Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/11/30 Tape: 295 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, November 30, 1988 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust and Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Casillas/Fuller) Cannon and Shipe abstained because of absence from the meeting to approve the minutes of October 12, 1988 as mailed. MSC (Fuller/Shipe) Casillas abstained because of absence from the meeting to approve the minutes of October 26, 1988 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-3 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 17 AND 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS (CONTINUED) Principal Planner Lee requested that the item be continued to the regular meeting of December 14, 1988 in order to review the information received relating to billboard litigation. MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) to continue PCA-89-3 to the meeting of December 14, 1988. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 30, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEA~ING: PCZ-88-N - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.78 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND TROUSDALE DRIVE ON THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED FROM R-1 TO P-3-P-12 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Associate Planner Griffin stated that the item was a request by the County Housing Authority to rezone 1.59 acres located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on an unimproved 30-foot wide extension of Third Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-12 in order to construct 18 units of low-rent public housing. Also included within the proposed rezoning is a strip of property measuring 20 feet by 421 feet (0.19 acres) which adjoins the northerly boundary of the 1.59-acre site. The surrounding land uses include light industrial to the north, mobile home park to the west, single-family areas to the east and southeast and an apartment complex to the south. The westerly portion of the site sits at a lower elevation that the single-family areas to the east and at the same elevation as the industrial park and the mobile home park. The General Plan designates this site for high-density, residential (13-26 du/ac). Generally, the slopes represent the boundary between the high-density on the westerly side and the medium density on the easterly side (the S-F homes at the top of the slopes). The 18 low-rent units would feature 3-bedroom/2-bath units contained in six separate structures of three units each. A meeting/laundry room with an adjoining play area and tot lot and 40 off-street parking spaces are included. The majority of the easterly portion (the slopes) would remain as open space. The project would require the improvement of the Third Avenue extension to a 22-foot wide roadway with no on-street parking and sidewalk on one side only. It is staff's opinion that the site can accommodate the project as it is located lower than the single-family area and represents a logical transition between that area and the mobile home park/industrial park area. The project is also well below the density designation and has been designed to minimize bulk and mass by the use of several separate structures and ample open space. In earlier discussions with the applicant, staff has suggested some changes to the site plan including relocation of the parking to the north of the complex and creation of a central court yard. The applicant has indicated no opposition. Despite these positive factors, staff recommends denial based on previous action taken by the Council on the zoning study for the entire neighborhood. In late 1987, Council denied a 35-unit project on the same site and directed that a zoning study be made. When this study was considered by Council last August, the residents of the neighborhood voiced their concerns regarding unwanted changes to the character of the neighborhood. Staff recognized their concerns but was of the opinion that the property in question and the adjacent areas to the south could accommodate somewhat higher density because of the grade separations. Council, however, chose to take no action on the area and retained it at R-1. Mr. Griffin then indicated that a letter of opposition received today had been furnished to the Commission prior to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 30, 1988 Commissioner Cannon questioned the relationship of this site to the new General Plan and to the effect on rezoning by the Cumming's Initiative passed last month. Even if the ordinance were not in effect at the present time, the Initiative dictated that the Council enact whatever ordinances are necessary to remain within its spirit and, on that basis, a change of zone from R-1 to R-3 would constitute a major problem. Staff replied that the Ordinance (which is already in effect) would require a 5-0 vote by the Council to accomplish such a rezone, however, as long as there is compliance with the present General Plan, that such action could be taken. The opinion received from the City Attorney was that the rezoning action would relate to density as opposed to dwelling types. The density for R-2 zoning is 9-12 units per acre so it would be possible for Council to rezone this property from R-1 to R-2 and grant the State-mandated density bonus for low-income housing and still accomplish this project. This presents certain options to the applicant as he moves through the process towards the City Council. Commissioner Cannon countered that the applicant was not asking for such consideration and inquired if staff would like to report back to the Commission on a later date. Staff replied that the Council's direction has been followed in this case and the site retained as an R-1 zone. The Commissioner pointed out that the Commission's role did not necessarily coincide with the directions received by staff and he wished to be fully cognizant if a problem with the Cumming's Initiative existed. Staff noted that if the Commission were to support the applicant's request to rezone to R-3, the City Council would have to approve that by a 5-0 vote. Director Krempl commented that regarding the Scenario IV General Plan issue, the property is presently designated on the draft as residential/low-medium (3-6 du/ac) and if this zoning were to be changed, the draft would be revised. The new General Plan would not allow for R-3 in this location. Commissioner Casillas asked what had changed between the June 22 meeting when the recommendation was approval of the rezoning and staff's present recommendation of denial? Also, where in the packet material is the statement by Council indicating they would not support the applicant's request for rezoning? Planner Griffin replied that the earlier referenced study contained a staff recommendation to rezone this area to R-3-P-12. Staff supported a multiple-family density with the private application and had recommended the same in the zoning study to Council. However, when Council chose to take no action on the report and retain the R-1 zoning that, in staff's opinion, indicated their preference and clear direction to staff. Commissioner Casillas referred to staff's remarks that the proposal was not in conflict with the General Plan saying that his question regarding Council's position was because the Housing Element of the General Plan stated that the City would encourage Federal and State governments to create new and viable programs in affordable houses and would fully participate in the County's efforts to located Section 18 Housing by acceptance of a pro-rata share of this type of Federally sponsored housing. He asked if it were not Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 30, 1988 contradictory to recommend non-support for this project given the mandate in the General Plan. Planner Griffin answered that there might be an appearance of a conflict; staff supports a use in this area greater than single-family, however, the area residents have voiced concern that they are being impacted by the different zones and uses. He added that the project would be consistent with both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Housiog Element. In reply to Commissioner's query about Chula Vista's relative position in the Countywide provision of low-income housing, Director Krempl replied that Chula Vista and all the other jurisdictions were below their "fair share" but compared favorably with other cities. He pointed out, for Commissioner Casillas' benefit, that Council has recently entertained and continues to entertain both low-income and public housing in other areas and that it was not a matter of support but of a particular location. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mitch Thompson, 7917 Ostrow Street, San Diego, representing the County of San Diego Housing Department, said the project had been brought before the Commission because of the ambiguous Council direction received at the August 6, 1988 meeting where no action was taken on a land area larger than the project site, and at the March 3, 1988 meeting where Council gave tentative site approval on this and another site and directed County Housing to pursue funding with HUD, begin the land use process and to exercise options on the site. He then addressed some of the concerns expressed by the residents and Council during the series of meetings held in the last 4-6 months. 1. Traffic Generation results of the traffic study indicated no traffic problem on "C" Street and that the 18 units would not represent a detriment to the surrounding area. 2. Off-street Parking The project is five spaces above the minimum requirement. Based on parking needs studied at other public housing projects over a 3-year period, the 41 spaces would be sufficient even during peak periods. In their opinion, no parking problem would exist even though the Third Avenue Extension would have no parking. 3. Project Maintenance - Their occupancy policy provides adequate income to maintain the project well. Mr. Thompson showed pictures of the Melrose Project as an example of the maintenance. 4. Negative Impact of a Low-Income Project - Their occupancy policy is staggered and the project would not be 100 percent welfare-occupied but would be a mix of low-income, working people already renting in the Community, single-parent households and handicapped households. 5. Height and Density This project, as pointed out by staff, has been scaled down below the General Plan designation. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 30, 1988 6. Single-Family Character of the Neighborhood - The project is well tucked away in terms of visibility and would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. From the topographic point of view, it is also well removed from the single-family neighborhood to the east. Mr. Thompson noted that his architect was ~resent to answer any site or project design questions. Questions directed at Mr. Thompson by the Commission included: 1. The average income represented and average rent range? $10,000 to $14,000 annual income is the average with the low end probably between $6,000 to $7,000. 2. What communities beside Chula Vista are receiving this type of housing? What is considered Chula Vista's fair share and how does that compare with neighboring communities? What is the comparison with Del Mar and/or La Jolla? Mr. Thompson replied that he could not remember the figures but staff is correct in saying Chula Vista has made an effort but has not achieved the overall goals. National City has probably done more than any other community with a large amount of subsidized housing; Imperial Beach has some senior, but not family housing; the County has sponsored a number of developments in the unincorporated area; La Jolla probably has none and Del Mar would have a fairly poor performance. 3. Are other sites in Chula Vista being considered? There is great difficulty in finding sites with a fairly low density. HUD was funding only three-bedroom units; the City has a 25-unit site limitation; and limited funds prohibited buying a larger parcel and subdividing. If this site is not approved, it is expected that the funding allocation from HUD will be revoked and the $1.3 million won't be utilized by the County. There are only two jurisdictions with Article 34 Referendum Authority - Vista and Chula Vista. 4. In the Melrose Housing Project, what is the number of the single parents, the average age of the children and how many are housed in a three bedroom home? Specific numbers are not available tonight but approximately half are single-parent households; the children's ages vary; a three-bedroom home averages 2-1/2 children with a maximum of 4 and a minimum of 2 in most cases. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 30, 1988 5. What is the average crime rate in this type of project? This depends greatly on the Housing Authority operating the project and how good they are at managing. Mr. Thompson said they operate with an experienced, private management firm and get rid of bad tenants. A resident manager is a requirement. There have been no complaints from residents around the Melrose Project. Paul Lukefahr, 172 North Del Mar, 92010, expressed concern over two issues school and play area for the children. He said that Rosebank is above capacity and that there is no place in which the children can play since the project area is bounded by an industrial area, senior citizens mobile home park and a steep bank leading up to a residential area. James Acton, 265 Nixon Place, also expressed concern over traffic in the area. He noted that enforcement of mitigation measures suggested as a result of the traffic study have not yet commenced; asked if the widening of "C" Street would be before or after project development? Has the concurrence of the apartment owner been obtained so the apartment driveway can be continued into the Third Avenue Extension to correct the multiple intersection situation that now exists? Such concurrence should be secured prior to project development and additional traffic. Mr. Acton stressed that the area had annexed to Chula Vista in an effort to preserve their older, single-family area neighborhood and was not part of Chula Vista when the low-income housing policy was adopted. Their neighborhood has been impacted by the low-income senior citizen mobile home park, the psychiatric hospital on Second Avenue and the alcohol rehabilitation center. He asked that serious consideration be given before putting children into"an environment with no place to go that is not dangerous or imposing upon the rest of the neighborhood". Commissioner Cannon asked why the impact on the schools had not been addressed in the Negative Declaration? What was the conclusion of the Engineering Department in the ~egative Declaration regarding traffic since there was a blank, empty space in his copy? Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied that the 18 units would generate approximately 144 vehicles to be served by the Third Avenue Extension. This appears to be about .1 of the volume of a regular residential street (1,500 ADT). Mr. Griffin supplemented with information from the files indicating the average daily traffic on "C" Street is 3,060 ADT with a Level of Service "B". After the project is completed, the volume is anticipated to be 3,220 ADT with the same Level of Service. The School District's response was that upon issuance of building permits, the developer would be subject to the school fees or perhaps Mello Roos Assessment District in order to provide for schooling. Commissioner Cannon expressed his chagrin over school overcrowding and the lack of action on the part of the School District. He asked the City Attorney if he was correct in his understanding that the Commission had no authority to override the School District regarding their determination on accessibility and adequacy of schools. Deputy City Attorney Fritsch concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 30, 1988 Peter Bartkiewicz, 184 North Del Mar Ave., a resident directly east of the proposed project site, said there are 31 students in his son's class at present; no one speaks about the effect on property values; and suggested that low-income housing for the elderly be constructed since that would have no effect on the school situation. He brought up the fact that the access road would need to be located right above the mobile home park. In response to a question from Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Griffin said that he had been informed by the Principal of Rosebank that some busing is occurring within their service area at present. Commissioner Carson quoted one of the Assistant Superintendents in saying that the type of response normally made to inquiries is based en the assumption that there is always room in other schools and busing can be provided. Commissioner Cannon replied that every older school in Chula Vista, except Feaster, is overcrowded; that temporary units are added and eventually become permanent and the overcrowding continues. He proposed that a strongly worded letter be forwarded to the School Districts requesting that action be taken. Alfred Welker, 168 North Del Mar Avenue, spoke against changing the zoning even if it might be financially beneficial to the residents. When the annexation took place, they had been assured that the area would remain P-1. He noted that there were two apartment projects and inquired what the land between them would be used for? Would it remain R-2 or be rezoned to a higher density? Harriet Acton, 265 Nixon Place, said she had been active in trying to preserve the area as residential. One important fact not brought up this evening is that all rules and regulations already passe.regarding traffic, speeding, citing dumped cars, truck parking for long periods are not enforced. The project site area is populated with bums living under the bushes and would not be a good environment for children of working parents. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-74. Commissioner said he would vote against the motion based on his opinion that the Negative Declaration is of poor quality in that it does not address traffic but was left blank and he would not adopt something that is missing in part; also it had nothing with regard to schools which have been impacted. He would like to see new figures on Rosebank and since the impact cannot be known without proper environmental review documents, he will not vote for the motion. Commissioner Tugenberg argued that the Negative Declaration was as good as any presented in the past and he would stay with his position. Commissioner Cannon responded that he disagreed in that the issues have at least been covered in the past. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 30, 1988 Commissioner Shipe agreed that the Negative Declaration was incomplete and he considered the project to be incompatible with the neighborhood. He would vote to deny the request because of the traffic, the overcrowded school situation and the negative impact made on the balance of the neighborhood. The motion to adopt the ~egative Declaration failed by the following vote: Yes: Commissioners Tugenberg, Casillas and Fuller Noes: Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Grasser and Shipe BREAK - 8:00-8:06 Associate Planner Griffin said that since it appeared that the intent of the Commission might be to deny the project as it now stands, he would request that the Chair entertain a motion to deny the project. Such action would give the applicant some direction to work with in terms of deciding whether or not to appeal the decision. In that case, the Negative Declaration would not need to be adopted if the project were denied. MS (Grasser/Shipe) to deny PCZ-88-N Commissioner Tu§enberg commented that this is the third time the property has been before the Commission during his tenure. It seems obvious that the site will never be developed as R-l, single-family, detached residence, adjacent to an industrial park and a mobile home park. It is not part of the residential neighborhood but is 55 feet below and more associated with the industrial park and the mobile home park. The line of demarcation is so distinct that the 2:1 slope separates the two entirely. This project, however, is the lowest density applied for and the area is logical for development of R-2 or R-3 and serves a community that needs housing. Commissioner Casillas said he would vote against the motion because he agrees with Commissioner Tugenberg that this may be the last opportunity for the Commission to help Council fulfill their commitment in the General Plan to provide housing for low- and moderate-income people. He agreed that the location is not the most desirable for either single- or multi-family housing, nor for low-income people since they too are entitled to consideration and some dignity. Commissioner Carson said that based upon Commissioner Casillas' closing remarks she is of the opinion that the area should remain undeveloped and be open space. Low-income people are deserving of much better than this location. Commissioner Tugenberg then suggested that the City purchase the property and make a park since the owner of the property is also entitled to its utilization. He is not strongly in favor of a low-income project necessarily but considers that the property could be developed for senior citizen housing but not as an R-1 single-family detached residence. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 30, 1988 Commissioner Cannon agreed with both comments. He said he would favor either an R-2 or R-3 project; however, a change in zoning from R-1 to R-3-P-12 does not comply with the General Plan that is now almost completed. Even more so, the zoning change would fly in the face of the passage by the voters of the Cummings Initiative which makes a zone change from ~-1 to R-3 inappropriate. For that reason alone, he would support the motion. The motion to deny PCZ-88-N passed by the following vote: Yes: Commissioners Grasser, Shipe, Fuller, Carson and Cannon No: Commissioners Tugenberg and Casillas 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-D CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 2.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND ALLEN SCHOOL LANE FROM R-3-P-8 TO C-O-P - BOB CRANE AND JEFF PHAIR Associate Planner Griffin said that the site directly abuts Bonita Center with single-family dwellings directly adjoining to the west, across Otay Lakes Road to the east, and a SDG&E substation to the south. The property sits approximately 15 feet below the substation and approximately 25-30 feet below the single-family homes to the west. It presently contains a commercial feed store, storage sheds and two homes. The proposed rezoning of the site to C-O-P, Commercial Office with Precise Plan, would be in line with the General Plan Amendment for this site which was approved by Commission and Council earlier in the year. The GPA, as well as the rezoning, were and are supported primarily by three factors: the long-term use of the property for commercial activities with apparently no adverse impact on the residents; the grade separation from the residents to the west; and a market study submitted in conjunction with the GPA which indicated a demand for office space in the area. Mr. Griffin displayed slides of the preliminary site plan of a three-story office building along the westerly boundary of the site with parking along Otay Lakes Road and on both sides of the site. Detailed site planning considerations and the architect's elevations will be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC). Staff is of the opinion that this will be an attractive and quality project and recommends approval of the request for rezoning. Two letters of support received from nearby residents were presented to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Griffin said the houses located on the hill would be accessed through a common drive. Commissioner Cannon expressed some concern regarding the bulk of the building and asked if the design could be returned to the Commission after its review by the D~C. Principal Planner Lee indicated that could be done. He indicated that a great deal of discussion had been held with the applicant regarding the three-story aspect of the building; the roof line had been lowered so that its top was equal to the pad height immediately to the west; and is also lower than Otay Lakes Road so that from the road level the building appears as a two-story structure. The handling of the landscaping and berm element at the Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 30, 1988 road edge will be a key factor carefully reviewed by the DRC. The building is set back approximately 70 feet from the road and the structure is saw-toothed back to provide substantial landscaping pockets in front. Commissioner Grasser questioned the market study's indication that there was less than a two percent vacancy factor for this type of suburban office space. Director Krempl said that the study referenced a certain type of office space. He acknowledged that there was office space in the area but not in the square footage required. He was of the opinion that the two percent was erroneous in terms of overall office space vacancy but would be pertinent in relation to a specific type of office space. Commissioner Tugenberg commented on two surveys made by both the City and an applicant in which the conclusions reached were diametrically opposite and observed (for that reason) he was always suspect when the applicant pays for a study. Director Krempl replied that staff's primary recommendation was based on the land use, the General Plan and opinion that the location was well suited for an office; the market study was not a critical component but provided ancillary support. Commissioner Grasser added that she was not opposed to the project but had questioned the exactness of the information. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Crane, 5952 Steeplechase Road, Bonita, representing the Bonita Corporation, deferred his time to Jeff Phair. Jeff Phair, 5945 Steeplechase Road, Bonita, Craine/Phair Partnership, said that the study does, in fact, show that there is less than a two percent vacancy factor of office space in the entire South Bay Area. He pointed out, however, the importance of drawing a distinction between a commercial space and office space. The project planned is a Class "A" office building. The existing commercial strip space in the market area is not the same quality office space as is proposed. He noted that the market study was not commissioned by the applicant, but done by Torrey Group and Systems, a firm which compiles general market studies available to the entire business community and to which they subscribe. He offered to provide the survey to the Commission, if desired. Mr. Phair noted that the development was sensitive to the community, the needs of the residents, was viable and workable. The project has been discussed with people in the area as evidenced by the letters of support received from two of the three houses most impacted and by the residents and business persons present in support of the project. Approximately 13-14 persons stood in response to the statement. Mr. Phair indicated support of staff's recommendations and requested approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Grasser asked for the occupancy factor for this type of office in the immediate vicinity, taking into consideration that there are several comparable complexes down Bonita Road. Mr. Phair reported that, at the present time, there was almost a 0 percent vacancy factor in second story "quasi-retail" office space in some of the shopping centers; however, the proposed project will be different from anything in Bonita or Chula Vista Planning Commission Minutes -ll- November 30, 1988 today. Discussion with the landlord of the building at the corner of Glenn Abbey and Bonita Road, this date, revealed that they have a lease out for the one remaining space 800 square feet out of 22,000. All other buildings along Bonita Road are full. The proposed building will have approximately 36,000 net square feet. In the past three quarters, there have been approximately 67,000 square feet of suburban office space absorbed in this market area. Right no~, there is an existing inventory of only 20,000 feet in the entire area. Chula Vista will be out of quality office space shortly and businesses will go elsewhere. William C. Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Drive, Bonita, life-long resident of Bonita, said he knew first-hand of the shortage of office space because of the difficulty he had in locating good office space for his new firm. He expressed concern that unless office space is provided for the professional services needed by the great number of new residents in the area, they will go elsewhere in the County. Jeff Burges, 3130 Bonita Poad, Bonita, indicated that he was a real estate broker specializing in leasing and sale of retail office and industrial properties within the South Bay Area. Quarterly surveys on availability and absorption indicate and support the less than two percent office space in South Bay. The vacancy rate in Bonita, in particular, for professional office space is roughly zero. The residential growth in nearby projects, such as EastLake, Bonita Long Canyon, ERDR continue a strong demand for office space. The Bonita Corporate Center Office Building~which is planned for the subject property, will satisfy the demand and will provide quality office space for the professional services generated by the area's residential growth. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Grasser/Casillas) to recommend that the Council approve PCZ-89-D. Commissioner Cannon said he would like to add a provision to the motion that the three-story building be returned to the Commission after Design Review Committee's action on the project. Commissioner Grasser agreed to include the provision in the motion, and Commissioner Casillas also agreed. AMENDED MOTION MSUC (Grasser/Casillas) to recommend that Council approve PCZ-89-D and that the item return to the Planning Commission after action by the Design Review Committee. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-89-19 AND ZAV-89-15 - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER AND ERECT A 5 FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE SETBACK AREA AT 380 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 30, 1988 Associate Planner Griffin said that this item involves two separate applications; a conditional use permit to establish a child day care center at 380 Telegraph Canyon Road and a separate application for a variance to erect a 5-foot high wrought iron fence along the property line and within the front and exterior sideyard setbacks in order to enclose the play area for the property. The site itself is zoned Commercial Office with Precise Plan and contains a 1,920 square foot office structure and 13 off-street parking spaces. The surrounding land uses include apartments to the north, single- family dwellings to the west and south and neighborhood commercial to the east. Mr. Griffin used the overhead projector to show the location of the existing building and the site of the fence. The child day care center would serve 46 children, aged 2 to 5 years, with a staff of six employees. The hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The arrival and departure times are staggered for two hour periods in the morning and in the afternoon. The outdoor activity schedule would involve no more that 29 children at any one time. The 5-foot high wrought iron fence would enclose the play area. The way the site is developed, the area available for outside activity is generally located between the building and the parking area and also to the front and exterior side of the building. The Municipal Code specifies that any fence over 3-1/2 feet high has to observe the structural setbacks for the site, which in this case would be 15 feet back of the property line on Telegraph Canyon Road and 10 feet on Hill Street. The site is considered appropriate for day care use based on its convenient location in relation to the circulation network and its minimal impacts on adjacent uses. The apartments are located approximately 130 feet from the playground area and are separated by the site's parking area as well as that of the apartment complex. A noise analysis was required in conjunction with the environmental study and revealed that the grade separation (approximately 9 feet) between the site and the single-family dwellings as well as a solid wall at the top of that slope is sufficient provision for noise buffering of any playground activities. The 13 existing parking spaces are more than adequate to accommodate staff and guests. Staff is of the opinion that a somewhat modified variance with the fencing is also supportable based on the amount of the site that is consumed by slopes which would otherwise be available for playground. Most C-O zoned properties are level and in relation to other C-O sites, it is staff's opinion that there is a hardship factor. Other factors in support of the variance are that the fencing is open and won't close off views to the site and, in the case of Telegraph Canyon Road, there is a very wide parkway that also separates the site from the street. Staff has recommended that the setback along Telegraph Canyon be approved at 13 feet instead of 15 feet, a minor but important change, to provide some landscaped forefront to the fencing. Also recommended in relationship to the conditional use permit, are conditions which would address landscaping, playground equipment and si§nage. Staff requested the addition of condition "d" which would incorporate the first comment on page 4; namely, "The trees on the south side of the lot shall · ~ be trimmed to alleviate any sight distance problems." This statement was included in the report as a comment and should have been included as a condition. Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 30, 1988 Mr. Griffin concluded by saying that based on the findings and conditions as amended, staff recommended approval of PCZ-89-19 and ZAV-89-15 as modified from 15- to 13-feet along Telegraph Canyon Road. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the difficulty of making a U-turn to leave children at the center and whether a condition should be added that children are not to be "dropped off" on "L" Street because of the traffic problems that would be caused. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sue Welsh, 380 Telegraph Canyon Road, CV 92010, representing Child Development Association, the Children's Company, stated she would be the director at the center. State licensing requires that children be admitted directly to the center by the director, which means that parents must enter the building with the child and must remain until it is determined by the director that the child is healthy and may remain. For that reason, there will be no "dropping off". Also, she pointed out that there is a left-turn lane on Telegraph Canyon Road which permits easier entry to the center and eliminates the need for a U-turn. Ms. Welsh spoke about the requirement for a fully-automated fire alarm system specified on page 13, and that such determination had been made from the plans and the belief that the center would be licensed for more than 50 children. Also, the office and bathroom space had not been subtracted as is done with State licensing. She requested that the fully-automated alarm system be deleted since less than 50 children would be accommodated. With regard to the fence, Ms. Welsh requested that the posts be located 30 feet apart instead of the 20-foot separation recommended by staff for aesthetic purposes. She offered pictures of La Petite Academy on East "J" and in EastLake with 32-foot separations and of Kindercare with posts 30-feet apart as a precedent. She also requested that the 2-foot setback originally recommended by the Planning Department staff be permitted instead of the revised 4-foot setback recommended by the Landscape Architect for bush-planting purposes. She indicated that the bushes would still be planted and grow through the fence but the inside area would be grassed and the extra 2-feet would be more valuable as play yard. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Associate Planner Griffin responded to the Director's statement about the fire alarm saying the reference was included in the report for information purposes only and was not a condition of approval. The requirements of the Fire Marshall need to be met whether they are the same as those listed in the report or not. The spacing of the pilasters is a matter of judgment based on the size of the site and called for closer spacing for aesthetic reasons. The setback from the sidewalk of 4 feet was reached in discussion with the City Landscape Architect and it was staff's consideration that the landscaping should be a forefront to the fence and also that any planting occurring inside the fence in the play area with 2- to 5-year old children would take more abuse compared to planting outside the fence. Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 30, 1988 MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) 7-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-40. Commissioner Tugenberg added that he accepted the applicant's explanation on the "drop-off" of the children at the center. MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 7-0, that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-19 subject to conditions "a" through "d" as amended. MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 7-0, that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report and the fact that he agrees with staff's findings that the plantings should be outside the fence, and to the experience of the staff in determining the aesthetics involved in the distance between the pilasters, to approve ZAV-89-15 for a variance to reduce the frontyard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet (Telegraph Canyon Road) and the exterior side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet ("L" Street) for a 5-foot high open wrought iron fence with pilasters at 20-foot centers. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-8 REQUEST TO LEGITIMIZE TWO STUDIO APARTMENT UNITS AT 675/681 SEA VALE STREET HENRY N. KLEIS Associate Planner Griffin stated that the site was located on the north side of Sea Vale Street, just west of Broadway, and was zoned R-3 and developed with apartments as are the surrounding properties. In 1955, permits were issued to construct six apartment units in two structures on the front of the property and two detached garage structures each containing three parkings spaces on the rear of the property. Sometime between September 1959 and 1964, a portion of each of the detached garage structures was converted illegally to living space, leaving five garage spaces and two studio units, one of 288 square feet and one of 380 square feet. Based on the zoning standards at the time of the conversion, the units must be a minimum of 400 square feet per studio unit, and living space can be located no closer than 15 feet to the rear property line in an R-3 zone. The request before the Commission is to receive a variance to legitimize these two studio units with regard to the minimum floor area and rear yard setback. The applicant has submitted a detailed document in support of the request which has been summarized in the staff report as follows: 1. Since the property was purchased approximately 18 years after conversion, compliance with setback standards or reconversion of units would represent an economic hardship to the present owner. 2. Twelve to fourteen units are allowed on a lot of this size; the two additional studio units result in a total of only eight units. Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 30, 1988 3. The units abut the parking lot of an adjoining apartment complex and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent dwellings or residents. 4. There is a need for affordable housing in this area. Staff is of the opinion that there is no hardship occasioned by the size, topography or location of this property, nor by the fact that the property was developed at a lower density than could have been achieved on this size site. Financial burdens encountered in complying with the standards is specifically excluded as a hardship. Staff also disagrees with the applicant that it is in the public interest to maintain units of this type in terms of the quality of living environment they may provide. For those reasons, staff is recommending denial of the request based on the findings listed in the staff report. Replies to questions asked by the Commission included: 1. Prior to 1959, these units would have complied with the zoning standards relating to minimum floor area and rear yard setbacks which became effective in August, 1959. The only permit other than the original one authorizing the basic six units was issued in September, 1959 for a bathroom in a garage. It is supposed that the conversion took place sometime after that permit was issued. 2. If the request for a variance is denied, the units will have to be removed or reconverted to garage space as originally permitted. 3. There is no fire retardant material in the walls that separate the livin9 space from the garage. It is also necessary to walk through the bathroom to get from the living room to the kitchen in the unit depicted in the left side of the overhead projection. 4. The present owners came to the City for compliance in anticipation of selling the property; probably as a requirement of a financial institution. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Antonia Martin, Esq., 530 B Street, Ste 1900, CV 92010, an attorney representing the applicant, said the realtor informed the applicants at the time of purchase (1982) that the units had been in use for over 20 years. Her client had initiated the request for a compliance review. Initially, the Planning Department indicated that the units, if they had been converted prior to 1969, could be "grandfathered in" under the ordinances. Mrs. Marie Craig Lakes, who had purchased the property in 1964, stated that the units had been in use at that time. The Planning Department, however, found they would have to go back to 1959 (before "any square footage ordinance was in effect") to show these units were in compliance. Ms. Martin continued that attempts were made to research the property but no owners prior to Mrs. Lakes were found. They have, therefore, been unable to "push back to the time when the units were converted", although it is believed that it was around 1959. Planning Commission Minutes -16- November 30, 1988 A slide presentation was made to demonstrate that the units were neat, low density and well maintained. Also, it was pointed out that the adjacent apartment complex owner had submitted a letter in support of the variance request. She acknowledged that the Building Department had cited several items including the fire retardant material issue but a complete list has not been released pending action by the Commission. The applicant, however, has indicated a willingness to comply with the City requirements. Ms. Martin summarized by saying that the difference in the zoning is not substantial, the overall density is below that allowed, the neighborhood would not be impacted or changed and to take the units off the market will worsen an already difficult situation by eliminating provision of clean, well-maintained, low-income housing. Mr. Kleis, 752 Singing Vista Drive, E1 Cajon, the applicant, said the units were 25 years old and very run down when purchased. They have been systematically updated with replacement of water heaters, carpets, roof and insulation. He cited incidents of cooperative joint effort with his neighbors to improve the the neighborhood appearance and stated that when a need arose (because of this updating) to get refinancing, the units were discovered to be illegal. They wish to do whatever is necessary to ensure the compliance of the units and had been the ones to initiate review by the Fire Department and the Building Department to that end. Susan Kleis, 752 Singing Vista Drive, E1 Cajon, spoke of the gratitude and appreciation expressed by renters finding such well-maintained, low-income housing and the fact that management of the units has been a family project and efforts to improve the units have been constant. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that the question was not of density but of enforcement. He mentioned what appeared to be two inoperable vehicles on the premises; the decomposition of the blacktop on the west side; and his opinion that this type of unit was not beneficial to the neighborhood or Chula Vista. The Commissioner stated findings could not be made because hardship must be endemic in the property and could not be attributed to the owner. Commissioner Shipe concurred. MSC (Tugenberg/Shipe) 6-1, Cannon "no", that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report that ZAV-89-8 be denied. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: Director Krempl reminded the Commission that there would be only one regular business meeting during December. He asked the Commission's choice of a date for the workshop meeting, which would include a presentation by Dave Nielson on the Olympic Training site. The decision was made to carry the workshop over to January. Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 30, 1988 COMMISSION £OMMENTS: Commissioner Cannon expressed a desire to send a letter to the Board of Trustees of the Chula Vista Elementary School concerning their responsibility regarding the impact of developments on the school district and the need to exercise authority. An involved discussion ensued touching on (1) the realism of expecting such action from the School Board; (2) if the Board could call a significant impact unmitigable; (3) the concept that the developer's fees and busing will take care of the problem; (4) the undesirability of busing; (5) that by State law, the School Board can not say a project should be rejected as long as there are facilities available anywhere in a school district; (6) that the fault lies more in the routine acceptance format of the communication sent by the District to the City, which should be more specific indicating the effect on the school situation, the mitigation measures proposed such as busing, and that the school situation presents a significant environmental impact: (7) that perhaps in the proposed mitigation portion of an EIR the School District should be required to indicate specifically how they will mitigate the problem. Commissioner Casillas noted that there was a good article in Fortune Magazine on the "No Growth, Slow Growth Movement" and that Chula Vista seems to be far ahead of other municipalities in treatment of the problem. Commissioner Tugenberg said he felt uneasy in that the Design Review Committee might receive the impression that the Commission lacks confidence in their decisions by requesting return of items to the Commission after DRC review. Commissioner Cannon said his concern was that no other three-story buildings exist in Bonita. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of December 14, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 5836P