Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/03/13 Tapes: 319/320 Sides: 1/1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, March 13, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL.__~___CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Grasser Horton STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director tee, Principal Planner Gray, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Bazzel, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Contract Planner Letfieri, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice-Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice-Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meetings of January 9 and January 23, 1991 MSC (Decker/Carson) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained, Chair Grasser Horton absent) to approve the minutes of January 9, 1991, as submitted. Vice-Chair Fuller noted the minutes of January 23, 1991, would be held for approval until the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 13, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-91-10: REQUEST TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING 90 SQ. FT., 15 FT. HIGH FREESTANDING POLE SIGN AT 772 THIRD AVENUE - Hikmat Zoura (continued from 2-13-91) Senior Planner Griffin stated the above action had been resolved and recommended that it be filed. MSUC 6-0 to file ZAV-9-10. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-16/17 AND ZAV-91-06/07: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DISAPPROVING OFFSITE SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR THE EASTLAKE GREENS DEVELOPMENT - SunCal Outdoor Advertising Assistant City Attorney Rudolf interjected that the notice of the decision from the Zoning Administrator had been sent to the applicant on December 18, 1991, which included a notice that the applicant had 10 days to appeal. The file showed that the appeal was received January 5, which was more than 10 days. Technically, the appeal was late so the Commission had a jurisdictional question as to whether they had power to hear the appeal. Senior Planner Griffin stated it was Planning staff's recommendation that the Commission proceed. Commissioner Decker noted this had occurred over the Christmas holidays, and there were probably some reasonable circumstances. MSUC (Decker/Martin) 6-0 to accept the appeal and go ahead with the hearing. Senior Planner Griffin gave the background of the project and, using an overview, showed the locations. He said the applicant had filed conditional use permits required for off-site subdivision directional signs, and variances in order to increase the size to 30 sq. ft. in area and 12 ft. high. The Code specifies that the size be 4~1/2 sq. ft. in area and 3-1/2 ft. high. Staff believed off-site directional signs should not be used as an advertising device but should be limited to the minimum number necessary to assist in directing potential buyers to a project. The signs being considered suggested they might be used as advertising signs rather than directional signs. The Zoning Administrator denied all four locations with the notation that one or more sign locations along Telegraph Canyon Road would be looked upon favorably, and also noted that staff endorsed the approach of using fewer larger signs to represent an overall project Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 13, 1991 rather than several smaller signs for each particular developer as part of an overall planned community. Staff recommended denial of the appeal. Mr. Griffin showed slides which gave the locations of two signs which had been erected on East "H" Street which were part of this request, and also locations of signs on Telegraph Canyon Road which were not part of this request and had not been otherwise approved by the City. Commissioner Tugenberg said he and Commissioner Fuller had driven at 8:30 a.m. between Otay Lakes Road and 1-805 the previous Saturday and counted 68 signs directing travelers to different developers. At 11:00 a.m., there were 89 signs. He believed that previously the Commission had voted to allow four directional signs to lead to a piece of property. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that had to do with open house requests and geared to direct people specifically to an open house. He said Commissioner Tugenberg was referring to illegal signs that would be followed up with Zoning Enforcement. Commissioner Casillas said he had a problem with EastLake asking for something that was beyond what was authorized in the Ordinance. Commissioner Decker commented that he agreed with the recommendation of staff. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. David Hardy, SunCal Outdoor Advertising, 5005 Texas Street, San Diego, said most of the EastLake signs had been erected before the City of Chula Vista had annexed the area. He said it was not atypical for a larger, permanent, off-site sign to be directional rather than advertising. The signs under discussion had been there for a number of years and had gone through a format change due to a marketing change. EastLake combined marketing for five developers using one marketing program. He believed "H" Street would be a feasible route. Two of the signs have been removed; they were requesting approvals of signs at Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street and on the southerly side of East "H" Street west of Paseo del Rey. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Mr. Hardy stated the sign at East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road was necessary to direct traffic to turn right on Otay Lakes Road or to go straight on East "H". Commissioner Tugenberg also asked Mr. Hardy if he had checked the sign ordinance. Mr. Hardy answered that he had not; the signs had been erected previously, and they wanted to change the verbiage on the signs. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 13, 1991 Commissioner Tugenberg said he could see the logic to the sign on East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road, because people coming out East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road would see the sign. It made sense as a directional sign. The sign at Paseo del Rey made no sense to him; it was an advertising sign. Commissioner Martin asked if the sign had changed in size and volume when rebuilt. Mr. Hardy said the sign had been grandfathered in. In answer to Commissioner Martin's question, Senior Planner Griffin said the sign locations were never approved by the City. Commissioner Decker verified that the size of the sign would be 72' x 6'6" or 39 sq. ft., approximately 800% larger than the size authorized, with a total of 12' high or approximately 350% higher than the size authorized. The applicant was asking for two signs of this size. Gail Crezenski, representing EastLake Development, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, said that EastLake supported five builders and had a responsibility to them. With the sign program, they have control over what the builders put up. Without the sign program, each builder in turn would have to apply to the City for their fair share of signs along Telegraph Canyon Road. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Casillas commented that he found little merit in the argument that by using the sign program, the signage would be kept to a minimum. He felt it was important that the City's sign ordinance had been violated and, given that, he couldn't support the position of the applicant. Commissioner Decker concurred with Commissioner Casillas. He commented that the sign was fairly large, especially on top of a 6 ft. 4x12 post. Perhaps a comprehensive sign plan was needed on the part of EastLake and ail the builders. He could not support the signage. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that staff had worked with EastLake, E1 Rancho del Rey, and Sunbow in terms of trying to have them work toward a single, larger sign directing people to the specific development as opposed to having the individual developers come forward. They had not discussed location or number of signs. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would be willing to support a sign at Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 13, 1991 MOTION by Commissioner Tugenberg that the Commission allow a sign which is acceptable to staff and the Zoning Administrator at the comer of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Decker said he believed the application was for two signs. Could the Commission say they could have one, but not the other? Assistant Attorney Rudolf said if the Commission determined to grant any sign, it would require a conditional use permit and also a variance. Senior Planner Griffin suggested that if the Commission desired to grant one of the requests, they could deny the appeal on the remaining one; or if they decided to grant the appeal on both signs, the matter could be continued until the next meeting to have findings prepared for approval at that time. THE MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND. MS (Decker/Casillas) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. Commissioner Decker noted that one sign was approximately the size of eight legal signs. It would be sufficient for eight builders. Commissioner Martin said he was going to support staff's recommendation, but wanted to challenge the spokesman for the sign company. He didn't think the problem was insolvable, but needed a good hard look. VOTE: 6-0 (Chair Grasser Horton absent) ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING; PCZ-91-C/GPA-91-1: CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 'E' STREET, 'H' STREET, SECOND AVENUE AND THIRD AVENUE, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL AREA EAST OF FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN 'E' AND DAVIDSON STREETS, TO RESOLVE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY Vice-Chair Fuller explained that the Commission was going to consider this a section at a time in areas which had been defined: Part 1 with four sub-areas, Part 2, and Part 3 with two sub- areas. The hearing would be opened and closed on each section. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 13, 1991 Contract Planner Tony Lettieri gave an overall presentation, stating that the item involved the consideration of an amendment to the General Plan and the rezoning of the area referred to as General Plan Zoning Consistency B-1. The study area included approximately 50 acres and 219 lots. Mr. Lettieri stated, regarding the assumptions, that staff approached each area looking at the range permitted within the existing General Plan. In many cases, the recommendations made were at the top of the range, not focusing in at the mid-point. No extraordinary benefits were applied to the area. Staffalso looked at existing land use and mix, the existing lot size, existing densities, and predominant character preservation, and finally the meetings with the property owners, residents, and their comments. Commissioner Casillas interjected that in reading some of the correspondence received, he believed some people didn't understand the rationale behind the study. He asked Mr. Lettieri to explain to the people in attendance the reason for the study. Contract Planner Lettieri explained that in July 1989 the City Council adopted a comprehensive amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan. He said the zoning was inconsistent with the General Plan, and State law requires a jurisdiction to have consistency between the General Plan and the zoning applied on a piece of property. Based on that apparent inconsistency, the City Council in June 1990 directed staff to go through a systematic public hearing process to bring the zoning back into consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Lettieri continued by showing slides of the first area, Part I - Sub-area IA. The existing General Plan designation was Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) with R-3 zoning. Staff recommended that it be changed to Medium High (11-18 du/ac) with R-3-P-22 zoning. Under the existing R-3 zoning, an additional 38 units could be developed; under the proposed R-3-P-22, an additional 26 units could be developed. Development of 3 units would be allowed on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, subject to off-street parking and setback requirements and Design Review approval. Vice-Chair Fuller explained that the format would be that the public hearing would be opened, testimony taken, public testimony closed, discussion by the Commission, and tentative action taken on each section individually. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened on Sub-area lA. Jean Taylor, co-owner of 217 "G" Street, Chula Vista, said she was in favor of the proposed zoning for the area. She felt the zoning was appropriate for that particular area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 13, 1991 Sid Morris, Sr., 862 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, said he didn't object to the rezoning, but objected to the fact that he thought the General Plan was changed illegally by the City Council in July 1989. He received no notification that anything was being changed. Mr. Morris said the City was doing leap frog zoning. No one else wishing to speak, the public testimony on Part 1, Sub-area IA was closed. MSLIC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 6-0 to accept staff's recommendations for Sub-area lA to change the zoning to R-3-P-22 and the density of 11 to 18. Contract Planner Lettieri continued with Part 1, Sub-area lB, noting that under the existing R-3 zoning, an additional 30 units could be constructed; under the proposed R-3~P-14, an additional 6 units could be developed. He then explained the rationale for the proposed zoning. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if this was being done to reconcile the zoning to conform with the General Plan, and if the City was required by the State of California to have the zoning in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Lettieri concurred. Vice-Chair Fuller opened the hearing for public testimony on Part 1, Sub-area lB. Carroll Smith, 13596 Portsmouth Cr., Westminster, CA, owner of property at 265-271 Alvarado, asked that the property be maintained as R-3. He then read a letter previously submitted to the Commission. John Hollingsworth, owner of 244 Alvarado, Chula Vista, had bought the property with the intent of building four units. Subsequently, he had been told he could only build three, then two units. He asked that the Commission amend their recommendation to R-3-P-17. It would allow those with the larger lots of 7,700 sq. ft. to build three units and the smaller lots would still be able to build two. Commissioner Tugenberg asked staff to respond to the comments as they occurred, since some of the letters had just been received by the Commission and they hadn't had a chance to read them. Mr. Lettieri said there was a mixture of residential uses. Staff had tried to stick as closely to the General Plan as possible. They had originally considered the R-3-P-22 zone. The School District was very concerned overall about what that recommendation would do to the number of possible dwelling units that would be permitted. Even with the proposed recommendation, there would be approximately 200 additional units that would be permitted within the entire study area. With the existing zoning, there would be almost 400 units permitted. Staff felt that the additional unit on each lot would be a good transition and would provide some development Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 13, 1991 opportunity. There were also concerns regarding parking on both Del Mar Court and Alvarado which had been considered in staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the School District had given any generation figures for students if the zoning went to P-227 Theodore Tornesello, 443 Del Mar Court, Chula Vista, lived around the corner from the area being discussed. He distributed some photographs of the area showing the cars parked on Alvarado, and said that sometimes they could not get out of their street because of the traffic. He was concerned with the traffic situation and water shortage. Mrs. Carroll Smith said the picture Mr. Tornesello had shown had been taken on a Saturday and the Church was having a large event. Their project would have 16 off-street parking spaces; she was very much aware of the parking problem. Mr. Hollingsworth returned to the microphone to comment regarding the parking. He said if people only added another unit, the initial unit would not be taken down and it would add to the parking problem. However, if three units were allowed, people would be more inclined to take down the initial unit and put up three nicer units with off-street parking. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if there was a way of requiring off-street parking if using a P-18 zoning. Mr. Lettieri believed it would be required. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that *h~ ,,o .... · ~. .,t m~nal~ymg msmc[ is not necessary to attach to the R-3 other than it is a density designation. All projects go through the Design Review Committee. No one else wishing to speak, the public testimony was closed for Part 1, Sub-area lB. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if staff had any objections to changing the five lots which exceed 7,700 sq. ft. to an R-3-P-187 Contract Planner Lettieri answered that staff had rather consider the entire area since they did not want to get into a spot zoning situation. Under the R-3 zoning, there would be 30 units possible. Six under the proposed "14" designation and 18 potentially under the R-3-P-18. It would be in the General Plan range staff is recommending. This was simply looking at a map without benefit of any development plan, all of the lots that are developed with less than three units, without figuring if all of those lots met the minimum lot size. Commissioner Carson asked how many lots would be left as non-conforming lots. Mr. Lettieri answered there would be five non-conforming lots. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 13, 1991 Commissioner Carson asked what happened to the non-conforming lots when the owners were ready to sell. Mr. Lettieri answered they would be legal, non-conforming units and could stay. Commissioner Carson said she had a problem with the fact that the Commission was approving each sub-area because she was having trouble with the Negative Declaration in dealing with schools, because schools already exceed 130% in that area. To her, the Negative Dec did not justify any kind of adjustment. When multiple units are put in, there will be additional children. At the present time, there is not the capability of handling any additional students. Chula Vista High School and Chula Vista Junior are full to capacity. Chula Vista Elementary requested from the City of Chula Vista that as a condition to approval for the future project within Study Area B-1 and other areas proposed for redesignation and up-zoning, all projects be required to comply with the School District's requirements, including but not limited to formation of or annexation of a Mello-Roos community facility district, or other alternative mechanism to provide financing for new facilities. According to the normal procedure, the Commission would approve the Initial Study and Negative Dec and then go through and approve the various projects. With the impact of the potential multiple units with the changes, she thought this needed to be re-studied or something else still needed to be done in order to get the school to come into alignment. Contract Planner Lettieri answered that the letters were early in the review process from both the Sweetwater and the Chula Vista School District, and staff was considering at that time a higher zoning category for the whole project. Commissioner Carson asked where the most recent letter was saying it was okay. Contract Planner Letfieri answered he didn't think the School District would give the City a letter saying it was okay. They were concerned about this area and probably a lot of the comments were still valid. Commissioner Carson believed most of the comments were still valid and, therefore, in order for her to approve the Negative Declaration, she would have to see another, more recent letter dated March 13. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that in staff's opinion, the zoning is all down-zoning. Staff was trying to be consistent with the General Plan, but the basic action was a reduction as far as the general densities were concerned from the zoning standpoint. Commissioner Carson agreed but asked that the item be continued for two weeks to get a letter from the School District so she could feel conscious~free to vote for a Negative Declaration that she felt was qualified to be voted for. She felt she was being asked to vote against something she felt was good, because she didn't approve the Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 13, 1991 After lengthy discussion, Assistant Planning Director Lee said staff had no objection to a four- week continuance to return with a response to Commissioner Carson's concern. Commissioner Carson asked how many units would be built in four weeks? Assistant Planning Director Lee said he was not aware of any projects presently going on in the Vice-Chair Fuller asked the Commission's pleasure regarding the continuation based on the inadequate findings of the Negative Declaration. She asked if they wished to continue with with public testimony on the subsections, since there were people present who had come to speak. Contract Planner Lettieri stated the only concern staff would have regarding taking testimony was that it was a fairly complicated project, and they would be concerned that unless the property owners were able to make their points again over a four-week period of time, their testimony would not be fresh in the Commissioners' minds. MSC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 5-1 (Decker voting against; Grasser-Horton absent) to continue the public hearing to April 10, 1991. Vice-Chair Fuller declared a 5-minute break at 9:00. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-04; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES - City Initiated Senior Planner Duane Bazzel stated that in August 1990 the City Council accepted a report from the Community Purpose Facility Task Force and directed staff to come back with an ordinance providing for community purpose facilities within new development in the City. Workshops were then held with representatives from the Human Services Council, the Community Purpose Facility Task Force, and major landowners including the Construction Industry Federation representatives. Mr. Bazzel explained the purpose and definition of the community purpose facilities, and the types of uses the facilities would serve. He noted that, during preparation of the proposed ordinance, staff realized daycare facilities required additional analysis in determining their ultimate needs. Staff recommended that the daycare facility issue be referred to the City's Child Care Commission and staff for further study and recommendation. Mr. Bazzel referred to a letter from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) which had been included in the Planning Commission packet. As a result of the inquiries made by the CIF, staff examined the calculation of the private school acreage and determined that this acreage was currently being partially utilized by adjacent religious facilities. Since this land was being Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 13, 1991 accommodated in the staff formula, staff recommended that the ordinance be modified to include private schools only if they were ancillary to other community purpose facilities. Senior Planner Bazzel then distributed copies of the proposed ordinance revision. He explained that the amendment would be made to Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code dealing with the P-C zone standards, and a determination would be made at the SPA level review of the project's proposed population. He explained the method of calculations to determine the acreage factor of 1.39 acres per thousand population, resulting in the required acreage which would be designated for a community purpose facility. Mr. Bazzel stated that staff recommended that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration, IS-91-17; and recommend that Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code amendment, as amended; and recommend to the Council that they refer the issue of the adequacy of day care facilities in new developments to the Child Care Commission and staff for review and recommendations. Vice-Chair Fuller asked why private schools were excepted from the list of uses, and private schools ancillary to religious institutions, when some private schools may not fit into any of those categories. Senior Planner Bazzel explained that the Construction Industry Federation had asked whether staff was double-counting private schools and the acreage provided for religious facilities. Staff examined the City's land use inventory and reviewed the acreage which had been set aside for private schools and had determined there was a total of 18.01 acres of property being used by private schools. Further analysis showed that the schools were all in fact religious schools immediately adjacent to religious facilities and the space was being used by the religious facility for Sunday School type activities which had been accounted for in the religious portion of the community purpose facility acreage calculations. Staff believed this acreage needed to be extracted from the formula, which brought it down to a total of 30 acres of non-religious facilities. Also, the use in the proposed ordinance should be modified as ancillary uses. In answer to Commissioner Fuller's question, Mr. Bazzel stated the land use inventory listed no private schools without a religious affiliation. Commissioners Fuller and Tugenberg noted other schools which were not listed in the land use inventory which they believed were private and unaffiliated with religious groups. Commissioner Fuller was uncomfortable with the exclusion of the private schools in the definition of the community purpose facilities. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 13, 1991 Commissioner Tugenberg stated he believed alternate education was an advantage both to the child who goes to an alternate school as well as to the public school because of the competition given the public school. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification of the 1.39 acre factor used in the calculations. Mr. Bazzel answered the extraction of the 18 acres had effected the formula and the factor. Prior to the extraction of the acreage, staff was using a 45-acre figure taken from the land use inventory for the non-religious portion of the community purpose facilities. When the 18 acres were extracted from the 45 acres, the balance was 27 acres. Staff decided to base their recommendation on 30 acres which had been recommended by the Human Services Council for their future needs. This resulted in the 1.39 acre factor. Commissioner Martin asked if medical facilities and hospitals were not considered a community purpose facility. Mr. Bazzel replied that the list of facilities in the proposed ordinance were specifically directed from City Council. Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to Exhibit B of the Negative Declaration, asked about the .86 to 2.29 acre range. Senior Planner Bazzel explained that the factor was being adjusted through calculations and staff felt it necessary to deal with a range of possibilities with the assumption that the factor would fall within that range. The Negative Declaration factored in as a worst case the 2.29 factor and had determined there was no significant impact. Commissioner Tugenberg asked who would pay to maintain the property zoned for community purpose facilities while awaiting sale. Mr. Bazzel answered that the property would be retained in the ownership of the developer, and it would be his responsibility to maintain it until such time the property was transferred. In answer to Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Mr. Bazzel stated there had been no religious groups in the community who had voiced opposition to a community purpose facility zone. Referring to the staff report, page 2, Commissioner Tugenberg noted that major projects to date had provided land area for religious facilities. He questioned the designation of property if it was already being provided. Senior Planner Bazzel concurred that the projects approved recently by the City had included some acreage for religious facilities and did not include adequate acreage for other facilities in addition. The Planning Department had no guideline to determine the appropriate amount of acreage which should be in those developments. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the immediate purchase of 198 acres of land zoned for churches. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 13, 1991 Mr. Tugenberg asked if Chula Vista had experienced conditional use permit applications from churches to justify this kind of demand for acreage; is Chula Vista extremely inadequate in sites as it applies to the applications for conditional use permits for religious sites? How many applications do we have now for conditional use permits for churches or any community service purpose? Assistant Planning Director Lee responded that it was not just a case of having use permits. Several of the large-scale communities are providing a number of these types of facilities, not just for churches but for YMCAs, etc. However, many of the planned communities have not planned for the full range of facilities. There had been a steady flow of inquiries, but Mr. lee was not aware of any applications pending. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned that the zone overlay limiting a site to a community purpose facility would preclude an increase in the value of the property. He wondered if the churches had considered these ramifications. Planning Director Leiter answered that the issue had been brought up by the Construction Industry Federation during the discussions with the Community Purpose Facility Task Force, and consideration was presented to the various churches represented in that group. The consensus seemed to be that it was not a major concern or one that changed their direction or approach on this issue. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the average total church attendance in Chula Vista. Senior Planner Bazzel explained the method of calculation. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if a provision had been made for those churches who needed to rent space rather than buy. Planning Director Leiter replied that the ordinance provided that the amount of land required could be reduced in recognition of available rental facilities in a project. Commissioner Decker asked for a definition of "services for the homeless." Commissioner Tugenberg noted that there were a number of churches in the community which provided services to the homeless, taking tums feeding and providing sleeping quarters for them. Commissioner Decker asked about the services for the military during the holidays but not outside the holidays. Planning Director Leiter answered that these were examples of the types of services provided by community purpose facilities. The City Council, working with the City Attorney and staff, had tried to define examples of the types of assembly uses that would fall within this category. It did not preclude similar types of uses. Services for military personnel outside the holidays would be considered an allowable use as well. He emphasized the purpose of the facilities would be to serve the communities in which they were located. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 13, 1991 Commissioner Decker suggested "and other appropriate community activities to be determined by the City Council" be included. Commissioner Martin stated he wanted to applaud staff for grappling with a difficult situation with no precedence. Vice-Chair Fuller concurred that something which had started out as one task had mushroomed into a pioneering area for the City of Chula Vista. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Pastor Rick Johnson, Pastor of Risen Savior Lutheran Church, home address: 391 Bay Leaf Drive, Chula Vista, noted that it was the City Council's intention that this overlaying zone be primarily for non-profit organizations. That was why for-profit private schools were not included in staff's analysis. He noted that Sunday School classrooms were not the same as regular classrooms, and the same number of children would not be in the classes. Pastor Johnson was not concerned with the property not increasing in value, because churches could not pay the higher prices. He explained how the Task Force had arrived at the church attendance percentage of 29% by using the U. S. Census. He also noted there was no land to make applications for conditional use permits. Commissioner Tugenberg asked for confirmation that the 29 % came from the San Diego County Census. Mr. Johnson concurred. Thomas Scholl, 184 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, encouraged the Commission to recommend the largest amount of acreage possible for the community services purposes--for social, physical, spiritual, and emotional needs to be met. Paula Coffey, 62 Vallecito Way, Chula Vista, supported the recommendation. Pastor D~, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Chula Vista, home address: 853 Blackwood Road, Chula Vista, noted he had applied for 30 conditional use permits and had been turned down on all of them because of improper land use or parking area. Assistant Pastor Dennis Breedl0ve (Calvary Chapel of Chula Vista), 4091 Chanute Street, San Diego, stated the Task Force had tried to compile something that is needed in the community, not just a false vision. He complimented staff on the excellent job and supported the recommendation, but would like to have more land set aside. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 13, 1991 ~lg~dlLP~[l~, 84 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, representing the Human Services Council, explained the purpose of the Human Services Council. She stated the Human Services Council felt this was an important first step in looking at the designation of space for social services providers, and would support a broader definition of community purposes. The Human Services Council recommended regular reviews of the recommended space allocation in order to ensure future adequacy and to enable providers to keep abreast of the service demands. Ms. Randall urged approval of the amendment. Commissioner Tugenberg asked in what way Ms. Randall would have expanded the definition of the list. She answered it was not inclusive enough--present services include South Bay alcohol recovery, drug rehab, senior groups: adult day care, Meals-on-Wheels, literacy programs, domestic violence, child abuse, etc. They are always in a catch-up mode and need help to meet the needs. They had suggested to staff the list was not complete enough. Bruce Young, speaking for Land Advocacy for Non-Profit Development (LAND), an affiliate of Southern California Ecumenical Council, said they were experiencing a need of help. He noted there were two different data bases. The churches list those who attend church regularly, where people identify with the church they attend infrequently. He referenced Orange County where there is a real problem with no affordable housing for seniors, single parents, and homeless because there are no churches, temples or synagogues providing services. He noted that churches, temples and synagogues provide services amounting to 46.7% of the actual offering of 294,000 congregations across the nation, not including time volunteered. He supported the amendment, and appreciated Chula Vista being pioneers. Commissioner Martin asked if any other place had done this, to which Mr. Young replied that Chula Vista is the pioneer, and he has five cities watching Chula Vista. He believed the ratios were conservative; it should be closer to 2 acres. Tim Jones, 978 Myra Avenue, Chula Vista, the Church Land Planning Consultant to the Task Force and author of the Community Facilities Task Force report, noted there was a general lack of information regarding similar-type land uses and existing facilities. He supported the amendment. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why there was no data base for this type of facility. Mr. Jones answered he thought no one had challenged it. City Council had recommended that the definition of a community purpose facility be maintained as a non-profit use, not to allow profitable schools and daycare centers because they are provided for in commercial areas. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 13, 1991 Speaking in Opposition: ~0hn Seymour, representing Construction Industry Federation, acknowledged the fine work done by staff and the Task Force. He stated they wanted to on record of supporting the community purpose zone. They opposed the amount of acreage being set aside. He suggested that 440 people would be able to use the property concurrently, using the figures given above. He offered two recommendations: the ordinance should assume some concurrent use of religious facilities, and that the ordinance be revised to take into consideration that some churches would rent or lease facilities. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the ordinance should include some time limit terminology. Build-out is 50 years. Do we reserve the property for 50 years or for perpetuity; is there a time limitation on the SPA plan.9 Mr. Seymour answered that they would support that, and that the ordinance should be reviewed on a yearly basis to see if in fact the land being set aside was being bought. If it was not, it should be reduced; but if ail the land was being bought, there may be a need for more. Commissioner Martin asked if Mr. Seymour agreed with the formula staff used.9 Mr. Seymour answered in the affirmative, except for the 140 person per acre site. Speaking in favor: Reverend Charles Dobbs, 354 Roman Way, Chula Vista, Pastor of Park Hill United Methodist Church, responding to Mr. Seymour's comments, stated that the 440 people on a 1-acre parcel of land would violate the current parking code allowing one parking space for every 3.5 seats in the sanctuary. He supported the P-C zoning, but did not support setting time limits on selling the property. Speaking in opposition of amount of land designation, but for the plan itself: Reverend Vauehan Lyons, Executive Director of the San Diego Ecumenical Conference, opposed the amount of land set aside. He said it was not enough land. He encouraged the plan's adoption, and said the statisticai data was good, basic data, borne out by the annual report of the American and Canadian churches. Planning Commission Minutes ~17- March 13, 1991 Speaking in favor: Pastor Richard Hensgen, 893 Monserate, Chula Vista, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Chula Vista, and Vice-Chair of the Task Force, noted his church had an elementary school, a pre- school, and worked daily with many of the community social problems. Speaking in opposition: ~, San Miguel Partners, 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego 92122, speaking as a developer said he agreed with John Seymour that the acreage was too large. He said the Task Force represented the smaller congregations; the two ministers of the largest congregations who were originally members of the Task Force had resigned early. He had attended the earlier meetings of the Task Force, which had a combative nature, and the developers felt they were being attacked. He commended staff on the excellent job they had done on the analysis. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why the developers did not participate. Mr. Hanf answered that the Council did not direct that the developers were to be members of the Task Force. Commissioner Tugenberg was concerned about the possibility of opposition by any of the religious community. Planning Director Leiter said there had been no opposition expressed by the two congregations referenced by Mr. Hauf. Mr. Leiter said he understood it was an open invitation at the time the Task Force was set up. Certain members began to participate but left the committee over time, so the membership changed. After the Task Force issued its initial report, the format was shifted from a formal task force to a series of workshops. At those workshops, all of the ministers representing all of the religious organizations, as well as the Human Services Council, were invited. Mr. Hauf concurred that the ministers resigned nine months after the task force was formed, basically because of the combative nature of the representatives of the smaller congregations. The letters are on file and could be made available. Mr. Haul said he had talked with both of the ministers and they agreed on the conceptual plan; now it was a debate as to the size of the acreage. The developers were never invited to be part of the original task force. Pastor Don Schock, with permission from the Chair, returned to the microphone to speak to the amount of acreage. The concept of the 140 people per acre was based on the zoning ordinance. He noted that the developers had been notified at the beginning of the task force and McMillin Communities was the only developer who sent a representative. His attendance was appreciated. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if anyone from the Baldwin Company had shown up prior to the Task Force being changed to the Community Purpose Facilities Task Force. Mr. Schock remembered no one except McMillin and Great American (Sunbow) for the first nine months. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 13, 1991 Baldwin became involved when it became the Community Purpose Facilities Task Force. The report had already been done at that point for the religious portion. Mr. Schock stated they were not against the developer, but wanted land at a fair market price for non-profit, community-based uses. Commissioner Martin asked Reverend Lyons of the Ecumenical Conference, who had established chapels while in the military, about the formula used, how big the chapels were, and what ratio the military used. Reverend Lyons said they had a definite formula which was too detailed to go into, but the Presbytery standard is 3.5 acres necessary to build a church and preferably 5 acres. They will not build on a site less than 3.5 acres. He said that was the position of many of the major denominations today. Emerald Randolph returned to the microphone to clarify that the Human Services Council represented mainly non-profit groups but the social services provided separate from the churches. This amendment incorporates the needs both of the churches and of the non-profit agencies. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller said they could certainly appreciate the time and effort and sensed the frustration everyone had gone through, both the participants and the Task Force, along with staff. Commissioner Casillas commented that he fully appreciated the discussion and the outstanding work that had been done. He was concerned, however, that this issue would end up in court because of the City being involved in providing private property. He would not support the program. Commissioner Decker commented he had also deliberated on the church and state issue, and decided that the church was an entity that provided a service and didn't feel there was a problem. He believed this was a good program. Commissioner Tugenberg had discussed the proposed ordinance with two former Planning Commissioners who were lawyers who were not uneasy about the taking of property, but were uneasy about the First Amendment. Commissioner Martin said he liked the idea of designating certain areas, not necessarily for churches, but for non-profit corporations. The developers will benefit when they show they have a certain portion set aside at the time they come before the Planning Commission with a project. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 13, 1991 Vice-Chair Fuller added that it needed to be looked at in the broader scope of the community purpose facilities. She would like to see the social and human services emphasized in the definition. It is a need that should be recognized. It is difficult to establish a human service activity in the community because they were not wanted anywhere. She felt a lot of time had been spent on the environment, but more time needed to be spent on the human environment. Commissioner Tugenberg thought that private non-profit, unaffiliated schools should be put back into the list. Commissioner Carson believed there should be some time limit on the amount of time a parcel could be held with this designation. She agreed with Commission Martin that it would benefit the developers to have land set aside when they came in with a project. Commissioner Decker said he would like to add to the definition "and other appropriate community services to be determined by the City Council." Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the motion should be stated as follows: "Community purpose facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community including but not limited to those which serve the following types of purposes:" (with the list to follow). Commissioner Carson asked if Mr. Rudolf had some wording for the review. Mr. Rudolf suggested that Exhibit A is not the ordinance which would effectuate that change. His suggestion was that there would be another section added to the final form of the ordinance which stated this ordinance would be reviewed annually by the City Council to review the application of its terms. That change could be made administratively before going to Council. MSC (Decker/Carson) 5-1 (Commissioner Casillas voting against; Chair Grasser Horton absent) that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration, IS-91-17. MSC (Decker/Fuller) 4-2 (Commissioners Casillas and Tugenberg voting against; Chair Grasser Horton absent) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code amendments, as revised, and the Council refer the adequacy of day care facilities in new developments to the Child Care Commission and staff for review and recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 13, 1991 Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked for clarification egarding the addition of human service in Section 1. There was no formal amendment regarding the amendment of any of the other language of Section 1. Did the Commission desire to change any of the other eight subdivisions in Section 17 Commissioner Tugenberg suggested that it should be reviewed with the Human Service Council. The private school had been included but had been taken out, but the other suggestions should be discussed with staff at another time. Attorney Rudolf clarified the final results of the recommendation. Staff had recommended the amendment striking private schools. Was the motion for the staff recommendation or as originally presented. Vice~Chair Fuller said it was for the staff recommendation with Mr. Rudolf's rewording in the introductory language. Vice-Chair Fuller did intend to suggest Item 2 would read "social and human service" activities. The Commissioners had no objection to adding that in. No. 2 would then read "Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous" Commissioner Tugenberg noted he would be present at the Monday workshop, but would be absent the week of the 27th. Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commission they had a Monday workshop as opposed to a Wednesday workshop, then a meeting on the 27th. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:25 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of March 18, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. "l~ncy Ripl~y, Secrgtary Planning Commission