HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1966-4165Form No. 344
RESOLUTION N0. 4165
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP OF A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN
AS THE LES CHATEAUX SUBDIVISION
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 THE LES CHATEAUS SUBDIVISION
and has recommended that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approve said tentative map subject to the conditions as recommended
in their letter of June 7 , 19~~, a copy of which is
attached hereto and by this refe~`ence 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
tentative subdivision map in accordance with the recommendations of
the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista.
Present d by
Bruce Warren, ,Director of Planning
Approved as to form by
George Lindberg, City Att ey
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9thday of August ,
1966 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: COUNCILMENSparling~ylvester, Anderson, McAllister, McCorquodale
NAPES: COUNCILMEN None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None
_ ~'•
ayor of the City hula Vista ~
7
ATTEST e-~_~.._t_...~_~~ ' ~-~~`~=~/./"r
amity Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, KENNETH P. CAMPBELL, City Clerk of the City of Chula
Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing
is a full, true and correct copy of_ ,
and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
DATED:
City Clerk
CC 652
L ~~~
Rl
t
,~~...,. lip '~~er ~`"
~~„+'
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
June 7, 1866
e.IK;~ r.~r ~T~f i :rs'~tp~(~
I
l;~~rr. a«r`~ :~ "l
~.
.~~ G
~ ~r. r
nTT). y ~1
C~i~ ti7` P x'+ fjffC~lt i~~f '• e~1!['~~ i 3 , ,/ ~
~ ur:.:rt:~s~4~stll,4Rf+: !RF'.R~}~- 'Ltj1t}
`` ~~,, ~,
fi~ ~_ . ~.~.~q,.
F°"'-
C~ty o~ CI~u.Qa ~-Vista
CALIFORNIA
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Chula Vista
Civic Center
Chula Vista, California
Subject: LesChateaux Subdivision -Tentative Map
Gentlemen:
The tentative map of LesChateaux Subdivision was considered by the Planning
Commission at its meeting of June 6, 1966. The Commission recommends approval
of the map subject to the following conditions:
1. Before final maps of proposed units 2, 5 and 7 are approved, adequate
access to the undeveloped property to the east shall be provided with
proper relationship to a school site. This will require extension of
"K" Street to the easterly boundary ins tea d of "L" Street.
2. The manner in which the San Diego Gas & Electric Company high tension
lines pass through the subdivision shall be approved by the Planning
and Engineering staffs prior to submission of a final map.
3. Themethod of grading and slope planting of those lots adjacent to the
canyons shall be approved by the Planning staff prior to submission of a
final map. Other grading and planting in accordance with Resolution of
the City Cauncil, paralleling FHA requirements.
4. It may be required that some form of irrigation system be required at the
rear of those lots adjacent to the canyons.
5. A 10' sidewalk to the school site be provided from "M" Street, through
Lots 231 and 234.
6. The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate to the public an easement for
sewer purposes along the southerly prolongation of "E" Avenue through pro-
perty owned by Princess Manor Inc, as necessary to form an operable sewage
system.
-yl~s
• City Council - 2 - June 7, 1866
7. The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate to the public an easement
for sewer purposes for that off-site sewer as shown on the tentative map
generally, to the north and west of the proposed site. The size and
precise alignment of such off-site sewer shall be subject to approval
of the City Engineer.
8. Portions of the Units No. 3,4, and 6 are not currently owned by the sub-
divider. In the event that such lands are not ~itimately acquired by
the subdivider, it will be necessary to significantly alter the southerly
portion of the map. A revised tentative map shall be submitted if such
acquisition has not been completed prior to development of any of the
affected units.
g. Easements shown on the typical street section for hydrant and water
service shall be designated as general utility easements arxi shall be
increased to 2.5 feet in width upon the final map.
10. The subdivider shall provide slope rights upon adjacent properties at
the ends of all stub streets.
11. The subdivider shall provide evidence of having obtained slope rights
upon adjacent property, where required,for the construction of lot pads.
12. The subdivider shall indicate a one-foot lot at the stub end of Oleander
Avenue, "L" Street and "E" Avenue upon the final map. The grant deed
for said lots shall be prepared in the name of the City, signed and
submitted to the City prior to recordation of final map.
13. The area designated as 'open space" shall be deeded to the City before
recordation of final map, if required, or an agreement between the City
and the subdivider shall be executed which allows dedication in phases,
but guarantee ultimate dedication of the 10 acres within three years.
14. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed
approval by the City Engineer. Designs shall be accomplished on the ba-
sis of providing one dry lane in each direction during peak run-off
from a storm of 1C-year expectancy.
15. The subdivider shall provide the City with drainage easements as deter-
mined necessary by the City Engineer.
16. The drainage east of "B" Avenue on "L" Street will not be allowed to con-
tinue 'long L" Street to the west into the adjacent drainage basin.
This flow shall be diverted to the south onto "B" Avenue.
17. Street grades shown for the northerly portion of Oleander Avenue do not
appear practical in relationship to adjacent property to the north. Such
grades are subject to revision and fur"ther approval by the City Engineer.
18. Property lines shall be at top of slope in accord with Planning Commission
Resolution No. 127.
~~11~5
City Council - 3 - June 6, 1966
19. Manhole spacing as shown in some cases is in excess of the macimum
permitted by ordinance.
20. Units shall be developed in such fashion as to be complete and operable,
independent of the development of subsequent units.
21. The practicality of the sewer system serving Lots 46, 48, 50 and 61-86
is questionable. No approval of such system is implied through approval
of this map.
This map is subject to the conditions of Planning Commission Variance
Resolution No. 66-1g which grants a reduction in lot size to a minimum
of 6,000 square feet.
Respectfully submitted,
,.~LGG~?t
ruce H. Warren
Director of Planning
cc: Engineering Division
Poutous Development & Saratoga Development Company.
-y~~ 5
BY-------------DATE-----.._ SUBJECT------------------------e ----------- St-IEET NO.---------OF-------
~~'~ _.~ -
CHKD. BY------DATE-------- ~ ----------~ '--=---.. -JOB NO.---------------------
C
l ~ , ~ ~ ,.-
. 4 P~ ~J ~, is ~: r,, l ch f~,:. -=~ ;~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S K -t .
c
r r ~ , • -• ~ ~..}
/•
)~ f;. ,
j~, ]~ ~ i
~~
. ="~' ~''
~~...:
~~ ~- Y
E ~~ I
'~ k i ~
a
r .. w
~e L 4 i~ J-' ~,
i
~ ~ i
~.. I
r r,..
}
~! .- _.
. i~EG~~SrE~E~3 CiV~L Eiv~INEER5
X25 WEST ~;~'~iP~ sre;EEr
~.... ~s ~ W A-r~ Ac:,7 K ~c.~ f~D~ V ~ ~ i a rJ ~c./~ ~~3_ E!. ~CA.~o?~, C~;3~F~Rl~6A
• ,~ ~~.
y.
x•13
r
Y, .~~`~I Y.7~~ ~~ 3. {~ •ill, r -K.r lr,.. ~~ r3rt fJr ~ T~~
~~ r ~+^%'~'-. ~ ~ tit:'t'~7.trt.t r u+t; ?F}+;{ ry'- ,t}U~t :.
,'. >
~ ~ T t' ,
City o~ C~nuQa ~Uista
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT cnLiFORNrn
385 PARKWAY
~Pe 1~~
427-3300 X-242
July 28, 1966
To: City Council
From: Parks and Recreation Commission
Subject: Canyon Preservation
On 7/21/66, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the
proposed Les Chateaux subdivision and its effect upon canyon
lands within and adjacent to that subdivision.
The concept of lot size reduction in subdivisions in order to
preserve such canyons where possible and where there is a direct
relationship to existing public lands has a great deal of merit.
The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously supports such a
concept in regards to Les Chateaux.
The question as to what utilitarian usage such canyons would
provide was also discussed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The following indicates the Commissionts thinking in regard to
this.
1. Throughout California the natural terrain he.s to a great
extent been marred by ill conceived land usage. The
"step type" of subdivision on hillsides has forever
destroyed the natural beauty of our arid region. With
our present rate of growth and the possibility of a
megalopolis extending from Santa Barbara to the Mexican
border, the natural beauty of canyons will disappear
forever, By retaining canyons in their natural state,
political subdivisions can retain for generations yet
unborn, examples of old California. We believe this to
be the case concerning Les Chateaux.
-- X11 ~ ~-
i
~ -
2. The Commission feels that where possible: open space
for no other reason than it's own preservation is
important to break the monotony of thousands of acres
of "stucco and asphalt." To an extent public parks
accomplish this? but they cannot have not, and more
than::likely will not do the complete job.
3, With the collector streetts (Palomar Street) liklihood of
construction adjacent to or partially on the canyon floor!
the possibility of an appearance similar to Highway 395
through Balboa Park is not out of the question.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is aware that canyon p:reserva~
tion is not advantageous in all instances, but because of Greg
Rogers parkts location in relation to the canyon in question=
we feel that in this particular case, the concept is a good one.
Respectfully submitted?
JAMES WELDEN, Chairman
Parks and Recreation Commission
JW:WGJ:lw
r • II
t
~~
»~w~ _ ., i
' ~` ~ ;,,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
July 27, 1866
„ ~.i,~, ~~~ m~„~ ss
~_~ ~~, ~~ ~rilfeii
~~,
!~'1'f
t f!(#t :2sfrJr ; r r; +fd~~J t~sr e t~~tr
~{f/fltG~t~ ~
City o~ C~nu.Qa X11 ~sta
CALIFORNIA
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Chula Vista
Civic Center
Chula Vista, California
Subject: Use of Canyon in Les Chateaux Subdivision
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, the Planning Commission, at their
meeting of July 18, 1966, gave further consideration to the potential
use of the canyon lying between Greg Rogers Park and the proposed
Les Chateaux subdivision. This matter is relevant to the variance
granted by the Planning Commission for reduction in lot size within
the Les Chateaux subdivision.
In an earlier report prepared by the staff, the concept involved in
the granting of this variance is fairly well delineated; however, we
will attempt to reiterate our philosophy somewhat.
Although from this subdivision only approximately 7 acres of this
particular canyon would be dedicated to the City, there are approximately
65 acres involved within the total canyon which are proposed for ultimate
retention. The basic goal involved here is one of retaining natural open
space. As far as the Planning Commission is concerned, at this point,
there are no specific plans for the development of this canyon. Even
if the entire 65 acres were made available today, it is suggested that
for the next few years the canyon be ~e~t in a natural state with whatever
clearing be necessary to allow passage of emergency or maintenance
vehicles.
As soon as it would be feasible, it would be desirable that trails for
riding, hiking, bicycling, etc., be cleared. It is also possible that
in the future, it would be desirable to plant groves of trees in the small
cleared areas which would be used as picnic spots.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Canyon - Les Chateaux
July 27, 1866
page 2
The Commission is aware of the fact that we are in an area of rapid
growth which for various reasons fails to conform to and retain some
of the topographic features which are part of our natural beauty. If
the canyon were retained in its natural state, for nothing more than
the visual separation of monotonous land use, whatever effort spent
in retaining the canyon would have been well justified.
The above represents our thoughts on the use of the canyon; however,
the Director of Planning conveyed your questions to the Parks & Recreation
Commission which, I understand, are also rendering their comments.
Respectfully submitted,
' ,~ i
Kyle 0. Stewart, Chairman
City Planning Commission
jf