Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/12/02 (3) - - City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 2,1992 Page 1 4. Public Hearing: Public Hearing: PCC-93-1L Consideration of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator requiring the reconversion of a living area back to a garage in order to establish a Large Family Day Care Home at 537 Otis Street - Alicia Munoz A. BACKGROUND On October 22, 1992, the Zoning Administrator approved a conditional use permit to establish a Large Family Day Care Home in a single family dwelling at 537 Otis Street in the R-2 zone. The applicant, Alicia Munoz, is appealing one of the conditions of approval which requires that the garage, which was legally converted to a recreation room in 1983, be reconverted back to a parking structure. The proposal is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution to deny the appeal of PCC-93-11 and thereby uphold the decision of the Zoning administrator to require reconversion of the garage back to a parking structure. C. DISCUSSION In 1985, State legislation mandated municipalities to consider Large Family Day Care Homes (serving 7-12 children) as an accessory use in single family zones, A municipality could either choose to allow them as a matter of right subject only to State licensing requirements, or could choose to apply certain limited, "reasonable" criteria as defined in the State Legislation. Chula Vista chose to apply the following requirements via a Large Family Day Care Home Permit for Large Family Day Care Homes in R-1 Single Family zones: 1. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family day care home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit. 2. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. 3. The family day care function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property. L/_ / ,.. ... City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 2, 1992 Page 2 4. A large family day care home shall not locate within 1200 feet of another such facility on the same street as measured from the exterior boundaries of the property. 5. An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement. 6. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator there is a potential for significant traffic problems, the Zoning Administrator shall request review of the application by the City Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic Engineer may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home. 7. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be provided. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home. 8. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding properties. The Zoning Administrator may impose reasonable requirements to alleviate noise, including but not limited to installation of a six-foot high block wall around the perimeter of the rear yard. Although not mandated by the State, the City also chose to allow Large Family Day Care Homes in single family dwellings in R-2 (two-family or duplex) zones, but as a conditional rather than accessory use. This was done in order to provide the City with more discretion in addressing the greater potential for adverse traffic and parking impacts resulting from establishing a Large Family Day Care Home in R-2 zoned areas, wherein the permitted density is twice as great as in R-1 zoned areas. Criteria No.5 noted above states that "An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases, the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement." Although it is not stated in the criteria, the assumption by staff is that the garage should be available to accommodate resident parking, whereas the driveway would be left clear for safe loading and unloading of children and the impact on on-street parking would be minimized. 4- ;;C. ,- "~~ !_.L.....L...i...-.L...L__"-~_..j...L_,'._~. -~:~-,._.'. ....~,- ..........-......... . '''~~! ~ "'~j). ~ BtZI'b1 "'An. \ --.j. fi<J,,'-1. Iff~7 (' "ifct'-l -", \ ~ 7 ~ q ~t:"I:?r !--A-~ (. f"JIo.'f "Ti'<:1~N~J '1<17f. 01!0 :)"01"-, ~i7 :2 ~ ~ @ P<i<7-r. .,.-~? ~..... (f) ~@ '. j '" Z EOf!?l.O:?f:? ~~:r.o 2 -~\>X.".~~~ -, j I..... jf, +. ". ~E.1:>ROO"'\. I ~ \="P-MI-'1 ""::;:;1-\ 7 = .' ?"10f. -\1 '1~t- I \J! ;/ ~~i~ .I." ~iAV\ , l I ~\1"c.hii;:, ) !:i<1~. Cl..;;; $W~Y - I. ~>>!,)'~.,~t- I (2,MO~1' ) - 17- 1 c."",v ~tt....( . "I 9.....~14- - "- (Rec<", it....) ) L\V1tvG. RO?h. I~~--' "'~.r!- I ,v,.--- I :::r~"'I"I.INf... 'f-(= '+16!1T) it+e!t A-. ~ ! '. " " o o 0 o I ~ I . 4-~ c;,-o" F--- "," ~I 11' ;'/""f# . 7-~ S7~U @ !>"I~..../ ~'O 1f$~ '~(' ~Np,;c;; I1.~A D~~ ~f1"'Jtl. 1M ~:!f-r",,~. . , . .1 %~. -<it. 1i')1,jtf.~, . , .~ ! , , - \ . M~c:::.ott :...L/..w( c..r . . i i ~ , . i . ! . ~ ~ C ~J .~ I ?i - 1 . ~ \.... !;Xff' f'UI. 1 sm::. fi;1 . f : . ,"" '. g'~/b'-W ~/:5 . . ~ , i ,<-: ,s 1.D : ----'-J>' . = = = = City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 2,1992 Page 3 It may be argued that even if a garage is available for parking, the City cannot require it to be used for that purpose, and the same might be said for clients using the driveway for loading and unloading of children. However, we believe it is important to establish the most favorable set of circumstances in order to ensure to the maximum degree possible that Large Family Day Care Homes can be established in a manner which will minimize the potential for conflicts with surrounding residents and also provide for the safety of the children. In the present case, the garage is not available for parking, and the parking demand may increase since the State requires a Large Family Day Care Home to be staffed by two adults and this often involves a paid assistant. Resident and perhaps staff parking and/ or drop-offs and pick-ups will be forced onto the street. Although this may not represent an excessive impact or concern in an R-l area, tolerances are much less in an R-2 area zoned for twice the density. Consequently, the Zoning Administrator determined it is appropriate to require reconversion of the garage, Please see attached for the Zoning Administrator's letter of conditional approval, as well as minutes from an administrative hearing held on October 15, 1992, Also, attached are letters of opposition and a petition in support of the application. D. APPEAL A completed appeal form and a supplemental letter from Ms. Munoz are attached hereto, Ms. Munoz bases her appeal on the following points: 1. She is not the property owner so she is unable to reconvert the garage; 2, The 500 block of Otis Street is not a busy street; 3, Most of the homes on the street have a two-car driveway so there is plenty of parking on the street; 4, Her family owns only one vehicle, and the property has a two-car driveway which is available for clients during business hours; 5, The recreation room is an asset to and integral part of the day care operation, 6. The garage was originally a one-car garage, WPC F:\home\planning\325.92 4.3 .t- oo- .' ,....- ... .--....... '. .....,j _.. - I ~I~!:'I I I ~ - ~r~~T I , ;.... - .- ',1 - ..n . . - . . ' VISTA SQUARE . - \ AI-JU ~r: - EL~MENT 4RY. . - -- - - - -- - -. . :- -~ .~ . - '" - ~..- ~ ~~~1" ~ . . I,WI~ ~ ". ~. . . ,,~ -( _I I : ;~~' ~-T' I . I ~ :x I I . .' ~ ---~--1 . (\1 :- t~ . I I 1 ~ r<<' t I I I t!: "r ;0 ~I . ~~~~ . O'rl C; ~~I ~ ~ Ii' ~ ~ !: = ~ ~ ,- ~Ik Li'>!i'> ~~ . _L....' ,-' ~ >L ILL .' . - . " ~ Ii. " , " . '-!'- , ~ ~ . l ~ ~ y~ t ~ * \L lJ. lJ. . ',: i r- . ~ ! ~ $ ~ ~~ ~ ~ "\' I< 'II .' ~_.A.__ i ~>N iB ~ " ~ I-' , ~ ~ J ,~'TI\j o/f~T CC-C:O ' . 1 .' . ~ ! . '. I " , . . f91e.H1I1A'< V~rA . ,.. - \ I - . ,. . .~~~. . t , i . I .' - .. ,.' . .' . .. '.' . .' ( - AI.;! C,IA HLJNO~ - . .-~ .... . ~~~~ ~t ( r:i. ) LOCATOR . ~N~~TH . t..fD-~~-tn- ] ~..:~)'(CI<~ I L .. ....,..-.-- i I --- . .. , ! i ; ! " " City of Chula Vista Planning Department ./fJ?-.5 :?.s- Da to: Rece i ved /?P- 2? ? :-<- Fee Paid d /r-:? ,-Cc? Receipt No. ~~~ .ca.~e No: - '3-// , , Appeal Form .-n- " Appea1 from the decision of: ~ Zoning [J Planning [] Design Review Administrator Commission Committee Appell ant: ALICIA MUNOZ Phone 619 / 425-4D60 , Address: 537 OTIS ST. CHULA VISTA, CA Request for: ( Exampl e: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT zone change, variance, design review, etc.) for the property located at: 537 OTIS STREET, CHULA VISTA, ~ ZA ~PC DDRC 91910 Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED ON 10-22-92 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE RECREATION ROOM WHICH WAS CONVERTED IN 1983 BE RECONVERTED TO A GARAGE~ SO THAT THERE IS NO PARKING CONGESTION. THE 500 BLOCK OF OTIS ST. IS NOT A BUSY STREET, MOST HOMES IN AREA HAVE DRIVEWAYS, SO STREET IS USUALLY EMPTY. J!-'~ - '..t~~ 10-28-92 S n t re of Appella t ~ Date - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City Council on Planning Commissi~n Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev, 12/83 L(- 6- OCTOBER 28, 1992 GOOD EVENING CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, MY NAME IS ALICIA MUNOZ, I APPLIED FOR A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE LICENSE PERMIT, THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED WITH THE CONDITION THAT I CONVERT THE RECREATION ROOM BACK TO A GARAGE, WHICH WAS LEGALLY CONVERTED IN 1983, I AM APPEALING THAT DECISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: FIRST I AM NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER SO I AM UNABLE TO DO SO, SECOND, THE 500 BLOCK OF OTIS STREET IS NOT A BUSY STREET, MOST OF THE HOMES ON THE STREET HAVE A 2-CAR DRIVEWAY SO THERE IS PLENTY OF PARKING ON THE STREET, ALSO MY FAMILY ONLY OWNS ONE VEHICLE, AND I HAVE A 2-VEHICLE DRIVEWAY WHICH IS AVAILABLE DURING BUSINESS HOURS FOR CLIENTS. I HAVE BROUGHT WITH ME PICTURES OF THE STREET, I ALSO BROUGHT WITH ME A ROSTER OF THE TIMES CLIENTS DROP/PICK UP CHILDREN, I HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS WITH A 6-CHILDREN LICENSE AND I HAVE NOT HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION BECAUSE CLIENTS COME AND GO AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THE RECREATION ROOM IS ALSO AN ASSET TO THE HOUSE AS IT IS VERY CONVENIENT FOR DOING CHILD CARE. IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE RECREATION ROOM IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DAY CARE. THE GARAGE ALSO WAS ORIGINALLY A ONE CAR GARAGE THIS IS BASED ON THE SIMILAR MODELS ON THE BLOCK. ~'7 ~ ~ ft-.. ~~~ ......----- ......~"t..~ ~-~~ CllY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 22, 1992 Alicia Munoz 537 otis street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: Large Family Day Care Conditional Use Permit, PCC-93-11, 537 otis street. The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to operate a Large Family Day Care home in your residence at 537 Otis Street. In response to several letters in opposition, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Department on October 15, 1992. . After reviewing your proposed site plan, the existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and the letters of opposition and testimony at the hearing, the Zbning Administrator has been able to make the required findings to grant your request which is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Planninq Department 1. Application to be obtained through community care licensing, 2, Obtain a business license through the City of Chula Vista Finance Department, 3, The house shall be retained as your primary residence, 4, The applicant shall obtain a building permit to reconvert the garage back to a parking structure (the 17'-6" X 19'-0" garage was legally converted to a recreation room in 1983). 5, An 8 foot high pipe trellis which is located in the front yard shall be removed or lowered to no more than 3.5 ft. in height. Open or enclosed structures located in the front yard setback are restricted to 3'-6" feet in height. 6, The maximum number of children, 12 years of age or under, including children of the applicant, shall not exceed a total of nine in number, L/' :3 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91910/1E19,1 69"1-5101 7. The large family daycare home permit shall be re-reviewed within 6 months. At the time, the noise impact circumstance will be re-reviewed and if there is a noise issue, additional mitigation measures may be imposed. Enaineerina DeDartment No Comments. Buildina DeDartment Contact Alex Saucedo for building code requirements (telephone #691-5007) . Fire DeDartment The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. 1. Require fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 2A 10 BC _ extinguisher to be mounted 3-5 ft. from floor to top of extinguisher in an accessible area. Travel distance not to be more than 75 ft. 2. Provide an maintain a device or device for sounding a fire alarm (whistle) mounted on wall with evacuation plan. Findings of fact are as follows: 1. The family day care function is incidental to the residential use of the property. 2, The large family day care is not located within 1200 feet of another such facility on the same street as measured form the exterior boundaries of the property. 3, The usable rear yard play area of approximately 2,445 sq. ft. exceeds the minimum code requirement of 1,200 sq. ft. Outdoor play activities shall not be allowed in the front yard or side yard, 4. Reconverting the garage to a parking structure will provide off-street parking for the applicants vehicles and relieve potential parking congestion in the street while the driveway is being used for the safe loading and unloading of children, You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning commission. Such appeal along with a fee of $125.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter, In the absence of said appeal, the decision of the Zoning Administrator is final. L/- r CITY OF CHULA VISTA Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the permit to become null and void unless a written request for an extension is received and granted prior to the expiration date. Sincerely, . AICP cc: City Clerk Fire Marshall Building & Housing Zoning Enforcement Debra Hanes, Community Care Licensing, 8745 Aero Ct., Ste. 200, San Diego, 92123-1763 L-f - /0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA MINUTES OF A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING CASE PCC-93-11 Thursdav. October 15. 1992 4:00 P.M. Conference Room 1 CASE PCC-93-11 Alicia Munoz, Applicant Large Family Daycare at 537 otis Street STAFF PRESENT Senior Planner Steve Griffin Planning Technician III Norm ostapenski Planning Technician Patty Nevins Staff Presentation senior Planner steve Griffin described the project, explaining that this hearing is a result of concerns raised in response to the public notice of this application. He stated that family daycare is largely regulated by state laws which had been adopted in response to societal childcare needs, adding, however, that since this residence was in an R-2 zone, which requires a conditional use permit for large family daycare operations, city requirements such as required findings for the conditional use permit would also have a bearing on the application. Mr, Griffin explained the application process, and noted that the application under consideration met the basic requirements of the city with the exception of a converted garage, which necessitates the residents parking their cars in the driveway or on the street; generally, the driveway is needed as a drop-off area for family daycares. Mr. Griffin concluded that all who submitted letters or were in attendance at this hearing would be notified of the decision on this application once it was made. Mr. Skinner, property owner at 531 otis Street, asked about the status of Ms. Munoz's licensing; Alicia Munoz responded that the Fire Department had inspected the residence and approved, but that the state would not inspect the premises until City licenses had been obtained. Mrs. Skinner asked if businesses in residential properties were permitted; Mr. Griffin responded that state law takes precedence regarding home daycare, and that unless more than 12 children were involved it was not considered a commercial business and would be permitted in this zone. Mr. Griffin added that in the past, large family daycare operations have generally been found to be compatible with the residential areas in which they are found. He stated that a great deal depends on the day care provider and their sensitivity to neighborhood concerns, Mrs. Skinner asked what the state requirements are for experience or qualifications of the provider; Ms. Munoz stated that she has worked in childcare, in addition to having four children of her own, who are included in the total of 12 children permitted by this type of license. Mr. Griffin asked if Ms. Munoz would be willing L';/ _// to be limited to less than 12 children; she responded that she would be willing to limit the number of children to nine, including her own. Mr. Donovan, property owner at 543 Otis street, stated that nine children playing in the backyard will still disturb and disrupt the neighborhood; Ms. Munoz responded that she has been providing childcare for six with no complaints. Mr. Donovan stated that noise has been heard even though no complaints have been filed. Mrs, Donovan stated that her tenants had requested that their fence height be raised because of noise; Mr. Griffin noted that the tenants in question had signed a petition in support of this application, After discussion, Mr, Griffin stated that since a block wall exists around the entire rear yard, not much else could be done other than limiting the number of children playing outside at one time, Ms. Munoz indicated that since she has a helper working on site at all times, this would be possible. Mr. Munoz added that the nearby school is noisier than the daycare. Mr. Griffin advised that a possible condition of approval could be instituted requiring that the permit be reviewed in one year, with neighbors being re-noticed at the time of such review in order to obtain their input. He observed that often an increase in noise is anticipated but does not materialize. Mr. Skinner asked what the City would do to monitor compliance; Mr. Griffin responded that the one year review is one way. Additionally, complaints would be investigated if filed. Mrs. Skinner asked if the Zoning Administrator's decision is final; Mr. Griffin explained the appeal process. Mrs. Skinner asked about proposed hours of operation; Ms. Munoz stated that she operated the daycare from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., adding that since the children are dropped off at various hours, traffic is not a problem. She further indicated that the children ranged up to 12 years in age, but that only four, including two of her own, spent the entire day at this location. Mr. Griffin reiterated that copies of the decision would be mailed to those present as well as the applicant. The hearing was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. f~e~~~,~corder L/-/~ RECEIVED 'i ," ''-' ,,~.- THIS PETITION IS TO INFORM THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT WE THE RESIDENTS ON THE 500 BLOCK OF OTIS STREET HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE OPENING OF THE ALICIA MUNOZ FAMILY DAY CARE BUSINESS LOCATED AT 537 OTIS STREET IN CHULA VISTA ' PLANNiNG SIGNED: NAME ADDRESS h 5'11 OIlS S, v r/idb2/rdl/'_ 530 ot<<J-:S;, _#~/~:#' :;>';16 Od;~ ~t/2>t; ;I2~~cd~ 5/0 6/t~ -4- {2 ,?tdcf 0?Jl OW )1- ~:>>';~~ S5L OF, Sf OO'M- J !I~ 31/3 ojz, .JJ ~~/?, rhdudk su.l (jJ[v ~ (OPTIONAL) TELEPHONE# Lfil- t1 D6i Yd-7 - cj(jO! ~c2~-~Y'bD & 9/-79 CjLj 'l)6 ~ U 767 '-jl..U - 3/u 7 jS s=- 9Y:J;;L ~ C:j2S-/!J fLs L/-/3 522 OTIS STREET CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 OCT. 15, 1992 RE: 537 OTIS STREET CHILD CARE CENTER TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: AS A RESIDENCE OF 522 OTIS STREET FOR THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS I OBJECT TO THE PURPOSED CHILD CENTER TO BE STARTED AT 537 OTIS STREET. TO HAVE A CHILD CARE CENTER ON THIS STREET IN I~ ESTI!~TED IS A DANGEROUSE THING TO DO. THIS IS A BUSY STREET AND CARS RUSH DOwN IT. EVEN IF THE CHILD CENTER IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE~ CHILDREN HAVE A wAY OF GETTING AwAY AND RUNNING INTO THE STREET. I DONOT BELIEVE THAT A CHILD CARE CENTER HAS ANY PLACE IN A STREET wHERE MOSTLY RETIRED OLDER PEOPLE LIVE. THE NOISE AND THE CARS COMING AND GOING I FEEL wOULD BE VERY DISTURBING. THERE IS SO MU' CH COMMERCIAL ALL AROUND US PLEAS~ LEAVE THIS STREET AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET AS IT WAS !~NT TO BE. THANK YOU: ~y~ ELLEN V. BROCK 522 OTIS STREET CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 619 420-7310 L/'j'l City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 FOUi"th ~~ Chula Vista, CA 91910 September 18, 1992 F(2Cf2IVr::-,., <"';'L-i Re: Case No. LFD-93-02 Pl.A^.r"', <I/..,'G Ge"tl emen: I act as agent for our daughter Carolyn who owns the property at 531 Otis St., next door to 537 Otis St., subject of Case No. LFD- 93-02. This is a very quiet residential street, which has always been an attractive and impo~.tant feature to our tenants. We are concerned for our tenants at 531 Otis St. if this application is approved. In particular, we are concerned that the r)oise level will be excessive. One of the tenants is under continL!OUS doctor's care and is very susceptible to noise. She is often under orders to maintain bed rest 24 hours a day for weeks at a time, and has been hospitalized for stress. Her husband works nights and must sleep during the day. We are also concerned with trash being thrown over the fence and children climbing the fence to retrieve balls and other toys. We question the suitability of the backyard as a play area since it contains many potentially dangerous items (pieces of pipe, lawnmower parts, etc.) and does not have a good grass surface. Further, the existing wall does not appear to meet your criteria for height or noise abatement. If appr'oved: How will you monitor the number of children~ What recourse will we or our tenants have if noise is excessive or other privacy intrusions occur? What limitations are ther'e on daily hours of operation~ Si ncer-el y, ~ C.A. Skinner, Jr. 1511 Maria Place Coronado, CA 92118 (619) 437 1511 //-/5 City of Chula Vista li'sember 18, c:1:2/1/;-..... ( .......1.-' 92 Steve Griffen (Senior Planner) PI..,.qIVIV/IVC - I Leona Urban resident of 542 Otis st. protest the request for permission to open a large Family Horne Daycare filed by Alicia Munoz. I feel that I am speaking for many people on Otis st. When I say that opening the daycare center would disrupt the quiet enviorment of this street. There is already enough traffic on the street without it. I would appreciate it if you would consider my protest along with others that I,m sure will be arriving from the surrounding neighborhood. Thank You, ;(d~ Urban //-/0 " , '~.. > Gerard M Donovan 4070 Bermuda Dunes Bonita CA 91902 7' /'1- ~t1y () R,:::-r r.::"\r~n L.:....\...lu..-' .._-~ From: Steve Griffin, Senior Planner City of Chula Vista Planning Dept, 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 PLANNING Re: 537 Otis Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Application for Large Family Daycare - Alicia Munoz Case No. LFD-93-02 Dear Mr, Griffin: As owners of the property at 541 and 543 Otis Street in Chula Vista, we have received the notification from your Department regarding the application for a Large Family Daycare filed by Alicia Munoz at the residence located at 537 Otis Street, Chula Vista, Mrs. Munoz is a tenant at this property rather than the owner, I urgently request that this application for the use of this property be denied and it is for the fOllowing reasons that I protest this request made by Ms, Munoz, 1, Numerous complaints have already been received relative to the noise emitting from the rear yard of subject home, There arp ~everal children already living there and the noise level is most disturbing to the tenants living next door. In an effort to try to get some relief from the noise we installed extra footage to the height of the block wall at quite an expense to us but this did not correct the problem. If an additional number of children were to be placed in the space available, the noise pollution would be far worse than it already is, 2, Otis Street is a narrow street and since most homes only have a single car garage, the street is usually solid with parked automobiles. In addition, the street is used to "short-cut" the traffic to avoid the traffic lights going to and from Broadway, The alley in the rear of 537 Otis Street is also used for the same reason, Additional traffic will heavily overload the already existing traffic conditions and make an unsafe condition for loading and unloading children, While there is a one-car garage driveway at the property it is narrow and the garage has been converted to living space so there is not a garage available for the Monozas to park their vehicles and therefore must use the street, 3, The City wisely zoned the area R-2 and when the owners invested in the property as such, variance for a day care center was never presumed for this area, We have owned the property at 541 and 543 Otis Street for many years and it would be a hardship for us to secure and maintain good tenants when the conditions of the noise level and the traffic would exist, Complaints from our present tenants indicate they would move in the event a daycare center is allowed. Accordingly, it is requested the application for a Large Family Daycare center be denied at subject ~loc~tiQn,~ L/', /7 S ,f{1;y ou s, , ~.:=y-)., DO 4'?:r:~.~L ~ RESOLUTION NO, PCC-93-11 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITION WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on August 26, 1992, by Alicia Munoz and WHEREAS, said application requested approval to establish a Large Family Day Care Home at 537 Otis Street in the R-2 zone, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposal is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, and WHEREAS, several letters of objection to the proposal were received from surrounding property owners, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held an administrative hearing on October 15, 1992, in order to take testimony on the matter, and WHEREAS, on October 22,1992, the Zoning Administrator issued a conditional letter of approval which required a legally converted garage to be reconverted back to a parking structure, and WHEREAS, on October 28, 1992, the applicant filed an appeal of this condition of approval with the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m" December 2, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION concurs with the findings and conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator and hereby denies the appeal. Lj-/3 Resolution No. PCC-93-11 Page 2 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 2nd day of December, 1992, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Susan Fuller, Chair ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary WPC F:\home\planning\349.92 7'/ l THE CITY L CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURJ:; STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and aU other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. ALICIA MUNOZ 2, If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of aU individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 3, If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4, Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No -X. If yes, please indicate person(s): 5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. N/A 6, Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No 2L- If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Persnn is defined as: ~ny individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, frnfemn! organization, corpora/ion, eSlflle, Inisl, receiver, syndicate, Ihis and any DIller county, city and counf1)~ city, municipalit)', district or a/l1er political subdh';sioll, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." D:lte: 10-28-92 - (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) - ~ S;gm"m, 1iJ,"~:ctt'PIi1~ <<7 D Z- Print or type name of contractor/applicant IR{"\'i~t'd: 113u.'JOJ !' \': :', \'DISCLOSLTXT] L/' OJ.c;