Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/06/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 23, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Ray (7:12 p.m.), Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Associate Planner Reid, Environmental Coordinator Miller, Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chula Vista Planning Commission: Meetings of May 12 and May 26, 1993 MSC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived) to accept the minutes of 5/12/93, as submitted. MSC (Carson/Martin) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived; Commissioner Tuchscher abstained) to accept the minutes of 5/26/93, as submitted. Joint City of Chula Vista/County of San Diego Planning Commission Public Hearing/Workshop: Meetings of January 29, February 13, February 19, March 17, March 24, and March 31, 1993 PC Minutes -2- June 23, 1993 MSC (Martin/Moo0 6-0 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived) to accept the minutes of January 29, February 13, March 24, and Mamh 31 (Martin and Carson were absent from this meeting, but had mad the minutes); 5-0-1 to accept the minutes of 2/19/93 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived; Commissioner Tuchscher abstained). The minutes of March 17 were pulled for correction to page 18, which stated the motion "Carson/Moot 5-2, Commissioners Edwards and Beck dissenting"; Edwards and Beck were County Commissioners. It was thought Tuchscher and Ray voted against; however, that needed to be checked. Also, "see" instead of "seek an asterisk." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-39; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH SHORT-TERM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES UP TO 44 PEOPLE AT 31 FOURTH AVENUE - South Bay Community Services Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report. Staff recommended Commission approval of the proposal in accordance with the draft City Council resolution with the exception of finding no. 4, which should read as follows: "The conditional approval of PCC-93-39 complies with the regulations and conditions of the Municipal Code, and that the project is conditioned to comply with the requirements of all applicable City departments, will not generate excessive traffic, and provides adequate off-street parking in accordance with Planning Commission determination pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 19.54.050. The Planning Commission further finds that this is a quasi-public use and not enumerated in Section 19.62 and, therefore, based on staff analysis, 18 parking spaces is an appropriate amount of parking for this facility. Mr. Miller noted, also, that condition no. 4 had been refined to read "Transport all school-age children to their current school of attendance. In the event the child must attend a school within the Chula Vista Elementary School District, said child shall attend the school determined by the District based on space availability." These changes were made at the request of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Mr. Miller restated staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission find that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-36; and adopt Resolution PCC-93-39 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-39, based on the revised findings and subject to the revised conditions contained in the Draft City Council resolution. Commissioner Carson asked about the overall increase in the number of residents in the complex. She noted that the Resource Conservation Commission minutes reflected a concern regarding the existing population being at 34 and increasing to 44. Commissioner Carson asked PC Minutes -3- June 23, 1993 staff's rationale for increasing to 44. Mr. Miller said the existing population in this facility was 34, which may include single people or couples with no children. The project emphasis was on family units and, therefore, there would be an anticipated minimal increase in the number of children. That was the purpose of Condition #4. Commissioner Carson asked if the money allocated in the budget was for this specific location; it had been implied by some of the letters received that the City Council had already made up its mind regarding this project. Mr. Miller said he had been informed that the funds were contingent upon the conditional use permit being approved. Housing Coordinator Arroyo of the Community Development Department stated that the funding which had been identified as a source of funding from the Federal Government could be used for these types of projects contingent upon approval by the Planning Commission of the conditional use permit and approval by the City Council. The funding for this particular project could be from a combination of sources. Commissioner Carson questioned the timeframe the families would have for daily counselling to take place before school or work and if there would be a previous counselling time. She also felt the timeframe was too short for training; could a person who had previously had financial problems change their habits in how to deal with money and be able to go to an apartment. Mr. Miller deferred to South Bay Community Services for reply during the public hearing. Commissioner Martin asked how they could be assured that these would be families instead of single people. Mr. Miller said South Bay Community Services would screen each family unit; the definition of "family" was a legal term and staff had not approached that term because of the controversy surrounding it. Commissioner Martin questioned whether there was any monitoring by the City. Mr. Miller said the conditional use permit application would have to be amended if housing for singles was to be set up. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kathryn Lembo, Executive Director, South Bay Community Services, 315 Fourth Avenue, CV, asked those present in support of the project to stand. One-half to three-fourths of the audience stood. Ms. Lembo proceeded to give the firm's qualifications and experience. Regarding the definition of families, they were defined as people with children under 18 years of age; they may be single-parent families either male or female; some may be dual-parent families. Regarding the amount of time, Casa Nuestra had a 90% success rate either returning the young people to their original home or successfully having them go out on their own. The 60-day PC Minutes -4- June 23, 1993 timeframe was based on research of other types of facilities nationwide. If a family may need an additional week or two, that would be supplied. The screening would include drug and alcohol testing if they had any doubt about their use. If the applicants did not want to take it, they would not be able to move in. The goals and objectives are reached in discussion with the family's case manager during sessions; then each day the family as a unit would discuss them at breakfast for that day. Regarding complaints against Casa Nuestra, Ms. Lembo said there was one neighbor who was still opposed. There were eight other neighbors who had signed the petition in support of this project and had come before the Council at the one-year review of Casa Nuestra in support. Dan Marcus, 315 Fourth Ave., CV, representing South Bay Community Services, said there were over 1,000 homeless individuals nightly in the South Bay, the majority of which were families. There were only eight beds for the homeless in South Bay. He supported the project. Anita Landrum said she lived in the area of 31 Fourth Avenue, but preferred not to give her address. She was under the impression that the petition she had signed was for drunken bums, junkies, etc. who would be living close to her and she did not want them near her child or near her home or downtown. She had found it was for a good use, and she supported the project. Anne Wilson, 450 B Street, Suite 1010, San Diego, Program Director for San Diego LISC Program, spoke in support of the project as a lender. She said LISC was a local San Diego County soume of working capital and investment capital for non-profit organizations trying to find solutions to the problems with housing that confront lower income families in the County's communities. Private corporate donations from corporations and banks and low interest loans were used to provide funds. LISC had provided South Bay Community Services with $10,000 in working capital on their other Fourth Street development, which was a longer term transitional housing program, and also had voted a commitment of $200,000--a five-year loan to help the City of Chula Vista make contributions over five years to this development. In underwriting South Bay Community Services, they had found them very strong. Mary Nicolas, 17 Fourth Ave., #A, CV, said she worked at the Civil Department of South Bay Court, supported the project. Violeta Ochoa, 207 Sandstone St., CV, urged support of the project. She at one time had been a homeless mother with four children, but there had been a program they could go to. Directing her comments to Commissioner Carson, Ms. Ochoa said she had been in the program four weeks, was now a counselor at South Bay Community Services, two of her children were in college, and the other two were on their way to college. The goals could be reached with help. PC Minutes -5- June 23, 1993 Brad Wilson, 626 Arthur Ave., CV, a Board Member of South Bay Community Services, supported the project. Pam Smith, 380 Third Ave., CV, District Manager of the Social Security Administrator and Chair of the Chula Vista Human Services Council, spoke in support of the housing project, both professionally and personally. Cheryl Cox, 647 Windsor Circle, CV, of the Chula Vista Elementary School District said the School District had written a grant through McKinney to assist children with academic delays, as well as social and emotional needs. They did not know if it had been funded. She urged support of the project and pledged the cooperation of the Chula Vista Elementary School District in providing academic, emotional, and social services for those children. Carmen Martinez, 1225 Broadway, CV, said South Bay Community Services had been there for her and helped her to go to school and to get a job. She supported the project. Len Walton, 3123 Casa Bonita Drive, Bonita, served on the Advisory Committee for South Bay Community Services, and had volunteered at Casa Nuestra. He expressed the need for the homeless project and urged approval. Bernita Sipan, 335 Kimball Terrace, CV, opposed - primarily R-1 residential, many seniors residing in area, setting a precedent, crime increase, illegals; who would give proper training? are jobs available? counseling?; waste of taxpayer money, don't need facilities, could use vacant apartments, charitable organizations to help. Hart Klein/Barbara Klein, 11070 Caminito Vista Pacifica, SD 92131 - opposed - family trust adjacent to the subject site deferred to Paul Robinson. Paul Robinson, 600 W. Broadway, SD, representing Hart and Barbara Klein - opposed - project fast tracked; presented a letter suggesting flaws in the environmental process regarding traffic, schools, drainage, and alternative sites. Frank Sipan, 335 Kimball Terrace, CV - opposed - property value, equal protection, look at other 31 sites and find site with less impact on residential character of the neighborhood, use the money for a better site where there could be more apartments for the same amount of money. Allen L. King, 601 Myra Avenue, CV, Vice Chair of the C.V. Housing Commission, stated that the Chair of the Commission had asked him to represent the Commission in opposition of the project. Two years previously the Commission had recommended that the Council not go forward with a project near the same area because it was too much money; on February 24, this project was before their Commission and they felt the price for the property was exorbitant to help so few people. They were unanimously in favor of helping, but not with this project, not at this price, and not at this site. The Council had totally disregarded the Commission's recommendation. PC Minutes -6- June 23, 1993 Associate Planner Miller pointed out that the issue being considered dealt with land use compatibility. The question of financial appropriateness or inappropriateness for the project had been considered by the Redevelopment Agency at previous meetings. Ruth Piazzoni, 135 Fourth Ave., #5, C¥, representing Cbula Vista Townhouse Association, opposed - too expensive for a few; not the kind of people needed in such a dense population of seniors; need a home but not in their area; downgrading senior neighborhood. Robert Frazer, 321 "D" St., C¥ - opposed - represents second social service facility within one block of his home, fourth facility within two blocks; adjustment for neighborhood; trespassing, noise, 'and other problems related to other facility located next door to him; placement of facilities should be spread throughout City in fair manner. Regina Hickey, 21 Fourth Ave., C¥ - opposed - violation of conditional use permit at 1515 Hilltop Drive; suggested alternate plan of setting up citizens committee to provide for the 43 people; economically unfeasible; suggested integration of homeless families into existing apartments using the neighbors as role model; offered 13 of her apartments at 21 Fourth Avenue to house the people covered by this proposal at a rental rate of $450/mo. for as long as the apartments were needed. Barbara Orsa, co-owner of 21 Fourth Ave., CV - opposed - economically unfeasible; in conflict with President's budget cuts. Karla Orsa, co-owner of 21 Fourth Ave., CV - opposed - budget deficit, unemployed workers, housing families in available rentals, freedom and opportunity for future generations. Erica Orsa, co-owner of 21 Fourth Ave., CV - opposed - urged change in zoning laws, equal treatment of property, use of available rentals. Terry W. Keith, 67 Fourth Ave. #H, CV - opposed - hidden agenda by SBCS in obtaining property to qualify for more grant money to help support administrative costs of their agency; not enough funds for security of the area and Eucalyptus Park; suggested as a condition that the patrol area for the C.V. Police Dept. be extended down to "C" Street; undocumented aliens to reside in properties in order to have legal address to collect various government subsidies in order to exist; promotion of driving without insurance? questioned training in eight weeks in order to make enough money to afford a $400 or $450 apartment; questioned compliance with ADA rules by cutting down shrubbery and adding lighting. Rick Alcorta, 47 Fourth Ave., gL, CV - opposed - said he had circulated the petition and had not misinterpret the intentions of SBCS; is Manager of Park Vista Apartment located at 45, 47, 49 Fourth Avenue next door to the proposed site of the homeless shelter; on behalf of the residents of Park Vista Apartments requested that the CUP be denied because of the expense and unfeasible location; vacancies would occur in his apartments if this shelter were approved; unfair PC Minutes -7- June 23, 1993 to relocate tenants at 31 Fourth Avenue; rotation of families would create traffic and confusion as to who should actually be at the proposed site; increased number of children; traffic accidents. Marcella Gomez, 135 Guava Ave., CV, representing several seniors who could not be present - opposed - area not well situated for homeless family center; area in jeopardy of becoming a homeless community without the center; noted areas homeless were already using; other alternatives could be pursued; use the funds to spread throughout community; use another center to conduct meetings; National City willing to contribute--why can't National City pursue their own center; ample for families to attend in San Diego; why can't Chula Vista transfer money to facilities which already exist; not enough resources for police to patrol the center; no background checks. Judith Pogue, 115 Landis Ave., CV - opposed - predominantly single-family homes; setting precedent; much opposition from the neighbors; SBCS had not approached the neighbors regarding their feelings about the project; provides no benefit to neighborhood. Barbara Phillips, Chula Vista Mobilehome Court, 8 Via Nomentana, CV, a senior citizens mobilehome park - opposed - not a proper place to put homeless shelter; price too high for not enough people. Joan B. Perry, 521 Orange Ave., CV, owner of a mobilehome in the Chula Vista Mobilehome Court - opposed - inappropriate neighborhood; thoughtless to put in high density senior area; dangerous for seniors to walk; need peace and quiet. Emerald Randolph, 2856 Echo Valley Rd., Jamul, said she was Director of the Temporary Restraining Order Clinic in San Diego. She had worked with the School District as Director of Student Welfare and Attendance and had suggested help for the homeless families to Kathy Limbo. The School District checks for residency verification. She said there was a wrong connotation of "homeless." Spoke in support. Martino Mazon, 31 Fourth Ave., CV - opposed - did not know she would have to move until she saw it in the paper; next morning found homeless in front yard and graffiti on walls; tenants were like a family; bad location; pick a place where people are not forced out of their homes; would rather pay taxes to build a new facility. Margaret Varante (did not give address, but said she lived in a mobilehome park in San Diego) - supported - was disappointed that person with 13 vacancies wanted to fill them; someone else owning four lots that had been turned down on a building permit was at the hearing to take it out on people that did not deserve it; the two issues should be addressed the way staff recommended it. Randy Pogue, 115 Landis Ave., CV - opposed - asked those who had stood in favor before to stand again if they owned property in the area being proposed. A few stood, but it was noted that some with children had already left the meeting. PC Minutes -8- June 23, 1993 Steven Norton, 129 Guava Ave., CV - opposed - felt it would be better for the homeless to live in an area among others who were not homeless. To be with others in the same condition reinforced the condition. Dan Dennison, 659 Jefferson Ave., CV - supported - voted for it in the Mayor's task force; said it needed to be done; talk was cheap; it took money to take care of it; the benefits would outweigh the problems; families would be together. Michael Ochoa, 207 Sandstone, CV - supported - asked how Chula Vista could be made worse when they would be taking people off the street; how could a price be put on help for the community; it would not make Chula Vista a better place by keeping homeless on the street; he said he was the son of Mrs. Ochoa who had spoken earlier and had been homeless; when their family could not take care of them, a shelter provided for them. The following submitted speaker slips in support, but did not speak: Shirley & Bill Bettencourt, Bonita 91902; Sue & Steve Wavra, 5866 Whirlybird Way, Bonita 91902-representing C.V. Presbyterian Church; Judith Johnson, 3656 Louisiana St., SD 92104; Raul Martinez, 3656 Louisiana St. SD 92104; Elizabeth Iniguez, 489 D St. #I, CV 91910; Rev. Dr. Alan Wyneken, 355 Canyon Ridge Dr., Bonita 91902-representing Pilgrim Lutheran Church, CV; Ranie Hunter, 1910 Rue Michelle, CV 91913; Claudio Balestra, 314 Park Way, CV 91910-representing Episcopal Community Services; Sharon Cewazos, 566 Park Way, CV 91910; Charles L. Pugsley, 3702 Wild Oats Ln, Bonita 91902; Tammy Franklin, 174 Tremont, CV 91911; Lydia Mojean, 329 Topaz Ct., CV 901911; Stymie Ohlson, 2414 Palermo Dr., SD 92106; Maria Martinez, 1225 Broadway, Apt 412, CV 91911; Estela Lemos, 76 Oaklawn, CV 91910; Steven Wood, 6783 Alvarado Rd, #1, SD 92120; Eddie Perez, 3228 Glen Abbey Blvd., CV 91910; Edward Penoz, 76 Oaklawn Ave., CV 91910; Rick Newmyer, 6733 Paris Way, CV; Patty Gorman, 578 Vance St., CV 91910; Bill Molina, 1088 Sage View, CV; Nancy Gorman 580 Vance St., CV 91910; Janet Parnell, 246-A Rancho Drive; CV; Denise Hilbert, 246-A Rancho Dr., CV; Carlos Amaya (no address); Tamera Myers (no address); Zerjesus Ries, 1515 Hilltop Dr., CV 91911; Jonathan Barber, 778 Elder Ave., CV 91911; Leslie J. Gonzalez, 1019 River Ash Dr., CV 91910; Chris Carter, 4871 Voltaire St., SD 92127; Jose and Martha Torres, 3618 Del Sol, SD 92154; Eddie Lemos, 76 Oaklawn, CV 91910; John Shepard, 846 La Senda, CV 91910; Denielle Acuna, 415 Colorado, CV 91910; Luis Bello, 85 Oaklawn, #D, CV 91910; Alex Lemos, 76 Oaklawn, CV 91910; Marlo Herrera, 436 Colorado St., Apt. C; CV 91910; George Trevino, 512 Casselman, CV 91910; Jo Castaneda, 321 C St., CV 91910; Ray-Etta Morrell, 116 Palomar St., CV 91911; Paul Perez, 307 Orange Ave., CV 91911; Hector Morales, 4335 Hilltop Dr., Apt. I, CV 91911; Jose Luis Mendoza, 3120 Imperial Ave., SD; Anthony A. Ramirez, 2035 Oceanview Blvd., SD; Keith Diffenderffer, 321 C St., CV 91910; Laurie Schmidt, 1148 Third Ave., Sp. 115, CV 91911; Martha Limon, 485 Emerson St., CV 91911; Teresa Limon, 485 Emerson St., CV 91911; Joe Espinoza, 443 Woodlawn, #D, CV 91910; Jose Trevino, 512 Casselman St., CV 91910; Guillermo Trevino, 509 Casselman St., CV 91910; Robert Lally, 299 17th St., SD; Brad Wilson, 626 Arthur Ave., CV 91910; Maple Henyan, 1260 Second Ave., CV 91911; Lin Walton, 3123 Casa Bonita, Bonita 91912; Mary PC Minutes -9- June 23, 1993 Granelle; 90 Connoley Cr., CV 91910; Dan Dennison, 659 Jefferson Ave., CV 91910; Rhoda Taylor, 470 Moss St., CV 91911; Robert M. Miller, 501 "H" St., CV 91910; Jacqueline J. Jones, 501 "H" St., CV 91910; Cheryl Siega, 315 Fourth Ave., Suite E, CV 91910; Alice Shepard; 846 La Senda, CV 91910; James Whitfield, 6630 Hedges Way, SD 92139; Robert Etherington, 876 Hazy Glen Ct., CV 91910; Pauline H. Channell, 1458 Max Ave., CV 91911; M. K. Dennison, 659 Jefferson St., CV 91910; Annie H. Matheny, 1261 Second Ave., CV 91911; Tamra Heaps, 152 Sierra Way, CV 91911; Norman Knight, 1773 Broadway, CV 91911; Earl Biggers, 6776 g26, CV 91910; Gene Merlino, 1470 Seacoast Dr., #B, IB 91932; Michael W. Grady, 251-A Rancho Dr., CV 91911; Mary Case, 5972 Arboles St., SD 92120; Oshyrsol Salazar, 1459 Sequena St., (no city named); David L. Sheldon, 13712 Jamul Dr., Jamul; Lorenzo Higley, 450 B St., SD 92110; Elodia C. Gonzales; 2970 Coronado Ave., Sp. 38, SD 92154; Roxanne Morgan (homeless); John Iciak, 1193 Third Ave., CV 91911; Douglas and Stephanie Lewis, 6059 Rancho Mission Rd., #202, SD 92108; Tom Saxton, 1195 Third St., CV 91911; Sherry Pehis, 575 James St., #A, CV 91910; Carmen Martinez, 1225 Broadway, #412, CV 91911; Bethany Porter, 450 B St., SD 92101; Amy Perkins, 4040-84 Porte la Paz, SD 92122; Nanci Weiss, 2615 Congress St., SD 92110 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller declared a break at 9:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. Chair Fuller emphasized that the items for consideration were the recommendations of staff, not previous action by Council or any of the f'mancial ramifications of the program. It was simply whether or not the Commission agreed that the project had no environmental impacts, and adopt the Negative Declaration, and also to find whether the Commission agreed or disagreed with the issuance of a conditional use permit for the property. Commissioner Martin asked if there was a conflict of information from the schools. Associate Planner Miller replied that at one point the School District had been informed that there were 44 children residing at this particular facility. That had since been explained that there would be 44 people, one of which would be a resident manager, with the remainder being tenant family groups. The maximum number of children would be 30. As a result of consultations, it was decided to include the condition regarding transporting the children to their current school of residence, and that if a child needed to be assigned to a school, the School District would assign that child based on availability of a school, and that child would also be transported by South Bay Community Services to the assigned school. Chair Fuller also asked staff to respond to questions by the Attorney, Mr. Paul Robinson, regarding drainage and the need to widen Fourth Avenue at that location. Mr. Miller said that the requirement from the Engineering Department on the dedication of rightZof-way was included when the project was proposed at 50 residents; the project was redefined for 43 tenants, the circumstances changed, and it was determined that there was not PC Minutes -10- June 23, 1993 a nexus between the requirement and the project as proposed. On June 11, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich wrote a note to Planning staff that the reduction in work would not allow for the requirement to install public improvements under the Code. Also, because the City was involved with the project from a financial standpoint, this would be negotiated with the applicant as a part of an agreement with them for the funds. For the purpose of the conditional use permit, it could not be required. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the original project was proposed to have 50 people, but also called for substantial construction with extensive construction costs which would trigger a Municipal Code requirement for the dedication. The project was reconfigured to eliminate that, so there was no legal basis for the extraction. It was never an environmental issue; it was only a Code requirement issue. It was his opinion that it was adequately addressed in the Negative Declaration. Regarding environmental issues, Associate Planner Reid said the School Districts were satisfied that there were no environmental impact as a result of the project. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the particular proposal and did not recommend that a traffic study would be needed; regarding access and traffic figures, it met the City's threshold standards and there were no problems indicated which would need to be addressed. Regarding the date of May 17, 1993, on the cover of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this was the date the draft Mitigated Declaration was written, although it was not posted at the County until May 24. There was adequate time for the receipt of comments by the public, as well as the other departments. Changes in the project description had been made in response to comments to the proposed Negative Declaration. Those changes had been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Reid said the original Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted as a Mitigated Negative Declaration because there was a potential substantial effect on drainage. Upon follow-up to determine what was the potential, Engineering determined it was not substantial and set forth in the addendum the particulars of that and the way it could be dealt with. The drainage was a pre-existing problem; it was not as a result of this project and was not seen as a potentially significant impact after further analysis. Regarding why alternatives were not dealt with in the Negative Declaration, CEQA requires alternatives in an EIR and not in a Negative Declaration. Also, in processing the Negative Declaration, there was not substantial evidence presented to require an environmental impact report. Associate Planner Miller specified that the drainage problem was addressed in the Conditional Use Permit because it posed a safety problem. Therefore, the applicant was conditioned to address the problem to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, whether that be putting in drainage pipes, lowering the soil in the flower beds, or a combination thereof, or some other solution. It was up to the study that would be prepared as a result of any approval, and then the approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PC Minutes -11- June 23, 1993 Mr. Miller referred to the comments made regarding Casa Nuestra. He said that on June 10 the project had been reviewed as a requirement of the original conditional use permit on a yearly basis. The notices were sent out to the area residents, including the Woods, and no responses or objections were received. The extension was granted on that particular project. Commissioner Ray asked why a conditional use permit was being considered, since it was going to house people for an extended period of time, although it was transitory. Why was a conditional use permit required for an existing apartment building to be used as apartments? Mr. Miller replied that it was because of the quasi-public nature of the project. South Bay Community Services was a private non-profit organization, but they were doing quasi-public work in the screening process. As a quasi-public use, it would be required. Commissioner Ray asked if SBCS purchased the facility through other means and not involve the City, could they buy the property and then lease it to the same people for a period of 60 days and not have to go through City approval? Mr. Miller answered that the financial aspect was beyond the purview of the Conditional Use Permit and was not addressed. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf concluded that Mr. Ray was asking if there were private funding and no governmental funding, and the organization bought the property and then rented it at market rate. Mr. Rudolf said that on a quasi-public use was where a social purpose is being served at providing housing at a less-than-market rate for a social good, it becomes a quasi- public use which triggers Chapter 19.54. If it was market rate, they would be like any other property owner renting property and there was no quasi-public use. Commissioner Ray asked if other landowners chose to rent them through an ad in the newspaper for a lower price, would that fall under the same statute. Mr. Rudolf said in his opinion it would. Providing subsidized housing at a lower-than-market rate would be a quasi-public use and they would have to go through this process and receive a conditional use permit. Commissioner Carson asked if there was a review period on the Conditional Use Permit for review. She proposed that there be a review at the end of two years, similar to 1515 Hilltop Drive. Mr. Miller answered that it could be easily incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the tenants who would have to move out would be assisted in any way in terms of finding another place to live. At the request of Mr. Miller, Mr. Marcus of South Bay Community Services, said that each tenant had been notified approximately two months before. He had met with the residents, and would help them find another apartment and help pay for moving expenses and other incidental costs. If an equitable apartment at the same rate could not be found, they would help to pay for an equitable apartment which might cost $15 to $20 more in that neighborhood. With all the PC Minutes -12- June 23, 1993 vacancies in the area, they would like to find them apartments where they could keep the relationships with the other tenants. Commissioner Martin questioned the monitoring system; had there been reported events regarding the other home nearby? If so, what assurances were there that that kind of activity was unacceptable. Mr. Miller answered that staff was not aware of the alleged problems with the other facility. He pointed out that the other facility was permitted through the State and that the City by State law had no jurisdiction over that; no conditional use permit was required at that facility. He noted, also, that the facilities differ greatly in the clientele they would serve. Commissioner Martin said this was an outstanding program; the facility had to be done well and monitored closely; there should be someone the citizens could contact if there were problems. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that regarding the project on "D" Street, the City was superseded by the State who authorizes certain facilities on a limited basis. The State was the monitoring program for that facility. The program on Hilltop Drive was set up for review by the City and there was no direct monitoring otherwise. At the request of the Commission, Kathryn Lembo of SBCS said there would be a full-time resident manager on site who would not be allowed to have another job. He would be paid for being there on a full-time basis; Mr. Marcus at the SBCS office would be the next person to contact; she would be next to contact. In addition to the conditional use permit, they would have a development agreement with the Community Development Departments of both National City and Chula Vista because they would provide the funding. In that development agreement, there would be even more conditions dealing with issues other than land use. At the request of Commissioner Moot, Mr. Miller explained how a conditional use permit review would work for those present; how the notices would be sent out; and the consequences of finding that it should be revoked. Principal Planner Griffin stated that the process which had been used for Casa Nuestra, which was South Bay Community Service's facility on Hilltop for runaway teenage women, was the zoning administrator process after an initial review by the Council. The notice was sent out asking the neighbors for input on any problems; it was very specific; staff wants them to report any problems to them; there had been a few problems in the beginning based on staffing; the problems had been immediately addressed by changing some staff, tightening some rules, and the problems cleared up right away. On the next review period, there had been only a couple of remaining problems from the one neighbor; at the last review period there had been no comments from the neighbors. He suggested that the Commission could use the same process. If problems could not be corrected, the permit would be returned to the Commission and Council for consideration of additional conditions or revocation. PC Minutes -13- June 23, 1993 Chair Fuller noted that those opportunities for review through a conditional use permit afforded a property owner or any resident living in an area where there were high density apartments more opportunity to seek help with problems in the neighborhood. Barbara Orsa asked from the audience who would own the property--the City of Chula Vista or the South Bay Community Services. Mr. Miller said South Bay Community Services would continue to own the property if they were required to cease and desist. The ownership had nothing to do with a revocation of the conditional use permit. They would be the property owners, and they could rent it out at market value, if they so chose, or sell it. Commissioner Ray asked if they were a quasi-public agency, why wouldn't the City still retain some rights as to what was to be done with the property and the City was putting up some of the money and the City was issuing the conditional use permit. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that Mr. Miller's answer was correct; however, there would be an agreement between SBCS and the Redevelopment Agency with many other conditions included, and it was possible that there would be conditions in that agreement with regard to financing that in the event they conduct the project in such a manner that they lose their conditional use permit, that something might happen to ownership. There could be a right of revert. Mr. Arroyo of Community Development commented that if the property were to revert back and they violated one of the conditions, one of the conditions being considered is that the funds that were initially allocated would have to be repaid to the City if the use of the property were to change significantly. Commissioner Ray asked what would happen if the property were sold outright; would money come back to the City? Mr. Arroyo said that would be an important point and would be taken into account in the development agreement with the Agency. Referring to Condi{ion No. 7, Commissioner Carson asked for wording for the review of the conditional use permit. Mr. Miller said item no. 7 was boilerplate wording and said that if the applicant did not take advantage of the conditional use permit within one year, it becomes null and void. A new Condition #8 could deal with the length of time for a review period. Commissioner Moot asked if a similar review period and program as the Casa Nuestra, what would that language be if they Commission wanted to add that as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. PC Minutes -14- June 23, 1993 Mr. Rudolf suggested that if the Commission desired, that they pass a motion with language similar to that, staff would locate it and include it. He noted that this process of having built in as a condition of a conditional use permit a periodic review was something that had historically been done before the Code was amended to put in clear, cogent provisions regarding to revocation of conditional use permits. He suggested that it was no longer necessary; there now was a clear process in the Code for processing revocation of a conditional use permit if a condition was thought to be violated. He did not feel it was necessary to include it. Commissioner Carson felt people are very tolerant and do not want to be the first person to report a problem. She would like to see the wording there, so the residents in the area would know they had that recourse. Mr. Rudolf suggested that a certain period and clarify who would be the reviewer--whether it would be an administrative review by staff alone, Zoning Administrator, or by the Planning Commission itself in a public hearing setting. Principal Planner Griffin stated that he could suggest some language which was used in Casa Nuestra. At the request of the Commission, he suggested the following: "This Conditional Use Permit shall expire on (date), subject to review and extension by the Zoning Administrator. Notice shall be given to all property owners within 500 feet, plus any residents that submitted letters or spoke at the hearing this evening. The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission." Commissioner Tuchscher asked for clarification as to whether it would be an annual review or review period after one year and then no more. Commissioner Carson said that her intent was to review it annually for two years, and if there were no complaints, there would be no review. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested that it be administrative, rather than public hearing initially, and asked about deleting the words "shall expire on." Mr. Griffin said the City Attorney was suggesting, also, since it would be a review rather than expiration, that the language be deleted. MSUC (Carson/Tuchscher) 7-0 to find that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration on LS. 93-36 and the Addendum thereto. MS (Carson/Ray) to adopt Resolution PCC-93-39 recommending that the City Council approve PCC-93-39 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council resolution with corrections to Finding #4, Condition #4, and the addition of Condition #8, as revised. PC Minutes -15- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Ray, referring to item 2 of the resolution, was concerned that the facility would house not only Chula Vista homeless, but also National City and surrounding South Bay communities. He asked if the resolution, questions and responses were not geared toward Chula Vista zoning for Chula Vista purposes. Mr. Rudolf replied that the finding was that the general well being of the neighborhood or the community be satisfied, with a broader finding that it would be of the general well being of the entire South Bay. It could be rewritten to make it more narrow if the Commission desired. Commissioner Ray did not believe the Commission would concur, but he felt it was too broad. He was more concerned with Chula Vista than with the impact of his decision on National City or another community which may be neighboring. He was concerned that National City homeless would be in the facility and Chula Vista homeless still in the park. Mr. Rudolf was comfortable that the finding was defensible and met the requirement, and was prepared to argue to a court that by having the people in this facility, it was good for the general welfare of the neighborhood and the community in the immediate surrounding area, as well as all of the City of Chula Vista and South Bay. Commissioner Martin asked if would be possible to say that Chula Vista had priority. Chair Fuller said that was not a condition, but had been proposed by SBCS. Commissioner Moot clarified that there would be a yearly review, as Condition #8, by the Zoning Administrator, and if after two consecutive yearly reviews no problems were noted, the procedures would revert to the Code for any revocation thereafter. Mr. Rudolf said that the condition would not include any provision for an automatic revocation or expiration, just calling for a public hearing by the Zoning Administrator to review it. Commissioner Ray applauded Ms. Ochoa for her accomplishments. He felt it was outstanding that she and her family had faced some hardships and had come out of it quite well. Her son also did a fine job in his comments. He was taken aback by comments of some of the other speakers. He noted that background checks and previous criminal activities of tenants were not checked for anybody renting an apartment; he tended to agree with Mr. Frazier and Mr. Sipan that this was not money well spent because he felt there were other facilities where public funds could be better used. He would vote against it based on fiscal issues attached; however, the Commission could only vote on the zoning. He would vote for the project because it was a worthwhile endeavor. He applauded those who were in attendance earlier who had used South Bay Community Services and had shown that non-profit organizations do well and can do well with the support of public entities. Commissioner Tuchscher asked South Bay Community Services to comment as to whether the new condition, Condition #8, had any financial impacts on them or impacts on their financing. PC Minutes -16- June 23, 1993 Kathryn Lembo said it had no negative financial impacts, except for the amount of staff time that may have to be devoted to it. The financing would come both from the Cities of Chula Vista and National City and the State of California. The State of California had the same condition on the Casa Nuestra and they had no problem with the condition. Commissioner Carson commented that it could be a real coup for the City of Chula Vista if this works like they would like to have it work--agencies working together for a common cause-- South Bay YMCA, the MAAC Project, elementary schools, secondary schools, the adult school, the Literacy Team, the churches, the banks to help with the financing. What an idea! She thanked SBCS for bringing it before the Commission. VOTE: 7-0 - unanimously approved to grant the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Fuller thanked everyone who came to share their thoughts. Associate Planner Miller pointed out that this project was tentatively scheduled for City Council hearing on July 13, 1993, for those who desired to attend that public hearing. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-25; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A DAY NURSERY AT 73 NORTH SECOND AVENUE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 250 CHILDREN, AND LIVE-IN SECURITY GUARD - Ms. Elizabeth Stillwagon (Chula Vista Connection - Neighbors Helping Neighbors) Associate Planner Miller gave the staff report, and noted that staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that this project will have no significant environmental impact, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on I.S. 93-27 based on the Initial Study and the comments on the Initial Study and the Draft Mitigated Declaration; and approve PCC-93-25 based on the fmdings and subject to the conditions contained therein. He pointed out that this project would receive final approval at this hearing unless appealed. It would not automatically go forward to Council. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Fuller noted that Mr. Tad Yano, who had wanted to speak, had left. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCC-93-25, inclusive of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on I.S. 93-27. PC Minutes -17- June 23, 1993 ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-93-11; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION ON A CORNER LOT OF 993 PASEO LA CRESTA, WITHIN THE CASA DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY - Carol Thomas Commissioner Tarantino, who lived close by, believed he had a conflict of interest and left the room. Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and recommended approval of the application. There had been a letter submitted during the afternoon; there was an earlier petition submitted with several names, however, the applicant recontacted several of the names and three retracted their objection to the proposal. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jeff Johnson, 994 Paseo La Cresta, CV, of Thimm and Johnson Assoc., representing the applicants, said the family needs had changed, and they needed to add some square footage to what was the smallest square footage house in that tract. Originally, it was supposed to go before the Zoning Administrator, but because of the petition cimulated by some of the people on Paseo Entrada directly below, it was now before the Commission. Mr. Johnson said the addition did not really affect the petitioners; they could not see it unless they drove by. He contacted the petitioners; none of them had seen the plans. He was able to meet with two of the petitioners and, after reviewing the design, they changed their minds about how they felt about the petition. They said the reason they had signed the petition was because of a dispute over some shrubbery that exceeded the height of the fence which was governed by CC&Rs within their community. They were merely adding support to that neighbor, which happened to be the house directly below on Paseo Entrada. One other letter had been received from a gentleman on Paseo La Cresta. Mr. Johnson had met with him personally and he also changed his mind and contacted Mr. Griffin. Mr. Johnson presented, for the record, a petition of over 20 names of people who drive by and see the house on a daily basis and were in favor of the development. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tarantino had left the dais) to adopt Resolution ZAV-93-11. Commissioner Tarantino returned to the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES FOR GMOC CONSIDERATION IN FY 93-94 Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the Commission had expressed some concerns when they had the joint meeting with the GMOC. That report was tentatively set for the July 13 PC Minutes -18- June 23, 1993 Council meeting. There was adequate time to attach a letter from the Commission or any specific direction. The Commission had been concerned regarding LOS, and how traffic was measured. Commissioner Martin said there had been suggestion to go to Level B instead of Level C, and questioned the ramifications. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg explained the procedure for determining the LOS. If a LOS C were established during the peak hour there would be many segments which would not meet the criteria under existing conditions, and that planned growth that is expected over the next few years would exacerbate those conditions and would possibly overload certain streets. Answering Commissioner Moot, Mr. Rosenberg said that when the peak hour could meet the City's criteria, the non-peak hour is much better and there was not a need to measure. He explained the measuring technique to the Commission. Commissioner Ray asked if there was anything to be put in place to measure internal patterns within certain projects, such as Terra Nova. Mr. Rosenberg asked if Mr. Ray was speaking of on-site traffic and delays. He said that the City looks at the traffic flow as it affects the general public, the functional street system, the operation, and the performance of the street system in its entirety. It was not critical to the operation of the street system whether or not the users have to wait some time to exit the facility. It was the responsibility of the developer to design the internal traffic system. The Engineering and Planning Department work carefully with the applicant and try to convince them of what they need to do from a traffic standpoint; however, they don't always listen. Another concern of Commissioner Ray was that with an increase in the number of traffic signals, there would be runoff of water and oil into the drainage basin into the ocean, and that the idling of cars in the parking area would cause pollution. He asked where it fell in the review cycle. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the NPDES Ordinance in the works would address the issue of the oil in the parking lots, and it would be the responsibility of the private property owner. At the request of Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Rosenberg gave the history of why the City changed from measuring intersections to measuring road segments. Using the power center as an example, Mr. Rosenberg said staff knew it would generate a lot of traffic and there would be impacts on East "H" Street as a result of the traffic turning in and out of the access roads. There would probably be a point iff time where the signals on East "H" Street would be timed to provide more green time, while penalizing the traffic on the cross streets. The performance on "H" Street would be pretty good, but the cross street would fail. PC Minutes -19- June 23, 1993 That was another reason for thinking the segment measurement was a better measure. Choices have to be made as to who should get priority. Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Rosenberg said traffic was measured between 4 to 6 p.m., and also during the a.m. period and during the noon period, because they are high volume periods. The travel time studies had not been conducted during the morning hours or noon period yet; the new program of evaluating the performance of streets using segment travel time had just been started. In the future, the studies would be done during the noon hour and the a.m. period and repeating every segment during the p.m. period that had a "C" or worse level of service. The cycle would be completed over a four-year period, at which time staff would continue to carry on all those segments which are thought to be suspect to make sure those segments which are borderline are not missed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked how often they were driven during the p.m. hours. Mr. Rosenberg said that over a two-hour period, there may be 10 to 15 runs back and forth done over a couple of days. DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 11:05 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday, July 14, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ancy RipI6y, Sec~tetary Planning Commission (6-23-93 .min)