Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/06/20 Item 15CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ Item No. is For meeting of 6/20/78 ITEM TITLE Resolution ~ ~`~`31nitiating the annexation of the "F" Street/Hilltop Drive island territory under the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) SUBMITTED BY Director of Planning ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X ) A. BACKGROUND 1. At the meeting of January 17; 1978 Council considered all potential island annexation areas and accepted staff's recommendation to prepare official annexation map, legal description, and materials to be submitted to LAFCO requesting annexation of three island areas. 2. The "F" Street/Hilltop Drive island area is the second of the three areas to be considered by Council for annexation under the provision of MORGA. B. DISCUSSION 1. Meetings with Residents On March 13, 1978 the property owners of the "F" Street/HIlltop Drive island territory were invited by letter to attend an informal meeting on April 17, 1978: At the meeting, staff discussed the provisions of the recently enacted legislation, current county services and subsequent municipal services if annexation occurred. Five property owners out of nine in the area attended the meeting. 2. Letter and Petition from Property Owners On March 27, 1978 the Mayor's office of the City of Chula Vista received a letter and attached petition from Mr. J. M. Brennan of 309 Hilltop Drive, a resident of the subject island territory and representative of a majority of land owners in the area. In the letter Mr. Brennan requested the City Council's position regarding the possible annexation of the "F" Street/Hilltop Drive territory. The petition, signed by eight out of nine property owners in the area, was in total opposition to the annexation. JN:yy EXHIBITS (Continued on Supplemental page) ~ Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat X Notification List Petition & (See para.#6) Other Letter ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached X Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution initiating the annexation of the "F" Street/ Hilltop Drive island territory. 2. Authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista to sign all applicable petition and application forms as proponent of the subject City initiated annexation and charge City account no. 100-0160g-5202 for the payment of all State Board of Equalization and LAFCO BOARD%COMMISSIONe RECOMMENDATION GOUNCIL ACTION Item No. 15 'For meeting of 6/20/78 Supplemental page 2 In a letter dated April 4, 1978, the Mayor responded to Mr. Brennan's inquiry assuring him that until all the facts are presented the City Council would not make a final decision and that the feelings and desires of the property owners in the area will be a significant part of the consideration of a possible annexation. 3. Application Materials Prepared Staff has prepared the necessary materials to be submitted to LAFCO for annexation of the "F" Street/Hilltop Drive island territory. Materials to be sub- mitted include: 1) legal description of the subject area; 2) official map showing the boundaries of the area; 3) LAFCO annexation application (includes a plan for providing municipal services to the area), and petition forms. 4. Prezoning The City Council adopted ordinance No. 1363 on October 5, 1971 prezoning the subject area to R-E and R-1. The prezoning classifications are consistent with the existing land use of single family dwellings. 5. Environmental Review An Initial Study (IS-78-73) of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on June 1, 1978. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant effects and made a draft Negative Declaration which is herewith forwarded for City Council certification. 6. Notification Staff notified the property owners of the "F" Street/Hilltop Drive island territory by letter on June 6, 1978 of Council's consideration of this matter on June 20, 1978. \~=_j ~ _ _~ _ ' ~. " ~ ;~ ? ~r~ '?~~ a iv~ lS ..- ~ i.r . ~~ n _/ ` - March 23, 1.978 Chula Vista City Council 276 4th avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 Attention: Mr. Egdahl Dear Council Member Egdahl, The enclosed correspondence from City of Chula Vista Planning Department advises that they will attempt to force annexation to the city of Chula Vista regardless of the wishes of the property o~vner. I have enclosed a petition signed by all resident property owners stating they do not wish annexation. One piece of property owned by a realtor/developer who wishes to annex to the city so as to enhance and appreciate his holdings ~,vill support annexation. It is actions like these that have forced the property o~~vner to rise up in support of the Jarvis-Gann and in this case will actively oppose this forced annexation. This was presented once before to the City Council and following a presentation by the property owners the council stated that it was the unanimous position of the Chula Vista City Council was not to force the issue against the will of the property owner. We the property owner would like your reply at this time stating whether you will oppose this forced annexation or support the Planning Department. If you elect not to reply we, the property owner can only assume you intend to support this forced annexation attempt. We would appreciate your position in writing as soon as possible. Very truly yours, r....~ J. M. Brennan 309 Hilltop Drive Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 Attachment 5~ ETITION PAPER 3. 4. 5. Reference: (a) City of Chula Vista letter dated March 13, 1978 signed D. J. Peterson We the undersigned, owners of the property designated by reference (a), do hereby petition the City of Chula Vista to abandon all plans, efforts and actions directed toward the annexation of property designated in - = reference (a). - f i -~ . - ~~ ~ v ,fit ----. . _ 6. ~~ ~ / l ~; ./~ 8. ~I ~~ ~ ~~ ~r /~~ ~Q ~~ - Note: Mr. Carl H. Gross , 305 Hi 11 top Drive , signature does not appear on petition as he is not in town, but he ~~vill ' sign when he returns. i~1r. C. H. Gross' signature is included. RESIDENCE ~. _ __ .s' ~ ~ 1 - r ~ 1 - ~ ~c. - -- - _ - ~ -~ .~ ~ / / ~ ~"~ Lt. (~ `/ L Cam' ~ 3 s ,- ~ ~ µ 5,~ ~. ~ - _ -,-~ , - =~.-~_ y~- ~ ~' , - City o~ Clzrl~ l~istc~ ~ -, ,~ ~, Cc~lz fo1 ~,J i. ,}. CFFiCE CF THr_ P~1 AYCR ' .'Jill T. Nycle April 4, 1978 ~,tr. J, `~I. Brennan 309 Hilltop Drive Chula Vista, California 92010 Dear ',;r . Brennan The City Council has been generally aware of the feeling in your area regarding annexation, and bs of persons petition, dated liarch 23, 1978, confirmsoourlunderstandinhe attached letter you ask :whether or not the City Council intends tom In your this forced annexation or support the Planning ,~•••oppose Planning Department is not actin ~ Department, The rather is pursuing the directionbest~blishedtby thetCouncilton~ but January 17, 1978, when the Council, under provisions of the ~.tunici- pal Or7anization Act of 1977, directed staff to proceed :with the preparation of materials for submittal of possible annexation pro- posals to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. However, the Council, by directing this action, did not imp15- it was makir.~ any final decision. After a meeting between CitT and property owners in your area, you will be notified b. 5 star the date on which the Council will consider this S mail of and you and the other residents will be ~~ possible annexation make ;-our objections kno~rn• After receivinen every opportunity to owners, the Council ~.vill decide whether or notntot from the propertZ- anne:~:ation, proceed with an Cr,;G CEN'~R • s3 276 FC:,RTH :.~E`iUE • CHULA `vl$TA~ C:,LIFGRNIA 92Gi0 • TELEPHONE (714) 575-`C44 ljr. J. 1t.`~B~~erinan April 4, 19iS Pale T~,vo The City Council believes that your unincorporated area is benefit- in~ from the City's street system, our computerized traffic signal system, the Chula ~°ista Fire Department protection of nearby prop- erties, the availability of our police Department in emergencies and various other City amenities. Accordingly, from ottr perspective, these are valid points to be consic'~ered when annexation of the area is discussed. Please be assured that until all of the facts are presented, the City Council will not make a final decision, and certainly the feelinPs and desires of the property owners in the area will be a sibnificant part of the consideration of a possible annexation. - ~ ~ V-+1 ~ Councilman Frank :~. Scott '~ ~ ~ ( J Co Gilman James E. Hobel j'~TI~ : pw Sincerely, ' ~ ~ ~~~ C ~1 ~ ~'; i 11 T Liv de 'iavo zc~lman Lauren I~,Edahl ~~~ /~~ d .--•-t~...~, ~~ Councilman ~~re~ ry R. Cox bcc: City Clerl~ Fulasz City .tilanaber Cole Director of Planninb Peterson 53 PROJ%CT TITLE: Hilltop Drive/F St. Island Annexaticn Project Location: Approx. 20 acres on the east side of at the east terminus of F St. Project Propor.~nt: City of Chula Vista Planning Dept. CASE :~IO. IS-78-73 A. Project Setting DATE: June 1, 1978 F:illtop Dr. The project involves approximately 20 acres of County territory located east of Hilltop Dr., southeast of the eastern. terminus of F St. Nine separate parcels ranging in size from .23 acres to 10.62 acres will be affected. Each parcel is developed with at least one single family home and all have been subject to urban activities for a number of years. The site is void of significant biological resources and according to a survey conducted on one of the properties (Rancho San Miguel, IS-76-41) there are no archaeological resources present. A geologic study of Rancho San Miguel was also prepared and concluded that the area "is considered to be underlain by stable soils" and there were no on-site indications of earthquake faulting. Urban support systems are available for expansion adjacent to the site and city services such as fire arrd police protection can also be extended to the area with minimal impact. B. Project Description The project entails the annexation of a County island into the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the provisions of the I~lunicipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA). The site is prezoned, entailing 1.3 acres of R-1 and about 18.55 acres of P.-E zoned land. The property prezoned as R-1 is fully developed. Rancho San Miguel (10.6 acres) has the potential to be developed with, perhaps, 19 additional dwelling units given total square footage, deduction of loo for private access, and minimum lot size required by the R-E zone. Two other larger lots appear to have the potential to be developed for one or two more dwelling units in addition to the 19 noted above. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The subject property is prezoned for R-1 and R-E development which is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan (low density residential 1-3 du/ac ) and is less intense than the County's Sweetwater Community Plan (low-med. density residential 4.3 du/ac.) 3 D. Identification of environmental effects Growth Inducing Influences Annexation to the City of Chula Vista would allow the extension of City services to the subject property. These services, connection to the City sewer system for instance, normally could er.courac;e further development of vacant properties involved. Growth inducement due to availability of these services are highly limited in this particular case, however, since there have already been t~~:o olans recently submitted for the development of Rancho San Miguel, the largest developable parcel. Sewer Capacity The proposed annexation will make sewer facilities available to eleven e:~isting dwellings and 19 to 21 potential units. Additional flows generated will have the potential to further exacerbate existing capacity conditions at the Metropolitan Sewer Treatment facility. Due to the number of dwelling units concerned, however, limited impact would be experienced. E. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The project arearas been subject to urbanization for man~,~ years and since the project will not result in any great physical change, and due to site characteristics, no natural resources nor hazards will be affected. 2. The project is in conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan and associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. Effect on sewer capacity will be limited and no impacts which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment are anticipated. 4. The project will not have any effect on traffic or associated emissions nor will the project result in any hazard that could prove detrimental to human beings. F. Individuals and organizations consulted. City of Chula Vista Planning Dept. Public ~tiiorks Dept. Fire Dept. County of San Diego - Brian ~~TOOdy, Env. Anal~-sis Div, , Comm. Svs. Aaencv LAFCO - Bill Davis, Env. Management Specialist J Documents IS-76-41 San 1~liguel Ranch, archaeological survey & Geological survey County Initial Study Loa -78-18-23 Villa San !~I;.cruel _.._ _.._~_:_ :;`:...:_.' 3:: _~1C3__Cn an:. CVaillatlOn ivr:':S CC;,'.''.°.^.=mar, .` ~iiG_. :~ O~ n0 S1C. .i _~Cc.. ~ li::~~aC ~ ar ~ c:tT._3Ci?eQ. _ ~•• ' ~ ~ ~ '~~ .~-