Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/05/22 Item 22-ACITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNC I L AGEiVDA STATEMEiVT Item No. 22-A For meeting of 5/22/79 ITEM T SUBMIT ITEM E TLE Resolution Q 61'+ Approving agreement with JLEN, Inc. (Continued from the meeting of May 17, 1979) 'ED BY City Attorney ;PLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES. NO X ) This item was presented as a Uninamous Consent item at the meeting of May 17, 1979 and by Council action, it was continued to this evening's meeting. r On Friday, City Manager Lane Cole and Deputy City Manager Robens met and drastically revised the agreement as previously approved and recommended by the City Attorney. The revisions include a clear-cut requirement for security for any construction, revisions as determined by the Deputy City Manager and ultimately by the City Council. Not only will there be no certificates of occupancy, but there will be no closing of escrows on any portion of the project until the City Council has acted upon the agreement. There is now a specific requirement that the project developer reimburse the City for any costs involved in the inspection processes that have been authorized by the agreement. It is now accepted that the agreement meets the full approval of the City Manager and staff as well as the City Attorney. reement~ Resolution EXHIBITS Ordinance Plat Notification List .her ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANgIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A Approval of Resolution BOARD~ICOMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION ~~~ Dated •.~~ ad -_7~_,__ I F o rm A-113 (Rev. 5/77) It Ch to IT IS IiEP. BY C'~L'rS'~~D b,J t:le u:~dersi~~:ecl t:iat the folyo.•rirg , r:1tC1 ti1E' ti:':~i;~;':CUS COP.S~?t'it O~ t11C Clt'.' CCU^C11 Oi t::C Clt~,' Of a ~Iista, be CG: Sy. C:E'~~?C~ui"'iC: aCi..CG LiL:0I1 b1/ t: C' COLi7'iC11 ~lliSUa:lt he ~scvisiors o~ Sec.2.04.090 0~ tt.e Ch~.:la Vita Cite Code. Resolution - Approving Agreement with JLEN, Inc. ignature) Una imous Consent of the City Council, as indicated by the following sig atures: _ ~~7 ~ ~ ...... 4 ; ! 1 ~~ ~f 6`' ~ 1 `. + .„ ~ / ~tr~~. yL., /, ~,~.,, ~/7~7`/ ., ~, " ' EGG .1 ,/ ~~~ ~~ C~<c:J ~~~~ y~l~~~ - ,1 ~~ ~ r~~ CA-1301 M May l7, 1979 File: EY084 Lane F. Cole, City r'Ianager V~A: W. J. Robens, Deputy City Manager F~OM: John P. Lippitt, City Engineer SUBJECT: Report on Telegraph Canyon Terraces Background I August, 1973, the City's Planning Commission approved a p ecise plan for the development of 179 apartment units within t e 15 acre Telegraph Canyon Terraces site which lies just east o I-805 and south of Telegraph Canyon Road. The precise plan w s later modified by the present owners. The density of the p oject was reduced to 152 and at the same time that the basic site p ans were maintained. I June, 1978, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a public hearing on a proposed condominium conversion for this p oject and the applicant was authorized to proceed with the c nversion. B tween early June and mid-October of last year the grading of the p d areas was certified by the private engineer and building p rmits were issued for the residential structures. Foundation i spections were made between June 8, 1978 and December 27, 1978. 0 or about December 27, it was noted that the drainage of the westerly portion of the project site was not in accordance with t e approved grading plan. This was brought to the attention of t e developer/contractor. As a result of this contact the private e gineer was requested by the developer to process a revision to t e grading plan. His efforts in this regard led to the preparation of an updated topograph map which showed large discrepancies between t approved grades and existing grades. Shortly thereafter (on ab ut February 2, 1979) the engineer brought the new topographic s ets in to the Engineering Department to discuss modifications to the grading plan. The Engineering staff reviewed the topography to determine the extent of discrenpancies. These discrepancies we e particularly large at the west end of the project and close to the south side adjacent to an existing single family development. Se eral of the higher buildings at the western end of the project we e higher than originally planned, one by as much as 23'. Many of the slope areas along Telegraph Canyon Road were steeper than mi imum standards (i.e., 1.5' horizontal to 1' vertical). q~i~l Lame F. Cole -2- May 17, 1979 0 February 7, 1979, a letter (attached) was sent to the developer f om the Director of Public Works advising him of the apparent d'screpancy and requesting the Director of Building and Housing t stop all inspections. On February 12, the engineer, planner and B ilding and Housing staff met with Mr. Lathers and his engineer t discuss the letter of February 7 and what to do. I was determined that a complete revised grading plan needed to b prepared by the developer's engineer. The buildings east of O Bander could continue inspection since the pads were fairly c ose to where extended. All other buildings were not allowed to h ve more inspections. They were told that the Planning Commission a d City Council would have to approve any requested changes in t e upper western portion of the site due to the major discrepancies a d impact on the adjoining property owners to the south. B tween then and now they have been processing a revision to the P ecise Plan and are revising their grading plans in an easterly t westerly direction,. The revised grading plan for the portion o the site east of Oleander Avenue was approved on March 14, 1979. R wised plans for the remainder of the site grading were submitted for r view on April 11, 1979. They have not yet been approved. Because o the .change in the grading of the site, staff determined that a revised Precise Plan would have to be considered by the Planning C mmission and City Council. The Planning Commission held a public h aring on this revision to the approved Precise Plan on April 15, 1979. F llowing the public hearing, the Commission unanimously voted to r commend that Council approve the revised precise plan subject to t e conditions listed in the staff report with the further stipulation t at if line of sight studies showed that the views of adjacent h meowners was blocked after removal of the upper units the plan w s to be reviewed again the Planning Commission before going to C uncil. A copy of the staff report is attached hereto. T e developer recently submitted line of sight studies for the u per buildings. Planning staff has reviewed them and found i accuracies in them. The studies are still under study and no d termination has been made at this point. P>~anning Commission Action T B sed on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion r commending that the City Council approve the revised precise plan for Telegraph Canyon Terraces subject to the following conditions: (dote: These conditions shall apply to the entire 152 unit project.) 1. The upper two units on the three buildings located in the south~~~est corner o the development lying east of the cul-de-sac access road shall be removed and the roof revised, using a maximum 2'2 to 12 pitch or a false gable design which will allow for a reduction in height of approximately 8-10 feet. 94 ~~ e F. Cole -3- t5ay l7, 1979 (N te: The deletion of six units will allo~,~ for a reduction of 12 parking spaces in the upper area, ~~~hich shall be redesigned for usable open space. Anew site pl n and elevation changes shall be submitted for staff approval. The new submittal sh 11 include line of sight studies from the rear yards of the homes adjacent to th south so that the views to the west-northwest from those yards can be accurately de ermined.) 2. All retaining ~~alls shall be constructed of brown slumpstone to match the of er units of the project under construction east of Oleander Road. 3. A minimum 42" high wrought iron fence (subject to Planning Department ap royal) shall be installed adjacent to the top of all slope banks judged by th Planning Department to pose a safety problem to residents within the su ject property. 4. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted incorporating th following: a) Slopes shall be planted with numerous specimen sized trees set in 36" angered holes with buttress treatment, such as boulders or railroad ties. b) Jute matting shall be required at locations determined by the City's Landscape Architect. c) Additional shrub planting is needed along Oleander Avenue to mitigate the dominance of the needlepoint ivy. The 3 ft. area at the base of the wall should be planted with a combination of ground cover and vines. d) The areas adjacent to the top of the retaining walls shall be planted with cascading plant materials. e) The applicant shall be required to retain a registered landscape architect for project supervision and plant placement. A copy of the contract must be filed with the City prior to commencement of landscaping. 5. The central recreation/pool area and the designated recreation areas sp cified at the west and east ends of the project shall be protected by a minimum 5 t. block wall or combination of mounding and wall equal to 5 feet in height to mi igate noise for those areas. 6. 4Jhile occupancy of buildings may be issued in phases, no occupancy for an unit shall be issued until all of the landscaping and irrigation system for th entire phase has been installed and accepted by the City. Meting with Developer Pe ple from the Building and Housing, Engineering, and Planning De artments, Deputy City Manager and City Attorney met with Mr Lathers, his attorney and lender on May 16. Mr. Lathers in icated he wanted to porceed with building inspections. He wa willing to sign an agreement that would stipulate that he would _ ag ee to not carry the City Council's decision to a higher authority I~'~~~ ne F. Cole -4- May 17, 1979 o litigate it in court. He said he made the decision to change g ades himself without realizing the total impact. T e Director of Building and Housing thought it would be okay to a prove building inspectionJ, Since the buildings are under con- s ruction and the developer realizes some of the building may be r quired to be removed. T e City Engineer did not have strong objections to allowing b ilding inspections to continue on all the buildings. He did n t want any more grading to be done until the precise plan and g ading plans were completed and approved by City Council and s aff respectively. It was decided that the Precise Plan revision c uld be before the Council on June 5, 1979. After that, the g ading plan for the upper area could be approved. The grading r vision for the lower area along Telegraph Canyon Road could be p eliminarily approved prior to the June 5th hearing with the p ovision that some modifications may be made by Council. S aff believes this agreement to be appropriate since further action by City Council for western portion of project is provided f r. ~~~~ .. ~- rr:~~~ = ~ ~~~ ~. ~~ . f ,. page 8 ty Planning Commission Benda Items for P~1eeting of April 25, 1979 A~ 6J PUBLIC HEARING: BACKGROUND AJ equest for revision of grading plan approved under precise lan for 152 unit condominium project at 500-630 Telegraph anyon Road - Jlen, Inc. 1. In August, 1973 the Planning Commission approved a precise plan for the velopment of 179 apartment units for the subdivided 15+ acres. At the time of proval neither a public hearing nor Council review were required as part of e precise plan process. The precise plan was later modified by the present owners o reduced the density to 152 units while maintainincl the same basic site plan. dE aE tr w~ 2. In June of last year the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing o the subject map which authorized the applicants to proceed with a condominium c nversion of the proposed. apartments. 3. After the site was graded and the units were well along in construction t e City found that the subject property had not been graded in accordance with a proved plans. All work was stopped and a revised grading plan was submitted. B cause of the significant changes to the plan, .staff required the developer to s bmit a revised precise plan for Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. The EIR on this project (73-9) was adopted by the City Council in 1973; h wever, due to the substantial change in the grading plan, the project was again r viewed by the Environmental Review Committee on April 12, 1979. The Committee d termined that while the change in grading was significant in itself, the major i pact involved the views from adjoining single family lots which was not a significant environmental issue. The Committee therefore determined that no ad itional environmental review would be required. B.I RECOMMENDATION Ba ed on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion re ommending that the City Council approve the revised precise plan for Telegraph Ca yon Terraces subject to the following conditions: (N te: These conditions shall apply to the entire 152 unit project.) 1. The upper two units on the three buildings located in the southwest corner of the development lying east of the cul-de-sac access road shall be removed and th roof revised, using a maximum 2-2 to 12 pitch or a false gable design which wi 1 allow fora reduction in height of approximately 8-10 feet. ate: The deletion of six units will allow for a reduction of 12 parking spaces the upper area, which shall be redesigned for usable open space. Anew site ~n and elevation changes shall be submitted for staff approval. The new submittal X11 include line of sight studies from the rear yards of the homes adjacent to south so that the views to the west-northwest from those yards can be accurately :ermined.) (N in pl sh th de 2. All retaining walls shall be constructed of brown slumpstone to match the er units of the project under construction east of Oleander Road. 0 ~1G~ ity Planning Commission Benda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 9 3. A minimum 42" high wrought iron fence (subject to Planning Department pproval) shall be installed adjacent to the top of all slope banks judged by he Planning Department to pose a safety problem to residents within the ubject property. 4. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted incorporating :he following: a) Slopes shall be planted with numerous specimen sized trees set in 36" angered holes with buttress treatment, such as boulders or railroad ties. b) Jute matting shall be required at locations determined by the City's Landscape Architect. c) Additional shrub planting is needed along Oleander Avenue to mitigate the dominance of the needlepoint ivy. The 3 ft. area at the base of the wall should be planted with a combination of ground cover and vines. d) The areas adjacent to the top of the retaining walls shall be planted with cascading plant materials. e) The applicant shall be required to retain a registered landscape architect for project supervision and plant placement. A copy of the contract must be filed with the City prior to commencement of landscaping. `j!P 5. The central recreation/pool area and the designated recreation areas >pecified at the west and east ends of the project shall be protected by a minimum i ft. block wall or combination of mounding and wall equal to 5 feet in height to Litigate noise for those areas. 6. While occupancy of buildings may be issued in phases, no occupancy for ny unit shall be issued until all of the landscaping and irrigation system for he entire phase has been installed and accepted by the City. DISCUSSIDN 1. As indicated in the background portion of this report, the applicant eceived approval from the City last June to proceed with a subject map for 152 ondominum units designed for the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road east of -805. The developer graded the site and submitted certification from his engineer hat the property was graded in accordance with .the plans on file with the City. fter the project was well along in construction, the staff received several phone alls from adjoining single family home owners questioning the height of the uildings under construction, noting that they seemed much higher than the elevations noted by the developer when the public hearings were held to consider the project. finally, the City was contacted by the developer's engineer who indicated the roject had not been graded in accordance with approved plans. 2. The Engineering Department put a stop work order on all inspections and everal meetings were held with the developer to determine the extent of the problem nd to explore possible solutions. A plan was finally submitted to the City ity Planning Commission genda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 page 10 effecting the as-built conditions of the buildings, together with a possible railing so lution involving the regrading of slopes in combination with the onstruction of numerous retaining walls. 3. After careful study the staff reviewed and released for inspection the area lying east of Oleander Avenue since tine changes to that side of the street vere relatively insignificant. However, the changes occurring tivest of Oleander vere considered significant and, therefore, the applicant was asked to file a ~evised precise plan for the area. The significant changes included: a) One building near Oleander was moved 80 feet closer to Oleander, essentially changing places with a parking area, and the site was elevated approximately 5 feet causing the need for a retaining wall to be constructed along Telegraph Canyon Road. b) The westerly four buildings (32 units) adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road and I-805 are now 2 feet to 12 feet above the approved grade. c) The primary access drive to Telegraph Canyon Road originally varied in steepness from 10% to 14%; it was constructed at a constant grade of approximately 14% for its entire length. d) The changes of grade resulted in the use of a 32 foot high retaining wall for the entire length of the Telegraph Canyon frontage (2400) feet plus combination retaining walls up to 8 feet high around parking and garage areas equal to the Telegraph Canyon frontage. e) The most significant change in grading occurred in the southwest portion of the site where the four buildings(32 units) closest to adjoining single family developments were elevated as much as 23 feet above their approved grade with one of the buildings moved 45 feet closer to the rear property line which abuts the homes. f) The flat areas adjacent to the building entrances adjacent to the top of the slope banks were reduced so significantly that the top of slope bank and the necessary pedestrian walk literally coincide--thus, safety protection of those areas is critical. i. ANALYSIS 1. The initial errors in this case were those pertaining to the grading of he site. To a large extent buildings were changed from their approved location n order to fit the erroneous grading of the site. As the result of this xperience, the City has developed a procedure for determining the status of the railing and no building permit is issued until the grading has been determined o be satisfactory. Procedures for establishing points of reference to determine h2 proper location of buildings have also been revised. 2. The most significant change from the approved plan involves the increase n height of the southwest building pad which creates a definite adverse effect on 9~ ~ A~ ty Planning Commission page 11 ienda Items for Meeting of April 25, 1979 t e adjoining single family dwellings to the south. The developer testified i the public hearings held by the City last year that construction in this a ea would do nothing to block the views of single family lots, which then had a commanding view of the ocean and Point Loma. The construction of the three b ildings lying easterly of the primary entrance road do, in fact, significantly b ock or reduce the view of homes lying to the southeast. In addition, as m ntioned previously, the most easterly building was moved some 45 feet closer, t within 40 feet of the single family area. The retention of someone's view is u ually not the most significant planning issue in a project. In fact, the City o ten times cannot control blockage of views, depending on the terrain. However, i this case both the staff and the applicant endeavored to plan the project to p eserve the views from the single family area to the south and this was one of t e main issues discussed at the public hearings held on the subject map. The d veloper promised and the approved plans insured that the views from the adjoining s ngle family dwellings would not be obstructed. 3. After viewing the site from the rear yards of the various single family h mes located along the south property line and reviewing the building plans, s off has concluded that the top. two units in the three most easterly buildings o the upper pad should be removed to insure the views and minimize the impact on t e adjoining R-1 area. 4. The revised grading of the site has brought about the need for the extensive c nstruction of retaining walls, just under 4 feet in height, along Telegraph C nyon Road and 8 feet high around the parking area and toe of slopes near the g rages and units. In addition, the reduction of level areas adjacent to the walk e try areas has prompted staff to place additional conditions of landscaping and f ncing on the project to insure safety and an aesthetically pleasing project. E~ FINDINGS 1. That s udz plan rvi Z Z not, under the circurrs tances o f th e particular cos e, detrimental to the health, safety or general roeZfare of persons re<sidinq or king in the vicini~, or injurious to improvements in the vicinity . The plan with changes as recommended by the staff will be a well designed project for the location. The plan offers amenities and more than ample offstreet parking. With the conditions recommended by staff, views from the single family homes to the south will be substantially restored. 2. That, such plan satin fies the principles of the application of the "P" ify ing Dis trict rs s et .forth in Section. 56.041. The applicant has designed a project incorporating split level units which help reduce the impact of the grading on a severe slope. Additional land- scaping conditions have been recommended by staff to heln alleviate erosion problems which may occur due to the lz:l slope conditions. 3. Zhat aru~ exceptions granted i.9iidz deviate from the underlying zoning r quirements shall be rxzrranted only i,3zen necessary to meet the purpose and a pZication of the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District. ~~ ;ity Planning Commission Igenda Items for Meeting of Aprii 25, 1979 page 12 The project meets the requirements of the underlying zone. 4. Zhat. approvriZ of this plan rviZZ conform to tie General Plan ar,~~ the adopted po"Zicies of the citz~. The proposed use is in conformance with the Generai Plan designation of high density residential development for this site. Special emphasis will be placed on the landscaping along Telegraph Canyon Road which has been designated as a Scenic Route in the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan. ~~! DAT . TO: field Inspection Department of Public ~~7orks City of Chula Vista P. 0. Bo:~ 1087 Cflula Vista, CA 92012 FRO.`I: File: FY 002 E Y ~ti < SUB~%CT: Request for Foundation Inspection Land Development Permit 77-x: ~ G C~''d'?s~~ ~ ex-~<-~~ Location : ~~ ~'y ~J ~1- ~7.C ~ ~ /~ r~~~E' The following statements are furnished as evidence of having completed the rough grading for Land Development authorized under the conditions of subject permit. SOILS E~vGI:~1EER STATE~IE`7T (To be completed if Soils Engineer required) I hereby state that inspections and tests were made by me, or under my supervision, and that in my professional opinion all embankments have been compacted to an indicated 9 ~ "~~'~'relative compaction and in accordance with the earthwork specifications for the project, subject land development permit, and the appli- cable sections of the City Code applying to the above statement. Signature ~ w R.C.E. ~- ate CIVIL E~;GINEER STATE.IENT (To be completed in all instances) 9~~ ~ignacure R.C.L. Date I hereby state that I have checked the building pads, cut and fill slohcs and related grading as shown on the grading plans for subject permit. That in my professional judgment the grad- ing has been pompleted to the lines and grades in substantial conformance ;vith the approved plans, land developement permit and applicable sections of the Chula Vista ,Iunicipal Code. ~Ci~s - ~' l ~~ D.~.I I / r l ,, . - ,. _ •~ 'PC : Fiala Ins;.~ection Deoart:-:ent or Public ;works Cit•/ o~ Chula Vista P. O. Bc:{ lOS7 C`:ula Vista, CA Q2012 r. i?O'.. 3 u,ci; ~-.5 ~- SOZL= E:vGI;:EER STATE'~lE`JT (To be comp let~~:l if Soils Engineer required) may`"`"cT o.a~.~ Cav~'r I hereby state that in:~pections and tests were made by me, car under my super,ision, ar,d that in my professional opinion ali embankr-;er.ts have been compacted to an indicated ~~;!~ rei ~~ ~ i•.•c~ ~-- . ce:^aaction and in accordance with the earthwork specifications fcr the project, subject land development permit, and the appii- cable sections of the City Code applying to the above statement. _ .-. __ The following statements are furnished as evidence f having completed the rough grading for Land De~.~elcpment aut.orized ur:der the ccnditions of. subject permit. File: FY OG2 EY o ~~ Sli~.;ECT: Request for Foundation Inspection Land Development 2errr,it G ~ _ Location : `J~_~~ ~~4_~C; ~c~~ -~ ~~iw% ~~~"'~~a ~~ "Si_~r.ature~ ~ R.C.E. Date CIVIL E.~~~I~iEER STATE"•;E`:T (To be completed in all instances) I herF~~bv state that I h~i~-'e checked the building pads, cut a:: fill slo-~cs and relatc:cl ~~rading as shoctin on the grading pla:•. for subject permit. That-. in my professional judgment the cr:. ing h~~s been completed to thr~ lines and grades in substahti~~ coniorm~inco ~:~ith the app.-:~-~ed plans, land developement L~ermi~ and appiicai~le sections -:~t the Chula Vista ".unicipal Cede. ~ti.--:atu~f R.C..~. Dame D"f','r.i 9~~ T.°r Field Inspection Department of Public Works City of Chula Vista P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 RO:1: UBJECT: Request for Foundation Inspection Land Development Permi t G _ ~~~~ ~,~ ~ ~_~ Location: ~-! ~~_~_!,-~ ^~~ ~-- _ he fo'_lowing statements are f~~rnished as evidenc© of having ompleted the rough grading for Land Development authoriacsd nder the conditions of subject permit. SOILS ENGINEER STATEMENT (To be completed it Soils Engineer required) hereby state that inspections and tests were made by me, or nder my supervision, and that in my professional opinion all mbankments have been compacted to an indicated $ relative ompaction and in accordance with the earthwork specifications or the project, subject land development permit, and the appli- able sections of the City Code applying to the above statement. gnature ~' R.C.E. CIVIL ENGINEER STATEti1ENT (To be completed in all instances) .. ~.~j~:'c t~ File: FY 00 EY Oc;y i~~i~(~ Date I hereby state that I have checked the building p~~ds, cut and fill s1oE~c:s and related grading as shown on the grading plans for subject permit. That in :ny professional judgment the grad- in~~ has been completed to the lines and grades in substantial con~ormance with the approved plans, land developement permit and applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 5natur D:III/rl ~~~~~~~ /l ~~~ ~ ~a~o LJ~4 R.C.E. Date ~~ i r:.: -~.~ 0 a u ,~~ • ~. !'~~iIJ/ . '/~IK~ .~~~ i~~ i.r ~i ri/!I.•/f~TA~Ii llld iT"lq!/~ f: ' ~ ~~ •. ~*.r e~~~ fi ~~~ci h i~f .its lf~ ~J•- PU LIC Q'ORI;S DEP:1RTVi;~'T J-Len, Inc. P. O. Box 1940 Chula Vista, CA 92012 TELEGRAPH CANYON TERRACE !tli~il`~;~111~/ t~l~~~ ,u'`,hti Cit, c~ C~1u~a ~istn CALIFORNI.~ February 7, 1979 File No. EY-084 A number of apparent discrepancies between the approved grading plans for this project and work actually done have recently come to my attention. Several of these discrepancies are listen below. 1. Cut slopes in the central portion of the project which were supposed to have a slope ratio of 1.5:1 have slope ratios as steep as 1.1:1. 2. Retaining walls which were supposed to have been provided to support portions of high slopes have not been built. 3. The central access road was required to have a grade of no more than 140. A portion of .this road has an apparent grade of at least 170. 4. Building pads for residential structures and garages are shifted horizontally as much as ninety feet from approved locations. 5. Building pads are as much as twenty feet away from elevations shown on approved grading plans. Because of these and other discrepancies, we are concerned with the safety of the residential structures and their suitability for sale as condominiums. We are therefore requesting, by copy of this letter, that the City of Chula Vista's Department of Building and Dousing halt all building inspection until such time as we are assured that the safety and welfare of future residents of this project are protected. ~(~! 76 FOURTH A~'ENLiE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNLA 92010 ~ ~' •. inn? 4(f1llt!1t r(r , ~,~ ~a~ma;rftnt~ ctu-a :.,' 1 itutt`iiiltlEl:K ;' r~': ,llfllt~at_ ~ 1.{~ TELEPHONE ~~~~~~~575---~,' ^• ~. ~ ~ J-Len, Inc. -2- February 7, 1979 I suggest that your engineer contact Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer, at 575-5118 to make arrangements to correct the above problems. ~~ ~ ~f %' W. J. ROBENS Director of Public Works RLD:nr cc: Lane Cole, City Manager E. J. Grady, Director of Building & Housing D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning State of California, Dept. of Real Estate Cordova Engineering Corp. / r /~/~ * // ~N~ ~/ 1. ~~ ~~•• l ~~~~~!!i ~ J~~~ Office of J ENNIE ht. ULASZ, CITY CLERK Date: May 29, 1979 To: JLEN, Inc. P.O. Box 1940 Chula Vista, CA 92012 {~- City o~ C(nu~a ~Uista CALIFORNIA Subject: (~ Resolution No. 9614 ( ) Ordinance No. and agreement You will find enclosed a certified copy of the City Council document/approved at the meeting of May 22, 1979. including agreement JENNIE M. FULASZ , C"•7C City Clerk Enclosures STAR NEUJS: P.~ecvse pub.~i~h ~h.u, dacumev~t on and send ups a copy fah awc Ond~.nance Baa . R~CURD~R: P.2ease rcecand ~5a,i.d dacwr-ent and n~twcn .ct .ta us a~ yaws. ecvc,P.,i.e~z canveru.ence. ~~+v 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714)575-5041 CC-685 (Rev. 7.0/77)