Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2000/09/13 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 13, 2000 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Willett, McCann, and O'Neill Absent: None Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of August 9, 2000 as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioner McCann abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-00-14; An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of 6'6" within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3'6" is permitted in the front yard setback. The applicant withdrew request to appeal the Zoning Administrator's variance denial. Commissioner O'Neill stated that this project brought to the forefront issues regarding front yard fencing and recommended that staff consider this as a topic for discussion at a future Planning Commission Workshop Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 13, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-57; Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of a residential dwelling to a residential care facility for five ambulatory senior. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that the applicant is proposing to convert a two 2-bedroom duplex into a five 5-bedroom ambulatory residential care facility for senior citizens. A facility manager will live on site under the direction of the property owner, who is a licensed Clinical Social Worker. Although the property is located in a Commercial Office zone, it has been used for various community uses in the past and the structure retains the appearance of a single-family residence. A door opening between the two units has been installed, and the kitchen in the rear unit will be converted to a room for the resident manager. The remaining 4 bedrooms will provide 3 single rooms and 1 double room for the 5 senior residents. The site will meet setback, parking, open space and landscape requirements. The Conditions of Approval will require that the property undergo general repair, upgrade and painting. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-57 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the conditions and findings contained therein for a residential care facility. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Willett asked if this type of facility would require compliance with ADA requirements, and to what extent does the State licensing involve itself in ensuring that these requirements are met. Cmr. Willett stated that he had concern with the patio area and the lack of back restraint or railing along the seating area, which poses a danger where people could fall back over the side. Additionally, there is a trap door on the patio floor that is raised and also poses a threat for stumbling or tripping over it. Mr. Phelps responded that a building permits would be required for the upgrades and the Building Division would conduct building inspections to ensure that all UBC codes and ADA requirements are being met. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney stated that Condition #3 requires them to obtain building permits, which requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Ms. Moore indicated that the State license deals strictly with the parameters of their operation, not the construction of the facility, which is regulated by the City. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 13, 2000 Ms. Moore further stated that the Uniform Building Code addresses the safety of the building and covers ADA requirements. It does not, however, address unsafe conditions that may be on the premises. The City would never expect to be regulating the safety of premises because the liability would be enormous. What the City regulates is the construction and safety of the building. The assumption is that when the State licenses such a facility, they would probably inspect and check for those types of things because they deal with the operation of the premises and these types of conditions would probably be what they would most likely be looking at. Public Hearing Opened 6:40. Glenn Cummins, Clinical Social Worker and owner of the property, stated he has worked in many board and care facilities and in the field of home health care for seniors. This type of facility provides an option for senior when the family feels it is not safe for them to be on their own any longer and yet are ambulatory and in general good health. This allows the senior to maintain independent living for as long as possible. Mr. Cummins stated there are two types of State licensing in the board and care industry and the following is a list of services a Residential Care Facility can offer: · Assist in dressing, grooming, bathing and other personal hygiene · Assist with taking medication and storing medication · Have a central storage place for their financial matters. The facility does not manage their financial matters, but they can store money for them · Arrange and assist with medical and dental appointments · Maintain certain kinds of protective rules for them · Supervision of clients schedules and activities · Can maintain or supervise cash resources on the property · Monitor food intake or special diet The location of this property is optimal for ambulatory senior because it is in close proximity to the senior center, library, parks, and some medical facilities. This particular location has been under the watchful eye of the City as it was once a learning center, a family counseling/guidance center and as such the City made sure that the facility met ADA requirements. Mr. Cummins stated that he had not considered the trap door on the gas and electric meter to be a safety hazard, and would certainly look into seeing what can be done remove that potential danger. Additionally, he stated he would be glad to install a railing of some type in the patio area to prevent any falls. Public Hearing Closed 6:45 Commissioner McCann stated he believes this proposal is an appropriate use and fit for this area, and stated that this is probably one of many such facilities to come down the pike line Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September t3, 2000 because of the demand that baby-boomers will create having a longer life expectancy, therefore, he is in support of the project once the compliance issues are resolved. MSC (Willett/McCann) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-57 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the conditions and findings contained therein for a residential care facility. Motion carried. 3o REPORT: Wireless Communication Facilities Background: Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner reported that in 1996 the City participated in a SANDAG Regional Workshop on wireless communication facilities and as a result an Issues paper was prepared, which is the most current regional document available on the subject. All wireless communications facilities processed by the City require a Conditional Use Permit and are considered to be "Unclassified Uses" and are see in similar nature to radio or television transmitters~ There are two ways to review these applications. The first and simplest way is an administrative review by the Zoning Administrator; the second would be a public hearing, which would require approval by the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. Both reviews would have a noticing requirement. Because some of these facilities do not involve construction of any new building or substat~tial structural improvements, it is deemed appropriate to have it reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. Those that require a public hearing and review by the Planning Commission and City Council are those that involve monopole and/or monopalm facilities, or those which the Zoning Administrator feels are somewhat controversial or there is neighborhood opposition. Based on a dramatic increase in the number of facilities that have recently been processed, staff believes that this is an appropriate time to review the existing policy and draft a comprehensive program for these types of facilities. As a note, in July and August, 10 out of 17 applications for a Conditional Use Permit were for wireless communication facilities. In conclusion, Ms. Blessent stated that staff has contacted SAN DAG to receive input from other jurisdictions to see how they are handling these facilities and will be planning to have a workshop in the near future that will hopefully include representatives from the various jurisdictions, telecommunication carriers, and experts in the industry. Commission Discussion: Chair Thomas recommended that somehow staff should apprise the building community early in the approval process that their site meets certain desired criteria for wireless communication facilities and that if they are approached by a provider with such a request, that they know that Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - September 13, 2000 the City strongly supports such accommodations, when feasible. Chair Thomas further recommended that the Planning Department seriously consider having one staff member/planner designated solely to manage these applications and program. Commissioner Hall stated he is encouraged with the direction staff is headed toward with tapping into as many resources as possible within the region and strongly recommended getting answers from the experts in the industry as to where this technology is headed in terms of breaking down barriers which presently are quite restrictive in terms of the criteria for placement of these facilities. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he strongly supports the City's involvement with SAN DAG and recommended that they mobilize a regional effort that in essence requires the industry to come forth with a more complete package of what their present and future needs will be based on technological advancements in the industry and what type of infrastructure will be needed to support this technology. Commissioner Castaneda further stated that the City needs to have the type of policy in place that would "require", as oppose to "encourage", providers to design facilities that can accommodate subordinate providers for co-location by somehow building in an incentive, economical or otherwise, to do this type of pro-active planning. Commissioner McCann stated that he too is very encouraged to hear that the City will be working with SANDAG on this issue and further indicated that as part of the economic development of the City to bring in businesses and even the future development of the university site, it behooves the City to get as much information as possible on the direction the industry is headed with technological advancements and to ensure that the infrastructure to support it is in place. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Sandoval reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule COMMISSION ERS COMMENTS: Chair Thomas inquired if staff had had the opportunity to check on a compliance issue that is out in Eastlake relating to a fence variance. Director Sandoval stated that he requested that Code Enforcement check it out, but failed to bring their findings with him and will be relaying that information at another Planning Commission meeting. Chair Thomas asked if it would be possible to include on the Planning Commission agenda under "Director's Report" a list of any items that the Commission may have requested from staff. This would be very helpful because oftentimes, the maker of the request may forget what he asked Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - September 13, 2000 staff to research and report on. Commissioner Hall reported that the Sweetwater Union High School District is going to come before the voters for a $187 million dollar school bond. Since 1996 there have been 2 ballot propositions that totaled over 12 billion dollars in school construction, reconstruction finance bonds and was surprised to learn that out of the 12 billion dollars that has been passed by the State voters, the Sweetwater Union High School District has only received $40 million and is why they are going to have to come back to the voters to ask for an additional $187 million. Cmr. Hall recommended having Jorge Dominguez of the District give the Commission a briefing on the subject at a future meeting. Jim Sandoval stated it would be no problem finding time at a future agenda to have him come and speak to the Commission, however, there are some legal constraints that the Commission needs to be aware of. Ms. Moore stated that the Planning Commission can certainly listen to information about the measure, but need to be careful so as not to appear to be endorsing the bond measure as a group or using your position as a Planning Commissioners to endorse it. Chair Thomas stated that he could come and speak under oral communication and give a brief 3 to five minute briefing. Commissioner Cortes stated that as a member of the Reinvestment Task Force for the City/County he is aware of new data coming out relating to mortgage lending rates, rates of denial and approval and a lot of pertinent information relating to the Housing Element. He further recommended that staff and the Commission might consider having a representative from Task Force give a presentation of this data at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 7:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 2000. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission