HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/04/10 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 10, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 13, 1991
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-C/GPA-91-1: City-initiated proposal to
amend the General Plan and rezone certain territory,
generally bounded by 'E' Street, 'H' Street, Second
Avenue and Third Avenue, plus an additional area
east of Fourth Avenue between 'E' and Davidson
Streets, to resolve general plan/zoning inconsis-
tencies within the Central Chula Vista community
(continued from 3-13-91)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-90-09, Chula Vista Relocation Mobilehome
Park
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Request for a representative from the Planning
Commission to serve on the Bayfront Subcommittee
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of April 17, 1991
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3.
April 4, 1991
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning .
FROM: Bud Gray, Acting Principal Planner /~
SUBJECT: PCZ-91-C/GPA-91-1; General Plan/Zoning Consistency
Study, Central Chula Vista
This item is a continued hearing from the Chula Vista Planning Commission
agenda of March 13, 1991. The item was continued to allow staff to address
the impacts this proposal would have on the Chula Vista Elementary and the
Sweetwater Union High School Districts.
To more adequately respond to the Commission's concern, the following are
attached:
1. An Addendum to the Environmental Initial Study to more fully address
school impacts.
2. Letter from the Chula Vista Elementary School District dated March 28, 1991.
3. Original staff report from the meeting of March 13, 1991.
4. Letter from the Sweetwater Union High School District dated April 3, 1991.
In summary, staff has re-evaluated the environmental asse~ssment of thi~ project
with respect to school impacts and has concluded that there will be no signifi-
cant impact on schools, and therefore, no mitigation is required.
To ensure that the City continues to work cooperatively with the school
districts, particularly in the areas of Chula Vista west of 1-805, it is
staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission consider adding the
following notice to the "P" modifying district of the properties being rezoned
within Area B1 as follows:
The City of Chula Vista shall enforce any legal mechanism sponsored
by the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater Union High
School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities.
This language could be included within the zone reclassification ordinance
to demonstrate the City's long standing committment to responsible planning
and a dedication to working with both school districts to find solutions
to overcrowded school facilities.
ADDENDUM TO NEGATTVE DECLARATION IS 9]-]3
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the
Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, if one of the
following conditions is present:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since
completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created
any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed
in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration;
2. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion
of the Final EIR does not indicate any new significant environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative
Declaration; and
3. Additional or refined information available since completion of the
Final EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential
environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or
alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects
of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more
significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final
EIR or Negative Declaration.
This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and
analysis concerning school impacts. As a result of this analysis, the basic
conclusions of the Negative Declaration have not changed. School impacts are
deemed to be less than significant for the proposed project.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
has prepared the following addendum to the Negative Declaration for the
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study
(IS 91-13).
II. BACKGROUND
The General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study is a continuation of the
planning process which began with the adoption of the General Plan Update
on July 11, 1989. During the process of the General Plan Update, the
focus was on the future long range growth of the City throughout the
planning area. More refinement of the lg89 General Plan will continue as
each neighborhood is analyzed within the context of the consistency of
zoning with the General Plan.
Historically since 1973, most of the B1 study area has been designated
High Density (13-26 du/ac). So, study area B1 has had a High Density
land use designation for the past 18 years. In lg89, the City Council
took the first step to lower densities within study area B1 by adopting a
General Plan land use designation for Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) to begin the
process of lowering densities within central Chula Vista. Shortly
thereafter, the Council directed that staff undertake a General
Plan/Zoning Consistency Study for Central Chula Vista, to further refine
General Plan land use designations, and to bring zoning into consistency
with the General Plan. The B-1 area is the first study area to be
considered under this program.
III. THRESHOLD/STANDARDS POLICY
The Threshold/Standards Policy of the City developed in ]987 by the
Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) and amended January, 1990
have two types of implementation measures. There are those which can be
applied on a project-by-project basis and those which are to be applied
city-wide on a periodic basis to evaluate general conditions.
As part of the environmental review process and as set forth by the GMOC,
the following thresholds are reviewed on a project-by-project basis:
Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Water, Sewer,
Drainage, Traffic, Parks and Recreation. Thresholds that are reviewed
annually on a city-wide basis are as follows: Schools, Libraries, Air
Quality, and Economics.
School thresholds were not addressed in the Threshold/Standards Policy
Section of Negative Declaration IS 9]-13 or any other Negative
Declaration because of the foregoing policy. If it has been determined
in an Initial Study that a proposed project may have a significant impact
on schools, then school impacts would be discussed in Section E of the
Negative Declaration, "Identification of Environmental Effects".
The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that school impacts
associated with the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study were less than
significant, therefore school impacts were not specifically analyzed in
this environmental document. The following is a discussion of how this
determination was made.
IV. SCHOOL IMPACTS
The proposed General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study proposes to
redesignate approximately 62 acres west of Interstate 805 in order to
bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. In some areas,
the general plan would be amended from "Low to Medium Density
Residential" (3 -6 dwelling units per acre) to "Medium to High Density
Residential" (11 to 18 dwelling units per acre) and the zoning would be
changed to be consistent with the General Plan designation.
Because multi-family residential uses typically generate a lower number
of students than single-family residential, school impacts were not
anticipated to be significant with the proposed Zoning Consistency
Program. The proposed project would actually generate a lower number of
students than what is approved under the existing zoning.
-2-
An overall reduction in the number of dwelling units is expected from
implementation of the proposed Zoning Consistency Program from 370 to 200
dwelling units. This means that there will be a corresponding reduction
in the total number of students generated from 218 to 118 students.
As pointed out at the previous Planning Commission hearing, the School
Section (Page g) of the Initial Study was inadvertently left blank. The
following is a breakdown of school attendance and capacity figures
obtained from the two school districts.
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Caoacitv From Project*
Elemen-
tary Vista Square 531 574 --
Rosebank 627 632 --
Feaster 734 708 60
Jr. High CV Jr. High 1400 1430 --
Sr. High " " " "
118 Total
The 118 student figure is based upon 200 dwelling units anticipated from
the proposed project, as indicated in the March 21, 1991 letter to the
School Districts from the Chula Vista Planning Department. The student
generation factors of .3 (200 X .3 ~ 60) for the Elementary School
District and .29 average (200 X .29 ~ 58) for the High School District
were used to calculate project impacts.
It should be noted that the retention of a "Residential Low Medium"
General Plan designation (and corresponding rezoning) for the entire
study area B1 would lower the number of future dwelling units. It is
also possible that the number of school age children generated by these
future dwelling units would result in a proportionate decrease in school
age children. However, single family homes generate 3 times the number
of school age children of multiple family dwelling units. Therefore, the
actual number of children generated by the different land use plan may
not be that different in total.
As indicated in letters from the Chula Vista City School District {March
28, 1991) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (April 3, 1991),
school overcrowding is an ongoing concern of both Districts.
-3-
Because the proposed project would actually be associated with an overall
reduction in the number of students generated from 218 under existing
zoning to 118 with implementation of the General Plan/Zoning Consistency
Program, school impacts are deemed to be less than significant.
V. CONCLUSION
School impacts are deemed to be less than significant for the proposed
project, since the number of students generated from the project is 118,
which is 100 students less than what would be generated under the
existing zoning.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the
above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the
proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions
which are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA
and recommend that the Planning Commission adopt this addendum to
Negative Declaration IS-g1-13 prior to taking action on the proposed
project.
MARYANN MILLER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
REFERENCES
"Threshold/Standards Policy" of the Growth Management Oversight Committee,
November ]7, 1987 (Revised January ]990).
Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR, May 31, lg89.
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures.
WPC 9135P
-4-
CHULA ·-]TA EI,EMENTARY SCH-gL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN IND~IDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF E~CAT~N March 28, 1991
J~EPHD. CUMMINGS.~.O. RECEIVED
LARRY CUNNINGHAM I
SNARON GILES
PATRICKA. JUOD Mr. Bob Lelter '- -1t991
G~G R. SAN~V~
Planning Di:ector
SUPERI~ENDENT city of Chula
276 ~ourth Avenue PLANNING
~HNF. V~RIN. Ph.D. Chula Vista, CA 91910
RS: City-Initiated Gene~al Plan AmenSment/Re~oning A~ea ~-1
Dear Nr. Leiter:
This letter ±s ±n response to your March 21, 1991 request ~or
addltlonal information on school impacts from the City's
p~oposed General Plan Amendment and ~ezoning ~o~ Central
Chula Vista. ~ asa that a copy of this letter be p~ovidea to
the Planning
The general plan a~en~ment and ~ezoning cu:rently proposea
for Central Chula Vista are being processea to resolve
gene~al pZan/zonlng inconsistencies w&thin this
· he Distrlct supported adoption of the City's General ?lan
Up,ate (3uly 1989) which reduced development potential
Central Chula Vista by designating 3-6 units/acre for most
the area. $chool facil~tles we:e already severely
overcrowded anG pro~ected to become more so, and this land
use Gecision was ~iewe~ as a positive step. Primary elements
o~ the Update included (1) conservation of existing single
fa~ily neighbo~hoo~s~ and (2) density ~eductions in some
residential areas. The Update statea that it is anticipated
that Central Chula Vista will remain substantially the same
over the planning perloa, adding some 2,800 ~esidents through
i~-fi11 and limited redevelopment. Since existing
development, for the most part, exceede~ the density
permitted by the Update, limited, i~ any, new development was
envisioned. ~ezon±ng acts were antic±pared to implement the
Gene:al Plan.
~ith ~he adoption of consistency legislat±on in 1971, the
Attorney General opined "...that ~he Legislature
that local government engage in the discipline o~ settlng
~orth their development pollcles, objectives an~ standards
a general plan composed of various elements of land use. The
gene~al plans and their constituent elements a:e now the
local constitutions to which all local development in its
many and varied phases shall ~epai~." This opinion has been
supported by numerous court decisions which found that the
March 28, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 2
RE: City-Initiated General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Area B-1
general plan is the constitution for all future development
within the city, embodying fundamental 1End-use decisions
that guide future growth and development of cities and
counties. Zoning laws, except for Charter cities, must
conform to the adopted general plan. In the case of Charter
cities, zoning is not required to be consistent; however,
all other land use decisions, including subdivision maps,
must be consistent with the general plan.
The City's Growth Management Oversight Committee for Schools
(GMOC) in 1989 and 1990 found that the Threshold for Schools
was being exceeded in western Chula vista and issued
statements of concern to the District. Last year the
statement was made that "The conversion of existing single
family neighborhoods to multi-family uses has contributed to
overcrowding of schools in the northwest part of the City.
This should be carefully addressed as part of the
implementation of the General Plan."
Now the City, to achieve internal consistency between the
General Plan and Zoning, is considering amending the General
Plan to permit additional development. While it is true
that existing zoning permits up to 33 units/acre, upon
adoption of the Plan Update this zoning became inconsistent,
and any development seeking to obtain a subdivision map
could not have demonstrated consistency with the General
Plan. The current zoning proposal to "downzone" to 22
units/acre is well above the 3-6 units/acre permitted by the
Plan. While technically the proposed rezoning could be
called a downzoning, it does not bring zoning into
conformance with the Plan. A General Plan Amendment which
substantially increases the development potential in Central
Chula Vista is also necessary. This is a significant change
from what was adopted as the guide to future growth and
development in the City and appears to be inconsistent with
city policy as expressed by the GMOC's statement of concern
and adopted threshold standard for schools.
School Facility Issues
From the District's perspective, the proposed plan amendment
and rezoning are of concern for three reasons: (1)
Separation of the comprehensive general plan
amendment/rezoning area into five areas to be reviewed
separately segments the "project" and does not permit
comprehensive review of total impacts. Since Feaster and
Vista Square are home schools for all five areas, with
Rosebank included in Area B-i, school facility impacts of
all proposed rezoning must be analyzed concurrently; (2) The
proposed amendment and rezoning permit additional
March 28, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 3
RE: City-Initiated General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Area B-1
development which would exacerbate current and projected
overcrowding in central/western schools where the District
has limited funds for new facilities; and (3) The
City-initiated legislative actions could restrict our
ability to mitigate impacts of growth on school facilities
at the time development projects are proposed for rezoned
areas.
1. Segmentation of Proposed Amendments/Rezoning
Five areas are proposed for special study, all of
which are located within the attendance areas of
Feaster and Vista Square, with Area B-1 encompassing
Rosebank's attendance area. In order to provide a
comprehensive analysis of potential impacts, and
attempt to adequately accommodate anticipated
enrollment growth, all areas must be considered and
evaluated concurrently. Total impacts to these
schools must be calculated and mitigation
considered, not incrementally assessed on a study
area by study area basis. Incremental impacts
which, alone could appear relatively minor, can
easily become cumulatively substantial or
overwhelming.
2. Overcrowding in Central/Western Schools
The District has been experiencing student
enrollment increases and overcrowding in western
Chula Vista for several years, and this growth is
projected to continue. Some of our most impacted
schools are in this area including Feaster, Vista
Square, Rosebank, Harborside, Mueller and
Lauderbach. Most of these schools are older, many
over 30 years old, on sites smaller than the
District's current standard 10 acres, and all are
operating above permanent capacity %~ith temporary
relocatable classrooms which further reduce
playground areas and stress support f~cilities. In
1990, twelve relocatable classrooms were added to
five of the schools listed above, brin~iing the total
number at these schools to 24. Feaster and
Lauderbach each have six relocatables, Harborside
has seven, Rosebank has three and Vista Square has
two. Mueller School was converted to a year-round
multi-track program two years ago to allow that
facility to increase capacity by 20 - 25 percent.
All school campuses, with the exception of Vista
Square, are substantially smaller than 10 acres.
March 28, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 4
RE: City-Initiated General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Area B-1
Funding is not available for modernization or
reconstruction of these older facilities, for
expansion of smaller sites, or purchase of
additional relocatable classrooms to accommodate
the growth experienced since the mid 1980's. Data
on these schools is attached as Exhibit A.
On September 19 and 27, 1990, information was
submitted in response to City notices regarding the
proposed rezoning (copies attached as Exhibit B).
Based on data available at that time, 62 gross
acres were estimated to be affected by the
rezoning. Prior to adoption of the Plan Update
which designated the area Low-Medium Residential
and allowed 186-372 units (62 acres X 3-6
units/acre, respectively), zoning permitted 33
units/acre, or a total of 2,046 residential units
(62 acres X 33 units/acre) for Area B-1. It is
presumed that, given the average densities which
currently exist on the parcels, in most cases
existing development exceeds that which would be
allowed under the General Plan; therefore, no
additional development would occur. Proposed
"downzoning" to 22 units/acre results in 1,364
total units (62 acres X 22 units/acre). City staff
estimates rezoning to 22 units/acre would permit
construction of an additional 200 units.
Area B-1 includes three school attendance areas,
Feaster, Rosebank and Vista Square. Demographic
studies prepared for the District indicated student
generation rates ranging from .3/unit to .67/unit.
Feaster and Vista Square indicate rates of .67,
while Rosebank has .3. Thus, the number of new
students which could be anticipated from the
proposed rezoning of Area B-1 ranges from 60 to
134. We are currently overflow busing 68 children
from Feaster, Rosebank and Vista Square, and
anticipate this number to significantly increase
next year, without consideration of the impacts
potential rezoning would create. The City's growth
forecast, which does not include this rezoning,
estimates 80 new residential units will be
constructed/occupied in the Feaster attendance area
over the next 12 - 18 months, with 47 for Rosebank
and 54 for Vista Square, another 54 - 121
children. Additional children can be expected from
internal neighborhood growth (i.e., families
doubling up, multi-generational households,
neighborhood recycling, etc.). Clearly, these
schools cannot accommodate projected growth.
March 28, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 5
RE: city-Initiated General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Area B-1
3. District ability to Mitigate Impacts of Legislative
Acts
Of additional concern to the District relative to
the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezoning is
the potential that the City, in initiating these
amendments and rezonings absent specific
development requests, could effectively preclude
our ability to assess mitigation at the time a
project is proposed. Unlike the City which can
assess and adjust its own impact fees to meet its
needs, the District is limited in its ability to
collect mitigation monies, except for specific
types of project approvals. Standard mitigation
for school facilities impacts permitted under
current State law is developer fees, which cover
approximately one-fourth of new facility costs.
Full cost mitigation is available only when a
legislative approval is required of the City (i.e.,
general plan amendment, rezone, annexation, etc.).
For these actions, the courts have held that the
city has the authority to require extraordinary
mitigation for impacts on school facilities. In
most cases, the City has supported the District's
requested mitigation and required developers to
participate in full-cost mitigation in the form of
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts.
However, if the City initiates and approves these
amendments and rezonings with no specific proposal,
when a project is proposed, no legislative act will
be required and the District will be limited to
collection of developer fees, creating a
significant shortfall in the amount necessary to
provide facilities to serve growth.
To prevent this situation and allow the District
the opportunity to assess adequate mitigation as
allowed by law, we recommend that the City include
a condition to be applied to all subsequent
development proposals for these rezoned areas which
requires compliance with school district facility
mitigation recommendations. It should be noted
that this mitigation is not assessed until
development is proposed; therefore, existing
property owners would only be affected should they
apply to redevelop their properties, as would any
new proposals to develop vacant land within a
rezoned area.
March 28, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 6
RE: City-Initiated General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Area B-1
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for Area B-1 and look
forward to continuing to work with the City to assure
elementary facilities are available to serve projected
growth.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: George Krempl
John Linn
Jack Matlock
Frank Herrera
EXHIBIT A - Page 1 -
March 27, 1991
SCHOOLS IMPACTED BY CE~'r~AL CHULA VISTA ZONING
CONSISTENCY STUDY
SCHOOL DATA
Current School Capacity: 696 (Clsrms: 2 K, 20 1-6)
Enrollment as of 3/22/90: 734
Projected New Growth: 80 units/24-54 children
Potential Additional Development: Midbayfront, other
redevelopment projects, Central Chula Vista Rezoning
Internal Growth/Neighborhood Change: Significant, to continue
Site Size: 7 acres (gross)
No. Relocatable Classrooms: 6
Comments: Primary grade enrollments significantly larger
than upper grades; as these students move up,
upper grade enrollments will increase, resulting
in larger school populations. Student/teacher
ratios of 31/1, exceed District standard of 29/1.
Currently overflow busing 21 children, large
overflow anticipated Fall, 1991.
Current School Capacity: 621 (Clsrms: 2 K, 17 1-6, 1 SDC,
1 Comp. Lab)
Enrollment as of 3/22/91: 627
Projected New Growth: 47 units/14 children
Potential Additional Development: 150 unit mobilehome park, 78 units
Southpark, potential impacts from Midbayfront, Central
Chula vista rezoning
Internal Growth/Neighborhood Change: Moderate, to continue
Site Size: 7.8 acres (gross)
No. Relocatable Classrooms: 3
Comments: Unable to accept new Magnet students for last two years
due to space. Primary grade enrollments significantly
larger than upper grades; as these students move up,
upper grade enrollments will increase, resulting in
larger school populations. Student/teacher ratios of
31/1; exceed District standard of 29. Currently
overflow busing 25 children, large overflow anticipated
Fall, 1991.
EXHIBIT A: Page 2
Current School Capacity: 565 (Clsrms: 2 K, 13 1-6, 6 SDC, 1 RSP, 1 LAS)
Enrollment as of 3/22/91: 531
Projected New Development: 54 units/16-36 children
Potential Additional Development: Midbayfront, potential
impacts from Central Chula Vista rezoning, possible
conversion of 70+ apartment units (La Fontana) to
Section 8 housing (subsidized)
Internal Growth/Neighborhood Change: Substantial, to continue
Site Size: 10.9 acres (gross)
Mo. Relocatable Classrooms: 2
Comments: Primary enrollments somewhat larger than upper
grades; as these students move up, upper grade
enrollments will increase. If this trend continues,
larger school populations will result. Currently
overflow busing 22 students; large overflow anticipated
Fall, 1991.
CHUI A vISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 ICAST "J" STREET * CIIIJIA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
6oAnDOF~I~H September 27, 1990 EXHIBIT B - Page 1
~EHi D. CU~II;O~.
5Hkn~; O~E5
PA[R~K A
~Y ~H~EI~EnO
~.;~nm;~o tlr. Doing Reid
Environmental RevJe~ Coordinator
SUPEA,nEN~.I City of Cbula Vista
276 Fourth Avemle
~UlF.~Rfl. PhD Cbula Vista, CA 92010
Inlttal Study - General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study
Area B- 1
~ear fqr. Retd:
lha~k yoo for providing further tnformetlo~ on the General Plan/Zo~in~
Consistency as ~ell as additional ttme to augment my ortgtnal connHents.
It ~as the ~lstrtct's ~mderstandtn~ that the City's General Plan Update
~euld be followed by rezonlngs to bring extsttng zoning Into conforma~ce
wtth the revised General Plan land ~lse destflnatlons. 1he Dtstric~
81so advised by City staff and elected officials that the City t~te~ded
to do~nzo~e the Central Chula Vtsta area to lo,er densities, in
conformance ~ttb the Genera1 Plan. The action cLJrrently proposed
the reverse: 8mendtng the General Plan to more closely reflect existing
htgber denstty zontng.
Primary eleme~ts of the ~pdate Include (1) conservation of existing
single family neighborhoods; and (2) density reductions tn some
residential areas. 1he UpdeLe s~ates that t~ Is ~nLJcipa~ed the~ the
Centr~l Clmla Vista area ~111 rem~tn s bstan~lally the same over the
pl~nntng period, adding some ~,8~O residents ~hro~gh tn-[tll ~nd l trailed
redevelopment. 1be DtstrtcL relted o~ tl~e Update ~nd rormt~lated ils
plans ~ccordlngly.
~e c~lc~l~te, based o~ data rrem City sL~rr, tbaL Stndy Area B-I
of approximately 6~ gross ~cres. Ibe curren~ designation of I_o~/HedJ~m~
Density co~ld yteld beL~een ]~7 373 residential u~lts, less
~ndevelopable areas. 1he proposed General Plan hmendmen~/Rezone ~.~onld
redesign~e the area Hedttm~/lltgh ~e~stty RestclenLlel ~htch, ~tLh
proposed 22 m~tts per ~e~ ~cre could produce ~p ~o 1,371 m~tts. 1his
Js stgntftcanOy greater than that previously planned and appears
~o the primary elements of the General Plan Update. ~ltlto~t kn~ng
the n~mber and t~pe oF exisLtng development lo Area B-I, riel impacts
tb schools c~nnot be calculated.
1be Impact tbts proposed amendmen~ ~111 have on ~he District's
to serve elementary cbtldren tn ~l~e area, ~hen Implemented O~rot~gh
development projects, Is severe. ~e have advised ~l~e Ct~y o~
occasions oF overcrowding at schools In the ~es~ern per~tnn of the CILy.
lhts proposed redeslgna~lon and Hpzontng ~elll prodt~ce children ~ho
be accon~odated by existing schools. F~nds for cons~rnctlon of a ne~
school, as are the opttons to obtain an ~pproprt~te sJ~e In Lhis area,
~re extremely ltmtLed.
September 2 1990 ~ IIBIT B - Page
Hr. Doug Reid
Page 2
RE: IS ~ General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Area
As stated in my September 19 letter (copy enclosed), by rezonfng the
area in question, absent a specific development proposal, the City
effectively precludes tile District's ability to request adequate
mitigation for tmpacts on scbools from future development projects.
Developer fees currently allowed onder Stale la~./ fall far short or the
financing necessary for new facilities. In order to prevent Lbis and
assure that scbools are available concurrent with need, as well as meet
the City's Threshold for Schools, we request that, as a condition of
approval for future projects wttbtn Study Area B-I and other areas
proposed for redeslgnatton and upzoning, all projects be required Lo
comply with school district requirements including bdt ~Jot limited to,
formation of or annexation to a Hello-RoDs Community Facilities District
or otber alternative mechanism to provide financing for new facilities.
In conciuslon, the project, as proposed, will bare a significant adverse
Impact on the ability of the District to provide adequate school
facilities for children generated by Implementation of the project,
as well as throughout the District. Hlttgation measures to reduce these
impacts are available but must be implemented through a cooperative
effort between the City and the District, prior to approval of any General
Plan amendment or other decision which could result in increased nnmbers
of children.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Kate Sburson
Director of Plalmin9
KS:dp
cc: George Kremp!
John Ltnn
Toni Silva
BOAnDOFEOUCAlmtt EXHIBIT B - Page 3
SIIARONGILES September 19, 1990
PAT~A.~
SUPEnUlIEH~I
city of chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
IS-91-13, Gelleral Plan/Zoning Collsistency study
~ea B-I
Dear Mr. Reid:
Tha]lk you for tile opportun[ty ~o review alld cemmellt o]1 the
City's proposed rezonJng for Special study Area B-1.
Unfortul]ately, the time permi[[ed for review of
proposal is not sufficient to allow adequate review and
response. We received tile not,ce o1~ September 13, with
September 19 as the deadline for comments. I will attempt
[o briefly summarize tile District's concerns based o11 a
very preliminary review. We w~ll prov[de additional
comments following further analysls.
S[udy Area B-1 i~ located in [he attendance areas of two
schools, Vista Square and Rosebank. Both schools are
operating above capacity, with projections for continued
growth. Both facJlltles are currently under co~sideratJOll
for implementation of year-round multi-track programs
ass[s[ ~n accommodatlllg growth from ~he area.
The current proposal [o rezolle Area B-I from residential
and commercial uses to Residel~tJal Low-Medium, Uedium-Iligh
and [ligh could sJgniflcalltly exacerbate overcrowding at the
[wo schools men,lolled above. There ~s
accommodate additional s[udents. Busing ~ being used to
overflow students to other District facilities.
projec~ area, as well as mos~ District schools, are e~[her
rapidly approaching, or are over capacity.
in order to properly assess potential impacts on District
fac~li[Jes, additional ~nformat~on as to the proposed
reslden~ial category(les) ~s required. Since the data
EXHIBIT B - Page 4
provided does not indicate which of tile three potelltial
residential categories will be implemellted, or tile amount
of area ill each category, tile resultant densities could
range from 3 - 27 unlts per acre.
Further, Exhibit B of tile hearillq iiotice does not clearly
defille tile area proposed for reZOliing. The text describes
Area D-I as cut[e~it]y zoned C-O-P, (~ o and R.-3, but these
areas cannot be defined on the Exhibit. It appears that
commercial areas are proDosed to be rezolled ~o res]delltJal,
which presents slgllificant Jmpacts on schools. Agail1, the
amount of this is undeterminable. If there is existing
restden~ial development in these commercial areas, that
development is likely ~o be nouconforming under tile
existing commercial zoning. If existing zonillg remailled in
place, these uses would eventually be phased out and
replaced by conforming uses.
There Is a more basic issue involved Jn city-initiated
rezoning. Since tile proposed rezonlng does not involve
specific projects, tile District's ability to request
adequate mitigation from future projects in these areas for
~mpacts on schools could be effectively precluded. Once
~he zonlng ts tn place, an~ resultant new projects will be
in compliance; no legislative action will be required of
~he City, and school m~tJgatiou will likely be limited to
developer fees, which fall far short of financing needed
faclll~ies.
The Dlstrict requests that ~he City, Jn lts rezoning
efforts, consJder potential impacts on school enrollments
and assure that the Threshold for Schools be enforced.
Before new development ~s approved, or ally actions which
could result ~!] additional students are taken, assurance
must be provided that adequate school facilities are
available.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kake Shurson
Director of Planning
George Krempl
Johu bim~
Tom silva
· ' EXHIBIT B - Page
EXHIBIT B ='PROPOSED SPECIAL STUDY AREAS _\ ~--~L,
B-1. Location: Area between I'E" Street ~nd "H" Street lying between Second and Third
Avenues~ and an area Jytng on the east side of Fourt~L/~Lenue, between "E" and
Plan Designation: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medtum-Uigh,
ResidenLial IHgh
Priority: 1
B-~. location: An area betwen "C" and Flower Streets and between l-~and ~roadway;
and an area between "C" and "E" Streets and between Broadway and Ii,th Avenue. ~[
Extsttng Zone: C-T-P, R-3, C-T -- C L~h~.~,~ ~
Extsttng General '
Plan'DestgnaUon: Residential Low-Hedtum; Residential Medium; Residential
MediUm High .'
Priority: 4
B-3. Location: Area between "g" and "E" Streets and between Third and Fifth Avenues;~
and an area between Flower and "E" Streets and between Fifth Street and Guava
AvenUe.
Existing Zone: R-3, R-3-D
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medium; Resldenttal
Medium-High
Priority: 5
B-4. Location: Area lying generally between Davtdson and "G" Streets and between I~;~-~f
Broadway and Fourth Avenue. v(~.
Existing Zone: R-3
Extsttng General
Plan Designation: Residential Medium
Priority: 2
B-5. Location: Area lytng generally between "t1" and "I" Streets and Guava and Thtrd
Avenues.
Existing Zone: R-3
Existing General
Plan Designation: RestdenUal Hedtum
Priority: 3
WPC 7424P 7.
Sweetw-er Union High Schoo! )istrict
ADMtNISTRAT~ON GgN'T~R
11~O FIFTH AV~NU~
GHULA VISTA. GALIFORNIA 0~011
{62g) 682-SSS3
April 3, 1991
Mr. Frank Herrera, Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Re: City-Initiated Rezonlng Actlon$
This letter is sent in response to your March 28, lggl correspondence requesting
information regarding the proposed consistency zoning action. Exhibits A-F
accompanying your letter identified the property affected by the city tnltlated
proposed rezone. These properties are located in the Chula Vista High School and
Chula Vista Junior High School attendance areas. The following table illustrates the
current status of those schools:
1990/1991CBEDS Information
Dec 3, 1990
Relo/Trailer Pernament Total CB£DS *Unhoused
School CaDaclty CaDacit_v ~ Enrollment Students
CVJ 360(Ti 1070 1430 1400 -330
CVH 480{R} 1356 1836 lgl9 -563
*Unhoused Students - Permanent capacity less CBEDS enrollment
If the current R-3 zone were to be built to its maximum intensity, that is the
addition of 370 housing units, a total of 107 new students would enter district
classrooms. According to your letter, the proposed rezone would reduce the
anticipated build out to approximately 200 units. With our current yield of 0.29
Students/Household approximately 5B students could be expected.
As you can see from the CBEDS table any increase in the c~urrent student populattoQ at
these schools will cause a significant impact. Although payment fees is required
prior to issuance of construction building permits, they do not fully mitigate school
overcrowding. Infect, less than a third of the cost to provide classroom space is
recovered. Dbviously, the district requests t~e cltys assistance; full cost recovery
is desire~.
Mr. Frank Herrera Page
Whenever legally possible, the district requests that the city condition development
applications such that an amount in excess of $1,B8 per square foot be requrled as
school impact mitigation. California Government Code Section 65996 delineates the
the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the mdequacy
of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions
for the approval of a development project. I ask that one or more of these methods
be employed when it is within the city's and the district's power to do so.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this important matter, please feel
free to call me at 6gl-5553.
Sincerely,
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
cc: Kate Shurson, CVCS
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-C/GPA-91-1 City-initiated proDosal to
amend the General Plan and rezone certain
territory, aenerallv bounded by E Street, H
Street. Second Avenue and Third Avenue, plus
an additional area east of Fourth Avenue
between "E" and Davidson Streets. to resolve
aeneral Dlan/zonin~ inconsistencSes within the
Central Chula Vista community. The precise
territorial limits. Dromosed rezoninqs, and
DroDosed ~eneral plan amendments are depicted
on attached Exhibits A,B,C, and D and Table 1.
A. BACKGROUND
This item involves amending the General Plan and rezoning an area
referred to as the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Special
Study Area B-1 in Central Chula Vista. The study area is generally
bounded by "E" Street on the north, "H" Street on the south, Second
Avenue on the east, and Third Avenue on the west. In addition, the
study area includes a small area located on the east side of Fourth
Avenue between "E" and Davidson Streets.
The study area includes approximately 50 acres and 219 lots and is
divided into three subareas to facilitate analysis. Part I
generally includes the southern area located between "H" and "G"
Streets, Part II includes the central area located between "G" and
"F" Streets, and Part III includes the northern area located
between "F" and "E" Streets as well as the small area adjacent to
Fourth Avenue.
On June 19, 1990 the City Council considered a comprehensive zoning
implementation program and directed the Planning Department to
complete the Special Study Area B-1 of the General Plan/Zoning
Consistency Study for Central Chula Vista, and to delay Special
Study Areas B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 of the project. The purpose of
the Consistency Study is to resolve general plan/zoning
inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista community which
resulted from approval of the Chula Vista General Plan Update on
July 11, 1989.
The area was placed in a special study category because of the
complexity of the land use issues given the existing patterns of
land use, residential density, zoning, and traffic circulation.
It was anticipated that the special study areas may require a
combination of rezonings and plan amendments to promote their
orderly development and conservation.
Staff completed their initial analysis of Special Study Area B-1
in August 1990. Field surveys of the study area were conducted to
inventory the existing land uses. Existing zoning, lot sizes,
City Planning Col. ~ssion
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 2
residential densities, and adjacent land uses were also tabulated
and mapped to assist in the analysis. Based on this research,
staff initially proposed rezoning to R-3, R-2, and R-1. Three
separate community forums were held with the affected property
owners in August and September 1990 to present staff's preliminary
recommendations and to receive input. At the community forums,
many of the property owners expressed a desire to retain some type
of R-3 zoning for their property instead of the R-2 or R-1 zoning
recommended by staff.
Based on input received from the property owners and staff's
initial research, staff then further evaluated other alternative
land use recommendations and their associated impacts. Staff's
alternatives analysis evaluated the development potential in terms
of the number of additional lots permitted and the number of
nonconforming lots resulting from each of the alternatives.
Staff's revised recommendation, which is before the Planning
Commission in this report, was presented at a final community forum
with the property owners on February 7th.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-91-13, of potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed rezonings and General Plan
amendments. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments
thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification
would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-13.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration, find that the proposed
rezonings and General Plan amendments will have no
significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-91-13 for the General
Plan/Zoning Consistency Study.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution to change the General Plan as described on
the attached Exhibits A, B, C, and D and Table I.
3. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt
an ordinance to change the zones as described on the
attached Exhibits A, B, C, and D and Table I.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
Primary area between Second and Third:
City Planning Compression
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 3
North CC,CCP,CO, Commercial, single family
R-i, R-3 and multi family residen-
tial
East R-1 Single family residential
South R-1 Single family residential
West CO, CC, CB, Commercial and
R-3 multifamily residential
Area east of Fourth Avenue:
North CT Commercial
East R-3 Multi-family and single
family residential
South CO Park library, civic
center
West R-1 Single family residential
2. Existinq site characteristics.
The entire study area is zoned R-3 except for the small,
isolated area located adjacent to Fourth Avenue between "E"
and Davidson Streets which is zoned C-0 and C-0-P.
The study area is developed with a diverse mixture of
single family and multi family residences including:
a. single family homes on one lot;
b. duplexes;
c. lots originally developed with single family
units which now include an additional one to
three units through garage conversions, or the
construction of additional detached or attached
units;
d. larger multi-family apartment or condominium
developments.
Because of the diversity of density and product types
occurring throughout the study area, the study area is very
non-homogenous. Although the study area does not consist
of a well-defined single family or multi-family
neighborhood, there are subareas within the study area
which have a somewhat consistent character.
City Planning CoL _ssion
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 4
The isolated portion of the study area located adjacent
to Fourth Avenue between "E" and Davidson Streets
includes 8 parcels developed with duplexes, multi family
residences, the Chamber of Commerce, and medical and law
offices. This area is zoned C-O and C-O-P, and is
designated as High Density Residential (18 to 27 du/ac)
on the General Plan.
3. General Plan.
The majority of the study area is designated as Low-
Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 du/ac) except for the
southern portion which is designated as Medium-High
Density Residential (6 to 11 du/ac), a small area located
east of Church Avenue between "G" Street and Alvarado
Street which is also designated as High Density
Residential, and the area adjacent to Fourth Avenue which
is designated as High Density Residential (18-27 du/ac).
D. ANALYS~S
The analysis provided below is divided into subareas based on the
different zoning and General Plan amendment recommendations
proposed by staff. The specific location of each subarea is
illustrated in Exhibits A, B, C, and D and the existing and
proposed General Plan designations and zoning for all of the
subareas is summarized in Table I.
1. Part 1 - Subarea iA. (E~hibit A )
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3-P-22
This subarea includes 17 lots of which 7 include single family
residences, 1 lot includes 2 separate single family
residences, and 9 include multi-family residences. The lots
north of "G" Street are 6,135 square feet while the lots south
of G Street range between 10,000 and 16,000 square feet in
size with one 1.17 acre lot. Densities on existing multi-
family lots range from 13 to 43 du/ac with an average density
of 26 du/ac.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are 5 nonconforming lots
and an additional 38 units could be developed within this
subarea. Under the proposed R-3-P-22 zoning, there would be
5 nonconforming lots (no change) and an additional 26 units
could be developed.
The zone reclassification from R-3 to R-3-P22 (22 du/ac) would
allow for multifamily development but at a density which is
City Planning Com-~_ssion -
Agenda Item for [ ~ting of March 13, 1991 Page 5
lower than what is allowed under the current R-3 zoning. The
R-3-P22 density is considered to be compatible with overall
character of the area which includes both single family and
multi family residences and provides for design review in
accordance with the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District
guidelines. Under the R-3-P22 zone, development of three
units would be allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot, subject to
off-street parking requirements, setbacks, and Design Review
Committee approval.
The proposed R-3-P22 zone and Medium-High Density Residential
General Plan designation provide a good transition within the
study area between the single family residential area located
east of Second Avenue and the downtown redevelopment area
located to the west.
2. Part 1 - Subarea lB. (Exhibit A)
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3-P-14
This subarea includes 19 lots of which 6 include single family
residences, 4 are lots with two single family residences, one
is a duplex, and 8 include multi-family residences. Most lots
are 7,000 square feet while 5 lots range in size from 7,700
to 9800 square feet. The average density on existing multi-
family lots is 22 du/ac.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there is 1 nonconforming lot
and an additional 30 units could be developed within this
subarea. Under the proposed R-3-P-14 zoning, there would be
8 nonconforming lots and an additional 6 units could be
developed.
There are several factors which support the proposed rezoning
to R-3-P-14:
a. It allows for additional development at a density that
is compatible with the existing character of the area
which includes a mixture of approximately half single
family lots with one or two units per lots and half multi
family lots.
b. It provides a transition between the high density
residential development located to the north and south,
commercial development to the west, proposed R-1 zoning
to the east, and existing single family development
immediately east of the study area.
c. It provides more flexibility in parking and building
requirements, and is better suited for lots already
developed with one dwelling unit than the R-2 zone.
City Planning Col .ssion
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 6
3. Part % - Subarea 2. (Exhibit A)
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3
This subarea includes 6 lots all of which are developed with
multi-family residences. Four lots are 7,000 square feet in
size with the remaining 2 lots being approximately 30,000 and
60,000 square feet. Densities range from 25 to 74 du/ac with
the average density being 38 du/ac. This subarea is located
adjacent to the commercial development along Third Avenue.
All of the lots are nonconforming under the existing R-3
zoning since the existing densities exceed the density allowed
by the R-3 zone. Consequently, staff is recommending
retaining the existing R-3 zoning in this subarea and amending
the General Plan from low-medium to high density residential
to be consistent with the existing zoning and development in
the subarea.
4. Part 1 - Subarea 3. (Exhibit A)
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-1
This subarea includes 24 lots, of which 19 are developed with
single family residences, 2 are developed with 2 single family
residences on one lot, 1 is developed with a multi-family
residence, 1 is vacant, and 1 is a church parking lot.
Seventeen lots are between 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in
size. Six lots are between 7,700 and 12,600 square feet in
size, and the church parking lot is 51,150 square feet in
size. The average density is 6 du/ac except for 3 lots with
densities of 11 to 18 du/ac. This subarea is located adjacent
to the existing single family neighborhood extending easterly
from Second Avenue.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are no nonconforming lots
and an additional 52 units could be developed within this
subarea. Under the proposed R-1 zoning, there would be 5
nonconforming lots and only one additional unit could be
developed. No residential development of the church parking
lot is assumed.
Staff is recommending rezoning this area to R-1 to retain the
existing single family development character of this subarea.
In addition, there is a lack of sufficient on street parking
to support development of an additional 52 units within this
subarea. This is the only subarea within the entire study
City Planning Co· .ssion
Agenda Item for h~eting of March 13, 1991 Page 7
area which is single family in character and where staff is
recommending retaining the existing low-medium density
residential General Plan designation.
5. Part 1 - Subarea 4. (Exhibit A)
Existing General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Proposed General Plan: High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3
This subarea includes 18 residential lots all of which are
developed with multi-family residences except for 1 lot which
is developed with a single family residence. In addition, the
northwestern portion of the subarea is developed with the St.
Rose of Lima church, school, and convent. Lot sizes range from
11,000 to 66,200 square feet. The predominant lot size for
the area south of H Street is 21,759 square feet. Most of
the lots located north of H Street are between 21,800 and
31,500 in size. Densities range from 9 to 64 du/ac with the
average density being 28 du/ac. This subarea is
characterized by high density apartment buildings located
along H Street.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are 5 nonconforming lots
and an additional 68 dwelling units could be developed.
Because this area is characterized by high density residential
development, staff is recommending retaining the existing R-
3 zoning in this subarea and amending the General Plan from
low-medium to high density residential. Development of
additional units in conformance with the R-3 zone would be
consistent with the existing high density character of the
area.
6. Part 2. (Exhibit B)
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3-P-14
This subarea includes 59 lots of which 35 include single
family residences, 2 are lots with two single family
residences, 5 are duplexes, and 17 include multi-family
residences. Most of the lots (34 lots) are between 6,100 and
6,750 square feet in size, with 13 lots being less than 6,000
in size and 12 lots being greater than 6,750 square feet in
size. Approximately two-thirds of the lots are developed with
single family residences and duplexes with the remaining one-
third developed with multi family residences. The average
density for this subarea is 11 du/ac.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are 8 nonconforming lots
City Planning CoT ssion
Agenda Item for 5~eting of March 13, 1991 Page 8
and an additional 76 units could be developed within this
subarea. Under the proposed R-3-P-14 zoning, there would be
17 nonconforming lots and an additional 28 units could be
developed. For the R-3-P-14 zone, it was assumed that a
minimum lot size of 6,222 square feet is required to qualify
for development of two dwelling units on a lot. Consequently,
lot consolidation would be required to achieve a density
increase on lots consisting of less than 6,222 square feet.
The R-3-P-14 zoning allows for additional development at a
density that is compatible with the existing character of the
area which is predominantly single family and duplex units.
In addition, the R-3-P-14 zone provides more flexibility in
parking and building requirements, and is better suited for
lots already developed with one dwelling unit than the R-2
zone.
1. Part 3 - Subarea 1. (Exhibit C)
Existing General Plan: Low-Medium Residential
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Residential
Existing Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3-P-22
This subarea includes 68 lots of which 26 include single
family residences, 5 are lots with two single family
residences, 6 are duplexes, 30 include multi-family
residences, and one is a parking lot. Most of the lots (40
lots) are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet in size, with
18 lots being less than 6,000 in size and 10 lots being
greater than 7,000 square feet in size. Approximately half
of the lots are developed with single family residences and
duplexes, and half are developed with multi family residences.
Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are 10 nonconforming lots
and an additional 106 units could be developed within this
subarea. Under the proposed R-3-P-22 zoning, there would be
13 nonconforming lots and an additional 74 units could be
developed.
The zone reclassification from R-3 to R-3-P22 (22 du/ac) would
allow for multifamily development but at a density which is
lower than what is allowed under the current zoning. The R-
3-P22 density is considered to be compatible with diverse
character of the area which includes approximately half single
family and duplex units, and half multifamily residences and
provides for design review in accordance with the #P" Precise
Plan Modifying District guidelines. Under the R-3-P22 zone,
development of three units is allowed on a 6,000 to 7,000
square foot lot which is the predominant lot size in this
subarea (subject to off-street parking, setback and Design
Review Committee approval).
City Planning Co~"ssion ~
Agenda Item for M~ting of March 13, 1991 Page 9
8. Part 3 - Subarea 2. fExhibit C)
Existing General Plan: High Residential
Proposed General ~Professional & Administrative
Commercial
Existing Zoning: C-O & C-O-P
Proposed Zoning: C-O-P
This subarea includes 8 lots of which 2 lots are developed
with offices and parking, 4 lots are developed with duplexes
at a density of 13 du/ac, and 2 lots are developed with multi-
family residences at an average density of 26 du/ac. The
average lot size is 9,000 square feet.
The proposed recommendation would retain the existing C-O
commercial zoning of this area but would add the "P" Precise
Plan Modifying District to provide development guidelines to
ensure high quality design that will be compatible with
residences to the east and west. The commercial designation
for this area is more appropriate than existing High Density
Residential General Plan designation given that this area
provides a continuous commercial corridor along "E" Street to
north and to the south along Fourth Avenue, a high traffic
volumes along Fourth Avenue, and a portion of the area is
currently developed with commercial office uses.
PARK WAY
SUBAREA lA
..... yANCE
=~3OSEVELT ST '"
~ /, SUBAREA lB
...... ALVARA~ ST
SUBAREA 4
S~STA S~
GEHERAL PLAN/ZON,NG COHS'STENCY ~
STUDY- SPEC'AL STUDY AREA B1'~ EXHIB'T
PART T sc~ ~'= ~'
LEITIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
CENTER STREET '~ -
CYPIRESS STREE'I
~ ~ · LLI
,, MADRONA STREET
G STREET
N
STUDY - SPECTAL STUDY AREA B1 EXH BTT
PART II ~ TM ~'
LETTIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
~LANSELY WAY
....... ~UBAREA 1
~ ~ DAVIDSON STREET
.....
L ..... MONTEB~ ' O
N
STUDY - SPECZAL STUDY AREA B1 EXH BI'T
PART TTT - SUBAREA I sc~.~ r= ~'
LETrIERI-McI~E AND ASSOCIATES
~
*.* SUBAREA 2
DAVDSON STREET ,,,
GEHERAL PLAN/ZONING COHSISTEHCY ~
STUDY- SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1~ EXHDIBIT
PART ITI- SUBAREA 2 s~ ~*-- ~,
LETFIERI-McI~E AND ASSOCIATES
i '~ ' RC , ' L/M DP, Low/Medium Density
____~ i L R,.,ia,.,~tiaJ (3-6 du/ac)
:E:' ~;TI~e. ET M DR Medium Denmy Residential
M/H (6-11 du/ac)
DR
Mc~um/Higb DCQS~L~
i Rc~*mmJ (11-18 du/ac)
-,~ - H DR High Dcn.~y Rcaide~tial
(18-27 du/a¢)
RC Retail Commercial
· PQP Public a~d Ot~i Public
Commercial
F:IC --
PRK · .PART Il'
J
PQP
-____ .,- PART I ~-~__
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY N
EXHIBIT
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1 ~
E
SURROUNDZNG GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS SC.~E: ]*: r, oo,
LETTIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
"'~ & "-'~t ~- ..... R-1 IIi n~ F~.~) R
.C CCP ~ 2P
__ _- _%' _-L¥] ¥'-- F----~ .........
- - - c'oP PART III -j
CO :COP~
;o co J PART I ~
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY N
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1 ~
EXHIBIT
F
SURROUNDING ZONING sc.~E: r: ~'
LETrIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE !
EXZST~N~ ~D PROPOSED ~ENEI~.L PLaN DES~N~T~ON~ ~ ~ON~N~
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
General Plan General Plan Zoninq Zoning
Part 1:
Area lA Low-Medium Medium-High R-3 R-3-P-22
Area lB Low-Medium Medium-High R-3 R-3-P-14
Area 2 Low-Medium High R-3 R-3
Area 3 Low-Medium Low-Medium R-3 R-1
Area 4 Medium-High High R-3 R-3
Part 2: Low-Medium Medium High R-3 R-3-P-14
Part 3:
Area 1 Low-Medium Medium High R-3 R-3-P-22
Area 2 High Professional C-O & C-O-P
& Admin C-O-P
Commercial
Low-Medium Density Residential = 3-6 d.u. per gross acre
Medium-High Density Residential = 11-18 d.u. per gross acre
High Density Residential = 18-27 d.u. per gross acre
EXISTING AND PROPOSED TABLE
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS & ZONING 1
LETFIERI-McINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
negative aeclaration
PROJECT NAME: General Plan and Zoning Consistency Study
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project Area falls between 'E" Street and "H" Street;
2nd and 3rd Avenues; and an area falls east of 4th Avenue between E and
Davidson Streets.
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: 91-13 DATE: 10-26-90
A. Pro~iect Setting
On July 11, 198g, the City of Chula Vista City Council adopted the Chula
Vista General Plan Update which reflects various land use category changes
within the city. Some of the changes in the area west of Interstate 805,
particularly those within the Central Chula Vista Community, were found to
be in conflict with existing zoning and land use patterns in the area.
The areas of incongruity between the Gene6al Plan land use designations
and the existing zoning, denoted "study as Area B-l" in this study, are
between "E" Street and "H" Street, 2nd and 3rd Avenues; and an area east
of 4th Avenue between "E" and Davidson Streets. The total project area
includes a total of 62 gross acres.
The area proposed for rezoning is general in- scope and has no site
specific description.
B. Pro.iect Description
The Planning Department recommended that certain proposed rezonings
General Plan Amendments, and combinations of both be undertaken for the
achievement of zoning/General Plan consistency.
The majority of the B-] Study Area is designated "Low/Medium Density
Residential" (3 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre) on the General Plan
and is classified as the "R-3, Apartment Residential Zone," which permits
a maximum of 32 dwelling units per net acre. The Consistency Action Plan
proposes that the General Plan of the subject area be amended, and that
the subject area land be redesignated from Low/Medium Density Residential
to Medium/High Density Residential (11 to 18 dwelling units per gross
acre). It also recommends that these lands be rezoned from "R-3" to
'R-3-P22," which would permit a maximum of 22 dwelling units per net acre,
or 18 dwelling units per gross acre.
C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans
The existing zones of the subject area are primarily R-3, C-O-P, and C-O.
The existing General Plan Designations are Residential Low/Medium;
Residential Medium/High, and Residential High. The existing zoning is
currently inconsistent with General Plan designations. Consiste~.r~{~
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section.CHULA VISTA
-2-
between the zone and General Plan will be achieved through conformance
with the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan: B-1 Study Area.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of
the cases and within ~ minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The Fire
Department indicated that the nearest fire station is easily reached
in the required timeframe. Therefore, the project is in compliance
with this policy.
2. police
The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to Priority 1 calls within 7 minuted or less and maintain an
average response time to all Priority calls of 4.5 minutes or less.
Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of
7 minutes or less. The Police Department is currently maintaining an
acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts.
3. Traffic
The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at
signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to
operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection should reach
LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
The proposed General Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan will have
minimal, if any, traffic impacts, as the proposed action will, in
effect, decrease overall density. As such, the project is not
anticipated to have any adverse traffic impacts and is considered to
be in conformance with this threshold/standards policy.
4. Park/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 3 acres of park and
recreation land for every 1,000 people. However, the Policy applies
only to residential projects. Thus, it is not relevant to the
proposed Zoning/General Plan Consistency Study.
-3-
5. Drainaqe
The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and
volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards. However, the site
area has already been developed in accordance with City Standards,
thus drainage is not a relevant issue with regard to this project and
the project is deemed to be in compliance with this
threshold/standards policy.
6. Sewer
The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and
volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.
As this project is intended only to rectify inconsistencies between
zoning and General Plan designations in an already developed area, as
such then, this standard is not applicable in that the site has
already been developed in accordance with policy standards.
7. Water
The Thresholds/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 have not impact on water availability or-quality.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
There are no anticipated significant environmental impacts as a result of
this project.
F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effect~
Based upon an initial study conducted for the proposed project, there are
no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the
Zoning/General Plan Consistency Study, therefore, no project mitigation is
deemed necessary.
G. Findinos of )nsiqnificant 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.
I. The project does not have 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
co~eunity, 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.
-4-
The project does not have the potential to (al substantially degrade
the quality of the environment; (b) substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species; (c) cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (d) threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community; (el endangered plant or
animal; or (f} eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. The proposed project involves
bringing land use designations into conformance and does not involve
a specific development project.
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals since these long-term goals will be achieved through the
provision of consistency between zoning and general plan designations.
3. The project does not have possible effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable.
4. The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, since
no public health impacts were identified in the initial study
conducted for this project.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula Vista: Carol Gove, Fire Department
Ken Larsen, Building and Housing
Roger Doust, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
Tom Silva, Sweetwater Union H.S. District
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Kate Shurson, Chula Vista City School District
Maryann C. Miller, Planner
Ed Batchelder, Assistant Planner
Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Title lg (Zoning), Chula Vista Municioal Code
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista Policy: Threshold/Standards and Growth
Management Oversight Committee, as amended November 30, 1989
General Plan EIR, City of Chula Vista.
-5-
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
WPC 8463P
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY.STUDY
SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B1
CC
VISTA
LIbRaRY
P,i, RK WAY
:.
81.
I I
CO~
"H' 8T.
,, CC
"*' - ' *'*' ...... EXHIBIT
CiTY OF CHULA VISTA - PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-90 L. FRY ~
FOR OFF~CE USE
- ! Case No. /~_~_,,<.~
INITIAL STUDY Rece~~
mDate Rec'd~.m~.~
City of Chula ~sta !Accepted b~
AppliCation FOrm ! Project No.~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Area ~~1
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Area between E Street and
H Street between 2nq ~ 3rq Avenues; and an area on she easL ~ide of 4th
Avenue between E ana uaviason Streets
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. As per attached Exhibit A
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION There will be General Plan Amendments and
,razonings,on the properties listed above in order to achieve General Plan/
Zoning C6~sistency. The proposed actions are shown on the attached maps.
4. Name of Applicant The City of Chula Vista
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
$. Name of Preparer/Agent Robin L. Keightley, Frank J. Herrera-A
Address The City of Chula Vista Planninq Dept Phone 691-5012
City Chula Vista State CA ~ Zip 920)0
Relation to Applicant Employees of the Ci[¥ of Chula Vista Planninq Dept.
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
X General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
~Rezoning/Prezoning ' Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance ' Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans . Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & . Biological Study
. Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan _ Improvement Plans --
Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or]__Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
E)~ ~ (Rev. 12/82)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
· Meettng Date. ,6/19/90
ITEl4 TITLE: General. Plan/Zoning Consistency Study & Action Plan for
Central Chula Vista
REVIEi~ED BY: ctt~ Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On ~uly 11, 1989, the Ctty Counctl adopted the Chula Vtste Generel Plan Update
which reflects various land use category changes within the City. Some of the
changes in the area west of Interstate 805, particularly those within the
Central Chula Vista Community were found 'to be tn conflict with the exlstfng
zoning and.land useipatterns of the area.
The areas of ~ncongruity between the General Plan's land use designations and
the existing zoning were depicted on a map and submitted to the City Council
in November 1989. The staff report outlined an overall approach deslgned to
resolve those general plan/zoning inconsistency issues identified in the
incongruity study. The Council directed the staff to return wtth a more
~p~ctftc program of resolution and the Planning Department recently completed
s task, which is the subject of this report.
:
RECOI~4~NDATION:
1. To approve the Consistency Action Plan recommended by the Planning
Oepartment tn order to better implement the General Plan.
2. Request that staff return to Council with a draft contract for the
employment of a planning consultant to aid the Advanced Planning Division
in the conducting of studies, rezontngs and General Plan Amendments,
called for under the Action Plan for Central Chula Vista.
BOARDS/COI~4ISS~ONS RECOPt4ENOATION: Not applicable.
HISTORY:
Shortly after the General Plan update was adopted and the conflicts became
apparent, the City Council adopted Ordinance #2327 amending Sections 19.06.030
and 19.07.030 which restricts processing of projects on properties where the
zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. The Ordinance also allows
certain projects, which have progressed through the approval process to
proceed, based on specific criteria.
Page 2, ]rem
Meeting Dat[-b'Trg7~
Several inquiries regarding the status of a project or property were received
and it was found that most of the projects did not meet the specific criteria
established by Ordinance #2327, but had made some progress through the
Preliminary Design Review stage. The City Council, in February 1990, adopted
Ordinance f235g, and thereby permitting these 'pipeline" projects to proceed.
(see Appendix I). -*-
Xn addition to the' above mentioned projects which were allowed to proceed,
there have been other inquiries, two written and several by telephone, which
requested permission to proceed. The sites which are the subject of these
inquiries are listed in Appendix II, which identifies the existing
Zoning/General Plan Oestgnation and the Special Study Area in which the
property is located.
The magnitude of ~he changes brought about by the General Plan Update, in
addition to the said inquiries, prompted the City Council to direct the
Planning Oepartment to undertake a comprehensive General Plan/Zoning
Consistency Study and Plan within the Central Chula Vista Community.
As staff prepare~ this report, it determined that some of the most obvious
general plan/zon;ng inconsistencies were the result of inaccurate graphics
work on the plan diagram of the General Plan. These inaccuracies, which were
due to the enormity of the task of depicting ~ complex pattern of land use
categories over a 70-square mile planning area onto ~ relatively small sheet
of paper, have now been corrected, and, to a substantial extent, are
Identified in Appendix III.
DISCUSSION:
Notwithstanding the graphic corrections discussed in the above paragraph,
there remain several areas within the Central Chula Vista Community which have
General Plan/Zoning inconsistency. These inconsistencies are evaluated in the
following discussion.
The current study identifies several areas of inconsistency and separates them
into two categories. It is recommended that the areas in the first category
be rezoned to achieve General Plan/Zoning Consistency. Other areas, at this
time, are recommended for placement in a Special Study Category which will
receive further scrutiny.
The proposed action-plan categories and their objectives are explained in the
attached Exhibits A and B; included Is a locator map or maps for both
categories.
The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the proposed
categories that are detailed in the attached Exhibits A and B.
Page 3, Xtem
14eettng Da te.-6-/T~
~REAS PROPOSED FOR REZONING
Eight areas are proposed for .rezoning action to implement the General Plan and
achieve General Plan/Zoning Consistency, as shown on Exhibit A. Staff
recommends that .the City rapidly embark on a program to rezone these areas in
order to methodically implement the General Plan.
~ROPOSED SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
Five areas are proposed for Special Study for the purposes of further review
and possible General Plan Amendments and/or zoning changes, as shown on
Exhibit B. These areas are placed in this category due to the fact that the
land use issues are not as readily apparent as those within other areas for
which steff'has recommended ecise plan of action. These areas, because of
a
their existing patterns of laP'use, residential density, zoning, and traffic
circulation, may' require a combination of rezonings and plan amendments to
pro, ore their orderly development and conservation.
The staff recommends keeping the individual Special Study Areas to a
manageable size by dividing the areas by major streets or separate land use
issues. These divisional boundaries are based on neighborhood characteristics
such as existing zoning, density, and land use patterns as well as a
commonality of issues. These areas are prioritized, as shown on Exhibit B, in
accordance with the concentration of citizen Concern, immediacy of
development, and the significance of the land use pattern as compared to the
existing zoning and General Plan designations.
These Special Study Areas will be reviewed in the priority order listed in
Exhibit B. There will be a separate review process for each area, which will
include further study by staff to determine the preliminary zoning or General
Plan changes needed to achieve consistency. The proposed Special Studies will
include the addressment of the issues and impacts of involved rezontngs and
plan amendments upon utilities, resources, schools, traffic, etc.
After this determination, staff will schedule a forum for the purpose of
informing the public as well as procuring public input in respect to the
specific area in question. Staff will then consider the public input and make
their final recommendations to the Planning Commission at a public hearing,
after which the City Council will hear the matter for a final determination.
Utilizing this process for the Special Study Areas would likely encompass a
timeframe of 12 months.
This Consistency Action Plan process calls for the devotion of a great deal of
time for the encouragement of public comment and will enable the City to fully
demonstrate the appropriate care and concern for the neighborhoods involved.
This same format has been recently used for a similar program within the
Montgomery Specific Plan Area and has proven to be successful with both the
City and the con~nunity.
Page 4, Item
14eettng Date-6'/Tg'/~
. TIMEFRAME AND COST ESTIMATES:
The project would be subdivided ~nto stx basic tasks, whtch would consist of
one comprehensive, omnibus rezon~ng effort, and five Special Studies. Each of
these tasks would entat] approximately 350 hours of private professional and
technical consultant wo~k~*- ~n addition to ~n-house staff assistance and
guidance. Based on these estimates, ~t ~s expected that the cost of private
consulting services would be ~n the range of $80,000 to $]00,000. Th~s t~me
estimate*ts based upon the Advanced Planning D~v~s~on's recent experfence ~n
the comprehensive rezon~ng of several neighborhoods wtth~n the Montgomery
Community.
The tnvo]ved process should familiarize the staff w~th the concerns of the
coa~untty and substantially Increase the pub]tc awareness and acceptance of
C~ty planning. Although this procedure ~s both costly and t~me consuming, the
Genera] Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan ts, to an appreciable extent, a
'Centre] Chu]a Vista Spectflc Plan.#
An optton to the above proposal would be the de]ay of the project, pending the
comp]etlon of the Montgomery Comprehensive Rezon~ng Program. Th~s optton
could enable the Planning Department to assign additional staff to the said
project, and thereby achieve some cost sav~ngs.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed project would cost- between $80,000 and
$]00,000, for consulting services. The draft contract for these services,
which wt]] embody a detailed out]the of required performance, w~] be brought
back to Council.
t~PC 7459P
.EI(HZBIT B~'?ROPOSED SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
B-1. Location: Area between 'E" Street ~nd 'H" Street lying between Second and Third
Ayenues, and an area lying on the east side of Fourth Avenue, between 'E" and
Davidson Streets..
Existing Zone: R-3, C-O-P, C-O
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medium-High,
Residential High
Priority:- 1
Location: An area betwen "C" and Flower Streets and between I-5 and Broadway;
and an area between "C" and "E# Streets and between Broadway and Fifth Avenue.
Existing Zone: C-T-P, R-3, C-T
Existing General
Plan 'Oestgnatton: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medium; Residential
Medium High :'
Priority: 4
B-3. Location: Area between 'C" and 'E" Streets and between Third and Fifth Avenues;
and an area between Flower and 'E" Streets and between Fifth Street and Guava
Avenue.
Existing Zone: R-3, R-3-D
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medium; Residential
Medium-High
Priority: 5
B-4. Location: Area lying generally between Davidson and 'G" Streets and between
Broadway and Fourth Avenue.
Existing Zone: R-3
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Medium
Priority: 2.
B-5. Location: Area lying generally between 'H" and "I" Streets and Guava and Third
Avenues.
Existing Zone: R-3
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Medium
Priority: 3
WPC 7424P 7.
GENERAL PLA~I/ZONING CONSISI'ENCY STUDY
SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B 1
CC
~F'
L
8T.
I
8T.
..... EXHIBIT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-S0 L. FRY
E. CERTIFICATION
01,/ner/o~ner ~n escrow*
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFZRH, that to the best of my beltef, the statements and Information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
Information concerning the project and 1ts setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an [nittal Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. t~, ~l-I~j
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zonin9 on site: HOT ~jTC ~?£~(~
North ' '
South
East
West
Does the project confo~ to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use Je,;~ ~ ~:o~,
uesignation on site: m
North ' " '
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~0
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pr--6~ect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ~.~
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parklandacenecessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
-9-
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
l/~chool~x~Attendance~ Capacity From Project
Elementary ~~ '
4. Aesthetics II
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? {If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
G. ENGINEERING D£PARTlVENT
1. Drafnage
a. Is the project stte withtn a flood plain? ~o
b. ~tl1 the project be subject ~ a~ extst~ng floodtng hazards? ~o
c, ~i1~ ~e pro~ect c~eate an~ flooding hazards? ~o
d.~at ts ~e ~ocatton and description of extsttng on-stte
drainage facilities? ./~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~/~
f. Mat ts the locatton and description of extsttng off-stte
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? d/~
2. Transportation ,j/K
a. Mat roads provide prfmary access to the project?
b. ~hat is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. ~hat fs the ADT and estlmated level of servtce before and after · project completion?
Before After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. ~tll ft be necessary that additional dedication, wtden~ng and/or
improvement be made to existtng streets?
Zf so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- 11 -
Case No.
3. Geology ~/~
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
pro~ect?
4. Soils - * -
a. Are there any anticipated adverse sot1 conditions On the project
site?
b. Zf yes, what are these adverse sot1-conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~
5. Land Fo~m ~/^
a. ~hat is the average natural slope of the site?
b. ~at ts the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. No~se ~/~
Are.there any trafffc-related notse levels Impacting the site that
are significant enough to Justify that a noise analysts be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air.Quality ~/~
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
_ ._.. . _ Total Vehicle
Trip~ ' Emission - 'Grams of
(per day) Factor .... ~ollution
CO X 118.3
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 -~ "
NOx (NO2) X 20.0
Particulates X 1.5
Sulfur X .78
8. Waste Generation ~/~
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day? -'
Solid Liquid
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.).
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTHENT
1. What is the.distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?~
3. Remarks
Fire Marshal Date
-13(a)-
Case
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project'?
Neighborhood ,I.
Community parks ~Jf/1
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood .,l~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
, -, . .I -/0.
I~ I I I
[':.'... ~ ~ ·
j -';- ;= ~ ~ ·
B .= =~ ~ ~; : ~ oo ~ 3~ - ~.
o · ~ c
~ ~ ~ )
CHLn.A ' - ; .rA CITY SCHOOL -)i TRICT
84 EAST "~' STREET * CHULAVIST& CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD ~ EI~T~0~
,,II~E~ D. OU~e//~G,S, ~D.
~^~=~ES September 19, 1990
PATRCK & ~
.JUDY SCH~E~BE~
FRAHK ~ TARANT~O
Mr. Doug Reid ~
~n~.~.0. Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Axea B-1
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
City's proposed rezoning for Special Study Area B-1.
Unfortunately, the time permitted for review of this
proposal is not sufficient to allow adequate review and
response. We received the notice on September 13, with
September 19 as the deadline for comment~. I will attempt
to briefly s,,mmarize the District's concerns based on a
very preliminary review. We will provide additional
comments following further analysis.
Study Area B-1 is located in the attendance areas of two
schools, Vista Square and Rosebank. Both schools are
operating above capacity, with projections for continued
growth. Both facilities are currently under consideration
for implementation of year-round multi-track programs to
assis~ in accommodating growth from the area.
The current proposal to rezone Area B-1 from residential
and commercial uses to Residential Low-Medium, Medium-High
and High could significantly exacerbate overcrowding at the
two schools mentioned above. There is no capacity to
accommodate additional students. Busing is being used to
overflow students to other District facilities. In
addition, all schools in the immediate vicinity of the
project area, as well as most District schools, are either
rapidly approaching, or are over capacity.
In order to properly assess potential impacts on District
facilities, .additional information as to the proposed
residential category(les) is required. Since the data
provided does not indicate which of the three potential
residential categories will be implemented, or the amount
of area in each category, the resultant densities could
range from 3 - 27 units per acre.
Further, Exhibit B of the hearing notice does not clearly
define the area proposed for rezoning. The text describes
Area B-1 as currently zoned C-O-P, C-O end R-3, but these
areas cannot be defined on the Exhibit. It appears that
commercial areas are proposed to be rezoned to residential,
which presents significant impacts on schools. Again, the
amount of this is undeterminable. If there is existing
residential development in these commercial areas, that
development is likely to be nonconforming under the
existing commercial zoning. If existing zoning remained in
place, these uses would eventually be phased out and
replaced by conforming uses.
There is a more basic issue involved in City-initiated
rezoning. Since the proposed rezoning does not involve
specific projects, the District's ability to request
adequate mitigation from future projects'in these areas for
impacts on schools could be effectively precluded. Once
the zoning is in place, any resultant new projects will be
in compliance; no legislative action will be required of
the City, and school mitigation will likely be limited to
developer fees, which fall far short of financing needed
facilities.
The District requests that the City, in its rezoning
efforts, consider potential impacts on school enrollments
and assure that the Threshold for Schools be enforced.
Before new development is approved, or any actions which
could result in additional students are taken, assurance
must be provided that adequate echool facilities are
available.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
cc: George Krempl
John Linn
Tom Silva
Swcctwater Union High Sohool District
September 28, lg90
Mr. Douglas D. Reid'
Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca g2011
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: 6eneral Plan/Zoning Consistency Study - Special Study Area Mo. B1
The District is in support of the City's efforts to provide consistency between
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As I understand the proposed rezone,
the properties between "E" and "H" Streets and lying between Second and
Third Avenues are to be changed from high density residential and commercial
office zones to low-medium, medium, and medium-high residential zones. Not
fully knowing the existing land use pattern of the properties involved in this
action, it is difficult to assess the actual impact to the school district. The
schools servicing this section of the community (Chula'Vista Junior and Chula
Vista High Schools} already exceed 130% their permanent capacity. Relocatable
classrooms are used to maintain an acceptable level of service; however, this
seriously impacts the support facilities on the sites.
As you know, any land use action which requires legislative action by the
city council has made it possible for the district to request reasonable
mitigation measures on new development applications. The proposed rezone
would definitely reduce the need for legislative decision making, thereby
limiting compensation to the district to only those parameters set forth in
Government Code Section 65995. I am requesting that, should this rezone be
approved, future development be reviewed for its compliance with the City's
Growth Management Thresholds Statement of Concerns proposed for schools and
that full mitigation measures be applied where legally practical.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue. Should you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at 691-5553.
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista , Ca. 92~12
Subject: General Plan , Zoning Consist·ncy Action Plan: B-1 Special
Study Area. Case No. IS-91-13.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your notice of initial study dated Sept. 20, 1990,
~ as owner and resident of 433 Del Mar Court for many yearsj my wife
and myself ·trended · meeting of the Planning Department, held on Aug.
30 in the Public Library concerning this study. At that time it was
explained that our Del Mar Court Cul-De-Sac area was being considered
for rezoning from R-3 to R-1.
! expressed my approval o$ the change to R1 zoning at that time
and do again now because we preseffly have three multi-dwelling apartment
complexes facing on our short Del Mar Court. The added packing, motor
veichle traffic and other problems caused by the addition^the latest
multi-dwelling unit on Del Mar Court, about five years ago, has caused us
to favor the rezoning from R3 to R1.
! do not understand why the Planning Department now seems to
have changed its mind about the Del Mar Court area by most recently pro-
posing a change from R-3 to R-3-P22. ! feel the congestion i~ our small
neighborhood is growing and the change to R-1 will be more b6~ficial to
our quality of life here than the change to R-3~22.
Yours truly,
Robert C. Moore
Date~ October 1, 1990
~ ~939 Buena Vista Way
Chula Vista, CA. 92010
Phone 619-421-3448
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista, California
Dear Sirs
Reference is made to the Revised Initial Study 91-13 of the
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan= B-1 Special Study
Area.
The streets involved in this area were laid out many years
ago when the population of Chula Vista was a mere fraction of
the present population.
At this present date when cars are parked on both sides of
Del Mar, Madrona and Cypress, (specifically because these happen
to be the streets surrounding my property at 364 Del Mar Avenue)
it is nearly impossible for vehicles moving in opposite direc-
tions to pass one another.
There are three churches abutting CenteI Street and facing
F. Streets, Del Mar mm4 (~nrch. There is also an extremely
active Jewish Synagogue at Madrona and Second, plus a very busy
church seven days a week, on the west side of Second Avenue
between G street and Alvarado. Cars are literally lined up
bumper to bumper in this entire area not only Saturdays but also
every Sundays. Increased traffic and parking would be prohibi-
tive.
Madrona is so jammed with parked cars on weekends and evenings,
that moving cars literally line up to be able to pass through the
cars parked solidly on each side.
Increased density in this already high-density area would
not only create a massive traffic/parking problem, plus lack of
space for recreational areas for children, but could easily bring
an increase in crime.
We cannot too strongly urge that IS-91-13 be discarded for this
area.
Janice Lambert C. Shem Lambe~t
Mr. Douglas Reid
Environmemtal Review Co-ordinator
P. O. Box I087
Chula Vista, Ca. 92012
Subject: General Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan: B-I Special
Study Area.
Case No. IS-9I-I3 EN 5 (Rev. I2/82
Dear Sir:
As a home o~vner and taxpayer at 443 Del Mar Ct. in Chula Vista
included in the area presently under study to be rezoned from R-3
to R-3 P-22, I deem it an unnecessary cost to conduct further impact
studies as we who live in this area know it is already over-impacted
population and traffic wise, and more impaction would only lead to
over-burdening of water, sewer~ utilities and other needed city
facilities.
I~m sure the city council members are familiar with the area
in question and must know the facts as such? Mr. Frank Herrera of
the Planning Dept. was kind enough to explain the proposed action
plan in layman!s terms.
I'm not anti-growth by any means as I've lived in Chula Vista
since I954 and have seen many advances, but enough is enough now.
Reverting to R-I would be my first preference for this area in
question. R-3 P-22 would be a second choice.
Yours truly
443 Del Mar Ct.
Chula Vista, Ca. 92010
· ' CHULA I 'rA CITY SCHOOL D TRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVIST~CALIFORNIA92010 * 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN IN-biVn~UAL OF GREAT
mo~o~m~c~o~ September 27, 1990
SHARON G~ES
PATR~K A. ~
~UDY SCHULENBE~
F~NK~O Hr. DOU9 Re~d
Environmental Revie~ Coordinator
SU~E~e~ C~ty of Chela Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
~H~W~S~.~. Chu~a Vista, CA 92010
RE:Initial Study - General P]an/Zonin§ Consistency Study
Area B-1
Dear Hr. Reid:
Thank you for providin§ further ~nformation on the General P]an/Zon~n9
Consistency as ~e]l as additional time to augment my original comments.
It ~as the District's understand~n9 that the C~ty's General Plan Update
~ould be followed by rezon~ngs to br~n9 exist~n9 zonin9 ~nto conformance
~th the revised General Plan land use designations. The District
also advised by City staff and elected officials that the City ~ntended
to do~nzone the Central Chula Vista area to lo,er densities, in
conformance ~ith the General Plan. The action currently proposed ~s
the reverse: amend~n9 the General Plan to more closely reflect existin9
higher density zoning.
Primary e~ements of the Update include (1) conservation of ex~stin9
s~ng~e fami~y neighborhoods; and (2) density reductions ~n some
res~dent~a~ areas. The Update states that it ~s anticipated that the
Centra~ Chula Vista area ~ill remain substantially the same over the
plannin9 per~od, addin§ some 2,800 residents through ~n-ft]l and limited
redevelopment. The D~strict relied on the Update and formulated its
plans accordingly.
~e calculate, based on data from City staff, that Study Area B-1 consists
of approximately 62 ~ross acres. The current destination of Lo~/Hedium
Density could yield between 187 - 373 residential units, less
undevelopable areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezone ~ou]d
redesi~nate the area Hed~um/H~§h Density Residential ~hich, ~th
proposed 22 units per net acre could produce up to 1,371 units. This
~s significantly 9reater than th~ previously planned and appears contrary
to the primary elements of the Genera] Plan Update. #ithout kno~in9
the number and type of existin~ development ~n Area B-l, net impacts
to schools cannot be calculated.
The impact this proposed amendment ~il] have on the District's ability
to serve elementary children ~n the area, ~hen ~mplemented through future
development projects, is severe. ~e have advised the City on numerous
occasions of overcro~dtn9 at schools in the ~estern portion of the City.
This proposed redesignation and upzonin9 ~il] produce children ~ho cannot
be accommodated by existin9 schools. Funds for construction of a
school, as are the options to obtain an appropriate site ~n this area,
are extremely limited.
September 27, 1990
Mr. Doug Reid
Page 2
RE: IS - General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Area B-1
As stated in my September 19 letter (copy enclosed), ~y rezoning the
area in question, absent a specific development proposal, the City
effectively precludes the Oistrict's ability to request adequate
mitigation for impacts on schools from future development projects.
Developer fees currently allowed under State law fall far short of the
financing, necessary for new facilities. In order to prevent this and
assure that schools are available concurrent with need, as well as meet
the City's Threshold for Schools, we request that, as a condition of
approval for future projects within Study Area B-1 and other areas
proposed for redesignation and upzoning, all projects be required to
comply with school district requirements including but not limited to,
formation of or annexation to a Mello-Roos Coranunity Facilities District
or other alternative mechanism to provide financing for new facilities.
In conclusion, the project, as proposed, will have a significant adverse
impact on the ability of the District to provide adequate school
facilities for children generated by implementation of the project,
as well as throughout the District. Mitigation measures to reduce these
impacts are available but must be implemented through a cooperative
effort between the City and the District, prior to approval of any General
Plan amendment or other decision which could result in increased numbers
of children.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: George Krempl
John Linn
Tom Silva
CHUI,A-fi' TA CITY SCHOOL I ISTRICT
84 EAST "J" ~TREET · ~HU~VI~A, C~!~IA9~10 * 619425-96~
· AgH CHILD lB ~ IHDWIDU~ OF ~REAT WOR~
~nvtron~nt~l Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista~ CA 92010
~ea B-I
Dear Hr. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and cogent on the
City's proposed rezonin~ for Special Study Area
Unfortunately, the ti~e permitted for review of this
pro~sal Is not sufficient to allow adequate revie~ and
response. ~e received the notice on Septe~r 13~ wikh
Sep~e~er 19 a~ the deadline for co~entz. I will attempk
to briefly su~arize the District~s concerns based on a
very preliminary review. ~e ~ill provide additional
co~ents followln~ further analysis.
Study Area B-1 is located in the attendance areas of
schools~ Vista Square and Rosebank. Both schools are
operatin~ a~ve capacity~ with pro~ections for continued
growth. Both fac/lit/es are currently under consideration
for implementation of year-round ~ulti-track pro,rams
assist in acco~oda~tn~ 9rowth from ~e area.
The current proposal to rezone Area B-1 from residential
and co~ercial uses to Residential ~-Hedium, Hediu~-High
and High could significantly exacerbate overcrowding at the
~wo schools ~entioned a~ve. There is no capacity to
acco~odate additional students. Busin~ is ~in~ used to
overflo~ students to other District facilities.
addition, all schools in the i~ediate vicinity of the
pro~ect area~ as well as ~ost District schools~ are either
rapidly approachinq, or are over capacity.
In order to properly assess potential impacts on District
facilities~ addl~ional infor~ation as to the proposed
residential °ateqory(ies) Is required. Since the data
provided does not indicate which of the three potential
residential categories will be implemented, or the amount
of area in each category, the resultant densities could
range from 3 - 27 units per a~re.
Further, Exhibit B of the hearing notice does not clearly
define the area proposed for rezoning. The text describes
Area B-1 as currently zoned C-O-P, C-O and R-3, but these
areas cannot be defined on the Exhibit. It appears that
commercial areas are proposed to be rezoned to residential,
which presents significant impacts on schools. Again, the
amount of this is undeterminable. If there is existing
residential development in these commercial areas, that
development is likely to be nonconforming under the
existing commercial zoning. If existing zoning remained in
place, these uses would eventually be phased out and
replaced by conforming uses.
There is a more basic issue involved in City-initiated
rezoning. Since the proposed rezoning does not involve
specific projects, the District's ability to request
adequate mitigation from future projects in these areas for
impacts on schools could be effectively precluded. Once
the zoning is in place, any resultant new projects will be
in compliance; no legislative action will be required of
the City, end school mitigation will likely be limited to
developer fees, which fall far short of financing needed
facilities.
The District requests that the City, in its rezoning
efforts, consider potential impacts on school enrollments
and assure that the Threshold for Schools be enforced.
Before new development is approved, or any actions which
could result in additional students are taken, assurance
must be provided that adequate school facilities are
available.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
cc: George Krempl
John Linn
Tom Silva
Sentember 19,1990
To: Enviromental Review Coordinator
P O Box 1087
Chula Vista Ca '92010
Attention: Mr. Douglas D Reid
Our reason for this letter is: a few years back we purchased the
property located at 249 DelMar Avenue, in Chula Vista, Ca.
This property was purchaaed'primarily because it is a R-3 Zone
and realizing how exnensive it is to buy property, we would make
arrangement to have ~nother place oF residence build on that corner
lot in order for our family to be able to have a place to live.
A few months back, we requested an architect look into the possibi-
.lity of Eetting started on this project, and the City of Chula Vista
informed him that no transaction would be allowed and all ~ermits
would be eliminated due to certain areas being "DOWN ZONED~'.
Needles to say, we were extremely surprised,upset and con£used,
not having recieved any documents or having any knowledge of having
to undergo such a loss. We consider this to be a real ~roblem in
our behalf, not being able to make a move and~aving to visualize
our future vlans terminated.
We ask that you please consider the ~resent R-3 Zone to remain as
such, for it is essential to us to u~grade the property with only
the best appearance in mind.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the above matter.
Sincerely,
Robert 3' Villar~no and S~
NOTICE OF INITIAL STUDY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Environmental Review Coordinator of
the City of Chula Vista is conducting an Initial Study (IS) to determine
if the project identified and described below will have a significant
impact on the environment. If the project may have a significant
effect on the environment, an Environmental'Impact Report will be
prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of the project.
If the project will not have a significant environmental impact or
if mitigation measures have been included in the project which will
avoid any significant impacts, a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
This determination does.not constitute approval or rejection ef the
project.
The IS application, project description and other material are on
file and available'for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department,
Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
Any comments on this 2nj.rial Study must be prespnted in w~iting Lo
the Environmental Review Coordinator, P.O.' Box 1087, Chula Vista,
CA 92012~_p~i~r tO 5:00 P,m~ on September 24, 1990.
If you have any questions or comments on this IS, please call the
Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department at "
.(619) 691-5101.
Location: Area between 'E" Street and "H" Street lying *
between Second and Third Avenue, and an area lying
mProject.~acrfatip~; o6 the east'side of'Fourth 'Avenue, between "E" and
Davidson Streets.
Existing Zone: R-3, C-O-P, C-O
Existing General Plan Designation: Residential Lbw-Medium; ·
Residential Medium-Nigh, Residential Nigh
Project Location: See Exhibit
Project Applicant: Chula Vista Planning Department
Oate: September 11, 1990
Case No: IS-gl-13
EN 5 (Rev. 12/82)
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY
SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B 1 --
CC
I IBRMY PAIIK
LIBRARy
:COD
ST.
flO0$ STR
CO; ....
...... EXHIBIT
CiTY OF CHULA VISTA- PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-90 L. FRY ~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-90-Og Chula Vista Relocation Mobilehome Park
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft of this EIR was issued through the State Clearinghouse (SCH)
for the required 4S-day agency review period which ended February 14,
1991. A letter of comment was received on the Draft EIR from the State
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) which is enclosed as Attachment
A. The City of Chula Vista 30-day public review period commenced on
April 8, 1991. To date, no other comment letters have been received.
According to legislation which became effective January 1, 1990, the
State review of environmental documents must conclude prior to local
review periods. The circulation of this Draft EIR complied with this
legislation.
Additionally, the Draft EIR will go before the Resource Conservation
Commission (RCC) on April 8, 1991, for further review and certification.
The minutes from the RCC meeting will be hand delivered to the Commission.
The Planning Commission hearing date for consideration of the Final EIR
has not been scheduled at this time.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing on the Draft EIR to take testimony on the
adequacy of the Draft EIR and close the public review period on the Chula
Vista Relocation Mobilehome Park EIR (EIR-90-og).
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Chula Vista Relocation Mobilehome Park project site is a 14.25 acre
parcel located in the north-central portion of the City of Chula Vista
(see Figure 3.1 of the EIR). Proposed at this time is a General Plan
Amendment and Rezone to change the land use designations on the
property. The General Plan designation would be changed from "Open
Space" to Medium Density Residential (6-11 dwelling units per acre). The
zoning designation would be changed from "unzoned" and "R-I"
Single-Family Residential to "MHP" Mobilehome Park Zone.
The proposed change in land use designations is to ultimately accommodate
the construction of a mobilehome park on the site to provide low to
moderate income housing. Specifically, the proposed mobilehome park is
intended to provide housing for displaced residents of mobilehome parks
expected to close along Broadway Avenue and other parts of the City.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 2
A Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application is required for
the actual construction of a mobilehome park on the site and these
discretionary actions would require additional environmental review.
Further environmental review would analyze the environmental impacts
associated with the actual development and construction of the project.
Issues such as site density, setbacks, circulation, parking and
landscaping will be addressed when a site plan is developed for the
project. This EIR analyzes the impacts associated with the proposed
change in land use designations only.
The Chula Vista Relocation Mobilehome Park EIR (EIR-gO-O9) is a
subsequent EIR. A subsequent EIR is required when a project description
changes substantially or when the circumstances surrounding the project
change substantially. The proposed project differs significantly from
the project proposed in the previous EIR {EIR-8g-7} for the Lower
Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment.
The previous project consisted of the combination of two projects: a
200-unit multi-family residential project (the Rio Vista Apartments) and
a ]50-unit mobilehome park project sponsored by the Redevelopment Agency
in cooperation with the St. Vincent de Paul Association. Due to the
substantial change in the current project description, a subsequent EIR
was required in order to comply with Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Guidelines.
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
During the preparation of the EIR, various environmental impacts of the
proposed project were analyzed. The EIR identified as "significant and
unmitigable" those impacts related to geology and soils, community social
factors, parks and recreation, and utilities and services. Issues found
to be "significant, but mitigable" include drainage and hydrology,
biology, cultural resources, air quality, noise, visual, and land use
impacts.
The following is a synopsis of the major issues discussed in the Draft
EIR.
SIGNIFICANT, UNMITIGABLE IMPACTS
1. Geoloq.¥ and Soils
The project site is located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley on
floodplain deposits of the Sweetwater River. Significant
geology/soils impacts are anticipated due to the presence of
alluvial soils on site and the potential for liquefaction during
periods of seismic activity. Although there are no fault traces on
the site, it is located .75 miles away from the Sweetwater Fault and
2 to 3 miles from the La Nacion and Rose Canyon Fault zones,
respectively.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 3
Geology/soils impacts may be mitigated through the development of
specific geotechnical recommendations once additional data is
obtained on site design and construction and a site plan is
developed for the project. However, geology/soils impacts are
deemed "significant and unmitigable" until specific geotechnical
studies are conducted.
2. Community Social Factors
The provision of low to moderate income housing was analyzed as a
community social factor in relationship to the objectives of the
Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. Although the
project would provide much needed low to moderate income housing in
the City, the project may not fully meet the following Housing
Element requirements:
1. The site and neighborhood must be suitable for the type
and density of housing proposed, and adequate public
services and facilities must be available to service the
development.
2. The site must be free from severe, adverse environmental
or social conditions, unless there is an adopted program
to remedy the undesirable conditions.
The proposed project does not fully conform to the Housing Element
objectives because the density of the proposed project is considered
to be high for the site in relation to the surrounding community and
the requirements of the City's Controlled Growth Initiative
Ordinance.
The City's Mobilehome Park Policy allows up to 8 dwelling units per
acre in the "MHP" zone. This would allow a maximum of 142 units on
the project site including the density bonus. The project proposes
150 mobilehome units on site, which exceeds the site density allowed
by the Mobilehome Park Policy. According to the EIR analysis, a
site density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre would be more
appropriate for the site and more harmonious with the surrounding
community character.
There are also several significant environmental constraints on the
site, such as biology and geology/soils, which make it difficult for
the project to meet the Housing Element requirement that the site be
free from environmental constraints. Therefore, community social
factors are deemed to be "significant and unmitigable".
3. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
The proposed project would be located in a portion of the City where
there are no public parks within a short walking distance. The
mobilehome park project must provide a separate recreation area for
children as well as senior citizens including 60,000 square feet
{1.4 acres} of common open space.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 4
Project mitigation includes three recommendations or options set
forth by the Parks and Recreation Department: (1) Provide 60,000
square feet of common open space; {2) City-financed improvements to
the Chula Vista Greenbelt in the Lower Sweetwater River section and
the North Fourth Avenue residential parkway; and (3) an Agency
contribution of $855/dwelling unit in park fees for development and
acquisition of parklands within the City. The Agency has made no
final commitment to any of these mitigation recommendations to date.
However, even with implementation of one of the above mitigation
measures, parks, recreation and open space impacts would be only
partially reduced, according to the City Parks and Recreation
Department. Therefore parks and recreation impacts are deemed to be
"significant and unmitigable".
4. Utilities/Services
Significant and unmitigable school impacts are anticipated to the
Rosebank Elementary School from the approximately 45 students
generated by the project. There is no room currently at Rosebank to
accommodate any additional portable classrooms or to adequately
handle additional students, according to the Chula Vista City School
District. Project mitigation recommended payment of school fees,
which would be assessed at $1.58 per square foot of habitable living
space. However, according to the School District, this would not
generate enough funds to provide adequate school facilities and the
School Districts are recommending the establishment of Mello-Roos
financing. The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has not made any
final commitments regarding the school fees for this project.
SIGNIFICANT, BUT MITIGABLE IMPACTS
1. Drainaqe/Hvdroloq¥
Site drainage is presently diverted from the site to the Sweetwater
Channel by several natural and man-made channels on site. The most
prominent drainage on site is provided by a 48-inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that discharges into the open, graded
Sweetwater Channel at the northern end of Las Flores Drive.
Although no specific drainage/hydrology mitigation will be required
for the proposed project, a hydrology/hydraulic study will be
required as part of the additional environmental review undertaken
for the project itself to identify any future drainage improvements
that may be required. This will be made a condition of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the
project.
2. Bioloqy
Two biological surveys were conducted to determine whether there are
any sensitive flora or fauna on site. The two major vegetation
types are annual grassland (88% of the site) and facultative wetland
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 5
(9% of the site). The wetland present is thought to be from a lack
of adequate site drainage in the past and because of the site's
proximity to the water table. Because 1.27 acres of (man-made)
wetland would be lost with the project, biology is deemed to be
significant, but mitigable. Mitigation of biological impacts could
be accomplished through a number of options, including off site
mitigation as part of the Otay Valley Road Widening project. On
site mitigation would include a revegetation plan required for
California Department of Fish and Game approval.
Once a site plan is developed for the proposed project and the
details of site layout are determined, it will be clearer as to
whether biological mitigation will be conducted on or off the
project site. Mitigation of biology impacts will be included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for this
project to ensure impacts are fully reduced.
3. Cultural Resources
The project vicinity has been studied extensively for archeological
and paleontological resources. Because of the presence of a number
of archeological sites in the project vicinity, it is possible that
cultural resources are present on the project site. Due to the high
degree of geological disturbance of the majority of the site
associated with alluvial soils and the site's location within the
floodplain, it is anticipated that any resources on site may not be
well preserved.
Due to the high degree of potential for cultural resources on the
less disturbed portion of the site, however, project mitigation will
require that a qualified paleontologist be present at pre-grade
meetings, as well as on site during grading activities. If cultural
resources are discovered during grading operations, the
paleontological monitor will be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains.
Mitigation of cultural resource impacts shall be ensured through the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for the
project.
4. Air Ouality
Short term air quality impacts would result during the construction
phase of the project from earth moving and other construction
activities. This would result in a temporary increase in fugitive
dust emissions.
An air quality study conducted for the previous project, "The Lower
Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment, Zoning Actions, and
Development of the Rio Vista Apartments (EIR 89-7)" analyzed the
potential air quality impacts resulting from a much larger project
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 6
-- a gOO-unit apartment complex and a 150-unit mobilehome park
project. This air quality study indicated that long-term air
quality impacts were not significant. Although the project did
result in an increase in carbon monoxide emissions, these emissions
did not violate the one-hour State and Federal ambient standards for
carbon monoxide.
To reduce short term air quality impacts from construction
activities, however, dust control measures such as regular watering
during grading will be required. Air quality mitigation will be
ensured through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
5. Noise
The proposed project would result in significant noise impacts to
future residents of the Mobilehome Park due to the proximity of the
project to Interstate 805 and to a lesser extent State Route 54.
A detailed acoustical analysis will be required once a site plan is
developed for the proposed project.
Mitigation recommended at this time includes implementation of noise
barrier walls along 1-805 and the flood control channel. The height
and exact location of the noise barriers would be determined by the
final design of the project and will be analyzed in the future
acoustical analysis. Noise mitigation would be ensured through the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Visual
The proposed project would change the visual character of the site
from an existing open, grassy field to a mobilehome park
development. Because the site topography is relatively flat (except
for the steeper topography on the south), there will not be an
extensive amount of grading or the modification of any significant
landforms on site.
The primary visual impacts are associated with the change to
existing views from adjacent residential properties in the
vicinity. Because the site is in a valley and at a lower elevation
than surrounding residences, it can be seen from many residences
along North Second Avenue.
Although the full impact of the project's visual impacts cannot be
determined until a site plan is developed, it is evident that a
significant visual impact will occur to surrounding residential
uses. Mitigation, including site design standards for landscaping,
site layout and density may help to alleviate some of the impact.
Conformance to the City's Mobilehome Park Policy which regulates
site density, design, setbacks, landscaping and other design
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 7
features would help to ensure that the proposed project is in
conformance to the surrounding community character. Also, the use
of sodium vapor lighting could reduce potential glare impacts from
the mobilehomes. Because the analysis of visual impacts is so
subjective, however, and because of the higher elevation of the
surrounding residences overlooking the site, complete mitigation of
visual impacts will be difficult.
7. Land Use
The proposed project would meet the following objective of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, "Provide for mobilehome parks or
alternatives for relocation of existing trailer park residents."
(Chula Vista General Plan, Page 1-7). However, given the need for
open space and other on-site mitigation, an overall gross density of
7.0 dwelling units per acre {or 100 units total) would be more
harmonious with the existing and proposed land use patterns in the
area.
Because the northern two-thirds of the site is "unzoned" it would
not be regulated by the City's Controlled Growth Initiative
Ordinance. The southern one-third of the property, however, would
be subject to this Ordinance. The project, as proposed, would
require the unanimous approval of the City Council since the density
is higher than what would be allowed under the Ordinance. The (R-l)
Single-Family Residential zoning which exists on site would have to
be rezoned to an (R-3) Apartment Residential Zone and this is not in
accordance with the requirement in the Ordinance to upzone only one
zoning category at a time.
The proposed project will have a growth inducing impact to the
surrounding community, although growth inducement is not considered
to be a significant impact. Utilities and services such as sewer,
water, fire and police are available to serve the project, with the
exception of parks and schools. However, development of the site
may create development pressure on adjoining properties in the area.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Four project alternatives were analyzed, including: (1) the "No
Project" alternative, (2) alternative locations for the Mobilehome
Park, (3) development of a city park, and (4) a single-family
residential (R-l) project. The alternatives analyses is set forth
in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR (see page 5.1).
Four offsite alternatives were analyzed in compliance with the most
recent requirements of CEQA. These site are scattered throughout
the City {see Figure 5.1) in the following locations:
Site 1: Harbor Drive-in Theatre (off National City Blvd.)
Site 2: East side of Rios Drive
Site 3: EastLake Greens
Site 4: Rancho Del Rey
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 10, 1991 Page 8
The alternatives analyses concluded that all of the four sites were
environmentally more desirable than the proposed project since they
all had fewer environmental constraints. However, Alternative Sites
2 through 4 are less convenient than the proposed project to major
employment centers, transportation lines, and other services and
facilities.
Alternative Site 1 {Harbor Drive-in Theatre Site) is located close
to services, facilities, employment centers and transportation lines
and would have fewer visual, biological, geological, land use, and
cultural resource impacts. However, Alternative Site I would be
associated with noise impacts from State Route 54, as well as
impacts to schools.
WPC 9123P
Draft Subsequent EIR for the Chula Vista Relocation
Mobile Home Park. SCH 90010684
Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows:
1. .~ ~ It_is ~n~rstood that ~he mitigation of highway
noels xmpac=s at the subject pro3ect will be the responsi-
bility Of the City of Chula Vista. That mitigation needs to
be based on ~he follo~ing:
ultimate improvements to Interstate Route 805 and State
Route 54 in this area.
year 2010, SANDAG Series VII traffic.
the application of Federal Highway Adminiatration
proc~ures for the mbate~ment of highway
2. Pmge 4-40, Fibre 4.5 - Xt Ip~ars ~at ~~ ~t~
will be re,ired for the mitigation of highway no{se im-
pacts. Early coor4ination with our agency
reco~en4ed for all encroachment ~it applications. Our
initial contact ~rson is Jim Linthicum, Project Manager,
~oject Studies Branch "B", (619) 688-6952.
/~ ~s T. ~SRI~, Chief
~nviro~ental Planning Branch
MO:ac
March 28, 1991
TO: The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director~_~
SUBJECT: Request for a Representative from the Planning Commission
to serve on the Bayfront Subcommittee
On March 21, 1991, the City Council, sitting as the Redevelopment Agency,
requested that one representative from four separate City Commissions
be appointed by the membership of those Commissions to serve on the Bayfront
Subcommittee. The Planning Commission is one of the City Commissions
from which the City Council would like to receive an appointee. It is
anticipated that the appointee would be requested to attend approximately
1-2 meetings per month to provide input to Councilmembers Rindone and
Nader, who comprise the Bayfront Subcommitttee.
In addition to the representatives from the City Commissions, each Councilmember
will be appointing one member to the subcommittee.
CS/RP:ag