Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/10/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 28, 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, Stevenson, O'Neill, G. Johnson, Green, R. Johnson and Williams Staff Present: Director of Planning Peterson, Housing Coordinator Gustafson, 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 meeting of October 14, 1981 be approved as written. Commissioner O'Neill abstained due to his absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pressutti called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13 Director of Planning Peterson reported that the tentative map for 11 townhouse units at 457 "E" Street was approved in June, 1980. The developer has filed a final map which is being checked but will probably not receive action prior to the expiration date of December 10, 1981. The developers have indicated their intent to go ahead with the development, conditions in the neighborhood have not changed, and a one year extension for completion of the final map is appropriate. Commissioner G. Johnson reported in viewing this site she observed that a retaining wall on the west side of the property is broken and pieces of the concrete are on the sidewalk. She questioned whether that wall is the responsibility of the owner of this property and what steps can be taken to remedy that unsafe condition. Mr. Peterson advised he would determine who is responsible for the wall and see that it is taken care of. MSUC (O'Neill-Green) A one year extension is granted on the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-13. -2- October 28, 1981 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-5~ request to operate family amusement center at 895 Third Avenue - Lawn and Stuessy Director of Planning Peterson noted on a plat the proposed location of a family amusement center, which would include video games, pinball and table games, at 895 Third Avenue. A new building would be constructed in the rear of the lot that is the site of the Frazee paint store. The building will be just under 3,000 sq. ft. and would house 46 games, a small snack area and two restrooms. The proposed operating hours are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 11:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday; and 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. This property is zoned C-C which is one of the few districts in which recreational facilities, such as this, are listed as a conditional use. Even in the C-C zone the Planning Commission has the discretion of determining whether or not it is appropriate at a particular location. Mr. Peterson pointed out the property is surrounded on three sides by commercial development and on the fourth side by a drainage channel, which separates the site from residential uses to the east. Access to the property is from Third Avenue which is a busy commercial street. The building would set back 150 feet from Third Avenue and a portion of the building would be behind the Frazee store so that surveillance from the street would not be easy. The Department personnel feel this is an appropriate location for a business of this type and have recommended approval of the request subject to six conditions which include the requirement for walls on certain property lines, placing windows on the south and west elevations of the building to permit observation of the parking area from inside the building, proper illumination for security purposes and the provision of a bicycle rack. Mr. Peterson advised of the receipt of a letter from Mrs. Hollenbeck of San Miguel Drive expressing opposition due to anticipated noise, rowdiness and vandalism that may result from this type of use. He also acknowledged receipt of a petition signed by 60 persons expressing opposition to the application citing it as a safety hazard to clients because of inadequate ingress and egress and the heavy traffic on Third Avenue; the mingling of young students from the elementary school with high school students and older clients; the introduction into the neighborhood of a new element which will provide a new avenue for vandalism and/or robbery; and deprive the residents of the neighborhood of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. Mr. Peterson displayed slides of the site, noting the existing trees bordering the drainage channel on the east, and the masonry wall on the north; also slides of the site plan, noting the entrance to the building and the parking areas, and a floor plan of the center. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Wolf, 256 "L" Street, contended this is a residential area and the residents do not need or want an establishment of this type. Jim Dunigan, 268 Sierra Way, advised that his primary mission at this hearing is to protect the right to maintain a neighborhood of high moral standards. He contended this type of activity would have an impact on the environment, which -3- October 28, 1981 is the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual. He asserted such an enterprise would bring "hot-shot" high school students and other outside elements into the area and suggested that a more suitable area to place an arcade could be found. Jack McElyea, 239 Sierra Way, expressed concern over locating such an establish- ment near an elementary school and high school. He pointed out that although the property is in a commercial zone, the building will be located nearer to the residential area than to Third Avenue. Scott Lawn, 590 Telegraph Canyon Road, one of the applicants, reported that he and Mr. Stuessy have been business associates for the past ten years, during which time they established a chain of 9 retail stores in Illinois and Wisconsin; he is confident they are qualified to handle this type of business and any problems that might arise. He commented on research conducted by Sega Enterprises on this type of business which revealed that the majority of customers are 14 to 30 years of age. In response to questions raised by the Commission, Mr. Lawn discussed their proposed method of operation, which will include the use of membership cards for anyone under age 17, no admittance of persons under 17 during school hours, except at lunch period or with a written permission slip. One or the other of the owners will be present at all times during the operation of the center and they will be assisted during the evening or peak hours by their spouses. Mr. Lawn had no objection to the conditions recommended in the report, including the requirement for review by the Planning Commission in the event of continued disturbance or problems. He asserted it would be their paramount interest to avoid any neighborhood problems. Assistant City Attorney Harron expressed the opinion that the condition for review is not specific enough to result in revocation of the use permit and suggested either a time period during which the operation could be evaluated, or that the condition specifically describe the kind of problems that would result in revocation. Mr. Lawn advised they could not obtain a lease if the operation were subject to a possible one year limitation. He expressed confidence that under their method of operation there would be no problem of rowdiness or vandalism since any undesirable conduct would result in revocation of a membership card. Anthony Nasdeo, 272 Sierra Way, questioned the ability of an attendant at the amusement center to police the parking lot and also supervise the use of 46 machines and the bathrooms and discussed problems associated with the drainage channel. Kerry Belmontez, 681 Del Mar Avenue, spoke in favor of the amusement center as an activity for youth in the community and contended that having the activity there would deter vandalism (throwing rocks, stealing hub caps, etc.) in the adjacent parking lot and in the drainage channel since there would be people around who would witness such acts. Jim Zifaleto, 233 Sierra Way, reiterated previous concerns addressed with regard to loitering, vandalism and noise and suggested it is important to keep in mind that this is a business that will be catering to younger people. -4- October 28, 1981 Bob Mansard, 264 Sierra Way, suggested that such a center should be open only after school hours during the'week. Lisa Ames, 479 Oaklawn Avenue, spoke in support of such a center as a good clean place for youth to go, and felt it would deter rather than increase the problems of drug use and vandalism. Mrs. Nasdeo pointed out the location of her house, with bedrooms on the rear, which she felt would be affected by the noise of any traffic or activity in this area. Claud Carty, 260 San Miguel Drive, advised that from his home he can hear the employees of the telephone company in the parking lot and felt that noise from this location would be a further disturbance. Jim Magee, 257 L Street, reported that he had recently spent $10,000 to upgrade his back yard in order to get away from the noise of "L" Street and if this use is permitted they will get noise from here. Jerry January, principal of Lillian Rice School, asked if the applicant would turn away from their business during school hours people who appear to be school age. Mr. Lawn advised they would admit no one under the age of 17 on school days except during the lunch period. He also affirmed that minors would not be permitted after 8:00 p.m. unless accompanied by an adult. Margarite Keach, 178 Sierra Way, expressed the opinion that the noise would not be a problem and that the opening of such a center would cut out the problems presently occurring in the ditch. Scot Hollenbeck, 265 San Miguel Drive, expressed concurrence with the concerns raised by his neighbors. He advised he is a real estate broker and could find a location for this type of center in Chula Vista where it would not be adjacent to a residential area. He suggested that it be located on Broadway. Mrs. Wolf asked how many cars this parking lot will be equipped to take care of. Mr. Lawn reported they are providing 39 parking spaces. Mrs. Wolf commented on the heavy traffic on "L" Street at the present time and expressed her opposition to any activity that would add more traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson, Mr. Hafro~ advised that a business of this type would require a conditional use permit to operate in any zoning district in the city. Chairman Pressutti pointed out that a franchise restaurant, such as Jack-in-the-Box, could locate in this area as a matter of right and that would generate far more traffic. Commissioner G. Johnson commented that it is a good site plan and the zoning wall would help protect the residents to the east. However, she pointed out it is close to the Lillian Rice School and even closer to a church school on "L" Street and for that reason she felt such an activity would be a prime area for a lot of problems. -5- October 28, 1981 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Green suggested including in the conditions a definition of a disturbance as "excessive noise which would be a violation of the Chula Vista noise ordinance." Attorney Harron advised that if a condition stated that if the operators were convicted of an infraction of a noise violation of the city code, their use permit would be automatically revoked, that would provide the necessary control over the use. MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-10. MS (R. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings in Section E of the report, the Planning Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-82-5 to establish an amusement center at 895 Third Avenue, subject to the first five conditions recommended in the report and with the sixth condition revised to state: "A conviction of an infraction of the city's noise ordinance will be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit." Commissioner Stevenson asked if the maker of the motion would agree to adding another condition to require that in the absence of a male owner on the premises a security guard, age 21 years or older, would be present on the site. Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that such a condition would probably be legally invalid because of discrimination based upon sex. Commissioner R. Johnson advised he could not accept such a condition and felt the applicant should be permitted to run his own business. MS (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The motion be amended to include an additional condition to require that during the evening hours when the center is open, either an adult owner or a qualified security guard will be present on the premises at all times. The motion for the amendment carried by a vote of 6-1 with Commissioner R. Johnson voting no. The motion for approval of the conditional use permit, as amended, carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson, Pressutti and Green NOES: Commissioners Williams and G. Johnson ABSENT: None Director of Planning Peterson announced that the Planning Commission action on this application is final unless someone appeals the decision to the City Council, in which case a public hearing would be held before the Council. The meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. -6- October 28, 1981 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Affordable Housing Policy and adoption of amendments to the zoning ordinance relatinq to Affordable Housing definitions and uses Director of Planning Peterson reported that this policy has grown out of the City Council's study of an inclusionary housing program, which is a mandatory type of program under which each developer must provide, as part of a development, a certain percentage of the total number of units at a price range affordable by low and moderate income families. The City Council investigated that type of program quite thoroughly; they visited Orange County where such a program is in effect, talked to officials there and toured some of the housing sites. After considerable discussion the Council decided not to pursue an inclusionary housing program and directed the staff to work with a group of people familiar with construction, real estate, and other people interested in housing to develop a voluntary type of affordable housing policy. After a number of meetings with the group of selected representatives staff drafted the subject policy. Mr. Peterson expressed the belief that if the subject policy is adopted it probably will not assist persons in the low income, or persons earning 75 to 80 per cent of the median income, to obtain new housing as those groups require a deep subsidy. It is hoped that the policy might enable medium income families to get into the ownership of housing. The policy commits the City to granting a 25% density bonus to every developer who agrees to provide 25% of the units at a price range affordable to families earning no more than 120% of the median income. The policy also makes provision for waiver of fees if there are block grant funds available to fund this; provides for assistance by the City for public improvements if there are block grant funds to pay for this. It also provides for a fast tracking process, encourages the use of factory built housing, and provides a proportionate density bonus for developers who choose to provide a lesser percentage than 25% of affordable housing. Commissioner Stevenson noted that during the study session discussion it was suggested that a development offering 25% of the units for low or moderate income housing would be entitled to 25% waiver of fees, which would increase to 100% if the entire project was for low and moderate income housing. He felt the same rationale should apply to both fees and public improvements. Mr. Peterson responded that the fees are a very small cost as compared with other costs and that he would support a full waiver of fees even for a 25% affordable project. In general though, it would be the staff's intent to scale benefits on the basis of the merit of the project; however, it would be difficult to spell out in the policy the percentage to apply to the various types of projects or applica- tions, so that matter should be addressed on a case by case basis. Commissioner Williams asked how this policy relates to the city's present policy, and whether it relates to regional requirements that each community take a fair share of low and moderate income housing. Mr. Peterson noted that the present Housing Element says each developer must address the need for low income housing but does not require the developer to provide such housing. This policy is a step toward trying to implement the Housing Element. -7- October 28, 1981 Commissioner Stevenson raised the question about financial disclosure of assets. He felt the policy should assure that the truly low and moderate income people would get the low cost housing. Housing Coordinator Gustafson pointed out that income determination would be based on the calculation of earned income, assistance payments, and reasonable yield from liquid assets. The City would contract with the County Housing Authority to use the same qualifications currently used for the Section 8 existing program, in which the Authority verifies the income of an individual and also the liquid assets and calculate the income yield from those assets. Commissioner O'Neill asked why the policy zeroes in on acquiring mobile home park sites. Mr. Peterson advised that language was inserted because of the feeling in the community that some of the existing mobile home parks are temporary land uses and there has been an indication by one owner that he may vacate the park to allow for other development. Mr. Gustafson added that the city has an ongoing program for land banking; last year two sites were purchased that could be used for multiple family housing. Commissioner Stevenson asked if a study has been done to determine if there are citizens in Chula Vista at low and moderate income levels who do not have housing. What prompted the idea that there is a problem in this city? Mr. Peterson advised that the City together with SANDAG has conducted such a study based on census information and the City of Chula Vista has an assigned number of units which they are to work toward providing; that is based on the number of families in Chula Vista who are paying more than 25% of their income for housing. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that Section II.L of the policy addresses the need for the Community Development Department to monitor the need for affordable housing and the progress and effectiveness of the policy. Commissioner Williams asked if a report is available that includes the number of units of low cost housing that are needed, and if such a report could be furnished to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson affirmed that Chula Vista has a housing assistance plan that includes that information and also the Areawide Housing Opportunities plan that tells the number of families spending more than 25% of their income on housing. Chairman Pressutti opened the public hearing. Dick Brown, 1050 Pioneer Way, Suite A, E1 Cajon, representing the Gersten Company, reported that the Gersten Company does not object to this policy as it does them no damage. He advised that the Gersten Company has spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to respond to the City's requirement that they address the issue of low and moderate income housing. They have made a number of proposals for such housing, none of which have been acceptable to staff. While they do not object to this policy, they would like to see a policy that would work--that would actually produce some affordable housing--and they do not think this policy will do that. -8- October 28, 1981 Mr. Brown asserted that he knows of no place in the U. S. Constitution or the California Constitution that says government is responsible to provide new housing for people who cannot afford it. Under present standards a family of four is considered low income if their income is $17,000 or less per year and moderate income if they earn $25,700 or less. For single people, low income is $12,000 a year, or $18,000 a year for moderate income. He contended that the majority of the people who are paying their own way are spending more than 25% of their income for housing, with the exception of the wealthy. Mr. Brown suggested that if the city actually wishes to have low cost housing developed, specificity is a very critical part of the policy. For example, fast tracking has a definite effect on a developer's cost; if land is purchased contingent upon the approval from the city for a specific development, the cost is higher than if the sale is based on a 30 to 45 day closing of escrow. It is also important for a developer to know ahead of time what fees can be waived and what assistance will be given on offsite improvements. With regard to the reservation on resale, Mr. Brown felt that the proposed provisions would not work, but if the program is really successful it will constantly create a housing stock of an affordable nature--units which are lower priced than other units in the community because they are designed to be lower priced--and they will always sell somewhat lower. Rather than strict controls, the city needs a program that continually produces housing that will meet the market demand. He suggested that the costs incurred by the city due to fast tracking, waiver of fees and public improvements, be recovered by having a lien on the property due on resale. Mr. Brown pointed out that much of the proposed policy was brought about by a requirement of the State to provide low and moderate income housing, and if the City would monitor the housing units presently rented and the resale of housing units, they would find the State's requirements are already being met. Mr. Brown quoted figures from a recent report in the "U. S. News and World Report" which bear out the fact that land costs in California are almost double the cost in the next highest of the contiguous 48 states, and it is 3½ times the average in the United States. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, contended that with the restrictions placed on developers by the City they cannot develop moderate priced housing in this area. He has spent considerable time and effort searching for mobile home park sites, since that is the most affordable housing, but there seems to be no sites available. Upon attempting to develop a park in the Otay Mesa area, the developer was told by the City of San Diego that they could not submit plans due to a sewer problem in that area. If the land is purchased now it would be necessary to hold it for a number of years until the sewer problem is solved. A mobile home park was planned for Proctor Valley but people three miles away protested. He contended the big problem is that there is not enough land available to build on that is priced low enough for this type of housing. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill asked the Director of Planning to comment on some of the recommendations made by Mr. Brown. -9- October 28, 1981 Mr. Peterson noted that one of the major points deals with a certainty as to the time frame in which a developer gets a decision from the City. He advised that six or eight years ago, based on a recommendation from Boos, Allan and Hamilton to streamline the procedures, it was suggested that tentative maps require approval only of the Planning Commission and not by the City Council. The Council rejected such a proposal. Mr. Peterson advised that due to the number of agencies to which a tentative map must be referred for review and comment, it is not possible to guarantee that it will be processed through Planning Commission and City Council hearings within a 30 day period. With regard to the recommendation concerning publishing rent figures and sales figures, Mr. Gustafson concurred that is a good suggestion and something they will anticipate doing on a quarterly basis. Commissioner R. Johnson expressed the opinion that it should be possible to work out some time frame on which the developer could be certain of a decision~ thi~ may be 45 days or 60 days, but it should be possible to establish a maximum time. Commissioner O'Neill expressed the fear that this policy will not produce any additional housing; he did not wish his comments to reflect on the persons who have worked on the policy because it contains many fine ideas, but he just felt it would not get results. MSUC (Stevenson-Green) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-7. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt the draft Affordable Housing Policy and related amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code, in view of the fact that we envision no benefits would be derived therefrom. In discussion of the motion, opinions were expressed that there are some very good parts of the policy; that considerable time and work has gone into it, and it should not just be dropped at this point; that it would be difficult for the Commission to make recommendations at this time on ways of revising the policy to get the desired results without further study and consideration. With the consent of the second, the motion was withdrawn. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Consideration of the Affordable Housing Policy be continued to the second meeting in February, which will be a study session (February 17, 1982), to permit both the staff and the Commission to further consider comments presented tonight as well as the letters from members of the committee that met to draft this policy. The motion for continuance carried unanimously. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reported that next Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00 p.m. the Local Agency Formation Commission will conduct a public hearing at Lauderbach School on the subject of whether Montgomery should annex or incorporate. He distributed to the Commissioners the staff report of the LAFCO agency on the subject. Any Commissioners who are interested may wish to attend this meeting. -10- October 28, 1981 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Stevenson reported that at the corner of Fifth and "I" where a 24 hour child care center was recently approved, there is a large, hand painted sign attached to the chimney that reads, "Night care service now available." He did not recall authorizing any additional signing and asked that the staff check into this. Commissioner Williams handed to the other Commissioners printed material he had brought from the League of California Cities meeting, and indicated he would save an oral report until a time when the meeting did not run so late. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to the next scheduled business meeting to be held on November 18, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted,