Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/03/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 26, 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, Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Starr. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Senior Planner Pass, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Harshman, 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 meeting of March 12, 1975 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler advised that although normally oral communications may concern only items which are not listed on the agenda, he had a request from a representa- tive of the Chamber of Commerce to speak at this time with regard to a possible continuance of the last public hearing on the agenda--consideration of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Niek Slijk, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, expressed regret that due to another scheduled meeting, he could not remain at this meeting until this public hearing is reached on the agenda. He also noted that Ken Kolk, who was a member of the ad hoc Housing Committee, cannot attend this meeting. He also reported that consideration of this report has been twice delayed by their own Board of Directors due to the press of other matters, and it is now scheduled for their consideration on April 17. For that reason he respectfully requested that this public hearing be continued to a meeting after April 17. Director of Planning ?eterson pointed out that in the preparation of this Housing Element every effort was made to coordinate with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and real estate groups over the past year. He suggested that action not be taken on a continuance at this time, but that the hearing be opened as it appears on the agenda and after taking testimony if the Commission feels a con- tinuance is warranted, such action could be taken at that time, Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion that the Chamber was represented on the committee that developed this element and their Board should have taken action earlier if they wished to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rudolph concurred that the public hearing on the Housing Element should be opened at this meeting, but she felt that an element as important as this will probably take more than one meeting to adopt. -2- March 26, 1975 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Conditional Use Permit PCC-75-2 to construct Insurance Office and Visitor's Information Center in Flood Plain, northwest quadrant of Bonita Road and 1-805, Creaser-Price Insurance Agency, Inc. 2. Consideration of Precise Plan for development of property in C-V-P-F zone at nor'thwest quadrant of Bonita Road and 1-805, Creaser- Price Insurance Agency, Inc. Director of Planning Peterson advised there are still two unresolved problems related to this development; namely, whether signs should be freeway oriented, and grading required due to potential flooding. There is also a need to coordinate the development of this small property with the development plans previously approved for the adjacent property. Progress is being made on resolving these problems and it is recommended that the hearing be continued to April 9th. MSUC (Rice-Pressutti) The public hearing on conditional use permit PCC-75-2 and precise plan for development be continued to the meeting of April 9, 1975. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-75-1 on Community Block Grant Program Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this EIR relates to the 3 year Community Development Program and that specific project proposals will be subject to additional environmental reports. The subject report will serve as a background document to provide input into project alternatives in the yearly programs. He advised that the State clearing house has not yet completed their review of this EIR and there will be no input available from that body until April 2nd. It is therefore recommended that the hearing be opened for input from the public and continued to the meeting of April 9th. The Chairman opened the public hearing and no public testimony was presented. MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The public hearing in consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR-75-1 be continued to the meeting of April 9, 1975. 4. Consideration of request for extension of time on conditional use permit PCC-74-2, South Bay Court Club, 35 Third Avenue Director of Planning Peterson advised that the applicant has made several steps toward fulfilling the conditions of approval of the permit granted a year ago but he has not yet applied for the building permit. There has been no change in surrounding circumstances during the year and it is recommended that the extension be granted. MSUC (Rice-Rudolph) A one year extension of time be approved for conditional use permit PCC-74-3. -3- March 26, 1975 5. Consideration of request for vacation of public alleys: South of G Street, west of Fourth Avenue; South of F Street, east of Second Avenue, PCM-75-3 Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the two short alleys under con- sideration do not function as public alleys, but as driveways to serve the multiple family developments adjacent to the alleys. Since dedication of the alleys was accepted by the City some time ago, the City is obligated to maintain them, and it is felt the City should not be maintaining these driveways any more than other driveways to apartment complexes. Mr. Peterson advised that the utility easements referred to in the report are proposed easements rather than existing easements. Added to the easements shown in Exhibit B should be a 15' sewer easement to be reserved to the City. It is recommended that the vacation of the alleys be approved subject to the reserva- tion of the easements. Commissioner Smith pointed out that the alley south of G Street, west of Fourth Avenue, does give access to a fairly large property, presently owned and used by the high school district. In the event this school site is no longer needed at some time in the future and the property is redeveloped for another use, Mr. Smith felt it might be desirable to use this access. Mr. Peterson noted that with the amount of frontage on public streets which the property referred to has, it is not probable that access from the alley in ques- tion would ever be necessary. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the vacation of public alleys, south of G Street, west of Fourth Avenue, and south of F Street, east of Second Avenue, be approved with the reservation of utility easements including an additional 15~ sewer easement on Exhibit B. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: pCZ-75-B, request for change in front setback from 20~ and 3U' to lb' on both sides of Fifth Avenue ~l~U block~ between E Street and Flower, Eugene York Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the applicant had originally re- quested a change in setback from 30' to 15' for one lot only on the east side of Fifth Avenue. At the staff's request, the application was amended to include the additional lots in order to maintain uniformity on both sides of the street in the entire block. He pointed out that the 15' setback conforms to the R-3 dis- trict regulations for other than major streets. He further pointed out that a variance was granted to the church located at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and E Street which provides for approximately a 3-1/2 ft. setback at that location. He also noted that the unusually wide right of way of Fifth Avenue results in the property line being 20 feet from the curb. With a 15~ setback from the property line, buildings would be no nearer than 35 feet to the curb. The staff recommends approval of the change to reduce the front yard setback on both sides of Fifth Avenue between Flower and E Street to 15 feet, based on the findings stated in the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. -4- March 26, 1975 MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of a change in the Building Line Map to reduce the setback from 30' to 15' on the east side and from 20' to 15' on the west side of Fifth Avenue between Flower and E Street. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-5, request for reduction in rear setback from 15' to 5' at 424 Church Avenue in R-3 zone, Robert J. Richards Current Planning Supervisor reported that the applicant proposes to construct two apartment units on the rear half of a 4800 sq. ft. lot. A single family dwelling is located on the front portion of the lot. The plans for the proposed construction show the first floor about 9 feet from the property line with the upper story extending out to about 5 feet of the property line. This property abuts a 20 ft. alley which serves commercial properties fronting on Third Avenue. Granting the variance would permit development of the property in accordance with R-3 zone provisions and provide for the larger portion of open space to be located between the new structure and the existing dwelling. The staff recommends ap- proval of the request based on the findings stated in the report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Richards, 765 Del Mar Avenue, reported that he had been informed of the requirement to improve the alley at the side and rear of this property in accord- ance with City standards. He asked what such improvements would consist of. Mr. Lee advised that public improvements are required by City Code whenever con- struction in excess of $5,000 valuation takes place. He suggested that Mr. Richards contact the Department of Public Works regarding the extent of public improvements and the possibility of obtaining a deferral of the installation of improvements. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-Rice) Variance PCV-75-5 be approved based on the findings stated in the staff report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Housin~ Element of the General Plan Director of Planning Peterson noted that this element was discussed by the Com- mission at the study session on February 19th and is now presented for formal public hearing and possible action. He indicated that Part 1 is identical to the draft that the Commission received last month, and Part 2, which is the policy aspect of the element, has been shortened and simplified to eliminate redundancies in the earlier draft, but the basic content is very similar to the earlier draft. This element sets up goals, objectives and policies and prescribes an action program to curb blighting and deterioration in housing and provide suitable housing for all economic segments within the City. -5- March 26, 1975 Mr. Peterson emphasized three of the most important parts of the action program. The first part would require that every developer of a project containing more than 50 dwelling units address the need to provide 10% of the units for low and moderate income groups. This stipulation falls short of requiring developers to provide the lower cost housing in every case, but if it is not done, the developer is obligated to indicate to the Planning Commission and City Council why it is not feasible to accomplish that objective. The second program is an agreement by the City to accept a share of Section 8 leased housing, which is a Federal subsidy program. On the previous night the City Council designated the County Housing Authority to act as this city's housing authority in connection with this program. If this Housing Element is adopted, the City would be committed to participate in that Section 8 housing. The third program requires developers of projects of more than 50 units to develop and carry out an affirmative marketing plan, wi th such plan geared toward making the development known through advertising the development to persons of all economic and ethnic backgrounds. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that those three programs constitute the most important part of the Housing Element as it is prepared. He reported that Commissioner Rudolph has shown considerable interest in this element and she has felt that the Housing Element as proposed for adoption does not go are enough in assuring that housing will be available to all people. Mr. Peterson advised that while Commissioner Rudolph's views in this area are respected the staff is of the opinion that the Housing Element draft as presented is suitable to the community and represents a reasonable approach to a difficult problem. He reported that the staff does not advocate reducing some of the development standards in order to reduce the cost of housing; nor does the staff advocate the use of General Fund monies to help subsidize housing; nor that developers should be absolutely required to devote a certain percentage of units to lower income groups in every development. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that reducing development standards which have been adopted and used, and withstood the test of time, would not bring the cost of housing within reach of low income groups, although it might help reach the moderate income groups. If standards are reduced there is the danger of creating substandard neighborhoods. Mr. Peterson summarized by saying that while this Housing Element is not an aggressive attack on the need to supply low and moderate cost housing, it is a reasonable plan and one that is defensible. ~te felt it is questionable whether the City can require every developer to build houses that low inconle groups can afford, but by tempering that to require that the developer address that prob- lem, the City is in a stronger position legally. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Joy Thonneson, 36 San Miguel Drive, read a statement prepared by the League of Women Voters of San Diego South Bay Cities. This statement pointed out that Part 1 of the Housing Element clearly recognized the need for a comprehensive program for the improvement of housing for certain disadvantaged groups in the Chula Vista Planning Area, The statement indicated, however, that State guidelines require that there should be available a range of housing prices, types and locations sufficient to offer some choices to all income groups. The statement concluded by suggesting that the Housing Element be strengthened by adding the following: -6- March 26, 1975 1. Policies which will mandate provision of a specific number of low and moderate income housing by the City. 2. Delegation of responsibility toward carrying out these policies. 3. A time frame in which to work. 4. An annual review of the program as required by the State. Marion Hunt, 368 Corte Maria, reported that he was representing the legislative committee of the South San Diego Bay Cities Board of Realtors. He commented that he had only recently become quite familiar with this proposed Housing Element. He felt that the use of 1970 census figures on population and housing needs do not accurately depict the situation as it exists today. He spoke of the rapid rise in housing costs during the past decade. Mr. Hunt indicated that the Board of Realtors was not represented on the housing committee that worked on the formulation of this Housing Element. He requested that the hear- ing be continued in order that that Board may supply input for a workable pro- gram. He indicated that a two weeks delay would be adequate for that purpose. The Commission concurred with the advisability of continuing the public hearing. Commissioner Rudolph asked if it is possible and proper for the Commission to discuss the proposed draft prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that Commission discussion should be held after all public testimony has been taken and the public hearing closed. Mr. Peterson suggested that continuance to May 14th would enable the staff to review and comment upon material submitted by other organizations for inclusion in the Housing Element. MSUC (Smith-Rudolph) The public hearing for consideration of the Housing Element be continued to the meeting of May 14, 1975. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson advised that while the next Commission meeting will be two weeks from tonight, an attempt will be made to deliver to the Commission on Friday of this week, a report on an agenda item for that meeting dealing with a zoning text amendment concerning HAM antennas or Amateur Radio Operator antennas, in order that the Commission may have additional time to review that material. He indicated the agenda for the meeting of April 9th will be quite heavy. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Starr noted that one applicant at this meeting had indicated he had just become cognizant of the requirement for installing public improvements in connection with a proposed building plan. Mr. Starr felt that applicants should be made aware of such requirements prior to the public hearing. Mr. Peterson advised that the applicant was advised of the requirement at the time his application for variance was filed and this particular applicant has -7- March 26, 1975 filed an application for deferral with the Engineering Division. He felt that applicants present such problems at the Commission meeting in the hope that the Commission may offer relief from the requirement, but this cannot be done until the application is formally before the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary