Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/01/10 Item 04, 4aCITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ,Item N,o. 4 ~ 4a For meeting of ,l/1.0/7R Public hearing (Cont.) - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula ITEM TITLE Vist Woods Resolution 9 6 5 -Approving the tentative map of Chula Vista Woods subdivision SUBMITTED BY Director of Planning 9 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 su lemental a e) rvi~rnr~-n Pp P 9 t1~h1151IJ Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat Notification List Res. PCS-77-5 Other Tent. Map ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on 11(29/77 FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION _ Concur with Planning Commission recommendation regarding the conditions of approval, _ _ o the map. However,_st_aff cannot find that the .public healtf~,.,saf~ty and._welfare,justify the use of the power of eminent_~4main 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 thc' 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. AGENDA ITE~~1 N0.4 4a Meeting of 1_/10/78 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 52 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 ___ . _..___.w __~ __ r _ ------- _ ---- - _ the public health, safety and .welfare, it is app ropriate to utilize the. power of eminent ---- domain tp gain access arid sewer easements to serve the tract. In the instant case, it is AGENDA 'ITEM N0. 4 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 would 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 54 Tentative Map PCS-77-5 Chula Vista, California Dear Mayor Hyde: .. -- ~^ .. .. `, ~T-^ ~.• : - ~:~ . _ _. ..- E7 y C.*~ ti`r z" Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Burce Warner, former Planning Director of the City of Chula Vista, which indicates that around 1962 the city proposed to extend Oxford Street easterly to the boundry of the proposed subdivision. That plan to extend the street was dropped when the city built Greg Rogers Park. And it is essentially because that occured that we need to ask the city's help in using its powers of comdemnation to obtain access across land owned by United Enterprises. Had the Park not been built it is very concievable a subdivision would have been built on the Park site and the street and sewer services needed would be to the boundry of Chula Vista Woods. We recognize that the costs incurred in a comdemnation including payment to United Enterprises for the land-and the costs of the improvement would be our responsibility we accept that responsibility. The owners of the property are elderly. John Lejuwaan has owned one half of the site for 51 years. He is now 76, retired on Social Security and a small pension. He indicated that he has consistantly held the land to help with hes retirement. ~~~ R Nye N ~ ~~ ~ ~~`~ ~L!%cJr/~s REAL ESTATE INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS January 5, 1978 ~ " Mayor Will 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, $AN MARCOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY S. Sh es e ~ P Pr siden JS~/sk EN L. E t ~I(~~ f'~~ ~~~lil~(~ ~~ ~~'~~ ~r January lo, 197 .r. Joan Le,; u,:aa ~~~ 1~~+321 Fer°nbrook ~r~ive -Iust~in. Cal-iforni-: ~2~%~"_+ In reference to your lette,• cf J~nuarv ~, 1~7~ c~~,~c~,,-r~in~: ~,n,r~ propc~~rty adjoinin; ;rep, ;'o~,,ers 'ark., I have rcv~i~~~.;~ ~_ pondence betti-reerr ;.r. ',1arr~c~n and ~'r. k. J. i udso;, e.~~iic~_~.-~ i , : : i property. fir. '',.arren's letter of .iay 3, 172 (,~t, ;~n~l,~sec~j states clearly thi~r departi~~~~nt's o~~inion of tine ~~;~~_r_r~tiUl u;e :rf the E~~roperty. Ns ~ .r. '~!a rren' s 1 etter i ndi cat~~s , t`i i :~ c!c~~z~ rtn~ei~ ~ will be happy to discuss with you, upon rryuest, a~,~ c:cvclnf,:~:cn. plans you have for the property. If you wish to have tire ~;i~_r re consi~t~r E7urchac~ r~; i.!r~ ;~r•~~, ~~~r,, you should correspond di r~c~ tl ~:~ ~~ri tai r~. .John (~r~ ~.~~~ , ~ i ~';' i :u~,~;~1('r~ , as it is the respon~it~~il i!y of his office to cou,luet all n~~~~ut~i,,:Lit~±~~~ for the purchase of property. 'J'ery truly yours, ~~orman u. ',~:illiar~s i',ctiny Director of Plannin_ iJ;~'.; : hm enclosure cc: Ci t,~ ; tanager ~ _` ~,. • ; E h ~' i t ~fl ~ •. r j ~r r ~ r ~ i ;;i; J ~~, i ~~;"~ ~1`. ;'. ,1. i.;... ;t~ii i:itt,1 ;t '~ i sta. ~:i•:~i i ; orni ~,, !~:i)1 U t:Cai• i.r'. IiuG~Qtr: 0111` C.Z .`~.~ I ,.:7ic:C){'r ! .1'• ~~0!:il ]~{IC)i j1' ? 1 .f- ~ ~ e i ~ r'. ,or , i<<.s rt:l~rrc:ci tv Ic, your lc.it r dat~cl i~~" ~' ]~%~~, ifi I:i;iCl1 y/Qt! 1;iittl:l`i2 ;l`_,OU% ti7C Stili,US OC Or0~)Crty ;1Cijilctint to ~ ,, . ~rl~~~ ill);4 ~~rJ 7 ~}~{. ~:i ~ilt~]Li ,~,f~i 1.11• i;s you havl~ ir)c,icatt:J in your le~i;t~.:r, the Chula ~'i>t,:l Cierr~ral Man c;clincatc:s 11 IIU;`t1011 UT ~;; i 5 ~ ~ .4C1 as U!)C;il 5"i~ C,'i: y ui1J 1 S 1)ar~ Of a ] arrcr ~ (ilrl t0 rt. tl l n rlucii c)f a lar~3~r ctl,~~,~cr7 to ih:: south ~Ir;~.l ('i1`.;t. :f this rrcnc)^t,~ is to rc::?aitt i:? i?n t?y`'?I1 Sj1:1C^. t.'.'`~' ?:.lr`; : t :.:,tl] t! Ifi: ~~E'.CE'.; ~•lr`! TC)r ':llr` 1.1 i:~~ ri {;iil~l ii .71.E Trd t:0 Cai i•u Il'.;t:~l~i i)tit, ui ~:.., LI171;tr_. ~]) i;p i)UrCiI~1;C cZ{)~)rUX11~atUly ~/.S Of su:~,j^Ct 11::., i'itiC~l 1:; iZrl~:~a)^ily ~i,li~' SOULfI:::'St c{laartur, Ur ~c.'~ t0 c?~!j)r(l'Jt; r~ldrln:!c~ U(11t Uevt~1 vt~~ :arlt i'or tits: si Lc::, t.}i ch twu~i ~ r~s,l .lit thr_~ 11}rl;!al:ncr to achi evv a reasoii- av7c: ii~n57%y arui ~:o cltciic:.tc: the cartti~rtl area Lo t!)o City. Tt sl~toulct L•e i;narrl to the liznclo~.ft,er tf,a;; the I;r(,~,~rty is virtually undt:veloi7- a~) i cy tly i tsel f re~arcll ess of Irllctiler or not tir;: City loci cis to acquire a ~;i)1^1ri0t1 U1' 1L'. TIiC ri:;?S071S fc)r rtv n~,ir~ipn ~r;~ 45• {071011x: 1. T1}e {rrol)erty is 1an~lot:i;e~i a,u~ c!I:~re~ is no str~~et access to it and, based on tti;~ Lest info»:~aticn that -~e h;1ve at the ~rc~s~:•nt; ti7~e, it is• unli{:cly that strcat- r~cct:ss 1:i11 be i)rovidect in tllc ne~~r fu;.r.t-o. h~ra;;ir.tately ten years Fi~'S), _{; ::fi)1't, tttC City acc~tli r~t1 tfit~ ;f711t1r f. "ll f ~{' (=1~t:•7* Rp J:11-r ~c~r ; ~ 1 ~ ! •;~,~, nr0•• po:r.a_to cxt4il~ Oxfor^ 5;,r,~~i: ,";~ast~?r1~ tC~ tii~. i);yu-ttiary of yoor clii:nt's "_ ..._.__ w ~,:rty. -1•it:St'`(>l~a;ls -::: :. aual;clc );:~ ~t:li ~i: ~ s ~)c c, ;;ioiial-~r;.•f~'rci' i ~.-~s~Lac- qu; re:~ , td it~ is na Tor;c~t:r posslt, i1 0 ~:~~rv~ :•cutVci ieti~'s p~c,)er`ty`ft'~rr '~ ._. _ L. Ttl~ n;)r:.;r~r]y port~i,,ll Oi your t_l i ~"}t' ~ nr><,;~;:rt~~ i s cnvur`ecl ,y tl;o case- i.lc::}}mss iar ,~: .~r 1i71e. ~~~r Llte ~~rl i ~~~c) t~„ s :; i_1~~ct- ~c (:c•i,i;)a;)y. These c.~asc- 7~t~:rlL:a f7r4 r)i~ ~ v;:,.)J:. (, 4 1. ~7 ln:l~t~] •ll),.~~... 1. { Or 1'~' i 1 ~ _:~i b 1 t11 U~ll• f ~ ~. ~ ^~ a .1 , .i t• i e• i. ~. Tupor,ru, ,li c,.ll ly th.. ,,uutttti.~ 4 qu4rti:r or tliri pro;~crty i s tulsui tail e for ~::Vc1C)(?;l;_11t, F:il(1 I UQli~;t ~;;it~ a {%1i.ii1 1"Ur (j:'VL']C~`;"i?ilt Z:{i~1t lroUlt~ 111v0]VV ti1C grl~ui rlc~ :luci:sssary uvu~l c1 i:~:: ai)provi?ci t,y vur Ci ~i:y Cou.nci 1. 1; ~'_ J ~'!'. '!. •.~ '~ ~ 1 v + ~ ,r, 1,, J . f -uclsoll '- RECD JAN - ~ 197$ 11ay ~, 1972 ~!i i:h all of th!~ .c con;icl~:~raticn:; ill rl~ 11,j it ~is tlncicr~t~Tndable to me that the Cit;/ Cc;u(tcil c;`c;tin;T:1 to rtcauire ii::~ l~ru~)~rty xc~r ~'.'.),O:%U.t11). I gill 1)c Ilal)pY i;o cli sc:u ;s Sri tl- , ou, u~,~~ll rc:iu~:.~st, au~.~ (l~:vcl ~;). ,can t 1)1,+ns yc,u !lave fcr the 1', i':t!C'1'i:~,/ U1' l;'j l l d'ISCIC:;S lillfl L'i1C l.'It;,' ,,.ll~u(?(:1', i i y(1U c'~S'lr'`, v CGI1S1C1C:rably i<r,;Lr ac:~ui ~;i tic>IT ~~ri c.~~, . w~LrJ~ truly ~'OCIT•.ri, UirC=C:i.C)r tTf hliltiCCltl~ k~It:1;15 ' , ,; ..