Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1981/11/18 A G E N D A City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, November 18, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 28, 1981 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of rezoning property at south side of 'I' Street, between Broadway and Cedar Avenue Michael K. O'Neill 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of draft EIR-81-3 on EastLake Planned Community DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of November 18, 1981 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of rezoning property on the south side of "I" Street, between Broadway and Cedar Avenue, from R-1 to R-3 - Michael K. O'Neill A. BACKGROUND 1. T he applicant is requesting a change of zone for .34 acres (approximately 15,000 sq.ft.) located at 554 "I" Street from R-1 (single family residential, 7000 sq.ft, minimum lot size) to R-3 (multiple family residential, 32 dwelling units per acre). Staff has expanded the area of the application to include t~ properties located between 558 and 586 "I" Street in order to establish a logical zone boundary for the proposed R-3 district (see locator). 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-11, of possible environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on November 5, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-11. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the change of zone for the properties located from 554 "I" Street to 586 "I" Street from R-1 to R-3-P-22 with the following precise plan guidelines: a. The following setbacks shall be required for buildings adjacent to R-1 zoned property: 1) l0 feet for single story construction (limited to 12' in height). 2) 25 feet for two-story construction (limited to 22' in height). b. No building shall exceed two stories or 22 feet in height. c. The maximum density shall be one unit per 2000 sq. ft. of land for each parcel having an average width of 80 feet or greater; parcels averaging less than 80 feet in width shall be limited in density to one unit for each 4000 sq. ft. of land area. 3. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the building line map of the City of Chula Vista by changing the setback along the south side of "I" Street from a point 142.5 feet east of the easterly line of Broadway to a point 144.65 feet west of the~enterline of Cedar Avenue from 25 feet to 20 feet. City Plann~n§ Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-C Broadway Shopping Center South R-1 & C-T-P Single family dwellings and restaurant parking East R-1 Single family dwellings West C-T Retail commercial 2. Property description. a. The applicant's property consists of two assessor parcels, totaling 14,940 sq. ft.; the parcel fronting on "I"'Street measures 83' X 150' and is devel- oped with a single family dwelling; the other parcel, located immediately to the south measures 83' X 30' and is vacant. b. The nine other properties included in the expanded area are described in the following table: Parcel Assessor Ref. Number Address Lot Size and Area Land Use Owner 572-080-36 586 I Street 106.5'X130' : 13,952 s.f. SFD Barsch 2 572-080-38 574 I Street 62'X131' = 8,122 s.f. SFD Barsch 3 572-080-39 570 I Street 63'X140' = 8,820 s.f. SFD Quarterman 4 572-080-46 572 I Street 63'X150' : 9,450 s.f. TFD Baehr 5 572-080-40 568 I Street 53'X140' = 7,420 s.f. SFD Baehr 6 572-080-45 568½ I Street 53'X150' = 7,950 s.f. SFD Baehr 7 572-080-41 564 I Street 53'X290' = 15,370 s.f. SFD Baehr 8 572-080-42 558 I Street 53'X180' = 9,540 s.f. SFD Schmoke None 572-080-37 None 4'X131' = 524 s.f. Vacant Bohart c. Parcels 4 and 6 are located immediately behind parcels 3 and 5 and are provided access via a driveway located on the west side of parcel 5. The single family dwelling located at 558 "I" Street is a nonconforming structure because the attached garage is located on the easterly property line. d. The dwellings within the proposed zone change area are homes of 25 years and older and are, for the most part, well maintained. 3. General Plan. The subject properties are designated on the General Plan for high density residential use, 13-26 dwelling units per gross acre. The request is therefore in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Petition. A letter in favor of the proposed rezoning has been submitted. The letter contains the signatures of three of the five property owners of the nine other parcels proposed in the rezoning area. Those signing the letter are: Barsch, Baehr and Schmoke (see attached). A petition opposing the rezoning, signed by 47 residents of the adjoining single family area, was submitted to the City Council and Environmental Review Board. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS 1. This application raises questions as to the appropriateness of rezoning only the 15,000 sq. ft. subject property or including adjacent lots which also carry the General Plan designation of "Residential 13-26 DU/acre." Generally speaking, the quality of development which results from developing relatively small lots with multiple family uses leaves something to be desired as compared with larger lot development where greater flexibility in site planning and architectural treatment is available. In this case, several of the lots are under common ownership so that it is reasonable to assume that they will be incorporated into a single development plan. The language incorporated into the recommended guidelines for development allows for density increases for lots over 80 feet in width. The objective of the guidelines is to encourage lot combinations. 2. Also of concern is the fact that the area proposed for rezoning is surrounded on two sides by single family development. The privacy of those existing single family homes should be protected by requiring substantial building setbacks from the single family areas for multiple units over two stories in height. 3. The present building line map establishes a 25 foot setback for the south side of "I" Street in the area being considered for rezoni, ng; the remainder of "I" Street to the east extending to Fifth Avenue is established at20 feet. The standard setback for the R-3 zone is 15 feet, increasinq to 25 feet for streets identified as major or secondary thorouqhfare on the General Plan. "I"Street is not identified on the General Plan as a major or secondary thoroughfare, however, it is likely to carry a substantial amount of traffic in the future as government and commercial activities expand in the vicinity of Third Avenue between "H'' and "F" Streets. Given the existing setback of 20 feet for the remaining R-1 zoned land along "I" Street and the possible street widening within the existing right-of-way in the future to accommodate additional traffic flow, I have concluded that a 20 foot setback would best serve the new multiple family zone. E. FINDINGS Section 19.56.041. The "P" Modifying District may be applied to areas within the City only when one or more of the following circumstances is evident: 1. The property or area to which the '~" Modifying District is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing land uses and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land uses which might otherwise prove incompatible. The R-3 territory is contiguous to a stable single family development. The attachment of the "P" district and establishment of guidelines relating to the height and setbacks of structures will help retain much of the privacy enjoyed by the single family residences. 2. The basic or underlying zome regulations do not allow the property and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in a~acent zones. The attachment of the "P" District will enable the establishment of density, building setbacks and height regulations needed to achieve a proper relation- ship between multiple family structures and the single family residences. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page 4 3. The area to which the '~" Modifying District is applied consists of two or more properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, onsite circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare. The area proposed for rezoning is under multiple ownership so that the combin- ation of lots should be encouraged with a view toward enhancing the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare by limiting the number of driveways onto "I" Street and enabling multiple family buildings to be set back some distance from single family property lines. November 3, 1981 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Ave° Dear Sir: As property owners in the 500 blk of "I" Street, we wish to inform you that we are in favor of the proposed rezoning change as stated in your notice dated October 19, 198l. Sincerely, Tonita C. Barsch Belding Baehr Ann Schmoke 586 "I" Street 568 "I" Street 558 "I" Street 574 "I" Street (parcels 572-80-40 " " 41 L ........ J L. ............ I I CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER Perking , ,Bank I I ii Stem Iv I Retail I City initiotcd Rest Shop sf I VOC, Food Rest. J .st sf HALSEY ST. . HALSEY LOCATOR PCZ-82-B ReQuest to rezone .:~y~- at 554 I street from BROADWAY Bohart , Ash Ave open space ~=III -~ ~dar Ave ~ MIC~L K. O'NEIL P~-82-B ~~ REZONE ~M R-I EX 554 Z ~ET City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 ~ - 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of draft EIR-81-3 on EastLake Planned Community A. BACKGROUND 1. Introduction On October 30, 1980 the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista was authorized to prepare various environmental documents necessary for the consideration of the EastLake Planned Community. This authorization was given by Cadillac Fairview Homes West. It was recognized at that point in the process that Cadillac Fairview Homes had prepared various'environmental studies on their proposed project and the project site and that much of that information could be incorporated into the City's environmental documents for the project. It was also recognized that prior to the City's use of this developer prepared information, it must be given independent review and analysis to assure its accuracy and adequacy. Late in January 1981 an agreement was reached between the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista, Cadillac Fairview Homes West and Westec Services, Inc. for the preparation of: a. an Environmental Constraints Inventory of Resources and Hazards of the proposed EastLake Planned Community site bL draft and final Environmental Impact Reports on the proposed project c. Candidate "CEQA" findings During the intervening period the preparation of the initial environmental documents has proven to be a very complex task and it has been necessary to amend the agreement to prepare the environmental documents in order to provide the fullest disclosure of potential environmental impacts. ~ 2. Environmental Constraints Inventory An Environmental Constraints Inventory (ECI) is an informational document which is used to help plan large scale projects or to help in their review and evaluation. It is intended that this document be prepared prior to or during the preparation of actual development plans so that they may influence the actual design of the project. In the case of EastLake the project proponent carried out a similar private planning process which resulted in a "data base" for the EastLake Planned Community. This document employed an EIR format, evaluated the developer's proposal but did not reflect the independent review and analysis of the City of Chula Vista. The Environmental Review Committee determined that because the EastLake project was of such a magnitude that an ECI was necessary an independent overview and understanding of the project site and the existing physical and policy constraints which would influence development of the property would be helpful. This require- ment was included in the request for proposals and the subsequent agreement with Westec Services, Inc. The ECI was issued for review by the Environmental Review Committee on April 30,'1981 and subsequently forwarded to the members of the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. ¢it~ Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page 6 3. Preparation of draft EIR Late in 1980 and early 1981 notice of the preparation of this draft EIR was circulated to many local and regional agencies which could be affected or which could have some discretionary control over the project. Additionally, a notice of preparation was circulated through the State of California Clearinghouse to determine the extent of State control and/or interest in the project. In 2anuary of 1981 public meetings were held to provide an additional opportunity to provide public comment on the contents of the draft EIR. Preparation of the EIR and further refinement of the information in that document continued through 1981, however it was only intensified after completion of the ECI. 4. Review of draft EIR On October 8, 1981 the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista issued draft EIR for the EastLake project ~or public and agency review. Because of the size and complexity of this project, and subsequently~the EIR, two public hearings have been scheduled before the Planning Commission. The first one is this evening (November 18) and the second one will be held on December 2, 1981. At the conclusion of the second hearing it is anticipated that the public review period for comments on the draft EIR will be concluded. The draft EIR is also being circulated through the State Clearinghouse and their review period will conclude on November 27, 1981. It is anticipated that Westec Services will complete the preparation of the final EIR during December, 1981 and that document will be reviewed by staff and presented to the Planning Commission sometime after the first of the year. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and take ~estimony relevant to the draft Environmental Impact Report and continue the public hearing until the meeting of December 2, 1981. C. ENvIRoNMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Land Use/Agriculture (See Sections 3.1 and 3.2) The proposed project will result in a substantial change in land use because the project will convert the project site from an existing agricultural use which has potential for more highly productive agricultural activity to that of an urbanized area. The majority of the project site contains soils suitable for agricultural use which,due to location within the coastal climate, would be highly productive given the ~vai]ability of water. Additionally the EastLake development would be a substantial change ~rom city's policies regarding land use designations for this area and would vary from density assumptions of the SANDAG series of five population projections. As a result of this change in policy there could be secondary effects'on traffic, community services~ air quality, etc. as discussed below. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page 7 2. Transportation Circulation (See Section 3.3) An extensive traffic analysis was prepared for the EastLake development proposal. To assure that a complete analysis would be provided, a traffic study area extending well beyond the EastLake project was established. This traffic study area is bounded by State Route 54 on the north, 1-805 on the west, Otay Valley on the south and Otay Lakes to the east. This traffic study area has been calibrated with regional traffic models to assure its accuracy. The basis for land use assumptions to predict traffic volumes was the Chula Vista General Plan as augmented by the EastLake project. The traffic impact analysis was conducted for two different alternative networks. The first network assumed full development as outlined in the General Plan, including the roadways delineated in the EastLake plan. The second assumed a more limited network due to funding difficulty or other reasons. The specific impacts (i.e. traffic volumes) is delineated in figures 3.8 and 3.9 of the draft EIR. The project related impacts are delienated in figures 3.10 and 3.11. Traffic generated from the proposed development would represent an increase from the total number of trips of between 16 and 18%. Furthermore on a cumulative basis there would be a significant impact on the regional circulation system. Mitigation of this impact is possible only through the precise coordination of improvements to roadways and intersections with the implementation of development plans within the traffic study area. Some of the major improvements that would be necessary to accommodate growth in the eastern Chula Vista area are as follows: a) A construction of "State Route 125" between the EastLake project and State Route 54. (Note: The extension of State Route 125 across the Sweetwater River will require construction of a major bridge.) b) Extension of Otay Lakes Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road to an inter- section with Orange Avenue and Orange Avenue extended easterly to the EastLake property. c) The widening of Bonita Road between 1-805 and the Bonita bridge to a 6-lane divided major arterial. d) Various other less substantial off-site improvements would be necessary to accommodate traffic from the EastLake project. 3. Sewer Service (See Section 3.4) Sewage generated from the EastLake project would be substantially greater in volume than was anticipated under the current lower intensity uses designated by the General Plan. Sewage disposal facilities do not currently exist on-site and full development of the project would require the construction of on and off-site sewer lines and/or a sewage treatment/water reclamation plant. The first phase of development is proposed to be served by lines which would pump on a temporary basis into the Telegraph Canyon trunk line. Assurances must be made by developer that this would be a temporary condition and that he is prepared to fund City Planning Commission Page 8 Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 a long term permanent solution of either connections to the metropolitan sewer system or the provision of on-site treatment facilities. If the extension of sewage line is the option selected, there is a potential for considerable growth inducing impact on properties adjacent to these off-site lines. 4. Schools (See Sections 3.6, 3.6.1 and 3.6.2) Students generated by the proposed project would create a substantial need for additional schools within the project boundaries. The General Development Plan indicates the sites for 5 elementary schools, I junior high school and 1 senior high school. Using current generation factors there may be a need for 2 more elementary schools and 1 junior and 1 senior high schools within or near the proposed community. The school districts have indicated that they have no ability to finance the construction of new facilities. The provision of adequate school facilities must be coordinated with the project as it is implemented in order to avoid a signifi- cant impact on a provision of educational services. 5. Police Protection (See Section 3.7) With the initial phase of the project emergency response time will be below the preferred level. The addition of police staff and equipment to meet the demands of new development would eliminate this short term impact. 6. Fire Protection (See Section 3.8) Also during the first phase of development longer response times would result because of the distance between the project site and existing fire stations. The project proponent would be responsible for providing a station site, construction of the station structure, as well as a provision of necessary apparatus and equipment. During later phases of development a second fire station site may be necessary. 7. Drainage (See Section 3.17) Development of the proposed project site with urban uses would result in an increase in runoff. The portion of EastLake property which is drained by the Telegraph Canyon Basin represents about 14% of the project site water shed. A portion of this area is shown as an agricultural use on the General Plan. Development with urban uses rather than the assumed use could result in an underestimation of the projected peak runoff discharge and could impact downstream facilities. Development in the portion of the site drained by Long Canyon could also aggravate existing drainage problems along Acacia Avenue and Bonita Road. Measures to control peak runoff discharge, such as retention and sedimentation basins or the provision of downstream drainage improvements, could mitigate these potential impacts. City Planning Commission Page 9 Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 8. Visual Effects (See Section 3.13) The proposed project would substantially alter the visual character of the site, changing it from a rural agricultural setting to a much more intense urban community. The level of significance associated with this change is dependent upon the final project design and the subjective decision of the viewer. Site specific visual impacts cannot be determined at this time but should be addressed during subsequent project review. The eastern part of the planned community adjoining the lower Otay Lakes is designated by the Chula Vista General Plan for park and public open space uses. This designation extends from the eastern boundary of the site westerly, to the top of the ridge and allows preservation of the view shed from the lakes and Otay Lakes Park. The project proposes an open space designation for the lower slopes of this area while designating the remaining portion up to the ridge line for residential development of densities from 3 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Construction, in accordance with these densities, could result in urban intrusion on the view shed of users of the lake and park. Structures particularly at the higher density designations are likely to be multi-story and could be significant intrusion into the rural nature of the park unless screened from view. 9. Geology/Soils (See Sections 3.14 and 3.15) The project site does involve several possible minor land slide areas. Potential impacts relative to these slope instabilities can be mitigated by review of grading or the use of fill to buttress and stabilize the landslides. Prior to final project design a detailed geological investigation will be prepared to provide grading foundation and construction recommendations. The project site contains areas with highly expansive soils. Unstable soil conditions can be mitigated to insignificance by following the recommendations of subsequent geotechnical reports. 10. Air Quality (See Section 3.20) Air pollutants which are traditionally of concern in the San Diego region are ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and total suspended particulates. Although recent gains have been made, the region is still experiencing violations of all air quality standards for each of the above pollutants. The proposed EastLake development would represent a significant increase beyond the planned growth levels within the Chula Vista Planning Area, resulting in an increase in pollutant emissions from mobile and stationary sources. The impact of project implementation would be significant on a cumulative regional level due to the departure from planned growth patterns within the air basin. Mitigation measures are available to reduce project related emissions but cannot mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1981 Page l0 11. Noise (See Section 3.24) The impact of traffic noise within and surrounding the EastLake project will be the largest contributor to the future ambient noise level in the area. Of greatest significance will be the noise levels along collector and major roadways within the project and along roads providing access to the project. Within the project new residential construction can be separated from these roadways or barrior techniques used to shield residents from traffic noise. However, off-site impacts along roadways providing access to the East[ake project could be significant. Many of the residences along these streets were either constructed with no knowledge of future acoustical conditions or did not take into account the increase noise levels due to increased ADT related to the EastLake project. 12. Growth Inducement (See Page 177) The East[ake project would introduce an urban development into a currently rural setting and would involve the extension of roads and community facilities to serve the residents of the community. Development of EastLake could affect both the timing, type and development of adjacent parcels and could encourage additional development and/or annexation requests. If adjacent properties were developed at densities similar to tho'se proposed by the EastLake project, a substantial overload of facilities, such Ss roads, sewers and drainage structures, could result. D. Conclusion The EastLake proposal could result in numerous significant environmental impacts. Many of these impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through developer initiated actions, conditions of approval or modification to the project as proposed. However some impacts can be mitigated only through extensive on and off site improvements which may not be economically or technically feasible, or which may not be acceptable to the community. At the time of project consideration a complete "package" of CEQA findings evaluating the feasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives to the project will be presented. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project it must also identify the overriding considerations which support its position.