HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/01/10 Item 09 Item No. 9
January 10, 1978
Cardroom
Ordinance 1784 � * � CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT � Item No. 9
For meeting of 1/10/78
ITEM TITLE Ordinance �1�84 - Proposals for Resolution of Location of
Cardroom at 11 Third Avenue - First Reading
and Adoption
SUBMITTED BY City Attorney
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES X NO )
As a resolution of the Council action of Tuesday night in regard to the
proposed amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance to authorize
cardrooms as a use in the C-0 zone subject to a conditional use permit,
the entire matter of providing a vehicle for locating a cardroom at 11
Third Avenue, which location appears to be acceptable to the Planning
Department, Planning Commission and the City Council , was brought back
to ground zero.
Assuming that the second aiternative available, i .e , the rezoning of the
property from C-O to C-C is now to be pursued, the applicant has been
informed that said process will take at least eight months since both
a rezoning and a General Plan amendment are assumed to be required. The
applicant has proceeded with a substantial investment with the expecta-
tion that the location would be approved since all parties seem to find
it an acceptable one.
In light of all of the circumstances , it is deemed desirable to afford
the Council a further opportunity to take action on this matter as well
as the resolution of the dilemma . Memos from the Planning Director and
the City Attorney have been prepared and alternative ordinances are
available for consideration by the Council , if they so desire .
EXHIBITS
Agreement Resolution_ Ordinance X Plat Notification List_
Other Reports (2) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A p p g p V E D
03 -�lie
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION , �ourcil
G-��
Of
COUNCIL ACTION
�.l�ula 'T=s�a� CaliYornia
� �� � ....._.___---
i�4�FDated........_��..............w..........
1 , .
� ����� d ��' ����.��� 9 ;��
C
PROJECT TZTLE: Cardrooms in the C-O zone as a co�dztional use
°roject Location: City of Chula Vista
Project Pro�o:�ent : City of Chula C�ista
CI:SE *i0. ZS-78-37 DATE : Dece;r�er 1 , 1977
A. Proiect Descriotion
1. Backcround
Se��eral ?i10RL�'!S dCjO �}'lE C1�}' COI:*1C'_1 dC0?i.2G� d ZO.^.1*1C �e}:t
amenr.ment F7f11Cf1 Z15t2d Cfl�Q�00ID5 d5 d CC:di'�ional USE li] ��°
C-C ar.d C-T zonal districts . The nu��Der of cardroo::�s in the
Citv o� Chuia Vista are limited to one cardroom per 25 , 000
resicents or fraction thereo•` (Ord. �1738) . Since the ado�=ica
of this reaulation , three cardrooms have been approved by tne
Planning Co;:ir�ission and one r.iore cardroom caould be allocaed
until the City ' s populatior. exceeds 100 , 000 residents . Tne
/ oresent oo�ulation is appro�imately 80 , 000 .
\
On ATOVember 8 , 1977 , the City Council considered a reauest
submitted by Mas Lercher to use the old Depart-te:t or P?o�or
Vehicles building at Third Ave . and C St . in tne C-O zone �or
� a cardroom. The Council directed the sta•_`f �o orepare an
a,�,encnent to the Code to list cardrooms in tne C-O zone as
a conditional use .
tdhile sta" has some resercations in listinc cardrooms as a ,
CO.^.G�1�lOP.d1 ll5e 1R �}70 C-� ZOP.2 � '�i.here d:2 IlIIl1LeC1 IOCdL10F?S �
�:�ithin tne C-O zone c•:hicn could acco*na-aodz�e �he �se in a
compatible =ashion. The li,��itation of one carcroo� for 25 , 000
residents , established bv the City Council , c•:ill mini�ize the
nu:��..�' er of reauests beinc •_`iled. Zf the ordinance is amendec ,
both the Planning Co;:imission and t'�e staf� will r.eed a conce=ted
ef�ort �O insure �tld� CdiG�L'OOIDS oroposed 1.^. �i�2 C-O ZO.^.2 dZe
co�oatible o:i;.h the adjoining land uses in 'a given area. ;de
o:ould antici�ate a verv limited use o� this ac�i.-itv c�:i "thin
tne tne C-O zone . Ho:•�ever, amencing tne orcinance will cice
the Citl� a lit�le more fle�:ibility in loca�ing ��ese uses .
Licenses for er.isting cardrooms may be trans�erred to ne�::
IOCd�lO.*15 which WOUIC� T2plllre i.}le filing dI1G� a^y�*_'OV3� Oi d
nec�� conditional llS(.' per�it aoplicati0il .
<.. '
, � � `1,
� � � 2. °rc�esec ismend�ezt . ,
The folloc•;ing amendment to the zonina text is pro�osed :
�-O z.oae - Section 19 . 30 . OS0 Cor.ditiona? Oses - be
j ar•.:ended thereto a new subsection H . , to read :
,� .
� H. Cardrooms
5. .�ialvsis in suDOOrt o` the �indin s
Cardrooms are de •`ined as an amusement or a recreational use t•:nicn
would be permitted in some comu�ercial zones subjec= to the approcal
o� a conditional use aermit. Tne oroposed zor.ina tex.t amenc�e^�
o:ould allo�.a ca_d_oons in tn2 C-O zone , subject to a co�citional
us2 oernit, in addition to the C-T and C-C zone cahere tney are
currently permi�ted o;ith a condi�ional use oer�it.
Tne conditional use process �:•ill insure aesthetic comoatibilit:•
w��h adjacent uses, en •`orce landscaae requirements and reauire
d�2tiL'��2 D2r;�ipg faci11�125 t0 dVOld Q15rUD�lOR O� trd�L1C � -
circula�ion and patterr.s .
� C2�QrpOi?1 o�era�ing C•il'��": (d CL'S�Oi:lE.'T_'S �O� �i12 ii1d:�:�i�tL'?il t10llI"S
aeri:l'-�teCl (l��i?TS�G+dY � 6 day/�;eek) 4i0111C] COP.Slli12 2.T] 2S�lI?ldt.°C
1� , 000 's:wn hrs. o£ electricity and 4S0 therms o: na�ural gas per
- ��ear and fi3 aallons o= caater per d�y. Based or. a co�alete turnover
Oi C112;1L?1 2V°r�. d hO11�5 'vilttl Li•:O aersons F72Y VeR1ClE � dDOLt 2�0
venicle trips/cay could be anticiaated.
C. Findincs
� 1. The aroaosed zoning text a-nen�ment involves no soeci`ic
property, therefore r�ill not effect any physical resources .
2. Tne proposed p_oject is not at variance �•:ith the long
term goals of the General Plan.
3. Restriction o` the use to certain com.,-nercial zones will
lin.it the potential �or cumulative e�_`ects or. adjacent uses
and tra=:ic circulation.
4 . There caill be no direct or indirect ad�-e=se effect on
hL��ar. bei�gs as a result of the zoning te:;t a-�encment.
D. Or�Caniza'tions & Persons Consulted
City of Chula Vista Planning Deot .
Eng. Dept . �
I •
Documents
ZS-77--11
-�=' -�=�-.:1 Stuc.. ❑pplicz�ion and . evalu�tion for-s cocu.*.:enting tne
`iaciiacs o_ no sicr.i �icant i° o�ct ❑r� a�tac^ed.
� -
,
��
>:�O � .
_' �`T_.-�,��"'_" """I, ar��IT�;.� (` ..� .
C.��..L_T:',-:'01Z
r7fl '/
� � . ' I�^ _ . . , . , . . . �l
� :;%. l%- ;'�� ` '"%-* - ,� ii,n;�,.==i"=jr � f
�� . %�� ._'�. • � %?//.i ie`/ ji,rb - 'Ri +B r � � M 8.
�l �; � u . � �� I��G7��. �.r(�iltit �►1
� ��.� ' ' �� ' f!°' I ' � � � 'tu �. _ :f � ►�s -a�
- - -_ �-�._ _=_==Z.� .._ ._._ =-�-- -_---- _ — -
City o� CGtuQa �ll�sta
" ' CALIFOR�'IA
OFFICE OF THE
CIT7 ATTORNEY
DATE; January 6 , 1978 ,
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City
of Chula Vista, Lane F. Cole, City 2danager,
D. J. Peterson, Director •of Planning
FP.Oi�f: George D, Lindberg, City Attorney
SUBJECT: � Proposals for Resolution of Authorizing the
Establishment of a Cardroom as a Conditional
Use at 11 Third Avenue '
Ps indicated in Nr. Peterson' s memo, a copy of which is attached
hereto, Mr. Max Lercher, on two occasions, approached the City
Council seeking soMe action that W0111C1 allow 'him to establish
a cardroom in the building at 11 Third Avenue, cahich had for-
merly been occupied by the Department of Motor Vehicles .
Although there could be no assurance on the part of the Council
that such authorization would be granted until the appropriate
-� public hearings were held and evidence taken, it seemed to be
the consensus expressed by the Council as well as by the Planning
staff,¢and later by the Planning Commission, that the proposed �
location was well suited for use as a cardroom. Based upon
rather consistently affirmative declarations in this regard,
Mr. Lercher has proceeded with preparation for the establishment
of a cardroom in said premises .
Further, as indicated in Mr. Peterson! s meno, the matter could
be resolved in one of two ways--either to rezone the prooerty
to C-C, which authorizes cardroomssubject to a conditional use
permit; or, to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance tahich
would authorize cardrooms subject to a conditional use permit
in the .C-O zone. Frankly, .it was the assumpti6n of this office
that the . first course of action was to have been pursued since
the character of the entire neighborhood, although partially
defined by the existing small low rent office uses further up
the Third Avenue extension from the D.M.V. building to the south-
east, is even more emphatically portrayed �by the location of a
bar, a liguor store, ice cream store and restaurant and a retail
appl'iance store imrlediately across the street to the south, a
major discount store, and accessory buildings across the�.street
to the west and retail stores immediately to the north.
I� p� . ` � . ,_ 276 Four.h Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 427-3300
r 6
� . • . ;y j � j - J .
' K�
. ' ` ' � - . , , r . ' , .
• � - . r � - ' < -�e � ,�- ' �
� . . F' ' z , ,..' ' . - c�. " : {. •.i i � . .
• Y � , r ' � , ' � . .
The Honorable Piayor and ,City Council
January 6 ,. 1978 ' � • '
Page Two
There would appear, therefore, to be no' serious impediment from
either the legal or planning aspects �to change the �existing C-O.
zone for at least that portion encompassing the D.M.V. building. .
As Mr. Peterson points out, on the face of the matter, this
would seem 'to be the appropriate action. . HOwever, for several
reasons , the ' Planning Department chose to utilize the approach
. . of amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow for the
use of cardrooms in the C-O zone through the conditional use
procedure. The reasons for such a decision are set forth in
the Director' s memo. All of them relate to the problems of . •
the area in question and �to the extremely limited probability
of their ever being any other applicant for a 'conditional use
_ �permit for a cardroom in the C-O zone.
This office does not concur that such reasons form the basis '
for an 'amendment of the 'cor.prehensive zoning ordinance to
authorize a particular use within a particular zone . In
ef£ect, the Planning Department states, first, that the General
Plan, cahich need not and canriot precisely define the boundaries
of land uses , designates the area for professional and admini-
strative uses (which general designation is hardly specified by
the existing driving school use or .by conditi�nal uses authorized
in the C-O zone such as conmercial parking lots and restaurants)
and, secondly, the area in question lends itself to development
for relatively low rent office uses. These factors combined with
the slight probability or total improbability of any other appli-
cants for a conditional use permit for a cardroom in a C-O zone,
do not;' at first blush, provide a rationalGJ basis for the proposed
ar.ie ndme nt. ,
The City Council expressed the opinion, which again, upon initial
examination would seem to have great validity, that there appears
to be little or no relationship between office uses and a card-
room and, therefore, such use is not appropriate in the C-O zone.
However, there is equally little relationship in a zone esta-
blished "to provide appropriate locations. where �professional' and
administrative offices zones may be established, maintained and
protected" for day- nurseries, commercial parking lots and parking
garages and restaurants, all .of which are uses permitted by con-
ditional use permit within the C-O zone.� Further, all of the
unclassi£ied uses are perrmited not only in the C-0 zone, but in
any zone subject to a conditional use. permit, which uses encom- _
pass such divergent activities as cemeteries and churches , hospi-
tals and mortuaries, airports and golf courses and racetracks:
� . . . ',
17 �� � ' - . ..
The Honorable Mayor and City Council �
January 6 , 1978 -
Page. Three
� An attempt. to establish those uses which will be allowable only
by a conditional use permit within a particular zone is very
often the result of a decision of necessity and not necessarily
of any rational nexus to the basic purpose� o£ the zone. Zoning
ordinances in many co�munities do employ this particular pro-
cedural approach. However, it is not a universal approach, e .g. ,
the City of San Diego has no such provision for uses permitted .
by conditional use permit within a particular zone. and excluded
from other, zones. The purist approach; which 'is that of the ,
City of San Diego, is to list. those uses which are not, really '
capable of being classified within any particular zone by their
_ very nature, e.g. , cemeteries , churches or hospitals and are,
therefore, as the courts have .stated,; even with the assistance
o£ the most brilliant legal draftsman, insusceptible of being
placed within a particular zone. This basic concept has been
put aside in many cases; which action has been upheld by the
courts in 'order to allow the cities to retain a greater measure
of control upon. the location and site plan of uses which Might .
normally be authorized in a zone, but only if such controls
.. can. be exercised. , '
i ' ' .
Such an approach• 'does give rise to several comolications, an
example of-.which;we are . confronted with in this case. It is . ,
really not,possible: t_o :go through the various zones and deter-
mine any basis and -rational nexus between the uses authorized
by conditional use -permits and the permitted uses forming the
purpose of the zone itself. � � ' ; . ; � ; " � .
- , � . ,
s , , . . _. . ' > ' ° .
Therefore; alttiougti�,this office cloes not concur in the reasoning
for the recommendations made by the Planning Department, I can
see no legal objection for•not followina that course of action
, based• upon �the� fact that ,a cardroom may very well be an appro-
priate and compatible �use ^in several C=0 zones throughout the
City. In fact, with the exception of the C-N zone, which is a
unique zone, this office would have suggested authorizing card-
roor�s by conditional use permit in all commercial .zones. It
was specifically recommended by the City Attorney that card-
rooms be allowed', for example, in the C-V zone by conditional
use permit, which allows bo�aling alleys, miniature golf. courses,
billiard halls and skating rinks , but that approach was rejected,
which action indicates a �certain lack ' of precise logic in formu-
lating ttiose uses to be authorized by conditional use 'permi�t.
iherefore , I would request that the City Council consider either
the adoption of an interim ordinance rezoning the parcel located
� � � � � � �
, . . . .
The Honorable Mayor and City Council . .
January 6 , 1978 ' . .
Page Four , � . � ,
at 11 Third Avenue from C-O to C-C, or an interim ordinance
authorizing cardrooms pursuant to a conditional use permit in
the C-O zone. .The legal basis for the adoption of an inte'rim
measure requring 4/5 ' s vote is sustainable based upon the
intent' of the Planning Department to consicler a review and
appropriate amendment of the zoning ordinance to provide, a
more rational basis for the utilization of conditional use
perr.iits �and in the interim, to allow for a use which all par- .
ties seem to agree is appropriate, but seemingly cannot be
accommodated under existing zoning regulations, The proposed .
ordinances are attached hereto £or Counci�l consideration.
GDL: lgk ' .
s
, ' } J _ - • L�. . . .
_ - ' .. . '�
. L , � ' . � `� . ` • ` - � ' : � • � "
' . 'r. . A ''ti , ' .
. � ' _t . .�. ' `r . . ' ' .
� 1 ��� -
January 6; 1978 .
To: City Council /
Via: Lane F. Cole, City Manager J� /
C�
from: D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Listing cardrooms as conditional uses in the C-0 zone
Several months ago Mr. Max Lercher approached the City Council under oral
communications with the request that he be allowed to establish a cardroom
in a portion of the building formerly occupied by the D.M.V. The building
is in the C-0 zone. Council referred the matter to staff.
There obviously are two ways to accomplish the objective--either by rezoning
the property from C-0 to C-C or C-T, or by amending the C-0 district regu-
lations to list cardrooms as conditional uses. As I evaluated the two
alternatives, I reached the conclusion that the latter course of action is
preferable in this case and on this location. I admit that on the face of
it, the alternative of rezoning the property seems more appropriate, but
upon closer examination the alternative of amending the C-0 district becomes
prefera6le. The rationale behind this conclusion is set forth .below.
1 . The area is designated on the General Plan as "Professional and
Administrative. " A rezoning to C-C or C-T would not be in conformance
with the General Plan.
2. The area is now devoted to office uses of various sorts--an escrow
office, a contractor's office, an insurance office, an optometrist
and a driving school , Clearly, a cardroom is compatible with uses
of this type,
3. The subject C-0 zone serves as a relatively low rent area which
affords an opportunity for a young attorney, or other small office
to begin a business. It's .important to have that kind of area in a
community. Rezoning the area to retail corrunercial would tend to
have the effect of raising the land values and rents, and undermine
the ability of the area to support a beginning business.
4. It is unlikely that we would have more than one application for a
conditional use permit for a cardroom in the C-0 zone for a long,
long time. Under the present ordinance the city can have only
four cardrooms until our population exceeds 100,000. One cardroom
exists on Broadway and the Planning Comnission has approved to-�o
others. Indeed, the Lercher application may be the only application
that is ever filed in the C-0 zone.
5. If a conditional use permit application for a cardroom is filed in
a C-0 zone where it is inappropriate, the application can readily
be denied.
Thus, while it may seem unusual to list cardrooms as conditional uses in the
C-0 zone, this is my recanmended course of action under the circumstances and
facts co nting us in this case.
���
D. J. eterson '
� �� Director of Planning