HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/03/13 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, March 13, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meetings of January 9 and January 23, 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: Variance ZAV-91-10: Request to legalize an existing
90 sq.ft., 15 ft. high freestanding pole sign at
772 Third Avenue - Hikmat Zoura (continued from 2-13-91)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-16/17 and ZAV-91-06/07: Consideration of an
appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator
disapproving offsite subdivision directional signs
for the EastLake Greens development - SunCal Outdoor
Advertising
3. 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 inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista
community
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-04: Consideration of amendments to the Municipal
Code relating to the provision of Community Facilities -
City Initiated
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of March 18, 1991
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page I
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-91-10: Request to legalize an existin9
90 sq.ft., 15 ft. high freestandin9 pole si~n at
772 Third Avenue - Hikmat Zoura
A. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 13,
1991, in order to provide the opportunity for the applicant to resolve the
issue at a staff level. The applicant has since submitted plans for a
smaller 55 sq.ft., 15 ft. high sign which the Zoning Administrator can
support without the necessity for a public hearing.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to file ZAV-91-10.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page I
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-16/17 and ZAV-91-06/07; Consideration of an
appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator
disapprovinq offsite subdivision directional signs
for the EastLake Greens development - SunCal Outdoor
Advertising
A. BACKGROUND
This item is an appeal from a decision of the City Zoning Administrator
disapproving four offsite subdivision directional signs for the EastLake
Greens development. The signs, each measuring 30 sq. ft. in area and 12
ft. in height, have been or are proposed to be erected at the following
locations: (Note: The signs at locations #3 and #4 have already been
erected without City approval. The existing sign at location #3 is
smaller than the present request.)
1. Southeasterly corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes
Road;
2. Easterly side of Otay Lakes road, 1,000 ft. northerly of
Telegraph Canyon Road;
3. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 80 ft. east of Hidden
Vista Drive;
4. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 70 ft. west of Paseo
del Rey.
Offsite subdivision directional signs are used on a temporary basis to
help facilitate project sales by directing motorists to a housing
development. The Zoning Administrator may authorize as many directional
signs as deemed necessary to indicate a change in direction to a
subdivision. The signs may not exceed 4.5 sq. ft. in area or 3.5 ft. in
height.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
thereby deny the appeal.
C. DISCUSSION
As stated in the Zoning Administrator's letters of December 18, 1990,
(please see attached), it is staff's opinion that offsite subdivision
directional signs are only appropriate in cases where the project
location cannot easily be described in advertising media using simple,
direct routes. This can be the case where either the route is
circuitous, or where the route is simple but the distance is great. In
the latter case, the greater distance involved may require one or more
signs to reinforce the destination to the motorists. Signs not meeting
one or both of these criteria are considered offsite advertising signs
which are prohibited by the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 2
The EastLake Greens Planned Community and Information Center, as well as
the EastLake Business Center and Village Center, are located on Telegraph
Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, due east from the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon
Road interchange; a route which is easily described in advertising media
and is not circuitous. None of the four signs constituting this request
are located on this route, but are located on East "H" Street and the
northerly extension of Otay Lakes Road, and thus appear to be for the
purpose of offsite advertising -- attracting potential buyers from one
project to another within the City. An excessive amount of sign clutter
would result from endorsing this type of approach.
For these reasons, the Zoning Administrator was unable to make the
required findings that any of the four proposed offsite sign locations
are necessary to direct motorists to the project and, therefore, the
requests were denied. It should be noted that two of the four sign
locations are within the public right-of-way {signs #3 and #4), and that
one of the sign locations does not presently have the permission of the
property owner {sign #1). The City also received three objections to the
requests from neighboring property owners -- one by phone, and two by
letter (please see attached}.
Since the distance to EastLake Greens from the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon
Road interchange approximates four miles, the applicant was informed that
the Zoning Administrator would consider it appropriate to locate one or
more signs along the Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road corridor in
order to reinforce the destination to the motorist. It was later
determined, however, that four EastLake offsite signs have already been
erected along the south side of this corridor--one illegally within the
City east of Medical Center Drive, and three within the unincorporated
lands of Otay Ranch leading to the EastLake development. Two additional
offsite signs--at the southwest corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes
Road--have also been erected without City approval.
With respect to the variance request to increase the size of the signs
from 4.5 sq. ft. in area and 3.5 ft. in height to 30 sq. ft. in area and
12 ft. in height, the applicant was informed that the proposal to
incorporate what would otherwise be several small offsite signs for
individual developments into one or more larger planned community
directional signs is generally favored by the City, and would be
supported by the Zoning Administrator at an appropriate location(s).
D. APPEAL
SunCal has submitted two letters in support of their appeal (please see
attached). The basic points made in these letters along with the staff
response are as follows:
1. Many potential EastLake Greens buyers come from within Chula Vista
and from the East County, and therefore will not use the 1-805
Freeway to access the project.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 3
Staff response: Adult homebuyers are generally capable of choosing
an alternate route to a project if they choose not to follow the
primary route. This should particularly be true for Chula Vista
residents already familiar with the City, or those coming via a more
complicated back-route from the East County. Directional signs
should not be used along every conceivable route to a project.
2. Offsite signage has been found to be an important factor in
attracting potential buyers to the project.
Staff response: As noted earlier, offsite signage should be kept
to an absolute minimum, and should be used for directional and not
advertising purposes.
3. Many people still associate East "H" Street with EastLake, and thus
residents of EastLake Hills and EastLake Shores will be forced to
endure excess traffic unless motorists are directed away from that
route.
Staff response: We do not foresee an excessive traffic burden on
EastLake Hills/Shores as a result of the marketing of EastLake
Greens.
4. The proposal for a master EastLake Greens offsite sign program
involving only four signs will create far less sign clutter than
individual sign programs by each of the eight separate builders
involved with EastLake Greens.
Staff response: We concur that a master sign program involving
fewer but larger signs is preferable to a greater number of smaller,
individual signs for each builder, but only so far as the signs
comply with the locational criteria discussed above.
WPC 8983P
OPOSED
/
',. PROPOSED
~ ' ~ SIGN LOCATIONS
-:' 4~Y. 12-" pOST
-~-,: .... . .... j . ,,u ~. ~ , ....... , ...... ...........
..... "-"~ ............ ~ ......... I~11'- ~ , ' ........... ; .... '"~ .........
..... + ,..~ ..... ~..~ ..... . . ~.~.,- ~.~ ..... . ~
. . ~ ~ ....... .~ .................... ~....~ ..........
' " 1'_
....... ~ ...... : ........ - ...... ' ................ 1 '.2 '~, ~:5~ ,:2
' ":'~:'~:~: ' ~ ~ ....................... :._2
'.,
~,.__-. ~ ...... ......
.... ' ' ~ ~ ' '~1'~ ' ~ ....... '
-.: :..: '-~-:: -- .u
..... :. ~ - ,~/~. :is ..............
.... ~ ~ ~.i
........ :::':.:: ......... :-: ~:' ~ ...... ~.~ .......... ~ ......
.... :.. 2-" ~ ..... ~.-.:--:--- ':~'7'.-~; :. T-" -T..: ....
"~": ......... ' 'I: "::'::':': :'~:::
......... ; ........ . . ,:'
......... ........ ~..~. ..... ...... ~ : . ~ ............. ~ ...... ; ......
~,~.~1
'" -'
~ ~"
~IBM MO,~ LOB~TIOM _ ,'
RIGHT
, /
SrA. 114+77 54~RT,
CHUI.A VISI'A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 18, 1990
SunCal Outdoor Advertising
Attn: David Hardy
5005 Texas Street, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92108
Subject:. Conditional Use Permit, Pcc-g1-16 and Pcc-gl-17, Four EastLake
Greens Offsite Directional Signs
The Zoning Administrator has considered your requests to erect or maintain
four offsite subdivision directional signs for the EastLake Greens Planned
Community (see companion applications ZAV-91-06 & ZAV-91-02). The signs have
been proposed at the following locations:
1. Southeasterly corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road;
2. Easterly side of Otay Lakes Road, 1,000 ft. northerly or Telegraph Canyon
Road;
3. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 80 ft. east of Hidden Vista Drive;
4. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 70 ft. west of Paseo del Rey.
Offsite subdivision directional signs are only appropriate in cases where the
project location cannot easily be described in advertising media using simple,
direct routes. This can be the case where either the route is circuitous, or
where the route is simple but the distance is great. In the latter case, the
distance involved may require one or more signs to reinforce the destination
to the motorists. Signs not meeting one or both of these criteria are
considered offsite advertising signs which are prohibited by the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
The EastLake Greens Planned Community and Information Center, as well as the
EastLake Business Center and Village Center, are located due east from the
1-805?Telegraph Canyon Road interchange on Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes
Road; a route which is easily described in advertising media and is not
circuitous. The four signs constituting this request are not oriented toward
this simple and direct route but appear to be for the purpose of offsite
advertising -- directing potential buyers from one project to another within
the City. A substantial number of offsite signs would result from endorsing
this type of approach.
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91910/,6191 691 5101
SunCal Outdoor Advertising -2- December 18, ]990
For these reasons, the Zoning Administrator has been unable to make the
required findings that any of the four proposed offsite sign locations is
necessary to direct motorists to the project and therefore the reauest~ are
hereby denied. It should be noted that two of the four sign locations are
within the public right-of-way (signs #3 and #4), and that one of the sign
locations does not presently have the permission of the property owner (sign
#1). The City also received three objections to the requests from neighboring
property owners.
Since the distance to EastLake Greens from the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road
interchange approximates four miles, the Zoning Administrator would consider
it appropriate to locate one or more signs along the Telegraph Canyon
Road/Otay Lakes Road corridor in order to reinforce the destination to the
motorist. The requests, however, did not include any proposed sign locations
along this route.
Any offsite directional signs erected or maintained without the approval of
the City shall be removed by January 17, 1990.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A
completed appeal form along with a fee of $250 must be received by this office
within ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the
Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal the decision of the Zoning
Administrator is final. ~
Assistant Director of Planning
WPC 8744P/2655P
cc: City Clerk
Zoning Enforcement
EastLake Development Company
Attn: Gail Crocenzi
gOO Lane Avenue, Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 92013
Kelton Title Corporation
Attn: Mark Kelton
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3006
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5207
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 18, 1990
SunCal Outdoor Advertising
Attn: David Hardy
5005 Texas Street, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92108
Subject: Variance, ZAV-91-06 and ZAV-9]-07, Oversized Offsite Directional
Signs for EastLake Greens
The Zoning Administrator has considered your requests to erect or maintain
four offsite subdivision directional signs for the EastLake Greens Planned
Community, each 30 square feet in area and 12 feet in height rather than 4.5
square feet in area and 3.5 feet in height as provided for in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (see companion applications PCC-91-16 and PCC-91-17). The
signs have been proposed at the following locations:
1. Southeasterly corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road;
2. Easterly side of Otay Lakes Road, ],000 ft. northerly or Telegraph Canyon
Road;
3. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 80 ft. east of Hidden Vista Drive;
4. Southerly side of East "H" Street, 70 ft. west of Paseo del Rey.
As discussed in the companion applications to these requests (PCC-91-16 and
PCCo91-17), the Zoning Administrator has been unable to make the required
findings that any of the proposed offsite sign locations is necessary to
direct motorists to the project, and therefor the requests have been denied.
The requests to have oversized directional signs at these locations are
accordinqly also hereby denied. The proposal to incorporate what would
otherwise be several small offsite signs for individual' developments into one
or more larger planned community directional signs is generally favored by the
City, and would likely be supported by the Zoning Administrator at an
appropriate location(s).
276 FOURTH A JE/CHULA VI~%TA CALIFORNIA ~1191F~/ ~19~ 691 5101
SunCal Outdoor Advertising -2- December 18, 1990
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A
completed form along with a fee of $250 must be received by this office within
ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning
Department. In the absence of said appeal the decision of the Zoning
Administrator is final.
Assistant Director of Planning
WPC 8745P/]642P
cc: City Clerk
Zoning Enforcement
EastLake Development Company
Attn: Gail Crocenzi
900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 92013
Kelton Title Corporation
Attn: Mark Kelton
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3006
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5207
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CI~' OF
CHULA VISI-A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November Z6, 1990 PLANNING
The Chula Vista Planning Department has received applications for
conditional use pe~its and variances filed by SunCal Outdoor Advertising
requesting permission to install four subdivision directional signs,
each 30 square feet in area and 12 feet in height at the following
locations:
1. Southeasterly corner of East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road;
2. Easterly side of Otay Lakes Road, 1,000 ft. northerly or
Telegraph Canyon Road;
3. Southerly side of East 'H' Street, 80 ft. east of Hidden
Vista Drive;
4. Southerly side of East 'H' Street, 70 ft. west of Paseo del Rey.
Plot plans and descriptions of the properties are on file in the office
of the Planning Department.
These applications will be considered ~ the Zoning Administrator on
December 11, 1990. Any co~ents you have pertaining to these requests
must be received ~ this office no later than noon on December 10, 1990.
Alton U. Roy .
~ Win~emmer C~m~e
Chula Vis~.a. ~ ~2010
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5101
CrlY OF
CHULA V I SI'A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC -il ~0,l
November 26, 1990
The Chula Vista Planning Department has received applications for
conditional use permits and variances filed by SunCal Outdoor Advertising
requesting permission to install four subdivision directional signs,
each 30 square feet in area and 12 feet in height at the following
locations:
1. Southeasterly corner of East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road;
2. Easterly side of Otay Lakes Road, 1,000 ft. northerly or
Telegraph Canyon Road;
3.Southerly side of East 'H' Street, 80 ft. east of Hidden
Vista Drive;
4. Southerly side of East 'H' Street, 70 ft. west of Paseo del R~.
Plot plans and descriptions of the properties are on file in the office
of the PlaDning Department.
These applications will be considered ~ the Zoning Administrator on
December 11, 1990. Any co~ents you have pertaining to these requests
must be received ~ this office no later than noon on December 10, 1990.
Steve Griffin, AICP
Senior Planner
SG:Je
Case Nos: PCC-91-16/ZAV-91-06
PCC-91-17/ZAV-91-07
i~ ,/~
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5101 ~,~ ~
19.60.480 Subdivision directional signs.
Directional advertising signs deemed necessary to indicate a change in
direction to a subdivision may be authorized subject to a conditional use
permit issued by the zoning administrator in accordance with the provisions of
this title and the following conditions:
A. The request shall denote the number of signs, their location, size and
design, for consideration by the zoning administrator;
B. The applicant shall file a letter of approval from each property owner or
occupant on whose property proposed signs are to be located;
C. The conditional use permit may be issued for a reasonable period but not
to exceed six months; provided however, that the zoning administrator may
grant two extensions for one-year periods without renotification or
rehearing;
D. The signs n~y pertain to only those subdivisions which are located within
the city;
E. The signs may be either single or double-faced or V-shaped, provided the
angle between the two faces does not exceed forty-five degrees;
F. No freestanding sign may exceed a height of three and one-half feet, or
exceed four and one-half square feet in area.
(Ord. 1575 § 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1356 § 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 § 1
(part), 1969: prior code § 33.950(G)(22).)
g31
SunCal Outdoor Advertising, on behalf of Eastlake Development
Company, would like to appeal the decision made by the Zoning
Administrator on Conditional Use Permit numbers PCC 91-16, PCC
91-17 and Code Variance numbers ZAV 91-06 and ZAV 91-07. Each
application addressed EastLake Development Company's request for
four temporary directional off-site signs in the City of Chula
Vista to assist traffic to EastLake Greens.
EastLake Greens is the third residential neighborhood in the
master planned community of EastLake. Currently in the first
phase of development, EastLake Greens will offer 8 builder pro-
ducts for sale beginning in February. We feel there are special
needs in the area of directing traffic to their development.
1. The advertised access to EastLake Greens will be 805 South
via Telegraph Canyon Road. But due to the size of Chula
Vista and surrounding areas, it cannot be assumed that the
majority of prospective buyers will choose access via 805.
In fact, statistical information compiled from the Buyer
Prospect List for EastLake Greens showed 50% of traffic
coming from areas of Chula Vista. Offsite signage and
friends were also found to be very important factors in
assisting people to the newly relocated Information center
(Refer to Exhibits A and B).
2. The advertised access via 805 will not be applicable to East
County residents which is a target market for EastLake Greens.
3. Due to the success of EastLake Hills and EastLake Shores,
many people still associate East "H" Street with EastLake.
Without signage at the "H" Street/Otay Lakes locations, resi-
dents of EastLake Hills and EastLake Shores will be forced
to endure unneeded traffic throught established residential
areas.
-1-
5005 TEXAS STREET. SUITE .'-405 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9210S (S1Cl) 291-4441
City of Chula Vista
Planning Co~mtssion -2- January 16, t991
~. Finally and most importantly, EastIa~ke DeVelopment Company
is very sensitive Co the issue of PrOliferation of signs
within the City. For this reason, EastLake Development
Company has a master merchandising program whereby the
co,~,.mity is marketed as one entity "EastLake" rather than
8 separate builder products. We feel the city would be
unduly burdened if each of the builders applied for and
erected their fair share of off-site directional signs. If
each builder erected one sign per product it would be double
the signage we are requesting in our master sign program.
We feel the four requested sign are not unreasonable for a pro-
ject of this size. They are the only signs being requested
within City limits. The philosophy of a combined signage program
will significantly reduce confusion in locating builders within
the EastLake Greens Neighborhood and will benefit, not hinder,
the home-buying public and the City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
David Hardy
DH:bb
~UYZR PROSPECT DEMOGRAPMIC PROFILE STATUS
# of Respondents 1556 277
Chula Vista 51% 36%
San Diego t8% 24%
Out of Area 13% 10%
Bonita 7% 11%
Out of State $%
Other 1% 12%
(East County, E1 Cajon
and La Mesa 7% of total)
~9~c~_iR~$~D_ of Househol~
Growing Family 21% 22%
(under 35 - 1 or more children)
Mature Family 31% 29%
(over 35 - 1 or more children)
Adult Couple 17% 22%
(over 35, no children)
Young Couple 13% 10%
(under 35, no children)
Single 17% 16%
Yes 26% 15%
No ?4% 85%
Friends - Relatives 42% 29%
Drive-by signs 21% 17%
Union/Tribune 16% 27%
Radio (Commence~ 11-5-90) 4%
Q~_hg~ (general newspaper, direct 19% 23%
mail, etc. or "other")
700 ~
2OO
0~
CS; Bo- Ea.',t Co
,SD Non $oBay Non ~
~To 107]0-~ ~To 11-27-~
HOW DID YOU I'IE.~=J ABOUT EASTLAK~?
Ci)muiadt'~ to 11-27-90
?00
IJ/T Slgn~ Friend* Radio Other
· ~[ 'Fo 10-30-90 i~To 11-27-90
January 8, 1991
City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission
RE: Eastlake
Gentlemen:
SunCal Outdoor Advertising would like to appeal the decision
made by the Zoning Administrator on Conditional Use Permit
numbers PCC 91-16, PCC 91-17 and Code Variance numbers ZAV 91-06
and ZAV 91-07.
Each of the applications addressed £astlake Development's need
for temporary off-site directional signage in the City of Chula
Vista. £astlake Development is a masterplanned Community and
contains 8 separate builders within the single community. We
feel that they have special needs in the area of directing
traffic to their projects.
£astlake and SunCal have each adopted the City's position that
the best way to treat directional signage needs is to group the
separate builders under one name, "£astlake", and to use one
consistent sign type to direct the traffic ( a drawing of the
sign is included in the application. Also enclosed is a map
showing the traffic route the buyers are msing to get to the pro-
ject.) SunCal and £astlake have requested only 4 signs within
the Chula Vista City limits for the entire project.
SunCal and Eastlake would like an opportunity to discuss in
greater detail the reasons for the need of these signs. I
forward to meeting with you in the near future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Hardy
DH:bb
5005 TEXAS STREET. SUITE -:105 SAN DIE~O, CALIFORNIA 9210~ (61 '~) 291
THI:J CITY C~CHULA VISTA PAR~ DISCLOSUPz: STAT£MENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership Interests, psymems, or ~mp~ign contribufion~ off ~11 mat~ers
which will require discreflona~ action on the part of the City ~uncJl, Planning Commission, ~nd all other
official bodies. The follo~ng information must be disclosed:
1. Lht the names of ail p~rsons having a finznctal tmgres~ in the contram, Le., comrac~or,
. sub~lractor, material supoher.
6astL~ke Development ~ompany
2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is' a corporation or parmeiship, I~sl ~be namcs of
individuals owning more lhan 10% of Ibc shares tn ~he corporation or owning any
i~ere~ tE~h~ parmership.
.Da~l~ V,. !.nc .........
BOSWell ~r~e~fies, Inc. .
3. If any ~rson identified pursuant to (1) abov~ fs non-profit or~ani~tion or a trus~, l~st the
of any person so~ng as director of ~hc non-profit organization or as trustee or benofic{a~ or
lrustor of ~lle trust.
4. tleve you had more than $2~0 worth cE business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees m~d Council within the past ~'olve months? Yes __
No x _I~ yes, please indicate person(s): .
5. P~ease id~mi~ each and ove~ person, inc]ud~ng any agents, employees, consultants or indcpcnden~
contractors who you have asstgne~ to'represent you before thc City In this mat~er,
Dave H~- Suncal OutO~r AOverfislng .
ck - r Advertising
6. Have you end/or your officers or agents, tn the a~rcgate, ~ntr~uted more than $1,000 to
Councilmembet in the current or preceding election period? Yes ~ No ..~ If yes, state which
CounclImembcr(s):
~ is d~fia~ as: 'Any i. divig.a6 ffm, ~o.pm'me~l~ip, joint venture, ~ss~iotio~, s~i~l ch~b, frat~o~l o~m~lzati~,
c'~/r~t~, Iru~'6 ~cei~ er, o~dlcot~ th~.~ ~nd ~ny other c~m~ c~ nnd cou~ I~, ctO,~ mtlll Ct~ll~ dislrwr ~ ~her ~l/tlc~l ~ttbdl~'t.d~,. .
(NOTE: Attsc'h additi~nol P~gcs ~ '1¢~'317)
~ri~ '~ type n:~G ot=~mltr, lctorlappli~m~:::: ~~"
THE CITY_OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSU~RE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must bc disclosed:
i. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnersi~p.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No .. ~'""If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
cq~acto,r~who you have ,a. ssigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
!
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No _L~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: 'Mny individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
cst~llt', trttst, receiver, syndicate, this and an), other cottttt),, city and Coztntr); ci~); municipalio,, district or other political sztbdivision,
or (my other grottp or combination acting as a trait."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
[.\-ii ;.\:DISCLOSE.TXT] Print or type name of contractor/applic:mt [Revised: I1 '30,~901
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 1
3. 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 inconsistencies within the
Central Chula Vista community. The precise
territorial limits, DroDosed rezonin~s, and
proposed general 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 zoninq and land use.
Primary area between Second and Third:
City Planning Co~lssion
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 Co~ ~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. ANALYBI8
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. (Exhibit 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 1 - 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 ~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 Cop 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 {?rofessional & 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 MADRONA
:::3 7 ~ ILl
,,,~ · - m
~::~ "~ ~ .,. v ~J_'~'~r
..................... SUBA~
ROOSEVELT_ ST - ...... ' .....
~ 4 i ......mmmmmmmm~
SHASTA STREET
N
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY ~.
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B!~ EXHIBIT
A
PART I $CJkE.E: 1"= 300'
E,EI'I'IERI-M¢INTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
CENTER ;TREET
~ CYPRESS STRFFT
MADRONA STREET
II I
G STRbb 'r
N
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY ~
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1 ~ EXHIBIT
B
PART II sc,~ x'- ~'
LETFIERI-McINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
~Y WAY
~ DAVIDSON STREET
~ ~ ~ ..... ~ M~O
N
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1 EXH BTT
PART TTT - SUBAREA :1. sc~L~: ~--~,
LETFIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
N
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY w.
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA Bi~ EXHIBIT
D
PART Ill SUBAREA Z sc~ r= 2~'
LETFIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
~ L/M DR. Low/M~dim~ Density
, , ~ L Re.,sidcutial (3-6 du/ac)
E" .~TREET M DR Mcdium Dead, a7 Residential
t M/H (6-1~ alu/ac)
DR
Medium/High Dcasi[7
Residential (11-18 du/ac)
H DR High Dcasity Residcnfial
(18-27 dR/ac)
RC Rctail Commcrcial
" C' PQP Public a~d Quasi Public
CommerciaJ
-- ~- _ ~ PRK Pa~k~ and R~c~¢atioa
H DR
PART I
PAC
N
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY
STUDY - SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1~ EXHIBIT
E
SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS sc,~LE:~'=
LETTIERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
N
GENERAL PLAN/ZONTNG CONSTSTENCY ~
STUDY - SPECZAL STUDY AREA B1~ EXHTBI'T
F
SURROUNDZNG ZONING sc~: ~'= ~o' I
LETI'IERI-MclNTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
T~BLE T
EX~STING ~ PROPOSED (~ENEI~L PLaN DESTGN~T'rONS ~ND ZONTNG
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 J TABLE
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS & ZONING 1
LETTIERI-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
Oavidson Streets.
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: 91-13 DATE: 10-26-90
A. Project Settinq
On July 11, 1989, the City of Chula Vista City Council adopted the Chula
Vista Genbral 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 GenePal Plan land use designations
and the existing zoning, denoted "study as Area B-I" 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 Elan consistency.
The majority of the B-1 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. Consisten~c~f/_(,
city of chula vista planning department CI'i'YOF
environmental review section CHULA VIS-fA
-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. ~ompliance 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 5 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. Orainaqe
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. Mitioation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
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. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project 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-sustainieg levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
coa~nunity, 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.
_ A )
-4-
The project does not have the potential to (a) 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; (e) 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
]. 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 19 (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 co~ents on
the Initial Study and any co~ents on this Negative Declaration. Further
info~ation 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
'.... UBRARY PARK
.'tC
~HULA VISTA
PUB~.IC LIMMRY
"F" ST.
:COD
;YPRESS
ST.
COl
...... EXHIBIT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-90 L. FRY
'" FOR OFFICE USE
Case No.
INITIAL STUDY Receipt _~No.~,._
Ci~ ofChula ~$ta ~p~'~~
AppliCation Form Project No.__~__~__~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Area B-)
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Area between E Street and
fl Street between 2nd & 3rd Avenues; and an area on the eas~ side of ~th
Avenue between E and Davidson Streets
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. As per attached Exhibit A
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION There will be General Plan Amendments and
~ezonings.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 Cit~ 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 6gl-5012
City Chula Vista State CA ~ Zip 92010
Relation to Applicant Employees of the City 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
--k-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~J 3 {Rev. 12/82)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
· Meeting Date 6/19/90
ITEM TITLE: General. Plan/Zoning Consistency Study & Action Plan for
Central Chula Vista
S UBMIITTED BY: Director of-Planning /~z~'~
REVIEWED BY: city Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On 3uly 11, lg8g, the 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 the existing
zoning and.land use:patterns of the area.
The areas of incongruity 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 198g. The staff report outlined an overall approach designed to
resolve those general plan/zoning inconsistency issues identified in the
incongruity study. The Council directed the staff to return with a more
specific program of resolution and the Planning Oepartment recently completed
this task, which is the subject of this report.
:
RECOI~4ENDATION:
1. To approve the Consistency Action Plan recommended by the Planning
Oepartment in 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, rezonings and General Plan Amendments,
called for under the Action Plan for Central Chula Vista.
BOARDS/COMMISSiONS RECOI~AIENOATION: Not applicable.
HISTORY:
Shortly after the General Plan update was adopted and the conflicts became
apparent, the City Council adopted Ordinance #2327 amending Sections l g.06.030
and lg.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, Item
Meeting Oate-67TS'/~F
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 lggO, adopted
Ordinance ~235g, and thereby permitting these Upipeline" projects to proceed.
(see Appendix I). ---
In 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 whlch are the subject of these
~nquirtes are 11sted in Appendix II, which identifies the extsting
Zoning/General Plan Oesignatton and the Special Study Area tn which the
property is located.
The magnitude of ~he changes brought about by the General Plan Update, ~n
addition to the said inquiries, prompted the Ctty Council to direct the
Planning Oepartment to undertake a comprehensive General Plan/Zoning
Consistency Study and Plan within the Central Chula Vtsta Community.
As staff prepared this report, it determined that some of the most obvtous
general plan/zoning 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 stbdy 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, Item
Meeting Date.-~Tl~Y7~
AREAS 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.
.PROPOSED 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 staff'has recommended a precise plan of action. These areas, because of
their existing patterns of land use, residential density, zoning, and traffic
circulation, may' require a combination of rezonings and plan amendments to
promote 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 eoncern, 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 rezonings 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 community.
Page 4, Item
I~eeting Da te-b-/Tg-/~
. TIHEFRAHE AND COST ESTIHATES:
The project would be subdivided into six basic tasks, which would consist of
one comprehensive, omnibus rezoning effort, and five Special Studies. Each of
these tasks would entail approximately 350 hours of private professional and
technical consultant work~*- in addition to in-house staff assistance and
guidance. Based on these estimates, it is expected that the cost of private
consulting services would be in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. This time
estimate-is based upon the Advanced Planning Division's recent experience in
the comprehensive rezoning of several neighborhoods within the Hontgomery
Community.
The involved process should familiarize the staff with the concerns of the
community and substantially increase the public awareness and acceptance of
City planning. A1 though this procedure is both costly and time consuming, the
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Action Plan is, to an appreciable extent, a
'Central Chula Vista Specific Plan."
An option to the above proposal would be the delay of the project, pending the
completion of the Montgomery Comprehensive Rezoning Program. This option
could enable the Planning Department to assign additional staff to the said
project, and thereby achieve some cost savings.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed project would cost- between $80,000 and
$100,000, for consulting services. The draft contract for these services,
which will embody a detailed outline of required performance, will be brought
back to Council.
~PC 7459P
EXHIBIT B =~ROPOSED SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
B-1. Location: -Area between 'E" Street ~nd 'H" Street lying between Second and Third
Avenues, and an area lying on the east side of Fourth Avenue, between 'E" and
Oavidson Streets..
Existing Zone: R-3, C-O-P, C-O
Existing General
Plan Designation: Residential Low-Medium; Residential Medium-High,
Residential High
Priority:` 1
B-2. 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 'Designation: 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: $
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-$. 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 CONSISTENCY, STUDY
SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B 1
CC
'F' ST.
~'PflE
i.
I
]1--~. 'H' 8T.
'- *' ** *-- EXHIBIT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA- PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-90 L. FRY __
E. CERTIFICATION
uwner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. k~ ~1-(~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~O~ ~.~T~ ~£~1 .~-- (~P ,
North '
South ~t/~
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~/~
2. General Plan land use ~ ~' ~~ '
designation on site: ~e~l~ ~ ~eo~o~ ~[
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? nO
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pr--6-t'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 parkland ace necessary to serve the proposed project?
{2AC/1000 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
~chool Attendance Capacity From Project
O. }'Z~-¢I Elenmntary ~~
I~-Qa~Sr. High ~y ~
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
please describe.)
SO~
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:
Director ol~lanning ~sencati e ') Date
...... _
- 10 -
Case No. ~-C) l
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project stte within a flood plain? ~
b. Will 'the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~Jo
d.What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~/A
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~/~
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-wy auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service 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. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- 11 -
Case No.
3. Geology ~/~
a. Is the project stte subject to:
...... Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse sot1 conditions On the project
site?
b. Zf yes, what are these adverse soil-conditiOns?
c. Is a soils 'report necessary? ' ,
5. Land Form ~/A
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. Mat ts the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise ~/~
Are.there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air_Quality N/~ -
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 Pollution
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 wil)~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?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Zmpact
Zf 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 mitigatfon measures
· ' S ~1-~3
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the.distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? I~Z~-~,~,~ ~ e~t ~,IL
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? ~
0
3. Remarks
Fire Marshal Date
-13(a)-
Case No. /_r-~/-/~
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
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
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 I -
CHUI,A ', i 'rA CITY SCHOOL-' I TRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVIST~ CALIFORNIA92010 * 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN ~DIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
~ARD OF SXiCA~N
JOSE~ D. CUMMINGS, ~.D.
~ARONGIL~ September 19, 1990
Mr. Doug Reid ~
~NF.~R~.~.~ Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
IS-91-13, General pl&n/Zonil~gCo~sistei~cyStu~y
Area 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 summarize 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 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, 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 school 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 School District
September 28, 1990 ~ - 3 ~
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92011
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study - Special Study Area #o. 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. 92012
Subject: General Plan , Zoning Consistancy Action Plan: B-! 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 years~ my wife
and myself attended a 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.
I expressed my approval o~ the change to R1 zoning at that time
and do again now because we prese~ly have three multi-dwelling apartment
complexes facing on our short Del Mar Court. The added Pa~king, motor
veichle traffic and other problems caused by the additionAthe latest
multi-dwelling unit on Del Mar Court, about five years ago~ has caused us
to favor the rezoning from R3 to Ri.
I 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. I feel the congestion i~ our small
neighborhood is growing and the change to R-1 will be more b~ficial to
our quality of life here than the change to R-3~22.
Yours truly,
Robert C. Moore
Date~ October 1, 1990
Chula Vista, CA. 92010
Phone 619-421-3448
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista, California
Dear Sir:
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 Center Street and facing
F. Streets, l~el Mar and Church. 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 owner 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 ,TA CITY SCHOOL-D TRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA~ CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
mOAROOF~UOC~ON September 27,1990
JOSE~ D. ~I~M~S, ~.D.
~ARON GILES
PATR~K A. JU~
JUDY~HUL~BE~
FRANK~R~&~TiNO Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
SU~T~.NT City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
JO, NF. VU~R~.m.D. Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE:Initial Study - General P)an/Zonin9 Consistency Study
Area B-1
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for providing further information on the General Plan/Zoning
Consistency as well as additional time to augment my original comments.
It was the District's understanding that the City's General Plan Update
would be followed by rezonings to bring existing zoning into conformance
with the revised General Plan land use designations. The District was
also advised by City staff and elected officials that the City intended
to downzone the Central Chula Vista area to lower densities, in
conformance with the General Plan. The action currently proposed is
the reverse: amending the General Plan to more closely reflect existing
higher density zoning.
Primary elements of the Update include (1) conservation of existing
single family neighborhoods; and (2) density reductions in some
residential areas. The Update states that it is anticipated that the
Central Chula Vista area will remain substantially the same over the
planning period, adding some 2,800 residents through in-fill and limited
redevelopment. The District relied on the Update and formulated its
plans accordingly.
We calculate, based on data from City staff, that Study Area B-Z consists
of approximately 62 gross acres. The current designation of Low/Medium
Density could yield between 187 373 residential units, less
undevelopable areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezone would
redesignate the area Medium/High Density Residential which, with a
proposed 22 units per net acre could produce up to 1,371 units. This
is significantly greater than that previously planned and appears contrary
to the primary elements of the General Plan Update. Without knowing
the number and type of existing development in Area B-Z, net impacts
to schools cannot be calculated.
The impact this proposed amendment will have on the District's ability
to serve elementary children in the area, when implemented through future
development projects, is severe. We have advised the City on numerous
occasions of overcrowding at schools in the western portion of the City.
This proposed redesignation and upzoning will produce children who cannot
be accommodated by existing schools. Funds for construction of a new
school, as are the options to obtain an appropriate site in 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), by rezoning the
area in question, absent a specific development proposal, the City
effectively precludes the District'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 Community 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 gI TA CITY SCHOOl., I. STRICT
84 E~T '~" STREET * CHU~ Vi~A, C~I~IA 92010 * 619 425-9600
· A~H CHILD !~ ~ I~D~IDU~ OF ~REAT WORTH
~=K~.~ Septe~er 19, 1990
~Y ~E~
F~K ~ T~
276 ~ou~h ~venue
C~U~8 ~;~a~ CA 920~0
~S-91-13, ~eral Pl~/gon~ng ~ns~sten~ Study
~ea B-1
Dear Mr. Re~d:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and cogent on the
City's proposed rezon~ng for Special Study Area B-1.
Unfortunately, the time permitted for review of this
pro~sal Is not suffic~ent to allow adequate review and
response. We received the notice on Septe~er 13, with
Septe~er 19 as the deadline for comments. I will atteapt
to briefly su~arize the D~strict's concerns based on a
very preliminary review. We will provide add~tional
co~ents following further analys~s.
Study Area B-1 ~s located in the attendance areas of two
schools, V~sta Square and Rosebank. Both schools are
operating above capacity, with projections for continued
growth. Both facilit~es are currently under consideration
for implementation of year-round multi-track programs to
assist in acco~odating growth from the area.
The current proposal to rezone Area B-1 from residential
and co~ercial uses to Residential ~w-Medium, Nedium-High
and High could s~gnificantly exacerbate overcrowding at the
two schools mentioned above. There ~s no capacity to
acco~odate additional students. Busing is ~ng used to
overflow students to other District facilities. In
addition, all schools in the immediate v~cinity of the
project area, as well as most District schools, are e~ther
rapidly approaching, or are over capacity.
In order to properly assess potential ~mpacts on District
facilities, addit~onal information as to the proposed
res~dential oategory(ies) ~s 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, 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
end 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
September 19,1990 --
To: Enviromental Review Coorainator
P 0 Box 1087
Chula Vista Ca '92010
Attention: Mr. Douglas D Reid
Our reason for this letter is: a £ew years back we purchased the
property located at 249 DelMar Avenue, in Chula Vista, Ca.
This property was purchaaed'~rimarily because it is a R-3 Zone
and realizing how exuensive ~t is to buy property, we would make
arrangemen~ to have another place o~ residence build on that corner
lot in order ~or 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 ~etting started on this project, and the City of Chula Vista
informed him that no transaction would be allowea an~ all uermits
would be eliminated aue to certain areas being "DO~N ZONE~~'.
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. ~e consider this to be a real ~roblem in
our behal£, not being able to make a move and~aving to visualize
our future plans terminated.
~e ask that you please consider the ~resent R-$ Zone to remain as
such, for it is essential to us to upgrade the property with only
the best appearance in mind.
Thank you for your cooneration and consideration in the above matter.
Sincerely,
~obert J' Villarino and Socorrp/.~.~~
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 of 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 Ini.tial Study must be prespnted in w~itiQg :o
the Environmental Review Coordinator, P.O.' Box 1087, Chula Vista,
CA g2Olg~_?i~r tO 8:00 P,m~ on September 24, lggO.
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 Avenpe, and an area lying
· Project. lLe~¢r~(p~; o~ 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-High, Residential High
Project Location: See Exhibit
Project Applicant: Chula Vista Planning Department
E~n°vU~lroaSnm~nt~i~,eview Coordinator
Date: September 11, 1990
Case No: IS-gl-13
EN $ (Rev. 12/82)
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY
SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B1
CC
UBRARY P~J~K
4TER I ~IULA VISTA
PUBLIC LIBRARY
ST.
PARK way
COt~
__ "H' ST.
,...,--,.. CC
"' - ' "" ...... EXHIBIT
CiTY OF CHULA VISTA- PLANNING DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING DIV. 4-2-90 L. FRY
City Planning Commission Page 1
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-79-04~ Consideration of Amendments to the
Municipal Code relatine to the provision of community
ouroose facilities - City Initiated.
A. BACKGROUND
In 1989, the City Council directed the formation of a Church Task Force, and requested
that this task force examine the appropriate amount of land for religious facilities in new
development projects in the eastern portion of the City.
In August, 1990, the City Council expanded the purpose of the task force to include all
community purpose facilities, which aside from religious facilities, included other non-
religious facilities (i.e.; boys clubs, gifts clubs, YMCA, etc.). A report was then
submitted to the City Council by the Task Force which included recommendations.
In September, 1990, the City Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance which
would assure that adequate land be set aside for community purpose facilities within
master planned communities. No guidelines currently exists through policy or Municipal
Code to provide for these land uses within the PC (Planned Community) zone.
The City Council also directed staff to review recommendations contained in the
Community Purpose Facilities Task Force report and coordinate workshops involving
representatives from the construction industry, major landowners, social service
providers, and the Task Force. Three workshops were held between November and
January to discuss the issues and to acquire any additional data toward formulation of the
proposed zoning text amendment.
On February 5, 1991, the City Council referred the draft ordinance to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendations.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Negative Declaration, IS-91-17.
2. Recommend that:
a. Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code amendments (see Exhibit A);
b. Council refer the issue of the adequacy of daycare facilities in new
developments to the Child Care Commission and staff for review and
recommendations.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
Present Regulations or Standards
The City presently requires that all of the community purpose facilities (as defined in
Exhibit A) obtain a conditional use permit for locating in any zone. The uses are
considered "unclassified uses" in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.54 in the Municipal
Cede).
The eastern portion of the City is predominantly zoned P-C (Planned Community) and
the means for implementing development within the P-C zone is through a SPA plan.
No criteria presently exists within the P-C zone standards (Chapter 19.48 of the
Municipal Code) for the required provision of land use acreage for community purpose
facilities.
Most of the undeveloped area east of 1-805 consists of large land holdings, and,
consequently, development of this property has and will result in large master planned
communities. Planning for these communities will result in the predesignation of land
uses under the P-C zone. Unless an amendment to an approved master planned
community is processed through the Planning Commission and City Council, the
approved land use designations will remain in place indefinitely. Major projects
processed to date have provided land area for religious facilities, although not based on
a needs analysis. If non-religious as well as religious community purpose facilities are
not planned for in our expanding community, it will be very difficult for these land uses,
which are essential parts of the community fabric, to locate in the future.
Regulations/Standards of Other Jurisdictions
The Planning Department contacted 17 cities within San Diego County to acquire
information on similar type land uses or land use designations. There were no other
cities in the County that have combined land uses into this type of designation and there
has been a lack of retrievable information on existing facilities. All 17 cities either did
not compile data on community purpose facilities usage or were unable to quantify their
data. What staff has discovered is that the City of Chula Vista appears to be pioneering
in the area of requiting provisions for community purpose facilities in master planned
communities.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 3
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the American Planning Association (APA) have been
contacted through nationwide computer library links for any information that could help
in addressing this issue, but neither major planning organization has been able to provide
helpful information.
D. ANALYSIS
Definition of Community Pu _rpose Facilities
"Community purpose facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as ancillary uses
such as a parking lot, within a planned community, which serves one of the following
purposes:
1. Boy Scouts, Gift Scouts, and other similar organizations;
2. Social service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous;
3. Services for homeless;
4. Services for military personnel during the holidays;
5. Private schools;
6. Senior care and recreation;
7. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional family
values;
8. Daycare facilities that are ancillary to any of the above.
The uses that make up the general definition of community purpose facilities were
derived through City Council direction.
Staff has excluded daycare facilities that are not ancillary to the above listed community
purpose facilities. It is clear that the entire issue of adequacy of daycare facilities is one
which requires separate analysis and recommendation. Staff requests that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council refer the overall issue of daycare facilities
to the City's Child Care Commission and staff to look independently at dayeare needs
and that they return to the City Council will recommendations on how these facilities
might be assured within new master planned communities.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 4
Propose4t Ordinance
Staff is recommending that Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code be amended to include
community purpose facilities within the P-C zone (see Exhibit A).
The following rationale has been used for determining the appropriate acreage
requirement (see Exhibit B for calculations):
Religious Community Pu ~rpose Facilities
A determination was first made of the number of Chula Vista residents that
regularly attend religious services (29.8%t of 134,000 = 39,932).
A survey, by members of the Community Purpose Facilities Task Force, was
conducted to determine how many Chula Vista residents regularly attend religious
services and what percentage of those attend the peak service on the peak day.
This figure (54.9%)2 was then compared to the estimated religious attendance
figure for the City to determine citywide attendance at the peak service on the
peak day (54.9% of 39,932 -- 21,925).
An analysis consisting of the optimum size sanctuary, ancillary school facilities,
parking and setbacks that could occur on 1 acre of land was conducted by the
Task Force. The maximum number of sanctuary attendees on 1 acre was
determined to be 1403.
The appropriate acreage necessary to accommodate the estimated Chula Vista
religious attendees is then determined (21,925 + 140 = 157 acres).
Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force report.
Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force survey.
Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force report.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 5
Non-Reli£ious Facilities
From information provided by the Chula Vista Human Services Council, staff
determined that 30 acres of non-religious community purpose facility acreage is
currently needed for the existing city (see Exhibit B for calculations).
Staff compiled existing non-religious community purpose facility acreage figures
from the City's land use inventory. A total of 45 acres, which included 18.01
acres of private school land, was found to exist. In examining this private school
acreage, it was determined that all the acreage was presently attached to existing
religious facilities and functions as weekday school space for children and adults
as well as "Sunday School"-type space in conjunction with the adjacent religious
facilities. Since this type of acreage has been accounted for in the religious
facilities calculations, the actual existing non-religious acreage totals 28 acres.
The figure of 30 acres will be used in staffs calculations.
Determining Acreage Factor
The estimated acreage for religious and non-religious community purpose
facilities was then determined to be 187 acres (157 + 30 = 187). When this
figure is compared to the total City population, a factor of 1.39 acres per 1,000
people was determined as the required acreage factor (187 + [134,000 + 1,000]
= 1.39 acres).
Imulementation of Ordinance
At the time of submittal of a SPA plan, the California Department of Finance
figures for estimated household size will be applied to the number of anticipated
dwelling types to determine an estimated population (by thousands). This figure
will then be multiplied times the acreage factor of 1.39 to determine the total
acres required for the project. Staff will then work with the developer to
determine the most appropriate location(s). The proposed ordinance also provides
for a reduction in required acreage if it can be assured that there are provisions
for rental space for community purpose facilities.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 6
Public Coinment
Construction Industry. Federation
The construction industry submitted a letter to the City Council containing questions that
they wish to have answered at the Planning Commission public hearing (see Exhibit C).
The following is a restatement of those questions and staff responses:
Question: Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for the space needs of
youngsters attending religious services?
Response: Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the estimated sanctuary space serves not
only to provide for adults but also for their children. We cannot assume
that children will always be separated into schools while adults attend
services. Some of the major denominations, in fact, have children attend
services with the adults and religious school at a different time.
Question: Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for religious institutions
which rent or lease chumh space?
Response: Yes. The draft ordinance does provide for the ability to reduce required
land area if another means, such as rental space within a business park,
can be assured (see Exhibit A).
Question: Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for other community
purpose institutions which rent or lease space, and does it double count
religious schools?
Response: Staff has re-examined the acreage total compiled from the City's land use
inventory and it appears that the 18.01 acres that was calculated as non-
religious community purpose facility acreage (as private schools) does in
fact function to augment existing religious facilities that are physically
adjacent. On the adjacent religious facilities site, separate classroom
space is not being provided; therefore, the classroom space provided on
the adjacent school site functions to cover "Sunday School"-type
classroom space. As a result, staff has modified the proposed ordinance
acreage factor from 1.5 acres per 1,000 people to 1.39 acres per 1,000
people.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 13, 1991 Page 7
Community Pu _rpose Facility Task Force (Formerly the Church Task Force)
A letter received from the Task Force also responds to the letter and questions asked by
the Construction Industry Federation.
Pastor Rick Johnson (Task Force Member)
A letter in support of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Bruce Young (Revresentine the Oranee County Grouv - Land Advocacy for Non-
Profit Development [LANDB
This letter responds to the Construction Industry Federation letter and requests that the
City consider increasing the required acreage factor to 2.00 acres per 1,000 people based
on information that suggests that the percentage of city-wide religious attendance is
actually 35% instead of 29.8%.
Staff has chosen to use 29.8% as the percentage of population that attends religious
services regularly. This figure was derived from the Community Purpose Facility Task
Force report. The 35 % estimate that Mr. Young refers to is based on the Western
United States, whereas the 29.8% figure is based on San Diego County. Since this
figure relates more closely to the Chula Vista experience, staff will continue to use
29.8 % for its calculations.
O'C-COMI~URP.RPT)
Exhibit A
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to
Community Purpose Facilities in the Planned Community Zone
I. Add Section 19.04.55 to Chapter 19.04 (Definitions) as
follows:
Community purpose facility.
"Community purpose facility" means a structure for
assembly, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot,
within a planned community, which serves one of the following
purposes:
1) Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar
organizations;
2) social service activities, such as Alcoholics
Anonymous;
3) services for homeless;
4) services for military personnel during the
holidays;
5) private schools;
6) senior care and recreation;
7) worship, spiritual growth and development, and
teaching of traditional family values;
8) day care facilities that are ancillary to any of
the above.
II. Amend Chapter 19.48 (Planned Community Zone) as follows:
A. Add Section 19.48.020 (c) as follows:
"C. All land in each P-C zone, or any section thereof,
shall be subject to the requirement that adequate
land be designated for "community purpose
facilities," as defined in Section 19.04.55. A
total of 1.39 acres of net usable land (including
setbacks) per 1,000 population shall be designated
for such facilities in any planned community, and
shall be so designated in the Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan(s) for each planned community.
This total acreage requirement may be reduced only
if the City Council determines, in conjunction with
its adoption of a SPA Plan, that a lesser amount of
land is needed, based on availability of shared
parking with other facilities, or other community
purpose facilities that are guaranteed to be made
available to the community. Any shared parking
arrangements pursuant to this section shall be
guaranteed regardless of any future changes in
occupancy of facilities."
B. Add Section 19.48.040 B.6(d) as follows:
"d. Determination of the amount of acreage required to
be designated for "community purpose facilities"
pursuant to Section 19.48.101 (c)."
C. Add Section 19.48.090 C.i.j. (viii) as follows:
"viii. Community purpose facilities:
-Location and acreage of sites, in conformance with
Section 19.48.020C.
-A specific listing of types of uses to be included
in this category, which are compatible with the
permitted uses in the planned community."
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERING AND
GENERAL CON [RACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS
0F AMERICA SAN 0~EG0 COUNTY ASSOCIATION
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDBRATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE F, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 (619) 587-0292
February 5, 1991
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
RE: Support Referral to Planning Commission
Oppose Recommendation of 1.5 acres per 1,000
The Construction Industry Federations appreciates this opportunity to again comment on the
proposed acreage amounts for Community Purpose Facilities.
Your Council witl find below some basic fundamental questions which questions the findings
incorporated into the 1.5 acres per 1,000 population figure. The CIF respectfully asks your
Council to ask City Staff these questions below. Moreover, CIF would respectfully ask that
your Council direct City Staff to respond in writing to these questions to the Planning
Commission.
1. Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for the space needs of
youngsters attending religious services?
The Community Purpose Task Force Report concludes a one acre church site can serve 140
attendees per worship session. The report's model one acre site identifies the following space
needs:
Worship/Fellowship 4,950 Sq. Ft
Education 5,240 Sq. Ft
Other Structures 3,124 Sq. Ft
The Community Purpose Task Force Report also concludes that Chula Vista has a religious
population of 39,932 persons1. This religious population includes all oersons who attend
reliaious services, adult and children, not lust adult confirmed members2.
Thus, youngsters attending religious instruction on a worship day must be counted as part of
the total religious population served. That is, if 140 persons attend "Sunday school" in the
education space, the total religious population served is 162 persons.
It appears as if the ordinance's calculations do not adequately account for this portion of the
population served.
However, an actual phone survey of Chula Vista churches pedormed by Task Force
members concluded that the average total church attendance in Chula Vista totats 27,381
persons.
2 According to the 1980 Yearbook ct American and Canadian Churches, 29.8% ct San
Diego County population are "adherents.*' Adherents are defined as all communicants, confirmed
and full members and their children and an estimate of the other regular participants who are not
communicants, confirmed or full members. According to the same report, only 9% of the San
Diego County population are communicants, confirmed or full members of a church.
2. Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for religious institutions
which rent or lease church space?
According to the September Community Purpose Task Force Report, o . ,
~:hurches occuov rented or borrowed soace. The January survey of local churches concluded
that 22% of Chula Vista's churches have an average attendance of less than 90 persons.
Another t8% of the churches did not respond, leading to the conclusion that they are likely to
be churches with very small congregations. It is unlikely that many churches with smaller
congregations will decide to purchase land and construct a church facility. Yet, the draft
ordinance zones land as if all future churches will be free standing owner occupied facilities.
It appears as if the ordinance's calculations do not adequately account for churches likely to
locate in rented facilities.
3. Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for other community
purpose Institutions which rent or lease space, and does It double count
religious schools?
The staff report recommends land be zoned for "other community purpose facilities" based on
the assumption that there are between 30 and 45 acres of land for these facilities currently
serving Chula Vista. The 30 acre amount is extrapolated from an analysis provided by the
Human Relations Commission. The 45 acre figure is based upon data from the land use
inventory.
First, it is important to note that most human services entities currently reside and are likely to
continue to reside in leased facilities. Thus, their needs can be addressed through the
provision of adequate supplies of land zoned for commercial or office professional uses.
Second, the land use inventory classifies religious schools (18.01 acres) as part of the "other
community purpose category." As mentioned in the discussion above, these facilities are
already included in the church space analysis. Including them in this category effectively
double counts them.
CIF appreciates this opportunity to comment.
Very truly ypurs, ¢ ~
CIF 'E~gislative Analyst
F e::::, "=' :) ?? :I. EXHIBIT D
-f ~..~ ]. ~ ......... · , .
~, (::' ~ ] L: ~ ,,
T.~:,, ,:=~ ....... ·~:~,~, ~.~o~..]d ra!:;l'~e? 'f:i.~u~"e i't-:., this ~ay, 't;hat :i.s pe~"~fect].v., f:i. ne
2., l'!'~(e~ m.:~Jn ~-'eason i;i~a'I: 29% c,f 't;he cl'"~u~-"che~ :i.n c, uc c;it;y
a '!. i; e n (::i a n c e ~:" ~ ......
' - ' ' - ......... up ~,~:ith
c:~ve~ a 1::,(-~ r :i c:,cI cf ;i 8 m(::~c~hs i n.¥o ] .,/:i ~"~ many i..~(:'~l-~.,
t'.:l'~,? fact I;l'i~l'(: "al. ]." (:::]"Ji_(t"(:::l"i¢;:.~ w:i. ]. 1 c;)r' t,¢i I 1 nc, t; be fl"ee
' ... - ..... ' ..... i s
..... ,,I ( ........ a p?"i:)l:)~r' ii I~:;'~(::;~ ~,.,.!i ]. ] !:](~ ?~."(n,~'lded 'roi" the
aisc:! the c:c)mpet:i.!::[.cal~ a(~aJr~[t fc:ar'-prc::f:i.t c)r'.c9an:i, zat:Lor*s is a real
~: h i"ee~/t, l]'"~ J. ~:::. c ~:,UE~.Eq~ m(::)s t '.~ (:::, c:: :[ a ], S(~ r' ¢ :~. (::: Ee '" ]" ~" ;~ '] [ z a t '[ ~']l"~ ~:~ t c:) ] J, m ~. t
In ,::~'der' "f(ar 'tfi~:e~ chu?'c::h 't::o bec,:::,me tr'uly ben~z, volent,~ :i.t needs
T ,.., ~::~ d d J. t; J o1"~ t: o '~ ~-'' '-' c:) '¢:
......... ]..::.~ ail you need to, dr' :i.s ].c)c,k a~ some
:it: mean they v,~(:suld nc~l; ]:i.l.::~:~ t(:::, be :i.n ,:* ]6e!EH~;(E,I" (:lEebt s:i.'buat:i.c)n. By
fa(::::~].:i.t[e~s ~:(:) ~:hat '[:h(:~)y (:::a'd~ be~(::ep sel"~e) the p(~)ot:)].e at u].t:i, ma~ely
;::~,.~ .............. ~ ] ~" ~ i'"~': ..................... i' athEq'" :it c:] ass:i f:i.E-)s 'pP:['~,a'l::~) E[~(:'hc~r'~] ~:~" aec. par'l:.
Homeless th~.c)ucjh ]:nt(s)rfa:i. th She:iter~ Neb~,~c:~rfi.::).
.........~,,, :::~::)~:'~ f a ]. s J. f :[. ecl c: ]. a :i. ms ar'~ ~.1_. L~n E~.uD S t an t i a ted a ]. 1 ~(~. a t :~. on s t c) r'es t.
~:i. th tku~eir r'ecc)mmendat:[.c,r~ (:::,f ].,,5 ac::r~e~ per :1.()00 pc)pulation. We
ar.e :i.n 'fuji. sL.*ppc)rt c,f 'l';h:is and ch::) l']c:,i::)e~, that the 'f::i. gur. es ar.e
;[nc;c)ppc:,r.a'(:e2d il]'l;o the ;:c)n:i.n~;i c)t.cl:[rial']c:e by tl']~ F'larming Cc;)mmiss;i. on
[]:it;y (::)'f Chu].a ;:i. sta (]:hLu ch I ..... -. Force
-- EXHIBIT E
Pastor Rick Johnson
Wednesday February 20, 19~t
To: Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
Iqe: Draft Ordinance for Community Ordinance Facility ~onlng Amendment
Dea~ Ladies and Gentiemem
i regret that in all likelihood I will not be able to be at the meeting of the Planning
Commission to add:-ess you personally on the matter of the proposed zoning amendment for
Community Purpose Facilities in the PC zone. Unfor*~unately, the regular meeting night is
Wednesday evening and that is a ver~, nosy night for pastors and the chur:h community,
especially so during the Lenten season that we now are celebrating, I am not sure how
many ;rom the church community of Chula Vista will be present but if the numbers are low,
rest assured it is a matter o~ scheduling and not lack o4 interest.
For the past ~,ear and a half or so, I have participated in the Community Purpose B-acilities
task force. :.fo started as a Church Task Force that was asked by the City Council to
develop a plan to include sites for churches in the developing eastern territories. Because
of the lack of information from other sources -- no other city has such a plan -- we
struggled mightily to arrive at an equitable and workable solution. During this time: the
major developers in our city were invited to participate. Only one, McMil!in, sent a
representative, bJhen we finaii7 reported to Council, the ~evelopers crieo foul because
they had not had a chance to participate in the process, even though they had been invited.
They also questioned the legality o; zoning for churches based on the seperation of church
and state clause in the Constitution. The task force name and scope was bromdened to
include al! "not for profit" community service organizations. A series of workshops were
conducv, ed and what ~ou have before you in the ~inal result of our efforts. ]'ne original
Church Task Force supports it. The newer Cammur~ity Purpose Facilities ]'ask For~e
supports it. The planning staff of the city supports it.
1- ;act, the oni? peop:e ~,,~o d: ~ct s~ypert it s,e the develop?s. For the past monv. hs,
they nave had opportunity to provide imput. ',4hat they provided was Oy in large
o?.?ositio-,. On t~e night of the Piamrfng Commission meeting,: am sure that you will again
,ear ~o,~ unfair the proposed plan is, how in error~ ho,~ costly, how unsubstantiated. ~dhat
1he plmn really does is to provide for an integral part of our community fmbric that has
been neglected and for which we ~ill paX dear!y if 1ha+. nelgect is not rectified, it does
not cost the city but will in fact save the city money. It is not unsubstantiated but has
been well considered. As you Know~ the planning department does not offer something that
is not well thought out.
t urge you to recommend for passage, the proposed ordinance as staff presents it. It is
t~e right thing ;or our city.
Church Office:
391 Bay Leaf Drive Chula Vista, CA 92010
(619) 422-4944 -- (619) 585-1773
EXHIBIT F
LAND
Southern California Ecumenical Council
31891 Via Pato, Trabuco Canyon Ca. 912679714/858_0600
20 February 1991 .................... ]
Mayor Pro Tem Len Moore
Councilman Tim Nader
Councilman David Malcom
Councilman Jerry Rindone
Chula Vista City Hall
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca. 92010
Subject: Church Task Force
Reference: Construction Industry Federation Letter dated: February 5 1991
Wherein CIF Oppose Recommendation of 1.5 acres per 1,000 people.
LAND would recommend that the City use at least 2 acres per 1,000
people be zoned for the exclusive use of the benevolent non
profit institutions (independent sector.)
LAND would recommend that the City use the average number of 35%
of the population attend church regularly, as reported in the
YEARBOOK, in recognition of existing adverse conditions that
exist in a growth community.
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
LAND has been asked to respond to the above referenced letter. Please note
that we are not a paid consultant. We have no financial interest in the
proposed development other than knowing that the citizens of Chuta Vista
will fare better than the citizens of ORANGE COUNTY. Many of the citizens
of Orange County need the social services offered by the independent sector
and must suffer as a result of poor land use planning. You all should be
congratulated for your efforts in trying to create better communities.
CIF QUESTION:
1. Does the proposed ordinances adequately account for space needs of
youngsters attending religious services?
'i'ne answer is no. The question addresses only a one day use of the
proposed facility. The proposed ordinance does not account for all of the
needs of the youngsters nor all of the proposed use of the facilities.
Thirty five percent of all congregations, across this nation are used seven
days a week. This data is reported by INDEPENDENT SECTOR in their 1988
zeport titled FROM BELIEF TO COMMITMENT. Many of the facilities that are
open seven days a week are providing non profit child care, latch key care
and programs for youth. The list would go on and on if we were to list all
of the non profit service that are being provided by these facilities.
If we were to address the space needs of youngster~ in addition to the
classrooms included in the ordinance, we should include'playgrounds for
toddlers, playgrounds for children, and playgrounds for latchkey children.
The majority of the population has both parents working and many of these
parents can t afford'to pay for child care. We have a choice. W~ can let
the children grow up in the streets or we can provide an opportunity for
the Chula Vista con, unity resource Benevolent Non Profit Institutions to
provide guidance and direction to these yodng people at this time in their
lives when they need supervision.
The response from the CIF Legislative Analyst is very confusing as he
appears to not understand the data that has been submitted. The analysis is
trying to determine the religious population of Chula Vista so that the
proper amount of proposed land will be set aside is based upon the correct
database.
First we have two kinds of data. We have the data that was collected by
GEORGE GALLOP GROUP (Exhibit 1.) and the BARNA RESEARCH GROUP (Ekhibit 2.)
and the Princeton Research Center (Exhibit 3.) where the general population
is asked a series of questions. Both of these vary independent groups
report that (GALLOP GROUP) 61 percent, (BARNA GROUP) 60 percent, and the
PRINCETON RELIGIOUS RESEARCH CENTER reported 64 percent of the general
population identify with a denomination and s~y that they are a member of a
specific religious ~ommunity (church).
The second kind of data is collected from the denominations where they are
asked how many people are active (attend service each week) within each
congregation and how many people are adherents. First the reader must
understand that there are 225 specific denominations that are recognized by
the HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS (Exhibit 4.). The data from CHURCHES AND
'CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES, (Exhibit 5.) list the population of
only 111 denominations and is estimated to list only 91 percent of the
population of the denominations listed in the YEARBOOK. The YEARBOOK OF
AMERICAN AND CANADIAN CHURCHES (Exhibit 6.) only list the number of people
who attend services regu.larly.
The YEARBOOK reports that in the West only 35 percent attend church
regularly, vs 39% East, 42% Midwest and 43% S6uth. The data from CHURCHES
AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP state that in San Diego County 29.8 percent of the
major 111 denominations attend church regularly. The introduction to the
data states that the number listed, 29.8%. is only approximately 91 percent
of the faithful of the Ill denominations are included in that number. If
we were to increase that specific number to include the acknowledged defect
in the data we would find that th~ City of Chula Vista should use at least
~ .~ minimum number; 32.7 percent of the population, as the number of the
. ~tJzens of Chula Vista attend church regularly.
w~ might ask why is this number for San Diego County below the Western
average and not 35 percent as reported in the YEARBOOK? The BARNA REPORT,
Exhibit No. 7, shows that the white members of the Congregations have been
dropping out in Los Angeles County. We find that in Los Angeles County
that the white congregate successfully m~e the move from the city to the
suburbs without dropping out of church. However when the congregate moved
from the suburbs to the planned community he dropped out of attending
church. We find that if churches are not convenient, people will not go to
church. If churches are not planned into the'community, churches will not
occur in the community. Only about one tenth of the number of churches
take root in planned communities when compared to communities that were
c,~ated prior to 1971, because of the obstacles and adverse conditions
created by the planned communities.
Across this nation we typically have one religious facility for every 830
p~ople. In the growth areas of this nation we find that church development
lags new development for a period of three to ten years. If the community
grows very fast and does not plan for the independent sector to be a part
of the community, the independent sector does take become apart of the
community. The independent sector gannot afford to compete with the income
dollars from the business sector nor the tax dollars of the government
sector in the purchase for land to build facilities.
Using the existing data, City population divided by the number of religious
congregations, which indicates approxi[nately one church per 2,000 people
in the City of Chula Vista is defective because the number understates the
number of people who would attend church. The City has been impacted with
rapid growth, and lacks the average number of churches. This evidence
becomes very visual when you count the large number of congregations that
need land to build churches. Many people wait for a congregation to have a
building before joining the congregation. Many families~do not enjoy the
hardships that a family must endure in a public school class room to
worship. It is suggested that the City of Chula Vista use-a number of 35%
of the population as the number of people who would attend religious
services if facilities were available.
I have enclosed the definition for adherents and communicant from the
CHURCHES'AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP in the above listed Exhibit 5. Therein you
will find that each denomination has it's own definition for adherent and
communicant.
Mr. Seymour took most of his data out of context. With regard to footnote
NO. 1. The Church Task Force determined that 27,381 attended one service.
%'he number reported to the City bz the Church Task Force did not take into
account the other religious services that were offered that day nor the
attendance at those'later services.
Mr. Seymour also is confused on his other facts. As stated above the.
YEARBOOK states that 35% of the people in .the West attend church regularly.
The number 29.8% that he used is from the book CHURCHES AND CHURCH
MEMBERSHIP, and the corrected information has also been conveyed above.
CiF QUESTION
2. Does the proposed ordinance adequately account for religious
institutions which rent or lease church space?
The answer is yes. The religious congregations that rent or lease land is
included in the ordinance. Almost all religious congregations provide an
opportunity to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves.
Almost all religious congregations instill within the congregation that to
become like GOD they must offer their services and their money to those
that are less fortunate then themselves. These teaching can be measured
and demonstrated when it is reported by the GALLUP GROUP that those who
attend services regularly volunteer 3.4 hours a week.rs 1.6 hours a week by
those that did not attend services. Those who attend services give 3.8% of
their income to charitable causes vs 0.8% by those who do not attend
services. In general it can be stated that we have a far better caring,
community when there is a healthy independent sector in the community.
In order for the congregation to maximize, its giving to the community the
congregation must own their own parcel of land. If land does not become
available, as was reported in a study drafted by Rev. R. Turner, most
congregations Will die if they do not purchase land within eight years of
origination. It should be noted that the average congregation has
approximately $100,000 of benevolence that is directed to non religious
purposes and is applied to meet the social needs of the community. This
information is reported by INDEPENDENT SECTOR in it's book titled GIVING
AND VOLUNTEERING IN THE UNITED STATES, published 1988.
CIF QUESTION:
Does the proposed ordinance adequately acQQunt for other community purpose
institutions which rent or lease spa~ce, and does it double count religious
schools.
No, the data does not double count religious schools. Many of our Nations
finest schools, hospitals, health care facilities, senior cate and the list
goes on'and on were originated by various relig$ous denominations but they
are gonsidered non religious facilities.
The data within GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING from INDEPENDENT SECTOR suggest
that the non religious benevolent non profit institutions provides
approximately 15% of the goods' and services required to meet the social
needs of the national community. The non religious benevolent non profit
institutions of Chula Vista occupied approximately 15% of the land.
INDEPENDENT SECTOR is currently completing a'national survey of the non
religious benevolent non profit institutions and that data is expected to
be available in November of 1991.
The Benevolent Non Profit Institutions are not here to provide a service
for the short run of a day or two, or for a year or two. Benevolent Non
Profit Institutions are here for the life of the community, the outlook is
4
I<~ cternity. To maximize their benevolence to the community they must own
thc land that is their base of operation.
Suggested reading for Mr. Seymour, possibly for the councilmembers and the
land plgnners is Phd. Peter F. Druker "THE NEW REALITIES, Therein Phd.
Druker addresses the.value of the independent sector which he calls the
third sector. Thru a number of chapters, Phd. Druker's theme is that the
unique element that separates the success.of America's economy from the
ceonomies of Russia and England is America's third sector. Then on page
197:
The third sector is actually the country's largest employer,
through neither it's workforce nor the output it produces show up
in the statistics. One out of every two adult Americans-a total
of 90 million people- are estimated to work as volunteers in the
third sector, most of them in addition to holding a paid job.
These volunteers put in the equivalent of 7.5 million full-time
work years. If they were paid, their wages would amount to $150
billion a year; but of course they are not paid.' The third sector
largely explains why taxes in the United States are lower than in
Europe. Spending on public and conm~unity purposes is actually
quite a bit higher in the United States, but a substantial
portion, as much as 15 percent of GNP, does not flow through tax
channels. It goes directly as fees, as insurance premiums, as
charitable contributions, and as unpaid work, to non-government
third sector institutions..
Then Phd. Druker states on page 205: "Even more important may be the role
of the third-sector institution in creating for its volunteer a sphere of
meaningful citizenship."
Phd. Robert N. Bellah in his book HABITS OF THE HEART, pg. 2%9. States:
"Religion is one of the most important of the m~ny ways in which Americans
"get involved" in the life of their community and society.
We have tried to provide you with copies of the actual text of the sources
of data and highlighted the quotations. If we may be of assistance to
clarify any additional statements or provide additional information please
contact LAND at 714/858-0600. We will try our best to provide whatever
infc~mation you need.
Si~ /rely
D e~cctoE~ LAND: and cacy for Non Profit Development.
c Robert Lei Dir~K'ClSor of Planning
Duane Bazzel'~, Senior Planner
5
Membership; ~ ~ U~"$a~S ~ ~: -' "Religion is one of the most important of
79.328,~6 ~ ~a~ wi~ ~t c~hcs the many ways in which Americans 'get
6,~,~ wi~ M~I~ ~n~r~; ~' involved' in the life of their community
4,378,~ w~ J~h ~ng~gatiopg ' and socie~."
at~n~ qh~h ~ ~ynagosu~ in ~ ~cal w~k in 1989
who ~ no~ ~nd ~i~a volu~r ~ gwagt of only 1 6
~e w~ ~170 billion ~n 1989.
~ave to ch~firs, or $5432 billion, w~nt to ~ligious
~ligio~ ~fions We~ desi~a~d for
~ligious h~ ~i~s ~d ac~vRies !O ~he public
~ose who ~ndM ~icrs "w~kly or ne~ly ~kly"
con~bu~ 3.8 ~nt of ~eir ~ou~hold ~co~e ~
~u~; ~ose W~q did not attend gav~ only .8
~e e~a~ ~ of ~n~bu~ons ~n 1989 was $11~ billion.
P~icip~on ~ ~e W0~p ~d ~ice of a ~n~gation
cong~eg~ona ~p ~e list of 24 otg~iza~iona ~n ~ ~
improving ~ lif~. G~rge Gallup no[ea ~at '~hgy ~
~ong ~e most ~a~:effecfive institutions ~ O~ a~iety, and
~elieve much of ~ ~x bu~en."
~ong ~e~s who are not mem~ o[ a ~ligious
~n~gation: 73 ~ent a~nd~ se~s, Sun~y, or Sabbath
~h~l ~ a child; 73 ~rcent w~t ~eir chil~n ~ ~eive
~ligious ~g; 69 ~r~nt say ~ligion is ve~ 'Or "fairly"
~rsons who, by ~n of p~t ~x~e~e~ ~
yearnings, ~ ~dy ~ ~ welcomed in~ ~e life of a I~al
congregation.
Among ~e6~s who are mem~ of a ~ligious Contents
cong~gafion: 86 ~n~ visRed for ~e fi~I time ~ause a
f6e~ or ~lafive invi~d ~hem; 85 ~c~n~ would inv ~e mhe~ President's Report I
mjo~, ifg~~ ~O ~ so. From the Chai~ of the Board 2
Charles E. Wilson Awardee Elected
National Chai~an 3
Earle B. Pleasant Award 4
Research Update 5
Invite A Friend Project Report 6
Volumeer Recognition 8
Public Service Advertising 10
Worship Directory Report 1 I
~r~c~. 1~8: V~A.H~m~..Fr~aegqtoC~t~nt: Board and Adviso~ Council Mem~rs 14
~n~ ~ V~ee~g In t~ ~ed S~tes. 1~ C~I H. J~q~t, 19~ rear~k Financial Report 16
~A~ric~Co~t~-Ckurc~s; N~We~r,~,GivingU~. I~ Mem~r Religious Groups 17
RIAL Board member George Gallup, Jr., writes, in the
introduction to his 1990 Report on Religion In America,
"Religion In American Life (RIAL) and the Advertising
Council recently unveiled an unprecedented volunteer grass
roots movement...to increase the number of Americans actively
engaged in worship, education, and community service through
local congregations." He then goes on to describe the project
and report on research, citing the latest survey data.
"Tire religious liberty most Americans cherish and celebrate
has enabled religion to flourish in many forms, and to become
a profound shaper of the American character. Religious liberty
lta~ contributed vitality and vigor to the American outlook--an
exuberance--a feeling that anything is possible--and often, the
cum'age to bring about difficult but needed change in society as
revealed in the high level of volunteerism.
-Many consider volunteerism, a key trait of America, to be the
best hope for the future, and the glue that keeps our society George Gallup, Jr.
Iogether. A prime motivating factor in volunteerism is the
religious spirit. The strength of the nation's social fabric and its
quality of life depend on volunteerism in the public interest. "Probably no other institution in our society
Our surveys report that three times as many participants in has had a greater impact for the good than
churches and synagogues are 'very active' in their involvement
with civic, social and charitable activities as are the church."
non-participants.
"Further evidence that the level of contribution of the typical
citizen to society is closely related to the intensity of his or her
faith is seen from the following: the proportion who fit the
category of 'highly spiritually committed' are far more "Participation in a religious congregation
involved in charitable activity than their counteq:,arts, as well
as umre concerned about the betterment of society, more has demonstrable civic benefits for the
iu~ olx cd iu trying to strengthen families, and far happier.
country and for American corporations--
"Probably no other institution in our society has had a greater even apartfi'om strengthening moral and
impat:t for the good than the church. From it have sprung
hospitals, nursing homes, universities, schools, child care ethical values."
p~ogrunts and, of course, concepts of human dignity; and above
all. Ibc concept of democracy. If it were not for the church's
role in dealing with many of our social ills, the tax burden on
thc populace would be crushing. To a large extent, our
religious institutions do as they say when it comes to helping
Ibc needy.
"Religious spirit, as already indicated, apparently motivates
mu~h of America's organized charity, since church and
s) na~ogue members are lhe mosl involved in charitable
a~li~ ily. Almost half the church members did unpaid volunteer
wink itt the 12-momh period lesled, compared wilh only a third
of non-members. Nine in ten members gave money to a
charity, compared with only seven in ten non-members. Eight
in tcu members gave food, clothing or other property to a
charitable organization, compared with two-thirds of non-
Amoug the many who reviewed this data was Edmund T.
Pratt. Jr., chairman of the board of Pfizer loc. He concluded
that "participation in a religious congregation has
&tuon>trablc civic benefits for the country and for American
~orporations~ven apart from strengthening moral and ethical
~ aluc~." Edmund 'f. Plan.
5
"Holiness is knowing we are all God's
children and in knowing that, knowing
God."
On October 3, 1990, RIAL Board chairman Rabbi Joseph B. Glaser
presided over historic ceremonies that hailed "the long SOught joining
of our Muslim brothers and sisters for concerted religious activity on
behalf of the American people." Rabbi Glaser is shown with (L to R),
Mr. Dawud Assad, president of the Council of Mosques, a new
member of RIAL's Board, and Dr. Gutbi E. Armed, director of the
Muslim World League, a new member of RIAL's Religious Advisory
Council.
lq'om thc ('ilairnlan o[ lli~ lhmr(i
These are times of new strength and wholeness for Religion In overdue that our Muslim brothers and sisters jo n in the
American Life. On an historic day in October, Muslims joined ~nterreligious venture of Religion In American Life, wh ch has
our ranks. When Religion In American Life was first formed in a simple mission, lean and spare--to get Americans to affiliate
the 1940s, it was a Protestant organization. Catholics came with houses of worshiplchurches and synagogues and now
aboard, and it became a Christian organization. When Jews mosques~n the simple and continually proven theory that
joined, it became a religious organization. Now, with the entry religious people, by and large, are better members of society, at
of Islam, we are a holy organization, least in America. How good it is to dwell together in unity.
Holiness is found most eminently in sharing, in love while in
the midst of differences, in regarding the other as a Thou and
not as an object. Holiness is inclusive--it knows not fences. ~~ ~
ttoliness is trust and is caring far beyond one's parochial
boundaries. Holiness is knowing that we are all God's
children--and in knowing that, knowing God.
That day in october was important for RIAL and a turning
point for our nation. We have broken a major barrier and the
beneficial effect may well ripple to other shores, it is long
Member I lgsous Groups
Afric~ Methodist ~piscopal Church
Afr~c~m Methodist l~pi~cop~ Zion Church
American B.aptist Church~s, USA
American Bible Society
Anfiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Armenian Church of America
Assemblies of God
Catholic Church in ~he United S~ates
Cenlral Conf¢~nc~ okt' A~efican P~abbj$
Christian Church (Di~ipl~s of ChrisO
Church of thc Brethren
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of find (Anderson, IN)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint~
Church of the Naz~rg:ne
Church Women United
Council of Mosques in {he USA
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Chur{:h i~ A4nerica
General Conference of Seventh-day Advemist$
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America
Greek Orthodox Philoptoco$ Society
4K~G[~ International Council of Churches
Community
0 ." Lutheran Chumh Missouri Synod
~.t~k[flL~ Mennouite Church
Moravian Church in America
'* v-~e'~lC,.~k°'W Muslim World League
National Association of Cong~gational Christian Churches
National Council of Chm'ches
National Evangelistic Association
Religion In American Life (RIAL) is a national, non-sectarian, National Federation of Temple Brotherhoods
inter-religious, not-for-profit organization, lis goals are to National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
streuglhen the nation's faith in God, the moral purpose of its OHhodox Church in America
people, and ethical values demonstrated in personal, business paulist National Catholic Evangelization Association
and public matters, and to champion religious freedoms. Polish National Catholic Church of America
To these ends, RIAL provides Ihe religious and business Presbyterian Church (USA)
communities and the general public with research, publications, Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc,
educational programs, role model awards, worship directories Rabbinical Alliance of America
m holels and other public facilities across the nation, and helps Rabbihical Assembly
mitialc local projects to increase participation in the worship Rabbinical Council of America, IBc.
and ~crvice of churches, synagogues and mosques. These local Reformed Church in America
mirativcs are supported by nationwide public service ~¢ligious Public Relations Council, inc.
adx crtising campaigns conducted by RIAL in cooperalion with Salvation Army
thc Advertising Council. Southern Baptist Convention
Religious institutions of all faiths and the business community Syng§ogue Council of America
cooperate in RIAL's governance and program administration. Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Thc fifty six religious groups now participating--Protestant, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
("atl~olic, Eastern Orlhodox, other Christian, Unitarian, Jewish, Union of Orthodox Rabbis Of the ,tJlfited States and Canada
and Muslim represent 84 percent of all religiously affiliated Unitarian Universalist Association . ·
i)ci~on~ in the U.S. Funding comes from participating religious United Church of Christ
gloul)a, corporations, foundatious, gifts, aud bequests. United Methodist Church
United States Catholic Conference
United Synagogue of America
I-or more information, please write: Dr. Nicholas B. van Dyck, Volunteers of America
Inc'~Ment, Religion In American Life, Inc., 2 Queenston Place, Wogagn'$· L~ague for Conservative Judaism
I'~ iucctun, New Jersey, 08540. Or call, 609-921-3639. Young Women's Christian Association
17
FROM THE BARNA RESEARCH GROUp;.
Subject: The diffcr~nccs bctwccn Los Angeles Counv/rcsidcn~ who aUcnd church and
those who do not attend.
Contact: Ron Sellers
(818) 241-9684
Date: September 19, 1990
For Immediate Release
A NEW STUDY OF Lo~ ANGELES COUNTY RK-q;DENT~ ~ SIGNIFICANT Du~r~ENCES BETWEEN
ADUL'I~ WHO A'Frgl~D CIIL~/CI/AND THOSE WHO DO NOT, CIR~C~.~ ADULT~ ARE MO~E Lnt~y TO
VOL~ ~.~..~ ~ ~ BE LNVOLVED IN Ol~m~ BELIGIOU~ ACT~U:3 SUCit A~ BEADING ~lE
~ asw ~O~rnv~ ~g~Gs A~o~r L.A. EW, N ~m~ Dzao~a~mcs oF ~-,.~ cauac~ Am~
UNCIR~CHED A~E
Church Attendance in L.A. County
(People Who Usually Attend a Christian Church Every Week)
45
42%
40
35 320/0
30 29% .... **~.*- '
27%
25 24%
15
lO
0
All Adults Blacks Hispaflics *' Asians Whites
7.,~"~' ' ~..
Barna Research Group e 722 West Broadway e Glendale, Callfornia.e~.9-1204
2--2~2
Three out of ten Los Angeles County adults (29%i attend worship services at a Christian
church on a weekly basis. Another three out of ten (31%) attend church, but go less frequently.
A research study of county residents that is about to be released shows that there arc significant
differences between the people who attend church, and thc 40% of all county residents who do
not attend church.
Thc survey of 600 L.A. County residents, conducted by the Glendale-based Bama Research
Group, will form the basis for a day-long conference for county church leaders on October 27.
Thc findings of the study, and a companion study of over 1,000 L.A. churches, will be presented
and discussed at the conference.
The study shows that churchgoers and the unchurched differ in their attitudes about Los
Angeles, in some of their activities and lifestyles, and especially in their demographic composi-
tion.
For instance, 52% of all county residents who attend church every week volunteer at least
one hour a week to help organizations that conduct charitable work or community service.
Among people who attend church less frequently, 41% claimed to volunteer time to these organi-
zations. Among the unchurched, only 20% volunteer their time. Likewise, 39% of all weekly
church attenders said that in the next year they plan to increase the amount of time they volun-
teer. Thirty-three percent of the less frequent attenders said they plan to increase the amount of
time they volunteer, compared to only 27% of the unchurched.
People who attend church also have a different view of Los Angeles than do thc
unchurched. Sixty-five percent of all churched residents of the county agreed that "it is easy to
meet people and make friends in L.A.," compared to 55% of thc unchurched who felt this way.
Thirty-six percent of the churched residents agreed that "L.A. is a good place to raise chilch'en,"
compared with 24% of the unchurched. While 57% of the unchurched adults said they "feel like
you are pan of a community in the area where you live," 78% of the churched residents felt as if
they are pan of a community.
George Bama, president of the Barna Research Group, noted that many of these differences
can be directly attributed to church involvement. "Many of thc churched people who arc volun-
teering their time arc volunteering it through their church, either directly or indirectly" Bama
said. "Similarly, we know from our national studies that people who are involved in a church
tMORE--
are more likely to attend), and age (older people are m°re likely to go to church).
The study will be discussed at the October conference, Gaining New Ground: Strategies
for Reaching L.A. County for Christ. The conference is designed for pastors and lay leaders in
L.A. churches. A written analysis of the findings will be provided to all conference participants.
Gaining New Ground will be held Saturday, October 27, 1990, from 8:30 a.m. to $:00 p.m.
The location is Glendale Presbyterian Church (219'East Harvard). Regisu'ation for the confer-
ence is handled by the Barna Research Group, P.O. Box 4152, Glendale, CA 91222-0152 (818-
241-9684). The cost of registration is $25 per person before October 15, or $35 after the lSth or
at the door. The cost includes the full-day conference, as well as two seminars on a choice-of
related topics, and the written report. Gaining New Ground is being presented in co-operation
with Gospel Light Publishers of Ventura.
iFor further information on the study oft,os Angeles County, or on the conference, contact
Ron Sellers at 818-241-9684.
Table of Data
Christian Church Attendance among L.A. County Adults
(n = 600)
Frequency of Atlendance
Demoora~hic Gro.n Every Week /.~ Not a~ All
· All L.A. County adults ........... 29% 31% 40%
· Age groups:
18-24 ................................................... 19 41 42
25 - 34 ................................................... 24 28 48
35 - 44 ................................................... 27 40 33
45 - 64 ................................................... 36 27 37
65 or older ............................................ 42 24 34
· Marital Status:
man'ied ................................................. 33 35 31
divorced/s~parated ............................. ..31 29 40
single (never roamed) .......................... 18 29 54
· Ethnicity:
whim .................................................... 24 - 26 50
black ..................................................... 42 41 17
hispanic ................................................. 32 37 32
asian ...................................................... 27 39 34
· Gender:,
men ................................................... 26 28 46
women ................................................ 32 33 34
Church Membership
QUESTION: Are you, yourself, a member of a church or synagogue?
Number
Ne of
Yes No opinion intemiews
TOTAL 64% 35% 1% 2556
CHURCH STATUS
Churched 100 1471
Unchurched 18 81 I 1067
SEX
Male 58 41 I 1270
Female 69 30 1 1286
AGE
Under 30 53 45 2 548
18-24 years 53 46 1 228
25-29 years 53 45 2 260
30-49 years 65 34 1 1004
50 & older 71 28 1 981
RACE
White 65 3~ I 2054
Black 64 34 2 436
Hispanic 57 42 1 363
REGION
East 64 36 611
Midwest 65 34 1 614
South 71 27 2 835
West 51 48 1 496
EDUCATION
Less than H.S. 60 39 I 603
H.S. grad. 67 32 I 979
Some college 66 33 1 453
College grad. 61 38 I 513
MARITAL STATUS
Married 69 30 I 1607
Single 49 50 1 501
Divorced/Sep./Widowed 64 35 I 442
RELIGIOUS PREE
Protestant 71 28 I 1497
Catholic 70 29 1 732
Other 50 50 139
SPOUSE'S RELIGIOUS PRER
Same 74 25 I 1313
Other 47 51 2 289
PRESENCE OF CHILDREN 4-18
Any 67 31 2 859
4-9 66 32 2 468
10-14 70 29 I 394
15-18 67 31 2 298
None 62 37 I 1684
Contents Thc
INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2
................................. Unchurched
American
Volunteerism ...................................... 12 .--
Emphasis on Self-Expression ......................... 13
Less EmphasisonMoney ............................ 14 10 Y~ar~ Later
Sexual Freedom ................................... 15
Traditional Family Ties ............................... 16
More Respect for Authority ........................... 17 ..
Less Emphasis on Working Hard ...................... 18
Acceptance of Marijuana Use ......................... 19
Premarital Sex ..................................... 20
Beliefs About Churches/Synagogues ................... 21
Importance of Religion Today ......................... 22
Importance of Religion When Growing Up ............... 23
Church/Sunday School Attendance as Child ............. 24
Beliefs about Jesus Christ ............................ 25
Religious Experience ............................... 26
Commitment to Jesus Christ .......................... 27
Life After Death .................................... 28
Beliefs About the Bible .............................. 29
Good Christian or Jew ............................... 30
Prayer/Frequency of Prayer .......................... 31
The Unchurched American -- 10 Years
Religious Training as Child ........................... 32
Type of Religious Training ............................ 33 Later, is a publication of The Princeton
Special Training .................................... 34 Religion Research Center. For more
Religious Instruction For Own Child .................... 35 information write: The Princeton Religion
Children Receiving Religious Training ................... 36 Research Center, Box 628, Princeton,
Church Membership ................................ 37 NJ 08542
Invite Others to Your Denomination ..................... 38
When Last Attended Church/Synagogue ................ 39
Frequency of Church Attendance in Past Six Months ...... 40 Executive Director
Considered Becoming Inactive in Church ................ 41 George Gall.p, Jr.
Stopped Attending Church/Synagogue for Two or More Years 42 Assistant to Director
Age When Stopped Attending Church .................. 43 Marie Swirsky
Reasons for Stopping Church Attendance ............... 44
Began Church/Synagogue Attendance Again ............ 46 Contributing Editor
Been Invited to Become Active in Church ................ 47 Jim Castelli
Factors in Deciding to Attend Again .................... 48
Approached More Than Once ......................... 49 Editorial Consultant
Approached by Friend or Relative ...................... 50 Coleen McMurray
Method of Contact .................................. 51
Reaction to Invitation ................................ 52. Editorial Assistants
Chances of Becoming Active Again .................... 53 Alison Gallup
Attendance at Religious Meeting Not Held in Church ....... 54 Mary Hyer
Frequency of Attendance ............................ 85
Charismatic Religious Group ......................... 56 Typography
Felt Unwelcome Due to Race/Ethnicity .................. 57 L&B Typography of Princeton
Ever Been More Active in Church ...................... 58
Length of Inactivity ................................. 59 Cover Art
Reasons for Reducing Involvement with Church/Synagogue 60 Leslie Mullah
Church Programs of Interest to Unchurched ............. 61
TECHNICAL APPENDIX Printing
Design of the Sample ............................... 62 Trenton Printing
Sampling Tolerances ............................... 63
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
Churches and Church
Membership
~n the United States
1980
BERNARD QUINN ~ HERMAN .AND~ILSON ~ MARTIN BRADLEY ° PAUL GOETTING * PEGGY $1tRIVEi~
~'Y/4~6b~' '~/: 5'"
Introduction
SCOPE OF THE STUDY PARTICIPATING CHURCH BODIES
This publication presents date reported by the The 17 denominations with adherents of a million
111 church bodies who participated in a study or more account for 91.9 percent of the reported
sponsored jointly by the Department of Records adherents. The 25 groups with adherents of 100,000
end Research of the African Methodist Episcopal to 999,999 account for ;in additional 6.9 percent.
Zion Church, the Research Services Department The remaining 69 groups comprise only 1.2 percent.
of the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist The following denominations participated in the
Convention, the Office of Research, Evaluation and 1980 study. The number of counties in which the
Planning of the National Council of the Churches groups report churches will provide a general idea
of Christ in the U.S.A., the Lutheran Council In of their geographic extension. (At the time of the
the U.S.A., and the Glenmary Research Center (a study there were 3102 counties or county-equiv-
Catholic agency), slants in the United States.)
The sponsors invited all church bodies that could
be identified as Judaeo-Christian to participate. The Counties
111 groups that furnished data reported 231,708 CommUnions withAdherents with
congregations with 112,538,310 adherentsJ No of l,000,000 or More Churches
attempt was made to count strictly independent 1. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 407
churches that have no connection with a denomina- 2. American Baptist Churches iq the U.S.A. 1106
tion. 3. American Lutheran Church 1029
The present study is related to two previous 4. Assemblies of God 2452
studies2 The first reported 1952 statistics and was 5. 'Catholic Church 2881
sponsored and published by the National Council 6. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 1424
of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1956. 7. Christian Churches and
The second reported 1971 statistics and was spon- Churches of Christ 1590
sored by the Office of Research, Evaluation and 8. Church of Jesus Christ of
Planning of the National Council of the Churches Latter-day Saints 1571
of Christ in the U.S.A., the Department of Research 9.. Churches of Christ 2364
and Statistics of the Lutheran Church--Missouri 10. Episcopal Church 2005
Synod, end the Glenmary Research Center. It was 11. Lutheran Church in America 1181
published in 1974 by the Glenmary Research Center. 12. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 1690
13. Presbyterian Church in the United States 1036
14. Southern Baptist Convention 2383
15. United Church of Christ 1283
1. For purposes of this study, adherents were defined as "all 16. United Methodist Church 2968
members, including full members, their ohlldren and the esti-
mated number of other regular participants who ere not con- 17. United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 1874
sidereal as communicant, confirmed or full members, for ex-
ample, the 'baptized,' 'those not confirmed,' 'those not eligible Count/es'
for communion,' and the like." See "Defining Membership," Commulliolts with Adherents with
be,ow, of 100,000 tO 896,999 Churches
2. Lauris B. Whitman and Glen W. Trimble, Churches end
Church Membership in the United States: An Enumeration 18. American Baptist Association 496
end Analysis by Counties, States end Regions (New York: 19. Baptist General Conference 328
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 1956- 20. Baptist Missionary Association of America 375
1958), 80 bulletins; Douglas W. Johnson, Paul R. Plcard end
Bernard Qulnn, Churches end Church Membership in the 21. Christian and Missionary AIliance 604
United States 1971: An Enumeration by Region, State and 22. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 552
County (Washington, D.C.: Gtsnmsry Research Center, 1974). 23. Christian Reformed Church 223
· INTRODUCTION
27. Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church 3. North American Old Roman Catholic Church
28. Evangelical Free Church of America (Brooklyn)
29. Evangelical Lutheran Churches, Association of 4. Unity of the Brethren
30. Evangelical Lutheran Synod 5. Wesleyan Church
31. Evangelical Mennonite Church, Inc.
32. Evangelical Methodist Church INCLUSIVENESS OF THE BTUDY
33. Fire Baptized Holiness Church, (Wesleyan) The study identified by county 112.5 million
34. Free Lutheran Congregations, The Association al;U~.{~;ents,-in.-11.1. ~e~n<)m~n. ati~on~i~...hbt kn{)w.n
35. General Church of the New Jerusalem 1~.~~ The difficulty Is in
36. General Conference of Mennonite Brethren lng an ab;~e'~[upo~sis for determining the total
Churches Judaeo-Chrlstian adherents for the whole United
37. General Convention of the New Jerusalem in States.
the USA "The Swedenborgian Church" The Yearbook of American and Canadian
'38. Grace Brethren Churches, Fellowship of Churches~ lists 53.6 million "full, communicant or
(formerly Fellowship of Brethren Churches) confirmed members" reported officially by U.S.
39. Holiness Church of God, Inc. church bodies. The present study reports 48.8
40· International Church of the Foursquare Gospel million full, communicant or confirmed members.
41. Conservative Judaism .Erorq .[his perspective, the present study reported
42. Reform Judaism ~fl;'O
43. Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church In America ..[otais 0fli~:i~ll~ ~l~l~ifllttea~tl~'~l~m~'
(formerly Federation of Latvian Evangelical ~1~}~"~~.~1.'~,~,~
Churches in America) It is w~ll known the( th~'~ are independent and
44. Metropolitan Community Churches, Unlve..rsal community churches, as well as religious move-
Fellowship of ments and associations that might be considered
45. Missionary Church churches, whose membership Is not reported to
46. Old Order Amish Church the Yearbook. Because the membership of these
47. Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc. groups is unknown, there ts no way of determln-
48. Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, Inc. lng the percent of church membership the present
49. Presbyterian Church tn America study would represent If these groups were In-
50. Primitive Advent Christian Church cluded In the total. (Some members of such
51. Primitive Methodist Church, U.S.A. churches or groups do, of course, also belong to
52. The Protes'tant Conference of the Wisconsin denominations participating In the study and,
Synod therefore, are accounted for In the CMS data
53. Protestant Reformed Churches in America reported.)
54. Reformed Episcopal Church Jewish Bodies. Wtth the assistance of the
55. Reformed Presbyterian Church of .North United Synagogue of America, the full members
America (individual adult members) of 793 Conservative
56. Romanian Orthodox Church In America synagogues were Identified by county. For this
57. Separate Baptists in Christ group, the humber of total adherents listed In
.58. Social Brethren Table I of this study should probably be increased,
59. The Southern Methodist Church because the CMS method of estimating adherents
60. Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (Arch- adds children 13 and under to the full members;
diocese of the U.S.A. and Canada) whereas tn this case, 18 and under Is probably
61. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America a better basis. With the assistance of the Union
(Ecumenical Patriarchate) of American Hebrew Congregations, the full
62. United Christian Church members of 708 Reform congregations were also
63. United Zion Church identified by county. No county Information Is avail-
able on either full members or adherents of
The 63 church bodies participating In '1980 but Orthodox synagogues, although according to one
not In 1971 represent atotal of 7.6 million adherents, estimate, their total number of adherents could
The largest among the new participants are the be as high as 1.3 million.~ The general Jewish
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, With 1.1 population is, of course, considerably larger than
million; the Assemblies of God, with 1.6 million;
and the Churches of Christ, with 1.6 million.
3. Constant H, Jacquut, Jr., ed~, Yearbook of American and
Canadian Churches: 1981 (Nashville: Ablngdon Press, 1981),
pp. 225-232.
Denominations Participating in t971 but not t960 4. In a telephone conversation with the staff of the study,
on April 20, 1982, Rabbi Arnle Rund of the Union of Orthodox
1. Free Will Baptists Jewish Congregations of America stated that about 1.3 million
2. General Baptists (General Association of) persons Identify with Orthodox synagogues or Institutions.
the adherents of synagogues or congregations? a~l Churches: Jehovah's Witnesses, United Pants-
Black Church Members. Four Black denomina- costal Church International, Polish National Catholic
tions, accounting for 1.8 million adherents, partici- Church of America, General Association of Regular
pated in the study.I The 107 other participants Baptist Churches, Free Will Baptists, Church of
were asked to estimate the number of Blacks God of Prophecy, National Council of Community
among their adherents. The 22 groups who re- Churches, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
sponded reported a total of 1.8 million adherents.' Latter Day Saints, Independent Fundamental
There is no way of telling how many Blacks are Churches of America, Pentecostal Church of God
adherents of the remaining 85 denominations of America, Inc., and the Wesleyan Church.
who participated in the study.
The African Methodist Episcopal Church had PROBLEMS
hoped to participate, but their county statistics Defining Membership. The most critical method-
were not ready for release in time to meet the 'ological problem was that of defining church mem-
deadline. It is expected that their statistics will bership. Since there is no generally acceptable
soon become available. The Progressive National statistical definition of church membership, it was
Baptist Convention, Inc. and the National Primi- felt that the designation of members rested finally
rive Baptist Convention, Inc. had also hoped to with the denominations themselves.
participate, but their records were only partially In an effort to achieve comparabilitY of data,
complete. Major efforts were made to enlist the however, two major categories were established:
participation of the four other large Black COMMUNICANT, CONFIRMED, FULL MEM-
Churches," but without success. The problem is the BERS: regular members with full membership
absence or incompleteness of membership figures, status; and
The 17 small non-participating Black denomina-
tions listed in the Yearbook of American and TOTAL ADHERENTS: all members, Including
Canadian Churches were, of course, also invited full members, their children and the estimated
to participate, number of other regular participants who are
not considered as communicant, confirmed or
Orthodox Churches. Four Orthodox bodies, ac-
counting for combined adherents of 55,000, partici- full members, for example, the "baptized,"
pated in the study? Although sizeable efforts were "those not confirmed," "those not eligible for
made to obtain data for the remaining 17 groups, communion," and the like.
both directly and with the assistance of the Stand- Of the 111 participating denominations, 54 re-
lng Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops In ported communicants and adherents; two (Catholics
the Americas (SCOBA), statistics were not actually and Latter-day Saints) reported adherents only;
obtained, and 55 reported communicants only2° For purposes
Other Groups. Besides the denominations of this report, the church membership study staff
mentioned above, there are 11 non-participating estimated the total adherents for the 55 groups
church bodies that reported more than 100,000 that reported communicants only, according to a
members to the Yearbook of American and Canadi- formula discussed below.
Participants were also requested to furnish de-
scriptive definitions of the statistics they actually
5. The Amerlcan Jewish YearBook 1981 (NewYork: American submitted. Appendix A contains the definitions
Jewish Committee, 1980), vol. 81, p. 173, reports 5.9 million, submitted by the 67 groups that responded to this
6. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Bible request.
Church of Christ, Inc., the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church Estimating Total Adherents. Since it was planned
end the Fire Baptized Holiness Church (Wesleyan). to use total adherents Jn computing percent of
7. The following groups provided Information on Black mem-
bership: American Baptist Association, Baptist General Con- church membership to total population, for those
ference, Baptist Missionary Association of America, Catholic 55 denominations that reported only communicant
Church, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Christian Church members, total adherents were estimated according
(Disciples), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, to the following procedure. The total county popu-
Christian Reformed Church, Church of God (Cleveland, Ten- lation was divided by the total county population
nessee), Church o! the Nazarene, Churches of Christ, Con-
gregational Christian Churches. Conservative Baptist Aseo- less children 13 years and under, and the result-
clation of America, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church In lng figure was multiplied by the communicant
America, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Mennontte Church, members." The 1980 U.S. Census was used to
Presbyterian Church In the U.S., Reformed Church In America,
Seventh-day Adventists, United Church of Christ, United Pres- 10. Consult Table 1 to learn which denominations reported
byterlan Church in the U.S.A. what.
8. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.; National Baptist 11. Thus the total adherents in a county with population of
Convention of America; Church of God In Christ, International; 1000' and 100 children 13 years and under would be the rom-
Church of God in Christ. municant members multiplied by 1.11; total adherents in a
9. Armenian Apostolic Church of America (Eastern Prelacy), county with population of 1000 and 300 children would be
Romanlan Orthodox Church in America, Syrian Orthodox the communicant members multiplied by 1.~3; and totst ad-
Church of Antioch (Archdiocese of the U.S.A. and Canada), herents in a county with population of 1000 end 500 children
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate). would t~e the confirmed members multiplied by 2.00.
xlll
.'IN?~ODUCTION --
determine for each county the population 13 years 1979; report earlier data only If that Is all that
and under. An asterisk after a figure In the tables is available by September, 1980."
indicates that total adherents were estimated Of the 90 denominations that stated that their
through use of this procedure, rather than reported statistics were valid as of a specific date, 40 gave
directly by denominations. December 31, 1979 or January 1, 1980 as the date.
The 55 denominations whose total adherents The dates for the other 50 ranged from October
were estimated In this way were asked to comment 31, 1978 to November 10, 1981. Seven groups
on the procedure. Of the 32 who responded, 25 did not indicate a specific date. but only the year
approved the formula, two had reservations, and (1979 or 1980)?
five did not approve. The comments submitted
are reproduced in Appendix B. Accuracy of Reporting Procedures. Most large
LOcatillg Members by County. Membership denominations maintain national offices that receive
statistics are generally reported for the county statistical reports from their individual congrega-
In which the church itself is located, rather than tions; these reports were combined to provide
for the county in which the member resides? the membership data for this study. On the other
In a majority of cases the county of residence hand, many smaller denominations, as well as
will correspond to the county where the church is those in which local churches have a great deal
located, although modern mobility patterns siJggest of autonomy, only request and do not require
caution In accepting this assumption in every case. such reports. This means that data for a few
Coun~ Listings. The church membership study denominations will not be as complete and current
employed the same counties or county-equivalents as might be desired.
as the 1980 U.S. Census. Since the 1971 church During the course of the study, the denomina-
membership study was published, the new county tional offices furnishing data were asked to corn-
of Kalawao, Hawaii (formerly a part of Maul Court- ment on the accuracy of their own reporting proce-
ty) has been created; Washabaugh County, South dures and to furnish copies of the forms they
Dakota has been absorbed into Jackson County; used to collect the data. Forms were received from
Nansemond County, Virginia has become Suffolk 37 denominations, and these are available for study
City; and Chesapeake City and Portsmouth City, at the offices of the Glenmary Research Center."
Virginia ere now part of Norfolk City. All of these Comments were received from 55 denominations;
changes have been incorporated into the 1980 these comments will be found In Appendix E.
church membership study. Dual Affiliation. In the 1980 church membership
In Virginia there are independent cities that are study some attempt was made to assess the extent
legally separate from the counties of that state, of the practice whereby a local congregation at-
Since most denominations record location of flllates with more than one denomination. The
churches within the counties from which these denomlnationswere asked: "Do any local congrega-
cities have been separated, It was decided to tions of your denomination maintain affiliation with
combine most of these cities with contiguous coun- another denomination as well?" Of the 100 groups
ties. A llst of combinations and exceptions will that replied, 72 responded No. The comments of
be found In Appendix C. the 28 denominations who responded Yes are con-
Because Alaska has no counties, the 1980 tained In Appendix F. In many cases the comments
Census areas and boroughs that serve as county- will also reveal how dual membership statistics
equivalents for statistical reporting purposes were
employed in this study. These 1980 countY- 13. The following code numbers (see Abbreviations for code
· equivalents differ from those used in the 1971 key) Indicate the denominations who gave December 31, 1979
church membership study. Appendix D provides a or January 1, 1980 as the date of their statistics: 001,015, 019,
comparative listing of the two. The change in 029, 053, 055, 063, 071,081, 083, 093, 105, 123, 157, 163,
geographic boundaries may be observed by com- 164, 185, 193, 201,209, 221,281,283, 287, 293, 295, 313, 335,
paring the fold-out maps of the 1971 and 1980 356, 357, 367, 375, 381, 403, 413, 415, 419, 443, 449, 453.
The following dates were given by other groups: 10-31-78:
church membership studies. 211; 12-31-78: 371, 383; 6-1-79: 199; 6-30-79: 213, 217;
RepoSing Date. The study was designed to 9-20-79: 091; 9-30-79: 237; 10-31-79: 059; 11-t-79: 271;
gather statistics as close as possible to the April 11-15-79: 165; 11-30-79: 167; 12-21-79: 347; 1-15-80: 195, 423;
1, 1980 U.S. Census date. Accordingly, the re- 1-31-80: 208; 2-19-80: 263; 3-12-80: 220; 3-14-80: 177; 3-22-80:
469; 3-31-80: 329; 4-30-80: 089, 363; 0-31-80: 133; 7-1-80: 421;
quest to the denominations stated: "We are asking 7-17-80: 459; 7-21-80: 323; 7-25-80: 107; 7-31-80: 097; 8-7-80:
that statistics be reported to us by the month of 149; 8-31-60: 233; 9-2-80: 290; 9-12-80: 291; 9-22-80: 203;
September, 1980. We hope to receive data from 9-30-80: 127, 179, 353; 10-5-80: 247; 10-20-80: 049; 12-31-80:
your statistical year that ends anytime, during 274; 3-23-81: 065; 4-4-81: 075; 4-17-81: 017; 5-7-81: 181;
5-11-81: 359; 6-30-81: 270; 7-30-81: 409; 7-31-81: 395; 8-31-81:
' 349; 11-10-81: 101· The following groups did not report specific
12. Denominations were asked to state their general policy dates, but only years: 1979: 005, 175, 226, 285, 441; 1979-1980:
of~ reporting church members. Of the 82 who responded to the 057; 1980: 197.
Inquiry, all but one {Baptist General Conference) Indicated 14. See Appendix E for a list of denominations furnishing
county of membership rather than county of resldenca, data collection forms.
iNTRODUCTION
were handled for purposes of reporting to this adherents are given, as well as the percent al re-
study, gional population and of total adherents that each
Membership Greeter Than Population. There . denomination represents.
are 31 counties in this study reporting more church A map displaying the nine census regions will be
adherents than census population: GEORGIA: found on the page Immediately preceding Table 2.
Franklin; HAWAII: Kalawao; KANSAS: Comanche, Table :~. The third table, "Churches and Church
Morton, Wichita; KENTUCKY: Washington; MINNE- Membership by State and Denomination: 1980,"
SOTA: Faribault, Traverse; NEBRASKA: Greeley; presents for each state the total of churches and
NEW MEXICO: Guadalupe, Harding, Mora, Teas; members for each participating denomination. Both
NORTH DAKOTA: Hettlnger, LaMoure, Rolette; communicant, confirmed or full members and total
OKLAHOMA: Harmon; SOUTH DAKOTA: Douglas, adherents are given, as well as the percent of state
Turner; TENNESSEE: Hancock; TEXAS: Cattle, population and of total adherents that each denomi-
Dallam, Haskell, Jeff Davis, Knox, Motley, Starr, 'nation represents. States are arranged alphabeti-
Throckmorton, Willacy; UTAH: Morgan; VIRGINIA: calty within the table.
Richmond. Reasons for the discrepancy will no Table 4. The fourth table, "Churches and Church
doubt differ from county to county. But among Membership by County and Denomination: 1980,"
the explanations the following might be suggested: provides the detailed data on which the totals in
U.S. Census undercount, church membership Tables 1-3 are based.
overcount, or county of residence differing from For each county of the United States, there Is
county of membership, given the grand total of churches and members
reported. Both communicant, confirmed or full
members and total adherents are shown, as well
as the percent of the county population that the
DATA PRESENTATION combined total church adherents represent.
-In addition, for each county there is e break-
This report consists of four tables and a fold- down of data by denomination, showing for each
out map. The information is also available on cam- .. communion the number of churches; the number of
purer tape and, in combination with other data, in communicant, confirmed or full members; the hum-
the form of Church Planning Data booklets for bar of total adherents; and the percent of county
Judicat°ries"5 population and of total adherents its adherents
Table 1. The first table, "Churches and Church comprise.
Membership by Denomination, for the United States: Fold-Out Map. Accompanying this report Is a
1980," presents for each denomination the number color map, 28" X 41", entitled Major Denomina-
of churches; the number of communicant, confirmed tional Families by Counties of the United States:
or full members; and the total adherents for the 1980. By means of a color code, this map indicates,
entire United States. It also indicates, for each for each county of the United States, the partic!pat-
denomination, what percent of the U.S. population lng group that predominates. In consultation with
and what percent of the total reported church the participating denominations, the various Ad-
membership its adherents comprise. Population ventist, Baptist, Brethren, Christian, Churches of
figures are from the U.S. Census 1980, Advance God, Latter Day Saints, Lutheran, Mennonite,
Reports. Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian,' and Reformed
In all the tables, denominational names are ab- church bodies were grouped into families? Catho-
breviated. A list of abbreviations will be found on
the pages immediately preceding Table 1.
Table 2. The second table, "Churches and Church
Membership by Region and Denomination: 1980," 16. The family groups are as follows: ADVENTIST: Advent
presents, for each of the nine census regions of Christian Church, Primitive Advent Christian Church, S~venth-
the United States, the total of churches and mem- day Adventists; BAPTIST: American Baptist A~oci&Uon, Amer-
bars for each participating denomination. Both . Icen Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., Baptist General
communicant, confirmed or full members and total terence, Baptist Missionary AssociaUon of America, Bethel
Ministerial Association, Inc., Conservative Baptist Association
of America, North American Baptist Conference, Beparale Bap-
tists in Christ, Seventh Day Beptisl General Conference, South-
15. Inquiries regarding the computer tape may ba addressed ern Baptist Convention; BRETHREN; Brethren Church (Ashland,
to the Roper Center, Office at User Services, Box U-164R, Ohio), Church of the Brethren, Fellowship at Grace Brethren
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut {)6268 (tel. Churches; CHRISTIAN: Christian Church (Disciples at Christ),
203-486-4440). Inquiries regarding Catholic Church Planning Christian Churches and Churches o! Christ, Churches of Christ;
Data booklets may be addressed to the Glanmary Research CHURCHES OF GOD: Church of God General Conference
Center, 750 Piedmont Ave., NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (tel. (Abrahamlc Faith) Oregon, Ill., Church of God (Anderson,
404-576-6518). Inquiries regarding Protestant and other Indiana), Church of God (Seventh Day) Denver, Colorado;
Church Planning Data booklets may be addressed to the Of- LATTER DAY SAINTS: Church of Jesus Christ (BIckerlonites),
rice of Research, Evaluation and Planning, National Council of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; LUTHERAN: Amer-
the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.. 475 Riverside Dr., New Ican Lutheran Church, Apostolic Lutheran Church al America,
York, N.Y. 10115 (tel. 212-870-2561). {~hurch of Be Lutheran Brethren of America, Church of the
INTRODUCTION
lice, Congregational Christians, Episcopalians, METHODOLOGY
Friends, Moravlans, and members of the United The actual data collection was carried out in the
Church of Christ were not grouped into families offices of the Glenmary Research Center, which at
but were treated as separate units, that time was located in Washington, D.C. The data
The number of counties in which the above collection was managed by William J. Goodwln,
mentioned families or units predominate is as staff person for the study's executive committee,
follows: under the supervision of Bernard Qulnn, who served
Baptist 1164 as committee liaison for that purpose. William
Catholic 963 Goodwin also assisted in enlisting denominational
Methodist 374 participation and in a variety of other admlnlstra-
Lutheran 227 tive and editorial tasks.
Latter Day Saints 74 On August 6, 1979 an Invitation~' to participate
Christian 52 in the study was sent to all the Judaeo-Chrlstian
United Church of Christ 8 church bodies listed in the Yearbook of American
Churches of God 5 and Canadian Churches, plus a few others for
Reformed 5 whom addresses could be found. Each denomtna-
Presbyterian 4 tion was assigned a member of the Study's executive
Mennonite 2 committee, whose responsibility was to encourage
Moravian 2 participation, by personal contact and other
Adventist 1 means, and to answer questions. The Initial written
Brethren I invitation was followed by four additional general
Friends I mailings and by special letters, personal visits and
Congregational Christian 1 phone calls. As a result of these efforts, which ex-
Episcopal 1 tended over a two-year period, 228 denominations
A solid color on the map indicates that a group were invited, 111 actually participated, 21 expressed
has 50 percent or more of the adherents In that the Intention to participate but were prevented
county, as reported in the present study. W.hen no from doing so, 36 declined to participate, and 60
group has 50 percent, a striped shading indicates did not respond.
the largest group with 25-49 percent of adherents Denominations agreeing to participate were
In a county. The 217 counties where no group has asked to appoint a contact person, and signify
25 percent are left blank, their intentions on a special form. Three forms
The percentages on which the map Is based were then sent to the contact persons: Instructions
are taken from Table 4, Column 5 of this report, for reporting data; a transmittal sheet to be signed
and sent with the data collected; and a state-county
form for listing the statistics themselves. The con-
tact persons were given the option of submitting
their own computer print-out according to a
Lutheran Confession, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, prescribed format, or of using the forms provided
Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, Evangelical by the study.
Lutheran Synod, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations,
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran This process put the major burden of work on
Church In America, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Pro- the denominational offices, since they were asked
les'tent Conference of the Wisconsin Synod, Wisconsin Evangell- to compile data by county for all their congrega-
te1 Lutheran Synod; MENNONITE: Beachy Amish Mennonite tions. In some cases, however, denominations were
Churches, Church of God In Christ (Mennonite), Evangelical
Mennonite Brethren Conference, Evangelical Mennonite able to furnish Information only In the form of year-
Church, Inc., General Conference of Mennonite Brethren books or other sources. Transferring yearbook In-
Churches, Mennonite Church. General Conference of the formation Into county data then became the re-
Mennonite Church, Old Order Amish Church; METHODIST: Sponsibility of the CMS staff. In a few cases the
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Christian Methodist
Episcopal Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Free Methodist denominations instructed the CMS staff to estimate
Church ~f North America, Primitive Methodist Church in the congregational membership according to a formula,
U.S.A., The Southern Methodist Church, United Methodist arid approved the result,i* In all instances, however,
Church; PENTECOSTAL: Assemblies of God, Bible Church of the denominational contact person reviewed the
Christ, inc., Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), Congre- statistics and signed the transmittal sheet.
gatlocal Holiness Church, International Church of the Four-
~luare Gospel, Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc., Pentecostal
Free Will Baptist Church, Inc., Pentecostal Holiness Church,
Inc.; PRESBYTERIAN: Associate Reformed Presbyterian
Church (General Synod), Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 17. Instruments for gathering the data will be found in Ap-
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church In Amer- pendix G.
Ica, Presbyterian Church In the United States, Reformed Pres- 18. Apostolic Lutheran Church of America, Brethren in
byterlen Church (Evangelical Synod), Reformed Presbyterian Christ Church, Conservative Baptist Association of America,
Church of North America, United Presbyterian Church in the General Convention of the New Jerusalem In the U.S.A. '*The
U.S.A.; REFORMED: Christian Reformed Church, Protestant Swedenborglan Church", Old Order Amish Church, Social
Reformed Churches In America, Reformed Church In America. Brethren.
. INTRODUCTION
The CMS staff employed the following procedures merits and questions. Only after ell problems raised
for checking the data submitted. The state and by both the staff and the denominational contact
national totals were first checked against the county person were solved were the statistics considered
data and discrepancies adjusted. A print-out was ready for publication.
then made of all data. To insure the accuracy of When the 1980 U.S. county figures for persons
data-entry into the computer, the state and national 13 years of age or under were received from the
totals were then compared to the original docu- Census Bureau on April 12, 1982, the total adherents
ments, as checked and adjusted. If the denomina- for groups reporting only communicants were esti-
tion participated in 1971 and the difference in a mated, according to the formula described above.
given county's membership for 1980 was greater The final step was to run a series of computer edit
than 20 percent, this was noted on the print-out, tests to check for errors and to produce the print-
The print-out was then sent back to the denomina- out of tables for this report.
tional contact person, along with the staff's com-
by County and Denomination: 1980 Table 4. Churches and Church Membership b5
flfty*~lxth Issue Annual
YE ARBOOK OF.
AMERICAN &
CANADIAN
CHURCHES
1988
.C:onstant H. Jacquet, Jr, Editor
Alice Jones, Editorial A~soclate
Prepared and edited in the Office of Research
*nd Evaluation of the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., 475 Riverside Drive,
Now York, NY 10115
Published and Distributed
~a Abingdon Press
shville
A GUIDE FOR THE USER OF CHURCH STATISTICS
This guide is placed in a prominent position in each edition of thc Ye~mok to emphasize the '
fact that church statistics, like those of many other groups, vary greatly in quality and reliability,
Therefore, necessary qualifications concerning them must be stated clearly and without
reservation.
This year in Section III, the Statistical and Historical Section, the ¥~rbcok of Am~rk~ and
CmuM~n Churches reports data from 220 U. S. religious bodies. Of these, 108 report currcm
data--that is, data for thc years 1987 or 1986. Current data, comprising 49.1 porccnt of all
reports, account for 74.6 percent of recorded membership. Concerning thc dcnomination~
gathering statistics, some computerize data and have an accurate bank of information on cards
or tape. Perhaps the largest group of denominations still gathers statistics by co,n,v_¢ntional
hand-tabulation methods. Quite a few bodies ar~: still operating on thc basis of educated
~uesses" in many statistical areas.
~I~ a..d, ditio, n to these general observations, four major qualifications should bc made:
t~nurcn statistics are always incomplete, and they pass through many hands, some skilled
and some not so skilled, and come up through many channels in church bureaucratic structures.
2) Church statistics are not always comparable. Definitions of membership, and of other
ira.. p.o. rtant categories, vary from dcnominatioq to denominatiov. Jewish statistics arc estimates
ot the number of individuals in households where one or more Jew~ reside and, therefore,
include non-Jews living in these households as the result of intermarriage. Thc total number of
persons in Jewish households is estimated to be 7 percent larger than the number of Jewish
persons residing in these households. It should be noted that estimates of numbers of Jews have
nothing to do with membership in synagogues. Roman Catholics and some Protestant bodies
count ali baptized persons, including children, as members. Other Protestant bodies include as
m~mbers those who make a declaration of faith and become haptizcd. This can happen as early
asage 9.
3) Church statistical data reported in thc ¥~arbook arc not for a single year. Not only do the
reporting years differ ~rom denomination to denomination, but some bodies do not rcporr
l~gulariy. Therefore thc reports based on data for thc year ~.985 or earlier arc "non-current"
reports. Attempts to combine current and non-current data for parposcs of intarpretation or
projection will Icad to difficulties.
4) Many of thc more important types of statistical data arc simply not available for a large
~oup o.f dcnominatinns. Records of church attendance arc not universally kept, and there arc
no ~octocconomic data generally available. Statistics of members' participation in church
activities and programs do not exist.
Statistics form an important part of church life and arc ~eccssary for the sound development
o! planning and program. Therefore strong efforts should be made in each dcnominatinn to
up,ads thc quality of its statistics. Interdenominational coopcratinn leading toward
Uandardizatinn of caregorics and sharing of techniques, it is boped, will continue to grow. New
ways of adapting to church needs and programs thc data gathered by thc U. 8. Bureau of the
C~mus must bc discovcrcd and utilized. The usc of survey methods to obtain' valuable
~*cinrcli~ions information about American religious life should be encouraged and expanded.
FROM BELIEF TO COMMITMENT'
The Activities and Finances of Religious
Congregations in the United States
Findings from
A National Survey
Analyzed by:
Virginia A. Hodgkinson, Ph.D.
Murray S. Weitzman, Ph.D.
Arthur D. Ki~'sch, Ph.D.
Survey Conducted by:
The Gallup Organization
for
INDEPENDENT SECTOR
INDf~ENDt_NT
SI~CTC~
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
TABLE 34
PERCENTAGE OF CONGREGATIONS REPORTING SUPPORT FOR SERVICES
Iff SELECTED AREAS OF ACTIVITY, BY LOCATION OF CONGREGATION
Location of Congregation
Areas of Large Small
Activity City City Town Suburb Rural
Human services
Day care (preschool) 37.1 32.6 27.0 34~3 22.1
Family counseling 78.9 83.4 75.4 82.3 75,6
Housing for senior citizens 18.9 18.0 18.3 19.6 19.1
Housing/she~ter for homeress 34.1 35.9 28.7 35.4 262
Meal services 43~4 40.5 36.3 39.0 31.1
Recreation/camp programs/
other youth programs 71 ~4 79.3 81.2 79.7 79.2
Ir~ternationai
Support/promotion of education abroad 475 49.9 48.3 53.8 48.5
Support/promotion of health abroad 41 3 424 42.8 45.5 42.1
Promotion of friendly relations
including exchange programs 397 450 40.9 49.3 39.1
Refugee-related programs 376 35 5 320 445 27 8
Relief abroad 678 70.6 73.6 74.8 69.7
Pubiic/societa~ benefit
Civil rights and social justice 471 420 38A 46,4 358
Community development 48.2 426 42~3 497 47,0
Family planning/abor tion 289 30 1 28.2 346 24.1
Right-to-life 47~3 494 41.6 51~5 461
Health
Institutional care (hospitals,
clinics, nursing homes, hospices) 54.3 55.1 57~4 58.6 55.0
Program assistance for mentally retarded
and physically disabled persons, crmis
counseling hotlines, etc. 41 8 44.0 43.5 509 40.2
Public education on diseases 38.4 34.8 30 1 38.9 34~6
Ar~s and culture
Programs for historic preservation, choral
singing (other than church choir),
instrumental groups, dance groups,
theater, etc. 40. I" 43.5 41.9 47~I 38.2
Education
Elementary education 435 38.2 332 389 354
Secondary education 351 33,7 29.5 29.9 34.2
Environment
Improvement of environmental quality.
beautification of urban areas, etc. 28.5 24.8 27.3 28.0 27.5
Note: Congregation could give multiple responses.
TABLE 3.5
PERCENTAGE OF CONGREGATIONS REPORTING SUPPORT FOR SERVICES IN
MAJOR ACTIVITY AREAS, BY SIZE AND ORIENTATION OF CONGREGATION
Size of Congregationa Orientationa
Major Very
Activity Areas Ali Small Medium Large Liberal Moderate Conservative Conservative
Total 100.0 190 41.8 34.5 14.3 25.6 39.5 17.3
Religious ministry/
education 993 985 99.9 989 1000 994 99.3 985
Human services/welfare 93.0 88.0 93.1 95.3 96.5 93,1 92.8 911
International programs 750 607 76.0 81 5 88.1 777 73.7 61.8
Public/societal benefit 71 8 544 71.3 774 85.7 72,7 68.5 67.1
Health 64.2 47.6 62 8 74.2 80.2 653 607 553
Education 45 0 45.7 40 2 561 535 45.9 43.4 38,0
Arts and culture 437 289 420 530 56.1 50.0 41.5 29.1
Environment 29.0 208 28.7 33.4 44.6 33.8 25.1 16.7
Note: Data are from 1,353 congregatiions that respond to a more detailed questionnaire.
aExc~udes 4.7 percent of congregations that gave a "don't know" or "no answer" for size and 3.3 percent of congregations that did not
report their orientalion.
22
FIGURE 3.2 Furthermore, the orientation of congregations affects
PERCENTAGE OF CONGREGATIONS the overall kinds of activities and the level of involve-
REPORTING FREQUENCY OF OETAILED merit of congregations, as well as the type and variety
ACTIVITIES AMONG MAJOR AREAS OF
ACTIVITY, BY CONGREGATIONAL SIZE Of programs in which they participate.
OF MEMBERSHIP
The Use of Congregational Facilities
I Medium Respondents were asked how many days per week
la Large their congregational facilities were used or available
for use for religious services, for use by other groups
within their congregation, or for use by groups outside
education 99.8 their congregation. Tables 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11 show
98.9 the reslxmses to these questions. Table 3.9 shows that
56 percent of congregations reported that their con-
welfare 93.1 gregational facilities were used for religious services
95.3 one, two, or three days per week. Some 36 percent
International ............ 60.7 reported that congregational facilities were used or
programs 76.1 available for religious services seven days per week.
Public/societal ..... 64.5 Use of facilities varied with the size of the congrega*
be.alii 71.3 tion. More small congregations (65 percent) reported
77.3 that facilities were available for religious services only
Health ..... 475 one, two, or three days per week than large congrega-
tions (47 percent). Larger congregations were far more
74.2 likely to report that their facilities were available for
Education ......... 34.6 religious services every day (45 percent) than small
congregations (27 percent). There were no major dif-
ferences in the use of facilities by congregational
Arts and 28.9 orientation.
The responses about the availability of congregational
Environment 20,7 facilities for groups within their congregations were
I 287 more varied than for religious services, as shown in
/334 table 3.10. While 41 percent of congregations
reported that their facilities were available to congre-
gational groups seven days per week, another 20 per-
cent reported that their facilities were available one or
two days per week, and 30 percent responded that
their facilities were available between three and six
days per week. Only 6 percent of congregations
reported that their facilities were not available for use
by groups within their congregation.
TABLE 3.9
PERCENTAGE OF CONGREGATIONS REPORTING NUMBER OF DAYS PER WEEK THAT CONGREGATIONAL
FACILITIES ARE USED FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES, BY SIZE AND ORIENTATION OF CONGREGATION
Size. Orientation
Days Used Very
Per Week Total Small Medium Large Liberal Moderate Conservative Conservative
0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
1 15.3 127 17.2 15.4 20.2 209 13.6 7.5
2 273 34~3 294 21.6 23.4 23.3 29.5 31.8
3 132 18.2 143 101 8.8 100 15.9 159
4 3.8 4~3 44 2.8 4.4 3.0 3.4 5.4
5 1.4 1.2 I I 1 5 0.0 0.7 1.9 1.8
6 1.6 03 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.8
7 35.7 270 30.7 45.0 39.7 39.0 32.5 345
Don't know/
no answer 1.7 1.8 1.0 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.4
Total 100.1 100.1 100.0 100.1 100.1 100.0 100.1 100.1
Note: Columns may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
Question: How many days of the week are the congregational facilities used or available for use for religious services?
26
TABLE 4.21
NUMBER OF PERSONS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE HOURS PERFORMED PER
MONTH FOR CONGREGATIONS, AND ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS,
MINISTRY AND EDUCATION, RANKED BY TOTAL HOURS IN MAJOR ACTIVITY AREAS
(Total hours are in thousands)
Percent of Average
Amount Percent All Hours Hours
All activities other than
religious ministry/education
Total 125,318 100.0 41.6 10.2
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 37,618 30.0 31.7 54.7
All paid employees 36,691 29~3 48.3 31.7
Volunteers other than clergy 51,009 40~7 47.7 4.9
Education
Total 43,485 1000 14.4 3.5
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 11,234 258 9.5 163
All paid employees 13.445 309 17.7 11.6
Volunteers other than clergy 18,806 43.2 17.6 1.8
Human services/welfare
Total 28.138 10Q0 9.3 2.3
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 8,641 30.7 7.3 12.6
All paid employees 6,685 237 88 5.8
Volunteers other than clergy 12,812 45.5 12,0 1.2
Health
Total 17,311 100.0 5,7 1.4
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 8,281 478 7.0 12.0
All paid employees 1,686 9.7 22 1.5
Volunteers other than clergy 7,344 42.4 69 0.7
Public/societal benefit
Total 10,069 10Q0 3.3 0.8
C~ergy (paid and volunteer) 4,337 431 3.7 6.3
All paid employees 876 87 1.2 0.8
Volunteers other than clergy 4,556 48.2 45 0.5
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 1,823 187 1.5 2.6
All paid employees 1,640 16 8 22 1.4
Volunteers other than clergy 6,281 645 5.9 0.6
International
Total 9,378 1000 31 08
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 3,383 36.1 2.9 49
All paid employees 1,074 11.4 1.4 09
Volunteers other than clergy 4,921 52.5 4.6 0.5
Clergy (paid and volunteer) 2,369 54.1 2.0 3.4
All paid employees 592 135 0.8 0.5
Volunteers other than clergy 1,416 32.3 1.3 0.1
Note: See note on table 4A4 and a) on table 420~
nues for all congregations and by size of congregation, and charges for services (5 percent), sales of products,
The average revenues for all congregations were such as literature (1 pe~'cent), endowment or invest-
$172,800, of which 82 percent ($140,000) came from merit 'income (2 percent, and miscellaneous income
individual giving. The other sources of revenue com- (7 percent). These findings reveal that congregations
prising 18 percent of the total revenues were divided are primarily funded through individual donations.
among bequests (3 percent), contributions from
denominational organizations (1 percent), dues, fees
45
negativ6- declaration .
PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment - Community Purpose Facilities in the
PC zone
PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific - in the Planned Community (P-C) Zone
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-91-17 DATE: November 6, 1990
A. Project Settinq
The project is not site specific and therefore, precludes any specific
description of its setting. The proposed project would potentially affect
any land 'situated in the P-C zone.
B. Project Description
All land in each P-C zone, or any section theFeof, shall be subject to the
requirement that adequate land be designated for "community purpose
facilities".
A "community purpose facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as
ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community, which
serves one of the following purposes:
1. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations;
2. Social service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous;
3. Services for homeless;
4. Services for military personnel during the holidays;
5. Private schools;
6. Day care;
7. Senior care and recreation;
8. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of
traditional family values.
A total proposed range of 0.86 to 2.29 acres of net buildable land
(including setbacks) per 1,000 population shall be designated for such
facilities in any planned community, and shall be so designated in the
Sectional Planning Area {SPA} Plan(s) for each planned community. This
total acreage requirement may be reduced only if the City Council
determines, in conjunction with its adoption of a SPA plan, that a lesser
amount of land is needed. This decision would be based upon an
availability of shared parking with other facilities or other community
purpose facilities that are guaranteed to be made available to the
community.
city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF
environmental review aection.CHULA
-2-
C. Comoatibilitv with Zoninq and Plans
The purposes of the P-C zone are to provide for the orderly planning and
long-term development of large tracts of land which may contain a variety
of land uses, but are under unified ownership or development control.
This would enable the entire tract to provide an environment of stable and
desirable character; give the developer reasonable assurance that
sectional development plans prepared in accordance with an approved
general development plan will be acceptable to the city; and enable the
City to adopt measures providing for the development of the surrounding
area compatible with the planned community zone.
The proposal is an amendment to the zoning text and therefore, is not site
specific, but does pertain to all land in the P-C zone, or any section
thereof. As such then, with regard to the purposes of the P-C zone, the
proposal should promote neighborhood unity and community identity.
Therefore, the project is deemed to be compatible with zoning and General
Plan designations.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of
the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75%-of the cases.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's
policy.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to Priority ! calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an
average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or
less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes
or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls
of 7 minutes or less.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
-3-
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
4. Parks/Recreation
The lhreshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres/I,000 population. This threshold standard applies only to
residential projects.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and
volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards [PI. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the
Drainage Master Plan{s) and City Engineering Standards.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
shall not exceed City Engineering Standards [PI. Individual projects
will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
-4-
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently
with planned growth and that water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction.
Since this is an amendment to the zoning text only, and is not a site
specific project, threshold standards are not directly applicable.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant
impact and is considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
E. Identification of [nvironmental [ffects
There is no substantial evidence that any significant environmental
effects will be created as a result of this project.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
Because there is no substantial evidence that the project will create any
significant environmental effects, mitigation measures are not deemed to
be necessary.
G. Findings of Insiqnificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is detertnined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
co~m~unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate i~ortant examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed project is not associated with any biological or
cultural impacts as these issue areas were not identified as
potentially significant in the initial study.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed project will not achieve short term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long term goals, since these long term goals
will be achieved through conditions of project approval and
compliance with the City's Threshold/Standards Policy.
-5-
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively
considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable Sen viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The proposed project is not associated with any significant
cumulative impacts.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on human beings
and no public health impacts were identified in the initial study.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Duane Bazzel
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Title lg, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial
Study as well as any co~ents on the Initial Study and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the
environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista
/~_ P~g~rt.m~t, 276 Fourth Avenue, ChulaVista, CA 92010.
ENVTRONME~I~AL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Ref/. 3/88)
WPC 8545P