HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/12/07 Item 12COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
•
ITEM TI LE:
SUBMITT D BY:
BACKG OUND
Director of Planning/
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On November 9, 1982 Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to rezone the 6.28
acres on the north side of East "J" Street to R-1-H-P.
RECOMMENDATION
Intro uce the ordinance, with the following development guidelines:
1. Any development shell be subject to Design Review Committee approval to assure
retention of the view shed.
2. All structures shall maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from East "J" Street.
3. All dwelling units., regardless of type, shall be designed to meet the State of
California Administrative Code Title 25 noise insulation standard fora maximum
interior noise level of 45 dBA. All exterior private open space areas exposed
• to approximately 65 dBA level or higher shall be provided with a line-of-sight
barrier protection.
4. Any development plan approval will require that an open space lot with an
access easement to the San Diego formation soils be provided for qualified
paleontologists to gain access and conduct necessary excavations at some
future date.
5. Access to "J" Street shall be designed to minimize traffic conflicts.
DISCUSSION
Coun it approval of the R-1-H-P zone on November 9th did not include development guide-
lines, although the attachment of the "P" District appeared to be predicated on develop-
ment concerns.
Give the present parcelization of this property (4 parcels), a maximum of 5 single-
famil dwellings would be permitted.
The ecommended guidelines have been included for Council consideration in conjunction
with the introduction of this ordinance. These guidelines address environmental and
aest etic concerns relating to development of the property. ~
FINDl1NGS
e 'P" Modifying District may be applied to areas within the city only when one or more
t e following circumstances is evident:
Form A-nl3 (Rev. 11/79)
Item ~ ~~~
Meeting Date ~I•~f-~-3f-82 /~~~/~~-I
Ordinance o~ /.3 - Rezoning 6.28 acres at East "J" Street and I-805 from
R-1, P-C and R-1-H to R-1-H-P SECOND READING AIYD ADOP1'IUtV
•
Page ?., Item__~~~
Meeting Date ~- _ lei 7/rP3-
1. The adjacent property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is
Zoeat d is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access, configura-
tion, traffic circulation, or some social or historic situation requiring special handling
of th development on a precise plan basis.
The subject property is of unusual configuration and has an average natural
slope of 30%.
2.
the c~
re Zat
The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or
ty appropriate cont~oZ or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper
onship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones.
The attachment of the "P" District will allow the City to exercise control
of the location and height of buildings to insure reasonable retention of
the view shed along the public street.
4
~~ ~ '. .., ~ ~. ~y L t ~i'.. ~ ~.~ ~~ ~I
II
1.. ~~fL~'. ~ i~1 v., l~t~(I ~I LrG
"?,
~i ..
~,.
,,
.-,
l .-
~~~~`~
~~~.~~GV
A ~ '
>> . -~ ~
,. 7' - ._
~, ~_: ..
~:, - a
'~~.'~ _ X07 ~ ...~_,~,. _ ~~
~i
•
~ • LAW OFFICES OF
CRAIG D. MCMAHON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
1200 THIRD AVENUE, 17TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE: (7141 234.1668
er 23, 1982
hula Vista City Council
76 4th Avenue
hula Vista, California 92010
ntlemen:
is letter, which I am requesting be read into the record, is
ing written on the day of my departure from San Diego required
a family emergency. On this same date I have been contacted
property owners concerned with the issues before you this
ening.
t is the paramount concern of these property owners that any
• ecision on the rezoning of the "J" Street property be postponed
o that I, or other legal counsel, can adequately represent these
ndividuals with regard to this issue.
uch a continuance is required in that certain problems have been
resented to me which, I believe, must be addressed in order to
void any potential litigation which could involve not only the
ity of Chula Vista but the individual council members as well.
summary of the issues created by your proposed zoning decision
cludes, but is root necessarily limited to the following:
•
1. Apparent non-conformance with the General Plan;
2. The proposed Overlay zoning was contemplated for use
on large parcels of property and thus would be in
contravention with the general plan if applied to
the "J" Street property;
3. Such a zoning application would be an arbitrary and
capricious rezoning act;
4. Such an act would evidence a failure to follow the recom-
mendations of your own planning department; and
5. Such a rezoning would totally foreclose the property
owners from a-Y economically feasible development of
the property after having invested several hundred
thousand dollars in the purchase and development of
same.
is further my understanding that this motion being considered
you does not appear to have been properly passed and your
~~~~
~''a
• Ch la Vista City Council
Le ter of November 23, 1982
Pa e 2
contemplated action is therefore improper.
F'nally, the indiv~.duals promoting this rezoning are not adjacent
p operty owners. In point of fact, the adjacent property owners
a e now forming to voice their own opinions as to this issue and
i apparent opposition to the proposed rezoning to R-1-H-P.
F r these reasons it is respectfully submitted that this matter be
c ntinued so that these issues may be properly addressed, that the
c ncerned individuals have adequate representation and to avoid
a y potented litigation that could otherwise ensue.
Sincerely yours,
~ ~~~~~On
C aig D . McMahon ~"'~ 'h-~
CIDM:mm
•
•
~o~~
F "