Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/03/14 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 14, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of January 24 and February 14, 1990 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. .PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-05: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Villa Del Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, John and Yolanda Pollerena (continued from 2/28/90) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-I-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, generally bounded by Walnut Drive, Main Street, Palm Drive and the Autumn Hills Condominium project from its City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed rezonings are confined to the "Woodlawn Park/ East Woodlawn Park" subcommunity of Montgomery and are governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988 and on September 13, 1988. Short form of Title of Proposal: Woodlawn Park/East Woodlawn Park 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-11, Olympic Training Center 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-27: Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to establish a retail distribution center for office products and supplies in an existing building on 1.4 acres at 630 'L' Street in the I-L Limited Industrial Zone - Office Club, Inc. AGENDA -2- March 14, 1990 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-04: Consideration of amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code relating to nonconforming signs abatement and appeal of sign design decisions of the Zoning Administrator - City Initiated OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 28, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-05 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Villa Del Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, John and Yolanda Pollorena A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Villa Del Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, in order to develop a three-lot condominium project consisting of ten units on .91 acres northeast of the intersection of Oxford Street and Fifth Avenue. 2. The Design Review Committee previously adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-81M {August 24, 1989) which includes the site in question. As the project before the Planning Commission has changed from the proposal that went before the DRC on Addendum to IS-89-81M has been prepared. 3. The project design was approved by the Design Review Committee on August 24, 1989. 4. The Montgomery Planning Committee held a public hearing on the project on March 7, 1990. At that time, the attached petition was circulated. After a discussion, the members voted 4 to 2 to approve the Negative Declaration IS-89-81M. Two members voted "no" because one of the schools listed on the data sheet was incorrect and the reasoning of the School Districts in continuing to take students when they were over capacity was not known. Staff have corrected the incorrect information on the data sheets circulated to the Planning Commission. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted to recommend that the Planning Commission not approve the tentative subdivision map for Villa Del Rey Condos, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, (3 were in favor, 2 against and 1 abstained). There was some confusion at the meeting as to the basis for allowing 10 units on the site. The zoning would allow only 8 units. It was staff's assumption that the bonus of two units was based on the City's density bonus program for affordable housing. Members of the Planning Committee voting against this motion did not agree that the project "fit" given a $100,000 sale price quoted by the applicant as the lowest priced unit. Subsequent to the meeting and with further research and review of the matter, it was determined that Villa del Rey Condos is a "pipeline" project, that the l0 units, which would have been allowed under the County's RV-15 zoning were approved at the time the City adopted County zoning was in place. Again, the subject matter before the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission is not the density of the project, but rather whether this project becomes a rental or a for sale product. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 B, RECOMMENDATION Adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-81M. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Villa del Rey Condos, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall show compliance with the City's Growth Management Element and Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 3. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Sweetwater Authority to provide the necessary water service and water facility improvements prior to project approval. 4. The amount of any fees applicable to the project, including but not limited to PAD, DIF, and RCT fees shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. 5. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of agreement with the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater School District regarding the provision of adequate school facilities for the project prior to the approval of a final map. 6. The owner shall improve Fifth Avenue adjacent to the subdivision to include, but not be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk and a street light. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards for a Class II collector street. 7. The owner shall dedicate 2 feet of right-of-way along the subdivision frontage on Fifth Avenue and a 5.5 foot wide easement for street tree planting and maintenance purposes. 8. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. 9. Owner shall be responsible for the installation of one 250 HPSV light on Fifth Avenue 6.75 feet from the curb line in accordance with CVCS 6 and 7. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 10. Owner shall provide street drainage improvements in front of existing residence at 1180 Fifth Avenue. Method for handling street drainage must not restrict access to said residence. Complete street improvements may be necessary as determined by the City Engineer. If full street improvements are required, the owner may request that the City establish a reimbursement district to provide for reimbursement from benefitting properties and the appropriate residents would be polled as to whether or not they wished this to occur prior to the establishment of a reimbursement district. ll. The existing peak discharge of storm water from the site to adjacent properties shall not be increased for a lO-year frequency storm. 12. Owner shall provide a street transition on Fifth Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Transition may include but is not limited to A.C. pavement, A.C. berm and traffic markings. 13. The existing 20 foot ingress and egress easement located on the northeasterly portion of the site shall be quit claimed prior to approval of the final map. 14. The applicant shall submit a fence/wall plan subject to staff review and approval to determine appropriate fencing and treatment. 15. Fences and walls shall be coordinated with grading and drainage in order to make sure there is consistent program. 16. Applicant must file CC&R's, these shall include: prohibition of TV antennas, garage conversions, and maintenance of common areas and driveways. a prohibition against parking outside of a designated area. 17. A lighting plan shall be submitted for vehicular circulation, pedestrian, and garage areas subject to staff review and approval. Code Requirements 1. All overhead utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 2. The owner shall pay traffic signal participation fees currently estimated in the amount of $800 prior to the issuance of building permits. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 4 3. The owner shall pay sewer connection fees currently estimated in the amount of $15,170 prior to the issuance of the building permits. 4. The owner shall pay Montgomery sewer service charges prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The owner shall pay development impact fees currently estimated in the amount of $10,470 prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The owner shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. C. DISCUSSION The Villa Del Rey Condos tentative subdivision map proposes l0 units on .91 acres. The properties to the north are developed with a single family dwelling and the Sweetwater Union High School District offices. Immediately south of the project to Oxford Street is vacant land. To the east, across Fifth Avenue, are single family residences. Immediately west of the project are the Villa Granada Apartments. The site is basically level and vacant except for the existence of one single family dwelling that will be demolished if this project is approved. The project is a 10-unit condominium project in five two-story duplex structures served by a system of private drives with a single access point off Fifth Avenue. The ten two-story units, which range from 1,200 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. will each have a 2-car garage and private fenced yard. The approximate lot size for each duplex is 6,000 sq. ft. Four visitor parking spaces have been provided. A recreation building and a pool for use by residents is proposed at the northwestern part of the site. As previously stated, this project was approved at the Design Review Committee level. The action to be taken by the Planning Commission will be a decision as to whether the individual units can be rented or sold. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Villa Del Rey Condominiums, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 5 1. The site is physically suitable for 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 and sewers which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use The residential type and density proposed is consistent with the adopted Montgomery Specific Plan which serves as the General Plan for the Montgomery Community. b. Circulation - Circulation consists of private drives consistent with City standards. A single access point off of Fifth Avenue will minimize traffic conflicts. c. Housing - The project will provide attached duplexes as one of several housing alternatives within the Montgomery community. d. Conservation - As the development of this site as residential is appropriate and will not impact areas designated for conservation, this will not negatively impact the areas set aside for conservation by the Chula Vista General Plan. e. Parks and Recreation - As the applicant is providing on-site recreational opportunities in the form of a swimming pool and recreation facility, this may reduce impact on other City parks and recreation facilities. f. Seismic Safety - There are no seismic safety concerns on this site and, therefore, the project is in conformance with the Chula Vista Seismic Safety Element. g. Safety - The project will be within existing or proposed response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to approval of Final Maps. h. Noise - The proposed project will be in conformance within existing noise standards. i. Scenic Highway - The proposed project is not on a scenic highway. j. Bicycle Routes - The proposed project is not adjacent to an officially designated bicycle route. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 6 k. Public Buildings - The General Plan does not indicate a need for any public buildings at this location. Therefore, the design is consistent with the General Plan. 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 need against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. To the extent feasible, the structures have been sized and sited in a manner to provide for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 7339P EMERSON HIGH SCHOOL D STRICT BLDG. VILLA GRANADA QUEEN APARTMENTS (202 DU) PARKING PROJECT .- ;~ SFD I I LOCATION - _ I'FA~ t VAC I w OXFORD I I I I ~ I I I [ Job Address: 1190-2 5th Ave..Chula Vista, CA 92011 Lot Numbers: 47, 59, 60. Legal Description: 47:275 set of Southerly 79 ft. of Nor ~rly 190' of lot 31 of one qu~ r section 145. 59: Exi..Jnly 91' THF Northerly 111' of Easterly 138' of lot 31 quarter section 145. 60: Westerly 137' of Easterly 275' of Northerly 111' of lot 31 quarter setion 145. Property Aprox. Location: Morth~west corner of 5th and Oxford St. in Chela Vista, CA. Owner/ Address: John E. Pollorena 1222 Tobias Dr. Chula Vista, CA 92011 Assesors Parcel 4: 618-210-60 618-210-59 618-210-47 Lot Size (190' x 235') Irregular ~ 39,783 = .9133 Acre Existing Density = Max 11 d/u Acre Density Allowed = (.9133) 11=.10.046 Density Req'd: 10.046 10.046 10 units .Existing Zoning: RVl5 Project Description: ~ two story duplex~ .. garage parking wi~ In the unit, For each unit ~ ..... . - with four flat ~nits. Total of units. Visitors Parking Provided: ~ Approximate Lot/DUp~e~"Size: 6,000 Sq. Ft. 4~q Emerson Street C ~a Vista~ CA~ 92-11 Marc~ 9, 1990 PHONE: 420-4493 Chula Vista Planning Commission City o£ Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ~ 9 1990 Chula Vista~ CA 92010 Subject: Villa Dei Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, ~ocated at 1190-1192 Fifth Avenue I was in attendance on Wednesday~ Morch 7~ 1990 at Montgomery Planning Committee meeting regarding subject condominiums. This meeting was o.igin~tly scheduled on February 21~ 1990 but was postponed. Plea~ see enclosure attached my vecbal statment regarding ibis matter. In ~ddition I would like to ~high-lite~ the statements/conversation that took place. (~ The developer had originally proposed 12 units~ but it was scaled-down by the pionningdepa~tmento (~] Discussion of bonus units. Seems a misunderstanding that if the develope~ had requested same since the original density was scaled-down. To me bonus units is another gimmick favoring the developer. (c] Montgomery Planning Committee upset because the original initial study 15-~9-~? of possible sigeificant environmental impacts did not pass through their committee~ and/o~ the preliminary plans. [dj Mid-way through the hearing the pianning department stated that the origina~ plans were subitted in the ~ipeline~ prior to the down zoning of this area to R-1-5-Po This so calied 'pipeline' is another gimmick in favor of the developer. He further stated that the only issue that the committee is voting on tonight is whether the committee wants CON~O$ or apartments constructed dn this parcel. That the plans have already been approved for multipie units and the issue of single family dwellings are not on the agenda. If that is true why bother publishing such a public heeding. Montgomery planning committee voted: Ayes-3; Nays-2;Abstain~-?; absent-1. FU~THER~ I circalaled o!petii,£on within the immedi~te area re~ecting the construction of these condos. Of the 40 home owners I contacted 36 signed opposing these Condos - that ~s 90 per cent! Its interesting thai this petition was never mentioned at the meetinqo The day after the meeting I talked with one of the members of the commi~tee~about the atmosphere of the meeting and I felt as well as others present that this was all for the developer and the desires of the pubiic and tax payers are on the back burner. I was also toid that the planning department stated~ to the committee that the petition was a waste of time. The montgomery planning committee on April 5~ 19~9~ the Chula Vista Planning Commissi6n on Aprii 10~ 1989 unanimously approved the zoning of this area as On June 20~ 1989 the full Chbla Vis,ia City Council voted with one negative to zone R-1-5-P. Now~ here already we have a developer that wants to put multiple units on a R-? parcelo In view of the above and the signed petition(if necessary I can obtain hundred mo~e signature~. I respectfully request you disapprove this plan and send it back to where it originated with, the biessings of the tax payers that do not want it. If your meeting was held as origlnally scheduled [Feb 28] I would have been in attendancei however I will be out of town the week that it has been rescheduledo A concerned citizen and tax payer~ Mr~ Jim McMurren wil~ be in attendance as my spokes- person. Thank you Enclosure: Kay Eye.itt (1] Verbal statement [2] Castle Park ~A' area with dots indicating signed petitioners. Wednes'--'% MARCH 7, ~990 MEb~ERS BF £HE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE: AT YOUR MEETING HELD APRIL 5~ 1989 REGARDING CASTLE PARK ~A~v, PA,~T MONTGOMERY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION~ YOU VOTED ro REZONE AREAS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF FIFTH AVENUE FROM WELTON STREET SOUTH TO OXFORD STREET FROM CLASSIFICATION R-2 TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY D~VELL/NG$). THIS WAS ALdO APPROVED ~Y THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING CC,~iMISJION ON MAY.lO, 7989. THE Cm'ULA VISTA CITY CuUHCIL APPRQ/ED £~E CLASSIFICATIO~ OF R-1-5-P~ INCLUDING ALL t~ARCELS SOUTH OF,V~ISTREET AT THE MEETING OF JUNE 20, ?989. Ar TMAT NEETING, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SWEETWATER UNION HIgH SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD REOUESTEU THAT THE ORIGINAL CLAS$1FICATluN OF R-2-P BE RETAINED. NO OrdER PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE WERE IN OPPOSITION. ZONING COME R-1-5-P--WHAT DOE5 IT ACTUALLY MEAN? THE R-?-51S DEFINED AS ~INGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON 5~000 °O.FTLoTS. THE v~P" MODIFIER GIVES TdE PLANNING UEPARTMENT AND THE CiTY COdiCIL OPTIONS TO blODIFY THIS IN CERTAIN LOTS OF IRREGULAR SHAPES AND SIZE. I WOULD dOPE THE ~*P~ IS NOT DEFINED AS PREFERENCE TO DEVELOPERS. THE APPLICANT WHO SUBMITTED PLA~3 FOR THE VILLA DEL REY CONDOM INIUMS~ PROPOSES TO UEVELCP A ONE'LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT~ CONSISTING OF 10 UNITS ON A 0.91 ACRE. (APPROX. 39~000 SQ. FT). THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A HlShER DENSITY [HAN ALLOWABLE UNDER AN R-1-5. THIS 15 WHERE THE ~*P~ MODIFIER HA5 BEEN IMPLEMENTED~ FOR INFOR~iATION~ THIS PARCEL CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-05 13 ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE PARCELS A$ SHOWN ON THE TAX ASSES$OR$ RECORD A~ PARCEL3 ~47, ~59~ PARCEL ~59 IS A DRIVEWAY THAT ALLOWS ACCESS £0 PARCEL #60 THAT IS LOCATED dEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING;& ~4715 PME O~%NER~S RENPAL TAX RECORDS FURTMER INDICATE THAT'TME APPLICAN? PU~CdA6ED THESE rHREE PAWCEL$ IN APRIL 1988. BY COMBINDING THESE rWREE PARCEL$~ MAS MADE AN IRREGULAR SHAPEU PARCEL. AG ~UR CUMMIrTEE 13 WELL AWARE~ THIS AREA 13 SATURATED WITH CONDO~I/¥1U~S OR rO~VNHOUSES ARE THE SA~E AS APA,~T~ENTS IN DISGUISE. THERE &iE/~. EXISTING SlNGLE FAMILY DWt'ELINGSADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVtSluN, ALSO AddACEN[ TO £dE $WEETWATER DISTRIC~ ALONG FIFTH AVENUE~ A~D ~E~T ON NAPLES. THE$E PRUPOSEU CD, DOS JU$T DO NOT FIT WITHIN THIS AREA. I AM FEARFUL~ THAT IF THIS 13 APPROVED~ T~ERE WIlL BE NORE CONDOS ALONG FIFTH AVENUE. ~*OF £~E 40 ~OME U,vNE~5 I t'ETI£10/vaU, 36 SI~NED OPPOSING A~AINbT rile CJNDO$... rdg ~C~AP,~ T.IERE. ARm TgE 4th ONE ,vdO DIDN,T $1~N~ dAS A VACAAT LOT uiv £,~g IN VIEW OF THE A~OVE, I SUGGEST~ DINGLE FAMILY H~I~E3 WE CONSTUCTED IN LEU OF CONDO~. /fEPEATING...DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. RS7 to R-,l-: RS7i t¢ MOS5 STREET ~-- ',to DEL REY i- --~ ------ -~---- R-1-7 i i RV15 to --N~CKMAN C/ARISS RU29 R-3 NAPLES STREET C36 RU29 to to R- R-I-s'.PE ~ RV15 QUEEN ANNE DRIVE RU29 to R-3 XFOR£ Castle Park "A" - PART I LE'I INTYRE A~,D ASSOCIATES NOTICE Ol= PUBLIC HEAR- lNG BY THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION of Chula Vista, California, for. the purpose of considering a tenta- tive subdivision map known as Villa Del Ray Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, lo- cated at 1190-1192 Fifth Avenue and submitted by John and Yolanda Pollorena. The applicant proposes to develop a one lot condominium project consisting of 10 units on 0.9t acres and make .all required, public improvements. A copy of the tentative map is on file for inspection in the office of the Planning Department. An Initial Study, IS-89-81, of possible significant envir- onmental impacts has been conducted by the Envir- onmental Review Coordinator. ' A finding of no significant en- vironmental Impacts has been recommended to the Mont- gomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commis- sion and is on file, along with the Initial Study, in the office of the Planning Department. Any petitions to be submitted to the Montgomery Planning Commit- tee and/or City Planning Com- mission must be received by the Planning Department office no later than noon of the hear- ing dates. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this tentative map in court, you may be lim- ited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written cor- respondence delivered to the Montgomery Planning Commit- tee and/or the City Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearings. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BY THE. MONTGOMERY PLANNING OOMMI']-rEE on Wednesday, Februar~ 21, 1990 at 6:30 p.m ? and byTHE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION on February 28, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. Both meet- ings will be held in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desir- ing to be heard mayappear. DATED: February 7.1990 CASE NO: PCS-90-05 Nancy Ripley, Secretary Chula Vista Planning Commission CV 37077 2/10/90 PETITION MONTGOMERY PLANKING C~ ,,~ITTEE, CHULA VISTA, CA. CHULA VISTA PLANNINu COMMISSION, CmULA VISTA, CA. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. LHE UNDERSIGNED RESPECTFULLY PETITION THAT CONSIDERATION BE JIVEN TO HEJECT THE SUODIVlSION MAP KNOWN AS VILLA DEL REY CONDOt41NIUM$ CHULA VI$PA TRACT 90-05, LOCATED AT 1190-1192 FIFTH AVENUE AND SUBSTITUTE DOUBLE 5TORY SINGLE FAMILY DErACoED Di~ELLINGS. THIS AREA 15 NOW SATURATED WITH APARTMENTS. CONDOMINIUMS OR TOVVNHOUSE$ DI6£WtCT PROPERTY ALONU FIFTH AVENUE AND WEST ON NAPLES. THESE PROPOSED CONDOS JU~T mO NOT Fir WI£HIN THIS AREA. vVE ARE FEARFUL, THAT IF THIS I$ APPROVED, T~ERE WILL ~E MORE CON~O$ APPROVED ALON~ FIFTW AVENdE. THIS AREA 15 ZONED R-1-5-P. FURTHER, wE ASSIGN KAY EVERITT, ~69 EM£RSON ~T, CMULA VISTA, TO ~E OUR SPOKES-PERSON REJECTING THIS $UmDIVI~ION. ADDENDUM TO FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-89-81M A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that the proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Previous Project The previous project consisted of the development of 3 parcels of land with a total acreage of .91 acres. Located on the northwest corner of Fifth and Oxford, into six 3-story duplexes {including garages) for a total of 12 units with an expected project population of 48 people. The project also called for 24 on-site parking spaces. Current Project The current project consists of the development of 3 parcels of land with a total acreage of .91 acres located on the northwest corner of Fifth and Oxford, into five 2-story duplexes {including 2-car garages) for a total of ten units. The project would be served by a system of private drives with a single access point in Fifth Avenue. A total of 4 visitor parking spaces have been provided. The project also proposes a 1,200 sq. ft. 2-story office/recreation center and swimming pool on the northwest portion of the site. As part of the project, 2 fire hydrants will be required as well as street improvements and 2 ft. street dedication along Fifth Avenue. C. ANALYSIS 1. Traffic The proposal will result in a decrease in the number of units and therefore a decrease in traffic generation from the previous project. The current proposal is estimated to generate 80 one-way trips per day with an ADT of 5,300 and an LOS of "A". 2. Schools The proposed project will result in a decrease in the number of units and therefore a decrease in student generation from the previous project proposal, although the applicant must still obtain an agreement with the local school districts that demonstrate available classroom space for new students. In addition, developer fees based on habitable living space will still be required by both the Chula Vista and Sweetwater School Districts. 3. Parks and Recreation The present proposal is to add ten condominium units, which will not result in a requirement for additional park land. No mitigation will be required. 4. Fire Protection The applicant will be required to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal as a standard development condition. 5. Threshold Standards The proposed project will also comply with Fire, Police, drainage, sewer and water sections of the threshold standards. 6. Geology/Soils To date a geology/soils report has not been submitted by the applicant as a geotechnical survey will be required prior to building plan approval and grading and that standard development codes require correction of any adverse soils conditions prior to construction of buildings, no mitigation is necessary. 7. Zoning Subsequent to the completion of IS-89-81M in June of 1989, the zoning for this area has changed from City-adopted County Zoning of RV-15 to City zoning designation of R-1-5-P. As the 10 unit project was a "pipeline" project, one which was applied for at the time R-V-15 zoning was in place, and as the l0 units would have been allowed at that time, the project is deemed compatible with the zoning of the area. C. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-89-81M prior to taking action on the proposed project. DOUGLAS D. REID ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 7303P -2- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Fifth & Oxford Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Fifth and Oxford 1190-1192 Fifth Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: John E. Pollorena CASE NO: IS-89-81M DATE: A. Project Setting The project setting consists of three undeveloped parcels on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Oxford in the Montgomery Community. Adjacent land uses to the north and south are medium density residential, to the east are low to medium density residential and to the west are high density residential uses. B. Project Description The project consists of developing the parcels into six three-story (including garage area) multi-family duplexes with a maximum height of 35 feet. Total square footage of the project is 15,600 sq. ft. The project proposes a total of twelve three-bedroom units. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The current zoning (which is operating under San Diego County ordinance) for the parcels is RV15, which allows fifteen dwelling units per acre, and the Montgomery Specific Plan allows a maximum of eleven dwelling units per acre. This project has a gross, density of eleven dwelling units per acre and is compatible with the City's zoning ordinances and the City's general plan. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fi re/EMS The estimated Fire/EMS response time is 5 minutes, which is within the 7 minute threshold standard. However to maintain an adequate level of service, the Fire Department requires provision of two fire hydrants (required fire flow is 1,000 gallons per minute). 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard and this project will not change or impact the current level. city of chula vista planning department CRY OF environmental review section CHULAVIErA 3. Traffic The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and concluded that it would not adversely affect the existing levels of service on vicinity roads or intersections provided that standard street improvements be extended by 32 feet from center line to curb line to match existing improvements, and a 2 foot right-of-way dedication is required to provide a total of 42 feet from curb line to property line. 4. Park/Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project does not exceed adopted threshold standards provided that the appropriate Park Acquisition and Development {PAD) fees are paid. 5. Drainage The Engineering Department has determined that existing drainage facilities would accommodate storm water flows and volumes from the project area, and that City standards would not be exceeded. 6. Sewer The Engineering Department has reviewed the project and determined that the 8-inch sewer line flowing to the north on Fifth Avenue is adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District was notified and has indicated that the needs of the project can be accommodated by the districts according to the established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects No potentially significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified for the project at this time. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site is urban in nature, located in a built-up area and devoid of sensitive habitat or species; therefore, the project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project is in full conformance with City zoning and land use designations identified in the Chula Vista General Plan. Thus, it would not achieve any short-term objectives to the disadvantage of longer term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The 5 building, lO-unit project will result in no significant cumulative environmental impacts, as all identified required improvements are mitigated by standard development regulations. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Trisha Zonkel, Planning Intern Applicant's Agent: Hector Zuniga 251 Oxford Street, Suite H Chula Vista, CA 92011 (619) 232-3034 2. Documents Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19.70, Title 19 Chula Vista General Plan Montgomery Specific Plan 1988 Thresholds/Standards & Growth Management Oversight Committee, November 17, 1987 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6423P ROUTING FORM BF M~y ~$ .... DATE: May 17, 1989 t~,~,~ Current Plng. Engineering Dept. Building Dept. : [] Advance Pl ng. ['~ R. Daoust ~ Ken Lamson [~t Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks & Re'creation '-1 Other Keith Hawkins Shauna Stokes t~--~M: ~ Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: [] Application for Initial Study (DP-659 /FA-425 /IS-89-81 ) ~'~ Preliminary'Draft EIR (DP /FB- /EIR- ) ~ Review of a Draft EIR (DP /FB- /EIR- ) ~ Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- ) The project consists of: Six 2-story duplex over garages, wood frame and stucco construction. Location: 1190-2 Fifth Ave. Please review the document and forward to me any Comments you have by 5/24/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date / ~"/ ,' Pers°nl Time ~"' ( 2/~2) · di C ~ Appen x --~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The loll'owing information must be disclosed: I. List the names of~.'all persons having a financial interes, t in,~he application. List the any names of a)~l persons having owners.hip interest i~the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to il) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. liave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards~ Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? YesNo~<' If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, 1 ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, rec~ive~, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages a.~ necessary]~ ~of ap~p)~ ~O-~ WPC 0701P O NFl.. ~, A-110 Frint or type name oF applican: FOR OFFICE USE INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form i Project No. A. BACKGROUND 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) ~7~ Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. ~/~ --ZO--~:~0., ~ '~ ~ .'7 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ,/~y~_ ~yt//~:~ ~- m Relation to Applicant ~y~77-- Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a, Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Pro~ect Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd, ~ap __Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan --Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency -- Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required (Rev. 1~/82) i ~ Appendix C ~-~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF' DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names o~11 persons having a financial interes, t in,he application. List the any 2. If any person identified purs6ant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of ali individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust,' list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Itave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Bo~,~ Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes . If yes, please indicate person(s)  defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture~ ub, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate[ nature of Pp)(cant/date A-llO ~r t or type name of applicant' - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours, of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project' ' b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of'enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-si~e parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How many Cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 2 - B.' PROPOSED PROJECT 1.Land Area: sq. footage ~Y~/?~S,~or acreage ~ If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete ~his section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family ~ Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights ~ c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms /~-. 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) // e. Net density (DU/total acres minds any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range 7~~ h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures ~YO j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. - a. Type(s.) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? x.l~ e. Describe all drainag~ facilities to be provided and their location. U~-Jf~/.y.]~O~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land use~?' ~.]0 . 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural 6r partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which {if any) will be removed by the project. -. - 5. Past Use of the La'nd a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? y(-/O b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? /(JO. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures aQd land uses currently existing on the project site. ,~-'~X/~-},~ ,~'~,~¢_.].~... ~----~y~d/LY2/ I/oa Io ' - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. o~ acres) .~-'~,,~.~. 5. If the project will result in any employment ~pportunities describe the nature an~ type of the~e jobs. ~z2)~y~ ~79~(~__~7~x.~ 6. Will highly flammable .or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7.How many estimated a~tomobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: nek~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION ' ~z~Y~ - or OvFner/dwner'l ~--e~crow~ ' y~' or Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South East 7. Social a. Are there any Pesidents on site? (If so, how many?) ~ b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and What type?) /iD Please provide any other information which cbuld expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. -9- · 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary /-~-/b~t ~ ~ 7 lo ~- iF Jr. High ~,oot~ Sr. High ~,~ 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to he at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) ~ 5. Energs Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of th~ following sources: Electricity {per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6, Remarks: Director of Planning or R~presentative Date -8- Case ~g~. C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT l. Current Zoning on site: /~.- /-~ -~ North O_ South ~ ~ ! - East West ~-~- ~Y Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2,. General Plan land use designation on site: y~_~/- ~>~zi~, ~Z~i,~D~ ..... West ~ 7~ ~/~/ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Dia,.rare? Is the project area designated for conservation or open spao to an area so designated? ~]~.~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to p the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of General Plan? o What is the current park ~creage requirements in the Park Service District? ~ olect How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed ~' (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~;~ ~u~o ~ Z~. ~v~.~-q-~/~:rr~,~'_~- Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) Case 3. _~eology -- a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards~ Landslide or slippage? _j ~u~t~~ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necess r project?~,'~h~. . ~ y to evaluate the ' ~ r ~ ~ ~-"~ . ~. Are there eny ~n~c~p~¢e~ ~verse sol1 con~' ' sJ~e? //A ~,~ , ~ ~_ ~ _ ~¢~ons on ~he pro~ec~ b. [~ ~es, ~h~ are these ~verse so~l con~f~ons? ~ 5. Len~ ~or~ ~ ' b. ~h~ ~s ¢~e maximum n~¢ur~l slope oF ~he 6. rlo~se Are ~ere eny ~r~FF~c-rel~e~ no~se levels ~mp~c~fng the s~e ~re s~gn~F~c~n~ enoug~ ~o jus~F~ ~C e norse ~n~l~s~s be requ~re~ G. .~NGINEERIHG DEPARTMENT 1. .Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the projQct be subject 'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any:flooding hazards~ ~ d. What ~s the location and de.scrip?ion of existino on-~i+~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~y f. What is the location and description of existing off-site g. Are they adequate to serve the project? .~y 2. Transportation a. Wha~r~a~s provide primary access to the project~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way a rips to be generated by the project {per day)? ~ u~t ~ ~o c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After d. Are the primary access roads adequate If not, exp)ain briefly. ~ to serve the project? e. ~ill it be necessary that additional dedication, wide lng and/or improvement be made to existing Streets~ ~ _ ~ -~.._ If so, specify the general natur~ ~ ~' ~ I/rAJ? ~ ~- ~ne necessary actions. - 13 - Case No. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? .. 3. Remarks ~.v, Je ~ ¢,~ ~,.~y ~, ~F~' e Ma r s~h ~ Da~/q/c~ Case No. 7. Jif Ooality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ; {per day) _Factor Pollution Hydrocarbons " X 18.3 : UOx (NO2)' ' X 20.0 Particulates ~ = /~o : X .78 = 8. ~{e Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Nhat is the location and Size of existing sewer li to the site? ~ ~,,-- ~ x, - . n~s on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? · . 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Rema~s/necessary mitigation measures -13(al- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City .Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date ' Representative Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 9201! (619) 691-5553 December 20. 1989 Mr. Ken Lee Principal Planner City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 920~0 Dear Mr. Lee: RE: Proposed Chula Vista Tract 90-05 Villa Del Rey Cond~miniums The Sweetwater Union High School District does not object to the proposed subdivision identified as Chula Vista Tract 90- 05. However. due to severe overcrowded conditions in the district, school developer fees will be required prior to the issurance of any building permits. No credits for the demolition of existing structures can be applied to this development application. The project is located in the Castle Park High School and Castle Park Middle School attendance areas. Those schools are presently operating at 127~ and 75~ respectively: overall, the district is operating at 120~ capacity. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/mi cc: Kate Thurson. Director of Planning Chula Vista City Schools CHU7 A VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA92010 ° 619 425.4600 BOARD OF EDUCA~ON EACH ~HILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH J(~i~ O. CUMMINGS, SHARON GIL~ PATmCK&JUDD JUDY SCH~BERG FRANK k~RANTUIO May 22, 1989 HAy 2 $ 1989 SUP£RINTENDE~ ROBE~ ~ M~A~TH% Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No: IS-89-81 Applicant: John E. Pollorena Location: 1190 & 1192 Fifth Avenue Project: Six ~-storyduplexes Dear Mr. Reid: Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and the District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two years to assist in meeting growth demands. Students are being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation. The District also utilizes busing to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is in the Lauderbach School attendance area. This facility is currently overcrowded and the District has added three relocatable classrooms to accommodate growth. This proposed project will impact Lauderbach School. A developer fee of 67¢ (69¢ effective June 4, 1989) of habitable living space is being charged to assist in providing facilities for this development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ~ate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp _ROUTING FORM By CiTYo~(,au~ ' ' DATE: May 17, 1989 t~i~ Current Plng. Engineering Dept. Building Dept. : [] Advance Plng. /-~ R. Daoust ~,,, Ken Larson ] Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks & Re'creation --] Other Keith Hawkins Shauna Stokes ~-~M: [] Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: ~-J Application for Initial Study (DP-659 /FA-425 /IS-89-81 ) ~ Preliminary'Draft EIR (DP /FB- /EIR- ) ~ Review of a Draft EIR (DP__/FB- /EIR- ) [--] Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- ) The project consists of: Six 2-story duplex over garages, wood frame and stucco construction. Location: 1190-2 Fifth Ave. Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 5/24/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date / ~..,/ /, Person \H~.,/~],_ Time E:: ~ (Per. 12182) ROUTING FORM DATE: May 17, 1989 Current Plng. Engineering Dept. Building Dept. TO: ~ Advance Plng. F'~ R. Daoust [~l Ken Larson ~ Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks & Re'creation ~ Other Keith Hawkins Shauna Stokes FROM: F~ Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: [] Application for Initial Study (DP-659 /FA-425 /IS-89-81 ) Preliminary~'Draft EIR (DP /FB-__/EIR- ) ['--] Review of a Draft EIR (DP. /FB-__/EIR- ) k=--1 Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- ) The project consists of: Six 2-story duplex over garages, wood frame and stucco construction. Location: 1190-2 Fifth Ave. Please review the document and forward to me any Comments you have by 5/24/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date Person Time EN 4 (Pev. 12/~2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-1-M - City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, ~enerally bounded by Walnut Drive,. Main Street, Palm Drive and the Autumn Hills Condominium ProJec% ~rom i~s ~lty-adop%ed County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula . Vista. The .Pr°p°sed specific rezon~ngs and their precise territorial limits are depicted on attached Exhibit "A" A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Woodlawn Park and East Woodlawn Park Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by Walnut Drive to the north, Main Street to the south, Palm Drive to the west and the Autumn Hills condominium project to the east. Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: a. RS6 to R-1-6-P b. RS7 to R-3-P-7 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted Initial Studies, IS-88-4M and IS-88-6§M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Studies and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declarations issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies and Negative Declarations, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declarations issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On February 7, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee unanimously accepted staff recommendations as noted above. City PlanninQ Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 single family South C36 single family and open storage RVl5 single family and duplex R-3-P-8 single family/townhomes R-2-P multi/townhomes West R-1 single family I-L industrial suites East R-1 single family R-3-P-12 multi residential 2. Existing site characteristics. The topography of the area consists of slightly rolling hills with flatter areas. The site is almost entirely improved with residential single family uses in a rural atmosphere with little or no curb and sidewalk improvements. There are three church sites within the approximately 60 acres. The churches are allowed in residential areas under both the county and city zoning ordinances subject to major or conditional use permits. The Woodlawn Park Conmunity Center and park site are located at the intersection of Orange and Walnut Drives. Autumn Hills condominium project, 80 units on 11.34 acres, is located in the northeast corner of the planning area. There are some stables and other "farm type" animals on several lots, remaining from county zoning which allowed horses and other animals. The average lot size in the Woodlawn Park area (excluding the Autumn Hills site) is 15,505 square feet or 0.36 acres. The lots developed with residential uses (again,not including the condominium site) constitute 47.35 acres. Eighty six percent of these are single family, eleven percent are duplex or two units on one lot, and less than one percent are triplex or three units on one lot. Approximately 19 lots are vacant or not fully developed in Woodlawn Park. These comprise 15 percent of the total land area and average 20,817 square feet in size. 3. General Plan. The Woodlawn Park and East Woodlawn Park area includes four land use designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan as follows: Autumn Hills Condominium Project This area is designated Medium Density Residential, with an overall density of 6 to ll dwelling units per acre. The project is built out at approximately 7 units per acre. The proposed amendment is from RS7 to R-3-P-7. This zone would be consistent with the existing land use. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 Church and Park Area The church located on the north side of Spruce Road between Orange and Sycamore Drives is designated as a church. The property near this on the southeast corner of Orange Drive and Spruce Road is designated "Other." The proposed amendment is from RS6 to R-1-6-P for the church and from RS6 to "Special Study" area for the second lot. The church will be consistent with the residential zoning as long as it operates with a conditional use permit. The second lot, being placed under the special study area category, will be further studied for park development. Woodlawn Park Center and Lots to the Northwest The four lots included in this area are designated Parks and Open Space on the Montgomery Specific Plan. The lots comprise over 2 acres of land and are proposed for special study along with the lot on the southeast corner of Orange and Spruce described above. Future plans and details for these areas will be considered by the City at a later date. All Remaining Areas The remaining areas in Woodlawn Park and East Woodlawn Park are designated Low-Medium Density Residential, 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment is from RS6 to R-1-6-P. This zone is consistent with the existing land use pattern of predominately single family homes and would allow a home for each 6,000 square feet of lot. D. ANALYSIS Several factors support the rezonings described above: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone classifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. 2. The rezonings proposed for the residential areas will continue to allow the type of single family and rural developments as exist in the area today. Additional dwellings on the lots will be allowed where the lots are large enough, without having to subdivide the land as was the requirement under county zoning. The precise plan modifier will allow for discretionary review of projects prior to building permi ts. 3. The deferment of zoning in the "Special Study" areas will allow the city to consider the needs and possibilities of a park and the recreation center expansion for the Woodlawn Park community. City Plannin~ Commiss. ion Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 4 4. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. 5. The Advance Planning Department will undertake a study of a mixed-use concept as it applies to the Woodlawn Park Community as well as other areas of the City. WPC 7278P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Olympic Training Center SPA Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: EIR-89-11 A. BACKGROUND The Olympic Training Center is part of the third major EastLake Community development phase, EastLake III. The subject Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan represents the third SPA Plan for the community of EastLake. The EastLake I SPA Plan included EastLake's first two residential neighborhoods, EastLake Hills and Shores, and portions of commercial and industrial districts, EastLake Village Center and EastLake Business Center. EastLake Greens was the second SPA. The 150-acre Olympic Training Center SPA is located east of Hunte Parkway, south of Orange Avenue and immediately west of Wueste Road and the Lower Otay Reservoir. The Olympic Training Center SPA Plan includes athletic facilities, a gymnasium, soccer, field hockey, archery, track and field, and tennis facilities, as well as a cycling criterion course and bobsled and luge practice facility, swimming complex, housing, and visitor center and parking. Two parks are planned for the Olympic Training Center site. The Supplemental EIR was prepared in conjunction with the previously prepared EastLake Planned Community Master EIR certified in February 1982 and EastLake III/Olympic Training Center General Development Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR/EIR-89-9, certified in November 1989. The purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which analyzes the environmental consequences of the adoption of the Olympic Training Center SPA Plan. The environmental analysis performed for the proposed project includes the following issues: land use, aesthetics and visual resources, geology and soils, hydrology/water quality, cultural resources, biological resources, transportation and circulation, and air quality. The EIR of the impact of proposed services and utilities. The environmental consultant responsible for the preparation of this report is ERCE of San Diego, California. This draft EIR on the Olympic Training Center was subject to a 45-day review period through the State Clearinghouse which has concluded. No comments were received from member agencies. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 B. RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR-89-11, close the hearing and give P&D Technologies and staff any desired direction for the preparation of the Final EIR. C. ANALYSIS 1. Land Use The proposed OTC could bring about potential land use interface impacts resulting from those land uses which may be developed adjacent to the Lower Otay Reservoir. Mitigation measures including setbacks, landscaping and other buffering measures could mitigate potential incompatibility to a level of insignificance by SPA Plan criteria and measures cited in this EIR. 2. Aesthetics and Visual Resources The OTC development will alter existing topography and views to the site from surrounding areas, although the development intensity will be relatively low as compared to most development in the City. The SPA Plan criteria dictate setbacks, landscaping, and sensitive grading. Mitigation requires special consideration of adjacent natural open space in subsequent site design. The Draft EIR states that the project specific impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The OTC will contribute to a cumulatively significant aesthetic and visual impact of ongoing developments on the natural aesthetic character of the area. Although the Draft EIR does identify the significance of the impact of the proposed grading and the necessity for mitigation, after further review of more detailed grading plans, staff concluded that further addressment is required throughout the body of the EIR. It is staff's direction, that the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR be expanded to reflect specific impacts resulting from the proposed grading plan as it relates to peripheral grading treatments along its western edge with Salt Creek, and its eastern edge on Wueste Road. In particular, the impact assessment should address the plans consistency or lack thereof, with General Plan policies and guidelines relating to landform grading and grading and development treatments in adjacency and permanent open space areas and the Greenbelt. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 The grading plans submitted on February 25, 1990, show primarily 2:1 slopes, there has been a straight line edge created at the western part of the property instead of the sensitive landform grading which would meet with General Plans guidelines on contours. The grading has not been sensitive to the existing landforms. 3. Geology and Soils Geotechnical constraints to development of the OTC include potentially expansive soils, erosion, landslides, seismic activity and liquefiable soils. These constraints are not considered significant impacts. Detailed engineering geological investigations are required of the OTC. Measures required therein will mitigate geotechnical impacts to a level below significance. Also, projects shall conform to the UBC as required by the City. 4. Hydrology and Water/Quality The increase in impervious surfaces due to the development of the OTC will result in an increase in runoff, and potential erosion and other water quality impacts to downstream and adjacent sensitive areas such as Lower Otay reservoir and Salt Creek. The OTC SPA Plan proposes to direct all runoff west (away from Otay Reservoir, towards Salt creek) to proposed storm drain outlets. Drainage control measures, fees and installation of facilities such as retention basins are required in subsequent, detailed drainage plans for the OTC, which will be reviewed by the City and County Flood Control District. Water quality will be maintained by implementation of measures cited herein, including: review of plans by the RWCBQ and County Health Dept.; diversion of runoff; restricted use of reclaimed water; installation of subdrains and pad drains; erosion control via landscaping and limited irrigation; and maintenance of drainage devices. Preparation, review and approval of subsequent detailed drainage plans, and adherence to mitigation cited in this EIR will adequately mitigate project specific and cumulative drainage and water quality impacts of the OTC to below a level of significance. 5. Cultural Resources No impacts to archaeological or historical resources will result, due to a lack of resources onsite. The site possesses a high potential for paleontological resources. Potential exits for impacts to occur to those resources from development of the OTC. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 4 No mitigation is necessary. Paleontological monitoring during grading, and salvage or diversion of grading activities, if necessary, are required as mitigation. No archaeological or historical resource impacts will result from the OTC development. Adherence to mitigation cited in this EIR will mitigate potential impacts to below a level of significance. 6. Biological Resources No direct impacts to biological resources will result from OTC development due to lack of resources onsite. Offsite adjacent resources of Salt Creek, Otay Reservoir and/or natural open space to the south of the OTC could be secondarily affected by development, and by public facilities and utilities required for development. Detailed subsequent plans are required to delineate setbacks and buffering along project boundaries, to ensure protection of adjacent and nearby biological resources. Also, mitigation cited in the Hydrology section of this EIR will protect resources of the Otay Reservoir. Further subsequent site-specific biological assessment and mitigation are required regarding off-site utility improvements necessary for project implementation. Potential secondary biological resource impacts can be mitigated by implementation of measures cited in this EIR to below a level of significance. 7. Transportation and Circulation The OTC will generate 4,937 daily trips {ADT) at buildout. Interim impacts in 1991 and 1992 due to the project and other cumulative development have been identified; long-term cumulative impacts and Transportation Phasing Plan (T.P.P.) improvements were assessed in the EastLake III GDP EIR and results are incorporated herein. TPP improvements are required of the EastLake III GDP to mitigate traffic generated impacts, and are thus incorporated as mitigation in this EIR. Improvements beyond the TPP are also identified herein as mitigation for interim impacts due to the OTC development and other cumulative projects. OTC project-specific impacts are not considered significant due to the few trips generated. Cumulative interim impacts due to the OTC and other development can be mitigated by measures cited in this EIR. Long-term cumulative impacts can be mitigated by TPP improvements and other mitigation cited in EIR-89-9 and this EIR-89-11. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 5 F. Air Quality Traffic generated by the OTC will increase air pollution emissions in the area. The OTC land uses are not incorporated into regional air quality attainment plans for the San Diego region; the OTC contribution to regional air quality degradation is considered insignificant due to its inclusion in the City's GP Update and few trips generated. Local air quality impacts would exist at "hotspot" intersections (where the intersection level of service is not maintained at an acceptable level, LOS C as defined by the City). Interim and long-term traffic would create such hotspots if not mitigated. Local short-term air quality impacts will result from OTC grading and construction activities. To minimize regional air quality impacts, the OTC incorporates traffic flow improvements, bicycling and pedestrian circulation, and transit service. No other mitigation to regional air quality impacts has been identified other than the No Project Alternative. Transportation improvements associated with the TPP and additional mitigation required in this EIR will ensure that interim and long-term adequate levels of service are maintained at intersections in the study area. Short-term emissions and dust can be controlled by standard grading and construction procedures required as mitigation in this EIR. The OTC project does not represent a significant impact or contribution to a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality. Local long-term cumulative air quality impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by measures required in the Traffic section of this EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures cited in the Air Quality section will reduce short-term impacts to below a level of significance. 9. Noise Onsite noise will be realized from cumulative traffic on Orange Avenue, requiring potential noise attenuation for uses fronting on Orange Avenue. Exterior and interior noise attenuation may be required of development along Orange Avenue (the OTC entrance), if buildings are sited within noise contours above acceptable levels. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 6 Implementation of measures cited in the Noise section will mitigate noise impacts to below a level of significance. 10. Services and Utilities OTC development will generate demands for utilities including water, sewer, reclaimed water and energy supply. Facilities will be constructed to serve development. The OTC contribution to the demand for water and non-renewable energy resources constitutes a cumulative impact to these limited resources. OTC will create demands for public services including police, fire/emergency, school, parks/recreation, library, public transit, and solid waste disposal. Interim impacts may be realized by early development of the OTC if implementation occurs prior to availability of City services. Facilities for distribution of water and sewer, and storage of water are required as project mitigation. Water and energy conservation measures are required and reduce these cumulative impacts. Interim impacts, specifically to police and fire services, will be mitigated by provision of private security and fire protection services. Long-term impacts will be mitigated by payment of fees, installation of facilities and other measures required herein, and by adherence to City threshold standards. Water distribution and storage, sewer impacts can be mitigated. Water supply and non-renewable energy supply cumulative impacts are significant and can only be mitigated by the No Project Alternative. Project-specific and cumulative interim and long-term impacts to services can be mitigated to a level below significance, by implementation of measures cited in this EIR and adherence to City threshold standards. 11. Fiscal Considerations Development of the OTC, as proposed, will have overall positive fiscal effects on the City, thus no negative fiscal impacts are associated with the OTC development. No mitigation is necessary. No negative fiscal impacts will result from implementation of the OTC proposed development. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 7 E. ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) requires that a SEIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives, including a No Project alternative. This discussion is to focus on alternatives "capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance" (CEQA, Section 15126(d)(3). This SEIR has analyzed potential impacts of the proposed Olympic Training Center SPA Plan. Background and Alternative Site Considerations Five alternatives were identified and discussed in the 1982 certified Master Environmental Impact Report for the approved community: Intensive Agricultural Use; Reduced Residential Density; Development in Conformance with Greenbelt Plan; Partial Development of Project Site; and Redesign of the EastLake Development Plan for Increased Employment Opportunities. A summary of those alternatives is included in Section 6 of EIR 89-9, incorporated herein by reference. Subsequent to the 1982 approval, the EastLake III General Plan Update for the City General Plan (1989) approved the OTC in concept. Also, the EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) was approved in December 1989. The GDP EIR (EIR-89-9) incorporated the OTC and evaluated various alternatives, hereby incorporated by reference. The OTC site selection developed over a period of time and included an extensive evaluation of alternative sites. Consequently, further evaluation of an alternative site for the subject project is not warranted in this section. Prior to the General Plan Update City approval of the OTC site in July 1989, the GP EIR provided a comparison of the OTC land use versus residential uses onsite. That section is summarized below and incorporate by reference. General Plan Update EIR Alternative The previously proposed Land Use Element designated the area as low density residential (0-3 du/acre) and open space. A comparison of the previous residential/open space designations and the OTC uses is provided in Table 6-1. The basic features of these designations, and detailed impact comparison are provided in Section 5.5 of the GP Update EIR, incorporated by reference and summarized below. The OTC alternative was generally found to result in more significant impacts than the residential/open space alternative in as least three areas (biology, open space and landform/aesthetics), due to higher intensity uses and decreased open space. The City Council, in adoption of the OTC Alternative in the GP Update (July 1989), determined that other economic and social benefits outweighed the environmental impacts in this case, and that the OTC opportunity was a desirable and beneficial land use for the City (see Resolution of Approval for GP Update). The specific impacts were subject to further CEQA review in EIR-89-9 (EastLake III City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 8 General Development Plan), and additional site-specific, site design evaluation in this EIR. Note that impacts identified previously can be reduced by SPA Plan site design and mitigation in this subsequent EIR. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the site would remain in its present condition {see Environmental Setting) and no development would occur. EIR-89-9, Section 6.1 provides a detailed evaluation of the EastLake III No Project alternative, hereby incorporated by reference. The site would continue to be used for the dry farming of barley, and some impacts would be avoided by this No Project Alternative. It must be noted, however, that the OTC has been approved in concept at the GDP level (EIR-89-9). Consequently, the City has determined that the proposed uses are desirable; the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan. In summary, under the No Project Alternative aesthetic impacts would be eliminated, and cumulative traffic, noise, public service demands and air quality impacts would be reduced. Conversely, the No Project Alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan, and various public facilities (i.e., roadways) would not be improved as desired by the City if this alternative was implemented, constituting the negative effects of this alternative. WPC 7336P EIR SUBJECT SITE LEGEND [. - · EASTLAKE I EASTLAKE ~ · . · · el EASTLAKE · [ i i i i i i ! EASTLAKE IV NOT IN ~OJECT 0 3000 FEET SOURCE: Cinli & Associates 1989 ERC I G U Environmental EastLake Planned Community Project Components and Energy 2-3 Services Co. 2-4 SOURCE: McKinley Group, 1989 F I G U~ ~ERC Environmental OTC Spa Plan/Master Plan 2 ' 5 and Energy Services Co. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-27: Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to establish a retail distribution center for office products and supplies in an existing building on 1.4 acres at 630 "L" Street in the I-L Limited Industrial Zone - Office Club, Inc. A. BACKGROUND This proposal is a request to convert the building formerly housing a portion of the Western Lumber and Building Materials Company to a retail office products and supplies distribution center {Office Club). The portion of the property proposed to be converted contains 1.4 acres and is located on the south side of "L" Street west of Broadway. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-37, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study, including a Traffic Study, and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-37. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-37. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCC-90-27 subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the use of the adjoining acreage, the applicant shall file and obtain City approval of a parcel map dividing the subject property from the larger parcel. b. A revised site plan shall be submitted incorporating an enclosed trash area and cart storage facilities as well as double-striping of the parking area. c. Building colors and sign colors and copy shall be subject to staff design review unless appealed to the Design Review Committee. d. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 e. No outdoor storage of materials is authorized by this permit. f. The remaining 1.1 acre parcel shall not be used as an adjunct to the use authorized by this permit. Said parcel shall be kept free of debris and shall remain unused until such time as new land use activities in accordance with the I-L Zone are authorized by the City. g. The following are Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department for information only: l) Sewer and traffic signal fees will be assessed when the building permit is issued. 2) A construction permit for work performed in the street right-of-way. 3) Public improvements for street widening including, but not limited to: A. Curb, gutter and sidewalk B. Standard driveway approach C. Asphalt concrete paving D. Raised concrete median 4) Seven-foot street dedication along "L" Street. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North: I-L Zone - Trucking yard South: I-L - Single family dwellings East: I-L Zone - Vacant shed building and paved lot; part of subject property West: IL Zone - Grocery outlet Existing site characteristics The property contains approximately 2.5 acres, the westerly 1.4 acres of which is the subject of this hearing. This level parcel is improved with an approximately 16,600 square foot building and paved parking lot. The remaining +l.1 acre portion is entirely paved except for a concrete block shed buildFng open on one side. Proposed use The existing building on the westerly 1.4 acres would be converted to an "Office Club," a retail distribution center for office products and supplies. The facility would utilize about 12 employees on the largest shift and operate from 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday, and 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 Thirty-five parking spaces for customer use would be located in the front of the building and 25 additional spaces behind the building for employee and service vehicles. New landscape planters would be provided along the perimeter of the property as well as the front parking lot. An existing 128-square-foot, 24-foot-high sign adjacent to "L" Street would be retained, its copy altered to reflect the new use on the property. D. ANALYSIS Land Use Section 19.44.040 M of the City Zoning Ordinance permits, subject to conditional use permit approval by the City Council, "retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse- type sale of goods." The Office Club concept is consistent with this description in that much of its sales consists of office furniture and equipment and bulk amounts of office- related products. The existing 16,600 square foot building appears adequate to house such a facility. Remainder Parcel Since the Office Club would be located on only a portion of the property, at issue is the use of the remaining 1.1 acres. Presently, this portion of the property is improved with a concrete block building open to view from "L" Street. The parcel is entirely paved and is enclosed by a six-foot- high chain link fence topped with barbed wire. This area was formerly used to store lumber and other building materials. Ideally, the property would redevelop as a unit, but since the remainder parcel is large enough to be developed separately, all that remains is for a minor subdivision map to be filed to legally create the two lots. Off-street Parking The site plan indicates 35 customer parking spaces in front of the building with access via two driveways emanating from "L" Street. An additional 25 spaces to be used by employees and service vehicles are located behind the building. The off-street parking regulations do not specifically address the proposed use. In reviewing data supplied by the applicant, staff has concluded that parking for this use falls at a point between furniture and appliance sales (1 space for 600 square feet of floor area) and retail stores {1 space per 200 square feet of floor area). At one space per 277 square feet of floor area, staff is satisfied that the spaces provided are adequate to serve the proposed facility. To test this conclusion, staff twice visited the applicant's 21,000 sq. ft. Morena Boulevard, San Diego store and counted 30 occupied spaces on a Tuesday at 2:05 P.M. and 31 occupied spaces on a Friday at 11:55 A.M. These spaces included employee parking. In addition, the applicant has provided staff with a parking study of two Office Club facilities in Los City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 4 Angeles County. This study concludes that the type of operation proposed requires a peak-time standard of 1.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area or one space for each 770 square feet of floor area. This would translate to the need for 22 parking spaces to serve the 16,600 sq. ft. in question. Landscaping Aside from a planter adjacent to the front entrance, the property is completely paved. The landscape plan submitted with the application provides planters around nearly the entire perimeter of the parcel as well as at the front of the building and between parking bays. This plan is a considerable improvement over that which presently exists. Signs The applicant proposes to retain the existing freestanding sign located in the front planter. Said sign is 24 feet high with an area of 128 square feet, well within the 35 foot height and 150 square foot area limitations. A wall sign consisting of painted gold letters against a royal blue background is also proposed. Current Activities In hopeful anticipation of the request being approved, the applicant is making interior improvements to the building. It has been made clear by the staff that such improvements are on an at-your-own-risk basis. A recent visit to the property also revealed that the building is presently being stocked. The east portion of the property is being used as a staging area. Neither activity is illegal and the applicant has been made aware that the store cannot be opened for business unless and until appropriate approvals are obtained and imposed conditions fulfilled. The applicant has painted the top approximately five feet of the front of the otherwise white building royal blue. He proposes to paint gold letters over the blue background to identify the business , but has not yet submitted sign plans for approval nor has he obtained authorization for the building colors. The recommended conditions of approval include requirements that signs and building colors be subject to staff approval. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The use at this location will provide a convenient outlet for the purchase of office furniture, products and supplies. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 5 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The available parking is adequate to serve the use as conditioned, and there are no other foreseeable detrimental impacts. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use shall comply with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations prior to the issuance of building and/or occupancy permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposal is consistent with City policy for light industrial areas. WPC 7323P , ,, SIERRA WAY }ROJECT ~ESTED BUTTI r" Weston 1)ringle & Associates August 24, 1989 TRAITIC & TI~ANSPORTATIt)N ENGINEI;g. ING Mr. Donald Chew Director, Facilities Office Club 1631 Challenge Drive Concord, CA 94520 SUBJECT: Office Club Parking - Anaheim Dear Mr. Chew: This letter summarizes our review of parking needs for the Office Club facility located at 571E. Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The study was based upon information provided by you and field studies by our staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Office Club facility includes a 22,400 square foot building with 39 parking spaces to the rear and 10 spaces adjacent to Katella Avenue. A handicapped space is included in the total and is located at the rear and adjacent to the entry. A ratio 6f 2.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square (SF) is provided on an overall basis and 1.7 spaces per 1,000 SF for the rear portion only. The City of Anaheim Code requires 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF for retail stores and service businesses. In order to meet City re- quirements, a parking variance would be required for the Office Club. FIELD STUDIES Since the Office Club is a relatively unique use, field studies were con- ducted of existing facilities to determine parking demands. The Office C)ubs in La Mirada and Signal Hill were utilized as models for this study. These are both facilities that have been opened for a period of time and 2(i51 1;i%.5! (2hal~malt Avtmu¢ · .5m1¢ 11() · l'ullt'rlun, tllthhJrma U2G31 * (71.1) Iq71.2*.)31 both advertise. Table I summarizes the results of the field studies at each location. These studies were conducted on Tuesday, August 22 and Wednesday, August 23, 1989. A review of Table I indicates that the peak observed demand occurred at 2 PM at both sites and that the max- imum observed ratio was 1.3 parked vehicles per 1,000 SF. It is also noted that parking demands for both facilities were very similar in magnitude by time of day. DISCUSSION Observed parking ratios at two operating Office Club facilities in La Mirada and Signal Hill indicated a peak demand of 1.3 parked vehicles per 1,000 SF. These two facilities had supply ratios of 1.7 and 2.2 spaces per'l,000 SF respectively. The Anaheim facility has a ratio of 1.7 spaces per 1,OOO SF when only rear spaces near the entry are consid- ered and 2.2 spaces per 1,000 SF on an overall basis. Applying the maximum ratio of 1.3 spaces per 1,000 SF to the Anaheim facility results in a demand for 29 s~aces. The facility has 39 spaces in the rear'and 10 in front. On the basis of these observations and analyses, the Anaheim facility would be more than adequate with respect to parking supply. SUMMARY ~ This study has examined parking needs for an Office Club facility in the City of Anaheim. Field studies were conducted at two existing Office Club facilities in La Mirada and Signal Hill. These field studies in- dicated a peak parking demand ratio of 1.3 parked vehicles per 1,000 SF of building area. This ratio applied to the Anaheim facility with 22,400 SF results in a need for 29 spaces. The site provides 39 spaces adja- cent to the building entry and 49 total which are more than adequate to accommodate projected demands. On this basis, a parking variance would be justified. PARKING" 'r ~ OFFICE CLU~ TIHF LA MIRADA SIGNAL HILL Parked Parked Vehicles Ratio(}) Vehicles Ratio(2) ~0 A~d 16 9.? 16 0.5 11 A~ 20 0.9 2] 0.7 NOON 20 Of 9 ~E 1.0 2 PM ?~'. 1~3 30 1.0 q PM lg 0.8 29 1.0 6 PM ]4 0.5 24 0.8 (Ii Parked Vehicles per 1,000 SF (22,050 SF Facility) (2) ):arked Vehicles pe~ I~000 SF (~,'' 'q SF Fac!lity) We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Anaheim. If you have any questions or require additional infor- mation, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered'Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP/lu ~891260 i i j t®d - negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Office Club PROJECT LOCATION: 630 L Street, Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: Office Club 1631 Challenge Drive, Concord, CA 94520 CASE NO: IS 90-37 DATE: March 5, 1990 A. Project Settin9 The project site was previously developed as the Western Lumber Company site and contains an existing building. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing building on. site, as well as, the existing parking lot area. There are no sensitive environmental resources located on this site, which is in an urbanized segment of the City. B. Project Description The Office Club is a proposed discount-priced office supply store on one lot which totals 2.54 acres (111,017 sq. ft.). The project is located off "L" Street in the City of Chula Vista, between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard. Figures 1 and 2 show the Regional/Vicinity Location and Site Plan, respectively. The site is currently developed with a 16,656 sq. ft. building which was previously used to house Western Lumber. The site is designated in the General Plan as Industrial, Research and Limited Manufacturing. The site is zoned Limited Industrial which allows the manufacturing of products from previously prepared materials as well as wholesale and warehousing. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit to ensure compatibility with the Limited Industrial Zoning and Research and Limited Manufacturing General Plan designation. With compliance to the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit, the proposed use will be consistent with the land use designations on site. ~I~ city of chula vista planning department Cra'OF -- environmental review section CHUIAVISTA -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 95% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The estimated response time is 6 minutes, and the nearest fire station is 1.5 miles away. The proposed project is in compliance with this threshold standard. 2. Police The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project is in conformance to this threshold standard. 3. Traffic The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that i% is in compliance, providing traffic miti- .gation is forthcoming. 4. Parks/Recreation The Thresholds/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,O00 population. This threshold standard applies only to specific residential projects, therefore, the proposed project is exempt from the threshold standard for Parks and Recreation. 5. Drainage The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project is ~n existing, developed site with adequate infrastructure. -3- 6. Sewer Review of the specific development proposals by the City will ensure that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City,engineering standards. 7. Water The Thresholds/Standards' Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment and transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The project will ensure implementation of this threshold standard for water resources since it provides policy objectives for their protection. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project may resu~tt in significant, adverse environmental effects. Mitigation measures have been-required to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of less than significant. Specific project mitigation has been required for traffic impacts, and a mitigated negative declaration has been i~sued i,n accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. Traffic Impacts A Traffic Impact Study (Appendix 2) was conducted in order to ascertain the level of traffic impact to the two intersections. The study found that the increase in traffic caused by the Office Club would incrementally further impact the above mentioned intersections which are currently at Level of Service (LOS) "E" ("A" being the best case, "F" being the worst case). According to the Traffic Section of the City of Chula Vista's Threshold/Standards Policy, signalized intersections west of Interstate 805 which cannot meet the LOS standard of "C" (or "D" for not more than two hours per day) may continue to operate at their current LOS, but shall not women. The traffic study showed that there would be an increase in the Capacity Utilization Factor (ICU) of the "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection of 0.03, and an increase at the "L" Street/Broadway intersection of 0.03, thereby worsening the current LOS. Thus, the proposed project would incrementally contribute to a cumulatively significant traffic impact. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects Traffic impacts have been deemed potentially significant. Mitigation measures are recommended in the Study to reduce these impacts. These measures include: 1. Adding a thru-lane to Broadway heading south at "L" Street/Broadway intersection; or a right turn lane at the same intersection on Broadway heading south. 2. Adding a right turn lane to "L" Street heading east at the "L" Street/Broadway intersection. 3. Adding a right turn lane to "L" Street heading east at the "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection. 4. Widening of "L" Street in front of the Office Club property and improvements including new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Thus, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, LOS would improve to "C" or above with the exception of the "L" Street/Broadway intersection at the PM peak period, which would improve to LOS "D". The applicant would be responsible to contribute funding for a portion of the costs of these improvements. The percentage contribution from the applicant would have to be negotiated between the City and the applicant once the costs have been established. Because of the availability of feasible mitigation to reduce the cumulative significant impact to a level below significant, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended as the CEQA compliance action. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. -5- The proposed Office Club project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, since specific project mitigation has been required to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to a level of less than significant. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The pro~o.sed Office Club project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals since long-term goals would be achieved through the action of project specific mitigation concerning potential traffic~impacts. Potentially significant traffic impacts will be mitigated through the requirement that the applicant provide funding towards street improve- ments in the project vicinity. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed Office Club Project is not deemed to have any significant, adverse cumulative impacts, since potentially significant traffic impacts have been required specific mitigatio~ to reduce them ~ a level of less than significant. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Office Club Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial, adverse impact on human beings, and no adverse health impacts were identified in the initial study for this project. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents Environmental Initial Study for the Office Club, Keller Environmental, February, 1990. Office Club Traffi.c Impact Study, JHK & Associates, February 12, 1990. Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR, 1989. -6- This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on she Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7240P 'L' Street Figure 2 SITE PLAN N · ; FOR OFFICE USE Case No .. INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND l. PROQECT TITLE /'~ ~;:¢/~___~ 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. R ECT DESCRZ TZO 4. .ame of Applicant ~~ ~ ~PZ ~ Address ~] ~(~ ~, Phone City ~7,~ ~State ~ Zip~ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~ ~ Address ~ ~,~/~ Phone City ~.~ ~0 State ~ Zip ~ Relation to Applicant 6, Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd, Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board ~Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map ~'Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study ~'Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate ~, i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting ~(l~lh,~_~ 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area Isq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used {air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~W~t'~ ~h~cz.~ ~,,,~, 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project {sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. O. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. ~eol ogy Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? {If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? ~ {If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water tab l e ? ~,~? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? ~)~ e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? ~ 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which Iif any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? ~.. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. I~ ~,~L~ V~kJ% ¢2f-¢¢-1 - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South East West 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?).. MO b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) ~ Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owner/~ner ~n escro~~ HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that alt known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: z~r'/_ - ~1~ <~j~y~.~ North J~-'~ ~ ..... South ~ . J~. ~ y_ East ~, .... West ~. ,, ,, Does the project conform to the current zoning? j~ ~ ~ 2. General Plan land use designation on site: North South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~.~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~-~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in,he Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ,~//~_~. What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? {2AC/lO00 pop.) - Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools _ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance gapacity From Project E1 ementary ~r. High Sr. H~gh 4. ~esthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) ~o - 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: 1rector ot Planning or Representative bate - l0 - Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage \ a. Is the project site within a flood plain? yes ? ~oo'~ ~o~J ~:~,~J~ b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~1" ~- b.What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips~to be generated by the project (per day)? ~ ~-0 ~-r~'l,~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after Project completion? Be fore After A.D.T. ~,~0 L.O.S. ~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ' e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? .x/~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. E.o.~. - 11 Case No. 3. G~eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? o'1~ Landslide or slippage? b.Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project~ ~ ~/-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ........ - ~- ~-,m. 4. Soils ..................................... ~. ~ · a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soJi conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~!~ 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~KLAT 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12- Case No. 7. Sir Quality If there is any direct or indirect-automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution CO I~zo X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons llzo X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) I~Zo X 20.0 : Particulates . - ~1~ X 1.5 : ~z~ 400 Sulfur - ~tt~- .... X - -' '78 _ 8. waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid % ~ \~',/l')o~ Liquid ~ O0 Nhat is the location and size of existing sewer adjacent to the site? _z~_~se~- 0:.o ~' .lines on or Are they a~eqda~e~o s-e~v~the ornnn~mm n.n(m~*~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public ~acilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. l~hat is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time?.~~ 2. ~lill the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? Fire O4arshal J Date -13(a)- Case No. /~-__~ _~_ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood ,k Community parks - ~ ~ ' 2. If not, are parkland dedications_or othem mitigation proposed~ as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies.? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative CHUI,A'-ISTA CITY SCHOOL )ISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ~ARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD JUDY~HULENBERG F~NKA. TARANTINO January 30, 1990 ,~R,M FE~ 2 1990 Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No. IS-90-37 Applicant: Office Club Location: 630 L Street Project: 16,000' Discount Office Supply Outlet Dear Mr. Reid: Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and the District has added 25 relocatable classrooms over the past three years to assist in accommodating growth. Students are also being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation, and to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is located in the Harborside School attendance area. A developer fee of 12¢ per square foot is currently being charged to help provide facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp Sweetwater Union High School District February 5. 1990 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator CIty of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: CASE NO: IS-90-37 DESCRIPTION: 16.000 sq. ft. off price discount supply outlet LOCATION: 630 "L" Street APPLICANT: Office Club If the above subject project requires the construction of new building space payment of commercial/industrial school fees will be required. Fees are not required for tenant _ improvements which do not result in new habitable area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 691-5553. Respectfully. Director of Plannin~ TS/ml FEB 7 1990 OFFICE CLUB CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY February, 1990 Prepared for: S~ I.MAN/WYMAN, INC. Prepared by: KET.T.T~R ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. (KEA) 964 Fifth Avenue, Suite 535 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 544-1414 KEA Job No. 90-04 TABI.R OF CONTENTS Section Title Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY .............................. 1 DISCUSSION ................................................... 2 Geology 2 ~' Soils ............................................. 3. Groundwater ......................................... 2 ~. Drainage .............. i ........................... 3 · Resources ..................... 3 · Quality ........................................ 3 8. Water Quality ................................... 3 91~ Noise ...................................... 3 . Biology ..................................... 3 11. Cultural Resources ............................. 3 Land Use ~' Aesthetics .................................... 4 14. Social .............................. 4 15. Community Infrastructure 4 16. Energy .............................................. 4 17. Utilities 4 18. Human Health 4 19. Transportation/Access ....................... 6 20. Natural Resources .................. 6 21. Risk of Upset ......................................... 6 22. Growth Inducement 6 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................... 6 ii OFFICE CLUB CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY PROJECT DESCRIFIION The Office Club is a proposed discount-priced office supply store on one lot which totals 2.54 acres (111,017 sq. ft.). The project is located off "L" Street in the City of Chula Vista, between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard. Figures 1 and 2 show the Regional/Vicinity Location and Site Plan, respectively. The site is currently developed with a 16,656 sq. ft. building which was previously used to house Western Lumber. The site is designated in the General Plan as Industrial, Research and Limited Manufacturing. The site is zoned Limited Industrial which allows the manufacturing of products from previously prepared materials as well as wholesale and warehousing. As such, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY This Environmental Initial Study is prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements (Section 15063) which states that "Following preliminary review, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment." One of the purposes of an Initial Study is to "Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an [Environmental Impact Report] EIR or Negative Declaration." The Lead Agency for this Environmental Initial Study (EIS) is the City of Chula Vista. The preparer of the EIS is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. The Environmental Initial Study resulted in the identification of one potentially significant cumulative impact. This was the impact to traffic at two intersections near the proposed location of the Office Club; at "U' Street and Broadway, and "L" Street and Industrial Boulevard. The Initial Study Checklist is included in this report in Appendix 1. 1 'L' Street I '"'?:,d..-' , .'.-:: .-. ~:'"'"' ~' ,~' ~' ,~' Figure 2 SITE PLAN N A Traffic Impact Study (Appendix 2) was conducted in order to ascertain the level of traffic impact to the two intersections. The study found that the increase in traffic caused by the Office Club would incrementally further impact the above mentioned intersections which are currently at Level of Service (LOS) "E" ("A" being the best case, "F" being the worst case). According to the Traffic Section of the City of Chula Vista's Threshold/Standards Policy, signalized intersections west of Interstate 805 which cannot meet the LOS standard of "C" (or "D" for not more than two hours per day) may continue to operate at their current LOS, but shall not women The traffic study showed that there would be an increase in the Capacity Utilization Factor (ICU) of the "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection of 0.03, and an increase at the "L" Street/Broadway intersection of 0.03, thereby worsening the current LOS. Thus, the proposed project would incrementally contribute to a cumulatively significant traffic impact. Mitigation measures are recommended in the Study to reduce these impacts. These measures include: 1. Adding a thru-lane to Broadway heading south at "L" Street/Broadway intersection; or a right turn lane at the same intersection on Broadway heading south. 2. Adding a right turn lane to "L" Street heading east at the "L" Street/Broadway intersection. 3. Adding a right turn lane to "L" Street heading east at the "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection. 4. Widening of "L" Street in front of the Office Club property and improvements including new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Thus, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, LOS would improve to "C" or above with the exception of the "L" Street/Broadway intersection at the PM peak period, which would improve to LOS "D". The applicant would be responsible to contribute funding for a portion of the costs of these improvements. The percentage contribution from the applicant would have to be negotiated between the City and the applicant once the costs have been established. Because of the availability of feasible mitigation to reduce the cumulative significant impact to a level below significant, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended as the CEQA compliance action. 2 DISCUSSION The following Discussion pertains to the Initial Study Checklist (Appendix A). The project proposes the use of an existing building, with no construction or structural modifications to the property required. 2. Soils See Number 1. r The site is previously developed and as such no access to groundwater is available. 4. Drainage l All drainage currently flows westerly to existing gutters which are adequate to serve the project. Once construction plans are completed, site drainage will be checked for adequacy by the City Engineering Department. 5. Mineral and A~cultural Resources Since the project area is already developed, no resources are present on-site. 6. ...Land Form I The project proposes the use of ex/sting structures and parking lot. No additional _ construction or land form alteration will be required. 7. Air Quality The proposed use will not emit any odors, fumes, or smoke. All uses would be contained - inside the building. 3 All waste water and on-site drainage will be conveyed to existing sewer lines. No run-off to natural surface water would occur. 9. Noise All uses would be contained inside the building. Increases to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity along "L" Street would occur due to traffic and use of the facility. The increase is not expected to be significantly greater than the previous use on the site, and, of itself, is not expected to exceed the 65 dB limit required for exterior residential areas. Residential uses do occur across and slightly east down "L" Street form the project site. 10. Biology The site is currently fully developed. No plant or animal species occur on site. The site has already been developed. As such, no cultural resources exist on the site. 12. Land Use The proposed use (bulk office supply outlet) is consistent with City's General Plan designation (Research and Limited Manufacturing) and zoning (Limited Industrial) which allows the wholesale of previously prepared materials. 13. Aesthetics The aesthetics of the area will be upgraded because the currently vacant building will be cosmetically revitalized resulting in a more appropriate blend with surrounding uses. 14. Social The proposed use will not displace residents or cause an increase in the need for housing. 4 15. Communi _ty Infrastructure Any impacts to roads can be properly mitigated, and school fees must be paid by the applicant. 16. Energy The project would result in an increase in the use of natural resources, specifically fossil fuels, timber, and water, however the increase is negligible by itself. This incremental increase does, however, contribute to a larger, significant regional demand on the resources. The City could require that conservation techniques be implemented in the building design. 17. Utilities See Number 16. 18. Human Health The project would not create any human health hazards. 19. Transportation/Access The City's Threshold/Standards Policy states the following standards: 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard #1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall not worsen. 3. City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LOS "F" as measured for the average weekday peak hour. Because the proposed project would increase the amount of traffic (see Traffic Impact Study, AppendLx 2) at the intersections of "L" Street and Broadway and "L" Street and 5 Industrial Boulevard, an incremental contribution to a cumulatively significant impact would occur. The recommended mitigation measures contained within the traffic study would reduce this cumulative impact to a level below significant. The applicant would contribute an as yet unknown amount of funding toward these improvements. 20. ~urces No natural resources exist on the site. 21. Risk of Upset The project does not include the use of any hazardous materials. 22. _Growth Inducemenl; The project will not create a need for additional housing. 23. Mandato _ry Findings of Significance The proposed project would not degrade any environmental or human resources, and would not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. Project-related traffic would incrementally contribute to a cumulatively significant impact. If mitigation measures for potential traffic impacts are implemented, then no significant impacts would occur. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended as the CEQA compliance action. 6 APPENDIX 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CI'~CKLIST F'ORM MAR 8 '90 14:25 FRO~ BORGESE×BIGELOW ~ PAGE.002 ,_.-~__~.-~8-'9~._.'n~J._ .I.d.S. Ii ID:CITY ~F CHULA VISTA TEL ~O:FAX 619 ~91 5171 . : ,~ ,.-~ ~ r ' ~ · ~ ·: ..... ~. : ' . ,.* .~. . ..~ ~'~ : ,, : , ,,,,~, WIf' 1 I I I I I I ' '""?~ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY { { { [ [ [ {_ CHULA VISTA OFFICE CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared For Sillman/Wyman~ Inc. 9609 Naples Street~ Suite 200 San Diego, California 92121 Prepared By 3HK & Associates 2831 Camino Del Rio South~ Suite 205 San Diego, California 92108 February 12, 1990 jhk . & associates 1. INTRODUCTION The objective of this study is to analyze the traffic impact of the proposed Office Club, a discount stationary chain store, in the City of Chula Vista. In addition, traffic mitigation measures will be suggested. Also, the improvement in traffic conditions resulting from the mitigation measures will be analyzed. 1.1 Site Location The address of the proposed site is 63 L Street, Chula Vista, California. The site is on the South side of L Street approximately 150 yards west of the intersection of L Street and Broadway. The location of the site is illustrated in Figure 1. The development includes the remodeling of 16,656 square feet of old Western Lumber Building that is currently vacant. Also, a total of 54 parking spaces will be provided for approximately 12 employees and customers. The total project area is 111,017 square feet (2.54 acres). The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The land use shows distinct contrast between the south side and north side of L Street. The south side (across from the Office Club site) is a quiet residential area, while the north side accommodates a warehouse discount grocery store and an unused open field. 1.2 Local Street System and Surrounding Development The intersections on which the proposed Office Club will cause traffic impact are L Street at Broadway and L Street at Industrial Boulevard. Currently, L Street and Broadway have four lanes and Industrial Boulevard has two lanes. Figure 3 illustrates the existing configurations for two key intersections mentioned above. According to the General Plan proposed by the City of Chula Vista, in the future, L Street, Broadway, and Industrial Boulevard will be classified as a Class I Collector Street, a Four-Lane Major Street and a Class II Collector Street respectively. Both Class I Collector Streets and Four-Lane Major Streets will have tour lanes, and Class II Collector Streets will have two lanes. Therefore, lane configurations of those streets mentioned above will not change significantly in the near future according to the City's General Plan. 1-1 Figure 1 Site Location Map 1-2 L STI~ ~-T Parking Lo~ .~ Parking Spac~ Office Club 16,6.~6 Sq. P~ Parkhl8 Lot jhk., Figure 2 Site Plan i-3 jhk assoc,ates 1.3 Existing Traffic Volumes The average weekday daily traffic volumes (ADT) for the local streets were calculated based on the traffic flow report from the City of Chula Vista. Annual growth rate of 3 percent per year was used to factor up the ADT's to the 1990 count. Figure t~ represents the existing ADT's for the local streets. The most recent intersection turning movement volume counts for the study area were taken by JHK staff on March 30 ol 1989. Morning peaks lor the intersections L Street/Broadway, and L Street/Industrial Boulevard occurred between 7:15 AM and 8:15 AM, and 7:30 AM and 8-'30 AM respectively, while mid- day and evening peaks were observed between ll:t~5 AM and 12-'30 PM, and 3:45 PM and 4-'30 PM, respectively for both intersections. Again, the annual growth factor of 3 percent was used to factor up these volumes to the current number. The peak hour turning movement volumes and the level of service (LOS) for the two key intersections, L Street at Broadway and L Street at Industrial Boulevard, were represented in Appendix A and Table 2 in Section 2.2 respectively. Both intersections are operating at LO5 C or better for both the morning and mid-day peak hours. However, for evening peak hours, both intersections operate at LOS Eo 1-5 a~ Shopping Center I L S~t 203~8' 180gg*+ ZOla6** Office CI~ Ari~na S~ Mo~ S~t 6079** g583~* 7363** ~ ~ B~ed on 1~89 Co~ [ I ** Based on 1988 Counts m I ~ B~ed on 1~87 Counts ~1 3% Growth Rate Figure Existing ADT Map .ihk associates 2o TRIP GENERATION AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2.1 Trip Generation A trip generation rate specific to this kind of facility is difficult to obtain. First of all, no impact study has been done for the Office Club project in the San Diego area. Als% the characteristics of the operation of the Office Club hardly fit into the category given in the SANDAG Trip Generation Report. The "discount store" category in SANDAG Trip Generation Report is given to the small shopping centers that consist of several commercial stores. In this study the trip generation rate for the discount store recommended in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report was used to forecast the number of trips generated by the Office Club. It should be mentioned that since the trip generation rate from the ITE Report is for all-purpose discount stores instead of the specialty discount stores such as the Office Club, the actual trip generation rate of the Office Club should be somewhat lower than the rate given in the ITE Report. Therefor% the estimated number of trips generated by the Office Club in this study may be considered as the worst-case scenario. Table I summarizes the estimated number of trips generated by the Office Club for daily total, morning, mid-day, and evening peak hours for an average weekday. During the morning peak hour, 9# trips are generated by the Office Club. 94 trips consist of 82 customer trips (41 coming into and 41 going out from the site) and 12 work trips (coming in). During the mid-day peak hour, 120 trips are generated by the Office Club. It was assumed that 60 trips will come into the site and 60 trips will leave the site. For the evening peak hour, it was forecasted that 130 trips will be generated by the Office Club. It was assumed that 75 vehicles will Come into and 75 vehicles will leave the site during this time period. 2-1 Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Maximum Number of Employees = 12 GFA = 16,056 feet2 Trip rate per 1~000 ft2 GFA Number of Trips Weekday 71.1 1185 AM Peak Hour Weekday 5.7 94 PM Peak Hour Weekday 7.5 130 Mid-day Peak Hour 6.g 120 To forecast the distribution of the generated traffic, several assumptions were made. First, 50 percent of the vehicles leaving the site will go Eastbound while the remaining 30 percent will go Westbound. It was also assumed that 73 percent of the traffic coming into the site will be from the east, and the remaining 23 percent will be from the Interstate 3 ramp via Industrial Boulevard. 2.2 Traffic Impact To determine the traffic impact caused by the proposed Office Club, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to forecast the level of service (LOS) for two key intersections with and without the Office Club. Based on the turning movement volume counts collected by 3HK on March 30~ 1989, a 3 percent growth rate was applied to udpate the volume. First, ICU analysis was performed for two intersections without taking into account the trips generated by the Office Club. Then, ICU analysis was performed again including the trips generated by the Office Club. Table 2 compares the capacity utilization factor and LOS for two scenarios, one with the Office Club and another without the Office Club. 2-2 .jhk associates Table 2 LOS With and Without Office Club Capacity Utilization Level Intersection Peak Period Factor Service L Street/ Industrial Boulevard AM 0.63 (0.64) B (B) Mid-day 0.6# (0.66) B (B) PM 0.92 (0.95) E(E) L Street/Broadway AM 0.49 (0.51) A (A) Mid-day 0.76 (0.78) C(C) PM 0.90 (0.93) E(E) The results with Office Club are represented in parenthesis Example: No Office Club 0.63 With Office Club (0.65) According to the analysis) the impacts of the Office Club on the two intersections are not severe. The increases in capacity utilization factors range from 0.01 to 0.03. The Office Club has no effect on LOS for the two intersections during any of the peak hours. Note that levels of service range from A to F with A being the best traffic condition. The LOS E, as observed for both intersections during the PM peak hour, is problematic since the intersection is operating at or near capacity. Also, the LOS at both intersections will remain worse than D for more than two hours each day~ and that condition will not meet the threshold specified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Office Club development is not significantly responsible for the problem, JHK will present recommendations for the tra£Iic mitigation measures for both intersections. 2-3 jhk associates TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION 3.1 Recommended Geometry From the ICU analysis, critical movements, or two conflicting movements that have the most significant influence on the condition of the tralfic at an intersection, were identified for two key intersections. For the L Street/Broadway intersection, thru and right turn traffic approaching from the north on Broadway conflicts against the left turn traffic approaching from the south on Broadway. In particular, thru and right turn traffic from the north exceeds one-third oi the capacity of the two lanes that are dedicated for that movement. There are two alternatives to increase the capacity for the thru and right turn traffic from the north. One is to add a thru lane and the other is to add an exclusive right turn lane to accommodate all the right turn vehicles. In the former case, the lane configuration for the north leg of the intersection will be one left turn lane, two thru lanes, and one thru and right turn lane. For the latter case, the lane configuration will be one left turn, two thru lanes, and one right turn lane as illustrated in Figure §. In this study, JHK recommended the second alternative that adds an exclusive right turn lane because, as mentioned before, Broadway will remain a four lane street according to the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. The first alternative will force the thru vehicles from three lanes to weave into two lanes and create a bottleneck downstream of the intersection. Another critical movement at the L Street/Broadway intersection is the thru and right turn traffic from the west on L Street, and the left turn traffic from the east on L Street. Since L Street will also remain a four lane street, adding the right turn lane to the west leg of the intersection is recommended. However~ it should be noted that L Street should be a Class I Collector Street according the City's General Plan, and geometrics should meet the standard set by the City of Chula Vista in the future. Adding right turn lanes to the north leg and the west leg of the intersection will improve the LOS from E to D and the capacity utilization factor from 0.93 to 0.83. ]t can be predicted that LOS D at the intersection will not last more than two hours if current peaking characteristics at the intersection remain the same in the future. 3-1 L Street · L Street / Industrial BIrR I I I L Street ! Broadway jhk & Figure 5 Recommended Intersection Geometrics 3-2 For the intersection at L Street and Industrial Boulevard, thru and right traflic from west on L Street conflicts against left turn traffic from the east on L Street. The thru and right turn traffic west on L Street exceeds #6 percent of the capacity provided by the two lanes. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure .5, the best mitigation meausre is to add a right turn lane to the west leg of the intersection and leave the thru and right turn lane as it is now. However, Interstate 5 is located approximately 200 feet from the Industrial Boulevard, and queing length analysis has to be performed to determine il there is enough room between the overpass over the Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard to add the right turn lane. The LOS and capacity utilization factors resulting from the mitigations just mentioned are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 LOS With Recommended Geometry Capacity Utilization Level Intersection Peak Period Factor Service L Street/ Industrial Boulevard AM 0.61 A Mid-day 0.60 A PM 0.79 C L Street/Broadway AM 0.50 A Mid-day 0.73 C PM 0.83 D Even though the mitigation measures presented in this report improves the LOS to the level required by the City of Chula Vista, each mitigation is schematic, and has to be evaluated further in detail for the issues such as right-of-way, geometric design, and cost. 3-3 APPENDIX A LeRend With Existing Office Club 2~s (311) AM Peak Hour Turning Movemen~ Le{~end With Existing Office Club 330 (327) jhk ~ ...~.= Mid-Day Peak Hour Turn~ng Movements Legend With Existing Office Club PM Peak Hour Turning Movements City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, ]990 Page I 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-4 Amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code relating to nonconforming sign abatement and appeal of sign design decisions of the Zonino Administrator A. BACKGROUND 1. At the request of City Council, staff has prepared various revisions to the Municipal Code relating to nonconforming sign abatement and administration of the Code's sign provisions. 2. The above mentioned revisions are related to the City's ongoing sign abatement program, which began in 1974, upon adoption of the City's first comprehensive sign code. One provision of this Code required the abatement of all nonconforming signs at the conclusion of a 15-year amortization period. That amortization period expired in December, 1989. 3. Prior to the expiration of the nonconforming sign amortization period, staff conducted a Citywide sign inventory, analyzed the data derived therefrom, and reported this ~nformation to the-City Council and interested citizens' groups. Staff met with these citizen's groups at various times over a period of several months to discuss nonconforming sign abatement. 4. Upon reviewing reports from staff and citizen's groups input pertaining to issues related to sign control and nonconforming sign abatement, the Council determined it would be in the public interest to provide ample notice and time for the owners of nonconforming signs to take the steps necessary to abate their signs, provide for relief in hardship cases and improve the administration of the sign code. Accordingly, on February 13, 1990, the Council directed public hearings be held to consider adopting the ordinance changes necessary to implement the Council's policy regarding sign regulation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has found the proposed changes to the Municipal Code to be categorically exempt [Class II (a)] from environmental review. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find the proposed changes to the Municipal Code are categorically exempt [Class II (a)] from environmental review. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 D. DISCUSSION The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code entail administratively rewording several sections, but involve what could be considered two substantive changes. One of these substantive changes would transfer the initial appeal authority for sign design issues from the Planning Commission to the Design Review Committee. The other adds conditions which would require the abatement of a nonconforming sign upon a change of sign copy or ownership of the premises identified by said nonconforming sign. E. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS The following Municipal Code amendments are proposed (see attached Exhibit A): Appeal Procedure, Sign Design Issues - Sections 19.14.050, 582, 583; l~.bU.U30, 24u, and bZU of the Municipal Code pertain to the functions and duties of the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee and Zoning Administrator, which includes sign design review. These regulations currently require appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator in sign design matters to be heard by the Planning Commission, whose decision is appealable to the City Council. It is proposed that the above referenced sections be amended to route appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator in sign design matters to the Design Review Committee, whose decision would be appealable to the Planning Commission. When the City's comprehensive sign regulations were adopted in 1974, the Design Review Committee had not yet been created. Consequently, appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator regarding sign design were administratively routed to the Planning Commission, whose decision was appealable to the City CounciL. Subsequently, the Design Review Committee was created, but it was not given the general authority to review sign design issues, except as related to those projects within its reviewing authority. Upon review of the sign design appeal procedure, and based upon experience with the Design Review Committee's function, staff has determined it would improve the appeal procedure to have the Committee operate as the first level appeal authority on sign design issues. Added Conditions Requiring Nonconforming Sign Abatement - Section 19.60.120 sets forth conditions under which nonconforming signs must be abated. The proposed amendment would add the conditions that upon a change of sign face or ownership of the property upon which the sign is located, a nonconforming sign must be abated or brought into compliance with the Code. This amendment is as requested by the Council at its January 9, 1990, hearing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 (Note: As mentioned in the background section of this report, the Council directed that ordinance authority be established to provide for extension of the nonconforming sign amortization period in hardship cases, and to allow time to provide due notice to the owners of nonconforming signs. In consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that the best ordinance option available to implement the Council's poliicy in this instance would be a noncodified form of ordinance. This is a single purpose, short-lived ordinance that will not become part of the Municipal Code. It is not required to be reviewed under the Planning Commission's hearing process, but it is attached for the Commission's information because it is relative to the issues at hand (see Exhibit B). WPC 7307P EXHIBIT A 19.14.050 Public hearing-Mandatory when. A. The zoning administrator may, at his option, refer any of the matters on which he is authorized to rule and/or issue a permit to the design review committee or planning commission for review. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory. B. Any person who disagrees with the ruling, except a sign design ruling, of the zoning administrator may appeal such ruling to the planning commission. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory. Any person who disagrees with a sign design ruling of the zoning administrator may appeal such ruling to the design review committee. In such cases, the sign project ruling under appeal shall be reviewed by the design review committee in accordance with Section 1~.14.b~2 as set ~orth herein. C. Notwithstanding the above provisions, the zoning administrator may, at his option, or upon appeal, refer applications for carnivals and circuses on which he is authorized to issue a permit to the city council for review. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory. 19,14.582 Design review committee-Duties and responsibilities. A. The design review committee shall review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteKation of residential uses or structures in the R-3 zone, all development and redevelopment within the redevelopment project boundaries, and multiple-family dwelling uses, commercial or industrial projects or structures governed by the P precise modifying district; and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny such plans, except when projects are within the boundaries of a redevelopment project, the committee shall recommend approval, conditional approval or denial to the redevelopment agency of the city. The committee shall render decisions on minor proposals as defined in Agency Resolution No. 71. B. The design review committee shall also review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multiple family dwelling uses, major use permits, commercial, or industrial projects or structures located within the 1985 Montgomery annexation area, and governed by Chapter 19.70 of this ordinance. C__~. The design review committee shall review all apeals filed to contest sign design rulings of th? zoning administrator. eX D~. The design review committee shall base its findings and action upon the provisions of the effected design manuals of the city. DX E~. The design review committee shall prepare and adopt operational procedures, bylaws and business forms. EX F__~. The design review committee shall submit annual reports on its operations to the city planning commission and redevelopment agency. VX G~. The fee for a hearing before the design review committee is as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the master fee schedule. 19.60.030 Application-Contents required-Determination authority-Appeals. All signs requiring a sign permit shall be submitted for approval by the zoning administrator, prior to installation. The application shall indicate the size, location, design, color, lighting and materials of all signs to be erected. The application shall also contain sufficient information on the architecture, colors and materials of the building on the site, as is necessary to determine compatibility of the sign to the building. In addition the applicant shall submit a color rendering and/or paint sample boards or chips and/or actual materials to be used on the sign. The zoning administrator shall determine whether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its conformance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the ~)~W~I~//~Y~¥o~ design review committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.14.050. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. 19.60.120 Nonconforming signs-Alteration or modification required when. Regardless of the provisions of Section 19.60.110 as set forth hereinabove, all signs which fail to conform to the requirements of this title after the effective date of the ordinance codified herein shall be altered or modified to conform to said requirements if any of the following conditions should occur: - A. Any change in the sign copy, use, or ownership of the premises identified by the nonconforming sign. Any change in land use which requires the assessment of a different land use code number as defined in the standard land use code book prepared by San Diego County dated July, 1968, including such amendments as may be made from time to time, shall constitute a change of land use for the purposes of sign conformance. B. If any changes, modifications or alterations are performed on such a nonconforming sign that require the issuance of a building permit, said sign shall be required to fully conform to all standards and regulations in effect at the time of the request for such permit. C. Repainting of painted signs on structures for normal maintenance will be allowed. 19.60.240 Design review requirements-Individual signs-Review authority- Appeals. A. Signing applications for individual businesses which are not located within commercial or industrial centers shall also be subject to design review by the zoning administrator. B. In such cases, it shall be the obligation of the zoning administrator to review other signs existing within the area of the proposed sign to be erected and insure that the design elements as set forth here and above will promote and create harmonious and nonconflicting or obstructing sign arrangements. C. The review authority shall be limited, however, insofar as imposition of design standards to the principles as set forth in Sections 19.60.220 through 19.60.250, and the zoning administrator shall strive to insure that such individual signs will relate to the building upon which is to be erected in terms of overall design, theme, colors, materials used, and the design elements set forth here and above. Offensive or nonharmonious signs either by virtue of the impropriety of their configuration or shape, or the garishness or clashing of the colors proposed to be used, shall be cause for disapproval. D. Any decision of the zoning administrator, in regard to design review, shall be subject to appeal to the ~7~WWld~//ff~t~f~f~W design review committee in accordance with publication of Section 19.14.050 of this code. 19.60.520 Planned signing program-Approval-Conditions attached when-Appeal of decision. The zoning administrator may attach appropriate and reasonable conditions to any approval of the planned signing program, including, but not limited to, conditions which alter sign configurations, reduce the sign area, relocate signs upon the lot or buildings, or require other design modifications. The zoning administrator shall exercise a high degree of discretionary judgment in the review of a planned signing program and may decline to take action himself to approve, deny or conditionally approve any such program and, in lieu thereof, refer a recommended action to the ~7~I~//~ design review committee for decision. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the ~)a~W~ ¢~W design review committee in accordance with provisions of Section 19.14.050. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. WPC 7160P EXHIBIT B Revised 2/6/90 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXTENDING THE NONCONFORMING SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD WHEREAS, Section 19.60.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 1575, adopted November 5, 1974, established a 15-year amortization/abatement period for on-site nonconforming signs, and and WHEREAS, said amortization/abatement period has expired, WHEREAS, at its public hearing of January 9, 1990, the City Council considered the issues associated with the aforementioned 15-year amortization/abatement period and received public testimony relative thereto, and WHEREAS, the City,Council found that it would be in the public interest to extend the aforementioned amortization/abatement period to December 31, 1990, and establish a procedure whereby an additional 12-month extension could be granted for cases of undue hardship. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Those nonconforming on-site signs subject to immediate removal and abatement after December 5, 1989, under the provisions of Section 19.60.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be accepted as conforming signs until December 31, 1990, and shall thereafter be subject to immediate abatement and removal, except as provided in Section II hereof. SECTION II. In cases of undue hardship, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to grant an extension of the on-site nonconforming sign abatement date for a period of not to exceed 12 months, and not extending beyond December 31, 1991. Undue hardship, as used in this section, is meant to include those situations where the ownership of a nonconforming sign has changed after December 5, 1974, the subsequent Owner was not apprised of the nonconforming status of the sign in question, and for this reason the subsequent owner is faced with a demonstrated difficulty in meeting the nonconforming sign abatement date. The Zoning Administrator may also grant a time extension for bona fide reasons of undue hardship based upon the facts of the individual case. ~ -1- SECTION III. An application for an extension of the nonconforming sign abatement date shall be made by the owner of a non-conforming sign, or his authorized agent, on a form prescribed by the City. Said application, which shall include a sign design, must be filed with the City prior to August 31, 1990. Applications will not be accepted by the City after this date. The Zoning Administrator shall not approve an application for an extension of the nonconforming sign abatement date until the applicant has filed an approved sign plan with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. SECTION IV. The applicant for a time extension filed under the provisions of this ordinance, or other interested party, may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Section 19.14.240 of the Municipal Code, following the same procedure specified for filing a variance appeal. Section 19.14.240 notwithstanding, the Planning Commission's decision on the appeal shall be final. SECTION V. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. SECTION VI. This ordinance shall be a non-codified ordinance kept on file in. the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Bob Leiter, Director of Planning Thomas J. Harmon, City Attorney 6746a -2- CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT I~PLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN O~ERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than lO% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profi~ organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit. organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. ~ave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No }(, If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any indiv!dual, firm, copartnership, joint ventu.re, associ.ation, -' .[soc--6~-iTT club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, ~! Ithis. and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other '']::':":~"-~.~ .~(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~~ t/~/~,~_ .~7~A~; ... Sign~ oflapplicant/date City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-4 - Amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code relating to nonconforming sign abatement and appeal of sign design decisions of the Zoning Administrator A. BACKGROUND 1. At the request of City Council, staff has prepared various revisions to the Municipal Code relating to nonconforming sign abatement and administration of the Code's sign provisions. 2. The above mentioned revisions are related to the City's ongoing sign abatement program, which began in 1974, upon adoption of the City's first comprehensive sign code. One provision of this Code required the abatement of all nonconforming signs at the conclusion of a 15-year amortization period. That amortization period expired in December, 1989. 3. Prior to the expiration of the nonconforming sign amortization period, staff conducted a Citywide sign inventory, analyzed the data derived therefrom, and reported this information to the City Council and interested citizens' groups. Staff met with these citizen's groups at various times over a period of several months to discuss nonconforming sign abatement. 4. Upon reviewing reports from staff and citizen's groups input pertaining to issues related to sign control and nonconforming sign abatement, the Council determined it would be in the public interest to provide ample notice and time for the owners of nonconforming signs to take the steps necessary to abate their signs, provide for relief in hardship cases and improve the administration of the sign code. Accordingly, on February 13, 1990, the Council directed public hearings be held to consider adopting the ordinance changes necessary to implement the Council's policy regarding sign regulation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has found the proposed changes to the Municipal Code to be categorically exempt [Class II (a)] from environmental review. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find the proposed changes to the Municipal Code are categorically exempt [Class II {a)] from environmental review. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 2 D. DISCUSSION The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code entail administratively rewording several sections, but involve what could be considered two substantive changes. One of these substantive changes would transfer the initial appeal authority for sign design issues from the Planning Commission to the Design Review Committee. The other adds conditions which would require the abatement of a nonconforming sign upon a change of sign copy or ownership of the premises identified by said nonconforming sign. E. PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS The following Municipal Code amendments are proposed {see attached Exhibit A): Appeal Procedure, Sign Design Issues - Sections 19.14.050, 582, 583; 19.bU.U3D, 24U, and b2U of the Municipal Code pertain to the functions and duties of the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee and Zoning Administrator, which includes sign design review. These regulations currently require appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator in sign design matters to be heard by the Planning Commission, whose decision is appealable to the City Council. It is proposed that the above referenced sections be amended to route appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator in sign design matters to the Design Review Committee, whose decision would be appealable to the Planning Commission. When the City's comprehensive sign regulations were adopted in 1974, the Design Review Committee had not yet been created. Consequently, appeals from rulings of the Zoning Administrator regarding sign design were administratively routed to the Planning Commission, whose decision was appealable to the City CounciL. Subsequently, the Design Review Committee was created, but it was not given the general authority to review sign design issues, except as related to those projects within its reviewing authority. Upon review of the sign design appeal procedure, and based upon experience with the Design Review Committee's function, staff has determined it would improve the appeal procedure to have the Committee operate as the first level appeal authority on sign design issues. Added Conditions Requiring Nonconforming Sign Abatement Section 19.60.120 sets forth conditions under which nonconforming signs must be abated. The proposed amendment would add the conditions that upon a change of sign face or ownership of the property upon which the sign is located, a nonconforming sign must be abated or brought into compliance with the Code. This amendment is as requested by the Council at its January 9, 1990, hearing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Page 3 {Note: As mentioned in the background section of this report, the Council directed that ordinance authority be established to provide for extension of the nonconforming sign amortization period in hardship cases, and to allow time to provide due notice to the owners of nonconforming signs. In consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that the best ordinance option available to implement the Council's poliicy in this instance would be a noncodified form of ordinance. This is a single purpose, short-lived ordinance that will not become part of the Municipal Code. It is not required to be reviewed under the Planning Commission's hearing process, but it is attached for the Commission's information because it is relative to the issues at hand (see Exhibit B). WPC 7307P EXHIBIT A 1g.14.050 Public hearing-Mandatory when. A. The zoning administrator may, at his option, refer any of the matters on which he is authorized to rule and/or issue a permit to the design review committee or planning commission for review. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory. B. Any person who disagrees with the ruling, except a sign design ruling,.of the zoning administrator may appeal such ruling to the planning commission. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory..Any person who disagrees with a sign design ruling of the zoning administrator may appeal such ruling to the design review committee. In such cases, the sign project ruling under appeal shall be reviewed by the design review committee in accordance with Section 19.14.b~2 as set ~ortn ~erein. C. Notwithstanding the above provisions, the zoning administrator may, at his option, or upon appeal, refer applications for carnivals and circuses on which he is authorized to issue a permit to the city council for review. In such cases, a public hearing as provided herein shall be mandatory. 19.14.582 Design review committee-Duties and responsibilities. A. The design review committee shall review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of residential uses or structures in the R-3 zone, all development and redevelopment within the redevelopment project boundaries, and multiple-family dwelling uses, commercial or industrial projects or structures governed by the P precise modifying district; and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny such plans, except when projects are within the boundaries of a redevelopment project, the committee shall recommend approval, conditional approval or denial to the redevelopment agency of the city. The committee shall render decisions on minor proposals as defined in Agency Resolution No. 71. B. The design review committee shall also review plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multiple family dwelling uses, major use permits, commercial, or industrial projects or structures located within the 1985 Montgomery annexation area, and governed by Chapter 19.70 of this ordinance. C. The design review committee shall review all apeals filed to contest si~n -- design rulings of the zoning administrator. ¢l D. The design review committee shall base its findings and action upon -- the provisions of the effected design manuals of the city. ~l E. The design review committee shall prepare and adopt operational -- procedures, bylaws and business forms. ~ F. The design review committee shall submit annual reports on its -- operations to the city planning commission and redevelopment agency. W G. The fee for a hearing before the design review committee is as -- presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the master fee schedule. 19.60.030 Application-Contents required-Determination authority-Appeals. All signs requiring a sign permit shall be submitted for approval by the zoning administrator, prior to installation. The application shall indicate the size, location, design, color, lighting and materials of all signs to be erected. The application shall also contain sufficient information on the architecture, colors and materials of the building on the site, as is necessary to determine compatibility of the sign to the building. In addition the applicant shall submit a color rendering and/or paint sample boards or chips and/or actual materials to be used on the sign. The zoning administrator shall determine whether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its conformance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the ~7~//o~i~ design review committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.14.050. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. lg.60.120 Nonconforming signs-Alteration or modification required when. Regardless of the provisions of Section 19.60.110 as set forth hereinabove, all signs which fail to conform to the requirements of this title after the effective date of the ordinance codified herein shall be altered or modified to conform to said reguirements if any of the following conditions should occur: A. Any change in the sign copy, use, or ownership of the premises identified by the nonconforming sign. Any change in land use which requires the assessment of a different land use code number as defined in the standard land use code book prepared by San Diego County dated July, 1968, including such amendments as may be made from time to time, shall constitute a change of land use for the purposes of sign conformance. B. If any changes, modifications or alterations are performed on such a nonconforming sign that require the issuance of a building permit, said sign shall be required to fully conform to all standards and regulations in effect at the time of the request for such permit. C. Repainting of painted signs on structures for normal maintenance will be allowed. 19.60.240 Design review requirements-Individual signs-Review authority- Appeals. A. Signing applications for individual businesses which are not located within commercial or industrial centers shall also be subject to design review by the zoning administrator. B. In such cases, it shall be the obligation of the zoning administrator to review other signs existing within the area of the proposed sign to be erected and insure that the design elements as set forth here and above will promote and create harmonious and nonconflicting or obstructing sign arrangements. C. The review authority shall be limited, however, insofar as imposition of design standards to the principles as set forth in Sections 19.60.220 through 19.60.250, and the zoning administrator shall strive to insure that such individual signs will relate to the building upon which is to be erected in terms of overall design, theme, colors, materials used, and the design elements set forth here and above. Offensive or nonharmonious signs either by virtue of the impropriety of their configuration or shape, or the garishness or clashing of the colors proposed to be used, shall be cause for disapproval. D. Any decision of the zoning administrator, in regard to design review, shall be subject to appeal to the ~7~WW~//d~f~f~d~ design review committee in accordance with publication of Section 19.14.050 of this code. 19.60.520 Planned signing program-Approval-Conditions attached when-Appeal of decision. The zoning administrator may attach appropriate and reasonable conditions to any approval of the planned signing program, including, but not limited to, conditions which alter sign configurations, reduce the sign area, relocate signs upon the lot or buildings, or require other design modifications. The zoning administrator shall exercise a high degree of discretionary judgment in the review of a planned signing program and may decline to take action himself to approve, deny or conditionally approve any such program and, in lieu thereof, refer a recommended action to the ~TaW~W~//~~ design review committee for decision. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the ~ ¢~t~ design review committee in accordance with provisions of Section 19.14.050. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. WPC 7160P EXHIBIT B Revised 2/6/90 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXTENDING THE NONCONFORMING SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD WHEREAS, Section 19.60.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 1575, adopted November 5, 1974, established a 15-year amortization/abatement period for on-site nonconforming signs, and WHEREAS, said amortization/abatement period has expired, and WHEREAS, at its public hearing of January 9, 1990, the City Council considered the issues associated with the aforementioned 15-year amortization/abatement period and received public testimony relative thereto, and WHEREAS, the City. Council found that it would be in the public interest to extend the aforementioned amortization/abatement period to December 31, 1990, and establish a procedure whereby an additional 12-month extension could be granted for cases of undue hardship. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Those nonconforming on-site signs subject to immediate removal and abatement after December 5, 1989, under the provisions of Section 19.60.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be accepted as conforming signs until December 31, 1990, and shall thereafter be subject to immediate abatement and removal, except as provided in Section II hereof. SECTION II. In cases of undue hardship, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to grant an extension of the on-site nonconforming sign abatement date for a period of not to exceed 12 months, and not extending beyond December 31, 1991. Undue hardship, as used in this section, is meant to include those situations where the ownership of a nonconforming sign has changed after December 5, 1974, the subsequent owner was not apprised of the nonconforming status of the sign in question, and for this reason the subsequent owner is faced with a demonstrated difficulty in meeting the nonconforming sign abatement date. The Zoning Administrator may also grant a time extension for bona fide reasons of undue hardship based upon the facts of the individual case. -1- SECTION III. An application for an extension of the nonconforming sign abatement date shall be made by the owner of a non-conforming sign, or his authorized agent, on a form prescribed by the City. Said application, which shall include a sign design, must be filed with the City prior to August 31, 1990. Applications will not be accepted by the City after this date. The Zoning Administrator shall not approve an application for an extension of the nonconforming sign abatement date until the applicant has filed an approved sign plan with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. SECTION IV. The applicant for a time extension filed under the provisions of this ordinance, or other interested party, may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Section 19.14.240 of the Municipal Code, following the same procedure specified for filing a variance appeal. Section 19.14.240 notwithstanding, the Planning Commission's decision on the appeal shall be final. SECTION V. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. SECTION VI. This ordinance shall be a non-codified ordinance kept on file in. the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by " Approved as to form by ?. - Bob Leiter, Director of Planning Thomas J. Harmon, City Attorney 6746a ~/ -2- March 5, 1990 To: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission From: Barbara Reid, Assistant ?lanner~~ Subject: Agenda Package for Meeting of March 14, 1990 Copies of the Draft EIR for the Olympic Training Center SPA EIR-89-11 were forwarded to you on January 17, 1990. If you would like another copy, for review prior to the March 14, 1990 meeting, please let us know. As one of your agenda items, Villa Del Rey Condos will be heard by the Montgomery Planning Committee on Wednesday, March 7, 1990. Therefore, your agenda package will be delivered on March 8, 1990. This time is needed in order to make changes to the staff report going to the Montgomery Planning Committee to reflect the action taken by that body. As of April 1, 1990, we will be following the new timeframe you have requested. BR:nr