HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/01/10 Item 04, 04ACITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 4, 4a
For meeting of .1/10/7R
Public hearing (Cont.) - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula
ITEM TITLE Vist Woods
Resolutio~96S -Approving the tentative map of Chula Vista Woods subdivision
SUBMITTED BV Director of Planning (~~
~"'
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES_ NOX )
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
Distrfict 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
South County R-1
East R-1-H
West R-1
Uacan t
Vacant
Vacant
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 ~` rn.T~ (Continued on supplemental page)
cnnlbli~
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 approvaT_
of _tihe~ ma~_ However, ,staff cannot fihd that th~_public health._safaty and welfare justify
thelu e of,the power of eminent ~4man 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 tho 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
Approval of resolution.
;•Iotion for exercise of power of
A resolution to be brought back
20. 1977
eminent domain - street and sewer line.
setting the hearing.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 4a
Meeting of 1/10/78
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 ITEM NO.q 4a
Meeting of 1 /1 Of 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 1z 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 Tf Council determines that the development of the tract is in the interest of
thepu~lic health, safety and welfare, it_is appropriate 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. 4 4a
Meeting of 1/10/78
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.
~± r;
SAN MARCOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
1140 UNION ST., SUITE 211
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
233 X204
LICENSE # 252633
January 5, 1978
~-„
~~ ~_
Mayor Will T. Hyde ~~- ~. ~ ,
City of Chula Vista ''"`-
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010 ~ `I'
G.:. _
RE: CHULA VISTA WOODS ~'_ '_
Lots 1 thru 54 _ "''
Tentative Map PCS-77-5 n°` `'''
Chula Vista, California ~riv
Dear Mayor Hyde:
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 boundFy 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.
~~ ; ~ ~t~ /l,JR A/ 9 G-F.N
IJ~ y Nq/~ N (f
~u~/;c ~LlJor/~s
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS
January 5, 1978
Mayor Will T. Hyde
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,
$AN MARCOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Pr~siden
esp
Page 2
JS~/sk
EN L.
f
' i ~ 7~
;'=~,` ~ RECD ,TAN - ~ 1,3 v
~7~.. ,... ~ -- :. ,,,
January 1u, 137
..r. Join Le;u,:aan
14321 Fernorook Drive
Tustin. California: 326%~0
.._:~r ..r. Leju~iaa ~:
~~~~~~ ~'~ ~~~~~~~~1 ~~ ~~~~~~
In reference to,yc~ir 1^ttei~ c. J,,nuar~~ s, 173 c~,~~.~~~i~in, ~~n~~r•
property adjoining Grey; "o~;ers Park, I have rev~ic,:~~~ ~_~.
pondence bet~reen :.r. ',larren and •'.r. k. J. Hudso~~ ~,~nccrnin_; ~i~~.
property. fSr. barren's letter of :.ay 3, 1'372 (a, ~! cncl~~sed)
states clearly this aeparti°ent's oE~inion of the ~~<~L~_:~iLial use of
the property. A; I'~r. ',Jarecn's letter indicates, Lhis dci~~mlment
will be happy to discuss r~ith you, upon request, <<.! cevelup~~~cn',.
plans you have for the property.
If you t~~ish to have the Ji ~; re consi ;er purchase of t.!ie ~_,,, ~~rL,
you should cormsnond d~i~cc'.1~~ ;~itli r. John Tiro .cn, [iL~, ~.~u~r!~~r.
as it is the responsibility of his office to con:;uct all ne~;uti,~Liun°.
for the purchase of property.
`Jery truly yours,
~iorman G. l;illiaris
f!ctiny Director of Planning
ii3'r; : hia
Enclosure
cc: Cit~i ,lanager
it
~~t,
;'~ .1. LL ' ;Oii
i,itU12 ~r15L'ar l.~;I1S01'nlil, e.'O1{)
lii.';lir i,r, IiUG:;Oh:
(,ur Cite 1';u;aacr, 1'.r. Joi.n 1'h:;nson, bas r(i~~rreci to Ile your let~er dated
l~.l!~ ly 1. J~'y 'i 71 l(i;l C!) )BU llKjtli l'i' a~Dllt t11C :.til~US Oi' (irOitL'rty 1dJilCi:nt t0
t.r~"~{ !:it(;C1'S t'al'l: 1!t (.liUla ~"ISi:a.
P;s you havh irnlicatc:d in your lett~.~r, the Cinila l'ist' General Ilan delineates
a tif.:;`t10i1 UT this SItE' aS UDC:II 5^BCey and iS part Of d larc;cr f~illl tU rftdin
i'dU(:~; of 1 ldl'~^r CiIY~,ICI! tC L11C SOII III i)(lll ('ilSt• If 11115 prG(1C1'1. ~~ 15 tC rC: '.alll
7^ i?n Ci"n Sjt"1C^. C:".'_'?OrS' :t l.~illlf: hit !tCCE'.C:SrY T01' ':ni_' i.l~'\~ C{ ~.iiUlii S~15Cd t0
ui; +.i: I(t:c:t i)Ifu .,. t..utni,;yc. jl) io purci!ase apprctxil~atoly 1/$ of suL,jcct
sig.,, ;llic:n is (trir.:ariiy ti:,.~ southi:.,t quarter, or (<:) to e,pprc;vll i)lann::d Uoit
Uev:~lo~~!:ent i'~1' tlte: sire, 3:aich mould ns!rsait the lan.!orner to achieve areason-
aiale density and to dedicate; the calil~E) n area to the City.
It ~linuld Le I;no~rn to the lando~.n,er that tiic pro,^rty is virtually undevclop-
aL7~~ by itself re~ardlcss of 1;hetucr or not the: City decides to acquire a
portion er it, Tile rci!scr,ls for rv mtiniol'. a!'~ as follo'~:s:
1. The proparty is landloci;ed and i;!I:~re is no street access to it and, based
on tl;e Lest infots:,aticn that ue havs_>. at the present tine, it is- unlihcly that
street- access hill be {)rovidea in she near futura. N~lro;:ii,lately ten vears_
'rs ,-heful•l, Lhc City aC~Ulrl:d th(' ;until I. Ilf of l:rci„ RUrr~r°-far'.:_e it ' ~'s ,ern-
t-o~(.d to ~a[e(iJ Oi;for.^, S r~l~t c.ascirly tc the bnunil4ry of ,oar cliE.n*'s
~r ei~~~. -'1i~a lei] ~)s dal c,c trt~ T,,i ~i!ls a~7utatonal-p~rl.lartu :~as~ac-
----~---~, .,-.r- ..
qu 1 c• , {ld it~ is no`Tongr.r poste .a ~o .~.~:rve your client's pFc,ter`ty fi~rr
Wx, ul'i1 ;arc:; ;,~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .. _ ___ . -
~. lily lli)rl.~P. rly portion Ri yCUY' C11'J.nt~S RYOJ!21'tV i$ CCVi'1'Cd ay 1110 CaSf.-
i.iiA`.~`,.`i i:Jr 7) ..'. 1' liI1C5 iUi' Lhf: .ria:i 1 ". ~~(t i~,is L1CCtl'IC Co•:;, aay. These Ca5C'
1'^_ISCS it 1'i: ^('. l:,jLC:: ~~U i.,i :~D1 Q(7,.!.:.t i'Or i'. :`i~ _.. i:i al U,l. ~ //
:;. 7opoc,ra;;lic:.ily thi::;outiilrest qual•t~:r of tl;:r pro;erty is ~uisuitablc for
d::Vi:10(ti):alty dill 1 CICIi:)t tllilt a I`liili iUr d:'VC1Ci`'i?Tlt cleat IlOUId i11v01Vt? t11C
grading ni:assary vcu7d i~:: approved l:y uur Ci~iy Counci•1.
~ f
,;
,;:
REC'0 JAN - ~ 197$
. ,_ flay Q, 1972
,r, lt. J. Hudson '
;!ith all of these consicl^ration:; in t;;n a it is undcrstand~i,le to
^~) OOU.t;O, I
..
'.or
•L me that the
vi11 be haPPY
Cicy Cou,icil ~;::c;iin;l to acquire ii;u I~r
~ ,,
. ,
y
upw
:valu,,nc,tL• plans yuu have fcr the
d
to discuss ti;ith you. ui:nn
• request, am.
;
iih Lha C~it ~
,Iur.atlt:r, i. yeu ~^sire, a ccnsiderably
iscu:,s
{n-::pct°i:y ur mil u ,
u
io~•rcr ac:,uisition price.
Very truly ;ours,
Uireccor of flannin~
hip I:ls
cc: City :':ana,~r.r