The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/10/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California wednesday. October 9. 1991 - 7:00 D.m. C~tv Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II~TRODUCTORY REMARKS 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 Bay not exceed five minutes. 1. pUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-08: Amend Growth Management implementation Ordinance No. 2448 City Initiated 2. pUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-92-04: Request to reduce required front yard setback at 1011-1027 Third Avenue - Arnold Haber 3. PUBLIC HEARING: pCM-92-01: Amendment to the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan boundaries and an amendment to SPAs I, II and III by incorporating and designating community purpose facility sites - Rancho del Rey Partnership 4. pUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-1: Request to continue to operate and to expand an existing amusement park at 950 Industrial Blvd. - Fun-4-All AGENDA -2- October 9, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-92-04= Appeal of Design Review Committee's decision to conditionally approve installation of a 34.5 ft. high freestanding pole sign at 830 Broadway - The Firestone Store DIRECTOR'S R~PORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of October 16, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-08, City-initiated proposal to amend the Growth Manaqement Implementation Ordinance (No. 2448), the Growth Manaqement Proqram and the Threshold Standards Policy to chanqe the Traffic Threshold Standard from the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to the 1985 Hiqhway Capacity Manual (HCM) method and to delete the economics element from the Fiscal/Economic Threshold Standard A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the amendment of the Growth Management Implementation Ordinance (No. 2448) necessitated by the changes to the Growth Management Program and the Threshold Standards Policy as recommended by the Growth Management Oversight Commission. Specifically, this proposed amendment would change the Traffic Threshold Standard from the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method and would delete the Economics element from the Fiscal/Economics Threshold Standard. These proposed changes to the Threshold Standards were reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Montgomery Planning Committee at a workshop with the GMOC on July 10, 1991. In addition, these recommendations were discussed at a joint workshop with the City Council and GMOC on July 25 and August 22, 1991. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this proposed amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment as described in Exhibit 3. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed changes to the Growth Management Program as described in Exhibit "B". 4. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed changes to the Threshold Standards Policy as described in Exhibit "C". C. DISCUSSION 1. Traffic Threshold Standard Amendment During the review of the 1989 Traffic Monitoring Program prepared for the GMOC, the City Council requested that the GMOC further examine the advantages and disadvantages of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method as compared to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method of measuring traffic congestion. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 2 The GMOC review of these different methods revealed that the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method of measuring traffic congestion is less theoretical and more empirically based than the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. It was also noted that SANDAG will be using the 1985 HCM method for regional transportation planning studies in conjunction with the Regional Growth Management Quality of Life Standards and the Congestion Management Program. The 1985 HCM completely redefines Level of Service (LOS) as a function of vehicle "Stopped Time Delay". In addition, the new method provides for the direct calculation of delays based upon volume, saturation flow rate, lost time, cycle length, phase time, progression, and volume/capacity ratio. Through the use of personal computers, the equation is a very easy and efficient way to analyze intersections. It must be stated, however, that the two methods (ICU and HCM) are fundamentally different and levels of service cannot be compared, despite the fact that both methods use the same nomenclature, i.e., A, B, C, D, E, and F to illustrate levels of service. A LOS "C" using ICU is not the same as LOS "C" using HCM. However, the new method is better because: Stopped Time Delay methodology provides the best available tool for analyzing signalized intersections and can be easily used for both planning and operational analysis. Other methodologies define Level of Service by inconsistent criteria which cannot be correlated with the delay definition. Software is presently available to allow quick and easy application of the delay methodology. All future Traffic Monitoring Programs and Traffic Impact Study Reports will utilize the HCM delay methodology for calculating intersection levels of service and circulation system performance. The GMOC will continue to monitor the use of this new technique during the annual Threshold Standard review. 2. Fiscal/Economic Threshold Standard Amendment The 1990 GMOC Report noted that the economic threshold standard needed to be clarified with respect to the Council's expectation. The GMOC has been uncomfortable with its role in reviewing the economic threshold for the last three years due to the lack of focus in its review. Economics is such a broad subject that it is difficult for the GMOC to devote the required time and energy to reviewing the state of the City's economic health. The other difficulty is that a large part of economic change is not related to new development which is the primary focus of the GMOC. Economic change is largely affected by factors such as monetary policy, corporate decisions, market conditions and so on. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 3 The Council recognized the need to make a change in GMOC~s assignment and directed the Fiscal/Economic Threshold Standard be revised to transfer economics from the GMOC review to the newly created Economic Development Commission. GMOC will continue to review the fiscal impacts of growth and monitor the development impact fee program. D. ANALYSIS Several factors support the proposed amendment to the Traffic Threshold Standard described above: 1. The Department of Public Works has studied the change in the Traffic Threshold Standard and recommended approval to the GMOC. 2. The HCM method is a more up-to-date technique for measuring traffic congestion as evidenced by the endorsement of the national Highway Transportation Board. 3. SANDAG is using the HCM method for regional transportation planning studies. With respect to the change to the Fiscal/Economic Threshold Standard, the following factors support the proposed amendment: 1. The creation of the Economic Development Commission provides a ideal forum for addressing the economic condition of the City. 2. The economics of the City is not so much related to new development as to broader regional, state and national factors; therefore, the Growth Management Oversight Commission has had difficulty assessing the economic component of the threshold standard based solely on new growth. The Economic Development Commission will be in a better position to address the economic condition of the City. The recommended changes to the Traffic and Economics Threshold Standards involve amendments to the three separate policy documents as described in the recommendation and attached to this report as Exhibits "A" (Growth Management Implementation Ordinance), Exhibit "B" (Growth Management Program) and Exhibit "C" (Threshold Standards Policy). WPC 9769P RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.09.040 I AND K OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE; SECTIONS 3.12 AND 3.2 OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; AND THE TRAFFIC AND ECONOMICS THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS POLICY WHEREAS, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has studied the Traffic and Fiscal/Economics Threshold Standards; and WHEREAS, the GMOC recommends changing the Traffic Threshold Standard from the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method; and WHEREAS, the GMOC also recommends deleting the economics element from the Fiscal/Economics Threshold Standard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., October 9, 1991 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth aVenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends the adoption of amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code as listed in Exhibit "A" and amendments to Sections 3.12 and 3.2 of the Growth Management Program as listed in Exhibit "B" and the Traffic and Economics Threshold Standards as listed in Exhibit "C". That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of October, 1991 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Susan Fuller, Chairperson ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary WPC 9770P EXHIBIT 'A" AMENDMENTS TO GROWTH MAJ~AGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE Section lg.Og.040 I and K ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.09.040 I AND 19.09.040 K OF THE CHULA VISTA ZONING CODE BY CHANGING THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD TO THE HCM METHOD AND DELETING ECONOMICS FROM THE ECONOMICS/FISCAL THRESHOLD STANDARD The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Section 19.09.040 I of the Chula Vista Zoning Code is amended as follows: I. Traffic. Il y yt lllll hlll1Jml lllt lllN Af ¢¢lll N%YIIl lll ll HII N I II III III? ?IIt NII tlII III I l~ City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed averaqe travel speed on all siqnal3zed arterial seqments except that durinq peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. -2- 2. West of 1-805: Those siqnalized arterial seqments which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current (Year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen. 3. Notes ~ ~ Arterial seqment LOS measurements shall be for the averaqe weekday peak hours, excludinq seasonal and special circumstance variations. Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways havinq signal spacinq of less than 2 miles with averaqe weekday traffic volumes qreater than 10,000 vehicles per day. Arterial seqments are stratified into three classifications: Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds ranqe between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of siqnalized intersections per mile are less than four. There is no parkinq and there is generally no access to abuttino orooertv. Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds ranqe between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of siqnalized intersection per mile range between four and eiqht, there is some parkinq and access to abuttinq properties is limited. Class III arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds ranqe between 25 mph to 35 mph and the number of siqnalized intersections per mile are closely spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abuttinq property is unrestricted. : The LOS measurements of arterial seqments at freeway ramps shall be a qrowth manaqement consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanqes. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. : The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defininq arterial lenqths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Hiqhway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the City Traffic Enqineer. -3- ~ Durinq the conduct of future Traffic Monitorinq Proqram field surveys, intersections experiencinq siqnificant delays will be identified. The information oenerated by the field surveys will be used to determine possible siqnal timinq chanqes, qeometric and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducinq intersection delay. Level of service values for arterial seqments shall be based on the followinq table: Level of Service Averaqe Travel Speed (MPH) Class I Class 2 Class 3 A > 35 > 30 > 25 B > 28 > 24 > 19 C > 22 > 18 > 13 O > 17 > 14 > 9 E > 13 > 10 > 7 F < 13 < 10 < 7 Source: Hiqhway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washinqton D.C., 1985. SECTION II. Section 19.09.040 K of the Chula Vista Zoning Code is amended as follows: K. Economics. I I F H / fl I 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of qrowth on the City, both in terms of operations and capita) improvements. This report should evaluate actual ~rowth over the previous 12-month period, as well as pro.iected qrowth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 year period. 2~ The GMOC shall be provided with an annual "development impact fee report", which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. -4- SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the 30th day after the final adoption hereof by the City Council on the affirmative vote of three of its members. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Leiter Bruce M. Boo§aard Director of Planning City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this ~ day of , 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Tim Nader Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk WPC 9728P -5- EXHIBIT Amendments to the Growth Management Program Sections 3.12 and 3.2 3-4 WPC 9741P 3.2 Traffic 3.2.1 Existinq Threshold Policy Goals To provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City of Chula Vista. To establish a performance measurement methodology enabling the City to accurately determine existing levels of service for motorists. To define a level of service value that represents a high quality of traffic flow under constrained operating conditions during peak periods of traffic activity. To establish a performance standard which is consistent with the Regional Growth Management Standards. To maintain consistency in terms of LOS ratings between the previous Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. OBJECTIVE 1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS). 2. Plan new roadway segments and signalized intersections to maintain acceptable standards at build-out of the General Plan Circulation Element. THRESHOLD STANDARD City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current (Year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen. Notes to Standards Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways having signal spacing of less than 2 miles with average weekday traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. 3-4 WPC 9741P The Circulation Element of the General Plan serves as the overall facility master plan. Additionally, the City prepared an "East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan" last year which provides additional information relevant to the phasing of development and necessary improvements required in the area east of Interstate 805. This detailed Transportation Phasing Plan is currently being updated and provides additional information to determine compliance with the threshold standard. 3.2.3 Project Processing Requirements Applicants shall meet the following requirements at each stage in the development process. General Development Plan 1. Identify total traffic demand by land use. 2. Test traffic demand on buildout circulation network. 3. Provide project traffic distribution splits. 4. Determine compliance with General Plan. 3-5 WPC 97&.1P Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications: Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile are less than four. There is no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property. Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized intersection per mile range between four and eight, there is some parking and access to abutting properties is limited. Class III arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph to 35 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile are closely spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abutting property is unrestricted. The LOS measurements of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual {HCM) and shall be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer. During the conduct of future Traffic Monitoring Program field surveys, intersections experiencing significant delays will be identified. The information generated by the field surveys will be used to determine possible signal timing changes, geometric and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection delay. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the following table: Level of Service Averaqe Travel Speed (MPH) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 A > 35 > 30 > 25 B > 28 > 24 > 19 C > 22 > 18 > 13 D > 17 > 14 > 9 E > 13 > 10 > 7 F < 13 < 10 < 7 3-5 WPC 9741P Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1985. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being~ satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC S report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. 3-6 WPC 9741P TP, AFFIC Sectional Planninq Area Plan/Public Facilities Finance Plans 1. Identify phased traffic demand and demonstrate compliance with the "East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan". 2. Identify on-site and off-site impacts and improvements by phase of development. 3. Provide cost estimates for all improvements. Identify whether improvements are interim or full buildout. 5. Propose finance methods for each improvement. Tentative Map 1. Conditions to dedicate the ultimate right-of-way for on-site and off-site improvements. 2. Conditions for required improvements by phase of development. Final Map 1. Implement conditions. 2. Provide funding. Buildinq Permits 1. Pay traffic signal fees. 2. Pay Street Development Impact Fees {DIF} or construct roadways and receive credit for DIF circulation streets in accordance with appropriate finance policies. {On site roads constructed with appropriate phase of development). 3. The construction of sewer and water lines must be coordinated with the timing of street construction. 3.2.4 Service Analysis The City of Chula Vista through the Public Works Department is responsible for ensuring that traffic improvements are provided to maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City. Through project review City staff ensures the timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned development while maintaining acceptable levels of service. Planned new roadway segments and signalized intersections will maintain acceptable standards at the buildout of the City's general plan and circulation element. The traffic threshold standard will be analyzed by the following: WPC 9825P 3-6 TRAFFIC 1. LOS measures shall be for the average weekday peak hour, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. 2. The measurement of LOS shall be by the ~$~//~I 1985 Hiqhway Capacity Manual (HCM) method of calculation, using the City's published circulation element design standards. 3. Intersection of City arterials with freeway ramps shall be ~I~//~//$~//~ a consideration in situations where proposed developments have a siqnificant impact at interchanqes. 4. Circulation improvements shall be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. TRAFFIC WPC 9825P 3-8 TRAFFIC Circulation Street Inventory The current circulation system is depicted on Figure 8 and the buildout circulation system is depicted on Figure g. Figure 7, numbers 1 through 22, lists the proposed four lane major streets and larger which are included in the 1990 Development Impact Fee. Figure 7 Circulation Street Inventory Proposed Streets Location Estimated Cost 1. State Route 125 North San Miguel to Telegraph Canyon Rd. $8,858,700 2. State Route 125 South Telegraph Canyon Rd. to Orange Ave. 2,363,800 3. Telegraph Canyon Rd. Paseo Del Rey to east of Paseo Ladera 1,723,000 4. Telegraph Canyon Rd. Interstate 805 Interchange/Phase II 967,500 5. Telegraph Canyon Rd. Phase I Rutgers Rd. to EastLake boundary 4,174,800 6. Telegraph Canyon Rd. Phase IIl Apache Dr. to Rutgers Rd. 4,258,600 7. East i4 Street Interstate 805 Interchange Modifications 2,638,000 8. East H Street EastLake Dr. to State Route 125 1,052,700 9. Otay Lakes Rd. Telegraph Canyon Rd. south to DLF 1,096,500 Boundary 10. Bonita Rd. Otay Lakes Rd. to Central Ave. 645,000 11. Bonita Rd. Central to San MigueL ?04, 12. San Migue[ Rd. Bonita to State Route 125 2,516,600 13. East H St. State Route 125 to San Miguel 1,251,300 14. East H St. San MigueL to Hunte Parkway 6,192,000 15. Orange Ave. Oleander to eastern OfF Boundary 2,70%000 16. Patomar St. Oleander to eastern OIF Boundary 5,934,000 17. Telegraph Canyon Rd. Eastern boundary to EastLake I to Hunte 5,160,000 Parkway 18. EastLake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Rd. to southern boundary 19. Xunte Parkway East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Rd. 3,378,600 20. Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Rd. to Orange 4,211,900 21. Orange Ave. EastLake to Hurtle Parkway 3,096,000 22. Paseo Ranchero Rd. Telegraph Canyon Rd. to southern boundary 3,405,600 There are additional circulation element streets that will be added in future updates. WPC 9825P 3-9 TRAFFIC 3.2.5 Ade uac Anal sis The City of Chula Vista monitors and controls traffic improvements through a number of mechanisms. In 1989, the City authorized preparation of a comprehensive Transportation Phasing Plan for eastern Chula Vista (ECVTPP). The City also recently completed a comprehensive traffic monitoring report. At the present time, the ECVTPP is being updated. ~Hl~l~i~l~I/~l~k~l~t~Y~Hl~ll~l~k~kl~ll~I/~¢l~ll~ ~t~iliHlF~l~l~l~ll~ll~¢ll~t~lll~l~l~ll~ll~¢¢ll~ ~??llllT~ll~ll~¢~ll~l~lI~l~ll~ll~t~ll~t~Y~ ~l/~l¢~¢7~l/~qJ/l~¢l~t~/~/~ll~/¢l~l/i~tl~ ~XH~//~o/etS~/~/~/~XXY///~/YH~/X~/~/~/~/~Y 7t~f~lH~ti~l~t~ ~iXy///~/~/~j~/~/~4~//~/X~//W~W~/~X~t ~lX~/~/4~44~NI~i~i~I//~Ii~i~II~/~I~iHI~//X~ ~l~t~l~lt~t~t t ~l~liNItljCity-wide: Maintain LOS C or better at all ~l~l)~t~l~tl~Yl tHHtttttHH WPC 982SP 3-12 TRAFFIC Based upon the 1990 GMOC Report, the City Council adopted a new traffic monitorinq methodolqy to replace the Intersection Utilization (ICU) method. The new methodoloqy is the 1985 Hiqhway Capacity Manual (HCM) method and was adopted by Resolution No. on , 1991. All future projects will be evaluated in accordance with the HCM methodoloqy. Each year, the GMOC will review the City's street system operations for conformance to the Levels of Service contained in the traffic threshold standard utilizinq the HCM methodoloqy. This annual review will be in addition to the evaluation performed on individual projects as part of the environmental review process. t ? yI JHIt INITF I1 XH Xl N N I II I IJklHIf¢H WPC 9825P 3-13 TP, J~FFIC WPC 98~§P 3-14 TRAFF][C Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasinq Plan - Summary As indicated, the City analyzes traffic with both the monitoring program and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) information. The first ECVTPP, which was prepared in June 1989, serves as the City's master plan for phasing street improvements in the eastern portion of the City. This plan projects the allowable levels of development which can occur in the eastern territories of the City prior to making specific street improvements. It also identifies the various improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service on the circulation system. The key facility need identified in the first ECVTPP is the future construction of SR 125. Cumulative development, approximately 9,100 EDUs, will necessitate the construction of this critical north-south roadway before additional development of the eastern portion of the planning area can occur. The ECVTPP identifies future needs for facilities based upon development projections and identifies thresholds that will require new or improved facilities to be constructed in response to development. This phasing plan enables the city and property owners to plan for financing of needed facilities and provides an "early warning" system for future improvements. It provides notification to other public agencies when development is expected to occur that will create additional demands for other public facilities and services. The ECVTPP is currently being updated to reassess and evaluate projected traffic from new development. The initial findings of this updated study are discussed under ECVTPP update. ECVTPP Update In order to prepare an updated ECVTPP, it was necessary to validate the travel forecast model. This calibration was accomplished by beginning with the City of Chula Vista's 1987 Travel Forecast Model which was used for the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Then, the City's existing land use information from 1987 to 1990 was updated by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The roadway network and all intersections within the Eastern Territories were surveyed to document 1990 conditions. The 1987 SANDAG roadway data file was then updated to correspond to observed 1990 roadway characteristics. A series of 1990 travel forecasts was prepared until the travel forecast projected daily traffic volumes which were consistent with 1990 observed ground counts in the Eastern Territories. uPC 982sP 3-15 TRAFFIC The preliminary phasing of development for purposes of testing the ability of the roadway system to operate within the limits established by the threshold standard was conducted initially using two approaches. The first, combined all projects with approved final and tentative subdivision maps into an "approved" category of development. The second, used the projected phasing of development based upon input received from the development community regardless of the entitlement status. Roadway System Performance Testinq Following the travel forecast model validation, the roadway system was tested based upon the land use phasing information and approaches described above. The first test of the roadway system used the "approved" projects, those with approved final and tentative subdivision maps. The existing roadway conditions and programmed improvements contained in the conditions of approval for these projects as well as the Capital Improvement Budget improvements were incorporated to the roadway network. The SANDAG 1995 Series 7 land use forecast and street network assumptions were used for areas outside of the City of Chula Vista. At least one intersection is projected to fail in maintaining compliance with the City's adopted threshold standard. This intersection is Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue. A second intersection, East "H" Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center main entrance, is projected to be at or near the level of service which fails to meet the adopted threshold standard. These intersections will need close monitoring to ensure conformance with the threshold standard is maintained. It should be noted that the projected daily traffic volumes in the ECVTPP update may exceed those shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This is due to enhanced geometrics at intersections which reflect the functional capacity of roads as opposed to the planning level of analysis performed in the General Plan. The Circulation Element Level of Service C volumes are generalized in nature and do not incorporate the special enhancements(such as additional turning lanes) at key intersections throughout the City. The second test of the roadway system used the phasing projections provided by the development community regardless of the level of entitlement received. The existing roadway conditions and programmed improvements contained in the conditions of approval for these projects as well as the Capital Improvement Budget improvements were incorporated in the roadway network. The SANDAG 1995 Series 7 land use forecast and street network assumptions were used for areas outside of the City of Chula Vista. WPC 98~SP 3-16 TRAFF]C Travel forecasts were performed for the years 1994 and 1995 based on developer supplied phasing assumptions. Both of these forecasts assumed Otay Ranch development of the western parcel which is south of Telegraph Canyon Road based upon their submitted development application. The 1994 forecast projects a potential failure at East H Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center main entrance. The forecast identifies this intersection to be at or near the threshold standard. Close monitoring is needed to ensure conformance with the threshold standard. The 1995 forecast again projected the same potential problem at East H Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center main entrance as well as projecting that Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue and East Orange Avenue/Oleander Avenue will both fail to meet the adopted performance standard. Additional Network Testing Additionally, an interim four lane at grade expressway facility for State Route 125 from East Orange Avenue north to State Route 54 was tested to determine if it would relieve the traffic congestion identified in both earlier roadway tests. This improvement included signalized intersections with standard configurations at East Orange Avenue, Telegraph Canyon Road, East H Street, San Miguel Road and an interchange at State Route 54. In summary, an interim facility along State Route 125, as described above, would not provide mitigation in either case for the overall roadway network. In this configuration, State Route 125 does relieve some traffic congestion near Interstate 805, however, due to the attractiveness of this facility a large volume of traffic is shifted away' from other roadway facilities. The shifting of this traffic volume creates a failure to maintain compliance with the threshold standard at the at-grade intersections along State Route 125. TRAFFIC 3.2.6 Summary and Recon{~endations Presently, the circulation system is working in conformance with the threshold standard. Those initial improvements identified in the original ECVTPP are being planned and constructed. The original ECVTPP projected that by increment 5, (or 9,100 dwelling units, 172 acres of industrial and 85 acres of commercial development), it would be necessary to construct State Route 125 as a 4 lane freeway from Telegraph Canyon Road, north, to State Route 54. The update to the £CVTPP is projecting that, based upon demands generated from projects with approved final and tentative subdivision maps, the total traffic generation is approaching the threshold requirement for State Route 125. The threshold for the construction of SR 125 which was first presented in the original ECVTPP has been validated as part of the update to the original study. A review of the proposed development which will take place prior to the need for State Route 125 and the fees which are to be collected for circulation improvements from these projects indicates that insufficient funds will be available to make the necessary State Route 125 improvements. It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to undertake a specific study to determine the appropriate improvements required to be made in the State Route 125 corridor and to present to the City Council for adoption a guaranteed funding program for these improvements which also resolves the construction timing issues. The study will focus on identifying whether an interim facility could be constructed which would meet the threshold standard and be financially feasible prior to the construction of the ultimate State Route 125 facility. An interim facility may include enhanced geometrics at various at-grade intersections, such as additional through lanes, free right turn lanes, dual left turn lanes or some combination of these types of enhancements. The study will also consider the effects of providing connections to various roadway segments such as East Orange Avenue. A consideration for financing of this improvement will include the toll road privatization concept. ~Pc 98zsP 3-18 3-98 wPC 9741P 3.12 Economics 3.12.1 Existinq Threshold Policy GOAL To provide land uses and activities which respond to the fiscal needs of the residents and the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE Use Fiscal Impact Reports (FIRs) and Public Facility Financing Plans (PFFPs) to evaluate and plan for healthy fiscal attributes in balance with environmental, social, and public policy criteria. I. Monitor the impacts of growth in the community on the City of Chula Vista's fiscal well being, considering both operating and capital improvement cost and revenues; and 2. Monitor the development impact fee programs, considering the appropriate and timely use of such funds. Threshold 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous ]2-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual "development impact fee report" which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect the fiscal threshold standard, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC~s report. 3-98 ~PC 9741P EXHIBIT "C' THRESHOLD STANDARDS POLICY AMENDMENTS TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD AND FISCAL/ECONOMIC THRESHOLD STANDARD ~P¢ 072'~P -3- TRAFFIC GOALS To provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City of Chula Vista. To establish a performance measurement methodology enabling the City to accurately determine existing levels of service for motorists. To define a level of service value that represents a high quality of traffic flow under constrained operating conditions during peak periods of traffic activity. To establish a performance standard which is consistent with the Regional Growth Management Standards. To maintain consistency in terms of LOS ratings between the previous Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. OBJECTIVES 1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS). 2. Plan new roadway segments and signalized intersections to maintain acceptable standards at build-out of the General Plan Circulation Element. THRESHOLD STANDARDS City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current (Year ]991) LOS, but shall not worsen. Notes to Standards Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways having signal spacing of less than 2 miles with average weekday traffic volumes greater than ]0,000 vehicles per day. Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications: Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile are less than four. There is no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property. WPC 972~P -5- Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized intersection per mile range between four and eight, there is some parking and access to abutting properties is limited. Class III arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph to 35 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile are closely spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abutting property is unrestricted. The LOS measurements of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer. During the conduct of future Traffic Monitoring Program field surveys, intersections experiencing significant delays will be identified. The information generated by the field surveys will be used to determine possible signal timing changes, geometric and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection delay. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the following table: Level of Service Averaqe Travel Speed (MPH) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 A > 35 > 30 > 25 B > 28 > 24 > 19 C > 22 > ]8 > 13 D > 17 > 14 > 9 E > 13 > 10 > 7 F < 13 < lO < 7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1985. Implementation Measures Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being' satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC S report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: tcPC 9723P -6- 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. WPC 9723P -7- WPC 9723P FISCAL GOAL: To provide land uses and activities which respond to the fiscal needs of the residents and the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Use Fiscal Impact Reports (FIRs) and Public Facility Financing Plans (PFFPs) to evaluate and p]an for healthy fiscal attributes in balance with environmental, social, and public policy criteria. Objective 1. Monitor the impacts of growth in the community on the City of Chula Vista's fiscal well being, considering both operating and capita] improvement cost and revenues; and 2. Monitor the development impact fee programs, considering the appropriate and timely use of such funds. Threshold I. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual "development impact fee report" which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. Imolementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect the fiscal threshold standard, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report. WPC 9721P -2- October 1, 1991 TO: Members of Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Agenda Item #2, ZAV-92-04 The Planning Department is recommending that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. The application for the variance specified only that the variance was for a front yard setback. As staff did the required research for the report on this item, it was discovered that the parking is inadequate to meet the code. The applicant, therefore, would need to apply for a variance to the parking requirements as well. Staff contacted the applicant's representative to determine whether the applicant wishes to withdraw the application or readvertise for a public hearing to cover variances to both the front yard setback and the parking requirements. As of the time of this writing, the answer is unknown. Therefore, staff's recommendation is that this item be withdrawn at this time. BR:je City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 9, 1991 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-01: Amendment to the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan boundaries and an amendment to SPAs I, II and III by incorporatin9 and designatin9 community purpose facility site~ A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA I boundaries to include two parcels totaling 13.7 acres and amendment to SPAs I, II, and III in order to incorporate and designate certain sites for community purpose facilities as required by the recently adopted "Community Purpose Facility Ordinance (No. 2¢52A)." 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-g2-O01, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial 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-92-001. 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-g2-O01. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the following: a. An amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA I boundaries to include 3.7 acres located at the southeast corner of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero and 10.0 acres located at the northwest corner of East H Street and Buena Vista Way; b. An amendment to SPAs I, II, and III to incorporate and designate community purpose facility sites as shown on attached Exhibit A; and, c. An amendment to SPAs I, II and III to include the Community Purpose Facility District regulations governing said sites attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. DISCUSSION 1. Community Purpose Facility Ordinance In April 1991, the City Council adopted an ordinance (No. 2452A) amending Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code requiring that community purpose facility sites be set aside within the Planned Community (PC) zones. The amount of land to be set aside for those uses is 1.39 net usable acres for every 1,000 population projected within the project boundaries. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 2 2. Rancho Del Rey SPA III and Tentative Map In March 1991, prior to the adoption of the Community Purpose Facility Ordinance, the City Council conditionally approved Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area {SPA) III. One of the conditions (#17) was, "Rancho Del Rey SPAs I, II, and III shall comply with any future ordinance of the City that would set requirements for designation of community purpose facility acreage. The commitment shall be satisfied prior to the recordation of any final map for the SPA III area." In July 1991, the City Council conditionally approved the tentative map for Rancho Del Rey SPA III, CVT 92-02. Again, one of the conditions was compliance with the CPF ordinance with the added proviso that "Areas of consideration for qualification must be within the areas of SPAs I, II or III." 3. Estimated Population of Rancho Del Rey In order to determine the amount of land which must be set aside for community purpose facilities, the potential population of the project must first be determined. The applicant has submitted the following table. TABLE I Rancho Del Rev Estimated Population Persons Estimated Residential Area Units* DU** Population SPA I Apts. (R-15) 500 2.192 1,096 SPA I Condo. (R-14) 147 2.794 411 SPA I Condo. (R-13) 138 2.794 386 SPA I Condo. (R-12) 180 2.794 503 SPA III Seniors (R-7) 588 2.192 1,289 SPA III Condo. (R-6) 228 2.794 637 SFD (all SPAs) 2,268 3.213 7,287 TOTALS 4,069 11,608 *Count from most current approval (SPA Plan, TM or site plan). **Population factors from Chula Vista Planning Department base on January 1, 1990 State Department of Finance Based on an estimated population of 11,608, the Rancho Del Rey project should contain 16.1 acres {11,608/1,000 X 1.39 = 16.1) 4. Community Purpose Facility Sites The applicant has identified five (5) potential sites totaling 25.2 acres gross, 19.7 acres net for community purpose facilities (see Exhibit A). Two of the sites are not owned by the applicant and are City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 3 currently outside the boundaries of Rancho Del Rey project. However, the two sites are located within the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and are zoned PC (Planned Community) the same as the Rancho Del Rey Project. Part of the applicant's request is to include these two parcels with the boundaries of SPA I. TABLE II Parcel Acreaqe Statistics Parcel/Site Gross Acres Net Acres 1. SPA I - YMCA 4.5 4.0 2. SPA I - Pilgrim Lutheran* 10.0 6.] 3. SPA I - Methodist Church* 3.7 3.5 4. SPA II Site 5.0 5.0 5. SPA III Site 2.0 1.1 TOTAL ACRES 25.2 gross ac. 19.7 net ac. Based on the above table, the proposed net acreage exceeds the community purpose facility acreage requirement by 3.6 acres (19.7 acres proposed minus 16.1 acres required). 5. Site Description The following is a description of each proposed site. Site #1 - This is a 4.5 acre parcel with 4.0 usable acres located at the southeast quadrant of Paseo Ranchero and the easterly segment of Rancho Del Rey Parkway within SPA I. The site has been donated to the local YHCA by the developer and will be developed with a community recreation facility. Site #2 - This is a 10.0 acre parcel with 6.1 usable acres located at the northwest corner of East H Street and Buena Vista Way. The property is owned by the Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church which has obtained preliminary approvals to build a church/school complex. The developer and the church have negotiated land exchanges because of road alignments. The church has agreed to being included within the boundaries of SPA I. Site #3 - This is a 3.7 acre parcel with 3.5 usable acres located at the southeast corner of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. The property was owned by the Chula Vista Elementary School District when the Rancho Del Rey project was approved and was not included within the project boundaries. It has since been purchased by the developer who is in process of selling it to a Methodist Church. This site is also proposed to be included in SPA I. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 4 Site #4 - This is an entirely usable 5.0 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Huerto Place and the westerly segment of Rancho Del Rey Parkway opposite the easterly terminus of Terra Nova Drive. The site is located within SPA II and has been designated on the plan for quasi-public use. The actual use is yet to be determined. Site #5 - This is a 2.0 acre parcel with 1.1 usable acres located at the northeast corner of Paseo Ladera and Paseo Entrada. The property is located within SPA III has been designated on the plan for a community purpose facility. Actual use of the property is still to be determined. 6. District Regulations Community facilities, public and quasi-public uses within the Rancho Del Rey project are allowed in the areas of the plan designated as open space. There are three categories of open space and the uses may be permitted, not permitted or subject to a conditional use permit and administrative review. Within the open space areas, other uses besides community purpose facilities, may also be permitted. The applicant has submitted district regulations for areas designated for community purpose facilities. The proposed regulations restrict said designated areas to defined community purpose facilities and establishes approval procedures, setbacks, parking requirements, and sign criteria. D. ANALYSIS 1. The community purpose facility acreage requirement for the Rancho Del Rey project is 16.1 net usable acres (11,608 population - 1,000 x 1.39). The applicant has proposed five sites with a combined net usable acreage of 19.7 acres, exceeding the requirement by 3.6 acres. However, in order to achieve this total, two sites must be included within the boundaries of the planned community. The proposed sites are within the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and the developer has either owned or been involved with a land exchange with the specific properties. Therefore, the developer has had some vested interest with the proposed sites and their inclusion into the project boundaries is reasonable. 2. From a locational perspective, each site is well suited for the proposed uses. The sites are either located on a major street or residential collector and therefore, have good access. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposed request be approved. WPC g690P CPF PILGRIM LUTHERAN * METHODIST CHURCH ~ Community Purpose Facilities SPA II SITE SPA III SITE r..~..~._ ~,_ ~, , o?...._ __ / ' '" -'> SPA \~"~ RP RP 0S-2 I / ~ / ~ RC t .~-~. ~..., / or't-~ III CPF Sites \\ ,,,c,.-,.,,.,o,.,, EXHIBIT ~ ~LO¢~'ro~ COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES EXHIBIT "B" COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY D'rSTRICT REOUL~T'rONS A. PURPOSE The Community Purpose Facility (CPF) District is established to provide designated sites for specific public and quasi-public uses which are necessary to meet the social, spiritual, and service needs of the resident population. These sites are provided to meet the adopted standard of 1.39 acres of community purpose facilities per 1000 project population (Ordinance No. 2452). B. PERMITTED USES Only those uses which meet the specifications of "Community Purpose Facility" below shall be permitted in the CPF District. "Community Purpose Facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot and outdoor activity areas, within a planned community, including but not limited to those which serve the following types of purposes: 1. Boy scouts, girl scouts, and other similar organizations; 2. Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous; 3. Services for homeless persons; 4. Services for military personnel during the holidays; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional family values; and, 7. Day care facilities and/or private schools which are ancillary to any of the above. C. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ail development within the CPF District shall receive site plan and architectural approval from the Chula Vista Design Review Commit- tee. Dimensions shown on the approved site plan shall constitute the applicable development standards for the project, except that the following minimum standards shall apply where a CPF District adjoins a residential district: 1. A minimum 10 foot wide landscaped strip or minimum 6 foot solid wall or fence shall be maintained on any property line abutting a residential zone. 2. Said wall or fence may be reduced to 42 inches in a landscaped front yard setback which does not contain parking facilities. 3. Front, rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet. D. OFF-STREET P~KIN~ REQUIRF~ENTS All off-street parking areas shall comply with the provisions of Section XIII.3 of the Rancho del Rey SPA I PC Regulations with regard to space size and geometrics. Parking areas within the CPF District shall also comply with the Special Requirements for improvements, landscaping and lighting indicated in that section. The relevant Performance Standards of Section XIII.4 shall also apply. Off-street parking shall be provided according to the following schedule: USE MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REOUIRED 1. Day nurseries, i space/staff member plus 1 space/5 day care schools 5 children or i space/10 children if adequate drop-off facilities are provided. Drop-off facilities must be designed to accommodate a contin- uous flow of passenger vehicles safely loading and unloading chil- dren. The adequacy of drop-off facilities shall be determined by the Director of Planning. 2. Convalescent and/ 1 space/3 beds. or nursing homes 3. Churches, convents, 1 space/3.5 seats within the main monasteries, other auditorium or 1 space/45 square religions instit- feet of gross floor area within utions, and other the main auditorium where there spaces of public are no fixed seats. assembly 4. Other uses As determined by the Director of Planning Handicapped Parking Requirements Handicapped parking requirements are established by the State of California. The parking standards contained in this section are identical to those established by the State. Any future change in the State handicapped parking standards shall preempt the requirements of this section. Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided for all uses at the following rate and shall be counted toward the off-street parking require- ment: Number of Automobile Number of Handicapped Spaces Provided Spaces Req]/ired 1 - 40 1 41 - 80 2 81 - 120 3 121 - 160 4 161 - 300 5 301 - 400 6 401 - 500 7 Over 500 7 + I for each 200 addi- tional automobile spaces provided 5. Handicapped parking spaces required by this section shall count toward fulfilling standard automobile parking requirements. E. SIGNS Uses within the CPF District shall be allowed the following signs: 1. All sites shall be allowed freestanding, monument signs as permitted within the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. 2. Churches: One wall sign, not to exceed 30 square feet in area, and one bulletin board or announcement sign, not to exceed 24 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. Any bulletin board or announcement sign not attached flat against the building shall maintain a 10 foot setback from all streets. 3. Other uses: One wall sign, not to exceed 30 square feet in area, and one bulletin board or announcement sign, not to exceed 50 square feet in area and 12 feet in height. Any bulletin board or announcement sign not attached flat against the building shall maintain a 10 foot setback from all streets. 4. Special event signs: a. Any use may request a permit for the temporary use of a sign announcing a special event. Wall or freestanding signs of paper, cardboard, plastic or fabric are permitted, provided that the zoning administrator finds that the copy, color, and design of the sign will not adversely affect the order, amenity, or residential enjoyment of the neighborhood in which it is located. b. Special event signs shall be located on the premis- es of the institution or organization having the special event and shall be not more than five feet in height, nor more than 25 square feet in area. Freestanding signs shall maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from any street. One sign on each street frontage shall be allowed. c. Upon application for a permit, the applicant shall submit a statement and diagram noting the nature of the special event and indicating the location, size, copy, and colors of the proposed sign. A permit for a special event sign shall be valid for seven consecutive days. Not more than six special event sign permits shall be issued to any one institution or organization per calendar year. F. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION Notwithstanding any provision of these regulations, the conditional use approval (City Council Resolution No. 12316; PCC-84-11) granted to the parcel at the northwest corner of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way shall remain in force and full effect. The Master Plan approval granted by the Chula Vista Design Review Committee for this parcel (PCM-87-14) shall also remain in full effect. No portion of these regulations shall be interpreted to contradict, negate, or otherwise modify the approvals granted for the church/ school facility proposed for this site which is wholly consistent with the purposes of this district. MAIL TO: Ctty of Chula Vtsta 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA .92010 Attn: Doug Reid AUG 1 199! NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE OECLARATION (FINOING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in compliance wi th Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Negative Oeclaratton (finding of no significant impact) and the Initial Study, which supports the proposed findings, are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Oepartment, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. These documents are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed Negative Oeclaratton should provide their written coments to the Chula Vista Planning Oepartment, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. This proposed finding does not constitute approval or dental of the project itself; it on1¥ detemtnes if the project could have significant environmental impact, rol~-d~cts which could have significant impact must have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Oeclaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence. , For further info~mation concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Mar.yann Miller at (619) This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for a period of not less than thirty.(30) days. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUt{BERt 593-382-38, 642-391-0[, 642-392-[0, 642-0[0-38 640-080-32 PROJECT LOCATION: Rancho De~ Rey Planned Community (5 sites) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves a SPA amendment and a zone change. The boundaries of the SPA I site will be revised to incorporate 2 new parcels, these stteS, nlus 3 additional parcels currently with the Rancho del Rey Planned Communit~ wi1'1 be des+qnated CommUnity Purpose.F..a.cility (CPF). DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Maryann R~er INITIAL STUDY I10. IS-92-01 RECEIVED DATE: 08/19/91 EI'I 7 {Rev. 1/90) AUG gG i/PC 0006Y p_LA_NNING negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Rancho del Rey Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) Zone Change/SPA plan amendment to revise boundaries of SPA I and designate "CPF" parcels in SPA plans I, 1I & III PROJECT LOCAIION: Rancho del Rey Planned Community (5 sites) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 593.382.38, 642.391.01, 642.392.10, 642.010.38, 640.080.32 PROJECT APPLICANT: Rancho del Rey Partnership (Craig Fukuyama) CASE NO: IS-92-01 DATE: August 16, 1991 A. Pro.iect Settinq The proposed five sites total 25.2 acres and are located within the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. The project involves the annexation of two sites into the SPA I project area. The locations, sizes, and existing conditions of the five individual sites are described below: 1. Site one is located at the southeast corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero. It is one of two sites proposed for annexation into SPA I under the SPA plan amendment. The total acreage of the site is 3.7 acres. The site is in a natural open space state with six mature trees, shrubs, grasses, cactus and some indigenous wildlife such as hawks and squirrels. The site slopes gradually upward to the east. The north side of the project, adjacent to East "H" Street, is bounded by a concrete drainage swale. The south side of the site is bounded by an existing single family, residential neighborhood. The adjacent uses to the east and west include graded open space proposed for residential development in the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. 2. Site Two is located on the northwest corner of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. It is a 10.0 acre site and is the second of two sites proposed for annexation into the SPA I plan. The site is in a natural open space state with dense shrubbery and indigenous wildlife. The site slopes at a 10-15% gradient. The north side of the site is bounded by Buena Vista Way and Rancho del Rey planned community development including park residential uses. The south side of the site is bounded by East "H" Street and an existing single family residential development. A drainage swale is located on the east side of the property. Adjacent uses to the east include Buena Vista Way and a medium-high residential development. Medium-high residential development makes up the adjacent use to the west. ~.~klf~ city of chula vista planning department ¢1~ OF environmental review section CHUI~ VISTA -2- 3. Site three is located east of Paseo Ranchero, slightly south of Rancho del Rey Parkway. This site is 4.5 acres and falls with RDR SPA I. The site has recently been graded and contains little vegetation, except sparse grasses. The north portion of the site is an elevated pad containing an power pole. This power pole generates 139 KV and is part of a major transmision corridor. Adjacent property to the north of the site includes Rancho del Rey Parkway and proposed RDR planned community residential development. To the south and east are existing residential neighborhoods of medium to medium-high density. The adjacent property to the west is open space. 4. Site four is located in RDR SPA III east of Paseo Ladera between East "j" Street to the north and Telegraph Canyon Road to the south. It is 7.0 acres in size. The site slopes at 5-10~ upward to the north. It remains in a undisturbed state with thick, natural vegetation and indigenous wildlife. There is a drainage swale along the west side of the property. The north side of the site is bounded by undisturbed open space. The south end of the site is bounded by Paseo Entrada and undisturbed open space continuing to Telegraph Canyon Road. Property adjacent to the east and west sides of the site is occupied by existing residential neighborhoods separated on the west side by Paseo Ladera. 5. The fifth site is 5.0 acres located at the east end of Terra Nova Drive on the east side of Rancho del Rey Parkway. It falls within Rancho del Rey SPA II. The site has been recently graded and little or no vegetation is present on the site. The north side of the site is bounded immediately by Rancho del Rey Parkway and by open space further north. To the south, east and west is undisturbed open space including Rice Canyon, however, adjacent properties to the east and west are proposed for development. B. Pro'ect es ri tion The proposed project is a combination of a SPA plan amendment and rezone to incorporate and designate parcels for Community Purpose Facilities. The purpose of this project is to comply with new provisions in the City Zoning Ordinance requiring that a greater proportion of project acreage be designated for community purpose facility use. The total acreage included in the community purpose facility project is 25.2 acres consisting of 19.7 net usable acres. The City zoning ordinance standards require 16.1 acres of Community Purpose Facilities for the 11,608 projected population of the Rancho del Rey project. Compliance will be achieved by designating five CPF sites interspersed throughout the 3 SPA plan areas. Environmental Impact Reports 83-2, 87-1, 88-1, 89-10, 89-2 have addressed the environment at impacts associated with each of the three phases of the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. Annexation of two sites into SPA I through SPA plan amendment will facilitate compliance with the required acreage standard. -3- C. ~omoatibilitv with Zoninq and Plans This project involves a SPA plan amendment and rezone to incorporate and designate parcels for Community Purpose Facilities as required within planned communities by a recently amended City Zoning Ordinance. lhese changes in land use designation and zoning are consistent with the surrounding planned community use. D. ~omoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is two or less miles away and would be associated with a five or less minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Threshold standards will be met with completion of the proposed fire station at the northwest corner of Paseo Ranchero and East "H" Street. Fire Department requirements will be determined when site plans or building plans are submitted. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority ! 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 62.10~ of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. lhe proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The Police Department has indicated that it can maintain an acceptable level of service. 3. Traffic The Threshold/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 lg87 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed plan SPA amendment and rezone will not affect the level of service or average daily traffic. Future specific development proposals must meet threshold standards. -4- 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The threshold standard is only applied to residential projects, therefore, this project is exempt. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed project will not cause threshold standards to be exceeded. Future site development must meet engineering standards for surface drainage flow and drainage design. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed SPA plan amendment and rezone will not have any impact on sewage flows and volumes. Future site development must meet established engineering standards for sewage flows and volumes. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The project sites are located within a previously established planned community. Attainment of water usage threshold standards has been addressed in the SPA plans and the previous EIRs. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. -5- The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. ~ater Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval, the applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Geoloav/Soils EIR 89-10 indicates that potentially significant adverse soil conditions or geologic hazards may exist on some of the project sites. Geology/soils impacts may be reduced by compliance to the recommendations set forth in the geotechnical reports prepared for the project. With adherence to these recommendations, geology/soils impacts are deemed to be less than significant. ~rainaqe EIR-Sg-IO identifies drainage and groundwater/water quality as potential impacts of RDR SPA III. According to the EIR, adherence to the regulations regarding stormwater discharge set forth in the NPDES permit requirements and City Engineering flows and volume standards, potential adverse impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. Bioloqv EIR 89-10 identifies several potentially significant biological resources occurring within the boundaries of the RDR Specific Plan Area. These biological resources include: vernal pool habitat, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wren. Appropriate CEQA findings of overriding considerations were made. Several mature trees were observed on the north side of "site one". When a specific project is submitted, attempts should be made to preserve the trees on this site. With continued compliance to mitigation programs as set forth in the previous EIRs and subsequent environmental documentation, impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. lhe proposed project is a SPA plan amendment and rezone and no density increase is proposed. Environmental impacts of the landuse designation change have been analyzed and deemed to be less than significant. Three of the five sites are currently designated as "CP" in the RDR SPA plan. As a result of a recent City zoning ordinance amendment, the designation is now referred to as "CPF." In these three cases, the proposed uses of these sites, including two churches and a YMCA, remain compatible with the new designation. Additionally, the change in the City -6- zoning ordinance has increased the required land ratio to be set aside for community purpose facilities. To comply with this requirement, this project proposes to annex two additional sites into RDR SPA I and designate them as community purpose facility sites. This project entails rezoning of two sites from residential to "CPF." The impacts of these land use changes are deemed to be less than significant. When specific development plans are submitted forsite three, studies related tot he impacts of the electromagnetic field generated by the 138 KV power pole should be required.d With adherence to the recommendations made in such report, impacts will be less than significant. SChools The proposed project is subject to a special tax levy aimed at mitigating the impacts of the Rancho del Rey Planned Community on schools. With participation in the special tax levy, impacts on schools will be less than significant. F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required. G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant 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. As noted in Section E "Identification of Environmental Effects," the proposed project will have no significant impacts on the environment. There are no significant natural, man-made, or cultural resources present on the sites that would be impacted by the proposed project. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. With compliance to the conditions of approval for the rezone and SPA plan amendment, the project will be consistent with the uses designated by the zone and the general plan. The project would not achieve any short term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals -7- since long term goals would be achieved through compliance with the zoning code requirements for provision of community purpose facility sites within the RDR planned community. 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 designation of five Community Purpose Facility sites will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects which are cumulative in nature, provided all conditions pursuant to the issuance of the rezone and SPA plan amendment are met. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Public health impacts associated with the 138 KV power pole on site 5 shall be mitigated with adherence to City standards at the time a specific project is proposed. H. ~onsultation 1. )ndividuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering 'Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department Georgia Rubin, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Rancho Del Rey Partnership (Craig Fukuyama) 2. Documents Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan, City of Chula Vista EIR #8g-lO-Rancho del Rey Spa III -8- This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC g668P/O175P THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters 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: k 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e.: contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. A. HcMtllin Communities. Inc., National City, CA 91950 B. Home CaMtal Develooment Group, a substdary of Home Federal Savings and Loan, San Diego, CA 92101 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list tht names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. McMilltn ~Ommunitiel~lnc.: ' HcMilltn Family Trust-Hacey L. & Vonnle k. McMillin Trustees.(~0%) Hark D. McMillin~ Laurie A. Ray & Scott H. McMillin (20% each) Home Capital Development Group: lO0~ by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or ,'. 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. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __ No x If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Craia Fukuvama. McMillin Communities 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No x If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Pcrson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co.partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, y),ndicate, thi~ and an), other county, ciO, and country, city, municipal#); district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) Date: 7-2-91 Sign at~e ,t(~or/a pplican t Craig T. Fukuyama, Vice President Print or type name of contractor/applicant IA-I ) 3.\:DISCLOSE.TX'Ii MoMi l 1 i n Communi ties - Managl ng Partner [Revised: 1 Rancho del Rey Partnership FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /~,- ~-/' INITIAL STUDY Receip~ No. f'7~ )' Date Rec'd ?~_ ,-r/, City of Chula Vista Accepted by 7~y-~aF Application Form Project No. ~=~ _~.,?g' A. BACKGROUND f)/c~ ~ jy ~, 1. PROJECT TITLE Rancho ~el Re7 Communit) PuFpose Facilities 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Rancho del Re7 Planned Community Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change/SPA amendment to revise boundarie~ of SPA I and designate "CPF" parcels in SPAs I, II, and III 4. Name of Applicant Rancho del R&y Partnership (Attn: Crai~ Fukuyama) Address 2727 Hoover Avenue Phone 477-4117 City National City State CA Zip 91950 5. Hame of Preparer/Agent Cinti & Associates Address 1133 Columbia Street #201 Phone 239-1815 City San Dieso State CA Zip 92101 Relation to Applicant Plannin$ Consultant 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 xxParcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report XX ~ther Project Description Approvals Required B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or'acreage 25.2 ac (Gross) If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this 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 minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 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 - 3 - i~ h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate !. i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours o~ operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project Communit7 Purpose Facility Zoning b. Type of facilities provided community purpose (per Ord. 2452) c. Square feet of enclosed structures per code d. Height of structure(s) - maximum per code e. Ultimate occupancy load of project pe~ code f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided per code 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. NONE 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. 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 - 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.) Standard equ±pment for C?B-type fac±l±tles Indicate the'amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) None 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. None 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? NO 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? see EIRs!for~RD~SP~]I, 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. None D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geolooy Nas a geology study been conducted on the property? YES -' see EIRs £or (If yes, please attach) RDR SPA I, II, & III Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? same as above (If yes, pJease attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? NO. (1lyes, 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? -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? NO 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? YES --East "H" Street sites and Paseo Ladera site b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (i f any) will be removed by the project. None Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? NO b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NO 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Vacant ,!,/~b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on ~, adjacent property North All adjacent uses are residential. South West 7., Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) NO b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) NO Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. -See Project Description attached.- E. CERTIFICATION Craim T. Fukuvama. Vice President Rancho del Rev Partnership I(R'- Owner/owner in escrows* - McMillin Communities, Managing Partner 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 i~ct and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. P~NCHO DEL REY SpA~.MENDMENT/REZONE COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES -Project Description- Introduction/Backaround The proposed project is a combination of a SPA plan amendment and re-zone to incorporate and designate parcels for Community Purpose Facilities, as required by the recent amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this project is to bring the Rancho del Rey Planned Community into compliance with the Community Purpose Facility standard adopted in Ordinance 2452. Such compliance is required as a condition of approval of the Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan (condition $16). Compliance will be achieved through a series of actions which are primarily administrative because the basic land use and intensity decisions have been previously made. Two sites adjacent to SPA I which are intended for church uses and which will clearly serve the project area, are to be added to the SPA I site through the SPA Plan amendment component of the project. These sites plus three additional parcels currently within the Rancho del Rey Planned Community will be designated "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). The sites within the Rancho del Rey planning area are currently identified "CF" (for community facility uses) on the respective site utilization plans. Community facility uses are similar to CPF uses, but are more broadly defined. The re-zone component of the project will adopt land use regulations for the CPF District to limit permitted uses to those consistent with the provisions of Ordinance 2452 and to establish development standards for such uses. The net result of the project will be a change in the map designation and applicable development regulations for each of the five CPF parcels. The list of permitted uses will be reduced, however the community serving character of the permitted uses will be unchanged and no increase in intensity is proposed. No change in parcel acreage statistics is proposed. o osed ro'ect The project is a combination of a SPA plan amendment and re-zone to incorporate and designate parcels for Community Purpose Facilities, as required within planned communities by the recently amended city Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this project is to demonstrate compliance with the community purpose facility provisions of the ordinance and implement those provisions in the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. The SPA Plan amendment will adjust the SPA I boundary to include two adjacent parcels which are planned for CPF facilities which will clearly serve the Rancho del Rey community but are not (06/17/91) 1 currently located within the SPA boundary. This boundary change will have no effect on the planned uses for these parcels. A total of five parcels are identified for CPF uses. These are designated on Exhibit 1. As noted above, two sites will be incorporated into SPA I through a boundary adjustment, while one is currently within the within SPA I boundary. SPAs II and III include one site each. Table A provides the gross and net acreage statistics for each parcel. The five parcels total 19.7 net usable acres (25.2 total acres). Parcel acreage Statistics ~ ~ Net Acres YMCA 4.5 4.0 Pilgrim Lutheran 10.0 6.1 Methodist Church 3.7 3.5 SPA II Site 5.0 5.0 SPA III Site 2.0 %,1 Total ~cres 25.2 gross ac 19.7 net ac The adopted Community Purpose Facility standard is 1.39 net usable acres per 1,000 project population. The first step in determining the requirement for Rancho del Rey is to estimate the project population. The population estimate is provided in Table B. Using this population estimate, the facility standard yields a requirement of 16.1 acres for the Rancho del Rey community (11,608 x 1.39/1,000 = 16.1). The sites designated on Exhibit I total 19.7 acres of net usable area, exceeding the adopted standard by 3.6 acres. (06/17~91) 2 ~BLE B Co.unity Purpose Facility &creeqe Deter~ination s'de t'a ea UnitsI pOD./DU2 Pro4ectPco. SPA I Apts. (R-15) 500 2.192 1,096 SPA I Condo. (R-14) 147 2.794 411 SPA I Condo. (R-13) 138 2.794 386 SPA I Condo. (R-12) 180 2.794 503 S~% III Seniors (R-7) 588 2.192 1,289 SPA III Condo. (R-6) 228 2.794 637 SFD (all SPAs) 2.268 3.213 7.287 Totals 4,069 11,608 ICount from most current approval (SPA Plan, TM or site plan). 2Population factors from Chula Vista Planning Department. NOTE: This population estimate is made for the purpose of calculat- ing the community purpose facilities requirement only and should not be used to project other service needs. (06/17/91) 3 CPF Sites Community Purpose Facilities N SPA II : ~ ~ ~tes ~ Bo~ries D. ARCIIO DEL ~ ~ m 6 Exhibit I CITY DATA ~es the project to the designation on site: ~ ~ North South East = ~s the pro~ect compatible w~th the Genera~ Plan Land Use D~agram? Is the pro~ect area designated for conservattgn or open space or adjacent is the pro~ect ~ocated adjacent to any scenic routes? d,; (if yes,. describe the design techniques being used to ~otect or ~nhance 3. ~choo~ s If the proposed pro~ect ts residential, please complete the following: Students Pe~anent Temporary Current Generated School Attendance ~ ~ From Pro.~ect Elementary 3r. H~gh Sr. Htgh Director of Planntng or Representative Date WPC 9459P -13- Case No. H-1. PARKS AND R£CREATION DEPARTM£NT 1. How many acres ~f parkland &~e necessary to serve the proposed project? 2. How many acres of developed parkland are wtthln the Park Servtce the end Recreation Element Dtstrtct of this project as shown tn of the General Plan? (If applicable) 3. #hat are the current ark tn the Park Servtce District? b~ &creage~4 r~q~ trement s (If applica le) 4.Is project subject to Parks.~.&Recre.~.tton Threshold.requirements? If not, please explain. 5. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community Parks 6. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community Parks 7. ODeS this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? 8. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to: Provide land? Pay a fee? 9. Remarks: Parks and Recreation Director or'Representatiw Date WPC 9459P -18- III. Determination (To be completed by the Lead k~ency.) On the basts of thts tntttal evaluation: I ftnd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION rtl1 be prepared ....... I ftnd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation masures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A #ITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ................................................... [ ] I find the proposed project RRY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ........ [ ] St§nature~' Date For ~~ IV. SUI~Y OF ISSUES List all significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study checklist form. YES RAYBE uo~ e~cao DE MINIMIS FIE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB3158) ~/ It is hereby found that this project tnvol~es no p~t~tt~l for &ny edverse effect, etther Individually or cumulatively on wtldltfe resources end that · 'Certificate of Fee Exemption' shall be prepared for thts project. It ts hereby found that this project could potentially tmpact wildlife, Individually or cumulatively end therefore fees tn accordance ~tth Sectton 711.4 (d) of the Ftsh end Game Code sbe11 be paid to the County Clerk. £nvironmbntal Review Coordinator Date WPC 9459P Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINiSTRATiON CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, Celifornia 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities ~'-'"'~-" ~' ! JLIL ~.3 199~ July 18.. 1991 L-,. - Ms. Maryann Miller City of Chula ¥'ista Z?6 Fourth 'Avenue Chula Vista, 91910 Dear Ms. l"liller: RE: RA#CHO DEL RE:Y: 15-92-01 I arq in r~ceipt of the Initial Study prepared for the above referenced project. Please be ad'.,,dsed that the Rancho del Rey planned community is located in the Sweetwater Union High School created District uommumty Facilities Di.--~tritt No.3. TMs special tax assessment district was andimo!emented to mitigate all of the anticipated student needs resulting from Rancho del Rey. The pr:op¢,sed zone changes will result in uses subject to the,~pecial tax levey; therefore, additional mitigation measures are not necessary. If l can°be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact rne. Cordiall , Thomas Silva Assistant Di rector of Planning T.$. :ml City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page I 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-01~ request to continue to operate and to expand an existinq amusement park at 950 Industrial Blvd. - Fun-4-All A. BACKGROUND In 1977, the previous owners of Fun-4-All Amusement Center were granted a conditional use permit (PCC-76-26) to construct and operate a family amusement center at 950 Industrial Blvd. The center consists of a 35~ x 50~ building for arcade games, an office and snack bar, a baseball batting cage enclosed with mesh measuring 140~ in diameter and 36~ high at the center pole, an 18 hole miniature golf course, an area for bumper boats, and an on-site parking area for 30 automobiles. The applicant also negotiated an agreement for 50 additional parking spaces on the adjacent industrial lot for evening, weekend and holiday overflow parking. The permit was approved on the condition that it would expire in 10 years, at which time application could be made for a new permit. The permit expired in 1987, one year after the present owners took over. The amusement center has been operating without a permit since that time. The previous owners did not inform the new owners that the permit would expire in 1987, and the City did not subsequently inform the applicant that the permit had expired. On July 1, 1991, Fun-4-All applied for a modification to the conditional use permit proposing the construction of a shooting gallery (using air guns and rubber balls as projectiles). It was at this time that it was discovered that PCC-76-26 had expired, and the present owners were required to apply for a new conditional use permit to continue the operation of the center and to add the shooting gallery. An Initial Study, IS-76-110, was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for PCC-76-26 and a Negative Declaration was certified by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1977. The Environmental Review Coordinator has further determined that the shooting gallery addition is exempt from Environmental Review (CEQA, class 1). B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-92-01, to permit the continued operation of Fun-4-All and to allow the addition of a shooting gallery subject to the following conditions: 1. The agreement giving the applicants the right to use the adjacent industrial parking area to the north for customer parking on weekday evenings after 6:30 pm, weeken~ days and evenings, and holiday days and evenings in order to provide for overflow parking shall be maintained, a signed copy of which shall be filed with the Planning Department. The applicants shall be responsible for maintenance and traffic control of said adjacent parking lot during the hours and days when it is in use by amusement center customers. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 2 2. Hours of operation for the facility shall be limited to the following: Monday - Thursday: 10:00 am - 10:00 pm Friday: 10:00 am - midnight Saturday: 9:00 am - midnight Sunday: 9:00 am - 10:00 pm 3. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. The plan shall show the existing planting and irrigation program with any additions, enhancements, and/or modifications necessary to bring the site up to the current standards of the City Landscape Manual. 4. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 5. This conditional use permit shall be valid for a period of five years after which time the applicant may apply for a new permit. Should the operation of the amusement center be abandoned or suspended for a period of 90 days or more, the batting cage structure shall be dismantled and all related equipment removed from the site. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoninq and land use North I-L-P Multiple tenant industrial building South I-L Vacant East I-L-P Trolley line and vacant West I (across I-5) SDG&E generating plant Existinq site characteristics The subject property is a 1.84 acre parcel bordered on the west and south by the northbound on-ramp to the I-5 freeway, to the east by Industrial Boulevard, and to the north by an industrial building. The property is relatively level and essentially at the same elevation as the adjoining streets and freeway. The site is presently developed with an amusement center, Fun-4-All, approved in 1977 (PCC-76-26) and constructed in 1978. The property is designated research and limited industrial on the Montgomery Specific Plan and is zoned I-L-P. The amusement center consists of the following: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 3 1. A central structure, approximately 35 ft. by 50 ft. of masonry construction which houses, an office, restrooms, snack bar and arcade machines. 2. A 16,000 sq. ft. baseball batting enclosure (36 ft. high at center x ]8' high at periphery. 3. An 18 hole miniature golf course. 4. An 80' long by 38' (at the eastern end) diminishing to 28' (at the western end) pool for bumper boats. 5. Stationary coin operated "ride type" machines for small children such as: small robot, kiddie train, merry-go-round and boat. 6. Parking for 35 vehicles on site, including 2 handicapped parking spaces, with 50 additional spaces on the adjacent industrial property for overflow parking. 7. There are also two picnic tables on the site. The existing signs on the property are as follows: (a) 3 1/2 foot high, 6 sq. ft. non-illuminated ground sign located near the entrance of the parking; (b) a 3' x 16' identification sign mounted on the west side of the building facing the freeway; and, c) a 28' high, 112 sq. ft. freestanding freeway oriented sign. (The latter required a Council resolution waiving the guidelines for signs as they apply to 950 Industrial Blvd.) The site is currently fenced along property lines adjacent to the freeway and the on-ramp with a 6-foot high chain link fence. Additional chainlink fencing separates activities and controls patrons. A 3'6" high chainlink fence is placed along the northerly property line to protect landscaping and control foot traffic. Stairs have been constructed on the property to the north which are used by patrons parking in the overflow parking and then walking "up" to Fun-For-All. Landscaping Landscaping in the form of trees and shrubs has been provided in the parking lot, along the frontage on Industrial Blvd. around the batting cages, in the interior of the miniature golf course, as a buffer between the course and freeway and on the other outer perimeters of the golf course. The applicant informed staff that major landscaping including a dense growth of trees and shrubs had been planted on the immediate western part of the site to provide a maximum buffer from the I-5 ramp. Because illegal aliens and homeless people were living in this green space, CAL TRANS removed the greenery. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 4 A condition has been recommended which would require plants and irrigation plan to indicate additions, modifications and enhancements to conform with present standards. The plan would also address this freeway buffer area. Proposed use The applicant proposes to add a "tank" type ride and shooting gallery using air guns and rubber balls as projectiles in the north east quarter of the existing batting cage. The gas-powered tanks loaded with rubber projectiles drive within an area bordered by a guard rail.. Various "targets", such as "jumping jacks" and "landmines", pop up as the driver shoots and sirens and other noises go off. A "shooting gallery" is also proposed where people shoot through "cannon holes" in a 6~ fence at targets and the tanks. The tanks are restricted from shooting in retaliation by a 10~ chain link fence. D. ANALYSIS The applicant informed staff that although the use of the amusement center varies, there are generally no more than 320 patrons at one time. The use of the center tends to be seasonal. Clients come from San Diego County and Tijuana and range in age from baby's in arms to the elderly. The center is used by groups of children, teens and families. No complaints have been received regarding the operation of the center. Clairmont Mesa is the closest location of a similar park. Although the zoning ordinance does not discuss parking requirements for this specific type of use, it is staff's opinion that with the optional overflow parking in the industrial building to the north parking has proven adequate. 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 proposed use and expansion meets a desirable recreational need for the City and adjacent communities at a convenient and readily accessible location. 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 5 The facility is well isolated from incompatible land uses, and there have been no complaints with respect to its operation over the last 14 years. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project will continue to be required to observe applicable conditions, ordinances and regulations. 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 proposed use is not incompatible with uses designated on he General Plan and will not adversely affect it. WPC 9802P/2652P CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, pa~nnents, or campaign contributions, on all matters 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 alu persoQs having a financial interest in the application, bid, cont tv or p opo a . /. If rea] property is involved, list the names of all persons having any ownership If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the n_ames of all ind.ividua~s owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or~/1/ng andy pa?n~ship ~y?terest 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. Have you or any person named in (1) above had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, .Co~ssions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No Y~ If yes, please indicate person(s) 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember ~n~t~te current or preceding election period? Yes No V If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality,' distric, t. ,, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as~nit."// (NOTE: Attach a ddit,onal' pages as n ecessary./~J~. ~ Signatufr~of contracto~plicant WPC 0701P A-110 Print or type name of contractor/applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page ! 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Firestone Store Appeal of Desiqn Review Committee's decision to conditionally approve installation of a 34.5 ft. hiqh freestandinq pole siqn at 830 Broadway A. BACKGROUND On August 26, 1991, the Design Review Committee considered the applicant's request to install a 34.5 ft. high freestanding pole sign at 830 Broadway, (see locator), which is intended to provide principal business identification for "The Firestone Store" automotive service facility, currently located at the west side of Broadway between "K" and "L" Street. The proposal also included removal of an existing non-conforming sign, in response to the City's sign abatement program currently in progress. After hearing staff's presentation and the applicant's request, the Design Review Committee approved the conceptual pole sign design subject to reduction of the pole sign's area and height, as suggested in staff sketch I. On September 9, 199!, the applicant filed an appeal, seeking to retain the proposed sign design as submitted, and citing that other businesses of similar nature, which are located along Broadway, have been permitted ' to install larger signs with a 35 ft. height. The project is exempt from the Environmental Review Process Class 11(a). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Deny the appeal. 2. Approve the conceptual sign design, subject to an overall pole sign height reduction to 26 ft., (max), and sign area reduction to 75 sq. ft. (max), as indicated in staff sketch I. C. DISCUSSION The applicant's proposal includes removal of an existing non-conforming freestanding sign and installation of a new pole sign, consisting of an internally illuminated sign cabinet supported by two metal poles (see proposed sign diagram). The proposed sign structure is approximately 35 feet high (34~-5.5'') and will be placed within a 23~x30~ landscape planter area which is located at the northeast corner of the subject parcel, adjacent to the existing driveway entrance. The subject site is located within the C-T zone (Thoroughfare Commercial) and is designated for retail commercial uses by the Chula Vista General Plan. According to C-T sign zone regulations, one freestanding pole sign, with an overall height up to 35 ft. (max.) and a maximum sign area determined by the ratio of one sq. ft. of signage per linear foot of lot frontage up to 150 sq. ft., could be installed on each lot having a minimum frontage of 50 feet on a dedicated street. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October g, 1991 Page 2 Although maximum sign size standards (height and sign area) have been established for all zones within the City, specific site sign design and location for individual signage is subject to design review, per Section 19.60.240. Furthermore, the Design Review Committee has the authority to reduce sign areas below those authorized within the C-T zone, based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, per Section 19.40.040 E. C. ANALYSIS The proposed freestanding sign design consists of a 5~-5.5'' by 18~ wide rectangular sign cabinet (98.25 sq. ft. total sign area), supported by two 10" by 10" by 29~ high steel metal poles. The sign design utilizes a tri-color scheme, (red, black, and white), and provides "principal identification" information consisting of the corporate name and principal services offered on the premises. The aforementioned sign, as submitted by the applicant, is in substantial compliance with the CT sign design zoning ordinance requirements and landscape manual, however, both the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Committee determined that the proposed sign height is not warranted by virtue of either sign location obstruction or its relationship in terms of height to the main building. The determination was made on the basis that the proposed sign's entire sign cabinet will project above the building parapet, the overall sign height will exceed the existing structure's height by approximately 15 feet and the sign cabinet will project five feet within the Broadway right-of-way. In addition, the proposed sign does not follow the lower profile signage "design direction" promoted by the Design Review Committee for uses along Broadway and other commercial corridors, which has been advocated in order to create a linkage between the signage and the main buildings on site, and in order to reduce the visual clutter. Furthermore, staff has concluded that the recommended sign height and sign area will provide sufficient identification of the facility based on field observation of other signs of similar or lesser height and/or area already existing along Broadway within the immediate area: a. Monte Carlo Shop (14~x6~/25~ high) (804 Broadway) b. The Formosa Club (4~x8~/20~ high) (840 Broadway) c. Aztec TV (6.5~x6.5~/20~ high) (836 Broadway) An informal survey'of signs, for which permits have been issued by the Planning Department, within the subject site's vicinity (500± feet north and south along Broadway), has revealed that the majority of the existing pole signs in the immediate area (exclusive of non-conforming or illegal signs which have not been removed yet as part of the sign abatement program), range in height from 30~ (max.) to 15~ (min.) with an average height of 21 ft., and in sign area from 84 sq. ft. (max.) to 16.5 sq. ft. (min.) with an average sign area of 58 ft. (see attached 500 ft. radius sign survey). City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 9, 1991 Page 3 Based on the Design Review Committee's decision to support a 26 ft. high and 75 sq. ft. in sign area pole sign, and staff's informal sign survey of the immediate area, staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that a proportionately reduced pole sign with a 26 ft. overall sign height and 75 sq. ft. overall sign area {consistent in height and sign area with the McDonald's sign which was recently approved under similar conditions by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission and will be installed at 619 Broadway)*, utilizing the same color scheme and conceptual sign design as submitted by the applicant, be approved in order to produce a more compatible sign design in terms of height and area, which would be in-keeping with other signs in the immediate area. D. FINDINGS The Design Review Committee has based its decision on the principles and standards of the Design Manual as follows: a. Signs should be designed as supportive elements to land use. The existing wall signage in conjunction with the more moderately designed, in terms of sign height and signage area, pole sign will provide adequate identification for the facility. b. Signs should be compatible with the nature, character, and design of the locale and land uses they serve. The sign under consideration, as proposed, would be significantly higher than any other sign in the immediate area. WPC 9791P *See attached report and Planning Commission action STREET CHULA VISTA WAY .,ix RESOLUTION NO. DRC-92-04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITrEE REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 34.5 Fr. HIGH FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE FIRESTONE STORE LOCATED AT 830 BROADWAY WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the review of the design for a pole sign was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on August 1, 1991, by Firestone Real Estate; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator exercised his authority, granted to him by City Council, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 19.60.220, to review the design of all signs in the City in order to prevent construction of signs which could potentially be disproportionate or disharmonious with adjacent signs or structures, and therefore tend to be aesthetically undesirable, and considered the request made by the Firestone Store for the construction of a 34.5 ft. high, 98.25 sq. ft. sign on the property located at 830 Broadway; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator found the proposed sign design inconsistent with the average height and sign areas of other permitted signs within a 500 ft. radius from the project site, and referred the items to the Design Review Committee for further review; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1991, the Design Review Committee considered the aforementioned sign request; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee heard testimony from the applicant concerning the merits of the project and arguments from the Planning Department in opposition to the proposed sign; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee considered all of the design criteria set forth in the Chula Vista Design Review Manual, and voted 4-0 to conditionally approve the requested sign on the basis: 1. That the Chula Vista Design Manual states that signs should be compatible with nature, character, and design of the locale and uses they serve. 2. That signs should be designed as supportive dements to the land use. WHEREAS, in reviewing this criteria, the Design Review Committee determined that the subject sign was not in keeping with the average sign area and height of other pole signs in this locale and was, in fact, exceeding the average sign height and average sign area. WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class il(a) exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITrEE approved the conceptual sign design proposal subject to a sign area red~ction to a total of 75 sq. ft. and sign height limitation to a maximum of 26 ft. in an effort to maintain sign area and height compatibility with existing signage in the immediate area and in order to improve the street scene along Broadway. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Chair Gilman, Members Flach, Landers, Spethman NOES: None ABSENT: Member Alberdi Barbara Gllman,C~alr DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Summary Staff Report* CASE NO. DRC-92-04 MEETING DATE: Auqust 26, 1991 AGENDA NO. __ BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of 35 ft. hiqh freestandinQ business identification siqn PROJECT NAME & LOCATION: Firestone Store 830 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Pacific Siqn Construction 2131 Harrison Ave., National City, CA A. Environmental This project is categorically exempt from environmental review, Class II(a). B. Recommendation 1. Continue this item and direct the applicant to revise the proposed pole sign design to a monument type sign or 2. Approve the submitted pole sign design subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign height shall be limited to 26 feet and the sign area shall be limited to a maximum of 75 square feet (per staff sketch). 3. The existing (41 ft. high, 180 sq. ft.) pole sign shall be removed prior to installation of the new signage. C. Project Settinq The proposed project site is occupied by an automotive service and retail facility and is located on the west side of Broadway between "K" and "L" Street. The subject site is bounded to the ~ south by an electronics repair store, to the ~g~ north by a used automobile dealership, to the east by Broadway and to the west by single family dwellings. Business identification is currently provided by a 41 ft. high freestanding non-conforming sign which is located within a ~) 690 sq. ft. landscaped planter area at the most northeasterly corner of the site. D. Project Description The applicant is proposing to remove the existing non-conforming sign and replace it with one which will conform with the maximum area and sign height requirements established within the CT zone, which limit the potential allowable sign area to one square foot of area for each linear foot of street frontage up to a maximum of 150 sq. ft. and the maximum DRC-92-04 Page 2 pole sign height to 35 feet. The proposed sign will be placed at approximately the same location as the currently existing pole sign, within a landscaped planter area along Broadway. E. Staff Analysis On April 18, 1990, the applicant was notified of the non-conforming status of the existing pole sign and was directed to either modify or remove the sign by December 31, 1990. A modified sign proposal was submitted by the applicant, following legal abatement notification (May 8, 1991). The new sign consists of a 5~-5.5'' high by 18 ft. wide rectangular sign cabinet (~/~ 98.25 sq. ft. total sign area), supported by two 10" by 10" by 29' high steel metal poles. The sign copy utilizes a tri-color scheme (red, black and white) and provides "principal identification" information relating to the corporate name and principal service available. Although the aforementioned sign is in substantial compliance with the current zoning ordinance and City's landscape manual, it does not observe the DRC policy advocating low profile signage along Broadway and other major commercial corridors. An informal survey of existing and permitted signs within the immediate vicinity (see attached exhibit A) was conducted by staff and has yielded the following information: Average pole sign height within 500 ft. radius 21 ft Maximum pole sign height within 500 ft. radius 30 ft Average pole sign area within 500 ft. radius 58 ft Maximum pole sign area within 500 ft. radius 118 ft Based on the aforementioned survey information and DRC policy, staff recommends that the proposed sign design be modified as follows, in order to maintain sign area and height compatibility with existing signage in the immediate vicinity. 1. The overall cabinet sign area should be reduced to 75 feet. {Sign cabinet length 15 ft. max.) (Sign cabinet height 5 ft. max.) 2. The overall pole sign height should be reduced to 26 feet. or that a low-profile (monument sign) design be utilized for business identification purposes. *(DRC report has been revised to incorporate minor typographic error corrections.) WPC 9654P Tape: 321 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, March 27, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, and Martin COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg, with notification STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities · and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of lanuary 23, 1991 MSC (Fuller/Carson) 4-0-2 (Commissioners Decker and Martin abstained, Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to approve the minutes of January 23, 1991, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- March 27, 1991 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: McDONALDS CORPORATION - APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COM1VHTTEE'S DECISION TO DENY INSTALLATION OF A 35 Fr. HIGH FRF~F~STANDING POLE SIGN AT 619 BROADWAY Senior Planner Griffin gave the location of the project and noted the property presently contained a 25 ft. high, 437 sq. ft. freestanding sign located in the play area adjacent to the street. The sign was erected prior to the City's present sign regulations and was subject to abatement under the City's 15-year sign amortization program, because it exceeded the size requirements by about 300 sq. ft. McDonalds proposed to replace the existing sign with a 35 ft. high 115 sq. ft. pole sign to be located in the landscape planter in the northwest portion of the site. Mr. Griffm stated the proposed sign complied with the dimensional standards for the site which would allow a sign up to 35 ft. high and 145 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Griffin said, however, that the design and composition of signs were also subject to qualitative discretionary design review in accordance with principles itemized in the Zoning Ordinance regarding general aesthetics, proportionality of the sign, and the context of the sign in relation to the signs on adjo'ming properties. Based upon the Code, the Design Review Committee had taken the position of favoring lower profile, more tasteful signs along Broadway and other commercial thoroughfares in the City. The Design Review Committee denied the applicant's request as submitted and suggested either a monument-type ground sign or a low-profile 25' high maximum sign with all copy contained within a unified sign panel of approximately 72 sq. ft. The applicant's appeal was based on three factors: 1) that their proposal met the dimensional standards of the Code; 2) that staff's recommendations had been arbitrary, subjective, and based on personal taste; and 3) that the recommended change in design could diminish the applicant's national identity. Senior Planner Griffin said that since the appeal had been filed, staff had conducted a survey of free-standing signs within 500 feet of the site and found the average height of those signs to be approximately 16-1/2 feet and a maximum height of approximately 30 feet. Based upon the principles for sign design, the DRC's decision, and their intent to have lower profile, more tasteful signs along the thoroughfares, and also the survey of surrounding signs, staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee. He then showed slides of some of the other McDonalds locations; some which had been approved by the County, and some in the City's jurisdiction under the present sign standards. PC Minutes -3- March 27, 1991 Commissioner Carson asked if either the sign on Bonita Road or "E~ Street would be usable in the subject area. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered it would be more difficult to try to ufiliTt~ a monument-type sign in this case because of the play land in front. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the new developments east of 1-805 were subject to the same sign regulations as the inner part of the City. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that most of the areas east of 1-805 are under planned community sign district regulations which are more restrictive. The sign ordinance developed for the main part of Chula Vista was more of a compromise ordinance in working with existing signs and the business community. Mr. Lee said the sign limits were maximum, and consideration was given to the surrounding area in working with the businesses to reach a compromise. Answering Chair Grasser Horton's inquiry, Assistant Director Lee said the sign ordinance could possibly be revised in the future. Chair Grasser Horton commented the volume of the subject sign seemed to be large for the area. The newer area of the City would not allow that type of sign. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that with the number of buildings with zero setback on Broadway, it is difficult to work in an area with existing buildings, remodeling, and new buildings with more setback area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Beatrice Kemp, 450 B Street, Suite 1080, San Diego, representing McDonalds, said that because of the current location, the surrounding buildings and foliage, a 25 ft. high sign as proposed by staff would not work. The trees obscure the signage. The proposed 35 ft. high sign would be visible. She also had taken pictures of other signs in the area which appeared to be the 35 ft. height. Ms. Kemp discussed the design of the sign and asked permission to use the sign consistent with the other McDonalds signs. They would consider incorporating staff's design if granted the 35 ft. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson asked about the trees hiding the sign. Senior Planner Griffm answered staff felt there was adequate visibility at the 25 ft. height. Another option would be for the applicant to move a 25 ft. high sign inside the area now occupied by the present sign toward the center of the site. Commissioner Decker asked if the applicant had the authority to have the trees on the adjacent property trimmed. Senior Planner Griffin replied that it was the responsibility of the owners of the property. PC Minutes -4- March 27, 1991 Senior Planner Griffin pointed out that the second part of the recommendation to approve a 25 fi. high sign would not necessarily limit the applicant to that; they could reapply for any sign they wished, take it before the Design Review Commi_n_~, and then appeal if dissatisfied. Commissioner Fuller ndr~d about the number of different designs McDonalds had. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that McDonalds had several different signs that were used throughout the area and the United States, and that the Design Review Committee was soggesting something that would not be contrary to their options available, but would fit into the area and hopefully fit within their more typical sign program. Commissioner Fuller objected to the word 'sleazy" in the Design Review Manual. She asked if any other signs along Broadway which were referred to in the staff repor~ were to be changed under the sign ordinance. Mr. Lee answered that the only signs that could be abated under the abatement program were those which exceeded the maximum ordinance requirements. There may be a number of signs that technically complied and would remain. Mr. Lee stated the Design Manual was being modified to incorporate better design guidelines and terminology. Commissioner Fuller commented that McDonalds Corporation had had to conform to design standards throughout not only our community but also communities nationwide, and as long as the golden arches were incorporated in the design, it carried out the national logo. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to deny the appeal. MSC (Carson/Casillas) 5-1 (Decker voting against; Tugenberg absent) to approve a 25' high freestanding sign with the restaurant's corporate logo arches incorporated within the sign cabinet frame as suggested in staff sketch I. Appendix B Date Rec'd .~1J I c~ ( Case No. DRC/P ~-o~ I [ ' City of Chula Vista Planning Dept, Receipt No. ~'~q' . Design Review Application Date of Cons Oeration PROJECT NAME PR~ECT LOCATION PROJECT ADDRESS ~o (Obtain from Engineering Department) ~SESSORS PARCEL NUMBER(S) ~T/- 3 Yo -o~ ZONE CO. UNITY PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT PERSON ARCHITECT/DESIGNER ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON PHONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. LAND USE: EXISTING PROPOSED 2. LOT SIZE: ACREAGE 3. PARKING PROVIDED: OPEN COVERED STD SIZE COMPACT 4. MULTIPLE FAMILY (IF APPLICABLE): EXIST TO REMAIN EXIST TO BE REMOVED NO. OF UNITS STUDIO PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (PROPOSED) 1 BR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 2 BR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 3 BR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TOTAL OPEN SPACE: COMMON USABLE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE USABLE AREAS (DESCRIPTION) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (DESCRIPTIOn) ~c~ ~ ~j~ $1qn 5. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL (IF APPLICABLE) FLOOR SPACE/BLDG. 6. PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING REQUIREMENTS (PRECISE PLAN) PRINI A~PLiCANI/'~ENi NA/qL ApPLIC~A/~TURE --LJ 4L_ SIERRA WAY SI ERRA WAY ARtZONI ARIZONA LOCATOR APPEAL STATEMENT ct~ of Chula Vista. D, te Received Planning Department Fee Paid ~:~-----~ Receipt No'. Appeal Form C,se .o: Appeal frqm the decision of: [] Zoning ~ Planning Design Review Administrator Commission ~ Committee (Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.) Please s~ate wherein you believe the~e was for the pro~rty located at: ~o Sibnatq~e of Appe~Tant Date Do Not Write In This SPaCe To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: / · Cruse No: ~.~]£C - ~ -g: ~/ Date of decision: Receipt No: ~ ~ ~// T~ a~ve matter has ~en scheduled for public ~artng before the: C~ City Council on ~ 7 ~. '~ ' Planning ~issl~n Secr~ary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 THE CITY oF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters whkh wil! require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: i. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the cuntract, i.e, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. [f any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list thc names of all individuals owning more than 10% of thc shares in thc corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is 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. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with uny member of the City staff; Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __ No ,>5" It' yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and eve~ person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors }~ho you have assigned to represent yoa before the City in this matter. ~rrr ~,l~ - P~,~ ~,~ 6. ~ave ~ou and/or ~our officers or a[ents, in the a~greS~te, contributed more th~n $].000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Councihnember(s): Per.on is defined as: 'Mny individual, ih'm, co-i~artncrshil~, joint vc;iturc, ax.vocmtion, soci. l chd~,.l)'atemal organization, corporation. UZItIIU, IrllSh receiver; .~ytldicalt', thi.¥ and any olhcr COlttl(~; cikv and col!ntt); ci(l; nnuliciimlio; di.~lrict ~v' other Political xuhdivl~ion,