Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-27 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue June 27, 2012 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL /MOTION TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Spethman, Calvo, Anaya, Moctezuma, Vinson, Felber Liuag PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Spethman ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input CONSENT ITEMS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Hearing: Consideration of an ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Amending Title 1 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, by adding a new Chapter 1.50 and amending Chapter 19.14 related to procedures for requesting reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing. Background: Leilani Hines reported that the proposed ordinance would facilitate the City's compliance with Federal and State Fair Housing Laws and would establish a formal procedure to consider whether a land use or development standard can be modified or exempted in order to allow disabled individuals to occupy and enjoy a dwelling. Examples are: • Construction of a wheelchair ramp that encroaches in the side-yard setback • Construction of a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor that encroaches into the setbacks • Construction of a larger-than-allowed garage to store a van and other equipment related to an individual's disability Any modifications that are made would be removed upon the vacation of the unit by the person to whom the reasonable accommodation was granted, unless removal would cause significant cost or structural changes. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 12-10 recommending that the City Council approve the Ordinance. Commission Comments: Cmr. Liuag recommended for clarity purposes to remove the new language that reads, "A request for reasonable accommodation in the application of zonine reeulations for persons with disabilities is not considered a variance and is covered by CVMC Chapter 1 50 "from Section 19.14.140, which addresses the Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 27, 2012 Variance process; instead it should be added as a new bullet "F. Reasonable Accommodations." under the Section 19.14.030. Public Hearing Opened and Closed. MSC (Vinson/Liuag)(7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 12-10 recommending that the City Council approve the Ordinance. 2. Public Hearing: Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista Amending Chula Vista Municipal code Chapters 19.04, 19.14, 19.58 and 19.62 to define and establish procedures to permit residential care facilities housing seven or more persons as a Conditional Use in Residential Zones. Background: Leilani Hines stated that residential care facilities also falls within the same types of Federal and State legislation that are intended to protect persons with disabilities. The laws specifically address promoting the integration of individuals with disabilities into the community and prohibits discrimination against them. The City of Chula Vista does not have a clear process that addresses residential care facilities that house 7 or more persons. For zoning purposes, facilities that house 6 or less persons must be treated like single family homes. The ordinance is proposing to provide an approval process for facilities housing 7 or more persons through the CUP process without a requirement for a public hearing, and with the Zoning Administrator having the approval authority. As a discretionary process, conditions can be imposed to address potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ 12-13 recommending that the City Council Amend CVMC Chapters 19.04, 19.14, 19.58 and 19.62 to define and establish procedures to permit residential care facilities housing 7 or more persons as a Conditional Use in Residential Zones. Commission Discussion: Director Halbert noted that with the City Attorney not being present to answer questions, he recommended that the item be continued, but that the Commission could proceed with their comments. Cmr. Spethman made the following comments/inquiries: • Once the CUP has been granted, how long is the period before the CUP is up for review • What is the minimum square footage for a residence housing 7 or more persons • How many feet from a sensitive receptor, i.e. a school • Will there be neighborhood noticing • How many of these facilities are currently operating in the City of Chula Vista • How many calls for service from the Police Department are there for existing facilities • Ordinance should include regulation to avoid a concentration of these residences in either side of the City • Planning Commission should be the reviewing body for these facilities, not the ZA. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 27, 2012 Cmr. Liuag inquired: • Is an office allowed within the residence and how would that be handled Cmr. Moctezuma commented as follows: • An office in a home is allowed, but not employees Cmr. Vinson commented as follows: • In order to operate a residential care facility, you must first obtain license and permits required by the County and/or State. A detail of all of the County health codes and other requirements are spelled, which address such things as square footage and many other requirements that the Commission would be interested in knowing • Staff should provide the County requirements when this item returns to the Commission Cmr. Calvo commented as follows: • Noted that what is being considered is to approve the procedures that allow these facilities • Ordinance spells out that these facilities have to be in compliance with all local, County, State and/or Federal licensing and permitting requirements under the law • The Ordinance does not spell out the details • Going through the CUP process would ensure all of the regulatory and building codes are met MSC (Moctezuma/Liuag)(6-1-0-0) to continue this hearing. Motion carried with Cmr. Vinson voting against the motion. 3. Report: Proposed merger of the Planning Commission and DRB. Marilyn Ponseggi reported that on April 17, 2010 Council directed staff to analyze the feasibility of merging the DRB and Planning Commission. Ms. Ponseggi stated that with the adoption of the Design Manual, the DRB was formed in 1977 and their scope of responsibility is to review site plans for landscaping and exterior design of buildings for consistency with the Design Guidelines. It was further stipulated that the Board's membership shall include Architects, Landscape Architects, Land Use Planners and other design professionals. The Planning Commission is mandated by the Charter and is advisory to the City Council on Land Use matters; it guides the preparation of the General Plan, evaluates physical development, and conducts public hearings. There is no requirement for specialized knowledge. As a result of process improvements, many projects that previously required DRB approval are now reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and as a result there are significantly fewer projects coming before the DRB and Planning Commission. Ms. Ponseggi stated that staff met with DRB and their primary concern was that there should be professional design expertise in the make-up of the new board. Staff Recommendation: • Temporarily put on hold appointments to DRB and Planning Commission • Amend Municipal Code to increase the Planning Commission membership temporarily to 9 • Through attrition Planning Commission would revert to 7 members • Change Planning Commission membership requirements so that a majority have design background • DRB role in design review process removed from the Municipal Code • Council conducts interviews to fill seats on the Planning Commission as needed Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 27, 2012 Commission Comments: Chair Spethman stated: • There is merit in consolidating the two commission • The role of the DRB is a very important one • It's very important to have design expertise in the make-up of the new commission • Equally important that the Planning Commission be comprised of diverse professionals i.e. in real estate, construction, land use, and finance, to name a few • Important to set in place the newly constituted Commission after there's been appropriate vetting because there are many important projects coming down the pike, i.e. Millenia and the Bayfront project • Recommend having a joint workshop with DRB and Planning Commission Cmr. Liuag inquired if Council had a specific goal in mind when they directed staff to look into the consolidation. Director Halbert responded that the goal in mind is to~have more efficiency and certainty in the entitlement process. A discussion ensued regarding the current role of the DRB and Planning Commission and what types of projects they review or overlap each other's review. Cmr. Felber stated that he supports the consolidation and views the Planning Commission more as a land use body. He believes that it's very important to have professional design expertise, however, he opposes the proposal to have design professionals comprise the majority of the membership, but having two or no more than three members would be more appropriate. He too has been very please with the choices the City Council has made in their appointments to the Planning Commission, which is a diverse group of professionals. Scott Vinson stated he supports the consolidation and a 7 or 9 member board through attrition. Cmr. Moctezuma_stated_she_can upport the merger, but is a little concerned when the economy rebounds and we start having more projects coming through. She also supports a 7-member board, but not 9 and is opposed to the majority being design experts or any attempt to establish a quota of professionals in any given discipline. Director's Report: • The General Plan Amendment for the University Villages EIR is out for public review which will then be followed by the project-specific EIR's. It is anticipated that the entitlements will be before the Planning Commission in the first quarter of 2013. • The California Coastal Commission will bean Santa Cruz in July and the City is hopeful that the Bayfront Master Plan will be before them at that time. Adjounment: To a regular Planning Commission meeting on July 11, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Diana Vargas, Secretary to tl~ Planning Commission w,.