HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2004/01/14
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 14, 2004
4:30 P.M.
JOHN LIPPITT PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
1800 MAXWELL ROAD
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
Planning Commissioners: Castañeda, Cortes, Felber, Horn, Madrid, O'Neill,
and Chair Hall
1. REVIEW OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ALTERNATIVES TO BE
TESTED
Staff and RBF Consulting have been working to prepare a range of proposed General
Plan land use and transportation alternatives for initial testing. State law requires that a
range of alternatives be evaluated as part of the update process. The proposed
alternatives are an outgrowth of the numerous public inputs and information gathered to
date, including two rounds of community meetings in June and November 2003 to review
and comment on proposed land use concepts, as well as work with the General Plan
Steering Committee. Staff will present the alternatives proposed for testing within each
of the major planning subareas (Northwest, Southwest and East/Otay Ranch).
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that the proposed alternatives be tested, and that the City Council direct staff to proceed
with testing of the proposed alternatives.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of January 21,2004
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista In the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Act requirementa.
Dated /~101 Signed J ffi~
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may need special
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service to contact Diana Vargas at (619) 691-5101 for specific
¡nfoonation on existing resources or programs that may be available for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for schedule services and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
NOTICE
The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission will hold a
joint workshop on the City's General Plan Update:
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Time: 4:30 P.M.
Location: John Lippitt Public Works Center "Assembly Room"
1800 Maxwell Road
Chula Vista
Summary information will be presented on the General Plan Update
process to date, community input, and three initial, citywide General
Plan land use alternatives which are proposed for testing. The City
Council and Planning Commission will be asked to comment on
whether the breadth of the proposed alternatives is sufficient for
purposes of testing and whether other proposed land uses should be
included for consideration in the alternatives. Staff will be seeking
authorization to proceed with the testing. Results of this testing will
be shared with the City Council, Planning Commission and the public.
Additional information on the General Plan Update is available from
the General Plan Update link at the City of Chula Vista web site:
www.chulavistaca,gov, or through the General Plan Update phone
line at (619) 409-5486.
..---
JOINT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 9, 2004
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
The Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City ManagerGt i)-!
FROM: Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and 'Buildin~ ;J:;.
Ed Batchelder, Deputy Planning Direct~
SUBJECT: January 14, 2004, General Plan Update Joint Workshop
As the Council and Commission are aware trom previous reports, the General Plan staff team has
(and RBF Consulting) been working to prepare proposed General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Alternatives for initial testing. Most recently, the team held a series of community
workshops on November 15, 17 and 19 to engage community discussion and input on a set ofland
use concepts compiled by staff, with assistance trom the Steering Committee. One workshop was
held in each of three major geographic subareas in the City (Northwest, Southwest and East/Otay
Ranch), which focused on the proposed concepts in that area. Those concepts were the outgrowth
of prior community and citizen committee inputs, along with other information gathering, including
the Town Hall meeting held at Bonita Vista High School on June 21.
Based on the above inputs, staff has created three, proposed citywide Alternatives to undergo
initial testing. Pursuant to State law, General Plan updates are required to consider a range of
alternatives for the community's future. This process allows the community to explore the potential
outcomes and effects of different approaches to attaining the desired vision. The process typically
starts with a range of ideas and concepts that are refined into final alternatives, and ultimately, a
preferred alternative that is presented as the proposed, updated General Plan.
The proposed Alternatives to be presented at the January 14 workshop represent that range of
ideas, and if acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, will in order to determine
potential outcomes and effects that can be used by staff, committees, the community and decision
makers to determine appropriatefinal alternatives, and a preferred General Plan Alternative.
Workshop purpose and expectations -
As noted above, at this point in the process, the proposed Alternatives simply reflect a reasonable
range of options that staff, the community and the citizen committees feel are appropriate for
testing. The purpose of presenting the Alternatives is to brief the Planning Commission and City
Council on the current range of options, provide the opportunity to indicate to staff if the breadth of
the Alternatives is sufficient for conducting initial tests. Sufficient breadth could, for example,
include such considerations as to whether, among the Alternatives, proposed land uses reflect
densities and intensities envisioned for the revitalization and redevelopment of the downtown area,
---------..------------ --------------
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-8-04 Page 2
if desired future employment lands have been addressed, and/or whether the range of residential
proposals provide sufficient future housing opportunities.
The Commission and Council are not being asked at this time to comparatively discuss the
proposed Alternatives, indicate preferences, or to take any specific action on them. Rather, the
Commission and Council should indicate to staff if there is any land use concept that has not been
shown that should be included in any of the proposed Alternatives.
Workshop format -
The workshop will consist of the following main components:
. Introduction and Background .. by staff on the purpose of the General Plan Update, its
strategic relationship to other active and pending major projects, programs and Council
initiatives, and an overall status report
. Committee Chair Comments - an opportunity for the Chairs of any of the four citizen
committees to address the Commission and Council as to the process and outcomes to-
date
. Summary of Key Issues and Considerations - by staff to highlight regional and local
factors influencing the GP Update and the Alternatives
. Overview of the Land Use and Transportation Alternatives - by staff to introduce the
overall focus areas and concepts, and to then review each of the three Alternatives within
each of the major focus areas (Northwest, Southwest and East/Otay Ranch)
. Public Comment - an opportunity for members of the public in attendance to offer
comments on the proposed Alternatives presented
. Planning Commission and City Council Discussion and Direction - to identify if any
concepts desired for testing have not been included among the proposed Alternatives, and
to provide direction to staff as to commencing testing.
. Next Steps - staff will highlight major GP program activities for the next several months,
and through completion of the Update.
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-8-04 Page 3
Background Information -
Following is a synopsis of some of the topics and information that will be presented at the
workshop:
""n "r" 1 P1"n TJptbt" pnrpos" "nn str"t"gj~ rdMjonshjps to oth"r "~tjv" "nn p"nning m"jor
proj,,~ts proV'"ms "nn ronn~jl jnjtj"tjv"s -
The General Plan Update (GPU) provides a unique, periodic opportunity to
comprehensively re-establish the long-term vision for the City with the community, and
to re-tool the tramework of policies and programs that guide development activities.
General Plans are typically revisited every 10+ years in order to review a city's future
course considering both internal and external changes.
This GPU for Chula Vista comes at a particularly important time as the City positions
itself to address internal changes including revitalization of western Chula Vista and
development of the bayftont. Changes in regional growth and development patterns have
also resulted in an expanded role and stature for the City of Chula Vista. The beginnings
of this change in direction are taking form through a number of programs arising trom
Council's 5 StTategic Themes. Following are some of the most notable:
. Economic Development Strategy
. City Image Campaign
. 1-5 Corridor Study
. Broadway Revitalization Strategy
. Urban Core Specific Plan
. Chula Vista Bayftont Master Plan
. WCV Parks Master Plan
. Transit First Program
. MSCP
. Sustainable Development
. Historic Preservation
The above programs/plans and others all fall within the tramework of the City's General
Plan. The goals and policies of the General Plan are what tie them all together. Once the
updated General Plan is adopted, future development will be consistent with the policies
contained within.
"PT ¡ st"tns snmm"ry -
As outlined below, we are currently very near completion of the third phase of the four-phased
GPU work program.
------------- ------------------------- - ---------- -
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-8-04 Page 4
Completeci Ph~<e< T Iìr fT' Phase I included the initial Town Hall meeting in April 2002,
the Visioneering Program conducted trom May-September 2002, and concluded with the
establishment of the four GPU Citizen Committees in October 2002. A Preliminary
Issues Report based on the Visioneering Program inputs was published in November
2002.
Phase II included the review of these issues with the citizen committees, the development
of a Draft Vision & Goals Report (May 2003), and the completion of the 27 "Areawide
Studies" presenting background conditions spanning numerous topics trom intrastructure
and services, to demography, to enviromnental baseline conditions. Each Areawide
Study identified "planning issues and policy implications" for the GPU to address, and
provide a part of the tramework for developing GP objectives and policies, and refining
alternatives.
Ne~rly Completeci Ph~<e TH' Phase ill is focused on draft Plan Alternatives and Policy
Development, and got underway with the Town Hall meeting on June 21, 2003, at Bonita
Vista High School. The Town Hall meeting was attended by approximately 150 people,
and staff received feedback on a broad range of general land use concepts within each of
the three major planning subareas; Northwest, Southwest and East/Otay Ranch. As many
areas of the City are considered to be stable, and are not be recommended for any General
Plan change, the proposed land use concepts focused on specific "opportunity areas" where
changes are most appropriate and/or likely to occur. A Town Hall II Summary Report
(August 2003) was published.
Staff (with RBF Consulting) assembled three, more distinct land use and transportation
concepts within each of three major planning subareas (northwest, southwest, and
east/Otay Ranch). We developed a "newsprint" publication (in cooperation with the Star
News) noticing the meetings, profiling issues facing the City, and discussing how General
Plan land use concepts respond. These more distinct Concepts were presented at a series
of community meetings held on November 15, 17 and 19, and attended by 250-300
people. The interactive workshops allowed individuals to express their preferences
regarding the concepts. A Town Hall III Community Workshops Results report was
published, and those inputs were considered in shaping the Alternatives being presented
tonight.
Phase III will culminate with the testing of the proposed alternatives, the shaping of final
Alternatives, and a recommended Preferred Alternative over the next 2 months.
Now Commencing Ph~<e IV: Phase IV involves the preparation of the General Plan
documents (Elements, EIR, Tech Appendicies) and the formal public review, hearings
and adoption process. We have begun preparation of draft Elements which will be
reviewed through the citizen committees, and anticipate the start of adoption hearings in
July 2004.
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-8-04 Page 5
Overview ofK ey Pl"nning T"lIe, "no Polic'.y Tmplic"tion, -
As mentioned earlier, the GPU staff and consulting team have completed, and reviewed
with the citizen committees 27 Areawide Studies. The Studies provide background
information and an assessment of existing and forecasted conditions to serve as a technical
foundation for the GPu. As part of this technical foundation, each of the Studies contains a
"Planning Issues and Policy Implications" section identifYing initial conclusions as to the
bearing of the Study's information on the GPu. Attachment 1 provides a summary list of
some of the key items identified by the Studies, and has been divided into the following five
(5) subject categories:
Land Use and Community Character
Economic Development/Fiscal
Public Facilities and Services
Traffic and Transportation
Enviromnental
These issues and implications are a partial basis for proposed land use and transportation
alternatives, and are also formative in the development of draft objectives and policies for
the various General Plan Elements.
Prf'<p"r"tion ofT "no rr,e "no Tr"n'port"tion Altem"tive, -
Beginning at the Town Hall II meeting on June 21,2003, the GPU team presented a broad
range of potential development concepts within generalized "opportunity areas" where
future growth and development changes would be most logically directed, or would be most
likely to occur. Those concepts were based on previous inputs, the "visioneering" program,
and the Draft Vision and Goals report prepared through the four citizen committees. The
public was asked to indicate whether the concepts reflected a valid range of considerations
for future evaluation, and what their personal likes or dislikes were among the concepts.
With minor exceptions, the public generally found the range of concepts to be valid, and
offered numerous comments about particular likes and dislikes.
Using the outcomes of Town Hall II, along with earlier public and other inputs, staff worked
with RBF Consulting to prepare more distinct Land Use Concepts that were expressed
using proposed General Plan land use designations. A range of three Concepts (A, B, C)
was prepared for each of the three major planning subareas (northwest, southwest, and
east/Otay Ranch) for the purposes ofreview (9 concepts total). Each of the major subareas
was broken down into sub-districts for presenting the proposals. The proposals were
presented at the community meeting on November 15, 17 and 19, where the public was able
to discuss the Concepts with the GPU staff and consulting team, make suggestions for
refining them, and indicate their particular preferences among the Concepts with respect to
- ---------
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-8-04 Page 6
the various sub-districts. Considering the inputs trom those meetings, staff and RBF
assembled the three, proposed citywide Alternatives now being presented for testing.
These Alternatives do not represent a range of intensity trom least to most, but rather are
assembled to reflect varying options in the locations, combinations and arrangement ofland
uses. All the Alternatives consider smart growth principles previously discussed with
Council, and take into consideration existing and future transit networks, and the need to
better integrate land uses, transit and pedestrian friendliness. The Concepts are intended to
reflect a range of options to be evaluated to identifY their initial viability and related effects.
Next Steps -
If the range of proposed Alternatives presented is agreeable with the Planning Commission and City
Council, staff and the consulting team will proceed with testing of the Alternatives to identifY their
effects with regard to traffic and transportation, public facilities and services, enviromnental factors,
and fiscal soundness.
Staff will work with the consultants and the Steering Committee to review the outcomes to further
refine the alternatives, and to determine a proposed alternative. Staff would then present the
information for input at a community meeting(s) (tentatively in late March 2004). Ultimately, staff
will return to the Planning Commission and City Council with a preferred alternative as well as
others based upon outcomes of the testing and the public review meeting(s).
Att"chment<
1. Summary List of Key Planning Issues & Policy Implications
],IPlanning\ED\GP Land Use Analysis\CC-PC Info Memo 01-09-04v2doc
-----
SUMMARY OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES/POLICY IMPLICATIONS
IDENTIFlED THROUGH THE GPU AREAWIDE STUDIES AND OTHER
INPUTS-
Through preparation of the 27 Areawide Studies (identifying existing conditions and
background assessments), as well as inputs ITom the public and the four citizen
committees, numerous "planning issues and policy implications" were identified for the
General Plan Update (GPU) to consider. Following is a summary listing of issues
considered to be foundational to the GPU effort. (More complete listings and
discussions can be found in the Areawide Studies).
LAND USE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER
. Better tie the location of housing and employment to existing and future transit
stations and corridors.
. Strongly support a balanced mix of uses in neighborhood areas, and the location
of employment centers to minimize motor vehicle trips.
. Establish "mixed use" designations and related provisions.
. Encourage land use mixes and design that promote energy efficiency, including
mixed use development, site design, building design, pedestrian friendliness, and
the integration of alternative modes of travel.
. Preserve existing, stable single-family neighborhoods in western Chula Vista.
. Retain the "small town" character and charm ofChula Vista while providing
opportunities for growth and redevelopment.
. Enhance community cohesion between eastern and western CV through
complimentary land uses and better, more convenient transportation linkages.
. Establish downtown CV (Third Av. and surroundings) as the heart of the City,
and the City's primary cultural, entertaimnent and restaurant district.
. Address the future disposition of the South Bay Power Plant site.
. Balance development with enviromnental preservation and public open space
protections in the bayfront area.
. Preserve and enhance prominent and important viewsheds, particularly between
WCV and the bay.
. Improve the image ofChula Vista along major edges and corridors, and at key
gateways, through land use, streetscape and landscape policies and guidelines.
lncentivize and prioritize improvements to the most visible and used areas.
. Balance historic preservation with the need to revitalize and redevelop areas of
WCV through policies and guidelines that address architectural treatments,
streetscape design, and consider approaches such as adaptive reuse.
. Incorporate policies that assist the City in meeting its source reduction, reuse and
recycling goals for solid and hazardous waste.
. Consider locating "general areas" permissible for the consideration of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities away from watershed areas, and
the possible elimination ofthe bayfront and SR-54 "general areas".
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 4
-----..---- ----
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / FISCAL
. Expand Chula Vista's employment base to add higher value jobs so residents can
earn sufficient wages locally to afford local housing costs, and thereby reduce the
need to commute.
. Ensure an adequate supply of multi-family and affordable housing to meet the
needs of service workers, and to promote a better jobslhousing balance.
. Provide sufficient opportunities for retaining and expanding local small
businesses in both new development and redevelopment.
. Recognize the important role that arts and culture (and related facilities and
venues) play in creating catalysts for economic development and revitalization.
. Identify and clarify the unique and complimentary roles that our major activity
centers (including the bayfront, Chula Vista Center, downtown Third Ave., and
the Eastern Urban Center) will play in relation to one another.
. Promote the University and educational excellence toward ensuring a well trained
and skilled workforce.
. Provide for a land use plan that generates sufficient revenues to provide and
sustain facilities and services to maintain the quality-of-life desired by the
commumty.
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
. Emphasize the role of art and culture in establishing the City's social fabric and
identity, and provide policies to establish an arts and culture district in downtown
Chula Vista, and encourage related facilities to locate there.
. Provide policies to address future school facility needs in WCV through either the
horizontal or vertical expansion of existing sites, or the identification of the need
for new sites.
. Carefully evaluate opportunities for joint use of school sites in terms of shared
field/recreation and facility space, and consider policies that would emphasize
school sites as neighborhood and community centers.
. Consider incorporating policies addressing the provision of sufficient health and
human services and facilities, and emphasizing these as a core aspect of the
community and healthy lifestyles for Chula Vistans.
. Address long-term water supply, and balance development in accordance with
that supply.
. Consider existing "deficient" conditions in WCV (e.g. parks, drainage, select SW
area street improvements) in addition to the demands created by new growth and
development. Promote eqitable facility provision between eastern and western
CV, particularly park and recreation facilities.
. Develop a funding and financing program for needed infrastructure in WCV.
. Consider the effects of potential density and building height increases in WCV
and the bayfront on fire service, equipment, facilities/station locations and
personneL
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 4
. Water system improvements needed in WCV to meet increased fire flow demands
generated by potential redevelopment and intensification.
. Take into consideration the community's long-term energy demands and the
reliability of supply.
. Ensure the GPU adequately addresses drainage provisions and requirements
stemming ITom the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
. Integrate appropriate content ITom the existing Child Care Element into a chapter
within the new, integrated Public Facilities and Services Element.
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
. Integrate and promote the South Bay Transit First Plan as a foundation of the
GP's land use and transportation system.
. Advocate regional planning and coordination to ensure that Chula Vista's transit
and roadway system connects to a viable, regional system.
. Promote urban mobility concepts that seek to emphasize land use mix, integration
and vibrance, pedestrian fuendliness and transit orientation over past predominant
emphasis on automobile accommodation.
. Advocate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) concepts.
. Develop a transportation system that better links eastern and western Chula Vista,
particularly the major activity and employment centers.
. Provide for an integrated network of sidewalks, bike paths and trails to connect
neighborhoods and activity centers throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL
. Ensure preservation of the Planning Areas unique open space features and natural
resources.
. Ensure protection of the Bay and adjoining resources in the bayfront area.
Provide an integrated open space and trails ITamework for ongoing bayfront
planning actions.
. Achieve consistency between the General Plan, the Otay Ranch Resource
Management Plan (RMP), and the recently adopted CV MSCP Subarea Plan with
regard to land use designations, boundaries, conservation percentages, restoration
requirements and policy language.
. Reconcile the standards and locations for trails within the Greenbelt with the
MSCP Subarea Plan. Include trails policies and guidelines within the GP that
would lead to the preparation of a citywide Trails Master Plan.
. Reconcile the location/boundaries ofthe University site on the General Plan with
those analyzed in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
. Reconcile GP discussions of public facilities with the discussion of allowable
facilities within the Preserve as identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
. Reconcile the GP Circulation Element roadways to remove those segments that
were explicitly excluded ITom coverage in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 4
--- ----
. Ensure any proposed alignments/realigrunents of roadways are consistent with the
MSCP Subarea Plan.
. Incorporate mineral resources management policies into the GP in conformance
with state guidelines. Revise the GP to reflect the restrictions placed on mining /
extractive uses (in the Otay River Valley) as identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
Address any potential inconsistencies or conflicts with SMARA's significant
mineral resource designations in Otay Valley.
. Provide for adequate, interconnected open space and parklands in western CV to
offset the effects of potential increased density or intensity of development.
. Expand upon urban, community-based green inITastructure that is distinct ITom
habitat conservation (e.g. community and pocket parks, canyons, community and
roof gardens, vegetated drainage swales, landscaped driveway strips, etc.).
. Provide GP goals, objectives and policies to support acquisition or easement
dedication of open space within the Greenbelt, and encourage connections with
the regional trails system.
. Promote and incentivize sustainable development concepts in the GP through
policies related to the CO2 Reduction Plan, Energy Action Plan, Water
Conservation and Air Quality Improvements Plans, recycling, source reduction,
resource conservation, renewable energy sources (solar/wind), and other efforts
that have occurred subsequent to the last comprehensive update in 1989.
. Establish policies promoting energy efficiency, including the encouragement of
potential additional cogeneration facilities in CV.
. Consider establishing an "environmental technology" industry overlay near the
landfill to promote the location of industries involved in recycling, materials
reuse, and other sustainable development related pursuits.
. Address the future disposition ofthe South Bay Power Plant, and potential reuse
of all or a portion of the site.
. Incorporate appropriate noise standards into the GP which currently does not
address noise, along with policies and guidelines regarding land use, traffic
calming and other techniques to manage noise levels.
nPlanninglEDlGP Land Use Ana1ysis\CC-PC joint wurkshop issues list 01-08-04-doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 of 4
-- -------..-,.- ------ - - --- --------
~~~
:Jd ~
~~~
CITY OF
CHUIA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Honorable Mayor and Council
CAyV:'
Ann Y. Moore, City Attorney -
Elizabeth Wagner Hull, Deputy City Attorne#¡}
January 9, 2004
To:
Via:
From:
Re:
General Plan Update
Attached please find a letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission
("FPPC") detailing their analysis of conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform
Act as it relates to the General Plan Update ("GPU"). The Council will be holding a
workshop on January 14, 2004 to discuss general broad based concept plans and land use
designations. Under the proposals to be presented at that time, no changes are proposed to
property owned or leased by the Mayor or any Council members. However, there are
changes proposed to properties that fall within 500 feet of Councilmembers Rindone and
Salas primary residences. The FPPC has concluded Councilmembers Rindone and Salas
may not participate in decisions regarding those areas of the GPu.
As you are aware, the Political Reform Act prohibits a public official from
making, participating in the making or in anyway attempting to use his official position to
influence a governmental decision ifhe or she knows or has reason to know that he or she
has a financial interest in that governmental decision. The implementing regulations
provide that if a public official's property is directly involved, the financial effect of a
governmental decision on the real property is presumed to be material. A public official's
real property is directly involved in a governmental decision if it is within 500 feet of the
boundary of the project. An official who otherwise has a conflict of interest may
participate in a decision if the "public generally" exception applies. This exception
applies when the effect of the decision on the public official is indistinguishable from the
effect on a significant segment of the public.
In this case, the FPPC has opined that it is presumed that the real properties of
Councilmembers Salas and Rindone will experience a material financial effect as a result
of this decision and the "public generally" exception is not applicable. Therefore, to
participate in the discussion and decisions regarding those areas of the General Plan
Update the presumption would need to be rebutted.
276 FOURTH AVENUE . CHULA VISTA· CALIFORNIA 91910· (619) 691-5037· (619) 409-5623
@ Post-Consumer Recyded Paper
To allow Councilmembers Salas and Rindone to participate in the majority of the
GPU discussions, staff will be presenting the GPU by quadrant of the City. The first
quadrant to be discussed will involve the northwestern part of the City. We would
recommend Councilmembers Salas and Rindone recuse themselves from that discussion
but they may rejoin the Council for the subsequent discussion of the other three quadrants
of the City.
cc: David D. Rowlands, Jr.
Sid Morris
George Krempl
Jim Sandoval
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,;~,
,
FAIR POUTICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
428 J Street· Suite 620 . Sacramento. CA 958l4-2329
(916) 322-5660 . F" (916) 322-0886
January 6, 2004
Elizabeth Wager Hull, Deputy City Attorney
City ofChula Vista
Office of the City Attorney
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Your Request for Advice
Our File No. A-03-280
Dear Ms. Hull:
-
This lener is in response to your request on behalf of Chula Vista
Councilmembers Mary Salas and Jerry Rindone for advice regarding the confhct-of-
interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act"). I
QUESTION
May Councilmembers Mary Salas and Jerry Rindone participate in a decision to
approve changes to the existing ¡and use designations specified in the current general
plan?
CONCLUSION
It is presumed that the real properties of Councilrnembers Salas and Rindone will
experience a material financial effect as a result of this decision. Therefore, unless this
presumption is rebutted, the council members are disqualified ITom participating in the
decision.
t Government Code sections 81000 - 91014. Commission regulations appe:l1 at Title: 2, se::tic:ls
18109-18997, orthe CaJifor:IÌo Code of Regulations.
..,.:.,.
:::-::~...
File No. A-03-280
'P,age No.2
:f',
FACTS
.
The City, of Chula Vista is currently processing a comprehensive update to the
City of Chula Vista's general plan. The City ofChula Vista is a charter city governed by
a council, consisting of four council members and a mayor, elected from the city at-Jarge.
The city charter provides for the approval of ordinances or resolutions by the affinnative
votes of at least three members unless another provision of the charter requires otherwise.
There are no additional relevant provisions for the approval of the general plan.
At this point, the general plan is only at the land use concept stage. No
determination has been made regarding the exact changes in land use designation or all of
the properties that may be impacted. At this preliminary state, no changes are proposed
to property owned by the mayor or any of the council members. However, there are
changes proposed to properties that fall within 500 feet of two council members' primary
residences.
Co¡mcilmember Salas
,
Councilmember Salas Jives on the west side of the city where the general plan is
evaluating the existing land use designations, The general pIa!'] proposes no change to
her primary residence. The general plan does propose possible changes to properties
immediately west and within 500 feet of it. There are approximately 60 affected
properties within that radius. Currently, the possible changes vary among three different
land use concepts. The concepts are sti11 very broad and it is too early in the process to
more specifically identify the impacts or the nwnber of parcels citywide subject to the
same types of redesignation.
Conco:ut A: Change from current "Hig..!¡ Density Residential (18-27 dwelling
units/acre)" to proposed "Urban Core Residential (up to 50 du/ac)." Approximately 95%
of the land use designated as "Urban Core Residential" would be developed with
residential units and 5% would be developed with supporting retail commercial.
Change Îrorn "Retail Commercial" to proposed "Mixed Use." This change would
allow 40% of the land to develop as residential (.10 dulac), 50~:o as office, and 10% as
~~. -
ConceDt B: Change from current "High Density Residential (18-27 dulac)" to
proposed "Urban Core Residential (up to 50 dulac)." Approximately 95% of the land use
designated as "Urban Core Residential" would be developed with residential units and
5% would be developed with supporting retail commercial.
Cha..'1ge Îrom "Retail Commercial" to proposed "Mixed Use." This change would
allow 40% of the land to develop as residential (40 ¿wac). 40~·'Ó as office, and 20% as
retail.
File No" A-03-280
Page No.4
-::',.
AN.".!. YSIS
\
The primary purpose for the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Act is to ensure
that H[p]ublic officials, whether elected or appointed, [should] perfonn their duties in an
impartial manner, free !Tom bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial
interests of persons who have supported them." (Section 8100l(b).) In furtherance of
this goal, section 87100 ofthe Act prohibits a public official from making, participating
m making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence a governmental
decision in which the official has a financial interest.
Determining whether a conflict of interest exists under section 87100 requires
,
analysis of the following steps as outlined below.-
Steps One and Two: Are Mary Salas and Jerry Rindone each considered a "public
official" and is each making, participating in making, or int1uencing a governmental
decisioIl ':'
As memb~>rs of the Chula Vista City Council. Mary Salas and Jerry Rindone are
each a "member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency"
and are, therefore, public officials subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Act.
(Section 82048; regulation 1870l(a).)
,
A public official "makes a governmental decision" when the official, acting
I'..¡thin the authority of his or her office or position, votes on a matter, obligates or
commits his or her agency to any course of action, or enters into any contractual
agreement on behalf of his or her agency. (See regulation 18702.1.)
Councilmembers Salas and Rindone will "make a governmental decision" if she
or he voces on a general p]an amendment decision. Additionally, if either official
engages in any of the actions described in enclosed regulations 187022 and 18702.3 with
regard to this decision, they will "participate in making" or "influence" that decision.
Step Three: What are Councilmernber Salas's and CouncHmember Rindone's
economic interests - the possible sources of a conflict of interest?
Section 87103 provides that a public official has a "financial interest" in a
governmental decision "if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a
material financial effec;, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the
official, a member of his or her immediate family," or on any of the official's economic
interests, described as follows:
A public official has an economic interes¡ in a business entity in which he or she
has a direct or indirect investment' of S2,OOO or more (section 8ïl 03(a):
T::ese qt'::':SL:10m are b<lse¿ en: ,:hE: ,'\:::'5 çon;lic:-çr:i,me:-~s[ ë.naiysis p:-çvi¿~d at :-::gubÜon 1 S'70C( b)
File No,. A-03-280
Page No.5
-'J}r:
regulation 18703.I(a»); or in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee, or holds any position of management (section 8:7,103 (d); regulation
18703.l(b));
A public official has an economic interest in reaJ property in which he or she has a
direct or indirect interest of $2,000 or mOre (section 871 03(b); regulation
18703.2);
A public official has an economic interest in any source of income, including
promised income, which aggregates to S500 or more within 12 months prior to the
decision (section 87103(c); regulation 18703.3);
A public official has an economic interest in any source of gifts to him or her if
the gifts aggregate to $340 or more within 12 months prior to the decision (section
87103(e); regulation 18703.4);
A public official has an economic interest in his or her peTSonal finances,
including those of his or her immediate family -- this is the "personal financial
effects" rule (section 87103; regulation 18703.5).
Councilmernbers Salas and Rindone each have an economic interest in real
property which serves as their principal residence, provided they each have a direct or
indirect interest of $2,000 in each oftheir respective properties.
'-
You have not provided information regarding any other economic interest of
Councilmembers Salas or Rindone. For purposes of this Jetter, we assume that each has
no other economic interests relevant to the decision you have identified.
Step Four: Are the council members' economic interests directly or indirectly
involved in the governmental decision?
Real property in which a public official has an economic interest is direcùy
involved in a governmental decision if, among other things,:
"( 1) The rea1 property in which the official has-,an interest,
or any part of that real property, is located within 500 feet
of the boundaries (or the proposed boUndaries) of the
property which is the subj ect of the governmental
decision." (Regulation] 8704.2(a)(J).)
J .A.:'l ill.direct investment or interest means any investment or interest o\lJ!1ed bv the s'Couse of an
ofrîcÍal or by a member cft&~e official'~ immediate family, by an agent on behalf of a p~biic cf1icial, ar ':JY
a business e:nity Or tn.:.s:t in wbiçh tht officÎzl. the afficìal's immediate family, or their agent." O\llIl dire::tly,
l:1direcl'1y, or be:1eficially a lO·p~rcer..t interc:;t or grearer. (Section 8ïl03.) "Immediate fa:rr..ilv·' is derÏIled
:H secticn 82.029 as un ci:icial';j spouse and d~Fel1de:lt children. -
File No. A-03-280
Piige No.6
/h,..
You have stated that neither of the council m=bers' residences is locate'd in an
area which would be subject to any proposed general plan change. ,However, both of
these residences are located within 500 feet of other properties that would be subject to
the proposed ch<mges. Because each of these nearby properties would be subject to land
use designation changes, subdivision (a)(1) of regulation 18704.2 above will apply so that
the official's properties are considered "directly involved."
Subdivision (b) of this regulation provides several exceptions to the direct
involvement provisions of subdivision (a). None of these exceptions apply to your facts.
Consequently, Rindone's and Salas's properties are "directly involved" in the general
plan decision about which you have inquired.
Step Five: What is the applicable materiality standard?
If the real property in which an official has an economic interest is directly
involved in a governmental decision. the materiality standard ofregulation 18 7052(a)
applies. (Regulation l8704.2(c)(I»
Regulation l8705.2(a)(I) provides that the financial effect of a govenunenta!
decision on real property (other than a leasehold) which is directly involved in the
governmental decision is presumed to be material. "This presumption may be rebutted
by proof that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the govermnental decision wil1 have any
financial effect on the real property" (Ibid.) Please note that "any financial effect"
mcludes as little as a penny's worth.
-
Step Six: Is it reasonably foreseeable that the ¡mandaI effect of the governmental
decision upon any of the council members' economic interests will meet the
applicable materiality standard?
lI.n effect upon economic interests is considered "reasonably foreseeable" if there
is a substantial likelihood that it will occur. (Regulation 18706(a).) A financial effect
need not be certain to be considered reasonably foreseeable, but it must be more than a
mere possibility. (In re Thorner (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 198.)
It is presumed that the financial effect of the decision an both officials' properties
is material. In order to rebut the presumption of regulation 18705.2(a)(1), each counciì
member must show that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the decision (i.e., the
decision to change the land use designation(s) of property near tl¡em) will have any
tìn3I1cial effect on their respective properties. For example, COl'ncilmember Salas would
have to show that it is not reasonably foresecable that the effect of "Concept A"
(increasing the pemJissible density for properties located within 500 feet of her property
fi-om 18-27 dwelling units/acre to as much as 50 dwelling units/acre) will not have even a
penny's effed on her real property. Similarly, as an example, Councilmember Rindone
would have to show that it i, not reasonably foreseeable that the effect of "Concept C"
(allowing 9 lots wit.!¡'in 500 feet to be developed as 40% re~identia1, 50% office, ~d 10%
r~tail space) will not have a penny's effec! on his real property.
File No. A-03-280
"Page No.7
,"",I
The Commission does not act as a finder of fact m providing advice. (ll! re
Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.) Therefore, the determination of whether. or not it is
reasonably foreSeeable that the applicable materiality standard will be met for the council
members' real properties is necessarily a factual question that is ultimately for each
council member to decide. However, we reiterate, the real properties of Councilmembers
Salas and Rindone are presumed to experience a material financial effect as a result of the
decision.
Step Seven: The "Public Generally" Exception
Even if a public official determines that his Or her economic interest wlll
experience a material financial effect as a result of the decision before the officiaL he or
she may still participate if the "public generally" exception applies to each person or real
property triggering a conflict of interest. (Regulation 18707(b)(4).) Regulation 18707.1
provides the requirements for the general exception:
H( a) Except as provided in Government Code secrions
87102.6 and 87103.5, the material íìnancial effeC! ofa
governmental decision on a public official's economic
interests is indistinguishable from its effect on the public
generally if both subdivisions (b)(l) and (b)(2) oftms
regulation appl y.
(b) Significant Segments and Indistinguishable Effects.
(1) Significant Segment. The governmental decision will
affect a 'sIgnificant segment' of the public generally if any
of the following are affected as set forth below:
11··11
(B) Real Property. For decisions that affect a public
ofñcial's rea] property interest, the decision also affec!s:
(i) Ten percent or more of all property owners or all
homeowners in the jurisdiction of the official's agency or
the district the ofFicial represents; or
(ii) 5,000 property owners or homeowners in the
jurisdlcrion of the ofíìcial' s a~ency.
~ d~i
(2) Substantiallv the Same Manner: The rwvemmental
. ~
decision \vill affect a public ofñcial's economic interest in
substantially the same manner as it will afíect the
significant segment idenrified in subdivision (b)(1) of this
reg'Jlation."
)r au have nOl: provided facts which índicare that the effect of the goverTII:1er1wl
decisions on the councilmembers' economjc interests is indistinguishable from the effect
on the public gener3.11y. Spccific3.1ly, it does not appear that the proposed concepts will
affect either ten percent of &..11 property owners or all homeowners in the officials'
File No. A-03-280
Page No.8
jurisdiction (or respective districts) or will affect 5,000 property owners or homeowners
in their jurisdiction. Therefore, the "public generally" exception dQes not apply.
;....'
Step Eight: "L'egaIly Required Participation" Exception
Facts you have presented do not suggest that the "legally required participation"
exception to the confIict-of-interest rules is applicable to the situation of either official.
If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (916)
322·5660.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
NB:jg
I: IAdviceLtrs\03-0 5 8
Luisa Menchaca
General Counsel
By: /V(.,111- IQ(JC(~~
¡Jatal~r ~
Counsel, Legal Division
,
,
** TOTAL PRGE.09 **
~ ~ f.t..
¡¡¡¡e¡;
~~fl
CITY OF
CHUIA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
To::
From:
Honorable Mayor and Council
Ann Y. Moore, City Attorney q.fVI- .
Elizabeth Wagner Hull, Deputy City Attorney¡v:P
January 9,2004
Via:
Date:
Re:
Urban Core Specific Plan
Attached please find a letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission
("FPPC") detailing their analysis of conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform
Act as it relates to the Urban Core Specific Plan. Councilmembers McCann, Rindone,
and Salas all own property within 500 feet of the study area boundary. Councilmember
McCann's property is a rental property that is also a source of income to him. The FPPC
has concluded Councilmembers Rindone and Salas may participate in decisions regarding
the Urban Core Specific Plan because the number of property owners impacted by the
Plan is sufficiently large enough to qualify under the "public generally" exception.
As you are aware, the Political Reform Act prohibits a public official from
making, participating in the making or in anyway attempting to use his official position to
influence a governmental decision ifhe or she knows or has reason to know that he or she
has a financial interest in that governmental decision. The implementing regulations
provide that if a public official's property is directly involved, the financial effect of a
governmental decision on the real property is presumed to be material. A public official's
real property is directly involved in a governmental decision if it is within 500 feet of the
boundary of the project. An official who otherwise has a conflict of interest may
participate in a decision if the "public generally" exception applies. This exception
applies when the effect of the decision on the public official is indistinguishable from the
effect on a significant segment of the public. In this case, the FPPC has opined that a
sufficiently large segment of the properties within the City will be affected in a
substantially similar manner. Consequently, the "public generally" exception would
apply to Councilmembers Rindone and Salas. Councilmember McCann's situation is
complicated by the property being a rental property that is a source of income to the him.
The FPPC will require additional information to provide an opinion on Councilmember
McCann's situation.
276 FOURTH AVENUE· CHULA VISTA· CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037· (619) 409-5823
@ Post-ConsumerRecycledPaper
At this time, Council members Rindone and Salas may rely on the opmlOn
provided by the FPPC and participate in the decisions regarding the UCSP. We would
advise Councilmember McCann to recuse himself from any actions related to the UCSP.
cc: David D. Rowlands, Jf.
Sid Morris
George Krempl
Jim Sandoval
Laurie Madigan
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
JOINT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 9,2004
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mernbers
The Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City ManagerCt ~~
FROM: Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and 'Buildin~ ¡.;.Js.
Ed Batchelder, Deputy Planning Direct~
SUBJECT: January 14,2004, General Plan Update Joint Workshop
As the Council and Commission are aware from previous reports, the General Plan staff team has
(and REF Consulting) been working to prepare proposed General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Alternatives for initial testing. Most recently, the team held a series of community
workshops on November 15,17 and 19 to engage community discussion and input on a set ofland
use concepts compiled by staff, with assistance from the Steering Committee. One workshop was
held in each of three major geographic subareas in the City (Northwest, Southwest and EastJOtay
Ranch), which focused on the proposed concepts in that area. Those concepts were the outgrowth
of prior community and citizen committee inputs, along with other information gathering, including
the Town Hall meeting held at Bonita Vista High School on June 21.
Based on the above inputs, staff has created three, proposed citywide Alternatives to undergo
initial testing. Pursuant to State law, General Plan updates are required to consider a range of
alternatives for the community's future. This process allows the community to explore the potential
outcomes and effects of different approaches to attaining the desired vision. The process typically
starts with a range of ideas and concepts that are refined into final alternatives, and ultimately, a
preferred alternative that is presented as the proposed, updated General Plan.
The proposed Alternatives to be presented at the January 14 workshop represent that range of
ideas, and if acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council, will in order to determine
potential outcomes and effects that can be used by staff, committees, the community and decision
makers to determine appropriatefinal alternatives, and a preferred General Plan Alternative.
Workshop purpose and expectations -
As noted above, at this point in the process, the proposed Alternatives simply reflect a reasonable
range of options that staff, the community and the citizen committees feel are appropriate for
testing. The purpose of presenting the Alternatives is to brief the Planning Commission and City
Council on the current range of options, provide the opportunity to indicate to staff if the breadth of
the Alternatives is sufficient for conducting initial tests. Sufficient breadth could, for example,
include such considerations as to whether, among the Alternatives, proposed land uses reflect
densities and intensities envisioned for the revitalization and redevelopment of the downtown area,
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-9-04
Page 2
if desired future employment lands have been addressed, and/or whether the range of residential
proposals provide sufficient future housing opportunities.
The Connnission and Council are not being asked at this time to comparatively discuss the
proposed Alternatives, indicate preferences, or to take any specific action on them. Rather, the
Connnission and Council should indicate to staff if there is any land use concept that has not been
shown that should be included in any of the proposed Alternatives.
Workshop format-
The workshop will consist ofthe following main components:
· Introduction and Background - by staff on the purpose of the General Plan Update, its
strategic relationship to other active and pending major projects, programs and Council
initiatives, and an overall status report
· Connnittee Chair Connnents - an opportunity for the Chairs of any of the four citizen
connnittees to address the Connnission and Council as to the process and outcomes to-
date
· Summary of Key Issues and Considerations - by staff to highlight regional and local
factors influencing the GP Update and the Alternatives
· Overview of the Land Use and Transportation Alternatives - by staff to introduce the
overall focus areas and concepts, and to then review each of the three Alternatives within
each of the major focus areas (Northwest, Southwest and EastJOtay Ranch)
· Public Connnent - an opportunity for members of the public in attendance to offer
connnents on the proposed Alternatives presented
· Planning Connnission and City Council Discussion and Direction - to identify if any
concepts desired for testing have not been included among the proposed Alternatives, and
to provide direction to staff as to connnencing testing.
· Next Steps - staff will highlight major GP program activities for the next several months,
and through completion of the Update.
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-9-04
Page 3
Background Information -
Following is a synopsis of some of the topics and information that will be presented at the
workshop:
(h~n~T;:¡l Phm TTpn:::ltp. pnrpo~f': ;:¡nrl !':tr;:¡teEi~ Tf':h1t1nn~hip~ to othP:T adivp: :mrl I'p:nc1;ng m~or
projp:~t~ prngr;:¡m~ anrl rOlmr.l1 initi;:¡tivf':~ -
The General Plan Update (GPU) provides a unique, periodic opportunity to
comprehensively re-establish the long-term vision for the City with the community, and
to re-tool the framework of policies and programs that guide development activities.
General Plans are typically revisited every 10+ years in order to review a city's future
course considering both internal and external changes.
This GPU for Chula Vista comes at a particularly important time as the City positions
itself to address internal changes including revitalization of western Chula Vista and
development of the bayfront. Changes in regional growth and development patterns have
also resulted in an expanded role and stature for the City of Chula Vista. The beginnings
of this change in direction are taking form through a number of programs arising from
Council's 5 Strategic Themes. Following are some of the most notable:
· Economic Development Strategy
· City hnage Campaign
· 1-5 Corridor Study
· Broadway Revitalization Strategy
· Urban Core Specific Plan
· Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
· WCV Parks Master Plan
· Transit First Program
· MSCP
· Sustainable Development
· Historic Preservation
The above programs/plans and others all fall within the framework of the City's General
Plan. The goals and policies of the General Plan are what tie them all together. Once the
updated General Plan is adopted, future development will be consistent with the policies
contained within.
OPT T ~tMm;: ~l1mm;:¡ry-
As outlined below, we are currently very near completion of the third phase of the four-phased
GPU work program.
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-9-04
Page 4
rompl"'t"'cI Ph~.",. T IV TT' Phase I included the initial Town Hall meeting in April 2002,
the Visioneering Program conducted from May-September 2002, and concluded with the
establishment of the four GPU Citizen Committees in October 2002. A Preliminary
Issues Report based on the Visioneering Program inputs was published in November
2002.
Phase II included the review ofthese issues with the citizen committees, the development
of a Draft Vision & Goals Report (May 2003), and the completion of the 27 "Areawide
Studies" presenting background conditions spanning numerous topics rrom inrrastructure
and services, to demography, to environmental baseline conditions. Each Areawide
Study identified "planning issues and policy implications" for the GPU to address, and
provide a part of the rramework for developing GP objectives and policies, and refining
alternatives.
N"'~rly rompl"'t"'cI Ph~.", m· Phase ill is focused on draft Plan Alternatives and Policy
Development, and got underway with the Town Hall meeting on June 21, 2003, at Bonita
Vista High School. The Town Hall meeting was attended by approximately 150 people,
and staff received feedback on a broad range of general land use concepts within each of
the three major planning subareas; Northwest, Southwest and EastlOtay Ranch. As many
areas of the City are considered to be stable, and are not be recommended for any General
Plan change, the proposed land use concepts focused on specific "opportunity areas" where
changes are most appropriate and/or likely to occur. A Town Hall II Summary Report
(August 2003) was published.
Staff (with RBF Consulting) assembled three, more distinct land use and transportation
concepts within each of three major planning subareas (northwest, southwest, and
eastlOtay Ranch). We developed a "newsprint" publication (in cooperation with the Star
News) noticing the meetings, profiling issues facing the City, and discussing how General
Plan land use concepts respond. These more distinct Concepts were presented at a series
of community meetings held on November 15, 17 and 19, and attended by 250-300
people. The interactive workshops allowed individuals to express their preferences
regarding the concepts. A Town Hall ill Community Workshops Results report was
published, and those inputs were considered in shaping the Alternatives being presented
tonight.
Phase ill will culminate with the testing of the proposed alternatives, the shaping of final
Alternatives, and a recommended Preferred Alternative over the next 2 months.
Now romm",nr.ing Ph~.", TV: Phase IV involves the preparation of the General Plan
documents (Elements, EIR, Tech Appendicies) and the formal public review, hearings
and adoption process. We have begun preparation of draft Elements which will be
reviewed through the citizen committees, and anticipate the start of adoption hearings in
July 2004.
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-9-04
Page 5
Overview ofK ey Pbnning T«lIe. ~nrl Policy Tmplic~tion.-
As mentioned earlier, the GPU staff and consulting team have completed, and reviewed
with the citizen committees 27 Areawide Studies. The Studies provide background
information and an assessment of existing and forecasted conditions to serve as a technical
foundation for the GPU. As part of this technical foundation, each of the Studies contains a
"Planning Issues and Policy hnplications" section identifying initial conclusions as to the
bearing of the Study's information on the GPU. Attachment 1 provides a summary list of
some of the key items identified by the Studies, and has been divided into the following five
(5) subject categories:
Land Use and Community Character
Economic Development/Fiscal
Public Facilities and Services
Traffic and Transportation
Environmental
These issues and implications are a partial basis for proposed land use and transportation
alternatives, and are also formative in the development of draft objectives and policies for
the various General Plan Elements.
PrP.p~r;:¡tinn ofT ;:Inn TT~~ ~mCl Tr::m~()rt;:¡ti()n A1t~rn;:¡tivp:~-
Beginning at the Town Hall IT meeting on June 21, 2003, the GPU team presented a broad
range of potential development concepts within generalized "opportunity areas" where
future growth and development changes would be most logically directed, or would be most
likely to occur. Those concepts were based on previous inputs, the "visioneering" program,
and the Draft Vision and Goals report prepared through the four citizen committees. The
public was asked to indicate whether the concepts reflected a valid range of considerations
for future evaluation, and what their personal likes or dislikes were among the concepts.
With minor exceptions, the public generally found the range of concepts to be valid, and
offered numerous comments about particular likes and dislikes.
Using the outcomes of Town Hall IT, along with earlier public and other inputs, staffworked
with RBF Consulting to prepare more distinct Land Use Concepts that were expressed
using proposed General Plan land use designations. A range of three Concepts (A, B, C)
was prepared for each of the three major planning subareas (northwest, southwest, and
eastJOtay Ranch) for the purposes of review (9 concepts total). Each of the major subareas
was broken down into sub-districts for presenting the proposals. The proposals were
presented at the community meeting on November 15,17 and 19, where the public was able
to discuss the Concepts with the GPU staff and consulting team, make suggestions for
refining them, and indicate their particular preferences among the Concepts with respect to
Joint Workshop Info Memo, 1-9-04
Page 6
the various sub-districts. Considering the inputs ITom those meetings, staff and REF
assembled the three, proposed citywide Alternatives now being presented for testing.
These Alternatives do not represent a range of intensity from least to most, but rather are
assembled to reflect varying options in the locations, combinations and arrangement ofland
uses. All the Alternatives consider smart growth principles previously discussed with
Council, and take into consideration existing and future transit networks, and the need to
better integrate land uses, transit and pedestrian mendliness. The Concepts are intended to
reflect a range of options to be evaluated to identity their initial viability and related effects.
Next Steps -
If the range of proposed Alternatives presented is agreeable with the Planning Commission and City
Council, staff and the consulting team will proceed with testing of the Altematives to identity their
effects with regard to traffic and transportation, public facilities and services, environmental factors,
and fiscal soundness.
Staff will work with the consultants and the Steering Committee to review the outcomes to further
refine the alternatives, and to determine a proposed alternative. Staff would then present the
information for input at a community meeting(s) (tentatively in late March 2004). Ultimately, staff
will return to the Planning Commission and City Council with a preferred alternative as well as
others based upon outcomes ofthe testing and the public review meeting(s).
Athr.hmpnt~
1. Summary List of Key Planning Issues & Policy Implications
J:\Planning\ED\GP Land Use AnaJysis\CC-PC Info Memo Ol-09-04v2.doc
SUMMARY OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES/POLICY IMPLICATIONS
IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE GPU AREAWIDE STUDIES AND OTHER
INPUTS-
Through preparation ofthe 27 Areawide Studies (identifying existing conditions and
background assessments), as well as inputs ftom the public and the four citizen
committees, numerous "planning issues and policy implications" were identified for the
General Plan Update (GPU) to consider. Following is a summary listing of issues
considered to be foundational to the GPU effort. (More complete listings and
discussions can be found in the Areawide Studies).
LAND USE & COMMUNITY CHARACTER
· Better tie the location of housing and employment to existing and future transit
stations and corridors.
· Strongly support a balanced mix of uses in neighborhood areas, and the location
of employment centers to minimize motor vehicle trips.
· Establish "mixed use" designations and related provisions.
· Encourage land use mixes and design that promote energy efficiency, including
mixed use development, site design, building design, pedestrian ftiendliness, and
the integration of alternative modes of travel.
· Preserve existing, stable single-family neighborhoods in western Chula Vista.
· Retain the "small town" character and charm of Chula Vista while providing
opportunities for growth and redevelopment.
· Enhance community cohesion between eastern and western CV through
complimentary land uses and better, more convenient transportation linkages.
· Establish downtown CV (Third Av. and surroundings) as the heart of the City,
and the City's primary cultural, entertaimnent and restaurant district.
· Address the future disposition of the South Bay Power Plant site.
· Balance development with enviromnental preservation and public open space
protections in the bayftont area.
· Preserve and enhance prominent and important viewsheds, particularly between
WCV and the bay.
· Improve the image of Chula Vista along major edges and corridors, and at key
gateways, through land use, streetscape and landscape policies and guidelines.
Incentivize and prioritize improvements to the most visible and used areas.
· Balance historic preservation with the need to revitalize and redevelop areas of
WCV through policies and guidelines that address architectural treatments,
streetscape design, and consider approaches such as adaptive reuse.
· Incorporate policies that assist the City in meeting its source reduction, reuse and
recycling goals for solid and hazardous waste.
· Consider locating "general areas" permissible for the consideration of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities away from watershed areas, and
the possible elimination of the bayftont and SR-54 "general areas".
ATTACHMENTl
Page 1 of 4
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / FISCAL
· Expand Chula Vista's employment base to add higher value jobs so residents can
earn sufficient wages locally to afford local housing costs, and thereby reduce the
need to commute.
· Ensure an adequate supply of multi-family and affordable housing to meet the
needs of service workers, and to promote a better jobslhousing balance.
· Provide sufficient opportunities for retaining and expanding local small
businesses in both new development and redevelopment.
· Recognize the important role that arts and culture (and related facilities and
venues) play in creating catalysts for economic development and revitalization.
· Identify and clarify the unique and complimentary roles that our major activity
centers (including the bayfront, Chula Vista Center, downtown Third Ave., and
the Eastern Urban Center) will play in relation to one another.
· Promote the University and educational excellence toward ensuring a well trained
and skilled workforce.
· Provide for a land use plan that generates sufficient revenues to provide and
sustain facilities and services to maintain the quality-of-life desired by the
community.
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
· Emphasize the role of art and culture in establishing the City's social fabric and
identity, and provide policies to establish an arts and culture district in downtown
Chula Vista, and encourage related facilities to locate there.
· Provide policies to address future school facility needs in WCV through either the
horizontal or vertical expansion of existing sites, or the identification ofthe need
for new sites.
· Carefully evaluate opportunities for joint use of school sites in terms of shared
field/recreation and facility space, and consider policies that would emphasize
school sites as neighborhood and community centers.
· Consider incorporating policies addressing the provision of sufficient health and
human services and facilities, and emphasizing these as a core aspect of the
community and healthy lifestyles for Chula Vistans.
· Address long-term water supply, and balance development in accordance with
that supply.
· Consider existing "deficient" conditions in WCV (e.g. parks, drainage, select SW
area street improvements) in addition to the demands created by new growth and
development. Promote eqitable facility provision between eastern and western
CV, particularly park and recreation facilities.
· Develop a funding and financing program for needed inftastructure in WCV.
· Consider the effects of potential density and building height increases in WCV
and the bayfront on fire service, equipment, facilities/station locations and
personnel.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 4
· Water system improvements needed in WCV to meet increased fire flow demands
generated by potential redevelopment and intensification.
· Take into consideration the community's long-term energy demands and the
reliability of supply.
· Ensure the GPU adequately addresses drainage provisions and requirements
stemming from the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
· Integrate appropriate content from the existing Child Care Element into a chapter
within the new, integrated Public Facilities and Services Element.
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
· Integrate and promote the South Bay Transit First Plan as a foundation ofthe
GP's land use and transportation system.
· Advocate regional planning and coordination to ensure that Chula Vista's transit
and roadway system connects to a viable, regional system.
· Promote urban mobility concepts that seek to emphasize land use mix, integration
and vibrance, pedestrian friendliness and transit orientation over past predominant
emphasis on automobile accommodation.
· Advocate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) concepts.
· Develop a transportation system that better links eastern and western Chula Vista,
particularly the major activity and employment centers.
· Provide for an integrated network of sidewalks, bike paths and trails to connect
neighborhoods and activity centers throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL
· Ensure preservation of the Planning Areas unique open space features and natural
resources.
· Ensure protection of the Bay and adjoining resources in the bayfront area.
Provide an integrated open space and trails framework for ongoing bayfront
planning actions.
· Achieve consistency between the General Plan, the Otay Ranch Resource
Management Plan (RMP), and the recently adopted CV MSCP Subarea Plan with
regard to land use designations, boundaries, conservation percentages, restoration
requirements and policy language.
· Reconcile the standards and locations for trails within the Greenbelt with the
MSCP Subarea Plan. Include trails policies and guidelines within the GP that
would lead to the preparation of a citywide Trails Master Plan.
· Reconcile the location/boundaries of the University site on the General Plan with
those analyzed in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
· Reconcile GP discussions of public facilities with the discussion of allowable
facilities within the Preserve as identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
· Reconcile the GP Circulation Element roadways to remove those segments that
were explicitly excluded from coverage in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 4
· Ensure any proposed alignments/realignments of roadways are consistent with the
MSCP Subarea Plan.
· Incorporate mineral resources management policies into the GP in conformance
with state guidelines. Revise the OP to reflect the restrictions placed on mining /
extractive uses (in the Otay River Valley) as identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
Address any potential inconsistencies or conflicts with SMARA's significant
mineral resource designations in Otay Valley.
· Provide for adequate, interconnected open space and parklands in western CV to
offset the effects of potential increased density or intensity of development.
· Expand upon urban, community-based green infrastructure that is distinct from
habitat conservation (e.g. community and pocket parks, canyons, community and
roof gardens, vegetated drainage swales, landscaped driveway strips, etc.).
· Provide GP goals, objectives and policies to support acquisition or easement
dedication of open space within the Greenbelt, and encourage connections with
the regional trails system.
· Promote and incentivize sustainable development concepts in the GP through
policies related to the C02 Reduction Plan, Energy Action Plan, Water
Conservation and Air Quality Improvements Plans, recycling, source reduction,
resource conservation, renewable energy sources (solar/wind), and other efforts
that have occurred subsequent to the last comprehensive update in 1989.
· Establish policies promoting energy efficiency, including the encouragement of
potential additional cogeneration facilities in CV.
· Consider establishing an "environmental technology" industry overlay near the
landfill to promote the location of industries involved in recycling, materials
reuse, and other sustainable development related pursuits.
· Address the future disposition ofthe South Bay Power Plant, and potential reuse
of all or a portion of the site.
· Incorporate appropriate noise standards into the GP which currently does not
address noise, along with policies and guidelines regarding land use, traffic
calming and other techniques to manage noise levels.
J:\Planning\ED\GP Land Use Analysis\CC-PC JOÎnt workshop issues list Ol-08-04.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 of 4
Jan. 13,2003
To: Mayor Steve Padilla
Council members ~ ~
Patty Davis, John McCannerry Rindo~'Mary Salas
City Manager Dave Rowlands
I am unable to attend meetings you schedule during the workday.
I do want you to know that when the Public Workshops were held last
year, the opinion of the people I spoke to when attending was that
they did NOT want Open Space areas encroached upon by houses
or commercial development. This was also clear during the public
meeting regarding the proposed KOA development.
Leave the areas designated as Open Space unaltered.
Thank you,
~v\JfJ.k~
Susan D. Walter
238 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
---,.-~--"--_._----_._--_.
~
-i
-,.-
!-I¡I~$ !f~ -- :; ;;
¡= f:=
~::-
:~
-
1
1.OW!NTUtSI1"Y.....,.t>IAaAcrII;
...
-----....-
--.-----
...
-~--_...-
2
...
-_.- -_.~- --- --
...
WlXmIlSlSHOPPl.'lCcmru:wmlII01.WNG4JOYlRITAII.
....
------ :.:-..:.,- -...--- :::-.=..-=-
..1&
~..:z:o:::.....~_ --~--- =."::;- "'---'-~-
3
mnn'....!I:f'ICMI'uT1..'mOl.\..........o.>UCr
4
5
MAJOR PLANNING
SUBAREAS-
6
'..
L.rU - .I
~
-==..-
;;;..-.
~==-
æ==
--
--
-
æ:~~~.
i;=
~:- -:
7
i~:~
==-.-
~..:.<;"-_.
=;;:==.
:..-
-~.:...-
===-
:==-
;:'-="
-:=-:-
---~._-
>
rq,7-.
-- -.
...................
-
-
,-
===-
--
--
--+ ---
-~~
==--.-.
~ :~~::'
<I'i_~_
---
--.-
--.-
--+ --.
10;::;::--
--+ ---
,..::---
E__
-~--
~='::::='
~.:=
8
,
,
~,
~-
TiER QNE
..._L..
M F X I C 0
^
-
9
-----
---
--
----
.-
--.
=
~-
...---
---
---
---
==..::::'-.
-:0.:::--
""--
__u__
!:==--
---
----
.- .-
--
~~~~
10
-
~-
",'--
--
---
--
----
==--
::!'-'"'::.:"o
:====
:::::::::
--.-
---
ii~__
._~-
"I!'..!,'''''
.-
11
_M____
~
,;;¡:7...
!'"~.
==-
~
--.-
¡~:--
--
-
::.
.-
12
-::.
.-
-.
--
.---
æ=- ._
~~~.
--
¡:'-:=-
.
..."'"-
13