HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/12/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 8, 1975
A 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
present: Chandler, Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Johnson. Also
present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environ-
mental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, City
Attorney Lindberg, and Secretary Mapes.
Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment
of silent prayer.
Chairman Chandler extended a welcome on behalf of all members of the Commission
to Mr. Roy Johnson, newly appointed Commissioner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IISUC (Rudolph-Floto) The minutes of the meeting of November 10, 1975 be approved
as written.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were offered.
Consideration of EIR-75-4 for change of zone and
1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.):
lot split at 1-805 and East J Street.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that this hearing was continued from
the meeting of November 24 in order to obtain a geologist's report on the Sweetwater
fault. It was the conclusion of that report that the fault lies west of this
site; that information has been included in the Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. Reid pointed out that this site is subject to unacceptable noise from the
freeway, but this impact can be mitigated through proper construction techniques.
The Chairman opened the continued hearing, and as no one wished to speak, the
hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rudolph suggested that in a location this near the urban core of
the City, a higher density than permitted in the "H" District might be desirable.
Mr. Reid advised that due to the type of slopes on this site and the configuration
of the property, it is felt the density could not be increased above the proposed
three single family lots.
In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Director of Planning Peterson
-2- December 8, 1975
explained that access from J street could be obtained either through the vacation
of what is apparently excess width of right of way of J street, or by an encroachment
permit into that right of way.
MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The final Environmental Impact Report EIR-75-4 be adopted.
2. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of change of zone for 1.62 acres at
the northwest ~uadrant of I'805 and East J Street from unzoned
to R-1-H - City initiated.
Director of Planning Peterson reported that while the staff had considered the
possibility of attaching the "P" or PUD District to this property, it was felt this
would be an unnecessary burden on the owner for the development of only three lots
as proposed under the lot split which has been filed. He called attention to the
findings in the report in support of this zone designation and to the recommendation
for approval.
Chairman Chandler reopened the continued public hearing.
George Cunradi, 8703 Tyler, Spring Valley, reported that he would not anticipate
grading or placing fill on the site of the structures, but that the floor level
would be the same as the street elevation, with the rear of the house on a raised
foundation. He advised that an individual sewer pump would be installed for each
of the homes to bring the sewage to a sewer main. He concurred with suggestions
for mitigating the noise from the freeway.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) The Commission certifies that EIR-75-4 has been reviewed,
its information has been considered, and that it has been prepared in accordance
with CEQA, the California Administrative Code, and the Chula Vista Environmental
Review Policy.
MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) The Commission recommends to the City Council the rezoning
of 1.62 acres of property located at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J
Street from unzoned to R-1-H.
MSC (Rudolph-Starr) The Commission directs the staff to work with the developer
to make certain that noise mitigating measures are carried out in the development
of the property.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Chandler, Pressutti and Johnson
NOES: Commissioner Smith
3. Consideration of including Mannis lot in Leckman Annexation
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Commission has previously endorsed
the annexation of the Leckman property on Hilltop Drive. Shortly after that Mr.
- Mannis indicated he also wished to annex his property to the city. In order to
- -3- -~ December 8, 1975
simplify the procedure it is recommended that the two lots be handled as one
annexation.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that although this parcel appears on the plat to be
landlocked, it does have access to Pepper Tree Road via a private street.
MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission approves the boundaries of the Leckman-
Mannis Annexation as proposed and authorizes the staff to file the application
with LAFCO.
4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-75-19 - Request to install a 50 ft.
hi~h~ 314 sq. ft. freestandin~ si~n~ 98 E. Bonita Road~ Union
Oil Co.
Director of Planning Peterson reported that the Environmental Review Committee
reviewed the Initial Study on this application and determined that a sign of this
size could have possible significant effect on the environment, and the Committee
required that the applicant prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Inasmuch as
such a report must be considered by the Commission prior to action on this
application, it is recommended that this public hearing be continued to January
26, 1976.
MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) The public hearing in consideration of variance PCV-75-19
be continued to the meeting of January 26, 1976.
5. Continued consideration of request to operate veterinary clinic in C-N zone~
1~66 Melrose Avenue - S. P. W~t~rman~ D.V.M.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that this item was continued from the
meeting of November l0 so that notice of the proposed use could be mailed to
residents in the vicinity as in the case of public hearings. This was done and
no response was received prior to the time of the meeting. He pointed out that
the zoning ordinance lists veterinary clinics as an allowed use only in the C-T
zone, but it is felt that provision is obsolescent since there have been advances
in the field that have eliminated some of the nuisance features of such clinics.
He suggested that the ordinance be amended to allow veterinary clinics without
overnight boarding in the more restrictive commercial zones.
Hr. Peterson also pointed out that provisions in the ordinance for C-N zone allow
the Commission to approve uses other than those listed providing the finding is
made that the use is similar to and compatible with uses allowed in the zone.
Such findings are included in the staff report for the Commission's consideration
along with a recommendation for approval of the request.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rudolph, Mr. Peterson advised that
he thought veterinary clinics should be a conditional use in the C-N zone and
perhaps a basic use in the C-C zone. He expressed the opinion that allowing them
only in the C-T zone is very restrictive and that the need for such service cannot
be met if they are allowed only in that zone.
Commissioner Rudolph again voiced the opinion that this use is in conflict with
the purpose and structure of the C-N zone.
-4- '~ December 8, 1975
Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that the C-N zone has resulted in various types
of commercial development at the different locations of that zone. He pointed out
that this particular shopping center site has extensive commercial area and parking,
is isolated from adjacent residential use and there are other uses in this particular
area which would make this use compatible, in his opinion.
MS (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission adopts resolution PCM-75-25 to operate a
veterinary clinic in the C-N zone at 1466 Melrose Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
1. No overnight boarding of animals shall be allowed.
2. Examination and treatment rooms shall be fully soundproofed.
Approval is based upon the following finding: The proposed veterinary clinic fulfills
a clear need in this area since there are no clinics within two miles; the clinic
functions well in this C-N zoned center as an outpatient clinic only, under limited
hours of operation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Floto, Chandler, Johnson and Smith
NOES: Commissioners Rudolph and Starr
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-75-24 - Request to operate storage
lot for towed vehicles in C-T zone~ 619 K Street - Duane Pudqil._
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of two lots, totaling about
20,000 sq. ft., which are the site of this request. The easterly portion of the
site was approved for an auto storage lot in 1971 but the permit expired without
being used. The present applicant proposes to use the easterly portion for auto
storage while the westerly portion would be used for a repair garage facility which
is presently in operation on the site.
Mr. Lee reported that the property is enclosed with a chainlink fence, with a solid
wall along the east side where the property abuts a commercial development. Approval
of this request should require a solid wall on all sides of the property. It is
recommended that the existing fencing along K Street be moved back to a minimum
5 ft. setback to provide for landscaping in that area. A 6 ft. masonry zoning wall
will be required where the property abuts the R-3 zone, which would amount to a little
over lO0 ft. in length.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Duane Pudgil, 378 San Miguel Drive, advised that his original application requested
permission to store cars on the easterly lot, and most of the requirements set forth
relate to the westerly lot. He indicated his desire to delete the requirement for
setting the fence back on the westerly lot since this would interfere with an
existing sign in front of the garage. He also asked that the permit apply only
to the easterly lot with a fence to be installed between the two lots.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
-5- December 8, 1975
MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission finds that this project would not have
any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative
Declaration on IS-75-75.
Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that this conditional use permit
should apply only to the easterly lot, thus eliminating the need for a 6 ft. masonry
zoning wall as recommended in the staff report.
MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, the
Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-75-24 for the operation of a dead
storage yard for towed vehicles on a vacant 84' x 140' parcel east of 621 K Street,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The front setback (5ft, minimum) and parkway area shall be fully
landscaped in accordance with a plan approved by the City Landscape Planner.
The Chula Vista Landscape Manual is to be used in preparing such plans.
The two existing mature trees on site shall be preserved.
2. The existing chainlink fence adjacent to K Street shall be set back
5 feet from the property line to provide for adequate landscaping area.
3. Chainlink fencing which exists on the north and south property lines
as well as the fencing required to be installed on the west property line
shall utilize double wooden slat inserts to provide a solid screen.
4. The vehicle storage lot shall be surfaced as a "semi-permanent use."
The pavement standards in the Chula Vista zoning ordinance shall govern the
type of surface required.
5. No salvage or wrecking operations shall take place on this site.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-75-25 - Request to construct four
structures in I-L-F zon% 300 bl~k TrOUSdale Drive - Dunph~
Construction Co.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out the three separate areas in the flood
plain of lower Sweetwater Valley which the applicant proposes to develop in four
phases: Phases A and B located north of Trousdale Drive, adjacent to the right of
way of Route 54; Phase C, south of Trousdale Drive, west of North Glover; and Phase
D, east of Press Lane. Two buildings are proposed for construction in Phases A and
B and two buildings in Phase D. Phase C involves the development of the parcel on
the south side of Trousdale Drive, proposed for use as an auto storage lot which is
an allowed use in the I-L zone.
Mr. Lee called attention to the six conditions recommended and to the findings in
support of approval of this application.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no
one wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) The Commission finds that this project would not have any
possible significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration
on EA-73-16.
- -6- -- December 8, 1975
MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) Conditional use permit PCC-75-25 for construction of
industrial buildings and an auto storage yard in the flood plain is approved with
conditions and findings as stated in the report to the Commission.
8. Consideration of Redevelopment Plan for Third Avenue
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan as
submitted to the Commission is not a physical plan for the redevelopment of Third
Avenue, but is a legal type of document designed to fulfill the requirements of
State Law for preliminary redevelopment plans. It establishes the boundaries;
sets forth reasons why the area would qualify as a redevelopment area based on
some of the blighting influences which exist; and states goals and objectives and
establishes principles to be followed in the Redevelopment Plan. He reported that
even the final plan may not be a physical plan, but would be a flexible plan which
establishes design guidelines for redevelopment of the area.
Community Development Director Desrochers reported that a flexible plan for this
project is contemplated because the funding is not clear. It is not known whether
there will be tax increment funds to be utilized, or whether Block Grant money will
be used for this project. The physical plan will be formulated as each building
comes forth. He pointed out that this preliminary plan is designed to lay a foundatio~
and this is only one portion of the City's involvement Or the City's commitment to
the Third Avenue spine. The purpose of this plan is to stimulate private enterprise.
It is hoped that tax increment money can then be used to improve circulation, parking,
sidewalks and such amenities. The City is not anticipating large scale acquisition
of property.
~Ir. Desrochers called attention to the Goals and Objectives Section as one of the
more important elements of the Preliminary Plan. It is hoped that the development
of the court complex at Third and H will stimulate growth in the downtown area.
Included in the goals is the encouragement of multi-family, middle-income residen-
tial units in and near the core area. Such development has been approved on Center
Street.
Mr. Desrochers pointed out that the redevelopment area is divided into three subareas;
Area No. 1 being the old town site and the principal area of focus; Area 2 is the
connector; and Area 3 is the courthouse site and environs. It is not expected
that much participation will be required in Areas 2 and 3, but these areas are include(
in the plan because they are an integral part of the central business district and
an attempt will be made to stimulate the growth upwards on Third Avenue rather than
toward the post office.
Mr. Desrochers reported that it is the Redevelopment Agency's attorney's advice
that the last sentence in paragraph 3 on page 7 relating to "Frozen Tax Base
Exclusions and Limitations" be deleted from the report, since it is not possible
to limit the period of the Agency's utilization of tax revenues from certain areas
or specific sites. The Agency, however, can give a percentage of the tax increments
back to the school districts, county agencies and city.
mr. Desrochers acknowledged that the General Plan of the City was very farsighted
and serves as a platform for this document. The Preliminary Plan closely resembles
and attempts to strengthen the General Plan for this area.
-7- ~ December 8, 1975
He advised that if the Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan
at this meeting, it will then be presented to the Redevelopment Agency on
Thursday evening, December ll, and then staff will begin work on the Redevelopment
Plan. This will take approximately two months and when that is completed an
Environmental Impact Report will be required. When these two documents have
been prepared and are ready for consideration, public hearings will be held
before the Planning Commission and City Council and Redevelopment Agency acting
as one body. It is hoped that this will occur near the end of this fiscal year.
If this is done and the project is given approval, then the tax base can be
frozen as of March 1, 1975.
Commissioner Rudolph recommended that Block Grant Funds not be used for this
project since the need for them in other areas of the city is very great. She
commended the plan and particularly the fact that it does not anticipate demolish-
ing the area and starting all over. She felt there is a lot on Third Avenue to
start with and it needS only care and upgrading. She advised that she had some
suggestions on the plan but questioned whether this is the time and place for
presenting them. She offered to submit them in writing and suggested that they
be discussed in a study session rather than this business meeting. She suggested
that item H under Goals and Objectives, which relates to the encouragement of
multi-family, middle-income residential units, should be changed to the encourage-
ment of economically heterogeneous units, and that no income level should be
discouraged or excluded.
Mr. Desrochers advised that there is presently housing of the lower economic
level in the area and in line with the Gruen report an attempt is being made
to get some of the middle-income residents back to the urban core. The plan
does not discourage housing for any economic level.
Commissioner Starr pointed out that any good plan has a schedule and su9gested
that it would be desirable to have a schedule included in this plan to indicate
the landmarks discussed by Mr. Desrochers and when finalization of the plan is
expected.
Mr. Desrochers advised there is an in-house flow chart which indicates the time
schedule. He could see no harm in including this information in the report.
At any rate it could be provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
He pointed out there is a Third Avenue Project Committee, representative of Third
Avenue businesses and residents. This includes Tom Huntington, Chairman; Kyle
Stewart, former Planning Commissioner; Stanley Glenn; Phil Creaser and Vivian
Dennie. This committee is cognizant of the time schedule.
Commissioner Pressutti suggested the addition of a vocabulary list for the
benefit of laymen who may not be familiar with the meaning of such terms as
"street furniture" and "frozen tax base".
Mr. Desrochers indicated that his report to the Redevelopment A§ency on Thursday
would include the suggestions submitted by members of the Planning Commission,
such as the inclusion of a time schedule, a glossary, and reference to a heterogen-
eous mix of housing.
Commissioner Smith questioned the desirability of including subareas 2 and 3 in
December 8, 1975
this redevelopment plan since including that area in the frozen tax base limits
the tax revenue for regular city services, and the increasing cost of such
services must therefore be born by taxpayers outside of that area. He felt
that the suggestion of allocating an unspecified portion of the tax increment
funds to other agencies is not specific or binding. He felt that no area should
be included that does not need redevelopment.
Mr. Desrochers pointed out the possibility that the court complex may not utilize
all of the area anticipated for that use and that inclusion in the Redevelopment
project will give the city control over the additional development that may take
place in the vicinity of the courts. He pointed out that this plan is flexible and
has been designed to address land use problems in that area.
Commissioner Smith indicated that he cannot support a plan which is not more
specific than the report indicates.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that the Planning Commission's prime concern
should be the land use and all of the ramifications that arise from that, rather
than with tax base exclusions and limitations.
Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion that the court complex at
this site at Third and H may well be the most significant development that
occurs in Chula Vista in the next 30 or 40 years, and that it is very appropriate
that it be included within the Redevelopment area so that the Planning Commission
and City Council can review in detail all plans for development in that area. That
would not occur if the area is not included in the Redevelopment program.
MS (Pressutti-Rudolph) The Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency
the approval of the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Third Avenue Project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Rudolph, Floto, Starr, Chandler and Johnson
NOES: Commissioner Smith
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revised plan under conditional use permit
PCC-75-16 for boarding house for 2i pers~ns~ 153 B~i§htwoOd -
First Baptist Church.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out this is the site on which the Planning
Commission approved a conditional use permit for the same use on October 27. That
decision was appealed to the City Council, but before the appeal was considered
the applicant withdrew the original plan for utilization of two structures and
filed a revised plan which calls for removal of the existing house and replacing
it with a two-story structure containing 7 bedrooms, 3 I/2 baths and a two-car
garage. The revised plan reduces the number of residents to 21 persons. It also
provides 5 off-street parking spaces in addition to the garage and changes the
access from Brightwood Avenue to Flower Street.
Mr. Lee reported the receipt of a letter from the property owner at 169 Brightwood
in opposition to this request, and a petition signed by 170 residents in opposition
to communes in general in the City of Chula Vista.
-9- -' December 8, 1975
He called attention to the recommended conditions, the findings in support of the
· application, and the recommendation for approval.
City Attorney Lindberg reviewed the problem of the communal homes located presently
in the R-1 zones. A request was made for a change of the zoning ordinance to allow
for such family lifestyle in the single family residential areas by conditional
use permit; this request was rejected by the City Council and the communal house-
holds have been directed to vacate the R-1 zone. He pointed out that a boarding
house of the nature applied for in this request could be used by almost any type
of social group.
~r. Lindberg read comments from the "American Law of Zoning" which pointed out
that a substantial part of the population does not live in conventional, single
family houses or apartments, or even in mobile homes. The report noted that at
the simplest level boarding house and rooming houses provide accommodations for
single people or those who are disassociated from families. Others combine the
residential facilities with various types of medical and/or psychiatric care to
deal with special problems. While such facilities serve a definite housing need
in certain areas for certain types of persons, it is recognized that the proper
location of boarding and rooming houses is recurrent and difficult problem in zoning.
Mr. Lindberg pointed out that the basis for this hearing is the revised plan
and suggested that testimony be confined as much as possible to the issues of
the revision of the plan, as it may have a differing impact than the plan
previously approved. He also expressed the hope that testimony not get into
side issues such as the lifestyle of those persons who may reside here, since
granting the conditional use permit will mean that this unit, at some future
.... time, could be used by any persons legally operating a boarding house.
Commissioner Pressutti noted that questions have been raised concerning the
difference in tax revenues to the City from this type of use :ompared to
apartments.
Mr. Lindberg expressed the opinion that it is not a legitimate concern. He
pointed out that in the past the City has examined proposals for commercial or
industrial development to determine if the revenue accruing to the City would
offset the services required as a result of the development. He noted that the
City is required by law to seek accommodations for all income levels. Residential
development cannot be restricted to the type of residents that produce top dollar
in revenues.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ken Pagard, 424 Westby Street, advised that shortly after applying for the first
permit it was determined that the existing house on the site was substandard and
inadequate. When they reported their decision to tear it down and build one
new structure on the site which would be adequate for their use, they were advised
that the revisions in their plan were sufficient enough to require a new public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
John Papish, 471 E Street, asked about the rules and regulations for boarding
house use.
- Mr. Lindberg advised that conditions for this proposed use have been recommended
and should be adopted if the use is approved.
- -10- -- December 8, 1975
Chairman Chandler read the ten conditions recon~nended in the staff report.
Rosette Morris, 862 Cedar, expressed the opinion that the period of 3 years
before review of the operation by the Planning Commission is a considerable
length of time since the permit goes with the land and the property might be
sold prior to that time.
Newt Chaney, 292 Seavale, called attention to the map on display which indicates
the location of the communes in Chula Vista and also indicates by dots placed
on the map the residence of a taxpayer who objects to the existence of the
communes in Chula Vista. The heaviest concentration of objectors is in the 153
Bri§htwood area since that sight is under consideration at this time. He advised
that over 400 signatures have been obtained on petitions in opposition to religious
communal life in Chula Vista. He expressed the opinion that a decision on an
application of this sort should not be concerned with land use only, but should
take into account all factors and the effe~they will have on the surrounding
residents and the community as a whole. He felt the Commission should have
received a more comprehensive report. He indicated that the opposition to these
communes is a legitimate concern in light of testimony ~resented previously of
cases of abuse of individuals within the households.
Hugh Ferguson, 728 Elm, called attention to the prerequisites for granting
conditional use permits as contained in the zoning ordinance. He commented
particularly on the first mandatory finding which states that the proposed use
is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which contributes
to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. He asserted
that in the past an abundance of evidence was presented demonstrating that the
proposed use in this case does not contribute to the general well-being of the
neighborhood or community. He cited as an example that the testimony given by
Ken and Karen Vary at the previous hearing on October 27:made it clear that this
communal living is a dangerous social movement which does not contribute to
the general well-being. He also called attention to a letter directed to the
City Council by Mary Seifert which objected to the tactics used to prevent
residents of the households from leaving when they desire to do so. He also
read from another letter directed to the Council which related to the pressure
placed on members of the commune to conform to the wishes of the head of house-
hold, and never to act independently, following their own conviction.
Mr. Ferguson maintained that such a dangerous social movement should be stopped.
He also asserted that the more economical lifestyle as afforded by this type of
living contributes to the welfare of the church and not to the neighborhood or
community.
He further declared that the evidence presented makes it impossible to make the
first mandatory finding for approving the application.
Bud Miller asked about the legality of reading testimony from letters when the
writer is not present to be questioned.
Mr. Lindberg advised that in an administrative hearing the rules of a court of
law are not applied. He felt the Commissioners are aware of the probative value
of such testimony.
-- -ll- '- December 8, 1975
Nancy Lawe, 161 Brightwood, spoke in objection to the affirmative finding that
the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the Municipal Code for such use. She maintained that the proposed parking
does not meet the zoning regulations for this type of use. She felt the city
is bending over backward for the accommodation of a particular group whereas
other citizens are required to meet the standards for which exceptions are
being made in this instance. She also took exception to the fourth finding
that this use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. She
asserted that it is not compatible with the surrounding use which is mainly
single family dwellings. She also maintained it does not meet the regulations
for a standard boarding house with regard to space requirements per occupant.
David Mills, 169 Brightwood, stressed the fact that hundreds of citizens oppose
the commune movement in this city. He asserted that by bending the R-3 regula-
tions to accommodate the communes, the City is not acting in the interest of the
general welfare of the citizens. He maintained that this is a single purpose
building, and while the communes may leave the city the building will not and
it will become a white elephant.
William Rambur declared that land usage should take into consideration any
impact it has on the citizens in the entire community and that this communal
movement has a detrimental effect. He maintained that his right to freedom
from religion is being threatened by the leadership of this church who published
an article stating, "We, as a church are a beachhead for the Lord here in
Chula Vista. Our mission is to take Chula Vista for Christ .... by demonstrating
a radically different and superior lifestyle, that of the Kingdom of Heaven."
Ken Pagard, 424 Westby, stated that he categorically denies the veracity of all
of the statements that have been made negative to what goes on in their house-
holds. He extended an invitation for anyone to visit them at any time to see
for themselves.
David Bishop, a visitor from England staying ~n one of the houses for the last
six or eight weeks, spoke in their behalf, maintaining they are beneficial in
helping those who are disturbed or whose marriages have broken down.
Hugh Ferguson commented that on the following night the City Council is holding
a hearing to consider the communes in the R-1 zones and felt it would be
incongruous for the Planning Commission to proceed with this application in
light of that action.
Mr. Lindberg advised that the purpose of the hearing before the Council is
to made a determination whether the existing communal extended family homes
located in the R-1 zones constitute a public nuisance. The application being
considered at this time is for a conditional use permit in an R-3 zone which
is an entirely different issue.
William Fleming, 1783 Yale Street, expressed the opinion that the community
households in Chula Vista are serving a very necessary place in the society,
by providing a ministry to people coming from fractured homes. He felt the
households minister to such people in love, rendering a service which no one
else has been willing to do. He contended there is no coercion to bring
young people into the households and cited an example of two young men who
considered going into one and they were counseled that they had normal family
ties to meet their needs and there were other people who needed the ministry
of the community households. One of these young men was his son.
-12- December 8, 1975
Rosette Morris, 862 Cedar, related the experience of her own daughter, who,
despite strong family ties and a good social and scholastic background, felt
compelled to enter one of the households, due to the preaching that it was the
only way for a good Christian to live. After entering the household the girl
left college and worked full time at a bank, turning over all of her earnings
to the head of the household. She made two unsuccessful attempts to leave the
household before she was finally able to get away. She is now attending an
out of state college.
Clarence Knight, 117 Jefferson Avenue, pointed out that schools are attempting
to reduce class sizes. He felt these households should do the same, thereby
eliminating the need for a conditional use permit, since up to six persons may
reside in a boarding house without a conditional use permit.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pressutti asked for guidance from the City Attorney with regard
to finding No. 1.
Mr. Lindberg cited as an example a conditional use permit application in another
city for extension of a cemetery, where the surrounding residents were strongly
opposed. It was found, however, that this did contribute to a need of the
community. He pointed out that the initial finding should be considered in
conjunction with the second finding of whether or not it will have a detrimental
effect upon the neighbors. A use which makes a contribution to the community
could~@ossib}ybe better located in one area than another due to the surroundings.
He felt the question for the Commission to determine is whether there is a need
for housing for persons who are not living in the traditional family style, and
if so, where such use can be located without detriment to surrounding residents.
Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion the question to be determined is
whether a boarding house can suitably, be located at this site, without giving
consideration to the type of lifestyle of the persons who will reside in the
boarding house.
Commissioner Floto reported that he cannot make the affirmative finding that
this use is necessary or desirable for the community.
Commissioner Starr felt the Commission should deal with the external operation
of the use and immediate neighbors to such households have testified they have
not been a detriment.
Commissioner Pressutti advised for the record that he is not advocating this
lifestyle, but feels the development for the property is better than the one
previously approved for this location.
MS (Pressutti-Rudolph) The revised plan under conditional use permit PCC-75-17
for a boarding house for 21 persons as shown on Exhibits A & B in the staff report
be approved, subject to the conditions as listed in the report and based on
the findings as stated in the report.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Rudolph, Chandler and Starr
NOES: Commissioners Floto, Smith, and Johnson
- -13- -- December 8, 1975
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the staff has no urgent item for
discussion at the study session regularly scheduled for the following Monday,
December 15, and asked the Commission's desire with regard to cancelling the
meeting. The Commission concurred with cancelling the study session.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Rudolph requested that a future study session deal with the
relationship of the Housing Element to the approval of development proposals.
She also commented on the letter from the City Manager concerning Block Grant
Funds and asked if the Commission should consider this.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfu 1 ly submitted,
Helen Mapes, Secretary