Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/05/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, May 13, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Associate Planner Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of February 12, February 26, March 11 and March 25, 1992 MSUC (Casillas/Decker) 7-0 to approve the minutes of February 12 and March 11, 1992, as submitted. MSC (Decker/Martin) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tugenberg abstained) to approve the minutes of February 26, 1992, as submitted. MSC (Decker/Carson) 6-0-1 (Chair Fuller abstained) to approve the minutes of March 25, 1992, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- May 13, 1992 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING - PCC-92-17; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT PRE- SCHOOL PROGRAM AT 345 FllVrH AVENUE - Episcopal Conununity Services, South Bay Head Start Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-10. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending approval to the City Council of PCC-92-17, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report or as modified or replaced. Commissioner Decker, referring to condition 'e', pointed out that halogen was being phased out of use as a fire suppressant because of damage to the ozone layer. Mr. Miller replied that the words "to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal" could be added to the condition in case of a phase out or Code change. Commissioner Decker asked for an explanation of the use of the portable fence. Mr. Miller explained the use and the area in which it would be used. He said it was a chainlink fence and was on wheels. Commissioner Decker commented there was a 3:1 ratio of staff and students and commended the school. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the previous concern of adjacent homeowners regarding noise and asked if an acoustical wall had been required. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that there had been initial concern, but no complaints had been received. Senior Planner Griffin stated that the second floor area was restricted from any type of classroom activity and was for office only. That seemed to satisfy any concerns of the neighbors at the time the second story was built. Commissioner Martin questioned the traffic circulation and traffic, and if the LOS A took into consideration the development of the hospital a few blocks away, and asked if the LOS would change. The data was not readily available. In reply to Commissioner Carson, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated a time limit would not be necessary; the conditional use permit would be subject to review in the event there were violations, and would be revoked if there were violations. If there were no violations, there would be no need to reconsider it. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gene Merllno, 1470 Seacoast Drive, #B, Imperial Beach 91932 (Director of Youth Services for Episcopal Community Services), representing the applicant, supported the Head Start Program. No one else wishing to speak, the public heating was closed. PC Minutes -3- May 13, 1992 (A speaker slip in opposition was received from T. A. Gorman Sr. after the public bearing was closed.) Commissioner Martin stated that he supported the program, but requested projected cumulative traffic impact when considering future projects. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 7-0 to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-10. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) 7-0 to reconunend to Council approval of PCC-92-17 subject to eondltions a through 1, as amended. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING - PCC-92-34; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 60-BED DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY CENTER AT 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE - Victory Outreach Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for an initial one-year period, subject to an extension by Council upon a finding that the facility had functioned as stated by Victory Outreach in meetings and in their literature, and as conditioned in the staff report. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission find that this project has no significant environmental impact and recommend adoption to Council of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-30, and that based on findings contained in Section E of the staff report, adopt a motion recommending approval to the City Council of PCC-92-34, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Carson asked, out of the 80% of the residents from the County, what percent would be from Chula Vista, and if a priority would be given to Chula Vista residents. Mr. Martin answered that it had not been computed. A condition could be included by the Planning Commission which would give priority to Chula Vista residents. Commissioner Carson asked if there was a nationality ratio that would be expected to be fulfilled by.the agency. Mr. Miller answered negatively and did not have any figures as to current ratio. Answering Commissioner Carson's query, Mr. Miller stated that all counselling would take place off-site, and that visiting by family or friends on-site was discouraged except in special circumstances. Staff had no objection to the Planning Commission including a condition that visitors would not be allowed on the facility. Commissioner Carson questioned whether the existing Pioneer facility was at full capacity. Staff had no information. In reply to Commissioner Carson, Associate Planner Miller said that the benefits received by the City were more social in that residents of Chula Vista who go into the program would not PC Minutes -4- May 13, 1992 only recover from their alcohol and drug abuse problems but also would be able to be reintegrated into society and be a contributing member of society. Commissioner Carson asked if this would solve the homeless problem, noting that many of the homeless had the same problem. Mr. Miller answered negatively. Commissioner Casillas emphasized the uniqueness of the program and the benefit to the City of having rehabilitated, productive people back into the community. Commissioner Tugenberg asked, of the 144 petitions which came from the City of Chula Vista, how many came from addicts and alcoholics. Mr. Miller answered there was no attempt to make a distinction between alcoholics and addicts. Commissioner Tuchscher, referring to a memo from the Sr. Crime Analyst, questioned the crime analysis done in a 0.2 mile radius. Captain Bourgeois, of the Chula Vista Police, stated that the 0.2 mile is generally the radius used for crime analysis. Anything beyond 0.2 mile is considered inappropriate for that particular area. Compared to other parts of the City, the number of crimes in that area was insignificant. Commissioner Decker, referring to page 5 of the Negative Declaration, asked for further comment on the noise potential of the project. Associate Planner Reid referred to Condition 3 which stated that any substantiated conflicts with or complaints from the surrounding neighborhood would be cause for review and possible revocation of the permit. In answer to Commissioner Decker, Senior Planner Griffin said there was no mechanism to process the complaints, and nothing planned to notify the residents of this particular condition. Staff could recommend that, however, to Council if the Commission desired. Commissioner Decker commented that this project should be exempt from school fees since no children were involved. Ms. Reid stated the City as a rule takes the recommendation of the school districts. She could check the community care laws to determine if it would be exempt. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf confirmed that the school fees were imposed by the school and they determined if the project was exempt. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tony Guzman, 590 Fir Street, San Diego 92101, representing Victory Outreach Church, asked the Commissioners to go along with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Tugenberg said he understood there was a great need for this ldnd of service in San Diego, and if there had been attempts to locate in other parts of the County. PC Minutes -5- May 13, 1992 Mr. Guzman replied that they bad looked at other areas, but there was a problem locating an area large enough, wrong zoning, or the cost was prohibitive. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was a possibility of giving priority to Chula Vista residents. Mr. Guzman said there was no problem; be could guarantee a bed within 24 hours, although it may be in a place other than Chula Vista. In reply to Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Guzman said that could be added as a condition. J. R. Chantengco, 376 Canyon Ridge Drive, Bonita, representing Chantengco Realty, Inc., noted the benefits the project would have on the community and the landlord. Victory Outreach was trying to consolidate several programs and locate them in Chula Vista. Mr. Chantengco felt it gave Victory Outreach a better ability to provide for local residents. Diane Messier, 12732 Castle Ct., Lakeside 92040, spoke to Victory Outreach's ability to provide professional security. Involved in law enforcement in San Diego County, she had opportunities to check the safety of youth involved in the gang ministry. Victory Outreach met and exceeded the standards for security. She said the project would offer a choice to those who would otherwise feel there was no way out. Tomas Rodriguez, 2129 31st St., San Diego 92104, addressed the concerns of residents regarding types of people served by the ministry. The potential residents of the ministry are interviewed by appointment and are not drop-ins. Out-patient counselling is done at the Church rather than at the Victory Outreach site. Mr. Rodriguez explained the process of entering the program and said they took extreme caution as to the people who would take part in the program. Commissioner Carson asked how long it took for a person to be serviced in the facility after putting in an application. Mr. Rodriguez said it depended on the individual and circumstances. After discussing the program with the individual and what was expected of them, it would be a matter of days after the individual had taken care of personal matters. Lucille Dion, 4640 Zion Avenue, Apt. D1, San Diego 92120, was court-committed 2-1/2 years before to the home. She and her husband had been on drugs and are now rehabilitated and working in the community and the Church. Carlos Alaniz, 188 Caile Primera, San Ysidro 92173, stated the program had recognition from President Bush and Nancy Reagan, and by the state and local governments. The program could be a positive effect on the community. Ernesto Valdibieso, 548 Palomar St., CV 91911, was a product of Victory Outreach. He said they taught discipline and obedience. He had been on hard drugs with no direction as to where PC Minutes -6- May 13, 1992 to go, with no communication with his family. The program brings in ail types of people, not only low class, and tries to rehabilitate their recovery mentally, physicaily, and spiritually. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV 91910, said he supported the application because Pastor Guzman had considered all of the concerns the neighbors would have and answered them ail without being prodded. He supported the application with ail the conditions attached. He asked that in Attachment A (Rules-Men's Home), #14, the word "County" be inserted. Tony Castro, 158 Zenith Street, CV 91911, had read about the successes of Victory Outreach in dealing with drug rehabilitation, and had spoken with the Chief of Police in Escondido who had highly endorsed the Victory Outreach program. Jeff Cotta, 943 10th Street, San Diego 92101, representing the owners of the property, supported the project, and felt they would work well with the Nosotros project which was aiready on the property. Catherine Goy, 43 Davidson St., CV 91910, lived within waiking distance of the project and felt Chula Vista could set an example by being a leader in programs such as this. Thomas Sandoval, 2345 G Avenue, Nationai City, urged support of the project. Steve Perez, 1470 Second Street, CV 91911, said he was a product of the home and was now a minister. He urged support of the project. Joe Blaekwell, 750 Kedze Avenue, Paim City, CA, spoke of the hours of preparation, investigation, research, and interviews to show the credibility of Victory Outreach. He felt the concerns of the residents were genuine, because of fear of the unknown. He felt the citizens would see an immediate improvement in the community if the conditionai use permit was approved. Elizabeth Beatty, 804 Norstad St., South San Diego, 92154, stated that not only low life people would be in the facility. A member of her family had gotten involved with drugs; had gone to Victory Outreach and had been changed 100%. She said it has to hit home before anyone wants to get involved. She supported the Victory Outreach program. Eileen Montalongo, 233 Chula Vista St., CV 91910, said there was not a safe place anymore, and we have to help. She supported Victory Outreach and their type of program. She said it was well supervised, and she had seen their progress. S_oe~kin~, A~,ainst the Project: Harriet Acton, 265 Nixon Place, CV 91910, said she is one of the closest neighbors and could hear everything that goes on at the "reformatory" day and night. She and her neighbors would rather see a residential care facility or convaiescent home at that address. They felt what had PC Minutes -7- May 13, 1992 been proposed beat what they had, but felt they could do better. Mrs. Acton noted the other facilities in the immediate neighborhood, and spoke of the street people coming from the flood control channel and the industrial site in the early morning. They had concerns about their children, home, and property values. She was concerned that the rules of Victory Outreach may not be enforced. She requested that if the City allowed the project, that there be spot checks, that it be a one-year conditional use permit. She requested that it be monitored closely, judiciously, and unannounced. Ted Bell, 111 N. Second Ave., CV 91910, of KOA, concurred with Mrs. Acton and commended staff on requesting additional conditions and asked that some of the conditions suggested by the Commission be included. Mr. Bell said KOA had gone to 24-hour security because crime had increased. He stated that Victory Outreach appeared to be an organization that may be able to do the job and suggested that a report come back from Planning on a regular basis of what the conditions were rather than on the basis of complaints. Joseph Ghougassian, 74 Las Flores Drive, CV 91910, speaking on behalf of the residents on the new street of Las Flores Drive, presented a petition to the Commission. He said about 80% of the residents there were opposed to the project because of safety, welfare, wellbeing, security, peace and enjoyment, and the economic preservation of the value of the homes in the neighborhood. He felt the project was worthwhile, but did not feel it should be in the "back yard" of the people on Las Flores Drive. He suggested that Victory Outreach should write a letter to the Secretary of Housing requesting seed money to build somewhere else. He said the Resource Conservation Commission had not reviewed the Negative Declaration, but would review it during the next week or the week thereafter. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if Mr. Ghougassian was satisfied with the current value of his property. Mr. Ghougassian answered affirmatively. Miriam Robbins, 20 Second Avenue, CV 91910, was concerned about the safety of her children and children who attend a nearby school. She said it was not the responsibility of the northern part of Chula Vista to take all the people in trouble. She was concerned about the security of the residents of Victory Outreach. Ms. Robbins noted that Victory Outreach's success rate was 49 %; she asked what happened to the other 51%. She said her house had increased 10 % in nine years. She felt that was a bad investment in San Diego County. She wholeheartedly opposed the project at that location. Charles Bradley, 29 Second Avenue, CV 91910, was concerned about those who don't succeed in the program, the nights 66 men would be in the neighborhood, the ratio of 1 to 4 supervisors to the 66 men who had been involved in illegalities. He was concerned about the recidivist in the community. He pledged to be a good neighbor, but asked the Commission's support in protecting the interest of their safety and in imposing any and all restrictions that would cause Victory or other resident to abide by the law and protect the residents of the area. PC Minutes -8- May 13, 1992 Leonard Aguillard, 138 Minot Avenue, CV 91910, felt this was not the best use for the facility. He said it was a good program but not to be located on Vista Hill, and requested a negative vote. He noted the other projects within four blocks of Vista Hill, and said the residents had been before the Commission and Council regarding many other projects proposed for the area. The property owners would not sign Mr. Aguillard's petition, because they felt the Commissioners would not listen. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that the mobilehome park had been brought up by Council again, and he asked if the residents of Minot felt it was inevitable. Mr. Aguillard replied that he felt it was. A Veterans Home had been mentioned and he supported that, but it was not done. The residents would like to have a greenbelt. Jorge Sanehez, 75 D Street, CV 91910, expressed his desire that the use of the land be long- term and be considered in the context of the current community, which was unique and attracted special people. Letleia Bradley, 29 Second Avenue, CV 91910, said they had bought a home in Chula Vista because they wanted to live in a better area. Now they felt they would have to move to another place. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Decker felt Victory Outreach had a good program and were sincere in wanting to do good work. He believed this was one of the ways to solve some of the problems of the community, and supported the project. Commissioner Tuchscher stated he was proud of the community, and he had a tremendous amount of respect for a lot of the people. He spoke of real estate values, stating that the building, zoning, and history of use was there. He said that perception was a key factor in property values, and the unknown of having an empty facility probably hurts property value more than the known of the well-ten facility. He emphasized that the Zoning Administrator was available, and he himself would be very sensitive to future complaints when this comes before the Commission in the future. He supported the use. Commissioner Casillas commented that Chula Vista as a community had come a long way in the last few years. The involvement of citizens on the boards and commissions of the City was paying off in quality participation. He said all were obligated to be cognizant of the health and welfare of the community, and complimented those who went to the meeting and spoke. He supported the program. Commissioner Tugenberg felt the benefits to the general community of Chula Vista were probably exceptional, but felt it would have an impact. He had voted for the Pioneer rehabilitation and Nosotros, but was concerned about the impact this project would have on Second Avenue and that community because the other projects were there. He felt the PC Minutes -9- May 13, 1992 community property values would go down no matter how well Victory was operated. He did not support the program at that location. Chair Fuller noted that a number of the persons who spoke in opposition to this program being in that location were persons who, from the dates they said they moved there, bought homes in a neighborhood they thought was a fine area of Chula Vista that already contained facilities that had been there a number of years. People knew there was a mental health facility and bought into the neighborhood knowing there was a large facility there zoned for this type of facility. She felt that history should be taken into consideration. Commissioner Martin was in favor of the program and an advocate of Victory Outreach. He suggested that Victory Outreach might put together some form of local citizens monitoring group, and invite them to come in at any time, to reach out to the community to meet their concerns. He said there was crime, and he felt it was better to have someone under a systematic controlled environment who was trying to do better within themselves. Commissioner Carson believed Victory Outreach would be an outstanding program, but was concerned about the location being near other types of programs. She was very disturbed to hear about all the transits, although she assumed they were there. She hoped the Police Department would try to do something about it. She would like to see Victory Outreach settle in an area such as EastLake. She would not vote for the program as submitted. If it was conditioned to be one year only, that there be spot checks, that a high percentage be for Chula Vista residents, she might vote for it. Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg discussed what the percentage might be. MSC (Casillas/Decker) 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voting against) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-30. MS (Casillas/Martin) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, recommend conditional approval to the City Council of PCC-92-34, subject to conditions 1 through 15. Commissioner Decker asked that a condition be added allowing priority to Chula Vista residents. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. AMENDED MOTION: Based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, recommend conditional approval to the City Council of PCC-92-34, subject to conditions 1 through 15, and adding condition 16 as follows: PC Minutes -10- May 13, 1992 "16. Where possible, applicants who are residents of the City of Chula Vista shall be given priority into the program." Commissioner Tuchscher requested that no. 14 of Attachment A (Rules) which was incorporated by condition no. 2, be revised to add the Word "County." There was general discussion as to the meaning of the rule, whether they would not be returned to a facility in Chula Vista for that time period, rather than San Diego City or San Diego County. Pastor Guzman agreed that it could be changed to "Chula Vista." There was another Victory Outreach in Escondido over which they had no authority. RESTATED MOTION: Based on the f'mdings contained in Section E of the staff report, recommend conditional approval to the City Council of PCC-92-34, subject to conditions 1 through 15, and adding condition 16 as follows: "16. Where possible, applicants who are residents of the City of Chula Vista shall be given priority into the program." and revising no. 14 of Attachment A (Rules) incorporated by condition no. 2, adding the words "Chula Vista." VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voted against) Chair Fuller declared a 5-minute break at 10:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:07 p.m. ITEM 3: REPORT - RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT Assistant Planning Director ~ summarized the Economic Development Commission Report, pinpointing the areas which specifically related to the Planning Commission, and asked the Commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that the Montgomery Planning Committee should not be discontinued; he felt citizen input was very important. He stated he had benefitted by the input by the Montgomery Planning Committee on items which had come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the Otay Planning Group dovetailed with the Montgomery Planning Committee. Mr. Lee replied that the Otay Area was part of Montgomery; the Southwest Redevelopment Area encompassed the Montgomery Area, but also extended into part PC Minutes -11- May 13, 1992 of Chula Vista. The boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Area were not coterminous with Montgomery. Otay was part of the Montgomery responsibility. Commissioner Casillas concurred that it was very beneficial to retain the Montgomery Planning Committee. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the report didn't really get into the issues of streamlining the permit process, the process of going through the various departments. Chair Fuller noted that there was no interaction of the Economic Development Commission with the various boards and commissions prior to making the recommendation. Commissioner Tuchscher, who was a member of the Economic Development Commission, discussed the methodology of preparing the report and concurred with Chair Fuller that the Commission subcommittee had not discussed it with any of the boards and commissions addressed in the report. He continued to explain some of the reasons for their recommendations. In reply to Commissioner Decker, Assistant Director Lee gave some examples as to the types of items which would be considered administrative actions. Commissioner Martin commented on the ombudsman, and asked if that person would be part of the Planning Department and where he/she would fit into the structure. Mr. Lee noted that the ombudsman had in the past been in Administration. Commissioner Tuchscher explained the concept of the ombudsman. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee reviewed the revised Planning Commission schedule. He asked that the Commissioners contact the Secretary regarding their vacation schedule, so some of the critical items could be scheduled. He asked that the Commission consider cancellation of the May 20 and May 27 meetings, and schedule a special meeting for June 3 for the Kaiser EIR. He reminded them of the upcoming Otay Ranch tours. The Commissioners agreed to the cancellation of the May 20 and 27 meetings. Mr. Lee stated that one of the critical meetings scheduled would be June 24 regarding the Kaiser project. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas noted that political signs were up and he wondered if all of them were legal in size. Assistant Planning Director Lee said he would refer that to the Zoning Enforcement Division. Commissioner Tugenberg stated he would not be at the June 3 and June 29 meeting. Commissioner Carson said there was a potential that she would not be at the June 29 meeting. PC Minutes -12- May 13, 1992 Commissioner Martin said he appreciated the staff members numbering the pages in the packet. The Commissioners concurred that it was very helpful. ADJOURNMENT at 10:37 p.m. to the Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Tour on May 15, 1992 at 1:30 p.m.; May 16, 1992 at 8:00 a.m.; and May 22, 1992 at 1:30 p.m. at the Otay Ranch House. Nancy Ripl/ey, Secretary Planning Commission (pc5-13.min)