for landscaping fronting on Main Street be submitted for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. The issue of storage of junked cars as referred to zoning enforcement for abatement. July 7-August 28: The owners submitted plans for building permits, including a landscaping plan. The City Landscape Architect informed them that the plan submitted did not conform to the City Landscape Manual and was not prepared by a person qualified to do such work. October 7: Zoning Enforcement notified the owners that wrecked autos were ~ot allowed in the front of the lot. Zoning Enforcement was told that the cars were for sale. The owners were notified that used car sales were not allowed unless the major use permit was modified to allow such use. October 13: The owners telephoned and stated that the cars in question ~ould be removed by October 14 and that and landscape work would start. November 7: The property was inspected and found that nothing was done. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 4 November 10: In response to a complaint submitted to the City Council that portions of the Otay River area were being illegally filled, the City Attorney and representatives from Community Development, Planning, and Engineering inspected the property. It was found that approximately 4,000 cubic yards of fill had been deposited at the rear of the auto dismantling operation, encroaching into the floodway and that junk was stored outside of the perimeter fence. In addition, a soil processing firm was in operation within the fill area. The autos at the front of the lot had not been removed and no landscape work was evident. November 17: The owners were notified that the department was initiating proceedings to revoke the major use permits for failure to adhere to the conditions of the permit. Zoning violations involving the soils processing firm were referred to Zoning Enforcement for abatement. Planning staff and owners of the property have since met on several occasions to address the various violations associated with the property. The property was checked on December 17 and it was noted that wrecked cars and/or autos for sale have been removed from the front of the property. The owners have stated that they have engaged a licensed landscape architect to prepare a plan in conformance with the City Landscape manual. Staff is recommending that the major use permit be conditionally revoked subject to authorization to allow the Zoning Administrator to grant up to four stays of revocation, if it is shown that landscaping has been or is in the process of installation and that the property continues to be maintained according to the conditions of the permit. In this way, progress in rehabilitating these violations can be closely monitored to insure that violations of this nature on the property do not recur continually. Zoning violations associated with the soils operation operating at the rear of the auto dismantling operation are located outside the boundaries of the major use permit and are, therefore, not included in this revocation action. These violations are being addressed by Zoning Enforcement as a separate issue. Contact has been made with the affected parties to develop an abatement schedule. WPC 3486P/2652P BRITTON *ST. A-~-~O)' © ~ LOCATOR %3513 & GSa? MAIN STREET Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-10 - Consideration of an amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to allow off premise temporary real estate open house signs in residential zones A. BACKGROUND 1. At the City Council meeting of March 3, 1986, the South Bay Board of Realtors requested that Council consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-premise temporary real estate open house signs in residential zones. The Board of Directors has stated that most resale homes are sold through the open house process, and existing street patterns often make it difficult to locate an open house without the use of an open house directional sign. Council directed staff to prepare such an amendment. There are currently no provisions for permitting off-premise open house directional signs in residential zones in the Zoning Ordinances for both Chula Vista and the Montgomery area. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this action is exempt from the regulations outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act, and that no environmental review is required. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a recommendation to approve the proposed ordinance amendment as outlined in Exhibit A and B, attached and made a part hereto, the ordinance to expire one year after the date of adoption unless legislation to renew the ordinances are approved by the City Council prior to that date. The Montgomery Planning Committee at their meeting of January 7, 1987, voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinances, subject to the followin§ revisions: 1. There should be no limit on the number of off-premise open house signs permitted per residential open house. 2. Corner lots should be allowed to have one sign per frontage, or two signs total per corner lot. 3. The signs should be allowed throughout days of the week. 4. Size limitations and restrictions on the location of signs from the curb should be deleted. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 2 5. Sign copy should include the company logo and a directional arrow. 6. Placement of signs should not be contingent on securing written permission from the property owner. 7. The sunset clause should be deleted. Staff has revised the proposed ordinances to reflect recommendations 5 and 6. However, in view of potential problems with visual clutter, enforcement of the ordinance, and insuring placement of the signs outside of the right-of-way, staff is recommending adoption of the balance of the ordinances as originally drafted. C. ANALYSIS The South Bay Board of Realtors request for an ordinance amendment was made to allow residents selling a single family home to place one open house sign off premise to direct potential buyers to the location of the home. The Board has stated that in their experience most resale homes are sold using the open house process. Buyers are attracted who have pre-determined the area in which they wish to reside, and often select the home they ultimately purchase by driving the streets of the area. Existing street patterns may make it difficult to locate an open house without the use of an open house directional sign. Staff has reviewed the request and is of the opinion that off-premise open house signs could be accommodated within Chula Vista subject to the limitations outlined in the proposed ordinance language in Exhibits A and B of this report. The restriction on the use and location of these signs serve to address issues involving potential problems with creation of visual clutter and enforcement of the ordinance. These issues are discussed below. Visual Clutter In permitting off-premise open house signs in residential areas, there is some potential for producing visual clutter created by utilizing numerous signs for one open house, posting the signs on a continuous basis, or posting signs for each of a number of lots, such as in the sale of new homes in a newly created subdivision. Signs could also accumulate in certain locations with high visual exposure, creating an unsightly appearance. The ordinance language as proposed would serve to minimize a cluttered appearance within residential neighborhoods by limiting the number of off premise open house signs permitted to one sign for each residential open house, and by limiting placement of the off premise signs to one on each parcel. There are other restrictions which limit the times that the signs can be displayed to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, as well as limitations on the size and locations that the sign may be posted on a lot. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 3 Since the purpose of permitting an off-site premise open house sign is to facilitate location of an open house for one single family residence, off-premise signs for more than one lot or more than two dwellings are excluded from this ordinance. Provision of off-premise signs for multiple lots and dwellings are regulated in ordinances dealing with subdivision directional signs in the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, and temporary real estate directional signs in the Montgomery Zoning Ordinance. Placement of Signs in the Right-of-Way Signs of any type are generally prohibited from being placed within the public right-of-way. In order to insure that off-premise open house signs are not placed within the public right-of-way, staff is recommending that the signs be placed 3 feet from the sidewalk or 10 feet from the curb or edge of pavement, whichever distance is greater. This corresponds to current street design standards for residential and residential collector streets; those standards require l0 feet of right-of-way from the curb to the property line. In some cases, the right-of-way extends further than the current 10 foot standard to 15 feet from the curb. In those instances, placement of signs 3 feet from the sidewalk insures that the sign is not in the right-of-way, because where parkways exist, the property line is typically located 2 feet from the sidewalk. Enforcement A review of the zoning ordinances dealing with off-premise real estate signs in nine other jurisdictions revealed that all but one of the jurisdictions questioned prohibited any type of off-premise real estate open house sign in residential zones. Those jurisdictions include Coronado, E1 Cajon, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego, Poway, San Diego County, Oceanside, and Escondido. The City of Poway permits off-premise temporary open house signs without any limitation on the display of signs to certain days of the week. As a result, off-premise signs in Poway are sometimes posted on a continuous basis for several weeks by individuals claiming to be holding a constant "open house" until that particular residence is sold. The ordinance has been abused so that, in reality, off-premise open house signs are used in the same manner as on-premise real estate signs. There is no permit required for the sign, so it becomes difficult to track the length of time the sign has been displayed and the date the open house was to have been held. The proposed ordinance language, by limiting the display of signs to certain days of the week would aid in curtailing the use of open house signs in the same manner as on-premise real estate signs; those siqns still posted during the week would clearly be in violation of the ordinance and could be removed by enforcement personnel. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 14, 1987 Page 4 Requiring a temporary permit for off-premise real estate open house signs would, in staff's opinion, not be practical or easy to implement due to the potential impact on staff time and resources in processing the permit, and an inordinate inconvenience to the applicant. Rather than require a sign permit, staff recommends adoption of the ordinance with the inclusion of a sunset clause causing the ordinance to expire after one year unless Council takes specific action to renew the legislation. The sunset clause would facilitate a review of the ordinance to determine if compliance with the ordinance or visual appearance of residential areas become recurring problems. WPC 3477P EXHIBIT A TITLE 19 CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.60.385 Off Premise Temporary Real Estate Open House Signs. Off premises temporary real estate open house signs shall be permitted within all residential zones subject to the followiny conditions: A. No more than one off premise open house sign shall be -- allowed for each residential open house which occurs. B. No more than one sign shall he allowed to be placed on any parcel. C. Off premise open house signs shall only be displayed on -- Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours. D. Signs shall be no larger than 4 square feet and shall be -- located at minimum of 3 feet from the sidewalk or l0 feel from the curb or edge of pavement, whichever distance i~ greater. E. An off premise temporary real estate open house sign shall only be permitted in conjunction with an open house held for the resale of one single family residence. Off premise signs advertising the sale of more than one lot or more than two dwellings constitutes a subdivision directional sign subject to the regulations outlined in Sectiofl 19.60.480. F. Copy display on off premise temporary real estate open -- house signs shall be limited to the words "Open House," thu address o~ the property, the logo o~ the company, and d directional arrow. G. Off premise open house signs are prohibited within the public right-of-way. WPC 3460P EXHIBIT B ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR MONTGOMERY AREA 19.70.016 Off Premise Temporary Real Estate Open House Signs. Off premises temporary real estate open house signs shall be permitted within all residential zones subject to the following conditions: A. No more than one off premise open house sign shall be -- allowed for each residential open house which occurs. B. No more than one sign shall be allowed to be placed on any parcel. C. Off premise open house signs shall only be displayed on -- Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours. D. Signs shall be no larger than 4 square feet and shall be -- located at minimum of 3 feet from the sidewalk or 10 feel from the curb or edge of pavement, whichever distance i> ~reater. E. An off premise temporary real estate open house sign shall -- only be permitted in conjunction with an open house held for the resale of one single family residence. Off premise signs advertising the sale of more than one lot or more than two dwellings constitutes a temporary real estate direct~ona~ sign subject to the regulations outlined in Section 6207(a). F. Copy display on off premise temporary real estate open -- house signs shall be limited to the words "Open House," thc address ot the property, %~e logo ot the company, an~ d directional arrow. G. Off premise open house signs are prohibited within the -- public right-of-way. WPC 3455P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Janua~ 14, 1987 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-3; Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to repeal certain portions of Section 19.12.110 which require a City Council override of a Planning Commission) denial to ~lrst be re~erreO back to the P)annlng commission for report and recommendation A. BACKGROUND On November 18, 1986, the City Council approved a request to rezone 0.19 ~cres at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-5 for Educare Children's Center. Due to existing Municipal Code requirements this item had to be referred back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. Council directed that that section of the Code be repealed. The amendment is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend Section 19.12.110 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION This provision was originally intended to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to consider conditions, or other recommendations which might be appropriate in the instance where a denial recommendation by them is overriden by the City Council. D. ANALYSIS The provision has been cumbersome and not particularly effective toward improving or changing any particular Commission or Council action. It should be repealed. This will result in a time savings to an applicant as well. WPC 3467P Exhibit A PCA-87-3 Amend Section 19.12.Il0 of the Municipal Code 19.12.Il0 Commission-Denial actions-Appeal procedure. If an application for change or reclassification or adoption or amendment of the comprehensive zoning law is denied by the commission, the applicant or interested party may, within ten days of the date of the mailing of the notification of denial, appeal to the city council by written notice of appeal filed with the city clerk. Such appeal shall be filed in duplicate and shall set forth specifically wherein the commission's findings were in error and wherein the public necessity, convenience, welfare or good zoning practice require such change or reclassification. Upon receipt of such appeal, the city clerk shall set the matter for hearing in the manner prescribed herein, and shall forward the findings of fact of the planning commission to the city council. The city council may, after the public hearing and consideration of the matter, affirm the action of the planning commission or may grant the appeal or a modification thereof by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its total membership. t~ ~ l /a~/d~ ld~ l ~l lg~/a/~d l ~ l ~l l f~d~ l £~l ldel~/i/WV l ~ l /bh/d l ~l ~$ ~ ~6 / ~d / ~/ / ~$ / /~d / ~ / ~ $ ~ ~ ~/ / ~ / /~ / /d~ / ~/ / ~ / ~ ~//~//~//~~ {Ord. 1212 ~ 1 {part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.1203(2).) WPC 3467P