Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/01/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 13, 1969 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date be~nning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, York, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, and City Attorney Lindberg. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning for a portion of the Sweetwater Valley Chairman Hyde opened the meeting by explaining the purpose of the meeting and the work of the committee selected to prepare the prezoning map which, if adopted, would be a guide for the City Council in future matters concerning zoning in this area. Mr. Glenn Guerin, Chairman of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee, stated the committee members were selected by the City Planning Commission by order of the City Council. Because of the many pressures from developers to build in the Valley, the Council felt it advisable to have a prezoning map of the entire Valley which would serve as a guide, rather than to prezone a small portion of land at a time. The Committee consisted of 15 members selected because of their geograph- ical location throughout the Valley and their interest in the future of the Valley. They had 12 meetings, the first one in August, and they conducted field trips in order to survey the various boundaries as delineated on the map. The area encompasses approximately 5000 acres and plans for a total population of about 23,000. Mr. Guerin explained that the prezoning would not change the present county zoning as it now exists--the prezoning would only become effective if and when that particular property is annexed to Chula Vista. He then extended his thanks to the Planning staff for the time and effort they spent in helping the committee with this project. Mr. Bruce Warren, Director of Planning, submitted two maps of the Valley area: one depicting the zoning as it exists in the County, and the other of the proposed prezoning as approved by the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee. This map may be subject to revision by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He emphasized that the prezoning does not present an attempt by the City of Chula Vista to annex any of this property; it is only an undertaking to a comprehensive approach to the zoning of the Valley and to encourage orderly growth. Mr. Warren discussed the County's attempt to rezone the Valley, which was not adopted. In most cases, this proposed prezoning is comparable to what is existing in the Valley. The Committee gave the staff an overall density to work with: gross density of 2 units per acre--out of this will come land for schools, cemetery, golf course, etc. This overall density permits a range from one acre to R-3-T. -2- 1/13/69 Director Warren then explained the different zones as shown on the map. He commented that there has been some controvery about the A-8 designation, which in the City, means "agriculture - 1 house for each 8 acres of land." The zoning, as it exists in the Valley, is A-4(1) which is their agriculture zone, the "4" depicting the type of agricultural use, and the (1) allowing one home on one acre of land. Since the City has but one agricultural zone, A-8, the Committee placed this on the Valley floor much of which is in a flood plain, until such time as development is contemplated for these areas and the appropriate zones can be placed on it. Director Warren then explained the R-l-15 category which was placed in certain areas of the Valley where topography would permit such a development. The Secretary read three letters of protest: L. E. Morrison, 5110 Sweetwater Road, owner of 40 acres proposed for A-8 prezoning; Mr. Ray C. Koenig, 3824 Valle Verde, owner of more than 200 acres proposed for A-8 prezoning, and from Mr. Thomas M. Hamilton, attorney representing the Proctor Valley-Bonita Hills Investment Company, owners of land westerly of Proctor Valley Road requesting that their land not be prezoned. A petition of protest was also read signed by 241 residents representing 158 properties in the Sunnyside region indicating their opposition to the prezoning and annexation on the grounds that their area was not properly represented by "the so-called Sweetwater Planning Committee" which was selected by the City of Chula Vista and not by the residents and property owners of this area." Chairman Hyde explained that Dr. Robert Jones was the representative of the Sunnyside area appointed to this committee. The meetings of the committee were held weekly and were open to the public. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the purpose of this hearing was to discuss the merits or demerits of the prezoning map by the Planning Commission after which they will send their recommendation to the City Council. He added that he hoped the meeting wouldn't turn out to be one discussing the merits and demerits of the Committee which prepared the map. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Roland de Fere, Bonita, spoke on behalf of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Asso- ciation. He requested a 60 day delay in further consideration of the map in order that the Civic Association may call a meeting of the Valley residents and present this map to them. Mr. Delbert Hepp, 5308 Central Avenue, Sunnyside, asked the Chairman the purpose of this prezoning. Chairman Hyde explained the requests the City gets from time to time from developers requesting annexation to the City, and when this happens, the City Council needs to apply a zoning for it. Since the Council is interested in having a well-planned plan for the entire Valley area, rather than have to apply zoning in a piece-meal fashion, they have asked for this prezoning map. Mr. Hepp declared that the people in Sunnyside believe the City of Chula Vista wants to annex that entire area since they opposed the matter of their annexing to the Spring Valley Sanitation District. These residents oppose any attempt on the part of Chula Vista to annex their area. -3- 1/13/69 Mr. Jerry Johnson, 6114 San Miguel Road, Sunnyside, stated the plan "was a noose around their necks" in order to pressure them into annexing to Chula Vista. Mr. Maurice Nixon, 5780 Quarry Road, stated he owns 50 acres in this vicinity and referred to the Committee as being sub-rosa. His present zoning is A-4(1) in the county and is being proposed for A-8 by this committee; he requested the Commission reinstate his existing zoning on his property. Mr. Nixon then read excerpts from the General Plan Report on proposed annexations. Director Warren again explained the proposed A-8 zone. The Committee asked the staff about assigning the ultimate zoning to this Valley floor rather than an agricultural zone. The staff felt that the area in the flood plain should be left in the agricultural zone until such time as proper flood measures would be taken. Where the area prezoned A-8 is not in the flood plain, the Commission should give consideration to what is existing in the County and the entire subject should be evaluated by the Commission before final action. The Commission again explained the meaning of the prezoning plan which would not take effect unless that particular property was annexed to the City. Chairman Hyde objected to Mr. Nixon's referral of the Committee as being a "sub-rosa" one. He explained the meetings were advertised and were open to the public. He then read off the names of the committee members and their places of residence. Mr. Nixon declared that the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association knew nothing about this plan until the map was completed. Mr. Robert Henschel, 3525 Lomacitas Lane, Bonita, a member of the Committee, and a member of the Civic Association, commented that one of the members of the Committee included the Chairman of the Civic Association who resigned when he was appointed to the Planning Commission. Several other members of this Committee are also members of the Civic Association and the matter was certainly known and discussed. Mr. Henschel indicated that the Civic Association had an opportunity to discuss this among themselves and to make plans for a Valley meeting; they meet once a month. He has lived in the Valley for 27 years and has opposed proposed annexations to Chula Vista, National City, and San Diego; however, he realizes they cannot do that forever. Since it is just a prezoning plan, he added, what harm can be done by laying out a future plan for the growth of the Valley? City Attorney Lindberg again cautioned that the hearing was one to discuss the merits or demerits of the prezoning plan. Mr. Norman Starr, 3502 Seventh Street, San Diego, representing Ashton Corporation, owners of property adjacent to Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision, noted this area was proposed for R-E zoning (one-half acre lots). Their engineering studies have revealed that this land can be developed into smaller lots and they are sub- sequently requesting prezoning to R-l-15. -4- 1/13/69 Mr. Steve Gassaway, Orchard Hill, acknowledged appreciation of the Planning staff and Commission for their support and understanding of the Valley in keeping the area in a semi-rural atmosphere. He commented on two points: (1) The Williams ranch (north of Sweetwater Road, east of Bonita Woods Subdivision) noting that it was proposed for R-l-15 zoning. He asked that a buffer zone be put on this since Bonita Woods on the east is zoned one-half acre lots and the area to the west is in one-acre lots. They would like to see a buffer zone of the one- half and one acre lots to protect the people living there who have invested in their properties and want it to remain that way. (2) The A-8 prezoning for the Valley floor; some time ago, the Civic Association attempted to prezone this area with the County and they proposed A-8 zoning. Mr. Gassaway felt they should consider the extenuating circumstances--the possibility of another flood. The flood of 1916 can be repeated at any time. He suggested this area be left in the A-4(I) category or placed in a less restrictive zone with the understanding that flood channels would have to be built. Mr. Paul Miller, 350 E Street, realtor representing the Williams ranch, stated that with the cost of undergrounding utilities, water, streets, etc., they must net at least three homes for each acre in order to sell homes at $35,000 to $37,000. He would approve the buffer zone if the net result would give them three lots for each acre. Mr. A1Vitek, Vitek, Inc., stated he was interested in purchasing some of this land for development. He asked if any member of the Committee owned any amount of acre~§e other than a residential lot. Mr. Guerin, Chairman of the Committee, answered that Gordon Cromer owns 80 acres of property near the Allen School. Mr. Vitek commented that 15,000 square foot lot was desirable, but that the average family now feels that 10,000 square feet is adequate for their needs. He suggested some modification between the two zones would make a comfortable size property for the purchaser and retain a price structure of $35,000. Mr. Charles Provence, 4370 Sweetwater Road, owner of 20 acres adjoining the golf course, stated that whereas 15,000 square foot lots were adequate a few years ago, the real estate people now tell him that he should average three homes an acre for his property or it would remain in weeds. He requested his proposed prezoning be changed to reflect this. Mr. Edward Jensen, 5919 San Miguel Road, stated he owns property (2 acres) in the vicinity of Lynwood Hills Drive and Bonita Road currently zoned commercial in the County. On this prezoning plan, it is proposed for R-3 zoning, and he requested it be changed to the commercial zoning which is the reason he purchased it. Mr. Janisek, 3325 Glen Abbey Boulevard, stated he owns 3-1/2 acres in this area. He too purchased the property because commercial zoning is proposed in the County. He stated the interchange of the proposed 805 freeway would wipe out more of the land designated commercial in this area on the plan. He requested that the entire Glen Abbey '~circle" be designated as commercial. If the Commission will not do this, then his request is that his land be taken out of the prezoning plan and remain in the County under its existing zone. -5- 1/13/69 Mr. L. E. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, stated he owns 40 acres in the eastern portion of the Valley and as far as annexation goes, he will stay with the people in the Sunnyside area--if they wish to stay in the County, he will stay with them. One of his plans for the development of his property will be a recreational aspect which will need commercial zoning along with the rest of it in order to keep it up. In this prezoning plan, no commercial land is proposed for the Sunnyside area which is needed, since the people will have to 9o to Bonita and elsewhere to do their shopping. Mr. Gordon Campbell, Grand View Place, Bonita, a realtor, indicated that he has made numerous sales of property in the Valley and has never yet had a family come in and request a 10,000 square foot lot--they are all looking for one-half, 1 acre or 5 acre lots because they want the country atmosphere. Mr. Campbell maintained that small lots are not necessary in the Valley except from a builder's standpoint. Mr. Stanley Frenzel, 828 Delaware Street, Imperial Beach, owner of land directly to the east and rear of the McMillan development (Sunnyside area), requested the same zoning as that given to Mr. McMillan by the County. Director Warren commented that he received a telephone call from a landowner of approximately 500 acres near Proctor Valley who requested that the area be left in the agricultural zone and that other ownerships should be analyzed. Mr. Ed Campbell, Valley Road, expressed his appreciation to the Committee, the staff and the Commission, for their encouragement in trying to do something to bring about an orderly growth of the Valley. Mr. Edward Harn, 4809 Butternut Hollow Land, discussed the recent petition for R-l-15 zoning adjacent to their subdivision which they opposed. The residents of this area wish to have one-half acre lots adjoining them. Mr. W. T. Murkey, 5907 San Miguel Road, stated he has a half-acre lot. He bought this lot because he wanted the country atmosphere, and he has no desire to be annexed to Chula Vista in the future. Mr. Guerin noted the members of the Committee who are also members of the Civic Association and agreed that a presentation of this Plan should be made to the Valley residents at a Civic Association meeting. Mr. Hepp asked the Commission if they propose to oppose the desire of the people of Sunnyside to annex to the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Chairman Hyde explained that this particular matter is out of their hands--it is an action of the City Council, and as such, the Commission has no authority to speak on it. Director Warren indicated this is the first opportunity they have had to tell the people in Sunnyside about this, and rather than to attempt to discuss it at this meeting, he urged the people in this area to contact the Administration office and make an appointment to come in and discuss it. The entire matter will be explained to them and hopefully would clarify many of the misunderstandings that have developed. -6- 1/13/69 Chairman Hyde closed the hearing but reopened it temporarily to explain to the people that once the hearing is closed, no further testimony can be admitted. There will be another public hearing on this Plan and it will be advertised. He added that the commission recognizes this is going to have to be studied at a more informal meeting by the Commission, so the Commission will be holding a workshop session on it which is open to the public. A workshop is not a public hearing, but it is announced in the newspaper and everyone is welcome to attend even though they may not be invited to speak to the Commission at that time. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice remarked that the meeting tonight was a good one, and he realizes that there will be a tremendous difference of opinion before the final prezonin9 map is adopted. Member Chandler stated he feels strongly that the people who worked on this Plan should be thanked for their efforts--the Committee, the Planning staff and the Chairman of the Commission--and explained the efforts that went into it. Chairman Hyde agreed and added that the Committee was an ad hoc one and they completed their work at the meeting held last week (January 9, 1969). He conveyed the appreciation of the Commission for their work. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the Commission meeting of January 20, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 8:55. The next meeting concerning this matter will be a workshop meeting by the Commission which will be advertised in the news media. Respectfully submitted, ,den~ie M. Fulasz .~/Secretary