HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/01/03 Item 04,aCITY OF CHULA VISTA
' COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ,Item No. 4 ~ 4a
For meeting of ,1/1.0/7R
Public hearing (Cori t.) -Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula
ITEM TITLE Vist Woods
Resolution g 6 5 -Approving the tentative map of Chula Vista Woods subdivision
SUBMITTED BY Director of Planning ~---~
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X )
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map to divide 20 acres into
54 single family residential lots and one open space lot. The property is located 400
feet west of Brandywine Avenue and 1300 feet south of Telegraph Canyon Road in the R-1-H
zone (single family residential, 7,000 sq. ft. lot size, with the Hillside Modifying
District attached).
2. The Environmental Impact Report, EIR-78-3, related to this project was certified
by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1977 and forwarded to the City Council on
November 29, 1977.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North County R-1 Vacant
South County R-1 Vacant
East R-1-H Vacant
West R-1 Greg Rogers Park
2. Existing site characteristics.
The site is a 20 acre vacant, landlocked property located approximately 400 feet west
of Brandywine Avenue and directly east of Greg Rogers Park. A portion of the SDG&E ease-
ment cuts across the northwestern corner of the property. The site consists of three
small canyons on the south with relatively broad ridges in between. The difference in
elevation ranges from 275 feet to nearly 350 feet.
KGL:hm (Continued on supplemental page)
r\/ t I T T1 T Tf~
t1~f11 IS 1 t J
Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat Notification List
Res. PCS-77-5
Other Tent. Map ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on 11f29/77
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
_ Concur with Planning Commission recommendation regarding ,the conditions of approva l
of the map __ However, _ st__aff_ cannot find that the _publ i c heal th<i. safety and_ wel fare ,justify
the use of the power of eminent ~Qmain in this case. Accordingly, staff recommends with-
holding the use of this power.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On November 23, 1977 the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (with two members absent) to
recommend to the City Council the approval of the tentative map for Chula Vista Woods
subdivision subject to the conditions enumerated in Resolution PCS-77-5.
COUNCIL ACTION
Continued from the meeting of December 20, 1977
Approval of resolution.
Motion for exercise of power of eminent domain - street and sewer line.
A resolution to be brought back setting the hearing.
AGENDA .ITEM N0. 4 4a
Meeting of 1/0/78
Supplemental page No. 3
not clear to staff that the use of the power of eminent domain is justified. Points
bearing upon this case are:
a. The right of way to be condemned would not be for the purpose of
connecting two developing areas or improving the safety of vehicular
circulation.
b. The owner of the intervening property strongly opposes the condemnation.
c. The subject property is relatively isolated, with Greg Rogers Park on one
side and the other three sides vacant.
d. United Enterprises (the intervening property owner) avows that they have no
plans to develop their property or to sell to a developer. Thus, if the
subdivision is approved, it probably will remain relatively isolated for some
time.
e. Construction of the tract would contribute to the supply of housing in
Chula Vista.
f. It seems to staff that construction of the connecting roadway and offsite
sewer and drainage facilities would not severely limit the ability of United
Enterprises to farm the land, although construction of the tract and the in-
troduction of 200 persons into the area probably would have an adverse
effect.
g. The land is zoned for residential development and is shown on the General
Plan as Residential, 4-12 DU/acre.
h. The applicant feels that the city is partially responsible for the fact that
his property is landlocked. This feeling is based upon the construction of
Greg Rogers Park by the city, which blocked the eastward extension of tract
development from I-805.
C. CONCLUSION
Staff and the Planning Commission have evaluated the tentative map and formulated appro-
priate conditions of approval so that Council can favorably act on the item, However,
there is some question that the public health, safety and welfare require the exercise
of the city's power of eminent domain to provide access and sewer service to the tract.
Unfortunately, the public health, safety and welfare is a vague standard by which to
judge a particular development proposal, All things considered, however, it is staff's
judgment that the relative isolation of the tract, the fact that it is not in the path
of urbanization, and the likelihood that the tract would remain as a single pocket of
development for some time argue against the use of the city's power of eminent domain.
AGEN~OA ITEM N0.4 4a
Meeting of 1 /l 0/78
Supplemental page No. 2
3. Hillside Modifying District.
The property has been placed in the Hillside Modifying District and therefore is
subject to the provisions of that district. The tract has an average natural slope of
13.4% and under the H Modifying District 5z acres must be left ungraded and the maximum
density is 3.35 DU/acre, or 62 dwelling units if the 12 acres under the SDG&E easement
is excluded. The tentative map leaves 6.15 acres ungraded and includes only 54 residen-
tial lots, so the development is well within the limits of the H Modifying District.
4. Tentative subdivision map.
The developer intends to divide the 20 acres into 54 residential lots with an
average lot size of 7,945 sq. ft., and one 7 acre open space lot, of which 6.15 acres
will be natural. The development will be served via a street which must cross an
adjacent parcel and extend easterly to Brandywine Avenue. The owner of the adjoining
property has indicated an objection to the development of this site and, consequently,
will not grant this owner access rights from Brandywine Avenue. It, therefore, appears
that the subdivision cannot proceed unless Council agrees to utilize its power of eminent
domain.
In addition to the connection to Brandywine Avenue, there will be three other streets,
two of which will terminate in cul-de-sacs and a third which will eventually extend to
East Naples Street when the property to the north is developed. A street reservation at
the end of the most easterly cul-de-sac has been provided in case the street needs to be
extended in the future. A pedestrian path is proposed across the SDG&E easement to
provide pedestrian access to the elementary school and the park.
5. Sewers.
The proposed outfall sewer will connect with the sewer located at East Palomar Street
and Oleander Avenue. A portion of the sewer will extend across city owned land, however,
the majority will be located on land owned by United Enterprises, Inc., which will
require either an approved easement or condemnation by the City under eminent domain.
Approval of the final map will be contingent upon both access and sewer rights being
obtained.
6. Development timing.
While the subject property is zoned for single family construction and is located
within the city limits there is a substantial question as to whether or not this develop-
ment is premature. Points which argue that the proposed development is premature are:
a. The site has no direct access to a public street without the use of the
City's condemnation powers. The owner of the property which would have
to be condemned in order to give access to the property vigorously opposes
the development as inimical to his agricultural operation.
b. The site cannot be served by a gravity sewer system without the use of the
City's condemnation powers.
c. Access for fire, police and schools is rather limited at this time with
Chula Vista Community Hospital the only other development located off
Brandywine Avenue.
d. The site is surrounded on three sides by vacant land held under the owner-
ship of United Enterprises, who have expressed no interest in developing
their land for an indefinite period. The adjoining property has been
leased in the past for agricultural purposes, however, encroaching urban-
ization will likely diminish that possibility.
The argument in favor of development is that the site is zoned for residential develop-
ment and the necessary services for this subdivision can be obtained through certain
procedures available to the City.
7. Use of eminent domain.
Use of the power of eminent domain must be based on the public health, safety and
welfare. ~If Council determines that the development of the tract is in the interest of
.-
the public health, safety and welfare, t~is a~~ropria~e to utilize the power of eminent
domain tp gain access and sewer easements to serve the tract. In the instant case, it is
AGENDA 'ITEM N0. ~ 4a
Meeting of 1/10/7B
Supplemental page No. 3
not clear to staff that the use of the power of eminent domain is justified. Points
bearing upon this case are:
a. The right of way to be condemned would not be for the purpose of
connecting two developing areas or improving the safety of vehicular
circulation.
b. The owner of the intervening property strongly opposes the condemnation.
c. The subject property is relatively isolated, with Greg Rogers Park on one
side and the other three sides vacant.
d. United Enterprises (the intervening property owner) avows that they have no
plans to develop their property or to sell to a developer. Thus, if the
subdivision is approved, it probably will remain relatively isolated for some
time.
e. Construction of the tract would contribute to the supply of housing in
Chula Vista.
f. It seems to staff that construction of the connecting roadway and offsite
sewer and drainage facilities would not severely limit the ability of United
Enterprises to farm the land, although construction of the tract and the in-
troduction of 200± persons into the area probably would have an adverse
effect.
g. The land is zoned for residential development and is shown on the General
Plan as Residential, 4-12 DU/acre.
h. The applicant feels that the city is partially responsible for the fact that
his property is landlocked. This feeling is based upon the construction of
Greg Rogers Park by the city, which blocked the eastward extension of tract
development from I-805.
C. CONCLUSION
Staff and the Planning Commission have evaluated the tentative map and formulated appro-
priate conditions of approval so that Council can favorably act on the item. However,
there is some question that the public health, safety and welfare require the exercise
of the city's power of eminent domain to provide access and sewer service to the tract.
Unfortunately, the public health, safety and welfare is a vague standard by which to
judge a particular development proposal, All things considered, however, it is staff's
judgment that the relative isolation of the tract, the fact that it is not in the path
of urbanization, and the likelihood that the tract ~vould remain as a single pocket of
development for some time argue against the use of the city's power of eminent domain.
~"
SAN MARCOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
1140 UNION ST.. SUITE 211
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
233-7204
LICENSE # 252633
January 5, 1978
Mayor Will T. Hyde
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
RE: CHULA VISTA WOODS
Lots 1 thru 54PCS-77-5
Tentative Map
Chula Vista, California
Dear Mayor Hyde:
-,
'., ~,,.
.. ~-
C"~ ~
c~
4:• _~
E^µ ..~
c~:.; ~-
~~.~
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Burce Warner, former
Planning Director of the City osedhtoaextend~Oxford Stdreettes
that around 1962 the city prop
easterly to the boundry of the proposed subdivision.
lan to extend the street was dropped when the city
That p
built Greg Rogers Park.
And it is essentially because that occured that we need to
Is help in using its powers of condemnation to
ask the city United Enterprises.
obtain access across land owned by
Had the Park not been built it is very concievable a subdivision
would have been built on thebea~0 theeboundryeoftChulaaVdista
sewer services needed would
Woods.
We recognize that the noted Enterprdises forothemland~and
including payment to U
the costs of the improvemii~ would be our responsibility
we accept that responsib Y
The owners of the property are elderly. John Lejuwaan has
owned one half of the site for 51 yeons' Heeindicated6thattheed
on Social Security and a small pens
has consistantly held the land to help with hes retirement.
~A u q wF.~
~~~Ny~_N l>'
~~ /_ 1 ~,c ~(/Or/1 S
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS
January 5, 1978
Mayor 4Ji11 T. Hyde Page 2
We suggest that Chula Vista Woods is a good project. A
project that would be an asset to both the city and the
Homebuyer.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
SAN MARCOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~ ~ cam
S. Sh espe e
Pr siden
JS~/sk
EN L.
~EC'D ,~A~'- ~~ 1~7~?
,r,
_ljr,f,
January lo, 1973
1~"+321 fe~~nbrook '~riv~~
Tustin, Californi-: 926^"~~
~~r;.r ,,r. Leju~iaa~~:
In reference to your l~ttF`r cf Januar~.~ 3, 1975 r'~''~ `'` 1'i11'~ 1,,, 11,
property adjoi~nin`J,rar~'arl~e(Ileandra',rk ~ 1~I k~ave,:udsol rr~,'n~"1'ni ., i
pondence bettil..en ~ ~,-t, ~, cn~~1~~ c. c.)
I otter of .'.ay 3, 1 ~7~ t ,~f
property. fir. '.;arren's ~ , is IiLial 11 ,;,
states clearly thi; depar~tl~'ent's oE,inion ~.f t'.~c~ ~ ~~ ~_
,• , ~`,i; c+ct~~rLn~r_Ilt
the property. Eas i',r. '~!arl~~en s letter inc,~cat_~s,
to discuss t~rith you, upon re,,uesi , ~~~~~~ c,c'v~~lrli•~ ~en-,.
will be happy
plans you have 'for the proper, .
~ ,, ~,y ',
reconsi per purch~~< <~~ ~ ~.~ 1
If you wish to have the C i ~'~ - ~ ~,~ r i ~ ' ~ ,u~~~:~!~'1,
you should correspond dihe~tl~~ ;rit.. r'. ,Joan [ ~
of his ~,ffice to cu,.~:~1~~, ull li~~~~uti~~l.i~~lr,
as it is the respon,ibility
for the purchase of proper'~y.
y~e1y truly yours,
iorman u. '~illiams
';cti ny ~i rector of Pl anni nJ
enclosure
~~ : City ,lanayer
:--~- ?ft`f; Fitt{t} ~
Y
~~« b F ~+ i l ~ k3:3µ
a ~ .~.. _.. __ - - ...
.. • ~ •
<m
~ ~ .
1 ~~ '
.1 ~' ,..~ . •.
. j, i., .~;(~ti
,',•, ..
r~ L~:.., ,, ,.,~.;1.~:r
.at
,1 r(i 'T;: i r:y;;vc...tt~:- _ 1`~;Ol U
C;lltl ;; `~ i stia. ~;i:-i i ; or~ni a, .,
rt:; ~rr:~u i.o t to
Cut' Ci-~~,i i'.tl;tci~ar', (`.r•. Jo?:;) 711;;1 }sot., («.s
!{~,r (, 1 ; ~~?, 't tl 1:ii1 C11 1~t::1 i Iiiltll r'i_ :]`..Oll t ti1C Sl;il Ll,tri U t
t ~. a •
l~ ~~~~
your lef ccr date
(11'0~}crty :ldji]C:int to
l,r.,,i `'1,;`rs ~ ar(; 1t1• l,ltu ~, ~ at .+
ILL C
tl)c Ciltrl a ~`i >t,:r (;er,t'ral (1 an c~cl i nc i=
..... y ~ c cr (1 i-n to re-tai n
-• ,i in your le;a~.~r,
,-•r- atr:1 i, (,are 01 a 1ar,' ~ is to rc:~zill
~s you havt~ i tx.1 ca ~t: V,rc;pcrt ;
1 f tni s
t1 t1C'~:`t1C)il Uf ~!l i 5 S1..C'. a;; C11~C:r1 SUIt?:Ily i7rll`! t'i]St• + , ,. t, (.~( 4„(!ll•{ ii : 15 Ld t0
~/ 1'tlr ..11i.. 1.1 :.
i,IUC;Ii Uf 1 llrt~~1" Ci]i]`~Ctt t0 L:l::
•..~.;,r'' ',.;,tilt! (;:": ~-CCE'.S"Z1"• y V i of SU~~J~Ct
iii i?Il (?j`''-ll ~(~:1C^. L„~:~ ;~ r :t } '
1 io purc~la,+~ z,;,trcr~xir~at~~~,)rc~t: Plann~;d Unlit
... r ' , ~ i L'tl iit~::• : ~ 1 +• ~ UI• ~c.~ t0 t,;•l
;:o ~~;. li'.1_,~ t)t~l~: U. ~... y t.,,, souLll~,:~.:;t y-tar~i.r,
;, ; llicir is ~rir.:aril - ~ „~,r~.;it the lanc!ol:ncr to ~,t:hicvc a rea,on-
~i " : , ~- 11i cil 1iUU ~ U
Ucvc-lo~~;:~.~r]t nor t}tt: sir..:.
a;Jl ` d~,nsi ~y altcl to eii:eii c:~t~: tV]e eiTtt~+c;lt area to the ~Ci tY • tual l uncll:vel o(t-
decic(~s to acquire a
!-,oulcl to I:nm;t) to tho llntlo~.rr;or ^toryt)a~etl rctGtyy 1s v r Y
It~.+ v itself rerartlless of 1•hc.tvo~,;t,;f.-, ~,-~ ~J. {C11o;;S:
„ •~s to it anc1, ase
c1i, l c.. l~, .
(;i)1•t:inn U1' lt. ~itE ri:i! (-t15 fnr c'
~ ~ c~ is t]o StrC.i.t aCCc... ltnli4:cly that
v i s l anal oci;ed an~1 t.l~.r '.-1 ~ ,x,,11 fi tine, i t i s•
1 • The !)ro,z~rt, tern ~ - `'
bust ir)fon.-ation that rtu helve at t,~ru i'r`...,, tin ro:;it;atel, Para
on tl;;. ,, id~~d in tlt,c nc~~r fu,,trr:.. ,~~~,s i~r~-
izC:Ct:SS 1:111 f',4 ()rt)v ;f-tttil 1~"llf !~~ t•1'c:-~ ~Or~'•?'~' -ar •..c 1L •`
Sti'l:Ct rCd~t4)i' o;lr' C11 ~'~S _-_. .._____
(,;,filr•,~ the City acc~ui __-- .. ~" tt.~ 1;1i~- (t:~utt~tat'y ofi ,~ one _.
<,~,i): - Oxfort~ Str.:i~i: ,;~as;; r"l~ -"~,:.-l~'d%:is ac- --
po;cci to c~,ti^rr.1 _ ;t~ ic.i~ ~t:ti sir ~ s Tut Ltot]al P ,ere ft"~_- -
----x---~ ~ , . . .
Iro~;.r~Y. JTi~%~t'_1>]~,~]s ]r: ~. al)al c _ cur ,cl tent's. P~(• y.
,:,.rv~
qu;r~""~"E:3;~-SEId iL is na Toni_~t:r pnssl.,;~. ~o - tl,o case-
u~~ut`~ :~;,r~_c- ;:t „tt~ ~. nrol!::rty ~ s cnvc~r•cd 'iiy
or; loll ~F your t:1 i ~~. These ea~er_
T~t~ ;t~rl~ 7 _~~~c, t' ~lc_ctr is 1
L• the `~~ `:
, 1~'f• f~, 1~'. .ter l1l)L : I ~.~r JL.:- ~ ~-.~1 -
r ,~c,l ~ for ,,~. -~,~ ,;,;~i
;.lia.~~ ~ , , 1,,.....L use s tn;uitat)le for
} - f~~~•j::c~~ •~~ c„ ~ )ro~ erty tllc
l~,j_i'iLJ aru nl~ ~ ,~~ ,<~~- qu4r~.;:r of t-;~~ ( 1, 1 ~
U. To;1or,ra;~lr•i call y t(l,: ;;ilutl,lii.~ ~ ,,...,.~
1 `ittlt a (~l ,c] fur d:.v~lc,,. ant that ~rould invo vt.
t
dt:v~:lo{,~~,:at, alld 1 ciet;"t ~ ottr Ci~cy Counci• .
yratiing rr~c~:ssary ].oultl 1~~ a()pr-ovi'.d t:.,•
,;
,; ~~ _ _.
- ~ ~ -
,,~ , a~
.,,~ ~ r
.
;'~ AN `~ 191$
~E~'~ .)
11ay n, 1972
~_
,r, 1t. J . 1tuc~aoll the
rtwldable to 11~e that
~ I ~~i 11 tic ha{spy
i t ~i , tltxi~.r.. ,r
ation:; i11 t}',11:5 r -;clr ;,,,,~ t~CU.(„ . fGr the
., .
r,~c~ cQ1l,ict~~-r i,l;:~ 1~ru1'u~'`'' ,. ~1~In~ y~,u i11VCCG1157:iC:ra~~y
s
„i }.h all ofi tit •. _ t to <ta(ui rc.
,ct 1111`: n
hlty Gaur;~il 1;:'r..lilt .: i,c~1i rc,til~..~ ~ c,1:1', i t you
it )'uus U' ~11Li1 1;i1G L.'{L.i ~'~JI:J,,
t;,'
,'ii':;!C'1'L~r Ui'~,` ~iG11 ~~r~
~c,~,:.:r a~;tui ,,i
~; urn' tall }~ ,~ cwr~
pire~:C.tlr o~f PI'
t',i.'.1:1 s
cc ~ Li ty ;'.an~.~t:r
,;