HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/04/24
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CAll TO ORDER
ROll CAll/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 10, 2002
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Public Hearing - PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit
to permit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory
second dwelling unit behind the primary single-family
residence, at 736 Church Avenue. Applicant: Daniel Contreras
Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Staff recommends that this public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of May 8, 2002.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 02-08; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map
known as San Miguel Ranch Lot 5, Chula Vista Tract 02-08.
Applicant: Pardee Construction Company.
Project Manager: Rich Zumwalt, Associate Planner
3. REPORT:
General Plan Update
Project Manager: Ed Batchelder, General Plan Update Manager
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
-- ~_._._~. _._-.-.~--,.._."~--_.._----_.,.-..,,_.._~_._-~._-----,--- -.-.-
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes,
Thomas, Willeltt
McCann
Absent:
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner
Marty Chase, Special Projects Manager
Cathy Burciaga, Fiscal & Management Analyst
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
Continued Public Hearing - PCC 01-87; Conditional Use
Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless
communications facility consisting of nine panel
antennas mounted inside of a new roof to be added to an
existing picnic shelter; and an associated 324 sf
equipment building within Voyager Park on East J Street.
Applicant: Spring PCS.
Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner reported thatthis item was continued from
the March 27th Planning Commission meeting to give staff the opportunity to review the
master lease agreement and to prepare a revised resolution. The revised resolution
includes two new conditions (#21 and #22), which deal with restrictions on the
provision of electrical power to the facility and specified penalties for violation of the
Master Lease Agreement.
Elizabeth Hull, stated that although she was not in attendance at the March 27th meeting,
..___..__....__....___..._ ,..~,. ~.___.___.__..........._.,__~____~c....._,...
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
April 10, 2002
she had reviewed the transcription tape and has a good understanding of the concerns
and issues raised by the Commission, which are:
1. A request to put in a liquidated damages provision within the CUP.
Liquidated Damages is a contractual issue and the lease itself contains a provision to
cover breach of the lease and payment, therefore, liquidated damages would not be
an appropriate condition to place within the CUP.
2. Condition the CUP to use the funds generated by the lease and earmark them to a
particular park or project.
The funds generated by the lease are the equivalent to rental income and to attempt
to earmark those funds for a specific use would be inappropriate, however, if the
Planning Commission feels there are impacts to the park or public facility, then it
would be appropriate to condition the CUP addressing mitigation measures to those
impact.
3, The preparation of a master plan identifying potential public owned sites for the
location of PCS antenna/facilities.
Condition #13 addressing the master plan has been removed because it is a condition
more appropriately placed upon the City and not the applicant. If the Commission
wishes to pursue that, then it would be appropriate to direct staff to prepare the
master plan to be considered as policy.
4. Would a breach of the CUP be grounds for terminating a lease?
It would not, however, breaching the lease would be grounds for terminating the
CUP.
:>. There was a concern with energizing the site prior to sign-off of the permit.
A condition has been placed in the CUP stating that the site will not be activated
unti I the project management and design staff has signed-off on the final construction.
The Commission expressed concern with the latitude this gives the carrier and the
predicament it places the City in not being able to control and ensure that all of the
conditions are met; a perfect example being the facility at the Country Club, which had
so many conditions that were ignored and the facility was aesthetically lacking and the
landscape improvements appeared to have been abandoned.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
April 10, 2002
Jim Sandoval clarified that although he understands the Commission's frustration, the
incident at the Country Club is somewhat unique in that there were various carriers who
were responsible for different aspects of the project and due to an unfortunate lack of
communication, certain conditions were not adhered to, however, are now being
rectified.
Public Hearing Opened and Closed 6:25.
Mr. Sandoval stated that he understood the Commission's desires to move forward with
having a master plan prepared, however, since staff will be submitting the Wireless
Ordinance for Commission review in May and most likely various carriers will be in
attendance at that meeting, he suggested that perhaps that would be the appropriate time
to solicit this information from them to see what their future plans are for locating these
facilities within the City.
MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-
01-87 recommending approval of the Sprint wireless communications facility, subject
to the conditions of approval contained in the resolution. Motion carried.
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (6-0-1-0) minute recommendation from the Planning
Commission that any proceeds generated from a lease for utilization of a Parks &
Recreation facility be retained within the overall Parks & Recreation Department
budget without any offset to the department's General Fund budget.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-19; Consideration of amendments to the Eastlake II
General Development Plan, Eastlake Greens and Eastlake Trails
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) and adopt a new Sectional
Planning Area SPA plan to be known as Eastlake II SPA.
Background: Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner reported that the Eastlake Greens SPA
was originally adopted in 1992 and consists of 995 acres and has a capacity for 3,443
dwelling units in a variety of residential products and also features a variety of
commercial uses open space and other support land uses.
The Eastlake Trails consists of 322 acres and contains a total of 1,143 dwelling units and
the SPA was originally adopted in 1998. As of January 2002, the Trails has received all
necessary entitlements and construction is about 81 % complete.
The two SPA's are governed by a common GDP and share other regulatory documents
and an Affordable Housing program and agreement and a Community Purpose Facility
Master Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
April 10, 2002
The new SPA will not change the established land uses or any other provisions of the
current SPA plans, will enable the combined area to be fully developed in a
comprehensive manner and will be much more user-friendly, simplifying the
maintenance and update of these documents.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 02-19
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Eastlake II
General Development Plan, Eastlake Greens and Eastlake Trails SPA Plans and adopt a
new Eastlake II SPA merger in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
Public Hearing Opened and Closed 6:55.
MSC (WillettlThomas) (6-0-1-0) That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM
02-19 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the
Eastlake II General Development Plan, Eastlake Greens and Eastlake Trails SPA Plans
and adopt a new Eastlake II SPA merger in accordance with the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-03, City initiated proposal to amend the Growth
Management Ordinance; the Growth Management Program;
and the Threshold/Standards and Growth Management
Oversight Commission Policy, to enact corrected threshold
standards for Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services.
Commissioner Cortes stepped down from the dais.
Background: Cathy Burciaga, Fiscal & Management Analyst gave a historical overview
of how the thresholds were established in 1988 by a community group concerned about
maintaining service levels as the City grew. At the time, the group felt that residents
were satisfied with the service levels for fire and police and those levels were set as
threshold standards. Staff was then directed to determine what those levels were.
For Fire, the threshold standard was set at responding to 85% of emergency calls within
7 minutes. Police emergency calls were to be responded to in 4.5 minutes on average
with at least 84% of all emergency calls responded to in 7 minutes or less. For these
urgent, but non-life threatening calls the response time threshold was set at 7 minutes on
average with 62% of all urgent calls to be responded to within 7 minutes.
Council then adopted these standards and at the same time the GMOC was formed to
monitor development impacts on the quality of life in Chula Vista using these thresholds
as their criteria. Response times were reported annually to the GMOC, but the Police
Planning Commission Minutes
5
April 10, 2002
and Fire were concerned about a persistent shortfall in response time averages.
An extensive study was conducted which included an examination of 10 years worth of
data and one of the findings was that travel time had increased significantly. For Police,
the reason was identified immediately; patrol was seriously understaffed and the study
subsequently recommended the addition of 16 new officers.
For Fire, the main reason was an operational change due to government mandated Fire
Fighter training requirements that have significantly increased since 1988, which means
that more responses now originate from distant fire stations, which obviously increases
travel time.
The study also revealed that large numbers of calls were given times of "0" seconds for
one of two reasons; either, in error, when times were punched by hand before the CAD
system, or they were 911 hang-up calls. Including these calls, made the average
response times appear to be much faster than it actually was.
An examination of the first full year of 1990 CAD data served as a very good proxy for
what was actually happening with dispatch times in 1988 and this data was used to
recalculate the threshold standards and recommend the following corrections:
. Fire
. Police (Emergency calls) -
. Police (Urgent calls)
80% of calls within 7 minutes
81 % of calls within 7 minutes
57% of calls within 7 minutes
While the recommended corrections place the threshold standards where they should
be, it needs to be emphasized that they do not reduce performance; in fad, performance,
for both Fire and Police, has improved since this study was done in 1999.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that they adopt the Ordinance amending Sedions 19.09.040A&B of the Municipal Code
and amend Sedions 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 of the City's Growth Management Program and the
amendments to the Threshold/Standards and GMOC Policy, to enact correded threshold
standards for Police and Fire/Emergency Medical Services.
Public Hearing Opened 7:05.
Ait Garcia, 904 Via Verde, Chula Vista, GMOC Chairman stated that initially, the
GMOC was unhappy with the requested change, however, through numerous meetings
with the Police and Fire Chiefs and upon detailed review of the data, the Commission
was convinced that it was a fair request and supported the changes. The GMOC is
satisfied with the responses and with the performance at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
April 10, 2002
Public Hearing Closed 7:06.
Discussion:
Chair O'Neill stated that as a former member of GMOC and the Planning Commission's
representative to GMOC, he initially was concerned that the perception would be that
we are lowering the threshold because it could not be reached, however, he is now
convinced that this is not the case.
As previously stated, the GMOC was created, in large part through the efforts Will Hyde
and Frank Scott, and the thresholds were set through no special study or formula, but
rather that everyone was comfortable with the level of service then, and they simply tried
to quantify response times.
Cmr. O'Neill also stated that to further gauge the community's satisfaction, is the survey
that the Police Chief conducts every three years, which reflects positive feedback from
the community in all geographical locations throughout the City.
Marty Chase stated that the thresholds can be used as a benchmark, which proved to be
of value because this was the impetus that resulted in the City Council approving the
addition of 16 new Police Officers to the force. On the other hand, since 1988, there are
service enhancements that have been added to Police and Fire (i.e. school resource
officers, gang units and street teams, and defibrillators), which are not measured.
Commissioner Castaneda indicated that response time alone was an inadequate measure
by which to assess the quality of our public safety services and other measures that are
not growth-driven should be considered. Furthermore, the current response time
threshold is inappropriate.since the developer does not have direct control to solve the
problem. Lastly, Cmr. Castaneda stated that, in his opinion, there needs to be a
comprehensive mechanism, outside of the GMOC process, to measure police and fire
performance upon which to base recommendations for improvement.
MSC (O'NeilllThomas) (4-1-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA
02-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the
Growth Management Ordinance to enact corrected threshold standards for Police and
Fire/Emergency Medical Services. Motion carried, with Commissioner Castaneda
voting against it.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2002.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
~\I~
-"'..-..-
,.......~
~.~
cmrf"JF
mUlA Vl<;T;,\
Depart:l:nent: of Plan.ning and Building
Date:
April 24, 2002
To:
Planning Commissioners
John Schmitz, Principal Planner ('j)
Continued Public Hearing on PC/02-13 (Contreras)
From:
Subject:
On March 27, staff presented a report to the Planning Commission on the above application by Mr.
Contreras to legalize the conversion of an existing garage/workshop to an accessory dwelling unit at
736 Church Avenue. The Commission continued the item and asked for additional information on the
building and code enforcement history of the subject property, the status of the existing structure in
regard to setbacks, and limitations that could be placed on the size of the proposed unit. Planning
staff and the City Attorney have not completed all of their research into these issues and are
recommending another continuance to the May 8 meeting. Staffhas spoken to Mr. Contreras and he
does not object to this continuance. Staff has also spoken to a neighborhood spokesperson about this
continuance and she did not object. The neighbors may use the time to submit a letter to further
express their sentiments about this application.
Staff is therefore recommending that PCC 02-13 be continued to the May 8, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting.
JCS
J:\PlanninglJohnS\StaffReports\PC\2002\PC - 736 Church 2nd Unit Cantin.DOC
.-_."'"--
. - -------..................-.- -" -.--.,.---.---- ,,- ."' ",.._---,-......--.-
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: :t.
Meeting Date: 04/24/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS 02-08; Consideration ofa Tentative Subdivision Map
known as San Miguel Ranch Lot 5, Chula Vista Tract 02-08 - Pardee
Construction Company.
The applicant, Pardee Construction Company, has submitted an application requesting approval
of a Tentative Subdivision Map (San Miguel Ranch Lot 5, Chula Vista Tract 02-08), to subdivide
22.39 acres into 107 lots. The proposed subdivision is located at the northwest corner of Mount
Miguel Road and Proctor Val1ey Road (see Locator Map).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Tentative Map and determined that the
project is in substantial conformance with the project analyzed in the previous Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02 certified October 19, 1999, and therefore no further
environmental analysis is required. Mitigation requirements for the project have or will be
satisfied through conditions of approval and implementation of other permits related to the San
Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Map, CVT 99-04.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCS 02-08 recommending that the
City Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 02-08 in accordance with
the attached draft City Council Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The Project Site is zoned Planned Community (PC) and the land use district is SF-5, Single
Family Residential, which permits attached or detached single family units with minimum lot
sizes of 4,000 square feet (see Figure I). The Project Site is a 22.39 acre super block lot with
capacity for 121 single family units. The maximum permitted dwelling units were increased from
116 to 121 by a previously approved Administrative Density Transfer, pursuant to the San
Miguel Ranch SPA Plan. The Administrative Density transfer was requested by NNP- Trimark-
Pacific, San Miguel LLC (Master Developer) before approval of the Master Tentative Map CVT
99-04, and was for the purpose of permitting minor density transfers between SPA planning
areas. However, the total number of dwelling units permitted by the SPA (1,394 du's) did not
change.
Pursuant to the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, Zoning Administrator approval of a Site Plan to
establish development regulations and architectural design review approval for the project is
required for this project. The applicant has submitted Site Plan application DRC 02-17, which is
(
~--_._._.. -_. -_..._-_.~ ... --._-,~._--..--_._--_._- -..
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/24/01
presently being processed. The DRC application is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the
Zoning Administrator on May 15, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
I. Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mount Miguel Road and
Proctor Valley Road. Directly north of the site is the collector street Cal1e La Marina, which
provides the project's auto access to Mount Miguel Road. Across Cal1e La Marina is Planning
Area C, which was recently approved by the Design Review Commission for 110 attached
triplex condominium units. To the northwest across Calle La Marina is the 2.1 acre private
Neighborhood Park. To the west is the SDG&E utility easement, and across that is Planning Area
E, which is proposed for development of 144 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot
size of 4,500 square feet. To the east is 4-lane Mount Miguel Road, which is the San Miguel
Ranch projects' circulation element road. Adjacent to Mount Miguel Road is a hiking and
equestrian trail. Across Mount Miguel Road is Planning Area H, which has recently obtained an
approved final Map for 131 single-family residential lots with minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet. To the south, across 2-lane Proctor Val1ey Road, is the existing Estancia single-family
residential subdivision which is a part of the Salt Creek I Planned Community (see Locator
Map).
2. Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is located on the west side of Mount Miguel at the San Miguel Ranch Project's
eastern primary entry. The site is currently vacant and has been graded into a large pad in
accordance with the mass-grading program, so the site is terraced to decrease in elevation from
east to west. The site has minor cut slopes on the northeast corner, minor fil1 slopes on the east
side adjacent to Mount Miguel Road, and major fill slopes on the south adjacent to Proctor
Valley Road and on the west side adjacent to the SDG&E easement.
SPA Land Use Designations and Existing Land Use of Site and Surrounding Area
Zoning Land Use Designation Existing Land Use
Site PC, Planned Community SF-5, Single Family vacant
AttachedIDetached
North PC, Planned Community SF A, Single Family vacant
Attached/Detached
South PC, Planned Commun ity Salt Creek I - Single family Single Family Resid.
East PC, Planned Community SF-3. Single Family Detached vacant
West PC, Planned Community SF-4. Single Family Detached vacant
.::L
Page 3, Item;
Meeting Date: 04/24/01
3. Proposed Development
The Tentative Subdivision Map proposes subdivision of a 22.39 - acre lot into a total of 107
single family residential lots, ranging in size from 4,114 to 18,074 square feet. Also proposed
are 13 open space lots (see Figure 2). The proposed density of the project is 4.8 dulac, which is
consistent with the San Miguel Ranch SPA designation of 5.4 dulacre (see Figure 3).
4. Analysis
Grading
The site's natural terrain sloped northeast to the southwest, but has now been mass graded by the
Master Developer into a large pad. The pad elevations range from approximately 621 feet in the
northeast to 545 in the southwest. It will be rough-graded into individual building pads to create
views oriented to the west. There will be a 40 foot high, 2: I slope at southwestern corner of the
site adjacent to Proctor Val1ey Road. This slope decreases in height easterly along Proctor
Val1ey Road until it meets the street grade at the southeast corner adjacent to the Mount Miguel
Road. This slope also decreases in height northerly along the SDG&E easement, to a height of20
feet at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Calle La Marina. On the eastern side of the
site, there will be a slight down-slope from the site to Mount Miguel Road (see figure 4 ).
Subdivision Design/Lot Size
The project proposes lots with minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square feet and average lot sizes of
5, I 00 square feet. A minimum level pad size of 4,000 square feet is provided. To ensure useable
side and rear yards, the internal side yard and rear yard setbacks wil1 be measured from the top or
toe of slopes or retaining wal1s. Retaining walls will be limited to 3 feet high in the side yard
and 5 feet high in the rear yard. The subdivision design complies with the lotting criteria
established in the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and associated regulatory documents
Project Access
The future SR-125 toll highway is located approximately 1/2 -mile west of the project site.
Access to future SR-125 will be provided through on-ramps to be located at future Mount Miguel
Road and East H Street. Vehicular access to San Miguel Ranch is provided by East H Street,
Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Val1ey Road. Future Cal1e La Marina, a residential col1ector
street, wil1 provide access Irom Mt. Miguel Road to the Project Site. The San Miguel Ranch
Project's Master Tentative Map CVT 99-04 contains conditions of approval requiring the Master
Developer, to insta1l street improvements for Mt. Miguel Road, Proctor Val1ey Road, and Cal1e
La Marina, which are presently under construction. Bicycle Lanes wil1 be provided along Mount
Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road.
The project has two vehicular entries on the north side accessing Cal1e La Marina. The internal
circulation system shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map consists of 56 foot wide public
streets with an internal circular loop street and an additional street that bisects the loop street.
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/24/01
Conditions of approval require instal1ation of these improvements in conjunction with Final Map
approval.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access to the site and surrounding amenities will be provided by a network of
sidewalks and trail connections through the primary entry located at the southeast corner of the
Project site. This trail connection will provide pedestrian access to surrounding areas to the south
via the adjacent trails in Proctor Valley Road, Mount Miguel Road, and SDG&E easement E-I.
These trail improvements will be provided by the Master Developer.
Transit
Transit service to the site will be provided by Chula Vista Transit through two bus stops
proposed for the adjacent intersection of Cal1e La Marina and Mount Miguel Road. Instal1ation
of these bus stops are the responsibility of the City and the Master Developer.
Common Open Space/Recreational Areas:
The conceptual landscape plan for the project shows landscaping for the secondary project entry
along Calle La Marina, street trees, internal project slopes, walls and fences. Specific details of
landscaping, signage, fences and walls will be worked out in conjunction with the detailed
landscape plans, wall fence and trail plans prior to approval of the final map.
The southeastern corner of the site proposes a Master Homeowners Association (HOA) lot for
the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community's primary entry. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual plan for the primary entry, which wil1 be reflected on the future detailed landscape
and irrigation plans for the San Miguel Ranch project entries (see Figure 5). This project will be
conditioned to ensure that the primary entry, as wel1 as other landscaping, trails, fences and walls
in common lots control1ed by the Master Developer and Master HOA, will be instal1ed prior to
final inspection of building permits for these units (see Condition 14).
Recreational amenities are not provided on site, however, a future 2.1 acre private Neighborhood
Park is located approximately 250 feet northwest of the project. Also, the proposed 16.2 acre San
Miguel Ranch Community Park is located approximately II. mile north of the Project Site.
Conclusion:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 02-08 recommending
that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map PCS 02-08. As mentioned in the body
of this report, the proposed project meets the density restrictions of the San Miguel Ranch SPA.
As conditioned, the project will meet all other requirements for development of the project.
'f
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/24/01
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Figures:
(I) San Miguel Ranch SPA Land Use Districts
(2) San Miguel Ranch Site Utilization Plan
(3) Lot 5 Tentative Map
(4) Grading Plan
(5) Conceptual Landscape Plan for Primary Entry
4. Ownership Disclosure Statement
J :\PLANN ING\PCS02-08 PC Agenda. doc
-----
S
COUNTY OF
CllY OF CHULA VISTA LIMITS
GJ
(j)
:>>
z
DIEGO
(SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
~
o
(COMMUNITY
PARK)
(SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
~
~
(SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
~
(J)
o
Q
0-
m
(MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
(SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
(SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
~
m
~ ~
=HBOR. -1
PARK)
0 V)
f- 0
C.9 ::E
w
15 ::;
z " (SCHOOL)
<( V)
(j) >=
LL :s
0 :0
~ I
U
Z ~
:0 0
0
0 ~
0
SAN MIGUEL
RANCH
108-31
(
(OPEN SPACE)
~
(COMMUNITY PURPOSE
FACILITY) Y ROAD
R\JA\.\.E
I'ROC'O
o
(COMMERCIAL)
o
(MULTI.
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
ROLLING
HILLS
RANCH
// I
LTr7--
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPnON:
C) APPLlCANl: PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROJECT Northwest corner of Proctor Valley
ADDRESS: Road and Mount Miguel Road Request: Proposal for 107 lots subdivision for single family
detached dwelling with 2 car garage on approximately 22.3 acres.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PC8-02-08 Related Case: 18-02-024.
C: Iplan n ingIDAlllocatorsIPCS0208 .cdr 01/30/02 ."
RESOLUTION NO. PCS 02-08
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH LOT 5 BY PARDEE
CONSTRUCTION, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-04.
WHEREAS, Pardee Construction Company has filed a duly verified tentative
subdivision map application for San Miguel Ranch, Chula Vista Tract PCS-02-08, with the
Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on January 23, 2002,
WHEREAS, said application requested approval to subdivide the 22.3 gross acres
located northwest of the future intersection of Proctor Valley Road and Mount Miguel Road
in the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community, into one-hundred and seven (107) single-
family residential lots, and 14 open space lots supporting the project entries and landscaping;
and,
WHEREAS, On October 19, 1999, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02 for San Miguel Ranch SPA; and,
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Tentative
Map and determined pursuant to Section 15162 ofthe CEQA Guidelines that the project is in
substantial conformance with the project analyzed in FSEIR 97-02 and related environmental
documents. The Tentative Map wil1 not result in any new environmental effects that were
not previously identified, nor would the project result in a substantial increase in severity in
any impacts previously identified. No further environmental analysis is required.
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building set the time and place for a
hearing on said tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together
with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project
at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00
p.m. April 24, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution
approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 02-08 in accordance with the
7
ATTACHMENT 1
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Kevin O'Neill, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: \pla nning\PCS-02-08. PCR
2
q
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SAN MIGUEL
RANCH LOT 5, CHULA VISTA TRACT 02-08.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatical1y represented in Exhibit A , attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and commonly known as the San Miguel Ranch Lot 5 Tentative Subdivision Map,
Chula Vista Tract 02-08; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of22.3
gross acres located northwest of the future intersection of Proctor Val1ey Road and Mount
Miguel Road, in the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2002, Pardee Construction Company ("Developer") filed
a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning and Building Department of the
City ofChula Vista requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for San Miguel
Ranch Lot 5, Chula Vista Tract 02-08 in order to subdivide the Project Site into one-hundred
seven (107) single-family residential lots; and 14 open space lots ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
various entitlements and agreements, including: I) a General Plan Amendment ("GP A") 96-
o I and San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan ("GDP")
PCM 96-05 previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 18532 on December 17,
1996; 2) the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA") PCM 96-04
previously approved by City Council Resolution 19631 on October 19, 1999; 2) San Miguel
Ranch Planned Community District Regulations; 3) San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines;
4) San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan; 5) San Miguel Ranch Affordable
Housing Program; 6) Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP); 7) San Miguel Ranch Water
Conservation Plan (WCP); and al1 previously approved by City Council Resolution
No.19631, and Ordinance 2799 on October 19, 1999; and the San Miguel Ranch (Master)
Tentative Map CVT 99-04, approved by City Council Resolution 2000-068 on February 29,
2000; and San Miguel Ranch A-Map No. I Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agreement approved by Council 8/7/0 I, per Resolution 2001-259 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in the environmental review of said SPA Plan and
Tentative Subdivision Map, and related documents, relied on the Final Subsequent
Cf
ATTACHMENT 2
- _..---~-"-_.- -~-~,--_._...".._-
Resolution No. Page 2 of 17
Environmental Impact Report for San Miguel Ranch No. FSEIR-97-02 (Third Tier EIR),
previously approved by City Council Resolution No.19630; and,
WHEREAS, the Tentative Subdivision Map is a subsequent activity in the program
of development, environmental1y evaluated under FSEIR 97-02, that is virtually identical in
all relevant respects including lot size and configuration, number of lots and dwelling units,
roadway facilities, to the Project descriptions in said former environmental evaluation; and,
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on April 24, 2002, and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted
( ) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions listed below.
D. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly caned and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on May 14,2002 on the Project and to receive
the recommendations ofthe Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard
to same; and,
WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative
subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to
property owners within 500 ft. ofthe exterior boundary ofthe Project at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00
p.m on. May 14, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine
and resolve as fol1ows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and an evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Project held on April 24, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
If)
Resolution No.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Page 3 of 17
On October 19, 1999, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista previously reviewed,
analyzed, considered, and certified FSEIR-97-02 (Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for San Miguel Ranch SPA).
IV. CEQA FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR SUBSEQUENT
EIR
The City Council hereby finds that (I) the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed
the Tentative Map and determined pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that
the Project is in substantial conformance with the Project analyzed in FSEIR 97-02 and
related environmental documents; and (2) The Tentative Map wil1 not result in any new
environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a
substantial increase in severity in any impacts previously identified; and (3) No further
environmental analysis is required.
V. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice to the extent required by law, that this Project was
ful1y described and analyzed and was within the scope of FSEIR 97-02 which adequately
described the activity for the purposes of CEQA.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for San Miguel
Ranch, Lot 5, Chula Vista Tract No. 02-08 is in conformance with the goals, objectives,
policies, programs and land uses described in the elements of the City's General Plan,
based on the fol1owing:
a. Land Use
The San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP identifies the Project
Site as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/acre). The San Miguel Ranch
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan identifies the Project site as Planning
Area D with a development potential ofll6 single-family dwel1ing units at a
density of 5.2 dwel1ing units per acre. The proposed tentative map requests
107 single-family dwe1ling units at a density of 4.8 dwe1ling units per acre.
Thus, the Project in substantial compliance with the land use and permitted
density of the San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP and San
II
Page 4 of 17
Miguel Ranch SPA. The Project proposes single-family development on a
site which is adjacent to single-family residential development on the west,
east and south and multi-family development on the north, and therefore the
Project is compatible with the adjacent land uses in the surrounding area.
Resolution No.
The Project also has obtained approval of a site plan which established
property development standards, architectural and landscaping design
standards for the Project. Thus, the design of the Project, as conditioned,
complements with the land uses in the surrounding area.
b. Circulation
A11 on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision wi11 be
constructed per City design standards in accordance with this Project, the
San Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Map and San Miguel Ranch Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
c. Housing
The San Miguel Ranch Master Planned Community offers a variety of
residential uses ranging from Low Density Residential (1-3 dulacre) to
Medium-High Density Residential (11-18 dulacre). The Project site is
proposed to be developed with Low-Medium Density single family
residential uses at 4.8 dwe11ing units per acre.
As a portion of the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community, this Project is
subject to the San Miguel Ranch Affordable Housing Agreement approved
on 8/7/01 which implements the San Miguel Ranch Affordable Housing
Program. This Program contains requirements for provision of affordable
housing by the Master Developer for low and moderate income households.
d. Conservation
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report FSEIR 97 -02 addressed
the goals and policies of the Conservation Element and found the
development of the site to be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element.
e. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The San Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Subdivision Map CVT 99-04,
approved 2/29/00, provides a community park, private neighborhood park,
private useable open space as wel1 as biological preserves, and regional as
we11 as community equestrian and pedestrian trails consistent with the
General Plan, San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General
/~
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 17
Development Plan and San Miguel Ranch SPA goals and objectives.
This Project implements park and recreation requirements of the San Miguel
Ranch SPA by reserving an open space lot at the intersection of Proctor
Valley Road and Mount Miguel Road for provision of a future primary
Proj ect entry and pedestrian trail connection.
f. Seismic Safety
A geo-technical study has been prepared, and conditions of approval have
been included which ensure that the proposed subdivision is in conformance
with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan.
g. Safety
The Fire and Police Department have reviewed the proposed subdivision for
conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal
as conditioned wi11 provide necessary improvements such as access roads,
street names and addresses, sprinkler systems, and fire hydrants.
h. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report FSEIR-97-02 and conditions of approval contained herein
adequately address the noise policies of the General Plan. The Project has
been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to preclude
interior noise levels over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA
for a11 outside private yard areas.
1. Scenic Highway
This Project Site is not located adjacent to a designated scenic highway.
J. Bicycle Routes
The San Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Map CVT 99-04 contains
provisions for establishing bicycle lanes on the adjacent residential co11ector
streets and Mount Miguel Road. In addition, the public streets within the
Project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle travel within the
interior of the subdivision.
k. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the Project Site. The Project is subject
to Residential Construction Tax fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 ofthe Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it
has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has
/3>
^ ----.---.---. ...-"-.-- ~'------'" --. ... --
Resolution No. Page 6 of 17
balanced those needs against the public service needs ofthe residents of the City and
the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partial1y al10ws for the
optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as
required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physical1y suitable for the proposed type and density of residential
development because the site is graded and level, and al1 public services and facilities
wil1 be provided to serve the Project, prior to or concurrent with development of the
Project. The Project design is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan
Land Use Element, the Project's approved GDP and SPA, and the proposal conforms
to al1 standards established by the City for such Projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact
created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project
subject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any
conflict shal1 be resolved by the City Manager or designee. The approval of the foregoing
Tentative Subdivision Map, which is stated to be conditioned on "General Conditions", is
hereby conditioned as fol1ows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shal1 improve the Project Site with the Project as
described in the San Miguel Ranch Lot 5 Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No.
02-08, except as modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures.
Developer shal1 diligently implement, or cause the implementation of al1 mitigation
measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for San Miguel Ranch (FSEIR 97-02). Any such measures not satisfied by a specific
condition of this Resolution or by Project design shal1 be implemented to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shal1 be monitored via the
Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the above FSEIR.
/y
---_.---_._----~~.._-_.._---,-_.._._.-_._'........---.-_._--_.__._--~_...__.-
Resolution No. Page 7 of 17
Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of
Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision.
C. Implement Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval Pertinent to Project
Unless otherwise conditioned, developer shall comply with al1 applicable conditions of
approval of the San Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-04,
established by Resolution No. 2000-068 and approved by Council on February 29, 2000; and
shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the
Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan, San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SP A) plan.
D. Implement Public Facilities financing Plan
Developer shall instal1 Public facilities in accordance with the San Miguel Ranch Public
facilities financing Plan, as may be amended from time to time, or as required by the City
Engineer to meet the Growth Management threshold standards adopted by the City ofChula
Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion,
modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such
modifications.
E. Design Approval
The Developer shall develop the Project in accordance with the applicable San Miguel Ranch
Planned Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines, and the project shall be
submitted for review and approval under the City's Design Review process prior to submittal
of the first building permit applications.
Vlll SPECIAL CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL
I. Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions set forth below
shall be completed prior to the first final map for the Project as determined by the
Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise
specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title.
Where an easement is required the Developer shal1 be required to provide
subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the City
has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the
City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free
and clear of al1 encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City.
I~
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 17
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
2. Developer shall comply with the following:
(a.) The development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations
established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) as
set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.)
permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any
regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S.
regulations or requirements;
(b.) File a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain
coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of
grading activities;
(c.)The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution
prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms
for post construction control measures;
(d.)Comply with all the provisions of the N.P.D.E.S. and the Clean Water Program
during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited
to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping
improvements, and construction of dwelling units;
(e.) Design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pol1ution, satisfactory to the
City Engineer;
(f.) Acknowledge that the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has
issued a new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01) and that the
permit includes regulations such as implementation of Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS) and Numeric Sizing Criteria for new
residential development;
(g.)Comply with all relevant City regulations and policies including, but not limited
to, incorporation into the design and implementation of the Project temporary
and permanent structural Best Management Practices and non-structural
mitigation measures that would reduce pollution of storm water runoff to the
maximum extent practicable;
/(;
Resolution No. Page 9 of 17
(h.)Detail water quality treatment improvements to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer on the grading plans for the Project. (Engineering)
3. Prior to the approval of the first map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading
permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Developer agrees to the
following:
a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Storm Water Permit
(Order No. 2001-01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board including revision of plans as necessary.
b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against a1l fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non-
compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection
with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for the Project,
whether the non-compliance results from any action by the Developer, any
agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developer's
indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and
liability incurred by the City.
c. That the City Engineer may require incorporation of Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements during the implementation
period preceding the adoption of the local SUSMP by the City, for all priority
Projects or phases of priority Projects undergoing approval process, in
accordance with Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No. CASOI08758 Municipal
Permit as determined by the City Engineer.
d. To not protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other
funding mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation,
maintenance, inspection, and monitoring of NPDES facilities. This
agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to
chal1enge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the
addition of these improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any
person to vote in a secret ballot election.
Such Developer obligation may be reassigned to a Master Homeowner's Association
or other appropriate Maintenance District subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. (Engineering)
I;
Resolution No.
WATER
Page 10 of 17
4. Do not instal1 privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any
public street. The instal1ation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned
facilities may be allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer if
the fol1owing is accomplished:
a. The Developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer
agrees to the fol1owing:
i.) Apply for an encroachment permit for instal1ation of the private
facilities within the public right-of-way; and,
ii) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert
Service; and,
iii) Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever
work is performed in the area; and,
iv) The terms ofthis agreement shal1 be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those
locations where private facilities traverse public streets. (Engineering)
5. Developer shall comply with al1 requirements of the approved San Miguel Ranch
Water Conservation Plan approved on October 19, 1999, and any subsequent future
amendments approved by the City Council. (Planning and Building, Engineering,
Building and Park Construction)
6. Prior to approval of each Final Map, present verification to the City Engineer in the
form of a letter from Otay Water District that Otay Water District is able to provide
sufficient water supply pursuant to Section 66473.7 of the California Government
Code, as may be amended from time to time.
SEWER
7. Developer shal1 eliminate manhole #15 as shown on the Tentative Map and
provide a vertical curve for the proposed sewer line between lots 36 and 37, and
shal1 instal1 a new manhole in Proctor Val1ey Road such that the sewer line from
Cal1e Fernando does not require a horizontal curve, al1 to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
17
Resolution No.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
Page II ofl7
8. Prior to approval ofthe first final Map for the Project, Developer shan enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and
agrees:
a. Concurrent with the submittal of Grading Plans, the applicant shan prepare
submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and
Building, for Landscape, Irrigation and Erosion Control Plans. Such approval
shal1 be indicated by means of the Director of Building and Park Construction
signature and date on said Plan. AI1 plans shan be prepared in accordance with
the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Section V-15 of the San Miguel Ranch
SPA Design Guidelines.
b. A comprehensive wan plan indicating color, materials, height and location shal1
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to
approval of the first Final Map. The wa1l plan shan also include details such as
accurate dimensions, complete cross-sections showing required noise wans,
adjacent grading, landscaping, road/trail/sidewalk improvements, and the location
of typical residential structures. Materials and color used shal1 be compatible
and an wans located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public or private
streets or pedestrian connections shan be constructed of a decorative masonry
and/or wrought iron material. Any combination free standing/retaining wans
shan not exceed 9.0 feet in height. The applicant shan submit a detail and/or
cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions for an "combination wal1s"
which include retaining and free standing walls, as part of said wan plan. An
wans shal1 be constructed in conjunction with rough grading improvements
within the Final Map area. (Planning & Building, Building & Park Construction)
9. Prior to the City acceptance of public improvements for any portion ofthe Project,
Developer shan instal1 or cause to be instal1ed, the landscape planting and irrigation,
and wan and fencing improvements for Open Space Lots (letter lots within the
Tentative Map) within the Project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Park and
Building Construction and Director of Planning and Building. (Building and Park
Construction. Planning and Building, Engineering, Public Works)
AGREEMENTS/fINANCIAL
10. Developer acknowledges and agrees that approval of the final Map and issuance of
any building permits for this Project are contingent upon satisfaction of an applicable
conditions ofthe San Miguel Ranch Master Tentative Map CVT 99-04, and the San
Miguel Ranch Phase L II, and IV final Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
/1
-_.~_._._._._------_.- --
Resolution No. Page 12 of 17
Agreement approved by City Council Resolution 2001-259 on 8/7/01. (Building and
Park Construction, Planning and Building)
II. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and
agrees that issuance ofbuilding permits and approval of a final map for this Project
is contingent upon satisfaction of al1 applicable requirements of the San Miguel
Ranch Affordable Housing Agreement (approved by City Council on 8/7/01 by City
Council Resolution 2001-258) by the Master Developer NNP -Trimark Pacific
Homes. (Community Development, Planning and Building).
12. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and
agrees that the noise walls required by the San Miguel Ranch FSEIR shall be
included on the rough grading plan, andinstalled to the satisfaction of the Director
of Planning and Building, in conjunction with rough grading improvements for the
Project. AI1 dwelling units shall be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45
dBA and extcrior noise levels over 65 dBA for a1l outside private yard areas
(Planning and Building).
13. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and
agrees that, prior to the construction of SR-125, the City shall stop issuing new
building permits for the Project when the City, in its sole discretion, determines
either:
a. Building permits for a total 9,429 dwel1ing units have been issued for Projects
east ofI-805 (the start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January I,
2000); or,
b. An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance.
Developer shall also acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the foregoing
thresholds, the City may issue building permits if the City Council decides, in its sole
discretion, that any of the following has occurred: I) the circulation system has
additional capacity without exceeding the GMOC traffic threshold standards based
upon tranic studies; 2) other improvements are constructed which provide additional
necessary capacity; or 3) the City selects an alternative method of implementing the
GMOC standards. These traffic studies would not require additional environmental
review under CEQA; however, any improvements proposed in these traffic studies
would be subject to additional environmental reviews as required. The above noted
~
Resolution No. Page 13 of 17
agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the Project. (Engineering)
14. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shaH enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer acknowledges and
agrees that pursuant to the San Miguel Ranch Project's Master Tentative Map, Chula
Vista Tract 99-04 approved February 29, 2000 and amended December 17, 2001, the
San Miguel Ranch Master Planned Community Project is limited to construction
within the areas east of SR-125 only (Phase areas I, II and/or IV as set forth in the
adopted San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan.) of not
more than 892 EDUs prior to the construction of SR-125. The EDU's shaH be
calculated per the methodology stated in the "East H Street Focus Capacity Analysis
1999-2005" study prepared by WiHdan Associates, dated June 8, 1999. This Project
site is a portion of Phase I of the San Miguel Ranch Project. (Engineering)
15. If phasing is proposed within an individual map, or through multiple final maps, the
Developer shal1 submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the
City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the first
final map. The phasing plan shaH include:
a. A plan showing the phase lines and phase numbers and number of dwel1ing units
required in each phase;
b. A table showing the phase number and number of dwelling units included in
each phase.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning
and Building. The City reserves the right to conditional1y approve each final map
and require improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide
adequate circulation, and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments.
The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may at their discretion,
modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to
warrant such revision(s).
16 . Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final
Map, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the Project if any one of the
following occur:
i. Regional development threshold limits set by a Chula Vista
transportation phasing plan, as amended from time to time, have been
reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management
~(
Resolution No.
Page 14 of 17
Program, as may be amended from time to time.
ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services
either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the
then effective Growth Management Ordinance, and Growth Management
Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not
be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water.
111. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended
or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing
and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City's
Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. The
Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the
phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP) for the San Miguel Ranch SPA if the required public facilities, as
identified in the PFFP have not been completed.
b. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its
agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval
by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor
any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this
subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the
City promptly notifies the Developer of any claim, action or proceeding and
on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
c. Permit all cable television companies franchised by the City ofChula Vista equal
opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service for each lot or
unit within the Tentative Map area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license
or easement, and for the benefit ot~ and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula
Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated
within the final map only to those cable television companies franchised by the
City of Chula Vista, the condition of such grant being that:
i. Such access is coordinated with Developer's construction schedule so
that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does
not require the trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of
such conduits; and
11. Any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and
~
Resolution No.
Page 15 of 17
promises to remain in compliance with the terms and conditions of the
franchise and with al1 other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same
may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula
Vista.
Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce
said covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including
revocation of said grant upon determination by the City of Chula Vista that
they have violated the conditions of grant.
d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project,
should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the
terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The
City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the
Developer reasonable time to cure said breach
e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow
of drainage resulting from this Project. (Engineering)
MISCELLANEOUS
17. The Developer shall create a Homeowner's Association, or annex the Project site to
the San Miguel Ranch Master Homeowner's Association ("MHOA"), to own and
maintain in a professional manner landscaping, open space areas, medians, parkways,
or any other common improvement specified in the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and/or required by the City ofChula Vista
(Building and Park Construction, Planning and Building).
18. The Developer shall comply with the Fire Department's codes and policies for Fire
Prevention, as may be amended from time to time. The Developer shall provide the
fol1owing items either prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for the Project, or
prior to delivery of combustible materials on any construction site on the Project,
whichever occurs earlier:
a. Water supply consisting of fire hydrants as approved and indicated by the Fire
Department during plan check to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Any
temporary water supply source is subject to prior approval by the Fire Marshal.
b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer of hard asphalt
surface or concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of20 feet.
d5
Resolution No.
Page 16 of 17
Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
Temporary street signs shall be subject to the approval ofthe Department of
Public Works and Fire Department. Locations and identification of
temporary street signs shall be subject to review and approval by the
Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (Fire, Planning,
F;ngineering)
c.
19. Prior to approval of the first final map, the Developer shall obtain Zoning
Administrator Design Review approval, including mitigation measures related to site
improvements tor the development of the project. The following minimum lot
dimensions and lot areas are established by this condition for the Project. The
minimWll lot design standards for the subdivision are as fol1ows:
i) Minimum lot width is 47 feet;
ii) Minimum lot depth is 83 feet;
iii) Minimum lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and knuckles is 35 feet.
iv) Minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet.
v) MinimWll level pad area is 4,000 square feet.
IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City shal1 have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits,
deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by
Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction top be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be
deemed to be automatical1y revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
c2-f
Resolution No.
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
J: Iplan n ingIPCS-0208.CCR
~
Page 17 of 17
Approved as to form by
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
"'
'"
..'"
o .
.->0
:x:z;-
O..:ii
Z u 0
<: <: >
~ p::; ;::
;--1 b ::
P1 ..( ~
::> .. 0
i:' V'.I E-<
;>
Z~
<:~
~~
u
il!i~
!jli"lfi
WI',~.:,lli
i,'IL!!!1
'"-~:
iii ~, J!!!;:!!ii!m!iiii!!!ii!i
.,,] ,j,.,I!:!!i'i":'":'''i'''
Im:~!i':!!ii:ii1;ii!:i!i:ii1:!ii
.- .f _.
;'
"
'"
~(
II
.:.:.r
",,'..,;..
'.i. '
, /;1 ~
:1
!!~;~ii
I~.~~.
(,';;1:;
I j~r:1i:f
I~:~!j,
-~~r
I ~ _ ;;
! ;1;. \~-
i.",;,
miid
0)
\j
!; li~~~! Ii ii
:', ~~!! ~!~ !i! :i!!I!' ;.\ I,
I ~ ;; ~:i i '
Ii! ! ';i ~;i ji.!,
i;!!:, :Ji!ili:'i:!m~ !!!!,d!i
",.' ,,,11.11,....,,,.,'1",,..
(Hi~! ~I ni!!:I~i:~-ij,iih~ ~ ~;!~;:'H~i
_II.... i '-!"'-!,i.. "-n' ~"-"-",.,-,,,
i;!;~i ;~::"!:~,.;::~,~!~:':~ i mm~!
i
j
.
i
!
,
,
!
. i \1
,
~
!
:'1'
~;,:
l t I.
il;;
~),
I ~ I
11 'r:
: '.1
J;
1'\
"1:
J
-;1
.
}
i'
I"
il'
!it
~~:
Iii
I: Ii, I
jl ! "j j'
'i"," .,
iI hE, 'I';
. - . ; ~ ~ ! ;
J I
! 1:1
! :1
i;li!
HH~
11m
~ ':.
1 !~:
L.
,-,C, i' I:i. I',
l.h'~11 .! i" I :""
, ~ i!:;::'; ;1' i~;i !1! !;
~'I ,; ~. i'le ' ,! ~ j', ' !,j i~
,~; :;;d~;~ ~~f h!t ! ~!! ~;!
I:! '!"'IJ :j- ,'I' . .;1! I
I~; ! i!~ ;E ':" ,~,' d -ii .:
i ! ;~,! 1.::,;;': ~~! ~:I~. ~I ~I.' ;.','
'I ,.1 ~I': ~'I' · i". C:i' jl I ! ,~!
~: jii ;.ht:,' I ,J:. j;;~; !i hi ~~;
~I! ;1; :;!i~U r ,m ~:,;:1 ~~ ~ii ~i!
\1
\I
,
,~
. I
I ~
: ; ~
,
,
~
")(1"11
" I
! I
,\ \
.jjr.
,
".
I'
I
n
" 1\
j---
.,)~.~'
<>0_' .,"
u' ,j)'. ''', ,
,,, , - ". 'I
",.,:.., .. ! - .;
I,;; \ . \ "
,,' '/ "
jjjJjj]jjjjjjj!j
,,;.
iHi\n! :\: I'
\' ,
J: fIi
,,"' II
!\, I"
a,I,.
'''11:10
'I'
I " ~
I
"
II
:13
'II
It
i"
.;
'j
i
;~ ~
!ifl
pi
,i!j
p44j
jQj!
II!
_,-_c.:-:J,
~ I
- -
- - "--~ .,
-. .'1 '1
~,,,"
-- ----
... .'.
.,
_-.----#,&~~'i.. w
r..,=r
u.s: "': ',""
..--.------
-.
----~--- ---.
---
/~,,;: - I
.----f."____________,-r.-'----------------~...,
c;2&1;!
H~~
-f!
Ii:,
;i~:
'~
Ii-
~
,-,
I
~,
.'
I
I.-
ili.
mi
, .!'i!
,I,,!,'
~ I ; , ' , I I
'1"'li
"I I
!
j I
,
~d
~!tI
.
.
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT 3 - FIGURES
J7
"
.;,(/'.
~>>"
, ;t;..
,
..: l
I
)\~L\
".,~:,~,\t\
r-..#~_. .,..\
-"-,' \,"\
''\:1..\
\fi\\
,c;,;
',-i<'!'.
\i:),\
.
<
g
-,
0
~ I-
e
>
I' CJ)
" 0"T1
,
:tI~ OJ
'"
",
0;
>s:
"T1
':"'1
~, :J.I
f~ (}
~~
"10
6:::r1
"
"
02f
.._._-_._,---_._-_._~.__._--_.__.--,-_._--
"
'.
(J)
j)
"
Z
"
In
::
'"
~
~
Q
i'!
m 0
(J) (J)
:iI
o
(J)
;,
:D
~ ~ 0
Iii ~ ~
~ ~ ~
:< n1 m
Q ~ i
~ t; ;
.. ....
j;I ~
g m
~ ~
o "
z
c
"
m
"
,.--:::-,:,,-:....---
(/)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)
Jr~~;:9:2rtl
rn C/) en en ~ U)
~~!~~~
In hi In hi hi In
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
m
"
~
;;I
r-
z 0 0 0 ;:: m
'0 '0 :D '0 " GJ
" m
.. () () () !< Z
on 0 0 0 C 0
;; '" '" '" ~
'" '" '"
;;I c m c ~
z z '" z !:
~ 0 ~
[!! ~ !;
" .. ..
'" ~ ~ C
III '"
0 " ~
on
'" r "
0 m
0 ~
<>
~ 0
S
"
FIGURE 1
(f) ~
--j
m
c
--1
r
~
--j
0
< z
~ I!
\J ~
ciS
'1J >: c
w ro ,
<0
ro
N Z 1.
~
~CIl
~~
~~
&~
1-0'-
(Jq
~
(j)
........
~~<>z
l
~
ill
I ~~
! ~~
1;;1'"
~
,..."'..........<;1/1-
~:3H!;H
n~~j:~-~
":.~~"'!!.&"-~:
a ~l~ ::'1~~ ~g.
;~"f~~;l;
!~t~j::~~
jO. 'j;"
. OJ'" ~ ~~ ~
'! . i"
; :i ::O:...;if:
::I:~d ~O"X~
i.~i ~!h~
i~! i~iii
ft-i: ~;:"",
iti~ ~~H
i~ s 1 ~ :
-'I .' >
HH
. ~ >~
, Q ~ , . . , 0 . . . 0 0 - , . . c ..
. mz
. . >-
z
0
-
, . .
, . , .
i 0 . 0
i 0 g ~ ~ , . . 0
0 f
, 0 ~ c
. 1 . . ~ ! . . . n
~ ~ ~ . . . "
j , ~ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . i :i
0
. ~ . 0 ~
0 ~ ~ ~ . , . .
, ~ . , ,
. , ! i .
. c
.
c:..
" 0 ~ 2>
. ~ ~
!i: ~ . Q . . . . . . ..
, " " . '0
; . , , . c . . . - . ~c
. , ~~
~ .
~ -
>0
no
, 00
. . i m.
. . ~ , . . : , . : , , , , e ..
- " . . . . . . . . " . . . . , . . , , . . , . . -
0
c
"
. . . . . - . . , . g . . . . . ,
. . . . -
0
c
"
. . , , . : . : . : - , . >
. . . . . . . , . . , " . . n
..
~or
:;1
'1J
()
>-
r
'1J
>
Z
Z
Z
"
>-
:JJ
~
:;1
"D
()
>-
r
en
-<
:JJ
m
~
S
o
c
-<
:;1
'1J
()
>-
r
'1J
>
Z
Z
Z
"
>-
:JJ
~
o
m
en
i5
z
>-
-<
6
z
r
m
G)
m
z
o
,
.'
gi
i;
"
!
III
',;
i'l
!Ii
~~
II
'.
ig
'i
,
,
,
__n~
i
~!
~~
.i',
o
'I'
~
I
FIGURE 2
~ ,
~
f-<~
Q
,-10
:r;Z:;
Uf-<~
Z U 0
< < >
~ ~ .-
,1 f-< ~
r'1 < ;;
:> f-< 0
C' V'J F<
~ :;
Z~
<::>
,~ ~
U
;'.
i~j1,'
Jt~~!
11"!ill'"
_ i.J~~;!
J~;d:l;
Ilir~~'1
I!" JI,
,;,;f.
.1', .!I
'.; .,
"
'"
" ;i;;;:!
,;, 1j J iii!!! lilm: !i!~!!i!liii
;J; ~' I,d Ii!!!; ~~idu ;~!~~:~~ ~iij
WH- . iiit !i:ii: ~1i;;H :h;I!! !;;;
J ,I, ~ '
. ~~ ;:
:j; ,!:'
! ! i; ;;; ,i ~
I' 1,1
, :1: : ,~! ,!! I"~; J a
:;!j; ::m ill! ;~dW I ~!!..~)~1
8 "I"; :';1' i!I' .t. - i"! I o,,,~, ,~-I ~ I!.
I: !JH!i ii' ii~iM:I:~~;;I~i!i;~ !mmm: ii!~;
,iIO~' i ,. .,ci. rl" ..nl S "-",,:.'" I
~i ;;~~~f ':::'~:~":;=::~::':~ ~m!l;ij !:;.'I
i~/~<.,
r "~ .. f"jJ.e5'. .. ~:.:
\ "./~'~
-.,/, I
.~' !
"'-j &I
.,~I ~ ~ ;
~ ,I 'O'
'~i : 0 "
'I.
, ,
t iiii~ Ii li!~
:t.. ,!~m! T~! !i!1!~~ ;.~ II
,,' I
,.
"
,: j
" '
.,
iid:~
q..;.
iiiiil
i~\\'''-' '
JHj]jjjjjj]i1 i j
i!:~;~:' ; ,f
1;; \;~,. 'r \ ;: '.
f" '/ " );,;":.
_~~=-'- I i~ ,'Hi: F J
IJ
I!mli!
., '1'1 ! ~ i;!i I !.~;,
, !i ,~~~:. Iii ;;;; !!~ !:
": ~:,~ijr !;i ijj~ , !;i i;
:~, !'~!,1i~> ~;; pi i ~!! ~:~
101 ~1"'I'jJ f!' ,!I' :1" .:1 ~:i
ii' ,j.,-' -.;' ;!'i! ji:;,!
I '0' ff~j!" ;) i:'.. ~I 01' j-"
~'I i!11ii'i~il~ i Ii;, ,~i!i '!!II ,i~
~, II; !~- >1'1' i !.~, 'I!" !i !Ii ~..
'I ' ,I; : :1'iI , ,,',- ~ !" 'I !<< ,. j "1
~ I _ .'o~ ~". ,,". ., ~h .i.
i:
IiI;;, f
iiig i
o
.\/
u
,
i
,'m- 't "
:L{, ,
Ii i:!1
'" I' I!::
, ~,' WI
'I 1"1
.,'" -,I
, ';~-j,
.,;-+__11
:'.1
I:';J'
" 11
: 1h I
: I !
III
'~f '
i
\/
\/
, j
"~II II
" !i
'I 'jJ
I, .1
I I It
" crJ '"
,H
.
,
:~
..!: !
-".,--'
','t f,1
t
JIG
!I!:
I.d
,II
Ii,!
i!'
,'-
E~':.::J
--'~\
..
r
1\
;;j!
1\
;t
.'",-'
.0-", /_:_
-
-
oli
L
I~ /
: ,I
:,I.d
JI'
"a
1
;'il,
"I I
, ,
~I
jl;:,
. ".~
~
'I
~'
111r-
I:':
· rl-
i
, ~
'II
t
,;,.'
!
ilii
',"iI
~~Is
:'ji
, ~i
!
~ I
~
!0I
~i!I
,
j'
~
, ',~
,~
I
/"""" ~,-------
....--L-------=--~...,..,' I,
Ii' 1,
30 L
,.,'i,
,':Ii
,
FIGURE 3
o
II
: '~ .
I
I
I
I
I
~ I ~
~ ! ~:
!L.! ""gU
~~ n~p
nn:,ii
. L if d ~~
!
,
I
~~ I
II '\'
-7
'I
j,
~
In I C
Q\ :-<I
f-< 0'0 ~
o '"
"" 0 ""
:r: Z c
U f-<:;;
Z U "
<: <: .
c::; c::; c:;
"" f-<_
Co' "I
- <e: "II
:J f-< ~ '
C,j (/) 0... i I ~
......... - v ill'
:;;; > u :1
<: " l~n .
Z ~ 0 i~~~ ~ ,
< ::> u ~ni~; ~~
(/) '"T'< ~.~;~~. ~~
... 'ii'loo1'd
U lH j!h~
. ~ ;,;, I ': ~ ,
,
I
I
l
I ,j
,
'I'
\~ ~.~
I'
~~ ,I I
'-
,
-~ "~
i!~ j'1~~
~~~ ~~~iI
i!1!ljjji
,!.,I!,,,
~:-Yi;.'
i g~i~~~I~~
~.!;.: ~
~:
~;
..
~~
~m
i;I"
~J:~
E;
~~~~
rt
\"~-
: ~,'I,',
, II, ",,",
, ", ,'"
I, ,',
,
~~
~
I
I ! ~~i
\~' II
",I
\i'"
,
,
I
li:~~ i'
II. 1 , ,
-'---t.............!
o I
I ,.,
~ !; :
.~,~-'
~ I !
.
.
!
,
!
,
I
i
h
/ ~:
"v
10'"
!ii! l
.r =~~
~,~
11
! ! !
"
,
1'11':(.' ,---
Ii !",' ~ I I
Y\4:J !
"l' " .i,~ ..In
. J~ ,!~ ~
't~ I /
, (
rll
! j !
Jjjjjjj]jjjjjj.i J
"
. ~ ~
; ; ~ ~
[H; ~} I ~:
I i] ~_i: j ~i Il H
J" .1"'/"
'" ;:
,
'-~
,
.'" .' I~ I,' "
!I'o' .1, II,' 'I ~
jl~~i -- -~ I~I ~;
. -~- ::3' - ,. ;
II,J - - - , -., "i I j i ~~.
-----
3/
FIGURE 4
,
!t
W iF
l'r'L~;!
,.~ ~ .
-~! f ~
! ;~... ~
.iH i
$
~
y
'1
. .'
"
> 1,'
I~il
'1::'"
ffi~
: !~~~~
F:~
~
.t !
~ '
~>I
~ J!I
"
II
----_.._-~-
,
~ ~ iIj
> .Jlil;;
I hI:
< 0 , j'
" ,
" ~ " "
~ " ~ ~ " " ! =~
! " " 1 < <
" ~ ~ < " !
i " 0 0 "
> " " >
> < " > 0 ~ " >
< 0
0 " c ~ 8 , " "
"
C m
0
Z 0
w 6
(,? 0
w "
...J w
~ " > ~
~ " " z
0
Z < < < ~ Co m
<( ~ ~ ! < , " " < , 0
...J : " " " I " " ,
~ ~ ~ , 0 " ~ 0 w "
Il. " " >
" ~ ~ " < cr
." " 0 " E < 'l! w .
a: < ~ " " ~ " ~ ~ ~ > " "
~~ < " " ~ ~ <
w ~ ~ " < , 0
-< 0 U !
" e " , > 0
~ 0 " w < i:; 0 "
CJ) (I) ~ 0 " < z
. OJ t ~ II
<( ~ ~ ~ 0
cr
I cr
:::iEcr> "
~ " "'
ClvO", -an9lH J.NrOH
'" L
F ~
Z}- \f)
4[]jU
a!\f't a
zu
\!J4i)
~ --11()
f-~W
~~I :j
I.l-ID. \!)
J.
-'
~
1:1
D
'"
,
20
'"W
- ,
~a
&~O
!zli<S
wQ--1
)
~
,
z
w
-'
~'"
0S
~~
~~
.~~~,~~~.~,t\~~~~,
/
I
,
-'
-'
~
"
'"
2
,-
Z
"
,
"
"
W
>
C>
o
D
L
~
o
Ii
'"
I"
"
4
~
~
"
C>
l.Il"
\I)li
lYJ:J
4.L::\
J~
l)
oj
iJ'-'
w-'
, "
wz
"
~
U
Q
l._~_
"'-:;;;>'
<~
~ -------.----
>
m
"0
z~~v
OS<z
~~~~
~~:M~
Ol-olU
0~1-[
..~J-!f]
~\)~...J
oO:z=.l
:zDu\D
"
~
DC
f-
'"
D
J
-'
"
"
IJJ
D
~
I
\j
Z
<(
Ii~
cf>
-1~
w)-
:::J[)I
\I)~
~~ 8
f ~
Zit ~
--A' ~ !3!
~~
U)~~ "
Appendix B
THE L. (OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE 5..,TEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission. and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
'H1t-d-u.- ~Y\ s+ruc-hoVt Co rv---po.YId
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership. .
~/A.
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust. .
wi'"
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards. Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ Nt;> ~
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees. consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Car-\ene. t1o.tc.hnifF
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
q/I1./01
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY)
DD.
Signature of con actor/applicant
Jbhn D. Osgood
Print or type name of'contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as_' "Any individual. firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization, corpora/ion.,
estate. trust, receiver. syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit. "
33
ATTACHMENT 4
....,-- -'-'-"-'~-"'-""'-"'''--' .,.----.-,--,,--... ~