Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/06/22 Tape: 290 Side 2:0-1124 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, June 22, 1988 Public Services Buildin9 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Assistant Planner Schilling, Assistant Planner Reid, Deputy City Attorney Fritsch, Associate Civil Engineer Thomas, Community Development Specialist LoBue, Redevelopment Corrdinator Kassman and Community Development Specialist Shanahan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsi- bilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of May 25, 1988 were unanimously approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Chairman Carson indicated that the order of the items listed on the agenda would be changed. Items would be heard as follows: Items 1, 7, 3, 6, 2, 4 and 5. 1. (A) CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-88-3 - TOWN CENTRE II EXPANSION (CONT'D) (B) FINDING OF CONFORMANCE OF THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXPANSION AREAS WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN Community Development Specialist LoBue reviewed the few changes made since the meeting of June 8, 1988. The phrase "project area including the amendment area" has been removed from Amendments 4 and 7 for clarification purposes. Added was Amendment 8 listing the improvements to public projects which are proposed as part of the redevelopment activity; such as, streets, Eucalyptus Park, the Civic Center and the Trolley Station. Amendment 11 was changed to indicate that the allowed land uses would be in conformance with the Amended General Plan. Amend- ment 14 provided the maps indicating the land use designation for the sites. Mr. LoBue noted that following Commission action, the item would go before the Project Area Committee, the Montgomery Planning Committee and to a joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and City Council on July 12. At that meeting, adoption of the ordinance would be considered. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) to certify that EIR-88-3 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission will review and consider the information in the EIR as it reaches a decision on the project and to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Project, making its report as to conformance with the General Plan, and transmitting the report to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-1 CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REDESIGNATION OF 2.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND ALLEN SCHOOL LANE AT 3956 OTAY LAKES ROAD - ROBERT E. CRANE AND JOHN D. DAUZ This item taken out of sequence. See Page5 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.78 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND TROUSDALE DRIVE ON THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED FROM R-1 TO R-2-P-12 - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO This item taken out of sequence. See Pa~e4 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PUD-88-1M REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT 22 TOWNHOMES FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (b) PCC-88-52M REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 22 TOWNHOME UNITS FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY This item taken out of sequence. See Page5 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-87-39M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW CONTINUANCE OF AN RV STORAGE LOT LOCATED AT 1483 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD. This item taken out of sequence. See Page 9 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-23M - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - REQUEST TO EXPAND A MINI WAREHOUSE FACILITY AT 340 NAPLES STREET - NAPLES STREET INVESTORS, LTD. (CONTINUED) This item taken out of sequence. See Page 4 7. OTHER BUSINESS: (a) Density Bonus Request for a proposed 60-Unit Apart- ment Complex at 1053 Broadway Community Development Specialist Shanahan noted that the applicant is requesting a 15 percent density bonus (8 units) under State Government Code Section 65915 which permits increases in density in exchange for rent restrictions on a per- centage of the total units to be utilized as affordable housing for low-and-moderate income households. This density bonus would increase the number of units in the apartment complex to 60. Ms. Shanahan reviewed the rental rates proposed under the arrangement (as detailed in the staff report); noted that the restrictions were for a 25-year period; and that the Design Review Committee had approved the project with the increased density at the meeting of May 15, 1988. In response to questions from the Commission, Specialist Shanahan replied that (a) the Housing Assistance Plan indicated the number of houses that the City could provide in the form of a goal, not a requirement; (b) figures to indicate how close the City was in attaining that goal were not available at this meeting; and (c) that monitoring of the projects is achieved through reports submitted every 6 months which contain a notarized rent roll in the restricted units, and that the tenants who occupy these units must present verification of their income. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (6-0) to find that the project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt Negative Declaration IS-88-32M. MSUC (Tugenber§/Grasser) (6-0) to recommend approval of a density bonus of eight units for the proposed apartment project at 1053 Broadway, and that the City Council approve the Housing Cooperation Agreement with the developers outlining the terms and conditions of the density bonus. (b) Appointment of Representative to Growth Management Over- sight Committee This item taken out of sequence. See Page 1~ -3- 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-N CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.78 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND TROUSDALE DRIVE ON THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED FROM R-1 TO R-2-P-12 Principal Planner Lee statedthat City Council had requested a larger scale zoning study and an additional traffic study be made of this area. For that reason, staff was requesting that the item be continued to either August 10, 1988 as shown in the staff report or, preferably, indefinitely untfl after the traffic study is completed and further direction is given by Council. A letter 'has been received from the County indicating that they concur in the continuation of this item. MS (Shipe/Casillas) that based on the City Council's request for additional information the matter be continued to the meeting of August 10, 1988. The Chair noted that staff had said they would prefer the continuation to after the study was completed rather than the August 10, 1988 date in the staff report. This was agreed to by the makers of the motion. AMENDED MOTION: MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) that based on the City Council's request for additional information, the matter be continued indefinitely. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PUD-88-1M REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT 22 TOWNHOMES FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (b) PCC-88-52M REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 22 TOWNHOME UNITS FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY This item taken out of sequence. See Page 5 5. ~UBLIC HEARING: PCC-87-39M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW CONTINUANCE OF AN RV STORAGE LOT LOCATED AT 1483 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD. This item taken out of sequence. See Page 9 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-23M REQUEST TO EXPAND A MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILTIY LOCATED AT 340 NAPLES STREET NAPLES STREET INVESTORS.~ INC. Principal Planner Lee requested that the Commission continue the item to the meeting of July 27 as it must return through the Montgomery Planning Committee prior to Commission action. MSUC (Fuller/Shipe) to continue the item to the meeting of July 27, 1988. -4- 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-1 PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN BY THE REDESIGNATION OF 2.09 ACRES ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND ALLEN SCHOOL LANE AT 3956 OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM 'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL' (4-12 DU'S/ACRE) TO 'PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL' Assistant Planner Barbara Reid noted that the applicant proposed to acquire and develop a 2.09 acre site on the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and Allen School Lane with an office complex. The proposed amendment to the General Plan required prior to such action would authorize an increase in the territory designated for commercial/office development and address the growing demand for "suburban office space" within Chula Vista and the Bonita Community. The market report submitted by the applicant indicates that Chula Vista has less than 2% vacancy rate for office/commercial space. Planner Reid pointed out that the location of proposed complex is physically isolated from other potential commercial sites and, as the actual site topography is depressed, the development would not visually affect adjacent residential areas. The proposed development would preclude the southerly expansion of the Bonita Road retail strip along the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road. Also, as the present use of the site for a commercial feed business (The Red Barn) has not severely impacted nearby residents, there is no evidence that a well-planned office building on the site would increase local land use friction. Responses to questions submitted by the Commission included (1) studies undertaken by City staff also indicated a lack of office space; (2) no site plan has been submitted but consideration would certainly be given to preserving the pepper and oak trees on the property; (3) although no traffic impact problems are noted in the environmental assessment, the traffic situation will be addressed in greater detail when rezoning and precise plan approvals are considered. It was pointed out that in the two previous projects considered for this site, the traffic problems encountered were considered resolvable by the Engineering Department. (4) No objections to the project have been raised by the neighbors to the west. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Crane, 5953 Steeplechase Road, Bonita, 92002, Bonita Business Center, spoke in support of staff's recommendation for approval. He indicated that his partner, Jeff Phair, and his co-applicant, John Dauz, were present. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) to adopt a Negative Declaration for IS-88-38. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) to recommend approval of GPA-88-1. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD 88-1M REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT 22 TOWNHOMES ON ONE LOT FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HOUSING AUTHORITY -5- (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-52M - REQUEST TO CON- STRUCT 22 TOWNHOME UNITS FOR LOW INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING AT 778-82 AND 794-98 DOROTHY STREET Assistant Planner Schilling stated that project proposed construction of 22 townhomes for low-income housing located on 2.47 acres on the north side of Dorothy Street between Industrial Boulevard and 1-805. A planned unit development is requested so the 22 townhomes can be constructed without subdivision of the parcel into 11 lots the normal requirement with the underlying zone. Using the overhead projector, Planner Schilling displayed a site plan of 11 duplexes with recreation, meeting and laundry facilities plus a tot-lot and hard-court play area. Approximately 60 percent of the project area is open space, 30 percent of which would be usable common area. The two units adjacent to Dorothy Street, which are single-story units for the handicapped, create a stepped-back effect. The County Housing Authority (the applicant) is proposing the duplex design; however, in case HUD does not agree, the applicant is requesting Commission approval of an alternate site plan which has the same basic units of the townhome but clusters them into a three-, four-, and five-plex grouping. Staff recommends approval of the planned unit development and the major use permit subject to conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. Condition 3b is a requirement for approval of a density bonus request under the California Density Bonus Program because the underlying zoning permits no more than 18 units and the proposal is for 22. Under the density bonus program, there can be a 25 percent increase over the underlying zoning and general plan designation - or a total of 23 units. The density bonus units would be subject to rent restrictions but since the project is a public low-income housing unit these restrictions are already met. Condition i specifies staff's recommendations that the duplex design be selected as the preferred site plan but does make allowance that if HUD requirements specify attached units, the applicant will utilize the alternate site plan configuration. Condition d requires that Design Review Committee approval be obtained for either site plan. Commissioner Tugenberg inquired about the relationship between HUD and the County Housing Authority. Ms. Schilling replied that the County Housing Authority is applying to HUD to fund the program; that there are a total of 40 low-income housing units to be proposed for the Chula Vista Area, 22 of those units are in this project with the balance to be located at another site. Commissioner Tugenberg then asked how many sites the County Housing Authority and HUD have built in the County during the last two years and their location. He said he would like to see a map pointing out those locations to convince him that the South Bay Area is not becoming a dumping ground for low-income housing units and that the rest of the County is doing its share. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Cliff Largess, Representative of the County Housing Authority, the owner/developer, said in clarification that only two sites have been previously developed under the HUD low-rent housing project within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. These consisted of the 24-unit family housing project at the corner of Melrose and Otay Valley road and the 59-unit senior citizen project at 434 "F" Street. -6- Mitch Thompson, County Housing Authority Representative, said that the Housing Authority is the only agency that can build, own and operate low-rent public housing. It operates in the unincorporated areas and the smaller cities. Two jurisdictions, Vista and Chula Vista have the appropriate Article 34 Referendum Authority under the State Constitution. Chula Vista voters approved the concept of low-rent public housing approximately 12 years ago. The County has Article 34 Referendum Authority but only for privately owned units. It has provided financial participation in some other HUD-financed affordable housing developments constructed in the County but they were actually privately-owned and operated and the Housing Authority participated in a different manner because of the funding sources and nature of the program. He explained that there are five housing authorities in San Diego County: Carlsbad, Oceanside, National City and the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego has Article 34 Referendum and about 1,000 units of public housing under its jurisdiction; National City has a large amount of assisted housing, but no low-rent public housing; Carlsbad and Oceanside have none. In reply to Commissioner Tugengerg's question about the amount of program-assisted housing in Chula Vista, Planner Schilling listed the State density bonus program, the provisions incorporated in the housing element of the General Plan, and the senior density bonus program as examples. Director Krempl explained that SANDAG establishes a formula of fair-share housing for low-and-moderate income families and that Chula Vista has done as well or better than most of the other jurisdictions in attempting to reach that goal. Mr. Thompson commented that the Housing Authority had appeared before Council in November and Council had given tentative site approval prior to the land-use process being commenced. They are a service entity, do not dictate policy but work in partnership with the City and only if the City is receptive. In response to Commissioner Shipe's questions about rental rates and eligibility factors for tenants, Mr. Thompson replied that rent is determined by tenant income which must be at or below 50 percent of median income; the Housing Authority utilizes a staggered income schedule to ensure adequate income to operate and maintain the project in excellent condition. Chula Vista residents are given first preference (80% occupancy); they must have a current Chula Vista address at the time of application and placement on a waiting list; there is, however, no Chula Vista residency duration time established. If Council should request such a requirement, the Agency would check to see if the requirement was in compliance with HUD occupancy policies. Commissioner Casillas stated that he sits on the Advisory Board of the County Housing and Community Development Department and one of the considerations often discussed is where resources are going to be deployed. This is done with a view toward not interjecting the County presence in some fashion that might be construed as attempting to create a "dumping ground". The number of units and families (possibly 5,000 to 6,000) is dictated by the resources made available by HUD. The impression should not be made that these assisted programs are creating a burden on any community because there really are not that many of them. In terms of visual impact and other impacts, the developments are as well-maintained as any private complex in this City or any of the neighboring cities. He averred that the City had not done enough in terms of addressing -7- the issue of persons living in very crowded conditions; that this is one approach to address the issue; that Council is behind it or else they would not have engaged County staff and the Department to prepare some of the materials that have been prepared. Commissioner Fuller commented that she had been pleased at the idea of a duplex design rather than the more bulky two-story design; however, she was not happy with the visual impact of the pictures and the 3-dimensional rendition which appears "low-income". She questioned if economic factors are dictating the appearance. Mr. Thompson said they have tried to avoid such an appearance; they do have cost containment factors imposed by HUD; however, the Agency had allocated $265,000 to upgrade and increase the size of the units from the 925 square feet allowed by HUD. Regarding the maintenance of the property, Mr. Thompson said there will be an on-site resident manager and the Agency employs a very highly qualified, private management firm to oversee this and other developments. Thelma Salo, 11071 Second Avenue, #56, Chula Vista, 92010, said she was not in support of public housing and is concerned that the north part of Chula Vista will become "just low-income". She inquired how many more public-housing units are needed in Chula Vista and reiterated Commissioner Tugenberg's concern that Chula Vista will become "a dumping ground for San Diego like San Diego is becoming a dumping ground for Los Angeles". Maggie Garcia, 244 "C" Street, said the Commissioner was very much "on target" with his reference to a dumping ground. Other communities in San Diego should take some of the public housing. Public housing can not bring in residents who can afford to pay taxes that sustain the City. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that he had not been proposing anything but had been playing the part of "the Devil's Advocate" during the questioning. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-75M. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) that based on findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to approve the request, PUD-88-1M, for a planned unit development for 22 townhomes at 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street, granting an exception to allow construction without subdividing the property into 11 lots and based on the findings in Section F of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-88-52M, to construct 22 units at 778-82 and 794-98 Dorothy Street subject to conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Grasser said that she wanted the people who had expressed concerns about Chula Vista becoming a "dumping ground" to be reassured that the Commission does not want such a thing to happen; however, there is a real need for this type of housing; the County does maintain their property very well; and she would rather see this type of development for low-income housing as compared to some of the private sector projects which do not maintain their property. For these reasons, she would support the motion. Commissioner Carson also spoke in favor of the project saying that the development will serve a need for that particular community in that area and she hoped that people would move out of the other homes across the street from that location and move in there as quickly as possible. -8- 5. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-39M - REQUEST TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING RV STORAGE LOT NOW OPERATING ILLEGALLY AT 1483 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES LTD. (CONTINUED) Assistant Planner Schilling reminded the Commission that the application for this RV storage lot (which has been operating illegally at 1483 Broadway since 1985) had been denied at the meeting of February 10, 1988 based on non-conform- ance with the Montgomery Specific Plan. During Council's consideration of the applicant's appeal (May 3, 1988) the applicant presented alternate proposals to install certain interim improvements to the property in exchange for continued use of the facility. Since neither the Montgomery Planning Committee nor the Planning Commission had evaluated those proposals, Council referred the item back to the two bodies for comments. Planner Schillin9 reviewed the three options discussed in the staff report. 1. Deny the permit and set an abatement date based on the finding that the use is in conflict with the adopted Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. The applicant proposes to install landscaping along the Broadway frontage, slats in the chain-link fence and street improvements in exchange for continued use of the property until completion of the special study requested by Council plus an additional 7 years to amortize the improvements made. If this option were to be approved, staff-recommends reduction of the time to 2 years since the applicant already has had 3 years of operation to amortize some of that cost. Staff also voiced special concern for this option because adequate fire protection is not provided on site and none is proposed by the applicant. 3. The applicant proposes an approval of the major use permit for a period of 2~ years in exchange for fulfilling all the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report plus an additional condition of street improvements along the Broadway frontage. If this option were to be selected by Council, staff recommends approval for no longer than 4 years and points out that the ordi- nance itself restricts approval of a major use permit to a maximum of 10 years. Staff does not recommend options 2 or 3 but recommends reaffirmation of the Com- mission's denial of the permit and the setting of an abatement date. In response to Commissioner Shipe's inquiry, Ms. Schilling replied that storage of RVs and cars exclusively could be a condition of approval and usually storage yards do not accept non-working vehicles. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don Rose, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA, representing SDG&E, owners of the property, stated that they required their lessees to comply with local regulations and that they, as owners, had not been notified of any violation. If they had been notified, SDG&E would have had the matter corrected or removed the tenant. Mr. Rose noted that the right-of-way traversing Montgomery is a very wide, flat -9- and usable right-of-way owned in fee by the utility company and is used to generate revenues as part of their program to reduce the rate base. He indicated that the property west to Industrial Boulevard is surrounded by commercial/industrial uses and is very desirable property for leasing purposes. The property directly to the east of the right-of-way is surrounded by residential uses which SDG&E considers an appropriate location for a parks and open space designation. Mr. Rose asserted that the applicant had agreed to improve the property and risk the loss of that expense in exchange for being allowed to remain until completion of the special study directed by Council at the time of adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan. He observed that as the SDG&E right-of-way is designated as a special study area, it possesses no official designation until completion of that special study; therefore, approval or denial should be held in abeyance until a decision is made as to whether the right-of-way would be designated commercial/industrial or as parks and open space. Until such time, SDG&E considers it inappropriate to uproot an existing use based on incompatibility with the Community Plan when that portion of the Plan has not been resolved. The land use is appropriate at this time since directly to the east is another RV storage lot and to the south is an auto repair facility. These uses will not be negatively impacted. Mr. Ron Withall, 11975 E1 Camino Real, #301, San Diego, Beaty Development, a general partner for Broadway Equities, spoke on the staff findings. He pointed out that (1) the applicant is installing landscaping and other concessions as indicated to the Commission at previous hearings; (2) the applicant has proposed and will provide effective visual screening and landscaping which will exceed minimum requirements of the Landscaping Code and will work with the Fire Depart- ment regarding acceptable fire potection systems; (3) the applicant's proposal more than satisfies the City Landscaping Manual's requirements and the City Fire Department's requirements; and (4) the applicant contends that the formal study has not been completed as required by the City Council and this matter should be directed at that time. In addition, Mr. Withall listed the following issues: (1) A substantial economic investment has been made to date. (2) The issue of operating illegally and developing the RV facility without a permit was done by a fo~mer employee and the applicant is of the opinion they should not be penalized for that situation. (3) There is a substantial need in the area for additional RV sto~age, particularly in light of the City's prohibition of RV on-street parking and the restrictions within new subdivisions about RVs parking on the streets or in the driveways. Ile requested that the Commission approye option #3 or #2. In the event that option #1 should be adopted, the applicant then requests that the abatement date be no sooner than 24 months from the final City Council decision because of the hardship that will be caused the citizens of Chula Vista who utilize the existing RV storage facility. David Barrett, 1404 Broadway, Chula Vista, stated that his was an unsolicited testimony. He is located directly across the street from Broadway Equities and spoke of the difficulties of being located alongside a vacant piece of property. He cited that an unused lot brings problems of grass, weeds, litter, potential fire hazard, is utilized by persons short-cutting through at all hours of the day and night and that rocks and bottles provide ammunition for vandalism including a recent $3,000 damage to his free-standing sign. Mr. Barrett suggested that if the property were to be vacated, that within a month fences would be broken down and the area would look like a dump with loitering, misuse and trash being added all the time -- similar to his side of tjh. street. He requested that Broadway Equities be permitted to stay, or at least allowed to remain "until the very moment the property is being developed for another use". He requested that SDG&E be -10- permitted to lease their property instead of it being utilized for open space parks, walking corridors to the trolley, and similar suggestions made during the. hearings since "parks are not what they used to be and many have the reputation of being places where nice people don't go". Mr. Barrett asserted that need for proper control is essential nowadays and, in his opinion, the 250-foot wide strip of SDG&E property could not be controlled properly. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearin.g was closed. MSUC (Grasser/Shipe) that based on the findings contained in the Analysis section of the staff report, to reaffirm the prior recommendation for denial of the major use permit to maintain an RV storage lot at 1483 Broadway and set an abatement period for the use to cease operation and vacate the property within 120 days. Commissioner Fuller said she had heard nothing in tonight's testimony to change her mind. She expressed concern that Mr. Barrett considered the plans for a green- belt through the area to be a fearful idea When it was intended to be a benefit to the community. The Commissioner addressed staff saying that if the permit were to be denied and an abatement date set, she presumed the City would have some means of seeing that the property would not be allowed to fall into disrepair. Director Krempl said that City Inspectors and Fire personnel could take note of the property and notify the utility company if a problem were to be observed. This being the last project listed on the agenda, the Chair returned to the second half of Item 7. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: (b) Appointment of Representative to Growth Management Oversight Committee Director Krempl said the matter of an appointment of a representative to the Growth Management Oversight Committee was still awaiting Commissioner Cannon's return from vacation. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl introduced Ruth Fritsch, the new Deputy City Attorney, who will be staffing the Commission on a regular basis. He directed attention to the letter drafted by Commissioner Casillas to the City Council regarding compensation for Planning Commission members. The City Clerk has advised that this action would take a Charter Amendment. Therefore, Council referred the letter to the Charter Review Committee for their consideration and deliberation. The Director said he would research this further to provide the appropriate citation. General Plan Update Status - Council spent approximately 2-1/2 hours on discussion of various aspects of the fiscal impact study, circulation element, land use issues involving major property owners, policies, and so forth. One of the items concerned the open space policies, encroachment thereof, and steep slopes. Director Krempl reported the deliberations made at the two Commission meetings, the direction provided to staff for further information and the return to the Commission on July 13. Council acknowledged the information and took no action -11- on any of those items and indicated they are awaiting and interested in the input of the Commission. In addition, Council referred one other item regarding the General Plan Policies for consideration at the July 13 meeting. They would like to have some review and feedback from the Commission on the policy involving density transfer possibilities. The current policy says that density transfer is allowed as long as the basic character and density pattern within any development area remains 70 percent intact and 30 percent of the area could be a candidate for the next highest density level. At the request of Commissioner Tugenberg and agreement by the other Commissioners, it was decided that there would be a discussion regarding steep slopes at the Regular Business Meeting of July 13th, but the discussion on the density transfer would be at the Workshop Meeting of July 20. COMMISSION COMMENTS: - Commissioner Grasser said she would be on vacation at the time of the 7/13/88 meeting and the workshop meeting of 7/20/88. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:35 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 13, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Ruth M Smith, Secretary Planning Commission -12-