HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/04/10 Tapes: 322/323
Sides: 1/1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday,. April 10, 1991 Public Services Buildin~
R L__~__~_L_~ALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson,
Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Gray, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Contract
Planner Tony Lettieri, Contract Planner Marilyn
Ponseggi, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City
Attorney Rudolf
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities
and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of February 13, 1991.
MSC (Decker/Carson) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Tugenberg abstained) to approve the minutes of
February 13, 1991, as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PC Minutes -2- April 10, 1991
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-C/GPA-91-1: CITY-INITIATEDPROPOSALTO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY,
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 'E' STREET, 'H' STREET, SECOND AVENUE
AND THIRD AVENUE, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL AREA EAST OF FOURTH
AVENUE BETWEEN 'E' AND DAVIDSON STREETS, TO RESOLVE
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL
CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY (continued from 343-91)
Contract Planner Lettieri noted this was a continued heating from the agenda of March 13,
1991, involving the consideration of an amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan and the
rezoning of the area described. The study area includes approximately 50 acres and 219 lots,
divided into three subareas to facilitate analysis. Mr. Lettieri stated the item had been continued
from the March 13 meeting to more adequately respond to the Planning Commission's concerns
relative to school impacts.
Contract Planner MaryAnn Miller of the Environmental Section of the Planning Department
stated that an addendum to the Negative Declaration had been prepared reiterating staff's prior
determination that school impacts were not deemed to be significant. StaWs analysis concluded
that the project would result in an overall reduction in the number of dwelling units within Study
Area B-1 from 370 dwelling units to 200 overall, thereby decreasing the total number of students
generated from approximately 218 to 118. Letters of concern had been received from both
school districts basically disagreeing with the conclusions of the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Fuller asked if the determination that there was no impact to schools was based
on any language contained in a Negative Declaration. The letters from the school districts
reiterate that they had advised the City on numerous occasions of overcrowding of schools in
the western portion of the City. With the responses received, was it a subjective opinion of staff
to not bring that out in the Negative Declaration?
Contract Planner Miller answered that the schools are impacted, and there is an overcrowding
impact in the schools within the Chula Vista school districts; however, determining whether or
not it is significant has to be dealt with objectively within the environmental review process.
They look at the proposed project and, in this case, the proposed project consists of an actual
reduction of dwelling units throughout the study area. The analysis is based on the overall
reduction of the dwelling units proposed with this project and a corresponding reduction in the
number of students generated within the study area. Staff concluded from this study that it was
not significant.
Commissioner Carson said she was not totally comfortable with that, but possibly some
recommendations could be made regarding this after the fact that would cause someone else to
pay more attention to the problem.
Contract Planner Lettieri stated that in addition to the addendum to the Initial Study, staff is
working with both the Chula Vista and Sweetwater School Districts to see if there is a legal
PC Minutes -3- April 10, 1991
mechanism that could respond to the school overcrowding situation in the developed western part
of the City. In a memo dated April 4 from Bud Gray to the Planning Commission, staff
recommended that in addition to the Commission's consideration on the precise zoning, that a
condition be added onto the "P" modifying district that states "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."
Commissioner Carson asked if this would be a fourth recommendation.
Mr. Lettieri clarified that it would be part of the overall recommendation for the "P" modifying
district.
Commissioner Casillas asked the significance of the ability of the City to enforce a legal
mechanism which sponsors; what was meant by "sponsored by the school district." If they have
the authority to insist on a Mello-Roos District, what gives the City any authority to enforce or
not enforce it.
Principal Planner Gray answered that staff had been advised that at the present time State law
preempts the ability of the City to impose additional conditions to require mitigation for
overcrowded schools. However, it had been recommended in the context of the Growth
Management Program by the Resource Conservation Commission that the City attempt to deal
with this problem through our State legislators to try to seek some remedy in the State law so
we would have some ability at the local level to address this issue. The recommendation is that
in the event there is a future change in State law that gives us that ability to deal with the
overcrowded school issue at the local level, we pledge our cooperation--our best effort--with the
school district to take whatever steps are necessary to carry out that mitigation measure.
Commission Casillas clarified that it was placing everybody on notice that if at a future time,
the City had the authority to enforce the mitigation, they would enforce it. Mr. Gray concurred.
Commissioner Martin asked how many more people there were between north of "L" Street and
west of 1-805, and when the last school was built in that area. Mr. Gray did not know what the
population increase had been, but the most recent development forecast the staff had issued in
the Planning Department indicated there were between 200 and 300 dwelling units constructed
on an annual basis west of 1-805 within the city limits of Chula Vista. At the last Council
meeting, Kate Shurson of the Elementary School District had indicated the last school had been
built approximately 15 years ago.
Commissioner Carson asked how the meetings in August or September 1990, and February 7,
1991 were noticed and how well they were attended?
Contract Planner Lettieri clarified that Commissioner Carson was speaking of the public forums,
and stated there were three public forums in 1990 and approximately 30 to 45 people attended
PC Minutes -4- April 10, 1991
each; the property owners of public record within the study area were noticed. The current
hearing was noticed to 300 feet of the study area.
After discussion by the Commission, it was decided Mr. Lettieri would give a general overview
of the project and then take public testimony on each section individually, voting on the entire
area at the conclusion.
Contract Planner Lettieri then gave an overview of the entire area and noted that on June 19,
1990, City Council considered a comprehensive zoning implementation program which was
intended to implement the General Plan categories adopted by City Council in July 1989. When
Council adopted the General Plan, it was identified that there were several areas within Chula
Vista that had zoning categories that were inconsistent with the General Plan categories adopted
in 1989. State law which was adopted in 1971 requires that the General Plan and the City's
zoning be consistent with one another. This was the first sub-area to be considered out of a total
of five that may have to be considered to achieve that consistency. Staff attempted to look at
these areas first with the intent to implement the General Plan category which was adopted in
1989; secondly, if based on the existing and surrounding land use, zoning, and residential
character, it appeared that the General Plan should be recommended for change, staff tried to
propose a General Plan category that would not impact the existing predominant character of the
area as well as the existing public facilities that were within the Central Chula Vista community;
and thirdly, staff was not recommending mid-point zoning classifications in Central Chula Vista
hut the best fit between the General Plan, existing development, and other residential factors.
After presenting an overview of each sub-area, Contract Planner Lettieri proceeded with each
area individually giving the location and the general make-up of the area.
~-area lA
Mr. Lettieri stated the existing General Plan designation was Low/Medium Residential (3-6
dwelling units per acre), which would be the existing General Plan designation on all the sub-
areas. Staff recommended a change in the General Plan designation to Medium/High Residential
(11-18 dwelling units per acre) and the R-3-P-22 zone. Under the existing R-3 zoning, there
are five non-conforming lots and an additional 38 units could be developed; under the proposal,
26 dwelling units could be constructed. Also, under the R-3-P-22 zone, development of three
units would be allowed on a typical 6,000 sq. ft. lot. On any area recommended to be changed
to R-3-P-22, lots consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. would have the possibility of constructing three
individual units.
Chair Grasser Horton asked what happened when a property was down zoned and no longer in
conformance. What happens if that unit burned down; what zoning would they have; what could
be built after that?
PC Minutes -5- April 10, 1991
Mr. Letfiefi replied that the specific zoning regulation is that if 60% of the property burned
down, it could not be reconstructed. It would have to be reconstructed to conform to the
existing zoning.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if it would be difficult to get insurance or a mortgage on a home
in that situation?
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated staff had inquiries at various times when going through
different down zonings and even though it had been an issue, it hadn't hindered the mortgage
companies from lending on those properties. There would have to be at least 60% damage to
the residence, and then it would have to be rebuilt in accordance with the present zoning.
Chair Grasser Horton clarified that if they had three units on their property and the property had
been rezoned to R-i, if three of the structures burned down, under the new zoning only one
house could be built?
Mr. Lee concurred.
Mr. Letfieri added, for historical purposes, that when the Commission and Council were going
through the zoning implementation program in Montgomery, Council put a stipulation in the
approval that existing units of record as of the effective date of the ordinance could be
reconstructed to the density in the "P" modifying district to alleviate that potential problem.
This was applied selectively.
Chair Grasser Horton clarified that in that case, if there were three units which burned down,
three units could be rebuilt?
Mr. Lettieri answered that, according to the City Attorney, it was legal and it was actually put
into the Precise Plan Modifying District for Castle Park "B" which is the area just east of Third
Avenue and south of "L". The Precise Plan Modifying District permits the Commission to
recommend and the Council to adopt a recommendation that effectively changes the ordinance
to apply to a certain piece of property.
Chair Grasser Horton verified that the homeowner would be protected. Mr. Letfiefi concurred,
if it were recommended by the Commission and adopted by Council.
Chair Grasser Horton then opened the public heating for public testimony on Sub-area iA.
Sid Morris, Sr., 862 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, stated he owned a lot in the area and asked
for clarification as to the number of units which could be built on an area - 11 units or 18 units?
How many square feet of land would be required for each unit?
Contract Planner Lettiefi answered that one dwelling unit could be built for every 1,980 sq. ft.
under that zoning category. A 6,000 sq. ft. lot would permit three units.
PC Minutes -6- April 10, 1991
No one else wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 1, Sub-area A.
Mr. Lettieri noted this was the area on either side of Alvarado Street with most of the property
west of Del Mar Court. Staff recommended a change in the General Plan to Medium/High
Residential (11-18 dwelling units per acre), with the R-3-P-14 zone. Under the existing R-3
zoning, an additional 30 units could be developed; under the proposal, six additional units could
be developed.
Commissioner Carson asked if this was a new zoning attached taking into consideration what
would happen to the old Windmill Farms building and the vacant lot. What will happen on that
comer and when; if it is to be office buildings, where would there be parking. Alvarado is very
narrow; where would the parking be for additional development? How can we come up with
a proper identification that would make this fit into the General Plan and still maintain a quality
of life for those people?
Mr. Lettieri answered that when the staff recommendation was considered, they were looking
at the existing development on the lots which are developed multiple-family. To go to the R-1
zone did not seem to be a reasonable recommendation when looking at the existing character of
the area. However, the R-3-P-14 zone simply permits another unit. A total of six units as
opposed to 30 under the existing zoning would be permitted. All of the parking would have to
be on-site.
Assistant Planning Director Lee said the Agency had chosen an office complex, but staff had not
been given the specific proposal. They would have to comply with City standards regarding
parking accommodations on-site. There may be some spill-over of parking, however.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for testimony for Sub-area lB.
Jackie Smith, 271 Alvarado, Chula Vista, stated she had a small h~use at 265 Alvarado and
wanted to build three units. The R-3-P-14 would not allow that to be built, but the R-3-P-22
would. She proposed using off-street parking and requested the R-3-P-22 zone instead of
R-3-P-14.
John Hillingsworth, 244 Alvarado, Chula Vista, wanted to build three units with off-street
parking which would be consistent with the General Plan. His lot contained approximately
7,700 sq. ft. With the R-3-P-14 zoning, he would be able to build 2.47 units; but with the
R-3-P-18, he would be able to build three units. He would propose to build three units with off°
street parking.
No one else wishing to speak on Part 1, Sub-Area lB, public testimony was closed.
PC Minutes -7- April 10, 1991
Commissioner Decker asked staff why the P-18 or P-22 zoning could not be used.
Mr. Lettieri answered that the General Plan recommended a range from 11 to 18; staff
recommended 14 because they were taking the most conservative approach regarding
implementation of the plan. They are recommending an increase to better represent the existing
character of the area. It was an incremental decision that when looked at overall in Central
Chula Vista, they were concerned that an increase in the number of units would create an even
more difficult situation for the school.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if parking was allowed on both sides of the street on Alvarado;
and if there was sufficient room for a fire engine to get through.
Senior Engineer Ullrich stated the street was 32' in width with parking on each side, which gave
a travelway of 16'. A fire engine could make it through--slowly.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the zoning could be changed to P-18 but not P-22 and remain
within the General Plan definition.
Mr. Letfieri stated staff would recommend not exceeding 18 but have recommended the P-22
zone in certain areas as being consistent because the General Plan is on a growth basis, including
streets where the zoning is on a "net." Street widths can be averaged and come up to a net of
18 dwelling units per acre; however, staff was making their recommendations on an area-by-area
basis, and the only reason they had ever gone to 22 du's per acre was if the general character
of the area warranted that. If the Commission wanted to change the recommendation, staff
recommended that the du's not exceed 18 in this area.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if lot 17 would then be a non-conforming lot under the new
proposal? She had visited that site with another committee and felt it was a nice project with
adequate parking.
Mr. Lettieri answered lot 17 would be non-conforming even under the R-3-P-22 zoning.
This area is located on the north side of Alvarado, west of Del Mar Court and south of "G"
Street. Staff recommended the R~3 zone with the High Density Residential. The area is
developed to its maximum; there would be no additional units.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 1, Sub-area 2.
No one wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 1, Sub-area 2.
PC Minutes -8- April 10, 1991
Part 1: Sub-area 3
This area is designated Low-Medium Residential; staff recommended that it stay Low-Medium
Residential but rezoned as R-1 instead of R-3. Under the existing R-3 zoning, an additional 52
units could be built; under the proposed zoning, only one additional unit could be built.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 1, Sub-area 3.
Theodore Tornesella, 443 Del Mar Court, Chula Vista, commended Commissioner Carson on
her comments. He had been a homeowner on Del Mar Court for 32 years. He said the children
on the block had nowhere to play except in the street. He asked for the Commission's
consideration of the residents' quality of life, noting the shortage of water and the water quality.
He said there had to be traffic enforcement on weekends, and the traffic problem was irritating
to the people who live there. Mr. Tornesella noted the ads which had been in the paper
regarding the number of rentals and for-sale units in the area.
Chair Grasser Horton advised Mr. Tornesella that Chula Vista had one of the lowest vacancy
factors for rentals.
Robert Moore, Del Mar Court, Chula Vista, stated there was an overflow of parking in the
evenings and weekends from the multiple family units. He spoke of the loss the owners of one
of the lots would incur with the down zoning and he asked if that lot could be left R~3. He
supported the down zoning to R-1.
John Murphy, 224 Alvarado, Chula Vista, said they had bought the property because it was
zoned R-3. The change would cause a financial loss and mental anguish for his family. The
down zoning would not have the benefit of an R-1 residential area and at the same time would
not have the benefit of a multi-unit zone.
Sid Morris, Sr., 862 Cedar Avenue, Chuta Vista, stated he owned a lot at 421 Del Mar which
encompassed between i 1,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. and had one house. He didn't believe Del Mar
could support R-3 zoning; however, he didn't believe a small area zoned R-1 should be
surrounded by R-3. The land would be decreased in value by $1,560,000, using $30,000 a unit
as a basis.
No one else wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 1, Sub-area 3.
Part 1; Sub-area 4
Staff recommended that the General Plan be changed to the High Density Residential to
represent the existing character of the area. Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are five non-
conforming lots and an additional 68 units that could be constructed.
PC Minutes -9- April 10, 1991
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 1, Sub-arm 4.
No one wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 1, Sub-area 4.
Part 2
Mr. Lettieri stated Part 2 generally included the area between "F" and "G" Streets. The present
designation is Low-Medium Residential; staff recommended the Medium-High Residential.
Under the existing zoning, 76 units could be constructed; under the proposed R-3-P-14 zoning,
28 dwelling units could be constructed.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 2.
No one wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 2.
Commissioner Martin declared he had a conflict of interest and could not vote on Part 3, Sub-
area 1, since he owns a business on Church Avenue abutting the area. At this point, he left the
dais.
Part 3: Sub-area 1
Staff recommended a change from Low-Medium to Medium-High with the existing zoning going
from R-3 to R-3-P-22. Under the existing R-3 zoning, there are 10 non-conforming lots and an
additional 106 units could be developed; under the proposal, an additional 74 units could be
developed.
Commissioner Carson asked if the zoning was changed to R-3-P-14 or R-3-P-18, how much
would it reduce the number of units?
Contract Planner Lettieri asked that Chair take public testimony while he calculated the answer
to the above question.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 3, Sub-area 1.
No one wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 3, Sub-area 1.
Mr. Lettieri stated the R-3-P-14 zone would affect the 26 lots which were developed with single-
family units; therefore, on a theoretical basis, it would probably be somewhere between 26 and
35 additional units as opposed to the 74 units. With the R-3-P-22 zone, a third unit is allowed.
Commissioner Martin returned to the dais.
PC Minutes -10- April 10, 1991
This area is located along Fourth Avenue, just north of Davidson on the east side of Fourth and
designated High-Residential on the General Plan. Staff recommended the Professional and
Administrative Commercial designation. The existing zoning is Commercial-Office and staff
recommended that the zoning stay the same with the addition of the Precise Plan Modifying
District. The proposed recommendation would retain the C-O zoning and staff felt that because
of the location of the property north of the Civic Center Complex between the Civic Center
Complex and higher density residential units adjacent to Fourth Avenue, it would make a logical
extension of the C-O zone.
Chair Grasser Horton re-opened the public hearing for public testimony on Part 3, Sub-area 2.
No one wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed on Part 3, Sub-arm 2.
Chair Grasser Horton noted that the sub-areas had been finished, and asked if anyone wanted
to make a general comment.
Kate Shurson, representing Chula Vista Elementary School District, distributed a statement to
the Commission. She disagreed with a comment included in the addendum to the staff report
which found that approximately three times more students of school age were generated from
single-family units versus multiple. She expressed concern that the proposal would worsen the
overcrowding of the western and central schools. With the current zoning, no development
could take place because it was inconsistent with the plan. A development project would have
to request a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for their specific project. When that
happens, it constituted a legislative act and enabled the District to request full-cost
reimbursement mitigation for impacts on school facilities. Ms. Shurson said that by down
zoning this area absent the specific development proposal, the City preempts the District's
opportunity to fully mitigate impacts on already overcrowded schools in the western Chula Vista.
The District appreciated the intention of the language proposed to be added to the "P" Modifying
District by staff which would enforce any legal mechanism sponsored by the District to mitigate
impacts on facilities, and would like to see that type of language incorporated in City policy for
all actions. However, when the City is initiating the legislative action absent a specific project,
that language is meaningless.
Ms. Shurson asked the Commission to consider two options:
1) to adhere to the land use designation in the General Plan and process rezonings and
requests for General Plan Amendments on a case-by-case basis as these properties come
before the Planning Commission and request development approval. At that time, there
would be a legislative act and the District would have the opportunity to seek to mitigate
the impact on the schools.
PC Minutes -11- April 10, 1991
2) to include a condition for all subsequent development in this rezoned area which requires
compliance with school mitigation recommendations.
Ms. Shurson concluded that if this amendment and rezoning was approved as proposed more
development would be allowed to occur under the General Plan; school overcrowding would be
further exacerbated; and the School District would lose the opportunity to fully mitigate impacts
the rezoning would have on the already overcrowded western and central area schools.
Commissioner Carson thanked Ms. Shurson for coming forward and making that statement. She
said that with a lack of funds from the State for education, if this went through and there were
additional projects developed, would double sessions be the only way to deal with the
overcrowding.'? And if you have double sessions, where would you get the teachers when there
is already a shortage?
Ms. Shurson answered that the District is busing 428 children; of that number, 385 are west of
1-805. Last year, they did a study of eight schools with the idea of how to handle growth
considering multi-track. The community, with the exception of two schools, is opposed to multi-
track. Clearview School would be opening next year, but children would be transported from
the west over to that school which is in the Terra Nova area.
Commissioner Tugenberg reaffirmed the fact that the State requires the City to make these
zoning changes. Mr. Lettieri concurred that the State requires consistency between the General
Plan and zoning. He said there were several options open to the Commission to achieve that
consistency:
1) to zone all the property R-1 consistent with the Low-Medium Residential designation.
Staff felt that because of the character of the area, that would not be a good planning
decision. Because of the reduction of density from 370 to approximately 200, staff felt
it would lessen the impact.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if it was all zoned R-l, approximately 50% of the
dwelling units would be non-conforming? Mr. Lettieri confirmed, and reminded the
Commission that it had the right to recommend the wording be included regarding the
non-conforming units.
2) to change the General Plan and leave the zoning R-3-P-22, which would change the
General Plan to a higher density overall.
3) a recommendation which closely related the zoning to the existing character of the area,
which is what staff recommended or a modification of that.
Commissioner Carson asked if it could be a case-by-case amendment.
PC Minutes -12- April 10, 1991
Mr. Lettieri said there was the issue of spot zoning which they would like to look at if the
Commission wanted to modify staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was any wording that could be added to any changes
the Commission made to accommodate the School District's problem of not being able to
mitigate the cost of schools with additional buildings?
Contract Planner Lettieri answered that staff thought they had come up with sufficient language,
if through the City Attorney's office it was determined that the City could legally put that kind
of condition on a project, that future development projects would have to comply with those
additional requirements. Mr. Lettieri understood that development projects now have to pay the
State fees, which would partially mitigate. The City is trying to come up with another
mechanism such as an overall Mello-Roos that would permit additional financing possibilities
when projects come in. It was his understanding that was not legally possible at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the City is sympathetic to the school districts' problem and
has been working with them to try to come up with something. State law preempts the City
from being involved in the area, and the City is trying to come up with an innovative, creative
idea which would assist the school districts in alleviating their problem while working around
the State law preemption. He did not agree with the school district's proposal to zone
everything R-1 in order to force the people to go into a Mello-Roos. He did not recommend
that to the Commission. Legally, it would be seen as a subterfuge and would create litigation
for the City.
Chair Grasser Horton continued with the public hearing.
Candace Hooper, who lives a block and a half from the area to be rezoned, said she agreed the
General Plan should be left as is and the projects rezoned on a case-by-case basis. She is
President of the Rosebank School Parent Club, and noted that the school is a magnet school but
buses more students out than in. If the program should go multi-track, which is opposed,
students would continue to be turned away and they would not be able to afford a magnet
program.
Edward Aceves, Principal of Feaster Elementary School, said the children need space, and there
was space across the street. He asked the Commission to control the residential growth and help
them get space for schools. He invited the Commissioners to the school to witness the need for
more space.
Frank Lozaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, concurred with the previous speakers and urged the
Commission to recommend to the City Council to stop growth.
Sandra Rank, 45 Corte Maria, Chula Vista, said there is not a need for more apartments, but
there are not enough parks.
PC Minutes -13- April 10, 1991
Lois Shadley, 236 "G" Street, Chula Vista, said that single families would be developing the
area; not developers. The taxes derived from the multi-units would help raise money for the
schools.
Ken Aden, owns two lots between "F" Street and "E" on Twin Oaks, zoned R-3. He concurred
with staff's recommendation.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked how long the State would allow the City to leave the conflict
between the General Plan and the existing zoning. Would it be possible to freeze the existing
situation until such time as the City and the school districts could make some accommodation?
Assistant Attorney Rudolf answered that the City had a legal duty to bring the zoning into
conformity with the General Plan, and the failure to bring it into conformity is a risk. The
City's obligation is to do so in a reasonable period of time.
Commissioner Carson asked Mr. Rudolf if he had a suggestion as to how to handle the school
situation.
Mr. Rudolf said the legal obligation was on the district to find some legislative or other legal
mechanism. The City is ready to cooperate with them as soon as they have done so.
Chair Grasser Horton added that the Commission was not approving a developer with 200+
homes. Many of the properties had already been multi-zoned for years. She was concerned
about the school problem, but did not think what they were trying to do would create much of
an impact. She concurred with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Fuller said they were attempting to correct a problem that had developed over
a number of years in the central part of Chula Vista. The Commission was not trying to take
away people's retirements and economic livelihood, but to maintain a quality of life. She said
she strongly felt the City had to take a more proactive stance on helping the school districts
resolve the problem of overcrowding by going to the legislation, or by some other method. She
concurred with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Tugenberg reminded the representatives of the school districts that the
Commission had tried for years to get the cooperation of the school districts when projects came
before them. The school districts never came before the Commission and always sent letters
stating they could handle the project.
Kate Shurson, representing the Elementary School District, assured Mr. Tugenberg she would
be attending future Commission meetings.
PC Minutes -14- April 10, 1991
In answer to Commissioner Decker's query, Contract Planner Lettieri said the existing character
issue is one issue used to determine a precise zoning recommendation. Staff tried to determine
as closely as possible the zoning designations that fit within the density ranges within specific
General Plan categories. In the definition of the General Plan, it states character issues within
each designation which have to do with dwelling unit types.
Commissioner Casillas summarized that the recommended change would reduce the number of
potential buildable units from 370 units to approximately 200, essentially a 50% reduction of the
existing zoning. Mr. Casillas said the most significant aspect was that staff's recommendation
attempted to tie the existing character of the neighborhood to what might be developed in the
future. He stated he would like to see some assurance given to property owners regarding
rebuilding to the same extent as existing. He asked that language be incorporated in the
Commission's recommendation similar to that in the Montgomery District. Commissioner
Casillas noted that he was going to visit Mr. Aceves' school; that everyone was very concerned
about the school issue. He was prepared to support staff's recommendation.
MS (Carson/Tugenberg) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that the proposed rezonings and General Plan amendments will have
no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-13 for
the General Plan Zoning Consistency Study.
Commissioner Carson stated she would vote for the rezoning, but wanted to go on record that
she felt there was an environmental impact, because she is a teacher and works with the
children, and knows that the most important reso~rce that we have is our children.
VOTE: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained)
MSC (Carson/Tugenberg) 5-1-1 (Commissioner Decker voted against; Commissioner Martin
abstained) to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to change the General Plan as
described on the attached Exhibits A, B, C, and D and Table I.
MSC (Carson/Tugenberg) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained) to recommend that the City
Council adopt an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibits A, B, C,
and D and Table 1, amending the existing provision with regard to non-conforming use in the
event of destruction of the property greater than 60%.
MSC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained) to recommend that the following
language be included as a condition in the "P" Modifying District:
"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."
PC Minutes -15- April 10, 1991
Chair Grasser Horton declared a recess at 9:10 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m.
ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-90-09, CHULA VISTA RELOCATION
MOBILEHOME PARK
Contract Planner Miller explained the Draft EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone on the 14-acre site located in the Lower
Sweetwater Valley area of Central Chula Vista east of North Second Avenue and south of the
Sweetwater Channel. Any proposed project would result in additional environmental review.
This EIR analyzed only the land use designation changes on the site to ultimately accommodate
a mobilehome park. A letter of comment had been received from CalTrans who stated they
would not provide any noise mitigation for the future project. Additionally, letters had been
received from several Chula Vista residents including Albert Boyer, Gail Shepard, and Jorge
Sanchez, as well as letters of comment from Kate Shurson of the Chula Vista Elementary School
District, and Tom Silva of the Sweetwater Union High School District. The School District
indicated they felt significant impacts to schools would result from the project, and they were
requiring that mitigation of school impacts be included with the project.
Ms. Miller noted that the Resource Conservation Commission did not reach a consensus in
recommending to certify the EIR due to economic impacts to surrounding neighbors, more
feasible alternative sites for the project, increased density, noise impacts, school impacts, sewer
and water impacts, social impacts, and lack of public transit facilities in the area.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked who would build the road along the easement. Ms. Miller said
she understood the City would make the improvements.
Commissioner Decker, referring to page 4-12, Impact Analysis, questioned potential child safety
problems associated with the well to be used for irrigation. Dan Conaty, Engineering Science,
consultant to the City for the EIR, said there was no current danger of children falling into the
well which is capped.
Commissioner Decker asked about the risks from a 500-year flood. Mr. Conaty answered that
the S~weetwater Channel is designed to handle the 100-year floods up to the 500-year flood.
When that channel is completed, and in the event there is a 500-year flood, it should be able to
handle it. Commissioner Decker was concerned with any potential impact in case of surging.
Commissioner Carson, referring to page 3-4, asked if there was another area where Vincent de
Paul had mixed mobilehome parks and transitionally homeless people which had worked
successfully. Ms. Miller answered that a representative of St. Vincent de Paul Center indicated
there was no other facility.
PC Minutes -16- April 10, 1991
Commissioner Carson asked if an agreement on the easement could be obtained. Ms. Miller
answered there was an existing easement at that location.
Commissioner Carson, referring to page 4-79, wanted to know how enough funds would be
generated to provide adequate school facilities by using a Mello-Roos district, since mobilehome
park owners (in most cases, retired people) and transitionally homeless individuals would be
located in this project. Mr. Conaty replied he had not recommended a Mello-Roos district be
established, but it would be one way of offsetting this impact.
Answering Commissioner Carson's query, Mr. Conaty said the nearest bus service was at
Sweetwater/30th Street.
Commissioner Fuller asked to sec in the final EIR some statement from the Redevelopment
Agency as to what they would propose regarding school impact; what they would recommend
regarding funding.
Commissioner Carson, referring to Table 5.1, Alternate Projects, asked for verbiage clarification
as to the location of the fault--whether it was "in the vicinity" or "within" the fault. Mr. Conaty
said he could provide that as part of the final EIR.
Commissioner Martin, referring to the Traffic Section, page 4-84, was concerned about the
entrance road going into the KOA Kampground or the easement once it was developed. Mr.
Conaty answered that the traffic had been evaluated on three separate occasions, both for this
project and for an adjacent proposal. There was a potential of temporary queus of vehicles in
the left-turn lane accessing the site. He would consult with his traffic enginecr regarding the
RVs and it would be discussed in the final EIR report.
Commissioner Martin asked if staff had considered the environmental impact on people who
were living temporarily within an area who relocated. Mr. Conaty answered negatively.
Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to page 2-8, Community Social Factors, asked for
discussion regarding the social standards stipulated in the General Plan Housing Element for
selection of non-market housing sites.
Mr. Conaty said the General Plan Housing Element stated that the site and neighborhood must
be suitable for the type and density of the housing proposed, and adequate public services and
facilities must be available to service the development. With the environmental constraints, the
density for the proposed site was too high, and therefore a lower density to approximately 7
alu/ac was recommended. In re-evaluation, there were insufficient park and school public
services, which was also inconsistent. There were also several adverse environmental impacts
with the proposed projects.
Chair Grasser Horton commented on the aesthetic impact on the project. She felt it would be
significant.
PC Minutes -17- April 10, 1991
Commissioner Carson asked if there was any safe way of accessing Eucalyptus Park. Mr.
Conaty said the possibility of improving the greenbelt had been explored, providing access to
the trail on the berm north of the site and allowing access to Fourth from the trail in order to
use the bike path. There could be a safety question for small children.
Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to page 2-8, asked who would build the pads and other
amenities. Contract Planner Miller did not have an answer; the EIR focused more on analyzing
the land use changes and the environmental impact associated with them.
Commissioner Decker, referring to page 4-67, stated that one of the mitigation measures for a
lack of a park in the area referred to the City's contribution of $855 per dwelling unit in park
fees, which totaled $85,000. He felt this should be included in the cost section. Commissioner
Decker also asked about the pedestrian/equestrian/bike path on the channel. Mr. Conaty said
it was an improved path.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if there was a difference between the stability of a home that is
stick-built versus a mobilehome, referring to the earthquake fault. Mr. Conaty answered that
less surface preparation would be done for mobilehomes. The foundations themselves would
intuitively seem to be less stable.
In answer to Commissioner Martin's question, Mr. Conaty said there was a high potential for
liquefaction at the site. He stated the geologist had indicated there was a high level of risk to
the potential future residents in the unlikely event there was a major earthquake.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Chair Grasser Horton said she had 36 speaker slips, and 26 others present who were opposed
but were not speaking. She asked that the speakers not be repetitive of previous speakers.
Jeff Phair, 1799 Country Vistas Lane, Bonita, stated the real issue was a land planning issue--
whether the property was suitable for the type of development that was being proposed. He felt
it was not. He asked that the people in the audience who were against the project stand up as
a show of support for where they stood the issue. (Note: Most of the audience stood.)
Mr. Phair reported that the residents were concerned with the methodology used and the validity
of some of the conclusions. The group had put together a summary of their concerns which Mr.
Phair presented to the Clerk for the public record, as part of the public testimony. Those
concerns included 1) the construction barrier proposed on Interstate 805 as a way to mitigate the
noise, which Mr. Phair considered massive and an eyesore; 2) there was a high possibility for
liquefaction on this site, and the consultant's report stated that if there was only a moderate
earthquake, there could be substantial damage; 3) requested a closer look at the area from a
paleontological standpoint; 4) concerned about the methodology used to measure the noise; didn't
believe that the noise study took any of the decibel levels after the completion of construction
of State Route 54 and asked that it be addressed; 4) felt the EIR was contradictory in its
PC Minutes -18- April 10, 1991
determination that the aesthetic impact from the development would be insignificant; 5) felt it
was not in conformance with many of the criteria of the General Plan including appropriate site
density, significant adverse environmental impacts, lack of park facilities, and overcrowding of
local school facilities; 5) financing for the schools needs to be readdressed by the staff and
consultants.
Mr. Phair noted that the EIR had stated that the project had the disadvantage of being
environmentally encumbered, thus requiring extensive mitigation measures to offset significant
impacts. The public park to be used by future residents of the mobilehome park would likely
be Eucalyptus Park which is severely overcrowded during heavy use periods, especially on
weekends. The project site is located within a portion of the City where there are no public
parks within a short, safe walking distance. There was a particular concern for children.
Therefore, the impact to park facilities from this proposed project was considered significant and
unmitigable.
Mr. Phalr quoted for the record page 5.1, the No-Project Alternative. "The no-project
alternative would essentially entail leaving the project site in its current state. This would be
consistent with the underlying land use designation, which is open space. With the no-project
alternative, approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and zoning actions for
development of the mobilehome park would not occur. These include the significant impacts
of land use, wetlands loss, aesthetic impacts, noise exposure to future residents, inconsistency
with the Housing Element of the General Plan, lack of park space, and overcrowding of
schools." Mr. Phair said that although the site would continue to experience flooding which
contributes to wetland areas, the no-project land use alternative was an environmentally superior
alternative to the proposed project and all other alternatives. He requested that the Planning
Commission adopt the no-project alternative.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked how much it would cost to build the acoustical wall along 805
and the project. Mr. Phair answered that it would depend upon the final design of the noise
design. It could be very significant.
Gil Sheppard, 49 Corte Maria~ Chula Vista, 91910, a 20-year resident and a consultant
contractor specializing in sound and communications, disagreed with portions of the information
contained in Section 4.6 Noise of the DEIR. Quoting from the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
he noted that the point at which noise begins to harm hearing was 70 db, that 60 db is the
threshold of stress response, and 45 db disturbs sleep. Section 19.68.030 Exterior Noise Limits
state that the exterior noise level of "all residential except multiple dwellings shall not exceed
55 dba from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and 45 dba from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m." Although roadway noise
is exempt from these restrictions, they become very significant when examined with other data
relative to the project in question. He pointed out that no new measurements were taken for the
mobilehome park project, and obsolete data was being used. The development of the
surrounding areas has contributed to the increased flow of traffic near the proposed project.
PC Minutes -19- April 10, 1991
Mr. Sheppard discussed the locations of the proposed barrier walls. Freeway noise does not
function as a point source simply defined as a single speaker in a fixed location, but as a line
array which projects along the horizontal axis through a number of speakers. Therefore, a
barrier on the freeway would not provide the attenuation necessary to achieve the stated goal of
65 dba at the proposed location. He said barrier 2 to be erected on top of the flood channel
berm was suspect due to its location and potentially required height. The suggested location was
presently occupied by pedestrians and equestrians on a trail approximately 10 feet wide
designated as part of a network. To construct the wall of appropriate size, the berm must be
enlarged to accommodate the footing/foundation required by Code. It would only attenuate some
of the noise to a small portion of the area in question, because the majority of the noise is from
the east, not the north. He was also concerned with the cost of erecting the barriers and who
would pay for it.
Mr. Sheppard was concerned with the dwelling interior sound levels. Although the DEIR stated
the noise impacts could be reduced to a level of insignificance through the construction of two
noise barrier walls, and any other additional mitigation measures that may result from a
recommended acoustical analysis, the mobilehomes must be constructed in such a way as to
increase the attenuation an additional 30 dba, which is very significant. This is assuming each
mobilehome would be equipped with an air conditioner to alleviate the necessity of opening the
windows and doors for the ventilation. An open window or door would negate the effect of the
highest grade soundproofing, thus exposing the occupants to noise levels that do not comply with
the Code and an environmental detriment to their health.
Roy Shepard, 28 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista 92010, said there were no solutions for
overcoming the problem of more students for already crowded schools. Facilities fees would
not eliminate the problem of overcrowded schools. He felt the area should be left as open space
and more youngsters not added to the already impacted western part of the City. They did not
want their children bussed away from their home schools. Mello-Roos or any other funding
should not be considered as a way of overcoming the problem that would be created by the
mobilehome park. The mobilehome park could only add to the problem of overcrowded
schools.
Jeanine Gliko, 105 First Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, addressed the issues of transportation and
access to the proposed Sweetwater Canyon relocation mobilehome park and the potential
access/egress to the site from the south through First Avenue. The dirt and gravel extension of
First Avenue could not be used for vehicle access without extensive improvements and upgrade.
She noted the cost, the environmental impact of those improvements, pedestrian access, public
transportation, the narrow right-angle turn from "D" Avenue into First Avenue with no
development or sidewalks which would be hazardous to pedestrians, the 90+ school-aged
children that the proposed canyon project would bring to the neighborhood schools. Ms. Gliko
was also concerned about the response time, fire hydrants, and fire access routes which had not
been addressed.
PC Minutes -20- April 10, 1991
Candace Hooper. 486 Corte Maria Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, representing the Chula Vista
City Youth Sports Council, and President of the Chula Vista American Little League, read a
prepared statement, urging that the area be left as open space.'
Marguerite Ferrante, 1579-B19 Morena Blvd., San Diego 921 i0, revresentine Gold State Mobil,,
Homeowners Leaeues, spoke in support of the project. She stated that she represented the parks
which had been closed and the two that had received notification that they were to be closed.
Ms. Ferrante noted the responsibility of the City for its citizens. She said that City did not
acknowledge the homeless in Chula Vista. If given the chance, St. Vincent de Paul would build
one of the finest relocation parks.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated that Chula Vista had done its fair share for affordable housing,
and it seemed as though Chula Vista had been the only community in the County that had done
so. They were discussing the suitability for that kind of facility.
Ms. Ferrante answered that the mobilehome people had not been taken care of. She asked that
it be addressed in the Final EIR.
_Elodia C. Gonzales, 2970 Coronado Avenue, San Diego 92154, also a member of GSMOL and
assistant manager to Marguerite Ferrante, speaking on behalf of St. Vincent de Paul, also
supported the project. Ms. Gonzales stated that when the mobilehomes were torn down, the
residents had nowhere to go. The EIR has some sound suggestions to protect the area and the
neighbors. The park would have 100 spaces and would be a family park, which meant seniors
could reside there also, rather than having to live with other members of their families. She
urged the Commission's support.
Rebecca LIewellyn, 120 No. Second Avenue, Chula Vista 92010, president and owner of Payco
Specialties, Inc., a striping contractor, spoke on the traffic plan. She had concluded that the use
of North Second Avenue into KOA was substandard considering the intersection at the base of
a hill and on a horizontal curve. She discussed the width of the lanes, and the traffic turning
into KOA, blocking the left-turn lane. Additional traffic would increase the possibility of
accidents there. There is a steep hill with a curve. She was also concerned with the traffic and
the noise generated by Highway 54.
In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's question, Ms. Llewellyn said there was no room for
reconfiguration of the entrance to the KOA Kampgrounds themselves.
Sandra Renk, 45 Corte Maria, Chula Vista 91910, again discussed the problem of schools and
the fact that if they had the money, there was nowhere to build a school in this part of Chula
Vista. Bussing would have to continue. The Elementary School District had looked at this
property as a possible site for schools. They found it unacceptable because of required State
standards for noise, drainage, flooding, and earthquakes. The community did not support the
multi-track system because they felt it would not provide a quality program. Ms. Renk said the
children would be there temporarily which would put an additional burden on a severely
PC Minutes -21- April 10, 1991
overcrowded and overburdened school system. These children would also require additional
services from the school due to their economic position and possible lack of school attendance
in the past. She felt the EIR should have evaluated the total economic answers to cross-over
education, not just cost of housing them at schools.
Ms. Renk stated that the lower Sweetwater Valley represented one-third of the open space and
parks in the Central Planning Area of Chula Vista, and that developing this property would also
open the way for more development which would take away the rest of the open space there.
A greenbelt access to Eucalyptus Park would be a safer access, but still too far for children to
go, and it wouldn't improve the overcrowded park. This development would take away the
availability of the open space for biking, jogging, and walking and cut off the access to the
existing greenbelt.
She discussed the impact of extensive grading, noise generated from this project, and further
development of the valley. The air quality should have been measured on site because of the
two heavily traveled freeways. The site is lower than the freeway, so the heavier particulates
would sink. She also discussed the impossibility of screening the project.
Ms. Renk noted that other losses to local residents would be the open field habitat and wetlands.
She again noted the cost to the City, and the transportation to public services.
Mike Hussey, 130 First Avenue, Chula Vista, spoke of the narrowing of the road in front of
his house, the double yellow line, the "no parking" signs on both sides of the street. He
discussed the access road, the potential ingress/egress for the project, the street width, and the
trailers currently parked illegally. He wanted to know what was planned for the other lots, and
about the street improvements.
Lisa Moctezuma-Bender, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista 91910, spoke of the conservation
efforts for water, etc., and asked that the open space be conserved in this central planning area
for the children.
M. Goomar, MD FRCS, 5 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, said he believed the proposed sound
reduction measures contained in the draft environmental impact report were inadequate regarding
the vagaries of the weather, especially the wind directionality and the kind and type of the future
ingress of the traffic. As a physician who specialized in ear disorders, he felt the inadequate
sound mitigation mechanism might expose the residents of the mobile park to chronic health
hazards. These health incapacities may initially be imperceptible, but later on may induce high
blood pressure, stomach ulcers, increase risk of heart disease, various neuroses, and personality
problems, and deafness. He said it was humane to help the needy, helpless, and homeless, but
it might be considered inhuman to expose the helpless and homeless to physical and emotional
trauma, however subtle it might appear initially to be.
PC Minutes -22- April 10, 1991
Sydnee Lahr Reyna 64 Minor Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, spoke of the social responsibility of
the neighborhood. She asked that the Final EIR clarify the use of the proposed mobilehome
park--whether it would be for displaced residents of mobilehome parks, or for the homeless, or
for both. She questioned the density and the feasibility of the project, along with the cost. She
also would like to see a site plan. Ms. Reyna stated that the fact that the land east of 1-805 had
threshold standards for parks and recreation, while the area west of 1-805 did not have standards;
she wondered if she was on the "wrong side of the tracks" for a quality of life issue.
Eric Adney, 93 Corte Mafia, Chula Vista 91910, resident for 34 years, said the first thing you
notice when you enter the City of Chula Vista offi-805 is this open space. He disliked the idea
of being considered a resident of a walled city, referring to a noise barrier. He felt the EIR did
not favor the neighborhood and leaned toward unfair, favoring a development. He felt the City
owed the residents a portion of open space and anything beyond open space would put
population pressure on their schools and neighborhood.
Ted Bell, 111 N. Second Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, representing KOA, stated that access was
designated through KOA and IPG's property. He said the 14 acres is and always had been a
landlocked piece of property with no access. Years prior when it was used as a dairy farm and
pasture, access was via First Avenue through a prescriptive easement only, no legal access.
This EIR stated that the easement is under private control and agreement would have to be
developed with IPG for its use with no mention of KOA as a part of this agreement. Also,
construction of this access would require the removal of some improvements in KOA. Mr. Bell
said those improvements were approved by the City of Chula Vista and by the County of San
Diego as a part of their permit procedure. Currently, there is a lawsuit pending between KOA
and IPG regarding this easement. Mr. Bell stated that until such time as there was a judgment
on that lawsuit and the City of Chula Vista informed KOA and the community of how they
propose to gain access for this 14 acres through KOA and the IPG 19 acres, they would object
to any mention of access to Second Avenue via those properties. Mr. Bell also asked that any
reference to access through KOA or IPG be stricken from this EIR and further EIRs or any
hearing.
Mr. Bell said they had experienced liquefaction during operation of heavy equipment. They
tried mitigating liquefaction by taking the soil up and recompacting. It only worsened that
particular soil. Mr. Bell noted that the water table is extremely high, sometimes within 5 feet
of the surface, and most of the time about 13. Liquefaction occurs when any equipment runs
in the valley. When the freeway was being constructed, the residents observed a constant
shaking of the property and, on the higher ground, it became even worse.
Mr. Bell talked about the traffic impacts from the proposed mobilehome park project in
combination with cumulative projects, the alignment of the street with the left-turn lane, the hill,
and curve. He noted that KOA had not asked for the left-turn lane; the street is very unsafe
because of the line of sight and speed of traffic coming down the hill across the double yellow
line and into the left-turn lane when going around the curve. He asked that new and factual
information be prepared with sufficient back-up information so it could be verified.
PC Minutes -23- April 10, 1991
Harriet F. Acton, 265 Nixon Place, Chula Vista 91910, said she had represented the community
for over 15 years on the San Diego County Flood Control Commission. She assured
Commissioner Decker that the flood control channel is for a 100-year flood only. Because of
backlog of funding, having the flood control channel cleared may be more of a problem as the
summer wears on. Ms. Acton said that without clearing the channel, the odor would be very
unpleasant for the residents of a mobilehome park.
Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minor, Chula Vista 92010, said the community was concerned about the
people being located from a bad situation to a worse scenario, with no transportation, no
shopping facilities, stale air, etc.
..Frank Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista 91910, spoke also regarding the negative impact
that the project would have on the schools and the overcrowdedness. He also reminded the
Commissioners that the community had voted in the past to maintain this greenbelt area as an
open space, and the City promised a greenbelt. He said they wanted the Commission to keep
that promise. Mr. Luzzaro believed the project would create an alienated community. He felt
the displaced mobilehome residents should have subsidized apartments.
Susan Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista 91910, said she felt the developers were trying to
gain a rezoning for further development, and if the designated greenbelt area was taken away,
there was no other land to give back. She felt it was wrong to have a noise evaluation when
highway 54 was not in operation when the report was made. She also noted that by paving 10
out of 14 acres, there would be flooding.
Jor~,e A. Sanchez, 75 "D" Street, Chula Vista 91910, spoke of the opposition to the previous
EIR which addressed mobilehome park development as well as zoning and land use changes in
the Lower Sweetwater Valley. He said the sale of the 18-acre parcel by Mascot Realty to IPG
South Bay and the fact that the new owner did not wish to have development of the 18 acre
parcel coupled with the mobilehome park severely limits the usefulness and value of the
EIR-90-09 as a tool for determining the most environmentally safe and societally effective long-
term land use of the Lower Sweetwater Valley. The limited scope of the study and its exclusion
of the intention in future use of adjacent property invalidates that EIR for any project involving
a change of the land use designation in any part of the valley. Mr. Sanchez believed the land
could be used as a tree nursery area for the City or one of the existing tree planting non-profit
groups working in the San Diego area. He said the location of a mobilehome project would not
be consistent with the standards, and that there would be a significant and unavoidable impact
of overcrowding existing park and school facilities. Mr. Sanchez noted that the proposed project
would not need to comply with the City Growth Management Threshold Standards and that even
the Rosebank School was considered open space.
PC Minutes -24- April 10, 1991
Peter Watry. 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista 92910, objected to three sentences in the EIR.
"The proposed project would be located in an area that is relatively convenient to public
services, facilities and transportation." He objected to the phrase "relatively convenient." He
said the project would be inconvenient and isolated. Secondly, regarding the green belt, it is
not completed. The flood control channel is not a park, and so it is not completed in this area.
Mr. Watry's third objection was the proposed project would not need to comply with the City's
Growth Management Threshold Standards for parks and recreation because it is located west of
1-805. He said he was a part of the coalition of Crossroads and developers that developed those
thresholds. They were developed to be a guide for development in the future so that as
development occurred, it would not occur ahead of facilities. He said they were careful to
exclude the area west of 805, because it would have shut down development immediately, since
they didn't come up to that standard. It was very clear that the conditions west of 805 were not
to worsen.
Alan R. Campbell, 75 Third Avenue//32, Chula Vista 91910, reiterated that no one believed
the property should be used for a mobilehome park. He discussed a memo from Community
Development Director Chris Salomone to the Redevelopment Agency which had at one time
been confidential. He read the last paragraph of the memo for the record. "In consideration
of the total development cost for a mobilehome park, the environmental mitigations and the
intense community opposition, staff recommends that the Agency avoid further public
controversy on this proposal by halting the environmental review process before it goes to the
RCC and the Planning Commission. It is recommended that the Agency direct staff to bring the
draft subsequent EIR directly to the Redevelopment Agency with a recommendation to withdraw
the project proposal." Mr. Campbell said he had suggested several years ago in a newly formed
committee that the City buy one of the trailer parks on Broadway, using something in existence,
and displacing no one He said he would like more discussion in the final EIR on that process.
Mr. Campbell noted that he was disappointed that there was no input from the housing advisory
committee.
Father Joe Carroll, 1550 Market Street, San Diego, said there was never any intention of
bringing homeless people to the park. This was not a homeless project. The City of Chula
Vista had bought acreage for a mobilehome park, and ran out of money to build the mobilehome
park. St. Vincent de Paul wanted to develop a mobilehome park for affordable housing. Chula
Vista had bought the land with redevelopment money, and it had to be allocated to affordable
housing. Father Joe said that once the EIR was complete, St. Vincent de Paul would decide if
it was feasible and financially feasible for them to develop a park. They would not develop
plans if they didn't know what was required. He said there were things they didn't like about
the EIR, because it could make it very expensive to develop the park, and that's what they
would evaluate if they wanted to make a bid. He went on to explain the type of mobilehomes
which would be used, if St. Vincent de Paul developed a mobilehome park, and what they would
contain. He explained that if they built 100 homes and only 80 were filled by Chula Vista, then
the other 20 would be open to anybody else who wanted them. Father Joe noted that the City
was only going to provide the land; St. Vincent de Paul would look for redevelopment funds,
PC Minutes -25- April 10, 1991
state funds, city funds, and donated funds to develop the project in Chula Vista. It was strictly
a housing project. They wanted to get 10 houses they could use for families leaving their
shelter. If the City said no to that part, they would still develop the project for 100 Chula Vista
families.
Commissioner Carson asked what the Agency's response was to a confidential memo that
Councilman Malcolm had made public, which then was no longer a confidential memo.
Director of Community Development Chris Salomone, as author of the confidential memo, spoke
to the issue. He said that when staff saw the preliminary draft of the EIR, they noticed there
were issues and problems and were aware of the public outcry. He sent the memo as
Community Development Director, confidentially to the Agency. Council member/Agency
member Malcolm discussed it in open session at that time, and said he very much wanted Father
Joe and the staff to complete the EIR; he did it in open session, he decided not to have it be
confidential. The Agency itself discussed it in open session at that meeting, and directed staff
to complete the EIR. He noted that Father Joe was correct; that the land was bought with low-
moderate 20% set-aside funds for the purpose of creating a relocation mobilehome park.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Fuller stated that she had served on what started out as a mobilehome issues
committee and then was changed to the Mobilehome Relocation Task Force. That was how this
all evolved. She noted that staff would respond to the issues brought forward, but the EIR
would not be rewritten.
Commissioner Casillas said he was acting chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee. They
had been working on the update for the rewrite of the Housing Element of the General Plan and
had delayed having meetings of the Housing Advisory Committee. They had discussed all of
the issues, very specifically the issue of the alternative sites. There were a number of sites
around the City that might be viable. Each of them had its weaknesses and strengths. He said
the Committee was working with some guidance from City Council, since fall. The Committee
now had been somewhat restructured, were addressing the issue, and had made some
recommendations to the City Council. The Blue Ribbon Committee had done the rewrite of the
Housing Element of the General Plan, and the affordable housing section in it was critical.
Commissioner Casillas said it was in this document that they tried to provide some guidance as
to resources, and attempted to identify some new requirements. Commissioner Casillas said
staff had done a wonderful job, and it had been a pleasure for him to work with them.
Commissioner Decker was concerned about the air quality impacts from the proposed
mobilehome park project. He asked that staff look into how the air pollution from SR-54 and
1-805 would affect any residents in the area of the park. He didn't feel the small amount that
the mobilehome residents would generate would add much to the pollution already coming from
54 and 805. He was also concerned about fire response times to a fire in an aluminum
PC Minutes -26- April 10, 1991
mobilehome which would burn very rapidly and keep the heat in. He asked staff to investigate
response times to the fire because of this type of construction.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked that the Final EIR show in-depth financial responsibility-how
this would affect the City of Chula Vista. He said this was particularly sensitive with the State
deficit being $18 billion, and our City Council is more and more concerned with creating new
revenues. They would not want to create a large sink hole.
Commissioner Carson asked that in the future if we have a big item on the agenda that we do
not have to keep our citizens out past 12:00. There were still about 80 people in attendance.
She commended the residents for coming and staying so long.
Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to take the testimony and to respond to it in their Final EIR.
This closed the public review period.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: REQUEST FOR A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SERVE
ON THE BAYFRONT SUBCOMMITTEE
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that at the last meeting, the Commissioners had been
.asked to think about appointing a representative to the Bayfront Subcommittee. He reported that
it was estimated the Committee would meet at least once or twice a month.
MSUC (Fuller/Decker) 7-0 that Commissioner Grasser Horton serve as the representative from
the Planning Commission, with Vern Decker as Alternate.
Commissioner Carson asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to send her a copy of the City's
graffiti ordinance.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commission that the next Wednesday was their
workshop dinner session at 5:00 p.m. There would be an update on some of the Community
Development projects going on in redevelopment areas. A representative from CIF also wanted
to explain their program on water.
PC Minutes -27- April 10, 1991
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Casillas noted a proposal had been submitted to be funded under the Community
Block Grant for graffiti eradication. He had asked Community Development to give him a copy
of the work program. He felt there should be some kind of enforcement language included.
Commissioner Fuller suggested that he obtain a small brochure from the Police Department
which explains the current program and how it is handled.
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:10 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of April 17, 1991 at 5:00p.m.
in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
i'4an~y Riple~, Secret~'y
Planning Commission