HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1973/01/09 Item 10AGENDA ITEM NO o [ ~?~
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: January 9, 1973
TTRM TTTT.F
IPdITIATED BY:
Rnr.ur,Rrnmrn~
Request for Determination of Applicability of the Change
in the General Plan to Larkhaven Subdivision Unit No. 2
City Attorney
On the 27th day of July, 1971, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 6140 which established a policy which required, in essence, a
letter of approval from the school districts prior to the adoption
of subdivision maps indicating the adequacy of school facilities
to serve the particular development.
As this office indicated repeatedly, the policy had no basis in
law and would be subject to attack. Therefore, on December 5,
1972, the Council adopted an urgency amendment to the General Plan
by Resolution No. 6671, which would necessitate essentially the
same requirements as the policy adopted by Resolution No. 6140 by
reliance upon state law, which demands compliance in conformity
with the General Plan of the City.
Fortunately or unfortunately, many subdivision projects which were
then in process had been refused issuance of building permits based
upon the decision in the Friends of P~ammoth case. Some of the sub-
division projects had had subdivision maps approved prior to the
original adoption of Resolution No. 6140 and the staff, after
consultation administratively, exempted those subdivisions from
the application of the urgency amendment of the General Plan pur-
suant to Resolution No. 6671.
However, there were other subdivisions which had final subdivision
maps subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 6140 and whose
building permits were being upheld as a result of the Friends of
b2ammoth decision who are now applying for tYiose building permits
in accordance with our new procedures on environmental impact
reports and have satisfied all elements except resolution of the
school fee problems.
(Continued)
ATTACHED: Resolution [ ]
Financial Statement : t1/A
Commission-Board Recommendation:
Department Head Recommendation:
City Manager Recommendation:
Ordinance [ ]
N/A
Agreement [ ] Plat [ ]
See EXHIBITS [ ] No,
Without information on the specifics of the developer's request to be provided
at the time of the Council meeting, staff defers its recommendation. Justifi-
cation of the dollar rates demanded by the School Districts is a key issue.
The School Districts should be able to substantiate their positions before
Council.
Item No. 10
Page Two
The specific subdivision in question is Larkhaven Subdivision Unit
No. 2. In this case, the subdivider has been unable to work out
a satisfactory arrangement with the school districts and we have
withheld the issuance of building permits.
We have advised the subdivider to come before the Council in an
effort to resolve this problem so that the project might move
ahead in an orderly manner. It is my understanding that the sub-
divider has offered on a negotiated basis to pay approximately
$50 per unit to satisfy school needs.
However, the school districts have adopted fixed rates in the
amount of $240 per unit for the Chula Vista City School District and
$300 per unit for the Sweetwater Union High School District. The
school districts now insist that that figure is not negotiable
regardless of immediate impact in the vicinity of the new devel-
opment since they are viewing the problem on a district wide
basis. It should be noted that prior to the adoption of that
fixed policy, agreements were reached with the Otay Land Company
for the development of the E1 Rancho del Rey properties at a
fee of $100 per unit.
The staff has felt that it would not be proper to administratively
make a determination in cases such as the Larkhaven Subdivision
and that it would be more equitable and appropriate that the con-
flicting parties present their case to the City Council.
Therefore, the matter has been set for Council consideration at the
earliest possible time on Tuesday, January 9, 1973. The two issues
before the Council are:
1. Whether the amendment to the General Plan, adopted by
Resolution No. 6671, should be applicable to approved sub-
divisions wherein building permits were withheld as a result
of the decision in the Friends of Mammoth case.
2. Whether the fixed fees established by the school districts
should be accepted by the Council and no negotiable position
between the developer and the school districts be allowed.
This office has notified the Superintendents of both school districts
as to the situation presented at the meeting of Tuesday, January 9,
1973, and it is hoped that they will be prepared to justify the fee
being imposed and that, in turn, the developer will be able to pre-
sent facts which would justify their basis for the offering of a
lesser amount that than established by the school districts.
~ ~/-3