The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/09/25 AGENDA city Planning Commission Chula vista, California Wednesday. September 25, 1991 City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of April 10 and July 24, 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. Consideration of Final EIR 89-1, Otay Valley Road Widening Project 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Recirculated Draft EIR-90-07, Scripps Memorial Hospital Expansion 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-91-05; PCZ-91-G: Proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone certain territory, generally bounded by 'E' Street, 'D' Street, Third Avenue, and Landis Avenue, to resolve general plan and zoning inconsistencies within the Chula Vista community - City Initiated 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-06: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to delete certain procedural require- ments for churches that provide temporary shelter for the homeless - City Initiated AGENDA -2- September 25, 1991 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-04: Consideration of a rezone consisting of an amendment to the Planned Community Regulations of EastLake Greens SPA Plan - EastLake Development Company OTHER BUSINESS: Commission Business Cards DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 9, 1991 in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 1 1. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT A. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report on the Otay Valley Road Widening Project is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of widening the existing two lane Otay Valley Road to a six lane prime arterial. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the criteria, standards and procedures listed below. The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), a amended (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et.seq.); The State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Sections 15000 et.seq.); The Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and The regulations and procedures of the California Department of Fish and Game. In case of conflict, the City of Chula Vista's requirements will prevail. In accordance with Section 15367 of CEQA Guidelines, the City of Chula Vista has been designated the Lead Agency and, as such, has the principal responsibility for processing the project in compliance with CEQA requirements. The California Department of Fish and Game is a Responsible Agency, and will be processing a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the modifications to the Otay River Valley east of Maxwell Road necessitated by the road widening project. The proposed project will also require a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because construction of the slopes at the eastern end of the project will require fill in wetland areas adjacent to the Otay River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for preparing and processing any federal environmental review documents that are required. The Draft EIR on the Otay Valley Road widening was issued for public review on August 21, 1989. The State Clearinghouse review was completed on October 13, 1989 and the City's comment period concluded with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing on November 8, 1989. The Final EIR, which includes responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, was issued in August 1991. Issuance of the Final EIR was delayed to allow the construction plans City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 2 for the road widening project to progress to a level of detail to ensure that all of the potential environmental impacts associated with the project are addressed in the environmental document. At this time the construction plans are nearly completed and no potential environmental impacts beyond those addressed in the Draft EIR have been identified. The environmental analysis included in the Final EIR addresses the following issues: geology/soils/mineral resources/seismic safety, hydrology/water quality, biology, land form alteration, land use, agriculture, parks/recreation/open space, traffic, archaeology/history/paleontology, air quality, noise, aesthetics, community social factors, community tax structure, utility services /energy conservation, and threshold standards. The Final EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, and other environmental summaries required by CEQA. The environmental consultant that prepared this Final EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., of San Diego, California. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that Final EIR-89-1 has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Otay Valley Road is proposed to be widened from Interstate 805 to the eastern City boundary. This portion of Otay Valley Road is approximately 8,800 linear feet and traverses properties within the City of Chula Vista's Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. The County of San Diego is located adjacent to and east of the project, and City of San Diego incorporated areas are between 750 and 3,900 feet south of the proposed project. The proposed project entails widening Otay Valley Road to a six-lane prime arterial within a 128 foot right-of-way. The roadway will have a design speed of 55 miles per hour. Project elements include a 16 foot landscaped median, six 12 foot driving lanes, two 8 foot emergency parking lanes, and 12 feet behind each shoulder curb for sidewalks, landscaping, and utilities. Paseo Ranchero will intersect with Otay Valley Road at a point near the incorporated City limits. The design of the eastern portion of Otay Valley Road would accommodate numerous future alignments of Paseo Ranchero. The proposed road widening will occur in two phases. Construction of Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Nirvana is expected to begin in 1992 and will require approximately six months to complete. East of Nirvana, the widening of Otay Valley Road will occur in conjunction with future development needs and available financing. It is anticipated that Phase II will be constructed within five years of Phase I completion. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS The Executive Summary from the EIR is attached as Exhibit A. This table provides a summary of the potential impacts and the mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. ATTACHMENT A COMMENT LETTERS SEN]' DY:Xerox Telecopter 9021 ; 9-13-81 ; 15:10 ; 8198915540~ITY OF CHULA VISTA Sweetwater Union HiGh School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 11~0 Fifth Avenue C~llfernl& C;hul& Vlet&(~lg) Dlvlalon of Planning and Pacllltlem September 13, 19c31 Ms. Mar'U Ann Hiller City of Chulo Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chule Vista, CA glglO Dear Ms. Miller. Re: Scripps Memorial Hospital Exponslon Project Reclrculatod Draft E.I.R. (E:I.I~. 90-07) Sch ~ gOO 1056g I am In receipt of the above subject .draft Environmental Impact Report end appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the Sweetweter Union High School District. The report accurately addresses this project's relationship to school Impacts. it Is true that as employment opportunities become available in the South Bay raglan, additional students will enter the district by way of new households. It is anticipated that this project .will add employment opportunities to the region. However, with regard to the project, page 124 of the document only partially lists adequate mitigation measures. The payment of fees In accordance with Education Code Section 53000 is acceptable to the district. Unfortunatell,lo the report does not state an agreed upon solution to the problem cumulative development of this area has placed upon the adjacent Junior high school. The City Community Development Department, Scripps Memorial Hospital and the Sweetwater Union High School Dlstrict have agreed that, with respect to this project, the following off-site improvements will occur: SENT BY,Xerox Teleco~er ?0~1 ~ g-18-gl ; 15:11 ; 81gSg155~0~TY OF OHULA VISTA Ms. M(l~ Ann Miller September 13o 199 I Page :2 1. The deeding to the dletricto property identified in figures 4 end 13 of the document to facilitate the construction of future classroomso and a common driveway from Fifth Avenue to the rear portion of Chula Vista Junior High School to allow emergency vehicular access to the school. 2. The provision of an underground storm drain which will correct the flooding that Chula Vista Junior High School experiences due to the day lighting of a large storm drain near the Bay Medical Plaza. The City has allowed this condition to occur when approving prevlous develop- ment applications. At the request of the City Engineering Department and Scripps Hospital, the district has agreed to provide a thirty foot right-of-way from the Chula Vista Junior High School campus located at the southeast corner of "l~" street. The provision of tht!l right-of-way would be contingent upon the sale of the school's handball court located at the eastern edge of the campus. I havi enclosed two documents which itaff has sent to the City requesting that the Envlronmsntal Impact Report address the issues described above. I em requesting that these issues be stated tn the report. Additionally, they could be implemented via a development agreement between the district and the applicant. SENfBY:Xerox Telecopier ?021.Lg-1~-91 ; 15:12 ; 81959~..5540-¢ITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. MaN Ann Miller September I $, I 9g 1 Page 3 It should be noted that C:hule Vista Junior High School is a part of the Town Center II Eedevelopment area, end the improvements to the campus will definitel~l enhance the downtown area. If gou require additional information, or have en[i questions regarding this correspon~lence, please feel free to call me et 691-555:~. Thomas Silva Assistant Director of Planning TS/m1 cc: Ids. Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Citg Schools Hr. Robert Lelter, Cltg of Chula Vlete Enclosures SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; g-13-g1 ; 15:14 ; 8196915540~CITY OF CflULA VISTA · Sweetwa r Union High School . istrict I~, ~obert Letter D~rec~or o~ ~lannin9 Ctty of Chule Vtsts ~76 Fourth Avenue Chula ¥tsta, CA 91911 Dear ~. Letter: Re: RohrOff~ce C(~31ex/Scrtpps#am~rtal Hospttal Expansion On January 30~ 1991t ! met ~tth y~u e~d George ~rempl to ~scuss future development pro,acts and the~ potentia~ mlt~gat~on o~ school ~mpects. T~o spec~ftc projects ~ere d~scussed at length: the Rohr offtce complex and the Scripps Kemorlal Hospital pro, acts. You had mentioned that a public hearln9 was scheduled for February 14. 1991. Rohr Off,ce Complex: The employment opportunltles offered by the addttton of 'a ~45,O00 square- foot office bulldlng could significantly Impact Sweetwate~'s schools. As stated ~n p~tor correspondences f~om thts offtce, these tmpacts could be mitigated .by the p~o~ect's a~nexatlbn to Co~untty Facilities District ~o. S (CFD No. Scrtpps RemorSe1 #osptta~ Expansion: ~ ~une 4, 1990. Hr. Ca~be11. a~ntstretor o¢ plannlngt sent a letter responding to the Notice of Preparation of Draft £nvtronmenta~ Impact Report requesting that the project be annexed to Community Facilities Dtstrtct No. ~. ~ ! stated ~n one meeting, annexation to CFD No. ~ ~s not necessary because the applicant agreed to an alternative ettigatton masure which ~as found to be acce. ptable' by*the distrqct. T~ sol,ton ¶ncludes: 1) the purchase of district property ~oceted on Chula Vtst~ Junior High Schooq. 2) the southerly expansion of the Chule V~ste Ounlor H~gh School's southern boundary~ an~ 3) the provision of stor~ dratn ~mprovements on the campus and the d~strtct ability to construct ten relocatable c~assrooms o~ s~te. T~$ solutlon and the pe~nent of school fees adequate]y ~tigates the p~o~ects' ~n~act to the district. ihou~dyou require addittona~ ~nformatton. please ca~i me. Director of P~anntng l$/sf ¢c: ~am~s Leafy Kmte Shurson. SENT BY:Xerox Telecop~er 7021 ; g-lB-81 ; 15:15 ; , Sw ater U on High }:o1 ON~ ~TA. GAL~O~NI~ June 4, 1990 Mr. Robert Letghter Planntng Dtrec~or Ctty of Chula Vtsta 276 Fourth Avenue Chule Vtsta, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Letghter= Re: ~ottce of Preparation of an £nvtronmental Impact Report ?he Sweetwater Union High School Dlstrlct t5 In recetpt of your May 29, 1990, Motlce of Preparatlon of in Environmental Impact Report, and as a responsible agency ~e vould 11kc to respond to the following areas o¢ concern: 1. La'nd Use The follo~In~ three areas have been discussed ~tth the hospital regarding the expansion: a. The deedtng over to the 5weetwater Union H~gh School Dtstrlct of to factl~ta~;°pert~ as Identified ~n Exhlbtt B tn order The hosplta] the construction of future classrooms. has agreed to provtde a common driveway ~tth access f~om Ftfth Avenue end proytde Dlstrtct vehlcular access to the ~ear port,on of the school. Thts rear access' ts required' by the Clty of Chula Vtsta's Ftre Marsha~, · ~e storm dratn was b Durtn9 prevlous developments~ at southeast corner constructed from Fourth Avenue of the schoo~ s1~e. The current effect O~ this ~ratnage ts to ~lood bo~h the a~h~etlc and classroom areas of the ~un~or ht~eSChoo~. To mtttgate thls tmpact, thts draln needs to ducted Into the hospttal"s proposed stor~ d~ syste~, BENT BY:Xerox TelecopJer 7021 ; 9-18-91 ; 15:15 ; $196915540-CITY OF CNULA VISTA June ;, 1990 c. At the request of the Ctty of Chula Vlsts and $crtpps Hospital, the Dtstrtct has tgreed to provtde a thtrty ~o~t .right-of-way from the Chula Vtsta Uunlor Htoh ~cnoo~ campus southeast corner to "$" $~reet, This right-of-way needs to be shlelded tn order to provtde pedestrians vtsual eye contact ~Ith the athletlc fteld. Thts provision of rlght-of-w~y availability ts contingent upon the O$strtct's sale of 1ts current :.ha~ba~ court area' (Ipproxtm~tely ~2,000 square ?eeC). ~. Development %mD~Ct ~f £nrol~ment The construction oF approximately $21,000 squBre foot calculates Into 3~ new students. Thls vl]~ need to be · tt$gated prtor to the Issuance of the but~dtn9 permtt and construction. This can be potentlal~ mitigated ~nc~uston tnto our Community Fa¢t~tttes Dtstrtct No. $. Sincerely. Andrew B. Ad~In~strator of P~anntng ABC:mr CHUI VISTA EI.EMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVIST~ CALIFORNIA91910 * 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN ~DW~UAL OF GREAT WORTH ~ARD OF E~N Ep. o. cu ,,Gs. RECEIVED LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHAR~GtLES August 20, 1991 ,ATR C A. JUDD AUG PLANNING Hs. ~a~ya~ ~[[e~ E~v~o~e~ta! Rev~eu Sect~o~ C~t¥ o~ Chu[a V~sta 276 ~ou~th Avenue Chu[a V~sta, OA 91910 R~= Co~aea~s o~ Recalculated D~a~t ~R - Sc~[~s ~osp~ta[ ~xpaas£o~ Dea~ ~s. ~[[e~= ~ha~ you ~o~ the opportunity to ~ev~eu a~d co~_~e~t o~ the ~ec~cu[ated D~a~t ~[R ~o~ the Scripps ~e~o~a[ ~osp~ta[ E×pa~s~o~. Sect~o~ 4.9 2ub[~c ~ac~[~t±es/Se~v[ces, o~ the DE[~, does ~ot ~espo~d to comments p~ev~ousl¥ sub~£tted by the D[st~ct (see e~c[osed Ap~l 4~ 1991, [ette~). O~ page 120, ~e~t~o~ ~s ~ade o~ ~nd~ect ~pacts the p~o~ect ~£[! have o~ student generation. ~he D~st~ct, as the agency ~espo~s~b[e ~o~ p~ov~d~g elementary educat~o~ to ali children ~ Chu[a V±sta~ quantified these ~apacts, and th~s data should be p~ese~ted ~ the DE[R. [~stead o~ identifying potential ±apacts o~ schoo[s~ Sect±o~ 4.9.2, o~ pages 122 - 23, see~s to ~ust~y payment o~ deve[ope~ ~ees by stating no guas~-[eg~s[at~ve act~o~ ~s ~equ±~ed o~ the C~t¥. Rega~d[ess o~ ~hethe~ the C~ty~s approval ~equ~es a [eg~s[at~ve act, payment o~ ~ees p~ov~des approximately o~e-~ou~th o~ ~ac~l~t~es costs, leaving a s~g~[ca~t ~apact unmitigated. A ~u[[ a~alys±s o~ potential ~pacts o~ schools should be p~epa~ed a~d ~co~po~ated ~to ~ect~o~ 4.9.2, a~d the a~op~ate~ess a~d adequacy o~ deve[ope~ ~ees d~sc~ssed ~de~ Sect[o~ 4.9.3, ~t~gat~o~ ~easu~es. As stated p~ev~ous[¥, ~h~s p~o~ect u~[[ have s~g~±~ca~t adverse ~pacts o~ school ~ac~[~t~es by c~eat~g app~ox±aate[¥ 2,000 ~eu ~obs ~h~ch ~[[ generate ap~ox~aate[y 347 ~eu e[eae~ta~y students. ~x~st~g ~ac£[±t~es ca~ot serve these ne~ students~ a~d the DE[~ August 20, 1991 Ms. Maryann Miller Page 2 RE: Recirculated Draft EIR - Scripps Hospital Expansion should identify these impacts. Should the city recommend payment of fees as mitigation, given the inadequacy described above, a finding of over-riding considerations would seem appropriate. As currently presented, the DEIR does not adequately address impacts on school facilities. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: George Krempl John Linn CHULA VISTA EI,EMI .NTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVIST~CALIFORNIA92010 * 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN ~DIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARD OF E~CA~N .. . . JOSEPHD.~I~S.~.D. April 4, 1991 LARRY CUNNIN~AM ~AR~ GILES PATRICK A. JU~ GREG R. ~N~V~ Members of the Planning CommisSion SUPER~EN~ City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue x~N&v~,~.~.~ Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 Dear Commissioners: The Chula Vista Elementary School District has serious concerns over the impacts non-residental development has had and will have on District enrollments, particularly in the already overcrowded western area of town. Creation or, new jobs is the major cause of population growth, and with population growth comes additional elementary age children. Since the Notice of Initial Study for the Scripps Hospital expansion was circulated in January, 1990, the Chula Vista Elementary School District has responded to all City notices and project .information. by documenting impacts on school facilities and recommending an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD). The project requires approval of a rezoning, and thus constitutes a legislative action. As the Lead Agency for preparation of this Draft EIR, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has the ability to deny the Scripps Hospital expansion based on inadequacy of school facilities to serve the project, or condition the project to require compliance with District recommendations. Two recent court decisions (Mira and Hart Union School District) have upheld this ability when the approval required by a City or County involves a legislative action, such as a general plan amendment or rezoning. 4 The Draft EIR prepared for the Scripps Hospital expans~n fails to respond to impacts on school facil~ties identified by the District, does not include District data on projected new students or information on District schools, and dismisses District recommendations. The Draft EIR states "The proposed project would be subject to the school district State mandated development fee for non-residential projects. Impacts to the Chula Vista Elementary School District with project implementation would be fully mitigated by these mandated fees." This statement is false. The Draft EIR does not adequately respond to the finding of Potentially Significant School Impacts identified in the Initial Study. April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 . RE: Scripps Hospi%a~ Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 On numerous occasions, the City has expressed the desire to assist the District to the extent legally possible, in obtaining adequate mitigation for impacts on school facilities. Staff recently proposed the following language for inclusion in the modifying district for properties being rezoned in Area B-1 of Central Chula Vista: "The City of Chula Vista shall enforce any legal mechanism sponsored by the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities." We fully support this language and ask that it be applied to all City actions. For legislative acts, such as the Scripps project, we have the legal authority to require adequate mitigation. The City has the legal mechanism it needs to assist the District. We ask that our mitigation recommendations be implemented. School Facility Impacts On August 14, 1990, the District responded to the first Draft EIR on this project by stating that impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by payment of school fees. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit A. At that time, our impact analysis was based on 396,490 square feet of hospital space. With an additional 124,500 square feet of medical offices, proposed new construction totals 520,380 square feet, and impacts to schools would be greater than previously indicated. Over 2,000 new Jobs/employees are projected for this project, 1,231 of whom will create new households in Chula Vista, and 347 new elementary students will need to be served by the District. It is not possible to predict where in the District these new residents will live, or the specific schools that will be affected. However, virtually all schools west of 1-805 are severely overcrowded, operating at or above permanent capacity. District-wide, there is little available capacity. Several hundred children are being bused to various schools with capacity. In some cases, siblings are separated because one school does ngt have space in grade levels to accommodate all family members. The opening of Clear View School in September, 1991, will provide temporary relief on a District-wide basis, and it is likely that many children from western Chula Vista will be bused to this school. However, as that area develops, Clear View School will be needed to serve neighborhood children. The _data utilized above to calculate employee/student -impacts is from a study prepared for the District by SANDAG which was recognized by the Legislature through AB 530 as the basis upon which commercial/industrial employee estimates are calculated. While a proportion of growth from new jobs contributes to mitigating impacts on schools April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 3 RE: Scripps Hospftai Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 through new residential fees, not all new residents live in new housing, and only new housing within a CFD contributes 100% of new facilities costs. Increased enrollments in areas with little or no new residential development result from families doubling up, formation of multi-generational households, and neighborhood recycling. Further, the Education Code requires school districts to accept students residing outside the District if a parent is employed within the District. Chula Vista Elementary School District has over 350 inter-district transfers attending our schools. Mitigation In recognition of the difficulties in calculating percentages of new employees who will contribute to school mitigation via new housing/CFD's, the District's annexable CFD No. 5 apportions contributions between residential and non-residential development based on the same formula used by the State in authorizing developer fees. State authorized developer fees, which provide approximately one-fourth of new facility costs, are approximately 16% of residential fees. Similarly, the taxing formula for CFD No. 5 assesses non-residential development at the rate of 16.67% of the $ .154/square foOt base rate, with single family residential development assessed at 100% of the base rate. Taxes commence at the time building permits are issued, are collected for twenty-five years, and the District is able to bond against future revenues in order to finance facilities at the time of need. Based on the impacts implementation of the Scripps Hospital expansion will have on District facilities, it is recommended that annexation to CFD No. 5, be a condition of project approval. Assuming project buildout of 520,380 square feet, the first year's assessment would be approximately $13,359. By annexing to CFD No. 5, the Scripps Hospital project will contribute 16.67% of the total costs needed to house students estimated to be generated as a result of project implementation. The Draft EIR does not discuss impacts or mitigation for the Sweetwater Union High School District. According to correspondence from Sweetwater, in a separate agreement, Scripps and Sweetwater agreed to an alternative mitigation measure which includes "... (1) the purchase of district property, located on Chula Vista Junior High. School; 2) the -southerly expansion of the Chula Vista Junior High School's southern boundary; and 3) the provision of storm drain April 4, 1991 Members of the Planning Commission Page 4 RE= Scripps Hospital Expansion Draft EIR No. 90-07 improvements on the campus and the district ability to construct ten relocatable classrooms on site." It is assumed developer fees will also be collected by the District. Copies of Sweetwster's correspondence to the City are attached as Exhibit B. There have been no discussions between the Chuls vista Elementary School District end Scripps relative to an agreement for mitigation of impacts to elementary schools. To assure that this will occur and that impacts will be mitigated, we request that the City condition project approval of the Scripps Hospital to include participation in the District's CFD No. 5. Absent implementation of this condition by the City, the District's overcrowded facilities will be further taxed and our ability to accommodate new children resulting from implementation of this project will be severely affected. The City's cooperation with our efforts to assure elementary facilities are available to serve all children in Chula Vista is essential to -our success. The City took a major step in this direction by adopting the Threshold Standard for Schools. In order to attain that standard, all development, including non-residential, must pay its fair share toward providing school facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS=dp cc: John Goss George Krempl Chris Salamone Carl Kadie Jack Matlock John Linn ATTACHMENT B TABLE CORRECTIONS hospital administration office consisting of 58,800 square feet, would be located where the existing single story hospital building of 24,140 square feet is currently located and a two-story plus basement diagnostic and treatment center consisting of 84,560 square feet would be located north of and attached to the existing four-story hospital tower and the proposed Phase I expansion. Prior to the implementation of the ultimate phase, the medical office building located in the southwest portion of the site would be expanded with the addition of a six-story 'wing' consisting of approximately 62,240 square feet. A five level (one level below grade, one level at grade and three levels above grade) parking structure would be located in the northwest portion of the site where the additional surface parking was added in Phase I of the project. This parking structure would provide 775 parking spaces in addition to the 103 surface parking spaces on-site for a total of 878 parking spaces within the project boundary. All of the facilities on-site including the parking structure would feed in to a common pedestrian corridor that runs in an east/west direction through the site. This corridor would provide a pedestrian 'spine~ linking the main hospital facility with the medical office building and parking area to the west. Table 1 is a building area summary for Pha~e 1 and Phase Ultimate of the project. :.;. i:. : · BUILDING ;AREA :::':; :~: . · · · ,Phase .;:..: '::::'":'!::~:q :.::;misting :;::i"Phas~l :;::::: ':'::.::Ultimate .: ':::: Tist~l: ' :i':' Hospital 73,994 120,560 251,790 446,344 Medical Office Bldg --- 62,180 62,240 124,420 Parking Structure ...... 263,380 263,380 Total 73,994 182,740 577,410 834,144 - 32 - On-site, there are 8 existing businesses, with an estimated total of 58 full-time equivalent employment (Table 20). (Two part-time positions are assumed equivalent to on~ full- time position.) Although not on the project site, the existing hospital employs 556 persons, or about 4.2 employees per occupied bed. Arby's 14 Captain Kidd's 2 Express Gasoline 4 Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor 9 Fiesta Cinema 4 First Interstate Bank 10 Readicare Center 9 Rollerskate Land - ' 6 TOTAL 58 Source: P&D Technologies 8.1.2 Analysis - Tax Revenue Effects The proposed project and the two alternatives would result in significant additional revenues to thwRedevelopment Agency and the City of Chula Vista, in comparison to retaining existing uses with no redevelopment. This section examines potential effects on four revenue sources which would see the most significant change: tax increment revenues, sales tax revenues, utility users tax, and franchise tax. Effects on other taxes - 169 - City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA 91-5, PCZ 91-G, City-initiated proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone certain territory, qenerally bounded by "E" Street, "D" Street, Third Avenue, and Landis Avenue, to resolve qeneral plan and zoninq inconsistencies within the Central Chula Vista community A. BACKGROUND This item involves amending the General Plan and rezoning an area referred to as General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study Area B-3-A in Central Chula Vista. The study area consists of the majority of a city block bounded by "D" Street to the north, "E" Street to the south, Third Avenue to the east, and Landis Avenue to the west. It includes all property within this block with the exception of commercially designated and zoned property along "E" Street, and four single-family designated and zoned lots adjacent to "D" Street (see attached map). The study area comprises approximately five acres and 21 lots. On June 11, 199], the City Council directed staff to conduct a General Plan/Zoning Consistency review for this area, at the request of a property owner, and return to the Council with an appropriate recommendation for resolving the inconsistency between General Plan Designation and Zoning. The purpose of the on-going 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. This particular area was designated Residential Low Medium (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) on the General Plan Map at that time, but the property is zoned R-3 (Apartment Residential), which allows up to 32 dwelling units per acre. This area has been zoned R-3 since the adoption of Zoning Ordinance 398 by the City Council on March 22, 1949. Staff completed their analysis of Special Study Area B-3-A in July. Existing zoning, lot sizes, residential densities and adjacent land uses were tabulated and mapped. Public facilities impacts were assessed. Staff conducted a field survey to inventory the existing land uses within the study area. Based on this information, staff prepared a written study document (see backup material) and a recommendation. The study and recommendation were presented by staff at a community forum conducted on August 1, 1991. 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 WPC 9740P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 1 will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS 91-13 for the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study, Subarea B-3-A. 2. Adopt a resolution to change the General Plan designation for Subarea B-3-A from Low-Medium Residential {3-6 du/ac.) to Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac.) 3. Adopt an ordinance to change the zoning for Subarea B-3-A from R-3 (Apartment Residential) to R-3-P-22 (Apartment Residential) with the precise plan modifier, subject to the following conditions: a. The City of Chula Vista shall enforce any appropriate legal mechanism sponsored by the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities. b. All existing nonconforming uses created as a result of this action shall be allowed to be reconstructed in the event of destruction of greater than 60 percent of the property's improvements upon review and approval of the Planning Commission. C. DISCUSSION Staff has conducted a planning study for Subarea B-3-A. This study includes the following elements: 1) review of general plan policies, 2} review of surrounding land uses and regulations, 3) existing and potential land use on the site, and 4} public facilities impacts. The full text of this study is contained within the backup materials. The following report summarizes the study. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The Chula Vista General Plan contains several goals, objectives, and policies relating to the appropriate character of Subarea B-3-A. The Housing and Community Character Goal of the Land Use Element calls for a "full diversity of housing types, while maintaining an orientation to single-family living." Housing and Community Character Objective 12 states that the city shall "provide for the development of multi-family housing in appropriate areas," while Objective 15 states that the city shall "preserve and reinforce existing residential neighborhoods throughout the city. Objective 17 states that the city shall "re-plan portions of the Central Chula Vista area to lower densities where higher densities are found to be incompatible with single-family neighborhoods." The Central Chula Vista Area Plan, contained within the General Plan document, contains additional Goals and Objectives relating to Subarea B-3-A. Goal 2 calls for "a variety of types and densities of housing in ways which will preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods." Objective 7 states that the city WPC g740P City Planning Com~nission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 2 shall "preserve and enhance pockets of single-family neighborhoods." The Central Chula Vista Area Plan also contains a policy on the redesignation of single-family neighborhoods, which states that no areas designated for single-family residential development shall be redesignated to higher density residential use except where 1) there is a citywide need, 2) there are no significant impacts, 3) at least one-half of the boundary of the area proposed for redesignation is bordered by higher density residential or non-residential uses, and 4) that a series of design standards for such development are met. AREA GENEI~AL PIJ~N/ZONING DESIGNATIONS SUBAREA B-3-A -- Land Use Designation: Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac} Zoning: R-3 {Apartment Residential) Uses: Mixed single-family and multi-family residential WEST -- Land Use Designation: Low-Medium Residential {3-6 du/ac) Zoning: R-1 {Single-Family Residential) Uses: Single-family residential NORTH -- Land Use Designation: Low-Medium Residential {3-6 du/ac) Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Uses: Single-family residential EAST -- Land Use Designation: Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) and Quasi-Public Zoning: R-3 (Apartment Residential) Uses: Fredericka Manor SOUTH -- Land Use Designation: Retail Commercial Zoning: CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Uses: Commercial EXISTING AND POTENTIAL LA, ID USE Subarea B-3-A consists of five acres of land. It is divided into 21 lots. Eleven of these lots, totaling 35% of the land area, contain single family dwellings, while the remaining ten lots, totaling 65% of the land area, contain a total of 89 multi-family dwelling units. Two large projects, an apartment complex at 122 Third Avenue, and the Del Neva Condominium complex at 166 Third Avenue, comprise the majority of the multi-family dwelling units, each project containing 26 units. The remainder of the multi-family dwelling units are contained within small apartment complexes of three to eight units in number. The single-family homes in the area are small, of approximately 30 to 40 years in age. With the exception of the two large projects, lot sizes in the area range from 6,600 to 8,000 square feet. Staff analyzed buildout under different land use scenarios and our findings are summarized in the following table: WPC 9740P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 3 SCENARIO BUILDOUT NON-CONFORMING USES CREATED Plan Designation: 145 dwelling units* 5 HIGH RESIDENTIAL (18-27) (45 additional) Zoning: R-3(18-32 du/ac) Plan Designation: 122 dwelling units 7 MEDIUM-HIGH RES.(11-18) {22 additional) Zoning: R-3-P-22 (22 du/ac) Plan Designation: 111 dwelling units lO MEDIUM-HIGH RES. (11-18) {Il additional) Zoning: R-3-P-14 (14 du/ac) Plan Designation: 100 dwelling units 10 LOW-MEDIUM RES.(3-6) {0 additional) Zoning: R-1 * Since density in the R-3 zone is variable, based upon the lot size and the dwelling unit sizes within a proposed project, the maximum buildout under the R-3 zoning is obtainable only if all existing single-family lots in the area are consolidated and if smaller studio and one-bedroom apartment units are constructed. PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACIS Staff reviewed the impacts of the various plan/zone options on public facilities and services. No negative impacts were found for the following issues: Fire/EMS, Police, Traffic, Parks/Recreation, Drainage, Sewer, and Water. Letters of comment received from both the elementary and high school districts indicated that both districts are experiencing overcrowding at Central Chula Vista area schools. The Chula Vista Elementary School response specifically requests that the city "adhere to the land use designations in the General Plan and process rezonings and GPA's on a case-by-case basis, at the time development is proposed and a legislative act is required." The elementary school district is thus requesting that the General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium be retained and that the subarea by rezoned to R-1 (Single-Family Residential). WPC 9740P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 4 ANALYSIS Based upon this study, staff recommends re-designation of Subarea B-3-A to from Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac.) to Medium High Residential {11-18 du/ac.) on the Chula Vista General Plan Map, and rezoning of the subarea from R-3 (Apartment Residential} to R-3-P-22 (Apartment Residential, 22 du/ac.). Rationale for this recommendation is as follows: 1. While the General Plan text calls for preservation of single-family neighborhoods within Central Chula Vista, this neighborhood, in which 65% of the land area and 89% of the dwelling units are multi-family, appears to be already irreversibly committed to a multi-family pattern of development. With the notable exception of school facilities, the area has adequate infrastructure to service additional dwelling units. Therefore, infilling of the remaining under-developed parcels in this area with additional multi-family development will meet the General Plan Goals and Policies by helping to provide a diversity of housing within Chula Vista, and providing for more affordable housing as well, while not negatively impacting an established single-family neighborhood. 2. The General Plan Text also calls for well-designed multi-family development, which is in harmony with adjacent lower density areas, has appropriate exterior design and massing, and contains amenities such as adequate landscaped areas. The R-3-P-22 zone meets these criteria for Subarea B-3-A better than the existing R-3 zone because of the following factors: a. The R-3 zone provides higher density incentives for lot consolidation, which could result in large-scale projects out of character in this portion of Central Chula Vista. b. The lower densities of the R-3-P-22 zone (22 dwelling units per acre) are more compatible with adjacent single-family zoned areas on the west side of Landis Street and adjacent lower density areas of the Fredericka Manor complex on the east side of Third Avenue. 3. The existing R-3 zone provides a density incentive for the construction of smaller dwelling units, thereby providing an economic disincentive to property developers if they wish to build larger dwelling units more suitable for families. The R-3-P-22 zone contains a single density calculation without such a disincentive. 4. Schools in the area of Subarea B-3-A are overcrowded. The school districts are authorized by California law to collect a set fee for new residential development, but the elementary school district contends that these fees are not meeting their needs for new facilities in the Central Chula Vista area. While legislative actions such as this can be required to provide additional mitigation for school impacts, the fact that this item is a publicly-initiated general plan amendment makes this course of action infeasible. WPC 9740P City P3anning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 5 While staff acknowledges the school district's comments, our recommendation will still allow up to 22 additional dwelling units to be built within Subarea B-3-A. In the staff's analysis, the other factors related to proper development intensities of this site outweigh the negative impacts upon the schools in coming up with a recommendation for allowing continued multi-family development in this area. However, it should be noted that the school overcrowding issue is another reason for recommending replacement of the R-3 zone with the R-3-P-22 zone, since such an action will reduce the potential buildout of the site from 145 to 122 dwelling units. City staff is currently working with the elementary school district in its effort to find additional sites for expansion in Central Chula Vista. Potential exists for the expansion of Feaster Elementary School near the intersection of Broadway and "E" Streets, and the Community Development Department is exploring this potential with the district. In addition, the Precise Plan modifier specifies that the City shall enforce any appropriate legal mechanism sponsored by the Chula Vista School District and Sweetwater Union High School District to mitigate impacts upon school facilities. WPC g740P RM CR PQ RMH 'RLM CR E STREET · GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY -' ~SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B3A EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS~ GPA-91-05 PCZ-91-G ~Y OF CHULA ~ISTA PLANN~G DEPT.-ADVANCE DIV. ?12191 C. COVARRUBIA8 R3GD SEA EET CHULA VIST KIMBAL R3P12 D STREET · SUBJECT AREA R3 E STREET GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY .... SPECIAL STUDY AREA NO. B3A EXISTING ZONING GPA-91-05 PCZ-91-G CITY' OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPT.-ADVANCE DIV. 712191 C. COVARRUBIAE Ii L GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY SUBAREA B-3A TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 General Plan Policies 2 Area General Plan and Zoning Designations 4 Existing and Potential Land Use 5 Public Facilities Impacts 6 Conclusions 7 Haps 8 INTRODUCTION This item involves consideration of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning an area referred to as General Plan/Zoning Consistency Subarea B-3-A. This subarea consists of approximately five acres located between Third and Landis Streets, north of 'E" Street and south of 'D' Street. It consists of all of the Third-Landis-"E"-'D" block except for commercially zoned lots adjacent to "E' Street and four single-family zoned lots adjacent to 'D" Street. On June 11, 1991, the Chula Vista City Council authorized staff to study this area with the intent of resolving the General/Zoning discrepancy. The site is designated Low-Medium Residential on the General Plan, allowing three to six dwelling units per acre, but the existing zoning for the site is R-3 (Apartment Residential) which allows up to 32 dwelling units per acre.* This report consists of the authorized study, and includes sections on General Plan Policies, Area General Plan and Zoning Designations, Existing and Potential Land Use, Existing Conditions by Lot, and Public Facilities Impacts. The conclusions section contains the staff recommendation. * The R-3 (Apartment Residential) zone includes a table for calculation of density which is based upon lot size (the larger the lot, the greater the density) and size of units (the larger the units, the lesser the density). The table is as follows: Lot Area Studio and Two Three Four (so. ft.) One Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 15,000 or more 1,350 sq. ft. 1,430 sq. ft. 1,510 sq. ft. 1,5g0 sq. ft. per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling (32 du/ac) (30 du/ac) (29 du/ac) (27 du/ac) 10,000 to 14,999 1,500 sq. ft. 1,580 sq. ft. 1,660 sq. ft. 1,740 sq. ft. per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling (29 du/ac) (28 du/ac) (26 du/ac) (25 du/ac) 7,000 to g,ggg 1,700 sq. ft. 1,780 sq. ft. 1,860 sq. ft. 1,940 sq. ft. per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling (26 du/ac) (25 du/ac) (23 du/ac) (23 du/ac) Less than 7,000 2,000 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,160 sq. ft. 2,240 sq. ft. per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling per dwelling (22 du/ac) (21 du/ac) (20 du/ac) (19 du/ac) WPC 9509P GENERAL PLAN POLTC]ES The Chula Vista General Plan contains the following goals, objectives and text relating to the General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study for Subarea B-3A. Land Use Element: Goal 3: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER (Pg ]-7) - It is the goal of the City to accommodate a full diversity of housing types, .while maintaining an orientation to detached single-family living. Objective 12: (Pg. 1-7) Provide for the development of multi-family housing in appropriate areas convenient to public services, facilities, and circulation. Objective 15: (Pg. 1-7) Preserve and reinforce existing residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Focus preservation and code-enforcement efforts at older neighborhoods such as Central Chula Vista and Montgomery. Objective 17: {Pg. 1-7) Re-plan portions of the Central Chula Vista area to lower densities where higher densities are found to be incompatible with conservation of single family neighborhoods. Central Chula Vista Area Plan: ~ Goal 2: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (Pg. 10-7) - The goal of the City is to provide a variety of types and densities of housing in ways which will preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. Objective 7: (Pg. 10-8) Preserve and enhance pockets of single family neighborhoods which exist in the area west of Second Avenue and north of 'H" Street. Objective 8: (Pg. 10-8) - Where transition of lower to higher density residential uses is to occur, mandate review with respect to accessibility, parking, availability of parks and open space, and visual compatibility. Redesignation of Single Family Neighborhoods (Pg. 10-19) Single family neighborhoods in qentral Chula Vista are under increasing pressure as a result of nearby conversion of single family land use to multi-family. In order to provide further protection of these neighborhoods no area designated for single family residential in the WPC 9509P -2- Central Chula Vista Area Plan (Residential Low and Residential Low/Medium) should be redesignated to higher density residential use except upon finding that: a. There is citywide need for multi-family housing. b. There are no significant impacts or such impacts are fully mitigated. c. That at least one-half of the boundary of the area proposed for redesignation is bordered by areas of residential density classification, which is the same as the proposed density classification, or higher residential density classification, or commercial, industrial, or institutional uses. Regardless of general plan designation, no existing single family units should be converted to a multi-family project unless the following findings are made: 1. That the project is consistent with the general plan. 2. That access to the project is from a four-lane residential collector or a higher classification street. 3. That any significant traffic impact of the project is fully mitigated. 4. That the project contains the established minimum of landscaped open space, exclusive of driveways and parking. 5. That the massing and exterior design of the project be consistent and compatible with the lowest density use which is adjacent to the project. 6. That the project satisfies all applicable requirements of the city's zoning ordinance. ~PC 9509P -~)- AREA GENERAL PLAN/ZONZNG DESTGNATTONS SUBAREA B-3-A -- Land Use Designation: Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) Zoning: R-3 - Apartment Residential Uses: Mixed SFD and Multi-family WEST -- Land Use Designation: Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) Zoning: R-] - Single-family Residential Uses: SFD NORTH -- Land Use Designation: Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) Zoning: R-1 - Single-family Residential Uses: SFD EAST -- Land Use Designation: Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) Public and Quasi-Public Zoning: R-3 - Apartment Residential Uses: Fredericka Manor SOUTH -- Land Use Designation: Retail Commercial Zoning: CT - Thoroughfare Commercial Uses: Commercial WPC 9509P -4- EX]STZNG AND POT~ZAL LAND USE Existing Dwelling Units - 100 Multi-Family Units - 89 Single-Family Units - 11 Maximum Buildout Under R-3 (Apartment) - 132 Zoning with No Lot Consolidation Maximum Buildout Under R-3 (Apartment) m 145 Zoning with Lot Consolidation Maximum Buildout Under R-3-P-22 - 122 (Apartment) Zoning Maximum Buildout Under R-3-P-14 - 111 (Apartment) Zoning Maximum Buildout Under R-2 (Two-Family) - 111 Zoning Maximum Buildout Under R-l- (Single-Family) 100 Zoning Lot Area Currently with Single-Family Dwellings - 35% Lot Area Currently with Multi-Family Dwellings - 65% WPC 9509P -5- PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACTS 1. Fire/EMS Fire protection and emergency medical services are adequate to serve the area. 2. Police Police response times for the area meet City standards. 3. Traffic The site is bounded on the east by Third Avenue, a four-lane collector road, and on the east by Landis Avenue, a two-lane residential street. No service problems are expected to be caused by the proposed development. 4. Parks/Recreation The site is served by Friendship and Memorial Park to the south and Eucalyptus Park to the northwest. 5. Drainaqe The site has no drainage problems. 6. Sewer Existing City sewers in this area are adequate to serve the proposed development. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority has not indicated any water supply or facility deficiency in the area of the proposed development. 8. Elementary Schools The Chula Vista Elementary School District has commented that approval of any action in this area which increases development potential will exacerbate overcrowding at Feaster Elementary School which serves this area, and other schools in western Chula Vista. Using the District's formula of 0.3 elementary school students per dwelling unit, R-3 zoning would result in approximately 13 new students, R-3-P-22 ~ 6 new students, R-3-P-14 = 3 new students. 7. Hiqh Schools The Sweetwater Union High School District has commented that the project will be served by Chula Vista Junior High School and Chula Vista High School, both of which are presently operating beyond total capacities. R-3 zoning would result in approximately I3 new students, R-3-P-22 - 6 new students, R-3-P-14 = 3 new students. WPC 9~09P -6- CONCLUSIONS Based on this study, staff recommends R-3-P-22 Zoning and the Medium-High (11-18 du/ac) General Plan designation for Subarea B-3-A. Rationale for this recommendation is as follows: 1. Designation of this are for multi-family residential uses conforms with Objective 12 of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element (Page 1-7), which calls for "development of multi-family housing in appropriate areas convenient to public services, facilities, and circulation". The area is adjacent to Third Avenue, a four-lane street, directly north of the Third Avenue Commercial core. 2. 65% of the land area within Subarea B-3A is devoted to multi-family use and 89% of the dwelling units within Subarea B-3-A are multi-family units. The existing neighborhood character of the area is multi-family. Objectives within the Chula Vista General Plan which call for the preservation of single-family neighborhoods in central Chula Vista do not apply. 3. R-3-22 Zoning is a more appropriate than the existing R-3 zoning because: 1) the R-3 zone provides higher density incentives for lot consolidation, which could result in large-scale projects out of character in this portion of central Chula Vista, 2) the R-3 zone provides higher density incentives for smaller dwelling units, thereby providing an economic disincentive to property developers if they wish to build larger dwelling units more suitable for families, 3) the lower densities of the R-3-P-22 zone (22 dwelling units per acre) are more compatible with single-family zoned areas on the west side of Landis Street and the lower density areas of the Fredericka Manor complex on the east side of Third Avenue, and 4) the R-3-P-22 zone will result in a lower overall dwelling unit total for the area, thus decreasing impacts on neighborhood elementary and secondary schools. UPC 9509P -7- negative declaration:, PROJECT NAME: Zoning Consistency Study, Subarea BJ-A PROJECT LOCATION: 114-174 Third Avenue, 115-175 Landis Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 566-182-03, 05, 08; 566-222-01 through 11, 566-232-01, 02, 04, 08, 09, 14, 16 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-91-51 DATE: July 17, 1991 A. Project SettinQ The proposed project site totals 4.94 acres and consists of 21 lots currently dgveloped with 1, 2, and 3 story residential buildings. Twelve of the lots are developed with single-story homes, the remaining 9 lots are multt-f~mily. There are approximately 250 people living on the project site. Adjacent property uses include single family homes to the north and west, single family homes and a senior community and convalescent hospital to the east, and varfous thoroughfare commercial uses along E Street to the south. The entire site is developed; there are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. B. Pro~ect Descriotion The proposed project would consist of taking action to bring the existing zoning and the General Plan designation of the project site into conformance. This Could involve rezoning the site to an R-1 or R-2 zone, and/or changing the General Plan designation of the area to a higher or lower density. C. Comnatibilitv with ZoninQ and Plans The existing zoning on the project site is R-3 Apartment Residential, and the General Plan designation is Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac). The proposed project would bring the zone and the General Plan designation into conformance. The project is in conformance with the land use designatJon for the surrounding properties, which includes Low-Medium Residential to the north and east, Medium-High Residential to the west, and Retail to the south. The project is also in conformance with the zoning on the surrounding property. Land to the north and west is zoned Single Family Residential (R-l), to'the east Apartment Residential (R-3), and to the south Thoroughfare Commercial w/ a precise plan (CTP). City of ¢llula vista planning department C31Y OF ' environmental review' aaction. (~HU~k VL~I'A -2- O. Comoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1 miles away and would be associated with a 2 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Poltce The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10~ of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The Police Oepartment has indicated that it can maintain an acceptable level of service. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) 'D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS 'F" during the average w~ekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed plan amendments and rezoning actions will not have an adverse effect on traffic, because land use density will not in~rease, thus impacting Levels of Service or Average Daily Traffic. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The Threshold/Standards Policy only applies to residential projects, thus, the project is exempt from this standard. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Poltcy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provtde necessary Improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply wtth this Threshold Policy. The City Engineering Department is satisfied that the proposed project would not cause drainage threshold standards to be exceeded. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects w111 provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Naster Plan(s) and Ctty Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed amendments and rezontng will not have any tmpact on sewage flows and volumes. 7, Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not Jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The project site is located within a previously established urbanized area with water supplies adequate to meet established threshold standards. Potentially significant water impacts will be discussed in greater detatl in Section E of this document. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A. discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. LESS THAN SIGNIFI~ IMPACTS Water Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval, the applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. School~ The Chula Vista City Schobl District has expressed concern that a change in the zone or Seneral Plan designation for the project site could have a significant adverse impact on schools. Specifically, an increase in density could intensify the overcrowding pressures facing the District in Central/Western Chula Vista. However, the proposed action will alter the General Plan designation to conform with the zoning and would not increase the density allowed within Subarea 3. The project site is currently zoned R-3, Apartment Residential, which permits the development of a variety of high-density dwellings. The proposed General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study would potentially decrease the density allowed by the General Plan, thereby resulting in a potential decrease in density within the subarea. Thus, school impacts are deemed to be less than significant. Land U~e At the present time, the zoning on the project site and the General Plan designation of the site are not in conformance with each other. The zone is R-3, Apartment Residential, while the General Plan designation is Low-Medium Residential. The proposed project would bring the zone and the General Plan into conformance by downzoning the site to an R-2 or R-! zone, and/or raising or lowering the density permitted under the General Plan land use designation. In no case would the permitted density be increased to a level greater than that currently allowed in an R-3 zone. The plan amendment and rezoning action is not expected to adversely impact land use characteristics because there will be no increase in density as a result of this project. F. Mitiaa~ion necessary to avoid siqnifi~ant effect~ The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required. G. Findinas of Insionificant )mpac~ Based on the -following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wtldltfe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animel, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project does not have the potential to impact any rare or endangered species or the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. The site is currently developed and in a disturbed state. There are no cultural resources on the site. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term envtronmenta~ goals. The proposed General Plan amendments and zone changes would not result in any environmental effects which would adversely impact short- or long-term environmental goals. The pr@ject will increase compliance between zoning and the General Plan, thus implementing both long- and short-term goals.. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed amendment and zone changes would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects which are cumulative or growth-inducing in nature. The project will not change or will decrease current density on the project site, thus limiting the potential for incremental future growth. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dtrectl~ or indirectly. There is no evidence that the project will have substantial adverse effects on human beings. School impacts were deemed to be less than significant publtc health impacts, direct or indirect, were identified in the Inittal Study. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Or~ani~a~lon~ City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department Diana Lilly, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson SweetWater Union Nigh School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Gordon Howard, City of Chula Vista Documents Title lg, Chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan, City of Chula Vista This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, ChUla Vista, CA g2~10. REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. WPC 9524P CI-ILS Vx,. _'A EI,EMENTARY SCHOk, DISTRICT 84 EAST "J' STREET * CHULAVIST~ CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ~ - : - .. BOARDOFEDUCAT',ON June 21, 1991 :[ .... · ":- - SHARON GILES GREGR.~N~VAL ~r. Gordon Howard Environmental Section ~-*~'''- SUPERI~ENDENTCity of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ~H~.~GR~,~h.D.Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Zoning Consistency Study - Subarea B3-A 114 through 174 Third Avenue, 115 through 175 Landis Avenue Dear Mr. Howard: In 1989, through its adoption of the General Plan Update, the City Council recognized the potential infrastructure shortfalls and the need to preserve and protect existing single family neighborhoods in Central/Western Chula Vista. It took the first step toward lower densities by adopting Low-Medium Residential land use designations for much of the area. The District strongly supported this redesignation, and based its planning on extremely limited or no new development. Schools in Central/Western Chula Vista are severely overcrowded, with most operating above both permanent and temporary capacity. No funding is available for reconstruction, modernization or expansion of existing facilities. Consistency legislati°n, adopted by the State Legislature in 1971 and upheld by numerous subsequent court decisions, found the General Plan to be the "constitution- for future development within a city, embodying fundamental land use policies that guide future growth and development decisions. Zoning must conform to the adopted General Plan. Thus, in these redesignated areas, no development inconsistent with the General Plan can occur. In order to comply with State law, the City's Ordinance, and implement the General Plan, the Council directed staff to undertake a General Plan/Zoning Consistency study for Central Chula Vista to bring zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Earlier this month, the Council approved A General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezoning for the first of the areas to be addressed in the Consistency Study, Subarea B-1. Instead of implementing the General Plan through a rezoning, the Plan was amended to a higher designation. The area was rezoned to permit up to 22 units/acre, far more than the 3-6 June 21, 1991 Mr. Gordon Howard Page 2 RE: IS-91-51 / Zoning Consistency Study - Subarea B3-A units permitted by the General Plan. This project was represented as a reduction in the number of permitted dwelling units, and, therefore, a reduction in the total n~mher of students generated. Based on this rationale, impacts to school facilities were found to be less than significant. This is not the case. Instead of implementing the Plan, the Subarea B-1 action changed the General Plan, creating the potential for significant additional residential units and corresponding significant negative impacts on school facilities, without providing adequate mitigation. The number of units supposedly allowed under the existing zoning was immaterial since such projects could not be approved because they would be inconsistent with the General Plan. To accurately present impacts on school facilities, instead of comparing what would have been permitted under pre-1989 zoning, a comparison of what would be permitted under the controlling General Plan designatioh should have been made. Therefore, comparing potential development under existing versus proposed zoning was not appropriate, and the finding of insignificant impacts to school facilities was not valid. With this experience with the Subarea B-1 project as background, the District has several concerns with the current Subarea B3-A study. The Initial Study prepared for Subarea B3-A does not identify/address potential impacts on public facilities, specifically schools, and it is not clear that the City intends to address schools in the environmental documentation process. Given the severe facilities overcrowding facing the District in Central/Western Chula Vista, any increase in the number of residential dwelling units over that permitted under the General Plan presents serious and significant impacts to schools, and appropriate mitigation must be assured. The current proposal to both amend the General Plan and rezone Subarea B3-A does not include a recommended designation or zoning category. Apparently, buildout scenarios under various zoning classifications will be analyzed and recommendations formulated. It is our understanding that only an R-1 zoning is consistent with the adopted Plan. The B3-A area currently proposed for amendment/rezoning lies within the Feaster School attendance area. Feaster is one of the District's most impacted schools, serving a population of over 700 students. Six temporary relocatable June 21, 1991 Mr. Gordon Howard Page 3 RE: IS-91-51 / Zoning Consistency Study - Subarea B3-A classrooms have been placed on the site, which is significantly smaller than the District's current 10 acre standard. We anticipate overflow busing more than 100 children from Feaster in School Year 1991-92. Clearly, Feaster School cannot accommodate the existing population, much less any new children. The same is true for other schools in the area. Of additional concern is the fact that the City, by initiating these legislative actions, effectively precludes the District's ability to assess adequate mitigation, since when a project is proposed for this rezoned area, a legislative act will not be required. In approving staff recommendations for Subarea B-l, the following language was added with the stated intention of ensuring that the City continues to work cooperatively with the school districts, particularly in the areas of Chula Vista west of 1-805: "The city of Chula Vista shall enforce any leaal mechanism sponsored bv the Chula Vista School District and ~h~ Sweetwater Union Hiah School District to mitigate impacts on school facilities" (emphasis added). The District, unlike the City, is limited to assessing full mitigation for project impacts to cases where a legislative act is required. Once the legislative act is completed, the opportunity for full mitigation is lost unless the City applies special conditions. In all cases where a legislative act is required, the District requests full mitigation. If the City wishes to support the District to the fullest extent permitted by law, any City-initiated rezonings or Plan amendments should include the condition that subsequent development must comply with school district mitigation requirements. Without this condition, the adopted language is meaningless. Approval of any General Plan Amendment or rezoning for Subarea B3-A which increases development potential, absent provision of adequate mitigation, will exacerbate overcrowding at Feaster School and other western schools. To assure that the District is able to utilize existing law to obtain full mitigation for impacts on school facilities, we ask that the city (1) include a condition which requires all subsequent development proposals for these rezoned areas to comply with school district facility mitigation recommendations; or (2) adhere to the land use designations in the General Plan and process rezonings and GPA's on a June 21, 1991 Mr. Gordon Howard Page 4 RE: IS-91-51 / Zoning Consistency Study - Subarea B3-A case-by-case basis, at the time development is proposed and a legislative act is required. To summarize, it is the District's perception that the previous action regarding Subarea B-1, as wel 1 as the current proposal for Subarea B3-A, contradict the policy decision made in adopting the General Plan in 1989. With regard to school facilities, this policy change has significant effects, regardless of the technical zoning issues. If it is the City's intention to increase densities throughout the Central/Western area, the facilities/infrastructure studies completed in conjunction with the EIR for the General Plan Update should be reconsidered. This current, piecemeal multiple study area approach only serves to segment the larger project and disguise the cumulative effects of these numerous small changes. It was my understanding that the remainder of the areas in the Consistency Study would be treated as a single project, in compliance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Clarification on this question would be appreciated. Please continue to notice ~ the District regarding this proposal. I also ask that you notify Edward Aceves, John Pletcher, and John Nelson, principals at Feaster, Rosebank and Vista Square Schools, respectively, of future meeting dates and proposals. School addresses are included on the enclosed list. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: George Krempl Bob Leiter Edward Aceves John Pletcher John Nelson · Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vllta, C&lifornia 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 F~:",. Division of Planning and Facilities LJUL r£., - June 28, 1991 : ,_ Mr. Gordon Howard City of Chula Vista P]gnnlng Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista California, 91911 Dear Mr. Howard: RE: IS-91-51 Rezone foz General Plan Consistency 114-174 Third Ave.; 115-175 Landis Ave. I ~m in receipt of the initial study prepared by the City for the above subject general plan consistency rezoning application. The District supports the City's efforts to bring both doc-ments into conformity as prescribed by the State of California planning, zoning and development laws. If I ~m correctly interpreting the '"ouildout" table provided in the application, the District can anticipate appro~m~tely 111 additional units in the Landis/Third Avenue neighborhood. The current student yield is 0.29 students per household; therefore, approximately 32 new students would enter the District. The following table illustrates the anticipated student impact by land use zone: ZONE ElglRTING BU--,n-OUT NEW DISTRICT DWEf.f.ING AND ADDED STUDENTS UNITS HOUSEHOLDS R-3 98 161 (+63) 18 R-3-P-22 98 122 (+24) 7 R-3-P-14 98 110 (+14) 4 R-2 98 110 (+12) 3 R-1 98 98 (0) 0 TOTAL 490 601 (+lid 32 Mr. Gordon Howard June 28, 1991 Page 2 The home schools which service Landis Avenue and surrounding co~,,~,~ties are Chula Vista High School and Chula Vista Jnnlor High School. Presently, they are both operating beyond total eapscities. To mitigste the impacts new construction has on classrooms, the District has required the payment of school fees as a prerequisite to obt~inlug building permits; and in some instances, requested the City to approve a development project subject to its inclusion into a community facilities special tax district. Depending on the type and scope of future development applications within the area covered by this rezone, the District may request the applicant or the . City to consider one or the other of these mitigation measures. Thsnk your for the opportunity to respond to this iaitial study. Should you require additional inform,tion, please feel free to contact me a 691-5553. Sincerely, Thomas Silva Director of Plan~!ng ~' 147 Landis Ave. / / 25'991 [ / June 22, 1991 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca 92012 Re: Case # IS-91-51 In reply to your notice of an initial study, for Sub area B-3A, Case #IS-91-51, location 114-174 Third Avenue, 115- 175 Landis Avenue, which I might add, is very confusing. It does not state exactly what it is that you are planning to do. Especially, not in language that can be understood by land owners and taxpayers in the area. After talking with people in the Planning Department and attending a City Council Meeting, my conclusion was, you are intending to change the stated area, from R-3 Zone to R-1 Zone. We purchased this home at 147 Landis Avenue, in 1960, especially because it was an R-3 Zone. To date our plans to add units have not materialized. But over fifty percent of the area on the east side of the 100 block of Landis, is rental units or condominiums. I request the Environmental Review Coordinator, Planning Department and the Chula Vista City Council, to retain this area as is, R-3 Zone. Charles R. Reed, Homeowner cc: Tim Namer, Mayor Leonard Moore, Councilman David Malcolm, Councilman Jerry Rindone, Councilman Frank Herrera, Planning Department 114 Third Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 July 1, 1991 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Subject: Initial Study of 114-171 Third Avenue; 115-175 Landis Avenue Dear F~r. Reid: In response to your letter of June 17, 1991, let me begin by saying I am delighted this study is underway. I have put in quite a bit of time to date and I am willing to dedicate more time as needed to see this project through to completion. As to an environmental impact, I know you are aware of the present development in this area, the traffic on Third Avenue ( a collector street), amd the aspirations and intentions of at least some of the owners. We have purchased this property, accepted the proximity and conveniences as well as inconveniences of downtown Third Avenue Chula Vista, the traffic flow as well as the employees of the conglomerate across the street (Fredericka Manor and Convalescent Hospital) parking in front of our homes to our inconvenience, plus whatever else might befall us, all with the thoughts of developing our own parcels of land in the future. Certainly, if we understood high density and were willing to tolerate all that goes with it, we fully expect to collect our fair share of the pie. We certainly have no intention of watching this much equity idly slip away. Considering the amount of development within this study area, the potential for future development is undeniable and moreso, would be a favorable and necessary addition to our City. Senior citizen housing, professional office space, perhaps even low income housing or small singles apartments are only starters but great ones to consider for this area. The central location appeals to numerous potential projects and demands to be developed. Being in the designing and constructing business for a number of years, I get excited considering this potential, not Just for myself or other owners, but the aspect of leaving something good as well as useful for someone else is quite appealing. I am aware of at least a portion of the time, effort, and energy this study will require. Again, let me reiterate how much t appreciate this effort and, of course, the timing. If I can be of assistance in any way, please call on me. Si~rely, Cyffthia Williams June 26, 1991 130 Third Ave. r~..~, Chula Vista, CA91910 Mr. Douglas D~ Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA9191~ Dear Mr~ Reid, My parents bought this house when I was a little boy. I'm now in my fiftys~ My parents have l~ng since died and my only other relatives now make their homes in other citiesl I have remained in Chula Vista because this is really the only home I've ever hadl I plan to retire very soon; After retirement my plans are to spend my time and savings on improving my property; The improvements include constructing rental property in back~ If you reduce the zoning than, all these years of work and saving as much as I can for construction will be wasted ~ Some people can buy and build'immediately~ I would have enjoyed such a situation; Please cancel your plans to downzone here. Yours truly, Arthur J. Kuhns 25 ~une 1991 Jbl 2 8 To: Gordon Howard, Principal Planner Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 91910 Re: Zoning Review - Case No. IS-91-51 Mr. Howard, thank you for your explanation of the reason for the City's review, i.e. the properties under review have been zoned "R-3" for many years, and recently a General Plan designated the broad area as different use. I strongly urge your department and the City Council to keep the existing zoning "R-3". There are substantial multifamily properties within the area of concern. Additionally, there are plans to develop my property according to the "R-3" zoning - this was the intent when the property was purchased. Furthermore, the City of Chula Vista has collected substantial fees in regard to development plans. Also, I have discussed the consolidation of properties with two neighbors for the purpose of developing a multifamily project according to the "R-3" zoning which would be consistent with the existing multif~ily properties in the area of concern. Such a project, or projects, would benefit the City in many ways, including the enhancement of the "city center" environment as opposed to suburban sprawl. Thank you for your consideration. 142 Third Avenue Please reply to: 1967 Valley View Blvd Chula Vista, CA. 91910 E1 Cajon, CA. 92019 Copy:~nmental Review Coordinator /~.~ Edward C. Muns, Esq. June 25, 1991 Edward Ji and Kinue Benson 134 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Mr; Douglas D; Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P.O; Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr; Ried and/or whomever else it may concern.. We understand through neighborhood gossip that you are planning to re-zone our property and other parcels here~. We received a notice in the mail that in and of itself would not make sense in any subject~ It was endorsed by someone without an indication of position or who she represented2 Therefore we did not consider it as of any importance; Tonight, we were visited by several enraged neighbors. After learning what was in the air we feel it important that we tell you our feelings and situation; The only reason we purchased this property back in 1973 was to build a duplex or triplex in the rear and than demolish our dwelling in front; Because of recurring family medical problems throughout the years we have been unable to get enough money together to build. We've had the plans for such a venture stored under the bed for all these years. This is our dream. It is the only reason we are still here. Perhaps we will never be able to build but, to destroy this dream would destroy any desire to remain in Chula Vista~ We love Chula Vista. Please don~t kick us around. Respectfully, K hue Benson Edwin CYPRi AL PARK ',~~ ~' '"" ',- *,- '" -"- - WAY SUBAREA lA (3-6 to. -.RMH (1 1-18 du/ac) I RLM (3-6 dU/ac) to '~; R, (18-27 du/.c) ! I ' ~ '~ i ,: RLM(3-6du/ac) STREET SUBAREA lB RLM (3-6 du/.c) to ..... 1-18 du/ac , --, -- SUBAREA 4' :RMH (1 1-18 alu/ac) to GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1 .: PART I-SUBAREA *lA TO 4 O~mNANCENO. 2482 GENERAL PLAN CHANGES APPROVED ON JUNE 18, 1991 mm RLM (3'6 du/ac) RMH 11~i8 du/ac WAY !ill~l''! ~ I I STREET' GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1: PART II Or~Dm,A,C,= ,0. 24e2. GENERAL PLAN CHANGE ~.PPROVED ON JUNE 18, 1991 '"l '~ ',O~M~ : ' ;.PA F~ K .:: ~- - ,~ "-' --') , -- CYPRESS CYPRESS ST. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY -SPECIAL STUDY AREA B 1 :.PART III_-SUBAREA 1 _~RDINANCE NO. 2462 GENERAL ' PLAN CHANGE APPROVED ON JUNE 18, 1991 R-3 to __ R-3-P-22: '1 #F# · / ~ I ,p~. -F,;~ . t..-.,,,~ j~. I' --L I '::~'%',~,'- v-~l-:-r--- ~--~l--I [ ]~ F I '~ I ~___1 _ ~-~--.', ,.'i.T'F ~ . I, I ~L-I1--1-3 I--h i I '!!ii-! i ~ m~mm., .--~-':T-I-~ .~--,.lililllll · ~ ~ ~. CYPRESS CYPRESS ST. I I I l,..: _ . - ....,:.:.~!:.~ .:... I I I Ill I~ J,? ,t ,.- ~ . ~J:..,,,,,,, ,'..11' t, ~ ~;" ' /'""~ MADRONA- MADRONA -- I II I I I I ....... GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY sTuDY SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1: PART Ill_-SUBAREA 1 oRDINANCE NO. 2462 ZONE' CHANGE APPROVED ON JUNE 18, 1991 :-3 c¥~,~ss ....... I-P-1 PARK L.'.., .~_,. ,._~..,, WAY I I II ...... ! I I I 1'~ I I I FEET ..... · ---r -- GENEF~L PLaN/ZONING CONSISTENCY STUDY · ' - ' SPECIAL STUDY AREA B1: PART II ORDINANCE NO. 2462. ZONE CHANGE _APPROVED ON JUNE 18, 1991 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, ]99] Page 1 4 Public Hearinq: PCA-91-06~ Consideration of an amendment to thP Municipal Code to delete certain procedural requirements for churche~ that provide temporary shelter for the homeless - City initiated A. BACKGROUND The Interfaith Shelter Network, which sponsors and coordinates a temporary, rotational homeless shelter program involving churches throughout the County, has requested that the City consider relaxing certain local procedural requirements which now apply to churches that wish to participate in the program. The proposed amendment would allow churches to provide shelter for the homeless for two weeks per year without the necessity to secure a zoning permit or to notice surrounding residents each year prior to providing the shelter services. This project is exempt from environmental review as a categorical exemption, Class 23 Section 15323. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal Code in accordance with Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION The City has recognized that the provision of shelter for the homeless is an appropriate function of community churches where permanent facilities are adequate to support such activities. The current standards require churches to secure a zoning permit, notice surrounding residents, and prepare other supporting information on an annual basis in order to participate in the shelter program. Although staff has attempted to assist in the process in any way possible, including the preparation of mailing labels to meet the noticing requirement, the process has been perceived as an unnecessary burden by some of the churches participating in the program. After three years experience with the program, the Planning Department has not received any responses or objections resulting from the notification sent to adjacent property owners regarding the church shelter operations. Further, neither the Planning or Police Departments, nor the Code Enforcement Officer, have any record of complaints regarding the temporary shelters. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 2 Because the use of churches as shelters is deemed appropriate and necessary by the City, and since no concerns or complaints have been voiced by neighboring residents regarding the use, it would appear appropriate to amend the requirements in order to simplify the process, while maintaining the substantive standards regarding size, supervision and adherence to health and safety regulations. The proposed amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit A. WPC 9625P EXHIBIT A 19.58.110 Church, hospital, convalescent hospital, religious or eleemosynary institution. Any church, hospital, convalescent hospital or other religious or eleemosynary institution in any R zone shall be located on collector street or thoroughfare with a minimum parcel of one acre, shall maintain a ten-foot wide minimum landscaped strip or solid six-foot fence or masonry wall on all property lines abutting said R zone, except that said fence or wall may be reduced to three and one-half feet in a landscaped front setback area not containing parking facilities, and shall have side yard and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty feet and a front yard setback of at least twenty feet. These shall be considered guidelines rather than standards in the case of churches. The provision of temporary shelter for the homeless in accordance with the following standards and requirements is considered accessory to church use subject to ~/~/~//~//4YQ/QFd)/,j//~¥t~ compliance with the followinq standards: 1. A shelter may accommodate a maximum of 12 guests for no more than two weeks per year. An additional one hundred eighty (180) days may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator provided no opposition has been expressed by surrounding property owners or residents. 2. The guests shall be prescreened by a recognized social service agency to determine resident suitability. Active alcohol or drug abusers as well as those with criminal convictions of a felony or any crime of violence or significant mental illness shall be excluded from the program. Supervision shall be provided at all times both on-site and during arrivals and departures from the shelter. A post set-up, p~e-she~te~ ~nspect~on shall be conducted b~ the C~t~ at the ~equest of the church ~n orde~ to determine compliance ~th applicable building, health, safet~ and ~i~e ~egulations. a neighborhood meeting to inform ~es~dents of the proposal and ans~e~ questions ~el~ be~o~e the commencement date. of the substantiated report of neighborhood disturbance. 6. 5. ~1 She~te~ p~oposa~s beyond the l~m~ts noted ~n ~tem ~] above a~e considered conditional uses subject to the approval of a cond~tiona~ use permit. (O~d. 2290 ~ 1 ~989: Ord. 228~ ~ 2 ~988: O~d. 2285 ~ 1, ~988: O~d. ~356 (pa~t), ]97~: O~d. ]~2 ~ ~ (pa~t), ]969: p~or code ~ 33.90](B)(~0).) ///// - Deletions - Additions WPC 9626P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 1 5. Public Hearing: PCM-92-04; Consideration of a rezone consistinq of an amendment to the Planned Community Requlations of EastLake Greens SPA Plan to rezone 51.5 acres within RP-8 (Residential Planned Concept - 8 District ) tn RS-7 (Residential Sinqle Family 7 District) EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND On July 18, lg89, the City Council approved Tentative Map 88-3 for EastLake Greens SPA. One of the conditions (#sg) required that the lots within Units 4, 7, and 8 of Residential Planned Concept 8 District be a minimum of 50 feet in width. In placing the condition on the map, the City effectively changed these lot sizes to single-family detached rather than zero lot line or an attached product. Single-family lots identified within the Planned Community District Regulations were approved as part of the SPA {see attached development standards for EastLake Greens Exhibit A}. EastLake Development Company has requested that the zoning for the above mentioned units be rezoned from the current zoning of RP-8 to RS-7 (Residential Single Family District - 7 District). The proposal is exempt from environmental review under Class 5 of the CEQA guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend the Planned Community District Regulations of EastLake Greens SPA plan as shown in Exhibit B to rezone 51.5 acres within RP-8 {Residential Planned Concept - 8 District) to RS-7 (Residential Single Family - 7 District). C. DISCUSSION The proposal is to rezone 51.1 acres within the area south of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of proposed 1-125, west of Hunte Parkway and north of Orange Avenue from RP-8 (Residential Planned Concept-8) to RS-7 (Residential Single Family). Exhibits B and C show the specific areas included. The rationale for the proposed rezone is as follows: 1. Condition #5 of the Tentative Map for EastLake Greens SPA, 88-3 required that the lots within units 4, 7 and 8 of the Residential Planned Concept - 8 District be increased to a minimum of 50 feet in width. In placing this condition on the map, the City effectively modified these lots to coincide with the RS-7 land use district standards. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 25, 1991 Page 2 2. The rezoning from RP-8 to RS-7 increases the minimum lot area requirements from 3,000 to 5,000 square feet, increases the lot width standards from 38 to 50 feet, increases the lot depth required from 90-100 feet, requires a minimum 15 foot rear yard setback and limits the product type to single family detached house. NOTE: Detached single-family housing has been planned for all three areas since the approval of the EastLake Greens SPA. WPC 9749P Residential Property Development $~-andards Land Use Group RE R_~S'-- RP RC RM 1. Lot area (in net O00's square feet) 8 5__ 31 SP SP 2. Lot width (in feet) 70 50 38 SP SP (attached products in RP district) 25 3. Lot depth (in feet) 100 100 (RP-8)90 SP SP (RP-13)50 4. Lot coverage (percent) 40 50 SP SP SP 5. Front yard setback: a) to direct entry garage 20 20 SP SP SP b) to side entry garage 20 15 SP SP SP (single story garage in RS district) 10 6. To main residence 20 20 SP SF SP 7. Side yard setback: a) to adjacent residential 15/5 10/52 SP SP SP lot (min. total/one side) b) to adjacent street l0 l0 10 SP SP (corner lot) 8. Rear yard setback 20 15 SP SP SP 9. Building height, maximum 283 283 283 45 45 (2 1/2 story max. RE, RS & RP districts) 10. Parking spaces per unit 2 2 24 1.5 sp 1.5 sp (gar.) (gar.) 1 bdrm. 1 bdrm. unit unit '--- 2.0 sp 2.0 sp i'May be reduced for'attached units with Site Plan 2 bdrm. 2 bdrm. approval unit unit 2 RS-TDistrict only; 13/3 in RS~5 District 2.5 sp 2.5 sp # 3 bdrm. 3 bdrm. 3 May be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval unit + unit + 4 Two car garage for RP detached units; one car garage and one carport for RP attached units (3/10/89) II-4 Exhibit A AS PROPOSED _ ' Districts -- AREAS PROPOSED FOR AMENDMI=NT TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT ~'~ o,~ ~- ~ ~ REGULATIONS F-ASTLAKE Exhibit ~,'" AS APPROVED - Land Uso -- Distrbts ! e~,~a~,:~- t a~,~,~ AREAS AS APPROVED UNDER PLANNED ~-a~ COMMUNITY DISTRICTS REGULATIONS FOR -- ~-a~ EASTLAKE GREENS SPA PLAN .aEASTLAKE Exhibit THE CITY oF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSU~tE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of al/ persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. EastLake Development Company 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 partnership. David V, INc. Daniel V, Inc. Boswell Properties, Inc. 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 _XX If yes, please indicate person(s): - 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. William T. Ostrem Robert L. Santos _GreqSurber Kent Aden 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 XX If yes, state which Councihnember(s): -- PcrsolA is defined as: 'Mny 'nd~vi'dual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fi'aten*al organization, corporation. ~'sldtG Irtixt. receive~; ~,ndicate, ti is and an~, other cottn{)~ ct'O, and counn3~ ciO~ nutnici])al[o~ d/x/r/ct or other l;olitical subdiuision. (NOTE: Attach addilional pages as neccssao.) Signature ~)f contractor/al~li~nt ~ ~pment Co~any/William f esteem ~,. ': ;x l)~sc~ os~ rx'~] Print or lype name of colltractor/r~pplJc~nt