HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Staff Rept - UCSP Update/AmendItem 3
Public Hearing: PCM 14 -04
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date: 8/27/14
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM 14 -04 Planning Commission
recommendation to City Council to approve a resolution and adopt
an ordinance amending the City of Chula Vista Urban Core
Specific Plan and related rezoning actions.
SUBMITTED BY: Michael W. Walker, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, Development Services Director
INTRODUCTION
The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) was adopted by City Council in April 2007. As an
implementing plan for the 2005 General Plan, the UCSP contains land use regulations and design
guidelines for both private and public development to facilitate the visions provided by the
General Plan. In 2011, the City Council approved amendments to the UCSP including:
The re- designation of portions of Third Avenue in the Village to a two -lane Downtown
Promenade; and
Revisions to the residential parking standard in the Corridor subdistricts to be consistent
with the citywide multi - family residential standard; and
Addition of the "Third Avenue Outdoor Dining Guidelines" as Appendix E.
The UCSP requires periodic review of the Plan to ensure proper functioning and implementation
over time. In 2013, the City Council requested staff to conduct the 5 -year review of the UCSP.
This is consistent with the administration of the UCSP which anticipates periodic reassessment
of the Plan's implementation as it is intended to be a document which responds to changing
development trends in the urban core area.
Over the last few years, several projects have benefited from the UCSP's form -based code
development standards and design guidelines. Projects such as Urbana, The Colony and Lofts on
Landis have been approved, with the Lofts on Landis project currently undergoing construction.
During the review and approval process of these projects staff identified several development
issues that needed to be addressed to better facilitate urban development. With the exception of
these recent projects, staff found limited development activity had actually occurred likely due in
large part to the economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Department Director reviewed the proposed action for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed
amendments to the UCSP are minor and/or have already been considered and would not result in
Planning Commission
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Page 2
new, significant, adverse environmental impacts not previously considered in Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 06 -01 prepared for the UCSP and certified on April 26,
2007.
RECOMMENDATION
That Planning Commission adopts a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the
draft Resolution and Ordinance presented amending the UCSP and rezoning certain properties
based on the findings set forth therein.
DISCUSSION
The hearing is intended to provide the Planning Commission with recommendations regarding
changes to the UCSP including rezoning certain R -3 and commercially zoned trailer park sites,
removing certain development standards to facilitate development, allow additional
commercial /office businesses in the East Village (V -1) subdistrict, ensure the UCSP is consistent
with policies established by the General Plan, particularly, "Complete Streets" and the Bikeway
Master Plan, and make minor text edits to update information. Staff did the reassessment over
the last year and recommends the following items be approved:
• Rezone Apartment Residential (R -3) zoned parcels and certain commercial zoned parcels
developed with trailer parks to provide consistency with the City's General Plan and
existing adjacent land use subdistricts in the UCSP, making all parcels in the UCSP area
uniformly and properly zoned. This action was deferred by Council with the original
adoption of the Plan in 2007. The rezone would not result in the requirement to change
the current use of property (Attachment 4).
• Remove the minimum floor area ratio to allow less intense property development in areas
other than Transit Focus Areas (TFAs) (Attachment 5).
• Remove lot coverage as a mandatory development standard to allow more flexibility in
form -based development.
• Modify the Land Use Matrix for the Village District to reflect changes in uses and permit
processing (Attachment 6).
• Allow some commercial /office uses by right in the East Village (V -1) subdistrict in
addition to residential uses (Attachment 7).
• Add text to ensure the UCSP is consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and
adequately addresses Complete Streets policies.
• Make minor text edits to clarify and update information relative to the processes that have
been implemented in the last five plus years.
• Provide a map which clearly identifies the zoning for the Northwest Urban Core area
which includes the urban core subdistricts as well as adjacent Single - Family (R -1); Two -
Family (R -2) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) zones (Attachment 1).
Planning Commission Page 3
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Public Outreach: On February 5, 2014 staff met with the Third Avenue Village Association
(TAVA) Executive Board and Design Committee. Subsequently, TAVA provided staff with
recommended modifications that include adding /removing uses and use limitations, and
modifying permit requirements from the Village District. On February 26, 2014 staff presented
the proposed amendments to the Chamber of Commerce Executive Board; no issues were raised
and the Board unanimously supports the amendments. On May 7, 2014, staff presented the
recommended updates to the Development Services Oversight Committee comprised of
developers, business owners, community organizations, engineers, architects, and contractors.
The Oversight Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendments. On May 8,
2014, staff held a public information meeting to inform attendees about the proposed
amendments. During the meeting, a few property owners raised concern about the affect the
rezoning would have on their property, and the transition of new development to existing
development. On July 17, 2014, staff explained the proposed amendments and rezone at the
Mobile Home Park Rent Review Commission meeting. Commission members support the
rezone and no citizen raised objections or concerns.
ANALYSIS
Rezone:
The adopted UCSP includes three land use districts: the Village, Urban Core, and Corridor which
are further broken down into 26 subdistricts. The Village subdistricts allow multi - family
residential, mixed -uses, institutional, office, and commercial uses; the Urban Core subdistricts
allow a variety of uses including multi - family residential, mixed -uses, office and commercial
uses; and the Corridor subdistricts allow a variety of mixed -uses, residential, commercial, retail,
and auto - related uses.
Several commercially zoned areas with trailer parks and numerous parcels zoned R -3 were
deferred for rezoning by the City Council with the adoption of the UCSP in 2007. These areas
are now proposed to be rezoned to the appropriate UCSP subdistrict, making the zones consistent
with residential and/or mixed use land use districts described above. The rezoned parcels will
have expanded development opportunities if the property owner chooses to redevelop them with
other allowed uses, or the existing uses may remain. The trailers parks currently operating
within the Urban Core area include Broadway, Caravan, Flamingo, Fogerty Brothers, Mohawk,
Rose Arbor, and Trailer Villa. These trailer parks were established many years ago under
commercial or higher residential density zones prior to the adoption of the UCSP and are
considered previously conforming uses. Although these trailer parks will be rezoned, they may
continue operating, and the proposed rezone action would not require any change to the current
use of the trailer parks. In addition, the existing R -1 and R -2 zones within the UCSP will not be
rezoned, and mobile home parks, currently zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP), are not proposed to
be rezoned and would retain their single family and /or MHP zoning designation.
Cummings Analysis:
The proposed rezones were evaluated for compliance with "Controlled Residential
Development" described in Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.80 (aka the
"Cummings Initiative "), and have been determined to be in compliance. The Cummings
Initiative (Ordinance 2309) provides a means of controlling residential growth relative to
Planning Commission Page 4
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
infrastructure needs. Rezoning properties designated for residential development is permitted to
occur to the next highest residential density category in any two -year period according to the
following schedule:
A Agricultural
R -E Residential Estate Zone
R -1 Single Family Residential Zone
R -2 One- and Two- Family Residential Zone
R -3 Apartment Residential Zone
When the UCSP was approved in April 2007, the City Council deferred the rezoning of select
properties that were residentially zoned or had mobile home or trailer parks located on the
property. Since the deferral, staff has conducted an analysis of the residentially zoned properties
and their potential rezoning for compliance with the Cummings Initiative. The Cummings
Initiative did not identify a higher residential zone than R -3, nor did it address the fact that within
R -3, there are various levels of density allowed. For example, R -3H allows densities of
approximately 55 units per acre, which is roughly equivalent to an Urban Core zone (allows up
to 60 units per gross acre). Also, the Cummings Initiative did not account for mixed -use zoning.
Mixed -use zones currently exist in the City's Urban Core that allow residential densities of 28 -60
units per gross acre.
Since the Cummings Initiative was established in 1988, several changes have taken place that
ensures the City's growth does not impact environmental quality or the quality of life in general.
The changes include:
• Development Impact Fees have been instituted (and are updated regularly), ensuring new
development pays its fair share of infrastructure costs in a timely manner. Impact fees
are based on anticipated infrastructure needs such as roads, police, libraries, sewers and
parks.
• In 2005, the City of Chula Vista's General Plan was updated, redefining the City's vision
for the Urban Core Subarea portion of the General Plan.
• In 2007, the Urban Core Specific Plan was adopted, and its EIR made provisions for
mitigation and infrastructure programs.
• Pursuant to Cummings Initiative CVMC section 19.80.030 the City enacted a specific
element to the City's General Plan identified as Chapter 8, Public Facilities and Services
Element which ensures that development shall not occur in the City that would degrade
existing public services and facilities below acceptable standards until all additional
necessary public services and facilities required for that development are assured or
scheduled for timely completion. In addition to the General Plan Public Facilities and
Services Element, the City also enacted General Plan Chapter 10, Growth Management
and CVMC Chapter 19.09, Growth Management all of which provide that public
facilities and services are adequate to meet the present and future needs of the City.
Planning Commission Page 5
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
The tools are in place to plan for and control the rate of residential growth; however, since the
Controlled Residential Development Ordinance is still in place, an analysis is done for zoning
modifications to ensure compliance with the CVMC.
Areas Subject to Rezone:
The General Plan Update in 2005 foresaw the need for new more dense land use designations for
the Urban Core to allow a mix of residential, office and retail uses in areas that are pedestrian -
friendly and have a strong linkage to provision of transit within the context of a changing urban
environment surrounded by single - family and two - family zones. The proposed rezone includes
certain commercial zones with trailer parks and R -3 zones within the various subdistricts. The
areas proposed to be rezoned are urban in character, with surrounding uses including
commercial, retail, office, high density multi - family residential and institutional uses such as
churches and schools. The subject properties are all within the UCSP boundary.
In order to ensure compliance with CVMC Chapter 19.80, staff has analyzed the impact of the
rezone.
Comparison of Village and Urban Core Subdistricts to the R -3 Zone:
Zone or
Land Use
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Front
Rear
Subdistrict
Residential,
Building
Open Space
Parking
Yard
Yard
Office (proposed)
Height
Requirement
Requirement
Setback
Setback
V -3
Mixed -Use,
84'
Per Unit
1.5:1 + guest
0
0
V -1
Mixed -Use,
45'
200 s.f.
1.5:1 + guest
0
0
Residential,
Office (proposed)
V -3
Mixed -Use,
84'
200 s.f.
1.5:1 + guest
0
0
Residential, Office,
Retail
V -4
Mixed -Use,
60'
100 s.f.
1.5:1 + guest
15'
0
Residential, Office,
Retail, Public /Quasi-
Public
UC -1
Mixed -Use,
84'
100 s.f.
1:1 (Res) + guest
0
0
Residential, Office,
2/1000 s.f. (Non -
Retail
res)
UC -2
Mixed -Use,
84'
100 s.f
1:1 (Res) + guest
8'
0
Residential, Office,
2/1000 s.f (Non -
Retail
res)
UC -3
Residential
60'
200 s.f
1.5:1 + guest
15'
0
UC -5
Office, Retail
60'
NA
2/1000 s.f.
8'
0
(Non -res)
UC -10
Mixed -Use,
72'
NA
1:1 (Res)
16'
0
Residential, Office,
2/1000 (Non -res)
Retail
UC -12
Mixed -Use,
210'
100 s.f.
1:1 (Res)
16'
0
Residential, Office,
1 /1000 s.f.
Retail, Hospitality
(Non -res)
UC -14
Residential
84'
200 s.f
1.5:1 + uest
15'
0
Planning Commission Page 6
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
A„Q„zt ?7 2014
As shown above, there are differences in development standards for the zoning classifications.
The regulations for the Village and Urban Core are urban in nature and appropriate for the
location — close to downtown and close to a future transit hub. The Village and Urban Core
subdistricts allow taller buildings, more compact open space and less parking to encourage
alternatives forms of mobility such as walking and bicycling. The rezone of the R -3 and
commercial zones to these subdistricts is compatible with the existing zoning on the adjacent
properties.
General Plan Consistency: The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the General Plan's
Urban Core Residential, Mixed -Use Residential, Mixed -Use Transit Focus Area and Mixed -Use
Commercial designations.
Conformance with Chapter 19.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: The proposed rezone
would result in the area converting to a residential intensity that is the next level of density. The
proposed action is in compliance with this provision, as follows:
19.80.070 Chula Vista Zoning Code Modification:
A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning
code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two
year period according to the following schedule:
A
Agricultural Zone
RE
Residential Estates Zones
R -1
Single Family Residential
R -2
UC -15
Mixed -Use,
210'
100 s.f
1:1 (Res)
11'
0
Residential, Office,
1 /1000 s.f.
Retail, Hospitality
(Non -res)
UC -16
Retail, Hospitality
60'
NA
2/1000 s.f
20'
0
(Non -res)
As shown above, there are differences in development standards for the zoning classifications.
The regulations for the Village and Urban Core are urban in nature and appropriate for the
location — close to downtown and close to a future transit hub. The Village and Urban Core
subdistricts allow taller buildings, more compact open space and less parking to encourage
alternatives forms of mobility such as walking and bicycling. The rezone of the R -3 and
commercial zones to these subdistricts is compatible with the existing zoning on the adjacent
properties.
General Plan Consistency: The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the General Plan's
Urban Core Residential, Mixed -Use Residential, Mixed -Use Transit Focus Area and Mixed -Use
Commercial designations.
Conformance with Chapter 19.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: The proposed rezone
would result in the area converting to a residential intensity that is the next level of density. The
proposed action is in compliance with this provision, as follows:
19.80.070 Chula Vista Zoning Code Modification:
A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning
code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two
year period according to the following schedule:
A
Agricultural Zone
RE
Residential Estates Zones
R -1
Single Family Residential
R -2
One and Two - Family Residential Zone
R -3
Apartment Residential Zone
This proposal would rezone the properties to the next highest residential density level, as
detailed below:
1. The subject properties are currently zoned R -3 as shown on Attachment 5. Pursuant
to the General Plan designation, a high density R -3 zoning has a density range of 18
to 27 dwelling units per acre.
2. The General Plan Update (GPU) designates all Transit Focus Areas (TFA) within the
Urban Core subdistricts, for transit - focused mixed uses and mixed -use development.
According to GPU policies (LUT 53.2; 53.3; 55.6; 55.7; 57.3; 57.4), the residential
component of the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designations are intended to have a
Focus Area wide gross density of 60 dwelling units (du) per acre (72 du/net acre) in
addition to a commercial FAR of 1.5 - 2.0. This density would be the next highest
residential density category as identified and approved in General Plan Land Use
Planning Commission
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Page 7
Designation and Zoning Table 5 -4 and is consistent with adjacent properties that have
already been rezoned.
3. The General Plan Density for Urban Core Residential is 28 -60 units per gross acre (or
72 du/net acre). The proposed change in zoning from R -3 to various Urban Core
Residential subdistricts is consistent with the above provision of the Cummings
Initiative, since the change would be to the next highest residential density category
as identified and approved in General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Table
5 -4.
4. High (and very high) density multi - family residential already exists within the Urban
Core including Congregational Towers (an affordable senior facility) located at 288 F
Street, is zoned R -3H with a density of 248 units per acre, and Parkwoods (market -
rate condominiums) located at 376 Center Street, is zoned R -3HP with a density of 31
units per acre.
B. Any annexation of lands within the City's sphere of influence shall conform to the
purposes, intent and requirements of this ordinance.
This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands.
C. After property is annexed by the City, the pre- zoning approved for the subject property
cannot be amended or changed in any way for a two-year period. The provision shall
apply only to pre -zones approved after the effective date of this ordinance.
This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands.
D. Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only
to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that
was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned
from residential to commercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category
of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or
industrial.
Several parcels currently zoned Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) and developed with
trailer parks are proposed to be rezoned to UC -13 (residential, office, retail, hospitality)
and UC -14 (residential) districts. This would be a rezone from commercial to mixed
uses, including residential and is consistent with CVMC 19.80.070(D). The rezone to
mixed use would result in less traffic compared to commercial development. For the
proposed rezone, the comparison would be between the potential traffic generation
associated with future development under the existing CT zone and the corresponding
maximum residential density that could be permitted under the rezone.
Based on standard traffic generation rates (SANDAG 2002), commercial and office uses
generate greater traffic than residential uses. For example, a one acre parcel zoned CT
would have the potential to develop up to 65,340 square foot commercial building. This
is based on the CT development standards, which allow 50% of lot coverage, and up to
three stories. Based on the trip generation rates for commercial uses (e. g. 40 trips /1000
Planning Commission
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Page 8
square feet), a total of 2,614 trips would be generated. Based on CVMC 19.80.070(D)
criteria, the maximum residential density could not be more than the potential traffic
generated by the commercial use. By comparison, SANDAG's standard traffic generation
rates for multi - family development (six trips /du), this degree of trip generation would
equate to about 435 dwelling units on the one acre parcel.
The UC -13 district has a maximum floor are ratio (FAR) of 2.0 which could allow up to
48 du/acre and the UC -14 district has a maximum FAR of 3.0 which could allow up to 72
du/net acre resulting is significantly less traffic than a commercial use. Because
commercial and office uses generate greater traffic volume, the rezone from commercial
to a mixed use or multi - family residential category could never result in residential traffic
volumes greater than the corresponding potential traffic generation from a commercial
development. Therefore, the rezone from commercial to residential and/or mixed use that
allows residential development would not conflict with CVMC 19.80.070(D).
Floor Area Ratio:
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a development standard that regulates the size and bulk of
development on a property. It is the ratio of building size to parcel size. For example, a FAR of
1.0 on a 10,000 square foot (sf) parcel would allow a 10,000 sf building. In the past, the city's
zoning regulations have typically contained maximum FAR. To encourage more urban
development, the UCSP also included a minimum FAR to discourage underdeveloped lots.
However, implementing the UCSP's minimum FAR has been a challenge for property owners
who want to develop, or sell their property because the minimum FAR requires a building to be a
certain size, at a minimum, which may not be feasible or practical in the current market as this
area transitions to more urban development. Therefore, the proposal is to remove the
"Minimum" floor area ratio development requirement for all subdistricts where it applies except
for the TFAs. It is anticipated that this will encourage less intense property development in some
subdistricts while requiring more intense development in the transit focus areas such as Third /H
Street, and the E and H Street Transit sites. The maximum FAR would remain for all
subdistricts (Attachment 5).
Lot Coverage:
Lot coverage was another issue that was evaluated to determine if it was a necessary
development standard. Lot coverage is the area of the lot covered by the building footprint
represented as a percentage. As a form -based code, the UCSP emphasizes the physical form of
development focusing on building placement; rather than how much building can occupy space
on a lot. Site development relies on other development standards, such as FAR, street wall
frontage, setbacks, building height, open space, and parking requirements to shape new
development and guide its placement on a lot. Staff researched several jurisdictions with form -
based land use codes including Escondido and National City, and found that lot coverage is not a
development standard used in these codes. In Chula Vista, this standard has been applied
primarily to residential and industrial zones. Other citywide commercial zones such as the
Central Commercial (CC) and Commercial Office (CO) zones do not use lot coverage as a
development standard, but rely on setbacks and parking requirements to facilitate design.
Planning Commission Page 9
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
The more recently adopted Palomar Gateway Specific Plan and Eastern Urban Center Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan are form -based codes and do not include lot coverage as a mandatory
development standard. Several of the mixed use projects that were processed over the last five
years had to request and were granted development exceptions from this standard in order to
create successful designs. The proposal is to remove lot coverage as a required development
standard. Removing this requirement would facilitate infill development, including mixed uses,
emphasize pedestrian scale, provide for urban amenities, encourage creative and flexible site
design, and help revitalize the area.
New Uses in the East Village (V -1) District:
Another area that was evaluated for revision was the V -1 (East Village) subdistrict located to the
east of the Third Avenue Village. The UCSP envisioned this area as primarily a residential
subdistrict to create feet on the street to support commercial uses along Third Avenue. Towards
the end of the UCSP adoption process, requests were made to allow some neighborhood serving
commercial or office uses without impacting the Third Avenue Village commercial corridor.
Staff surveyed the uses along Church Avenue and Del Mar Avenue between E Street and G
Street and found the V -1 subdistrict currently has about a 50/50 mix of residential and
commercial /office uses. The V -1 subdistrict currently prohibits any new nonresidential uses,
therefore, the proposal is to allow some new commercial /office uses by right in the (V -1)
subdistrict in addition to residential uses similar to that which currently exists (Attachment 6).
The change in the land use matrix would not affect existing uses but would apply as new uses are
proposed.
TAVA met with staff on this proposed changes and supports this proposal. Additionally, staff
also requested TAVA to review the uses allowed in the Village District Land Use Matrix and
provide any recommendations which they did. Staff reviewed TAVA's recommendations and
supports the majority of them, however, some changes to their recommendations are proposed
based on state law and provisions of the CVMC regarding Unclassified Uses (Attachment 7).
Miscellaneous Updates:
Staff is proposing other minor clarifications including providing consistency with the Bikeway
Master Plan, "Complete Streets" policies, and new permit approval processes that have been
implemented since the adoption of the UCSP in 2007.
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission and has found a property -
related conflict of interest exists, in that, Commissioners Anaya and Moctezuma have real
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subject of this
action. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Planning
Commission member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict
of interest in this matter.
Planning Commission
Item 3 PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
CONCLUSION
Page 10
The UCSP amendments will provide consistent zoning and land use designations in the urban
core area, allow for better Plan implementation by removing limiting development standards and
clarifying Plan language to facilitate property development trends, allow new commercial /office
uses in the East Village (V -1) subdistrict, modify the Village Land Use Matrix, and ensure
consistency with the citywide Bikeway Master Plan and "Complete Street" policies. The
amendments would better incorporate the surrounding residential zones providing a broader
urban core community. Adoption of the amendments would provide opportunities to revitalize
the economic vitality of the urban core. Development pursuant to the UCSP would afford
greater array of housing choices for residents of Chula Vista, and create more choices to work,
shop, and play.
FISCAL IMPACT
As a planning document, the adoption of the UCSP will have no direct fiscal impact to the City.
However, as projects, both private and public, are implemented both a revenue stream and cost
factors will be realized. As implementation of the UCSP occurs, additional information
regarding specific fiscal impacts of future individual projects will be evaluated.
Attachments
1. Proposed UCSP Map
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Draft Ordinance 2014-
4. Proposed Recommendations to the UCSP Map
5. Proposed TFA FAR
6. Proposed V -1 New Commercial /Office Uses
7. Proposed Village Subdistrict Land Use Matrix Recommendations
8. Draft UCSP Amendments
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 14 -04
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN TO: 1) REZONE CERTAIN APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL (R -3) ZONED PARCELS AND CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL ZONED PARCELS FOR CONSISTENCY WITHIN
THE UCSP AREA; 2) REMOVE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
RATIO IN CERTAIN SUBDISTRICTS; 3) REMOVE LOT
COVERAGE AS A MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD; 4)
ALLOW CERTAIN COMMERCIAL /OFFICE USES BY RIGHT IN
THE EAST VILLAGE (V -1) SUBDISTRICT; 5) UPDATE THE
LAND USE MATRIX FOR THE VILLAGE DISTRICT; 6) MAKE
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH
CITY POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROCESSES
WHEREAS, the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), which is the subject of this
Resolution, and for the purpose of description is generally located east of I -5, west of Second
Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street as shown on Exhibit "A "; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update was approved by the City Council on December
13, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the 2005 General Plan Vision for the Urban Core of the City states that the
Urban Core will contain the greatest diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural,
and residential uses emphasizing its role as the hub of the City; and
WHEREAS, the 2005 General Plan Vision for traditional residential neighborhoods that
surround the Urban Core states that the attractiveness of living in these areas will be enhanced by
the Urban Core's diversity in character, architectural style, pedestrian - friendly environment and
enhanced access to facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan's Land Use and Transportation Element calls for the Urban
Core, and other zoning regulations to implement the new land uses and vision of the Urban Core
Sub Area identified in the 2005 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the UCSP was adopted by the City Council on April 26, 2007 (Ordinance
No. 3070); and
WHEREAS, the UCSP was amended by the City Council on February 23, 2011
(Ordinance No. 3184) that included minor amendments reclassifying Third Avenue as a two -lane
downtown promenade, modifying residential parking standards for the Corridor District, and
added outdoor dining design guidelines; and
WHEREAS, in June 2013, the City Council requested staff to conduct the 5 -year review
of the UCSP and make recommendations if any, which is consistent with the administration of
PC Resolution PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Page 2
the UCSP which anticipates periodic reassessment of the Plan's implementation as it is intended
to be a document which responds to changing development trends in the urban core area; and
WHEREAS, staff identified modifications to the UCSP including rezoning parcels that
were deferred in 2007 and amendments to development standards and uses to facilitate new
development. Apartment Residential (R -3) zoned parcels and certain commercial zoned parcels
developed with trailer parks would be rezoned for consistency with other land use districts in the
UCSP area, making all parcels in the UCSP area uniformly and properly zoned (Exhibit "B ");
and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2014, the proposed amendments were presented to the Third
Avenue Village Association (TAVA) Executive Board and Design Committee, which
unanimously recommended the amendments and changes to the Village district including adding
and removing certain uses and applicable limitations, and the permit requirements for certain
uses be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014, the proposed amendments were presented to the
Chamber of Commerce Executive Board which unanimously recommended the amendments be
approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2014 the proposed amendments were presented to the
Development Services Oversight Committee which recommended approval of the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2014 staff held a public information meeting to inform the public
about the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014 staff held an information meeting for the Mobile Home
Rent Review Commission to inform the Commission about the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Department Director reviewed the proposed
action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
determined that the proposed amendments to the UCSP are minor and would not result in new,
significant, adverse environmental impacts not previously considered in the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR- 06 -01) prepared for the UCSP; and
WHEREAS, FEIR -06 -01 was certified for the UCSP on April 26, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set for the Planning Commission for
consideration of the amendments and rezone, and a notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least
ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on said UCSP
amendments and rezone of certain parcels at a time and place as advertised, namely August 27,
PC Resolution PCM 14 -04
August 27, 2014
Page 3
2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was
therefore closed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council: 1) rezone certain apartment residential (R -3) zoned parcels
and certain commercial zoned parcels for consistency within the UCSP area; 2) remove the
minimum floor area ratio in certain subdistricts; 3) remove lot coverage as a mandatory
development standard; 4) allow certain commercial /office uses by right in the East Village (V -1)
subdistrict; 5) update the land use matrix for the Village district; 6) make minor modifications to
ensure consistency with city policies, procedures, and processes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
Presented By:
Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA
Development Services Director
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 27, day of August, 2014, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Yolanda Calvo, Chair
ATTEST:
Patricia Laughlin
Board Secretary