Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/01/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 13, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 4, 1987 OP~qL 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. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS National Avenue Associates letter regarding a zoning ordinance a~endment regarding the Bayfront Specific Plan land use regulations. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-24: Request to expand Vista Hill Hospital at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court - Vista Hill Foundation 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-15: Consideration of an amendment to Chapters 6.04 and 6.08 of the Municipal Code relating to number of dogs/cats allowed on residential properties 3. OTHER BUSINESS: (a) Interpretation of two-car garage requirement - Fred Drew (b) Boards/Commissions/Committees absenteeism letter DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting on January 20, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference rooms 2 & 3 .~ATIONAL AVENUE ASSOCIATES 2643 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA. 92103 (619) 231-3637 December 9, 1987 Joanne Carson Chairman City of Chula Vista Planning Commission 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 92010 Re: SEC National City Boulvard and SR-54 (Proposed) Chula Vista, CA. Dear Mrs. Carson; This is a request that you and the members of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance making new car dealers and accessory sale of used cars, retail shops for the sale of auto parts and accessories, and major and minor repairs of autos an allowed use within the "I-L-Limited Industrial Zone". The above referenced property is currently zoned I-L (see Exhibit ~ attached-zoning map indicating the subject property), and it is our desire to develop and use this property for the above mentioned uses. This request will also require an amendment to the Chula Vista Bayfront specific Plan (LCP). The LCP currently designates the west half of this property, known as the "Inland Parcel" (Section 19.90.06-2), as Industrial: General per Map 1 - Land Use Controls (attached as Exhibit B). We are requesting an LCP amendment to add Automotive Sales, Rental and Delivery Commercial Activities, as defined in Section 19.82.21, Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities, as defined in Section 19.82.22, and Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities, as defined in Section 19.82.23, as allowed uses within General Industrial Activities as defined in Section 19.82.37 of the LCP. The Coastal Commission has indicated that an LCP amendment such as that described here would be their preference for accomodating the requested uses. This requested LCP amendment wonld also result in consistent land uses with the easterly half of this property when the amendment to the zoning ordinance is approved. National Avenue Associates is herewith delivsring a check in the amount of $500.00 for processing the requested zoning amendment and another check in the amount of $400.00 for the Initial Study which will be required in this matter. This letter and the amounts being paid herein, has been submitted at the suggestion of Mr. Ken Lee and Mr. George Krempl of thc Planning Department. National Avenue Associates December 9, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Should you require further information please contact the undersigned at (619) 231-3637. Respectfully, ~ ~'~ Enclosures cc: Ken Lee George Krempl Doug Reid Paul DesRochers Robin Putnam t/ TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 1988 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-24: Request to expand Vista Hill Hosital at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court - Vista Hill Foundation A. BACKGROUND This item is a request to expand Vista Hill Hospital to include a 30-bed residential treatment center, a 35-bed chemical dependency unit, support classrooms and related parking on 3.0 acres located at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court in the C-O-P zone. An Initial Study, IS-88-37, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on December 30, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator 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-88J7. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-24, to expand the Vista Hill Hospital at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall enter into a development agreement to participate in a Facilities Benefit district for the construction of off-site improvements impacted by the project. b. The project shall comply with the plans approved or conditionally approved by the Design Review Committee. c. The Phase I employee parking shall be implemented prior to the authorization for the 27-bed expansion on the existing Vista Hill site. d. Plans shall be submitted to provide for interim landscaping and pedestrian circulation through all phases of the project prior to the issuance of development permits. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-S-4 - Vacant South R-S-4 - Vacant East R-1-H - Vista Hill Hospital West R-S-4 - Vacant Existing site characteristics THe 3-acre site is located directly to the west of the existing Vista Hill facility, abutting the south side of Medical Center Court and the east side of the extension of Medical Center Drive. The site has been cultivated in the past and is presently vacant. The Hillside overlay zone on the properties to the east has been modified through the conditional use permit process to accommodate Vista Hill as well as the other medical facilities with minimal retention of natural areas. Proposed use The proposal consists of a 30-bed, 10,724 sq. ft., 2-story residential treatment center, a 35-bed, 11,936 sq. ft., 2-story chemical dependency unit, two single-story classroom buildings containing 1,296 sq. ft. and 1,221 sq. ft., and 167 on-site parking spaces. The structures are located on the northeasterly portion of the site adjacent to the main Vista Hill Hospital structure, with parking to the south and west of the buildings -- providing vehicular access off both abutting streets. The project would be completed in three phases. The first phase would provide 60 employee parking spaces for a proposed 27-bed expansion on the existing hospital site. Phase two would include the residential treatment center, both classroom buildings and 57 additional parking spaces. The third phase would involve the chemical dependency unit and 50 more on-site parking spaces. D. ANALYSIS The project would represent a logical expansion of the Vista Hill facility and the balance of the 30 acre medical complex to the east. Medical Center Drive represents a natural boundary for the complex to the west, with potential for further expansion to uncommitted acreage to the south. The parking is adequate to serve this site and the 27-bed expansion at the existing facility, and the project will be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. 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. The proposal will allow Vista Hill to expand its services to the community at a centralized and convenient location. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 3 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 use is consistent with the balance of the medical complex, and is subject to approval of the Design Review Committee. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and conditions will be required prior to the issuance of development 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 General Plan designates this and surrounding properties for hospital and office uses. WPC 4675P/2652P ~o~~s \ C.V. HILL \ C.O.P. o, (COUNT-Y)-- VAC. '~ Vista Hill Expansion LOCATOR  $.E.C. Medical Center Drive Medical Center Court negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Vista Hill Expansion PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court PROJECT APPLICANT: Vista Hill Foundation 3420 Camino Del Rio North San Diego, CA 92108 CASE NO: IS-88-37 DATE: December 30, 1987 A. Project Settin9 The project site is located just to the west of the La Nacion fault zone. There are no other known geological or seismic hazards in the project vicinity. The soils in the general vicinity of the project can have some potential for expansion characteristics. The area was formerly used for agricultural purpose and has now reverted to annual grasslands. This has resulted in a lack of significant biological resources on the property. It does have limited value as a foraging habitat for raptors and other carnivores in the area. Because of the sites size and location, it is not significant. To assess the potential for the occurrence of significant archeological resources on the property, a record search of sites within the project vicinity and a brief site review was conducted. Based on the information gained it was the conclusion of the consulting archaeologist that due to such factors as slope, soil type and previous disturbance, there is only limited potential for significant archeological resources. B. Project Description The project consists of the extension of the existing Vista Hill Medical Center Campus. The extension/expansion consists of a 30 bed residential treatment center, a 35 bed chemical dependency unit and support facilities. The residential treatment center would have 13,500 sq. ft. and would provide 50 parking spaces. The chemical dependency unit would involve 16,500 sq. ft. and would include 58 parking spaces. When complete, the Vista Hill Hospital "complex" would contain a total of 98,124 sq. ft. of floor area, 92 beds and 240 parking spaces (167 at the "lower level"). A balanced cut and fill grading operation would involve maximum cut height of 5 ft. and fill depths of 3 ft. city of chula vista planning department " environmental review section CHUIA VISTA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The General Plan designates hospital, office and medium density residential uses in the general area, the proposed use would be compatible with this mixture of land uses. Subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the project would conform to the zoning of the property. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The project site is in the vicinity of the La Nacion fault zone and may contain expansive soils. No other potentially significant environmental impacts were identified during the Initial Study on the project. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Standard Development requires the preparation of geotechnical and soils investigations of the property and ongoing testing during site preparation to assure seismic and soil stability of the property. ~ F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The potential geological and soil hazards on the property will be mitigated to a level below that of significance through standard development regulations. There are no significant biological or archaeological resources on the property. 2. The project implements the General Plan and the long term goals of the City; therefore, no short term goals will be attained to the disadvantage of long term goals. 3. The project impacts are so limited and public facility capacities are more than sufficient to accommodate the project without any cumulative effects. 4. The project will not expose any people to any hazards nor will the project result in any hazardous emissions which could adversely affect human beings. 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: Anshen & Allen Architects The Terry Group Architects 3412 Florida Street San Diego, CA 92104 -3- 2. Documents l) The Chula Vista General Plan 2) The Chula Vista Municipal Code 3) Letter from Pacific Southwest Biological Services Dated 17 Dec. 1987, to the Terry Group 4) Letter from TMI Environmental Services Dated Dec. 19, 1987, RE: Archaeological assessment of the Vista Hill Foundation project, City of Chula Vista, Case #PCC-88-24 5) City of Chula Vista Case File #PCC-88-24 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. ~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 ~f, Rev. 5/85) ~PC 4678P/0175P city of chula vista planning department CllYOF environmental review section CHUL~ 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. N/A 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. N/A 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 .r~t~e or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. organization or as + ,,~ o ' Ronald E. Fickle Gregory R. Zin~r President & Chief Vice President of Finmn~p Executive 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 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." City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-15 Consideration of proposed amendments to Chapters 6.04 and 6.08 of the Municipal Code relatin9 to the number ot dogs and cats permitted on R-l, R-2, R-3 and PC zoned lots. A. BACKGROUND In September, 1987, the City Council, in response to a written communication from Ms. Patricia Bodi, requested that staff review Ms. Bodi's request for an amendment to the Municipal Code that would provide some flexibility in the number of animals that may be permitted on an R-1 lot. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW According to the provisions of Section 15305 of the State's CEQA Guidelines, and Section 4.3.3 of the City's Environmental Review Procedures, the subject Municipal Code amendments are exempt from environmental review (Class 5f exemption). C. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relating to the number of dogs and cats permitted on a lot in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and PC zones as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. D. DISCUSSION Chapter 6 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code currently places a limit of three dogs and three cats per lot within the R-1 zone regardless of site circumstances. Two dogs or two cats constitute the limitation in Multiple- family (R-3) zones. The Municipal Code does not provide for the R-2 and PC zones. The purpose of limiting the number of domestic animals that can be located on an R-1 or multiple-family lot is to control the impact of noise and the possibility of adverse sanitary conditions where adjacent residences may be impacted. The typical R-1 lot is approximately 7,000 sq. ft. in size and is located anywhere from 3' to 10' from adjacent residential structures. Single-family dwellings frequently exist in other residential zones throughout the city. In order to provide a consistent policy for animal control, single-family dwellings located within the R-2, R-3 or PC zones should be afforded similar options as single family dwellings located within the R-1 zone. Where unique conditions exist, such as an oversized lot, a lot that is located adjacent to natural open space, or a lot that is far removed from other residences, there may be grounds for some flexibility in the number of domestic animals permitted. In most cases, single-family residents are well advised to limit the number of dogs or cats to that specified in the Municipal Code, but staff recommends that the Senior Animal Control Officer be given the flexibility to analyze requests on a case-by-case basis. Applicants will be required to submit site information as deemed appropriate by the Animal Control Officer prior to a decision on each request. A provision has been included which would allow the decision of Senior Animal Control Officer to be appealed to the City Council. We believe a modest fee of $25-$50 would be appropriate for such an appeal. EXHIBIT A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF CATS AND DOGS PERMITTED ON R-l, R-2, R-3 & PC ZONED LOTS Section 6.04.030 Dogs, cats-quantity permitted in residential zones. A. R-1 and PC zones. The keeping of more than three dogs and three cats in the R-1 or PC zone is prohibited. B. M~I~%~I~lY R-2 and R-3 zones. The keeping of any animal other than one dog, one cat, two dogs o~=two cats per dwelling unit in an R-2 and R-3 ~l~l~7~lY zone is prohibited. Exceptions to the above requirements may be permitted by the senior animal control officer if it is determined that such factors as larger lot size and increased separation from adjoining dwellings will mitigate the adverse effects of a greater number of animals. The decision of the senior animal ~ontrol officer may be appealed to the city council upon the payment of a fee as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city. Section 6.08.070 Kennels, catteries and pet shops-designated. Kennels, catteries and pet shops shall include the business of trafficking in or raising, selling or exchanging any birds, cats, dogs or other pets all of which, for the purpose of this chapter, are called pets. Four or more dogs constitute a kennel. Four or more cats constitute a cattery. Exceptions to requirements contained within this paragraph may be granted by the senior animal control officer (see Section 6.04.030). //////////// Deletions Additions WPC 4504P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page 1 3a. OTHER BUSINESS: Interpretation of two-car garage 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 d~ellings which when added to the original building square footage equals 5~ 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 127~ Banner Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 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 livin~ in an apartment in Chula Vista. They are crowded there, but its all they can afford. We need to provide livin~ 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 ~reat 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 ~etting 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 garage 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 cap in. Planning Commission Dec. 9, page l 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 guests 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 21 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. What 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 havin~ 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, 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 other property in this neighborhood can does or will meet your 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 ADDENDUM TO LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION 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 structure for the move-on house I have purchased. By telephone conversation with the Planning staff today, I understand that I may now meet any objections 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 garage 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 ~arage 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 1Q88 because I still would like permission to avoid any ~ara~e at all - or at --~ least to reduce the number of ~arage 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 ~arage space, as indoor play area, (family room sort of thing), includin~ 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 our 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, and 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 units, therefore, the granting of the instant request for a variance to erect a second family 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. ~he parcel upon 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 #1, 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. .... ~ ~ is +~ ~ parcel in the As can be seen at Exhibit A, P~ ..... ~. ~.~ ., 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 area know~ 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". MAP 26~ £GSMENT PURPOSES ONlY 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, a~d 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, whils still honoring your restrictions. Exhibit B also shows, (out of scale), a temporary addition to the existing structure, (denoted by the encircled letters, "RR"~ 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 ~mporary 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 p~ol 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. -'.~-~ ,~ ['C] AD4USTMENT PLAT NO. SCALE IN. = ..... FT. ~ ~ ~.. ~ / ~'/ /v /. ./. ~' /;.: "~ 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 (S~bdivision'Section) City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (Section 66499.35(a) of the Government Code) Property Description ~ T.ots One, ~wO, Three a~d 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 San Diego County, July 25,_1887.. Property uwnersnip Frederick A. R. Drew and June T. Drew, {Same As Above). Certification The City Engineer has determined that the real property in the Legal Description of Exhibit "A" has been divided or ,,a~ ,esu,~:~ from a division or combining of lots in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and with the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pursuant thereto. JOHN P. LIPPITT DATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER MAY:av (B12:CERTIF.COM) WPC 1942E EXHIBIT D: PHOTOGRA' REPRESENTATIONS (Four P , This exhibit of four pages shows various views of the existing structure on Parcel #1, Block 57, Map 263 (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 viewer is facin~ on observing the subject structure, (not the direction the structure is facing), relative to the drawings of exhibits A, B, and C. It should be noted that by the time when this 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 13, 1988 Page i 3b. OTHER BUSINESS: Boards/Commissions/Committees Absenteeism Letter CI'IY OF CHUI.A VIS-FA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 8, 1987 TO: All Boards/Commissions/Committees (B/C/C) FROM: City Clerk Fulas~v~ SUBJECT: Absenteeism Many of you are experiencing problems with members being consistently absent. As you are aware, the Charter states that if a member is absent from three (3)regular meetings consecutively, unless excused by the B/C/C, his or her office shall become vacant. The problem is becoming more prevalent whereby on numerous occasions, a member will call for an excused absence and miss more than a majority of your meetings. This presents a problem to the B/C/C's in that they are continually postponing items, experiencing lack of quorums, and/or not having a full B/C/C present to take official actions. At the meeting of December l, I recommended a policy to the City Council whereby if a member of any board, commission or committee is absent for a majority of the meetings during the fiscal year (over 50%), reg~of excused or unexcused, his or her seat should be declared vacant. Councilman Nader proposed that the policy be changed to state that members must be present 75% of the meeting times. This would mean, therefore, that any member who is absent 25% of your meeting times would automatically vacate his/her seat. For example, a B/C/C meeting twelve times per year would mean an absence of three out of the twelve, excused or not. B/C/C December 8, 1987 Page two In the case of/t~e Plan@i.~Commission, which holds 24 regular meetings per y~ar plus ~ workshops, this would mean a member must attend ~ of those meetings. If he/she is absent for twelve of those meetings, the seat becomes vacant. In my recommended policy, I proposed that your workshops/conferences be counted as meeting times. The City Council asked that this recommended policy be sent to all B/C/C's for their input. Therefore, please place this item on your next agenda and give us your input regarding the following~ 1. Are you in favor of the Council recommended policy - i.e., a member must attend 75% of the meetings or his/her seat will be declared vacant? 2. Is 75% too stringent - should it be less? 3. Should your workshops and/or conferences be counted as bonafide meeting times? 4. Should members be allowed to have "official excuses" as approved by the B/C/Cs which would not be counted toward the absenteeism? 5. Define what you consider "an excuse" which will be accepted .by your B/C/C. As soon as your B/C/C can act on this matter, please have your secretaries forward the report to me so it can be again placed on the Council agenda for official action. In the meantime, we in the City Clerk's office, wish each and every one of you the happiest of holidays: lllgC CITY OF CHULA VISTA