The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1972/12/19 Item 16AGENDA NO.16 December 19, 1972 CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: December 19, 1972 ITEM TITLE: Resolution - Approving the tentative map of Larkhaven Subdivision, Units 3 and 4 INITIATED BY: Director of Planning Rnrrrr_onirr.Tn~ This item was continued from the City Council meeting of Octo ber 31, 1972 to permit the City to prepare and adopt environmental review procedures for the applicant to follow. Those procedures were adopted on December 5, 1972. It will take until approximately January 4 to complete the environmental review of this project if a negative declaration can be processed. If an Environmental Impact Report is required it will require approximately 20 days more. ATTACHED: Resolution [ ] Financial Statement: N.A. Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] P 1 at [ ] See EXHIBITS [ ] No~ Commission-Board Recommendation: Department Head Recommendation N.A. This item be continued to January 9, 1973 to allow time for processing an Environmental Assessment of the project. City Manager Recommendation: Concur with department head /~~o CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET • P.O. BOX 907 • CNULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA • 92012 • AC 714 422-8341 BOARD OF EDUCATION A RMANDO V. CASILLAS, PRESIDENT SUSAN J. FULLER.. VICE PRES. MITCHELL KOTEFF, CLERK JUDITH L. BAUER, MEMBER EDWARD A KEMLER, D D.S., MEMBER SUPERINTENDENT DR. BURTON C. TIFFANY September 25, 1972 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OR. LEONARDN SERVETTER ASS T.SUPT. BUSIN ESS SER VIC ES JOSEPH W ODEN THAL DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM DR. DOUGLAS E. GILES DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES DR. JOHN F VUGRIN Chula Vista City Council Chula Vista, California Attention: Jennie Fulasz, City Clerk RE: LARKHAVEN UNITS 3 and 4 We have received the tentative subdivision map of the above referenced project, and have studied same in relation to school access. We have no objection to the plans as submitted. We have sent the American Housing Guild copies of our agreement on September 7, 1972, but as of this date have not been able to reach a settlement regarding school facilities as outlined in the City of Chula Vista Ordinance ~~1366 and a policy by Resolution ~~6140. As a result, we respectfully request that the tentative map not be approved until the completion of the above mentioned agreement between the developer and the Chula Vista City School District. ~~ Burton C. Tiffany Superintendent BCT: aes r Y tS I ~ } ~ Y i ~+ ~, l., y .G s ~-1 i-~ ~. ~ ~' ~~ Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011 JOSEPH RINDONE, Jr. District Superintendent ~! ~ ~' ~d +'"' ...~. :~ '.a ..~., :' , u~ Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Gentlemen: September 25, 1972 Reference: Larkhaven Subdivision Units 3 ~ 4 This letter is regarding school. facilities for students who would be coming from the above subdivision units. At the present time, the Sweetwater Union High School. District cannot give assurance to the City of Chula Vista that adequate school facilities will be available concurrent with the need created by the Larkhaven develop- ment. Sincerely, `'y-, / 1 Philip D. tiff Director of Facilities and Budgets Pg cc: Mrs. Boone C.V. Planning Dept. Mr. Linton Mr. Worley Mr. Rindone _-~; ~ ' /~ ~. • AGENDA ITEM NOe [15] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: October 31, 1972 ITEM TITLE: Resolution - Approving the tentative map of Larkhaven Subdivision, Units 3 and 4 INITIATED BY: Acting Director of Planning BACKGROUND: Larkhaven Units 3 and 4 were continued from the Council meeting of September 26 at the request of the applicant, Mr. Linton of American Housing Guild, so that he might meet with the staff to resolve several problems within the subdivision. Mr. Linton has indicated that he has met with the Engineering Division and has resolved the problems involving that department. However, at this point no written communication has been received from either the elementary or high school district indicating that school facilities will be available for the Larkhaven development. Due to the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement procedure and the necessary advertisement which will be required, we recommend that this item be continued until December 19, 1972. ATTACHED: Resolution [X] Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [X] See EXHIBITS [X] No, 1,2,3 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the tentative map subject to the conditions enumerated in the letter of September 19, 1972. Department Head Recommendation: Concur, subject to a finding of no detrimental effect based on an Environmental Impact Statement concerning the development. City Manager Recommendation: Condur with department head f ~ (~.1.~(i 1~,~~_-~_(:li.P1t'1~ ~'R~C!Ci~C? ~:)l~d.'~?CT,'L(_' ~f1C! i1E'.CE;4~JCL/(~ 1t_C'/SU~CI~i(.~!Y1) 01L ~v~iC~~vt~1•~~~ ) . Staft Commentary on Ac~r.rzda It~cm rTC,. :=~Iit~1,~'~ V.xS~i'~~1 CZ~PY ~'Oti?~:CTL T1ElT3N~ OF September 26, 1972 ~2 1 4et1. `i~~ t:1.e : Resol uti an -- ;1i~provi ng t:::-ita~l.i ve n!ap, L.arkhaven Subdivision lJni is 3 arld 4 1.nitiar.cd bti=: p-irector of Planning ~ttacr,ed Ls a copy o~ Re solucLOn j XJ Ord.~_nancc~ ~ .''_nt'nrnt~~n°- ~ 1 Plat (X } Larkhaven Units 3 and 4. contain 147 single family lots on approximately 40 acres of ground lying both not;}-~ and sou t;1 of Orange Avenue. Unit 3 Zvi 11 provi de a nei ghborhood park sits in t;he southern area of the subdivision adjacent to Woodlawn Park area. I~1ost of the basic issues involved in this subdivision have been resolved, but the subdivider remains concerned about twwo conditions recommended by the staff and the Comdr i 5 S 10 i1. The first condition of concern relates to tkre treatment of landscaping along tf~e rear of double frontage lots on Ora-1qe Avenue. Because in the past there has been no effec- tive moans of enforcirlq home ot•~f~1er maintenance of such areas, the Commission is now recommr~ding that this area be maintained through a maintenance district involving either tk~ose residents of the double frontage lots or all of the residents ~,-ithin the subdivis~ian. The subdivider believes these areas can be effectively maintained by each individraal home oti~mer but vse believe the maintenance district should be tried. Another condition of concern f;as to do with the area of the subdivision lying east of Max and north of Orange Avenue. .The applicant has left an area between this portion of the subdivision and the shopping center site to tha east out of the map because he proposes to request rezoni r7g for multiple family use. ~dhi 1 e mu1 ti pie fam~i ly use here may not be unrLasonable and in the event rezoning is not granted the conficur~tion of the property leads itself to single family development it vaould necessitate access to Orange Avenue only. If it is to be developed with single family use the Commission believes it should be planned as part of the single family subdivision proposed to the west. The subdivider feels it ~is unnecessary to delete this portion at this time and states t~7at art R-1 pattern, if found to be necessary, could easily be accommodated. Financial Star.ement See EXI-iIB~TS ~ X) No1,2, Commission-Board Re con~r~enciation: Planning Con~n~ission recorn7~ends approval in accordance with the attached letter. Department riead Recammendatton : Concur C~.ty ^tanac~er P.ec~m;m~~ndatlon: Concur ~aitli department head r1 I i ~ (tiC'tit~( ~~, ~ d, r~~t~r~,(~it:~ ~'<<<~~,-~~; (.' 2tj Ck.l'•'L~~; C`l-~t~ ~1((. 'z~i~ ii. 1', ,