HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/02/09 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHUEA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
February 9, 1970
A second special meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above
date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava
Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz, Stewart, Rice,
and Putnam. Absent: Member Chandler (without previous notification). Also
present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, and
City Attorney Lindberg.
Chairman Rice announced that this was a continued hearing on the revised
General Plan. The first meeting was held on January 12, 1970 at which time
testimony was heard and recorded. He then asked the Director of Planning
to recap the events of this last meeting.
Director of Planning Warren commented that he attended a meeting of the
Southwestern College Estates Homeowners Association this past week (February 5,
1970) and they expressed an interest in the Plan. At the previous public hearing,
a presentation was made of the map and the changes were explained--it is not a
significant departure from the original map.
At the beginning of the fiscal year (1971-1972) a complete new General Plan will
be done, or a more comprehensive revision of this one will take place. The
present map incorporates up-to-date changes based on present trends. The
changes relate to density changes brought about by the elimination of poorly
located industrial areas; a change in the configuration of the marina and the
land use in its vicinity; recognition and inclusion of changes made in the
County; inclusion of the Sweetwater Valley prezoning plan; inclusion of the
Housing Element as recognized by the State; some revision in the population
projection.
Following testimony offered tonight, the Planning Commission can continue the
hearing and readvertise it for a later date, or they can adjourn the meeting
and go into a workshop meeting and discuss the testimony. Ultimately, the
findings of the Commission should be presented at a public meeting. The staff
is not prepared to make any final recommendations at this meeting--they wish
to review all testimony presented.
Mr. Warren noted a letter received from Mrs. Phyllis Foster, Executive Manager
of the Chula Visitors & Convention Bureau, relating to the J Street marina.
T he Commission asked that a copy of this letter be forwarded to them.
Member Adams asked for a clarification of the Housing Element.
Mr. Paul Manganelli, Associate Planner, discussed its features and explained
that it was a State requirement that they provide for this in the General Plan.
This was discussed with the County and they recently received a $50,000 grant
from the State to prepare one. The staff felt it was best to wait until the
County prepared their Plan and this city will participate in it with a more
comprehensive result.
-2- 2/9/70
City Attorney Lindberg explained that the requirement was not specifically
imposed on the City of Chula Vista, but on the regional body; however, we
are approaching the time to give this matter consideration--how to accommo-
date all social and economic classes of citizens.
Chairman Rice declared the public hearing reopened.
Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, reiterated some of the testimony he presented
at the last meeting: (1) at the expense of not adopting the plan for the
Tidelands areas at the same time that we adopt the General Plan--if the
timing is such that it cannot be, we should adopt the General Plan without
the Tidelands area in an effort to coordinate our adoption of a Tidelands plan
with the new plan of the Port District and try to work it out to gain a
maximum of visitor-oriented park and recreational type uses and limit the
industrial type uses to those that are water-oriented; (2) provision should
be made for more multiple-family use within the planning area and these
multiple-family uses should not be concentrated in the older central parts
of the city, but some means should be found to scatter them among the single-
family uses or out in the suburban areas; (3) take a hard look at the commercial
zoning--rather than delineate on the map the commercial zoning, make policy
statements or standards for establishing commercial zoning insofar as the
community and neighborhood shopping centers are concerned, and make some
provision in the plan for one major regional shopping center somewhere along
the 805 Freeway that will have an acreage of 30 to 50 acres; (4) provision
should be made for mobilehome park sites in the Plan.
There are two new points he now wishes to make: (1) At the last meeting, he
stated that if all the land designated for multiple-family dwellings were
developed to the average density allowed within the planning area, and all the
land planned for single-family dwellings were developed to the average density,
that only 33% of the developed land would be developed in multiple-family
dwellings--this is 33% of the resultant dwelling units, not the land. The
national average is approaching 66%. In order to arrive at the 33%, he took
the figure delineated for high density in the General Plan report--13 to 26
dwelling units per gross acre, and took an average figure of 19. This is a
low figure, as the new zoning ordinance has increased the land area per unit
from 1,O00 to 1350 and this comes to about 30 units to the net acre. At
least two-thirds of the 33% of the land available is in the older developed
parts of the city, 50% of which is already developed as single-family or
multiple-family homes, and are many years away from redevelopment. Mr. York
then discussed in detail the economics of the land situation as it exists today.
He then discussed the open space area in the Sweetwater Valley as delineated
on the Plan. He felt this was infeasible as the City has neither the means
nor the option to buy this land for public purposes, and the land owner is not
going to donate the land. He remarked that although the General Plan states
that this is only a guideline and it is what they would like to have, it is
apparent that it becomes the governing authority when someone comes in for a
rezoning request. Mr. York further added that while this open space is a
good aesthetic matter, it requires further study.
Member Macevicz asked Mr. York for an equitable percentage figure to use on
the multiple-family zoned land.
-3- 2/9/70
Mr. York explained how he arrived at this figure, taking into account articles
written on this subject by national builder's magazines and current newspaper
articles.
Mr. L. A. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, questioned the zoning on his
land in the Sweetwater Valley which is delineated on the General Plan as A-8.
Director Warren explained that they are not discussing the prezoning plan of
the Sweetwater Valley to which Mr. Morrison is referring. On this revised
General Plan map, his land is placed in the public open space category--no
attempt is being made to rezone land on this plan.
Mr. Morrison stated that he wished this Council (Commission) to place his
acreage back to the A-4 zoning it now has in the County. The zoning as it now
stands would degrade his property.
City Attorney Lindberg commented on this and referred to the statement by
Mr. York that this General Plan is just a guide, and we don't adhere to the
guidelines if we don't happen to feel like it--he indicated this myth should
be laid to rest right now. The General Plan is intended to provide guidance
to the Planning Commission and the City Council and those specific zonings
that are inconsistent with the General Plan, while they may be adopted, will
have to overcome the hurdle of the Plan itself. The Court would be very much
disturbed if the Commission or the Council disregarded the General Plan itself.
To Mr. Morrison, Mr. Lindberg explained that the General Plan does not intend
to apply specific zoning regulations to any particular property--where it is
not feasible to prescribe such specifics at this time--the Plan delineates
generally the type of use they foresee for the future for that area. As to
Mr. Morrison's specific property, it is not being zoned as such, or prescribed
for any particular activity, but only that the staff has placed it in the use
described on the map because, being in a flood plain, the staff cannot possibly
delineate more intensified use for it than they can foresee for it in the
future. This does not change the property value of the land, nor does it prevent
him from seeking a specific zoning for his land.
Mr. Morrison asked why the General Plan cannot give him the type of zoning he
wants for his property now.
Mr. Warren explained that the old Plan placed his property in an open space
category; the County General Plan also places it in an open space. The County
has a specific zoning for it, as we do on the prezoning plan for the Valley;
however, one point must be considered: there are areas within the flood plain
that have a specific land use prescribed--it is either because the land use
exists or in the opinion of the staff, a need has been demonstrated for that
type of use in the Valley and can be accommodated under certain circumstances.
In this flood plain (in which Mr. Morrison's land lies) to delineate a specific
use for which no need has been demonstrated would certainly be unprofessional
on the part of the staff and they would not be giving the Commission or public
the benefit of their planning experience.
-4- 2/9/7O
Mr. Morrison said there were obstacles to people coming into the Valley to buy
land that do not have specific zoning applied to it.
Chairman Rice felt the testimony should not be directed on one specific piece
of property and the zoning applied to it--the presentation should be based on
the overall area covered by the Plan.
Director Warren asked Mr. Morrison if it was his contention that unless the
General Plan spells out a means of acquiring and preserving this open space,
that some form of land use should be prescribed for the Valley floor?
Mr. Morrison declared this was true--that he has 70 acres in the Valley which,
on this Plan, is placed in the public and open space category. His land is
about 3 feet below that from where Corky McMillan is building (south of Bonita
Road, west of Central Avenue). Between these two roads, it doesn't have to be
open space--it can be cut down--the Commission can be reasonable about it.
Mr. Lindberg explained that no property can be taken for public purposes without
due compensation for it.
Mr. Morrison indicated it would be difficult to acquire different zoning from
the County if the A-8 were allowed to remain on this Plan. He again asked the
Council (Commission) not to degrade his property. As the zoning now stands in
the County, he can build one house on one acre of land; however, under this
Plan, he can build only one house on 8 acres of land. Mr. Morrison continued
to ask the Commission to change the zoning on this Plan.
Chairman Rice contended that Mr. Morrison should discuss specific zoning with
the staff. The Commission will consider the testimony he presented tonight.
Mr. Manganelli explained the change of zone that took place on this Valley
floor when a developer came in with plans for the Bonita Verde Subdivision--
it, too, was placed in the open space category and when it was proven to the
City that by putting in fill in this area it could safely be improved with
some form of residential development, the area was then zoned for one-half
acre lots and improved as such. He compared this with the land owned by
Mr. Morrison indicating that some different type of use could also be approved
for his property.
Mr. Morrison asked if Mr. Manganelli felt it was safe to build in this area.
Mr. Manganelli answered that he personally did not feel it was, but that he
was not an engineer.
Chairman Rice explained that the flood plain lines were set by other agencies
than this City, and perhaps Mr. Morrison should be directing his inquiries
concerning this matter to the Engineering Division and the County.
Mr. Morrison noted the commercial zoning south of Bonita Road and questioned
whether or not the staff believed it could also exist on his property.
-5- 2/9/7O
Mr. Warren explained that the commercial zoning as delineated on the Plan is
an expansion of the existing commercial area, and only delineates a need. It
may well be that this need will be accommodated elsewhere--perhaps on
Mr. Morrison's property.
Mr. Janosik, 6645 Joneal Lane, Bonita, formerly a resident of Glen Abbey
Blvd., declared that the Chairman made a statement at the last meeting pertain-
ing to the staff advising the County of this General Plan and to tell them
that "this is the law .... we want the zoning as we adopted it."
City Attorney Lindberg stated this was not true. When adopted, this General
Plan should have the consideration of the County in their zoning; however,
neither the Board of Supervisors nor our City Council must rigidly adhere
to the General Plan. This is a standard and they should examine it very care-
fully and even though the City does get cooperation from the County, we do not
tell them, nor expect, that upon adoption of the General Plan, that zoning as
delineated must ultimately follow. Mr. Lindberg explained the procedure
whereby both the City and County weigh each other's plan but that it is not
an automatic process to adopt the zoning as prescribed.
Director Warren further explained that the law requires that the City forward
a copy of their General Plan to the County and constant contact is kept between
their staff and our staff.
Mr. Janosik then noted the proposed alignment of Freeway 805 claiming this
line was erroneous--that it is going back to the 1964 alignment.
Director Warren questioned the line of interrogation by Mr. Janosik. He
stated that the alignment of 805 as shown on the map is the current one as
was indicated at the last meeting. If Mr. Janosik has questions pertaining
to land use along this freeway, he should ask those questions or make a
statement.
Chairman Rice agreed, indicating to Mr. Janosik that his questions thus far
have been quite far afield and to talk about the proposed revisions to the
General Plan.
Mr. Janosik continued to pursue his debate on the freeway alignment. City
Attorney Lindberg informed him to state his particular objections to the
General Plan and not to continue questioning the freeway alignment.
Mr. Janosik continued with his testimony indicating there were now 18,000
cars traveling Bonita Road in this vicinity. The General Plan indicates
high density for this area--he asked if the Commission is going to approve
this use which he felt would be a safety hazard. He specifically wants this
particular area to be changed to tourist-commercial use. Mr. Janosik then
noted the area of the Bonita Golf Course claiming it should not be on our
General Plan as it now belongs to National City. He then explored the A-8
zoning in the Sweetwater Valley and asked the attorney if the property owners
could get reimbursed for inverse condenmation.
City Attorney Lindberg stated they could not. They are not talking about
zoning here--they are talking about a planning concept which is susceptible
of more precise definition at the time zoning is requested.
-6- 2/9/70
After further comments by Mr. Janosik, Member Stewart declared the remarks
of Mr. Janosik are not testimony as such but are a cross-examination and not
germane to the issue.
With the approval of the City Attorney, Chairman Rice asked Mr. Janosik to
be seated.
Mr. Gordon Thorn, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Chula Vista,
364 Corte Maria, commended the Commission and staff on their work on the
General Plan remarking that it was a very difficult area they were working with:
from mountain ranges to the sea coast. He referred to paragraph 3 on page 33
of the revision of the General Plan relating to the recreational facilities
on the Tidelands. He stated he met recently with the Port District Planner
and the Port Director at which time they discussed the deep water harbor
originally planned for Chula Vista. They indicated it would not be feasible
to develop this as shipping has dropped 18% in the last two years and they
have a number of berths in the north end of the Bay that are sitting idle, and
may for years to come. Subsequently, this General Plan should be changed--
especially in that area north of Rohr plant (above F Street) although specifics
were not discussed. Mr. Thorn felt the Commission and Council should be
considering another use for this area--perhaps it could be developed with
commercial visitor amenities--a beach for bathers and behind it a residential
section with canals and slips for boats built right at their back door. An
industrial area will still be needed and this, perhaps, could be located to
the east--one, two, or three industrial parks could be developed out there.
Mr. Thorn added that these comments are for Commission information since
things do change, and this has been a most recent communication to come to
his office.
Mr. Schneider, living in the County, referred to the area bounded by Fourth,
Palomar, Third and L Street. He predicts that this area will be high density,
as it is going in now in a piecemeal fashion. He felt it should be prezoned
as such now on the General Plan.
Director Warren reported that the County Planning Department has advised him
that their staff will be undertaking a land use and zoning analysis of this
area, and our staff will be working with them on this project.
Mr. Gene York referred to the comments he made earlier concerning the General
Plan, explained that he understands the Plan does not have specific boundaries;
however, there are very few areas on the Plan that leave much flexibility. He
stated that the City Attorney misunderstood him and that actually they are in
agreement. He also commented that he would not have made the remarks about
the open space areas in the Sweetwater Valley had he known others in the
audience proposed to do the same--he would have left the comments up to them
since it was not a team effort.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
The Commission discussed a date for a workshop meeting in order to review all
the testimony presented.
-7- 2/9/70
Director Warren asked that they set this date at their meeting on February 16.
He remarked that the General Plan was prepared in 1964 with the assistance of
about 100 people who worked on the citizens' committees. Some of the recom-
mendations heard at these two meetings have been contrary to the goals of these
citizens. Next year, hopefully, a new citizens' committee will be utilized.
Member Stewart felt a cut-off date must be imposed, somewhere along the line,
in trying to revise the General Plan. Unless they do this, they will consistently
be changing the Plan.
The Commission then discussed types of uses along the waterfront. Member Adams
indicated he was shocked to learn that the Port District may not be developing
the harbor, as reported by Mr. Thorn. Chairman Rice felt the Port may develop
the harbor in the future, if the need arises.
Mr. Thorn stated that the Port people presented a negative picture of this.
If a port is developed in Chula Vista, what will San Diego do with all that area
to the north? The big shipping lines are making fewer calls these days instead
of more, as anticipated; therefore, they must look for another use for that area.
Terminal facilities in Chula Vista does not seem reasonable to them. As to the
second entrance, this still has great possibility. The Arm~v Corps of Engineers
are looking for an appropriation, two years from now, if the model they are
working on in Vicksburg comes out as they believe it will. Mr. Thorn then
discussed the travel time involved in getting from San Diego to Chula Vista as
opposed to handling and unloading in our own port--there is no problem in travel
time.
City Attorney Lindberg discussed the development of the tidelands and the jobs
created by such. He felt the industrial uses on the waterfront should be those
depending upon shipping supplies and not just industrial, per se.
Mr. York discussed the developments of Shelter Island and Harbor Island and that
the Commission should get the statistics from the Port for the returns of these
two islands as compared to the 10th Avenue terminal, on a per acre basis. The
population that is coming and the orientation toward water will more than
fill any area the City could accommodate on the tidelands.
Member Putnam stated he agreed with the comments made by Mr. York in distributing
the high density in the lower density areas. He stated this is becoming more
and more the way of life and the amenities mentioned by Mr. York are very
important. This is a more modern way of life--one which corresponds more with
today's ideals than those of single-family residences. He maintained that
high density developments should be mixed in with single-family developments
so that you do not get this "monotonous slurb" which is so common in California.
Member Stewart commented that this is a relatively broad subject and trying to
pursue it without the benefit of what the testimony has been and the staff's
report on it would be difficult. He preferred to discuss this aspect at the
Commission workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) The meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at
9p.m.
~spectfully submitted, ~