Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1971-6243RESOLUTION NO. 6243 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP OF A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS EL RANCHO DEL REY UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has heretofore approved that certain tentative map of a subdivision to be known as El Rancho del Rey Units No. 1 and 2, and has recom- mended that the City Council approve said tentative map subject to the conditions as recommended in their letter dated the 10th day of August, 1971, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, the same as though fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that said Council does hereby approve said ten- tative subdivision map in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby impose the following conditions in addition to those recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista: 1. Prior to the filing of a final map with the Engineering Division, letters must be on file with the Planning Depart- ment indicating that both school districts have been satis- fied that adequate classroom space will be available for the students coming from this subdivision. 2. "H" Street to provide for six lanes of traffic in a 110' right-of-way; the City to share in the cost of im- provements by paying for two twelve-foot lanes. Presented by !, f ruce H. Warren, Director of Planning Approved as to form by - r //`~//~~~~ George Lindberg, City Attorney ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of October, 1971, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl, Scott NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None ATTE~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 6243 and that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED City Clerk i Sweetwater ~ Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011 DIVISION OF BUSINESS SERVICES Mr. Albert Gersten The Gersten Companies 9777 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Dear Mr. Gersten: October 28, 1971 As you know, the Sweetwater Union High School District has not made final selections for the location of junior and senior high school sites in the total E1 Rancho del Rey development area. In order to make a final selection certain steps must be followed, one being the acquisition of a legal description of the property being considered. Thus, we are writing to you requesting that you furnish to the District a copy of the legal description of each of the various sites discussed previously. These would include the six alternate junior high school sites, the proposed high school site, and the proposed junior high school site in the northwest portion of the development area. V1e are asking your cooperation in this matter in the hope that this will help to speed up the gathering of information which the District must have in order to make specific site selections. Thank you for your assistance. PDJ:cep cc: Board Members Mrs. Boone Mr. Lindberg Mr. Pasquale D9r . Tucker Mr. Rindone Mr. Ballard Sincexely3 -~_; ,, - ~~- - Philip D. Jolliff ~ Director of Facilities and Budgets ~f~ ~~ ~ _ .;_ / ^~ -~ ~ ~h ~/ry ~''1,9~ '~`/a ~ist~FRk ~ ~ 9 " Ca. ~. 1 D4r . Calhoun C. V. Planning Commission Mr. Warren Mr. Thomson C. V. City Council Tor. Foster ~. ~( /" ~~ /y ~~ ~" SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6150 MISSION GORGE RD. SUITE 204 SAN DIEGO. CALIF. 92120 283-6181 October 26, 1971 Iionorable Mayor and Council City of Chula Vista 286 Guava Street Ch111a Vista, California 92012 Gentlemen: This is to inform you that the Shattuck Construction Company owns a 20 acre parcel of land lying immediately adjacent to and Westerly o.f.. Lots 1 through 10, 3~~, 42 and 50 of proposed Unit ;~1 of El Rancho del Rey subd;_vision. A tentative Map named Candlewood covering the 20 acre parcel has been submitted to your Planning Department for processing. We hereby request the City to require as a condition of approval of the tentative Niap of E1 Rancho del Rey that the sewer mains and the lift stations be sized so as to serve our 20 acre parcel. We agree to pay for our fair share of the cost. We feel it is appropriate to make this request since El Rancho del Rey is deviating from normal sewer facility construct~_on by diverting their secaage to two other drainage basins and not providing normal gravity sewers which roc}uld normally be placed _n the canyon bottoms running Westerly from their project. Normal sewer construction w~uld allow for standard developmemt of our property by gravity sewer mains. If El Rancho del Rey is allowed to proceed w',_thout allowing for our sewer needs, we will be in the position of not knowing when, if ever, our property can be developed. Economically the cost of bringing a gravity sewer from the West to serve our property would be more than could be absorbed by our 20 acre parcel. Very truly yours, Shattuck onstLu .t'..'i~ Company c! .-_ 1 'll ~ ti R. attuck, President ~IOt _ D 3 ~' - ~ ` ~' ciTy ~ 191 ~ ~ Ch,~;la ~R/{ 4 Vista Ca., ~ s ~ /~ ~i~" L; ' ~ ~ ~~ ~L ./! \~ Otis 'J~./ j] ~ ! ,~N , ~ ~ ,. OFFICF. OF THE CFTY ATTORNEY DATE: October 26, 1971 C~t~ o~ C~nuQa ~U~sta CALIFORNIA TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Chula Vista, John R. Thomson, City Manager, Bruce H. Warren, Director of Planning FROM: George D. Lindberg, City Attorney SUBJECT: Approval of Tentative Maps - El Rancho del Rey Subdivision, Units No. 1 and 2 On Friday, October 22, 1971, I suggested to the City Council the addition of two conditions to the approval of the tentative maps of E1 Rancho del Rey Subdivision, Units No. 1 and 2 if the Council, in fact, determined to approve said maps. Having discussed the matter with the Planning Director and representatives of the subdivider, it is the conclusion of this office that said conditions are unnecessary and unwar- ranted. Therefore, I would request that Council not impose said conditions. However, the Planning Director will speak more fully on one other point which seems to be fully agreed upon by all parties, i.e., assurance that school needs for students within the pro- posed subdivisions will be met in some manner by agreement between the subdivider and the School District. A final subdivision map will probably be presented to the City Council for these two units within 40 to 60 days from the approval of the tentative map. Prior to or concurrent with the submission of said final subdivision map, it is expected that the subdivider will reach agreement with the School Districts to provide some arrangement for handling students generated by the subdivision in the absence of adequate facilities within the neighborhood of the development. ,TFX.I ;fI ~ s ~P f ~ df{i~t~ i`r ~ "t~ uz~aq. ;t.~e r l~rf sitfr s ~~l~i`~-~ } :t?s ~~ ~:~i 1f ~1(.a`1;{° OFFICE OF ~:~~~o~~Y 1 ~~~J LJ~1L~ 302 COUNTY i+UM~idISi"i4A i iON CENTER ROBERT G. BERREY SAN DIEGO, CALIFOF2NIA X2101 COUNTY COUNSEL October 26, 1971 George D. Lindberg, City Attorrley City of Chula Vista 275 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Dear T~Ir. Lindberg Re: E1 Rancho del Rey Subdivision Units No. 1 and 2 DoNa'_o L. ct_aR„ DEPUTIES JOSEPH KASE, JR. LAWRENCE fS APlI_C F""~ LLOYD hi. HAF<MGN, ~R. BETTY .r_. B~_, (_.r~'.c WILLIAM C. GEO RG 6- ROBERT B. H1~1 CF"N~ JAMES E. SMI?~H JOHN McEVOY ARNE HAi~SEN MARY GELL PAUL O. FlARKS ANTHONY ALBEkS JACK P. LIMElER R. KENT HAF2VEY Thank you for the copy of your October 22, 1971 memorandum to the l~iayor, City Council, City l~fanager, and Director o~ Planning of the City of Chula Vista, relating to tentative subdivision reaps referred to above. ode are also in receipt of a letter of October 22, 1971 tc the City Counci.i of the City of Chula T%i sta turn our client, St~reetzrater Union High School District; regarding the same matter. The purpose of this letter is to correct a rnisunderstar2ding which apparently arose from our discussions tiArith Vcu on Gctober 22, and more particularly regarding tre f cllo~sing portion of your October 22 r~eraora.nd~u2z: rtyur%lierr:20re, 1.n diSCUSS10225 t^7:i.t.2 the COLL'City lry0ur?Sel1S office, it was brought to tree atten~~ion of -ch.is o ~"'i ice that even if Site D ~v^re to be t;:2e alt i~.atoly desired si~~e foz~ the lcoaticr_ of the ~un__or high sc hoo1, it T~roulc?. not materially affect the design of Units I~lo. l and 2, but tY?at, in fact the position. of the High Sci2ocl 3oard ~~ws ~~_~. „.~wl,.y .c .,b „wJ_n l , era~~.. °or ..,. _ _ ~ ., ,;z. _ Site b bar :~rithi2elding o-r de ~~erring approval of the tentative subdiTr~ ;-ion maps of Units IVo. 1 a,nd 2 until the issue was resolved." --~ ~~~°~ l ~~~:r. L~_r_~dbcrg -~,%-~ JctoT;er 2;, 1~;1 The information contained in our client's letter of October 2?_ to the Cit;T Council coi~rectly sets forth the situation at the present time as T,re kno?rr it. .'le tigrish, therefore, to make it clear that it is not our understand~.ng that "in fact the position o_f ~che High School Board ti~ras initially to obtain leverage i'or acauisition of Site B by trithholding or deferring approval oz the tentative subdivision maps of Units i~To. 1 and 2 until the issue was resolved." Rather, it is our understanding that the school board, among others, has for some time been under the impression that it had to select a junior high school site before the tentative maps of Units hTos. l and 2 were considered by the City Council. However, as a result of meetings with the developer on October 21 and our discussion with you of that date, it appeared pro'pable that this impression was erroneous in that none of the possible sites i~'or the junior high school Urere ever proposed to be located ti^rithin the boundaries of tentative maps IZos. 1 and 2 and that, at most, only some realignment of a portion of "J" Street might ultimately be required, depending upon the site selected. i'ou will recall in our discussi.o~i with yc~~ oi: October %~ Gi18,G we roi_n.ted o~zt that our client did not have a copy of the tentative map for Unit 1 and we were not absolutely sure that the newly developed information was correct ar_d you agreed to check with the Planning Department and/or the developer to determine whether or not a portion of any of the proposed sites were in fact within the boundaries of Ur_its Twos . 1 and ?._ and whether or not any need for street realignment within Units Nos. 1 or 2 could x~ossibly be foreseen, depending upon the site finally selected. It was, we thought, -the opinion oz both our office and yours that if our newly developed ir~formatior_ proved to be correct the site selection ti~ras not a necessa:~~y prerequisite to City Council action, provided th.e street realignment was r~_ade a condition oi' Council approval of the tentative maps. r,°;e sincerely regret the misunderstanding and ask that this clarification be brought to the attention of those persons who received your October 22 meinorandurn so as not to cor2pound the misundcrstan~Ti,,g further. ~~f~ NIr. Lindberg -3- October ?6, 1971 tide very much. appreciate the assistance which you have given us with rega~•d to these matters. Sincerely, ROBERT G~ BERREY,,.~ounty Counsel _ y Y (P~Irs . ); BETTY EVENS BOONE, Deputy BEB:~s //~ ~~/ ~~ The Honorable Mayor and City Council October 26, 1971 Page Two In my discussions with the City Attorney's office in San Diego, it is evident that San Diego has imposed the entire burden of justifying said agreements upon their School Board and has in- sisted that any delay or rejection of a final subdivision map must be justified by the School Board and, further, that the School Board be prepared to defend the position of the City in such a deferral since there is no legal authority for the City to refrain from the approval of subdivision maps based upon difficulties financial, physical or otherwise in providing adequate school facilities for students who would be living within new subdivisions. It is not the intention of this office to comment upon this issue of legality, but rather to insist that it would be entirely the burden of the School Districts to justify to the City Council any such delay or rejection of a subdivision map. The Director of Planning may have additional information to offer in this regard, perhaps, even a suggestion as to an additional condition to be attached to the tentative map. However, it should be recognized that adequate handling of student needs is equally important to the subdivider as a part of his marketing program as it is to the School Dis- tricts and this is probably the explanation for a lack of resistance and a willingness of compliance on the part of the subdivider in reaching such agreement with School Districts. GDL:lgk ~.