The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/10/11 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California '~esday, October 11, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-1, '' ~ -(~,~-~----~--~-~?-~/) Otay Valley Road Widening r~ _'"' ..... ''W-- 2. PUBLIC HEARING.. PCC-90-05; Appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator to resuire the construction of a six ~ ..... ~r~''~ .... J~'~ foot high block wall as a condition of approval to ..... z~~ .... .~,~ .~ expand family day care home at 615 Colorado Avenue - ~/.~.~-. ~..._~. ~ ~-~ Norma Mercer '"'~-~ 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-04; Co sideration td change the name of the /'~ ....... //~.,;..)-~' ~ westerly segment of' Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive - City initiated OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT -~ ~ ~-~-~: .~ COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT .~..?..~ p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of October 18, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 11, 1989 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-1, Otay Valley Road Widening The applicant has requested that the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-1, Otay Valley Road Widening, be continued until Wednesday, November 8, 1989. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October ll, 1989 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-05; Appeal from a decision of the Zonin~ Administrator to require the construction of a six foot high block wall as a condition of approval to expand family day care home at 615 Colorado Avenue - Norma Mercer A. BACKGROUND This item is an appeal from a decision of the City Zoning Administrator to require the construction of a 6 ft.-high block wall as a condition of approval to expand from a small to a large family day care home at 615 Colorado Avenue. The proposal is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and thereby deny the appeal. C. DISCUSSION The appellant presently operates a small family day care home at the address in question. A small family day care home involves six or fewer children and is exempt by State law from local regulation. All family day care homes require a license from the State. An applicant for a large family day care license must have at least two years experience as a small family day care licensee. The City's standards for large family day care homes {those serving from 7 to 12 children) were adopted in 1985 in response to State legislation which prohibits the exclusion of these homes from single family zones, but which allows the application of certain "reasonable" local standards concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise. The City requires the issuance of a large family day care permit by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with the following standards: 1. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family day care home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit. 2. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or other affected party maN appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. 3. The family day care function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October ll, 1989 Page 2 4. A large family day care home shall not locate within 1200 feet of another such facility on the same street as measured from the exterior boundaries of the property. 5. An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement. 6. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator there is a potential for significant traffic problems, the Zoning Administrator shall request review of the application by the City Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic Engineer may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home. 7. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be provided. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home. 8. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding properties. The Zoning Administrator may impose reasonable requirements to alleviate noise, including but not limited to installation of a six-foot high block wall around the perimeter of the rear yard. D. ANALYSIS In response to the public notice on the proposal, the City received objections from two adjoining property owners (please see attached letters). In consideration of these objections, as well as with testimony taken at an administrative hearing called on the matter, the Zoning Administrator exercised the discretion provided for under Item No. 8 of the large family day care standards and conditioned approval of the ~roposal on the construction of a 6 ft.-high block wall along the common oundary between the rear play area and the properties of the objecting parties. In her appeal, Ms. Mercer states that the requirement for a block wall is not related to the objections of the neighbors (please see attached statement). It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that both objections -- as expressed in the attached letters and in testimony at the administrative hearing -- relate to the general activity and noise levels associated with an expanded day care use, and that the construction of a solid, 6 ft.-high block wall will significantly reduce the noise impacts on these adjoining properties. WPC 6780P E)I]ISTI~ ~IFB) -' EXISTING SE) ~ E)I3JSTIN~ SE) 610 WOODLAWN AVE. 614 WOODLAWN AVE. 620 WOODLAWN AVE. (Reeder) PROJECT EX,S~ SE) LOCATION EX~ST;NG SE) 615 619 46' HIGI- COLORADO AVENUE PCC-90-05 NORMA MERCER A,P.N. 571-102-03 615 Colorado Avenue Reno, Nv., Sept 3, 1989 OCT 5 1889 Kenneth G. Lee Principal Planner City Planning Commission Dear Mr. Lee, Since writing a letter to you on Aug. 26, I have made a trip to Chula Vista and talked to you in opposition to issueing a permit for a family day care center at 615 Colorado Street in Chula Vista. I still feel that approval of this permit would be a bad decision for the neighborhood. First of all is the added noise and confusion in the neighbor- hood, especially for the day sleepers and older people. Even a wall across the back would be very little deterrent. Second, the traffic and parking are very bad even at this time It is unfortunate that the pro- posed location of the care center is so close to a school. It is difficult at times to find a place to park just for a few minutes. I still oppose the care center at that location as it could do nothing but lower the value of my property and will add confusion to a reasonably quiet neighborhood. Please donot allow this permit. Th~nk you,~-- ~-~ Oma F. Reeder City of Chula Vista Planning Department Date Received Fee Paid Receipt ~o. Appeal Form Case .o: Appeal. from the decision of: ~ Zoning [] Planning )--[ Design Review - Administrator Commission Committee (Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.) Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ~ZA mpc ~DRC for the property located at: (n [ ~ ~[o co~ ~Q~,U-e , ~ignature of Appellant Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City Council on .~lanning Commission Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) Reno, Nv. Aug. 26, 1989 Kenneth G. Lee AUG 2 9 1989 Principal Planner City Planning Commission Dear Mr. Lee, This letter is in reply to your letter of Aug. 24 concerning a permit for a family day care center at 615 Colorado Street in Chula Vista. I very vigorously oppose locating a day care center or any other commercial business at this address. This property joins mine on the west side and I feel it could do nothing but lower drasticly the value of my property. Please do not allow this to happen. Since the date for considertion of this matter has been extended from August 8, I am wondering why I am just now being notified of this application. Please notify me if I can be of any more influence on this case. Thank you, '~ Oma F. Reeder 609 Colorado Avenue ~ ,7 Chula Vista, CA 92010 --~ August 7, 1989 AUG 7 1989 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Kenneth G. Lee, Principal Planner Subject: Application for Large family day care home 615 Colorado Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Ref: Case No. PCC-90-05 Gentlemen: My residence at 609 Colorado Avenue shares a common 100' boundary on the North side of the residence at 615 Colorado Avenue. While I appreciate the need for day care in today's economic environment and the financial incentives for the people who operate such places, I respectfully oppose the application to increase the size of the subject day care facility. If consideration of this letter requires explanations, they are as follows: 1) Presently my home is my primary retirement investment. I believe that a larger day care facility adjacent to my property would cause a serious decrease in its value. Certainly any signs or paint schemes which indicate the presence of such a facility which could be viewed from the street, would definitely cause a decrease in property value. 2) The increased traffic associated with drop-offs and pick-ups of children at the day care center at a location which is heavily congested with children attending Mueller Middle School would create serious safety concerns. Presently there is a lot of commuter traffic associated with drop-offs at Mueller school which is located two houses North of the day care center. 3) My final concern, which is strictly personal, is associated with the noise generated by having up to twelve children next door. While I am presently at work from 8-5 during the week, on weekends and holidays (which is my time to relax, unwind, work in my 9arden and do those things which I find necessary for my well being), this situation would be totally unacceptable. I request that you take my concerns under advisement when making your determination. Sincerely, R. B. Perkins CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 70% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or t~ustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No.~Xx If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson i ' · " .... . . s defined as. Any Individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, l~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, !this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other !political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~J~ Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P ~/~ f ~,~ ~]~ ~-~ ,Y A-110 Print or type name o~ applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October ll, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-04: Consideration to change the name of the westerly segment of Rid~eback Road to Terra Nova Drive - Citx Initiated A. BACKGROUND Ridgeback Road was originally planned as a continuous street extending from East "H" Street through to Otay Lakes Road. The approval of the Rancho del Rey plan and the RdR loop road has now created two segments of Ridgeback Road -- one extending northerly from East "H" Street in the vicinity of Terra Nova Plaza, and the other extending westerly from Otay Lakes Road in the vicinity of Bonita Vista Junior High School. This broken, segmented road will create confusion as well as the potential for delays in providing emergency services in the future. The proposal is to change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road because there are no properties currently addressed off this segment of the street. The name Terra Nova Drive identifies with the area and does not conflict with any existing City street names. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council change the name of the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road to Terra Nova Drive. WPC 6755P