Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/03/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 9, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of appeal of Design Review Committee's denial for an industrial and commercial warehouse at 1008 Industrial Boulevard - Toys-R-Us (Continued) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-3, ZTA for accessory retail uses in conjunction with distribution centers in the Industrial zones 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-83-14, Request to construct a 98-bed skilled nursing facility at 751 Dora Lane - Community Hospital of Chula Vista 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCA-83-1, Proposed amendment to zoning ordinance relating to the definition of a "family" DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 1983 1. Consideration of appeal of denial b~ Design Review Committee of P-83-6~ Precise Plan for To~s-R-Us, 1008 Industrial Boulevard A. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the February 23, 1983 Planning Commission meeting and was referred back to the Design Review Committee for consideration on March 3, 1983. At the time of this writing, it was expected that revised building elevations were to be submitted at the Design Review Committee meeting by Toys R Us. B. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director will give an oral recommendation at the March 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. C. ANALYSIS A copy of the previous staff report is attached for your review. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 23, 1983 2. Consideration of appeal of denial by Design Review Committee of P-83-6, Precise Plan for Toys "R" Us at 1008 Industrial Boulevard A. BACKGROUND 1. On January 20, 1983, the Design Review Committee disapproved Toys "R" US application to remodel an existing warehouse building located on Industrial Boulevard, adjacent to Interstate 5. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-5, involving possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on October 7, 1982. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environ- mental effect and recommended that a mitigated negative declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated negative declaration issued on IS-83-5. 2. Adopt a motion to deny the appeal and request that the applicant resubmit alternative design solutions for Design Review Committee consideration. The denial is based on the fact that the developmental guidelines governing this interchange require a coordinated architectural theme for any building. Contrary to that requirement, the applicant's plan employs the use of dissimilar building heights, materials, textures, graphics and colors at one corner of an existing building, creating an uncoordinated architectural theme. C. ANALYSIS 1. Project Setting The project site consists of a 6-acre lot presently containing a 71,288- square foot warehouse structure and .two single-family dwellings located at the southwest corner of the northbound I-5 Freeway off-ramp and Industrial Boulevard. The northern half of the lot is being farmed for truck crops. 2. Project Description The proposed project consists of the interior alteration of the existing 71,288-square foot industrial building to Create lease space by consolidating the existing electronic warehouse operation down to 16,904 square feet (for wholesale/ retail sales) and creating 42,540 square feet of new lease space for a volume retail sales toy store as well as creating lease space for various small retail shops (11,844 square feet) at the north end of the building. In addition, two pads {for 7,000-square foot and 7,500-square foot buildings) are to be reserved for retail/office use fronting on Industrial Boulevard. Lifetime estate lease arrange- ments make it necessary for the single-family dwellings presently located on the lot to remain for an indefinite period of time. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 23, 1983 3. Precise Plan Guidelines The I-P zoning of the site has specific development guidelines established relating to the importance of this site as a gateway entry to Chula Vista. Those guidelines are as follows: (a) Architectural theme of future buildings shall be coordinated. (b) Landscaping of the site and adjacent public right-of-way shall reflect the location of these properties as a gateway entrance to the City. (c) Freestanding signs shall be limited to ground monument signs oriented toward Industrial Boulevard. A coordinated sign program shall be drawn up for the various parcels. No freeway oriented freeway signs shall be allowed. A planned sign program may be undertaken pursuant to Section 19.60.490 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 4. Site Plan The proposed project would require a total of 359 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to install a total of 395 spaces with the initial building remodel and another 128 spaces in the future when the existing houses are removed. Land- scaping and fencing will be installed per City standards. 4. Elevations The applicant proposes to remodel the exterior design of the existing industrial building to create a store front entrance for Toys "R" Us and miscellaneous shops to be located on the north end of the building. The remodel consists of: (a) Creating a modified mansard design simulating "humps" of painted aluminum shake shingles, (b) large 4-foot high letters, 34 feet to 42 feet long, identifying the store on the north and west elevations, (c) a lO-foot high giraffe, (d) a 4-foot x 16-foot sign under the mansard (identifying the store as "The Children's Bargain Town," and (e) 42-foot and 63-foot long 12-foot high, multicolored (7) vertical wood battens. The exterior design of the remaining small tenant lease areas involves the installation of glass doors and large window areas in addition to individual tenant identification signs. The applicant has presented two options for the tenant remodel; one with a mansard design and one without. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 23, 1983 6. Freestanding Signs At present, there is an existing billboard located in the extreme south- west corner of the site which the applicant has no control over and, therefore, will remain. The applicant originally proposed a 35-foot high, 92-square foot sign along Industrial Boulevard. However, after consulting with the Design Review Committee and the Planning Department, it was agreed that a new sign program would be submitted using a monument design. D. CONCLUSION Toys "R" Us have asked the City to approve the remodeling of a very simple, clean, attractive industrial building and to accept a standard building design for a portion of the structure emphasizing their national corporate chain operation. The City and the applicant are faced with the challenge of accommodating this national chain store while addressing reasonable design standards at a key entry point to the City. The variety of colors, materials, graphics, and architectural style used by Toys "R" Us borders on architecture commonly identified as "kitsch," meaning a misapplication of design princples, or poor art form. Corporate images are many times created with one purpose in mind, to sell products. While sales are important, communities and corporations alike must be willing to work together to balance community design needs with corporate images. The applicant offered to add a mansard design to the adjacent tenant shops and remove the giraffe as compromising design solutions. Neither of these solutions were satisfactory to the Design Review Committee or the Planning Department. The applicant was asked to consider additional architectural solutions involving building and/or color modifications to solidify the total building design, while maintaining the Toys "R" Us identification. The applicant chose to pursue the original submitted design to the Planning Committee rather than exploring new design solutions. The Planning Department is convinced that the use proposed is properly located to benefit both the applicant and the City. However, appropriate design solutions need to be presented to resolve the design related issues. 'Fun ~ All Amusement CHULA VISTA Lumber COUNTY ~ard / I I / Truck Craps ', I MOSS r G ~ruiP RTA International Whse A4obtl. Home CRE ;TED MI TI GATED~ -. negative leclaration . PROJECT NAME: TOYS 'R US Commercial Center PROJECT LOCATION: 1008 Industrial Boulevard PROJECT APPLICAI~T: TOYS 'R US, Inc. 395 West Passaic Street Rochelle Park, N.J. 07662 CASE NO. IS-83-5 DATE: October 7, 1982 A. Project Setting The proposed project site consists of a 6 acre lot presently containing a 71,288 sq. ft. warehouse structure and two single family dwellings located at the southwest comer of the northbound I-5 freeway "L" Street offramp and Industrial Boulevard. The northern half of the lot is presently being farmed for truck crops. There are no biological, archaeological, or historical resources present on the project site, and there are no geological hazards on or near the site. Three mature California pepper trees are located within the Industrial Boulevard right-of-way. B. Project Description The project consists of the interior alteration of an existing 71,288 sq. ft. industrial building to create lease space for the consolidation of the existing electronics warehouse operation from the entire building down to 16,g04 sq. ft. for wholesale/retail sales, lease space for a volume retail sales toy store (42,540 sq. ft.), and lease space for various small retail shops (11,844 sq. ft.). In addition, two pads (for 7,000 sq. ft. and 7,500 sq. ft. buildings} are to be reserved for retail/office uses fronting on Industrial Boulevard. Lifetime estate lease arrangements make it necessary for the single family dwellings presently located on the lot to remain for an indefinite period of time. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The proposal will require various discretionary approvals. The zoning ordin- ance requires that a conditional use permit be granted to operate the volume toy sales. A General Plan amendment from Research and Limited Industrial to Retail Commercial, and a rezoning to a retail conmercial zone will be required to develop and operate the remaining proposed land uses. D. Identification of environmental effects Ii Transportation/access. The proposed project will generate a total of 4,941 additional vehicle trips on Industrial Boulevard, 'which will lower the service level from (los) B to (los) C. This is not considered a significant impact. city of chula vlata planning department l~dm~qq~ environmental review ,lotiOn IS-83-5 Page 2 The existing driveway at the center of the lot, along Industrial Boulevard, is located slightly off-center from the existi~a alianment o.f ~s$ ~reet to. the east. The City Engineer will require that upon remo9alof the existing res~aen- tial dwellings on the site the alignment of this driveway be moved to the center line of Moss Street. In addition, full street improvements will be required along the west side of Industrial Boulevard for the length of the proposed project. 2. Aesthetics. There are three mature California pepper trees located along the Industrial Boulevard frontage which could be subject to removal due to the installation of required street improvements. The applicant and the City shall make every effort to avoid removing these trees when installing street improvements. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant impact 1. The alignment of the existing center driveway along Industrial Boulevard shall be shifted to the north to align with the centerline of Moss Street to the east upon removal of the existing single family dwellings. 2. Avoid removing the three mature pepper trees located within the Industrial Boulevard right-of-way, if feasible, when installing street improvements. · F. Findings of insignificant effects 1. There are no significant natural or manmade resources within the project area which could be adversely affected by the project implementation. 2. A portion of the proposed project will require a General Plan amendment and rezoning in order to develop. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will assure that the project will not achieve short term to the disadvan- tage of long term environmental goals. 3. Potential impacts are not considered significant and none are anticipated to interact and cause any cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not create any source of significant noise or odors, nor will any hazards to humans result from the project implementation. IS-83-5 Page 3 G. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations. City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Department Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Dick Ryser, Applicant's Project Manager 2. Documents. IS-80-17, RTA Industrial and Office Complex The Initial Stud;-ApplLc.~tion and i~valuation forms documenting the findin~;s of no si~lnificant impact are on file and available for public review .it tll~ (-'lltl]_.t Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENV"fRC~ENTAL REVIEW COOFd3ZNATOR City of chula vista planning department ~ environmental review eection City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Item for Heeting of March 9, 1983 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendments to Sections 19.44.040 M and 19.46.040 G of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Purpose: Authorization of retail uses which are related to, and supportive of existing on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets in the I~ General Industrial~ and I-L, Limited Industrial~ Zones, through the conditional use permit process. A. BACKGROUND Under the proposed amendments to the text of the zoning regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, retail stores and shops would be permitted within the I and I-L Zones, provided: (1) that such uses were related to, and supportive of exist- ing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets, {2) that a conditional use permit was obtained in each case. The rationale for these amend- ments is discussed in the "Analysis" section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Planning Commission: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-83-16. 2. Recommend that the City Council enact the proposed zoning text amendments into ordinance. (The proposed zoning text amendments are contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto.) C. ANALYSIS 1. In 1980, the I and I-L zoning regulations were amended by the inclusion of provisions which authorized the establishment of retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets by conditional use permit. The proposed amendment would extend this authorization to retail uses which are related to, and supportive of those uses which were permitted and established under the 1980 amendments. 2. The proposed amendments would expand the number of commercial activities allowed in the industrial zones by the CUP process. This change would foster and promote viable industrial-commercial complexes, and would encourage the establish- ment of innovative land-use arrangements within older industrial districts. The proposed amendments would create an opportunity for land-use flexibility, while retaining the built-in protection of the conditional use permit process. 3. California is undergoing changes in its urban land-use patterns, and one of these changes is brought about by the increasing popularity of commercial- industrial complexes. These complexes, which are to be found in every major industrial center of the State, tend to stimulate economic development and employ- ment, and therefore are generally beneficial. The proposed amendments would be consistent with the commercial-industrial development trend discussed in the above paragraph. City Planning Commission Page 3 Age~da Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 4. The amendments would broaden the scope of commercial activity within Chula Vista's ! and I-L Zones, but would still limit such activity to retail distribution centers, manufacturers' outlets, and related stores. They would not, for example, authorize the establishment of commercial or professional office centers. 5. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Initial Study, IS-83-16, on the subject project; found that the said project would not significantly impact the environment; and, issued a Negative Declaration. EXHIBIT A Proposed Amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19 ZONING Chapter 19.44 I-L--LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.44.040 Conditional uses. M. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse- type sale of goodsl; and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the establishment of retail commercial sales uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission. Chapter 19.46 I--GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.46.040 Conditional uses. G. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume,warehouse- type sale of goods~; and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of existing~ on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the establishment of retail commercial sales uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission. /// Proposed deletions Proposed addenda negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment Allowing Supportive Retail Uses in the I and I-L Zone PROJECT LOCATION: Not Site Specific PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO. IS-83-16 DATE: February 3, 1983 A. BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista is proposing the following zoning text amendment in order to e~pand the number of commercial activities allowed in the industrial zones by the CUP process. A similar amendment allowing bulk retail sales in the industrial zones was approved by the Chula Vista City Council in 1981. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.44.040 and 19.46.040) to read as follows: Chapter 19.44 I-L--LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.44.040 Conditional uses. M. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the,high-volume, warehouse-type sale of goods~ and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the establishment of retail commercial sales uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission. Chapter 19.46 I--GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.46.040 Conditional uses. G. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse-type sale of goods~_; and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of city of chula vista planning department environmental review section existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' 6utlets. Conditional use permit applications for the ~hment of retail commercial sales uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission. C. COMPATIBILITY 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 manmade resources will be affected. Each proposed project considered under these prDvisions will be subject to additional environmental review. 2. The proposed amendment is not at variance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and short term goals will not be achieved to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 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 - Dan Pass, Principal Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Don Dackins, Associate Engineer 2. Documents IS-81-17, ZTA allowing retail in I or I-L City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Dept. 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 - ' city of chula vista planning department environmental review section City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-83-14; request to construct a 138-bed skilled nursing facilit~ at 751 Dora Lane - Communit~ Hospital of Chula Vista A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request submitted by Community Hospital of Chula Vista to construct a 138-bed skilled nursing facility on their present hospital site located at 751 Dora Lane in the R-I-H zone. The application also includes a request to relocate the existing helispot closer to the easterly property line. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-17, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on February 24, 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-83-17. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-83-14, to establish a 138-bed skilled nursing facility and relocate the existing helispot at 751 Dora Lane subject to the following conditions: a. A geotechnical investigation shall be performed for the proposed project prior to any grading operations. Recommendations from this investigation shall be incorporated into the project. b. The helistop shall be relocated upon occupancy of any residential land use within 300 feet of the easterly property line. Continued use or further relocation of the helistop at that time will be subject to further environmental and planning analysis. c. The owner of the project shall sign an agreement not to oppose the formation of a reimbursement district for the future improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road. C. DISCUSSION l. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-I-H Vacant (Junior High School site) South Co. R-S-4 Vacant (United Enterprises) East Co. A-70 Vacant (United Enterprises) West C-O-P & R-1-H Medical offices and Vista Hill Hospital (under construction) City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 2. Existing site characteristics. The Community Hospital site, which totals l? + acres, is located on the east side of Dora Lane, approximately 1/4 mile south of Telegraph Canyon Road. Topographically the site can be described as a knoll with the high point in the approximate center and sloping off to the four sides. The existing 4-story 131-bed hospital building (approved in 1970) is located on the high point of the property. There are 254 parking spaces on-site, 197 of which are required. The site is served by three driveways. The helispot is located immediately south of the hospital near the emergency entrance. 3. Proposed use. The applicant proposes to construct a single story 138-bed skilled nursing facility in two phases. This will be in the area presently occupied by the helispot and a parking area containing 26 spaces. The helispot is to be moved easterly to a point where the center of the landing area is approximately lO0 feet from the easterly property line. A fourth driveway is proposed at the end of Dora Lane (a cul-de-sac street) serving two parking areas that will contain a total of 47 spaces. An additional nine spaces will be located on the north side of the building. The 138-bed facility is classified as a convalescent hospital requiring one parking space for every three beds or a total of 46 spaces. The first phase will contain 98 beds and the second phase which will be attached to the east end of the building will provide an additional 40 beds. 4. Architecture. The proposed structure will be of contemporary Spanish design featuring a beige stucco exterior and tile roof. The existing building is a four-story stucco/glass design without tile. The use of a tile roof on the proposed building is not incompatible with the hospital and represents an attractive building addition to the area. D. ANALYSIS 1. The original hospital plans called for a two-phase development which included the now constructed four-story 131-bed facility in the first phase as well as a second nursing tower to be constructed in the second phase. The second tower concept was never pursued and now a low-rise convalescent hospital is being proposed in its place. 2. · The Municipal Code (Sec. 19.58.180) restricts heliports or landing strips for aircraft from locating within 600 feet from any residential zone and requires a flight path which provides for a minimum of 200 feet over any dwellings. City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 The Chula Vista Community Hospital received approval from the City in 1973 to locate a heliport approximately 400 feet from the south and east property lines subject to limiting departures and arrivals to a westerly and southerly flight path. The proposed heliport relocation and construction of the convalescent hospital will require the shifting of the flight path to a north/south route. The proposed helistop location is within approximately 100 feet of the easterly property line. Noise levels associated with the use of helicopters could reach 90-95 dB at the easterly property line. Present noise levels are estimated at approximately 80 dB at the easterly property line. Noise levels are not considered a significant impact on adjacent undeveloped properties. Although not a significant noise impact, the relocation of the helistop to the proposed location could impact future residential development within 300 feet of the easterly property line. Therefore, the use of the helistop should be discontinued at the proposed location upon development of the adjacent residential property to the east. Relocation at that time would be subject to further environmental and planning analysis. E. 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 conmmnity. The new convalescent hospital will add to the care facilities now being provided in this area of the community. 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 hospital will add to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons in this area by providing for additional care. Relocation of the helispot to within lO0 feet of the easterly property line could effect property to the east owned by United Enterprises which is now used for agricultural purposes. The area is currently shown on the General Plan for residential use at a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the property could be developed with residential homes in the future. The noise generated by helicopters could have an impact on those uses. However, the helispot is only used for emergencies which will be sporadic in nature. The environmental review process has established a provision (incorporated herein as a condition of approval) that in the event the helispot has an adverse impact on the adjoining uses (in the future) the City Planning Commission Page 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 helispot will either be relocated to a point where this impact is minimized or the emergency service discontinued. This provision has been agreed to by the applicant. Approval of this request will allow for continued operation of the emergency helispot and expand the service capabilities of the existing hospital. The surrounding properties are presently vacant, therefore, the use will not impact those properties with respect to noise. The condition of approval regarding the discontinuation or relocation in the future will protect these properties once they are developed. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use meets the parking requirements of the use. 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 proposed use is in keeping with the hospital designation reflected on the General Plan. WPC 0221P vt SAN DIEGO County of Son O/ego City of C~la vi~l~ VACANT · J~'~OR HI{~I SCHOOL (SJ~) ----.---, j Voc V~c CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ( R-I ) ~un~x I vac i PROJE~ ~__._ C/fy of Chul~ mitigate,c** negative declaration PROJECT NAME: South Bay Community Convalescent Hospital PROJECT LOCATION: 751 Dora Lane, Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: Community Hospital of Chula Vista 751 Dora Lane Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-83-17 DATE: February 25, 1983 A. Project Setting The project site consists of 17.24 acres containing Chula Vista Community Hospital and an accessory helistop pad. Various parking lot areas are located throu§hout the hospital campus in addition to mature landscaping. Adjacent land uses consists of medical offices (under construction) to the west and vacant property to the eas~, north and south. Portions of the LaNacion Fault System traverse the hospital campus in a north/south trend (Woodward-Gizienski and Associates, 1973). There are no endangered plant or animal species known to exist on or around the project site. B. Project description The proposed project consists of: 1) the relocation of the existing helistop, northeast of the existing site, 2) construction of a one-story Skilled nursing facility (98 beds in phase 1 and 40 beds in phase 2) south of the existing hospital, and 3) the location of new parking, areas containing approximately 56 parking spaces. C. Compatibility with zonin~ and plans The proposed use is compatible with the General Plan designation for professional and administrative offices. Section 19.58.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that heliports be located no closer than 600 feet from any residential zone. Although adjacent properties to the east and south are not within the city boundaries and not zoned, they are designated as "Medium-Density Residential" on the General Plan. The City Council granted Chula Vista Community Hospital permission in 1973 to operate the helistop at its present location due to the emergency nature and low frequency of its operation. Approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission is required prior to any construction activity on the project. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section IS-83-17 Page 2 D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Geology The project site is located in the vicinity of a branch of the LaNacion Fault System. Chula Vista Community Hospital, which is located to the north of the proposed project, experienced geotechnical difficulties during the original construction activities. A geotechnical report, prepared by ~oodward-Gizienski and Associates in 1973, verified the presence of north/south trending fault traces which necessitated moving the hospital approximately 60 feet to the west of its original site. Studies and test trenches performed at that time did not include the project area. Based on information contained in the geotechnical report, there is reason to believe that fault traces could be traversing the proposed project site. Further studies should be performed on the project site with recommendations to be incorporated into the project which will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 2. Noise The project involves the relocation of the existing helistop, utilized presently for emergency situations and transfer operations. The present helistop is located 390 feet from the east property line and 379 feet from the south property line. The approved ingress/egress is from the south and from the west. Easterly access has been denied by action of the Chula Vista City Council due to adjacent residentially designated property. The proposed helistop location is within approximately 100 feet of the east property line. Noise levels associated with the use of helicopters could reach 90-95 dB at the easterly property line. Present noise levels are estaimated at approximately 80 dB at the easterly property line. At ~resent, noise levels are not considered a significant impact on adjacent properties since they are undeveloped. Relocation of the helistop to the proposed location will not result in a significant noise impact on adjacent undeveloped property, but could result in a potentially significant impact upon any future residential development within 300 feet of the easterly property line. Use of the helistop should be discontinued at the proposed location upon development of the adjacent residential property to the east. Continued use or relocation at that time would be subject to further environmental analysis. 3. Transportation Each project along Dora Lane will have cumulative impacts on Telegraph Canyon Road. The City's Engineering Department will require that the project proponent sign an agreement not to oppose the formation of a reimbursement district for the future improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road. EIR-76-6, Chula Vista Medical Facilities, prepared in 1976, provides discussion on the development surrounding the hospital and impacts to Dora Lane and Brandywine Avenue. The following table will show a comparison between impacts discussed in the EIR and impacts resulting from project implementation. IS-83-17 Pa ge 3 TRAFFIC GENERATION EIR-76-6 Approved and proposed ADT Hospital 2,985 Hospital 2,985 Medical Offices 3,750 Medical Offices 3,570 Convalescent facility 375 Convalescent'facility 373 (198 beds) (138 beds) Psychiatric facility 186 Total ADT 7,110 Total ADT 7,114 The cumulative results of the approved and proposed uses differs a total of four vehicle trips per day, thereby affirming the accuracy of data contained in EIR-76-6. E. Mitigation measures necessar.¥ to avoid significant effect~ 1. A geotechnical investigation shall be performed for the proposed project prior to any grading operations. Recommendations from this investigation shall be incorporated into the project. 2. Use of the relocated helistop shall be discontinued upon development of any residential land use within 300 feet of the easterly property line. Continued use or further relocation of the helistop at that time will be subject to further environmental analysis. 3. The owner of the project shall sign an agreement not to oppose the formation of a reimbursement district for the future improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road. F. Findings of insiqnficant impact 1. The project site is void of any natural or manmade resources. Proposed mitigation will reduce potential seismic, noise and traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. 2. The proposed skilled nursing facility is in basic conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term goals. 3. As noted above, all 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 skilled nursing facility and relocation of the existing helistop will not result in any significant increase in vehicle traffic nor will any hazards to human beings result. IS-83-17 Page 4 G. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations. City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Ted tlonsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Department Applicant's Agent: Charles R. Coon 2. Documents. EIR-76-6, Chula Vista Medical Facilities IS-81-8, Vista Hill Hospital PCC-73-1, Community Hospital of Chula Vista PCC-83-14, Community Hospital of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVlRO~ N~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR city of Chula vista planning department " environmental review section City Plannin9 Commission Page 8 Agenda Items for Meeting of March 9, 1983 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCA-83-1~ Consideration of amendments to th~ Municipal Code relating to the definition of a "family" A. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1983 to allow the City Attorney's office time to analyze an alternative definition of a family presented at the meeting. Per the attached memo, the Attorney's office is recommending that the ordinance be amended as proposed in the original staff report (see attached). B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as follows: 1. Amend Section 19.04.092 (DEFINITIONS) 19.04.092 Family "Family" means an individual; or two or more persons, ~ll related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group ~ ~¢% unrelated individuals bearing the generic character of and livin9 together as a relatively permanent bona fide housekeeping unit sharing such needs as cooking facilities. 2. Delete Section 19.04.105 Group residence (DEFINITIONS). See attached. 3. Delete Section 19.28.040 Conditional uses (R-3 ZONE), paragraph B, and change the alphabetical sequence of the following uses. See attached. 4. Delete Section 19.58,172 (USES) pertaining to Group residences. See attached. /////// deletions additions DATE: February 25, 1983 TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner /-/~ l FROM: Tom Harron, Assistant City Attorne SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to the Definition of "Family" As you recall at the February 9,.1983 Planning Commission meeting, Joy Short offered the following definition of "family" as an amendment to our present definition: An individual or a collective body of persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a permanent' domestic relationship based on birth, marriage or other domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitment to each other. Upon review of this language in light of the recent decisions in Adamson v. Santa Barbara and Pa~ard v. Chula Vista, it appears to ~-~ no ~ore precise than the language which we have already proposed to the Plannning Commission. The Court focused on two elements in deciding that the restrictions on residency in the R-1 zone violated the Constitutional right to privacy of the groups involved in those two cases. The first element was the permancy of the group, i.e. is the group involved in a long term, stable living arrangement or is it transient. The second element was the relationship of the members of the group, i.e,. does the group share the common characteristics of a traditional family other the blood relationship. Joy Short's proposed definition does a good job of paraphrasing the holding of the court. Unfortunately, it shares the same lack of precision as the court's holding. There would be similar difficulties with enforcement. To give an example, this proposed ordinance would probably prohibit the Adamson group from Santa Barbara from sharing an R-1 dwelling. The proposed ordinance would require a bond of social, economic and psychological commitment. While the Adamson group shared social ties and lived together as a family, there was no economic commitment to each other. It was suggested at the Planning Commission meeting to change the word "and" to "or" so ~that either a social, economic or psychological commitment would be sufficient to satisfy the ordinance. The diffculty with this is that it would not eliminate anyone. A fraternity or sorority certainly could qualify as a social group. A Hell's Angels motorcycle group could probably validly claim some kind of psychological commitment to each other. Ken Lee February 25, 1983 Page Two There is some question after Pa~ard and Adamson whether we can regulate group living at all. The court stated that the city was on safer grounds when it restricted uses as opposed to users. It may be that any ordinance which addresses itself to users will be struck down in the future. Nevertheless, the court has not reached that point as yet and there is still ample authority to restrict groups such as fraternities and sororities. While none of the examples that have been considered so far are models of clarity or precision, I think the safest course to follow is to adopt the language which the court gave us. It will be difficult for the court to strike down an uncertain standard which the court itself authored. If we adopt the court's own standard in our ordinance and take enforcement action only when there is clear evidence of a residence being used as a party house, I think there is a good chance for successful enforcement. I would, therefore, advise that we adopt the originally proposed amendment to the definition of "family". TJH:lgk City Planning Commissi~'' -~ Agenda Items for Meett,.: of February 9, 1983 ~ 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-83-1 Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code relating to the definition of family A. BACKGROUND In the City of Chula Vista versus ?agard and the City of Santa Barbara versus Adamson the courts ruled that jurisdictions can no longer limit the number of unrelated persons living together as a bonified family unit. The court stated that, "As long as a group bears the generic character of a family unit as a rela- tively permanent household it should be equally entitled to occupy a single family dwelling as its biologically related neighbors." As a result, the City Attorney has determined that it is necessary to redefine the present definitions of a "family." B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion reconmending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as follows: 1. Amend Section 19.04.092 (DEFINITIONS) 19.04.092 Family "Family"means an individual; or two or more persons, ~ll ~% ~ ~ related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group ~f ~ ~ ~ ~W~ unrelated individuals bearing the generic character of and living together as a relatively permanent bona fide housekeeping unit sharing such needs as cooking facilities. 2. Delete Section 19.04.105 Group residence (DEFINITIONS). See attached. 3. Delete Section 19.28.040 Conditional uses (R-3 ZONE), paragraph B, and change the alphabetical sequence of the following uses. See attached. 4. Delete Section 1g.58.172 (USES) pertaining to Group residences. See attached. //////deletions additions C. DISCUSSION 1. The Municipal Code presently limits the number of unrelated persons in a single dwelling unit to three persons. Since the court ruling against this limitation, the City has been attempting to determine if standards could be developed which would ensure that the basic integrity of the single family zones could be maintained without being at odds with the decision of the courts. Staff has explore the possibility of placing a limitation on the number of persons all owed in a house based on a square footage per person ratio. However, another court decision {East Cleveland) ruled that a household of unrelated persons could not be treated any differently than a household of related persons which historically could exceed the floor area per person ratio as stipulated in the Uniform Building Code. Another consideration was to use a parking to person ratio. This too presented problems as it too affected conventional family units. The staff concluded that other standards being City Planning Commissic Agenda Items for Meetin~ of February 9, 1983 n.__ ~ considered were also unsatisfactory or ineffective thus prompting the amend- ments as proposed. 2. Group occupancy or "Group Residences" {as presently referred to in the Code) involving more than three persons may only be allowed by conditional use permit in the R-3 zone and are subject to several additional standards, such as offstreet parking and a maximum number of persons predicated on R-3 density. 3. The proposed definition of a "family" deletes the three person limitation and provides for groups which have the generic characteristics of a traditional family, such as permanency and sharing of resources. The proposed revision renders any provision for "Group Residences" obsolete. For that reason, the proposed amendment deletes all provision relating to such land uses. , G o,,p ?d ce. ] 'Group'tesidence means a dwelling or part De] ete ~' thereof where meals and/or lodging are provided // or shared by more than three persons, excluding [ servants, Who are not related by blood, marriage, ~._or adoption. (Ord. 1697 § 2, 1976.) 19.28.040 Conditional uses. Site plan and architectural approval as provided . in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480 shall be required for all of the following conditional uses in the R-3 zone: A. Single-family hon~es; Delete -- -~ B. Group residences, subject to the requirements of Section 19.58.172; B.tC. Except in R-3-T, day nurseries; C.Jg. Except in R-3-T, incidental services, such as' restaurants and retail sales to serve residents, provided there is no exterior display or advertising and such activities are conducted in spaces which are integral parts of a main building; D.J~. Commercial parking garages and off-street parking lots, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.130; E.,F. Electric substations and gas regulators subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.140; F.IB. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;' G.I4. Family day care homes, as defined in Section 19.04.094; H.~. Private, noncommercial recreational fa- cilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and clubhouses (for additional provisions see Sections 19.58.100 and 19.58.270); I.]. Professional offices (for additional provisions see Section 19.58.244). (Ord. 1822 § 2, 1978; Ord. 1697 § I (part), 1976: Ord. 1542 § 2 (part), 1974: Ord. 1494 § 3 (part), 1973; Ord. 1356 § I (part). 1971~ Ord. 1212 § I (part), 1969: prior code § 33.505(D).) Delete: 19.58.172 ' ~3roup residence. - A. Density. The maximum number of residents H. Bathrooms. There shat! bc a minimum of allowed in a group residence shall be one bathroom for every three bedrooms or dete.rmined by calculating the number of fraction thereof, but not fewer than one for dwelling units which would be allowed on ~.wery six persons or fraction thcreol: the site under R-3 district regulations and I. Periodic Inspection. City inspectors multiplying that number by the average (building~ fire and zoning) shall inspect each family household size per unit (I.94 based , group residence from time to time. but at on 1975 census data). · - least twice yearly, to determine compliance Note: Calculations shall be rounded to with the conditional use permit and code :the nearest whole number, requirements. B. Parking. Parking requirements shall be J. Time Period. The issuance of a conditional calculated on tire basis of R-3 standards for use permit shall be valid for a period of three one bedroom apartment units (resident and years, at the end of which time the planning guest). The planning commission may commission shall review the operation of the increase the number ofspace~ required based use for compliance with all conditions. In on the facts presented in the conditional use the interim period, violations of any permit application. Tandem parking shall be condition cited, or receipt of verified prohibited, complaints, will constitute grounds for C. Separation. Upon review of each conditional review and possible revocation of the permit use permit application, the; planning by the planning commission. commission shall consider the number of {Ord. 1697 § 2, 1976.) group residences and the distance between them in determining the need for an additional group residence. D. Garage Conversions In structures used for group residence, garage conversions shall be prohibited. E. Compliance with R-3 Standards. Group residences shall comply with all of the ordinance requirements as set forth in the R-3 zone. Open space shall be calculated on the basis of four hundred square feet times the number of unit~ which could be constructed under R-3 regulations. F. Code Compliance (Other'S. A structure used as a group res!dence shall comply with the requirements of the latest effiective Uniform Housing Code and Fire Code. G. License. Proper licenses shall be obtained by anyone living in the group residence.