HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/04/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
April 23, 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, Rice, Starr, Floto, Pressutti and Smith. Also
present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee,
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp,
Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler followed by
a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) The minutes of the meetings of April 9 and April 16, 1975
be approved as written. Commissioners Rice and Smith abstained from voting due
to absence at one or the other of the meetings.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
- The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements in alley
between Third Avenue and Church Avenue, south of G Street -
Joan Richards
2. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements, 666 Telegraph
Canyon Road - B.P.O.Elks
3. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements, 1500 block
Telegraph Canyon Road - Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
company
4. Consideration of request for extension of tentative map for Deerpark East -
American Housing Guild
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the three requests for deferral of
public improvements are routine and are recommended for approval in accordance
with the staff report. The fourth item is a request for extension of a tenta-
tive map approved about a year and a half ago; it is recommended that the map
be extended for one year.
Assistant City Attorney Beam requested that on item 3, condition 2 be amended
to read, "The applicant shall post surety in the amount of $53,000 to cover the
cost of construction or such other security as approved by the City Attorney's
office."
-2- April 23, 1975
MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) All items on the consent calendar be approved subject to
conditions contained in the staff report and as amended by the Assistant City
Attorney.
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Environmental Impact Report EIR-75-1 on CommunitS
Block Grant Program
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this hearing was continued
from two previous meetings while awaiting input from the State clearinghouse.
That input has been received and in staff's opinion is too broad to address the
three year program but will be useful in considering year to year programs.
The input and response to it have been included in the Environmental Impact
Report and it is recommended that the Commission adopt the report.
Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing open, and as no one wished to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rudolph noted that answers to the questions which she had previously
submitted were included in the report and she was satisfied with the report.
MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) EIR-75-1 be adopted as Chula Vista's environmental impact
report on the Community Block Grant Program.
6. Appeal of Parcel Map requirements (PM 4-75), Frank Verna~ 16 Loualta WaS
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this parcel map was filed as a
result of approval by the Planning Commission of a variance to allow the creation
of two additional lots without frontage on a public street. The parcel map was
approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments subject to a number of
requirements in the development of the property; the applicant is appealing a
number of those conditions. Mr. Lee advised that the requirements for the
division of property, whether it be through a parcel map or subdivision map,
are basically the same. It is the staff's recommendation that the appeal be
denied and the applicant be required to proceed with the development in accord-
ance with the Engineering Division's latest recommendation which has provided
for the modification of two of the conditions.
Chairman Chandler called upon the applicant to discuss reasons of the appeal.
Frank Phillips, 3942 Horton Road, Bonita, representing Frank Verna, discussed
the conditions required for approval of the parcel map, noting the requirement
to install a concrete curb and gutter along the northerly boundary of the
driveway for a length of 200 feet. He indicated there is presently an asphalt
swale along the north side and he felt this could be resurfaced or replaced
with an asphalt berm in lieu of the concrete curb and gutter. He also advised
that the driveway is paved with about an inch of asphalt on the native soil.
He noted that this needs maintenance, but asked that the improvement of the
driveway and construction of the guest parking stalls be deferred until a
building permit is issued on either parcel 2 or 3. He also requested deletion
_ of a public works plan for the private sewer lateral.
-3- April 23, 1975
Ken Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer, discussed each of the conditions with
which Mr. Phillips had taken issue pointing out that they are standard con-
ditions required by the City in the subdivision of property. He recommended
that the conditions as written remain.
Commissioner Smith questioned the need for a grading plan and site plan in
connection with the parcel map.
Mr. Goldkamp concurred that if it appears there is to be no extensive grading
and that the grading can be done within the applicant's property, then it
would be okay, in accordance with the variance, to wait until issuance of the
building permit to submit the grading plan.
Mr. Phillips advised that it is the intent of the applicant to go ahead and
put in the driveway approach, but they do object to installing concrete curb
and gutter along the length of the driveway at this time. He requested that
improvement of the driveway be deferred until one of the additional lots is
developed. He also indicated they will obtain the offsite sewer easement
and install the laterals before the map is recorded. He noted it will be
necessary to file a maintenance agreement for the driveway and felt this agree-
ment could also include the construction or reconstruction of the driveway.
This agreement would be recorded along with the parcel map.
Lucille D. Blyck, 209 Twin Oaks, pointed out the desirability of having a lot
that drains to the street.
MSUC (Smith-Starr) The requirement for improvements in connection with zone
variance PC¥-75-2 and the accompanying parcel map PM 4-75 be modified so that
offsite improvements, both those on Hilltop Drive and the offsite sewer, be
required prior to or concurrent with the filing of the parcel map, and that
onsite improvements be deferred and required concurrently with the issuance
of a building permit for parcel 2 or 3.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-75-2 on
Communal Household Zonin~ Text Amendment
For the benefit of the people in the audience, Assistant City Attorney Beam
explained the two separate hearings to be held on communal households. The
first item considers the Environmental Impact Report, and the second considers
a possible zoning text amendment, or change in local ordinances regarding com-
munal households. He pointed out that the environmental impact report is a
document which must be prepared and filed by the City prior to any action on
a proposed ordinance amendment of this type. The issue to be determined by
the Planning Commission in the first hearing is whether or not the environmental
impact report has completely and adequately considered the environmental impact
which may be occasioned if the Zoning Ordinance text is amended.
Mr. Beam pointed out that item 8 on the agenda, which follows this hearing, will
consider the actual amendment itself. The Planning Commission has the duty to
make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the City Council should
amend the local laws of the City regarding communal households.
-4- April 23, 1975
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out the environmental impact
report is an informational document to provide information to the decision
making body on the possible environmental consequences of an action. The EIR
does not make a recommendation on a project; it merely provides facts to be
considered by the decision making body in considering the project itself.
Mr. Reid advised that this particular EIR is in a sense a master environmental
impact report against which reports related to individual projects could be
measured. The information in this report is therefore rather general in nature.
It is the general finding of this EIR there are possible adverse effects relating
to school facilities, sewer capacity, streets, parks, transportation and the
possibility of higher density of population in areas of geologic hazards, noise
hazards, or water quality hazards. He pointed out it is not appropriate at this
point, lacking specific project proposals, to fully analyze those impacts. If
sufficient guidelines are established and carried out with regard to the location
of communal households, the environmental impact would probably be insignificant.
Mr. Reid reported that due to vacancies on the Environmental Control Commission,
they were unable to make a recommendation on this particular EIR.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Roy Hull, 73 Mitscher, advised that his comments on the environmental report
are also tied with the following item, so he would hold them until that time,
but wished his appearance to be a matter of record.
Mr. Canterbury, 53 Third Avenue, asked, in the event communes are approved,
what would keep them from expanding the residence to hold more people; also
would this give a foothold in the door for someone else with property adjacent
to building an R-3 development.
Mr. Reid pointed out those issues are not germane to the environmental impact
report, and that such requests would require a separate application, and for
R-3 development, a zone change for the property.
Mrs. Jacobson, 73 Third Avenue, reported that she could see no environmental
impact nor detrimental effect of any kind from the communal house next to her.
She suggested issuing some kind of conditional permit that could be revoked
if undesirable groups moved into a commune.
Newton Chaney, 292 Sea Vale, suggested that the environmental impact report
should deal with the effect on the city whole--the homeowners, tax payers, and
existing property owners--in considering where these multi-family dwellings
are located.
Peter ~atry, 81 Second Avenue, pointed out that some of the information
relating to personal income was incorrect and should be corrected to state
that the personal income in the United States rose 9.05 per cent in 1974, and
in Southern California personal incomes rose 9.4 per cent. He asserted that
personal income figures and non-farm residential price indexes would support
the fact that it is still possible for the average person to afford a new house
in Chula Vista, rather than the contrary as indicated in the EIR.
-5- April 23, 1975
Mr. Watry also questioned the statement that there exists no empirical evidence
or factual background that communal households are an objectionable lifestyle.
He pointed out that articles are readily available in the library which discuss
the pros and cons of communal households, and the Commission should be apprised
of both sides. He also felt that testimony given at the Commission meeting
last fall when communes were discussed contained factual evidence that communes
can be socially harmful. He further contended they would have an economic
effect on the value of adjacent property, and this would be a significant
adverse impact.
Mr. Watry pointed out that in converting a single family house to communal
living it is usually necessary to add additional bedrooms and bathrooms, and the
house could then not be sold as a single family home after the end of the
commune.
Dee Johnston, realtor, reported that she sold two homes last summer to the
people sponsoring communal households. She pointed to the significant improve-
ment made to one of the homes, which had been badly run down, after it was
purchased.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Reid suggested that the Commission schedule the final report for considera-
tion on May 14th.
MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) Consideration of the final report of EIR-75-2 be
scheduled for May 14, 1975.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Zonin9 Ordinance relatin9 to Communal Households
Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the purpose of this hearing is
not to decide whether or not Chula Vista should have communal households, but
rather to decide in what zone such households should be located, which is a
basic land use question. The specific question is whether or not the R-1
district regulations should be amended to allow communal households either as
a principal use or as a conditional use.
He noted that this question was considered by the Commission last September
and a recommendation made to the City Council that the ordinance not be changed.
Upon receiving that recommendation the Council noted that the question had not
been advertised as a public hearing (although all parties known to be interested
were notified) and referred it back to the Planning Commission with direction
that it be reconsidered at a public hearing.
Mr. Peterson advised that under present zoning regulations a residence in the
R-1 zone may be occupied by one family or by not more than three unrelated
persons. In the R-3 zone, a family and up to six roomers and boarders would
be allowed as a matter of right and more than six could be allowed under a con-
ditional use permit. Thus, by interpretation of the zoning ordinance, communal
households are now allowed in the R-3 zones if they have no more than six per-
sons; and with more than six persons they would require approval of a conditional
use permit.
-6- April 23, 1975
Mr. Peterson reported that in evaluating the 13 communal households which are
known to exist in the City today, it was found that they were generally well
maintained and did not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. However,
in looking at statistical information made available by the Baptist Church
which sponsors a number of these households, it was noted that the occupancy
ranges from 4 persons to 24 persons, with an average size of 11 persons per home.
This compares with the average family size in Chula Vista of 3.7 persons accord-
ing to the 1970 census figures. A comparison was also made of the population
density found in the multiple family zones. According to census figures about
2.2 persons per apartment unit would result in 46.6 persons per acre in the
R-3~M zone which allows 21 apartment units per acre. It is obvious that the
population density to be expected in communal households is much higher than
expected in a normal single family home and even somewhat higher than expected
in the R-3-G and R-3-M zones. This comparison led the staff to the conclusion
that the population density of communal households is more similar to the R-3
zones. For this reason and because of expectations people in suburban neigh-
borhoods have about their neighborhoods, it is recommended that the ordinance
not be changed and communal households continue to be allowed in the R-3 zone.
Mr. Peterson reported that in recent days petitions have been received with a
total of 354 signatures in opposition to an ordinance amendment; also letters
in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Floyd True, Mr. Marvin Kirsten, Mr. and Mrs.
Handler, Mr. DeZort, Mrs. Burns, Mr. Dunham and Mrs. West. Within the last
few days many petitions have been submitted to the Planning Department, con-
taining 1,443 signatures in favor of a change in the ordinance to allow com-
munal households in the R-l zone; in addition to the petitions letters of
support were submitted by Pastor Pagard, Dr. Ann Peters, Mr. John Geis and
Mrs. Dee Johnston.
Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that the Commission may take note of
petitions filed for or against any proposal, but their decision cannot be made
on the basis of the number of persons for or against, but the decision shall
be based upon the issues in front of them. He also noted that while much of
the staff analysis on this matter has related to a particular identifiable
group, because that group is associated with most of the communal households
in Chula Vista, the zoning text amendment is not designed to single out that
group or to identify them.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Roy Hull, 73 Mitscher, reported that community households exist on either side
of his home, at 65 and 81Mitscher, who are fine neighbors. He then discussed
the building of a hypothetical house in the R,1 zone which would conform to
existing regulations for lot coverage, setbacks, and open space. He pointed
out that under the provisions of the proposed amendment as contained in the
Environmental Impact Report, such, if used as a communal household, would
legally permit 32.35 residents. He noted this is a hypothetical house but
asked what assurance can be given that this will not happen if the ordinance
amendment is adopted. He pointed out that communal households could be a
moneymaking proposition.
Margaret Helton, Commissioner on Human Relations Commission, reported that the
Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the existing community
-7- April 23, 1975
households be permitted to continue by the use of a zoning variance or a
conditional use permit, and that other community households which desire to
establish themselves within the City must come before the City Council on an
individual basis. She pointed out that because years of personal time and
money and experience have gone into establishing the present households,
including the expense of fixing the homes so that they were adequate for their
use, they should not be discriminated against, or their personal and human
rights infringed upon, by taking a mandatory action which might cause undue
stress and much distress to those who have been living in what they felt were
stable family communities, and now find that it is suddenly a "no-no." She
contended that the staff's recommendation represents a mandatory action against
these households and the Human Relations Commission is opposed to such action.
Mrs. Gerald Hatz, 70 I Street, reported that she has two communal homes as
neighbors and she has had no problems with them. She advised that several
people on the block were not aware that these were communal households. She
indicated she has no fear of her property value going down due to the presence
of these households in the neighborhood. She suggested that if the ordinance
is amended property controls could be used to regulate the type of people who
live in communal households. She wished to go on record as being in favor of
communal households in Chula Vista.
New, ton Chaney, 292 Sea Vale, expressed the opinion that the various zones are
established to protect the rights of the people. He noted there are zones
which will allow for the communal households, and questioned whether the R-1
zone should be eroded to permit uses other than single family residences for
which it ~as established. He requested that the Commission either deny a
change in the R-1 regulations, or delay action on the matter to permit home
owners and taxpayers to thoroughly study the matter.
Ken Pagard, 424 Westby Street, Pastor of the First Baptist Church and head of
one of the households, read the letter which he had addressed to the Planning
Commission. It was expressed in the letter that these households are very
consistent and compatible ~ith the lifestyle of the R~I zone, having existed
for over six years with good relationships in their various neighborhoods. He
felt that opposition to the households stems from prejudice, tie asserted that
the only complaints which they have had over the years have been with regard
to parking and they have made an effort to cut down on the number of cars at
each household. He maintained that their households are a real asset to their
neighborhoods, since they are involved in extensive activities for the improve-
ment of the neighborhood and the entire community, and are concerned for the
welfare and needs of the people around them.
Mr. Pagard reported that the supporting petitions were not the result of an
organized effort but were a spontaneous effort by citizens who had volunteered
their support and assistance.
Mr. Pagard strongly urged the adoption of legislation to allow these households
to continue.
Chairman Chandler asked Mr. Pagard what the purpose is of the 12 communes
established by the church.
Mr. Pagard advised that the name of the organization is the Ministering Com-
munity of the First Baptist Church, Their purpose is to be of service to
-8- April 23, 1975
people with problems, those ~.¢ho have been emotionally disturbed and those with
family problems, and ministering to their needs. He indicated it started six
or seven years ago by individual families taking in people in need of help.
This was not found to be too effective when it was just a couple, but was
found to be more effective when it was a corps of people within the household
working together and ministering to people in need. He cited examples of
people who were helped by this means after institutions had been unable to
help them.
Chairman Chandler then asked if they had not been aware for some time that it
is not legal to establish these homes in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Pagard indicated their program did not start out as community households
but just grew. He advised they first talked with the City Attorney about this
some three years ago, and about that time cases were being taken to the courts
which resulted in several reversing decisions. Action on amending the Chula
Vista ordinance was delayed until the highest court decision had been rendered.
The church is now attempting to legitimize their bases. He reported that there
are more people wanting to get into such households than they have space for.
Co~nissioner Pressutti acknowledged the need and the benefit derived from this
ministry, but questioned why they should be located in the R-1 zone rather
than R-3. He pointed out that in Chula Vista there are a number of good
single family residences in the R-3 zone.
Mr. Pagard reported that most of those homes are not of adequate size, and
further, that the people who they are trying to help need the kind of environ-
ment found in the R-1 zone. He pointed out that location of these homes in
the R-1 zone has been supported by the Police Chief and by Dr. Peters, research
physician with the University of California.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rudolph, Mr. pagard advised they
have found the ideal size for the households is 17 or 18 people for the kind
of ministry they have and the kind of people they have. He contended that
the environment of having a number of people who are healthy and whole,
psychologically, is one of the big healing factors of their households,
Mr. Pagard reported that an article in LIFE magazine on childhood pointed out
that p~ychologically the best kind of home in which to grow up is one where
there is a large number of people, and that most problems in our society are
traced back to homes with three or four persons.
Chairman Chandler pointed out that the question under consideration is not
concerned solely with the households established by the Baptist Church but
with any group in the same type of living community, and whether they should
be located in the R-1 zone.
Lawrence J. Clark, 65 Mitscher Street, head of one of the households, discussed
his ministry with the First Baptist Church at Chatsworth and his efforts of
taking people into his home which had not been too effective and was very
frustrating. After meeting Pastor pagard they came here to become part of the
staff of this church and to become head of one of the households. In their
search for a house here they could not find a suitable one in the R-3 zone.
-9- April 23, 1975
Also, they needed a quiet street for the small children living in the family,
and to be near good schools for the teenagers. They were attracted to the
Hilltop High School area and located there in the R-1 zone.
William Rambur, 325 East James Street, reported that four years ago he was a
member of the organization called Free COG which was instrumental in exposing
the Children of God Institute. He was later a member of Volunteer Parents, a
national organization attempting to expose other cults and cultism throughout
the United States. He was recently elected as president of Citizens Freedom
Foundation, a national organization composed of parents, professional people,
medical doctors, ministers, educators, that is attempting to educate the public
and give them an insight into what cultism is doing in the United States. He
pointed out, however, that the questions under consideration here is not one
of lifestyle but of land use and of zoning laws, which were developed for the
protection of all the inhabitants of the City, and provide for various types of
residential and commercial occupation. He contended that zoning laws are a
guarantee by the City to the citizens that living conditions will remain the
same or improve in coming years. He pointed out that the present zoning laws
in this city do provide for the location of communal households without in-
fringing upon the rights of R-1 residents. He expressed the opinion there is
not ample justification to alter present zoning laws to accommodate special
groups. He pointed out that these special groups would include any with a
lifestyle similar to that of the Baptist church households, such as Children
Divine Li ht Mission, Tony and Susan Llama Christian Foundation, Love
of God, ~ · ·
Israel, New Testa ent Christian Fellowship, Hare Krlshna. To accept one such
group and reject another would be discriminatory. He reported that he has
documents and witnesses to attest to the undesirability of some of the groups
mentioned.
Mr. Rambur referred to a report compiled by the Attorney General of the State
of New York, and to one compiled by the Senate Committee on Youth and Crime,
which amply indicate the undesirability of the Children of God and of Tony
and Susan Llama Christian Foundation and other groups. He asked how justifi-
cation could be found for accepting the Baptist group and rejecting the
Children of God.
Mr. Rambur expressed the opinion that the Commission is charged with the
responsibility of protecting the majority of the citizens of Chula Vista who
live in R-1 zoning. He contended that the communes could be established Just
as well in the R~3 zone where they are legally permitted.
Rita Smith, 531 Flower, reported that she has been a school teacher in Chula
Vista for 24 years, working with young people, and as a member of the First
Baptist Church since 1941 she has achieved spiritual growth through that
organization which enables her to help others. She advised that although
their home was in the R-1 zone when it was purchased, the area was later
changed to R-3, and she finds the people living around her are as desirable
neighbors as those in the R-1 zone. She related that her personal experience
'th the oung people of the Baptist Church has revealed their
in working wi ~. L~A--~ ~h~ fel they have developed love and
s of one another's pro~m~ ....... t ~
~nding through their affiliation with the church, She asked that the
Commission grant them the privilege of living where they are located, and that
anyone opposed should get acquainted with those people and learn from them.
-10- April 23, 1975
Eulalia McClintock, 614 Belinda Way, advised that in connection with remodeling
work done on their home a few years ago, inspectors were there every few days
and if they had not complied with all rules and regulations of the ordinances
of Chula Vista their work would have been shut down. She expressed strong
resentment that the people of these households have been in violation of city
ordinances for three or four years.
The meeting recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Dennis Costello, 993 Monserate Avenue, parishioner of St. Pius X Catholic
Church in Chula Vista, read a resolution adopted by the St. Pius X Parish
Council recommending that the City of Chula Vista allow existing Christian
community households to continue. The resolution cited the existence of these
households for five years, their role of Christian witness to the community,
and the lack of complaints against the established households, in support of
the request that they be allowed to continue and that the necessary steps be
taken to permit the establishment of future households with appropriate guar-
antees to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods where they are established.
Clay Ford, 456 Casselman Street, one of the pastors of First Baptist Church,
spoke of his experience as a minister in Berkeley, California, in dealing with
street people and people on drugs. After hearing of the organization down here,
he came down and joined the staff of this church. He pointed out that the
Planning Department would have the right to limit the number of people per
household. He asserted one of the most wasted resources in America is homes.
The household in which he lives has 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, and before they
purchased the home, four people were living in it. He also pointed out the
saving in electricity and gas through communal households.
Jim Shukantz, 7210 Astoria Street, San Diego, reported that his daughter is a
resident of one of these households. She had been mentally ill from the age
of 6 and had been in hospitals and under the care of specialists prior to
entering the household a year and a half ago, and she has been helped by this
ministry while previous medical care had failed. He felt the homes are properly
located in the R-1 zone due to the living environment found there.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed opposition to allowing any commune or
boarding house in the R-1 zone for the following reasons: (1) It would lower
property values, which is unfair to other property owners; (2) A commune could
become a boarding house de facto; through the addition of extra bedrooms as
needed in a communal household, the property becomes an R-3 use; (3) The city
could not differentiate between good communes and bad communes, between Christian
and non-Christian; (4) Every effort should be made to preserve, enhance and pro-
tect the R-1 zone; (5) If communes are allowed in the R-1 zone because it is a
benefit to the commune, it is possible they may destroy the very neighborhood
they claim to find so beneficial; (6) Mr. Pagard's letter to the Planning Com-
mission is totally irrelevant to a land use decision; no benefit was mentioned
that couldn't also occur in the R-3 zone.
Mr. Watry avowed that the single family zone is not the proper place for a
commune or a boarding house, and it is not fair after people have improved an
area to allo¥~ a group to take advantage of that, to make money as a result of
other people's effort, or perhaps even destroy it.
-11- April 23, 1975
Candi Drew, 1275 Banner Avenue, advised that she is a member of a family of
eleven; they sometimes create a parking problem; at times they create a noise
problem since only three of the eleven family members don~t play a musical
instrument, and those who do play, play more than one and play it strong and
loud. They are legal residents because they are a family, two parents, nine
children. She asserted this has been made a moral issue by requiring a
relationship such as marriage. She expressed the opinion the Commission has
no right to make a moral judgment and by that judgment restrict persons from
housing; and that family or community size should not be restricted by zones.
Robert Wilkins, 550 Del Mar, reported that he was an American Baptist pastor
from Rio Grande, Ohio, and had come here because he heard of the work being
done by the First Baptist Church and he hoped to make a contribution to that
work. He pointed out that this ministry is a benefit to the community and
should be considered in the Commission's deliberation. He stated that the
inference made by Mr. Rambur of the association of this group to the Children
of God or any other such group is an injustice. He advised although he came
here in anticipation of working for the church, when it became apparent, due
to differences in theological beliefs, that he could not, Mr. Pagard offered
assistance in any way possible to help him get established in the community.
He felt that type of an organization should be welcomed in the R-1 zone or
any zone.
John Henderson, 573 Douglas, reported that he has two daughters that live in
the communal households and two other children that attend the church. He
testified the ministry of that church has helped many broken people to
straighten out their lives, and he felt Chula Vista is large enough to pro-
vide a place for this organization.
Mrs. Rambur, 325 East James Street, advised that she has been concerned with
communes ever since their daughter disappeared very suddenly and they found
her three weeks later at a ranch in Texas, and hardly recognized the person
they had known for 22 years. They sought help from all means throughout the
country, and now, four years later, she has stacks of letters from parents
throughout the country seeking help as their children have been taken in by
organizations such as the Children of God. She indicated it has been dif-
ficult to get authorities to check deep enough to find the problems created
by these groups.
Dolan Wolford, head of the Shiloh House at 57 Third Avenue, expressed sympathy
to Mr. and Mrs. Rambur who have lost their daughter to the Children of God,
but the Baptist households in Chula Vista have no connection with such organi-
zations. He further advised that they pay taxes on their homes the same as
any other home owner. He maintained that their household in the R-1 zone has
not been a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mr. Pagard responded to the statement that these houses have been illegal for
several years and have continued to exist on that basis by pointing out that
he has worked with the City officials, and the City Attorney had instructed
the zoning officer not to enforce the law while it was going through the courts
and until a decision is reached by the City Council. He asserted that the
City officials have found their households very compatible with the R-1 zones;
and while fears have been expressed of what would happen if other groups came
-12- April 23, 1975
in, he was sure there could be adequate enforcing of restrictions to prohibit
any undesirable group.
In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Mr. Pagard advised that
their household has been increased from 5 bedrooms to 7 bedrooms since it was
established.
Commissioner Pressutti questioned whether a 7 bedroom dwelling is compatible
with the concept of single family zoning.
Mr. Rambur, 325 East James Street, pointed out that zoning laws cannot be
written to benefit one particular group and exclude others from the same land
use. He felt this group would be none the less benevolent if they moved into
an acceptable zone in the City of Chula Vista; this way there would be no effect
on the citizens living in the R-1 zone.
Ron Alsop, 174 Landis, head of a household for the past two years, expressed
appreciation for the effort and work that has gone into the report presented
on communal living. He called attention to the recommendation of the Human
Relations Commission, the Environmental Impact Report and all of the local
agencies that have been asked to review these households. He felt the findings
stand on their own and substantiate the fact that this is a responsible group
contributing greatly to the well being of people in the community.
Gerald Jamison, 206 Fifth Avenue, resident of one of the households in question,
advised that before coming to Chula Vista he was a sociologist and specialized
in work with communal living, specifically looking into where they were located.
His findings and the findings of others have borne out the fact that such
households are an asset to traditional neighborhoods. He reported his group
had formerly owned a home at 482 Satinwood and it was sold at no loss in value.
In their new location they have contacted their neighbors to learn their feelings
and were pleased to receive the support of the entire neighborhood since the
physical appearance of the property has been improved. He reported there are
nine people in their household.
Frank Orgovan reported that his 22 year old son has been a resident of the
household on Fifth Avenue for four months and during that time there has been
a big improvement in his ways. He asked that the Commission allow the variance.
Barry Reeves, 456 Casselman, resident of one of the households of the church,
expressed the opinion that the opposing views had exhibited fear, selfishness
and greed. He felt these fears are unfounded, and people should be willing to
accept change, since that is what this nation was founded upon. He maintained
that anyone who has personally investigated their households has given them
support,
Leonard Frye, 81Mitscher Street, electronics engineer by trade, reported that
he has held title to a number of the properties formerly and presently used
for these households and in no instance has the property value declined because
of this use. He pointed out that the number of households has increased due
to the need for expansion in order to effectively help those who were asking
for help.
-13- April 29, 1975
James Shackleford, 312 East James Street, expressed the opinion that in view
of what has been happening throughout the country, if the zoning laws are
changed to allow this group in the R-1 zone, then there is no way of stopping
any other group that wishes to come in for any reason whatsoever and Chula
Vista would be turned into an instant slum.
Charles Funkhouser, 315 Montclair, called attention to the common incidence of
people who are living together but have different last names. He questioned
how an ordinance adopted for the control of 12 or 13 households would be
enforced over the many others which are not so well known.
Richard Eaton, 119 Garrett Avenue, asserted that the testimony is overwhelmingly
in favor of the continuation of the communal households, and he was amazed by
the staff report which finds no fault with them and then recommends that they
be denied. He pointed out there were no factual complaints against the house-
holds and the only opposition was based on fear and prejudice. He expressed
the opinion that communal living is a proven method in our society and he could
not understand the recommendation for denying the change which would permit
them in the R-1 zone.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The meeting recessed at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that despite all of the testimony on whether
or not communes are good, that is not the question before the Commission; it
is instead a decision on whether or not this should be an allowable use in an
R-1 neighborhood. She suggested that the staff look further into restrictions
which could be applied under a conditional use permit to assure the communes
would be compatible in the R-1 zone; such restrictions as number of occupants
per dwelling and limiting the number of communes allowed in any one area. She
pointed out it should also be determined what can be done if a particular com-
d
mune becomes a detriment to the nelghborhoo ·
would have a
Assistant City Attorney Beam expressed the opinion that the CitY.t
fairly broad range of flexibility under the conditional use perml procedure
that would include limiting the intensity of the use as it relates to population.
He noted that the City should not place arbitrary limitations but could place
reasonable limitations of any particular use under a conditional use as it
affects the entire community. He pointed out that any use which has been
allowed under a conditional use permit is subject to revocation if the stipulated
conditions are met; such revocation does require a public hearing,
Commissioner Pressutti expressed concern over the fact these communes have
existed for the last five or six years, and have not only existed but continued
to expand right up to the present time, with full knowledge by the City that
they were in violation of the ordinance. He asserted this is setting a bad
example for young people. He noted it is not a question of the good being
done in these community homes, but should they be located in the R-1 zone which
was designed for single family dwellings. He pointed out that since many of
these have been established in the R-1 zone, it will result in an economic hard-
ship if the decision is made to deny them the right to continue.
Assistant City Attorney Beam explained that these households have continued in
Chula Vista over several years due to cases in court to test cities~ rights in
~14- April 23, 1975
zoning laws, which resulted in reversed decisions from one court to the next
higher. The final decision was handed down by the Supreme Court last year
with the finding that cities do have the right to prohibit communal living
in the R-1 zone. He indicated that those who sponsored the communal households
had been made aware that they might be declared illegal and forced to abate.
Commissioner Floto pointed out that if these are to be allowed by conditional
use permit, it would be extremely hard to evaluate an application from a group
with an unknown name or one without a history of some kind.
Commissioner Starr advised that he was impressed by the service which this
organization is performing within the community and the fact that the adjacent
neighbors have not attested to any adverse conditions. He expressed the wish
that this organization could be accommodated, but at the same time acknowledged
the necessity of protecting the integrity of the R-1 zone.
Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that this use does not belong in the
R-1 zone, and since they are permitted in the multiple family zone he could
not support a change in the ordinance.
Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the Commission must acknowledge changing
conditions, and that while both the R-3 and R-1 should be protected, as they
are in danger of deteriorating if the wrong things happen, she thought that if
regulations for a conditional use permit were carefully written this use would
not be detrimental to an R-1 neighborhood.
Commissioner Rice noted that regardless of the benefits that these communal
households may have provided, the question is one of land use and he did not
feel this is an appropriate use for the R-1 zone.
Commissioner Pressutti asked the City Attorney if it would be possible to allow
the existing communes to continue, but say there shall be no more in the R-l,
and additional communal households must be located in the R-3 zone.
Attorney Beam ~dv~sed that if the proposed zoning text amendment is adopted,
e exlstln facilities would be required to apply for a conditional
each of th . g ...... ~n~ed o an individual basis. The
use permit, whicn wou/~ De approveu ur u:~-- _n
same regulations would have to apply to al! new applications ~or
d e advised that Mr, Beam has requested that prior to any motion
Chairman Chan 1 ~, ~+~-- ~ unal households, that the
on the consideration of an amendment relo~,.~ ~o comm
Commission first adopt a motion stating they haye given consideration to the
information in the draft Environmental Impact Report as well as to the testimony
presented in the public hearing on that report.
MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission states that they have considered the
draft EIR on the proposed amendment and all testimony on that EIR which was
given tonight.
It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that the staff be requested to rewrite
the proposed ordinance for conditional use permit for communes, taking into
consideration a definite limit on size, a limitation of the proliferation,
some standards for conditions to be applied to the communes, and also to look
into the problem of resale and future use of the dwellings. The motion died
for lack of a second.
'-' -15- April 23, 1975
MSC (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission recommends to the City Council the denial
of a change in the zoning ordinance to permit communal households in the R-1
zone, and suggest that the City Council take every possible step to minimize
the economic impact on the existing households as the existing zoning laws are
enforced; and further that the ordinance be amended to prohibit fraternity and
sorority house use in the R-1 zone by placing them under subsection A l0 of
Section 35.535 with the notation that they are appropriate in the R-3 zone.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Floto, Chandler, Smith and Rice
NOES: Commissioners Rudolph and Starr
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Chandler advised that this consideration will be set for public
hearing before the City Council with proper notice given of the date.
HEARiN~Lto Zonin Ordinance
9. PUBLIC ' ures
Mr. Peterson recommended that this hearing be continued to the meeting of
May 28.
MSUC (Rice-Pressutti) The public hearing in consideration of an amendment
relating to Precise Plan procedures be continued to the meeting of May 28, 1975.
pUBLIC ~EARING (Cont_._?_~ Co~liderati°n of Public Buildin~
lO, ~neral. vlan.
Mr, peterson recommended continuance to the meeting of May 14,
MSUC (Rice-Pressutti} The public hearing in consideration of the Public Build-
ing Element of the General Plan be continued to the meeting of May 14, 1975.
ORALCOMMUNICATIONS.
None were presented.
DI_ R CTOR' S REPORZ
Mr. peterson reminded the Commissioners that their disclosure statements must be
filed by April 30th.
He also advised that if agreeable with the Commission, the study session of
May 21 would be scheduled for 5;00 p.m. to be followed by dinner.
ADJOURNMEN~
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
- Respectfully submitted,
~ · ~ ~1 j.~-'~,~.-<~
Helen Mapes, Secretary