HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1997/06/11
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 11, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 21, 1997
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:
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4.
REPORT:
Continued Public Hearing SUPS-96-06; Request for a
special use permit to continue operating a truck
terminal/trailer storage yard at 2451 Faivre Street -
California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H. G. Fenton Material
Company Vista (to be continued to meeting of July 23,
1997)
PCA-97-05; Consideration of amendment to Sections
19.22.170 and 19.64.180 of the Municipal Code to aJIow
building additions on residential lots containing an existing
residence to maintain existing sideyard setbacks - City
Initiated
PCM-94-04; Consideration of a street name change from
East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway, between 1-805
and Wueste Road - City Initiated
PCM-96-24; Noticing procedures for public hearings - City
Initiated
Agenda
-2-
June 11, 1997
(-more-)
5.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA-97-04; Consideration of amendments to the
Municipal Code to change the definitions of small and large
family day care homes and family day care - City Initiated
6. Update on Council items
7. Election of ChairIVice Chair
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT at
p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of June 18, 1997 at 5:30
p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business
Meeting of June 25, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), tequests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity. or service to request such accommodation at least/arty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (fDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Service is available fot the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 06/11/97
ITEM TITLE:
Continued Public Hearing: SUPS-96-06 - Request for a special use permit
for a truck terminal/trailer storage yard at 2451 Faivre Street (APN 622-
190-15) - California Multimodal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Material Company
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant, California Multi-Modal, Inc., has requested a continuance of the public hearing
to the first meeting in July 1997 so the conditions of approval and mitigation measures can be
studied by CMI's lawyer and their board of directors, if needed. A copy of the continuance
request is attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
To allow adequate time for review by CMf's lawyer and board of directors, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on SUPS-96-06/IS-96-08 to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1997.
(h:\home\planning\martin\cmi\conLfpt)
_.M_______.___~.,~,_.._~._._
, . , ~".' ~UU," r-.uoOLa Page 001 of 001
This FAX sent with ~valuation version of FaxMer' Network for Windows
I
~mi~
Fax Transmittal
~,___ "'2/991
'-- - '-~
--. -------
-~~
California Multimodal, Inc.
2387 Faivre Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Tel. 619.429.1551
Fax 619.423.0292
TO:
www.crniseIVlce.com
E-Mail @eddyk@cmimail.com
Martin Miller - City of Chula Vista Planning Dept.
FROM:
Eddy Kubota
DATE:
June 02, 1997
RE:
Conditional Use Pennit
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES SENT: 1
(including this page)
SHOULD YOU NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CONTACT SENDING PERSON
vorCE PHONE: 619-429-1551
FAX PHONE: 619-423-0292
*** PLEASE DELIVER ALL PAGES TO THE ABOVE NAMED PERSON ***
Martin,
As we spoke over the phone today, I will be out of town on June 11, 1997. I think we should plan on
meeting at the next scheduled meeting in July. My understanding is we should have the "Resolution of
Conditions" by Friday June 06, 1997. This is still not enough time to have our lawyers approval and
meet with our board of directors if needed.
As you understood from our last conversation I was unsure ifl could make the meeting scheduled for
June 11, 1997. My understanding of our conversation today was the permit is still only for one year, this
will be a harder approval on our side if there are any investments we will have to make into the property
for one year permit.
I will stop by later today to pick up the draft copy and on Friday to pick up the official copy. Please
give me a call if you have any questions.
Eddy Kubota
I
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2
Meeting Date 6/11/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-97-05; Consideration of amendment to Sections
19.22.170 and 19.64.180 of the Municipal Code to allow building
additions on residential lots containing an existing residence to maintain
existing sideyard setbacks-City Initiated.
BACKGROUND
Ever since 1969, when the required residential sideyard setbacks changed from requiring 5 feet
on each side to requiring a minimum of 10 feet on one side and 3 feet on the other, there have
been numerous occasions where a property owner wishing to add a building addition to the
existing residence was not allowed to place the addition in line with the plane of the existing
residence since it did not meet the current required sideyard setbacks. The applicant/owner was
advised that the only exception which could take place was if they were successful in obtaining
a variance. This City-initiated proposal is to amend section 19.22.170 of the Municipal Code
for residential lots containing an existing residence to maintain existing side yard setbacks for
replacements and/or additions. This provision will not apply to existing lots which are less than
60 feet wide at front setback line as such lots are already covered under the provisions of section
19.24.070(c) of the Municipal code (which allows them to maintain 5' /5' setbacks).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that, as a procedural amendment, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the General
Rule exemption section l5061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCA
97-05 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend sections 19.22.170 of the
Municipal Code relating to required side yard setbacks for additions to existing residences.
MAIN ISSUES:
1. The current Municipal Code restriction requiring a new addition to comply with current
sideyard setback requirements or seek a zone variance places an unnecessary hardship
on owners of property which was previously developed under the previous setback
requirements.
-----
,
Page 2, Item 2
Meeting Date 6/11/97
2. Requiring an addition to meet the current required 10'/3' setbacks would not in any way
help to achieve the original intent of requiring a ten foot side yard setback on one side
since the existing residence would preclude vehicular access to the rear of the property.
3. Allowing the edge of a building addition to match the existing plane of the building will
allow a better aesthetic continuity to the house and in many cases allow the addition to
better match existing floor and roof plan of the house.
4. Variances relating to sideyard setback reductions which are consistent with the proposed
text amendment are routinely approved by the Department, thus an ordinance amendment
would eliminate the need for Variance requests.
DISCUSSION:
Current Code Requirements
Expansion of existing residential homes on lots 60 feet in width or greater are required to
maintain a side yard setback of 10' on one side even if the existing house is set closer than 10'
to the side yard.
Proposed modification
The proposed modification would allow building additions to adhere to the same setback enjoyed
by the existing house, but no closer than 5' to the side property line with a minimum 10'
separation from any adjacent residence.
The existing section 19.22.170 and 19.64.180 are proposed to be modified as follows:
Section 19.22.170 Building Additions and Remodeling
A. Any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings, which when added to the original
square footage equals 50 % or greater than the original building permit allowed, shall
require the building to comply with current zoning ordinance standards. Current
building setbacks shall, however, apply only to new additions to an existing dwelling ~
below for additions of less than 50 % on lots that are 60 feet wide or greater at front
setback line). Original building square footage shall be determined by submittal of
dimensioned floor and site plans by the applicant, which are subject to review by the
Director of Planning for verification.
B. Building additions on residential lots containing an existing residence may maintain
sidevard setbacks previously established by a legally constructed existing residence
provided all of the following criteria are met:
Page 3, Item 2
Meeting Date 6/11/97
.L The proposed addition constitutes less than 50 % of the floor area of the original
building square footage.
2. The proposed addition maintains a minimum five foot setback from the side
property line.
;L There is a minimum 10 foot separation between the horizontal building plane of
the existing residence and addition and the horizontal building plane of an existing
adjacent residence.
4. There is a minimum 6 foot separation between the horizontal building plane of
the proposed addition and any adjacent accessory building.
Section 19.64.180 Uses not conforming to setback or height requirements-alteration or
enlargement permitted when.
Any structure that is nonconforming because of setback or height requirements may be
altered and/or enlarged by approval of the zoning administrator on the basis that such
alteration and/or enlargement shall conform to the regulations herein except as provided
for in Section 19.22. 170.
ANALYSIS:
One of the primary reasons for the change in required residential side yard setbacks from 5' /5'
to 10' /3' back in 1969 was to establish at least one generous side yard which would provide for
an opportunity to have vehicular access to the rear yard which was once provided by alleys. As
a result of these new 10' /3' sideyard setback requirements, there are many dwellings constructed
in the City prior to 1969 which do not conform with the present setback standards. While
residential lots which are less than 60 feet wide at front setback line are governed by section
19.24.070(c) of the Municipal Code (which requires that remodels/additions only have to meet
5 foot side yard setbacks), there is no such provision for existing developed lots which are 60
feet wide or greater. Currently building additions on such lots must comply with the current
sideyard setback requirements. This results in a hardship in terms of not being able to expand
the dwelling in a manner consistent with an existing floor plan. In addition, due to the previous
development of the site under previous setback requirements, no vehicular access could take
place to the rear of the property which is the primary purpose of the 3' II 0' setback requirement
(see exhibit-example).
.,..-
Page 4, Item 2
Meeting Date 6/11/97
CONCLUSION
At the present time, the only way to allow a reduction in the current setbacks is for the
owner/applicant to request a Variance for setback reduction. Staff has consistently approved such
requests since an existing hardship is present due to the fact that the property was developed
according to previous setback requirements. Because of the increased frequency of these
occurrences, cost and time to the applicant and staff time to process the Variance application,
staff now recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. For these reasons, staff
recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
Attachments
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2. Graphic Example
(a: pcrpt\sideyard
e
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.PCA-97-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTIONS 19.22.170 AND 19.64.180 THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ADDITIONS TO RESIDENCES WHICH! ARE NON-CONFORMING DUE TO
SIDEY ARD SETBACKS.
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Ordinance requires building additions to eXIsting
residential dwelling units which are nonconforming due to current setbacks on lots which are
greater than 60 feet at the front setback line to be constructed to meet current sideyard setback
requirements, and
WHEREAS, there have been numerous requ~sts from the public to construct additions
along the same plane as the existing residence, and
WHEREAS, requiring the owner of property to comply with current sideyard setbacks
for additions to existing residential structures which are nonconforming in terms of current
sideyard setback requirements, causes an undue hardship on the owner who is precluded from
expanding a nonconforming dwelling in a manner consistent with an existing floor plan and
plumbing layout, and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a request to amend the Municipal Code to allow
additions to existing residential units on lots 60 feet or wider measured at front setback line to
be built along the same plane of the existing residence even if not meeting the current sideyard
setbacks, and
WHEREAS, allowing the proposed additions along the same plane as the existing house
will not affect the intent of the current sideyard setbacks to allow for access to the rear of the
housing since such access would have already been precluded by the location of the existing
residence, and
WHEREAS, these provisions shall not apply to residential lots which are less than 60 feet
wide at the front yard setback line, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set th~ time and place for a hearing on said
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with jts purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time ~nd place as advertised, namely June 11,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 27q Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal, as a procedural amendment, is
-----,~-
,
exempt from environmental review and is not subje~t to CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1iHAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED
AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council
amend Section 19.22.170 of the Municipal Code tb allow for the expansion of an existing
residence along same plane of the building as shown on Exhibit "A".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day of by the foUowing vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ctTY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING SECTIONS ~9.22.170 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ADDITONS TO RESIDENCES
WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING DUE TO CURRENT SIDE YARD
,
SETBACK REQUIRMEENTSI.
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Ordinanctt requires building additions to existing
residential dwelling units which are nonconforming jdue to current setbacks on lots which are
greater than 60 feet at the front setback line to be cqnstructed to meet current sideyard setback
requirements, and '
WHEREAS, there have been numerous requests from the public to construct additions
along the same plane as the existing residence, and
WHEREAS, requiring the owner, of property to comply with current sideyard setbacks
for additions to existing residential structures whic'l are nonconforming in terms of current
sideyard setback requirements, causes an undue harcship on the owner who is precluded from
expanding a nonconforming dwelling in a manner consistent with an existing floor plan and
plumbing layout, and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a request to amend the Municipal Code to allow
additions to existing residential units on lots 60 feet or wider measured at front setback line to
be built along the same plane of the existing residenoe even if not meeting the current sideyard
setbacks, and
WHEREAS, allowing the proposed additions along the same plane as the existing house
will not affect the intent of the current sideyard setbacks to allow for access to the rear of the
housing since such access would have already been precluded by the location of the existing
residence, and
,
,
,
WHEREAS, these provisions shall not apply t~ residential lots which are less than 60 feet
wide at the front yard setback line, and
WHEREAS, on June 11,1997, the City PlannIng Commission voted_ to recommend
that the City Council approve the Ordinance in accotdance with Resolution PCA 97-03; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Municipal Code
amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in t le city and its mailing to property owners
witllin 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the pro~erty at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time .nd place as advertised, namely March 22,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Ffurth Avenue, before the City Council and
said hearing was thereafter closed., .
I
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of tjJe City of Chula Vista does hereby amend
Section 19.22.170 and 19.64.180 of the Chula Vist1t Municipal Code to read:
I
i
Section 19.22.170 Building Additi~ns and RemodelIng
A. Any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings, which when added to the original
square footage equals 50% or greater than the original building permit allowed, shall
require the building to comply with current zoning ordinance standards. Current
building setbacks shall, however, apply only.to new additions to an existing dwelling (see
below for additions of less than 50 % on lots that are 60 feet wide or greater at front
setback line). Original building square footage shall be determined by submittal of
dimensioned floor and site plans by the app icant, which are subject to review by the
Director of Planning for verificat,ion.
1L Building additions on residential lots containing an existing residence may maintain
sidevard setbacks previously established by a legally constructed existing residence
provided all of the following criteria are met:
1...
The proposed addition constitutes less than 50 % of the floor area of the original
building square footage.
2.
The proposed addition maintains a Dinimum five foot setback from the side
property line.
.1.
There is a minimum 10 foot separatior' between the horizontal building plane of
the existing residence and addition and the horizontal building plane of an existing
adjacent residence.
4."
I
There is a minimum 6 foot separati0I1 between the horizontal building plane of
the proposed addition and any ad iace1t accessory building.
,
I
,
Section 19.64.180 Uses not conforming to setb~ck or height requirements-alteration or
enlargement permitted when. '
Any structure that is nonconforming because iof setback or height requirements may be
altered and/or enlarged by approval of the z\ming administrator on the basis that such
alteration and/or enlargement shall conform t~ the regulations herein except as provided
for in section 19.22.170.
Presented by
4pproved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
JOhn M. Kaheny
qity Attorney
(b: \home\planning\jeff\ordinance\nonco)
..
~ Re~oe."~
I.. ..
..~--.~., //"" ~/~I/"r.I'/' .~,~".". /;"'~'//.'///' .~~~... .
.' 71
L' t5<.,~~ ?' rlIhH C4'oIG__~. AENc-e/W/'rt..t..
. .
;~--".. <J'","" ~~ ~~'" ~ -= ~4i
1" [:'~ se .(;
I
I
I
I
~
'II
..
\j\
''t
,.-
\f\
.....
~I
()~
& iii
-121
~I f
~.' .J/.
~F
~~ lo.i:l!!, ,
Irf
.
.
..r
t. .'
.
.
I
.1
;J..
existing
."atia
I
I
1
I
I
\)
. J 10' ~.
-(+\ UI
~ <.
~I ~I'
m .
.
~ % 5']
,~ B~.
.
I
It
,
-.
, ,.
...II\~
'"
'I-
,
It\
i'
...
1'-.
~. 10'
-'
,
existing
residence
..
J
existing
g~r~ge_
-
't~ ~.<.
r~'67~ C(7Vv-
. . Pfl.lV&W~'"
, . .
o .
.f"'I""C'ptEF:rY' L...IN; &0.0' /V/a04+'I~NvI L
,.. .1; , 1ihI '.. .. ..r
'/~{~"\!"~'~'> ",: . 1-
.t1'9
. .
,
\t.
avenue. N
,
.1::
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 3
Meeting Date 6/11/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-94-04; Consideration of a street name change, from
East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway, between I-80S and Wueste
Road.
This is a City initiated application requesting approval to change the name of East Orange Avenue
between I-80S and Wueste Road to "Olympic Parkway" (see Locator 1). The intent of this
proposal would be to gain approval of the name change of the entire length of the roadway, but
to implement only the segment between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road, which currently
connects to the ARCO Olympic Training Center at this time. Implementation of remaining
segments of East Orange A venue to the west would only occur as the future street segments are
connected through to the east.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt from
environmental review as a Class 1 (c) exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve a street name change for East Orange Avenue to
"Olympic Parkway" between I-80S and Wueste Road.
BACKGROUND
The Municipal Code sets forth the Planning Commission as the recommending body for the
establishment of official City street names.
In April 1993, the City Council directed the Planning Department to look at alternatives for
changing Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road or East Orange Avenue between 1-805 and
Wueste Road to "Olympic Boulevard," and obtain approval for such a change from the U.S.
Olympic Committee.
After evaluating the street name change for the above mentioned roadways, staff concluded that
the alternative of renaming East Orange Avenue would be the better solution for two primary
reasons: 1) once completed, this roadway will provide a direct connection between I-80S and the
ARCO Olympic Training Center, while Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road does not
Page 2, Item 3
Meeting Date 6/11/97
provide a direct connection; and 2) a large number of both residential and commercial
establishments already addressed on Telegraph/Otay Lakes Road would be affected, whereas there
are currently no residences or commercial entities addressed on East Orange Avenue east of 1-805.
There are a number of residential and commercial businesses addressed on East Orange Avenue
west of I-80S, but they would not be affected by this proposal.
This item was previously considered by the Planning Commission in February 1996 and a street
name change from East Orange Avenue to "Olympic Parkway" between Hunte Parkway and
Wueste Road was approved by the Commission at that time. Subsequent to that consideration,
the proposal was put on hold due to the status of certain negotiations with EastLake which
impacted this proposal.
Those negotiations no longer have any bearing on this application, and in fact the Publi Works
Department has recently applied for a federal grant which could provide funds for construction
of this roadway segment; therefore, there is now a need to resolve this issue. Due to the time
lapse, the proposal is being brought before the Planning Commission for consideration again
before being forwarded to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Roadway Development
With the exception of the segment between I-80S and Brandywine and the recently constructed
segment between Wueste Road and the USOTC main entrance, East Orange Avenue is not
constructed east of I-80S; consequently, changing the name of the entire segment of the roadway
at this time could mislead I-80S motorists to a dead end street. Therefore, staff is suggesting that
while the entire roadway between 1-805 and Wueste Road be renamed, only the section between
Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road should be physically signed as "Olympic Parkway". The City
would postpone implementation of the new name onto other segments of East Orange Avenue,
as well as the changing of freeway signage, until such time as development proceeds and
physically connects the westerly roadway portions through to the ARCO Olympic Training
Center. Currently, the only area which is developed' is East Orange Avenue from I-80S to
Brandywine.
Under this "phasing" scenario, the street section between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road could
be physically implemented now, with the remaining street segments (such as 1-805 to Brandywine)
to be re-signed at some future point in time when they physically link through to the OTC.
Street Name
Authorization to use the word "Olympic" for the above mentioned roadway has been granted to
Page 3, Item 3
Meeting Date 6/11/97
the City by the U.S. Olympic Committee with the condition that enforcing mechanisms be adopted
to prevent the proliferation of the unlawful use of the word "Olympic" by businesses and
developments proximate to or on Olympic Parkway. Both EastLake and the Baldwin Company,
the major developers effected by this street name change, have agreed to include restrictions in
their respective CC&R's (this solution is acceptable to the U. S. Olympic Committee) and have
endorsed the street name change. '
With regard to the street designator (Boulevard, Parkway, Road, Avenue, Way, Vista, etc.) it
should be noted that East Orange A venue with its designation of prime arterial would normally
be designated as "Boulevard" per the City's adopted Subdivision Manual. However, the Chula
Vista Municipal Code grants the City Council the authority to name or rename streets after
receiving a recommendation from the City Planning Commission. Because this roadway leads to
an important City landmark, the following street name designator are consider to be appropriate
alternatives:
Olympic Vista
Olympic Parkway
Olympic Boulevard or
Olympic Road.
The U.S. Olympic Committee has indicated that they would not support the name "Olympic
Way"; therefore, it has been omitted from the above list.
The Police and Fire Departments have endorsed the use, of Olympic as a proposed street name
indicating that, although there is an Olympia Street 'near by, the street number system is quite
different and therefore no conflict would exist.
While staff has no particular preference, "Olympic Parkway" would be consistent with other
major streets in the area which have utilized the Parkway Designator.
CONCLUSION:
For the reason noted above, staff recommends approval of the street name change in accordance
with the attached City Council Resolution.
Attachments
1. Commission and Draft Council Resolutions
2. Locators
3. Correspondence rrom USOC
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-94-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A STREET NAME
CHANGE FOR EAST ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN 1-805 AND WUESTE ROAD
TO OLYMPIC PARKWAY
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1995, the City of Chula Vista initiated a street name change to rename
East Orange Avenue, from I-80S to Wueste Road, to "Olympic Parkway;" and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt
from environmental review as class 1 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the street name change
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., June 11,
1997, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing
was thereafter closed; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution renaming East Orange
Avenue from 1-805 to Wueste Road to "Olympic Parkway."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of June 1997, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Frank M. Tarantino, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM EAST ORANGE
A VENUE BETWEEN I-80S AND WUESTE ROAD TO OLYMPIC
PARKWAY
r. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the proposal is to change the name of East Orange Avenue to Olympic
Parkway as diagramatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference and identified as "Project;" and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, On July 16, 1995, the City of Chula Vista ("Applicant") filed an application
requesting to rename the East Orange Avenue from 1-805 to Wueste Road to "Olympic
Parkway" ("Project"); and,
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS on June 11, 1997, the Planning Commission considered the above mentioned
request and after hearing staff's presentation and public testimony approved the street
name change by a _ vote; and,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the street name change
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting, at which this Resolution was adopted, July 8,
1997, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved the street name change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on June 11, 1997, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from
environmental review as class l(c) exemption.
IV. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review coordinator to post a notice of
determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
In light of the facts stated above and the public testimony presented at the hearing, the City
Council hereby approves the street name change from East Orange A venue to Olympic
Parkway, with said change to be implemented for any section of the roadway only at such
time as said section is physically linked through to the ARCO Olympic Training Center.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John Kaheny
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 3
LOCATOR
T
,
~- - ....
z
...,
m
'"
'"
g
m
'Olympic Parkway'
'(
~
o
~
.
.
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
LOCATOR
C)
PROJECT City of Chula Vista
APPUCANi:
PROJECT
ADDRESS, Wueste Road
NORTH
SCAlf:
No Scale
I FILE NUMBER:
PCM-94-04
,
'~
I
LO~R
OTAY
LAIC,
,~:
- --&.G~
-~~""-
."'-..
;
i
/
/
(
~(
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C)
~~~, City Df Chula Visla
PROJECT Between Hunte Parkway &
ADDRESS, Wueste Road
SCt.LE, I FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCM.94~
PROJECT DfSCRlPnON,
t NORTH
LOCATOR 1
ATTACHMENT 4
CORRESPONDENCE
~Y-ZZ-9T 15:3B From:USOC-EXEC OFFICE
ITI953Z4IBO~
T-050 P.OI/O! Job-3B5
~,."..,,~
~" ..
~U 5 A+.i.,
o M
it ~
~~if
Thoma. C. Wilkinson
A,;slfilAant ~utlvc: Dltcc(OI'
May 22, 1997
Mr. Kenneth Lee
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Visra. CA 91910
SUBJ: Proposed street name change from East Orange Avenue to Olympic Parkway/AvenuelBoulevard
Dear Mr. Lee:
The United States Olympic Committee continues to support changing the street name of East Orange
Avenue to a name utilizing the word "Olympic." Our February 12, 1996 letter to you agreeing to this was
limited from Wueste Road to Hunte Parkway.
However, we have reviewed the proposed route: from 1-805 to Wueste Road with city planners and
understand that the mlljority of the road is through open space. Therefore, we agree to the renaming tram
1-805 to Wueste under the condition of your May 19, 1997 leUer.
Should the City Council opt for an alternative from Olympic ParkwaylBoulevard/Avenue we would like to
be advised as soon as possible. We still would not approve Olympic Way.
We appreciate your intention to utilize development standards, CC&Rs, and/or other mechanisms to
preclude any commercial operations that may develop on this street from "sing "Olympw" in their name
without prior authorization from the U.S. Olympic Committee. While commercial development along this
route: is limited, the city must be vigilant in watching for violations as commercial activities develop. Many
love to associate with the word "Olympic", and we vigorously defend our exclusive proprietary ri2hts under
the Amateur SportS Act of 1978.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this malter.
Sincerely.
~f.tJ~
Thomas C. WUkillllon
TCW/lch
ce: Ron Rowan/John Smyth/Benita Fitzgerald-Mosley
United States Olympic Commiuc:c
1750 Ea., Boultlc:r S'~"t
Colo",do Springs, Colo",do 1j()909
719-6n-S55 I
~
,
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 4
Meeting Date 6/11197
ITEM TITLE:
Report: PCM-96-24; Noticing procedures for public hearings - City-
Initiated
This report is in response to a City Council request for information regarding procedures
for public noticing on land use hearings with respect to notification of tenant residents.
Additionally, the Planning Commission has expressed interest in reviewing the effectiveness
of the City's expanded noticing policies, the modification of the existing public notice format
to make it more easily understood, and the addition of information addressing non-English
speaking persons within the community.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA as a Class 1 exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
PCM-96-24 recommending that the City Council amend Council Policy 400-01 related to
land use hearing noticing in accordance with the attached Council Resolution.
PRIMARY ISSUES:
. Providing both owner and tenant noticing
. Noticing boundaries (distance)
. Use of public forums
. Alternative methods of noticing
· Content of notice
DISCUSSION:
In 1991, the City Council adopted a Council policy regarding extended noticing of land use
hearings (see Council Policy #400-01, attached). Council Policy 400-01 extended the
noticing radius on land use matters from 300 ft. to 500 ft. for items to be considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council, and to 1,000 ft. for projects consisting of 5 acres
or more.
~
Page 2, Item 4
Meeting Date 6/11/97
The purpose of this policy was to ensure that notice of public hearings was given to those
who might be affected by a given decision regarding land use but who might be located
beyond the legally required (300 ft) mailing radius. This policy was also intended to
provide greater opportunity for public input. At the time that the policy was adopted, it was
also indicated that internal (departmental) policy would be created to include the use of
public forums and tenant/resident noticing as a matter of course.
As a result of the above-noted Council referral, staff has reviewed current noticing
procedures in order to assess their effectiveness in accomplishing stated goals, and has
reviewed the format of public notices with an eye toward simplification and the provision
of information for non-English speakers. The following is a review of staff's findings, along
with recommendations for changes to the current policies and departmental procedures.
Legal Requirements for Noticing
Except as noted for noticing involving environmental review, charter cities are not required
to comply with certain state laws, including those which affect noticing. As a charter city,
Chula Vista is not required to comply with state laws in this area. However, as a general
policy the City Attorney's office has advised that at the minimum, the City should comply
with state law.
Generally, state law requires that when a public hearing is required, notice of public
hearings shall be given in all of the following ways:
. mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject
real property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant;
. mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to each local agency
expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities
or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may
be significantly affected;
. mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real
property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real
property that is the subject of the hearing unless there are 1,000 or more, in which
case it may be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the local
agency which is conducting the proceeding;
. either published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local
agency which is conducting the proceeding, or posted in at least three public places
within the boundaries of the local agency including one public place in the area
directly affected by the proceeding, at least ten days prior to the hearing.
With respect to noticing of environmental review, state law must be followed; state law
requires that notice shall be given by at least one of the following ways:
. publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
proposed project;
T
Page 3, Item 4
Meeting Date 6/11/97
. posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located;
. direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project.
Coastal Zone regulations which are in effect in Chula Vista for the area west of 1-5 require
that property owners and tenants within 100' be provided with notice.
State law requires only publishing a notice in the newspaper for general plan amendments
and certain SPA plan amendments.
Current Noticing: Procedures
Present noticing procedures within the City are much more comprehensive than state law.
Currently, matters to be determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review
Committee are noticed to property owners as well as residents within a 300 ft. radius of the
project boundary. Items to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council
are noticed to property owners and residents within a 500 ft. radius of the project
boundaries except those projects consisting of five acres or more, which are noticed to
property owners and residents within 1000 ft. of the project boundaries.
In addition, the existing Council policy requires consideration of extending any noticing
boundaries in order to include properties that share common physical attributes as those
within the required boundaries, such as common streets, topographic features, and
neighborhood boundaries. The policy further requires that lists be maintained and notices
provided for those persons who are not legally entitled to notice, but who either have
expressed an interest in the outcome of an application or who, to the knowledge of the
director, may have a property interest which may be significantly impacted by the possible
outcome of an application.
The same radius to be utilized for the project itself is utilized for noticing of environmental
review processing.
Additionally, public forums are often held to introduce a project to neighborhood residents
and to gain input prior to the public hearing process. These forums are held when, in the
judgement of staff, the project is large enough or an issue has been identified which is likely
to generate substantial neighborhood interest.
Issues Related to Noticing Boundaries
The issues to be explored with respect to noticing boundaries involve the effectiveness
versus the cost of providing public notices of land use hearings beyond that which is
required by state law. This includes the use of public forums, the 500 ft. and 1000 ft.
extended noticing boundaries, and tenant noticing.
~
Page 4, Item 4
Meeting Date 6/11/97
ANALYSIS:
Mailing Procedures and Costs
With the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) now available, project locator maps
can be created by use of the computer, as can the accompanying mailing lists for any given
radius. While this has only recently become available, savings of staff time previously
required for the manual creation of mailing lists appear to be substantial. However,
although GIS has reduced the amount of staff time spent creating the mailing lists, clerical
staff time must still be spent copying notices, stuffing envelopes, and affixing mailing labels
to envelopes.
The costs associated with public noticing include postage, copying costs, envelope costs, and
clerical time spent preparing the notices for mailing. Postage costs are recovered through
deposit accounts (in which all costs associated with processing are billed to a "deposit" put
down by the applicant; if the costs of processing exceeds the amount of the initial deposit,
the applicant may be billed for additional funds to recoup additional monies expended).
However, postage costs are not recoverable on flat fee applications such as Zoning
Administrator matters. Further, the costs associated with photocopying, and clerical time
are all part of overhead; they are recovered indirectly through full cost recovery hourly
billing on deposit accounts, and may or may not be recovered on flat fee accounts
(depending upon the amount of time required for processing).
Exhibit "A", attached, provides an example of costs incurred on five past conditional use
permit applications. These costs have been broken down to distinguish the costs of noticing
property owners from the costs of noticing tenants.
Exhibit "B", attached, provides an example of the cost differential associated with mailing
lists at the 300 ft. legal minimum as compared to the 500 ft. and 1000 ft extended radius.
Effectiveness of Extended Noticing Boundaries
It is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of extended boundaries for noticing. As noted
previously, under current City Council policy the state law noticing requirement of 300 ft.
has been expanded to 500' for items to be considered at a public hearing by the Planning
Commission and City Council; this is further expanded to 1000' for projects of 5 acres or
more. Although respondents to a public notice generally identify themselves (i.e. as a
property owner, tenant, etc), staff has not in the past attempted to identify/analyze the
lineal distance between respondents and projects.
Significant response to public notices in general is the exception rather than the rule; some
l'
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date
4
6/11/97
recent projects which have been noticed even to 1000 ft. have drawn little response. One
example is a recent project in Rancho del Rey consisting of SPA plan amendments and
subdivision maps; notices to over 1200 owners and tenants within 1000 ft. drew responses
from approximately three people (see Table "B", attached, for costs associated with this and
other projects' mailings).
A more extreme example is found in recent Sectional Planning Area plan notices for the
Otay Ranch project. By state law, only publication in a newspaper would have been
required for the SPA plan consideration. However, over 2,000 notices were mailed to
property owners and tenants within 1,000 ft. Further, notices regarding Villages 1 and 5
tentative maps were mailed to over 1300 property owners and tenants (300 ft. noticing
required by state law, 1000 ft. noticing actually conducted). The total response to these two
notices combined was two phone calls.
Staff surveyed other jurisdictions regarding current practices in public notice procedures.
Of eleven jurisdictions surveyed, only one extends noticing beyond 300 ft. for public hearings
(Poway, which extends the radius to 500 ft. only for items to be considered by the City
Council). Two of the jurisdictions queried (Coronado and San Diego) notify residents as
well as property owners. And Imperial Beach also notifies tenants, although only within 100
ft. of the project.
Tenant Noticing
Of the public input received by staff regarding land use matters, the vast majority has been
from property owners. This can be stated with a large degree of certainty as Planning staff
members routinely attempt to ascertain a respondent's particular interest in a project;
further, property owners generally identify themselves as such. When tenants do respond
to noticing, it most often involves requests to develop vacant property.
As demonstrated by attached Table "A", the numbers of tenant residents noticed is often
substantial and can add significantly to the cost of noticing the project. In fact, it is not
uncommon for the number of tenants noticed to exceed the number of property owners
noticed, particularly when a project is located in the higher density areas of the city which
contain more multiple family complexes.
Under state law, notice is generally only required for tenants when the property is located
in the Coastal Zone as noted previously, or as one of the available noticing methods for
environmental review under CEQA. The Coastal Zone constitutes only a small geographic
area within the City, and noticing of only adjacent tenants would satisfy CEQA
requirements.
Use of Public Forums
T
1
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date
4
6/11/97
Public forums are often held to introduce a project to neighborhood residents and to gain
input prior to the public hearing process (generally only for items to be considered by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council). These meetings are held when, in the
judgement of staff, the project has the potential to generate substantial neighborhood
interest. For the convenience of neighbors, public forums are usually held in a public
facility close to the project site and take place after normal business hours. They are run
informally; although staff is present to assist and answer questions related to processing and
scheduling, public forums are primarily a meeting to allow an applicant to explain a project
to those in attendance.
Staff has found that the use of public forums can be a successful tool in obtaining public
input prior to the public hearing process. Public forums invite involvement by providing
neighbors with information regarding projects early in the process, as well as providing them
with the opportunity to communicate directly with applicants. The forums further allow
both staff and the applicant to obtain advance input as to what issues may be significant to
the surrounding neighborhood, which in turn provides more time to address these issues
before the formal hearing process.
A number of forums have been held in the past few years, and the advance input obtained
from some of these meetings has been beneficial to both staff and applicants by providing
early opportunity for input in an informal manner. However, attendance at these public
forums has been inconsistent, with many public forums only sparsely attended.
Alternative Methods of Providing Public Notice
The availability of alternatives for providing the public with notice of projects under
consideration may playa part in considering the extent to which mailings should be utilized.
Staff has identified a number of alternative or additional methods through which the public
can be provided with notice of pending project consideration.
- Posting of signs at project sites. Staff members familiar with this process through use in
other jurisdictions report that the posting of signs (large enough to be seen by passing such
motorists, e.g. 4' x 6') can be an effective tool in eliciting public response. In fact, this
method provides notice not only to those who own property or live in the vicinity, but also
to the public at large. The main drawback to this method is that signs may be removed or
damaged.
- Telephone recordings. A recorded message line can be made available which would
provide information on upcoming hearings.
- The Internet. For computer users, information on upcoming public hearings can be
provided on the City's Web site home page.
~
Page 7, Item 4
Meeting Date 6/11/97
Simplification of Public Notices; Alternative (Non-English) Lan~uage Usage
Recent discussion at a Planning Commission hearing prompted staff to assess the possibility
of re-designing public notices to make them simpler and more easily understood. A new
format for noticing has been provided for Commission comments (see attachment).
Discussion at the same meeting included the possibility of providing information in Spanish.
Given the large number of Spanish speakers within the City, staff finds the inclusion of
information in Spanish to be a logical suggestion and believes that it can be accommodated
easily by the addition to project notices of a standard paragraph in Spanish advising that a
bilingual staff member is available to provide information regarding the public notice (and
thus the project).
CONCLUSION
Extended Noticing Boundaries
Alternatives:
. Maintain existing noticing boundaries of 300 feet for Zoning Administrator and
Design Review Committee actions; 500 feet for Planning Commission and City
Council actions; 1000 feet for projects of five acres or more.
. Eliminate the 1000 foot noticing boundary, maintaining all others as currently
directed.
. Eliminate both the 1000 foot and the 500 foot noticing boundaries, thereby utilizing
the 300 foot state legal minimum boundary for all applications.
. Include other method(s) of providing public notice, such as sign postings, Web page
notices, telephone recordings.
Staff Recommendation:
With regard to the issue of extended noticing boundaries of 500 ft. and 1000 ft., as indicated
previously it is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of specific extended boundaries.
Despite the lack of consistent public turnout, items to be considered by the Planning
Commission are those which are deemed to have potential for more (and more far-
reaching) impact. Therefore, the extension of noticing boundaries to 500 ft. for such
applications is in keeping with intent of providing notice to those who may potentially be
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date
4
6/11/97
effected by the outcome. As a result, staff recommends the retention of the 500 ft. noticing
boundary for applications to be considered by the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
However, based upon the limited response drawn for public hearings on recent projects
which warranted the 1,000 ft. noticing boundaries, staff finds that this extended boundary
is not meeting the goal of eliciting any more substantial public input than the 500 ft. limit
and therefore recommends that the existing noticing policy be amended to rescind the 1000
ft. noticing requirement.
Tenant Resident Noticing
Alternatives:
. Maintain and formalize within Council policy the existing practice of noticing tenant
residents on all applications.
. Eliminate noticing for tenant residents for all or selected applications.
Staff Recommendation:
With respect to tenant resident noticing, staff finds that response has been sporadic at best,
and as evidenced by attachments, tenant resident notice mailing costs can add substantially
to a project. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's conclusion that direct noticing
of tenants has been relatively ineffective, then staff's recommendation is to eliminate the
noticing of tenant residents, excepting for applications located within the Coastal Zone
where such noticing is legally required.
Use of Public Forums
Alternatives:
. Modify City Council policy to formalize the current practice of holding public forums
at the discretion of staff.
. Eliminate the use of public forums.
Staff Recommendation:
While some public forums are only sparsely attended, both staff and applicants generally
find the advance input obtained at these informal meetings to be beneficial. It is staff's
suggestion that the use of public forums be continued through current informal
departmental policy in which the department determines which applications warrant a public
,
I
I
.
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date
4
6/11/97
forum and also advises applicant of the availability of forums as a tool for obtaining advance
public input.
Notice Simplification
A sample modified notice is attached; no action is necessary for staff to begin using the
modified format, although comments and/or suggestions can be incorporated into the
standard format.
Use of Spanish in Notices
Alternatives:
. Maintain existing notices written entirely in English
. Modify Council policy to require that public notices be fully or partially translated
into Spanish.
. Modify Council policy to require a standard statement, written in Spanish, directing
Spanish speakers to a specific (bilingual) staff person to obtain information regarding
the public notice.
Staff Recommendation:
With respect to the use of Spanish, staff has considered the potentially high cost of
translating and photocopying a full notice into Spanish coupled with the low average
response rate currently received in reaction to most notices. Staff believes that an effective
alternative to this could be the inclusion within public notices of a standard statement in
a prominent type or location which directs Spanish speakers to a bilingual staff member for
information regarding the notice. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council policy
regarding public notices be modified to include such language.
Attachments
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Current Noticing Policy
4. Table"A" - Noticing Costs
5. Table "B" - Extended Boundaries Comparison
6. SUlVey
7. Noticing Format - Sample of Modified Notice (Including Spanish Reference)
(m:\home\planning\patty\pcm9624.rep)
r
!
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Planning Commission Resolution
T
I
,
RESOLUTION PCM-96-24
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND
LAND USE HEARING NOTICE POLICY #400-01
WHEREAS, a City-initiated report regarding current public hearing noticing procedures was
presented to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to a recommendation regarding possible
changes to the current City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Policy (400-01) ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a public hearing on said report
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June II, 1997
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the City currently utilizes certain public noticing procedures which exceed the
requirements of State law; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the utilization of certain of these
procedures has not resulted in a significant increase in the amount of public participation in the
planning process by those who might not otherwise be aware of such hearings through the
minimum State noticing requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that due to the large Spanish-speaking
population within the City limits it is desirable to include in public hearing notices language which
will direct such persons to staff members who can communicate project information to them.
NOW, lliEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves Resolution
PCM-96-24, recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt attached draft
City Council Resolution amending Council Policy 400-01, Land Use Hearing Noticing
Policy, to affect changes which will address the aforementioned items.
BE IT FURlliER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY lliE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of June 1997 by the following vote, to-wit:
T
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
t
,
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft City Council Resolution
r
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING LAND USE HEARING NOTICE POLICY #400-01
WHEREAS, a City-initiated report regarding current public hearing noticing procedures was
presented to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council for review pursuant to
possible changes to the current City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Policy (400-01) ; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing by the Planning Commission was scheduled on said report and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely June 11, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certain amendments to the existing
City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Police (400-01); and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing by the City Council was scheduled on said report and notice of
said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
May 27, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and
said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the City currently utilizes certain public noticing procedures which exceed the
requirements of State law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the utilization of certain of these procedures has
not resulted in a significant increase in the amount of public participation in the planning process
by those who might not otherwise be aware of such hearings through the minimum State noticing
requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to the large Spanish-speaking population within
the City limits it is desirable to include in public hearing notices language which will direct such
persons to staff members who can communicate project information to them and to formalize such
a practice through Council policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby amend Council Policy 400-01, Land Use Hearing Noticing Policy, in accordance with the
attached Exhibit "A".
Presented by
~
I
i
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBIT
"A" 1
I
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING NOTICE POLICY
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 16336
400-01 09-03-91 1 OF 3
I DATED: 09-03-91
BACKGROUND
The law requires that when the City conducts a public hearing at which it deliberates upon a land use i..ue
("Land U.e Hearings"), tho.e per.ons who have a ".ignificant property interest that are affected by that
decision" are entitled to certain rights guaranteed by the Due Proce.s Clause of the 14th Amendment of the
Federal Constitution, chief among which are notice of the deliberations ("Notice"), and the opportunity to be
hear (co1lectively "Due Process Right.").
Currently, legal notices are given in a manner that are designed to meet the requirement. of State law. The
person. that are notified individually by mail are limited to those property owner. owning property within
300 feet of the affected property ("Legally Required Radius of Notice"). The City wishes to extend thi. to
include tho.e that live beyond the 300 foot radius.
PURPOSE
To permit the Director of Planning to provide notice of public hearings as to land use matters before the
Planning Commission and the City Council beyond the State required distance, without creating legal
entitlement thereto, and in a manner which is clear and under.tandable to the general public.
POUCY
The following policy shall govern the giving of notice in Land Use Hearings:
1. Extended Land U.e HearinS1; Notices
1.1
LanS1;uaS1;e of the Notice
Under circumstance. where the City is required, by law, to provide mailed notice. of
a public hearing on an application for a land u.e matter, the Director of Planning
("Director") shall use diligent effort to prepare clear, conci.e, and understandable
notices from the per.pective of a person not ski1led in planning or land u.e .yntax or
terminology. In preparing legal notices, the Director shall make a diligent effort to
supplement the description of property legally required to be given with a location
map which wi1l permit the reader to determine the approximate location of the
property which is the .ubject matter of the Noticed Land Use Hearing.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING NOTICING POLICY
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
1.2
Resolution No. 16336
400-01 09-03-91 2 OF 3
I DATED: 09-03-91
Boundaries for Distribution of the Notice
1ijZIIt~~Jiiiii1iii~jiiiiii.~
.lf~il.ll.i:iifl.t'I[I~ilt,Jr!llfil'
lli$;.i!oilililiirliiilfottM..ttlbiiwildfi1iiiNdtiiiii
a. Scope of Policy. Thi. policy memorandum applies only to those land u.e
matters which require public hearings before either the Planning Commi.sion
or the City Council, or both, or require notice of an Initial Study for such land
u.e hearing. .ueh as these conducted by any other decision-making body or
administrator .hall be noticed in accordance with applicable law without
regard to this policy.
b. In all land use matters which are within the Scope of this Policy, the Director
.hall make a diligent effort to expand the Legally Required Radius of Notice
to all property owner. within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property which is the subject matter of a required public hearing by the
Planning Commission or City Council ("Subject Property"), ~iii~ilili.i!iI
j:lj~~tkl~!I,~ijAj:lj~tmp~IJMR'tm!m!&!liii!!!!W:m~~PQ~!Wt!j.~\@~~m#~I~
~1~iIiIl#g!:?Ji!~j:ji9tgijii~Himi#~mWi~il!mmjjilm\jijj!iM~tmbAt~~~milMi
pmii~miiiWil\~i!:m,.m~!!PPI#ffi,_~Im!!lis!!lmiiiil~_;
:@.mJI~m~~~~t.~ji!ii\j!In~!@lb9!,!\~~~g~~! .... ..
e. In :ill land uoc matters which arc within the Scope of thiG Policy and the Gi.e
of the Subject Property is greater than five (5) acres, the Director Ghall mal,e
a diligent effort to expand the Legally Requirod RadiuG of Notice to ail
property ownerG with 1,000 feet of the exterior boundarioc of the Subject
Property ("1,000 Foot Radius"), and in addition thereto, ouch other property
owner!: outGide the 1,000 Foot Radius that Ghare common phydca1 attributos
aG thoGe property ownerG within the 1,000 Foot RadiuG, ouch aG common
streets, topographic features, and neighborhood boundaries.
1
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING NOTICING POLICY
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No.
400-01 09-03-91 3 OF 3
I DATED: 09-03-91
2. Extended Notice Lists
2.1
Maintenance of Extended Notice Lists
From the time that an application is made up to the City relating to a land use matter
within the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall commence and continue a diligent
effort to determine and maintain a list of names and addre.se. of those person. who
are not legally entitled to notice but either: (1) have expre.sed an interest in the
outcome of the decision on the application, or (2) to knowledge of the Director, have
or may have a property interest which in the Director's best judgment, may be
significantly impacted by the pos.ible outcomes of the propo.ed permit ("Extended
Notice List"). These may include tenants request!!!i! notification of future land use
hearings. The Director may contact potential notice'es and determine their interest in
being provided notice. The Director shall remove from the list: (i) any person who
has reque.ted same, or (ii) any person who has not responded to a reque.t for
determination of interest from the Director.
2.2
Dili~ent Effort to Give Notice of Public Hearin~.
In addition to giving notice of such persons a. are entitled thereto by state law, the
Director shall make a diligent effort to notify Extended Notice~s of all land use
hearings with the Scope of this Policy. '"
3. Consequence of Violation of Policy
Failure to implememt this policy, or the failure to use diligence as herein required, or failure of an
Extended Noticee to actually receive Notice .hall not operate to invalidate the action by the City at
the Hearing. Such i. the unequivocal intent of the City Council in enacting this Policy.
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Current Noticing Policy
COUNCIL pour-I
QTY OF CHUIA. ThtA
SUBJECr: LAND USE HEARING NOTICE POUCY POUCY
NUMBER
EFFECI1VE
DATE
PAGE
ADOP HID BY: Resolution No. 16336
400-01 09-03-91 1 OF 2
I DATED: 09-03-91
BACKGROUND
The law requires that when the City conducts a public hearing at which it deliberates upon a land use issue
(e.g., the granting of a land use right such as a Generl1 Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use
Penn.it, etc.) ("Land Use Hearings"), those persons who have a "significant property interest that are affected
by that decision" are entided to certain rights guaranteed by the Due Process Cause of the 14th Amendment
of the Pederal Constitution, chief among which are notice of the deliberations ['Notice'), and the opportunity
to be hear (collectively "Due Process Rights").
Currently, legal notices are given in a manner that are designed to meet the requirements of the law. The
persons that are notified individually by mail are limited to those property owners owning property within 300
feet of the affected property ('Legally Required Radius of Notice'), which may, under certain circumstances, be
inadequate to notify those having a significant property interest impacted by the decision. .
PURPOSE
To permit the Director of Planning to exercise his independent discretion to provide notice of pul!lic hearings
as to land use manen before the Planning Commission and the City Council beyound ihe legally required
distance, withaut creating legal entitlement thereto, and in a manner which is clear and understandable to the'
general public.
POUCY
The following policy shall govern the giving of notice in Land Use Hearings:
1. t:nended Land Use Hearin~ Notices
1.1 Lanl<Ua~e of the Notice
Under circumstances where the City is required. by law, to provide mailed notices of a public
hearing on an application for a land use maner, the Director of Planning ('Director") shall use
diligent effon to prepare clear, concise, and understandable notices from the perspective of a
person not skilled in planning or land use syntax or terminology. In preparing legal notices, the
Director shall make a diligent effon to supplement the description of propeny legally required
to be given with a location map which will pmnit the tuder to determine the aPProximate
location of the property which is the subject matter of the Noticed Land Use Hearing.
1.2
Boundaries for Dimibutian of the Notice
(
a. Scope of Policy. This policy memorandum applies orily to those land use matters which
require public hearings before eiiher the Planning Commission or the City Council, or both,
or require notice of an Initial Study fen- such land use hearings such as these co!lducted by
any other decision.monng body or . administrator shaJ1 be noticed in aa:or4ance with
applicable law without regard to this poliC)'.
COUNCll... POUCY
CITY OF CHUrA VISTA
"T'
,
I
.
ADOP1ED BY: Reso1ution No. 16336
POUCY
NUMBER
400-01 09-03-91
I DATED: 09-03-91
EFFECTIVE
DA1E
PAGE
20F2
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING NOTICING POUCY
b. In all land use matters which are within the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall make a
diligent effort to expand the Legally Requited Radius of Notice to all property owners within
SOO feet of the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject matter of a required
public hearing by the Planning Commission or City Council rSubject Property").
c. In all land use matters which are within the Scope of this Policy and the siu of the Subject
Property is greater than five (5) acres, the Director shall make a diligent effort to expand
the Legally Required Radius. of Notice to all property owners with 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Subject Property ("1,000 Foot Radius"), and in addition thereto, such
other property owners outside the 1,000 Foot Radius that share common physical attributes
as tho.e property owners within the 1,000 Foat Radius, such as common weetS,
topographic features, and neighborhood boundaries.
2. EXTended Norice Lists
2.1 Maintenance of Extended Norice Lists
From the time that an application is made up to the City relating to a land use matter within
the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall commence and continue a diligent effort to determine
and maintain a list of names and addresses of those persons who are not legally entitled to
notice but either: (I) have expressed an interest in the outcome of the decision on the
application, or (2) to knowledge of the Director, have or may have a property interest which in
the Director's best judgment, may be significantly impacted by the possible outcomes of the
proposed permit ("Extended Notice List"). These may include tenants request notification of
future land use hearings. The Director may contact potential noticees and determine their
interest in being provided notice. The Director .hall remove from the list: (i) any person who
has requested same, or (ii) any person who has not responded to a request for determination of
interest from the Director.
2.2 Dilis:ent Effort to Give Notice of Public Hearins:s
-
In addition to giving notice of such persons as are entitled thereta by state law, the Director
shall make a diligent effort to notify Extended Notices of all land use hearings with the Scope of
this Policy.
3. Conseouence of Violation of Policy
Failure to implememt this policy, or the failure to use diligence as herein required, or failure of an
Extended Noticee to actually receive Notice shall not operate to invalidate the action by the City at the
Hearing. Such is the unequivocal intent of the City Council in enacting this Policy.
T
i
.
ATTACHMENT 4
Table "A" - Noticing Costs
n 0
~ <
-"
'" ....
@~
.,
~c.
"'e>
e> 0
" ~
::. 0
'" ....,
" .....
., CO
!?.e>
:- "
" ::.
= '"
<"0
" "
0'....
"0 -
" .,
'" eT
"
@::
W=
. e>
Va::
e> c.
" "
= '"
-",
'" "
" n
., ....
e> "
--
- .,
o ....
E
-
3'
"
@
,......,
:>
o
:>
-
.,
eT
"
~
....
'::-"
~I:/)'"
., = 0
=eTl:/)
e> 0. ,
:::" :t \0
o _.0\
to .
0.. _. <::)
"0,,,
-=
~
"
.....,
""""0'"
bOO
0=__
0=
.....;;~. (J
-~.
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
'" '"
,
"'-J
Wo
N""
~O
~ :!:
- -
., -
- "
- ....
ot'"
.....
o
e>
"
=
-
'"
"
.,
!?.
-
,
--
.....N
-IN
PO\
N"
oj:>. CO
co
~O
~ :!:
- -
., -
= "
-....
'" '"
-
-
-
.
--
\0.....
",N
" -J
-J .
0\0\
N
@
-
.....
oj:>.
(:,
o
~
,....
.....
oj:>.
o
;:;i0
= ::J
., -
= "
-....
'" '"
,......,
oj:>. , .
~~~
\ONW
~~'"
'-"". oj:>.
O'
0'"
o
e>
o
"0
....,
S'
00
oj:>.<'"
N_.O
"".,0
~(IQ ,
.... " \0
o ""
:J 0 I
c.._~
~ ::: --
I>> eT
'<
,......, 0 ""
"'0-
o I>>
03=
....;; 3 ::.
=
00
;:;i0
= :!:
I>> =
= "
-....
'" to
W
"''''
oj:>.""
;:;i0
- :!:
;:; :::
= "
~~
,
;::;-
..... .....
W-J
N\.:>
co N
;:;i0
= :!:
., ::;
- "
- ....
ot'"
,
--
"".....
~o
. -J b
Nco
~O
" :!:
::; ::;
., "
::; ....
-",
,......,to
co' ,
?'~-(;.I')
w.....
," -J N
c'" -J co
'-""" 0
00
00
.....1:/)'"
'::-"0
\0<0
00 _. I
""n\O
..."""
" en '
::r-~
o I>> \0
U) =.
" 0
=
,......, (') '"
VlO-
03 I>>
o ::;
....;; 3 ::.
::;
00
;:;i0
= :!:
I>> =
= "
-....
'" to
,
..........
VI.....
oj:>.""
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
'" '"
,
--
oj:>.w
~-J
NO
CO.....
N
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
to '"
,
,
--
NN
;-10
-J .
Ngg
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
'" '"
,......,
"" ,
:--J~~
O-J
.~ -J VI
<:s 0 CO
'-"" 0 .
08
0\(')'"
\01>>0
0....0
~2. J
< \0
en.,,,,,
-..... ,
.... N
" .....
"
...
't;3 :> N
0c.0
C2 3 ::.
........... -. =:I
=00
;:;i0
= :!:
I>> =
= "
t;jth
CO
oj:>. \0
~O
" :!:
= =
~ "
- ....
otto
,
--
N
P'!'J
CO CO
CO CO
;30
= :!:
I>> =
= "
CiS~
--
.....
Y'~
..... ""
NN
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
to '"
,......,
\0' ,
PVo'tY!-
w.::-
~Noj:>.
'-' b i...rt
00
T
,
-JO'"
VI., 0
Z; 0
. ..... I
_<\0
......, '"
.... -,
o N
., 0
c.
:!:
.,
....,
VI:!:""
\0 _. 0
..... 0;:. 0
():::"I
I>> \0
en='"
::;c..N
"1:/)'::-
""0
"'0
....
...
'"
'.""'~
't;3 :> N 't;3:> N
oc.o oc.o
C2 3::. C2 S ::.
'-'" -':::1 ........... _. =
=00 =00
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
::; "
tri~
'. ,
......
"" oj:>.
N-J
~O
" :!:
= =
., "
= .....
ot'"
,
--
VI......
~VI
CO 0
oj:>. 0
oj:>.
""0
" :!:
= =
I>> "
= ....
otto
.
--
N
\0 CO
;-~
0\ 0\
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
= "
-....
'" '"
,......
-J' .
:-JV")-V"7
VlcoN
~~w
'-' O'
o~
;:;i0
= :!:
., =
::; "
-....
to '"
.....
~""
;:;i0
::; :!:
., =
= "
ct~
,
--
W
w......
N.\.:>
CO N
""0
g ~
~ "
- ....
ot'"
.
~~
......
CO .....
~b
NCO
~O
" :!:
= =
., "
= ....
ot'"
,......,
\0' ,
~~~
VI VI
~NW
'-'00
00
....,
~
o
'-<
t:J
~
C'J=
g~
-<!:!
Z
~
@'"
. 0
wI:/)
N>-3
>
I:':l
t:J
n
o
I:/)
>-3
no
&;~
>-3!:!
@.....
~~
>-3>-3
t:JO
~~
Zt""
>-3n
~o
I:/)
>-3
I:/)
--
'II:
~
t:=
t'j
t""
(J)
~
:><
:::
....
I::'
....
1-3
~
T
I
ATTACHMENT 5
Table "B" - Extended Boundaries Comparison
'" 0
o <
~I>
tn ...
@g
'" 0-
v,,,,
n 0
I> ~
= 0
!:.....
I> ......
0> co
!:..n
- I>
I> ~
= tn
<"0
I> I>
0''''
"0-
I> 0>
tn e-
I>
@=
",=
" n
UI-
.=
n 0-
I> I>
= tn
-tn
tn I>
I> n
0> ...
n I>
--
- 0>
. ...
;.
-
......
o
n
I>
=
-
tn
I>
0>
n
-
-
,.....
;I>-
o
;I>
@
.....
......
~
o
o
?
,'"
......
....
o
;-
e-
I>
~
-
9-
n
o
"0
'<
S'
!IQ
o 0 ~
= ~ It:;!
~::sW
I> 0
~ ~
......
'"
0'\
-
a'
I>
@
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
.....
....
N
V,
N
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
-
-
-
.....
N
....
~
co
o
~
-
I>
...
'"
.....
0'\
-..J
o
o
~cn",
0>=0
=C"'C/:I
n c.. ,
=-- ::- \0
o _. 0'\
tn .
c.. _. 0
1>0Ul
-=
~
I>
'<
"""0'"
bOO
0=......
0=
.....;;g.O
-~.
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
;;i0Cj1
= ~ -
0> = '"
- I> -
- ... ,
!:tn
'- ,
V\.....,J~
wo....
N\O......
-JO-J
I> "" 0
:: < -
=-' :::: ~
I> -
= ... ,
!:tn
, .....
..........W
......N\O
-..IN-..J
90\;"""
N' N
....co
co
;;i0Cj1
= ~ -
0> :: 0>
I> -
= ... ,
intn
, .....
..........N
\O......N
UlN~
. -..Jw
~o-co
N
;;i0Cj1
- ~ -
- ::3 '"
0>1>-
= ... ,
intn
, .....
..........0\
NwN
O'\UlO
?'....v,
O' 0
o~
g ~ @
-=w
'<1>0
~ C2
o
~
I>
...
tn
N
0'\
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
.....
co
i..>
N
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
.....
....
0-
co
o
~
=
I>
...
tn
.....
......
w
'0
o
1
I
......cn'"
....1>0
~~ 0
-. ,
"""'",
""'''0\
" en '
::;_......
00>\0
en ::'.
I> 0
~
"""()'"
UlO-
03'"
o =
.....;; 3 =
S'
!IQ
;;i0Cj1
= ~ -
0> = 0>
=1>-
tit~ I
, N
............-..J
UI......O
....0'\
;;iOCj1
= ~ -
'" = 0>
=1>-
-...
tn tn
,
, .....
..........co
....wO'\
~-..J~
N. 0
cot::)
;;i0Cj1
= ~ -
0> = 0>
=1>-
-... ,
tn tn
. .....
..............
NNCO
;-100-
-..J" 0
Ngg
"'0'"
I> ~ O.
1:1 ::1 S-
0>1>-
:= ... ,
!:tn
, .....
................
w
-..JUIUI
-..J co "
0.0
0150
--
-....
g~
><::=
-
z
~
'"
o
en
~
~
t'j
(":)
o
en
'"'3
(":)0
0<
ent'j
'"'35
:~
'"'3'"'3
t'jo
~~
zt""
'"'3(":)
~o
en
'"'3
en
......
'"
:=
o
....
t"J
Q
'/I:
~
=
t'j
t""
en
~
~
==
....
0:1
....
""3
~
.------
.,..
i
I
.
ATTACHMENT 6
Survey
~
i
,
I
CITY RADIUS TENANTS NOTES
Coronado 300' Yes
County 300' No applicant provides labels
EI Cajon 300' No
Encinitas 300' No tenants notified for Coastal Permits
Imperial Beach 300' Yes' , within 100'
National City 300' No
Oceanside 300' No
Poway 300' ZA No
500' CC applicant provides labels
San Diego 300' Yes applicant provides labels
Santee 300' No Sometimes posted for condos/mf
(in complex common areas)
Solana Beach 300' No' 'except for view assessment issues
T
I
ATTACHMENT 7
Current and Proposed Notice Formats
CURRENT FORMAT
T
!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering a
conditional use permit for the property located at the northeast corner of Paseo Ranchero and Paseo
Magda (APN 642-392-11) as depicted on the map duplicated on the reverse side of this notice. The
application, filed by YMCA of San Diego County, requests authorization for two temporary modular
buildings to be utilized for administration and childcare in conjunction with other (permanent) buildings
to be constructed in the first phase of the development of the YMCA site.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has previously conducted an Initial Study IS-95-22 and
Addendum for the YMCA project as a whole and concluded that the overall project is consistent with
EIR-87-01 for the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan. Therefore, no further review is necessary.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the
Planning Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or
comments to Project Planner Patty Nevins in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula
Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by calling 691-5105. Please
include the Case Number noted at the bottom of this notice in all correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearings described in this
notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available
for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
Wednesday, February 26,1997 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Public Services Building
Chnla Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue
at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individual. wbo require special
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at
least 48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for
specific information at (619) 691.5101. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date:
Case No:
February 13, 1997
PCC-97-34
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
T
i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY
1HE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED FORMAT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY mE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, California, in City Council Chambers at
the Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, for the purpose of
considering a conditional use permit, summarized as follows:
DATE AND TIME OF HEARING:
Wednesday, February 26, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER:
PCC-97-34
APPLICANT:
YMCA of San Diego County
SITE ADDRESS:
Northeast corner of Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Magda
(APN 642-392-11)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Two temporary modular buildings to be utilized for
administration and childcare in conjunction with other
(permanent) buildings to be constructed in the first phase of
development of the YMCA facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Previous Initial Study IS-95-22 & Addendum for YMCA
project as a whole. No further review needed.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the
Planning Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or
comments to Project Planner Patty Nevins in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula
Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by calling 691-5105. Please
include the Case Number noted above in all correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearings described in
this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and
available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITII AMERICANS WITII DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Di.abilitie. Act, requests individuals who require .peciaJ
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at
least 48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for
specific information at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date: February 13, i997
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
Si necessita ayuda en traducir esta Noticia Publica favor de /lamar Lupe Lucero
al numero 691-5101.
T
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5
Meeting Date 6/11/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-97-04 - Consideration of amendments to the
Municipal Code to change the definitions of small and large family day
care homes and family day care.
The proposed project is an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to change the definition
of family day care and family day care homes such that they are consistent with recent changes
in California State Law.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15061
(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-97-04
recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal Code to redefine family day care, and
small and large family day care homes in accordance with the attached Draft Council Ordinance
and the findings contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its June 3, 1997 meeting, the Child
Care Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City
Council approve the amendments.
DICUSSION:
Background
The Chula Vista Municipal Code currently defines "family day care" as regularly provided care,
protection, and supervision of 12 or fewer children in the provider's own home for periods of less
than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away. It also limits a "small family day
care home" to the provision of day care to 6 or fewer children, and a "large family day care
home" to care for 12 or fewer children. These thresholds are based on day care limitations that
had been established by California law. In addition to local zoning regulation, a family day care
home is subject to the issuance of a license by the State of California.
.
,
!
Item ~
Meeting Date 6/11/97
As of January 1, 1997 State legislation became effective which I) increased the number of
children that may be cared for in a family day care home, and 2) required all family day care
home licensees who rent or lease their home, to notify the landlord or property owner of the
home, that it is being utilized for day care. The former change in State law specifically
increased the number of children who may be cared for in a small day care home from 6 to 8
children, and from 12 to 14 children for a large family day care home.
ProDosal
The purpose of this Municipal Code amendment is to make Chula Vista Municipal Code
consistent with State law changes concerning family day care. The attached Ordinance would
modify the Municipal Code definition of family day care to match the new State limits for the
number of permitted children in family day care and require the notification of the property
owner or landlord by the day care licensee.
The change in State law for family day care came about as a result of a need for more day care
for school age children in California. A five year study was conducted by the State of California
which allowed some day care facilities to provide care for two additional school age children on
a trial basis. The study showed that the increase in day care size did in fact provide increased
availability of day care for school age children. Due to the demanding nature of infant care,
however, the State also concluded that the number of infants in care in these day care homes
should be reduced to compensate for the increase in school age children.
Large family day care homes currently require the notification of adjoining property owners
within 300 feet as part of the Chula Vista zoning review process for an administrative large day
care home permit. The zoning regulations also place limitations on the proximity of large day
care facilities to each other as well as on the availability of parking. Small day care homes, in
contrast, require no notification or day care permit, and do not have additional zoning
limitations. The proposed code amendment does not include any change in zoning regulations
or permit process for day care facilities, or the zones in which family day care uses are
permitted, since the increase in the permitted number of children is not expected to significantly
alter the character and impacts of these facilities. The large family day care home permit would
continue to be required for large day care homes but, would now permit up to 14 children.
A total of 17 large day care home permits have been issued by the Planning Department since
1991, an average of approximately two per year. Each of these homes could potentially add two
school aged children to their care under the new Municipal Code definitions.
Item i..-
Meeting Date 6/11/97
CONCLUSION
In summary, staff recommendation is to approve this Municipal Code amendment for the
following reasons: I) The amendment is consistent with State law regarding family day care; 2)
The State of California has determined that there is a need for day care for school aged children;
3) The increase in the size of family day care homes would have no known impacts on
surrounding land uses.
Attachments
1. Planning Commi..ion Resolution
2. Draft City Council Ordinance
3. New State Legislation
h: \home\planning\mark\pca9707p .rpt
1
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
1
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-97-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 19.04.093 THROUGH 095 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, the proposed Municipal Code amendment wil1 modify the Municipal Code
to reflect new California State legislation concerning family day care; and,
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code amendment will provide needed day care for school age children
and notification of affected property owners or landlords in Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Municipal Code amendment was filed with
the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April I, 1997 by the Chula Vista Planning
Department; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests an amendment to the Municipal Code to change the
definition of family day care homes; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is
exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15061 (b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning set the time and place for a hearing on said
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on June II,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT
THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the
Draft City Council Ordinance based in the findings contained therein and that a copy of this
resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
r
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day 11th day of June 1997 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank A. Tarantino, Chair
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
1
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
T
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.04.093 THROUGH .095 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF
FAMILY DAY CARE AND FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Municipal Code text amendment was
initiated with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April I, 1997, and;
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of an amendment to the Municipal
Code to change the the definition of family day care-so that it is consistent with recently
revised California State law; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposal
is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a IS061(b)(3) (General Rule)
exemption; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said amendments to
the Municipal Code, and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Childcare Commission considered this project at its June 3, 1997
meeting and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered this project at its June 11, 1997
meeting and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed
amendments; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00
p.m. on July 15, 1997, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council
and the hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That there are no significant environmental impacts because this action
amending the Municipal Code is categorically exempt from CEQA as a IS061(b)(3) (General
Rule) exemption.
I
SECTION II: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good
zoning practice justify the amendments, and that the amendments are consistent with the City
of Chula Vista General Plan.
SECTION III: That Section 19.04.093 through .095 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 19.04.093 Family day care,
"Family day care" me~~~e~l~~l.~ provided care, protection and supervision of H or
fewer children in the $mt~f!ip~ti$Ji& provider's own home, for periods of less than 24 hours
...'_n.,..""",..............'.._'.
per day, while the parents or guardians are away; provided that the licensee of such family day
care home who rents or leases their home, shall notify the property owner or landlord in
writing that they are operating a family day care home in the rented or leased property.
Section 19,04.094 Family day care home, large.
"Family day care home, large" means a home which provides family day care to 9- 9 to H
children, inclusive, including children who reside at the home.
Section 19.04.095 Family day care home, small.
"Family day care home, small" means a home which provides family day care to six ~iji;1-\\ or
fewer children, including children who reside at the home.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 15th day of July, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
1
ATTACHMENT 3
STATE LEGISLATION (SB 265)
SB265
http://www.sen.ca.90vlhtbinlca-html...200.SB0265]CURRVER. TXT; 1/bi1VSB265
r
58 265 Family day care homes.
BILL NUMBER: 5B 265 CHAPTERED 03/20/96
CHAPTER 18
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MARCH 20,1996
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR MARCH 20, 1996
PASSED THE SENATE MARCH 14, 1996
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MARCH 11, 1996
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 26, 1996
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 20,1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 2,1995
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 17, 1995
INTRODUCED BY Senators O'Connell and Leslie (Coauthor: Assembly
Member Bordonaro)
FEBRUARY 8,1995
An act to amend Section 1596.78 of, to add Sections 1596.775, 1597.43, and 1597.465 to,
and to repeal and add Section 1597.44 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to day care.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 265, O'Connell. Family day care homes.
Existing law provides for the licensure of family day care homes, and defines, in part, a large
family day care home as providing day care for 7 to 12 children, and a small family day care
home as providing day care for 6 or fewer children.
,,...,,.."'._....,.,'.~,_c,,,.''1<''''~,,~':.,~\:''':.;',~,~('"'...<.,..'''''~:.........~~.~~~""T"""'~..~",.<..,-. .....'w,.- '; ';' "",~",.,.~:~.~...., '_...,..-.'_~ eo~.. '_'''~''.' ~
,:.2"... tU~.'"~....i~......9,}4,,,.ldt\~. v,~s."'-.~~~.D!J!~j,o.. ~P.f. '. !~f!1Jt.~a..~. 'i. .'I\.-.~.~e h.o~...~s.to..al.l.o. W~8,J'. !~. ~~EJ:jai.' 'Iy.day ca.' r
'.hol\1e to. care for no.mo~eJhan~1Achlldren and a ~m.fJ'1 fam"y.daycar~:f1om~bo"c.m~,foli no }
&e:::ti1iTQ:~16bllar;ri!Rf9VraedIthat'j;'iI@[ij[EfsctilJeo!cOnditionS~~in the case Of small
nomes providing care for more than 6, and large homes providing care for more than 12,
children. The bill would make conforming, technical changes.
Existing law prohibits small family day care homes from providing care for 6 or fewer infants at
one time unless certain conditions are met.
This bill would repeal those provisions and would repeal certain obsolete provisions relating
to a related San Diego County Pilot project.
Existing law provides that the willful or repeated violation of the provisions regulating child day
care facilities is subject to criminal sanction.
By changing the definition of a family day care hOrne to increase the number of children ..
authorized to be cared for, this bill would expand the class of facilities subject to the standards
10f4
02120/9711:33:45
SB265
http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbinlca-html...200.SB0265JCURRVER. TXT; 1/bilVSB265
T
for family day care homes thereby changing the definition of a crime and imposing a
state-mandated local program.
This bill would state legislative findings that the uses of a congregate care facility, as defined,
are distinguishable from the uses of a family day care home, and that the Legislature does not
intend for the expansion that this bill would authorize for family day care homes to apply to
congregate care facilities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts
for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making
that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
SECTION 1. Section 1596.775 is added to the Health and Safety Code, immediately following
Section 1596.771, to read:
1596.775. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) There is a severe shortage of child care for school age children throughout California, with
many schoolage children going home to an empty, unsupervised setting after school.
(b) For nearly five years several counties have participated in a pilot program that allows for a
family day care home to care for two additional children above the current number allowed
pursuant to licensing regulations.
(c) As part of the pilot program, a study was conducted by the Assembly Office of Research.
The results of the study demonstrated that the pilot program achieved all of the'following
results:
(1) Increased access to care for schoolage children.
(2) Participating providers encountered few problems and strongly support expansion of the
program.
(3) Parents of children in the pilot program family day care homes strongly support the
program.
(4) Participating providers with additional children were no more likely to receive substantiated
complaints from licensing officials than nonparticipants.
(5) Local governments and planning officials saw little or no impact on their licensing policies
and procedures.
(6) Overall quality of care was not adversely affected.
SEC. 2. Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
1596.78. (a) "Family day care home" means a home that regularly provides care, protection,
and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider's own home, for periods of less than
20f4
02120/97 11 :33:56
SB265 -
http://www.sen.ca.gOVlhrca-html...200.SB0265]CURRVER. TXT; 1/bill/SB265
24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family day
care home or a small family day care home.
(b) "Large family day care home" means a home that provides family day care for 7 to 14
children, inclusive, including children under the age of 10 years who reside at the home, as
set forth in Section 1597.465 and as defined in regulations.
(c) "Small family day care home" means a home that provides family day care for eight or
fewer children, including children under the age of 10 years who reside at the home, as set
forth in Section 1597.44 and as defined in regulations.
SEC. 3. Section 1597.44 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.
SEC. 3.5. Section 1597.43 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
1597.43. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Family day care homes operated under the standards of state law constitute accessory
uses of residentially zoned and occupied properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature
of the underlying residential uses. Family day care homes draw clients and vehicles to their
sites during a limited time of day and do not require the attendance of a large number of
employees and equipment.
(b) The uses of congregate care facilities are distinguishable from the uses of family day care
homes operated under the standards of state law. For purposes of this section, a "congregate
care facility" means a "residential facility," as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 1502. Congregate care facilities are used throughout the day and night, and the
institutional uses of these facilities are primary uses of the facilities, not accessory uses, and
draw a large number of employees, vehicles, and equipment compared to that drawn to family
day care homes.
(c) The expansion permitted for family day care homes by Sections 1597.44 and 1597.465 is
not appropriate with respect to congregate care facilities, or any other facilities with
quasi-institutional uses. Therefore, with these provisions, the Legislature does not intend to
alter the legal.standards governing congregate care facilities and these provisions are not
intended to encourage, or be a precedent for, changes in statutory and case law governing
congregate care facilities.
SEC. 3.7. Section 1597.44 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
~.ij~a~~~:~~i~~~1~r;t!&~lid~~~tt~'~~fi1i~irf!~'ht
( a)fI!iileastitwoICimb~!ctiilat.ertfa(SlaWeast(slxtY_i9"a"tsIOf!i.9.d
(b1WQlUfOr{1tfaQltW011ofalJtsIar.el~tecUfOi'aQrJtfgiagY..tfrtfe"N\llier'iJnio(eltffifQIsi*"clilI9t~~
'ta(e~PJtd . . .
(Crfl!~. '. '-eUr~e~ii~6f[i~.s~.~p-. a!.~lltlf~~~Tility'4S~\~(lng~o.Jitwo:.a~a1.i~~J;S~...h.~~!~fie
"'@iJffi:~iilartdf(tI'8lUt:rereipJ9'y'iQ~p'o'!'~e~e~'O ,Ie,~b:nl aJ:.en"Q.!~.J1Qm~.:.?t2Q~1!f!1~: .
3 of4
02120/97 11 :34:0C
86265
http://www.sen.ca.gOVlhrca-html...200.SB0265JCURRVER. TXT; 1/bi1VSB265
(d.. )'Th.~.I..LC:e[S'ee;oh.'.ta.-..ins Jtie~!. itten.1...qgnsent,PfJ!J!. pI9pertyownerwhen the fan:;ilyday.. .care
<'~~di~1.~~gr~~i.b'P'efty'ffi'iNIs'reifs~fforrented: . .. .,.
SEC. 4. Section 1597.465 is added to the Health and Safety Code, immediately following
Section 1597.46, to read:
L;W;:~imf>>tfJI~~[~fu~~Wi:~~~~':tll?o;jJ~g))Iqr~D',aBq.}J~Jo
(a) ~til~~tltw..01:6fi1h~rc.oili:fr.eri:1aI.E[~!tJ~~tfsi&Y~"[t~g?
(~)..~~~~t!fT;.t!ftlf~1iQf!Q!~~TIt~~9Jf9n:g[~9'XriY:tin1e:y.;~~1h'~O\i2'.'childreri.~re
L.b.~IOQ.~(e_ tiP.!f .
(~. j[h.te:.J!~~~fletllq.. -~fi~-s.~p.aI!'IQt:Jt1..~Ef"...~.'lid?Ca. :; ~~ij~t';"'tit~.'.litw.. ~-b-r. a~at.lli~~at'.~6Q91~~e
f!!J((Ke'p!q(1.!JlUJa~(ltieteJITI~~1~EnRtf.?:<or.1 or"'1!l.-. r~IJ,I.nL,g,-~Qmela ,-one~ Ime.
(~LW~IJrce. O"$~~btajo5itqeJl!i.."~~1.e..Hic6S1s;,:]gef~tti'"~;;i5R~]Y]WfEf(sy5~iff9~~~X!~ilY day .car!3
bg!!!~;!~.r!?Il~ral~q;:Q(cr:m;>RettY:.t!iat Isleasea or rented"
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the
California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or
school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the
provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect
pursuant to the California Constitution.
\. Senate Home Paqe ~ Search Bill Text
Senate Rules Committee / California State Senate / WebMaster@sen.ca.gov
40f4
02120/97 11 :34:04
STATE OF CALlFORNIAuHEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
fl' .).\[{@~ 0 WI rn!.'~','
Ii :11 HI I
,
~
II' DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
744 P Street, MS 19-50, Sacramento, CA 95814
~/
- - 3
\...',....:--:
i! I:i
ii i
t 1:
"i 'c./j,
:_/ .
@".
, ........
f. ,\
,..~.. "'c.
... "
; .~' ~j ~.-
December 5, 1996
----.-
TO: ALL LICENSEES OF FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES
SUBJECT: OPTION FOR TWO ADDITIONAL SCHOOLAGE CHILDREN IN FAMILY
CHILD CARE HOMES; REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY
OWNER/LANDLORD NOTIFICATION AND AVAILABILITY OF
INSPECTIONS REPORTS
I am writing to advise you of new licensing changes for
family child care homes. As a result of newly passed
legislation, one new option and two new requirements are
effective January 1, 1997.
. Senate Bill 265 allows family child care home licensees
the option to care for 2 additional children who are at
l~ast 6 years of age.
. Senate Bill 1695 requires all family child care home
licensees who rent or lease their homes, to notify the
landlord/property owner in writing that they are
operating a family child care home in the rented or
leased property.
. Assembly Bill 1980 requires family child care home
licensees to make licensing inspection reports
available to the public.
NEW OPTION:
Senate Bill 265 (O'Connell) will become effective January 1,
1997. This bill was the result of a 5 year study that allowed
certain family child care homes to care for 2 additional
school age children. The results showed this increased the
availability of child care for schoolage children. The study
also showed that due to the demanding nature of infant care, when
additional schoolage children are accepted for care, the number
of infants in care should be reduced.
Beginning January 1, 1997 you may begin caring for 2
additional schoolage children ONLY if you meet ALL the
requirements in the new law. The attached License Addendum
(Attachment A) will allow you to care for more than 6 and up to a
maximum of 8 children if you are currently licensed as a Small
Family Child Care Home. If you are currently licensed as a Large
Family Child Care Home, you may care for more than 12 and up to a
maximum of 14 children. Please sign the License Addendum and
I
,
.
.\
keep it with your family child care home license if you wish to
provide care to the additional children. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
FILE AN APPLICATION FOR THIS CAPACITY CHANGE.
Before accepting the 2 additional schoolage children into
your licensed family child care home, you must do all of the
following:
. Sign the License Addendum (Attachment A) and keep it
with your family child care home license.
. Have proof of control of property. If you own or are
buying your home, this would be a copy of your deed or
property tax statement. If you lease or rent, this
would be a copy of your rental or lease agreement. Keep
these copies with your license.
. If you lease or rent your home, you must have written
permission from the property owner/landlord to care for
the additional 2 schoolage children. You may use the
attached form (Attachment B) for this purpose. Keep
the original with your license. Give a copy of the
completed consent form to the property owner/landlord
if they want a copy.
. You must notify, in writing, the parent of each child
in care that you may be caring for 2 additional
schoolage children. The attached Parent Notification
Form (Attachment C) may be used for this purpose. The
signed receipt must be kept in each child's record.
. If you have a small family child care home license and
are providing full time care to 3 infants, you must
reduce your infant care to 2 infants whenever any
additional school age children are present.
. If you have a large family child care home license and
are providing full time care to 4 infants, you must
reduce your infant care to 3 infants whenever any
additional schoolage child~en are present.
If you lease or rent your home and your property
owner/landlord will not give you permission to have the
additional 2 schoolage children, you can still operate your
family child care home for a capacity of 6 or 12 children.
PROPERTY OWNER/LANDLORD PERMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A CAPACITY
OF 6 OR 12 CHILDREN.
Licensees in Fresno, Placer, San Diego, San Luis Obispo and
Ventura counties, who are currently caring for 2 additional
schoolage children, may continue if they meet all the above
requirements. However, you must reduce the. maximum number of
infants in ca~F~~T~r~ anytime you care for an additional
schoolage chi 1a'. . OWl ,FPlllrES
FEB t 8 1997
'.........1_.--\.......01,,;;..1..
r
NEW REQUIREMENTS:
Senate Bill 1695 (Kopp) becomes effective January 1, 1997.
This law requires all family child care home licensees who are
leasing or renting their homes to notify the property
owner/landlord that they are operating a family child care. This
new law does not allow the property owner/landlord to:
. Discriminate against family child care providers.
. Require family child care providers to obtain the
property owner/landlord's permission to operate a
family child care home.
You must notify the property owner/landlord by March 31,
1997, or when your annual fee is due, whichever is later. You
may use the attached form (Attachment D) for this purpose. Keep
a copy of the completed form, as mailed to the property
owner/landlord, with your license.
Assembly Bill 1980 (Figueroa) becomes effective January 1,
1997. This law requires all family child care homes to make
available to the public, at your home, licensing inspection
reports and licensing reports of substantiated complaints. You
must .keep licensing reports available for review 3 years from the
date they are issued to you.
For more information, please contact your local licensing
district office or county licensing office. Briefings may be
scheduled by each office, as needed, covering the new
requirements.
;;;;~%
MARTHA LOPEZ ~
Deputy Director '" a
Commu~ity Care Licensing Division
Attachments
r
SB 265 (O'Connell) Chapter 18/Statutes of 1996
~~:f~~}1
AFFECTS: Family Child Care Homes
SUBJECT: Family Child Care Home Capacity Increase
SUMMARY: This statute amends Sections 1596.78 (a), (b) and (c)
of the Health and Safety Code which pertain to the definitions of
a small and large family child care home. The bill increases the
maximum capacity of small family child care homes to 8 children
and large family child care homes to 14 children.
This bill also adds Sections 1597.44 and 1597.465 to the Health
and Safety Code. These sections require that the two additional
children be at least 6 years of age; reduce the number of infants
that may be present; require landlord notification; specify that
an assistant is not required in a small family child care home
with 8 children; and require the licensee to notify a parent that
the home may care for 8 or 14 children.
IMPLEMENTATION
These guidelines are in addition to the requirements of Sections
102371, 102416.5, 102419 and 102421 of Title 22, Division 12,
Chapter 3.
A. APPLICATION
1. Currently Licensed Family Child Care Homes
a. CCLD will not issue new licenses to family child
'care homes. Beginning January 1, 1997 licensees
may begin to provide ,care to 8 or 14 children.
However, they must meet all the requirements
listed on the License Addendum, Attachment 3, and
sign the form. This signed form must be maintained
with their family child care home license.
During the triennial visit verify that the
licensee has met the conditions listed on the
addendum if the licensee has a small family child
care home providing care for more than 6 children
or a large family child care home providing care
for more than 12 children.
5