Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1973/06/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOll OF CtIULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 27, 1973 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members iresent: Macevicz, Chandler, Whitten, Rudolph, Swanson and Wilson. Absent with previous notification): Member Rice. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Lee, Associate Civil Engineer Hanson and Acting Secretary Scholl. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Vice Chairman Macevicz, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) The minutes of the meeting of June 4, 1973 be approved as mailed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): a. Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-73-3 for Fairway Downs b. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - Request for approval of PUD-72-3 Fairway Downs c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Request for approval of residential development in Flood Plain Dis- trict - Fairway Downs, Inc. Planning Director Peterson noted this hearing was continued from February 21 in order that additional information could be furnished for the Environmental Impact Report regarding the Sweetwater River flood plain. Since the last meeting the property has been acquired by the County of San Diego as part of the Sweetwater Regional Park, and since no further action is necessary the items should be filed. Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing. James E. Miller, 48t9 Whippoorwill Lane, Bonita, attorney for the applicants, requested a continuation for one year, inasmuch as Fairway Downs is contesting in court that the County had not complied with the Environmental Quality Act, and expected to pursue the matter through the various courts of appeal, if need be. He said that if within the period of one year the matter were resolved adversely to their interests, the Planning Commission would be advised and the matter could then be filed. However, if they should succeed and are entitled to continue with their plans, at the earliest possible date the Commission would be informed with respect to the rights of the applicants, and they would expect to present information and public testimony before the Commission. Members of the Commission were undecided about the legality of one year's continuance and wished to consult with the City Attorney, who had been delayed, -2- 6/27/73 as to whether a continuance would place the City in the position of lending a claim of legitimacy to the applicant's position before the court. MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) Move the item down the agenda until the arrival of the City Attorney, and proceed with other business. 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-73-9 for Saratoga Canyon Director of Planning Peterson advised that this property had been down zoned from R-3 and C-C to R-3-G-P. However, there is concern about the noise problem which exists, even before the freeway is built, because of the canyon walls rising from Telegraph Canyon Road. The staff has recommended approval of the EIR with the condition that the applicant address himself to the noise problem in connection with the site planning and architectural treatment of the buildings. Commissioner Rudolph asked if the grading would go ahead as soon as the Depart- ment of Public Works approved the grading plans, and would that include not only grading, but the landscaping, irrigation and maintenance of the slopes? Environmental Review Coordinator Reid replied that the new Grading Ordinance does require the landscaping and irrigation of slopes within thirty days after completion of grading, and maintenance thereafter. Commissioner Rudolph asked also if the impact of the freeway noise had been considered? Mr. Reid said that the noise level generated by Telegraph Canyon Road at the 1990 time frame would place that portion of the property in the clearly unacceptable range. If the unacceptable level from 1-805 were extended over the property, the same result would be shown. City Attorney Lindber§ arrived and was seated. Commissioner Whitten raised the question as to what is the maximum acceptable noise level inside a home. He said the sound levels in this area are certainly unacceptable for human existence without some control over the type of environ- ment created. City Attorney Lindberg stated that is exactly the point that should be kept in mind. The environment has already been created in terms of the street noise level already in existence, and the duty of the Commission is to mitigate the effect upon the balance of the environment of new projects and try to create as livable an environment as possible. Commissioner Whitten inquired what effect the grading would have on the homes above until the landscaping takes effect. Planning Director Peterson noted that the slopes created would be in conform- ance with the Grading Ordinance, compacted and landscaped. The Soils Engineer would have to certify as to their stability. -3- 6/27/73 Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing, and as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Wilson) The staff revised draft Environmental Impact Report RESOLUTION NO. EIR-73-9 be adopted as the City's Report on Saratoga Canyon with the condition that the applicant shall incor- porate necessary sound attenuating measures into the design of the structures with submission of the precise plan for this site. Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the hearing on Item 1, the EIR, Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for Fairway Downs, reviewing for the City Attorney the request for a one year's continuance in order that the ap- plicant's interests might best be served. City Attorney Lindberg advised that continuance for one year would be proper only if direction were given that the hearing be readvertised before it is reopened. The courts and the County, which is involved in the litigation, would recognize that the Commission, until such time as it has conducted its public hearing, does not have any position relative to the merits of the project. MSUC (Wilson-Chandler) The public hearing for EIR-73-3, PUD-72-3 and PCC-72-18 for Fairway Downs, Inc. be continued to on or about the second regular Commission meeting of June, 1974 for the purpose of allowing resolu- tion of pending litigation on which the Commission has taken no position, with the condition that the applicant pay for readvertising the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): a. Consideration of revision to General Plan for 3.33 acres at 789 "E" Street from Industrial to Visitor Commercial - PCM-73-8 b. REZONING - 3.33 acres at 789 "E" Street from I to C-V - Street Properties~ Inc. - PCZ-73-G c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Request to construct service station and towin9 service in C-V zone at 789 "E" Street - Street Properties~ Inc. - PCC-73-8 Director of Planning Peterson reminded that these items were continued from the meeting of June 13 to allow the applicant time to decide whether or not he wished to pursue this application or whether he desired to redesign his project along the guidelines which the staff had recommended. The applicant is willing to provide some slight modification of the design, but it does not satisfy the staff as to the desired treatment of this important entryway into the Bayfront area. Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing. Edward Huns, Attorney, representing Street Properties, advised that they have three distinct tenants under lease, Motel Six being one and Denny's another. Both of these are economy-type operations and have little flexibility in building design and construction. He passed a picture to the Commission which -4- 6/27/73 showed a slightly altered design in roof type and paint tone for Motel Six. He said Denny's feel they are not in a position to make any changes other than to modify their design to make it more earthy in tone and more compatible with Motel Six. Both Denny's and the service station have taken the inflex- ible positions that they cannot do business without "E" Street access, and the applicants feel that their right to access is a right as property owners. Mr. Muns asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of rezoning with conditions, is it possible for the applicant at that time, in a presentation to the City Council, to oppose the conditions which are recommended by the Planning Commission. City Attorney Lindberg advised that the City Council will hear arguments against any conditions that exist in the ordinance, and if they modify the recommenda- tion of the Commission, if there is a rezoning, it must be referred back to the Commission for a report. On administrative matters, such as the conditional use permit, the Council may by an extraordinary four-fifths vote modify, amend or override the decision of the Commission without a report. Mr. Muns requested that the rezoning be adopted and that the conditional use permit be granted with whatever conditions the Commission wished to attach. Commissioner Whitten asked if the clients understood the goals which Chula Vista was trying to achieve in the Bayfront Plan. Mr. Muns said they were aware of them but did not feel they were able to comply with them. Commissioner Whitten commented that the reason for the Bayfront Study was to create something unique, and if the applicant's clients were not able to provide that uniqueness, then in all fairness to the people of Chula Vista he could not look favorably upon this particular development Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, representing South Bay Citizens Planning Committee, said she had seen beautifully designed Motel Sixes in Monterey and Salinas, and the same could be provided in this community. Mr. Muns wished to clarify that the type of design depicted in the picture shown to the Commission is the type of design utilized in Carmel Valley, in the Monterey area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Upon further discussion, the Commission agreed that this entrance to the Bay- front is critical in establishing the image recommended by the consultant, Sedway/Cooke, and endorsed by the Council and the Commission. MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) Recommend to the City Council adoption of an amend- RESOLUTION NO. PCM-73-8 ment to the General Plan to change from Industrial to Visitor Commercial the designation for 3.33 acres located at 789 "E" Street. -5- 6/27/73 MSUC (Wilson-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council that the moratorium RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-73-G restricting rezoning and development of property within the Bayfront Study area be lifted for 3.33 acres located at 789 "E" Street, and the zone designation be changed from I to C-V-P, with a precise plan to be submitted which shall conform to the following guidelines: a. The Precise Plan shall conform with the design and development criteria recommended by the consultants in the Bayfront Report (Sedway/Cooke). b. The architecture, including materials, colors, signing and design details shall be coordinated for all uses on the site. c. Special emphasis shall be placed upon the use of earth tone colors and materials, with extensive use of wood as a design feature suitable as an entrance into a marine-recreational area. Findings are as follows: 1. The proposed amendment to the General Plan is in conformance with the Bayfront Plan submitted by consultant Sedway/Cooke. 2. The site is located adjacent to the freeway interchange at a major entrance to the City and is well suited for visitor commercial use. MSUC (Rudolph-Wilson) Deny the conditional use permit application PCC-73-8 to construct a service station and towing service at 789 "E" Street. Vice Chairman Macevicz advised the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council within ten days on the conditional use permit. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): a. Consideration of chan~e in General Plan from Thoroughfare Commercial to Limited Industrial for miscellaneous properties east and west side of Walnut Avenue~ north of Palomar - PCM~73-13 b. REZONING - Miscellaneous properties east and west side of Walnut Avenue~ north of Palomar Street, from R-3 to I-L - PCZ-73-C Director of Planning Peterson reminded that these items were continued from the meeting of May 21 at the request of a representative of a property owner in the area. Mr. Peterson displayed a transparency pointing out that Walnut Avenue is a dead-end street. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses as a result of past inadequate zoning controls. It is not well suited for continued residential use, and its isolation from through traffic renders it unsuitable for commercial use. The dominant character of the area is industrial, and its proximity to the freeway seems to lend itself reasonably well to light warehousing and small wholesale uses of various types. -6- 6/27/73 City Attorney Lindberg wished to call attention that the owners of the Palomar Inn have had discussions with him concerning the effects of this rezoning. In order that they might not be misled, and this may be a part of the record before the Commission considers the rezoning, he pointed out that with the rezoning the motel use of that property would become a non-conforming use, and should it be discontinued they could not reestablish it, in accordance with the Ordinance. However, the use of the property for other "care" purposes, such as a Halfway House, would be governed by conditional use permit and could be allowed in any zone. This zoning would not preclude their request at some future date for such a use. Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing. Ted Edwards, 1842 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing Mr. Sumner, the owner of the Palomar property, on whose behalf the continuance was granted, wished to thank the Commission for the extension of time which allowed him to look into the matter, and he has no wish to oppose the proposed revision in the General Plan. Bill Richardson, 3630 Fir, San Diego, wished to concur with the staff recom- mendation for limited industrial zoning and urged that the Commission adopt such recommendation. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wilson asked if Commercial zoning was not usually regarded as the best land use for an interchange. Planning Director Peterson agreed that in many cases Commercial is the most suitable zoning, and pointed out that service stations would be allowed as conditional uses in the I-L zone, but noted that most properties on Walnut Avenue are not exposed to the interchange. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council adoption of an amend- RESOLUTION NO. PCM-73-13 ment to the General Plan to change from Thorough- fare Commercial to Research and Limited Industrial for the area located on the east and west side of Walnut Avenue, north of Palomar Street and south of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company easement. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council a change of zone from RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-73-C C-T and R-3 to I-L for the area located on the east and west side of Walnut Avenue, north of Palomar Street and south of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company easement. Findings are as follows: 1. Light industrial zoning will encourage consolidated development and generate less traffic than would commercial zoning. 2. The subject properties are separated from residential areas to the north and south. Adequate separation to the east can be obtained with existing development standards. -7- 6/27/73 3. Walnut Avenue does not lend itself to C-T zoning since it is not a thoroughfare. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont,): REZONING - Two parcels at southwest corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive from R-3-D to R-1 - PCZ-73-H Director of Planning Peterson reviewed for the Commission that late last year they had recommended rezoning of the property from R-3 to R-3-D. The Council considered that recommendation and determined that the property should not be rezoned to R-3-D and referred it back to the Commission with the suggestion that R-1 zoning be considered. Several hearings have been held on that pro- posal, during which the owner fronting directly on Bonita Road has asked that her property be zoned R-1 and the owner of the other property on the corner of Sandalwood Drive has asked that it retain the existing R-3 zoning. Several residents of the Sandalwood Drive area have suggested that access from the apartment areas to Sandalwood Drive be cut off or that the street be terminated in some fashion. Mr. Peterson noted that the staff has reached the conclusion that the R-1 zoning is proper and that the volume of traffic on Sandalwood Drive is such that there seems to be no public reason for which it should be closed. Commissioner Swanson asked if there were a possibility of leaving the R-3 property designated as R-3 and the R-1 property designated as R-1. Mr. Peterson agreed to the possibility, but pointed out that the R-3 lot is a very small one, and that the maximum density allowed by R-3 does not permit a really satisfactory R-3 development on such a small lot. Vice Chairman Macevicz reopened the public hearing. Larry Antinone, 39 Sandalwood Drive, spoke in favor of the R-1 zoning. Martha Zumstein, 2704 Bonita Road, owner of the larger parcel under considera- tion, also supported the R-1 zoning. Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonita Glen Drive, felt the R-3 zoning of his property was in conformance with the General Plan and asked why the staff recommended the R-1 zone to conform with the General Plan. Mr. Peterson replied that there had been a fairly recent change in the General Plan to reduce the density of that area from high density to the medium category of 4 to 12. The designation of R-1 would conform to the lower end of the 4 to 12 range. Mr. Ferreira believed that the five units permitted on a lot that size under the R-3 zoning would conform to the upper end of that range. He read a letter from the Planning Director, dated March 6, 1968 and an attached Planning Com- mission Resolution #499, dated March 4, 1968, which established his property as being in an R-3 zone. Mr. Peterson pointed out that there is no question that the property is now zoned R-3. What is before the Commission is the proposal to rezone it to R-1. -8- 6/27/73 Mr. Ferreira expressed the opinion that the lot had been manufactured and created by the City to solve City problems, and he had spent many thousands of dollars in helping to do so. He stated he had acted in good faith, and the property had remained vacant in the hope of obtaining some contiguous property for R-3 development. He objected to rezoning it to R-l, and requested that the parcels be acted upon separately. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Whitten inquired if there were any logical reason behind splitting the zoning, other than to accommodate the individuals involved. Mr. Peterson said he could see none. He believes that the present R-3 zoning is an error, which the Planning Commission should try to rectify. The Commissioners discussed the closing of Sandalwood Drive and concluded that the street should be left in its present configuration and no action was neces- sary by the Commission. MSC (Whitten-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council a change of zone from RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-73-H R-3-D to R-1 for two lots at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive. Findin§s are as follows: 1. This zoning is in conformance with the General Plan 2. R-1 zoning will protect the stability of the adjacent single family residential area. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Whitten, Chandler, Macevicz, Wilson and Rudolph NOES: Member Swanson ABSENT: Member Rice The meeting recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Request to create 3 lots without street frontage and for reduction in rear yard at 613 Second Avenue, PCV-73-10 - Henry H. Shawhan Associate Planner Lee displayed a transparency and pointed out the L-shaped parcel containing nearly an acre of land area, with an existing two-story house, detached garage and swimming pool. The applicant wishes to divide this into four parcels with lot sizes ranging from 7,000 sq. ft. to 11,000 sq. ft. The existing house would remain and the garage relocated and attached to the dwelling. Tile three additional lots would be served by a 15 foot wide driveway easement. The front lot would retain approximately a 130 foot setback from Second Avenue, providing sufficient yard space. -9- 6/27/73 Commissioner Wilson inquired if the drainage would be open or underground. Mr. Lee replied it would depend upon the amount of drainage required. This particular piece of property is relatively flat, and it is assumed that most of the drainage could probably be carried out through the easement. He referred the question to Mr. Hanson. Associate Civil Engineer Hanson was unaware of any drainage problems, but if there is a drainage ditch from Elm Avenue the Engineering Division would make sure it is transferred through the property. All drainage problems will be handled. Commissioner Whitten inquired if the swimming pool indicated on Lot #4 would remain on that lot. Mr. Lee replied that the applicant had indicated on the plan that it would remain on Lot #4. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Henry Shawhan, 613 Second Avenue, the applicant and owner of the property explained that the pool area is about 25 feet wide and 100 feet long, and is included in the #4 parcel. Evelyn Chase, 189 Halsey Street, owner of property which partially abuts Lot #4, wished to ascertain if the pool would be a part of parcel #4 and not be a community pool. Mr. Lee noted that it is the owner's intention to sell the pool as a part of Lot #4, but in order to insure that it was done, the Commission could make it one of the conditions of granting the variance. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Whitten-Rudolph) Variance application PCV-73-10 be approved subject RESOLUTION NO. PCV-73-10 to the following conditions: 1. Division of the property shall be subject to the submittal and approval of a parcel map limiting total development to four lots. 2. The access easement to serve the parcels shall have a width of 20 feet except that the width may be reduced to 15 ft. where the 20 ft. width is impractical due to existing property lines and structures. a. The shape and location of the access easement shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department and Engineering Division. b. Permanent easements shall be granted to each separate parcel to provide access from Second Avenue c. The driveway easement shall be paved in Portland Concrete Cement in order to minimize maintenance problems. 3. All structures shall be served by public sewer. -lO- 6/27/73 4. The handling of drainage within and through the property is subject to detail approval by the City Engineer. 5. The existing driveway shall be removed and replaced with an alley type approach. 6. Existing public improvements on Second Avenue adjacent to the property which are in poor condition, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be repaired and/or replaced. Said improvements to include but not be limited to cracked or raised sidewalk areas and overlaying existing shoulder paving to provide drainage into the concrete gutter. 7. On-site utility service shall be underground. 8. Two guest off-street parking stalls for each of parcels 2, 3, and 4 shall be required in addition to the required two-car garages. 9. All structures, with the exception of the existing dwelling, shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the driveway easement, provided, how- ever, that all garage doors facing the easement shall be set back a mini- mum of 22 feet from the easement. 10. A minimum separation of 10 feet shall be maintained between the relocated garage and structures on the adjoining lot (Parcel #2). ll. A deed restriction prohibiting garage conversions and establishing responsibility for maintaining the access easement shall be submitted for staff approval prior to recordation. 12. Site plan and architectural review shall be required for all lots, structures and fencing prior to obtaining building permits. 13. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the General Plan concerning the adequacy of public facilities. 14. Existing swimming pool shall be included in Parcel #4. Findings are as follows: a. The division of land in this area has created a lot that can only be served by a driveway easement. b. The lots that are proposed will be similar in size and configuration to other lots in the area and zone. c. The intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be met in terms of lot size and setbacks. d. Subject to the conditions outlined by the staff, no effect would be created contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. -Il- 6/27/73 7. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Request for reduction in required street frontage from 60' to 20' at 166 First Avenue~ PCV'73-11 - A1A. Sharamitaro Associate Planner Lee displayed a transparency and pointed out the vacant parcel which contains 20,000 sq. ft. and is zoned R-2. The applicant's proposed parcel split would create lots of 8400 sq. feet and 11,725 sq. feet, with the westerly lot obtaining access through a 20 foot easement from First Avenue. It is pro- posed to put a duplex on each lot. An identical variance application was sub- mitted and approved by the Planning Commission in 1969; however, construction was never commenced and the variance expired. Mr. Lee explained the lots would be created by parcel map, and a definite problem exists concerning the possibility of sewering the property, which must be settled prior to approval of a parcel map. Commissioner Whitten inquired a bout the sewer problems. Associate Civil Engineer Hanson replied that the property is low in relationship to any available public sewer, the nearest one being in "E" Street at First Avenue, and it is not possible to sewer the property by gravity flow to that manhole. It would require a pump on the property but the Engineering Division does not suggest that as a possibility, preferring that it should be a gravity system. That would require serving the entire area, and would need the forma- tion of an assessment district. Everyone else in the area is on a septic tank. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill O'Keefe, associate and builder with Mr. Sharamitaro expressed agreement with the staff recommendation. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Wilson) Variance application PCV-73-11 be approved subject RESOLUTION NO. PCV-73-11 to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping and fencing plans shall be subject to the approval of the Landscape Architect. The landscaping plan should emphasize the use of turf to provide usable open areas. 2. The creation of the separate parcels shall be accomplished by the filing of a parcel map with the City. 3. Private sewage disposal facilities may be constructed only if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer through engineering tests that site soil characteristics, lot sizes and topography are capable of accommodating the anticipated volume of sewage flow from the proposed structures. If said tests do not demonstrate that a private disposal system will be practical, then the proposed construction shall not be permitted until public sewer service is available. 4. The owners shall enter into an agreement with the City in which they agree not to protest the formation of an assessment district for the improvement of the alley, construction of a public sewer, construction of a storm drain, or construction of underground utilities benefitting the site. -12- 6/27/73 5. The owner shall agree to install all necessary public improvements on First Avenue. These improvements shall include but not be limited to curb and gutter, sidewalk and shoulder paving. 6. The driveway opening on First Avenue shall be an alley type approach. 7. A permanent easement shall be granted the rear parcel to provide access to First Avenue. The method of providing such access shall be approved by the Engineering Division Findings are as follows: a. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by an act of the owner exists by virtue of the shape of the property. The property dimensions of 80' X 250' have been unaltered since its original subdivision in 1963. This parcel split would permit development of the property to the density permitted in the R-2 zone. b. 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 because the proposed parcels meet all the requirements of the R-2 zone except for the frontage requirement for one lot. Other properties in the vicinity of this lot are zoned R-2 and would be permitted to develop at a similar density° c. 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 inasmuch as adjacent properties are zoned R-2. d. Granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance and adoption of Development Policy relating to Planned Unit Development - PCA-72-5 Planning Director Peterson advised that the PUD Policy and the PUD Ordinance were both a part of this item, and through an error, a copy of the Policy and the Ordinance were not included in the Commission mailing. MSUC (Whitten-Chandler) The public hearing for consideration of PCA-72-5 be continued to the meeting of July ll, 1973 . 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing "H" Hillside Modifying District and adoption of Hillside Development Policy - PCA-73-3 Planning Director Peterson recalled that this item had been before the Commission at their Workshop session the previous week. He said the concept of this Hill- side Modifying District is that the net usable residential density ought to be about the same in hill area as it is in flat land areas. In hill areas there are slope configurations which are not usable, so the overall gross density in hill areas would be reduced. The Ordinance should to some extent preserve the character of the hill areas while still allowing reasonable development to occur. -15- 6/27/73 Jim Hutchison of Wilsey&Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, distributed to the Commission his written comments and listed some potential problems which he believes are a part of the proposed Hillside Development Policy: restrict- ing grading limits development type; proper planning of streets, schools, sewer, water and other utilities is almost impossible without a proper land use plan; retention of vistas and natural plant formations is meaningless unless access is encouraged and feasible; variety of site design is not encouraged by the Hillside District; safe and functional ingress and egress requires grading (typical elevation difference between narrow canyon bottoms and narrow ridges is lO0-150 feet); grading is not restricted to flatter areas, therefore does not insure preservation of trees, natural foliage, steep slopes, etc.; lot grading considerations do not appear compatible with FHA regulations; street widths and ratio are not spelled out, but are of concern; street furniture should be standard for hillside areas and not vary with each development; marketing determines location of commercial areas, grading should be controlled but not eliminate a need. Mr. Hutchison would hope the proposed Hillside Modifying District not be adopted, but if it is, he offered some suggestions for revision of the Hill- side Development Graph for other types of residential land use as well as the single family development on which it is based. He commented on the different types of slopes and suggested alternate methods of determining average slopes from that contained in the City's proposal. William Rick, Rick Engineering, 5620 Friars Road, San Diego appreciated the attention which the City Council and the Commission has chosen to give to the hillside area and believed he could support in the main the direction in which they are headed and the policy which is being considered. However, he seriously raised objection to the nomographic technique of design. He said Chula Vista has a fine group of ordinance documents and does not believe a modifying dis- trict ordinance is needed. The application and the modification of the P-C and PUD Ordinance, together with the guide for the proposed Hillside Ordinance would give the results without going to a rigid, numeric approach and override to what is probably as sophisticated a group of development regulations as any in San Diego County. Mr. Rick said he would take issue with only one item in the Policy, and that is that slopes must be limited to a height of 30 feet. He suggested that normalls a slope should not be over 30 feet. George Reinhart, associated with Charles W. Christensen & Associates, 233 A Street, San Diego, stated they do not have any objection to a stated intent to provide, in effect, quality development in hillsides. Hillsides do need special consideration. He believed that a sterile approach is being taken with the method as proposed, and that it needs revision from a technical standpoint, particularly in the literal interpretation. Mr. Reinhart suggested that it would be more applicable for the staff to finish their considerations, revise the documents as they, in their judgment, feel revisions would be warranted or justified, based on their considerations of the valid points of the public input, and at that time he would wish to make a presentation relative to the proposal. -16- 6/27/73 Commissioner Swanson inquired what the possibility would be of considering, instead of this Hillside Ordinance, an individual treatment of each devel- opment as a PUD. Planning Director Peterson replied that he had no objection to this approach but felt that it would not fulfill the direction received from the City Council. He added that specific consideration may be given when reviewing a specific plan, but when drafting an ordinance that will apply to thousands of acres, it must be generalized to a certain extent and made as applicable as possible to the predominant character of those properties, and then be administered in such a fashion that it is reasonable when development plans are submitted. Mr. Peterson noted that the staff does intend to make certain minor changes in the ordinance to reflect some of Mr. Reinhart~s suggestions. They would not basically change the homograph approach. The development community has been invited to submit their proposed nomograph solution, and the staff is waiting to receive that. Jeanette Krueger, 3859 Avenida Palo Verde, representing the South Bay League of Women Voters, commented that the League has lately concerned itself with studies of some environmental issues, and they feel sure that the proper ap- proach to preserving the integrity of the hillside is to begin with the hillside itself and work from there to whatever density is proper, whatever kind of housing can be accommodated in the particular area. They feel also that there are sufficiently flexible alternatives in the PUD Ordinance to allow a very large variety of housing types. Mrs. Krueger said they are well aware of the economic implications of apply- ing hillside density control of this sort. However, consideration must be given to the fact that once a hillside has been graded and flattened to receive its maximum residential development, it is irretrievably lost, the contour is gone and cannot be built back without horrendous expense, which no one is willing to bear. Therefore, they feel that some other approach to cutting costs will have to be used; it is a problem which will require the concerted efforts of the development community, government, and the public as well. Mrs. Krueger added that the League does support any measures that can be taken to preserve the integrity of the land and environment which now exists. Commissioner Swanson conm~ented on the fine presentations which had been made this evening. MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) The public hearing for consideration of PCA-73-3 be continued to the meeting of July 18, 1973. City Attorney Lindberg concurred with Commissioner Swanson that the presenta- tions were some of the best he had heard and suggested the possibility of having transcripts made, and offered help from his office staff in making them. Commissioner Wilson commented that he would like to see the economic cost of a hillside development pursued more fully. -17- 6/27/73 Planning ~irector Peterson observed that the City Council also wishes response to the economic impact. Developers have been asked if they could provide such information and apparently it is very difficult for them to do so. The staff is unable to do it alone, and needs the help of the developers to provide important information, but the indication has been that they have not yet found a way to do it. Hopefully, it can be resolved. lO. Consideration of a change in Chula Vista City Code re~ardin~ requests for deferral of public improvements Associate Planner Lee noted that decisions regarding requests for deferral of public improvements must be made by the Planning Commission as required by Section 27.507 of the Chula Vista City Code. In the past the Commission has based its decisions upon recommendations made by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. The procedure is routine, with the criteria for granting or denying requests clearly defined in Section 27.507 of the City Code. This procedure appears to be ministerial in nature and not in need of consideration by a public body except on an appeal basis. MSUC (Chandler-Wilson) Recommend to the City Council that Section 27.507 of the City Code be amended granting the Director of Public Works the authority to grant or deny requests for deferral of public improvements, with such decisions being appealable to the Planning Commission. ll. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements at 142 Minot Avenue - R. Paxton Associate Planner Lee noted that the Engineering Division had recommended ap- proval of this request since the existing alley at the rear of 142 Minot Avenue is unimproved from "D" Street to "E" Street and it would be impractical to construct individual segments of this street because of grade and drainage problems. MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) Approval of the request for deferral of public improve- ments at the rear of 142 Minot Avenue subject to the requirements of the Engineering Division. 12. Consideration of request for street vacation, Second Avenue~ north of Orgn~e - PCM-73-15 Associate Planner Lee reported that this is a portion of Second Avenue that extends through the SDG&E easement, and this request for vacation is to allow the Engineering Division to proceed with a realignment of Second Avenue to obtain a 90 degree intersection with Orange Avenue. MSUC (Rudolph-Whitten) Recommend to the City Council the vacation of RESOLUTION NO. PCM-73-14 Second Avenue, north of Orange, as requested by the Department of Public Works. 13. Director's Report Director of Planning Peterson advised that normally the election of officers - would be held at the first meeting in July, but there is an indication that not all of the Commissioners would be present at the first two meetings in -18- 6/27/73 July. Mr. Peterson indicated that he had discussed this matter with Com- missioner Rice, who is not present this evening, and Mr. Rice felt that if it was the Commission's desire to hold the election tonight, he would approve of it, as his presence is unnecessary. MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) John Macevicz be elected as Chairman. Commissioner Macevicz abstained. MSUC (Chandler-Wilson) Paul Whitten be elected as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Whitten abstained. Director of Planning Peterson stated that a joint meeting of the Commission and the City Council on the General Plan and the various General Plan elements will be held. It will be a status report as to what elements have been adopted and what elements are still pending, and the status of the work on them. A date has not been set, but it will probably be early in August. Mr. Peterson reported on the status of several items which had been commented upon by Commissioners at previous meetings: 1. The paving in the parking lot in the commercial development at Hilltop and Naples is being patched. 2. The owner of the office building in the Bradshaw Market area has assured that the light on that building which shines into the street will be corrected. 3. The General Manager of Bradshaw Markets has given assurance that the paving in the Bradshaw Market parking lot on Third Avenue will be improved. 14. Commission Comments Commissioner Wilson objected to the use of the Commission meeting as a "forum" for the commissioners to condemn an area of the City of Chula Vista. He felt the complaints should be voiced to the staff, but not in an open meeting. Vice Chairman Macevicz, in defense of Commission Comments, remarked that they usually are based on some item, such as a conditional use permit, which has been granted by the Commission in the past. Commissioner Whitten agreed that Mr. Wilson may have a point, and perhaps the complaints should be directed to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, but felt that the comments made are always of a constructive nature. Commissioner Whitten requested that he be excused from the meetings of July ll and 18. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Whitten-Wilson) The meeting be adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Le-oda Sch°ll Acting Secretary