Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/11/29 Revised AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, November 29, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of October ll and November 8,. 1989 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: DRC-89-27M: Consideration of an appeal from the Design Review Committee decision to deny a develop- ment proposal consisting of the construction of a mini-mart with gasoline sales located at 1725 Broadway - Atlantic Richfield 2. Consideration of request for a waiver of the requirement to widen Hilltop Drive and Naples Street 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-7: Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area Plan to remove language providing for public access to the three private neighborhood parks - City Initiated 3a. Review and Comment on EastLake III General Development Plan GPA-90-05, PCZ-90-H, PCM-89-18 (Council referral) 4. Status Report on proposed auto sales park 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-4: Consideration to change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive - City Initiated (continued from 11-8-89) 6. PUBLIC HEARING:' PCA-90-2: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to require design review for all commercial and industrial zones - City Initiated 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-1: Consideration of amendment to Chapter 19.58 of the Municipal Code to prohibit flashing lights - City Initiated AGENDA November 29, 1989 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Eula M. Brattmiller OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR"S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an appeal from the Design Review Committee decision to deny a development proposal consisting of the construction of a mini-mart with gasoline sales located at 1725 Broadway (Atlantic Richfield - DRC-89-27M) A. BACKGROUND On May 4, 1989, the Design Review Committee considered a development proposal for the property located at the southwest corner of Main Street and Beyer Way within the Montgomery Community. The proposal which consisted of the removal of the existing service station facilities (including fuel storage tanks) and the construction of a new AM/PM mini-market was continued to explore site plan alternatives for the project (see May 4, 1989 staff report). After studying alternative layouts with the Planning Department, the applicant requested to be rescheduled for Design Review Committee hearing to consider the original design layout. On October 13, 1989, the project was presented to the Committee with a staff recommendation to deny the project based on the following findings: 1. Size utilization creates conflicting traffic patterns, fragmented guest parking and excessive paving area. 2. Landscaping program does not meet the minimum requirements established by the City Landscape Manual* and the Montgomery Specific Plan**. 3. Site utilization efficiency could be improved substantially if building is relocated to the narrowest part of the lot. * The City Landscape Manual requires that 10% of the interior of any parking area be devoted to landscaping. This area does not include the required 10-15 foot landscape strip between the parking area and the public right-of-way. ** The Montgomery Specific Plan requires that all parcels facing Main Street provide a landscaped setback area of at least 15 feet measured from the front and exterior side property lines. B. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Review Coordinator has issued a Negative Declaration IS-89-8M which discusses potential environmental impacts of the project. C. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to endorse the Design Review Committee's decision to deny this project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 2~ 1989 Page 2 D. DISCUSSION The project site is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Beyer Way within an M-52 zone in the Montgomery Community. The subject site presently contains a convenience market the service station with gasoline and diesel dispensing pumps. This project was originally presented to the Design Review Committee on May 4, 1989, with Planning Department recommendation to continue the item to allow the applicant to address four major issues (see attached ~lay 4, 1989 staff report). Staff's main concern revolved around the location of the new building and the relationship with the parking and circulation element of the plan. In addition, concerns were raised that the proposed site plan offered an excessive amount of paving area and a limited landscaping program. After the meeting, staff worked with the applicant to reach a solution and offered two schematic alternatives that addressed most of the above mentioned issues (see Exhibit A & B). The applicant determined that the alternatives were not acceptable and requested to proceed with this design and site plan configuration as originally presented to committee for final action. On October 13, 1989, the Design Review Committee reviewed the proposal and concurred with staff's assessment of the project and proceeded to deny the project based on the three findings offered by staff. Mr. Lippert representing the Atlantic Richfield Company stated that under the staff's plan (see attached Exhibit A & B), the truck traffic would interfere with the car activity and the building would be too far from the pump islands. E. ANALYSIS In staff's opinion, the proposed site plan contains significant parking and circulation deficiencies that create conflicting traffic patterns for recommended customer parking and excessive paving area. The plan al so offers a substandard landscaping program which does not meet minimum requirements established in the City's Landscape Manual and the Montgomery Specific Plan. In our opinion, the site is not of sufficient size or configuration to safely accommodate the level of business activity being proposed. Consequently, staff originally recommended that a revised site plan with a possible rearrangement of the different activities within the site be provided to improve the vehicular circulation efficiency. It was also recommended that the diesel dispensing part of the proposal be deleted to reduce the conflicting traffic patterns. WPC 6947P ,, O~ X ~o DESIGN REVIEI~ COMMITTEE Summary Staff Report CASE NO. DRC-89-27M MEETING DATE: May 4, 1989 AGENDA NO. 2 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new convenience market with gasoline and diesel fuel sales PROJECT NAME & LOCATION: Arco AM/PM Mini Market 1725 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Atlantic Richfield Co. 17315 Studebaker Road, Cerritos, CA 90701 A. Environmental The Environmental Review Coordinator has issued a Negative Declaration IS-89-8M which discusses potential environmental effects of the project. B. Recommendation 1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-8M. 2. Continue this item to allow the applicant to address the following issues. a. Vehicular circulation and back-up area shall be maintained at a minimum of 30' when vehicles are using the gasoline/diesel dispensing stations. b. Customer parking is extremely fragmented. It should be unified in a more functional manner. c. Landscape islands shall be incorporated at the end of parking rows. d. A revised sign program shall be submitted with revised site plan addressing the following issues: 1) Wall mounted over building fascia internal illuminated cut-out letters. Same Size. 2) 24 Hr. Sign - Reduce to 2'-0" square internal illuminated. 3) Spandrel signage shall be non-illuminated. DRC-89-27M Page 2 4) Column Wall - Delete. 5) Freestanding Sign - To be redesigned incorporating a design more related to the building architecture. 6) Canopy Fascia - It shall be limited to three sides of the canopy. C. Project Setting The project site is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Beyer Way within the Montgomery Community. A mini-mart with gasoline and diesel sales presently occupies the relatively level parcels and is limited to the north by Main Street, by an automotive repair business to the south, Beyer Way to the west and an industrial building to the east. D. Project Description The development proposal consists of the removal of all the existing structures including the gasoline and diesel tanks and the installation of a new facility which includes a mini mart building, a canopy structure covering two lines of gasoline pump islands, diesel fuel pump island and new storage tanks. E. Staff Analysis 1. Project Area APN 629-010-10 G.P. Designation Research & Limited Industrial Current Zoning - M.52 Limited Industrial Zone Lot Dimensions - Irregular Acreage .62 ac. Setbacks: Front = 60' from both streets Side : 0 Rear = 15' Building Height {G) 35 ft. Parking Requirements = 1 space/200 sq. ft. of ret. space 2. Site Plan a. Parking and Circulation The proposed site plan provides a 35 ft. wide access driveway along Broadway and two along Main Street which lead to a predominant paving area that provides internal circulation and customer parking. After reviewing the site plan, staff has found that the parking and circulation plan contains function deficiencies that are significant enough to recommend continuance of this project so that the following issues can be resolved. DRC-89-27M Page 3 1. Vehicular back-up area shall be maintained at a minimum of 24' even when vehicles are using the gasoline/diesel dispensing stations. 2. Customer parking is extremely fragmented. It should be unified in some form. 3. End landscape islands shall be incorporated at the end of parking rows. a 20' landscape strip shall be incorporated along Main Street. 4. Street improvements shall be shown on site plan. In general, the site plan needs to be revised to and structures possibly rearranged to improve the customer parking and vehicular circulation efficiency. b. Building Architecture The project architecture consists of an elegant Spanish style finished in concrete tile roof and smooth stucco finish. Staff fully endorses the project design ~vhich is also carried on the island's canopy. c. Sign Program The proposed sign program consists of the following signs: Wall mounted at building fascia 126 x 30 internal illumination Wall mounted at 24 Hr. - 4o x 40 internal illumination Spandrel Sign 30 x 96 internal illumination Column Wall 20 x 20 internal illumination Freestanding Sign 20 x 96 + 126 x 79 27 ft. high internal illumination Canopy Fascia Sign 20 x 96 After reviewing the proposed sign program, staff has not been able to support it. Instead, it is recommending that the following changes be made. 1. Wall mounted over building fascia - Internally illuminated cut-out letters. Same size. 2. 24 Hr. Sign Reduce to 2'-0" square internally illuminated. DRC-89-27M Page 4 3. Spandrel - Shall be non-illuminated. 4. Column Wall - delete. 5. Freestanding sign to be redesigned incorporating a design more related to the building architecture. 6. Canopy Fascia - It shall be limited to three sides of the canopy. A revised sign program shall be revised and presented to the Design Review Committee. WPC 6187P · negativ declaration PROJECT NAME: ARCO AM/PM Mini Mart PROJECT LOCATION: 1725 Broadway Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICANT: ARCO Petroleum Products Company CASE NO: IS-89-8M DATE: February 28, 1989 A. Project Setting The project site is located on the southeast corner of Broadway and Main Street within the City of Chula Vista. Access to the site is provided by Broadway and Main Street. The 29,963 square foot (0.69 acre) site is made up of two parcels. Parcel 1 Il7,110 square feet, 0.39 acre) contains an existing one story 800 square foot sheet metal AM/PM Mini-Market. Also contained on Parcel 1 are 3 gasoline service islands underneath a 1550 square foot, 22 foot high overhead canopy; a diesel fuel island for large trucks; an ARCO AM/PM Mini-Market sign; two phone booths and a 2.5 foot high wooden fence near the southern property boundary. Parcel 2 is 11,357 square feet (0.26 acre), disturbed and vacent. The surrounding uses include: automobile sales dealership to the northeast (across Main Street); an auto brake and alignment shop to the south; Lyons Electric Company to the east; and a used car' and parts sales and Otay Farm Market across Broadway to the west. The project site is located within a heavily urbanized area with traffic volumes on Broadway of 12,670 ADT (10/88) and on Main Street of 19,400 ADT (3/87). Sewer and water service have existing connections via Main Street. B. Project Description The proposed project is an upgrading of an existing ARCO AM/PM Mini-Market. The applicant proposes removal of the existing Mini-Market structure, thrift sign, service islands and three underground fuel tanks. The upgraded project will include a 2500 square foot wood-framed stuccoed Mini-Market, 4 gasoline service islands with a 1760 square foot, 22 foot high canopy, two new diesel fuel islands, new trash enclosures, and air and water dispensing units, three new underground fuel tanks, a new 27,5" high, 152 square foot sign; 13 on-site parking spaces and utilization of the 11,357 square foot adjacent vacant parcel. The hours of operation and number of employees of the existing and proposed use are the same, 24 hours per day, and 6 employees, respectively. ~-- city o~ chula vista planning department environmental review section (::HUL~ VL~-g -2- The proposed project is compatible to ~he surrounding land uses (M-52 Zoning). The project is also a complimentary use to neighboring uses to the north (auto sales), south (brake/alignment shop), and west (used cars and parts sales). The proposed use is the same as the existing on-site use (ARCO AM/PM Mini-Market). The project is flat which will require a minimal amount of grading. Night lighting will consist of fluorescent low and high level approach lighting. Additional dedication, widening, and improvements will include 14 feet of dedication along the frontage of Main Street and 4 feet of dedication along the frontage of Broadway, creating 54 feet from centerline to property line on each street. This will allow both streets to provide the necessary 46 feet from centerline to curbline for traffic right-of-way. Improvements will include asphalt and concrete paving for streets, curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and the installation of street lights. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project site is within the Montgomery Specific Plan and has an ILP designation. ILP allows light industrial uses with submittal of a Precise Plan. The site is zoned M-52, light impact industrial. The project is compatible with City General Plan (Montgomery 'Specific Plan) and zoning designations. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The nearest fire station is located at the corner of Oxford Street and 4th Avenue, approximately 5 blocks northeast. The estimated response time is 2 minutes which is within the Threshold/Standards Policy. The Fire Prevention Division of the Chula Vista Fire Department does not have any significant fire demands or service concerns with regard to the proposed project. 2. Police The City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters is located at 276 4th Avenue. The City Police Department can meet the emergency response Threshold/Standards Policy. According to the Police Department, the proposed project will not significantly impact their level of service. 3. Traffic The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Broadway. The project will be within the City's Threshold/Standards Policy if the additional street dedications and improvements outlined within the project description are met. The additional dedications and improvements are necessary to ensure the level of service, as required by the Threshold/Standards Policy, is not disrupted or compromised by the proposed project. ~.~(~ city o! chuta vista planning department £ll~O~ ~ environmental review lectlon. CHUL.~ VISTA -3- 4. Park/Recreation _~ The proposed project is a commercial use and it has, therefore, been determined that the project will not affect or exceed the Park/Recreation Threshold/Standards Policy. 5. Drainage All project runoff will be conveyed to the City storm drain system. The amount of runoff will not exceed the City's Threshold/Standards Policy and will not result in significant drainage impacts to the City storm drainage system. There will be no drainage impacts to neighboring off-site uses. 6. Sewer The existing use has one toilet and proposed improvements involve only one toilet. The volume of wastewater generated will not significantly increase; therefore, it will not exceed the City's Threshold/Standards Policy. 7. Water The existing project is currently receiving water service from Sweetwater Authority and the proposed project will continue that use and remain within the Threshold/Standards Policy. E. Identification of Environmental Effects The project is proposed in an extensively urbanized area. The proposed use conforms to the City General Plan and Zoning ordinance and to surrounding uses. The previous use of the property (ARCO AM/PM Mini-Market) is the same as the proposed use. The size and scale of the project are such that they' will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Although there are no identified significant environmental impacts associated with the project, several standard conditions are required. An extensive geotechni£al report was submitted to the City and the applicant will comply with all recommendations of that report. The City Engineering Division also requires the dedication of street right-of-ways on both Main Street and Broadway of 14 feet and 4 feet respectively, repaving of street, gutter, curb and sidewalks, and the installation of street lights. 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 environmenta' impact report needs to be prepared. ~ city of chula vlmta planning department ~0~ ~'- environmental review ilCtlOn . CHUL~ VL~FA -4- 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 property is located within an urban area. There are no watercourses on-site. The site, previously disturbed, has no sensitive floral or fauna communities or species. There are no examples of important periods of prehistory or history on-site; therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Due to the nature and location of the project, it will not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental 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. Given the small scale and urban setting of the project, there is no possibility of any effects which could be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects' of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project involves a small scale which could not result in potentially direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals anJ 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 Michael J. Mezey, Planning Intern Applicant's Agent: Graves Engineering, Inc. city of chula vlmta planning department Cm'O~ environmental rlVllw lectlon. CHULAVlS-I'^ -5- 2. Documents _ 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. ENVIRO~N~TALREVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6022P city ot chula vlata planning department CT~Y~ environmental review laCtlon. CHULAVk~A City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page i 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO WIDEN HILLTOP DRIVE AND NAPLES STREET A. BACKGROUND Recently, Mr. Leonard Greaser, owner of a portion of the shopping center in the northwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street, submitted plans for remodeling the exterior of his building on Assessor's Parcel No. 619.-100-10. His architect has placed a valuation of $56,400 on the remodeling work. Irt accordance with Section 12.24.040 of the City Code, Staff imposed the requirement to widen the roadway along the frontages to provide for future left-turn lanes at the intersection. On 10/5/89, Mr. Greaser applied for a waiver of the widening requirements. The City Code provides that all waivers be considered by the Planning Commission. B. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for a waiver of the requirement to install public improvements. C. DISCUSSION Mr. Greaser's property has 150 feet of frontage on Hilltop and 130 feet on Naples. He is being required to provide a transition in roadway width from 32 feet to 26 feet from centerline along the Hilltop frontage. The new General Plan calls for Naples to be a Class II collector street, with an ultimate half-width of 26 feet. The result is that the street will be widened six feet throughout the frontage. It has been our goal to widen the intersections in the older parts of the city in commercial areas. The widenings provide space to install left-turn lanes and, overall, facilitate turning movements. Both Hilltop Drive and Naples Street were built years ago to then-current residential collector standards (i.e. 40 feet curb to curb), with 80- foot-wide rights of way. Since that time, however, the increased traffic demands have forced us to change our standards. Recently, 7-Eleven Stores was required to widen Hilltop Drive 12 feet and Naples 6 feet when the owners submitted plans to build a new store at the northwest corner~ The subject shopping center property surrounds the 7-Eleven site and we are requiring similar improvements. Pa_a_~e 2 Section 12.24,060 of the City Code provides for the waiver of requirements to install public improvements in circumstances and conditions including but not limited to the following: t. Where adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist: omdewalks may be waived where the topography is such that the installation of sidewalks would be impracticable: Where the street, or alley has not or can not be readily graded to the established grade; 4. Where installation of sidewalks would be hazardous to pedestrians because of grade~ 5. Where Councll has, by resolution, previously waived or modified the requirement for curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Although Item 1 may be suitable as a reason for a waiver the City has, in several similar circumstances, required the widening of intersections as part of the development on the properties (i.e. 7- Eleven's project). The additional width is especially needed at this intersection, as the present curb-to-curb width on both streets is only 40 feet. Additionally~ there are bus stops at all four of the corners, causing furLher congestion. The estimated cost of the widening work is approximately $12,500 and is further broken down as follows: Unit Item __Q. uantity Price Total Curb & gutter 280 LF $12.00 $3.360.00 Driveways 2 @ 35' WD 640 SF 3.50 2,240.00 Sidewalk (5.5'X 216) 1,188 SF 2.80 3,326.00 Subgrade prep 4,090 SF 0.35 1,432.00 Subtotal $10,358.00 Survey & design 522.00 Construction staking 522.00 Subtotal $11,402.00 10% contingencies 1,t40.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE $12,542.00 The approximate traffic counts at the intersection are as follows Hilltop Drive - North of Naples: 13,020 cars per day South of Naples: 8,870 cars per day Naples Street - West of Hilltop: 9,190 cars per day East of Hilltop: 5,~60 cars per day Also, a large number of turning movements are made at this intersection. Pa~e ~ The intersection is presently signalized on a t, imed cycle {no independent left-turn signals}. However~ the widening would provide for a left turn lane. The Circulation Element of the new General Plan specifies both Naples and Hilltop as Class II Collector streets with ultimate widths of 52 feet curb-to-curb. No additional dedication is needed, since both street rights of way are 80 feet wide~ Based on the contents of this report, we find that we cannot support the grant of the requested waiver and recommend that tile request be denied. '0 PORTION OF SHOPPING CENTER ~ CURS ~ ~ '~ ~ -- LEGEND ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- PORI'iON$ OF iktPROYEII¢ENT$ R£qU~STED TO 8E PI~iVED t. I~. G, I REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF WIDENING oA~ 11'$'8~ HIZLTOP DR, & N&PLES S~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-7; Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area Plan to remove language providing for public access to the three private neighborhood parks - City initiated A. BACKGROUND The City Council has approved an agreement with EastLake Development Company which provides that EastLake shall be relieved from any responsibility to provide for public access to the neighborhood parks in EastLake I in exchange for five additional acres of public park land and earlier construction of park improvements in the balance of the EastLake community. The proposed amendment to the SPA Plan will satisfy one of the City's obligations under the agreement. The proposal is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend the EastLake I SPA Plan as shown in Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION The EastLake I SPA Plan provides that the three neighborhood parks within EastLake I will be privately owned and maintained by the EastLake Homeowners Association, but that a majority of each park will be open and available for use by the public at-large. The parks were perceived by EastLake homebuyers, however, as private facilities for the exclusive use of EastLake residents. The City has agreed to remove any rights for public access to these private parks in return for the following from EastLake: 1. Transfer title to the trail encircling the EastLake Shores Lake to the City for public use and maintenance; 2. Construct 12 benches along the lake trail within six months; 3. Construct the 15 acre community park planned for EastLake Greens within 24 months; 4. Fund the construction of lighting for six tennis courts to be built in conjunction with EastLake High School, and; 5. Provide five additional acres above the acreage required by City Code of fully improved public parkland in EastLake III. WPC 6911P EXHIBIT A EastLake I SPA Plan P. IV-5 4.5 Neighborhood Parks Three neighborhood parks are planned for £astLake [. _ A combination neighborhood park/elementary schoo] is located within the EastLake Hills neighborhood. This park is 2.4 acres in size and the ~ elementary school site is 10.0 acres. -- The second neighborhood park is located adjacent to the community lake within the EastLake Shores neighborhood. The site is 3.9 acres in "' size. The third neighborhood park is located within the EastLake Business ,., Center and is 9.1 acres in size. Each of the three neighborhood parks are planned to remain as private parks, to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. ,,, Recreational facilities within each park will be selected to meet the ~ needs of the anticipated residential population and/or the employees of · ~ the employment park. Facilities within the joint elementary school/ neighborhood park have been coordinated to avoid unnecessary duplica- ~' tion. All three parks are located off of major streets, but adjacent to local -, collector roads within the community. Each site is accessible via street access and either a bikeway or pedestrian trail. ~ In addition to the three neighborhood parks, three mini-parks of approximately one-half acre each are located within the EastLake Shores -. neighborhood to provide recreational opportunities in close proximity to individual neighborhoods. - 4.6 Park Standards -- Required park land dedication is based upon Section 17.10.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as shown on Table 5. (////// delete) IV-5 PARKS/OPEN SPACE November 22, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROtt: Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning ~ SUBJECT: Report on City Council Tentative Approval of EastLake III Plan On November 21, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing on EastLake III and declared its intent to approve a modified version of the plan. The Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for a report prior to taking final action. The modification to the staff recommendation suggested by the City Council was made after considering the EastLake Development Company's compromise proposal (see attachment dated November 21, 1989). The Council modifications are as follows: 1. Designate the easterly parcel as a Special Plan Area; 2. Create a Special Task Force to advise the City regarding design guidelines and site planning criteria to integrate the Special Plan Area with the Chula Vista Greenbelt; 3. Reduce the overall amount of acres devoted to commercial activity. 4. Modify condition 17 to the General Development Plan to read: "The total amount of natural open space depicted on the EastLake III General Development Plan shall total no less than 159.2 acres;" 5. Reduce the maximum number of dwelling units permitted from 1,817 to 1,767; 6. Reduce the High Density Residential parcel to ~ledium High; 7. Transfer the OTC site to the San Diego National Sports Training Foundation no later than 30 days after final annexation of the property to the City of Chula Vista; 8. Require EastLake Development Company to submit an overall phasing schedule for EastLake I, II and III (except for the OTC), for staff evaluation and report to the City Council prior to acceptance of future SPA Plan applications. Planning Commission -2- November 22, 1989 In addition to the above modifications made by the City Council, the Engineering Department estimates that the various changes in the amount of commercial acreage and dwelling units coupled with lower trip generation rates for the OTC will result in a significant reduction in traffic emanating from the EastLake III development. According to the City Traffic Engineer there will be a net reduction of around 13,000 daily trips. This reduction will result in lower volumes on the street network and specifically Telegraph Canyon Road. It is estimated that the new volumes will be commensurate with the City's "C" level of service standard. A revised EastLake III General Development Plan map is currently being prepared and will be available on ~Jovember 29, 1989. The City Council public hearing on this item was continued until December 5, 1989 in order to allow sufficient time for the Planning Commission to make its report on the above modification. BG/mad WPC 6961P Attachment General i ?~ Development, , "~,. Plan j --'EASTIAKE III ~Cinti LANNED COMMUNITY I~' EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT CO. ...... I ~ ~ EASTLAKE III 11/21/89 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CONCERNS PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES I. Backqround: There has been considerable debate and misunderstanding on the intended uses for the two parcels westerly and easterly of the OTC and southerly of Orange Avenue. This response is to clarify the intent and adjust the designations to more accurately reflect this intent. This response would be reflected in the proposed General Plan amendment and the General Development Plan and text, as described in the following proposals. II. Easterly Parcel. The General Plan has used two tools to define areas where future planning will be undertaken; Special Study Areas, and Special Plan Areas. The "Eastern Urban Center" is an example of a designated Special Plan Area. It is proposed that the easterly parcel in question be designated on the General Plan diagram as a Special Plan Area with the descriptive title, "Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center." In the text of the General Plan this area would be described as follows: Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center The Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center is a 22 acre area envisioned as a mixed use area consisting of visitor- serving land uses which provide for public access to and the enjoyment of the greenbelt. Uses in this area would include: Restaurant sites for lakeview dining. One or more sites (totalling 2 acres) would be identified for high quality restaurants offering sit-down dining enjoyment of scenic qualities within the Greenbelt. A site for a high quality inn and conferencing facility having a semi-rural character. The inn would occupy a minimum 15 acre site with 150 rooms in cottage and cluster units. Conference areas would total approximately 20,000 square feet and would be available for use by charitable and civic groups as well as business and OTC related activities. 2 A 5 acre public lake overview park offering scenic outlooks, picnic areas, outdoor amphitheater/ bandstand and public "waystation" facilities for trail linkages along the Greenbelt (i.e., restrooms, refreshments concessionaire, etc.). The 5 acre park would be that required in accordance with the EastLake I Park agreement and, therefore, in addition to the 16.5 acres of improved parkland necessary for EastLake III. The General Development Plan would also designate this area as "Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center." The statistics on the map would assign 22 acres for this center and the balance as open space. The text of the General Development Plan would further describe the intent of this Activity Center and provide the requirements of the planning program and level of detail for the SPA Plan submittal. Iii Westerly Parcel: The removal of certain uses in the parcel easterly of the OTC would have some minor impact on the mixed use parcel westerly of the OTC. Some reduction in the high density residential (50 dwelling units), the Professional & Administration, and the Visitor Commercial would be required to permit some retail commercial in the vicinity, but out of the greenbelt area. These changes are reflected in the statistics in the summary table. IV. Notes/Conditions: A. An issue relates to the amount of Open Space proposed by the EastLake III project. The staff report indicates that the General Plan contains 159.2 acres of Open Space. As a substitute to condition #17, a note will be added to the General Development Plan which requires that no less than 159.2 acres of open space be provided in future SPA Plan submittals. B. An issue relates to the design character and intensity of the Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center. Upon notice by the developer of his intent to begin preparation of a SPA Plan which includes the Special Plan Area, the City shall establish a Task Force to Provide inDut regarding design guidelines and site planning criteria to integrate the developed portions of the Special Plan Area site (visitor serving commercial and public park) with the overall Chula Vista Greenbelt and trail system. The Task Force shall include representatives from the City Council, PlanningiCommission, Planning Department, public interest~groups and the project developer. V. Summarv of Modifications: The above proposed modifications to the EastLake III General Development Plan would result in the following revised statistics: Current Proposed General Development Response Easterly Parcel Plan Plan Commercial-Visitor 18.3 acres 0 Commercial-Retail 6.7 acres 0 Eastern Greenbelt Activity Center 0 25.0 acres 25.0 acres 25.0 acres Westerly Parcel High Density Residential 8.9 acres 6.7 acres Public/Quasi-Public 0 0 Professional & Administration 4.7 acres 3.2 acres Commercial-Visitor 2.0 acres 0 Commercial-Retail 1.3 acres 7.0 acres 16.9 acres 16.9 acres Summary West & East Parcel High Density Residential 8.9 acres 6.7 acres Public/Quasi-Public 0 0 Professional & Administration 4.7 acres 3.2 acres Commercial-Visitor 20.3 acres 0 Commercial-Retail 8.0 acres 7.0 acres Eastern Greenbelt 0 acres 25.0 acres Activity Center 41.9 acres 41.9 acres EXISTING GENERAL PLAH PROPOSED EA~TLAKE III RESPONSE PLAN TARGET PROPOSED PROPOSED CATEOORY (ADT) DIJ's ADT DU's ADT DlJ's ADT Low Residential (10) 1,377 DU 13,770 746 DU 7,4~0 746 DU 7,4~0 Lo~ Med. Res. (10) 441 DU 4,410 255 DU 2~50 255 DU 2,550 Medium Res. (7) 0 DU 0 260 DU 1,820 2~0 DU 1,820 Medium High Re~. (7) 0 DU 0 374 DU 2620 374 DU 2,620 High R~. (7) 0 DU 0 200 DU 1,400 150 DU 1,050 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,818 DU 18,180 1~35 DU 15,850 1,785 DU 15,500 (-13%) (-15%) Ollic~Comm. (350) 0 AC 0 33 AC 11,550 2'7. 2 AC 9,520 I-R (130) 102.6 AC 13,.340 102.6 AC 13,340 102.6 AC 13,340 PQ (OTC) (100) 150 AC 15,000 150 AC 15,O00 150 AC 15,000' P (10) 50,4 AC 5O0 65.4 AC 650 70.4 AC 7O5 47,020 56,3O0 54,0~5 TOTALS (+:a~) (+14 9%) CURRENT DA-TAn ~n EIR TRAF~C S'rUD~ES FOR OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER SPA INDICATE A REDUCTION OF TRIPS TO 5,000 ADT. THIS RESULTS IN TOTAL ~ ~l TRAFI~C OF 43,940 ADT, 7% LESS THAN THE 47,020 TRIPS ASSUMED IN 'I~[E GENERAL PLAN SCENARIO IV. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 4. Status report on proposed auto sales park A. BACKGROUND In response to an Agency request for a status report on efforts to encourage development of an auto sales park, the following report has been prepared. The report is being presented to the Planning Commission for information only. This report will briefly summarize the reasons for the City's interest in development of an auto sales park, provide a brief history of efforts to develop such a park in the Otay Valley Road area, provide up-to-date information on the status of efforts to develop an auto sales park on East H Street, describe generally the City's vision for an East H Street auto sales park and finally provide an outline of the step-by-step process that could lead to such a development on East "H" Street, while providing full opportunity for public comment and input. B. DISCUSSION THE CITY'S NEED FOR AN AUTO SALES CENTER The motivation for pursuing the development of an auto sales park in Chula is sales tax preservation and generation. Historically, sales tax has been the major revenue source of the City's General Fund, which provides for the City's operating expenses. And, historically, Chula Vista's per capita sales tax ratio has lagged behind most other cities in the San Diego region. The development of an auto sales park in Chula Vista offers the opportunity to greatly enhance sales tax revenue to the General fund. Failure to accomplish the development of an auto sales park could result in further erosion of Chula Vista's per capita sales tax generation, thus negatively impacting Chula Vista's ability to provide quality services. Auto sales parks are very large sales tax generators. Typically, a successful auto sales park will be a city's largest source of sales tax revenue. A Chula Vista auto sales park would provide the residents of Chula Vista with the opportunity to spend their auto purchase dollars at home and would attract auto purchase dollars from throughout the San Diego region. Stemming the "leakage" of revenue from Chula Vista alone would greatly enhance sales tax revenues. Currently, there are two new car dealerships in Chula Vista, a fact which severely limits residents' opportunities to spend tax dollars at home and reap the ultimate benefits of enhanced City services, such as police and fire protection and traffic control. An economic analysis of Chula Vista auto sales provided by City consultants indicates that the total dollars spent by Chula Vista residents in 1987 on new and used cars was approximately $120 million. Of this amount, 70% or approximately $85 million, was spent outside the City, resulting in a very significant sales tax revenue loss to the City. Development of an auto park in Chula Vista will enable residents to purchase their autos within the City and will attract buyers from outlying areas, further enhancing the City's sales tax revenues. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 2 Not developing an auto sales park in Chula Vista offers significant risk. The two existing new car dealerships in Chula Vista (South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford), which, though successful are not ideally located for auto sales, might at some future date be attracted to a new auto sales park outside Chula Vista. It appears likely that an auto sales park will develop in this market area before long if Chula Vista does not proceed. The loss of our two remaining auto dealerships to such a development would further erode Chula Vista's sales tax base. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CITY'S EFFORT TO DEVELOP AN AUTO SALES CENTER Beginning in 1987, a task force made up of a council subcommittee, the two Chula Vista auto dealers and other civic leaders began to investigate potential sites for an auto sales park in the city. Both auto dealers expressed keen interest in such a development and, at that point, communicated their concern to the City that without such a development they might be forced to leave the city. This information gave added impetus to the City's efforts. Several sites within the city were given preliminary study as potential sites for an auto sales park. Areas considered were: l) West Fairfield, the area west of Interstate 5 between Orange Avenue and Main Street; 2) the Otay Valley Road area, east of Interstate 805; 3) the Rancho Del Rey Industrial Park located on the north side of East H Street, east of Interstate 805; and, 4) an undetermined site somewhere in the city's eastern territories. A site map showing these locations is attached. With information provided by the city's two existing auto dealers and other experts on auto park development, these sites were ranked for desirability in the following order: 1) Otay Valley Road; 2) East H Street; 3) West Fairfield; and, 4) eastern territory site. Sites were evaluated by the following criteria: a) central location and proximity to car purchasing market; b) existing zoning and impact on surrounding areas; c) potential for successful acquisition of land; d) freeway access and visibility; e) size; f) immediate development potential. A site in the eastern territories was ruled out. Such a site would not be developable for five to ten years and would most probably have to wait until after development of proposed State Route 125 and the buildout of planned housing in this area. West Fairfield was eliminated from consideration for several reasons. While its freeway access and visibility are good, it does not have sufficient vacant land and is not centrally located to the car purchasing market. The East H Street site was rated very favorably with good size, excellent central location, vacant land and good accessibility. Its single drawback is its lack of freeway visibility. The Otay Valley Road site was ranked first. It was viewed to have adequate size, a good central location, excellent freeway access and freeway visibility. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 3 THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD SITE Beginning in early 1988, in response to a development proposal by the owners of Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet, the City began concentrating its efforts for development of an auto sales park in the Otay Valley Road area, east of Interstate 805 and south of Otay Valley Road. Several studies were commissioned to analyze the site for access to the market area, probable cost of acquisition, the degree of subsidy required, net contribution to city revenues and, finally, environmental concerns poses by the adjacent wetland areas in the Otay Valley River area. Also in early 1988, the City negotiated and signed with the owners of South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement committing the City to work with them as project developers. As developers, the two auto dealers employed a consultant with experience in the development of auto sales parks. The dealers also agreed to bear some of the costs of studies necessary to determine the development potential of the site. Using guidelines provided by the City, the developers came up with a preliminary site plan for development of a two-phase auto sales park. The first was envisioned to be located on approximately 32 acres adjacent to Interstate 805 on the west and Otay Valley Road on the north. A second phase of approximately the same acreage was proposed for development after completion of Phase I, again, fronting on Otay Valley Road to the north and running approximately one mile along Otay Valley Road, east of Interstate 805. At this point, the City commissioned appraisals of the properties in question for potential acquisition. These appraisals were completed. However, it was determined that additional information concerning the cost of making the transition from raw land to developable sites was required. Without this information, a final determination on the cost of preparing the site for development was not possible. For a variety of reasons, such information was not available to the City. Without this information, it was decided that the City should turn its attention to the second preferred site, on East H Street. While in some respects this site was inferior to the Otay Valley Road site, in others it was regarded as superior and, most importantly, it offered the prospect of relatively rapid development. THE EAST H STREET SITE The East H Street site presents an excellent opportunity for development of a well landscaped, low-density, City-controlled auto sales center that will not only be an asset to the surrounding community, but al so an asset to the city at large, providing substantial sales tax revenues each year to help pay for vital city services. The site is in the Rancho Del Rey Specific Planned Area under development by the McMillin Development Company. As part of the original planning of the Rancho Del Rey area, provision was made for an industrial/employment park area north of East H Street, approximately 1-1/2 half miles east of Interstate 805. From the beginning of the Rancho Del Rey planning process, this 84 acre area has been planned as an employment and commercial/industrial area to provide City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 4 jobs and tax revenues to support services for the surrounding residential area. It is important to note that in terms of providing the tax base necessary for provision of city services, residential areas do not pay their way. The net cost to the city of residential areas is offset by the net positive income provided by industrial and commercial activities, such as are contemplated for the East H industrial/commercial area. This area has always been planned as an industrial/commercial area. The site is now zoned Industrial/Business Park, with 6.3 acres zoned for support commercial uses. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The current proposal by the developers of the auto park is for an auto park of 40 acres with approximately 12 auto dealerships. The remaining 44 acres of the site are now being studied to determine the most appropriate zoning. Any changes will be subject to a public hearing process, where all citizens can voice their concerns. Auto serving uses such as tire and repair sales would not be allowed in or adjacent to the auto park. There have been some concerns voiced by Chula Vista residents that an auto sales park would resemble the National City Mile of Cars. It should be stressed that the vision for Chula Vista's auto park is nothing like the National City development. The development will meet or exceed all City of Chula Vista design, landscape, noise, and traffic generation criteria currently in place. The development will have an internal traffic circulation design, with dealers oriented toward the internal road, not toward East H Street. The City will have ample ability to ensure, through design covenants and restrictions, that the development is well designed and maintained, that such visually problematic features as lighting and signs will be in keeping with the high quality development of the surrounding area. TRAFFIC The impact on traffic of an auto sales park on East H has been a great concern of the City Council and City staff. Traffic studies have been commissioned to determine the impact of the change in use from industrial/business park to auto sales center. The results of these traffic studies show that an auto park development would generate approximately 270 trips per day per acre. This is a mid-range figure between 200 trips per acre per day generated by industrial/business park land and 400 trips per day per acre generated by commercial land. Based upon the traffic study, it is anticipated that the change to an auto park use will result in no net increase in the number of trips to be generated by the development. Notwithstanding the study's conclusions, any development agreement entered into by the City will require that the auto sales center adhere to all traffic generation restrictions applied to the current site under its current use. Specifically, the change to auto sales park will be limited to a maximum new trip generation figure of approximately 9,700 average trips per day--the same figure approved for the employment park. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 5 LANDSCAPING AND DESIGN In the area of landscaping and design standards, the developed appearance of the site as an auto sales park will meet or exceed all standards set for the Industrial/Business Park. If the site is developed as an auto sales park, the City, because of its financial participation in the project, would be in a position to require enhancement of already strict landscaping and design requirements. Guidelines governing building setbacks, maturity of plants, architectural attractiveness and unity will all be either the equal of, or an improvement over, existing development guidelines. It should also be noted that the marketing concept of an auto sales park is to make it as attractive and pleasant a place to shop for new cars as possible. The developers of the auto sales park will have their own incentives to make the development an attractive and well-landscaped asset to the community. CITY FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION Negotiations for purchase of the site by the auto park developers are still ongoing and, as of this date, no agreement for purchase and development has been reached. However, if agreement is reached it may depend upon City financial participation in the project. The history of the development of auto sales parks in other cities and the limited ability of auto dealerships to generate sales places a limit on the price dealers can pay for land. The City is reviewing a number of alternatives to ensure the financial feasibility of the project. Because of the sensitive on-going negotiations, the details of these alternatives will not be discussed here. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND PUBLIC INPUT Development of the auto sales park will provide many opportunities for public comment and input. It should be stressed that processing of any request for conditional use permit or zoning change for auto park use will depend on the developers meeting all City regulations and requirements. Under the existing industrial/business park designation, auto dealerships would not be allowed. Any zoning change would require an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - Planning Commission District Regulations resulting in the public hearing process described below. Preparation of an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan will first require preparation of an initial study addressing specific relevant issues such as traffic generation, aesthetics, drainage/water quality, and hazardous materials. The environmental review process resulting in a negative declaration or focused EIR will require notification of all adjoining property owners and interested parties. The resulting specific plan amendment must then be submitted to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The Planning Commission will consider the amendment at a public hearing with ten days advance public notification. The specific plan amendment along with the Planning Commission recommendation must then be submitted to the City Council at a public hearing with ten days advance public notification and written notification to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 6 In addition to the above, any zoning change redesignating the Rancho Del Rey Business Park involving a substantial increase in commercial uses could result in the need for a supplemental environmental impact report and General Plan amendment. The supplemental environmental impact report requires 30 day notice upon issuance of the draft report to the general public and notification to property owners within 300 feet. A General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment must be submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The Planning Commission would consider the amendments at a public hearing with ten days advance public notice and written notification to all property owners within 300 feet. The General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments must then be submitted along with the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will consider the amendments and recommendation at a public hearing with ten days advance public notification and written notification to property owners within 300 feet. It is anticipated that the time from filing of project plans and request for zoning change to conclusion of the amendment and approval process would be approximately 4-6 months. In summary, any proposed auto sales park development will be the subject of ample public scrutiny and the attention of City staff. CONCLUSION An auto sales center is highly desirable within the City as a generator of sales tax revenues that support vital City services. Without an auto sales center, the City risks erosion of its long-term financial base. After a survey of potential sites, the 84-acre Industrial/Business park on East "H" Street is the focus of the City and of the proposed developers, Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet. These two auto dealers are now in negotiations for purchase of land in the Industrial/Business park. If the purchase is successful, the City, through its potential financial participation in the project, will be well positioned to require adherence to the strictest standards of development in terms of landscaping, architecture, lighting, noise, traffic, appearance and overall impact on the surrounding area. In addition, City approval processes for the development would provide several forums for public inspection and comment upon any project proposed for the site. WPC 4274H City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-94: Consideration to change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive - City Initiated {Continued) A. BACKGROUND Ridgeback Road was originally planned as a continuous street extending from East "H" Street through to Otay Lakes Road. The approval of the Rancho del Rey plan and the RdR loop road has now created two segments of Ridgeback Road -- one extending northerly from East "H" Street in the vicinity of Terra Nova Plaza, and the other extending westerly from Otay Lakes Road in the vicinity of Bonita Vista Junior High School. This broken, segmented road could create confusion as well as the potential for delays in providing emergency services in the future. The proposal is to change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road because there are no properties currently addressed off this segment of the street. The name Terra Nova Drive identifies with the area and does not conflict with any existing City street names. This item was continued from the meeting of October ll, 1989, at the request of the Commission in order for staff to return with a discussion of City policy with respect to using different names for the "same" street on either side of an intersection. This issue is addressed below under the DISCUSSION section. B. RECOMMENDATIO~I Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive. C. DISCUSSION Following are the City policies with regard to street naming. The first is from the Municipal Code and the next two are from the Subdivision Design Manual: 1. It shall be the duty of the City Council, in designating street names and in accepting recommendations for changes of street names, to provide names which do not cause confusion and uncertainty to police, fire or other emergency vehicles by virtue of similarity of spelling or sound of said street names, and to act in changing such names so as to eliminate such confusion and uncertainty. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 2 2. Each street, which is a continuation of, or approximately the continuation of, any existing dedicated street shall be given the name of such existing street. 3. New Streets a. Names should not be used which are difficult to pronounce or sound like other street names within the City's sphere of influence. b. Street names shall not duplicate any other street name within an area surrounding the City where confusion may occur. c. Proposed street names should be unique, meaningful, and appropriate to the locale, type of subdivision, architecture, etc. Names of persons should not be used unless that person has distinguished himself during his or her lifetime and is now deceased. Policies 1, 2, and 3{c) all relate to the naming of the streets which drew the Commission's attention to this issue; namely, Ridgeback Road-Canyon Drive, and Ridgeview Way-Avenida del Rey. Both represent streets which are aligned but which have different names on the opposite sides of Otay Lakes Road. The primary question is whether or not the use of different names in these instances causes confusion or uncertainty on the part of the motoring public or with regard to the provision of emergency services. The City Traffic Engineer reports that these are local residential collector streets which are not significant to moving traffic through the City, and which are and will be used primarily by residents and their guests rather than "outside" traffic unfamiliar with the area. The Police and Fire Departments report that there is no problem in providing emergency services in cases such as these where the streets are separated by a major road. Another question is whether or not the alignment of these streets on the opposite sides of Otay Lakes Road represents the continuation of existing streets as addressed in Policy #2. This determination is made on the basis of the design of the intersecting street, whether or not it is a signalized or unsignalized intersection, and whether or not the streets in question are of the same design and serve the same functions. In this case Otay Lakes Road is a six-lane prime arterial with traffic signals at both of the intersections in question. In the case of Ridgeview Way-Avenida del Rey, the former is a 40 ft.-wide 2-lane Class III collector which "serpentines" up to the Bonita Ridge Estates Development, whereas the latter is a 64 ft.-wide 4-lane Class II collector which serves as the principal easterly entryway into Rancho del Rey. In City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 3 the case of Ridgeback Road-Canyon Drive, both are 40 ft.-wide 2-lane Class III collectors. Ridgeback Road immediately serves commercial office and multiple-family uses and RdR to the west, whereas Canyon Drive serves Bonita Long Canyon Estates. Policy #3(c) encourages street names which are unique, meaningful and appropriate to the locale and development they serve. As noted above, Avenida del Rey serves as the ~rincipal easterly entrance to the Rancho del Rey community, while Ridgevlew Way climbs up the side of a hill to serve Bonita Ridge Estates. Similarly, Canyon Drive drops steeply into Bonita Long Canyon Estates. Ridgeback Road is generally level with a gentle up-slope, but was originally intended to traverse the ridgelines of RdR. For these reasons, we believe the streets in question have been properly and appropriately named. WPC 6949P LOCATOR City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-2; Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to require design review for all commercial and industrial zones - City initiated A. BACKGROUND Earlier this year the Commission and Council approved several Code amendments which related to the design review process and which had been recommended by the Design Review Committee. A DRC recommendation to expand design review to include all commercial and industrial zones was not considered at that time because there was insufficient staff to handle the expected increase in workload. An additional position was subsequently approved for the Planning Department to begin on October 1, 1989, and thus it is now appropriate to consider this amendment. The proposal is exempt from environmental review under Section 1501(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact the amendment contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The DRC presently has design review authority over more than 2,900 acres. These areas include: all R-3 zones; all commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects in both Montgomery and areas governed by the P-C Planned Community zone; all commercial and industrial zones with the "P" Precise Plan modifying district; and, all development within the Town Centre, Bayfront and Otay Valley redevelopment areas. The remaining areas not now under the jurisdiction of the DRC total approximately 540 acres, and include commercial and industrial zoned sites without the "P" modifier and outside the Montgomery community or a redevelopment area. There are several factors which support bringing these remaining areas under the jurisdiction of the DRC. 1. The areas in question are the only commercial or industrial properties in the City not now subject to the provisions of the Chula Vista Design Manual. Their development is subject to staff review based on the principles for site plan and architectural approval, which are significantly less comprehensive in scope and substance. 2. A significant overhaul of the Design Manual is underway, and the disparity between projects which are subject to the Manual's provisions and those that are not may become more pronounced. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 2 3. There is no good argument for treating these areas any differently than the areas that are now subject to design review. This would result in a more consistent approach to review and design for all such projects. 4. Many of the areas not subject to the Design Manual and DRC review are the areas most in need of an upgrade in design and treatment such as the commercial strip areas along Broadway and Third Avenue. 5. The staff is understandably more constrained in making design suggestions when it is a staff decision which must be appealed to the DRC, rather than when the suggestions are in the form of recommendations which the DRC can consider along with the applicant's position in reaching a decision on the project. 6. The formality and perceived "finality" of the DRC process (although the DRC's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council) usually results in a more thoughtful approach to design from the beginning, and seemingly lends more weight to staff suggestions in preparing a final plan for submission to the DRC. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the amendment. WPC 6789P EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.14 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 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 ~%~ uses or structures in ~ all R-3 zones, all commercial and industrial zones, and all development and r~-development within ~ redevelopment project area boundaries~ ~I~$¢~; and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny such plans, except when projects are within the boundaries of a redevelopment project, in which case 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. WPC 6789P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-1: Consideration of amendment to Chapter 19.58 of the Municipal Code to prohibit flashing lights - City initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. In February 1989, the Zoning Enforcement Division of the City of Chula Vista, in accordance with the implementation of Section 6261(e) of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of San Diego, which prohibits flashing lights, cited a commercial establishment in the Montgomery community for its use of flashing lights surrounding a sign. 2. On June 27, 1989, the area was rezoned from the City-adopted County zoning C-36 to City zoning C-T-P. The case was reviewed by our City Attorney, who expressed concern that Section 19.60.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code would not be defensible in court in prohibiting flashing lights. Section 19.60.170 is the section of the Chula Vista Municipal Code which addresses signs that flash or move. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study, IS-90-14, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed amendment was conducted, and the Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-90-14. 2. Adopt a motion recommending the City Council enact an Ordinance adding Section 19.58.140 to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A. D. DISCUSSION Currently, Section 19.60.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code prohibits flashing signs. As presently worded, it prohibits the use of flashing lights as part of a sign. A problem exists in that the Municipal Code does not specifically prohibit flashing lights as a separate element. The existing ordinance is as follows: No sign, as defined in this chapter, shall be moving, nor shall light be intermittent or flashing, with the exception of time and temperature signs and barber poles. Signs are also prohibited which: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 29, 1989 Page 2 A. Intermittently reflect lights from either an artificial source or from the sun; or B. Have an illumination which is intermittent, flashing, scintillating or of varying intensity; or C. Have any visible portion in motion, either constantly or at intervals, which motion may be caused by either artificial or natural sources. D. Utilize whirligigs or any similar item which uses wind as its source of power. By adding a new section to the Municipal Code under Chapter 19.58 (Uses), it would enable the City to prohibit the use of flashing lights whether or not they are in conjunction with a sign. The proposed new section has similar wording to County Ordinance Sections 6205 (i) and 6262 (e), which have been determined to be adequate to cover the prohibition of flashing lights (see Exhibit B attached). If the proposed new section (Exhibit A) had been in effect prior to the above mentioned (legal) case, the City of Chula Vista would have been able to successfully proceed with their enforcement case against the property owner. Any business operating flashing or moving lights at the time this proposed new section is adopted, would be considered non-conforming and would be required to cease to flash or move within 30 days after adoption and the second reading of the ordinance. WPC 6788P EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.58 USES 19.58.410 Prohibition of Flashing Lights Lights in view of any public street or adjoining properties used to convey the effect of movement are prohibited. Intermittent or variable intensity lights, or flashing lights are prohibited, with the exception of Christmas lights during the month of December. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Flashing Lights PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-90-14 DATE: October 4, 1989 A. Project Setting The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code presently is considered inadequate in dealing with the prohibition of flashing lights. The following proposed amendment to the Code would adequately prohibit flashing lights. B. Project Description AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19.58 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLASHING LIGHTS The Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following to Title 19: Section 19.58.410 Prohibition of Flashing Lights Lights in view of any public street or adjoinin~ properties used to convey the effect of movement are prohibiteo. Intermittent Or' variable intensity lights, or flashing lights are prohibited, with the exception of Christmas lights during the month of December. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans This project involves a zoning text amendment and therefore, will be compatible with Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance). The prohibition of flashing lights is compatible with the General Plan. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy The project involves Municipal Code amendments and is not site specific, therefore, will not impact the thresholds/standards policy established by the City. E. Identification of Environmental Effects The prohibition of flashing lights as outlined, will ensure that no significant adverse aesthetic impacts occur. city of chula vista planning department [I~Y OF environmental review section (~H~,IL~ -2- F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation is necessary. 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. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are no significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed municipal code amendment. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project will not achieve short-term environmental goals at the expense of long-term environmental 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 project will not result in potential cumulative adverse environmental impacts if compliance with proposed Code standards occur. No significant environmental impacts will result with the adoption of the Code amendment. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project does not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. -3- 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 Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Steve Griffin, Current Planning Armando Liuag, Advance Planning Lee McEachern, Intern-Planning Applicant's Agent: Lee McEachern, Intern-Planning 2. Documents Title 19 Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan 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. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6787P city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF environmental review lection.CHUL~Vl~A FOR OFFICE USE Case No. ~C'~-~//~ Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt/No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. BACKGROUND 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) ~--~ Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~~ 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 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 EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.58 USES 19.58.410 Prohibition of Flashing Lights Lights in view of any public street or adjoining properties used to convey the effect of movement are prohibited. Intermittent or variable intensity lights, or flashing lights are prohibited, with the exception of Christmas lights during the month of December. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* onsultant 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. DATE: 9-/~'-<~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: ~-'~ North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~t ~' '? · ,-~ ~ ~ ..... -' 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? C ,? - - ~/ ~.~., ,~ , ~ · ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? F%~" · · -~ /g~ (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 the 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 Capacity From Project Elementary Sr. High 4. Aesthetics 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.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following C sources: Electricity (per year) d/?~ Natural Gas (per year) '1 Water (per day) ~, 6. Remarks: Director of Planning or Representative Date L Case No. G. ~NGINEERING 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 is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? M/A 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? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project {per day)? ~v?/k c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Be fore After 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? Yv~A If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. - 11 - Case No. 3. 9eology a. Is the project site subject' to: Known or suspected fault hazards? 1 Liquefaction?, Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? ~ · 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~/~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~v/~ ( 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? .... 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. Air Qaality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution CO Hydrocarbons I X 118.3 : X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) /~//~ X 20.0 : ~/.~ Particulates ~ 1.5 = Sulfur t X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~/A Liquid What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? adequate to serve the proposed project? /'/6 Are they · 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.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~-~~ ('- 'City ~]~1neer~ or mepresentat~ve Dar ~> ROUTING FORM DATE: September 21, 1989 ' ~ TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Current Planning Advance Planning George Krempl, Planning Director Other FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: ~-~lApplication for Initial Study (IS-90-14 /FA- 444 /DpN/A ) n-lCheckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP ~) []Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/DP ~) []Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- ) The project consists of: Amendment to Chapter 19.58 of the Municipal Code relating to flashing lights Location: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/26/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date Person Time EN 4 (Rev. 7/89) - 13 - Case No. ~,~s-?> <~ H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station,~ and what is the Fire estimated reaction time? /~/~ Department's 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? /k~/~ 3. Remarks ~ ~ ~rr$~c ~,~ e~,~r~ ~L,~'I~ Fire ~rsha?~~ Dat~/0~'/ ROUTING FORM DATE: September 21, 1989 ~.' Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Current Planning Advance Planning George Krempl, Planning Director Other F~: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: ~-~lApplication for Initial Study (IS-90-14 /FA- 444 /DpN/A ) [Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP ) []Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/DP ~) []]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- ) The project consists of: Amendment to Chapter 19.58 of the Municipal Code relating to flashing lights Location: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/26/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date Person Time EN 4 (Rev. 7/89) ROUTING FORM DATE: September 21, 1989 ~.' Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Current Planning Advance Planning George Krempl, Planning Director Other F~: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-14 /FA- 444 /DpN/A [~Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP []]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP []]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- The project consists of: Amendment to Chapter 19.58 of the Municipal Code relating to flashing lights Location: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9/26/89 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date Person ~ Time EN 4 (Rev. 7/89) < .