HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/10/12 Tape: 293
Side: 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
Wednesday, October 12, 1988 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller,
Grasser, and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Cannon and Shipe, both with
notification
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner
Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Deputy City
Attorney Fritsch, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust,
and Zoning Enforcement Officer Fox
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) 4-0, Tugenberg abstained because of absence from
meeting, to approve the minutes of August 24, 1988 as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
--- Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 12, 1988
PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-82-7 FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK APPEAL ON SIGNS FROM
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL FOR FIRST INTERNATIONAL
BANK, 318 FOURTH AVENUE
Principal Planner Lee stated that the property in question is located on the
west side of Fourth Avenue, just south of "F" Street, with frontage on both
streets. It is a two-story bank office building with a series of both
monument I.D. signs as well as directional signs on each of the streets. A
sign program included with the building was approved by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in 1982 and featured a brown background with light-colored
letters. When the First International Bank acquired the property, they
installed a blue and white theme sign. The signs were erected without benefit
of a permit or design approval. The applicant applied to the DRC with the
proposal to retain the white background area and to paint the cabinet to match
the building. At the same time, they requested permission to locate a new
cabinet sign on the east elevation. The Committee concluded that the wall
sign would be more in keeping with the building if non-lit cutout letters were
utilized and that a light tan background color would better compliment the
building. Their basic concern was the sharp contrast caused by the white
background and possible night glare. The applicant appealed the decision of
the Design Review Committee and painted the base of the sign and the cabinet
to match the building color. Mr. Lee presented slides illustrating the signs
and colors discussed noting that, unfortunately, the DRC did not have the
opportunity to view the program as it presently exists. Staff concurs with
the D~C about the preferability of the light tan or egg-shell background;
however, after viewing the present signs both during the day and at night,
concurs that the color as proposed is acceptable. There was no bright glare
discernible in the evening.
The applicant had an opportunity to return to DRC but elected to proceed to
the Planning Commission for a final decision. They are amenable to using the
cutout letters on the building for the east elevation but requested that the
sign be illuminated. Staff is recommending that the appeal be approved
allowing the retention of the present white background and authorizing the
wall sign for cutout letters, 18 inches in height, to be lit. The final
design is to be approved by the Planning Director. It is not considered
beneficial to return to the DRC in this particular instance.
In response to a question by Commissioner Casillas, Principal Planner Lee
stated that the I.D. sign and the 24-hour sign were lit.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (Casillas/Fuller) to approve the monument sign with the white background as
presently constructed.
Commissioner Tugenberg agreed with the Design Review Committee that the white
background fails to blend with the colors utilized in the rest of the building.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 12, 1988
Commissioner Fuller said if the signs had been changed in any other fashion,
she would not have approved, however, the building itself is so unique in its
architectural design and landscaping that she does not pay much attention to
the signs. She will approve the motion with the sign modifications indicated.
Director Krempl reminded the Commission that a total of four affirmative votes
was needed to pass the item.
Commissioner Grasser asked the Attorney if a probable conflict of interest
might exist due to the fact that her firm handles the property management of
the building for the owner of the land, not the owner of the bank. The
Attorney advised her to abstain from voting.
The motion to approve the monument sign with the white background as presently
constructed failed by a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Tugenberg voting no and
Commissioner Grasser abstaining.
MSC (Casillas/Fuller) (4-0) to authorize a wall-mounted sign utilizing
individual letters with logo not to exceed 18 inches in height and allow for
the lighting of said sign with the design subject to the Planning Director s
approval. Grasser abstained.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-6 CALIFORNIA CUSTOM TRUCK SHELL, 777
BROADWAY, APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF ZONING PERMIT
Principal Planner Lee stated that the subject business is located on the east
side of Broadway just north of "K" Street. The adjacent land uses include a
car wash directly to the south, a car lot to the north, Broadway and
commercial activities to the west and single-family residences to the east.
Letters are on file with the Planning Department indicating that a resident to
the east had contacted the Air Pollution Control District concerning alleged
fiberglass residue appearing in the residential area at least 2-1/2 years
ago. At that time, the APCD concluded that no public nuisance existed
although a private nuisance might. In the latter part of 1987, the operator
of California Custom Truck Shell requested a zoning permit and a business
license to assemble and install truck shells within a designated area subject
to specific conditions. The issuance of the permit was subject to some very
specific conditions which included no grinding, cutting or painting to occur
outside, and the assembly was described as attaching the camper shell to the
truck which was assumed to involve minor drilling. Using the overhead
projector, Mr. Lee indicated the location of the building in which the
activity was to take place. Later, in that same month (1987), the City
notified the operator by mail that property owners in the area had protested
the extensive grinding and drilling being conducted outdoors resulting in
fiberglass being blown into the adjacent residential areas. Included was a
copy of the APCD letter indicating that a substantial amount of fiberglass had
been found in the residential area. The operator, Mr. Collier, was directed
to cease all activities that were contributing to this problem. In July of
1988, after a series of complaints from the Zoning and Planning staff, staff
met with Mr. Collier, noted the operation had expanded, and cited the problem
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 12, 1988
that grinding and cutting were still occurring out of the designated area -
the building. Mr. Collier indicated that immediate compliance would be
effected and that he intended to file a new application the following week for
a different location. The following month, the site was reinspected by Zoning
Enforcement and was still in violation with outside work being performed and
the expanded display area still in existence. In September, an appeal was
filed.
At present, the display has been pulled back and the activity appears to
conform to the original conditions. According to the applicant, another site
has been secured outside of the City where the grinding, cutting and painting
is occurring. The violations in this case have been on-going for some time
and compliance has been sporadic in nature. The operator's business has
outgrown the site and can no longer be considered accessory. During recent
contacts between Mr. Collier and the City, it was discovered that he had
relocated a portion of his business illegally to another section of Chula
Vista. He was notified by the Building Department to cease that operation,
which consisted of some illegal construction as well as operating without
proper permits. A letter from Mr. Collier received on October 10 indicated
that the Broadway site had been cleaned up.
Staff is asking that the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld, the zoning
permit voided and the appeal denied. The Commission may wish to permit Mr.
Collier to remain on site for the 4 months left on his lease. Based on the
past activity history, staff would not want him to exercise the clause in his
lease allowing a 2-year extension. Mr. Lee concluded by introducing Mr. Mike
Fox of the Zoning Enforcement Division as available to answer any specific
questions, and presented the Commission with photos of the site taken at
various times during the year.
Commissioner Grasser asked about the statement by the APCD that there was
insufficient evidence to determine a public nuisance and asked for an
explanation between a public and private nuisance.
Staff explained that APCD requires five complaints by adjoining residents to
justify the term "public nuisance." Our ordinance, on the other hand,
stipulates that the discharge of contaminants into the air is a violation of
the performance standards. Mr. Lee pointed out that the complainant lives
directly to the east of the area being used for cutting and is the most
affected. No other residents have come forward to the City.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there had been any complaints from the
residents of Ash Street regarding the noise. Mr. Fox said there had been
complaints, however, the noise was occurring during the daytime not during
curfew hours and was not of a sufficient level to be considered a nuisance.
Commissioner Tugenberg said he had visited the site on Monday morning and
witnessed the attachment of a shell to a car body. The noise was incredible
and it is a pity to subject the neighborhood to such a disturbance.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 12, 1988
Commissioner Casillas revealed that when he visited the site that afternoon
the grinding, cutting and painting were occurring outside the building just
directly west of the fence that separates the adjoining residence. Some
cutting was being done indoors but the door was not completely closed because
of lack of interior ventilation devices. Upon entering the building, one is
hit by the residue being created. The Commissioner expressed concern about
the people living to the east having to breathe this material and quoted the
landlord that someone had vigorously protested the operation and residue the
previous day.
Mr. Lee confirmed that the Commissioner was witnessing part of the habitual
pattern of the operation which ceases for a limited period and then starts up
again.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Eric Humphrey, 772-1/2 Ash Street, Chula Vista, said he resided directly
adjacent to the property and had been involved in an %n-going battle" with
the firm for 2-1/2 years. He had an extensive file on the subject and
requested additional speaking time; Mrs. Humphrey surrendered hers. Mr.
Humphrey submitted a series of photographs dating from June 17, 1988 and read
extracts from a letter written to Mr. Acosta, owner of the master lease,
stating that the use of their patio has been virtually denied them because of
the noise and pollutants created by the firm. He outlined his actions
contesting the problem starting with his initial complaint to the owner in May
of 1986 and Mr. Collier's assurance that such grinding would not continue;
through his first contact with the APCD, their "lost" report, and their
subsequent report a year later which indicated that samples taken from both
places established the fact that the significant amount of fiberglass found in
Mr. Humphrey's patio area matched that taken from Mr. Collier's business and
that since no more than six households were affected, it was not considered a
"public" nuisance within the APCD's jurisdiction. Mr. Humphrey continued that
the City of Chula Vista instructed Mr. Collier to do all cutting and grinding
within the building on the property and to install a ventilation system with a
filter, and pointed out that the doors on the building did not close properly
and were usually left open. He noted that when the camper shell is moved out
onto the lot, 52 to lO0 holes are drilled in each shell and if a window
doesn't quite fit, the hole is ground larger. He contended that in November,
1987, the City notified Mr. Collier to cease all contributing factors but
there was no change. Mr. Humphrey reviewed the following City forms: la)
5/20/86 Citizen Complaint Form; (b) 7/1/86 Citizen Complaint Form on which it
was asserted that Mr. Collier was attempting to find another location for his
business; (c) 6/25/86 Violation Compliance Order for Mr. Collier to
immediately cease all work causing discharge of air contaminants and to remove
illegal structure built against the fence; (d) 7/21/86 repeat notice; (e)
9/9/86 Violation Compliance Order to cease all work causing discharge of air
contaminants; (f) Mr. Collier's application for a permit, dated 9/18/86, whose
provisions stated that the "air pollution control system and all process
equipment including gathering devices such as hoods, cabinets, and duct work,
shall be positioned, operated and maintained so that there is no leakage of
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 12, 1988
air contaminants to the atmosphere prior to their treatment in the air control
system" and that "each fiberglass cutting operation, every grinder, router,
and saw shall have its dust emission controlled by an individual, portable
cleaning vacuum." Mr. Humphrey contended that none of these provisions have
been complied with. He noted that he had received a letter, dated January 14,
1988, from Mr. Collier's attorney accusing him of filing "numerous groundless
complaints about fiberglass emanating from this business" and threatening him
with a "harassment suit." Mr. Humphrey expressed his concern for the health
of his family, particularly that of his infant son who is not only exposed to
the contaminants in the air but on the toys and other articles he places in
his mouth. Mr. Humphrey said he had received a letter about 1-1/2 week ago
from Mr. Collier attempting to make amends for past episodes. However, last
night, at approximately 7:00 p.m., grinding on a camper shell was taking place
with the building door wide open. He acknowledged that he had been angry and
had shouted from frustration and contended that if Mr. Collier is unable to
control the actions of his employees regarding grinding, he does not deserve
to have a business license anywhere.
Eva Lujan, 766 Ash Street, Chula Vista, said she resided in back of Mr.
Humphrey's house and she and her husband were aware of the problem, the danger
of the fiberglass, concerned if the fiberglass will harm their fruit trees,
and are disturbed by the noise and the trash which blows over into their
backyard. They have not filed any complaints because they knew Mr. Humphrey
was doing so. They do not feel that a business of this type should be allowed
so close to a residential zone and are concerned about their health. Ms.
Lujan said they are in support of Mr. Humphrey and hope something can be done
to alleviate the problem.
Jose F. Acosta, 777 Broadway, Chula Vista, 92010, owner of the used car lot,
said he had been unable to open his lot 16 months ago because Mr. Collier was
his tenant and had the right to one of the offices within the building. He
had received many complaints from Mr. Humphrey about trash coming over the
fence and from Mr. Hoy, the property owner. He supported Mr. Humphrey's
contentions and said that, in his opinion, the type of business operated by
Mr. Collier should not be located in that area.
Terry Collier, 9565 Piedmont St., San Diego, said that he agreed with Mr.
Humphrey. His business had grown within 24 months from two to 30 employees
and he needs a larger site. He has moved everything that, in his opinion,
causes the dust problem; he wants to move; he cannot live with Mr. Humphrey as
a neighbor; he can't accept people screaming at him; he agrees what he has
done might be wrong. He hopes that the Commission will understand that he has
was given a very short period of time to conform. He has turned in his permit
to APCD as of this date and can no longer cut fiberglass. He has another
location in Spring Valley for the building portion of the operation. He
requested that he be allowed to sell truck shells only at that location for 30
to 60 days. By that time, he will have a second location in Chula Vista for
the retail business. He is of the opinion that he has made a reasonable
effort and would like the opportunity to move his business in a timely
fashion. Mr. Collier said that if he is closed immediately he lacks the cash
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 12, 1988
flow for more than 2 to 3 weeks and would have no way to sell his products.
He has offered, through APCD, to make full restitution to Mr. Humphrey of any
damage done to his family.
In response to a question by Commissioner Grasser and comments from
Commissioner Casillas that operations continued as of 4:00 p.m., this date,
Mr. Collier replied that there was another gentleman on the block who sells
truck shells within the same block and expressed his concern regarding the
Commissioner's remarks. He said he was not present today as he had been at
APCD, and to his knowledge, only aluminum, not fiberglass, was being drilled.
The Commissioner replied that fiberglass shavings were quite distinct from
those of aluminum.
Gustaro Slovinsky, 281 Quintard, Chula Vista, 92011, Attorney-at-law,
representing Terry Collier, repeated that the business had grown dramatically
since its inception. The type of manufacturing that produced the problem has
been moved to Spring Valley. Although, Mr. Collier has a good business, all
the money is plowed back into it, so if the appeal is denied he and many
others will be put out of work. He wants to be a good neighbor and has told
the Commission of his regret for any complaints he may have occasioned. Mr.
Slovinsky claimed that there is really only one complainant. Ms. Lujan really
has no complaints other than those provided by Mr. Humphrey and she has not
indicated that any fiberglass is in her yard. APCD checked both Mr.
Humphrey's residence and those of other neighbors; no fiberglass particles
were found other than those in Mr. Humphrey's residence. Mr. Acosta has a
private agenda; he is speaking for himself because he can't get a permit from
DMV because his portion of the lot does not have two entrances. Mr. Collier
has done everything as quickly as he could to clean up his operation and to be
a good neighbor. Mr. Slovinsky presented supporting letters from other
neighbors, Fuller Ford and the Vista Palms Car Wash. Mr. Collier is in escrow
in another location where he will not have this type of problem. He is asking
30 to 60 days (even though he has 4 months left in his lease) to complete his
move. Mr. Slovinsky requested that the Commission allow Mr. Collier to remain
and complete his lease time and not be put out of business. In response to a
question from Commissioner Tugenberg, Mr. Slovinsky clarified that in the
actual installation of the shell to the truck only aluminum and steel are
drilled, no fiberglass is involved.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The motion was made by Commissioner Tugenberg and seconded by Commissioner
Grasser to concur with the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the
zoning permit and allow Mr. Collier 90 days at which time the work must cease
at that location.
Deputy City Attorney Fritsch interposed to say that as there are two different
kinds of operation, the motion must clarify which kind or whether it is the
complete operation.
Commissioner Tugenberg indicated that he was referring to the manufacturing or
adapting the fiberglass as he saw nothing wrong with the sales and
installation.
Planninq Commission Minutes -8- October 12, 1988
MOTION RESTATED
MSUC (Tugenberg /Grasser) (5 -0) to concur with the Zoning Administrator's
decision to revoke the zoning permit for the California Custom Truck Shell at
777 Broadway and deny the appeal.
Motion made by Commissioner Tugenberg to allow the applicant 90 days in which
to close up all the operation except sales and installation.
A discussion ensued regarding which portion of the business would be moved.
The applicant, Mr. Collier, responded that he was requesting 90 days to sell
and then he would come forward with a conditional use permit request for a new
location. Principal Planner Lee interjected that no application has yet been
filed with a site plan; he would be happy to meet with Mr. Collier for further
details of his plans and whether a portion or all of the Dayton Tire site is
involved.
Commissioner Grasser seconded the motion.
Commissioner Casillas said that based on the history, he saw no need to reward
the applicant and give the neighbors 90 more days of such treatment, therefore
he would vote against the motion.
Commissioner Tugenberg explained that the 90 days was for sales and
installation only - no more manufacturing, grinding, or operating with
Fiberglas. He expressed confidence that the Zoning Enforcement Division would
be watching the operation.
The motion to permit the applicant 90 days in which to sell and install camper
shells only failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tugenberg, Grasser and Carson
NOES: Commissioners Fuller and Casillas
ABSENT: Commissioners Cannon and Shipe, with notification
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS -89 -2 AND P -89 -1 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND PRECISE PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY UNIT
11B, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89 -2 - RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP
Associate Planner Griffin noted that the item is for a tentative subdivision
map and precise plan to subdivide 13.8 acres within the Rancho del Rey SPA I
into 77 single - family lots. The site is at the southeast corner of the
proposed Rancho del Rey loop road and Ridgeback Road directly south of Bonita
Vista Junior High School. The Commission and Council approved the majority of
the subdivisions within the SPA I Area earlier this year but this particular
site and one other small lot product were withheld from that subdivision
program in order to prepare more specific precise plans for development.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 12, 1988
The surrounding land uses involve a community park site directly to the south,
Bonita Vista Junior High School to the north, larger single-family lot areas
to the northeast and west, and open space areas to the west and the southeast,
plus a multiple-family site proposed for the property directly to the east of
the site.
The SPA Plan designates this particular property for detached single-family
development at a density of 7.1 du/ac and a total count of 90 units. It can
be described as a wide/shallow lot pattern served by a loop street and a
cul-de-sac with a single access point off Ridgeback Road to the north. The
project is generally elevated above the areas to the west and south and
depressed somewhat in relation to the areas to the east and southeast. The
perimeter slopes around the project will be included within an open space
maintenance district. A pedestrian link on the southeast portion will provide
a corridor from within the subdivision to the community park site and open
space to the south.
One of the big concerns when dealing with small lot products is to have
compensating common open space areas, and this particular site is directly
adjacent to the community park which will serve the entire Rancho del Rey
development. The proposal includes an overall fencing program with a
perimeter fence around the site, view-fencing to the west and south for those
lots elevated above the surrounding areas and solid fencing to the north and
east. The landscaping program will include all common open space areas, the
front yard areas and street frontages interior to the development. On-street
parking is plentiful and the garages are set back at least 19-1/2 feet from
the inside edge of the sidewalk for driveway parking in addition to the
two-car garages. The floor plan used on corner lots has a single-story
element adjacent to the exterior sideyard so that the elevation and bulk of
the dwelling is brought down to open up the street intersection. The 77 units
provide a project density of 5.6 du/ac which is within that prescribed for the
site by the SPA Plan. Lots and dwellings meet all of the development
standards with regard to lot size coverage, setbacks and floor area ratios and
because of these factors, staff recommends approval of the project subject to
the conditions noted in the staff report and based on the findings therein.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Craig Fukiyama, 2727 Hoover, National City, representing Rancho del Rey
Partnership stated concurrence with staff recommendations and acceptance of
the conditions outlined in the staff report. He indicated that
representatives from Rick Engineering and the Landscape Architect were present
to answer any technical questions.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 5-0, that based on findings contained in Section D of
the staff report to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map (PCS-89-2) and precise plan (P-89-1) for Rancho del Rey Unit
llb, Chula Vista Tract 89-2, subject to conditions 1 through 26.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 12, 1988
Commissioner Tugenberg said that he would like to see fewer small lot
developments in Phase II of the Rancho del Rey Plan. Mr. Fukiyama replied
that there will be no small lot developments in Phase II, all will be in
excess of 7,500 square feet.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-5 - REQUEST TO CREATE SUBSTANDARD PARKING
AREA AT 579 CASSELMAN STREET - JOSE ISABAL
Commissioner Grasser said she had a potential conflict of interest and would
leave for the evening. 18:25 p.m.)
Associate Planner Griffin noted that the property is located on the north side
of Casselman Street just east of Broadway, is within an R-3 zone in an area
with a mix of single- and multiple-family dwellings. The item involves a
4-unit apartment project under construction (and essentially completed) with a
request for several deviations from the City's parking standards involving
reductions in stall width, back-up and circulation areas, and landscaping in
order to accommodate the eight parking spaces necessary to serve the project.
The reason for the request is because the plans submitted to the City
incorrectly showed the lot as 50 x 150. The plans were approved and the
structure was largely completed before it was discovered that the actual site
size was 55 x 136. Using the overhead projector, Mr. Griffin contrasted the
site plan originally submitted with one with corrected dimensions. He
commented that the 14-foot deficiency in the lot depth affected the rear
parking area and also resulted in approval of a project with one unit more
than the underlying R-3 zone would allow for that size lot. Assuming that the
variance is approved, the applicant will seek to legitimize that extra unit
through the City Council by a low-and-moderate income density bonus.
The revised plan shows several deficiencies from the City Code requirements.
The landscaping has been substantially reduced from an excess of landscaping
to five percent labout 1/2 of the Code requirements). The parking stalls are
from 3/4-foot to 1-3/4-foot more narrow than required by Code; three of the
stalls have 5 and 6 feet less back-up area than required; and one space is
totally inaccessible because it is between a wall and the support posts for a
second balcony. As a result of these deficiencies all but about one or two of
these spaces are unusable without several awkward maneuvers.
The applicant claims hardship in that the City should have discovered the
incorrect lot information submitted by his agent. Staff's position is that
any hardship created was by the applicant as the City is not responsible for
preparing the plans or authenticating the information given without access to
the legal lot size on the applicant's title papers. No hardship is related to
the property at all and granting the variance would represent a special
privilege by approval of a project with sub-standard parking and in excess of
the density allowable for similar area lots under similar zoning. Staff
recommends denial of the request based on the findings listed in the staff
report.
Planning Commission Minutes -ll- October 12, 1988
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) reviewed this item on Monday and
voted unanimously to concur with the staff recommendation of denial. If the
Planning Commission also concurs with that recommendation, the applicant would
have to submit revised plans which would convert two of the units to a single
unit. This would require interior modifications and the plan would then
conform with the underlying density, six rather than eight parking spaces
would be required, and the area available for parking would be adequate.
A discussion ensued regarding the fact that the applicant or his agent now
signs a statement stamped on the plans indicating responsibility for the
veracity of the information presented on the plans; how the error was
discovered; the cost of and lack of need for a property survey and that no
actual demolishment of any part of the building would take place.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Roger Pierce, 5120 Robinhood Road, Bonita, said he was the general building
contractor on the project and he and his crew discovered the mistake. The
architect had informed them that he had secured the dimensions from the City.
The building had been completed and the error was not discovered until the
paving phase when it was thought that only the hedges and large overgrowth at
the back of the lot would have to be removed to put in the paving. Jim
Monahan, Building Inspection, had been contacted immediately for advice. The
discrepancy was unintentional and very unfortunate. Mr. Pierce said that he
and other builders pay for the plans to be checked and look on City staff as
the experts. In this case and in future cases, people are bound to rely on
the Building Department and the Planning Department to check those plans
that is what plan check fees are for. The proposed low-income density bonus
had been discussed and the idea received favorably; however, it is contingent
upon the variance before the Commission. Mr. Pierce pointed out that as part
of the project a very extensive zoning wall to enhance the neighborhood (a
wood-crete fence) along the east property line had been installed; and the
owner (at his expense) had replaced an existing decrepit fence between this
development and the one next door (which has almost the same parking
situation). He argued that conditions similar to what is being discussed
exist under the old Code, and no special privileges that others in the same
area are not already enjoying are being requested. This source of income has
been sitting vacant. Reconstruction does create a hardship because the
project is designed for four units and to make two units into one requires
major construction, is costly and doesn't make sense. Mr. Pierce asked that
the project be considered on its own merits and that the variance be granted.
He pointed out that the parking spaces are a little smaller, the small
landscape strip being eliminated is hidden from the street, and a landscape
strip remains along the back. The neighboring projects do not utilize all of
their parking spaces. The project as designed would be a definite benefit to
the neighborhood; the new fire hydrant can be used by other units; a bus stop
is located within half a block and if the project is not approved, a
low-income family will be deprived of a home.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 12, 1988
Commissioner Carson asked about the plan-check procedure and a cost comparison
with having a land-survey done. Mr. Lee replied that the plan-check
ascertains that plans are in conformance with zoning regulations, the density
and whether the dimensions work on the property. The statement that the
architect obtained the lot dimensions from the City is confusing. The
architect might stop off to take a look at the assessor's information to get a
general feel for the property but he would pick up a plat from either the
owner or the title company to verify the dimensions before the drawing is
started.
In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's inquiry regarding the requirement
possibility of a property survey for any building costing in excess of
$20,000, Mr. Lee said that such action could be considered and a report
returned to the Commission. At this point in time, however, he would not
favor such action.
Commissioner Tugenberg declared that based on the findings, nothing could be
done except denial of the variance.
MSUC ITugenberg/Fuller) 14-0), Commissioner Grasser out, to deny ZAV-89-5.
In the discussion before the vote was taken, Commissioner Fuller said she is
in sympathy with the owner, but agrees that the findings as outlined indicate
the hardship is not the City's fault but created by the owner.
Commissioner Casillas said he wanted to find some reasonable solution to the
problem and asked if there was a proviso in connection to the density bonus
referred to that indicated low-income unit occupants usually did not have cars
and that six spaces might be sufficient; or if a condition restricting autos
as a rental condition could be emplaced by the owner. Mr. Griffin explained
that even if the unit were to be designated as a senior unit, seniors drive
also; and the owner might be able to forbid parking on site but could not
restrict someone from owning a car and parking it on the street.
Deputy City Attorney Fritsch said that if the plans had not been incorrect,
four units would not have been approved initially. Because the plans
submitted were incorrect, there is an extra unit on the lot which should not
be there because of the dimensions of the lot. Mr. Lee added that in order
for Council to grant any sort of a density bonus program, the project must
meet all other City requirements including parking, and landscaping. The
project does not meet these requirements.
5. PCM-88-21 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCESSORY USE OF CHURCHES
AS TEMPORARY SHELTERS FOR THE HOMELESS.
Associate Planner Griffin stated that the report was in response to Council's
decision to allow churches to be used as temporary shelters for the homeless
as an accessory use under certain conditions. This issue arose as a result of
a request by the Interfaith Shelter Network which enlists churches throughout
Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 12, 1988
the region to provide temporary shelter during the winter months under certain
restrictions. The proposed amendment is a duplicate of an Urgency Ordinance
now in effect. Council directed staff to prepare a permanent ordinance to be
brought back with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The
ordinance allows shelter for up to 12 homeless guests for 2 weeks during any
1-year period subject to requirements regarding supervision, neighborhood
notification and compliance with health and safety regulations. An additional
180 days of use can be authorized by the Zoning Administrator without any
discretionary action, provided there has been no objection from neighbors. If
there has been objection or there is a request for a period beyond the 2 weeks
plus 180 days, that request would be processed via conditional use permit by
the Zoning Administrator. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Commissioner Casillas inquired about the method of pre-screening the guests to
determine suitability. Mr. Griffin responded that the Episcopal Community
Services Group does the screening locally for the Interfaith Shelter Network.
It is not a fail-safe method; however, they are reasonably confident an
accurate judgment can be made based on previous contact with the individuals.
The Commissioner expressed concern that the pre-screening might exclude a
large number of people who might need help the most. Mr. Griffin replied that
consideration was being given to the fact that these people were being
introduced into a residential neighborhood and that there existed a
possibility that difficult cases might be included.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Earl Biggers, 677 "G" Street, Chula Vista, introduced himself by saying that a
copy of his letter had been included in the Commission's packet. He said the
pre-screening was done by the St. Mark's Lutheran Church in Chula Vista. He
indicated he was speaking as a concerned citizen and a member of one of the
participating churches. He spoke of the necessity of putting forward a
positive attitude in the ordinance and decried the phrase in requirement #1,
"provided no opposition has been expressed by surrounding property owners or
residents" as unnecessary legally or practically and of a negative
connotation. He commented that requirement #7 with its stipulation of
immediate revocation of the zoning permit for "report of neighborhood
disturbance" was sufficient and would avoid the implication that one
disgruntled neighbor could cause the program to cease operation.
Director Krempl said that there must be recognition of the need for protection
of the neighborhood and "due process". If the City were to have a public
notice and hearing initially and the residents had an opportunity to express
their concerns, he would agree with Mr. Biggers and the content of the
opposition would be considered not just the fact that there is opposition per
se. The Council is looking for an opportunity to streamline the process and
recognizes that it is a rotating program among various churches for a time
limit of 2 weeks. To avoid the time taken by the hearing process, Council
authorized the use for that 2-week period. However, if the period were to be
extended to approximately 6 months, an opportunity must be provided for any
opposition to be considered at a public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 12, 1988
In response to a question from Mr. Biggers as to why the residents within 300
feet were notified, Mr. Griffin replied that it was felt that the neighborhood
should be aware of an activity transpiring that is not an activity normally
connected with church use.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Fuller supported the present wording of the ordinance. She
stated that it was a positive act on the part of the Council not to require a
public hearing initially. She was of the opinion that once the program is in
effect and flowing smoothly from church to church in a two-week period, the
community will realize there is no threat to the neighborhood. She averred
that the rights of the individual homeowner to know what is transpiring in his
neighborhood must also be recognized and not neglected.
Commissioner Carson agreed saying that the way the ordinance was worded
allowed a good deal of leeway.
MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) 4-0 Grasser out, to recommend that the City Council
adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A in the staff
report.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Krempl said that Council decided not to appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission relative to disapproval of the General Plan Amendment. He
had indicated also that an EIR would be prepared and the item returned through
the Commission.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chairman Carson turned over to staff a letter she had received complaining
about the condition of the SDG&E right-of-way located at the 1200 block of
Raven Avenue, between Thrush and Palomar Street. She had visited the site
herself and there is wood, a mattress and other items dumped in this area.
The Director said he would pass the letter on to Zoning Enforcement.
In reply to the Chair's question if any Commissioner was attending the League
of California Cities Conference, the Secretary said that Commissioners Grasser
and Casillas had indicated interest.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:00 p.m. to the Study Session of October 19, 1988 at 5:00 p.m.
in Conference Rooms 2 and 3.
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 5718P