HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1982/03/24 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, March 24, 1982 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 10, 1982
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of General Plan Amendment to redesignate
approximately ll acres located at the southeast quadrant
of Oxford Street and Industrial Boulevard, from "Retail
Commercial" to "Research and Limited Industrial"
2. Consideration of Final EIR-81-3 on EastLake Planned Community (continued
from March lO meeting)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of General Plan Amendment to change the
designation of approximately 4.8 square miles from
"Agriculture and Reserve," "Residential 1-3 DU/acre" and
Residential 4-12 DU/acre" to a series of urban densities
as well as commercial, industrial, parks, schools and public
open space in the area between Southwestern College Estates
and Otay Reservoirs - EastLake/Cadillac Fairview Homes West
(continued from March 10)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of request to prezone approximately 4.8
square miles to P-C (Planned Community) and approve
General Development Plan - Cadillac Fairview Homes West
(continued from March 10)
b. Consideration of Candidate CEQA Findings on the proposed
EastLake Planned Community (continued from March lO)
c. Consideration of Statement of Overriding Considerations
on the proposed EastLake Planned Community (continued
from March 10)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
To: City Planning Commission
From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of March 24, 1982
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of General Plan Amendment to redesignate
approximately 11 acres located at the southeast quadrant
o'f Oxford Street and Industrial Boulevard, from "Retail
Comer~i~l" to "Research and Limited Industrial"
A. BACKGROUND
1. The property owner's representative, J & J Investments, has filed an
application for the prezoning of the property in question in conformance with
this proposed General Plan Amendment. The adoption of this amendment is pre-
requisite to the consideration of the petitioned prezoning.
2. On June 16, 1981, the City of Chula Vista prezoned the subject eleven
acres of land, and the balance of the 16 acre parcel of which these ll acres are
a component, to "C-C-P." This prezoning was environmentally considered under
IS-81-21, and a Conditioned Negative Declaration was certified in connection
therewith. At that time the staff report noted that applications would be
processed to amend the General Plan and change the zoning from Commercial to
Industrial on the subject property. The Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment does not require additional
environmental assessment.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that Council amend the plan diagram of the Chula Vista
General Plan to depict the redesignation of the subject ll acres of land from
"Retail Commercial" to "Research and Limited Industrial," as shown on Exhibit A.
C. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
1. The subject site is situated within the unincorporated territory of San
Diego County and is designated "Heavy Industrial" under the South Bay Community
Plan. It is zoned M-52 (Limited Industrial) in the County.
The 11 acres in question are vacant and level, and were previously devoted
to the production of truck crops.
2. Existing General Plan designations (see Exhibit A)
North - Research and Limited Industrial, and Retail Commercial
South - Retail Commercial (adjacent), and Research and Limited Industrial
(south side of Palomar Street)
East - Retail Commercial
West - Retail Commercial (MTDB right-of-way)
3. Adjacent zoning and land use (see Exhibit B)
North - I-L-P and C-C (City) Vacant and retail shopping center
South - M-52 (County) Vacant
East - C-36 (County) Retail and service commercial center
West - M-52 (County) MTDB right-of-way
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
1. The proposed redesignation would be compatible with the existing and
projected land-use patterns of the Harborside subcommunity, and would enable
the property owner to develop the limited industrial-retail commercial
complex proposed for the subject 16-acre parcel of land.
2. The proposed expansion of the Montgomery area's industrial territory
would be consistent with the economic interests of local residents, as well
as the Chula Vista Planning Area. This expansion would spur employment, and
encourage trade and exchange.
3. The 11-acre limited industrial park proposed for the site was recently
approved by the County.
E. CONCLUSION
The proposed General Plan amendment, in conjunction with the subject site's
prezoning and annexation, would facilitate the development of a well-planned
industrial park within this municipality.
MEDIUM 'D ........ "" .... :'
................. =~Sr[¥ --
...::::::::;;: ...RES/D= ,-- I-- ......
................ -[~J t IAL . ·. ~- .... F'.,~
.:iF::::::::'H ...... ' ..........
"' "':::::NAPLES SI
-..::::..iii
~PROPOSED ....... '
:::::
LTD INDUS -- ' .....
...-....:-:-:-?:-:... o. o o o o .,, ,,..o.o
:-:-'.-i-?:-:-:-'-'.-'.-:-i'i':'i'. o o '
~RESEARCH ......... ~::::::::::!
~LTD. . ~ ...........
EXHIBIT A
~ ~ . g PA 82.-2
~DPEN SPACE PROPOSED
'~" ;.-' General Plan Designations
~' '"&-'* ' ' NORTH ~ I
HARBORSl DF'
.
RU~9
FURNITURE MFG.
'"":::":' ,
CGP co. ~ -,.
=REZONE)
GPA 82-2
Existing Land Use ~ Zoning
0 2~' 400'
~ / NORTH
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 Page 3
2. Consideration of Final EIR-81-3 on EastLake Planned Community
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of General Plan Amendment to change the
designation of approximately 4.8 square miles from "Agricul-
ture and Reserve," "Residential 1-3 DU/acre" and Residential
4-12 DU/acre" to a series of urban densities as well as
commercial, industrial, parks~ schools and public open
space in the area between Southwestern College Estates and
O~ay Reservoirs - EastLake/Cadillac Fairview Homes West
(continued from March lO)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of request to prezone approximately 4.8
s.quare miles to P-C (Planned Community) and approve
General Development Plan - Cadillac Fairfiew Homes West
(continued from March 10)
b. Consideration of Candidate CEQA Findings on the
proposed EastLake Planned Community
(continued from March 10)
c. Consideration of Statement of Overriding Considerations
on the proposed EastLake Planned Community
(continued from March 10)
A. BACKGROUND
On March 10th the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony
from the staff, the applicant, and members of the audience and, because of the
lateness of the hour, continued the hearing to the meeting of March 24, 1982.
B. DISCUSSION
1. This report should be considered supplemental to the March 10, 1982 report.
The fomat of this report will be that of a question and answer series with the
questions being those posed by various members of the Planning Commission on
March 10th, followed by the answers that we have been able to develop so far.
2. Questions.
a. What would happen if the City should not approve the EastLake plan?
Would the County approve EastLake if the City should not approve it?
Ultimately, this is a political question and we cannot say for
sure what the Board of Supervisors might do. However, it is
clear that the EastLake proposal is not in conformance with the
County's growth management plan or their general plan. The posture
of the County continues to be that they are unable to provide urban
level services to unincorporated areas, and therefore, development
proposals which contemplate urban types of densities will not be
considered by the County but should be annexed to the nearest city.
Under the County's general plan and growth management plan, the
types of development that would perhaps be approved by the County
would be a low density residential development consisting of develop-
ment ranging between one dwelling unit for each 2 acres to one dwel-
ling unit for each 20 acres.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 Page 4
b. If Bonita Long Canyon Estates should not develop and EastLake does
develop, what would the impact of the EastLake development on drainage
in Long Canyon?
The conditions of approval of the Bonita Long Canyon Estates S.P.A.
plan required the developer to construct drainage facilities or
ponding basins to guarantee that that development would not add
to the drainage problems already existing in Long Canyon. If Bonita
Long Canyon Estates should not develop and if EastLake does develop
first, similar conditions of approval would be placed on the EastLake
development so that it also would not exacerbate downstream drainage
problems.
c. The financial analysis in the E.I.R. assumes that the City will
provide library services, for example, and yet some of the recommended
conditions of approval require the applicant to )articipate in the
cost of providing library services.
The figures in the E.I.R. represent the ongoing cost of providing
various city services. These are costs which the city would
experience each year pretty much for the life of the project.
At some point early in the development of EastLake, these costs as
shown in the E.I.R. are somewhat overstated for a period of about
one year to the extent that the developer would be required to
contribute to start-up expenses.
d. Is the staff aware of any industrial park of over 200 acres which is
located as far away from a freeway as the proposed industrial park in
EastLake?
The proposed industrial park in EastLake is approximately 5.7
miles from 1-805. To the best of staff's knowledge, the industrial
area within the county which is furthest removed from a freeway is
the industrial development now occurring in the vicinity of Palomar
airport. Palomar airport is approximately four miles away from I-5.
Other substantial industrial park development within the county is
considerably closer to a freeway than the Palomar airport develop-
ment.
e. Should the developer participate in the payment of salaries for school
teachers for some "start-up" period in EastLake?
The two school districts do not feel it necessary to require the
developer to provide "start-up" costs for teachers' salaries as
payments from the State in the form of average daily attendance
plus other revenues available to the district are sufficient for
this purpose.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 Page 5
f. What is the status of some of the major developments which have
recently been approved by the City, such as the Watt development at
1-805 and "H" Street, Bonita Long Canyon Estates, and others?
While actual construction in the past year has been slow, the
number of approvals of tentative maps and specific plans by the
Planning Commission and the City Council remains quite high.
Attachment l, entitled "Approved Units in Subdivisions and/or
S.P.A.'s," indicates that over the last two years or so 4300 units
have been approved. Of those, only 106 have been constructed, so
approximately 4200 are yet available for construction under
previously granted approvals. At the rate of construction over
the past few years, these 4200 dwelling units would not be completed
until 1992. At the average rate of construction over the last
ten years, it would take 4.7 years to absorb the 4200 dwelling units.
g. Assuming a worst case condition with respect to availability of water
to the San Diego area, what would be the impact upon existing residents
of the construction of EastLake during a period of low water availability?
Attachment 2 indicates that the annual consumption of water within
the Otay Water District is 170 gal. per capita per day.
The comparable figure within the area served by the Sweetwater
Authority is 163 gal. per capita per day. Under critical water con-
ditions and assuming a County population of 2,100,000 in 1990 and
the loss of 550,000 acre feet of Colorado River water to Arizona,
85,000 acre feet to Owens Valley, and 64,000 acre feet to Indian
tribes, water availability to residents of Otay Water District
would be 42 gal. per capita per day. The comparable figure for
the Sweetwater Authority service area would be 71 gal. per capita
per day. These reductions amount to 75% and 56%, respectively,
and would obviously affect normal activities.
For comparison purposes, during the 1976-77 drought, residents of
the Marin County area (across Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco)
were limited to 74 gal. per day per person. During that time, many
residents felt as though they were being severely imposed upon.
Because of time constraints, the information in this report has
not been reviewed by either the Otay Water District or the Sweet-
water Authority. Also, staff is not aware of contingency plans or
water allocation plans by those agencies as between industrial and
commercial users and residential users. These matters are being
investigated and will be discussed orally at the March 24 Planning
Commission meeting.
3. Additional staff comments.
a. Many persons have commented on the traffic study portion of the E.I.R.
and staff wishes to underscore a few of the points which have already been made.
The traffic study area was a much larger area than encompassed by EastLake. The
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 Page 6
study assumed development of the EastLake plan and it also assumed certain levels
of development on properties under the ~wnership of United Enterprises and Union
Oil Company. The study then tested the circulation system under two networks so
that the traffic impacts upon the street system outside of EastLake could be
evaluated assuming completion of substantial offsite improvements (Orange Avenue
between 1-805 and the project, Otay Valley Road between 1-805 and the project,
and connection of the Route 125 corridor to the Route 54 freeway --Network 1).
The study also evaluated the impact on the street system which would result from an
incomplete system which did not involve the extension of Orange Avenue east of
1-805, the extension of Otay Valley Road east of 1-805, and the construction of
Route 125 up to Route 54 (Network 2). The study further evaluated the proportion
of traffic load under those two networks which would be attributable to EastLake.
This information is set forth graphically on pages 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the E.I.R.
These pages merit close attention by the Planning Commission. It should also be
noted that one of the assumptions in the traffic model has the effect of substan-
tially underestimating the volume of traffic. That assumption (under Network l)
was that the large holdings of United Enterprises would be developed at a density
of only one dwelling unit for each 4 acres. If the EastLake project is approved,
it is clear that those areas outside of EastLake would also be developed at some
point in time at a density much higher than one unit for each four acres. This
should be born in mind as the Commission considers the traffic impacts which
would result from approval of the EastLake project.
b. Page 11 of the "Complete Staff Report on EastLake . . "indicates the
level of service at selected freeway interchanges and street intersections under
the same land use assumptions as described above. Again, while levels E and F
are highly undesirable, it is clear that levels would be even lower if realistic
densities were assigned to the United Enterprises ownership (Otay Ranch) unless
additional improvements are made to increase capacity.
4. United Enterprises letter of March 10, 1982.
The United Enterprises letter of March 10, 1982 raises three points which will
be discussed in this section.
a. United Enterprises first point expresses their concern over the
possibility of their ownership being "permanently frozen" into an agricultural
designation while surrounding ownerships are being designated for urban development.
From a realistic standpoint, it seems very unlikely to me that the United Enterprises
ownership would be denied the prerogative of developing with some arrangement of
urban uses, either with or without the approval of EastLake. As a practical matter,
if EastLake is approved it is conceivable that development of United Enterprises
property could be delayed simply because the housing produced within the EastLake
development might satisfy virtually all of the demand for housing within the Chula
Vista area. While it might be nice to envision the United Enterprises area, or some
portion of it, as being permanently devoted to agriculture, the City Council has
never indicated that as an objective.
The first point may also embody the concern that if the relatively high
densities embodied in the EastLake plan are approved, lower densities may be
assigned to the United Enterprises property to avoid overloading public facilities.
This concern has some validity and it illustrates the wisdom of studying and preparing
plans for the entire area before approval for development is given to one portion
of the area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 24, 1982 page 7
b. United Enterprises second point contains two elements. The first is
that the temporary pumping of sewage into the Telegraph Canyon basin from areas
in EastLake not tributary to that basin may use so much capacity in the Telegraph
Canyon line that areas owned by United Enterprises which are tributary to Telegraph
Canyon will not be able to utilize that line. This is a legitimate and serious
concern which is addressed in recomnended conditions of approval No. 37, 38 and 39.
These conditions safeguard the interests of United Enterprises.
The second element of the second point expresses concern that any sewage
treatment plant be located wi thin the EastLake development and that it not adversely
affect their ownership. At this point a location for a sewage treatment plans has
not been established. However, such a location and the design of the plans must
first consider logical gravity areas to be served rather than pure land ownership
configurations. If it should be determined that the public interest is best served
by using some portion of United Enterprises land for disposal, then the use of
eminent domain may become necessary.
c. The third point made in Un~ted Enterprises March 10 letter expresses
concern that pumping noises associated with a reservoir to be constructed on their
property in the Proctor Valley area not be detrimental to their property. This is
a small podnt which need not be a part of the Conmission's review at this time. It
will be addressed at the appropriate time.
Status as of 3/15/82
APPROVED UNITS IN SUBDIVISIONS AND/OR SPA'S
PROJECT COMPLETED TOTAL UNITS
Summit Point {Hidden Vista} 0 329 Detached~
640 Condos~ 1,194
225 Apts.
Ladera Villas 0 26 S.F. 26
E1 Rancho del Rey #6 0 370 S.F./Duplex 370
Brightwood Village 0 9 Condos 9
Hudson Valley 0 15 S.F. 15
Charter Point 0 275 Townhouses 275
Pepper Tree 0 15 S.F. 15
Casa del Rey ~\-~ ~ 38 220 S.F. 220
Snug Haven 0 17 Condos 17
Bonita Centre East 0 110 Condos 110
Centre Villas 0 26 Condos 26
Rancho Robinhood #3 ~)~ 68 110 S.F. 110
Bonita Hacienda 0 56 S.F. 56
Las Flores 0 20 S.F. 20
Gateway 0 205 Townhouses 205
Lansdown Villas 0 20 Condos 20
Bonita Long Canyon 0 835 S.F. 835
Villa Contessas - 200 block 'H' 0 18 Condos 18
Hilltop Terrace 0 90 Condos 90
Casa Ciudad 0 38 Condos 38
Telegraph Point 0 256 Condos 256
Santa Angela 0 26 Condos 26
Star/Orange 0 176 Condos 176
Carabella 0 11 Condos 11
Mission Verde 0 102 Condos 102
Bonita Crest 0 60 Condos 60
Woodland Park - Walnut/Main 0 27 S.F. 27
106 4,327 Units
4,327 Units
106 Constructed
4,221 Net Units Available
Attachment 2
WATER OUTLOOK
Although legal water entitlements have not been resorted to in the past,
conceivably in a critical water period*they could be utilized. Legal water
entitlements are based upon an agency's accumulated taxes and special assess-
ments (exclusive of water purchases) relative to the total accumulated taxes
and special assessments for the entire County Water Authority (CWA). On this
basis, Otay Water District has a 1.84 per cent legal entitlement and Sweetwater
Authority has a 7.73 per cent legal entitlement.
CWA's legal entitlement within the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is based
upon the same accumulated taxes principle and is approximately 10 per cent of
the water available to MWD. Historically, CWA has used about 25 per cent because
Los Angeles has not used its full entitlement. The following tabulation summarizes
the water outlook for Chula Vista's two water purveyors based on legal entitlements
and worst year conditions.
1980 Base Year Data
San Diego County Population 1,800,000 178 gal. per day per capita
Otay Water District Population 60,000 170 gal. per day per capita
Sweetwater Authority Population 148,900 163 gal. per day per capita
1980 Population with Worst Year** Conditions
San Diego County
Local water supply 27,000 acre feet
Metropolitan Water District water supply 151,000 acre feet
Total 1 8-T~,O00 acre feet
Per capita - County wide 88 gal. per day
Otay Water District @ 1.84% legal 49 gal. per day
Sweetwater Authority @ 7.73% legal 82 gal. per day
1990 Population with Worst Year** Conditions
Total available water 178,000 acre feet
San Diego County population projection 2,100,000
Otay W.D. population projection 70,000
Sweetwater Auth. population projection 173,700
Per capita - County wide 76 gal. per day
Otay W.D. @ 1.84% legal 42 gal. per day
Sweetwater Auth. @ 7.73% legal 71 gal. per day
*A critical water period is defined as three or more critical water years in
succession. Had the 1976-77 drought extended one more year we would have had
a critical water period. To date, California has had several extended dry
periods, but no critical water period.
**Worst year conditions are the loss of 550,000 acre feet to Arizona, 85,000 acre
feet to Owens Valley, 64,000 acre feet to Indian tribes and a critical water
year.
UNITED ENTERPRISES, INC.
March 10, 1982
Planning Conaaission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: March 10, 1982 Meeting, Agenda Item No. 4
Eastlake Project General Plan Amendment,
Pre-Zone, Candidate CEQA Findings, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Honorable Commissioners:
United Enterprises, Inc. hereby identifies some of its
concerns regarding the above-referenced matters which will be
considered by the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission. This
analysis is by no means exhaustive, in light of the length and
complexity of the issues which are potentially generated by the
proposed project known as Eastlake. Thus, United Enterprises
intends to address its concerns more fully to the City of Chula
Vista City Council.
1. Retention of Acreage Pursuant to Agricultural
and Open Space Land Use Designations.
A potential ramification of the approval of the pending
General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zone, Candidate CEQA Findings, State-
ment of Overriding Considerations, and ultimate Annexation
sanctioned by LAFCO is that:
United Enterprises may be unwarrantedly penalized at some
future date when internal company policy authorizes that develop-
mental land uses should be pursued instead of agricultural and
ranching land uses.
Stated more concisely, as a consequence of the obtaining of
the various governmental approvals for the Eastlake project
referred to hereinabove, substantial pressure may be brought to
bear on the City of Chula Vista to "permanently freeze" the holdings
of United Enterprises into agricultural and open space land use
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
March 10, 1982
Page Two
designations on the theory that the limited inventory of remaining
agriculturally designated acreage should not be converted to
urban or estate land uses.
It must be emphasized, however, that UnSted Enterprise~
does not oppose, in principle, the basic right of a property
owner in a free society to use and enjoy his or her land to the
fullest extent possible consistent with the law. Nonetheless,
United Enterprises will not tolerate the imposition of exces-
sively restrictive and inequitable land use designations and
implementing regulations so as to accommodate extensive neighbor-
ing growth. To impose such restraints on United Enterprises would
manifestly offend fundamental notions of due process and equal
protection of the law. Therefore, United Enterprises urges that
the City of Chula Vista must not set in motion a policy under which
Eastlake will be approved at the expense of sacrificing the future
developmental potential of United Enterprises.
2. Availability and Implementation of Sewer Service.
United Enterprises submits that this project should be
approved on the basis that sewer capacity be allocated proportion-
ately to all potential land use applicants. In addition, assuming
the project applicant is required to provide sewer treatment plant
facilities, it is urged that such facilities, and any wastewater
land use application area associated therewith, be located on the
property of the project applicant. United Enterprises has already
suffered the hardship of having its property condemned in the
Proctor Valley area by the Otay Water District for the purpose of
installing a wastewater land use application area, which wholly
serves off-site development. Frankly, United Enterprises will not
stand idly by and allow its property to be condemned in a similar
manner to accommodate the Eastlake project. Accordingly, United
Enterprises requests that the City of Chula Vista should make
every possible effort to ensure that the proposed sewer treatment
plant facilities and wastewater land use application area are
located on the very property for whose benefit these facilities
and appurtenances will be designed; notably, the Eastlake project.
3. Implementation of Water Service.
The Final Environmental Impact Report refers to a 3-million
gallon reservoir that will be constructed in the near future by
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
March 10, 1982
Page Three
the Otay Water District, which will serve the needs of the
[Eastlake] community north of Telegraph Canyon Road. It should
be noted that the approximately 3-acre site earmarked for the
22-3 Reservoir Project is located on the adjacent property owned
by United Enterprises. The recent acquisition of this site. in-
volved very extensive and aggressive eminent domain and environ-
mental litigation between the Otay Water District and United
Enterprises.
One of the primary concerns of United Enterprises, as well
as the City of Chula Vista in its Cormnents to the 22-3 Reservoir
Construction Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No.
is that this Reservoir Project may cause an unacceptable level of
noise pollution. Hence, if this reservoir project does, indeed,
serve the Eastlake project, then appropriate mitigation measures
must be taken so as to prevent excessive noise caused by the
pumping of water from the 22-3 Reservoir to Eastlake.
In conclusion, United Enterprises respectfully requests that
the Planning Commission carefully evaluate these concerns before
taking decisive action on the Eastlake project.
Very truly yours,
UNITEQ.~NTEP~PRISES, INC.
Rg~e B. Patek
dent
RBP/gg
cc: D. J. Peterson, Planning Director, City of Chula Vista