HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/10/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 14, 1981
A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue.
Commissioners Present: Pressutti, Williams, R. Johnson, Green, G. Johnson
and Stevenson
Commissioners Absent: O'Neill (with previous notification)
Staff Present: Director of Planning Peterson, Associate Planner
Liuag, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant
City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pressutti, and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meetings of September 30
and October 7, 1981 be approved as written. Commissioner Williams abstained
due to his absence on October 7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Pressutti called for oral communications and none were presented.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-4 for construction of
48 unit senior citizen project at the northwest
corner of Fifth and Park WaS - Bordi, Sutherland and
~alumbo (continued from the meeting of September 16,
1981)
Director of Planning Peterson noted that the hearing on this application
was opened on September 16th and considerable testimony taken at that time.
The hearing was then continued to this meeting to allow additional time
for an evaluation of the financial aspects of the project. The staff had
been concerned as to whether having the senior housing available at the
anticipated cost was a fair exchange for what seems to be a large density
bonus. The applicant has submitted cost figures which, upon close examination,
appear to be valid and would result in the projected price of $50,000, unless
interest rates are lowered during the coming months.
Another concern was the adequacy of the onsite parking. However, a review
of similar projects in the San Diego area revealed that the proposed ratio
of one space for 1.2 units exceeds government guidelines and current ratios
of existing senior housing in San Diego County. The staff supports the
determination that the parking as proposed is adequate for this project.
-2- October 14, 1981
Mr. Peterson pointed out that while it is difficult to find an ideal site
for a senior citizens project, it is apparent that this site meets the
criteria of being a suitable site for such use since it is within walking
distance of a shopping center, located on a public transportation route,
and relatively close to medical facilities.
It is recommended that the project be approved subject to conditions which
establish owner and tenant qualifications based on age and income and
restrictions on sales price, resale of units, and rental rates.
Mr. Peterson advised that the concerns raised at the previous hearing
concerning drainage, traffic and availability of onstreet parking were
reviewed and were found not to be significant. He displayed slides of the
site noting the mature trees in the parkway along Fifth Avenue which will
be retained, as well as the relationship of the site to the adjoining
apartment complex to the west.
Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the density bonus proposed in
this project is much higher than the 25% residential density bonus proposed
in the Affordable Housing Policy.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that under the provisions of the municipal code
relating to housing for seniors which require a conditional use permit to
be considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the
city is not limited to the zoning density or the increase that may be
granted. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Mr. Peterson
advised that if this site were zoned R-3, 26 apartment units could be
built.
Chairman Pressutti declared the public hearing reopened.
Don Palumbo, one of the owners of the project, reviewed the issues which
were addressed in their recent letter submitted to the Planning Commission
with the staff report, including adequacy of on-site parking, on-street
parking and traffic congestion, change of usage to multiple units for
seniors rather than single family homes, and the affordability of the
units to low and moderate income seniors. He pointed out there are 16
parking spaces available on the west side of Fifth Avenue adjacent to
their property frontage, and in a survey conducted during the last half of
September no cars were observed parked in that area during the week or on
Sundays.
In response to a question raised by a Commissioner, he advised there are
three points of access into the building--a stairway at each end and an
elevator in the center of the building which may be reached from both
front and rear access doors.
Mr. Palumbo commented that while this project was originally conceived as
a condominium, their further study of the needs of seniors has revealed
that it might best meet the need as a rental project.
Dean Bowden, co-trustee of the Royal Apartments adjacent to this property,
advised that he is a broker and developer with 20 million dollars worth
of property under development. He Contended the development costs and projected
sales price for this project are too high.
-3- October 14, 1981
Myron Petersoo, 361 Fifth Avenue, reported that he has seen ads. ~n the
Sunday paper for units similar to this in North Park at a selling price
of $31,950. He suggested that anyone who could afford to pay $50,000 for
a unit would want two bedrooms.
Richard Michelsen, 1365 First Street, Imperial Beach, who assisted the
owner in preparing the cost estimates, discussed their cost projections,
including purchase of the land and construction of improvements. He
pointed out that a significant factor in increasing the cost is the high
interest rate which they will be required to pay during the construction
period, estimated at about 18 months. If interest rates should come down
their costs would be lowered accordingly.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stevenson noted that one of the conditions spells out the income
qualifications for eligibility for these units. He asked if this standard
was developed locally; and also whether a financial asset test would also
apply.
Mr. Peterson advised that the qualifications are H.U.D. federal standards.
MS (G. Johnson-Green) The Commission finds that this project will have no
significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-82-1.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Green, Williams, Pressutti and Stevenson
NAY: Commissioner R. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner O'Neill
MS (G. Johnson-Green) Based on the findings in Section "D" of the report,
the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the request PCC-82-4,
for the exclusive use of low or moderate income senior citizen housing
project at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Park Way, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Williams stated that he has difficulty in accepting finding
No. 2 in the report which compares the development to apartment construction
when that is not the existing zoning.
Mr. Peterson concurred that is a valid point and suggested that the finding be
revised by deleting the first sentence of the finding and rewording it to read:
"Construction of the project would not overload the street system or adversely
affect drainage through the area, or have any other adverse effect on the
health, safety or general welfare as reported in the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration.
Commissioner Stevenson suggested an amendment to the motion by modifying the
condition relating to "Income qualifications," changing it to "Financial assets
and income qualifications," and adding to the income qualifications a statement
that "No applicant with financial assets exceeding $10,000, following submission
of required down payment will be eligible for housing provided through an
affordable housing program. The value of personal belonoinqs, furniture, auto-
mobile, etc., will not be considered as financial assets'for purposes of this
determination."
-4- October 14, 1981
Commissioner Green pointed out that such a requirement could be unreasonably
complex to deal with.
Commissioner Stevenson commented that he is in favor of affordable housing,
but feels the restrictions should be tightened in order to see that the
proper people receive the benefit.
Commissioner Green suggested approving this project subject to the H.U.D.
restrictions for income qualification, and if the City develops an overall
policy in affordable housing that applies to financial assets as well as
income, it would apply to this project also.
Assistant City Attorney Harron advised it would be possible to include a
condition making this development subject to the proposed Affordable Housing
Policy and if that policy include some kind of financial disclosure
requirement, it would also apply to this project.
MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The condition relating to "income qualifications"
be amended to state that the project would be subject to any financial
disclosure and minimum asset requirements that would be developed as part
of the Affordable Housing Program.
The motion for the amendment carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Green and Williams
NAY: Commissioner G. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner O'Neill
Commissioner Stevenson advised that he is also concerned about the number of
units being authorized here, when it is considered that under current
conditions only six houses can be built, and under R-3 zoning the limit
would be 21 units. He suggested that with a 25% allowance for affordable
housing, 30 units would be more logical than 48.
MS (Stevenson-Williams) The motion be amended to limit the number of units
in this development to 30.
In discussion of the motion, Commissioner Williams pointed out that the
Commission will soon be considering an Affordable Housing Policy which contains
a 25% density bonus, and he felt that would be more appropriate than the
large increase in units requested in this development. He acknowledged
that restricting the property to single family homes was probably a mistake, but
thought density as high as 48 units would be another mistake.
The Commission discussed density figures, cost analysis, and the City's
objective in providing housing.
Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that housing for senior citizens is a
separate program from Affordable Housing in general. She contended that the
project as proposed is compatible with the neighborhood and provides
sufficient parking, keeping in mind that they are small units and not
suitable for five or six people in a unit.
-5- October 14, 1981
The motion for the amendment to reduce the number of units from 48 to 30
failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Stevenson and Williams
NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Green, Pressutti and R. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner O'Neill
The main motion for approval of the project with the revision to finding
No. 2, and the amendment relating to income qualifications, failed to pass
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Green, Pressutti
NOES: Commissioners Stevenson, Williams and R. Johnson
It was the consensus of the Commission that rather than holding the application
until a full Commission is present, it should be forwarded to the City Council
for its consideration without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of rezonin~ 18.3 acres on the south side of
Orange Avenue at Brandywine Avenue from R-1 and R-I-IO-H-P
to R-3-P-12 -- Star Corporation
Associate Planner Liuag noted the location of the 18.3 acres on the south side
of Orange Avenue. Included in the application is approximately one-half acre
in the ownership of the Chula Vista City School district which the developer
plans to acquire and has included in his development plans. If that acquisition
is not completed, it is recommended that the one-half acre remain in the
R-1 zone. Upon development the property will be bisected by the extension of
Brandywine Avenue resulting in 11.7 acres to the west of Brandywine and
4.9 acres to the east.
Due to the isolation of this site by major streets and topography, R-3
development is considered appropriate at a designated density. A development
proposal has been submitted at just under 11 dwelling units to the acre, so
that is an appropriate designation. Due to the steep slope bank that will
remain on the east side of Brandywine, it is recommended that portion of the
property be limited to 8 units and the additional density allowed be included
in the development of the lot west of Brandywine.
Mr. Liuag recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration with the mitigation
measures as stated in the report, and approval of a change of zone for the
subject property to R-3-P-11, subject to the precise plan guidelines
suggested in the report with item "c" changed to read: "Fencing and walls over
4 feet in height shall not be located closer than 10 feet to the back of the
sidewalk."
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James Ashbaugh, C.E.P. Associated, 5466 Complex Street, San Diego, representing
the applicant, expressed their agreement with the staff recommendation and '
the precise plan guidelines.
-6- October 14, 1981
Gail Saflar, 610 Rivera Street, commented on the ~usy intersection of Oleander
a~d Orange.Ave~ue at the present time and e×?ressed concern that the
increased number of homes allowed by this project will increase the traffic
problems at that intersection. Not only the addition of the 176 homes, but
the extension of Brandywine from the developed area to the south to Orange
Avenue will bring additional traffic to Orange Avenue. He also pointed out
that children in that area are presently bussed to four different schools
due to new developments in the area. He also advised that the entire area is
patrolled by one police unit, and the increase of almost 200 homes is going
to make a difference in the police protection afforded to the area.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust advised that 176 additional homes would
probably result in an increase of 1,408 auto trips being generated in the
area. Some of these would likely go south on Brandywine, but probably about
1200 trips a day would be added to Orange Avenue. Orange Avenue is more than
adequate to handle that additional number of vehicles; however, the problem
of crossing Orange Avenue where there is not a signal light would be somewhat
worsened by the added traffic.
Steve Carlin, resident in Point Robinhood development, expressed his support
for the development as a definite improvement over the condition which exists
there now, affording a haven for motorcycles. He agreed that the extension
of Brandywine Avenue and widening of Orange Avenue at the developer's
expense makes single family development economically infeasible.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission finds that this project will have
no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-82-6 with the following mitigation measures:
a. The recommendations contained in the geology/soils report
shall be incorporated into the project including a condition
prohibiting any structures from being constructed within the
45 foot wide fault zone.
b. Drainage calculations and plans shall be submitted to the
City Engineer prior to any grading on the site.
c. Native plant materials shall be included in the erosion control
plans for newly created slopes. All slopes shall be rounded
and smooth to the existing natural slopes subject to the
approval of the City Landscape Architect and City Engineer.
d. Prior to issuance of building permits written assurance shall
be obtained from the approporiate school districts that
adequate classroom space will be available for students generated
by this project.
e. A 4-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along Orange
Avenue (approximately 2,000 feet in length) as per recommendations
in the acoustical report submitted by the applicant (New Horizons
1981).
MSU¢ (R. Johnson-Stevenson) Based on the findings stated in the staff report.
the Commission recommends that the City Council approve a change of zone for 18.3
-7- October 14, 1981
acres on the south side of Orange Avenue at Brandywine Avenue .from
R-1 and R-I-IO-H-P to R-3-P-11, subject to the following precise plan
guidelines:
a.A 20 foot building line setback shall be maintained from
all street rights-of-way.
b. Parking areas and interior driveways shall not be located
closer than 10 feet from the public sidewalk.
c. Fencing and walls over 4 feet in height shall not be located
closer than 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
d. The density of 11 units per acre may be calculated over the
entire net acreage of the subject property within the zone
boundaries established by this ordinance; however, not more
than 8 dwelling units may be constructed on the property
located on the east side of the extension of Brandywine
Avenue.
e. The rezoning of the 0.44 acres of R-1 zoned property shall be
contingent upon the approval of an adjustment plat or subdivision
map including the property into the boundaries of the property
along the south side of Orange Avenue. If the 0.44 acre is not
included in the subdivision the zoning for that area shall remain
R-1.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative map for Chula Vista Tract
82-3, Star/Orange, at Orange Avenue and Brandywin~
Avenue
Associate Planner Liuag reported that this development consists of two-and-
three-story fourplex structures, with four garages located under two of
the living units in each~ructure; 168 units will be located west of
Brandywine and 8 units east of Brandywine. With the exception of
Orange Avenue and Brandywine, the project will be served by a private
street system with parking on one or both sides of the street. A number
of parking bays are also located throughout the project to provide 173
open parking spaces, or a total of 341 spaces in the project. There will
be one access point from Brandywine and one from Orange Avenue.
The project is a contemporary design, with asphalt shinQle roofs, wood
siding and wood trim, and has been approved by the Design Review Committee.
Each unit has direct access to the garage. Private open space is provided
for the ground floor units in patios, and for the units over the garages in
balconies. The required storage for each of the units is provided under the
stairways within the unit.
The project will require 145,000 cubic yards of cut and the same amount to
fill, mainly for the extension of Brandywine Avenue at the grade and alignment
to meet the stubbed portions of that street to the north and south of this
project.
If the developer is unable to acquire the 1/2 acre of land owned by the school
district, a revision of the plan will be necessary which will reduce the
total number of units by 8.
-8- October 14, 1981
The staff recommendation for approval is subject to a list of 19 conditions.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James Ashbaugh, C.E.P. Associated, 5466 Complex Street, expressed concurrence
with the conditions recommended. He pointed out that the southeast corner of
this property, which is proposed to be left in open space, is adjacent to
the open space area in the planned community to the south, and the land-
scaping to be installed on this site will provide continuity with the open
space on the adjacent property.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Ashbaugh advised these
are townhouse units, each containing two stories, and with no unit having
another unit above or below it.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for Star/Orange Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 82-3,
subject to the 19 conditions listed in the report.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Affordable Housing Policy and adoption
of amendments to the zoning ordinance relating to
~f~ordable Housing definitions a'nd uses '
Director of Planning Peterson reported that the City has been working with
developers and real estate people over a period of several months in an
attempt to develop an Affordable Housing Policy. A draft policy has been
written, but some imperfections have been discovered in it and it is his
recommendation that the Planning Commission continue action on this item to
the October 28th meeting, in order that the desired changes may be included
in the draft. He suggested opening the public hearing for the purpose of
continuing it.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Company, 1050 Pioneer Way, Suite A,
E1Cajon, reported that he will have testimony to offer in consideration
of this policy, but would be happy to defer his comments until the next
meeting, or give them now.
Chairman Pressutti suggested that his comments might be different when the
revisions have been made to the draft and it would probably be more beneficial
to the Commission to receive all testimony at the same time.
Chairman Pressutti declared the hearing continued to the meeting of October 28.
Commissioner Green requested that in making the revisions some consideration
be given to establishing guidelines concerning financial assets.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern that a great number of the
suggestions contained in letters submitted on this program from people
serving on the committee did not appear in the draft. As an example, fast
tracking and being more specific about the processing time, and identification
-9- October 14, 1981
of fees which might be waived and public improvements to be provided. He
suggested that with regard to fees, since this Affordable Housing is
considered effective when 51% of the units are in low or moderate income
housing, why not give a 50% waiver of fees, and if 60% of the units were
in the low income range, give 60%. If the entire development was for
low cost housing, the developer would get 100% waiver of fees.
He asked about reimbursement for fees or public improvements and whether
this would come from other funds.
Mr. Peterson affirmed it would come from redevelopment funds or block grant
funds. The City would finance the improvements, but could do so only if
that type of funds were available; those funds are received from the federal
government.
Commissioner Stevenson asked about the responsibility of the Human Relations
Commission with regard to affordable housing. He had the understanding that
commission had the prime responsibility of developing such a program.
Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that granting a density bonus would also
affect front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks. He suggested that
this should be addressed in the program and the proper authority named
for approving such reduced setbacks.
Mr. Peterson advised that the Zoning Administrator currently acts on about
90 per cent of the variance applications for this type of request.
DIRECTOR's REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson advised that this meeting should be adjourned
to the meeting on Wednesday, October 21, at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room 3
for a short briefing prior to the field trip to the East Lake area. The
field trip would be followed by discussion and dinner at the Black Angus.
Mr. Peterson reported that last night the City Council unanimously adopted
a motion terminating the proceedings on the recreational vehicle ordinance,
so it will not be coming forward to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
No additional comments were offered by members of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. to the field trip meeting
to commence at 3:00 p.m. on October 21 and the next regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
on October 28, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes, Secreifary --