Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/10/13 AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 13, 1999 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. 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 three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: LFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family daycare permit located at 735 Glover Avenue. Staff person presenting report: Beverly Blessent DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: to a Planning Commission Workshop on October 20, 1999. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: .1. Meeting Date: 10/13/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: LFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family daycare permit located at 735 Glover Ave. This appeal was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 29, 1999 and was continued to the October 13, 1999 hearing in order to allow staff and the applicant to address certain issues. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is exempt rrom CEQA per Class 5 (minor change in land use). Staff Contact: Beverly Blessent, AICP; Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and thereby deny the appeal. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission heard the appeal for the proposed Large Family Day Care Permit at 735 Glover Avenue on September 29, 1999. The hearing was continued for two weeks in order to give staff and the applicant the opportunity to respond to questions and concerns of the Planning Commission as noted below: · Is an inspection conducted bv the Fire Marshal? An inspection is conducted by the Fire Marshal and includes the following items: exiting, smoke detectors, verification of occupancy load, checking for a device that works as a fire alarm, verifying that fire drills are conducted. · Does the Building Division conduct an inspection? Inspections are not conducted by the Building Division. · The Commission would like to have a representative from the State present at this hearing. Planning staff has contacted the State Child Care Advocate and requested that they attend the hearing. · The applicant should provide evidence that there is room in the garage to park two vehicles. The applicant has turned in photographs which indicate that two cars can now be parked in the garage. Page 2, Item No.: _ Meeting Date: · The Citv Traffic Engineer should evaluate if the additional traffic will have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that additional traffic on the street due to this project will be minimal. See attached Memorandurn. · The Commission was concerned as to whether or not construction has begun on the room and bathroom addition. Although building permits have been issued, staff has not been able to verify that construction has begun. CONCLUSION: Based on the information gathered by staff and the information supplied by the applicant, staff believes that the applicant has complied with all applicable City regulations regarding Large Family Day Care and recommends that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be upheld. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Site Plan 3. Memorandum from Ralph Leyva 4. Planning Commission Minutes from September 29. 1999 I ICITYWIDEISYSIHOMEIPLANNINGIBEVICURRENTIPROJECTSILFDPCReponl013.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF LARGE F AMIL Y DAY CARE PERMIT 99-05 WHEREAS, a duly verified application 1!or a Large Family Daycare Permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 10, 1999, by Rominee Ricca and Pat Barajas and; WHEREAS, said application requested approval to establish a Large Family Day Care facility at 735 Glover Avenue in the R-I zone, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposal is exempt from environmental review, and; WHEREAS, several letters of objection to the proposal and a petition were received from surrounding property owners, and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held an administrative hearing on July 29, 1999, in order to take testimony on the matter, and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator determined that the permit met all City requirements regarding Large Family Day Care, and; WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter of approval for the Large Family Day Care proposal, and; WHEREAS, on August 23, 1999, concerned neighbors filed an appeal of this approval with the Planning Department, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Large Family Daycare Permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., September 29, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding available parking in the garage, the potential for increased traffic and requested that a representative rrom the State of California address the Commission regarding concerns about State law; and WHEREAS, the hearing was continued tQ October 13,1999 and said hearing was thereafter closed. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Zoning Administrator. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of October, 1999 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: John Willett, Chair ATTEST: Diana, Vargas, Secretary IICITYWIDEISYSIHOMEIPLANNINGIBEVlCURRENT\PROJECTSILF$9905AppeaIRESOLUTION.doc t- CHULA VISTA PLANNING AN BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT ROMINEE L. RICCA and ROJECTDESCRlP110N: C) APPUCANl'S: PATRICIA B. TORRES LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE PROJECT 735 GLOVER AVE ADDRESS: ~equest Proposed Family Daycare for 14 Children. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale LFD-99-05 h :\homelplanning\carlos\locators\lfd9905.cdr 06/23/99 ~N. , . . ~ G~LSiiAl'~ S'(." I-I,o~ ~DC~eN FEW~6 ~ A1Tr1C;H M EoAfT L 5c>(. I./) ~ . ~ -- r'.': -, ~ ,~ ~~." ... '\1;6 .... '\1.. ~ V'\ , i1~ ~; ~~- ....1;:) ~" r- , - __ b . -.' '.':':-~i" '~~."-ql ~r,"q,' . NeDK .' , K., ::.f;': : ~ R, J:~ :. ~ R:,. p.~' ft- . II II . ,...1, .t" d~I I I ' Isrw6. . ~ 1iNt:,' ", r " '~. !.AIl6NtJ6E . : . r I . '. . . . I ~: :I/i)" . : Z3 X 1<6 Pdf' .' '. / : '~0- ~l "" : : :'~IIJ'-'''''' .. :. ... ~L ~, V. ; . II~ 7. '. r: I j .:,J r I . -1"rI ' "~"'" (&)(1 I'~ !v I ~, $~l./ ,~;;,Ol ~ .~. VO _ ..- . ~ I .... ./"21. IZ I ,'" ":-'~ .. j:U ~T.UJ.6 I ~ I ~II " ~ ......, ~1 ,!fl!' ~ : :I'~: . : ~ .~~e:RY .. F{lI)~T Y A ~ ~7''- :~.i : .~,,1\. ~ :... 6. I J~j,. ." ~. . . . LI~w~{"':!'!'P"I''':'''i ir' "'.. J:"I A~S ~ I" HFieoo' . . --:' I ("i: I'~,:",:~~( AT"lA(UM~t-.\-r 'J : . " . F:J. (.~.ri 'Iv. b .' ", I' '. kfirM\1.,.V ~OM I / (, 'X ~f) ~ l'f :i-D!fflli~ :~~-''4.\?b.ib .' 1re:c.t:IN~ . . ~A~J. l1\vJtJ Hi) ,~il~n}J6. Pl.A.'l ~ !~V~9} f.4?Z> I z! . C ~T,) f\y.,~1J ) ,';~"~~ eWlJIP~ :..~~I&~W._ . ~! . .--.. - .~~ V) ~.. ,~ ~()' ~ - " I:> V) - U\ ~~ ~<: 000' .. .-. - . .. .. ;' . / . . : 17' . ~ 3(,' ~" . ( () J< - \ , A7IACftM Et1Jf5 MEMORANDUM Date: October 8, 1999 Pile No. CY002 TO: Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner FROM: Ralph R. Leyva, Senior Civil Engine~fll! / Day Care Permit at 735 Glover A ven1l1e SUBJECT: This memo is in response to your inquiry regarding the traffic conditions on Glover Avenue between "J" Street and Kearney Street. Glover A venUe is a typical residential street for this part of the city. It is 600 feet long with a 50 feet right of way and 30 feet street width (curb to curb). There are 18 single family residences on the block generating approximately 180 vehicular trips per day. The area has been surveyed at various times during the day including the morning and evening peak traffic hours. There are generally six to eight v~hicles parked on the street during the day. Traffic flows normally and there does not appear to be any unusual conditions. A project in the city of Chula Vista is not considered to generate significant amount of traffic unless it generates more than 2400 trips per day or more than 200 trips during the peak hour. A large family day care operation is expected to gen~rate an additional 28 trips per day which represents approximately 15.6% of the normally generated traffic on this block. If the trips to the day care residence occur during the peak hour, 14 trips would represent 7 % of the 200 trips per day threshold for significant amount of traffic. As a worst case scenario, combining the neighborhood's peak hour traffic (18 vehicles) with 14 vehicles from the day care represents one vehicle every two minutes. This rate of traffic flow would be less if the arriving and departing traffic to the day care residence is staggered through, out the day. It is Traffic Engineering's experience that complaints of too much traffic on a residential street generally occur when the volurne of traffic exceeds 1500 vehicles per day. Average residential streets will carry approximately 750 vehicles per day. Complaints of speeding generally occur when the 85th percentile speed exceeds 32 mph. The 185th percentile speed is the speed at which 85% of the motorists are driving and less. Traffic Engineering has not conducted any speed or volume measurements on Glover Avenue since we became aware of this issue only on Monday October 4, 1999. Copy: Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer H:IHOMElENGINEERI TRAFFICIGLOVER.RRL A7T ALH MEN' Y Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 29,1999 Often, project applicants take a casual approach qelieving that the Committee is simply there to ovide suggestions that they may take or leav~ and do not fully understand the ro and aut rity embodied in the Committee. It is hoped that a simple name change ma e p clarify this mis ception. Public Hearing C d 6:23. MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) tha Planning C Ission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an or In ord~r to: 1. Modify Section 19.1 1 of the Municipa e to rename the Design Review Committee to the Design lew Commission, and; 2. Direct ity Clerk to change all other applifable Munic Code sections to read Design eview Commission. Motion carried. ~ 4. PUBLIC HEARING: LFD-99-05; an appeal oh large family daycare permit located at 735 Glover Avenue. Background: Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner reported that on July 29, 1999 the Zoning Administrator approved a Large Family Day Care permit at 735 Glover Avenue. A neighboring property owner with the support of others in the ~eighborhood appealed this decision. A Large Family Day Care operation is considered to be an accessory use in a single family residence and allows residential day care for 9-14 ~hildren. These homes are required to obtain a license from the State as well as a permit from the City. The Zoning Administrator received three letters of <)pposition and a petition signed by twenty-four residents in the neighborhood. The letters requlested a hearing in accordance with Section 19.58.147B of the Municipal Code. A Zoning Administrator hearing was held on July 29, 1999 and the applicant and her grandfather were present at the hearing and spoke in favor of the project. Eight neighbors spoke in opposition to the permit and voiced the following concerns: noise traffidspeeding not enough play space in rear yard inadequacy of bathroom facilities perceived devaluation of the neighborhood Compliance with Permit Requirements: The City is required to approve the permit if it complies with all City requirements. The Zoning Administrator found that the permit met all City requirements. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September 29, 1999 Notice was provided to all homeowners with!in 300 feet of the proposal The permit was considered at a hearing condllJcted by the Zoning Administrator, which was subsequently appealed by interested parties. The family day care function was found to be ilncidental to the residential use of the property. The City has not approved any Large Family Q)aycare permits within the minimum distance requirements. Parking requirements have been met. The d~op off area in the front of the home complies with City regulations, as it is 32 feet long and 18 feet wide. The existing play area is 1,970 square feet. A 5 foot 6 inch wooden fence surrounds the backyard on three sides. Response to Appeal Concerns: The Zoning Administrator had the following responses to the concerns of the neighbors: A 5 foot 6 inch wooden fence surrounds the ~ackyard on three sides and should alleviate some of the noise. The Planning Commission ,may want to consider an additional condition limiting the number of children that may play outside at anyone time. Regarding noise and traffic on the street, the ap~licant has provided flyers to all her customers requesting they only drop off children in the 4Jriveway or in front of her home and to slow down after dropping children off. ' The applicant has adequate play space in the rear yard per State regulations. The City cannot impose a regulation requiring additional bathrooms, however, Building Division records note that a building permit was issued to expand one of the bedrooms and add an additional bathroom. The State of California Child Care Advocate has indicated that they have no regulations regarding the number of required bathroom in such facilities. Regarding the perceived devaluation of the neighborhood, staff has no objective evidence that this is the case, nor have the appellants supplied any information to indicate that this is a problem. Since the application meets all City and State requiremelhts for a Large Family Daycare, staff is making the following recommendation: Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving LFD 99-05 and deny the appeal. Commission Discussion: Chair Willett asked for clarification from Counsel as to the State regulations. Elizabeth Hall, Deputy City Attorney responded that ~he State of California has left to local City and County governments a few areas that can be loo~ed at, they are: noise, traffic, spacing and concentration of these facilities. The City can also Idok at building requirements and setbacks but they cannot be treated any differently than any otherisingle-family residence. The licensure issues are all pre-empted and the State takes care of those. Planning Commission Minutes - S . September 29, 1999 Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern and/or asked for clarification on: Distance requirements Traffic analysis Fire safety issues (sufficient emergency exits, fire detectors and extinguishers) Noise mitigation (masonry wall requirements) City's enforcement mechanism for non-comp!liance State regulations Ratio of care-givers to children Adequacy in the number of restrooms required Commissioner O'Neill further asked what mechani~m do we have to enforce any non-compliant issues as they relate to noise and traffic impacts to ensure compliance. Ms. Blessent responded that the distance requireme~ts (1200 feet on same street, and 300 feet not on same street) apply solely to large family daycares. The City has no discretion over small family daycares; they are allowed by right. With regard to traffic analysis, the original application for the LFDC was routed through the Traffic Engineering Division and they had no comments on traffic-related issues. With regard to noise mitigation, there is an existing'S foot 6 inch wooden fence. Several months ago the Commission considered changes to the Large Family Daycare ordinance and the requirement for the block wall was deleted. Ms. Blessent stated that any response/inquiries on non-compliant issues would be evaluated on a case-per-case complaint basis depending on the nature of the complaint (whether it fell under the purview of the City i.e. traffic, noise). If it was not \\!ithin the City's purview, the complaint would be referred directly to the State and they would proceed accordingly. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director stated thaj! the Commission could recommend that this permit be revisited within a specified time period (i.e. six months) in order to evaluate whether any of the potential noise and traffic problems are a legitimate concern. Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the State promulgates and enforces the regulations through the Department of Social Services Chi Id! Care Advocate. The State provides local jurisdictions with three options, they are: 1) to allow them as a matter of right, 2) they can be a Non-Discretionary Permit, or 3) they can be a Use Permit. Ms. Hull further stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the Large Family Daycare Ordinance a few months ago, it was recommended and the City Council approved, going with the Use Permit. Therefore, you could put a condition tp bring it back within six months for review. Restroom requirements would be a building regulation and the State of California states that we cannot impose regulations upon a LFDC that we would not impose upon a single-family residence. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - September 29, 1999 Commissioner Cortes thanked staff and the applicant for their diligence in reviewing this proposal to ensure that this permit meets all State requirement!; and for the applicant's efforts and willingness to mitigate those issues that are of concern, like noi$e and traffic, via her correspondence with her cI ientele. In addition, he stated that if the appeal is denied, he is receptive to placing a condition that this permit be revisited within a specified period of time. Commissioner Ray asked what the procedure is for ~otifying the State when a complaint has been raised and how many complaints on LFDC have bEien received. Ms. Blessent stated that if a complaint was called into the City, it would be referred directly to the State Advocate's office. She further stated that she' is not aware of any complaint that has been received against an existing LFDC. Commissioner Ray stated his concern with the garage not being able to accommodate two vehicles at the present time and stated that if he were to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision, he would make the garage a condition for approval. Commissioner Hall stated it would be very helpful if a representative from the State Advocate office could be present to answer the many questions the Commission has raised in the past, present and future whenever this topic is discussed and strongly urge staff to look into having her here. For future considerations, Commissioner Hall also urged staff to present a complete packet with statistics supporting or disputing a position that staff or the applicant is taking (i.e. real estate values of the surrounding neighborhood). Mr. Sandoval responded that it would not have been appropriate to have a State representative present tonight because this is a project-specific public hearing, however, it certainly would be appropriate in the future to invite a State rep. and rerjresentatives from the Child Care Commission to have a workshop-type meeting with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Castaneda pointed out that with the present climate, in terms of Welfare reform and the emphasis on putting people back to work, the demand for daycares is only going to increase. The limited latitude the State has imposed on local j~risdictions is an indicator of the high priority the State places on making sure that daycares are adcessible to where people need them. Commissioner Castaneda would like to see guidelinles drafted that would delineate how the City conveys complaints to the State and that we have a designated mechanism by which these complaints can be lodged and not have them lumped! together with other code enforcement issues where they can easily be misplaced or not given a High priority. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - September 29, 1999 Public Hearing Opened 7:05. Rominee Ricca, 735 Glover Avenue, Chula Vista, applicant, responded to the issues of concern that were raised by the Commission, they are: Fire safety issues The Fire Marshal has visited her home and they found that she is in compliance with their requirements. The fire door is where the Marshal requested that it be (in the garage). She has installed smoke alarms in every bedrooms, has a fire escape plan, and fire extinguishers. State licensing The State representative has visited her home and has verified that her home is safe from fire arms, poisons, unlocked kitchen knives, etc. and they have found her home to be in compliance and have issued her license. Depreciation of value of homes in neighborhood She disputes this statement because three homes on her street have recently sold. Traffic and noise impacts She has distributed a letter to all of her parents requesting that they slow down when they approach I her street, turn down any music that they are listening to, and park only in her driveway or directly in front of her home. Ratio of care-givers to children The State required two care-givers if there are more tin an 9 children and Ms. Ricca has one helper. Plav-time schedule for outdoors She has made a schedule where her children are able to go outdoors and play twice a day for one hour, weather permitting. Number of bathrooms reauired There are no requirements from the State, however, tliley are in the process of extending a bedroom and adding a second bathroom to the home and comstruction will start shortly. Ken Kennedy, 744 Glover Avenue, stated he has three small children, and other children in the neigborhood congregate and play in front their house and sometimes on the street. He is concerned with increased traffic and speeding and would like to see a traffic analysis conducted by the City Traffic Engineer. Walter Thatcher, 730 Glover Avenue stated he originally purchased his home on Glover Avenue in 1950; it was a quiet neighborhood then. He objecrs to having Mr. Pat Barajas purchase a home across the street from him and move in his grandd~ughter, Ms. Ricca, who operates a daycare. Much to the original homeowner's dismay, they ate able to tolerate a daycare with 8 children, but strongly oppose licensure for 14 children. He urged the Planning Commission to uphold the appeal. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - September 29, 1999 Tom Teagle, 271 Hilltop Drive, Principal for Montgom~ry Adult School and Cal-Works Administrator for South San Diego stated that Welfare reform ~as created a dichotomy where recipients are going into the work force and yet the greatest inHibitor is child care. The need for these types of facilities, which are accessible within the neighborhood of those who need them is only going to increase. Mr. Teagle urged the Commission tl> be cognizant of these social needs and not over-regulate these facilities. Public Hearing Closed 7:25 MSC (O'Neill/Ray)(6-0-1) to continue this item for t~o weeks in order to allow the applicant to address the non-compliant parking requirements which I state that the garage must accommodate two personal vehicles; that a traffic analysis be conducted by the City Traffic Engineer. Motion carried. The Planning Commission urged staff to make every effort to get a response from the State Advocate to see if she would agree to be present at the meeting when this item is brought back for discussion, or at a future meeting with a joint meeting with the Chilld Care Commission.