Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/10/08 _. - Tape No: 274 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:05 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, October 8,1986 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cannon, Grasser, Green, Guiles and Tugenberg COMmSSIONERS ABSENT: .Commissioners Shipe and Carson (with notice) STAFF PRESENT: Director of P1 anni ng Kremp1, Pri nci pal P1 anner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant P1 anner Schilling, Associate P1 anner Griffin, and Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman pro Tempore Guiles and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chai rman pro Tempore Guiles reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Green/Cannon) 5-0 to approve the mi nutes of the meeting of August 27, 1986, as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None The Chairman announced that items 1, 2, and 3 would be trailed to the end of the meeting because of one of the Commissioners' potenti a 1 conflict of interest. - - P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes -2- October 8, 1986 1. RESOLUTION: SUBMITTING THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE NO. II PROJECT AREA TO ALLOW FOR THE CAPTURE OF TAX INCREMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (See Page 16.) 2. REPORT: EIR-86-2 SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE (See Page 17.) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M: REQUEST TO DEt40LI SH EXISTING COUNTRY CLUB AND BUILD A NEW FACILITY AT 88 "L" STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB (See Page 18.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-A(M) - ADJUST ZONE BOUNDARY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND ORANGE AVENUE, BETWEEN C-36 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND RU-29 (RESIDENTIAL) - BOB SPRINGS Commi ssi oners Cannon and Green stated that they had potenti a 1 conf1 i cts of interest; therefore, there were insufficient members for a quorum and the item was continued automatically to the week of October 22, 1986. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE LAS FLORES STUDY AREA FROM R-2 (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE) TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE) Principal P1 anner Lee stated that the Commi ssi on had conti nued the heari ng from the meeting of September 1986, and had requested staff to provi de additional information relating to the traffic impacts on Minot Avenue if the R-2 zoni ng were retained. Staff therefore he1 d an open meeti ng with the resi dents of the study area on September 24 to di scuss some of the issues expressed at the hearing. Mr. Lee indicated that there are presently 46 units on Minot Street between "E" Street and "D" Street with a potential (based on the land area) for 84 more units; with the present traffic count on Minot at 580 ADT, plus the estimated 200 to 300 trips from Las Flores, the traffic count at build-out could be between 1100 to 1500 ADT--a 140% increase. With that much traffic, the widening of Minot from the present 30-foot curb-to-curb width to the standard 36 feet would be required. Removal of 8 feet from each side of the street would affect existing landscaping, fencing, utilities, and the di stance from the homes to the pub1 i c ri ght-of-way and travel way. The alternate option of restricting parking to one side of the street would create problems due to additional curb cuts (because of the R-2 zoning) and 1 eave less on-street parking available. The character of the area if the zoning remained R-2 would be changed because of the traffi c increase, the increased buil di ng bu1 k and the transiti on from low profile to a more intense urban feel. The nei ghborhood cou1 d change from a predomi nant1y owner-occupi ed area to a more transi ent area with the advent of duplex construction. - - P1 anl1i ng Commi ssi on t4i nutes -3- October 8, 1986 Conversely, if the area were rezoned R-1, the general character likely would remain as it is today. Traffi c impacts and parking wou1 d be more stable although there would be an impact from Las Flores. Seventy percent of the area is developed wi th si ng1 e-family homes; however, the existing duplexes could experience financial problems should major fires or disasters preclude rebuilding other than single family homes. The feasibility of closing "D" Street between Mi not and Las Fl ores was proposed by the residents at the September 10 meeting. Chu1a Vista Sani tary and the Chu1a Vista Fi re Depa rtments, however, have expressed senous concern regarding the steep grades and the inadequate turn-around space. Staff's concern is that Minot would become a 2,000 foot long cul-de-sac which is approximately three times that recommended in the Subdivision Manual. A petition, submitted today by 40 residents requesting the closure, will be forwarded on to the City Council; however, staff is not endorsing the closure for the reasons stated. Mr. Lee noted that the overall consensus by the residents was retenti on of the R-2 zoning, not widening Minot, and the closure of "D" Street. Staff is recommending the rezoni ng of the Las Flores study area as out1 i ned in Alternative A of the report and requesting that the City Council retain Minot at a 30' curb-to-curb width. The following people spoke. 1. Glen E. Smith, 198 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 2. Martha Aguillard, 138 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 3. Oebbie Hy1an, 192 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 4. William Black, 192 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 5. Tom Gilmore, 135 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 6 Charles R. Malloy, 135 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 7. Margie Fuentez, 11 Cresta Way (lives at 110 Minot), Chu1a Vista 92010 8. Mike Roark, behind 120 Second Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92010 9. Richard Alvord, 10671 Rosell e Street, #200, San Di ego 92121 (owner of property on Minot) 10. Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minot Avenue, Chu1a Vista 9201 0 11. M. L. Stumpf, 114 "E" Street, Chu1a Vista 92010 Their concerns, questions, and statements included: 1. ~lr. Smith owns a duplex in which he has a great deal of money invested and has been complimented by the neighbors on the aesthetic improvement to the nei ghborhood. He contended that bui 1 di ng comparab1 e uni ts wou1 d not be detrimental to the area; downgrading the zoning involves a loss of options for the owners in what they can do with their property; at present, in the event of a structural fire, they could rebuild into a duplex situation-- that option is lost if the property is downzoned to R-1. He stated that he was concerned about how he could refinance or what the insurance costs would be if the area were downzoned. People who purchased on Minot or on the north side of "D" Street knew they would be driving through a R-2 zone. Principal Planner Lee interjected that Mr. Smith's property, 198 Minot, is on a corner lot and that no zone change had been recommended for that lot. .- - P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes -4- October 8, 1986 2. Mrs. Agui 11 ard poi nted out that some of the property on Minot in the southeast section is built on steep slopes and building is limited because of the Code and fire restrictions. She noted that 7 lots are already at build-out and 29 remain. To conform to today' s requirements for wi de driveways, on-street parking and double garages, all houses would have to be destroyed and rebuilt to the new building requirements. She commented that developers wanted to use Minot as an accessway thereby forcing Minot owners to sacrifice 8 feet of their property and to replace everything at their expense. She noted that 75 percent of the houses wou1 d then be nonconformi ng to the 26 foot setback requi rement. Mrs. Aguillard expressed concern about a repetition of a house condemnation several years ago and that such a decision might be repeated. She pointed out the property would be devalued; 11 property owners wou1 d suffer mortgage and fi nanci ng loss; parking on one side of the street is no answer; she questioned what would happen on holidays when visitors came; noted that the Planning Department indicates reluctance to close "D" Street; that traffic from Second Avenue shoul d be controll ed; and the future development of Las Flores should not be the destruction of Minot. 3. Ms. Hylan informed the Commission that she had just purchased property on Minot because of its zoning and faced a financial loss if the area were to be downzoned. She contended that wi deni ng the street woul d 1 ead to more speed; and asked why the growth had not been planned for. In response to a questi on by Commi ssi oner Grasser, she reveal ed that she had been aware of the zoni ng study at the time of purchase but had to make an immedi ate decision regarding the purchase. 4. Mr. Black noted that his planned comments had already been voiced. 5. I~r. Gilmore requested the Commission to preserve the favorable, family atmosphere of Minot; stated hi s opposition to widening and resu1 tant increase in traffi c congesti on. He asked (a) what would happen to R-2 dwell i ngs if damaged by fire? and (b) is it possible to remodel an existing duplex? Mr. Lee replied that (a) if a duplex were to be damaged to the extent of 50 percent or more, it could not be rebuilt as a duplex; (b) normal maintenance and remodeling of an existing duplex is allowed, however, expansion-type remodel i ng woul d require a variance because it would i nvo1 ve a non-conforming use. He added that there would be no problem with remodeling or expanding a single-family residence. 6. Mr. Malloy noted that the residents were in agreement on two issues - no downzoning (which woul d decrease property val ue approximately $20,000 per unit), and no widening of Minot which would involve considerable cost to the residents ($3,500-$5,000 for a 65-foot frontage). He stated that structures remaining within the street ROW would be condemned or required to move; that the cost of moving a house is $5,000 exclusive of the cost of reconnecting to public utilities. Mr. Malloy maintained that the best solution would be the closure of Minot at "D" Street. He proposed the use of a commercial barrier of the same kind being used at Lindbergh Field and Scri pps' Clinic, whi ch woul d not hamper emergency vehicles and did not - - Planning Commission r~inutes -5- October 8, 1986 requi re repai r or replacement after mi suse. He noted that the Minot residents are being forced to support the development of Las Flores with a resultant loss in property value, and expressed hope that the Commission would be responsive to the needs of the Minot residents rather than events which might occur in the future. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the statement that the widening of Minot would result in homes with less than the required setback being forced to move. Staff replied that the statement was erroneous. 7. Ms. Fuentez stated her intention had been to move and develop the lower part of the 26,000 square foot property into three R-2 lots; that there is ample room for off-street parking; all utilities are already underground; escrow was to have closed September 9th; and she felt it would be unfair to have the R-2 zoning removed after so many years of preparation and expense. Commi ss i oner Tugenberg i nqui red about her reaction to putting a gate between Minot and "D" street. Mrs. Fuentez replied that such an arrangement would be fine and an added attraction to the area. 8. Mr. Roark expressed agreement with Ms. Fuentez' statements; added that the duplexes at 192 and 154 were a nice addition to the community; noted that :ne R-2 zoning gives the owners the flexibility to which they are entitled; agreed with the idea of a gate or closing off of Minot; and said he was not in favor of downzoning. 9. Richard Al vord noted that hi s property is on the southerly portion of Las Flores near the cul-de-sac; he invested $45,000 to create four duplex lots; purchased the property because of the zoning; hi s duplex and Mr. Guillemette's added value to the area; he used Las Flores to "D" to Second Avenue in accessing the area; opposed the rezoning and supported the closure of "D" Street. 1 O. Leonard Agui 11 ard, stated that the Pl anni ng Department had arbitrarily closed Las Flores at "E", at the KOA, and closed "E" between Fi rst and Minot creating a bottleneck with only two exits from Las Flores; to save Las Flores, staff was attempting to impose one of three alternatives on the Minot Avenue homeowners. He declared that the logical solution would be to set up an emergency barrier closing "D"; leave the zoning as is; leave the width of Minot as is; recognize the street as a cul-de-sac and post a si gn sayi ng "Not a thru street". The traffi c count represented in the staff report was unrealistic because the traffi c counter had been located next to the construction site and recorded the truck traffic, and staff projected 6-1/2 trips per day per unit at the duplex locations. Mr. Aguillard maintained that there had been no problems with emergency vehicles since the early '70's and only two buildings have been added. He urged rejection of the zoning change and the use of "D" and Second for access/egress to avoid traffic. - - Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 8, 1986 11. Mr. Stumph noted that at 10:00 a.m. the previ ous day he had dri ven from Second Avenue to "D" to Las Flores and had encountered no traffic in either direction. He stated that for 28 years, Minot has been a cul-de-sac and there has never been a prob1 em so why was it consi dered a crisis matter now. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Green/Grasser) to recommend Council leave the zoning "as is" and to erect a barrier at "D" Street. Commi ssi oner Cannon expressed resistance to the ba rri er sayi ng he sees few future problems from Las Flores because of the quicker, easier exit via Second Avenue; that Minot will remain a narrow street which will restrict traffic; it is an attractive street and does not need closing off or putting up a barrier; that occasionally the City creates its own problems and since no build-up has occurred over the years, he does not foresee an increase on Mi not suffi ci ent to require widening; and since the gate would be needed only to prevent street ~idening, he considers it unnecessary. He advocated leaving the situation as , s. Principal Pl anner Lee asked if the moti on inc1 uded retention of the 30-foot wide street since if the area remai ned R-2, under the present subdivision process the owners would be required to dedicate and improve per City Standards. Commissioner Green said he intended retention of the 30-foot width but had not so specified because if "D" Street were blocked, the widening would be unnecessary. He asked if remova 1 of the requi rement to dedicate ROW were possible. Mr. Lee replied that it was not unless the Commission wished to amend the motion to recommend retention of the zoning as well as the street width. The motion failed with Commissioners Cannon and Tugenberg voting "no". MSC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to recommend that Council leave things "as is". ComMissioner Green voted "no". In response to a request for clarification, Commissioner Cannon stated his moti on was to "1 eave matters as they are today and that woul d i ncl ude if the City requires as an R-2 zoned lot is built up a dedication of ROW, that is up to the City staff at that time." He said he was not making a motion to keep the street width the same. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that while the motion might seem to be guaranteeing a "future bag of worms," it was what the people of that community wanted. - - Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 8, 1986 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCH-87-3 - CONS I DERATION OF APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-21 INVOLVING PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF "D" STREET, BETWEEN LAS FLORES DRIVE AND MINOT AVENUE - MARGIE FUENTEZ Pri or to the presentati on, there was a di scussi on between the Commi ssi on and the staff regardi ng thi s item. The Coßll1i ssi on noted that the item appeared able to go forward without any action by the Commission since the zoning, as enacted in the previ ous item, remai ned R-2 and the item was an appeal of a decision made by the Director of Planning acting on the premise that the results of the Zoni ng Study mi ght determi ne R-l zoni ng for the area. Staff replied that the assumption was correct, however, staff's recommendation still stands for deni al of the item and staff was requesti ng conti nuati on of the heari ng until after a determi nati on had been made by Council on the Study. The Commission pointed out that as the court of final appeal on this matter, if the Commission reversed the decision of the Planning Director, the decision would stand regardless of Council action on the Study. The reply by staff was that the Commission was correct, however, there might be a further appeal by ei ther a member of the public, the applicant or Counci 1 itself. It was decided, thereupon, to hear the presentation and make a decision. Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has a large parcel of about 26,000 square feet on the south side of "E" Street just east of Las Flores. A tentative map was filed in May requesting division of the property into three 1 ots. Letters, however, were received from vari ous res i dents ask i ng that the decision be withheld pending the outcome of the Zoning Study. The app 1 i cant was given the option in July to delay, however, the applicant elected to have the matter decided by the Planning Director. The Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer denied the map on the basis that it was not in the best interests of pub1 i c welfare due to the ongoi ng Study. Staff is recommending this item be continued until Council makes a determination in approximately 3 to 4 weeks time. In reply to a question that if the zoning had been R-2 wou1 d there have been other objecti ons to the parcel map, staff replied there were none. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Margie Fuentez, 11 Cresta Way, and owner of 110 Minot Avenue, testified that the lot is approximately 26,000 square feet in area; that one of the subdivided lots will be 10,000 square feet and the smaller two will be 8,000. She noted that the property was R-2 when purchased 30 years ago, and it had been their intention for many years to develop this area into three R-2 lots. She then introduced the prospective purchaser, Ronald He1der1ine. Ronald He1der1ine, stated that he had purchased the property which was still in esc row awa i ti ng the outcome of the Zoni ng Study, and expressed hope that the Commission cou1 d resolve the item so that the transaction could be comp1 eted. - - Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 8, 1986 Richard Morgan, 124 Mi not Avenue, stated that hi s property was adj acent to that of Ms. Fuentez and requested continuation of the hearing so that his 1 awyer coul d be present as there were di sagreements between the two property owners. Chairman pro Tempore Guiles pointed out that the subject of the dispute as cited by Mr. Morgan did not involve the land use issues and the parcel map and should therefore be resolved privately between the two participants and was not a matter of consideration before the Commission. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Green) to approve the appeal. The Commission based its decision on consistency with its previ ous action regarding the Zoning Study. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-8 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALCOHOL RECOVERY PATIENTS AT 270 'c' STREET IN THE R-l ZONE - SOUTH BAY PIONEERS Principal Planner Lee stated that the South Bay Pioneers have requested that they be allowed to use 1 acre of the easterly part of their 2.21 acre site at 270 "C" Street to construct 18 residential units for an alcohol recovery center. Two earlier request for a 24-unit and an 18-unit project were denied by Council in 1985 after the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on had recommended approval on both projects. The Planning Department recommends approval of 12 one-bedroom, one-story combination of duplex and/or triplex units subject to architectural and site plan review by the Design Review Committee; installation of certain improvements on "C" Street; and a trust deed to ensure that the uses of the facility will remain as proposed. Factors supporting this land use include the lower elevation (12 feet) of the site that results in the height of the structures being no more intrusive than a single-story construction; the structures would not extend above the rear-yard fencing of the neighboring single-family homes and would be separated by approximately 60 feet; and the houses to the east and south access off "C" Street and Sea Val e. Detrimental factors include a precedent-setting situation that might result in more requests to rezone properties to the north and east of the site thus increasing the density; and an intrusion of multi-family into a single-family neighborhood. Staff's conclusion is that the site is a good one for an extension of this case but that intensity is the issue; al so limiting the project to 12 one-story units (or 18-24 residents) would equate to a density similar to five single-family dwellings on the property. The applicant, however, is still requesting 18 units and feels strongly this number is needed to make the project workable. - - Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 8, 1986 The Commission questioned the reason for the deed of trust and was informed that concern had been voiced that these residential units were being permitted on the premise that they were part of the South Bay Pioneer's operation yet there existed a possibility of separation some time in the future; it might be difficult to find reasons to deny such a parcel map; and the deed of trust was to ensure the residential units remained part of the main operation. He noted that the condition was not opposed by the applicant. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James H. Johnson, 424 Stoneridge Ct., Bonita, 92002, Secretary of the Board of Trustees for the South Bay Pi oneers, stated that si nce the 1 ast time he had been before the Commission on July 24, 1986, the Pioneers had met wi th a sub-committee appointed by the Council consi sti ng of Councilwoman McCandl i ss, and Council man Scott who was later replaced by Council man Campbell. The issues rai sed were primarily those of design and density. The Pioneers, therefore, visited and photographed many developments in Chula Vista to better define the type of design which would be acceptable and pleasing. Mr. Johnson showed slides of the many designs viewed and remarked that no consensus had been reached. He poi nted out that the DRC had accepted the previ ous desi gn plans; they were willing to work with staff to improve the designs; but they were not willing to reduce the number of units from 18 to 12. By the use of additional sl ides of the proposed site, he ill us trated the height of the proposed project and how the resi dents on the south woul d be above the site, while the foliage hid the project from the residents on the east. He noted that the five buildings with 18 units looked like a cul-de-sac from the air; it woul d house 20-25 persons, most of whom woul d be comi ng from a l/2-way house in to this "3/4 house"; that, hopefully, they woul d have couples and al so, for the first time, some women. He noted that the Pioneers are in agreer:ent with the fi ndi ngs except for Item 2, wherei n they sti 11 request 18 units instead of 12. He pointed out that the 18-unit facility would amount to 25.5 persons per acre as compared with Woodl and Hi 11 s at 52.4 and Canterbury Court at 85.1 persons per acre. In reply to Commissioner Guile's question if the applicant was willing to accept the conditions in the staff report if they were changed from 12 to 18 units and one-story to two-story, he repl i ed affirmatively. In response to further questi ons about the wi deni ng of "C" Street, he commented that the widening was still an issue as the Pi oneers di d not feel they were totally responsible. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, pointed out that this was an older nei ghborhood and the resi dents were concerned that approval of the request could result in other requests to rezone properties to the north and east; that even one owner of a 1 arge parcel had asked for a rezoni ng, however, Council had not granted it to date. The South Bay Pioneers sponsored a worthwhil e project, however, if approved, this project woul d represent a breakthrough in the land use of the neighborhood which would be changed drastically. He requested, that if the Commission did approve the project, that the reasonable compromise would be to approve the 12-units since that would be the equivalent of R-l housing rather than the 18-units. He urged that the Commission look beyond the borders of the property to what the other large property owners would do. - - P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes -10- October 8, 1986 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) (5-0) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-22. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) (5-0) that based on findings contained in Sec~on "F" of the staff report, to approve the constructi on of resi denti al structures at 270 "c" Street subject to the changes to the following conditions: a. The number of units shall be limited to 18 one-bedroom apartments (minimum 500 square feet each). b. The units shall be a maximum of two stories in height. d. The 18 units shall consist of a combination of duplex and/or triplex units separated by a minimum of 10 feet. That under FINDINGS, the following changes shall be made: F.2 The project site is depressed in elevation and buffered from surrounding uses by the terrain, landscaping and lot orientation, and activities will be monitored by the South Bay Pioneers' staff. Limiting the project to 18 one-bedroom, two-story units will further ameliorate the potential for land use confl ict with adjacent single-family areas. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE MODIFICATION TO AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF CONDITIDNAL USE PERMIT PCC-84-23 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CABRILLO SCHOOL OF NURSING, 713 BROADWAY (CONTINUED) Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant has a school of nursing operating in a small, commercial center at 713 Broadway. The school occupies about 5,600 square feet of floor area in the 9,000 square foot center and is allotted 22 of the 37 available on-site parking spaces. The condi ti ona1 use permit stipu1 ates that not more than 30 students may be enrolled on-site at anyone time because of the 1 imited parking. The c1 asses are on Monday - Friday, from 8:00 to 1 :30 p.m. In the original application for the CUP the applicant stated that the students relied heavily on public transportation, however, it was later observed that approximately 60 students were in attendance (the applicant admits to 45), with overflow on-street parking into the resi denti a1 area on "J" Street and on Broadway. It has also been observed that some acti vi ti es are tak i ng place on the premi ses over the weekend. Earlier this year, several 1 etters were sent to the School regardi ng the additional students. After receiving no response, the item was set for public hearing before the Commission on July 23, 1986 to consider revocation of the permi t. Prior to the hearing, the app1 icant contacted staff and indicated that the parking situation had been resolved. Subsequently, a request was received from the school to increase the number of students from 30 to 50. - - Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 8, 1986 Since that time, letters of protest have been received from both residents and businesses in the area noting that parking problems still exist off-site. Staff has made several additional visits to the site and has concluded that the school is in ~olation of the conditional use permi t resul ti ng in excess on-street parking and has recommended the Commission deny the request for an increase in the student body and revoke the original CUP effective December 31, 1986. An option has been incl uded to authorize the Zoning Administrator to "stay" the revocation if it is shown that the enrollment has been reduced to the original 30-student limit at least one month prior to the effecti ve revocati on date. Four 90-day "stays" may be granted by the Zoning Admi ni strator based on a showing of compliance with the 30-student 1 imit evidenced by enrollment reports filed with the City by the school and subject to on-site inspection by City staff. A rehearing before the Commission will be set in 1 year if compliance is thus confirmed. In reply to a question about dates and times of visitation by staff, Principal Planner Lee rep 1 i ed that approximately si x to eight vi s its were made at different times of day. First, they were made during the periods 8:00 to 9:00 and then 1 ater at 1: 15 and 1: 30 to observe where the students went to get their cars. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Lownsbury, Executi ve Di rector of Cabri 11 0 School of Nursing, stated that he had si gned a contract on Monday, October 6, to become the Chi ef Executi ve Officer of this school; he has been 15 years in the business; there are over 300,000 1 icensed school sin the United States but only 3,000 are accredited. He explained that accredited school s can administer financial aid (Federal money) to students. Cabrillo School of Nursing was established in San Diego 11 years ago and thi s branch in 1984. The School trains medical assistants, medical office management personnel and nursing ass i stants. The nursing assistant course is licensed by the State; 80-85 percent of the graduates who were on Welfare are now working. Mr. Lownsbury noted that enrollment consists of students who wish to improve their lot in life but do not have the economic means to attend a university. The school wishes to be cooperative. A large student body was not anticipated at the time of original CUP application; jobs are not guaranteed but the school could lose its accreditation unless the students were trained for County-l eve 1 positions and were abl e to obtain them. They endeavor to keep the classes small to make the instruction viable; and to be selective in registering students whom they feel can adapt to the course and gain employment in the area. He poi nted out that any time financial aid is administered, that student becomes a consumer. As a school, they could restrict their students from parking in unauthorized locations such as on a marked lot; however, they have no authority over students parking in spaces 1 ega 1 and avail ab 1 e to any consumer (citi zen); and they cons i dered it discriminatory to isolate the school because of "the subtle mandate that the student is not a consumer." Commissioner Green indicated at the end of the presentation that the request to increase enrollment had not been discussed. Mr. Lownsbury replied that he had reviewed the application and that because the business has increased, the - - - Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 8, 1986 owners wi sh to see if the Commi ssi on woul d approve an increase from 30 to 50 students. He noted that the increase would be beneficial to the school but again reminded the Commission that they were dealing with consumers who could park in any legal parking space like any other citizen. George Merziotis, 701 Broadway, CV, owner of the Center, stated he had buil t the Center for educational use and it had been inspected and approved for that special use. He sai d that the students used only 12 of the 37 spaces; were not on the premi ses on the weekends; there had never been complaints about overflow parking previous to the letters sent out by the City. He noted that the 37 parkings spaces represented a minimal use of parking; that if he had established a 9,000 square foot restaurant he would have utilized considerably more parking; that he was bei ng harrassed by the Ci ty because of 1 iti gati on involving other property; and if the school were forced to move, he woul d bring suit against the City. In response to a questions about the number of spaces required for a 9,000 square foot restaurant, Mr. Lee rep 1 i ed that parki ng is based on a seati ng capacity. A restaurant typically requires approximately one space per 100 square feet of floor area which equates to 90 to 100 spaces. - Di rector of Pl anni ng K remp 1 pointed out there no harrassment of Mr. was Merziotis and there is no relationship between thi s property and any other properties he may own. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Deputy City Attorney poi nted out that if the Commission shoul d requi re the revocation, that findings are needed and she has pertinent findings available for use. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) to deny the request to modify PCC-84-23 to increase the on-site enrollment limit from 30 to 50 students. MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) based on the foll owi ng findings read aloud by the Deputy City Attorney that: 1. The conditional use permit was granted on the condition that no more than four employees and 30 students would be on site at anyone time, and that 60 to 70 percent of the students would be using public transportation; therefore, only 15 to 20 on-site parking spaces would be required. Thi s condi ti on bei ng placed on the conditi ona1 use permi t because of a concern that the use would generate excessive on-street parking congestion. - ..~-- - - - Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 8, 1986 2. On-site inspections were made six to eight times by City personnel and complaints were received by the P1 anni ng Department i ndi cati ng that Cabrillo School was not complying with the condition of the conditional use permit, and that the overflow of parking was detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. to revoke PCC-84-23 effective on December 31, 1986, and di rect the Cabril10 School of Nursing to cease operations at 713 Broadway as of that date subject to the following condition: The Zoni ng Admi ni strator is authori zed to "stay" the revocati on if it is st,own that enrollment has been reduced to the 30-student limit at least one month prior to the effective revocation date. The Zoning Admi ni strator may grant a maximum of four 90-day "stays" based upon a showing of compliance with the 30-student limit evidenced by an enrollment report filed with the City by the school and subject to on-site inspection and confirmation by City staff. If comp1 i ance is thus confi rmed for a one-year period, PCC-84-23 will be set for rehearing before the Commission to reconsider the revocation. Commi ssi oner Cannon noted that the Commi ss ion is only asking the School to live up to the conditions for which they originally applied; namely, 30 - students. He said he believed the application was made in good faith on both sides and the School has used off-site parking to excess as they have more than doubled their original student body. He complimented staff on a creative way of encouraging the School to abide by their original application; repeated that the Commi ss ion is not ask i ng the app 1 i cant to vacate the premi ses; the location is appropriate and he would like to see the School continue. RECESS - 5 minutes 9:10 - 9:15 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-B - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 0.19 ACRES AT 618 FOURTH AVENUE FROM R-l TO R-3-P-6 - EDUCARE CHILDREN'S CENTER Associate Planner Griffin stated that the item involved a request to rezone a single-family lot at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-l (single-family) to R-3-P-5 (mu1+ip1e family residentia1/5 dus/acre) for the purpose of expandi ng an existing preschool directly to the north of the site. The existing R-1 zoning does not allow for large preschools, but they may be established under the R-3 or C-O zone upon issuance of a conditional use permit. Mr. Griffin noted that the purpose of the application is to change the zoning so that the conditional use permit can be applied for. He pointed out that the existing zone boundary is established at a depth of 145 feet on the south side of "I" Street, which is the depth of the maj ority of parcel s fronti ng on I Street to the east. Staff's position is that the R-3 boundary should remain in its present location because it is logical and consistent in the separation between the - multi-family development and the single-family area. The basic purpose of the R-3 is to encourage large multi-family homes not to circumvent unrelated use - - - Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 8, 1986 restrictions of the Code; that as soon as the zoning is established, it would become more difficult to argue against an increase in density or extension of the zone to the south or east on Fourth Avenue. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Rosemary Hirsch, 1502F Apache Dri ve, CV, representi ng Educa re Children's Center and Educare I Corner, said she was the Executi ve Di rector for both facilities. She stated her personal qualifications included 22-1/2 years in public education and 6-1/2 in nursery education. Ms. Hirsch pointed out the critical need for such establishments in California; noting the most neglected group are those under 2 years, the babies and the latch-key children. Educare addresses the latch-key children from Rice Elementary and from Vista Square area at the Center on Fifth Street. They wish to expand to accommodate toddlers and babies. I~s. Hi rsch commented that they work closely with the Children's Resou rce Center in San Diego. The Center serves pa rents in Chu1a Vista, Rohr Industries, the local hospital s, doctor's and dentist's facilities, San Ysidro, Imperial Beach, Spring Valley and San Diego. Parents are almost desperate trying to find suitable places for their children while they are at work. - Michael Salas, 1188 Oleander Avenue, CV, spoke in favor of the Center's expansion; that as a parent he had changed sitters many times; parents need a place to take care of their children; the need is i ncreasi ng and the Center provides excellent service to the Community and is very much needed. Hal Hirsch, 1502F Apache Dri ve, CV, spoke in response to the Negative Declaration; saying there was no intent to "circumvent use restrictions of the Code" but they had been to1 d by the P1 anni ng Depa rtment that thi s was the correct procedure to follow. They had no desire to change the status of this property; they had been told the zoning was the same as R-1. He commented that Mr. Sa1 as had neg1 ected to say that he was representi ng a list of 56 parents all urging consideration of the request for expansion and the need for qual i ty chil dcare in the Community. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In reply to a question that if the request were granted cou1 d it be conditioned to prevent conversion of the three lots into an apartment complex in the future, Principal Planner Lee replied that no practical way existed to prohibit such a development; the density would be limited on this particular project; however, once the underlying zoning is established it becomes easier to request an adjustment in density. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) to find the project will have no si gnificant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-12. .- MS (Tugenberg/Grasser) to approve PCZ-87-B to rezone 0.19 acres at 618 Fourth Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-5. - -- - Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 8, 1986 Commissioner Green stated he did not wish to establish a precedent in rezoning from R-1 to R-3 for a chi1dcare center; he is very sympathetic to what can be accomplished; has for 6 years voted consi stent1y in favor of chil d centers; however, he did not consider this kind of land use decision should be made 1 i ght1y si nce once the precedent is estab 1 i shed there wi 11 be difficulty in refusing other requests. He noted that for those reasons he would vote against the motion. Commissioner Tugenberg spoke in favor of the child center citing an overriding social need; and that by personal observation of the facility he was impressed by the amount of adult attenti on gi ven the chi 1 dren. Commissioner Grasser also spoke in favor saying that as there is a need, and since it conforms to the General Plan, and also from her personal observation of the facility, she would vote in favor of the motion. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Tugenberg, Grasser and Guiles NOES: Commissioners Cannon and Green ABSENT: Commissioners Shipe and Carson - Di rector Kremp1 informed the applicant that since denial of the request for lack of approval occurred with less than four votes, the applicant was entitled to a rehearing at the next Commission meeting or could opt to take the matter to the Council with the appeal fee waived. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-2M - REQUEST TO EXPAND EXISTING DAYCARE CENTER FROM 12 TO 25 CHILDREN AT 95 ORANGE AVENUE, IN AN RV-15 RESIDENTIAL ZONE - ELVA CACHO Assistant Planner Schilling commented that the applicant is requesting conversi on of an exi sti ng s i ng1 e-family dwell i ng located at 95 Orange Avenue, currently operating a family daycare facility for 12 children, to a cOlrrnercia1 daycare facility for 25 children. She noted that the item was continued from the meeti ng of September 9, 1986 at the applicant's request to comp1 ete the driveway design. A separate U-shaped dri veway is proposed to all ow chil dren to be dropped off and pi cked up adj acent to the mai n structure and away from the Orange Avenue ri ght-of-way. The existing paved driveway and garage would provide 5 parking spaces on-site. The project site is noi se-buffered from surrounding uses by a utility easement to the north and west and by slopes on the "astern boundary. Staff recommends the addi ti on of a second pedestri an access poi nt from the dri veway to the wa1 k at the front of the buil di ng to acce1 erate the passenger 1 oadi ng/un1 oadi ng process. The Montgomery P1 anni ng Committee has approved the requested expansion. Staff a1 so recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. - - - - P1 anni ng COIrrni ssi on Mi nutes -16- October 8, 1986 In reply to the Commission's inquiry regarding the safety of the new driveway, staff sai d that the City Traffi c Engi neer was sati sfi ed; current parki ng at the west end of the old driveway would be eliminated so vehicles could back into that area and pullout straight into Orange Avenue instead of backing out into traffic. Commissioner Tugenberg stated he felt the traffic in front of the facility was extremely dangerous. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Green/Cannon) (5-0) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-3M. MSC (Green/Cannon) (4-1) wi th Tugenberg voti ng no, that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-87-2M, to expand an existing daycare facility to allow 25 children, subject to the conditions "a" through "f" in the staff report. Commissioner Green announced he had a potential conflict of interest with the - next three items. He represented a client who was involved with Item 1, and was a member of the Country C1 ub whi ch was the subj ect of Items 2 and 3. He then left the dais and the meeting. 1. RESOLUTION: SUBMITTING THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE NO. 11 PROJECT AREA TO ALLOW FOR THE CAPTURE OF TAX INCREMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman indicated that this item provided the first step to amend the Town Centre 11 Redevelopment P1 an to collect tax increments. When the plan was approved in 1978 no major public projects were anticipated and no provision for tax increments were included. The Redevelopment Agency has been negotiating with the Homart Development Company regardi ng renovati on of the Broadway Shoppi ng Center. Thi s renovati on will require substantial public improvements and utility locations. The proposed amendment wi 11 provide for the collection of ad valorem taxes and for the terms and conditions which are required to be incorporated in the amended Redevelopment P1 an. Staff is requesting that the preliminary plan will be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency; the final amendment will return to the Commission in Mayor June and after approval will be forwarded to Council. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) (4-0) Green out, to adopt the reso1 uti on submi tti ng the Amended Preliminary Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan to the Redevelopment Agency. - -----~- - - - Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 8, 1986 2. REPORT: FEIR-86-2 - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE Envi ronmenta1 Review Coordinator Reid stated that the Final EIR-86-2 was cons i dered at the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on meeti ng of September 10, 1986, and the Commission determined that implementation of the project would not result in a significant impact and directed staff to prepare a Negative declaration for consi derati on. After discussion with the Attorney's office, other local agenc i es and the State Offi ce of Permit Assistance it was deci ded that preparation of a Negative Declaration would result in two documents with opposi ng vi ewpoi nts and be poorly defensible from a legal standpoi nt. Mr. Reid pointed out that an alternative solution would be to change the conclusion of the Final ErR based on expert evi dence fi ndi ng the structure had been so modifi ed as to preclude it being significant. Staff, however, cannot support the position that the demolition of this structure would not be significant because of the architectural considerations and relationships to the overall heritage of the community. Mr. Reid noted that subsequent to the mailing of the staff report, a letter had been recei ved from McDonald, Hecht and Sol berg representi ng the Country Club in which they requested that the Commission certify the EIR and proceed - with CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration. This reflects staff's opinion and staff is therefore requesting that the EIR be certified this evening and CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration be considered when the project returns before the Commission. Commissioner Cannon objected saying the reports would be inconsistent; that he was unwilling to certify an Environmental Impact Report when the facts within the report do not support the conc1 us ions. He requested that the Commi ss ion receive a Negative Declaration which has findings showing there is no significant impact; and stated that it was immateri a1 to him whether such findings are shown in an EIR with different conclusions or a Negative Declaration since it would still be inconsistent as to the si gnifi cance of tearing down the Country Club Clubhouse. He noted that since there have been a considerable number of problems with this item and since there might be future problems involving litigation; and since the problem was not created by the Planning Commission but rather by the EIR, he could not certify the EIR. Commi ssi oner Tugenberg supported the statement and sai d that to change his position and certify the EIR would feel like perjury. Director Kremp1 's response to the Chair's queries was that the object of this report had been to recei ve comments and di recti on; whi ch had been achi eved; his interpretation of the direction being given was that the project should have a Negative Declaration when it returned before the Planning Commission; no further action was needed by the Commission on this item; and when Item 3 came before the Commission following this item, it would need to be continued. - ------- ---- ---- - - - P1 anni ng Commi ssi on ~1i nutes -18- October 8, 1986 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M - REQUEST TO DEHOLISH EXISTING COUNTRY CLUB AND BUILD A NEW FACILITY AT 88 "L" STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB Principal Planner Lee requested a continuation of this item to the meeting of November 19, 1986 to avoi d a confl i ct between the meeti ng of the Montgomery Planning Commission scheduled for November 5 and the next meeti ng of the Commission scheduled for the same date. He pointed out that a recommendation was needed from the Montgomery Planning Committee and reminded the Commission that a 5/7 vote was needed to overturn a decision by the Committee. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) (4-0) Green out, to continue the item to the meeting of November 19,1986. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Kremp1 reminded the Commission of the workshop scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, in which a presentation would be made by Commander Talmadge on Navy Housing. The meeting is schedu1 ed for 5 :00 in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. COMMISSION COMMENTS - Commissioner Guiles said that he will be movi ng to Car1sbad and therefore resigning from the Planning Commission. He expressed his appreciation of working and learning with the Commission and staff, and his regret at having to leave Chu1a Vista. Commi ssi oner Grasser said she wou1 d be goi ng on vacation and wou1 d not be available for the 10/15 workshop and the 10/22/86 and 11/5/86 meetings. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:11 to the Study Session Meeting of October 15, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. ~ .;£ "../. £:. ~ Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 3293P -