Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/04/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, April 27, 1983 - 5:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 83-3, located at the terminus of Las Flores Drive northerly from 'D' Street - Sue Hudson 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-1, Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code relating to the definition of a "family" (Continued) DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of May 11, 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 April 27, 1983 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates No. 2 Chula Vista Tract 83-3- Sue Hudson A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has resubmitted a tentative subdivision map known as Hudson Valley Estates No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 83-3 (formerly Chula Vista Tract 79-12, which expired in 1981) in order to subdivide 2.58 acres into nine (9) lots. The subject property is located on the extension of Las Flores Drive north of "D" Street in the R-1 zone. (Note: The tentative map is identical to the previously approved tentative map.) 2. An Initial Study, IS-79-58, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on May 17, 1979. The Environmental Review Coordinator 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 readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS 79-58. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 83-3, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shalll be responsible for the construction of full street improvements in Las Flores Drive as shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary and to a line 10 feet east of the centerline of said street along said portion. The subdivider shall be responsible for dedicating 40 feet of the 56 feet of ultimate right-of-way for Las Flores Drive within and along the subdivision boundary prior to recordation of the Final Map. The cul-de-sac radius shall be 50 feet instead of the 48 feet shown on the Tentative Map. b. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of offsite improvements to provide access from "D" Street to the subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to: A.C. pavement 24 feet in width, AC dike, and street lights. The subdivider shall be responsible for dedicating 30 feet of the 52 feet of ultimate right-of-way for Las Flores Drive from "D" Street to the southerly subdivision boundary prior to approval of the Final Map. City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 c. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission to grade offsite prior to approval of the Final Map. d. The developer shall dedicate an additional 4 feet of right-of-way for street purposes to the City along Second Avenue adjacent to lots 1 and 2. e. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of the storm drain in Las Flores Drive adjacent to the subdivision. The developer shall also be responsible for the construction of offsite drainage facilities as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall acquire and dedicate to the City, all necessary offsite easements and right-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the required drainage facilities prior to approval of the Final Map. The developer may request a reimbursement district and repayment diagram for those portions of the storm drain which benefit other properties. f. The owner shall grant to the City easements for street tree purposes to the City along Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive. Easements shall be of sufficient width to provide for a total of l0 feet behind the sidewalk. g. The grades on Las Flores Drive shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Las Flores Drive shall be constructed at such elevations as to he passable by vehicles during the 100 year storm. The lowest habitable floor of each dwelling shall be at least one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation. h. The owner shall dedicate to the City, by grant deeds, one foot control lots in Las Flores Drive as determined hy the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. i. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the Final Map by City Council if offsite right-of-way or easement cannot be obtained as reauired by conditions of approval. {Only offsite right-of-way or easements covered by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition}. After said notification, the developer shall: 1. Enter into an agreement to complete offsite improvements and pay the full cost of acquiring offsite right-of-way or easements required by the conditions of approval of the Tentative Map. The developer shall agree to complete said offsite improvements at such time as the City acquires an interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be made. The developer shall provide surety for said improvements at such time as the right-of-way or easement is obtained by the City. The amount to be in accordance with Code requirements. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 2. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Have all easement and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. The requirements of 1 and 2 above shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final Map. All offsite requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City does not comply with the 90 day time limitation specified in that section of the Act. j. The developer shall submit plans for the private driveway serving lots 3, 8 and 9. The plan shall contain a typical section, private sewer, finished centerline grade, and a profile of the storm drain under the roadway. k. The developer shall include in CC&R's for the subdivision provisions for maintenance of the private driveway, sewer facilities, and parking areas. 1. The Final Map shall indicate any required reciprocal access and utility easement required by the City Engineer. m. Should an assessment district be formed which includes improvements and right-of-way required by conditions of approval for this subdivision prior to Final Map approval, those conditions shall be considered as fulfilled to the extent that said required improvements are included in the district. n. The developer shall install street lights along Las Flores Drive as directed by the City Engineer and on Second Avenue at "C" Street and in the cul-de-sac. o. The developer shall establish joint access easements for the 21 foot wide drive area serving Lots 3, 8, and 9. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The 2.58 acre project site is located on the west side of the extension of Las Flores Drive approximately 1,250 feet north of "D" Street. The property, with an average natural slope of 15% and a maximum slope of 60%, is located on the east facing slope of a canyon lying between Second and Minot Avenues. A portion of the property at the floor of the canyon below the elevation of 35 feet, lies within the 100 year flood level of the Sweetwater River flood City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 plain. The site is vacant except for some small wooden storage sheds, pepper trees and a portion of a large eucalyptus grove. Essentially, the property is "U" shaped with the frontage along Second Avenue interrupted in the center by an 85' x 140' parcel which is developed with a single family dwelling. 2. Tentative subdivision map. The developer proposes to divide the property into nine lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000+ sq. ft. Two of the lots will front on Second Avenue and the remaining seven lots will gain access via Las Flores Drive. Four of the lots have 59 feet of lot frontage along Las Flores Drive and the remaining three lots, directly to the rear and west of the four lots, receive access via a 21 ft. wide easement located between lots 5 and 6. Panhandle lots are allowed, provided they meet the criteria set forth in Section 19.22.150 of the Municipal Code. In addition, the developer will be required to establish joint access easements for the driveway serving the three panhandle lots. The lots along Las Flores will be raised a minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood level by importing approximately 13,000 cubic yards of fill. In addition, the Negative Declaration on IS-79-8 requires Las Flores Drive to be set at an elevation which would result in a maximum inundation of l-l/2 feet on the road during a 100 year flood and the elimination of ponding during a l0 year storm. This requirement will result in Las Flores Drive being raised higher than many of the abutting properties on both sides of the street north of "D" Street. The proposed elevation of Las Flores Drive would preclude the development of adjoining properties without substantial fill being placed on each site. If properties were graded on an individual basis, numerous drainage problems would likely occur. Therefore, the developer intends to fill not only the project site but the abutting areas which are presently subject to inundation. An additional 4 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated along the frontage of the two lots on Second Avenue. A portion of Las Flores Drive will be dedicated and a temporary cul-de-sac provided at the north end of the street. 3. Hudson Valley Estates No. 1. The developer also has an approved tentative subdivision map, Hudson Valley Estates No. l, for the division of 3.37 acres into l0 lots, located approximately 420 feet to the south of this project. Development of the two subdivisions is contingent upon connecting the proposed sewer into an outfall sewer line, which is presently not available. The outfall sewer is scheduled for installation within the next year or two. City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 4. Requirements. The developer must comply with the following requirements: a. The developer shall plant street trees along Las Flores Drive and Second Avenue. The species, location and number shall be determined by the City Engineer. b. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council Policy prior to issuance of building permits. c. The developer shall pay a frontage charge for the Las Flores Drive sewer of approximately $6,900 as provided in Section 13.16.170 of the Municipal Code plus connection fees prior to issuance of building permits. d. The developer shall pay Spring Valley sanitation fees or $130.00 per acre prior to approval of the Final Map. e. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the subdivision. All utilities serving the subdivision shall be undergrounded. f. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. g. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. h. Pay the Residential Construction Tax fee of $450 per unit, plus $25 for each bedroom in excess of one bedroom, prior to thte issuance of any building permit. i. Pay the Park Acquisition and Development fee of $300 per unit prior to recordation of final map. j. Two fire hydrants are required. The required fire flow shall be 1000 GPM. D. ANALYSIS The most southerly lot on Second Avenue represents the most difficult lot to develop because the majority of the site is on a 60% grade and will require special construction techniques to support the building. It should be noted that the terrain is similar to the lot located directly to the north which was developed with a single family home a number of years ago. The creation of the three panhandle lots will allow the developer to utilize a portion of the property which was previously incorporated into the four lots fronting Las Flores Drive in an earlier subdivision design. The new layout makes a much more efficient use of the property. City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 E. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 83-3, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The General Plan designates this site for Medium Density Residential development (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre). The proposed project density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre is consistent with this designation. b. Circulation - The development will extend Las Flores Drive in conformance with General Plan standards. c. Housing - Inasmuch as the subdivision contains fewer than 50 lots, it is exempt from the requirement to address the need to provide 10% of the units for low and moderate income families. d. Conservation Open Space, Parks and Recreation - None of the areas proposed for conservation or open space on the various plan diagrams of the General Plan are affected by the subject proposal. The developer will be assessed fees in lieu of park land dedication. e. Seismic Safety and Safety - The development is not adjacent to any known fault systems. Extension of public improvements, right-of-way widths, and turn-arounds meet or exceed element standards. Although a portion of the property is within the Sweetwater Valley 100 year flood plain, the preliminary grading plan indicates dwelling units will be elevated above said flood level. f. Noise - The lots will not be subject to objectionable noise levels. g. Scenic Highway - The site does not abut a Scenic Highway or gateway. City Planning Commission Page 7 Agenda I~ems for Meeting of April 27, 1983 h. Bicycle Routes - No bicycle routes are proposed on or adjacent to this site. k. Public Buildings - Public buildings are neither proposed nor required on the site. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 0301P/OO14Z AL:fpp NIXON. PL ~ r ...... -J CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLAFtAT ON PROJECT TITLE: HUDSON VALLEY ESTATES ~2 SUBDIVISION Project Location: NORTHERLY OF LAS FLORES AND SECOND AVE. Project Proponent: POLETTA SUE HUDSON 14 BARCELONA DR. RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 9227~ CASE NO. IS-79-58 DATE: MAY 9, 1979 A. PROdECT SETTING THE PROJECT INVOLVES 2.58 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN SLOPE OF A CANYON BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF LAS FLORES DR. AND SECOND AVE. CURRENTLY THE SITE IS DEVELOPED WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, FRONTING ON SECOND AVE. AND SEVERAL SMALL, WOODEN SHEDS LOCATED ON THE SLOPE OF THE CANYON. ADdACENT USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG SECOND AVE., VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE EAST ALONG MINOT AVE. AND VACANT PROPERTY ALONG THE EAST SLOPE OF THE CANYON, AND HORSE STABLES AND CORRALS TO THE SOUTH ON THE ADdACENT WESTERN SLOPE OF THE CANYON. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS AN AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE OF 15% AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 6~%. RUNOFF FROM SECOND AVE. DRAINS DOWN /HE CANYON WALL TO THE FLOOR OF THE CANYON AND PROCEEDS NORTH TO THE SWEETWATER RIVER FLOOR PLAIN. HOWEVER, ELEVATIONS (35 FT. ELEVATION AND BELOW) OF THE SITE ARE WITHIN THE 1~ YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND ARE SUBdECT TO INUNDATION AND PROLONGED PONDING. THE SITE IS COVERED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION AND MOST LIKELY SUPPORTS WILDLIFE PERVALENT IN OPEN CANYON AREAS WITH LIMITED HUMAN ACCESS. A LARGE GROVE OF MATURE EUCALYPTUS TREES IS LOCATED ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH EXTENDS EASTERLY AND SEVERAL LARGE CALIF. PEPPER TREES ARE LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO KNOWN GEOLOGIC HAZARDS WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY, HOWEVER, UNCOMPACTED FILL AREAS AND EXPANSIVE SOILS ARE PRESENT. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE SUBJECT P~OPERTY INTO 6 SEPARATE PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT SIX SINGLE FAMILY ~OMES. TWO LOTS WILL FRONT ON SECOND AVE. AND THE REMAINING FOUR LOTS WILL FRONT ALONG LAS FLORES DR. CONSTRUCTION PADS FOR THE FOUR DWELLINGS UNITS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOOR PLAIN WILL BE RAISED TO THE 36 FT. · ELEVATION ONE FOOT ABOVE THE 1~ YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION. A 1~ FT. WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND 18" CMP CULVERT WILL BE PROVIDED TO FACILITATE STORM RAIN OFF INTO THE CANYON. DEDICATION OF LAND FOR STREET PURPOSES AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE INSTALLED ON SECOND AVE. AND LAS FLORES DR. SEWER HOOK-UP WILL CONNECT WITH THE SYSTEM CURRENTLY BEING INSTALLED TO REPLACE THE ROSEBANK PUMPING STATION. C. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL RESULT IN A NET DENSITY OF 2.5 DU/AC WHICH IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT R-1 ZONING AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. SOILS A SOILS REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SUBdECT PROPERTY, INDICATES THAT ON-SITE SOILS CONSIST OF LOOSE ALLUVIUM, UNCOMPACTED FILL AND TERRACE DEPOSITS. TO ENSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION~ RECOMMENDA- TIONS AS STATED IN THE SOILS REPORT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROdECT. 2. NOISE A NOISE ANALYSIS OF NOISE GENERATED BY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON SECOND AVE. WAS CONDUCTED. THIS ANALYSIS iNDiCATES THAT LOTS ! AND 2 (AS DESCRIBED ON THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP)~ ADdACENT TO SECOND AVE. WILL BE SUBdECTED TO UNACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVELS GIVEN AN EST[MATED 9~ ADT FOR SECOND AVE. IN !99~. A NOISE ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICIAN TO VERIFY EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCTION OF EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (TO MEET A 45 DB iNTERiOR NOISE ISOLATION LEVEL) SHOULD BE iNCORPORATED iNTO THE PROdECT. 3. LAND FORM AESTHETICS THE PROdECT ENTAILS SUBSTANTIAL GRADING. TO REDUCE POTENTIAL SILTATION AND INSURE AESTHETIC QUALITY, MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHOPES SHOULD BE GRADED TO BLEND WITH THE EXiSTiNG CONTOURS OF THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY BY USE OF VARIABLE SLOPE RATIOS AND ROUNDING OF TOP AND SIDE SLOPES. HYDROSEEDING AND OTHER PLANTING WITH NATIVE MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE AESTHETIC IMPACT OF LAND FORM CHANGE AND RETAIN A MORE RURAL APPEARANCE AS WELL AS MINIMIZE WATER CONSUMPTION. 4. FLOOD HAZARD LOWER PADS AND LAS FLORES STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE SWEETWATER RIVER 1~ YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE THE DWELLING PADS TO 1 FT. ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL TO AVOID FLOOD HAZARD. THE SEWER SYSTEM WILL NAVE TO BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THE INFLOW OF WATER DURING INUNDATION AND DESIGNED IN'CONFORMANCE WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINAINCE. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE DWELLING UNITS, THE TRAVEL LANES OF THE PROPOSED STREET WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE AT AN ELEVATION WHICH WILL RESULT IN ABOUT ONE AND ONE HALF FT. OF INUNDATION DURING A 1~ YEAR FLOOD AND HAVE NO PONDING DURING A 1~ YEAR FLOOD. 5, SCHOOLS LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING OVER CAPACITY. THE FOLLOWING CHART CONTAINS THE MOST CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY FIGURES AND NUMBER OF NEW STUDENTS ANTICIPATED DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NEW STUDENTS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY FROM PROJECT ROSEBANK 491 476 4 HILLTOP dR. HIGH 14~4 144~ 2 HILLTOP SR. HIGH 1499 1484 1 THE PROPONENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THIS WILL INCLUDE THE SUBMISSION OF LETTERS FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. 6. PARKS THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO DEDICATED PARK FACILITIES WITHIN THE PARK DISTRICT 2.~I WHERE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. GIVEN THE POPULATION OF THIS DISTRICT PARK ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS IS 3.6 ACRES. BASED ON THE CITY'S PARK ACREAGE REQUIREMENT FACTOR OF 2 ACRES/I~ POPULATION, APPROXIMATELY .~34 ACRES OF PARKLAND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT PROPONENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FEES IN LIEU OF .PARKLAND DEDICATION. THESE FEES WILL BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE AND/OR DEVELOPMENT OF PARK FACILITIES IN THE. AREA OF THIS PROJECT. E. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. RECOMMENDATIONS STATED WITHIN THE PREPARED SOILS REPORT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. 2. AN ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. 3. GRADING AND HYDROSEEDING SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION D3 OF THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 4. BUILDINGS PADS SHOULD BE RAISED ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN LEVEL AND LAS FLORES DR. DESIGNED TO AVOID FLOOD DAMAGE. THE SEWER SYSTEM WILL HAVE TO BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THE INFLOW OF WATER DURING INUNDATION AND DESIGNED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINAINCE. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE DWELLING UNITS, THE TRAVEL LANES OF THE PROPOSED STREET WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE AT AN ELEVATION WHICH WILL RESULT IN ABOUT ONE AND ONE HALF FT. OF INUNDATION DURING A 1~ YEAR FLOOD AND HAVE NO PONDING DURING A 1~ YEAR FLOOD. 5. WRITTEN ASSURANCE OF CLASSROOM SPACE FROM THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL BE REQUIRED. 6. PARK FEES WI'LL BE REQUIRED. F. FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. THE PROOECT WILL NOT REMOVE ANY SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND THERE ARE NO KNOWN NATURAL OR MAN-MADE RESOURCES PRESENT. BUILDING SITES WILL BE RAISED ABOVE THE 1~ YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATED WITHIN A PREPARED SOILS REPORT WILL BE FOLLOWED TO MITIGATE SOILS AND SLOPE STABILITY RELATED IMPACTS. AESTHETIC QUALITY OF RESULTING LAND FORM WILL ALSO BE ENSURED BY PRESCRIBED MITIGATION. 2. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS IN BASIC CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND WILL NOT ACHIEVE SHORT TERM TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS. 3. IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED AND NONE ARE ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR WHICH COULD INTERACT TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED SIX UNITS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN VEHICLE TRAFFIC NOR WILL ANY APPRECIABLE INCREASE IN RELATED NOISE OR POLLUTANTS RESULT. G. CONSULTATZON 1. INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CITY OF CHULA VISTA D. d. PETERSON DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BILL ULLRICH ASSOC. ENG. TED MONSELL FIRE CAPTAIN GENE GRADY DIRECTOR OF BUILDING 8 HOUSING MERRITT HODSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMISSIONER POLETTA SUE HUDSON - APPLICANT 2. DOCUMENTS EIR-78-1 HUDSON VALLEY ESTATES 01 IS-79-35 FUENTEZ PARCEL MAP CHULA VISTA IMPROVEMENTS PLANS The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for publ.ic review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. EN 3 (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 Page 8 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ~Continued) PCA-83-1, Consideration of amendments to the MuniciPal Code relating to the definition of a "family" A. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1983 to allow the City Attorney to prepare a revision to the proposed amendment of the family definition which would substitute language controlling or prohibiting land uses such as fraternities and transient residential operations from locating in the single family zones. The Attorney's office prepared three alternatives for the Commission's consideration (see attached memo). B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as follows: 1.Amend Section 19.04.032 to read as follows: 19.04.032 Boardinghouse or lodging house ~y "~Boardinghouse or lodging house" ~/Y~/~d~ means a dwelling or part thereof, (not including rest homes, convalescent homes, bed care, supervision and other special care, such as counseling) where meals and/or lodging are provided (but not separate, cooking facilities), for compensation and with not more than five (5) guest rooms and ten (lO) persons total. 2. Amend Section 19.04.092 Family (DEFINITIONS)to read as follows. "Family" means an individual; or two or more persons, ~}}/~$/~ ~ related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group ~f/~% ~f~l~l~f~l~f~l~l~d~l~Y~l~l~l~lf~l~ ~/~/f~/~%~J including unrelated individuals bearing the generic character of and living together as a relatively permanent bona fide housekeeping unit sharing such needs as cooking- facilities. //// : Deletions : Additions City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 Page 9 3. Delete Section 19.04.105 Group residence {DEFINITIONS). 4. Amend Section 19.04.112 to read as follows: 19.04.112 Hotel "Hotel" means a building or group of buildings comprising six (6) or more individual sleeping or living units without kitchens, except as o-'~)T~rwise provided herein, for the accommodation of transient guests. 5. Revise Section 19.28.040 Conditional uses (R-3 ZONE), paragraph B, hy deleting group residences and add boarding or lodging houses. 6. Delete Section 19.58.172 (USES) pertaining to group residences. C. DISCUSSION The three alternatives offered by the City Attorney's office can be summarized as follows: Alt. No. 1 - Repeal the definition of a family and amend the Purpose section of the R-1 zone to prohibit boardinghouses and requiring that fraternities and similar organizations be allowed only by conditional use permit. Alt. No. 2 - Repeal the definition of a family. Alt. No. 3 - Modify the definition of a family as originally proposed by the Planning Department at the March 9 Planning Commission meeting. The City Attorney's office is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Alternative No. 1. In reviewing the City Attorney's recommendation, the Planning Department has concluded that: 1. There is no need to revise the purpose of the R~l zone to prohibit boardinghouses and note that fraternities, etc. are subject to conditional use permits because the zoning ordinance and adopted land use chart clearly defines the uses that are allowed and the purpose of the zone. 2. Deleting "group residence" as a land use and as a definition requires the redefining of boardinghouses and lodging houses with appropriate changes to the R-3 zone as well. The Planning Department is recommending that boarding and lodging houses be limited to five guest rooms and ten guests. This type of lodging would be allowed in the R-3 zone by conditional use City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 27, 1983 Page 10 permit whereas larger facilities (six or more guest rooms) would he classified as a hotel requiring commercial zoning. These definitions and limitations are consistent with other municipal agencies in the County. 3. Deleting the definition of a "family" is not a desirable action because it leaves the City in a weaker position of enforcing violations within the R-1 zone. (Reference the City Attorney's memo, page 2, paragraph 3.) Therefore, it is recommended that the definition of family be amended as proposed in the March 9 staff report (see recommendation no. 2 of this report). WPC 0274P DATE: March 24, 1983 TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner FROM: Tom Harron, Assistant City Attorney /~//"h~/'/ SUBJECT: Family Zoning As you know at the March 9th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission rejected a proposed amendment to the definition of "family" in the Zoning Ordinance. That amendment would have eliminated the current restriction on more than three unrelated individuals occupying a single family dwelling in the R-1 zone. In its place the amendment would have allowed an indefinite number of persons who constitute a "bonafide single housekeeping unit". The Commission directed me to take a different approach and to focus on those activities we wish to prohibit from the R-1 zone rather than try to amend the definition of "family" in a way which sets forth all the permitted uses. When we go back to the Planning Commission I recommend that we offer them three alternatives. The first alternative will be to repeal the definition of "family" contained in Section 19.04.092 of the Code, and to amend Section 19.24.010 which sets forth the purpose of the R-1 zone. The amendment would be to add the following: The R-1 zone is limited to residential uses. Institutional uses such as fraternities, sororities, clubs and similar uses are not allowed except with a conditional use permit. Transient uses such as boarding houses are not allowed (except as an accessory use.) This definition would meet the standard required by the Santa Barbar~ and ~ decisions in that it would allow an unrelated group to reside in the R-1 zone when they use the dwelling as a traditional family would. The second alternative which I would offer would be to merely repeal the definition of family found in Section 19.04.092. The principal restriction left in the R-1 zone would be the restriction found in Section 19.24.020 which limits the R-1 zone to single family dwellings. Ken Lee March 21, 1983 Page 2 This alternative would be a very safe approach fro~ a legal standpoint. The California Supreme Court in the Santa Barbara case stated, "In general, zoning ordinances are much less suspect when they focus on the use than when they command inquiry into who are the users". As I have previously explained to the Commission, this statement was dicta. Dicta is a statement made by the Court which is not necessary to the ultimate holding of a case, and is not, therefore, the law. Dicta, nevertheless, gives an insight into the way the Court thinks, and gives a good indication of the way the Court would rule if the issue dicussed ultimately comes before it. I recently heard one attorney with a great deal of experience practicing before the Supreme Court say that the surest way get a hearing before the Court is to characterize one of their recent statements as dicta. The third alternative I would offer would be the staff proposal that was rejected at the March 9th hearing. I'm not trying to breathe any new life into this alternative, but I would offer it just for the sake of comparison. Both the first and second alternatives are sanctioned by the decisions of the Court in the Santa Barbara and Pa~ard cases. There are some disadvantages attached to all three. The amendment which would leave us with a restriction on the type of building which may be constructed in the R-1 zone would force us to go after obnoxious uses through enforcement of our Noise Ordinance and related regulations. The problem with this approach is that it is not very effective and it is very time consuming. In order to successfully prosecute a noise violation, there must be more than one instance of a noise problem. All residential uses occasionally create some noise. Even the traditional family with their occassional parties could technically be in violation. Noise becomes a nuisance when its continuing nature makes it unreasonable for the neighbors. In order to reach this point, there has to be several instances of noise. In the meantime, the neighbors tend to get very upset. Once we are able to show that there is a continuing noise problem and we file a complaint, there are often delays associated with the Court. Typically, as the Court date draws near, the noise will stop. The defendant will testify that the noise has stopped and the prosecution witnesses have to concede that this is true. The guilty verdict will draw a light sentence which is normally suspended on the condition that the violation not occur again within a one year period. This light treatment by the Court sometimes encourages defendants to continue creating the noise. It also is very frustrating for the complaining neighbors. Ken Lee March 21, 1983 Page 3 The approach exemplified by alternatives 1 and 3 which limits the R-1 zone to traditional residential uses with the exception that unrelated groups who live together like a family are now permitted is not without its enforcement problems. The difficulty will come in distinguishing a group of young unrelated adults who constitute a "bonafide single housekeeping unit" from one which is using a residence primarily as a party house. In close cases, we would probably have to take action against them through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance. In conclusion, based on the previous action of the Planning Commission, I would recommend that we adopt Alternative 1 and repeal the definition of family while adding a restriction on uses which are not primarily residential in character. TJH:clb