Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/01/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 27, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 16, 1987 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-G and PCC-88-21: Consideration to rezone 5.26 acres located at the northwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and 'I' Street, from R-1 to R-3-P-12 and Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 62-unit congregate care facility - Shive Nursing Centers, Inc. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-15M: Appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator denying a large family day care home at 431 Arizona Street - Janine Randolph 3. OTHER BUSINESS: Interpretation of two-car garage requirement - Fred Drew (Continued) 4. REPORT: Regarding formation of proposed Open Space District No. 18 - Rancho del Sur DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of February 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-G and PCC-88-21 Consideration to rezone 5.26 acres located at the northwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and "I" Street from R-1 to R-3-P-12 and conditional use permit ~or construction of a 62-unit congregate care facility - Shive Nursing Centers, Inc. A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves two applications: (1) Rezoning PCZ-88-G to change the zone on 5.26 acres located at the northwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and "I" Street from R-1 (single-family residential/7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size per dwelling) to R-3-P-12 (multiple-family residential/12 dwelling units per acre/precise plan) and (2) Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-21 to construct a 62-unit congregate care facility with a 12,000 sq. ft. amenities building on the property. 2. An Initial Study, IS-88-36, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on January 15, 1988, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act. B. RECOMMENDATION Take no action on the Negative Declaration and adopt a motion recommending that the City Council deny PCZ-88-6 and PCC-88-21 based on the finding contained in Section E of this report. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Single Family South R-1 Church & Single Family East R-1 Church & Single Family West R-1 Single Family Existing site characteristics. The 5.26 acre site is an L-shaped parcel with frontage on both Hilltop Drive and "L" Street. The property forms a prominent knoll elevated above and to the rear of adjoining single family dwellings and two church sites. The Celia Flynn House, a locally-designated historical site, sits at the highest elevation of the property. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 2 General plan. The General Plan designates this property and surrounding areas for Medium Density Residential use (4-12 du/ac). The project density of 12 dwelling units per net acre is consistent with the upper level of this designation. The surrounding area within 1/4 mile of the site is zoned for single family detached development. Proposed Use. The proposal involves 62 units in 7 two-story structures clustered around a 12,000 sq. ft. two-story amenities building. The site would also have 105 on-site parking spaces--30 in garages, 32 in freestanding carports, and 43 open spaces--resulting in an overall ratio of 1.7 parking spaces per unit (a standard 62-unit apartment project consisting of all 2-bedroom units would require 2.0 spaces per unit, or 124 parking spaces total). The development would have access off both Hilltop Drive and "I" Street. The project would have two floor plans--36 units with 850 sq. ft., and 26 units with 1,050 sq. ft. All of the units take access from an interior corridor and are single-level with 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, kitchen, dining area, living room, deck or patio, and also include a washer/dryer. The units are designed with a bedroom and bath flanking each side of the living/kitchen/ dining area in a fashion that would allow each unit to accommodate two unrelated individuals/couples in a common living arrangement. The amenities building, which is interconnected with the residential buildings by a series of first and second-story breezeways, would include a common dining room with kitchen, leisure and recreation rooms, library, workshop, service areas and an administrative office. An open space/recreation area of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. adjoins the amenities building to the west, and another recreation area of approximately 7,000 sq. ft. is shown on the northwesterly portion of the site. The minimum age for residents would be 55 years, and the applicant has estimated the project population at 90 residents. Each resident would have one or more meals served daily in the common dining room included in their rent. All of the units would be provided with an emergency call button, but there would be no on-site medical services or personal assistant that would require state licensing. A staff of 12-15 would provide administration, housekeeping and maintenance services. D. ANALYSIS Generally speaking, the rezoning is unsupportable on its face because it would establish an R-3 parcel and a precedent for future rezonings in the middle of an area which is uniformly zoned and developed for single family use. The issue therefore is whether or not there are overriding circumstances based on the characteristics of the site and/or project which would favor introducing R-3 zoning and a higher residential density into a well-established single family area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 3 The site has some physical separation from adjoining areas due to the topography and proposed setbacks and access. The adjacent church sites also provide separation from areas to the east and south. Due to the elevation of the site, however, the property is visually prominent and overlooks the neighborhood. The bulk and scale of development and loss of surrounding privacy from intensification will thus be emphasized. We believe the establishment of two-story, multiple-family buildings on this hilltop would appear overly massive and incompatible with the single-family and largely single story character of the surrounding area, and would also represent an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of adjacent residents. In terms of urban activity, senior projects often generate less noise, traffic and demand for parking than a standard project at the same density. This is because senior projects generally have smaller one-bedroom units with fewer people per household, and seniors generally own fewer vehicles, generate less traffic, and create less noise and activity than younger households of equal size. This would particularly be true for a typical state-licensed congregate care facility, where 24-hour personal assistance is available to residents who may average 70 years of age or older, and where the private living space usually consists of a bedroom with bath. Thus, it is conceivable that a medium density seniors project would generate activity impacts comparable to or even less than single family use. The project in question, however, offers fully self-contained 2-bedroom/2-bath units which are larger than typically found in a standard apartment complex; with residents as young as 55 years, and healthy and active enough not to require assistance with personal needs. Although the resident population has been estimated at 90, the units could easily accommodate at least two and perhaps as many as four residents each, as compared with an overall figure of just over two people per household for existing multiple family rental projects within the City. In essence, then, the proposal would likely generate a resident population, activity levels, and a demand for parking more comparable to a standard adults-only complex of the same density, as opposed to a typical seniors project or congregate care facility. Again, as with the questions of bulk, scale and privacy, we believe it would be inappropriate to introduce this level of population increase and activity impacts into an established single-family neighborhood. (Note: Development of the site under the existing R-1 zone would allow approximately 15-20 dwelling units, resulting in an estimated 50-65 additional residents.) For these reasons, we recommend denial of the requests. The Department has received four letters of objection to the proposal from adjoining property owners. These letters cite the desire to maintain the R-1 single-family character of the neighborhood. If the Commission should decide to recommend approval of the request, we would recommend a continuance to the meeting of February 10, 1988, in order to prepare appropriate conditions of approval for the Commission's consideration. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 4 E. FINDING Approval of the requests would result in a bulk and scale of development and a population density which is found to be inconsistent and incompatible with the zoning, character and residential enjoyment of the surrounding single family R-1 neighborhood. WPC 4723P PROJECT ARE/ negative declaration- PROJECT NAME: Shive Assisted Living Retirement Center PROJECT LOCATION: 33 "I" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Shive Nursing Centers, Inc. 8669 E. San Alberta Dr., #101 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 CASE NO: IS-88-36 DATE: January 15, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is located at 33 "I" Street which is on the north side of the street, between Hill top Drive and First Avenue. The property has frontage on both "I" Street and Hilltop Drive. The Hill top frontage is the lowest elevation on the project site with an elevation of about 130'. The "I" Street frontage has an elevation of about 160'. The topography of the site raises to above 170' at a central knoll where a single family home is located. The project site was surveyed for any archaeological resources in early December 1987. No prehistoric resources were found on the property. The single family dwelling on the property has been designated as a historic site. However, it was not found to be of such historic or architectural importance to require the historic permit control process to regulate modification of the structure. Therefore, a demolition permit can be obtained at anytime and the structure removed. The significance of the house is, therefore, minimal. The 5.25 acre property is primarily covered with non-native plant species with the exception of decorative planting around the house and along the entrance drive. There are also a few non-native trees on the property. There are no known or anticipated geologic or soils problems on the site, nor is there any ground water that would be significantly impacted by the project. There has been an indication of an existing downstream drainage problem. Standard development regulations require the identification and mitigation of these types of runoff problems. B. Project Description The proposal includes 62 units in seven 2-story structures clustered around a 12,000 sq. ft. amenities building. The project would also include 105 on-site parking spaces--30 in garages which have been incorporated into some of the buildings, 32 in freestanding carports and 43 open parking spaces--resulting in an overall ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit. The site would have vehicular access off both Hilltop and "I~'\~f~ Street. city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- Grading for the project would involve about 3,350 cubic yards of excavation and would be performed with about 18,000 cubic yards of fill being placed. Therefore, about 14,650 cubic yards of import fill material would be required. The maximum depth of cut slopes Would be about 3' and the fill areas would have a maximum depth of 8'. Residents of the proposed facility would have the option of preparing meals in their own units or having meals in a common dining area. A staff of 12-15 people would provide services such as administrative, cooking, ground maintenance, etc. The central 12,000 sq. ft. "amenities building" would be for the focus of common activities. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed project is not consistent with the existing R-1 zoning of the project site, however, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the property to R-3, which is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, would make the proposed use compatible with the zoning of the property. Also, subject to the granting of the conditional use permit, the project would be in conformance with the medium density designation of the General Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Drainage In response to the notice of Initial Study on this project identification of a potential downstream drainage problem surfaced (see letter from Mrs. Paul J. Osborne dated December 15, 1987). This problem will have to be specifically identified and mitigated to a less than significant impact level through standard development regulations; grading and public improvement plans. 2. Historical Resources The single family residence located on the project site has been designated as a historical site. However, the permit process to regulate any modification of the structure was not applied to this site. Therefore, a demolition permit could be issued at any time to remove the dwellings without any further review process. Therefore, the significance of this site's destruction is not at a level of substantial and adverse. 3. Aesthetics The imposition of multi-family zoning in an area dominated with adjacent single family units would normally infer environmental conflict because of the relationship between the two different uses. However, in the case of the specific land use and project design, these environmental conflicts have been mitigated to a level of less than significant in accordance with state guidelines (a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect). -3- The more detailed land use questions regarding this project and the spatial/bulk relationship to adjoining uses are to be addressed during the consideration of the zone change and use permit for this project. The threshold for a demonstrable negative environmental impact has not been reached by the project. No significant environmental impact would result. 4. Displacement The only displacement of people would be the owner/family which currently occupies the residence on the site. Therefore, no significant impact would result. 5. Change in Density The proposed project represents a substantial deviation from the predominantly single family nature of this area to the west, north, and across "I" Street to the south and Hilltop Drive to the east. However, at 11.8 du/ac, the proposal does conform to the medium density range of the General Plan (4-12 du/ac) and, therefore, the increased density has been anticipated in the General Plan and no substantial impacts would result. 6. Traffic The Engineering Department has estimated that 372 automobile trips would be generated by this project. Hilltop Drive and "I" Street are currently on "A" level of service with the additional traffic loading from the project, the level of service would not change and no significant environmental impact would result. 7. Public Facilities All City departments have indicated that public facilities are in place to serve this project or that during the preparation of grading and public improvement plans for development of the site any potential inadequacies (see drainage above) will be evaluated and mitigated. This is a standard development regulation that will assure that all public facilities are adequate to serve the property. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects As is noted above and in the Initial Study for this project, all potentially significant environmental impacts will be avoided through standard development regulations. No specific mitigation measures are necessary. -4- F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site is void of any significant biological resources and the results of a survey of the project site for cultural resources was negative. There are no substantial §eolo§ical or soil conditions present that would adversely impact the project. There will be some landform alteration with implementation of the project, but the basic form of the property will remain. Therefore, the overall quality of the environment will not be adversely impacted nor will the diversity of the environment be substantially effected. 2. The project conforms to the Land Use/Circulation element of the General Plan and, therefore, attains those long-term goals while also achieving the project's short-term goals. 3. This project is an in-fill project in an area al ready substantially urbanized. Therefore, the incremental effects of this project cannot be cumulatively significant because there are no other current or probable future projects. 4. The project will not result in the emission of any pollutants, vibration, glare, noise or any other substance or energy which could adversely effect human beings. Public facilities are in place to provide service to the property. Questions regarding downstream drainage facilities will be resolved through standard development regulations. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Naegle Associates, Inc. 2210 Avenida de la Playa La Jolla, CA 92037 -5- 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code IS-88-36 including all attachments 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. ENVIRON~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 ~,Rev. 5/85) PC 4722P city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF environmental review section CHULA VJ~J- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IS-88-36 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study generally responds to the environmental comments received during the notice period for the Initial Study on this project. The one exception is the letter from Craig K. Beam of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps dated December 23, 1987. The following responses are numbered in accordance with the paragraphs in the section of the letter headed by Initial Study Application: 1. With regard to the need for a General Plan amendment please see the attached letter from Associate Planner Steve Griffin dated December 28, 1987. 2. The project is residential in nature and does not commercial. An apartment complex that has a manager, gardener, common recreational facilities and security guards is also residential project. The basic function of this facility is to provide dwelling units for the retired and not to sell goods or services. 3. Because there will be no dedication of public streets, the net gross density are the same (see notation B.2.e of the application form). 4. The purpose of the request for this information is to determine if these could be any excessive energy consumption. At this level of detail, this information is adequate to determine that these will not be any wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. 5. The Engineering Department has estimated that these will be 372 automobile trips per day generated by the project vs. 140 ADT estimate by the applicant. The 372 ADT was used in the analysis of potential impacts. 6. A~- was noted in the Negative Declaration, the historic structure was designated without any permit process being imposed to regulate any changes to the structure. A demolition permit to remove the structure could be obtained at any time. The structure and site were not considered to be of such significance to require such regulation. 7. The adequacy of public facilities and access were evaluated during the Initial Study of the project--they were not part of the Initial Study application form. The City has the data to evaluate the adequacy of infrastructure, not the applicant. WPC 4724P CI'IY OF CHUI.A VISI'A PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 28, 1987 Craig Beam Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps The Bank of California Plaza llO West A Street Subject: PCZ-88-G & PCC-88-21; Proposed rezoning and conditional use permit for 62 unit congregate care facility at 33 "I" Street, Chula Vista Dear.~ In regard to the issues raised in your letter of December 23, 1987, the Chula Vista General Plan designates the site for medium density residential develop- ment at a density of 4-12 dwelling units per acre. The residential nature of the subject use and the proposed density of 12 dwelling units per acre are consistent with this basic General Plan designation for the property, and thus no amendment to the Plan is necessary. In regard to the proposal's consistency with the several General Plan policy statements noted in your letter, both the pending rezoning and conditional use permit applications require findings of consistency with the General Plan in order to be approved. If findings of consistency cannot be made, then the applications would be denied approval on this basis. The rezoning and conditional use permit applications are now scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commisssion on January 27, 1988. This schedule should meet with your request for a late January hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me at (619) 691-5257. Associate Planner cc: Doug Reid SG:mw 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010/{619) 691-5101 December 15, 1987 Mr. Douglas Rei~ gnvironmental Review Coord ?1arming Departmen~ P.O.Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca 92010 Dear Mr. Reid~ Thank you for calling se concerning the environmental study for the Pro- posed nursing care facility on the Flynn property, Case No: IS-88-36. I have also written to Mr. Steve Griffin to let his know that our family oppose any change in our neighborhood from R! single family housingito As I told you, we have suffered water damage to our home and property sev- eral times, and most recently in 1982. The Fire Departsent has come and removed the water ~nd mud from our living room and garage areas when Hill- top flooded and the hill behind us was over-run with water. By increasing the concrete and decreasing the natural water-absorbing area will certainly increase surface water run-offtowards our hose. Your Public Service Department has come here to put sandbags all around the back yard and side yard area to prevent flooding, and without their kind help we would have had more serious flooding problems. As I have said before, most of our neighbors feel the same way as we do, and hope to prevent the nursing care center or any other apartments from being built in our neighborhood. Again, thanks for the information you have given concerning this matter. Very truly yours December 18, 1987 Mr. Douglas D. Reid ~L~ Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 RE: Case No. IS-88-36 Project Location: 33 "I" Street, Chula Vista Project Applicant: SHIVE NURSING CENTERS, INC. 8669 East San Alberto Drive #101 Scottsdale, AZ 92037 Dear Mr. Reid, Recently, I attended a meeting with neighbors adjoining ~he Flynn property referenced above, which was held by the Shive Nursing Homes. Shive Nursing Homes advised us of their intention to build a 62 two-bedroom unit nursing complex on the Flynn property after obtaining an R-3 zoning change. I am to~ally opposed to an R-3 zoning change ~o the Flynn property. My wife and I purchased our home at 34 Shasta Street in 1960 because it was an established, stable area, and well maintained and attractive to this day. We had many opportunities to sell our home while I se=ved as a career man in the U.S.Navy. Because of the above reasons, we kept the house all these years until I re- turned (o Chula Vista in 1971. Once the nursing configuration is built, it ~i11, in effect, still be an apartment complex occupied by 124 residents plus staff. The end result would undoubtedly be a lack of facilities, traffic pro- blems and other related issues for the elderly. Our neighbors and we believe strongly tha~ our neighborhood should retain its R-1 zoning and maintain the R-1 zoning environment. It is our intention to attend all meetings and conferences relating to this subject. Please continue to advise me of any further hea=ings involving the above-related Flynn property. S~cer~y, ~Shas~t., Chula Vista SJD:aes cc: Councilman Leonard Noore City of Chula Vista December 23, 1987 TO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FR: Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Hicks, 571Hillt~? Dr., Chula Vista 92010 RE: "IS" (INVIRONMENTAL STUDY) - 88-36 Notifying the surrounding residences and requesting our input regarding this study during the busy week just prior to Christmas when everyone is too busy to respond appears to be a real slice of strategy. (Letter received 12/19/87, dated 12/14/87; response required by 12/28/87, which with the holiday really makes it 12/24/87.) This area is already overly impacted by car traffic with the three schools within a one block radius, plus the church. Hilltop Drive in this area is becoming a freeway. Hilltop (in this area) is the main artery used to connect to 805 and to the center of the town of Chula Vista from all areas east of Hilltop Dr., north of "L" Street and south of "H" Street. It would seem in addition to the faculty at the three schools every student at the Hilltop High School drives a car to school using "I" Street, Georgina and E. Shasta, which are also the perimeters surrounding the proposed project construction. Additionally, with the church functions on Saturday and church services on Sunday the traffic is unrelenting! Adding to the already congested area with units of this magnitude would seriously devalue property and the quality of life in the Hilltop Area. ''Adding these units and increasing the density in population and traffic of this area would eliminate one of the few areas of Chula Vista left not being burdened with multi-dwelling units and inadequate open space. I implore you not to turn this area into the unmanageable arena created at the "E" Street/805 conjuction due to over zealous growth. D¢c~mbsr 51, 1957 Nr. Douglas Reid ~nvironmental Review ~oordinator P.O. Box 10~? ~ula Vista, Ca. 92012 Re Flynn property 55 I Street ~ula Vista, Ca. Dear Mr. Reid, We reside at 26 Shasta Street and the Flynn property lies directly behind our home and we share a common fence. We have be~n residents of Chula Vista since 1962. ~e have watched in dismay and wonder at the growth and subsequent congestion that ha~ become our city. We ad- void crossing town on H street due to the trnffic, and travel on I Str~t. We can see I Street becoming chocked with traffic if lO5 cars are added to our neighbor- hood. Me are also concerned what will happen with that much construction ~nd a~ph~lt will do to the natural drainage. After the parking lot wzs built adjoining the Flynn property our street often is flooded during a heavy rain due to thc ch~uge of the drainage. We personally do not what thic density o£ housing in our sine, lc f~mily neighbor- hood. Sincerely yours, Rosulea ~nd Frank Slemmer 567 Hilltop Drive Chula Vista, CA 92010 January 2, 1988 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Reid: We are writing concerning the Initial Study on the project located at 33 'I' Street, the present Flynn property. We have lived on Hilltop Drive for 3~ years and have seen the traffic increase heavily. We would rather see a nice retirement home facility go in on this property rather than 25 lndivi4ual homes or a parochial school. We believe elderly residents woul4 have fewer vehicles and would not contribute as much to the noise fac%or. Yours truly, 585 Hilltop Dr. Chula Vista, CA 92010 January 2, 1988 Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Rei~: Thank you for your letters concerning the Initial Study on the project proposed for 33 'I' Street, a 62 unit care facility. Considering the alternatives for the ~evelopment of this property, we wish to go on record in favor of the care facility; although we are opposed to rezoning from residential use. We feel that the environmental impact on the Hilltop Drive area would be more damaging by the development of 25 homes on that hill or by a parochial school at St. Marks Lutheran Church. ~incerely, Shirley H. Cook LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS FOUND£nS THE: E~ANK OF CALIFORNIA PLAZA LAJOLL~ December 23, 1987 ': Mr. George Krempl Planning Director ?~ ~ ~ .... City of Chula Vista 'DEC ~ ~ ~987 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Shive Nursing Center's Application for 62-Unit Conqreqate Care Facility Dear Mr. Reid: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Robert G. Steiner and other concerned neighbors of the proposed Shive Nursing Home Center Project at 33 I Street in Chula Vista. The purpose of this letter is to address, in part, issues associated with (1) the inadequacies in the initial study appli- cation submitted by the applicant's representative, (2) a request to the Planning Department to docket any consideration of this matter no sooner than the latter part of January, 1988, to allow the affected parties to testify, and (3) an objection that all discretionary approvals or permits which would be necessary for the project to proceed have not been applied for. Initial Study Application. I believe the initial study application is incomplete and thus renders the decision makers of the City of Chula Vista, as well as the affected property owners, incapable of reaching an informed decision with respect to possible project related impacts, as required by C.E.Q.A. The initial study application is inadequate in a number of respects, including, but not limited to the following: 1. The application does not note the possible necessity of the general plan amendment discussed below. 2. The project description is inadequate in that the proposed activities for the non-residential aspects of the property are discussed in the initial study application. We believe the luce, FORWARDi HAMILTON & SCRIPPS Mr. George Krempl December 23, 1987 Page 2 project has the characteristics of a commercial operation, which are not discussed whatsoever in the initial study application. 3. The initial study application also is inadequate in that it lists the net density and gross density of the project as the same. 4. The initial study application inadequately describes energy consuming devices proposed for the project. 5. The initial study fails to use the City's standard trip generation factors for residential multi-family residential units or the proposed commercial operations. 6. The initial study notes that the existing house on the property has been designated as a "historic structure", but fails to discuss its proposed disposition. 7. The initial study further fails to discuss the adequacy of public infrastructure which may be necessary to accommodate the density proposed in a predominately single-family detached neigh- borhood. There is a failure to consider, for example, the ade- quacy of the proposed points of entry and departure for the site from the standpoint of traffic safety or the adequacy of the existing sewer lines in adjacent streets and similar issues. General Plan Consistency. As noted above, the initial study application does not consider a general plan revision as a necessary permit or approval. We disagree. The existing general plan policies with respect to residen- tial neighborhoods notes under "General Principals Relatinq to Residential Development. The planning of the future residential development in Chula Vista will be influenced by the following considerations: .IT]he highest density should be located at the points of greatest service and accessibility near the central district and the more important outlying commercial areas. The most difficult typography should be developed at the lower densities. .[R]esidential areas should be placed with centrally located schools and parks, arterial traffic should be routed around rather than through the neighborhoods. .[T]he character and value of existing desirable neighborhoods should be maintained. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS Mr. George Krempl December 23, 1987 Page 3 .[R]edevelopment and rehabilitation should be employed to correct deficiencies of blighted or deteriorating areas where they may occur." The reference policies all call into question the consistency of the proposed zoning and development with the existing single- family detached residential neighborhood. Even assuming for purposes of argument that the use is primarily a multi-family residential use, the question remains as to whether or not this site within the confines of the existing neighborhood is an appropriate multi-family site. Given the added element of the commerical aspects of the project, a significant question is present with respect to the consistency of the proposal with the existing general plan. A review of various general plan policies currently under consideration by the city, as set forth in the May 2, 1987 "City of Chula Vista General Plan Update" also suggests an inconsist- ency between the proposal and the existing general plan. For example, under II, l(a), "Summary of Issues and Policies", the current proposed policy would note "Multi-family construction should be permitted only on parcels directly accessible from a residential collector of sufficient width for future upgrading to a four-lane street (no multi-family construction should be per- mitted on a cul-de-sac street unless the entire block served by the cul-de-sac is redeveloped as a single planned project and reviewed for internal circulation.)" Policy l(b) notes "multi-family uses adjacent to or directly across from single-family area should be of a density and massing that compliments single-family housing." Both the current and proposed General Plan policies appear to be directly contrary to the proposal. If a general plan amend- ment is required to accommodate the rezoning and proposed condi- tional use permit, an EIR must, under existing law, be prepared. Any adequate environmental review should also take into con- sideration the potential indirect impacts of such a proposal. The neighborhood fears the indirect impacts of the proposal because if a multi-family residential or commercial operation of the type proposed is authorized for their neighborhood, it will, in effect, result in a gradual but inexorable conversion of the neighborhood to other than single-family uses. This concern highlights the significant policy decision that must be undertaken by the city. That policy decision can only be LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS Mr. George Krempl December 23, 1987 Page 4 undertaken by the City Council following adequate environmental review. We do not believe that the level of environmental review can in any way be resolved at this time due to the inadequacy of both the initial study application itself and the limited project description offered to the City. Request for Continuance. We have been informed by a repre- sentative of the Planning Department that the Planning Commission may be requested to consider the matter as early as January 13, 1988. I was also informed that the staff believes written notice was given to surrounding neighbors on December 14. To my know- ledge, numerous affected parties have yet to receive any notice of hearing for January 13 or any other date. I assume that if notice has, in fact, been mailed, receipt of notice by affected parties has been delayed due to the normal holiday mailing pro- blems. I therefore request on behalf of Mr. Steiner and all other similarly concerned affected parties that no action with respect to this application be taken sooner than the end of January, 1988, to allow concerned citizens to discuss both the adequacy of the initial study, the consistency of the proposal with the City's current and proposed general plan and other similar issues. Your prompt reply on the issue of docketing would be greatly appreciated to allow adequate opportunity to prepare for any hearing at a date not earlier than the end of January, 1988. In addition, I request that any notice of hearing or other consideration be addressed to my attention at the above address. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, for LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS CKB:ar cc: Mr. Douglas D. Reid Mr. Robert G. Steiner Mr. Steve Griffin 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: l.' List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Shive Nursing Centers~ Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Celia Flynn {owner) 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 Council within the past twelve months? Yes NOx If yes, please indicate person{s) Person 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 necessar~~7<~ ~--~ ant/date WPC 0701P Naegle Associates, Inc., Dale W. Naegle A-110 Print or type name of applicant Agent for Kenny Walter City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Administrative Permit PCC-88-15M; Appeal of Zoning Administration denial of a request for a large family daycare center at 431 Arizona Street A. BACKGROUND On October 15, 1987, an application for an administrative permit to operate a large family daycare center was submitted by Mrs. Janine Randolph for her residence at 431 Arizona Street. Under the provisions of the zoning ordinance for Montgomery, the Zoning Administrator may grant requests for daycare facilities as an accessory use in a single family residence licensed for 7-12 children. Daycare facilities for six children or less are not regulated by the zoning ordinance. Under the administrative permit process, notices of the request are sent to all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed site. Since a significant number of responses were received objecting to the proposed accessory use, a public hearing was noticed and held on November 19, 1987, before the Planning Director/Zoning Administrator. At the close of the hearing, the Zoning Administrator denied the permit. The denial was based on traffic concerns that are not able to be mitigated due to the site's location at the terminus of an overlength cul-de-sac. It was determined this would have an adverse effect upon the neighborhood. The applicant has appealed the decision to the Planning Commission stating their belief that any traffic problems generated by the family daycare home are minimal. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their hearing of January 20, 1988, recommended denial of the appeal by a vote of 5 to 2. The City Attorney's office has, however, issued an opinion that the adverse traffic finding noted by the Zoning Administrator cannot be made as it is not specifically listed in the County Zoning Ordinance as an issue which can be considered, when evaluating large family daycare homes {County Zoning is still in effect for Montgomery). It has been recommended that the application be either referred back to the Zoning Administrator for reconsideration, or that the Planning Commission render a decision on the application based only upon the conditions outlined in Section 6156(y) of the Zoning Ordinance for Montgomery (attached). B. RECOMMENDATION Render a decision on the application for a large family daycare home based only upon the conditions outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 6156{y) attached (Exhibit A). The decision may be the following: 1. Approve the permit as proposed by the applicant. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 2 2. Approve the permit subject to conditions which would fulfill the requirements of 6156(y). 3. Deny the permit based upon noncompliance with 6156(y). 4. Refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator for reconsideration. C. DISCUSSION The application for an administrative permit for a large family daycare home proposes to continue caring for no more than 12 children by Mrs. Randolph and one aide. The children there range in age from infants to 5 years of age. The residence is a four bedroom single-family dwelling of 2,300 square feet in area. Approximately 3,000 square feet of area are provided within the rear yard as play area for the children. There is a swimming pool and deck also located within the rear yard which is surrounded by a five foot wall. On-site parking is provided by a driveway which would accommodate three cars, in addition to a two-car garage. The configuration of the lot frontage allows a total of three cars to park on the street in front of the residence. Since persons in some cases bring more than one child, approximately 6-8 cars travel to and from the home, generating approximately 32 one-way trips per day. Prior to the hearing before the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Department received 31 letters of support for the proposed daycare facility, including two letters from residents of the neighborhood {one next door to the site) who stated that they did not object to continued operation of the daycare home for 12 children. Eleven letters opposing the operation were received, along with a petition signed by 40 persons who reside or own property within the neighborhood, stating their opposition due to increases in noise, traffic, and the impact on the neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator, in issuing his decision noted that of the variety of objections voiced by opponents of the project, the issue of traffic posed the largest problem. The lot is situated at the terminus of a cul-de-sac, and traffic coming to the facility must enter and exit in the same fashion and proceed past all of the single family lots fronting on the cul-de-sac. The opposition had testified that cumulative impacts of that traffic, the disruption of neighborhood peace and quiet and problems of speeding indicate that the site in this particular setting may not be appropriate for a large family daycare center. The Zoning Administrator concluded that those traffic concerns are real and cannot be reasonably mitigated except through denial of the permit (see Exhibit B). The applicant filed an appeal of the decision stating that traffic generation from the use was minimal. The matter was then set to be considered by the Montgomery Planning Committee for January 20, 1988. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page 3 On January 19, 1988, the Planning Department received a letter from the attorney representing the Randolphs stating in part that the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46(3) restricts the discretion to deny large family daycare centers by local jurisdictions. The City Attorney's office, in reviewing the letter on January 21, 1988, stated that the Health and Safety Code cited mandates approval of a permit for large family daycare centers if the home complies with local ordinances concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Since the zoning ordinance for Montgomery does not mention traffic control issues in the conditions for approval for large family daycare homes, traffic control cannot be used as a basis for denial of the permit. In light of the City Attorney's opinion, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission set aside the previous decision made by the Zoning Administrator and the recommendation from the Montgomery Planning Commission and consider the application for the administrative permit based upon the conditions outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 6156(y) shown in Exhibit A. The Planning Commission has the option to refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator for reconsideration; however, since a significant amount of controversy surrounds the application, any decision of the Zoning Administrator would be appealed to the Planning Commission by either proponents or neighbors in opposition to the project. Staff is of the opinion that consideration of the matter at this time will aid in bringing a final decision on the matter in a more timely fashion. We-would also intend to refund appeal filing fees paid by the applicant to bring the application forward to this point. Based on the decision of the Commission, an appeal fee to the Council may or may not be needed. WPC 4728P ~XHIBIT A 6156 x. (Deleted by Ord. No. 6924 (N.S.) adopted 2-20-85) y. Family Day Care Home for Children. A family day care home for children is a permitted accessory use upon issuance of an administrative permit provided the following conditions are complied with: 1. No such day care home may be owned, operated, managed or leased by any person, as defined by these regulations, within one mile of any other such facility owned, operated, managed or leased by the same person. 2. The plot plan for a family day care home for children shall show sufficient information to determine the following: i. At least one on-site parking space will be available for any assistant provider or caregiver not a resident of the subject family day care home. ii. Adequate provision will be made to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties such as dense landscaoing, solid fencing slx feet in height around outside activity areas or location of such areas a suitable distance away from adjacent dwellings. iii. There exists an adequate area for temporary parking of an automobile where children may be safely loaded and unloaded, or such area will be provided. iv. Property owners within 100 feet of subject property shall be notified of the receipt of the application not less than 10 days prior to the date on which the decision will be made. No hearing shall be held before a decision is made unless a hearing ~s requested by the applicant or other affected person. The decision may be appealed as provided by the Administrative Appeal Procedure commencing at Section 7200. v. Every administrative permit approved pursuant to this section shall contain a condition that any outdoor lighting comply with Sections 6324 and 6326 and that no sound amplification device be permitted in outdoor activity areas. z. Wind Turbine Systems. One wind turbine syste~ shall be permitted on a building site in compliance with the following conditions: 1. Setback. The system shall be set back from property lines and roads at least 1.25 times the height of the wind system (to the top of the blade ~n vertical position). 11-85 EXHIBIT B PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Conditional Use Permit (Administrative Permit) for Large Family Daycare Facility Located at 431 Arizona Street Thursday, November 19, 1987 4:00 p.m. Chula Vista City Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista Those in Attendance: Mr. George Krempl, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator; Mr. Steven Griffin, Associate Planner Action: The Zoning Administrator denies the administrative permit for a large family daycare center predicated upon unique property circumstances involving the location of the premise, the fact that the property is on a cul-de-sac and at the very terminus of that cul-de-sac; traffic concerns are thus not able to be mitigated having an adverse effect upon the neighborhood. Discussion: Mr. Steve Griffin, Associate Planner, introduced the item by pointing out that the subject property is located wi thin the area of Montgomery recently annexed to the City of Chula Vista. At the present time, said area is being regulated by the County of San Diego zoning ordinance and regulations. The City of Chula Vista is administering those regulations. The request for conditional use permit application is, in effect, an administrative permit under the County ordinance. Under the County regulations, a family daycare center is permitted in a residential zone as an accessory use if certain conditions are complied with. Mr. Griffin reviewed those conditions, noting that one condition calls for notification and a hearing to be held on the subject request. A hearing had been requested as a result of opposition from neighbors. Mr. Griffin went on to describe the proposal as an existing licensed large-family daycare center which has been in operation for a number of months and failed to obtain appropriate zoning approval. The owner of the property is licensed for up to 12 children. The hours of operation are from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons coming to the premise in some cases bring more than one child; therefore, the total number of cars was indicated to be six to seven cars per day. The house is a four-bedroom house comprising 2300 sq. ft. in area. The children in the facility are presently preschool, infant, toddler-aged children although the license could allow for children of other ages. Mr. Krempl opened the hearing and requested those in favor of the application to speak first followed by those in opposition. Approximately ten persons spoke in favor of the application. Legal counsel for the applicant pointed out that state law, in certain circumstances, has preempted local zoning as far as permissive authority for daycare facilities to be located in a residential setting. In the case of small family daycare centers of less than six children, the permission is granted without local jurisdictional review. In the case of a large-family daycare center of six to twelve children, reasonable conditions or considerations can be taken into account. Those in favor testified that because of the age of the children being cared for and the small number of vehicles involved, that there was only some slight inconvenience to the neighborhood and minimal noise. Other persons testified as to the great service that was being provided for by the applicant in providing a needed daycare facility in the area. It was also testified that not everyone arrives or leaves at the same period of time and that without said facility, an economic hardship as well as an inconvenience to persons relying on the childcare facility would be realized. Approximately seven persons spoke in opposition to the proposal. In addition, it was noted on a locator map of the area that approximately 24 addresses/ households were opposed to the request in the immediate vicinity of Arizona Street. Letters were in receipt in the Planning Department offices expressing concern about the facility. In terms of testimony, the opposition expressed concern about the volume of traffic being created, safety for their children and families as far as speeding up and down the street, the total number of trips entering and exiting the cul-de-sac, the lack of perceived benefit to the immediate neighborhood, a change in character of the neighborhood, a concern over the future abuses if there were a change in ownership, potential change in clientele, and potential noise and parking problem should the facility be more fully utilized. Persons also spoke to a concern that the users of the facility were not from the immediate neighborhood but from quite a distance away, had no relationship to the neighborhood, and was affecting their peace and quiet. Several others spoke to the fact that a business was being established in the neighborhood and that the applicant was simply interested in economic and financial return. Conclusion: The Zoning Administrator, in consideration of this application, noted that a considerable number of irrelevant issues had been raised in opposition to this. The origination of users of the property, prior circumstances involving the applicant, economic questions, etc. really have little bearing on the zoning question before the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator noted that he had some ambivalence towards this request since he readily acknowledged the need and the service provided by daycare facilities and the clear direction from the State acknowledged by the City that family daycare operations should and can, in many instances, be conducted appropriately in a residential single-family setting. As far as potential problems involving -2- noise, parking, and certain other facets of the operation, i.e., hours of operation, the Zoning Administrator felt that those potential problems, if they became future problems, could be dealt with through appropriate Zoning Administrator conditions and mitigation measures. With respect to a concern having to do with the administrative permit running with the land and someone else taking over the premises, the Zoning Administrator indicated that a time limit possibly could be placed on the facility to ensure re-review and compliance with reasonable stipulations. The main dilemma, in the Zoning Administrator's opinion, comes down to the issue of traffic. This property .is certainly unique by virtue of the lot being situated at the terminus of a cul-de-sac, traffic coming to the facility must enter and exit in the same fashion and proceed past all of the single-family lots fronting on the cul-de-sac. Opposition has testified that the cumulative impact of said traffic over time, disruption of the neighborhood peace and quiet, and testimony with respect to speeding all point to a problem regarding whether or not this site in this particular setting, this particular set of circumstances is appropriate for a large family daycare center. The Zoning Administrator rules in the negative, concluding that the traffic concerns are real and cannot be reasonably ameliorated, and, therefore, denies the administrative permit. The applicant is advised by Mr. Griffin as to the appropriate appeal procedures and steps should the applicant wish to take this matter on to the Chula Vista Planning Commission via the Montgomery Planning Committee. WPC 4568P -3- Janine Randolph 431 Arizona Street PLOT PLAN Om BLOCK WALL O.~- POOL 9' 6' CONCRETE  DRiV.~+w^y- ARIZONA ST. (CUL-DE-SAC) EASEMENT FOR TEMPe STORM DRAIN ACCESS PARKING (3 Spaces) · - I il/ APN: 6~-o~-~ ~ ~ Map 6027 Lot 39 McMillin Subdv. Unit ~2 SCALE 1'-30' Janine Randolph 431 Arizona Street FIRST FLOOR GARAGE LIVING ROOM / I I BEDROOM BATH DRESS BEDROOM SECOND FLOOR FLOOR PLAN APPROX. 2300 SQ. FT. (NOT TO SCALE) · FO THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ON WEDNESDAY, SANUARY 27TH, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY YOUR COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AN APPEAL FILED BY MYSELF FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MY LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME. SINCE THE ZONING AD- MINISTRATOR HAS BASED HIS DECISION ON THE "UNIQUE PROPERTY CIRCUM- STANCE'' OF OUR LOCATION, I FEEL IT WOULD BE BENIFICAL TO ALL CONCERNED IF YOU COULD VISIT OUR SITE, SEE OUR SET UP FOR YOURSELVES, THEREBY AIDING YOU IN YOUR EFFORT TO MAKE A KNOWLEDGEABLE RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE ALL OR ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMISSION TO VISIT MY FAMILY DAY CARE HOME. OUR FAMILY DAY CARE HOURS ARE 6:30 A.M. TO 5:30 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO VISIT US ANYTIME DURING THESE HOURS. CALLING AHEAD IS NOT NECESSARY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SANINE RANDOLPH 431 ARIZONA STREET CHULA VISTA PHONE 422-2681 JAN The Montgomery Planning Comm2ttee .... 276 4th. Avenue Chala Vista .... California 92010 14 January 1988 LaxL/es and Ge~ of City Planning: This is in refereace to t~e appeal of Jan~ Randolph, conc~raing the deaial of ~er request for a Cond~onal Use Permit for a £arga family day care home at 431 Arizona S~n~et in ChuXa Vista. We concur wi~h th~ decision of the City Zoning Ac~trator in his derial of the original request, and b~ve tha appeal shou~ also be deaied. yes, wa rea~ day care cen~ are ne~sary, gut ~hey are business enterprises and, as such, should be restricted to co,wercia~ly zoned areas. It is aa imposition to place t/wa in residantial neighborhoods for th~ following reasons: I. Increased vehicuXar traffic. 2. Parking prob~w_a~ with es~ployees vehicles. 3. Parking probgems with client vehic~s. 4. The dist~acX possi~y of excessive noise. Tha possig~y of vandaf~m and property damage should the center be poorly operated, regulated and supervised. The City of Chula Vista is far to lax and l~v~ant concerning th~ operation of co,~ercial eaterprises in resideatial a~eas. Le~ as hava peace and qaie~ in our r~siden~ial neighborhoods. P~asa." Sincer yours B.L. Saaton 952 4th. Aveaua Chula Vista 92011 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT 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 (I) 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, Com?it~ees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No~-.,. If yes, please ~nd~cate person(s) Person 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 asnecessary~,~]~<.~.  /~t~re of applicant/date A-110 ~rint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 27, 1988 Page I 3. OTHER BUSINESS: Interpretation of two-car gara§e requirement - Fred Drew (Continued) Please see attached letter from Deputy City Attorney Ann Moore, also previous staff report and attachments. DATE: January 22, 1988 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Ann Moore, Deputy City Attorney~' SUBJECT: Interpretation of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.22.170 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission, at its January 13, 1988 meeting, requested the City Attorney's Office provide an opinion regarding the legal interpretation of Section 19.22.170. Fred Drew applied for a conditional use permit to add a second dwelling on his R-1 lot at 1275 Banner Avenue, as provided for under the dwelling group provisions of the Municipal Code. It is currently under consideration by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Department informed Mr. Drew that under Section 19.22.170, a two car garage would be required for both the new dwelling, and the existing building. Mr. Drew wrote the Planning Commission on December 9, 1987 requesting "an abandonment of the Planning Director's requirement" for a two car garage for each dwelling unit. On January 13, 1988, this letter was forwarded to the Planning Commission requesting the Commission provide additional input regarding their intent when originally recommending approval of Section 19.22.170 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. DISCUSSION There are several principles that are applied by the courts in construing statutes. First, an administrative body's interpretation of an ordinance is controlling, unless this interpretation is unreasonable or arbitrary. Second, the statute must be given the meaning intended by the Legislature. The Planning Department interpreted Section 19.22.170 as requiring an existing building to comply with current zoning ordinances whenever it is remodeled or additions are made, which when added to the original building square footage equals fifty percent or greater. The Planning Department has applied this requirement equally to either attached or detached additions as well as to additional dwellings being moved onto the lot. Honorable Planning Commission January 22, 1988 Page 2 This is a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance in that a new building located on the premises adds to the existing dwelling by increasing the living space on that particular piece of property. Section 19.22.170 was adopted by the City of Chula Vista along with several other related ordinances on April 15, 1986. The amendments to the Municipal Code were the result of concern by City Council that the bulk and scale of dwellings were increasing in the residential zones. The intent of the ordinances was to establish a more effective means of controlling the bulk and scale of residential dwellings, as well as clarifying when remodeling reaches such a scale as to constitute new construction. At the Council meeting, a resident voiced a concern that the ordinances should contain "a requirement to increase a garage space and other facilities if a resident's living area is increased." Principal Planner Lee responded to this concern by stating that "the new requirement is for a two car garage if the expansion exceeds the present square footage by 50% or more." Section 19.22.170 was created to provide that in instances when an individual intensifies the use of his property by additions to his existing dwelling, he would be required to provide a two car garage to accommodate this intensification of use. To interpret this statute as not applying to instances in which the person is increasing the use of his property by moving an additional building onto his lot merely because it is not attached to the existing building, would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. CONCLUSION The Planning Department concludes that Section 19.22.170 should apply whenever additions are made to an existing dwelling, either by constructing attached or detached additions, or by moving additional living space onto the property. This is a reasonable interpretation of this ordinance, since in either instance, additional living space is being added to the property. It carries out the legislative intent of Council in controlling the intensification of use of residential property by assuring that it does not adversely impact the existing neighborhood. A legislative body, including the City Council and Planning Commission, cannot direct the Planning Department to "abandon" the requirements of the Municipal Code, unless specifically provided for by that ordinance. In instances of hardship, a homeowner may apply for a variance from the zoning requirements. Honorable Planning Commission January 22, 1988 Page 3 In any event, if the Planning Commission disagrees with staff, they can reinterpret the ordinance in accordance with its original intent. Also, the Commission can direct staff to consider an amendment to the ordinance. AM:clb 3788a Frederick A, R. Drew 1275 Banner Avenue Chula Vista, California 92011 December 14, 1988 Planning Commission IJAN, i!5 1988' City of Chula Vista Dear Members, My wife (June) told me that she had never known me %o publicly display so much rage as I did, last night, at your meeting. She was not suggesting that I owed any apology - rather, she was pointing out that I sacrificed my "famous' ability to think on my feet. That may have prevented me from making myself fully understood. I think you should know that what caused my lapse was the fact that your assistant attorney allowed a full conversation between your staff members who stated their case in detail, before advising you that you should not allow me to state mine or even to respond to any staff statements I wished to challenge. A problem was that I thought back over the whole history of our home and you should know some of it to understand why I blew my cool last night. June and I brought our family, including very small children and we needed living quarters immediately. (We did not then have time to argue about what may have been the reasons for why it was difficult for us to buy a home in Chula Vista - even with cash in hand). Of the several realtors we saw, none had any homes to show us except in Woodlawn Park and other parts of Otay. We wound up with the property about which we came to you last night for permission to improve. As you know, I became interested in the plight of my neighbors in the Otay area - and I have been fighting in what I see as our common causes since. In large part, the community problems are connected with problems in housing, and those are tied to governmental red tape, and unreasonable, unrealistic restrictions regarding property improvements. The personal problem I bring to your attention provides an example. I can see no duty more meaningful for your body than to unscramble some of the difficulties with your rules and regulations which make it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to improve their lifestyles where the improvement of their homes is a factor. Last night, for example, I believe I heard two of you state that people are expected to "convert' their ~arages. one of those two even suggested that there was no law which could prevent people from doing so. The natural question then was, (as it was expressed by someone) why make people build garages if they can be and will be legally converted. (If you know that what people want to build is extra bedrooms, you should allow them to do so and to build the extra bedrooms as bedpoom~ rather than as unnecessarily required garages). That way, at least the extra bedrooms will meet the codes and standards of bedPoo~ instead of the standards of car-rooms. in faot, my reading of the or'dinancs~ aL issue clearly indicate an existing requirement that people who build garages must not thereafter convert them. I think you should re-examine the need for an ordinance requiring something which is likely to be converted into legs than adequate living space. You should consider what kinds of homes may or may not need bona-fide garages, and what kinds of garages may be needed at specific kinds of sites to fit specific circumstances. I note (for your interest) that certain kinds of apartment complexes need garages because the tenants would be deprived of any parking spaces otherwise. Generally, they provide assigned spaces in open-face garages which, because they ame open-face, cannot be used as living space, or for storage. The fact that you allow such car-ports for certain kinds of housing in Chula Vista already establishes a precedent which this letter requests you follow through to logical conclusions. ~ There are people in parts of Chula Vista - or its sphere of influence, who own very large plots of land on the order of farms or ranches. The owners' family vehicles may be trucks instead of rolls royces, and the trucks would not fit into garages. Certainly you would agree that no garages should be required for them. logically, then, anyone who owns a home which is larger than the average apartment cell within a complex, and distant enough from next-door neighbors that even the street parking there would present no problems should be allowed the freedom to chose to own no garage (or garages). The analogy I attempted to present when I compared my case with the dog case you heard prior to mine was closer than I could make clear while I was angry last night. You cannot (or should not expect the dwellers of such one-room units as are provided by the JLJ group to keep three dogs (and) three cats (of non-defined sizes) because of a law which allows that many such animals for any dwelling. You should not require specifically, a 2 car garage per every dwelling regardless of the character and use of that, specific dwelling. My recommendation is that you take another look at the ordinances at question and recommend to the city council that they be amended to become logical, reasonable, and sane. There are times when (as a politician, or as a fighter for the rights and needs of people) I am deliberately abrasive. Because I pre-calculate the effect, I perhaps, should apologize for that sort of conduct. The rage I felt last night was genuine and honest. Although I admire most of you and I would rather not offend any of you, I consider that if you allow people like me to suffer via thoughtless oP inconsiderate ordinance, you may deserve to b__e offended occasionally, and I am grateful that I was ready bo serve as instrument. Please move to change the law in time for me to build play-room for my grandchildren before they graduate college. Fred Drew City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Janua~ 13, 1988 Page 1 3a. OTHER BUSINESS: Interpretation of two-car 9arage requirement Fred Drew Mr. Drew has applied to the Zoning Administrator for a conditional use permit to add a second single family dwelling to the R-1 lot at 1275 Banner Avenue as provided for under the "Dwelling Group" provisions of the Municipal Code. He has been informed that the proposal will require a new two-car garage for both the new dwelling as well as the existing dwelling which presently has no garage. This requirement would be applied by the Zoning Administrator under the discretionary authority provided by the conditional use permit on the basis that a second dwelling unit should not be authorized for an R-1 property unless the existing dwelling can be brought into conformance wi th present parking standards if it is feasible to do so. In the present case, there is ample area to accommodate a garage for the existing dwelling in a logical manner consistent with R-1 open space standards. Notwithstanding the conditional use permit process, however, Section 19.22.170 of the Municipal Code provides that "Any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings which when added to the original building square footage equals 50% or greater than the original building permit allowed, shall require the building to comply with current ordinance standards..." This provision was added to the Code in 1986, in part to address the problem of significant building intensification without regard to upgrading to current enclosed parking standards. We believe this requirement would apply equally to either attached or detached additions, and thus logically applies to the addition of a second dwelling on an R-1 lot -- as a Code requirement rather than as a discretionary condition of approval. Mr. Drew disagrees with the staff position and wishes to address the Commission on the matter. He has provided the attached material for the Commission's review. WPC 4656P Frederick A. R. Drew 1275 Banner Avenue Chula Vista, CA g2011 December 9, 1987 Planning Commission City of Chula Vista Dear Commissioners, My father became very ill during January 1987, and he remains so now. He needs the kind of care his family can provide but he cannot be brought here from Washington, D. C. to live with us until we can provide adequate quarters. One of my sons has a wife and two small children living in an apartment in Chula Vista. They are crowded there, but its all they can afford. We need to provide living space for them also. To solve both those problems, my wife and I selected a 'move-on' home and we paid half of its cost in the early spring (the final half to be paid when it is on our property). That solution seemed ideal because we have a large lot around our existing home, and we are in a quiet, ~aceful area with respectful neighbors. Our plans were delayed somewhat, however, because of the terrible expenses we paid for the several trips I was required to make to my dad's bedside. My dad's own expenses are so great that we will likely lose the family home in D.C. In part, his expenses are that high because I refuse to allow anyone in my close family to be taken to a "home', especially in that part of this country where people do not care very much about each other. Dad has been living in a mental hospital almost all of this year. Otherwise, my plans are being delayed by the "bureaucratic shuffle" right here in Chula Vista. That may prove to be an especially cruel fact because much more delay may cost my father's life. The gentleman who sold us the "move-on' explained that any contractor who will set it down would take a very long time getting through the paper- work jungle at any local municipal center - and he advised me to do as much as I could to expedite on my own. I got the "plans" drawn by an architectural draftsman and I attempted to present them in the Building Department but I was told to go first to the Engineering Department. There, I was told to submit this, - and then that, and then another version of this and that and the other (ad nauseam) until, finally, I got my four lots consolidated into one lot as they said I must do. Then I was sent to the next stop in my tour of city hall - the Planning Department. I feel as though I have experienced a full career there so far and I do not seem much farther ahead. The issues I have had to face (one by one, so far) seem to have been endless, and they have been very time-consuming. I would have settled for that, but I came at last to a point from where I must rebel. I was told that I needed to build a two-car ~arage for the new home on my property. I argued that no one in my family ever used a garage nor ever would, at least not to park any car in. Planning Commission - Dec. 9, page 2 We are concerned more about housing our family than cars. Anyway, we have a great amount of land which is already paved which we use for parking our cars, and we do not park them on the streets near home. We do not even have our ~uests park their cars on the streets. Still, as I have already pointed out in this letter, our need for the ne~ housing is urgent, and in order to expedite as much as possible, I re-drew our plans to include a two-car garage. (I decided that after I get it built, I would try to come before your commission for permission to tear it down. Then, the Planning Department head dropped another bombshell. He told me that we need to build two - (2), two-car garages, - one of them for the home that our family has been living in (without any garage)- for years. I think that is an outrageous requirement. There is no logical reason why we should clutter up our property with so many garages that there would not be enough room for my grandchildren to play anymore - or for my father to sit out in the sun in peace and quiet. There will not be room for any lawn or trees or birds, just empty garages. 9;hat makes matters worse, ours is the only home in the entire community, not just on this block which has the kind of zoning that restricts and inhibits almost any way to use the property - but that is because I purposefully had my property annexed to Chula Vista many long years ago. My reward for having done that seems to be that I must, single-handedly suffer the very fate which the other residents of the 'Montgomery' area most feared when they resisted annexation all these years. What makes matters still worse is that because of my special zoning, my property may be incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, even if in a reverse sort of way. I am not simply trying to build on my property what is needed here by my family, but I am trying to upgrade the property by putting something nice here. I do not want to cover over the whole place with garages - or any other useless thing. I request to be heard by you - whereupon I will request an abandonment of the Planning Director's requirement that I put un-needed garages on my property. I further beg you to take note that no othe~ property in this neighborhood can does oP will meet you~ requirements which were apparently designed for other kinds of neighborhoods than this one. I am advised that I will be put on your agenda for your first meeting of 1988. I intend to be present. Be advised that all of the personnel of Chula Vista were courteous and polite in dealing with me. This is no complaint of them or of the conduct of their services. Frederick A. R. Drew 2 ADDENDUM TO LETTER TO PLANNING CONN~ISSION DATED Dec. 9, 1987 Date of this Addendum - Dec. 28, 1987 On this date, I have contracted for new drawings which will include ~ provisions for a four-car garage to be built as the supporting ~tructure for the move-on house I have purchased. By telephone conversation with the Planning staff today, I understand that I may now meet any ob3ections to the Conditional Use Permit I seek, and I will attempt to present my formal application by close of business today. The move-on house which I have already purchased was originally built as the upstairs portion of a home and was built onto (and above) a 4-car garag It is very strong and well built, apparently, and will be ideally suited to the purpose I now intend for it. Inasmuch as the required garage will now occupy the same land area as the house itself will occupy, my primary objections to the requirement for a garage are less severe. (I did not want to lose any of the land area on which my grandchildren will play, and on which my father will ~sit and sun himself - which I originally planned). ~ I still do want to appear at your first scheduled meeting of 1988 because I still would like permission to avoid any garage at all - or at --~ least to reduce the number of garage spaces that the staff requires. If I am allowed to eliminate any of the garage area which I now plan to have built, I would elect to use the space now devoted to ~ara~e space, as indoor play area, (family room sort of thing), including a full bathroom and something like a study or a family library. I also want to appear before you to describe the problem I am having because of this new garage requirement because I expect other citizens will have the same sort of problem - especially those who recently annexed to Chula Vista, and those who may be annexed if Bonita becomes an incorporate part of cup city. Many of those properties have enough space to build second homes on a lot (for use by family members such as children who have grown, or such as parents who cannot conveniently live too far away from the families who will need to care for them). I hope that your analysis of my problems may lead to some change in the new ordinance(s) which would accommodate those human needs. Frederick A. R. Drew EXHIBIT A: THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY This exhibit is copied directly from the San Diego County map of Block 37, Map 263 and agrees also with the same official map of the city of Chula Vista. In particular, it shows parcels denoted there- upon by encircled numbers, (1, 2, 8, 7, 4, 5, and 6) of Block 37, a~d this describes the entire block. Each parcel so described is separately and individually owned. Of these seven parcels in Block 37, three already have multiple dwelling ~nits, therefore, the granting of the instant request for a variance to erect a second famtly dwelling on Parcel #1 would not establish an incompatibility within the immediate vicinity. It will be seen at Exhibit B that that the granting of this request will not create any incompatibility within the general vicinity at-large. The upon . parcel which this Conditional Use Permit is requested, (Parcel #1) is the largest parcel in Block 37 and can most easily support a second family dwelling. The other three parcels in the same block which have two or more dwellings are designated by their owners as rental properties as opposed to family dwellings. Exhibit A also shows that no property in Block 37 has access'rights along Orange Avenue; all have access rights along Bethune Way, and only two have access rights along some other, (a second) street. Of those two, (which are at either end of the block), Parcel #1 has access directly to Banner Avenue, which it faces. (It is the only parcel in the block which does not face Bethune Way~ exclusively. (The structure on Parcel $~', which is a home, actually entrances from Banner, but can also entrance from Bethune Way, however the structure at the other end of the block can only entrance from Bethune Way). A second structure on Parcel #1 would most logically entrance onto Banner Avenue also as will be seen at a subsequent exhibit. "~" ~ #I is ~ ~v parcel in the As can be seen at Exhibit A, P~e ......... ., immediate vicinity which has R-1 zoning. This parcel was annexed to Chula Vista singularly, (known as the Drew Annexation) and was pre-zoned R-1 because no other parcel in Block 37 had more than one structure. It was expected then that the entire block would soon be annexed and would also be zoned R-l, however, other parcels have subsequently been used for multiple structures and were "grandfathered" for that use when all of the areaknown as "Montgomery" was annexed to Chula Vista recently. The instant application should not suffer rejection on grounds of incompatibility where it refers to the only parcel in the immediate vicinity which is up-zoned, - making all other parcels illogically "incompatible". .~ (6TH) BETHUNE ~ ?_--/ WAY ' (AVE'NUE} ~ ~IJ  ~ - BLK 36 MAP 2£ EXHIBIT B: THE GENERAL VICINITY; THE CONSOLIDATION; AND THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This exhibit shows that Parcel #1, Block 37, Map 263 was recently consolidated from an original parcel of four lots, (Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4) of Block 37- The consolidation was effected pursuant to your requirements before your consideration of the instant request for a Conditional Use Permit. Applicant submitted several drawings before a final drawing was accepted by the city and the Exhibit herewith submitted provides an example of the changes which were required along the way. (The notes in red pencil were put there by your staffmembers). This exhibit also shows the General Utility and Access Easment which greatly restricts and inhibits the manner by which applicant can arrange structures on his property. The plan submitted herewith represents the best use apparent, of his property, while still honoring your restrictions. Exhibit B also shows, (out of scale), a temporary addition to the existing structure, (denoted by the encircled letters, "RR"Y~ That temporary structure existed when the drawing was accomplished but the precise measurements disclosed that applicant could not meet your requirements for the distance between structures and/or between a~ structure and the parcel boundary at Orange Avenue unless the temporary structure was removed. By the date of this, (the immediate) application, that temporary structure will be completely removed. (It should be noted that the drawing at this exhibit, (Exhibit B) was made to consider the lay-of-the-land as it would be when any and all temporary structures would be removed, but the hash-marks were over- extended in error). The entire drawing at Exhibit C is much more precise and to scale for your considerations. All trees, shrubbery and grandchildren's swings, sliding boards, etc. at the site intended for the new structure have been removed from that site, and an above-the-ground swimming p9ol which covered nearly half a lot adjacent to the site of the new structure has also been removed so that work on the new structure can procede without hindrance. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ['~CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. '~f~-~'? E~ AD,.tUSTMENT PLAT NO. ~'":::: SCALE IN. = "-~ FT. ,. ~ · ,:, \,:~,, '· ?L This ~ea to be Retained if Consolidation is allowed it will be Removed if Lot Split oF Adjustment is required. RECORDING REQUESTED BY Frederick A. R. Drew and June T. Drew 1275 Banner Avenue 1275 Banner Avenue Chula Vista, California 92011 Chula Vista, California 92011 After recording, mail to: Engineering Department (Sbbdivislon'Section) City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (Section 66499.3B{a) of the Government Code) Property Description '" ''~ ~ Lots One, Two, Three and Four,in Block Thirty-~even of Otay, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the~'~Map thereof No. 263, filed in the office of the Recorder of Ssn Diego County, July 25,.1887; Property uwnersnip Frederick A. R. Drew and Jtme T. Drew, (Same As Above). Certification The City Engineer has determined that the real p~operty in the Legal .... ,_J __ ~ ....... ,~A, from a division or Description of Exhibit "A" has been combining of lots in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and with the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pursuant thereto. OOH~ P. LIPPITT DATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER MAY:av (B1 2:CERTIF.COM) " '~ WPC 1942E EXHIBIT D: PHOTOGRA~-~REPRESENTATIONS (Four · ' This exhibit of four pa~es shows various views of the existin~ structure on Parcel #1, Block 37, Map 285 (three pages) and various views of the structure to be moved onto the parcel. Each photograph is marked by a letter designating the compass direction which the viewe~ is facing on observing the subject structure, (not the direction the structure is facing), relative to the drawings of exhibits A, B, and It should be noted that by the time when ~his application will be submitted, many of the trees, shrubbery, children's play equipment, and other features will have been removed to allow work to proceed. replanting is planned for when the construction work is concluded. AGENDA ITEM #4 January 11, 1988 File: 0S-019 TO: George Krempl, Director of Planning FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works~'~ Manuel Mollinedo, Director of Parks and SUBJECT: Report Regarding Formation of Proposed Open Space District No. 18 - Rancho del Sur Attached is a proposed report regarding the formation of the proposed open space district no. 18 (Rancho del Sur). I would like to request that this report be submitted to the Planning Commission at their January 27, 1988 meeting. CST:yc/ljr (B11:DISTRICT.#18) REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 18 A. Background: On May 27, 1987 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended that the tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 87-8 {Rancho del Sur) not be approved. On July 7, 1987 the City Council approved the tentative map by Resolution No. 13111. Among the conditions of approval of the tentative map was the requirement that the developer request formation of an open space district to assure maintenance of open space lots within the subdivision. The developer has submitted such a request, indicating the proposed district boundaries, the areas to be maintained and an estimate of the annual cost of maintenance. B. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending formation of proposed Open Space District No. 18 to the City Council. A public hearing must be held before the City Council before the district can be formed. C. Discussion: The boundary of the proposed open space district is the boundary of Chula Vista Tract 87-8, as shown on Exhibit "A". The areas to be maintained by open space maintenance contract consist of eight open space lots containing approximately 32.4 acres of natural or landscaped open space and landscaped medians in Medical Center Drive (see Exhibit "B"). The estimated annual cost of maintaining the open space is $100,468.00 including administration costs incurred by the City. The proposed district will contain 285 single family residential lots, one multi-family residential lot containing 220 apartment units and two lots that are expected to be developed commercially. The proposed distribution of assessments is shown in attachement "C". For purposes of distributing assessments, a single family lot is 1.0 assessment unit, an apartment is 0.5 assessment unit and commercial or future commercial is 8.5 assessment units per acre. This is the same relationship that was used in the Hidden Vista open space district, which also contained sevaral different land uses. The estimated annual assessment for a typical single family lot would be approximately $239.10. All open space lots conform to the criteria contained in Section 17.08.020 of the Municipal Code. None of the lots will be maintained by a homeowners' association. Said lots will be granted to the City in conjunction with approval of Subdivision Maps for the project. CST:yc/a/ljr (Bll:DISTRICT.~18) MAP OPEN SPACE LOT~: NE I/4 SEC 67 CHULA VISTA '~"""'" ~ ...... ~"~ MAP NO. EXHIBIT 'A' ' ...... ~cr ~. RANCHO DEL SUR PHASE DECEMBER 10, 1987 EXHIBIT "B" SUNBOW - PHASE 1 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE AREA COST MONTHLY SF - AC SF/MTH MAINT. COST PARKWAY/MEDIAN/ l19,354SF-2.74AC $ .0175/MTH $ 2,089.00 STREET LANDSCAPE OTHER IRRIGATED 359,370SF-8.25AC $ .0075/MTH $ 2,695.0~0 LANDSCAPE AREA IRRIGATED HYDRO- 117,612SF-2.7AC $ .007/MTH $ 823.00 SEED AREAS NATURAL LANDSCAPED 932,619.6SF-21.41 $ .0025/MTH $ 2,332.00 OPEN AREAS SOURCE OF MAINTENANCE COST FIGURES: ENVIRONMENTAL CARE INCORP. TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST: $95,268.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST: 5,200.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $100,468.00 EXHIBIT "C" Estimated Annual Assessment Assessment Assessment Residential Unit Factor Units Per Unit Total 285 SFD 1.0 285 $239.10 $68,142.26 220 Apt (Lot 1) 0.5 110 $239.10 $26,300.52 Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Commercial Unit Factor Units Per Unit Total Lot K (.41 acre) 8.5 3.5 $ 239.10 $ 836.83 Lot 2 (2.55 acres) 8.5 21.7 $ 239.10 $ 5,188.37 420.2 $100,468.00 Annual Maintenance Cost $100,468.00 : $239.10 per unit per year Number of Assessment Units $420.2 CST:yc/a/ljr (B11:DISTRICT.#18)