HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/06/21MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
- OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 21, 1976
A special business 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, Floto, Johnson, Pressutti and Starr. Absent (with
previous notification) Commissioner Smith. Also present: Director of Planning
Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Secretary
Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by
a moment of silent prayer.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gene Coleman, 1670 Gotham Street, commented on the notice of public hearing
for consideration of a draft Environmental Impact Report for Otay Land Company's
E1 Rancho del Rey development on June 28, 1976. He asked that the public hearing
be delayed for two reasons: First, a Council Conference and field trip relative
to the E1 Rancho del Rey area has been scheduled for June 29th, the day after the
public hearing; secondly, during two weeks of the required 30 days during which
the report is available for public review and scrutiny the library has been closed
for moving. Although a sign was placed on the library door on the first day the
library was closed indicating the report was available at the Planning Department,
the advance notice of the library closing most likely discouraged many people from
reading the sign on the door or seeking to obtain a copy of the report.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the Commission is obligated to open the
public hearing on the date advertised, June 28th. If at that time it seems
desirable to continue the public hearing for additional public input, such action
can be taken.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, commented that at the public hearing held before
the Planning Commission on the Environmental Impact Report for the widening of
"F" Street, the Commission expressed preference for alternate No. 1 of the project
--repainting the traffic lanes only. However, when the EIR was adopted by the
Commission two weeks later no formal action was taken to forward a recommendation
on the scope of the project to the Council. He felt it was the Commission's
original intent to make a recommendation and suggested that action be taken to
do so.
Director of Planning Peterson suggested that additional information on the project
be presented to the Commission at a meeting in the near future, at which time the
Commission may formulate a recommendation to the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to the Municipal Code to define "Group
Residence" and adopt standards for group residences
Director of Planning Peterson reported that at a study session early in April the
City Council formulated some tentative standards for boarding and lodging houses.
-2- ~ June 21, 1976
The Council directed that the proposed standards be referred to the Planning
Commission and City staff for additional study. One aspect of their request was
for the substitution of a general term in place of communal household or boarding
and lodging house. The term which is suggested is "group residence" which would
also include sorority and fraternity houses.
Mr. Peterson reported that the Council had also directed that consideration be
given to amending the standards to increase the required area of sleeping space
per person; the existing housing code requires a minimum of 70 sq. ft. for two
persons with an additional 50 sq. ft. for each additional person in one room.
The staff determined that the housing code standards are used thru-out the State
of California and the nation, and that speci~¢iccriteria relating to geographic
conditions would be needed before the city could consider departing from those
standards in the case of group residences. Staff research failed to find a need
for higher standards, and therefore it was recommended that the state and national
standards be used.
The Council discussed an overall density control to regulate the number of
persons in each group residence. The recommendation proposed is based upon the
number of apartment units permitted in the R-3 zone multiplied by the average
population count per apartment as determined by the 1975 census count.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that R-3 standards have also been applied in determining
the parking requirement and for the amount of usable open space for each resident.
Under those standards the offstreet parking would be quite stringent and the number
of residents per household would also be quite stringent.
Mr. Peterson advised that two items were not covered in the proposed ordinance
provisions. One is a requirement that each conditional use permit approved for
group residence would expire when that group residence' occupancy terminated. It
was felt this could be included as a condition of approval of individual applications.
A second point raised related to defining a resident in terms of length of stay,
as opposed to a guest. Even if a definition were established it would be very
difficult for the city to keep track of the length of time a person resided in a
particular house.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the County Probation Department has recently
adopted provisions for 15-bed homes for juvenile offenders. He asked if such a
facility would be considered as a group residence.
Mr. Peterson advised that whether or not it was considered a group residence, it
would be a conditional use in the R-3 zone. He felt the most applicable provisions
of the city ordinance would be the unclassified uses section which includes public
and quasi public uses. Under that section appropriate conditions may be applied
to a use permit.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Bill Cannon, attorney representing the First Baptist Church, with offices at 303 "F"
Street, San Diego, spoke in protest of the method of determining the number of
residents to be allowed in a household, specifically, the use of the 1.94 average
population per apartment unit as determined in the 1975 census. He contended that
placing a limit on the number of people who can live in a dwelling violates their
rights as private individuals to live as they choose. He asserted that such an
arbitrary standard violates their rights of assembly, religion, privacy, and equal
protection.
-3- June 21, 1976
Mr. Cannon also protested any requirement for licensing or for inspection. He
declared the parking requirement is more stringent than normally required;
stressing that prohibiting tandem parking is unreasonable since the Planning
Commission, in other instances, may approve tandem parking. He pointed out that
the parking may be increased based on facts presented in an application, but there
is no provision for decreasing the parking if facts so warrant. He asserted this
makes it difficult to comply with the ordinance and creates excessive blacktop
surfacing in the city, which becomes an eyesore.
Mr. Cannon also objected to the condition of separation of households, pointing out
that people have chosen to live this way, and they would like an ordinance with
which they can reasonably comply.
Mr. Cannon requested that the proposed ordinance not be adopted because there is
no way for his clients to comply with a number of requirements.
City Attorney Lindberg questioned Mr. Cannon's reference to arbitrary standards.
Mr. Cannon asserted that if no limitation is set on the number of family members
who may occupy an apartment in the R-3 zone, then establishing a limit on the
number in a group residence is arbitrary and unreasonable.
In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Ken Pagard, 424 Westby
Street, affirmed that normally licensing is required when children are referred
by the court, but their households do not fit the requirements of a foster home.
Mr. Pagard also contended it is discriminatory to take an average density figure
and make that a maximum for an individual household. He felt that the parking
requirement is the most discriminatory of anything in the ordinance, since their
ratio of automobiles to residents in a household is generally lower than for the
average single family. He pointed out there are four cars in his household, but
they would be required to have 10 parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms
in the dwelling.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out it is the objective of this ordinance amendment
to establish standards which would be applicable to any group residence and not
attempt to take into account the philosophical bent of any particular gr@up. .He
felt the latter would be an impossible task for any governmental agency to unoer-
take and that the City should try to find a standard that would be broadly applic-
able.
Gene York, 160 Brightwood Street, asserted that any zoning ordinance, by its very
nature, is arbitrary; it was arbitrary when the City decided 1350 sq. ft. of lot
area is required for each unit of an apartment complex, when formerly the require-
ment was 1,000 sq. ft. He pointed out that the ordinance being considered is
meant to cover a number of uses, as is the ordinance for the R-3 zone. He
maintained that parking requirements, amount of land required per dwelling unit,
and open space are standards which inhibit the free development of any piece of
property in Chula Vista. He asserted that the proposed ordinance is compatible
with standards which must be met in the building of apartments.
With reference to tandem parking, he expressed the belief that the Planning Commission
has not approved tandem parking for 8 or 9 years; but has done everything to
discourage it. He also pointed out that all apartment units are subject to
inspection by the Fire Department and the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
-4- .h June 21, 1976
Leonard Frye, 81 Mitscher Street, related his own experience in renting a room
in a private home, pointing out this may be an economic advantage to the person
renting and the home owner. He felt the standards proposed in this ordinance are
too stringent.
Ken Pagard suggested that the number of people per dwelling be limited only by
the housing code requirement for minimum square footage of bedroom space per
occupant.
Attorney Lindberg pointed out that each conditional use permit or each living
situation cannot be individualized. The attempton the part of the government
is to produce a uniform regulation that has certain amenities. It cannot be
assumed that the occupancy at a certain location will continue to operate in
a specific manner, since persons are interchangeable.
Clarence Knight, 117 Jefferson Avenue, questioned the use of the term "group
residence" which he felt is too broad. He noted that the use we are concerned
with is a commune and suggested that we not use another term.
Nancy Lawe, 161 Brightwood, reported that she had been asked to be the spokes-
person for a number of people who are interested in this matter. She expressed
appreciation for consideration given to ideas which they had expressed to the
City Council. She pointed out that one of the objections of the people in the
community is that the First Baptist Church wish to have a set of regulations
unto themselves. She expressed the opinion that the proposed regulation is
applicable to the total community of Chula Vista and that the establishment of
rules for the First Baptist Church alone is foreign to democratic principles
and contrary to the wishes of the people. She suggested it may be appropriate to
establish the maximum number of residents allowed in a residence before it is
classified as a hotel. She cited restrictions adopted by the County of San Diego
which establish the maximum number of people in a group residence or lodging at
15, or it is classified as a hotel. She also asserted that many cities require
licensing of boarding and lodging houses or group residences.
David Mills, 169 Brightwood, commented on the length of time spent in the study
of this problem and expressed the opinion that the recommendation to the Commission
is fair to all concerned.
Greg Campbell, 1078 Oaklawn Avenue, spoke in favor of the lifestyle in the communal
households, asserting it is similar to living in a large family, and that more
concern is shown for each other by the family members than is the case in some
individual families. He spoke of their desire to reach out and help others and
if stringent restrictions are enacted this will not be possible.
Mr. Cannon again reiterated the request that the occupancy of a household be
restricted only by the square footage of space and that provision be made for
a decrease in parking requirements by the same consideration as used for increasing
the parking requirement.
Bobbie Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue, pointed out that if the original occupants of
a group residence leave and the property is to be used by someone else, the
parking may be needed; change of occupants does not change the composition of
the property.
-5- '~ June 21, 1976
Leonard Frye again appealed the proposed method of determining the maximum
number of residents at a location.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In discussion the Commission concluded that the only real areas of difference
in the proposed regulations are the density and the parking requirements. It
was felt these requirements are in line with regulations for other development
in the R-3 zone, where group residences will be allowed.
MSUC (Floto-Johnson) The Commission certifies that the information contained in
EIR-75-2 relating to the proposed amendment has been considered and that the
environmental report was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the California Admin-
istrative Code, and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista.
MSUC (Floto-Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption
of an amendment to the Municipal Code to define "group residence" and establish
standards for group residences as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to the staff
report.
Chairman Chandler noted that this recommendation will be considered in a public
hearing before the City Council, with due notice given by the City Clerk of the
date of hearing.
Mr. Peterson had no Director's Report and the Commissioners offered no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes, Secretary