Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/06/22 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 22, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Consideration of proposed amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to allow accessory dwelling units by conditional use permit within single family residential zones 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-83-20, request to add two lighted softball fields at 4370 Sweetwater Road (Sweetwater Regional Pa~k) - County of San Diego, Parks and Recreation Department 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-83-E - Consideration of rezoning 9.3± acres located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East 'H' Street from P-C and R-1 to C-C-P - William Lee and City of Chula Vista 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-82-2 - Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games DIRECTOR'S REPORT CO~IMISS ION COMMENTS ADJOURN~ENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of July 13, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 1983 1. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Proposed amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to allow accessory dwelling units by conditional use permit within single family residential zones A. BACKGROUND 1. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 25, 1983, in order to provide the Commission with the opportunity to review the state legislation and selected accessory unit ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions. 2. Senate Bills 1160 and 1534, the San Diego County and City of Monterey ordinances, and ordinances from several other jurisdictions were mailed to each commissioner under separate cover. The results of a survey of how other jurisdictions within the San Diego region are responding to the accessory unit issue is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 3. The staff report of May 25th, containing additional background and staff's response to the Commission's earlier workshop recommendation that related family members also be allowed to occupy accessory units, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4. The full text of the report on accessory units is attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendments contained in Exhibit B of this report, and further recommend that the implementing ordinance contain a one-year sunset clause. (Exhibit C contains an alternate to the staff recommendation which would permit family members related by blood, marriage or adoption to occupy accessory dwelling units.) C. DISCUSSION The draft accessory unit amendments now before the Commission contain two changes from those considered at the previous meeting. 1. The proposed requirement that a deed restriction be recorded as a vehicle to notify subsequent property owners of the occupancy limitations on an accessory unit has been replaced by the requirement that the conditional use permit itself be recorded separately from the deed. This should resolve the concern that a deed restriction would cloud the title to the effected property. City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 2. It is now recommended that the ordinance which enacts the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendments contain a one-year sunset clause so that the provisions will lapse automatically rather than require formal repeal if experience shows that the many unknowns assocated with this new approach to housing, particularly in the area of enforcement, present insurmountable problems. WPC 0358P EXHIBIT A REPORT: DRAFT ACCESSORY UNIT ORDINANCE I. INTRODUCTION The proposed ordinance responds to an emerging approach to affordable housing development for elderly and handicapped and to recent legislation promoting that approach. The ordinance creates an opportunity for the construction on a limited basis of second dwelling units on single family properties within the R-1 zone. Such dwelling units would provide complete, independent living facilities (including kitchen and bathroom) on the same parcel as the primary single-family unit. The units could be second unit conversions within the confines of an existing home, additions to the primary dwelling, or completely detached units. The preservation of the essential character of single-family neighborhoods has been safeguarded with appropriate restrictions. It is anticipated that the result will be an increase in the supply of affordable rental housing for elderly and handicapped and the maintenance of the residential quality of Chula Vista neighborhoods. II. BACKGROU_N~ Two State Senate bills were passed in the 1981-82 Legislative Session which address the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family zones in order to expand the supply of affordable rental housing. Senate 8ill ll60, which is permissive legislation, was designed to encourage the development of accessory units for the elderly. It permits local governments to issue a variance or conditional use permit for a second unit in a single-family zone if the unit is intended for no more than two adults, 60-years of age or older, and the unit contains no more than 640 square feet of floor space. This legislation is suggestive of the Australian "Granny Flats Program" which allows small portable cottages on single-family properties to house elderly relatives of the main household family. Although SB ll60 is purposely less restrictive than this, the bill does not preclude local jurisdictions from applying further standards, such as the Australian program's requirement of familial relationship by second unit occupants. Senate Bill 1534, on the other hand, is mandatory legislation which is potentially less restrictive than SB ll60. This bill requires local governments to address the accessory unit issue in one of three ways. The first way is by the adoption of an ordinance to allow by right or by conditional use permit for the creation of accessory units in single-family and multi-family zones. This alternative allows broad local discretion to designate areas and develop criteria and standards deemed appropriate for second unit housing. The second way is by the adoption of an ordinance which totally precludes accessory units in single-family and multi-family zones. Since the use of this alternative is discouraged, the resulting ordinance is required to contain findings which acknowledge that such action may limit housing opportunities within the region, and which cite the specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare which would justify adopting such an ordinance. Thirdly, if a jurisdiction does not respond with one of the two ordinances noted above by July l, 1983, that jurisdiction would be required to grant a conditional use permit for an accessory unit in a single or multi-family zone on any application which complied with criteria spelled out in the bill. These criteria provide that the second unit must be contained primarily within, and require no more than a 10% expansion of, the living area of an existing single-family detached dwelling; that the unit not be intended for sale but may be rented; and that any construction comply with local zoning and building codes. At its discretion, a locality may also require that the applicant be an owner occupant. Therefore, under SB 1534, a community may elect to either regulate accessory units according to local criteria and standards or according to State-prescribed criteria, or it may elect to preclude them altogether. The proposed ordinance responds to the first option, taking advantage ~of the opportunity to apply local criteria and standards to the application of this legislation in the City of Chula Vista. III. IMPLICATIONS In addition to responding to the State legislation, the proposed ordinance offers the opportunity to partially implement the Action Program of the Housing Element by increasing the availability and affordability of elderly and handicapped housing in a manner consistent with the residential order and amenity of the City. The ordinance would also serve certain unique social needs of the elderly and the handicapped. ~o~u~!n~Av ~!1 abi 1 ~t_~L 1. The vacancy factor for rental units in Chula Vista is approximately 4.7 %, according to the 1980 census. Making single-family properties usable for accessory unit construction for elderly and handicapped tenants under the ordinance would increase the supply of needed rental stock. 2. If accessory units were developed under the ordinance by elderly or handicapped owners of under-utilized single-family homes for their own occupancy, those single-family homes could be made available on the rental market to families who would more fully utilize them. -2- 3. The elderly and the handicapped can also benefit from special design features which can be incorporated within an accessory unit, but which are not generally available in the housing market. ~ousing Af[~abili~t~ l. In addition to the downward influence on rental rates effected by an increased supply of rental units, these rental units could be rented for less because they could De built for less. The State Housing and Community Development Department estimates that the removal of land cost and infrastructure cost from the total development cost of accessory units saves between 25% to 40% over the cost of new construction on unimproved land. 2. The rental income generated by an accessory unit can allow homebuyers to qualify for mortgages under existing underwriting standards. That rental income can assist homeowners with declining incomes to maintain mortgage payments. 3. Accessory units created under the ordinance would be affordable units which do not require public subsidy. Accessory units would place elderly and handicapped renters in proximity to the occupants of the main dwelling. That proximity would reduce the sense of isolation and fear experienced by many elderly or handicapped living in multi-family rental properties or board-and-care homes. It would foster at the same time a sense of companionship and a feeling of some independence and can be especially beneficial for elderly or handicapped family members wishing to be somewhat independent of their families while remaining in the family's sphere of influence. IV. PROVISIO~ OF TUt DRAFT ORDINANC~ The following provisions of the draft ordinance offer what we believe to be a reasonaole opportunity for the creation of accessory dwelling units to meet a specific housing need, while at the same time, affording the maximum feasible degree of protection to the character and integrity of the single family zone. Please refer to Exhibit B for the full text of the ordinance. 1. Occupancy_restricted to t~_~and the ha_n~. Limiting occupancy to the elderly and the handicapped not only narrows the focus of the ordinance to a pressing housing need which can uniquely benefit from the accessory unit concept, but these groups would also tend to be more compatible and acceptable as second unit occupants within the single family zone. -3- 2. ~u~anc~_re§?icted tQ_9~_mg~Q_~g ~g~rsons. 3. ~nit n~ot_~g_excqed 640 9~Lu~e_f~Q~_~r ~ontain more th~_on~bedcqg~ 4. No a~Kess_E~9~_ U~.o~n~ 6~e~cel ~est l iv~ uarters~ These provisions are designed to limit the potential for overcrowding and to insure that an accessory unit remain clearly subordinate to the primary single family use of the parcel. The unit size and bedroom restrictions will reinforce the two person occupancy limitation, while the restriction on guest living quarters will avoid the possibility of creating three dwelling units on one parcel. 5. Acces~n~to com~l~ wi~ a~~Qd area regulations ~~j n~g~n e~ .......... 6. Basic si~e f~mil~a~ance and character o~ to be ~a_ i~ed~ .......... These provisions would require that parcels containing accessory units abide Dy the same lot coverage, setback and height restrictions which currently apply within the single family zone, and, further, would prohibit the existence of a second front entrance or other street-side modification which would signal the presence of a second unit or otherwise alter the single family appearance of the property. 7. ~o acceE~n~t ~el~_~onverte~ Although the draft ordinance would preserve current off-street parking space by prohibiting garage conversions, it would not require additional off-street parking for the accessory unit. The Planning and Co.unity Development staffs recognize the importance of parking, but believe that the requirement for the provision of additional off-street parking on urban-size, single family dwelling lots would foster the conversion of landscaped front yards to parking stalls and the resultant erosion of the order and amenity of, Chula Vista's residential neighborhoods. Notwithstanding the staff position, the Commission might want to weigh the parking issue against the amenity issue before it determines the desireability of requiring or not requiring additional parking for the dwelling units in question. Requiring owner-occupancy of one of the dwellings is designed to prevent an increase in speculation or a decline in property maintenance. -4- 9. Ac~es6~y un~ subject ~ ~.]ssu~n~e _~ a.~n~d_~on~l__Uu~_ p~rm!~ This procedure allows the City to evaluate and control the developmental aspects of each proposal individually, such as site layout, appearance, access and fire protection, and it requires findings of no adverse impact on neighboring properties based on such things as retention of privacy and adequacy of on-street parking. It also provides for notification and input from surrounding property owners, and requires that the matter be set for public hearing before the Planning Commission if objections or protests are received. lO. ~'t~a~p~p~Z~ andall su_bse_~99~_?p~9~per_~y owners thereafter sha!~_ a~noual]j~erti?~y~b~j~__a~f~i~av~t~tha~ the~hgy~ ar~ ~T~] con~=h~]~nd ~on~ent t~e~iodi~jns~tio~d This requirement provides a manner in which to enforce and monitor the occupancy restrictions for accessory units other than solely by complaint. The recordation requirement also provides a mechanism to notify subsequent property owners of the limitations on the use of the unit. WPC 0317X -5- EXHIBIT B Proposed Accessory (Second Kitchen) Dwelling Unit Amendments to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19 ZONING Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS 19.04.087 Dwelling unit~ accessory (second kitchen) "Accessory (second kitchen/ dwelling unit" means a secondary, but independent living facility which is located or established on the same lot as an existing dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit may be attached, and become a part of the main building on the premises, or detached as an accessory structure~ but shall not have a gross floor area in excess of 640 square feet) nor contain more than one bedroom; shall conform to the land use~ height) bulk~ and area regulations of the zone in which it is located or establishedl shall be occupied by a maximum of two adults) of which at least one person shall be a minimum of 60 years of age, or have a physical handicap~ as defined by the State Health and Safety Codel and) shall not be located or established on a lot with a converted garage) or on a lot which accommodates a guest house~ as defined in Section 19.04.106 of this chapter. The owner of the property must reside on the parcel on which the accessory unit is located or established~ and upon death or foreclosure~ owner-occupancy must be reestablished within a period of one year. Chapter 19.14 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CONDITIONAL USES AND VARIANCES 19.14.030 Zoning administrator--Action authorized without public hearing. The zoning administrator is authorized to consider and to approve, disapprove or modify applications on the following subjects, and/or issue the following required permits without setting the matter for a public hearing. 4. For accessory (second kitchenI dwelling units~ where the establishment thereof would not create a second front entrance or other street-side modification which would signal the presence of a second unit or otherwise alter the single family appearance of the propert~ where on-street parking space is adequate to serve the needs of second unit occupants without adversely affecting traffic flow and convenience within the neighborhood~ where the privacy and residential enjoyment of adjacent properties can be reasonably insured; and, where the applicant and all subsequent property owners annually thereafter will certify by affidavit that they are abiding by the provisions governing accessory units and agree to the City's reasonable inspection of the premises. The zoning administrator shall not authorize the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit or its occupancy prior to the applicant's submittal of evidence that the conditional use permit has been filed with the County Recorder and will become part of any title report upon sale of the property. Chapter 19.24 R-l--SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE 1g.24.040 Conditional uses. Site plan and architectural approval as provided in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480 shall De required for the following conditional uses in the R-1 zone: F. Accessory (second kitchen) dwelling units~ as defined in Section 19.04.087~ and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19.14.030 and 19.58.020 of this title. Chapter 19.22 R-E--RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE 19.22.040 Conditional uses. Site plan and architectural approval as provided in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480 shall be required for the following conditional uses in the R-E zone: E. Accessory (second kitchen) dwelling units~ as defined in Section 19.04.087~ and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19.14.030 and 19.58.020 of this title. CHAPTER 19.58 USES 19.58.020 Accessory buildings. E. A detached accessory (second kitchenl dwelling unit shall not be closer than ten feet to any structure existing or under construction on an adjacent lot. Proposed Addenda (DRAFT) WPC 0232P -2- EXHIBIT C: ALTERNATE DEFINITION Title 19 ZONING Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS 19.04.087 Dwelling unit~ accessory (second kitchen) "Accessory (second kitchen) dwelling unit" means a secondary, but independent living facilit~ which is located or established on the same lot as an existing dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit may be attached~ and become a part of the main building on the premises~ or detached as ~n accessory structure~ but shall not have a gross floor area in excess of 640 square feet~ nor contain more than one bedroom~ shall conform to the land use~ height~ bulk~ and area regulations of the zone in which it is located or establishedl shall be occupied by a maximum of two adults~ of which at least one person shall be a minimum of 60 years of age! or related to the owner-occupant by blood~ marriage or adoption~ or have a physical handicap~ as defined by the State Health and Safety Code: and~ shall not be located or established on a lot with a converted §arage~ or on a lot which accommodates a guest house~ as defined in Section 19.04.106 of this chapter. The owner of the property must reside on the parcel on which the accessory unit is located or established~ and upon death or foreclosur% owner-occupancy must be reestablished within a perioO of one year. WPC 0364P EXHIBIT D City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1983 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to allow accessory dwelling units by conditional use .permit within single family residential zones. A. BACKGROUND 1. Senate Bills 1160 and 1534 were enacted during the 1981-82 legislative session in order to encourage the creation of accessory (second kitchen) dwelling units in single family zones and thus expand the supply of affordable housing. Local governments are required to respond to the mandatory provisions of the legislation by July 1, 1983. 2. At their workshop session of March 16, 1983, the Planning Commission preliminarily reviewed the draft amendments and, by a 4-3 vote, recommended that the staff proposal to limit accessory unit occupancy to the elderly and the handicapped be expanded to include family members related by blood, marriage or adoption. 3. The Human Relations Commission, at their meeting of April 13, 1983, endorsed the draft amendments as proposed by staff. 4. The Commission on Aging, at their meeting of April 27, 1983, recommended that consideration be given to: individuals 55 years of age or older; widows/widowers under age 55; and, those with extraordinary financial circumstances. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendments contained in Exhibit B of this report. (Exhibit C contains an alternative to the staff recommendation which would permit family members related by blood, marriage or adoption to occupy accessory dwelling units). C. DISCUSSION 1. The attached report contains the Planning Department's evaluation of the .provisions of the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment to the zoning regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. These provisions were synthesized with the active participation of several of the City's departments. 2. It is staff's conclusion that the proposed amendments would be consistent with the requirements of State legislation, and would be compatible with the legislation's primary objective to foster affordable housing through the more-complete utilization of local single-family dwelling districts. This primary objective is consistent with the goals, objectives and action program of the Chula Vista Housing Element. 3. The following paragraphs discuss the Planning Commission's earlier recommendation that accessory unit occupancy include family members related by blood, marriage or adoption. The full text of the report on accessory units is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The option of allowing younger family members as well as the elderly and the handicapped to occupy an accessory unit was considered at length during the development of the ordinance, but was rejected by staff based upon the following reasons: a. Regardless of family relationship, younger people tend to generate more noise and traffic and create a greater demand for parking than do the elderly and the handicapped, and thus are more likely to represent a disruptive influence as accessory unit occupants. Furthermore, if an additional off-street parking space were required in order to partially address the problem of younger tenants, then either front yards would be paved over for parking, or the establishment of accessory units would be limited to those relatively few single family lots which can provide vehicular access to the rear yard. b. The real or anticipated negative impacts of younger tenants are likely to result in greater resistance to the program from neighboring property owners, whose initial and continued support, or at least lack of opposition, will be absolutely vital to the success of the ordinance. c. Perhaps most importantly, a recent court decision striking-down Chula Vista's distinction between families composed of related individuals and households composed of unrelated individuals would render the use of this distinction in the present case legally invalid, according to the City Attorney. Even if State law sanctioned a distinction between families and unrelated individuals, from the standpoint of practicality it would be impossible to determine family relationships without inspecting birth and/or marriage certificates. Although it is recognized that accessory units may have significant value in addressing the housing needs of a young married couple or a divorced mother and teenage child, for example, it has been our strong conviction that if an accessory unit ordinance cannot be constructed in a manner which protects to the maximum feasible extent the character and integrity of the single family zone, then the City should reject the concept altogether. As a result, we continue to recommend that accessory unit occupancy be limited to the elderly and the handicapped only. Should the Commission wish to reaffirm its earlier recommendation, however, ExhiDit C contaihs an alternate definition which includes family members related by blood, marriage or adoption. If this option is chosen, it is recommended that the requirement for an additional off-street parking space also be recommended for inclusion in the ordinance. The space could be allowed to be located on any portion of the lot, or could be restricted to the side and/or rear yard only. WPC 0331P EXHIBIT E: Survey of the Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions of jurisdictions within San Diego County, May 27, 1983 1. The cities of Carlsbad, E1 Cajon, Imperial Beach, Oceanside and Poway currently have the accessory dwelling unit issue under consideration but have not as yet developed a draft proposal. 2. The cities of Coronado and Del Mar presently sanction what is essentially a second primary dwelling on a double-size lot and intend to modify their ordinances only slightly, if at all,to respond to SB 1534. 3. The cities of National City and Vista have been directed by their City Councils to draft a local ordinance to prohibit second units altogether. 4. Of the remaining jurisdictions, only the County of San Diego has adopted an accessory dwelling unit ordinance. The basic provisions of the County ordinance, along with the draft provisions of the remaining jurisdictions, are compared in the following table. ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ Special Permit/Fee $175 $50 $200 $375 ** $385 $100 $2,050 Streetside Appearance Retained X X X X X X X Basic Development Standards X X X X X X X X Attached Only X X X Size [imitation/Sq. Ft. 640 640 10%* 640 700 640 640 10%* One Bedroom Only X X Additional Parking Space X X X X X X X Garage Conversions Prohibited X X X X X X X X Two Person Maximum X X X Elderly/Handicapped/Family E/H X E Owner Occupancy X X X X X X Affidavit X X X Public Facilities Fees Waived X X Other *** **** * Maximum 10% expansion of existing living area. ** Allowed by right if all conditions satisfactory to Zoning Administrator. Otherwise a fee of $375 for a ZA conditional use permit. *** Provisions suspended for one year if average residential vacancy rate exceeds five percent (calculated on April I of each year). **** Restricted to single-story in single-story neighborhoods. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-20; request to add two lighted softb~l~ fields at 4'370 Sweetwater Road /Sweetwater Regional ParkI - County of San Diego~ Parks and Recreation Department A. BACKGROUND 1. The County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department is proposing to add two lighted softball fields within the Sweetwater Regional Park located at 4370 Sweetwater Road in the R-E-D zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-27, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on June 6, 1983. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-27. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-83-20, to add two lighted softball fields and concession stand at 4370 Sweetwater Road (Sweetwater Regional Park) subject to the following conditions: a. An overall lighting plan for the softball fields, concession area, parking areas and the entrance shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to installation. The lighting shall be designed to minimize glare on nearby residential areas as well as providing adequate safety lighting at the Sweetwater Road entrance. b. The County's lease with the concessionaire shall include a provision requiring litter control. c. Any formal complaints received by the City resulting from the extended hours of operation shall cause the conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Director of Planning and reported to the Planning Commission for action. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-R-1 (County) Single family residences South A-D C.V. Municipal Golf Course East A-D Rohr Park West R-E-D Single family residences (Bonita Verde) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 4 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site is a 22.5 acre developed park located within the lO0-year flood plain of the Sweetwater River on the south side of Sweetwater Road immediately west of Rohr Park and north of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. A single entrance into the park is located approximately 90 feet east of the single family residential area (Bonita Verde) located immediately to the west. The park has a paid parking area with a holding capacity for 90 cars, picnic areas, horseshoe pits, volleyball area, and two unlighted softball fields (in the approximate center of the park). The park offices are located in a residential structure within a maintenance area located at the northeast corner of the park. The maintenance area has two separate entrances from Sweetwater Road. In the vicinity of the park, Sweetwater Road has two traffic lanes (paved) but no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. The road is near the same level of the park at the west end, rising to approximately lO feet higher than the park level at the east end. While there are no immediate plans, Sweetwater Road is scheduled to be widened and realigned sometime in the future. 3. Proposed use. The County proposes to construct two additional ball fields which will be lighted for nighttime use until lO:O0 p.m. The new ball fields will be located on the easterly portion of the park. The existing parking area will be redesigned to add 37 additional parking spaces and a driveway extended to a new parking area containing 45 spaces, thus a total of 82 new spaces will be added. A concession stand in the vicinity of the new fields is also proposed, however, its location and construction has not yet been determined. The concession stand may be privately operated. The County intends to lease the field maintenance and operation to a private firm. A new 6' high chain link fence will be constructed east of the fields to provide a physical separation between the County and adjacent City park. 4. City Parks and Recreation. The City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department is not opposed to the proposed change, but does have some concerns which are reflected in the attached memo. Two of the areas of concern relating to the lighting, and the control of litter can be addressed by the attachment of conditions pertaining to those issues. The remaining concerns, regarding metered parking and removal of play areas, is discussed in the Analysis section. 5. Objections. A number of letters from the adjacent residents have been received opposing the proposed change citing increase in traffic, noise, litter, the glare of lights, loss of the rural character of the area, and parking problems as reasons for disapproving the request. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 5 D. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed expansion of ball fields from two to four fields and the increase in parking from 90 to 172 spaces will contribute some additional noise, litter, and traffic to the park since the expansion will add to the activity areas and increase parking capacity. On the other hand, the proposed expansion will meet the County's objective to: a. increase revenue to pay for park maintenance; b. provide more fields for softball use; c. increase the hours of use of the park. 2. The proposal to light the two easterly fields and extend hours of operation until lO:O0 p.m. presents additional issues to be addressed. The lighted fields may impact the nearby residential areas since the County areas of Bonita are essentially devoid of street lights. However, the relatively remote location of the fields (500' from any residence to the north and 800' from any residence to the west) should minimize any lighting impact. Providing additional lighting at the entrance becomes an important safety feature due to the extended nighttime hours. The County park now closes at 8:00 p.m. The proposed extension to lO:O0 p.m. will extend activities near the east end of the park for two hours. The adjacent City park closes at dusk (which is approximately 8:00 p.m. in the summer). Extending activities for two additional hours involving two lighted softball fields should not be detrimental to adjacent areas due to the physical separation of the fields from the residential developments in Bonita. 3. The City's Park and Recreation Director noted concern over the County's policy of charging for parking on weekends at this park. Conflicts between the County charging for parking while the City allows free parking is not likely to be totally resolved unless the City chooses to charge for parking at the adjoining City park (an issue which was previously rejected by the Chula Vista City Council). The installation of a 6' high fence separating the two parks with a single pedestrian gate will tend to discourage parking in the City parking lot while using the County park. The County has horseshoe pits located near Sweetwater Road which would be isolated by the new road serving the easterly parking area. In addition, part of the grass area is now utilized for volleyball games. However, both activities can easily be relocated and accommodated within the 22-acre park. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 6 E. CONCLUSION Lighting two ballfields and extending park hours to 10:00 p.m. will cause an increase in traffic, noise, and lighting in this area of Bonita. Those increased impacts and activities can be controlled and conditioned to within acceptable standards, thus providing an expanded service to Bonita. Nearby lighted tennis courts located approximately 1/4 mile to the east have existed adjacent to residential housing for a number of years without any apparent adverse impacts. These fields can also successfully coexist in the area. F. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. There are no lighted ball fields in the Bonita area. This approval will provide that service to the Bonita community and better distribution of facilities on a citjavide basis. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The closest residences are over 500 feet away from the lighted ball fields. The increase in traffic, noise and the impact and lights are within adopted standards of acceptance. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use will be located within an established park. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. WPC 0360P/OO15Z MI:' , ~ '0 .y.. ? 4 negative -Jeclaration--- PROJECT NAME: Sweetwater Regional Park (Baseball Fields) PROJECT LOCATION: 4370 Sweetwater Road, Bonita PROJECT APPLICANT: County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department CASE NO: IS-83-27 DATE: June 8, 1983 A. Project Settin9 The project site is located on the south side of Sweetwater Road between Rohr Park and the Bonita Verde Subdivision. The Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course is to the south of the site and single family dwellings are located across Sweetwater Road to the north. The existing land uses conform to the zoning and General Plan designations on the project site and in the vicinity. The property is currently developed with two baseball fields, restroom and maintenance buildings, play areas, a picnic area, and off-street parking. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the relocation of the two existing baseball fields and the construction of two new lighted fields. Accessory uses will include a concession facility of about 1600 square feet and an expanded parking facility providing a total of about 172 parking spaces. Some additional fencing would also be necessary. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The proposed project conforms to the parks and public open space designation of the General Plan and is an unclassified use in the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. The project is within the Sweetwater River Flood Plain and therefore is an area known for alluvial soil deposits. These soils have a highly compressible characteristic. This factor will not affect the construction of ballfields or the proposed parking facility. The concession structure, depending on design, could be affected and will require the preparation of a soils report prior to the issuance of a building permit. Under these circumstances, standard development regulations are adequate to avoid any significant impact due to adverse soil conditions. city of chula vista planning department ~ environmental review section 2. Also because the project site is within the Sweetwater River Flood Plain, groundwater is present. Soil tests taken in the vicinity of the project durin§ a dry season have shown the water table to be several feet below the lowest elevation on this site. During a wet season, it can be anticipated that the water table would be at a much higher level. Because of the nature of the project and the developed character of much of the surrounding area, there will be no substantial and adverse impact on groundwater quality due to the development of the proposed project. 3. Because of the presence of alluvial soils with a relatively high §roundwater, there is a potential for the liquefaction process to take place. Because of the lack of any substantial above ground structures which could be impacted by liquefaction, there will not be any substantial and adverse impact. The only structure which could possibly be impacted is the concession facility which is not substantial in nature, will require the preparation of a soils report, and is located at a point of higher elevation than most of the site. 4. Again, because the project is located within the Sweetwater River area, it is within the boundary of the lO0-year flood plain. The nature of the project involving the minimal construction of facilities above ground level will result in no significant impact either on the elevation of flood waters or, in most instances, flood waters will not substantially impact the proposed project. The concession facility, again depending on its desi§n, will require either special floodproofin§ or its elevation to 1 foot above the lO0-year flood level. 5. The increased activity at the park site which will result from the increase in ballfields from two to four and the extension of hours of operation w~th the installation of lighted fields, will result in an increase in the potential for nuisance-type noises in and around the facility. Whether or not the increase in intensity of land use should be permitted and, if so, during what hours is primarily a land use issue which is best addressed during consideration of the conditional use permit for the project. There are no other elements of the project which could result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels and, therefore, the project will not result in any significant impact on the environment. 6. The project includes the installation of two lighted ballfields. These fields are located near the southeastern portion of the property approximately 800 feet from the nearest residences to the west and 600 feet to the nearest residence across Sweetwater Road on the north. The plan as submitted indicates that the lights would be oriented away from the north towards the ballfields and the Municipal Golf Course to the south. Chapter 19.66 (Performance Standards) controls the amount of glare which shall be permitted from any source. Initial and continual compliance with these standards will avoid any significant glare being cast on any residential uses in the vicinity or on motorists on Sweetwater Road. These design features and standard development regulations will assure that there will be no significant impact on the environment due to glare from the lighted ballfields. 7. The proposed project is anticipated to generate between 40 and 320 automobile trips per day depending on the type of activities taking place at the facility. The current average daily traffic on Sweetwater Road is between 6,000 and 7,000 trips per day. The City's Traffic Engineer anticipates no significant impact due to the increase in traffic on Sweetwater Road. Due to the intensity of use of the existing facilities, there is an existing parking problem during peak usage hours. The provision of two additional lighted ballfields will exacerbate this problem. This issue is primarily a land use issue. It should be evaluated during the conditional use permit process. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects All significant impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through standard development regulations. These regulations are, but not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Soils Report. 2. Conformance with the City's Municipal Code regarding performance standards. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site does not involve any rare or endangered plant or animal species which could be adversely affected by implementation of the project as proposed. The nearest geologic hazard is the potentially active La Nacion Fault zone which is to the west of the project site. Potentially adverse effects regarding the flood plain and associated groundwater alluvial soils and the potential for the liquefaction process can be mitigated and any significant impact avoided through standard development regulations. 2. The project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan which designates the property as parks and public open space. 3. There are no anticipated projects within the vicinity of this proposal which could cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. The overall development of the Sweetwater Regional Park was addressed in an environmental impact report on that overall project and any cumulative impact of each phase of the implementation of that project were addressed in that EIR. 4. The proposed project will result in an increase in the ambient noise level along with the potential for a new source of light or glare. The potential for light and glare from the proposed facility can be controlled through the ongoing conformance with the requirements of the Performance Standards Section of the Municipal Code. The increase in noise levels due to the increased activities on the project site can be controlled through the conditional use permit process. G. Consultation 1. Individuals, City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Ken Lee, Principal Planner Applicant's Representative Don Davis, Park Planner 2. Documents County-prepared Negative Declaration, Sweetwater Regional Park, Log Number 75-18-87 (the 22 acre "province property") IS-79-10 Extended Parking, Rohr Park The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRO~ REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 0367P EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) city of Chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) 4312 Grace Road Bonita, rA 92002 June 12, 1983 Ruth '~. Smith, Secretary rhula Vista Planning Commission Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear !s. ~]mith: I am opposed to the plan of adding two softball fields, 82 parking spaces, and aconcession stand at Sweetwater Park. The parks aa'e already potential trouble spots. In I980 Rohr Park was the scene of a small riot during which cars were d~maged with baseball bats. For the rest of the summer the police were forced to give extended coverage to prevent further disturbances. ~!any of the people at both Sweetwater and Eohr Parks drink beer or liquor the entire tine they are there. Extending the hours to 10:00 p.m. all year long would encourage even more drinking and would increase the likelihood Of drivinE under the influence. I ~m totally opposed to any on-site sale of liquor-- if this is being even remotely considered. mere have been numerous traffic accidents on Sweetwater Road because of the high speed limit, the heavy traffic, ~ud the side roads and entgances with poor visibility. Adding more parking spaces could necessitate a traffic li~%t. It is an irritation to nearby residents to have the sky lit late at night and to hear the loud noises comin~ from the parks. One of the nicest things about this pa~'t of ~hula ~ista and near~ Bonita is the r,~ral atmosphere. '~e proposed development would detract from the peaceful quality that should be preserved. There is other land f,~rther down the river basin near to industry that could be used for the proposed changes. Whatever income this plan might generate, I believe it would be offset by increased costs of policing, expenses for traffic control, public drunkenness, and noise and light pollution. Sincerely yours, ~ ~ C ~ ~ V ~ D .'? : . 4359 Grace Road Bonita, Calif 92002 ..... ~,:- ' June 3 , 1983 Environmental Review Coordinator PO Box 1087 Chula Vista, Calif 92012 Dear Sir: Re: Initial Study lighted softball fields, etc at 4370 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, Ca by County of San Diego Parks & Recmeation Dept. This project will have significant effect on the environment; noise polution, light polution, traffic and parking problems. The noise of softball games continuing late at night will destroy the quiet of a semi-rural neighborhood. The glare of the lighting will similiarily alter this semi-rural neighborhood and in addition can present a traffic hazard by blinding motorists as did a previous lighting situation until it was finally corrected after many months. The traffic and parking situation on Sweetwater Road is already past the saturation point as is readily evident on any holiday weekend. There have been many numerous incidents of flagrant parking and traffic abuses with the present situation. The lighted soft- ball fields etc will greatly aggravate this. This proposed lighted softball field would be unlik~ ely to be cleared and quiet before midnight and the near by residents unable to get to sleep before then. Although the park opening is currentlv posted 9AMinoise and activity (softball games) start at 6:45 to 7:00AM. Si~cer&ly ~r' John W Mattick June 2:1983 Douglas D, Reid Enviro~mmentsl Review.: Coo~'din~ator P,O, Eox Chula Vista~ CA 92Di2 De~r :ir. 2.eid~ ~.~y H~e is Jim Taft, ~y f~i!y end I live st ~20! S~..~eetwater Rd, directly ~-cross the street fro~ Perk, We ~3ould li~e to state our ohiectious to the pro- posed relocation aF~d ed~itio~ of softbs~l!~ fields: sud co~cession f~cilities st t~e S%~eet~..~ster Perk, Sweet~eter Psr~ is v'rese:~t!~ ~eing used ~ the general o%:blic for racre~'tiou[1 purposes, Thi~ proposed project would restrict the ~sc of the path by tl~e vast "ajorit,~ of the genei'at public, It uould in effect turn the '~srk over to ~ s-eci~! i~terest group, The ucrk is not urese~tlv able to ~cco;]odete t[~e .':~anM peoole w'~.o t-;ant to use it~ "nd such e v~oject t.~ould not be in th.e best interest of the gener~ oublic or the~ live ~n the ~o_~t,~, 'rsl!ey. In addition the lishts~ the noise: the trsffic~ end the litter f~'o~:~ coucessJons would devalue property~ s:nd destro~ the cL ~'~cte~ end ~t~rs! D_ct~lre of s v~ry unique~ end beautiful Valley. Sincerely~ Jim T~ft c,c, Chul~ Yists Star ~e~s RECEIVED (3 1983 PLANNING DFPAR'I'{,;ERi CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 7 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of rezonin9 approximatels 9.3 acres )ocated at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street from P-C and R-1 to CoC-p - William Lee and Cit~ of Chula Vista A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves the rezoning of approximately 9.3 acres located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street from P-C (Planned Community) and R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning to C-C-P (Central Commercial with the Precise Planned Modifying District attached). 2. A zone change application submitted by William Lee requested the rezoning of 8.5 acres of P-C zoned property to CoC-P. In order to establish a logical zone boundary, the City included two adjacent R-1 zoned parcels totalling approximately 0.8 acres owned by Southwestern College. One parcel is located along the north side of East "H" Street and the other is located at the northwest corner of the two streets. 3. The Initial Study, IS-83-25, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on June 10, 1983. The ERC concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83o25. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D,' of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance approving the rezoning of 9.3+ acres located at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street-from P-C and R-1 to C-C-P (PCZ-83-E) subject to the following precise plan development standards: a. The owner of the 8.5 acre parcel (APN 594-130-39) shall grant access (ingress and egress) to the corner triangular parcel (APN 594-130-25) in a location and width approved by the City Planning Director. b. The corner triangular parcel (APN 594-130-25) shall not be developed for commercial purposes unless development plans have been approved by the City Planning Director and the appropriate Design Review Board. In addition, joint access agreements between this parcel and the adjacent Agenda Items for Meeti~ }f June 22, 1983 Page 8 shopping center or other acceptable access and land use development plans must be secured to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Director prior to any commmercial development of the property. Such agreement shall include a provision giving access to "H" Street for the adjacent commercial shopping center. c. The "sliver" parcel (APN 642-020-27) located parallel to "H" Street shall not be considered developable unless combined or included with additional property deemed to be sufficient in size by the Planning Director to qualify for commercial development. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use North CoC-P Vacant (proposed shopping center) South R-1 Southwestern College East R-1 Bonita Vista High School West P-C Vacant (designated for open space and medium density residential) 2. Existing site characteristics a. The boundaries of the proposed rezoning area encompasses three vacant parcels totaling approximately 9.3 acres. The largest parcel (8.5 acres) is owned by the applicant and has approximately 560 feet of frontage along the west side of Otay Lakes Road, but no frontage along East "H" Street. The lack of frontage on "H" Street is due to a 0.53 acre triangular sliver of excess right-of-way property owned by Southwestern College. This narrow "sliver" has a depth of approximately 77 feet at the west end, narrowing down to less than a foot at the east end across the 660+ feet of frontage. The third parcel also owned by Southwestern College, is a 15,000+ sq. ft. corner lot located at the northwest intersection of Otay Lakes Road- and "H" Street. b. The properties, which have been previously graded, are located at the upper end (east) of the Rice Canyon drainage basin and slope toward the southwest. Aside from native vegetation, there is a small grove of eucalyptus trees on the triangular parcel. c. The street improvements (including street trees) have been installed along the East "H" Street frontage but not along Otay Lakes Road. East "H" Street also has a landscaped center median in front of the properties. A separate right turn lane has been provided from Otay Lakes Road onto East "H" Street. 3. General Plan The Southwestern College properties are designated for Retail Commercial on the General Plan, whereas, the other parcel is governed by the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and is designated for commercial use. (Note: The E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan is referenced by the General Plan and, therefore, has the same stature.) Both streets are designated "Scenic Routes." Agenda Items for Meeti of June 22, 1983 Page 9 4. Proposed development a. The applicant has submitted a precise plan for the development of a 95,455 retail shopping center on 10.6 acres. The center will be constructed on three lots extending from Ridgeback Road to East "H" Street. The two northerly lots (0.34 and 1.76 acres = 2.10 acres total) are zoned C-C-P and require approval of a precise plan. The Design Review Committee will consider the precise plan on July 7, 1983. The two parcels owned by Southwestern College are not included in the plan. During the last two years, the applicant has indicated an interest in acquiring the school property and Southwestern College has indicated a desire to sell or lease the properties. However, to date, the two parties have not been able to reach an acceptable agreement. From a development standpoint, it is better to coordinate and develop all of the properties together. 5. Traffic and circulation Future traffic volumes on both streets are anticipated to be relatively high, with East "H" Street projected at 27,000 vehicles per day and Otay Lakes Road at 17,000 trips per day. While left-hand turns are permitted at various points along Otay Lakes Road, a raised median is proposed for future construction, thus limiting the ability for such turns. Proposed openings in the median will provide for left-hand turns into the proposed shopping center at a point approximately midway between Ridgeback Road and East "H" Street, and at Bonita Vista High School near the "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road intersection. No left turn lane exists or is proposed into the commercial area for eastbound traffic on East "H" Street. D. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed rezoning to Central Commercial (C-C) is consistent with the adopted General Plan and the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan, therefore, it is appropriate to recommend approval of the request. The Scenic Highway Element also requires the attachment of the Precise Plan Modifying District to those properties abutting a scenic route. 2. Another reason for attaching the "P" district is to achieve coordination in access and circulation due to the different ownerships. Even though there is a desire to purchase and sell property resulting in a single ownership, there is a possibility that such will not occur and steps should be taken to avoid any potential traffic conflicts in the future. 3. The triangular corner parcel presently has access to both streets. However, property is encumbered by a continuous right turn lane located immediately adjacent to the easterly property line, thus access onto both Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street would likely create a traffic hazard. Therefore, it is recommended that any development of this property for commercial purposes be conditioned upon a joint access requirement with the adjacent shopping center. Agenda Items for Meetir f June 22, 1983 Page 10 4. Access to East "H" Street for the larger shopping center becomes advantageous to relieve some of the anticipated traffic congestion which will occur on Otay Lakes Road. Ingress and egress to "H" Street would be limited to right turn movements due to the landscaped median located in "H" Street. Projected traffic volumes for "H" Street would not allow for a future break in the median at the proposed driveway location. The developer of the shopping center cannot gain access to "H" Street unless he's successful in negotiating a sales or lease with the college. The "sliver" of land owned by the college along East "H" Street is not developable unless combined with adjacent property to the north. If the shopping center developer is unable to obtain the "sliver," it will likely remain vacant and unimproved. The City Attorney has indicated that the development of the triangular parcel at the corner cannot be tied to the development of the "sliver" or vice-versa. Hopefully, the acquisition of the "sliver" by the applicant will occur. However, it may become necessary for the City to intervene and use its power of eminent domain to condemn. Such action would become necessary if the access is determined, through traffic analysis, to be vital and necessary to provide proper traffic circulation for the area. E. FINDINGS The "P" modifying district may be applied to areas within the City when the following is evident: The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is located, is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access, configuration, traffic circulation, or some social or historic situation requiring special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. The subject properties are located on a designated scenic route requiring the attachment of the "P" district. The area to which the P modifying district is applied consists of two or more properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, on-site circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare. The project area consists of more than one owner and because of the traffic and circulation on the adjoining streets, it is necessary to establish an access easement to avoid potential traffic hazards to alleviate traffic congestion. The attachment of the "P" zone is consistent with the existing commercial zones located directly north of the subject property. WPC 0372P OFF/ Ct~$ BONITA ~'IS TA HIGH SCHOOL. ~ProRosed Bonita II~f F V,4 C V.4C VA¢ ~ ~ (Southwestern SOUTHI4~ST~RN C(~-~ negative Jeclaration--- PROJECT NAME: Bonita Pointe Shopping Center PROJECT LOCATION: The northwest quadrant of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: William Lee CASE NO: IS-83-25 (DPO24/FAO16) DATE: June 10, 1983 A. Project Settin9 The project site is on the western side of Otay Lakes Road between East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road. There are two parcels of land in this quadrant that are not part of the project and are under the ownership of Southwestern College. They are a triangular piece of property immediately at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street and an elongated triangular shaped parcel running along the project's frontage on East "H" Street (see attached locator map). The project site has been previously graded. Most of the grading occurred about ten years ago when Units 1 and 2 of E1 Rancho Del Rey were graded and East "H" Street was extended to serve those developments. This grading, which was performed prior to the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to private projects, removed any natural vegetation on the site along with associated animal species and any archeological resources. Adjacent land uses include: Bonita Vista High School to the northeast across Otay Lake Road, Southwestern College to the south across East "H" Street, a condominium project which fronts on Ridgeback Road to the west of the project, and Rice Canyon immediately to the west. Another condominium project has been approved to the west of the project site north of East "H" Street. There are no geological hazards in the project area and a soils report prepared for the original grading of the property (Woodward-Gizienski and Associates, 1971) indicates that there are no significant soil problems associated with the project site. B. Project Description The project consists of a community-sized shopping center with approximately 98,000 square feet of retail shopping center along with 489 parking spaces and associated landscaping. Although specific land uses have not been established at this point, the major tenant will be a grocery store with other possible uses including fast-food establishments and financial institutions. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section - 2 - The public improvements associated with the project will include the widening of Otay Lakes Road to provide four travel lanes along with a landscaped median in the right-of-way along Otay Lakes Road. The only vehicular access to the property will be on Otay Lakes Road with the primary access point at a break in the proposed median approximately half the distance between Ridgeback Road and East "H" Street. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The proposed project conforms to the land use designations on the General Plan and the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. The proposed zone change from R-1 to CCP will bring the subject parcels of land into a state of conformity with the General Plan. The proposed rezoning from PC to CCP is an administrative consideration to expedite processing of land use and development plans, this proposed change does not change any permitted uses or development standards for the property. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Aesthetics Both Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are designated as scenic routes in the Scenic Highways Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan, a grading plan, and architectural elevations to be reviewed by staff and the Design Review Committee to assure conformity with this element of the General Plan. 2. Traffic The Engineering Department estimates that the project will generate about 12,000 trips per day. All of these trips will utilize Otay Lakes Road for access to the development. Otay Lakes Road currently has a traffic count of 15,280 two-way average daily trips and a level of service "B". With the extension of East "H" Street, it is estimated that about 6,000 trips will shift from Otay Lakes Road to East "H" Street. Considering that shift along with approximately 12,000 additional trips from the project, Otay Lakes Road will have an average daily traffic of about 21,000 and level of service "C". This an acceptable level of service for this urbanizing area. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site has been previously graded and therefore, has limited vegetation or wildlife significance. There are no rare and endangered species present. Because of this previous grading, there are no archeologicat sites present on this property. There are no geological hazards present on or near the subject property and the on-site soils are suitable for the proposed project. - 3 - 2. The project conforms to the land use and circulation elements of the General Plan. The applicant has also submitted the necessary documents to assure conformance with the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan. The project is not anticipated to achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of these long-term environmental goals. 3. Considering the extension of East "H" Street and the proposed street improvements which are part of the project, no significant impact on the capacity of Otay Lakes Road or its intersections with East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road is anticipated. 4. The project will not create any source of significant noise, air contaminants, or other emissions which could adversely impact human beings. The location of community shopping facilities in this vicinity could result in an overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled for shopping purposes and therefore, it could result in an overall reduction in air pollutants. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Ken Lee, Prinicipal Planner Steven Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Dan Waid, Assistant Civil Engineer Don Dackins, Assistant Civil Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Inspector Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Applicant's Architect L. Owen Chrisman Architect and Associates Roger Leonard, Project Manager 2. Documents EA-73-15 IS-74-4 IS-74-29 IS-74-36 IS-75-57 IS-78-15 IS-78-44 IS-78-82 IS-79-14 IS-80-11 IS-81-27 EIR-75-5 EIR-78-2 - 4 - 2. Documents (cont'd) Soil Investigation for the Proposed E1 Rancho Del Rey Unit No 1. (Woodward-Gizienski and Associates, 1971) Geological Investigation La Nacion Fault System E1 Rancho Del Rey Development (Woodward-Gizienski and Associates, 1972) Soil Investigation for the Proposed Gersten Office Building, Otay Lakes Road (Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1978) Soil and Geologic Investigation for Bonita Crest (Geocon, Inc., 1981) Archeological Reconnaissance Gersten Office Building Site, (Archeological Systems Management, Inc., 1978) Biological Survey Gersten Office Project, (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1978) The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. £NVlRi~N~TALR£VIEW COORDINATOR WPC 0370P city of chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) Southwestern College ~ ~: c E I V E D June l, ]983 Bouglas O. Reid ....... ' .... Environmental Review Coordinator CI=UL P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, California 92012 Project Description: Construction of a 95,455 sq. ft. retail shopping center with 489 parking spaces Project Location: Northwest quadrant of Otay Lakes Road & East "H" Street At the request of the Chula Vista City Planning Department, the Southwestern College administration and governing board have been working with independent land appraisal experts and Steve Avoyer of Caldwell Bankers, as liaison with William Lee, to come up to fair and reasonable terms for long range lease or sale of our two parcels of land adjacent to the described development. We believe our two parcels are needed for best land use: l) the corner (Parcel B) for integrated development rather than an isolated, small, undeveloped piece of land; and 2) the sliver (Parcel C) for the same reason, as well as the compelling reason that this land is essential to allow ingress and egress to "H" Street from the Center. We understand that Mr. Lee's reasons for not wishing to purchase or lease the land are financial; however, we believe there are compelling reasons for the land to be part of the entire development and request this plan not be accepted. Our concern as a public agency is for the safety and convenience of students and the shopping center customers. As the plan now exists, any traffic from "H" Street entering the Center will have to turn left on Otay Lakes Road and again turn left crossing on-coming traffic into the Center. The development is immediately adjacent to a small elementary school, a large high school and our community college. It is within less than a quarter mile of a large junior high school. Traffic is very heavy on Otay Lakes Road and will be heavier once "H" Street has been completed. If all traffic for the Center must be fFom Otay Lakes Road, we anticipate a very congested and hazardous condition. Ingress and egress from "H" Street is necessary for smooth traffic flow. 900 Otay Lakes Road · Chuia Vista, California 92010 · (619) 421-6700 · Southwestern Community College District Environmental Review Coordinator Page 2 In summary, we ask that the Environmental Protection Committee deny the present plan that does not provide for best planned use, and request a plan that utilizes both parcels now belonging to Southwestern College. We will continue to work with the City of Chula Vista and developer, William Lee, to come to a reasonable sale or lease of this land. If you need further information, please call me at 421-6700, extension 201, or Mr. John Wilson, Director of Business and Operations, 421-6700, extension 226. Sincerely, Superintendent/President cc: Chula Vista City Council Sweetwater Union High School District WII,,LIAM B. PADELFORD June 2, 1983 Mr. Douglas O. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, California 92012 Project Description: Construction of a 95,455 sq. ft. retail shopping center with 489 parking spaces Project Location: Northwest q~adrant of Otay Laeks Road and East "H" Street Dear ~'~. Reid: We received notification that your office is conducting an initial study to determine if the identified project will have a significant impact on the environment. In the past the Board of Trustees of the Sweetwater Union High School District has indicated to the City of Chula Vista their concern about potentially hazardous traffic on Otay Lakes Road in the vicinity of Bonita Vista High School and Bonita Vista Jr. High School. Since the only access to the proposed center is from Otay Lakes Road opposite Bonita Vista High School, we believe that a congested and hazardous traffic condition could be created for the students, staff, and parents of Bonita Vista High School. The board is not prepared at this time to reach a conclusion or to make recomendations to the plarming department relative to this potential problem. However, we request that the city study the possible impact which the proposed center might create in the vicinity of Bonita Vista High School prior to granting approval for the project. Sincerely, W~lha~ B. Padelford ,/ -.v. ............................................ District S~erintende~t cc: Board of ?rustees Y"~ . , ' City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 11 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 82-2 - Consideration of various amendments to the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games A. BACKGROUND 1. The Code presently lists amusement parks and centers as unclassified uses requiring a conditional use permit. There is no definition or provision for amusement games (e.g. video, pinball, etc.) as accessory uses. Therefore, the City could require a C.U.P. to be filed for the installation of even one game machine. However, the City has been allowing up to three 9ames to be considered accessory to the primary use of the property. 2. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to establish a clear definition of amusement games as accessory uses and to establish standards for amusement centers. 3. An Initial Study, IS-83-23, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator, who on May 26, 1983, concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-23. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relating to amusement facilities and games as shown on attached Exhibits "A" and "B" (PCA-82-2). ¢. DISCUSSION 1. Amusement facilities There are a variety of amusement facilities ranging from a large amusement park such as Disneyland to a small arcade or center. Some facilities such as bowlin§ alleys, pool rooms and billiard parlors are so distinctive and unique they have been specifically addressed in the Code. The most recent amusement facility to emerge is the video game center. Because of their unique characteristics, it is felt that standards should be developed governing their operation to ensure their compatibility with other land uses and to minimize potential adverse impacts. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 22, 1983 Page 12 2. Need to define Since the Code does not define the various amusement facilities, it becomes necessary to do so in order to specifically establish standards relating to video game centers and similar uses. The same rationale holds true with respect to defining what constitutes an accessory amusement use. 3. Proposed amendments The proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: a. Definitions - Defines amusement facilities, amusement parks, amusement centers and accessory uses. A limitation of three machines is proposed for accessory uses as well as the amount of floor space which may be devoted to the machines. b. Uses - Establishes standards for amusement centers relating to setbacks, adult supervision, bicycle racks, hours for school children during normal school hours, as well as locational criteria. The standards proposed are essentially in keeping with those established for recently approved game centers. 4. Compliance with the proposed regulations Because there is no clear definition for accessory amusement uses, there are a number of establishments which have more than three machines. Each machine must be licensed on a quarterly basis. Even so, there are some establishments which have unlicensed games which becomes an enforcement issue. If the proposed amendments are enacted, it should be possible to achieve compliance relatively quickly at least for those establishments which have licensed machines. Identifying and licensing illegal machines will require more enforcement and awareness of the new regulations by the business community. This awareness can be accomplished by sending a letter to each business at the time their business license is up for renewal. D. CONCLUSION With proper standards and regulations, amusement centers can be good neighbors in certain commercial and industrial zones. Defining what constitutes an accessory use will eliminate the present uncertainty and confusion regarding the number of games allowed as accessory uses. WPC 0330P EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS Add new section 19.04.013 to read as follows: Section 19.04.013 Amusement facilities "Amusement facility" means a place of amusement or entertainment wherein are found games, rides (animal or mechanical), coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball), shooting galleries, movies or entertainment machines and other games of skill or chance offered to the public. This definition does not include vending, photocopying laminating and photo machines. A. "Amusement arcade or center" means a facility wherein are found games, coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball machines) of skill, chance or entertainment offered to the public. B. "Amusement park" means an amusement facility encompassing several acres of land and may include other commercial activities such as restaurants, retail stores and services. C. "Amusement games or machines as accessory uses" means not more than three coin or token operated machines, rides or devices (e.g. video, pinball, mechanized rides and other electronic games) within any commercial retail or service establishment and provided they do not constitute more than five percent (5%) of the floor area of the establishment. EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 19.58 USES Delete Section 19.58.040 "Amusement center, bowling alley, dance, etc." and replace with the following: Section 19.58.040 Amusement and entertainment facilities Amusement and entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, dance halls, amusement parks and other similar recreational facilities shall be subject to the following development standards: 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet (20') from any residential zone; 2. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimuze traffic congestion and hazards; 3. AdeQuate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from any indoor or outdoor activity onto adjacent properties; or uses; 4. Amusement arcades or centers shall also be subject to the following: a. Any establishment within 1000 feet of a school (public or private) shall prohibit game play by minors during normal school hours; b. There shall be adult supervision at all times; c. A bicycle rack for at least ten bicycles shall be provided at or near the main entrance into the establishment; d. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises, except in those instances where a restaurant in conjunction with said use has been approved through the conditional use permit process; e. At least one public restroom shall be provided on the premises. The Planning Commission has the right to impose additional standards or waive any of the above standards on the finding that said standard/s are or are not necessary to protect the health safety and general welfare of the surrounding properties and/or uses. WPC 0328P negative claration PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment Relating to Amusement Facilities and Games PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Department CASE NO: IS-83-23 DATE: June 2, 1983 A. Project Setting: This project is not site specific. B. Project Description: Amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.04.013 and 19.58.040) to read as follows: Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS Add new section 19.04.013 to read as follows: Section 19.04.013 Amusement facilities "Amusement facility" means a place of amusement or entertainment wherein are found games, rides (animal or mechanical), coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball), shooting galleries, movies or entertainment machines and other games of skill or chance offered to the public. This definition does not include vending, photocopying, laminating and photo machines. A. "Amusement arcade or center" means a facility wherein are found games, coin or token operated machines or devices (e.g. video and pinball machines) of skill, chance or entertainment offered to the public. B. "Amusement park" means an amusement facility encompassing several acres of land and may include other commercial activities such as restaurants, retail stores and services. C. "Amusement games or machines as accessory uses" means not more than three coin or token operated machines, rides or devices (e.g. video, pinball, mechanized rides and other electronic games) within any commercial retail or service establishment and provided they do not constitute more than five percent (5%) of the floor area of the establishment. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section Chapter 19.58 USES Delete Section 19.58.040 "Amusement center, bowling alley, dance hall, etc." and replace with the following: Section 19.58.040 Amusement and entertainment facilities Amusement and entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, dance halls, amusement parks and other similar recreational facilities shall be subject to the following development standards: 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet (20') from any residential zone; 2. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards; 3. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from any indoor or outdoor activity onto adjacent properties; or uses; 4. Amusement arcades or centers shall also be subject to the following: a. Any establishment within lO00 feet of a school (public or private) shall prohibit game play by minors during normal school hours; b. There shall be adult supervision at all times; c. A bicycle rack for at least ten bicycles shall be provided at or near the main entrance into the establishment; d. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises, except in those instances where a restaurant in conjunction with said use has been approved through the conditional use permit process; e. At least one public restroom shall be provided on the premises. The Planning Commission has the right to impose additional standards or waive any of the above standards on the finding that said standard/s are or are not necessary to protect the health safety and general welfare of the surrounding properties and/or uses. C. Compatibilit~ with Zoning and Plans: The proposed project is compatible with the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. D. Findings of Insignificant Impact: 1. The project involves a zoning text amendment and is not site specific, therefore, no natural or man-made resources will be affected. Each proposed project considered under these provisions will be subject to additional environmental review. 2. The proposed amendment is not at variance with t~e goals and objectives of the General Plan and short term goals will not be achieved to the disadvanta§e of long term environmental §oals. 3. There are no impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative impact on the environment. 4. The zoning text amendment will not adversely affect ambient noise levels nor will it affect air quality. No hazards to human beings will result. E. Consultation: 1. City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner 2. Documents Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documentin§ the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRON)41~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR city of chula vista planning department environmentsI review s®¢tlom EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)