Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/10/08 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 8, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Meetings of August 27 and September 10, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. RESOLUTION Submitting the Amended Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre No. II Project Area to allow for the capture of tax increments to the Redevelop- ment Agency 2. REPORT: Final EIR-86-2, San Diego Country Club Clubhouse 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-5M: Consideration of request to construct a new clubhouse and rearrange the parking area at 88 'L' Street - San Diego Country Club 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-A(M): Consideration to adjust zone boundary at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue, between C-36 General Commercial and RU-29 Residential - Bob Spriggs 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C: Consideration to rezone portions of the Las Flores Study Area from R-2 to R-1 (Continued) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-3: Consideration of appeal from denial of Tentative Parcel Map 86-21 involving property on the south side of 'D' Street, between Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue - Margie Fuentez 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-8: Request to construct 18 residential units for alcohol recovery patients at 270 'C' Street in the R-1 zone - South Bay Pioneers AGENDA -2- October 8, 1986 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-23: Consideration of the modification to and possible revocation of Cabrillo School of Nursing at 713 Broadway (Continued) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-B: Consideration to rezone approximately 0.19 acres located at 618 Fourth Avenue - Educare Children's Center 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-2M: Request to establish a child care center and pre-school at 95 Orange Avenue Elva Cacho(Continued) DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of October 15, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 1986 1. RESOLUTION: Submitting the Amended Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre No. II Project Area to allow for the capture of tax increments to the Redevelopment Agency A. BACKGROUND The Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan was approved in 1978 without provisions for the the collection of tax increments. The income from tax increments is generally used to finance public improvements and property acquisition in redevelopment areas. At the time of plan approval, no major public projects were anticipated and, consequently, tax increments were not considered necessary. The Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan is proposed to be amended to provide for the collection of ad valorem taxes within the project area, and to provide for those terms and conditions set forth in California Community Redevelopment Law subsequent to approval of the Plan in 1978 which are required to be incorporated in the amended Redevelopment Plan. Where applicable, the original Preliminary Redevelopment Plan is incorporated and shall remain as adopted by the City Council subject to appropriate amendments. Pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, the Planning Commission is required to review and submit the amended Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency for further processing. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution submitting the Amended Preliminary Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan to the Redevelopment Agency. C. DISCUSSION Redevelopment and Planning staff have been negotiating with the Homart Development Company in order to develop plans for the renovation and consolidation of the Broadway Shopping Center. Although several alternatives for the treatment of traffic circulation are still being studied, it is clear that renovation of the center will require substantial public improvements and utility relocations. In order to fund these public projects, it will be necessary to amend the Redevelopment Plan to allow for the capture of tax increments as allowed under State Law. Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 With renovation of the Center and collection of tax increments, the Redevelopment Age~c~ may receive as much as $200,000 per year to apply towards the provision of public improvements. Normally, this is done through the issuance of bonds which are guaranteed and paid off by the tax increments. Other changes embodied in the preliminary plan or required by State Law include: l) the provision of not less than 20% of the tax increments to be used for increasing and improving the supply of housing for low and moderate income families; 2) preparation of preliminary and final reports to the City Council which provide a variety of legally required information including details of specific projects intended to be undertaken; 3) the potential creation of a fiscal review committee to establish sharing of tax increments with other taxing jurisdictions; 4) the preparation of a draft and final EIR; 5) amendment adoption procedures. FK:rd WPC 3188P TOWN CENTRE NO. t .oo, .oo, BOUNDARY MAP __.~NORTH~. O' EXHIBIT A CNULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PCM-87-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBMITTING THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE NO. II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has heretofore approved on August 15, 1978, Ordinance No. 1827 adopting the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan and Project; and WHEREAS, the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan contained no provisions for the allocation of tax increment pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plans implementation has been constrained due in part to the inability of the Redevelopment Agency to provide financial assistance required for on- and off-site improvement necessary for the redevelopment of the Project Area, and the lack of financial resources available to the Agency to create the public/private relationship necessary for implementation; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has advised the City Council and Planning Commission that the previously adopted Preliminary Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Plan may be amended to allow for the tax increment provisions of Section 33670 and other required amendments of the California Health and Safety Code, so as to enable the Agency to pursue redevelopment and revitalization of the Chula Vista Shopping Center and Sears Retail Center with the present and prospective property owners; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency have likewise cooperated in the preparation of a proposed amended Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for this Project Area; and WHEREAS, at a public meeting of the Chula Vista Planning Commission on this date of October 8, 1986, the Planning Commission did consider and review the proposed amended Preliminary Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The proposed amended Preliminary Plan for the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project Area, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby submitted to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. Section 2. The Secretary of the Planning Commission is directed to forward a copy of this resolution together with the amended Preliminary Plan to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of October, 1986, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , Chainnan ATTEST: WPC 2505H City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 2. REPORT: EIR-86-2, San Diego Country Club Clubhouse A. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1986 final EIR-86-2 was considered and the Commission determined that implementation of the project would not result in a significant impact. The Commission then directed staff to prepare a Negative Declaration for their consideration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. The final EIR should be certified and CEQA findings and overriding considerations should be considered with the project. 2. An alternative would be to refer the final EIR back to staff for redrafting of its findings in accordance with the alternative expert opinion regarding the significance of the Clubhouse in the final EIR. The final EIR could be scheduled for the meeting of October 22, 1986. C. ANALYSIS 1. After discussions regarding the Commissions action of September 10, 1986 with the Attorney's office, other local agencies and the State Office of Permit Assistance, it was found that the preparation of a Negative Declaration would be the least logical and least legally defendable action. This would result in two documents with opposing viewpoints. 2. The alternative to a Negative Declaration is a change in the conclusion of the final EIR. This change would be based on the expert evidence which found that the structure had been so modified as to preclude it being significant. Any finding in an environmental document must be supported by "substantial evidence" in the record. The State EIR Guidelines define "substantial evidence" as follows: 15384. (a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these Guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made is to be determined by examining the entire record. Mere uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (b) This definition is intended to be informative and does not constitute a change in, but is merely reflective of, existing law. Therefore, if the Planning Commission finds that there is enough relevant information in the record to support the conclusion that the project impact is less-than-significant and that reasonable inferences from that information could support a fair argument in favor of the less-than- significant finding, then the conclusion of the EIR could be changed by the Commission. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 3. Staff had some concern regarding the need for additional public review of a substantially revised EIR. The Attorney's office has advised that because the issue of the significance was raised in the EIR and during public testimony, no additional circulation of the document is necessary. 4. Staff cannot support the position that the demolition of this structure would not be significant. Architectural considerations are important in this instance, however, there are other criteria for historical significance which include relationships to overall heritage of the community, historic personages or important events. The Country Club and its clubhouse also meets all of these criteria. Karna Webster, who was responsible for the survey of potential historic sites in the Chula Vista area, concludes in her evaluation of this site: "This building has considerable significance as the work of an important California architect and as the home of an organization that had many prominent people as its members". City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-5M: Request to demolish existin9 Country Club and build a new facility at 88 "L" Street - San Diego Country Club Staff is requesting that the hearing on this item be continued to the meeting of November 5, 1986, to allow time to resolve issues still outstanding pertaining to certification of the Final EIR for the proposed project. The office of the City Attorney has advised staff that the Planning Commission must either certify the EIR in its present state or revise the findings of the report and certify the revised document, prior to consideration of the project by the Montgomery Planning Committee. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of October l, 1986, voted to grant the request and postpone the hearing on the major use permit. WPC 3194P _~~, ~' LOCATOR PCC-87-5 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 87-A(M) Adjust zone boundary at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue, between C-36 general commercial and RU-29 residential - Bob Spriggs A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant proposes to adjust the zone boundary which presently divides a 4.43 acre parcel into two zones to match the proposed lot line plotted in tentative parcel map TPM 86-19, which has been conditionally approved for the property. The zone boundary between the existing C-36 general commercial zone and RU-29 residential {29 dwellings per acre) would be relocated 12 feet west of its present location. 2. An Initial Study, IS-87-11M of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on September 17, 1986, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. The Montgomery Planning Committee at their meeting of October l, 1986, voted to recommend approval of the rezone request as presented by staff, and as shown in Exhibit A of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-11M. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to adjust the zone boundary between the existing C-36 and RU-29 zone for the 4.43 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue, to the location coinciding with the property line approved as part of TPM 86-19, as shown in Exhibit A of this report. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North RS-7, C-36, RU-29 Single-family homes, commercial, apartments South RMH-IO Mobilehome park, utility easement East C-36, RMH-IO Car lots, mobilehome park West RU-15, S-94 Mobilehome park, utility easement, residences City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of 4.43 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue. A tentative parcel map has been conditionally approved separating the western portion of the property (3.480 acres) which contains a 124 unit apartment complex from the eastern portion of the property (.96 acres) which is vacant. The property is level, and contains a drainage culvert along the southern boundary of the property. General plan. The proposed zone boundary adjustment has no effect on the compliance of the affected zones with the General Plan designation of Thoroughfare Commercial and High Density Residential for the property. In terms of land use, the property under commercial zoning is vacant, and the adjusted boundary will not encroach onto the area developed for residential uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect or reduce the property's compliance with the Chula Vista General Plan. D. ANALYSIS Prior to the last General Plan Amendment completed by the County of San Diego for the Mont§omery Area on May 15, 1985, the subject property was split into two zones. The western portion of the lot was zoned RC, a residential/commercial zone allowing residential densities of up to 40 dwellings per acre, while the eastern portion of the lot was zoned C-36 General Commercial. The applicant began construction of a 124-unit apartment complex situated on the western portion of the lot, with the intention of constructing a convenience commercial center on the eastern portion of the lot. The apartment project was designed using a zone boundary located 230 feet from centerline of Third Avenue. Upon completion of the last General Plan Amendment, the property was zoned RU-29 and C-36; the boundary between the two zones remained at its previous location. Upon annexation to the City of Chula Vista, a tentative parcel map was filed in order to separate the property into two lots so that commercial uses could be pursued on that portion of the property zoned C-36. It was discovered at that time that the zone boundary separating the RU-29 and C-36 zone is located 242 feet from the centerline of Third Avenue, not 230 feet as the applicant originally thought. The applicant is requesting the zone boundary adjustment to conform with the existing as-built location of the apartment complex. After review of the applicant's request and the zoning history of the property, staff is recommending approval of the zone boundary adjustment. The adjustment is City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 3 minor in nature, would move the boundary 12 feet to align with the proposed property line separating the two parcels, and would not encroach into the existing apartment use. At this time there is no specific commercial project proposed. Consideration of public improvements and public safety requirements will be done through the Design Review process when a specific commercial proposal is brought forward. WPC 3162P EXHIBIT A negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Spriggs Rezone PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Western Communities Doug Brundage CASE NO: IS-87-11M DATE: September 16, 1986 A. Project Setting The project site consists of 4.43 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue. A tentative parcel map has been conditionally approved separating the western portion of the property '(3.480 acres) which contains a 125 unit apartment complex from the eastern portion of the property (9.6 acres) which is vacant. The property is level, and contains a drainage culvert along .the southern boundary of the property. Adjacent land uses consist of residential single family, apartment residential and commercial uses to the north, a mobile home park, and electric utility easement to the south, commercial establishments and a mobile home park to the east, and residential dwellings and a mobile home park to the west. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a convenience commercial center on the vacant portion of the property. There is no specific project proposed at this time. A tentative parcel map has been approved to separate the property into two parcels with the eastern parcel under an existing C-36 commercial zone and the western parcel containing the apartment complex under existing RU-29 residential zoning. The applicant is requesting a change in the zone boundary between the commercial and residential zones, to coincide with the property line between the two proposed parcels. The rezone request would adjust the zone boundary line 12 feet west of its present location. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The request to adjust the zone boundary will not encroach into the existing residential apartment complex, and is compatible with the Chula Vista General Plan which designates the area of the adjustment for thoroughfare commercial uses. city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- D. Identification of Environmental Effects Drainage The project site was originally subject to inundation from drainage along the southern boundary of the property. The site is included in a part of zone 4 of the San Diego County Hydrology Study (Hirsch, 1975). A previously approved box culvert currently being constructed as part of on-site improvements eliminates any potential adverse environmental effects resulting from drainage through the property. Aesthetics It is not known at this time whether construction of the convenience center will result in the degradation of community aesthetics. However, any new commercial project proposed for this site is subject to approval by the Design Review Committee prior to construction. Additional environmental review of the specific project proposed will be required as part of the design review process. Fire Protection The Fire Department is requiring the applicant to satisfy the standard development regulations outlined in the Municipal Code for fire protection prior to approval of the final map or issuance of building permits. These requirements serve to eliminate the potential fod deterioration of fire protection services to the area resulting from this project. Public Roads The Engineering Department requires full road improvements for the site in accordance with 1986 City of Chula Vista Design Standards. These are standard development regulations required as part of the final map process and issuance of building permits. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed zone boundary adjustment will not result in the degradation of the environment, since no specific project is proposed at this time. Future construction of commercial uses on the site will require additional environmental review. 2. The zone boundary adjustment does not conflict with the existing General Plan and as currently proposed, will not result in long-te~a adverse environmental impacts. 3. The zone boundary adjustment does not involve construction of a project at this time and, therefore, will not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts. -3- 4. In the process of fulfilling standard development regulations required prior to recordation of a final map and/or issuance of building permits, the project will not result in significant traffic or fire protection impacts that will adversely affect human beings. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Frank Herrera, Assistant Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Algert Engineering, Inc. 428 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 92U10 2. Documents General Plan, City of Chula Vista Chapter 19.70 Title 19 (Zoning) of Chula Vista Municipal Code San Diego County Hydrology Study 1975 (Hirsch) The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. WPC 3160P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department environmental review section CHUI. AVISTA, EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) QUINTARD R-3'P 5 '/ R-3 4, Project Area .(~ { BOB SPmGGS ~ILOCATOR · ,' .cc-B?-^<~) I ~WC THIRD AND ORANGE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. . The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ctty staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council witht, n the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) I Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trus~, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, d~strict or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.". (NOTE: Attach additional pages as ~0 )LZ~-ZtO~L~( necessar~ ~o~ ~-~ ~ . Signature of applicant?da~e " WPC 0701P A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C - Consideration to rezone portions of the Las Flores Study Area from R-2 (one and two family residence zone) to R-1 {single family residence zone) A. BACKGROUND 1. At the Planning Commission meeting of September lO, 1986, the Commission voted to continue the public hearing to consider rezoning portions of the Las Flores Study area from R-2 to R-1 to the meeting of October 8; after hearing the staff report and public testimony on the subject. At that time, the Commission directed staff to return with additional information relating to the traffic impacts to Minot Avenue resulting from retaining the R-2 zoning. On September 24, 1986, an open meeting was held between residents of the study area and staff to discuss some of the issues expressed by the residents at the hearing relating to rezoning the properties along Minot Avenue to an R-1 zone. The following staff report addresses issues and comments solicited from both meetings. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council rezone the Las Flores Study Area as outlined in Alternative A of the preceding report included in Appendix A, and request that City Council retain Minot at a 30 foot curb/curb width. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed action constitutes a Class 3(a) categorical exemption, and therefore does not require further environmental review. C. ANALYSIS 1. Retention of R-2 Zoning a. Projected Development Along Minor Avenue At the meeting of Septem6er 10, 1986, before the Commission, staff presented the Las Flores Zoning Study along with recommendations to rezone the area, as outlined in the report included in Appendix A. The Commission requested additional information on projected impacts to Minor Avenue from development at buildout (using R-2 zoning) from Minot Avenue, excluding impacts from development of Las Flores Drive and "O" Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 In response to this request, the following tables illustrate projected traffic impacts to Minor Avenue. The table below lists the number of dwelling units which could be expected resulting from R-1 zoning as compared with existing units: # Units # Units (Duplex) (SFD) Total Units At Ultimate Buildout 84 26 llO Present Development 2~2 2~4 46 Net Increase 64 The unit count listed above does not include dwellings located on Minor Avenue north of "D" Street within an existing R-1 zone. When these homes are added, a total of 134 dwelling units could be developed having direct access to Minot Avenue. Given the potential development of ll0 units along Minot Avenue, the table below lists projected traffic using Minot Avenue which would be generated from those units, using trip generation factors of l0 trips/day for single family dwellings and 6.5 trips/day for each duplex unit: ADT (one way) Minor Avenue south of "D" Street 806 Minot Avenue north of "D" Street 240 Total 1,015 Present traffic count 580 (Minot Avenue north and south) The figures above show a net increase of 435 trips per day generated from Minot Avenue development at ultimate buildout. In the zoning study submitted at the Commission meeting of September 10, it was pointed out that Minot Avenue has a curb-to-curb width of 30 feet, versus the 36 foot curb-to-curb City standard for a residential street. One method discussed in the report for accommodating limited increases in traffic without street widening is to limit on-street parking to one side of the street. However, the utility of reducing on-street parking to one side is impacted when the area is zoned for R-2 uses rather than R-l, due to the potential increase in the number of driveways, thereby reducing the on-street areas available for parking. The following table calculates the approximate amount of on-street parking at present and at ultimate buildout, illustrating this reduction: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 3 Present R-2 Buildout East side Minot Avenue south of "D" St. 43 spaces 38 spaces West side Minot Avenue south of "D" St. 47 spaces 29 spaces The net result would be less than 1/2 guest space per developable unit along Minot. b. Area Character, R-1 vs R-2 The question has been raised as to what happens if the area remains zoned R-27 The answer becomes subjective since R-2 developed areas, like R-1 or R-3 developments, can result in quality or marginal neighborhoods. We can project, with certain reasonable assumptions, that the following will occur: (1) Traffic and parking demands will increase per sub-section (a) Analysis. {2) Building bulk and general character of Minor will change from a relatively open low profile neighborhood to a more intense urban feeling. (3) The neighborhood could change from a predominantly owned occupied status to a more transient area. Long-term maintenance could also be affected if the occupancy became primarily a rental one. (4) Existing single-family home values could also be affected if the area became a mixture of single family homes and duplexes. How the lotting pattern and duplex transition occurred as to timing and lot location would also be critical. Conversely, the question can be reversed, what happens to property if the Minor area is rezoned to R-l? The answers again for the most part become subjective. (1) The traffic impacts and parking demands remain stable except for the development impacts from Las Flores. (2) The owner occupied status may or may not change although single family homes in central Chula Vista have maintained a high percentage as owner occupied units. (3) The general character of Minot would remain basically as it now exists. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 4 (4) The existing duplex owners could experience problems with financing and financial loss since any major fires or other building disaster would preclude the rebuilding of a replacement duplex. Owners of existing lots with single family dwellings who contemplated adding units for additional income would be precluded from doing so. 2. Proposed Closure of "D" Street At the meeting of September 24, 1986, between staff and residents of the zoning study area, several residents reiterated the suggestion to close "D" Street at Minot Avenue either permanently or through a barrier device that may be removed for emergency vehicle access. Closure of "D" Street would occur under one of the two options, either through closure of "D" Street at its intersection with Minot Avenue or through closure of the entire street section between Minor Avenue and Las Flores Drive. In reviewing the desirability of closure of "D" Street, these options were discussed with several other departments and agencies for whom street closure could affect the ability to provide services to affected properties located in the area of closure. Those contacted include the Fire Department, Engineering Department, U. S. Post Office, Chula Vista City School District, Sweetwater Union High School District, and Chula Vista Sanitary Service. Of those contacted, the Fire Department and Chula Vista Sanitary Service expressed serious reservations about the feasibility of closure, either permanently or through barriers. The central problem faced by both agencies is one of access to properties fronting "D" Street using large vehicles. The combination of the narrow right-of-way coupled with the steep slope on "D" Street and the lack of an adequate turnaround makes permanent closure virtually impossible, in terms of accessing the affected properties by trash trucks and emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshal has stated that emergency fire vehicles could not provide adequate protection to affected properties under this scenario. Chula Vista Sanitary has commented that should closure on a permanent basis, residents of the affected properties would have to leave trash at a central collection point at either Minot Avenue or Las Flores Drive. Closure of the street using a barrier such as a gate with key access, or breakaway barriers, also present problems related to access. Gate closure with key access through a lock box would permit access by fire vehicles, but would result in substantial delays in response time in an emergency situation. In addition, medical emergency vehicles are not allowed to have access to keys to lock boxes, and could not access the properties without calling on the Fire Department or Police Department for assistance first. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 5 The use of breakaway barriers to access properties along "D" Street would eliminate the problem of key access, but suffers from problems of constant maintenance and repair, as well as creating potential safety hazards to pedestrians. Breakaway barriers operate by placing the barrier in the roadway to prevent access to normal traffic. In emergency situations the barriers can be overrun by emergency vehicles. However, each time the barriers are overrun, they must be reset, and if necessary repaired. The barriers can become an attractive nuisance by being overrun by unauthorized vehicles. In addition, the barriers, once turned over, leave the base of the barrier made out of PVC pipe sticking in the air, posing a potential safety hazard to pedestrians. The Fire Marshal. has prohibited their use in the past a a security device at public functions for this reason. Were a proper turn-around provided either on "D" Street at Minot or on Minot at "D" Street, then additional right-of-way would need to somehow be acquired and existing properties negatively affected. From a planning as well as a traffic perspective, the additional circulation tie to Second Avenue connects the neighborhood, offer alternate routing and avoids an increasingly difficult situation of making a left turn onto "E" Street from Minot Street. For all of the above reasons, the street closure option is not recommended. D. CONCLUSION After the testimony from the previous Planning Commission hearing and meeting with residents of the area on two different occasions, the overall neighborhood reaction to the rezoning question is mixed. What is clear is that Minor residents do not want the street widened and would strongly urge the closure of "D" Street to avoid traffic impacts from the Las Flores development. As explained in our report, the "D" Street closure would have, in our opinion, serious safety and public welfare implications and, therefore, we could not endorse its closure. The downzoning as outlined in Exhibit "A" is not without problems; however, staff has concluded that it would be the best course of action given the facts cited in this report. Should the Planning Commission decide against the downzoning to R-l, other design control regulations could be imposed such as: height controls (one-story units), increased lot size for duplexes (minimum lO,O00 sq. ft. vs. present 7,000 sq. ft.), additional on-site parking (one guest space in addition to present two-car garage), and so on. WPC 3193P APPENDIX A ;ATOR ' ~ M/not Study I / I -r ~ ZONE t-__ I I I I--,I I ___... ~ I / ~ --~ I I I I.- .~ ~. I ~ ~' .~LL. ~ I I' ! I I I I I I I I E ~ STREE'i' City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C - Consideration to rezone portions of the Las Flores Study Area from R-2 (one and two family residence zone) to R-1 (single family residence zone) A. BACKGROUND On June 12, 1985, the Planning Comission considered and approved a tentative parcel map for property located at 160 Minot Avenue. The Commission's consideration had resulted from an appeal filed by 45 residents protesting a parcel map condition calling for an offer of dedication of right-of-way should the City determine in the future that street widening along Minot Avenue was appropriate. Residents expressed concerns that increased traffic from present developments allowed under the existing R-2 zoning in the area would have an adverse impact on area residents, and that they did not want Minot Avenue involved. At that time, the Commission directed staff to prepare a zoning study of the area to examine the issue of downzoning land along Minot Avenue from R-2 to an R-1 residential zone. The City Council at their meeting of November 19, 1985, also directed staff to prepare a zoning study, after consideration of a petition from Minot Avenue area residents requesting an emergency ordinance prohibiting lot splits on Minot Avenue, and a refund of an appeal fee paid by residents to protest tentative parcel map 85-10. On July 24, 1986, an open meeting was held between staff and residents of the zoning study area to discuss land use and density issues, traffic impacts and possible zoning alternatives. Input from residents within this area expressed at the meeting or received as written correspondence is addressed in this report. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council rezone the Las Flores Study Area as outlined in Alternative A of this report, and request that City Council retain Minot at a 30 foot curb/curb width. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed action constitutes a Class 3(a) categorical exemption, and therefore does not require further environmental review. C. DISCUSSION The boundaries of the Las Flores Zoning Study Area resulted from a review of land uses and traffic along Minot Avenue which showed the street to be interrelated with a larger area based on present zoning patterns, lot lines, topography, and the street system. The study area encompasses 37 acres and stretches from First Avenue to Second Avenue and from "E" Street to "D" Street. Impacts from areas under development north of the study area were also considered as both Las Flores and Minot Avenue extend from the study area by approximately 600 feet. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 2 The zoning study area is offset from its surroundings by uniform R-2 zoning. The present zoning pattern has been in existence since 1949. It is also characterized by sloping topography which gives it a physical distinction from other areas. The street system included within the study area has a direct impact upon traffic utilizing Minot Avenue. Minot Avenue is a cul-de-sac 2,UO0 feet long with a curb-to-curb width of 30 feet. Recent development interest focused on the Las Flores Zoning Study Area has resulted in the approval of an 1911 Act Assessment District for Las Flores Drive, setting the stage for increased future development. Under the present zoning pattern, development pressures within the study area would continue to cause increases in traffic flow over the street system, with the hea¥iest impact to Minot avenue, followed by increases on Las Flores Drive. Properties along Minor Avenue between "E" and "D" Street have the potential for an additional 30 to 40 units, while present zoning would allow the area south of "D" Street to be developed with 27 to 30 duplexes. While the north end of Las Flores Drive is zoned R-1 and is not within the study area, present approved subdivision and development plans for the area would result in an additional 50 single family units. The cumulative total then is 107-120 additional dwelling units within the area. Overall, traffic impacts to the south half of Minot avenue as a result of present development pressures in and around the study area would represent an increase of approximately 300 to 400 additional trips per day. Although the total traffic count, as noted below, is not unusual for a long residential cul-de-sac, Minot Avenue is only 30 feet wide while the City standard is 36 feet from curb-to-curb. Aside from increases in traffic moving through Minot Avenue, development i~apacts would also alter the general character of the area. The predominance of duplexes would result in more on-street parking and an increase in average building size and scale. The increase in traffic and on-street parking would increase the pressure for widening Minot Avenue resulting in, removing or relocating items such as fencing, utility poles, landscaping, and bringing dwellings closer to the street. Mitigation of traffic impacts along Minot Avenue can be approached using a combination of two different types of controls; through zoning and through changes in road design. ZONING ALTERNATIVES Through changes in the zoning pattern for the area, the density and intensity of development can be controlled to varying degrees. In reviewing zoning options for the area, staff has developed three City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 3 alternatives which are illustrated at the end of this report. Projected traffic counts associated with the ultimate buildout of each alternative are listed in the table below. Projected Traffic Count Minot Avenue North of "E" Street Average Daily Trips Present R-2 Zoning Pattern Existing 580 At buildout 1,200-1,300 Alternative A At buildout 900-1,000 Alternative B At buildout 900-1,000 Alternative C At buildout 1,100-1,200 Entire Study Area to R-1 At buildout 800-900 Zoning Pattern Alternative A In this alternative, properties which abut Minot Avenue and most portions of "D" Street would be rezoned to R-1 residential with a 7,000 square foot minimum lot size. All other properties within the study area retain R-2 zoning, with the exception of one lot containing apartments abutting "E" Street, which presently has an R-3 zone. The downzoning of properties along Minor Avenue would give the entire length of Minot Avenue both outside and inside the study area, uniform single family zoning. At ultimate buildout, Minot Avenue can be expected to experience a traffic count of approximately 900-1,000 trips per day. The rezoning would result in nine non-conforming lots along Minor Avenue. However, 23 lots would be conforming with the change to R-1. Alternative A is also characterized by downzoning of properties north of "D" Street, including four lots abutting the south side of "D" Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive. In general, this reflects existing land uses in this area; only 2 lots north of "D" Street presently have duplexes or 2 single family dwellings on one lot, the rest contain single family dwellings or are vacant. Alternative B The proposed zoning pattern in Alternative B is similar to Alternative A in that lots north of "D" Street and adjacent to Minor Avenue are zoned only for single family dwellings. In Alternative B, however, properties which take access onto "E" Street located between Las Flores Drive and the alley south of "D" Street are also zoned R-1. The four lots abutting the south side of "D" Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive retain the present R-2 zoning rather than the proposed R-1 zone reflected in Alternative A. Each of the four lots are developed with a single family drawing at present. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 4 The projected traffic counts at ultimate buildout for Alternative B are approximately the same as for Alternative A; counts would range around 900 to 1,000 trips per day. Alternative C The zoning pattern proposed in Alternative C allows a higher density and intensity of uses than the previous two alternatives. With this plan, properties adjacent to "0" Street are rezoned to R-l, while the remaining properties within the study area retain the present R-2 zone, including most properties along Minot Avenue. Only two non-conforming lots result from this option. However, Minor Avenue would be impacted more significantly by increased traffic. Projected traffic counts for Minot Avenue under this alternative would increase to 1,400-1,500 trips per day. Other Alternatives Two alternatives reviewed by staff but not presented are the extremes in the range of zoning patterns available; rezoning the entire study area to an R-1 zone, and leaving the entire area with the present R-2 zoning. The first extreme, restricting the entire area to single family development would result in reduced traffic impacts when compared to other alternatives presented. However, the existing development patterns on First, Second, and Las Flores are more clearly established with duplex and multiple units and the street improvements are of a sufficient width to accommodate the increase in density. Development of existing vacant properties, especially those located adjacent to Las Flores Drive would still increase existing traffic levels by 40% to 50% on Minot Avenue. Traffic levels along Minor Avenue with exclusive R-1 zoning would average 800-900 trips per day. Rezoning the study area to R-1 residential zones also places all existing duplex structures under non-conformance status. Duplexes constitute 24% of all residential structures in the area. The second extreme, leaving the entire area with the present R-2 zone would result in the greatest levels of traffic impacting Minor Avenue, estimated at approximately 1,500 to 1,600 trips per day. In addition to traffic, increased curb cuts made from driveways created to serve the greater number of duplexes, reduces available spaces for on-street parking. The increase in traffic coupled with reduced areas for on-street parking would likely necessitate widening the street to City standards for the length of the street between ~D" Street and "E" Street. ROAD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Changes to the present road design can serve to augment proposed changes in the present zoning pattern to alleviate projected increases in traffic as development continues. The ran§e of road design options available for this purpose is listed as follows: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 5 1. Widen Minot Avenue by 6 feet from curb-to-curb and include construction of sidewalks. Note: Right-of-way increase would total 16 feet. 2. Remove parking from one side of the street to create two lanes, ll feet wide and 8 feet of parking width. 3. Close "D" Street to Minot Avenue. The first option, widening Minot Avenue, has been strongly opposed by Minot Avenue residents. Parcel map conditions requiring dedications for road widening were the basis for the controversy necessitating the study. Widening Minor Avenue may also involve removal of fences, tree, and other landscaping~hich may fall within the right-of-way, for approximately nine properties along Minot Avenue. The inclusion of sidewalks along both sides of Minor Avenue would be necessary to protect pedestrians from increased traffic along Minot Avenue. Financing of any proposed widening and improvements would probably be accomplished through a 1913 Act Assessment District. The option to remove parking from one side of the street has been used successfully in other areas of Chula Vista to accommodate increases in traffic without increasing the overall width of the right-of-way. The success of this particular option depends, however, on the number of curb cuts present on the street and the resulting on-street area available for parking. The option to close "D" Street to Minot Avenue would have the effect of limiting traffic increases to development occurring on Minot Avenue. Closure of "D" Street would cause Minot Avenue and Las Flores to operate completely independent of each other. However, closure of the street to through traffic limits circulation options and creates a difficult situation for providing City services such as police, fire protection, street sweeping, and trash collection. The lack of an adequate turnaround at the terminus of "D" Street, properties which abut "D" Street between Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue makes i t~impractical for street sweeping and trash collection vehicles to operate.~he closure of the street would also force limits on everyday services such as mail routes, school access, etc. Finally, additional traffic congestion could occur at the intersection of "E" Street and Minot as a result of not being able to access "D" Street to Second Avenue. On July 24, 1986, staff met with residents from the zoning study area and presented the three alternatives, along with the various options for altering road design along Minot Avenue. In general, residents in the area were concerned with projected increases in traffic and opposed widening of Minot Avenue, but were not interested in a zone change restricting construction of duplexes. There were some suggestions by residents that closing access to Minot Avenue from "D" Street would be an acceptable alternative to street widening. City Planning Co~mnission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 6 After reviewing the suggestions made by residents at the public meeting, staff is of the opinion that altering the road design by restricting parking to one side of the street is preferable to closure of "D" Street, for the reasons previously stated in the discussion of road design options. However, while restricting parking locations would reduce some traffic impacts, it does not address the central problem of land use intensity that is greater than the existing road system can adequately support and the change in character of development impacting the existing single family homes. Ultimate residential density should be reduced to the point where traffic impacts are lowered to a more acceptable level, rather than attempting to fit higher traffic levels onto a substandard road. Of the three zoning alternatives presented to achieve this end, staff recommends adoption of the zoning pattern outlined in Alternative A, coupled with retention of the 30 foot wide road and the possible restriction of on-street parking to one side of Minor Avenue at some time in the future. Out of the three alternatives presented, Alternatives A and B result in the greatest reduction of traffic levels to Minor Avenue at ultimate buildout. While both A and B result in ultimate traffic levels of 900 to 1,O00 trips per day, Alternative A better reflects existing land uses by designating R-1 zoning along both sides of "D" Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive. The retention of R-2 zoning for properties which abut "E" Street in Alternative A also allows a greater residential density based upon access to a street system which accommodates higher traffic levels ("E" Street). Staff is of the opinion that implementation of Alternative A with possible restriction of parking on Minot Avenue will serve to preserve the quiet residential character of Minot Avenue while accommodating the needs of future development occurring in the surrounding area. WPC 3093P LEGEND !VACANT ~SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 'jTWO FAMILY DWELLING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL FL STREET rEXISTING LAND USE G E N D ~ ALTERNATIVE A ~ROPOSED R-1 PROPOSED R-2 LEGEND pROPOSED R-1 A LTE R N A TI VE B PROPOSED PROPOSED R-1 A L 'r E R ~-,tA T PROPOSED R-2 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-3 Consideration of appeal from denial of Tentative Parcel Map 86-21 involvin9 property on the south side of "D" Street, between Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue - Margie Fuentez A. BACKGROUND This item involves an appeal from a decision by the Directors of Planning and Public Works de~ying Tentative Parcel Map 86-21 for the division of one 0.59 acre lot into three lots on the south side of "D" Street, between Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Directors of Planning and Public Works and thereby deny the appeal based on the determination that approval of the map would not be in the best interest of the public welfare considering the recommended rezoning action to R-1 (single family residential). C. DISCUSSION The map was denied under the authority granted by Municipal Code Section 18.20.070 relating to grounds for disapproval of a parcel map. Subsection 18.20.070B reads, in part "...The director of planning or planning commission may also disapprove any parcel map when it is found that the public health, safety or welfare justifies such action." It was determined that the public welfare would best be served if the map was not approved until the results of the Las Flores area zoning study had been presented to Council. The Department had also received a letter signed by several owners on Minot Street opposing the lot split until the study was complete. The Las Flores area zoning study encompasses the R-2 zoned area between First and Second Avenue north of "E" Street and includes the site in question. The Depar~nent had estimated at the time that the study would be completed within 60 ~ays, or around the end of September 1986. The applicant was given the opportunity to either request a delay in processing or to proceed and then appeal the denial to tile Planning Commission. D. ANALYSIS The Las Flores area zoning study is now completed and was first presented to the Planning Commission on September lO, 1986. The Commission continued the public hearing on the matter to the meeting of October 8, 1986, at the request of several study area residents. If the Commission and Council concur with the staff recommendation for the Las Flores area, the appell ant's property would be rezoned from R-2 (two-family residential) to R-1 (single-family residential). The item will subsequently be scheduled for City Council consideration. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 Approval of the parcel map at this time would create three R-2 lots w~ich could then be developed with two-family dwellings. Should the property be rezoned to R-l, any builoing permits issued for duplexes would leave the units non-conforming and inconsistent with the single-family character deemed appropriate for the area. For the reasons noted above, we recommend denial of the appeal. WPC 31B1P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 7.PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-8; request to construct 18 residential units for alcohol recovery patients at 270 "C" Street in the R-1 zone - South Bay Pioneers A. BACKGROUND This item involves a request by the South Bay Pioneers to construct 18 residential units on the easterly portion of their 2.21 acre site located at 270 "C" Street in the R-1 zone. The units would be used as residences for alcohol recovery patients. Two earlier proposals were denied by the City Council in 1985. The first proposal involved 24 units, while the second was an 18 unit project identical to the present request. In both cases, the Commission had recommended approval. The City Council has now agreed to reconsider the matter in response to a request by the South Bay Pioneers. An Initial Study, IS-85-2~, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on January 3, 1985. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOM~ENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-23. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request as filed but approve the construction of residential structures at 270 "C" Street subject to the following conditions: a. The number of units shall be limited to 12 1-bedroom apartments (minimum 500 sq. ft. each). b. The units shall be a maximum of one story in height. c. Each unit shall have a minimum of one resident parking space. d. The 12 units shall consist of a combination of duplex and/or triplex units separated by a minimum of 10'. e. The project shall be subject to site plan and architectural review by the Design Review Committee prior to application for a building permit. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 f. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. g. Installation of any missing improvements on "C" Street fronting the property will be required. Existing power poles and street sign at the intersection of "C" Street and Del Mar Avenue must be relocated (Note: The Engineering Department estimates the cost of improvements and corrective work required along this frontage to be $210,000). h. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the expansion of the facility, the permittee shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista ensuring that the use of the facility shall remain consistent with this conditional use permit. Said agreement shall be secured by a recorded Deed of Trust. The agreement shall be satisfactory to the City Attorney's office. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-l, R-3-G-D Vacant and multiple family South R-1 Single family East R-1 Single family West R-3-G-D Multiple family Existing site characteristics. The subject property consists of 2.21 acres with 661 feet of frontage along the south side of "C" Street and a depth of 146 feet. The South Bay Pioneers Alcoholics Rehabilitation Center and associated parking are located on the westerly 1.32 acres of the site. The easterly 0.9 acre portion consists of relatively level, unimproved terrain which is depressed aver 12 feet below "C" Street and approximately 18 feet below single family homes to the south. Proposed use. The proposal consists of the construction of four two-story structures each containing four units, one one-story structure containing two units, a laundry/storage structure, and 17 parking spaces on the presently unimproved easterly portion of the property. The net residential density for the 0.9 acres would be 20 dwelling units per acre. The existing facility on the west end of the property contains six dormitory type rooms accommodating 24 male live-in residents for stays averaging four months. According to the proponents, the 18 new units would supplement the structured living environment of the center by providing an on-site, transitional living environment for those who have completed an alcoholic recovery program but who are not yet ready to return to independent living. The units would also provide the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 3 opportunity to offer resident treatment for women and married couples, as well as men. The residents would be required to have completed an alcoholism recovery program, and some of the units would be earmarked for senior members wit~l a long history of sobriety to serve as counselors and monitors. Prior requests. As noted above, in 1985 the Commission and Council considered first a 24-unit project and then later an 18-unit project for the site in question. In both cases, the Commission voted unanimously for approval on the basis of the relative isolation of the property and the close proximity of multiple family developments to the west. Conversely, the Council voted 3-2 to deny each of the proposals on the basis that multiple family use should not be extended into the R-1 single family area. The staff recommendation in each instance has been to support a 12-unit project with additional conditions to ensure that the character of the project and population density would be compatible with adjacent R-1 areas. D. ANALYSIS The staff position remains unchanged from a year ago based on density and a determination as to the best location to transition the multiple and single-family land uses; i.e., westerly of this site. The issues in support of the extended land use are: 1. The site is depressed over 12 feet below "C" Street. Thus, the 2-story structures when viewed from the north could be considered no more intrusive than single story construction (Structure height proposed from ground level would be approximately 23'). 2. The single family homes adjoining the site's southerly boundary are likewise oriented away from the site and receive access from Sea Vale Street. Since the site is depressed some 18 feet below these dwellings, the 2-story structures would not extend above the rear yard fencing, and would be separated from the nearest residence by approximately 60 feet. 3. The property to the east is a one-half acre single-family lot with access off "C" Street. The dwelling is located on the easterly portion of the lot, and is elevated approximately 20 feet above the proposal site. The separation between this home and the proposed structures would approximate 100 feet. The issues in opposition to approve the extended land use are: 1. Approval of this request could very well result in other requests to rezone properties to the north and east of the site based on the City's action on this property. The property to the north is vacant and has had various multiple rezonin§ requests suggested on it. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 4 2. The project is too dense; placing 18 units on less than an acre of ground represents an intrusion into this single family area. 3. The number of residents living in 18 units would represent between 27-36 residents per acre, a number higher than the adjacent single family homes (approximately 18 per acre). 4. There would be some view obstruction down to "C" Street and the slope beyond as well as some view obstruction directly to the west. E. CONCLUSION The site is relatively isolated by virtue of access, topography, and vegetation. The existing development of the South Bay Pioneers building, parking lot, and nearly 1 acre of vacant property makes it ideal to provide for an extended use which fits the needs of the organization while fitting into the neighborhood fabric. Based on the above factors, the Planning Department continues with our recommendation that additional units be authorized but at a substantially reduced number and with additional conditions. Tile recommendation would limit the number of units to 12 one-story buildings, divided into duplex or triplex units. They would be limited to a single story height and one bedroom in size. Approving the project with these limitations and certain other conditions would allow the project to move forward without impacting the adjacent neighborhood. To compare the recommended project with the adjacent single family area, we would note that: 1. Twelve one-story units of approximately 500 sq. ft. would represent a building mass of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. Using the same area and developing 5 single family homes of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. would also equal 6,000 sq. ft. of building mass. 2. Requiring the buildings to be limited to duplexes and triplexes would ensure that no building would exceed 1,500 sq. ft. in area (500 sq. ft. - 1 bedroom). 3. Limiting the construction to one story, given the topo of the area, would minimize the visibility of the structures. 4. Having 12 units with a resident population of 1.5 to 2 persons per unit would equal 18-24 residents. Similarly, 5 single family homes with an average of 3.5 persons per home would result in approximately 18 residents. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 5 F. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well bein§ of the neighborhood or the community. The project as conditioned meets a community need by providing an expansion of an existing facility and a new program component in the treatment of alcoholism. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is depressed in elevation and buffered from surrounding uses by terrain, landscaping and lot orientation, and activities will be monitored by South Bay Pioneers staff. Limiting the project to 12 one-bedroom, single-story units will further ameliorate the potential for land use conflict with adjacent single family areas. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project will be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The project is permitted by conditional use permit, and conditions have been imposed which would ensure its retention in this use. WPC 3164P negative"t declaration ) PRO]ECT NAME: South Bay Pioneers Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: 270 "C" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: South Bay Pioneers, 270 "C" Street, Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-85-23 DATE: January 3, 1985 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 2.21 acre site of which approximately 1.32 acres is presently utilized for an existing Alcoholics Rehabilitation Center and associated' off-street parking. The remaining property, approximately .9 acre is a relatively level natural area bounded on the north and south by existing slopes. Adjacent land uses consist of single-family dwellings to the east and south, vacant land and multiple family to the north across "C" Street and multiple family to the west. No significant manmade or natural features presently characterize the site and there are no known geologic hazards on or near the project site. B. Project Description The project consists of the construction of 24 apartment units to be contained in two, 2-story structures at the easterly end of the project site and the provision for 23 additional paved on-site parking spaces. The proposed apartment units are to be used by the members and the families of residents of the existing Alcoholic Rehabilitation Facility. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project involves the building of multiple-family units within the R-1 zone and is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission as a quasi-public use. The net density proposed is 27 dwelling units per acre. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Grading The proposed project will include an Engineering Department requirement for widening of "C" Street adjacent to the project site. The widening of "C" Street will require new slopes and retaining walls on the south side of the street, not reflected accurately on the current site plan. These modifications will not result in a significant land form alteration, although the applicant's designer will be required to modify the site plan and address erosion control for new slopes. city of chula vista planning department ~ environmental review section~ 2. Schools The local elementary IRosebank) and junior high (Chula Vista Junior High) schools are currently operating above capacity levels. If children are pemitted in the facility, an additional five elementary and seven junior and high school students could be generated from the project which could exacerbate the current high enrollment levels. If this conditon could develop, the applicant shall comply with public facilities policies and ensure that adequate classroom space is available for new students. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed multiple family units will not degrade the quality of the environment because of the physical separation from adjacent single family residential uses and because of the access to "C" Street which has multi-family uses to the west. 2. Short-term environmental goals will not be gained therefore there will be no impact on long term goals. 3.Cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed and are not anticipated to result in a significant environmental impact. 4. t~o impacts are anticipated which will have a substantial adverse impact on human beings. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Tom Dyke, Building and Housing Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Designer: John Nash 2. Documents EA-74-12, South Bay Pioneers The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 16?lP EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) city of chula vista planning department environmental review section KN 6 ~P~v l?/~?/ STATE HWY. 5 4 .'. , P-20 %. I~L ' TROUSDALE MF J I J : . .! ':~ SF ~ ~----~' I . "" '[ I · ' '-~-~. '% ~ Mobil Home VAC. ~ ' ,- Vac ':' i : 'S~q SF:~ SF "' ../. STREET ' '-" PCC 85-12 ~) 270 "C" street. ~' , CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Nix 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. , Joseph F. Cody President Dewey Hughes,T~ustee James Johnson ,Secretary Eugene K~abo Trustee Neik Slijk, Trustee Leo Kelly,Financial Officer. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city? municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~' ~ ~pl~ant/date Sign~ur~ of WPC 0701P Joseph F. Oody. President board of trustees. A-1lO ~rint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the modification to and possible revocation of Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-23 authorizing the establishment of t~e Uabr~lo School of Nursin9, 713 Broadway (continued) A. BACKGROUND On June 27, 1984, the Zoning Administrator granted Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-23 which authorized the establishment of the Cabrillo School of Nursing at 713 Broadway. Approval of the permit was based on information provided by the applicant indicating that the majority of students would be using public transportation, and the permit is conditioned upon a limit of 30 students at any one time because of limited on-site parking. In follow-up visits to the site, City staff observed in excess of 60 students at the facility, with the parking lot full and excess student parking occurring along both Broadway and "J" Street and extending into adjoining residential areas. The applicant was apprised of the apparent violation by letter on May 29, 1986, and a request was made then and again by letter on July 2, 1986, to take corrective steps and notify the department of compliance. The applicant did not respond and the matter was set for public hearing before the Commission on July 23, 1986, to consider revocation of the permit. Prior to the revocation hearing the applicant contacted the Department with infomation that the parking issue was largely resolved. Since no public testimony was offered in opposition to the school at the meeting of July 23, the Commission continued the revocation hearing to the meeting of August 27, 1986, in order to allow the applicant to pursue a formal request to increase the student enrollment limit. The school subsequently filed an application to modify their conditional use permit to increase the student limit from 30 to 50 to be considered by the Zoning Administrator on August 21, 1986. In response to the public notice of this request the Department received three letters of protest indicating that excess student parking is a continuing problem. These parties were contacted and indicated that they had not attended the July 23 Commission hearing because they believed the problem was going to be resolved. The applicant was contacted regarding this new information and requested a continuance of the modification request and revocation hearing in order to further address the parking issue. The continuance was granted and both items have been scheduled to be heard by the Commission at the meeting of October 8, 1986. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion to deny the request to modify PCC-84-23 to increase the on-site enrollment limit from 30 to 50 students. 2. Adopt a motion to: a. revoke PCC-84-23 effective on December 31, 1986, and direct the Cabrillo School of Nursing to cease operations at 713 Broadway as of that date, and b. authorize the Zoning Administrator to "stay" the revocation if it is shown that enrollment has been reduced to the 30-student limit at least one month prior to the effective revocation date. The Zoning Administrator may grant a maximum of four 90-day "stays" based upon a showing of compliance with the 30-student limit evidenced by an enrollment report filed with the City by the school and subject to on-site inspection and confirmation by City staff. If compliance is thus confirmed for a one-year period, PCC-84-23 will be set for rehearing before the Commission to reconsider the revocation. C. DISCUSSION The Cabrillo School of Nursing is located in a small, 0.52 acre commercial center located just to the south of "J" Street on the east side of Broadway. The center contains a total of 9,000 sq. ft. of floor area with 37 on-site parking spaces. Retail and service commercial uses are located to the north, south and west of the site, and apartments adjoin the property to the east. The school occupies approximately 5,600 sq. ft. of floor area, and shares the center with a retail jeweler, hair salon, realty/law office and a vacant suite which together constitute the remaining 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area. Normally classes are held between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., while the office remains open until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. However, classes have been observed in operation at various times in the evening and on weekends. The conditional use permit for the school was submitted and evaluated on the basis that no more than four employees and 30 students would be on-site at any one time, and that 60%-70% of the 30 students would be using public transportation due to their financial situation. Based upon this information, it was estimated that the school would require no more than 15-20 on-site parking spaces leaving at least 17 spaces to serve the remaining uses in the center. The permit was therefore approved on the condition that the school not exceed 30 students at one time. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS As noted earlier, our original follow-up site observations indicated in excess of 60 students at the school with the parking lot full and overflow student parking occurring along both Broadway and "J" Street. In support of their recent request to increase enrollment, the school has submitted information that admits to a current enrollment of at least 45 students. The information further indicates that the school has 22 of the 37 on-site parking spaces reserved for their exclusive use, and that generally no more than 19 of the 45 students require parking. The school concludes, therefore, that they would have sufficient on-site parking with no overflow on-street parking if other tenants within the center did not use Cabrillo's reserved spaces. Our observations indicate otherwise. Several times in the last few weeks we have monitored the site during student arrivals and departures. Prior to the opening of other businesses, the parking lot is virtually empty and the Cabrillo staff and students appear to have access to all of the school's reserved spaces. Classes begin at 8:00 a.m. with students arriving between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. while none of the other businesses within the center open before 9:00 a.m. During the early afternoon dismissal period, between approximately l:15 p.m. and 1:45 p.m., we have observed student nurses departing from most if not all of Cabrillo's reserved spaces, plus two "informal" on-site spaces--one in front of the trash enclosure and the other adjacent to the concrete strip in the northerly circulation drive. During these same one-half hour periods we have observed as few as 8 and as many as 12 student vehicles departing from on-street spaces along both the east and west sides of Broadway (which is posted for 2-hour parking only), and as few as 6 and as many as 10 student vehicles departing from on-street spaces on "J" Street to the northeast of the center. Thus during our limited observations we have seen all of the on-site spaces occupied and as many as 22 student vehicles parked on-street, presumably for the full five-hour school session. The department has also received three letters of objection to any increase above the 30-student limit citing the current on-street parking congestion created by the school. E. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the school is currently operating in violation of the student limit imposed by PCC-84-23. The excessive on-street parking congestion caused by the additional students represents a burden to adjacent businesses and residential property owners who are deprived of convenient on-street parking which would otherwise be available to serve their periodic need for extra parking to accommodate customers or guests. WPC 3068P CABRILLO SCHOOL OF P,iUESiNG (Situations of parking.lot congesfion during school hours) (Ref: Response to letter dated May 29, 1986) A. Congestion by Cabrillo Students 1. Each morning, Monday through Friday, from 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. students driven to school by spouse, boyfriends, etc. causes the par.king lot to be congested during this time. Students driven to school often remain in cars they are driven in until qlasses begin. 2. Occasionally, during lunch break (between 10:30 and 11:00) friends, spouses, etc., of students ~top by to have lunch and then they leave. 3. Another time tho lot is congeste~ between 1:15 and 1:30 when students are being picked up. Cars ..~'~'.l!d occupy spaces while waiting for students to be dismissed ~om classes. Conqestion b~! Other Tenants !. It has been observed on numerous ,~casions that the D~Oro Jewelers employees and customers do%~ ]~'., tripple, and fire lane p~rk causing a jam in the parking lo~ n,~d making it di[~ficult f.~r cars to enter the South end of the p~king lot and in many occasion we have to ask them not to i~ Il in our parking space. 2. D'Oro Jewelers also has their white van parked in one of our sL-ace for over a month, therefore., leavin~ Cabrillo students with one less space. (They were asked several times to please move the van, and no respond). 3 It has been observed that the Creative Concepts (beauty salon) customers will park in Cabrillo space when available. C. Cabrillo Students 1. Each month during orientation of new students entering C~brilio school, students are incouraged to bus or car pool. 2. Again, du~ing .Assembly each month Cabrillo recommends to s.tudents [hat they take the bus or [~e driven to school. D. in our observation and opinion part of the over park is that the other tenants and customers take up Cabrillo spaces. Cabritlo has sufficient parking space if other tenants does not encroach. ,_., k~LO ,Ch..,O[ O[~ ".['}~A~'~SPOt~TAT fOU SURVEY ' ' · ,(CHULA VISTA)..' ,. JUNE '" z ,, ] ~86 . .-., '::~C? t;U[ ~'i" Tile BLOC'KS ,INDICATED , ...... ,t,~, / ,qALK / '/~: / DRIVEN 7'O ':~(';'0 L~ ...... a~-.. ' gd.':~ ~. / Y~ ~X- -.. ~,57~ .~ ,-,'<. ,",,; ...... ' ~ July 11, !986 CABRILLO SCttOOL t ,i.; } lNG {Phetos ) ! . }hot-,c ~}I - ,\s yct~ ('_iii see in this ~ } thore ore spacos 2, Photo ~2 m This photo was also taken after the lunch break and the parking remains this way throughout the day. -' ~!;'-:~ ~f~ ~'~,~ ~2-, {~ :T i~ .. July 11, 1986 CABRIttO SCHOOL OF NURSING PHOTOS 3. Photo #3 This photo was also taken at ll:O0 a.m. and if you will notice the blue Porche parked in the fire lane. This car parks here in the fire lane 99% out of the week. And to the right will have another brown car that will also park in'the fire lane. There are times when four (4) to six (6) cars parked blocking cars in spaces. (They not Cabrillo students) 4. Photo #4 This photo indicate the spaces available during this time. August 15, 1986 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 ATTN: Ken Lee RE: PCC84-23, Cabrillo School of Nursing Dear Sir: I (we) would like to take this opportunity to strongly voice our objection to the variance being requested by the Cabrillo School of Nursing for their conditional use permit for parking in the area of the school location. The nursing students are constantly parking in front of the car dealership and leaving no spaces for our clients. This has been a constant and critical problem since the school opened. To operate the dealership, we complied with the mandatory regulations put forth by the City of Chula Vista. This included having the b~INDATORY number of parking spaces required for client parking at our location. The City of Chula Vista appreciated this gesture on our part and so have our clients, at least our clients did appreciate parking spaces until they were absorbed into the Cabrillo School of Nursing. I (we) would hope the Planning Con~ission would go along with their first instinct, that of revocation of the conditional use permit. ~cerely,~z Sine'ely, ~-~ Dough, uller ~//Jerry~Bertram - President, Fuller Ford // F~ller Ford 760 Broadway // 760 Broadway Chula Vista,CA Chula Vista,CA 4~20 Hotel Circle Ct., #240 San Diego, California 92108 August 13, 1986 Mr. Kenneth G. Lee Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 RE: Case No:PCC-84-23 Dear Mr. Lee: As an owner of an apartment complex near the corner of Broadway and "J" Street in Chula Vista, I am of the opinion that the permit for the additional twenty students at any one time to the Cabrillo School of Nursing, located at 713 Broadway, should be granted under one condi- tion. This condition is that sufficient parking is provided on the premises for fifty students at any one time. If this condition is not met, adjacent property owners stand to suffer from student use of on-site parking spaces, as has occurred in the past. Ver.y~ruly yours, .~_.~ cmd The City of Chula Vista Planning Dcpnrtmc-nt 691- 5101 June 26, 1984 Cabrillo School of Nursing 5532 E1Cajon Boulevard San Diego, CA 92115 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-84-23 ESTABLISH A SCHOOL FOR NURSING AT 713 BROADWAY The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to establish a nursing school for medical assistants, nurses' assistants and medical receptionists within the commercial complex located at 713 Broadway in the C-T zone. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(f) exemption. After reviewing your proposed project, site plan and the existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, the Zoning Administrator has been able to make the required findings to grant your request. The request is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. 1. There shall not be more than 30 students within the school at any one time. 2. The hours of the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 3. Failure to comply with any condition of approval or to conduct business without adversely affecting adjacent uses shall cause the permit to be considered by the Planning Commission for additional, conditions or revocation. Findings of fact are as follows: 1. The proposed use will provide a service to the residents of the community interested in obtaining an occupation related to the medical profession. 2. The proposed use is limited to a maximum of 30 students at any one time and will operate during normal commercial hours. 3. The proposed use will be located within an existing commercial structure; however, the use constitutes a change in occupancy which requires compliance with handicap access regulations prior to issuance of a business license. 4. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this request. 276 Fourlh A tmuc ChuhVisla,Calffornh 92010 Cabrillo School of Nursing - 2 - June 21, 1984 You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Such appeal 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. Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the Ps. emil to become ~lull~ ~/ and void unless a written request for an extension i rec ived a~ranted prior to the expiration date. Zoning Administrator cc: City Clerk WPC 1060P/OOO9Z 5532 El Caion Boulevard, San Diego, California 92115 (619) 582-4801 Principal Planner City of Chula Vista Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: APPLICATION FOR CABRILLO SCHOOL OF NURSING BRANCH SCHOOL Dear Mr. Lee: As per your recommendation I have ontlined our need for the proposed leasing of the building at 713 Broadway, Chula Vista. a) The maximum employee count will be three, (3). Director, sales and receptionist. b) We do not anticipate over 30 to 35 students at any time. c) 60 to 70% of our students ride the public bus system, due to their financial situation. At our present location Cabrillo School: a) Has a student body count of approximately 80 to 100 students, including night students. b) At lease 70% of the student body utilize the public bus system, and/or carpool to school. c) Class occurs five days per week. 8:00am to l:30pm. d) We have not experienced any parking problems since we have been in business, (8 years). e) Our student body consists of low income families, and they depend on government funding to pay for their tuition and occasionally their living expenses. Mr. Lee, for your consideration and information I have enclosed additional information on the school. Thank you. Sincerely, C~77~0 SCHOO~F N~ING Presidentt HS:jp City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-B - Consideration to rezone 0.19 acres at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-5 - Educare Children's Center A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to rezone 0.19 acres located at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-1 (single family residential) to R-3-P-5 (multiple family residential/5 dwelling units per acre). The purpose of the rezonin§ is to allow the property to be used as a preschool. 2. An Initial Study, IS-87-12 of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on September 25, 1986, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-12. 2. Adopt a motion to deny PCZ-87-B to rezone 0.19 acres at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-5. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin9 and land use. North R-3 Preschool South R-1 Single family dwelling East R-1 Single family dwelling West R-1 Single family dwelling Existin~ site characteristics. The site consists of an 8,500 sq. ft. lot containin9 one sin§le family dwelling and located on the west side of Fourth Avenue 145 feet south of "I" Street. An existing preschool and daycare center are located to the north at 606 and 610 "I" Street, and single family dwellings are located to the west, south, and east across Fourth Avenue. General plan. The General Plan designates this and adjacent properties for Medium Density Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre). The requested R-3 zone with the P-5 modifying district density limitation (5 dwelling units per acre) would conform with the General Plan designation. City Planning Commission"' Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 Project description. The property would be used to expand the preschool located directly to the north of the site. The single family dwelling would be retained and converted to preschool use to accommodate approximately 24 preschoolers and two employees. The playground area would be located in the front yard area on the easterly side of the structure. Hours of operation would be 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As noted above, the sole purpose of the rezoning is to allow the preschool expansion. The present R-1 zoning does not allow for large-scale preschools, but they may be established in the R-3 zone upon the approval of a conditional use permit. Thus, if the rezoning were granted the applicant would then have to apply for a CUP to authorize the use. D. ANALYSIS The R-3 zone boundary on the south side of "I" Street is established at a depth of 145 feet in this area; 145 feet being the depth of the majority of parcels which front on the south side of "I" Street. This boundary represents a logical and consistent demarcation between those parcels zoned for multiple family development which generally front on "I" Street and the single family areas to the south. Consequently, from the outset staff has discouraged any extension of multiple family zoning to the south. In order to facilitate the request, the applicant has proposed that the R-3 rezone carry a P-5 modifying district density limitation {5 dwelling units per acre). Five dwelling units per acre equates to the density that can be achieved in the R-1 zone and would allow no more than one unit on the 0.19 acre site. The result being an R-3 zoned parcel which could accommodate only one single family dwelling, consistent with R-1 zoned properties to the west, south and east. We disfavor this approach for two reasons. First, despite the density control, this would represent an extension of R-3 zoning inconsistent with the adjacent zoning patterns. The stated purpose of the R-3 zone is to encourage multiple family development. It is not designed to be used as a device to circumvent unrelated use restrictions of the Code. The existing zone boundary is logical and consistent. Secondly, once the R-3 zone is established it becomes more difficult to argue against a future request for an increase in density or a further extension of the zone. For example, since this parcel could be held in common and consolidated with one or more of the R-3 parcels to the north, a request for an increase in density could come in the form of a density averaging concept. Likewise, a rezone would tend to encourage future requests for multiple family zoning to the south and east along Fourth Avenue. For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request. WPC 31 91 P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Educare Children's Center PROJECT LOCATION: 618 Fourth Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Rosemary J. Hirsch CASE NO: IS-87-12 DATE: September 25, 1986 A. Project Setting The project site consists of an 8,500 sq. ft. lot containing one single family dwelling. An existing preschool and daycare center are located to the north at 606 and 610 "I" Street, and single family dwellings are located to the west, south and east across Fourth Avenue. B. Project Description The project is an expansion of the preschool located directly to the north of the site. The single family dwelling would be retained and converted to preschool use to accommodate approximately 24 preschoolers and two employees. The playground area would be located in the front yard area on the easterly side of the structure. Hours of operation would be 6:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The site is presently zoned R-1 single family residential which does not allow for preschools. The applicant has consequently applied for a rezoning to R-3-P(5) which will require approval by the City Council. If the zoning request is granted, the applicant would then apply for a conditional use permit subject to approval of the Planning Commission. The Building and Housing and Fire departments have submitted comments regarding certain standards that will have to be met with the conversion from single family to 'preschool use. These are not discretionary standards and must be met. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Noise The applicant was required to submit an acoustical analysis based upon information that the rear yard area would be used for play activities. This study indicated that no mitigation measures would be necessary if this area was restricted to children ages 2-4 years and no play equipment other than a sandbox. If older children were permitted to use the rear yard area, the study indicated the need for a six foot high solid masonry wall along the entire length of the western property line. city of chula vista planning department ¢I3YOF environmental review section_CHUL~ VI~'A~,, The applicant has since stated that play activities will be restricted to the front yard area only. Due to the orientation of the front yard play area, the screeening effect of existing structures, the masking effect of Fourth Avenue traffic noise and the distance of the front yard to the nearest property line to the west and south, the study has found that all preschool play activity can occur without exceeding the standards established by the Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The Initial Study has not identified any potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The site is void of any significant natural or manmade resources, and there are no geologic hazards present on or near the site. 2. The proposed preschool and day care center expansion would be compatible with the General Plan upon the approval of a rezoning and the issuance of a conditional use permit, and thus is consistent with long-term environmental goals assuming these approvals. 3. No impacts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause the emission of any harmful substance or create any significant traffic hazards. Play activities will be restricted to the front yard area, thus eliminating any potential for adverse noise impacts. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Bill Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Traffic Engineering Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Applicant's Agent: Harold R. Hirsch 2. Documents EA-72-10, Peterson Preschool IS-83-31, "I" Corner Preschool Expansion Chula Vista General Plan The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. RO~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 3175P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section CHU[A EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) Chula Vista, California October 1~ i986 TO: Environmental Review Coordinator City Of chula Vista, Planning Commission P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista~ CA. 92012. RE: Expansion of existing day care facility at 618 4th Ave. In regards to the proposed zone change of 0.19 acres located at 618 4th Ave.~ for the expansion of Edu-Care Chlldrens Center, we feel the following should be consldereO: 1. We are definitely opposed to the said rezonlno. ~here is enough commercialization in this once quiet residential neighborhood. 2. Three years ago this same Daycare Center was permltte~ to expand its facilities to bio 4tn. Avenue, ~hlch considerably lncreaseO the noise level. ~urthermore, we ~eel that the existing ~acllities of Edu-Care Center are more than sufficiently acceptable for the surrounding neighborhood of single family homes. 5. Also~ as a final thought to ponOer. If this zoning change is permitted what guarantee is there that, in the not too distant future, the owners of this business wil! not request another variance and this neighborhood made up of single ~amily dwellings would end up with an apartment complex. Mr. ~ Mrs. Herman Pankau 615 Guava Avenue Chula Vistae CA. 92010 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Harold R. Hirsch Rosemary J. Hirsch Brigitte E. Stutz List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Carole Marquez 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Harold R. Hirsch Rosemary J. Hirsch Brigitte E. Stutz 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of C)ty staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person{s) ~s..defi~ned. as: ."Any in. dividual, firm, ?partnership,~entu.re, association, I~s.oc. Ta~ ~/UD, tra~erna! organization, corporation, estate, ~v. er.,. syndicatej I th!.s..and, any other county, city and county, city, munic~~t,,rtct or othe~ [political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." {.~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.),/ /].~2 //' · 4/ s'ig~t, ure 'of aP_PI fc6n~/d;t~7 / - - A')~ oL D '~ /q /7~¢H- WPC 0701P Rosemary Jl Hirsc~ A-110 P'rint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 1 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-2M; request to expand existing daycare center from 12 to 25 children at 9b Orange Avenue, in an RV-15 residential zone Elva Uacho A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting conversion of an existing single family dwelling located at 95 Orange Avenue, currently with family daycare for 12 children as an accessory use, to a commercial daycare facility for 25 children as the sole use of the property. The project site is within an RV-15 residential zone. An Initial Study, IS-87-3M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on August 6, 1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of October l, 1986, voted to recommend approval of the major use permit. The Committee voted also to recommend revision of the Conditions of Approval to direct staff to provide adequate night lighting on the project site, other than through payment for installation of a street light. After consultation with the Engineering Department, staff has revised the conditions, eliminating the street light requirement. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-3M. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-87-2M, to expand an existing daycare facility to all ow 25 children, subject to the following conditions: a. Submit a revised site plan showing the location of two access points from the proposed driveway to the front of the building, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. b. Submit a landscape and irrigation plan for areas shown to be landscaped subject to approval by the City's Landscape Architect. c. The proposed project must meet the Fire Department requirements for operation of a commercial daycare center. These requirements include but may not be limited to the following: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 2 1. Provision of a local fire alarm system 2. Smoke detectors 3. Two approved exists from the building 4. A solid core 1-hour fire door between garage and habitable areas 5. Fire extinguisher (2AIOBC) 6. Exits to be openable from inside without use of a key or any special knowledge 7. Provision of one curbside fire hydrant with flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual e. All signs shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. f. Failure to maintain the building and/or grounds in accordance with standards deemed acceptable by the City Planning Commission or failure to comply with conditions of approval shall constitute grounds for consideration of revocation by the Planning Commission. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R3GD utility easement South RV-15 single-family residential and mobilehome park East R-2 single-family dwellings (attached duplexes) West R3GD utility easement Existing site characteristics The project site is a 9,000 sq. ft. triangular shaped lot located at 95 Orange Avenue within the Montgomery community of Chula Vista. There is a single family dwelling existing on site, where the owner is currently engaged in the operation of a family daycare center accommodating a maximum of 12 children. The site is relatively flat having been previously graded to provide a pad for construction of the dwelling. There are manufactured slopes planted with ice plant along the north, east and south sides of the property. Daycare facilities presently existing include a fenced rear yard area and concrete patio. All other daycare activities occur within the dwelling. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 3 A paved driveway is presently used for parking for both the dwelling and for family daycare. The driveway, located diagonally with Orange Avenue, presently provides two parking spaces. Proposed Use The project located at 95 Orange Avenue would convert the existing single family dwelling with family daycare for 12 children to a commercial daycare facility for 25 children. The center would provide 5 parking spaces on-site utilizing the existing driveway and garage. A separate u-shaped driveway is proposed to allow children to be dropped off and picked up adjacent to the main structure and away from the Orange Avenue right-of-way. D. ANALYSIS After reviewing the proposed project, staff recommends approval of the daycare center for a maximum of 25 children subject to the conditions previously outlined. The project site is buffered from surrounding residential uses by a utility easement north and west of the property and by slopes separating the site from adjacent dwellings on the eastern boundary of the property. The single family residences adjacent to the site are oriented away from the center so that the dwellings are buffered against any noise impacts generated from the daycare center. Although the configuration of the lot shown on the site plan creates difficulties in designing an adequate amount of parking for the use, the combination of 5 on-site parking spaces with a separate driveway for dropping off children should be adequate to service the estimated 31 one-way auto trips generated daily. However, the site plan, indicates only one access point for dropping off children which limits the loading and unloading to one car at a time. Providing a second pedestrian access point from the driveway to the walk at the front of the building is a recommendation offered by staff. Construction of the proposed driveway will involve placement of retaining walls along three sides of the driveway. Landscaping of the driveway area is imperative in order to enhance the aesthetic appearance of a large area of pavement. The Fire Department requires that the existing dwelling meet current fire regulations for a day care facility prior to expansion. These requirements are standard development requirements for uses of a similar nature. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 4 The Engineering Department has stipulated a provision for a street light as a standard development requirement for the project. Other improvements will be required in accordance with standard development code regulations through the building permit process. A construction permit is required for any work performed within the right-of-way and improvement plans are required for any improvements proposed along the frontage of Orange Avenue. At the meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee on October 1, 1986, the applicant requested that the condition to provide a street light be deleted. Mr. Charles Cacho pointed out that there are two street lights located within the immediate vicinity, one of which is turned off to conserve energy. In addition, he stated that there is adequate lighting of the property on site at present. Mr. Cacho stated that he felt that a street light should not be required for a center of this small size. The Montgomery Planning Committee requested that staff investigate the requirement for a street light further, and explore alternate means providing light to the center at night. Staff consulted the Engineering Department and concurs with the applicant that on-site lighting is adequate for the proposed center. The requirement for the street light has been deleted from the conditions. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Expansion of the existing daycare facility is a use compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed daycare facility as designed will not subject the surrounding neighborhoods to traffic or noise impacts, since the project location and building orientation buffers noise generation, and provision of on-site parking and drop off areas serve to mitigate potential traffic congestion. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed daycare facility complies with the regulations currently in force for this area, upon approval of a major use permit. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 8, 1986 Page 5 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposed daycare facility is compatible with the medium density residential land use designation outlined for this area by the Chula Vista General Plan. WPC 3170P PROJECT AREA KJM Pi-. I~blH.lO PROJECT NANE: Cacho Daycare Center PROJECT LOCATION: 95 Orange Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Elva Cacho CASE NO: IS 87-3M O~TE: August 22, 1986 A. Project Setting The project site is a 9,000 sq. ft. triangular shaped lot located at 95 Orange Avenue within the Montgomery community of Chula Vista. There is a single family dwelling existing on site, where the owner is currently engaged in the operation of a family daycare center accommodating a maximum of 12 children. The site is relatively flat having been previously graded to provide a pad for construction of the dwelling. There are manufactured slopes planted with ice plant along the north, east and south sides of the property. Daycare facilities presently existing include a fenced rear yard area and concrete patio. All other daycare activities occur within the dwelling. Adjacent land uses consist of single family dwellings to the east and a San Diego Gas and Electric utility easement to the north and ¥~est. The site is bounded on the south by Orange Avenue followed by a mobilehome park and other single family dwellings. B. Project Description The project consists of converting the existing single family dwelling with family daycare as an accessory use to a daycare facility for 20 to 25 children as the sole use of th'e property. The proposed project as shown ~ould provide six parking spaces, t~¢o of ~hich are within the existing garage. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The subject property is zoneO R-V-15, a residential zone with a density of 14.5 dwellings per acre. A Oay care center for 20-25 children is perh~itted in this zone subject to approval of a major use permit. The use is compatible with medium Oensity residential general plan designation for the property. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Noise The project is located adjacent to Orange Avenue which currently is subject to noise generated from traffic counts of approximately 11,595 AUT. Since the project site is elevated from the road by slopes along city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section CHUL~ -2- southern bounoary of the property, and activities occur either within the building or at the play yard within the rear yard of the building, traffic noise will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Noise generated from the project will also not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, since the project site is isolated from other uses by a large utility easement on the north and west sides of the site and slopes which act to shield the rear yards of adjacent residences from noise encroachment. Fire The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project will be required to meet the provisions of the current Fire Code for the City of Chula Vista, as well as the licensing requirements of the State Fire Marshal's Office and San Diego County Social Services Department. The requirements insure that the proposed activity will not result in a deterioration of adequate fire protection services within the area. Public Improvements The Engineering Department has indicated that public improvements will be required for the project site which includes but is not limited to curb, gutter, and sideualk along the entire frontage of Orange Avenue. This requirement is a standard development requirement. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Noise Any potential adverse environmental effects from noise are mitigated by the proposed center's isolation from surrounding uses. It is shielded from noise impacts from street traffic by slopes located at the front of the property. Fire Code requirements enforced by the Fire Departments, along with licensing requirements of the State Fire Marshal's Office serve to mitigate the potential for adverse environmental effects from deterioration of adequate fire protection services from the area. Public Improvements The requirements of the Engineering Department for public improvements to include curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Orange Avenue between the boundaries of the property. This standard development requirement serves to mitigate al~y potential adverse environmental effects from inaaequate maintenance of public facilities. -3- F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed day care center will not result in the degradation of the environment as any potential adverse environmental effects are mitigated by standard development requirements and by the center's isolation from surrounding uses. 2. The day care center is designed to provide'a social need and will not result in long-term adverse environmental impacts. 3. The day care center as mitigated will not result in any cumulative adverse environmental impacts. 4. The day care center, incorporating standard development requirements of the Fire Department and Engineering Department will not cause substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Frank Herrera, Assistant Planner Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Building and Housing Department 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Title lg, Section 19.70 Zoning Ordinance, Chula Vista Municipal Code The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~NVIRO$iMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 3U67P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHUL,~ EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards~/Commissions, Committees and Counci! within the past twelve months? Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person{s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, i social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, ~istrict or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." {NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) .. Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P ~V~ ~A~O A-1)O Print or type name of applicant