Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/10/11 Tape: 303 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 11, 1989 Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, and Fuller COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Casillas, Grasser and Shipe - all with prior notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Oscar Traubel, 441 Kearney St., CV, 92010, spoke regarding traffic congestion. He noted that Normal Heights had put a moratorium on apartment buildings in that portion of San Diego. He wondered if such might not be a reasonable idea for Chula Vista to consider since so many single-family residences are being replaced by apartment complexes in areas that were never built to handle large-scale congestion. He asked if the problem were being addressed in Chula Vista. Principal Planner Lee responded that the City Council had adopted a resolution requiring the General Plan and the zoning to be consistent in terms of density so, if there is an inconsistency, the owner cannot put in additional units unless it complies with the General Plan range. This will provide a general reduction in many parts of the central core of Chula Vista. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-89-1 - OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has requested a continuation until the meeting of November 8, 1989. MSUC (Cannon Grasser) 4-0 to continue the item to November 8, 1989. Planning Commission -2- October Il, 1989 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-05 APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF TIlE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-FOOT HIGH BLOCK WALL AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO EXPAND FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AT 615 COLORADO AVENUE NORMA MERCER Assistant Planner Griffin noted that this item involved a request to expand from a small to a large-family day care home at 615 Colorado Avenue. A small family day care home involves six or fewer children and is exempt from local regulations. A large family day care home serves from seven to twelve children and is subject to the City's Large Family Day Care Standards. These Standards are fairly limited in that the State requires these homes to be allowed in single-family areas subject only to certain "reasonable" local standards regarding concentration, traffic and noise. When this particular expansion proposal was noticed, the City received two letters of objection from adjoining property owners to the north and east. These letters expressed concern regarding property value decrease, traffic and noise impacts. As a result, the Zoning Administrator held an Administrative Hearing and determined it would be appropriate to require a 6-foot high, block-wall, noise attenuation wall along the northerly and easterly property lines adjoining the rear play area to replace the current wood fencing. The applicant is appealing the condition on the basis that the requirement does not relate directly to the objections of the adjoining property owners. Staff disagrees because both parties mentioned noise, and recommends that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be upheld and the appeal denied. No wall replacement has been recommended for the south side because no objections had been stated. Commissioner Cannon asked if any study had been done on the noise attenuation capabilities of a block wall versus a wood fence in terms of decibel levels. Mr. Griffin replied that an environmental study done previously on a day care facility on Beech Avenue indicated that construction of a block wall caused a noise reduction of 7 decibels. The standard for a residential area is 55 dBA. The facility studied was a day care center authorized for up to 30 children but the actual number of children involved is unknown. The Commissioner commented that if the block wall were required, it should be required on all sides. He brought up the prospect of the sale of the southerly property and the inability to enforce erection of a wall at a later period of time. Commissioner Fuller asked if it had been considered that 12 children might not be present simultaneously, the ages are not indicated and different levels of noise are created by pre-school children and older children. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's questions, Mr. Griffin said that perhaps the large family day care permit could be conditioned so that a wall could be constructed if such a need arose. It would be necessary, however, to look further into the State Law in this regard. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested that a similar procedure could be used regarding all of the walls. Plannin~ Commission -3- October Il, 1989 Assistant City Attorney Rudolf informed the Commission that the statutory limits on the Ordinance says the City can only impose reasonable standards with regard to the various areas of control including the noise. The expedients discussed could be considered reasonable depending on what the factual circumstances are. He noted this administrative process is designed implicitly for day care centers in single-family residential areas and the City is limited in its flexibility to the kinds of conditions that can be imposed. Also, that for this particular process, there will be no appeal from the Commission's decision. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in support of the applicant: (1) Debbie Besabe, 1220 Tobias Dr., CV, 92011; (2) Teresa Almazan, 619 Colorado Ave., CV, 92010; (3) Sherron Linney, 561 Guava Ave., CV, 92011; 14) Fran Larson, 266 E. Millan St., CV 92010; (5) Kathy Rhodes, 776-B Oaklawn Ave., CV, 92010; 16) Nancy Cavanagh, 59 Corte Maria Ave., CV 92010; (7) Jim LoBue, 621 Woodlawn Ave., CV 92010; (8) Georgina Brave, 110 W "C" St., Ste 1903, S.D., 92101. Their testimony included in part: (a) the great need for quality day care in the City; lb) the noise from the close proximity to the freeway, trolley tracks and the elementary school is more intrusive than from the day care center; and (c) the cost of erecting a block wall might force closure of the facility. Ms. Besabe, a licensed day care provider for 12, said her children are outside about 4-1/2 hours. She is on the Chula Vista Task Force 2000 Child Care Subcommittee charged with finding more ways to provide this care within the City. Ms. Linney's three children attend Mueller school nearby which is a tract school. Ms. Mercer watches her children during the 3-week break period; otherwise, she would not be able to work. Had tried all the child care resources in Chula Vista and San Diego County but there were no vacancies. Ms. Larson, a licensed day care provider for 12, has a cedar fence and her neighbors are supportive. She is also on the Chula Vista 2000 Task Force. The Task Force's study revealed there are 1,500 children without access to day schools in Chula Vista. She was present when Council considered the Child Care Ordinance and it was her understanding that the 6 foot wall would be included in the Ordinance but was only to be used in extreme circumstances; otherwise, hedges and wooden fences would be sufficient. A decibel study was conducted on CVA's Children Company, located at the corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion prior to site occupation and, therefore, not reflecting the children's noise. This reading was compared with one taken at another day care center of 35 children at play. The resulting reading did not exceed the Noise Ordinance requirements. CVA has a chain link fence. Ms. Rhodes shared the other half of a duplex with Ms. Mercer for 2 years during which Ms. Mercer was caring for six children. There was a 5-foot wooden fence. Mr. Rhodes works night but was never awakened by the children. Planning Commission -4- October ll, 1989 Ms. Cavanagh, a licensed day care provider for 12 for 5 years, has a 5-foot brick wall all around her property. This was not a requirement, but was there when the property was purchased. She has had no noise complaints and elderly people are in the neighborhood. She is also a Referral Representative for South Bay and receives many calls requesting child care assistance. Ms. Mercer is filling a need that most day care facilities do not provide as most will only take full-time children between the ages of 2 to 5. Ms. Cavanagh is also on the Chula Vista 2000 Task Force. Mr. LoBue said he lived about 100 feet to the east of the facility. On the occasions when he has picked up his two children from the facility, there has been no noticeable noise outside and only mild noise inside the house. He pointed out that the complaints are not an actual problem but the perception of a possible one. One of the neighbors who objected is concerned only with the weekends, the other lives in Nevada. He stated that there is no real quantification for a block wall as opposed to a wood wall. Norma Mercer, 615 Colorado Avenue, CV 92010, the applicant, stated that her hours are from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She watches one child until 10:30 p.m. three nights a week. The pick-up times vary but there are seldom more than two parents simultaneously. No parking troubles. Children play outside from lO:O0 to 11:30, come in for lunch and nap and outside again at 2:00. There will not be 12 children all the time. Her plans include caring for the six presently attending, keeping three openings for drop-ins and part-time cases (when other people's sitters are on vacation or sick), and using the other three openings for school-age children under 5 years old attending the nearby tract school. The school-age children would be playing indoors. Her response to questions was that she does not plan to use any signage; would not be taking care of children on the weekends except for rare occasions; will have an aide; and the six toddlers are under 3 years old. Ralph B. Perkins, 609 Colorado Ave., CV, the neighboring homeowner, pointed out the close proximity of his master bedroom to the fence and the Mercer's family room abutting the fence. His concern is about his well-being on the weekends, during his 5 weeks of vacation and 10 yearly holidays; also, the resale of his house at a later date. He contrasted the "white noise" of the freeway and that of a crying child who had earlier been removed from the Chambers. Ms. Mercer had not informed him of her intentions prior to his receipt of the hearing notice. The facility is established for Ms. Mercer's economic gain, and she should be willing to help out her neighbors in return. In response to questions he said he had been disturbed by noise but recognized the fact that it would not exceed that of any family with three or four children who might have been living there. Ms. Brave said she was an attorney representing Ms. Mercer and presented a handout to the Commission on the State Policies and then summarized it upon request. There are insufficient number of day school in the State. There is a public policy to have day care centers in residential environments. Regarding large family day care centers, "Any noise standard shall be consistent with local noise ordinance...and shall take into consideration the Plannin~ Commission -5- October ll, 1989 noise levels generated by children". No one has stated that the noise level will exceed the 55 dBA level. In fact, the same six children will remain, there will be three open spaces for drop-ins, and Ms. Mercer had not explained that two of the 12-child maximum are her own. Some school-age children come before and after school. The noise level will not be markedly different from that at present, and to require a block wall would be a financial burden. No proof has been presented that the increase in number would disturb anyone. With the handout, she noted, was a letter from the School Principal stating the need that exists for a program that would accept children after school. Many day care centers will take children on a full-day schedule only, but for the children to have a home to go to on the same block after school until their parents get off from work is very valuable and hard to find. Ms. Brave stated that Ms. Mercer would be willing to have the permit conditioned to unannounced noise-testing to ensure conformance with the standards. Commissioner Cannon said the whole consideration revolved around the wall as all other standards for granting the permit were met. His concern is the quantification of decibel level since unless something can be quantified, imposing a standard is very difficult. The quantification in this case is based on the noise regulations which should apply equally as well to a day care center as anything else. If any complaints were received from the neighbors and City testing of the decibel level revealed noise levels in excess of City Standards, then a block wall could be imposed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Cannon/Carson) to grant the appeal subject to the condition that if any complaints are made by any of the neighbors with regard to noise that the City will make an unannounced test for compliance with the City Noise Standards and in the event of non-compliance, then the imposition of a requirement for a block wall, 6-feet in height, on all sides of that property will be made to mitigate the noise problem at that location. Commissioner Fuller said she agreed that noise testing should be made if complaints were received, however, she was not entirely convinced that a block wall is the answer based on personal experience. Recently, she had replaced a deteriorating wooden fence with a block wall, however, it has had no effect on the noise emanating from her neighbor's four children. For that reason, she would not be in favor of requiring such a financial expenditure for a non-proven theory. She would, however, support the motion to enable Ms. Mercer to operate her facility. Commissioner Cannon said he would like to amend the motion. After hearing the amended motion, Commissioner Carson agreed. AMENDED MOTION MSUC ICannon/Carson) to grant the appeal subject to the conditions that if any complaints are made by any of the neighbors with regard to noise, that the City shall make an unannounced test for compliance with the City Noise Planning Commission -6- October ll, 1989 Standards and in the event of non-compliance that the item return to the Planning Commission for further review for possible further sound attenuation measures. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-04 - CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE WESTERLY SEGMENT OF RIDGEBACK ROAD TO TERRA NOVA DRIVE - CITY INITIATED Assistant Planner Griffin stated that Ridgeback Road was originally planned as a continuous street extending from East "H" Street through to Otay Lakes Road. However, the approval of the Rancho del Rey plan and the RdR loop road has created two segments of this road. To avoid confusion, it is proposed to change the name of the westerly segment because no properties are currently addressed off this segment. The name Terra Nova Drive identifies with the area and does not conflict with any existing City street names. The Commission expressed concern at changing the name of a continuous street because of confusion caused in the past by the "L" Street/Telegraph Canyon Road, "E" Street/Bonita Road situations. Also criticized was the practice of street names in close proximity being differentiated only by a suffix such as "Lane", "Court", "Drive" and the like, thereby causing confusion for emergency vehicles as well as visitors. The method for reviewing street names was asked. Principal Planner Lee explained that when road names are requested on individual subdivisions, they are reviewed by Fire Service, Police, Planning and Engineering to ensure no duplication exists within the planning area. Sometimes, however, the continuation of an existing road is missed, particularly if it skews off at a different angle. When 1-805 was being planned, the major roads had been reviewed and it had been suggested that a break be made at the freeway. Council, however, took no action. Commissioner Cannon referred to the junction of Ridgeback Road and Otay Lakes Road and asked why that portion of Ridgeback Road should not be named the same as across the road; that would alleviate the problem without having to rename a segment by Terra Nova where there is no complaint. Mr. Griffin indicated that there are properties that are addressed on that portion of Ridgeback Road which would present complications not found in an unaddressed section. In response to a further question about changing the name of the street opposite Ridgeview Road at Otay Lakes Road (proposed as Avenida del Rey) at this time, Mr. Lee noted that the hearing had been advertised for the westerly segment of Ridgeback Road. A new hearing for the easterly side would have to be advertised to make similar changes. The Commissioner suggested that since the area being considered at tonight's hearing had not been built out, this was the time to ensure that continuing roads maintained the same name on both sides of an intersection. If a developer wants to bring a street out at the same signal, it should be named the same street. The Commissioner requested that a report be brought back from McMillin regarding alleviating this problem. He said he would like to see some sort of discussion of what he perceives as a continuation of an existing problem in Chula Vista. Planning Commission -7- October ll, 1989 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 (Cannon/Fuller) 4-0 to continue the item to November 8, 1989 so a report can be received from McMillin Development. Commissioner Fuller said she would like the discussion to include the street names that were differentiated by only the words "Lane, Court" and the like. OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl reminded the Commission of the workshop on the Otay Ranch Project. Commissioner Fuller asked if that was the same night as he and Commissioner Carson were participating on a panel. Mr. Krempl replied that they were, at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:20 p.m.to the Study Session Meeting of October 18, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. /~Smit~ording Secretary WPC 6944P