Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/04/17 Item 07CITY CC>U NCI L AGENDA STATEMENT ~ ~~(// -- ' ~``CHULAVISTA APRIL 17, 2012, Item ITEM TITLE• Public Hearing: Consideration of a Rezone, PCZ-12-02, to ' rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west side of Second Avenue, between I and J Streets, from Single-Family Residential (R1-7) to Single-Family Residential (R1-15). ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE 21 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF 2ND AVENUE, CHANGING THE ZONING OF SAID PARCELS FROM Rl-7 TO R1-15 SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City REVIEWED BY: CITY MANA~ of Development Services 4/STHS VOTE: SUMMARY YES ~ NO On November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezone for the west side of Second Avenue between I and J Streets (600 block), in order to change the existing zoning from R1-7 (single-family one lot per 7,000 square-feet) to R1-15 (single- family one lot per 15,000 square-feet). The Council directed staff to initiate this rezone in reaction to concerns raised by residents of this neighborhood that the established residential character of this area could be adversely affected by the subdivision of large lots into 7,000 square-foot parcels. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. -~ APRIL 17, 2012, Item Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single-family lots located in the 600 block and west side of Second Avenue, from an existing Single-Family Residential (R1-7) Zone to aSingle-Family Residential (R1-15) Zone. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not adopt the rezone, at their meeting of March 14, 2012. Planning Commission members stated that they were concerned about a negative response to a survey (conducted by proponents of the rezone) asking if residents would support the rezone. Planning Commissioners stated that they were concerned with preserving the ability of property owners who have not already subdivided their lots to do so in the future. DISCUSSION Site Characteristics: The area of the proposed rezone is comprised of 21 single-family residential parcels located on the west side of the 600 block of Second Avenue. The area is relatively flat, and parcels take vehicular access from Second Avenue. The area is a well established single-family residential neighborhood with four homes that have been designated as historically significant. Lot depths are relatively large, with many lots averaging approximately 295 feet in depth. The 600 block of Del Mar Avenue, directly to the west of the area subject to the rezone request, is zoned R1-15. The lotting pattern, lot depth, and typical lot size along Del Mar Avenue, are very similar to that found along the western portion of the 600 block of Second Avenue. Rezoning the area in consideration appears to be a logical extension of the abutting R1-15 Zone. ~-°~- APRIL 17, 2012, Item ~, Page 3 of 5 ANALYSIS Comparison of R1-15 to R1-7 Zone The table provided below offers a comparison of the proposed R1-15 Zone to the existing R1-7 Zone. As stated above, both are single-family residential zones. Setbacks in Feet Classification Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width (ft.) Front Exterior Side Yard One Side Yard Both Side Yards Rear R-1-15 15,000 85 25 10 10 20 20 R-1-7 7,000 60 15 10 10 13 20 As shown above, the primary difference between the two zoning classifications is that the R1-15 Zone requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square-feet, and the R1-7 Zone has a 7,000 square-foot minimum lot size. Also different are the required setbacks, with the R1-15 Zone requiring a minimum front setback of 25 feet, and the Rl-7 Zone requiring a 15 foot front setback. It is important to note, however, that the City Building Line Map requires a 30-foot front yard setback along this portion of Second Avenue between I and J Streets. Pursuant to CVMC 19.04.040, setbacks designated by the City's Building Line Map supersede the setback requirements of the underlying zone. Thus, the front yard setback requirement would continue to be 30 feet. The side yard setback in the R1-15 Zone is more restrictive with a requirement of 10 feet on each side (20 foot total), where the R1-7 Zone requires side yards of 10 feet and 3 feet (total of 13 feet). Both zones require a 20 foot rear yard setback. The required lot width for the R1-15 Zone is 85 feet, and the R1-7 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Previously Conforming Structures Because the proposed action involves a change in the zoning requirements (more restrictive) for an established neighborhood, the rezone will result in many properties not being in compliance with some of the specific provisions of the R1-15 Zone. For example, because the side yard setback requirement for the R1-15 Zone totals 20 feet (10 feet on each side), many properties will maintain structures that were built to the less restrictive R1-7 zoning classification of 13 feet (10 feet on one side, and 3 on the opposite side yard). Also, most of the parcels do not meet the minimum street frontage of 85 feet as required by the R1-15 Zone. These structures would be considered "Previously Conforming Structures" as defined by CVMC Section 19.64.020 and would not be affected by the rezone. _- /. -~ APRIL 17, 2012, Item Page 4 of 5 In addition, pursuant to Section 19.64.120 of the Zoning Code, structures that encroach into setbacks may be expanded within the setback as long as the setback intrusion is not increased (minimum setback maintained from property line does not decrease), and the encroaching portion of the structure is not increased in height. The change in zoning to R1-15, may limit the ability of property owners to add second story floor area within the expanded side yard setback area. Staff would have to examine such requests on a case by case basis to determine code compliance. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 19.64.150, a previously conforming residential structure that is damaged in a natural disaster or other calamity may be rebuilt in its present location and size. Rezone: The proposed zoning designation would be in compliance with the Residential Low Medium General Plan designation for the area. The existing R1-15 Zone immediately to the west of the site has the same General Plan designation. The rezone action is simply an expansion of the existing R1-15 Zone to the west. Conformance with Chapter 19.80 (Controlled Residential Development) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: Chapter 19.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that the following be analyzed when a property is rezoned: 19.80.070 Chula Vista Zoning Code Modification A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two year period according to the following schedule: A Agricultural Zone RE. Residential Estates Zones R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 One and Two-Family Residential Zone R-3 Apartment Residential Zone The subject properties are currently designated R1-7. The above language addresses residentially zoned property that would be rezoned to a higher residential category. The proposed rezone would result in the area converting to a lower residential intensity. The proposed action is, therefore, in compliance with this provision. B. Any annexation of lands within the City's sphere of influence shall conform to the purposes, intent and requirements of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. C. After property is annexed by the City, the pezoning approved for the subject property cannot be amended or changed in any way for a two year period. The -.-~-- t APRIL 17, 2012, Item Page 5 of 5 provision shall apply only to prezones approved after the effective date of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. D. Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. The property is being rezoned from one residential zone to another residential zone. The above provision addresses property that is being rezoned from commercial to residential; therefore, this provision is not applicable. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of City Council members, and has found that Councilperson Bensoussan has holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. CONCLUSION: The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and associated documents. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 and rezone 21 single-family lots located in the 600 block of Second Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT The rezone is a City Council initiated action. The costs associated with processing the rezone will be paid out of the Development Services Fund. ON GOING FISCAL IMPACT None. The change in zoning does not require any on-going staff time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution, PCZ-12-02 3. Planning Commission minutes 4. Petition submitted by proponents of rezone Prepared by: Stephen Power AICP -Principal Planner, Planning Division ;~ ..:..~ ~'~_ ~7~.¢~~lEN~ RESOLU'T'ION NO. PCZ-12-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHLiLA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE SAID PARCELS LOCATED IN THE b00 BLOCK ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECOND AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RI-7) ZONE TO R1-15 WI-IEREAS, on ti ovember 1, 2011 the Chula Vista City Council directed the Development Services Department to initiate a rezone of the west side of the 600 block of `2°d Avenue (Project Site"), to change the zoning from Rl-7 to RI-15; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department requests approval of an amendment to the adopted zoning rnap or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone the Project Site from R1-7 to RI-15 (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project Site, which is the subject matter ofthis Resolution, and is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, consists of 21 parcels located on the west side of the 600 block of 2°d Avenue; and WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity far compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section I5061{b}(3} of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Development Ser~7ces Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least T 0 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March l 4, 2012, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain. evidence on March. 14, 2012, as set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCZ-12-02, recommends that the City Council deny the Project. 7-? _ __ Planning Commission Resolution PCZ 12-02 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council not amend the Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single family Iots located in the 600 block and on the west side of Second Avenue from an existing Single-Family Residential {Rl-7) Zone to aSingle-Family {R1-I5) Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMit~ISSION OF THE CITY OF CHLZA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14`h day of March, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Spethman, Calvo, Anaya, Vinson, Felber NOES: Liuag ABSEvT: Moctezuma ABSTAIN: Michael Spethman, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/De~cfelopment Services Director Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 7-$ ,47r~c.~,u ~~" 3 Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 14, 2012 2. Public Hearing: PCZ 12-02; Consideration to rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west wide of Second Avenue, between I and J Streets, from Single Family Residential (Ri- 7} to Single-Family Residential {R1-15~ Background: Steve Fower, reported that at the October 20, 2009 City Council meeting, residents from the subject area. expressed concern with an application to subdivide a large lot in that area because of the effects that such infill projects could have on the character of the neighborhood. In November of 2009, at the directive of the City Council, staff mailed out a survey to the affected property owners to evaluate their interest in having their parcels down-zoned from R1-7 (1 5-F dwelling per 7,000 sf lot} to R1-15 (1 S-F dwelling per 15,000 sf lot}. At the same time, the property owners circulated their own petition requesting that the City down-zone their parcels. The results of both the petition and the survey indicated that 12 out of 21 property owners indicated a willingness to down-zone their properties to R1-15. In 2011, concerned residents again surveyed property owners in the area and submitted to the City the signatures of the majority (14 out of 21} who are in favor of the rezone. On November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezone to change the existing R1-7 zone to R1-15 for the west side of the 600 block of Second Avenue. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ 12-02, recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Map Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single-family lots located in the 600 block and west side of Second Avenue, from an existing Rl-7 to R1-15 Zone, based on the findings contained therein. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Spethman stared that he did a visual assessment of the target area and noted that many of the lots already have more than one residence on them; he was curious to know haw many of those owners, who signed the petition in favor of the down-tone, have already had the benefit of subdividing their lot. A discussion ensued regarding the breakdown of signatures on the petition; who were in support, who were against and who were non-responsive. They also discussed the practicality of excluding from the four who were against the rezone public Hearing Opened: 7:03:52 PM Corinne McCall, 642 Second Avenue, gave a presentation consisting of information obtained from the property printouts containing lot sizes and accompanied by photographs of each parcel in the subject area. Ms. McCall stressed that this is one of the most historic neighborhoods in Chula Vista with large lots that are very lucrative for developers to buy and subdivide them to their fullest capacity. She urged the Commission to recommend approval of the rezone. The following individuals addressed the Commission and spoke in support of the rezone: Peter Watry, Glenda De Vaney, and Eric Fotiadi. 7-9 Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 14, 2012 Commission Comments: Cmr, Felber stated he understood the concerns with preserving the character of the neighborhood; yet struggled with the property rights of the four who oppose the downzone, while three of them had already split their lot and the one remaining who hadn't yet subdivided his tot. Cmr. Felber asked staff if there was any other option that could be considered. Mr. Halbert stated that the other option would be to designate it a Historic tistrict, however, in many ways that could be more onerous for a property owner within that district because it could affect such things as architecture design and even down to the color of paint you can use. Staff did consider a historic district and since this is Council-driven it's being done under the General Fund. Setting up a historic district would be far more expensive to process than a rezone, which is a fairly simple thing to do. Steve Power clarified that the original survey conducted by staff in 2409 has been superseded by the latest survey conducted by the proponents and is the basis by which the City Council then directed staff in 2011 to proceed with the rezone. Cmr. Anaya stated he is appreciative of the efforts to preserve the history of our City, yet the property rights issue weighed heavy on him. He would have liked to have seen a more complete and objective survey conducted by staff with disclosure as to the reasons why there was opposition. Cmr. Calvo stated she is an ardent supporter of preserving the historical element of this area and also served on the Historic Advisory Committee, however, she doesn't believe that rezoning is a vehicle to preserving the character of a neighborhood. She too shares some of the concerns preciously stated with regard to infringing upon individual property rights. Cmr. Liuag stated he understood the minority's rights, but the majority have rights as well and if the majority would rather downzone to R1-15, their rights should be equally weighed. He offered a compromise to split the block and have the parcels south of 626 be rezoned to R1-15 and that from parcel 626 and to the north remain R1-7. Cmr. Spethman stated this is a difficult dilemma because he doesn't want to take away property rights even of one individual who opposes the rezone. He indicated that perhaps he would be a bit more sanguine about this issue were it not for the fact that the majority of the proponents have already taken advantage of their ability to subdivide under current statutes and now want to downzone irrespective of a minority who oppose. Cmr. Vinson concurs with issues over property rights and would've liked to have staff walk the neighborhood and personally speak with as many property owners as passible. MSC (Vinson/Anaya) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny the rezone. Cmr. Liuag offered an amendment to the motion recommending that the parcels starting with 626 to the north up to I Street remain R1-7 and the parcels south of 626 to 1 Street be rezoned to R1-15. 7-1Q Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 14, 2012 Attorney Shirey clarified the proper order of action to consider Cmr. Liuag's amendment and also asked #or clarification from staff as to the legality of doing "spot-zoning". Director Halbert clarified that staff would not be concerned with Cmr. liuag's proposed amendment because it would be contiguous to R1-7, therefore, would not be considered "spot-zoning". Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Spethman called for the question. MSC {VinsonJAnayaj(5-1-0-1) that the Planning Commission recommend to the.City Council that they deny the rezone. Motion carried with Cmr. Liuag voting against it. Adjournment: To a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2012. Submitted by: Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission 7-11 sieve Power ~~~~~iVT '~ Principal Planner I}evelopment Services Dept. Public Services Bldg. L76 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: PCZ-12-02 ~~~htfNfN~ ~.~~/17.-~i~~~1 ~°s-P~%~ {~1•~ l~fP.~J/? Rezone west side of Secon Ave., between "I" c~. "T' Street We the undersigned support this rezone to R-1-15 zoning We object to the current R-1-7 zoning on the west side of the 600 block of Second Ave, which has resulted in lot splits that have changed the character of our neighborhood by increasing the housing density, the noise, the loss of privacy and parking on this street. Our property values have been negatively impacted by the development - as well as the quality of our daily lives. ~~ ! ~ ~7~~~ /~~ a4/~ `.~~iyc.~ `~ .~ ~~~ ~` ~ NBC ~ c~ ~~tir~~ ~ ~sVN ~C..i/ ~~ ~~~- G (~E~~ t~l( ~~ a"n~r'~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~\~9.. 7-~2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE 21 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF SECOND AVENUE, CHANGING THE ZONING OF SAID PARCELS FROM R1-7 TO R1-15 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the subject matter of this Ordinance is the Zoning Map established by Chapter 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the area of the Zoning Map to be used as the project area is identified as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. Project; Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 the Chula Vista City Council directed the Development Services Department to initiate a rezone of the west side of the 600 block of Second Avenue ("Project Site"), to change the zoning from R1-7 to R1-15; and C. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("California Environmental Quality Act" or "CEQA") and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 14, 2012 and voted 5-1-0-1 to recommend that the City Council not approve the rezone; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on March 14, 2012, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. City Council Record on Applications 7-l.~ Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 3, 2012 on the Project to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. II NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council has exercised their independent review and judgement and concurs with the Development Services Director's determination that the rezone is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. C. FINDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE AMENDMENTS That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed residential rezone for the Project from Rl-7 to R1-15 is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and is found to be a public necessity and good zoning practice. D. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP That the City Council does hereby approve the amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Map, established by Section 19.18.010 of the CVMC. The rezone is depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. ~'~~ Ordinance No. Page 3 Presented by Approved as to form by M J---_'""'_' Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director orney ~~~~ '~= PROIE ~~ ~ ~ ~~3 /~~ -----Original Messa e----- From: Imozelle Sent: Monday, April 02, 2oi2 2:05 PM To: Steve Power Cc: Rudy Ramirez; Cheryl Cox; Patricia Aguilar; Steve Castaneda; Pamela Bensoussan Subject: Proposed rezoning for 60o block of Second Avenue Re PCZ -i2-o2 Mr. Power: We strongly support the proposal to rezone the 60o block of Second Avenue to increase the minimum lot size. This is a historic neighborhood that has recently suffered from inappropriate, but legal, lot splits. Noise, traffic and on-street parking have all increased dramatically. Although the existing deep lots technically allow for splitting and construction of additional houses, the resulting splits are often detrimental to the ambiance of the street, especially if a "granny flat" is built as well. One lot, just north of us, was split a few years ago and now holds two houses and a granny flat. The residents often park on the street because, they say, the single driveway is inadequate. Those three homes will soon be even more crowded once the adjacent lot is developed into three additional sites -all six sharing the same driveway. Shared driveways may work well inmaster-planned communities such as Otay Ranch. They are less effective when shoehorned into existing neighborhoods. To prevent further deterioration of our neighborhood, we and many of our neighbors support an increase in the minimum lot size. We realize that this may, in theory, reduce the value of our property. However, we are convinced that further density and development will reduce it even more. Thank you. Jim and Imozelle McVei h ~- a jam ~2 From: Bryan & Denee' Felber _ Sent: Thu 3/29/2012 9:30 PM To: Cheryl Cox; Pamela Bensoussan; Rudy Ramirez; Patricia Aguilar; Steve Castaneda Subject: 2nd Avenue Zoning Change Dear Mayor Cox and Council Members, I wanted to let you know the reasoning that most of the Planning Commission had on the requested rezone of the 600 block of west 2nd Ave. Many of us, in fact, I think all, were sympathetic with the homeowners that wanted the change in their desire to minimize impact on their homes. We all expressed a desire to promote and protect our historic homes. What our opposition came down to focused in a few areas: A desire to protect the property rights of those who were opposed or from whom no opinion was obtained. Uncertainty as to the clarity of the description and impact of the change provided to the residents and whether they truly understood it fully. Uncertainty as to whether the residents who didn't respond were truly aware of the petition. Did someone knock on their door when they weren't home? Was something mailed to them? • Many of those in favor of the change have already received the benefit of subdividing their property. Why should that right be taken away from other owners, when others have already exercised that right? I am a lover of history, even to the extent my kids think me odd. I've been lately reading some of the writings of the Founders and have recently come upon two particularly apropos quotes from James Madison that I believe clearly speak to this matter. That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments. James Madison, "Property," March 27, 1792, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Vol. 14 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962-present), 266-68. Reproduced with permission of University of Chicago Press-Books in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center. ...measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." James Madison, "No. 10: The Same Subject Continued," in Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York: Mentor, 1999), 71-79. I think this is an instance where a very well meaning, but overbearing majority is trying to do something that would infringe on the rights of the minority. This is one of the dangers of a pure democracy, which is why the Founders established a democratic republic. I hope you will stand with the Founders and protect the property rights and the interests of the minority from those who have already benefited from the same rights they now want to take away from others. Sincerely, Bryan Felber -y-~M 7 -/3/~d\~ Corinne McCall Historic Garrettson- Frank House 642 Second Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Steve Power Development Services Dept. Public Services Bldg. 276 Fourth Ave. ,Chula Vista April 2, 2012 RE: PCZ-12-02 Rezone Second Ave. Dear Steve Power, I strongly support the rezoning of the 600 block of Second Ave from R-1-7 zoning to R-1-15 zoning. This block has recently been subject to lot splits that have degraded the character of this old neighborhood. The increased density and resulting noise have negatively impacted the quality of our daily lives. These lot splits have also created a HUGE parking problem. Cars are parked all over the easement driveways - blocking access to the rear houses and creating a fire hazard. The police are frequently summoned here due to loud parties, etc. The bodge podge building, with cars littering the driveway and easement road have become an eyesore. Several long time residents on this block are considering moving from their homes here due to the recent developments on this block. It is not right for residents to have to give up their homes for the profit of developers. OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNT ALSO? !Our property values have been decreased and the quality of our daily lives have been negatively impacted This historic neighborhood is the location of several of CV's Historic Homes, including The Greg Rogers House, The Nadine Davis Craftman, The Jennie MacDonald House, The Garrettson-Frank house, and other as of yet, undesignated period houses from CV's early history. .It will benefit the entire community to preserve the character of this old neighborhood. The lots on the street behind us on Del Mar Ave, which adjoin the west side of Second Avenue -enjoy R-1-15 ' zoning, and the west side of Second Ave was previously R-1-15 zoning also. The zoning was changed to R-1-7 zoning several years ago, and a few homeowners split their lots -including my family, who previously owned the property at 644 Second Ave. However, our Iot was over 29,000 sq. ft. -and it was split into 2 spacious lots of 16,300 sq ft. and 12,800 sq ft., NOT 41ots which the R-1 - 7 zoning would have permitted. In contrast, the recent lot splits by a developer on the property next to mine have resulted in three 7,000 sq ft Iots -which share a common driveway with three other residences on the next lot. If this type of building continues there is a very real potential for this entire neighborhood to become a slum rental area, instead of a gracious old neighborhood in the heart of the city. The proposed rezoning back to R-1-15, which was previously in place -will prevent this overbuilding, and stop any further degradation of this neighborhood -and our property values. Cor7nne. McCall C~h,~~ : ~v day ,~`~SI~`~N`s'~ ~..~ Page 1 of 1 ~~ ~~ ~~ C file.//~:iD©c~aments°l°20and%20Settia~gs\sieve.~pll,a~eal%20Settingslle~po~aty%20Inter...., l x/23/2009 ', SC,~-rr~e~ ~Q,~~v 17-s ~o ~~m~~er7` ~ ~ ~c~~v ms's teve Power ' :Principal Planner Development Services Dept. Public Services Bldg. 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: PCZ-12-02 ,~//9~IN~N ~?/n~~Si~~~1 ~~%~ f~~~ /~,~/.~ Rezone west side of Secon~Ave., between "I" & "T' Street We the undersigned support this rezone to R-1-15 zoning We object to the current R-1-7 zoning on the west side of the 600 block of Second Ave, which has resulted in lot splits that have changed the character of our neighborhood by increasing the housing density, the noise, the loss of privacy and parking on this street. Our property values have been negatively impacted by the development - as well as the quality of our daily Lives. Q~ ~ ~ ~7~~-~ ~~~ ~ p/~ ~'. ~- ~~~G~~ ~ ~~ ~/~ ~~ ~~ r /. / ~~~~ ~ (~Sg ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~o 5~~~,~ ~~ ., ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ,. ~-- ~ ! ~ C~ ~ ~~ ~/~~Z~l~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ L ~~v' ~~ ~ ~v~h~ Ale~~n~~ C.as~~1J ~~~~~~ ~~~ r ~ ~ --~ r~ pp ~~~~~~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~s .rte ~1 ~ ~ ~ I am in favor of'changing the zoning of'nny property from R1-7 to Rl-IS.. ~J l i~ ®" ~~/~ ~~~~~ ~~ a I am not in favor ofchanging the zoning of'my property fiom Rl-7 to R1-15.. name/address {optional) ETITION REGARDING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF SECOND AVE., CHULA VISTA, CA THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORT A ZONING CHANGE FROM Rl- 7 ZONING (ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER 7,000. SQ. FT) TO: R1-15 (ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER 15,000. SQ. FT) Which is the same density as the 600 block of Del Mar St. The current zoning of R-1-7 has resulted in degrading the character of our neighborhood and our property values by allowing inappropriate high density building. ~-. -- G~~~r~G ~ ~i~~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~~~ ,cam a ~r~^ ~-o L ~ - C~ 5 ~ S ~ rv~0 ~,~ ~'~ ~~ ~ie~i~~9 ~ 1/i /~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~1 ~ ~, ~ ~ ~y Jl ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ l ~ ETITION REGARDING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF SECOND AVE., CHULA VISTA, CA THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORT A ZONING CHANGE FROM Rl- 7 ZONING (ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER 7,000. SQ. FT) TO: R1-15 (ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER 15,000. SQ. FT) Which is the same density as the 600 block of Del Mar St. The current zoning of R-1-7 has resulted in degrading the character of our neighborhood and our property values by allowing inappropriate high density building. !;, ~ M~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ / ( ~ _ 2 ~" ~ (~v ~ L ~ e ~, ~l (~ 7~ a-r~'/--~~c «~`~/ ~~ _~ L ~ u ~~1 ~~ sv~ t- C /~~~' /c~ X am in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to Rl-IS.. ^ I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to RI-15. \ ~ ,( ~~~ ~-A-- ~i`~- .name/address (optional) ~ -~ a~.~ ~y~~.~ I am in favor of changing the zoning of my pinpexty from RI-7 to R1-15. = ti E S ~~ ~ n I am nat in favor of changing the zoning of my property $om Ri-7 to.Rl-l5. i i j; C~ ~~~~~ ~le,~. name/address (optional} ~ ~ ~~ ~ p T.l-1 .Sc1 ~ ~ >~s~s,~ ~ d~ m ~ `~ am in favor of'changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to RI-15~ o X am not in favor of'changing the zoning of my property from RI-7 to RI-IS.. name/address {optional) ~ I am in favor of changing the zoning of my property from R1-7 to R1-15. Q I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to R1-15.. c j ~`~ ~ C-~ I ~ ~ ~ name/address (optional) ~3 ~ Z~~ `~ ~~ - C~ ~, /c~ V ~~t ~ ~ ~'~ ~rg~~ am in favox of changing the zoning of my property from R1-7 to R1-15 a I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my pxopexty from Rl-7 to RI-15.. am in favor of changing the zoning ofmy property from Rl-7 to R1-15. a I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to R1-15. .~~ ~i~ U~ CCU 6~ ~ name/address (optional) I am in favoz of changing the zoning ofmy pzoperiy from Rl-7 to R1-15~ a I am not in favor of'changing the zoning of my propezty from RI-7 to R1-15.. name/addxess (optional} ~,,,,9 ~-~: , i `L k am in favor of changing the zoning of my property from RI-7 to RI-IS.. a I am not i.n favor of changing the zoning of'mypt~oper~ty from R1-7 to RI-15.. r - ` e a dress (optio al} ~~ ~ ~~ ~. C~-`ul~:,~. ~(~~~~Q C ~ r ~ ~~~. - - i ~- ~ ~ _ ebruary 10, 2010 Gary Halberrt Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoaing of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert, I am in favor of this zoning change to preserve the density and the character of this single family neighborhood. Unfortunate) , I mis laced the form t_ hat the ci~reviously sent out, but I understand that the city's requirement for this survey is to send my response on the enclosed form. As a properly owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I request that my vote to be counted in this matter. /~ ~ Sincerely, , ~~ .:~ G lo~'o? ~~ 1~7~. G. ~ S I am in favor of~changing the zoning of~my propeiTy from Rl-7 to R1-15~ o I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to R1-IS.. - ~ ~~ ~n ss (optional} ~~u/ d~ ~. February 10, 2010 Gary Halbert Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoning of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert, I am in favor of this zoning change to preserve the density and the character of this single family neighborhood. On November 22, 2009, as a property owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I signed a petition casting my vote in favor of the proposed zoning change on this street. It is my understanding that the city's requirement for this survey is to send my response on the attached form, and I am enclosing the signed form herein. I expect my vote to be counted in this matter. Sincerely, ~-4~_- ~~~ ~ U ~~ i` I am in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to Rl-IS.. ~ I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to RI.-15. ~}''le.-> L~ /j ,, ~~~ name/address (opfional) ~ zt~. ~U~, ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ebruary 10, 2010 Gary Halbert Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoning of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert, I am in favor of this zoning change to preserve the density and the character of this single family neighborhood. On November 22, 2009, as a property owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I signed a petition casting my vote in favor of the proposed zoning change on this street. It is my understanding that the city's requirement for this survey is to send my response on the attached form, and I am enclosing the signed form herein. I expect my vote to be counted in this matter. Sincerely, a' I am in favor of'changing the zoning of~my property from Rl-7 to Rl-IS.. ^ I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to RI-15.. ~ + ~ a ~,~~ ~~~.~ name/addzess (opt2onal) ~~,~ ~ ~~' S ~ JG~ ~l~l Z? February 10, 2010 Gary Halbert Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoning of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert, I am in favor of this zoning change to preserve the density and the character of this single family neighborhood. On November 22, 2009, as a property owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I signed a petition casting my vote in favor of the proposed zoning change on this street. It is my understanding that the city's requirement for this survey is to send. my response on the attached form, and I am enclosing the signed form herein.. I expect my vote to be counted in this matter. Sincerely, ' I am in favor of changing the zoning of my propez~ty from Rl-7 to Rl-IS.. ^ I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to RL-15.. ~1j'j - name/a Tess {optional) ;In~~ ~`C~ ~G~~t^~.y,a February 10, 2010 Gary Halbert Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoning of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert,~j` - fyGi f/' ~// z~~~ I am in favor of this zoning change t~reserve the/density and the character of this single family neighborhood. On , 2009, as a property owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I signed a petition casting my vote in favor of the proposed zoning change on this street_ It is my understanding that the city's requirement for this survey is to send my response on the attached form, and I am enclosing the signed form herein. I expect my vote to be counted in this matter. Sincerely, ~. ~~ ~~ o I am in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to R1-15.. a I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property from Rl-7 to R1-15.. a re (~ a .v February 10, 2010 Gary Halbert Deputy City Manager Development Services Dept. City of Chula Vista RE: Survey regarding downzoning of the 600 Block of Second Ave/West side Dear Mr. Halbert, I am in favor of this zoning change to preserve the density and the character of this single family neighborhood. On November 22, 2009, as a property owner on the 600 block of Second Avenue, I signed a petition casting my vote in favor of the proposed zoning change on this street. It is my understanding that the city's requirement for this survey is to send my response on the attached form, and I am enclosing the signed form herein. I expect my vote to be counted in this matter. Sincerely, ~7 ,~ ~.~' Se ~ ~ ' I am in favor of'changing the zoning of'my property from Rl-7 to R1-15.. ^ I am not in favor of changing the zoning of my property fiom Rl-7 to R1-15.. - i n e ddz~ess onal} ~ . ~~ .