Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/09/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 28, 1970 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, Hillson and James. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Adams requested that the minutes of September 21, 1970, be amended to reflect his comments concerning the application for a conditional use permit, 200 block Church Avenue, new and used car storage parking, Castle Plymouth, Inc., as follows: He felt the objections of the residents were valid; that the use was not compatible with the area; and that since this use had been going on without the benefit of legal sanction, it should be eliminated. These comments reflected his position and were the basis for his "no" vote on the motion for approval of the conditional use permit. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Minutes of the meeting of September 14, 1970 be approved as mailed and the minutes of the meeting of September 21, 1970 be approved as amended. Request for waiver of street improvements on Oneida Street for Starlight Center at 1280 Nolan Avenue Director of Planning Warren reported the receipt of a letter from Starlight Center requesting a waiver from the requirement for street improvements on East Oneida Street. He recalled that the Planning Commission had granted a conditional use permit on May 25, 1970 for an addition to the existing building of Starlight Center. One of the conditions of the permit was the dedication of the necessary right-of-way for East Oneida Street. The City Code requires that when the right-of-way is available, any improvement of property valued at $5,000 or more requires that street improvements go in. Mr. Warren further advised that the City Code provides for the Planning Commis- sion to defer for a certain length of time the improvement of streets, but a waiver would require action by the City Council. The City Engineer has recom- mended granting a deferment until street improvements have been constructed for Chula Vista Gardens Unit No. 7 subdivision. MS (Hillson-James) Deferment of street improvements be granted to the Starlight Center. Member Adams commented that this deferment must be subject to the furnishing of a bond or lien to assure construction within 30 days after being ordered by the City. -2- 9/28/70 Member Hillson voiced his objection to this requirement pointing out that Starlight Center is a unique organization which has done a tremendous amount of good for the community, to which the city, the government, and the schools have closed their eyes for years. He felt this is one time when the City should do something to show appreciation for the dedication of these interested citizens and, if necessary, grant a complete waiver, or at least grant a defer- ment for street improvements and not require a lien or bond to be posted. Member Adams avowed he could not see where furnishing a lien or bond to insure installing the improvements at the proper time would handicap this Center at all. Chairman Rice asked if a representative from Starlight Center was present at the meeting, and finding no one, he recommended that consideration of the request be postponed until later in the meeting hoping a representative might arrive. Member Hillson withdrew his motion for deferment and the Chairman announced this matter would be considered later in the meeting. RESOLUTION - Approving prezoning to P-C for property north of Otay Valley Road south of Orange Avenue Extension - George & Lucile Sears - Brandywine Director of Planning Warren recalled the public hearing conducted on this applica- tion for prezoning to "P-C" and the action taken by the Commission approving the land use plan. He reported the draft of the resolution submitted to the Commis- sion on September 21, 1970, is acceptable to the applicant, to the City Engineer and the Planning Department staff. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to City Council prezoning to "P-C" for RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-S that area south of Orange Avenue, east of Princess Manor and north of Otay Valley Road, known as "Brandywine" PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) - PREZONING - 4700 block Otay Valley Road, 600' east of Oleander - from A-3(8) to "I" General Industrial - Jimmie Shinohara Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the 46 acres involved lying south of the proposed Brandywine proposal, north of Otay Valley Road and east of Princes Manor subdivision. The original request involved 30 acres and the staff included 16 acres located between this site and the present City boundaries. Mr. Warren recalled previous meetings at which this matter was considered and the staff's recommendation for I-L zoning for all of that property fronting on Otay Valley Road and R-1 prezoning for the remaining half of the property to the north. There were objections to this proposal by the applicant since he desired higher density residential zoning a~d the staff was directed to restudy the proposal. The staff still feels it would be unwise to zone additional property in this area for multiple family or commercial use unless an acceptable plan for develop- ment is presented. It is, therefore, recommended that the property be prezoned -3- 9/28/70 to R-1 and I-L, prezoning to become final upon dedication of certain streets as outlined. The chairman declared the public hearing reopened. Mr. Virgil Clapp, 1199 Broadway, Chula Vista, representing the applicant, commented that this Property was purchased for development at the time the freeway is constructed, which is approximately two years away. It is the desire of the County and other developers to put a street through this property from Otay Valley Road to the north. The property is presently under cultivation and for Mr. Shinohara to split his property and give up three acres for street right-of-way he should gain something in return. He felt it would not be feasible to put R-1 zoning between this proposed road and the salvageyard which abuts this property on the east. They are requesting commercial zoning to put in a service station and garage at the northwest corner of the proposed street and Otay Valley Road and R-3 zoning next to the salvage yard. leslie Lauderdale, 1555 Oleander Avenue, expressed interest in learning what uses would be allowed in the I-L zoning. He stated he would not object to a service station and garage, but another plant like the Omar rendering plant would make it unbearable. Chairman Rice advised that the I-L classification is a limited industrial zone and the performance standards which the City has adopted would not permit odors, smoke, dust and so on, which the residents might have associated with heavy industrial use. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. The Commission expressed concurrence with the staff's recommendation for prezoning and that if the applicant has specific plans for development which require a change of zone this can be considered at a later time. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council prezoning for 46 RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-N acres in the 4700 block of Otay Valley Road (north side) 600 feet east of Oleander Avenue to R-1 and I-L. Prezonin9 to become final only upon the dedication of the following streets: (A) 30 feet of dedication on the north side of Otay Valley Road, which would provide an ultimate right-of-way of lO0' for that road (20' is existing from the center line at the present time). (B) 26 1/2' on the south side of Timber Street extension. This extension would serve property which is presently landlocked as well as providing access to the existing single family dwellings within the City to the proposed elementary school site contemplated for the Planned Unit Develop- ment project north of this site. -4- 9/28/70 (C) A 55' collector road bisecting the property in question, extending north from Otay Valley Road to the northerly boundary of the applicant's property. An alternate location will be considered as precise plans are developed. Findings of fact are as follows: a. The R-1 zoning proposed will conform to the existing and proposed development adjacent to this site and is in conformance with the General Plan. b. The I-L zoning will provide a buffer between existing salvage operation and the single family subdivision to the west and will provide a good industrial site on a major street adjacent to a freeway interchange. c. These streets will be needed to serve the proposed land use on subject property. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) - PREZONING - 4103 Ota~ Valley Road - from A-1 (8/ tn R-3-G (24 acres and C-C 31 acres/ - Louis Ber~ener Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the property south of Main Street or Otay Valley Road and west of Interstate 805 Freeway. Consideration is for prezoning of 70 acres, 55 of which is owned by the applicant. The property wi th the inclusion of Main Street is contiguous to the present present city limit to the north. Mr. Warren reviewed the applicant's proposal which includes townhouse units on 21 1/2 acres, apartments on about 23 acres, a neighborhood shopping center of about 5 1/2 acres and visitor commercial (includes adjacent ownership) for 7 acres. The balance, not owned by the applicant, is indicated as a mobile home park. The staff contacted the owneG a national oil company, of the 15 acres adjacent to the freeway and found that their primary interest would be to provide a service station at the interchange of the freeway; they have no projected use for the remaining property. Questions were raised at the previous meeting concerning the need for additional schools in the area. The elementary school district has indicated they do not desire another school site south of Main Street in this vicinity. The Sweetwater Union High School District indicated the existing junior high that would serve this property is at capacity, some bussing or rearrangement in schedules would probably be necessary when this property and adjacent property is developed. Mr. Warren referred to the General Plan which places this area in a limited industrial reserve, but the staff feels it would be logical to reconsider that proposed land use because of the property's relationship to the permanent open space in the flood plain and the existing residential development. -5- 9-28-70 Mr. Warren reviewed the staff's recommendation for prezoning which is not specific zoning in accordance with delineated boundaries but would establish the concept of land use and basic dei~s~ties, then the development of precise plans could continue. This includes R-l-5 zoning, single family, for approximately 20 acres of the property, R-3-G for approximately 37 acres of the property, a neighborhood shopping center site for approximately 5 acres, and 8 acres for the visitor commercial site, It is further recommended that the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District be attached. The staff also recommends that no develop- ment shall take place until the Engineering Department has submitted a written report to the Planning Commission verifying the adquacy of the sewer system to handle each phase of development. The Chairman declared the public hearing reopened. Dan Grady, representing the applicant, expressed agreement in general with the recommendations o~ the staff. Chairman Rice asked if the applicant confirms that they wish to withdraw the tentative map for Rancho Rio Units 1 and 2. Mr. Grady confirmed that they do. Mr. Grady continued in his remarks that they are quite close to the staff's recommendation for proposed land use and density. They are requesting develop- ment of 733 family units whereas the staff recommends 700 units. The part where they have some disagreemnt with the recommendations of the staff is on the develop- ment of the property to the extreme west. He felt it would be extremely difficult to develop to R-l-5 zoning. They suggest that acreage be developed into town- house cluster type of development, that the entire area be developed not to exceed 10 units to the acre. Their proposal for development would include 3 or 4 acres of open space, would integrate the two types of residential uses and open the Otay Valley area to the south to residents of this development and residents of the balance of the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Grady stated it is their request that the Commission recommend rezoning the property in accordance with the recommendation of the staff wi th one modification, which would be, no more than 647 dwelling units for the 55 acres under the applicant's control. In discussion of the density and type of units, Mr. Grady confirmed that they feel the property immediately adjacent to the freeway should be a lower density than the portion of the property they plan to develop. Mr. Louis Bergener spoke in favor of the proposed type of development, includin9 townhouse and 9arden type apartments. He commented they could live with the overall density proposed by the staff. Director Warren asked if he was referring to the staff recommendation for 700 units on the 70 acres. Mr. Dan Grady replied that the applicant said 700 units on the overall property with the proportionate ratio they had suggested on the plan with slightly higher density in the center. -6- 9/28/7O Mr. Virgil Clapp, 1199 Broadway, stated he was not in opposition to this proposal but questioned why they were giving 13 acres of commercial to this applicant when they would not approve a commercial site on Mr. Shinohara's property. There being no further comment, the public hearing was declared closed. Member Hillson expressed his concern with the high density, because some school is going to have to absorb these, he would like to see some lower density applied in this area. Chairman Rice confirmed that he is also disturbed about the high density in this area. He felt that study and consideration should be given to the effect of concentrating high density development in this general area of the City. Member Hillson suggested that the Planning Director and staff meet with the developer to see if they can reach some compromise that would be suitable. Director of Planning Warren confirmed this can be done if the Commission agrees with the overall density of 700 units for the area under consideration. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Recommend approval of prezoning as proposed by the staff subject to the approval of a Precise Plan before prezoning SUBDIVISION - Rancho Rio Units 1 and 2 - Tentative map The Chairman reported no action is required since the applicant has indicated his desire to withdraw the subdivision map. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 1400 block Melrose Avenue - R-1 to R-3-G and reduction of setback 25' to 15' - Saratoga Development Corp. Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of approximately ll acres located on the west side of Melrose Avenue south of East Rienstra Street, and bounded on the west by the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. easement. After discussing adjacent land use and zoning, and the existing and proposed site topography, he stated that the staff recommends approval of R-3-G zoning subject to approval of a Precise Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. ~ne^¥~rk., 280 K Street, commented that in the pas~ ~ew.ye~s the philosophy of ne u~y nas grown toward the feeling that the most aeslraD/e pIace To put multiple family use is interspersed among single family or lower density uses, and if a site ever lended itself to this particular philosophy, this site does. With the exception of six lots affected by this property, the property is completely surrounded by other uses than R-1. He pointed out there is a large drainage channel that goes around the entire perimeter of the back of those six lots. He further stated that development of the property will require -7- g/28/70 installation of a 54" covered drainage pipe and single family development could not afford this type of improvement. He contended that R-1 development would require more grading than the proposed R-3-G development plans. Mr. York referred to the staff comments which indicated a problem concerning tandem parking. He pointed out that for this development the developer would be required to furnish 327 parking spaces but he is actually providing 462; this requires parking one car in a covered carport and one in the driveway for each of the units. To meet the requirement of 327 parking spaces they would need only 49 spaces as tandem parking, or one space for each four units. Mr. York felt the requirement for a private patio for each unit should be left to the discretion of the developer and that it should be eliminated as a require- ment of a precise plan. James Dyer, 173 Rivera Court, pointed out that the shopping center is now disconnected from any residential area by the hill. The area in question is a natural open space and if the hill is graded and the gully placed in a pipe drainage, it will disrupt the natural area and instead leave a large bank. He expressed opposition to the grading of the property and to the higher density development. He bought his house adjacent to that area knowing it was zoned R-1 and he would not object to that type of development. Lorette Wedlake, 161 Rivera Court, asked the difference in the density between R-l-7 and R-3-G and after an explanation by Mr. Warren, she pointed out the shortage of schools in that area, stating that the children living there now are being bussed to various schools. Chairman Rice pointed out that the fact that an area is being developed in an R-3 category does not insure there will be more children in the area, because it could be an adult only complex and many times they end up with less children in those areas than if they were developed R-l. Darlene Reed, 178 Rivera Court, voiced her objection to grading away the hill, and it was pointed out by Mr. Warren that grading would take place whether the property were developed to R-1 or R-3. Mrs. Reed then asked about the drainage ditch which abuts her back yard. She asked what effect covering it up would have on her property, and where they are going to cover it up from. Mr. York advised they propose to cover the drainage on their own property only, beginning about 150 feet from Rienstra. Mrs. Reed expressed her oppostion to the development. Mr. York commented on the objections raised as follows: The drainage to be installed will effect only their own property; the hill will be graded regardless of the type of development that takes place, and the residents on Rivera Court have the SDG&E easement as a buffer between their property and this development. He also pointed out that their buildings will be a maximum height of two stories which is allowed in single family residential area. This will not be an all adult develop- ment, but it will be two bedroom apartments and this would result in fewer school age children than there would be in three, four and five bedroom single family homes. -8- 9/28/7O Lydia Perez remarked that her three school age children are all in different schools, and she objected to the bussing of the children. She also contended that the existing drainage ditch is not properly protected and is not adequate. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was closed. Members Chandler, Adams, and Hillson spoke in favor of this development. Chairman Rice also pointed out this is a suitable area for a low-density multiple-family development; it has a difference in topography, is adjacent to a commercial development and has a buffer on the west. The Commission discussed the guidelines for a precise plan as recommended by the staff with particular attention to the requirement for fencing and private patios and directed that if the staff and applicant cannot work this out the matter should be brought back to the Commission. MSUC (Hillson-James) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-T approximately 12 acres located west of Melrose Avenue between Orange Avenue and East Rienstra Street to R-3-G-P with the provision the staff work with the applicant concerning the guidelines for the Precise Plan. Findings are as follows: a. The configuration of the property, with limited access to a dedicated street, would require an extensive street pattern on the property for R-1 development. The property can best be served by clustering units under the R-3-G concept. b. The adjoining property across Melrose Avenue is zoned R-3-G and C-N zoning exists directly south. c. The General Plan indicates a medium density (4-12 units per acre) for this area; R-3-G would allow 17~ units to the acre, however, the "P" modifying district requiring a precise plan will limit the density. d. R-3-G will provide the City with a diversification of densities in areas providing: commercial services, adequate road system, including access to the freeway and major or collector roads, proper separation from single family areas, and adequate school facilities to handle the increase in density. Chairman Rice reminded the audience that this application will appear as a public hearing before the City Council. -9- 9/28/70 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 35 Broadwas - Trailer and truck rental (U-Haul Co.) - C-T zone Joseph Riva and H. Corbett Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location of the property, which is two parcels totaling 186' X 150', located on the east side of Broadway, 290 feet south of C Street. The adjacent property is zoned C-T, with the exception of the property on the east which is zoned R-3. Mr. Lee stated the applicant has just advised the staff that they plan to use the property for only one year, which would not require the paving and landscaping conditions submitted in the staff comments. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Harold Corbett commented that there was a U-Haul rental place about five blocks north in National City and they had to close due to the freeway going through. The reason Mr. Riva wants to get one open on a temporary basis is to continue with the business they had built up at the other location, until such time as he can get a permanent location. He also made a clarification that the actual usage is only the parcel with lll' frontage on Broadway. The 75' lot will not be included in this use. He advised that the lot to be used has two driveways into it and it has not been decided whether to build a small building or rent a small building or trailer to use as a rental office. He confirmed it will be for a maximum of one year and they will fulfill the requirement for temporary paving. There were no other comments and the public hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Approval of a conditional use permit for 35 Broadway RESOLUTION NO. PCC-70-28 for trailer and truck rental in a C-T zone, with the use confined to one lot with lll' frontage, for a period of one year with temporary paving requirements. Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use is compatible with the adjacent uses. The sales lot will be approximately 100 feet from any residential structure. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. In view of the conditions imposed on the applicant (maximum time limit one year), the proposed use will not be detrimental. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The proposed use will comply with regulations normally imposed on uses of a temporary nature for one year or less. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected by this use. -10- 9/28/70 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Fourth Avenue and C Street - Operation of used automobile reconditionin9 and sales - C-T zone - Marell Walton Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and C Street and the existing uses which include a service station, Unimart store, parking and various retail uses. The application indicates this use would be a major auto repair. While this area is presently zoned C-T, the present use falls into a C-C category which agrees with the General Plan. The use proposed is oriented to thoroughfare commercial zoning and the use is not in accordance with the C-C zoning requirements, and the staff, therefore, recommends denial of the use. The facility that was there previously did a certain amount of work on cars such as brakes and alignment. If the Commission desires to approve this use they should direct the staff to prepare a list of appropriate conditions. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Marell Walton, the applicant, was present to answer any questions of the Commission. Under questioning he commented that this site wouldn't be suitable if there are restrictions and he could only do some part of the automobile, it would not meet his purpose. He confirmed that he wishes to do general repair and that he has a dealer's license and sells some vehicles, and a large percent of the work would be on their own vehicles and would include body and fender work and touch up painting. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Member Chandler agreed with the staff recommendation for denial. He did not feel that particular building and part of the parking lot lend itself to use as a major repair shop and used car lot for the sale of cars. Member Adams stated that he does not agree with the staff on this proposal. He thinks this is as good a place for C-T zone as the street from Fourth to T bird Avenue on E Street and it is just as good a place for a used car sales agency and repairs as the facility at the corner of Third Avenue and E Street. He favored approving this conditional use permit. Member Macevicz expressed his opposition to this pointing out that every shopping center in the community would be requesting an auto body and paint shop and used car sales. MSC (Chandler-Macevicz) The application for a conditional use permit at Fourth and C Street for operation of a used automobile repair and sales facility be denied. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Macevicz, Stewart, Rice, James and Hillson NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: None Chairman Rice advised the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days -ll- 9/28/70 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 621 L Street - 10' block wall in R-3 zon~ - Imperial Truck Lines, Inc. Associate Planner Lee recalled there has been a problem for a number of years with sound coming from the trucks which park in the northerly portion of the property. At the present time the north and west boundaries are screened by quite large shrubs but they are ineffective in reducing the sound. Imperial Truck Lines hired a sound engineer who has made a recommendation for a wall 200' long along the north boundary line and 50' along the west line. Hopefully this will reduce the noise problem to satisfy the residents in the area. The staff recommends approval of a variance to permit the additional height of a wall in the R-3 zone. Mr. Hurt, Terminal Manager for Imperial Truck Lines, commented in answer to a question about the length of the wall, that they have had no complaints from any neighbors other than that corner. The only complaints have come from the actual area covered by the fence. Chairman Rice asked the applicant if they would be willing to extend the fence along the west property line if there should be complaints from the other three residents adjacent to that portion of their lot. Member Stewart indicated he did not feel the applicant should be required to obligate the company at some future date. He felt that should be determined at the time the need is indicated. Mr. Hurt felt the wall as proposed will satisfy the complaints they have had and that is their desire--to eliminate the complaints. Herbert Young, 873 Riverlawn, spoke representing residents on Riverlawn, stating he approves this request subject to the condition that the wall shall be built according to the recommendation of Mr. Ray Thierer of Hackett Ceiling and Lighting, Inc., who advises if this wall does not sufficiently reduce the noise level, additional sound-absorbing units can be installed on the wall. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. When asked about a completion date, Mr. Hurt advised the owner is ready to go ahead immediately and it should be finished within 90 days. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Approval of variance for 621 L Street for construction RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-29 of a 10' high block wall to be completed within 90 days Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Due to the proximity of the truck terminal to the residences, a wall in excess of 6' is needed. b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. The need for this wall is evident by the number of complaints received from the residents to the rear of the terminal. -12- 9/28/70 c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the ordinance or the public interest. Consultants, hired by Imperial Truck Lines, have recommended this wall as a solution to the noise problem. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 1453 Eckman Avenue - Reduction of front sard 15' to 9½' - R-1 zone - Adolf Pichler Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location of the lot and of the house on the lot; the design of the house makes it logical to expand to either the front or rear, but expansion to the rear would be limited due to the configuration of the lot; therefore, he desires to build toward the front. The applicant is not required by ordinance to build a garage, but it is his desire to construct a garage and he is requesting a reduction of front setback to 9½'. This lot is separated from the adjoining property by a retaining wall. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Adolf Pichler, 1453 Eckman Avenue, expressed his agreement with the condition for staff approval of the architectural treatment of the addition. There being no further comment, the'public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Hillson) Approval of variance for reduction of front setback to RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-30 9½' at 1453 Eckman Avenue, subject to the condition of staff approval of the architecture Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Because of the lot configuration and floor plan it is impractical to make additions to other locations on the lot. b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substan- tial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. This variance would bring the buildable lot area up to parity with other lots in the area. -13- 9/28/70 c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public interest. Because of grade differences to the south there will be no detrimental affects, and the purpose of the ordinance will be satisfied. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. Waiver for street improvements on Oneida Street Chairman Rice suggested that the waiver for street improvements on Oneida Street for Starlight Center be carried over to the next meeting, since there was no representative from that organization present at this meeting to speak for them. Member Stewart commented that if the ordinance requires that they either execute a lien or a bond, and the Commission has no right to waive that bond, he did not see what purpose would be served by putting it off. MSC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of a deferment of street improvements for Starlight Center subject to the posting of a bond or lien to guarantee that the improvements will be completed within 30 days after notice is given by the City Engineer. Member Hillson commented that he thinks this is one time that the City Planning Commission and, he hoped, the City Council, should consider this is a very urgent need, and the City can provide a benefit for very deserving people. He felt an ordinance, law or code is made to benefit people and there should be provisions and the Commission should consider it that way, that these things should be granted in certain conditions. If this organization has to pay for street improvements then the building is not going to be completed and the Commission here should make the recommendation to the Council that this requirement be waived. Chairman Rice asked if Member Adams wished to amend the motion to include a recommendation to the Council that they waive the requirement for street improve- ments. Member Macevicz felt this could not be done and commented there are similar organizations performing the same type of service and they were required to put in the service. Member Adams commented that the ordinance that requires the street improvements is made for the benefit of the people and it applies to all of the people that own property, if their property is developed; and how can the Commission say, "The guy across the street has to pay for improvements but you don't have to." Member Stewart expressed the feeling that as individual citizens each has the right to make any recommendation they wish to the Council, but as an advisory body regarding land use this is not the Commission's function. -14- 9/28/70 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Chandler, Stewart, Macevicz, Rice and James NOES: Member Hillson ABSENT: None Member Hillson commented that in voting "No" he was not against the deferment but against the requirement of posting a bond or filing a lien against the property. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Warren pointed out that the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for October 26 would coincide with the League of California Cities 72nd Annual Conference being held in San Diego. There will be evening activities which some of the Commissioners may wish to attend. MSUC (Stewart-James) The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for October 26, 1970 be cancelled. , The Commission discussed the problems involved in prezoning property when develop- ment plans are also being pursued through County jurisdiction, also the question of the provision of public facilities. Chairman Rice expressed objection to saturating an area with high density development simply because it is adjacent to open space or park area, thereby making it unavailable to other residents. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Gene York, 280 K Street, commented that he agreed with the statement of the Chairman regarding open space and park development, but he could not agree with the philosophy that the people who are buying or renting new homes today should be forced to provide facilities for the people who are already there. If the City or County, or whatever public agency, wants to buy the land and develop it for the general population, there is certainly nothing wrong with that and they should be able to buy it for the price the developer paid for it, and have a certain amount of land set aside. He pointed out the developer is not providing anything; it is the people who are renting or buying the homes that are doing the providing. Why should 100 units go in and have to provide a park for a thousand people who are already there. By the same token, by increasing the density, if you can provide open space even for the people that are going to this particular development, you are eliminating the fact that these people are going to have to use the public facilities that are being provided by the taxpayers as a whole. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) The meeting be adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. ~apes, secre~t~ary