HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1998/05/05
"I declar. ..nder penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the Cit, Clerk and that I posted
Tuesday, May 5, 1998 this Agenda/Noti:e on the Bulletin Board at Council Chambers
the Public ervic Buldin3 and at City Hall on
4:00 p.m. DATED. ¿; ~GNED ". Public Services Building
Re ular Meetin of the Cit
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmemhers Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _, Salas _' and
Mayor Horton _.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21, 1998.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
A. Proclaiming the week of May 3 through May 9, 1998 as "Youth Week." The proclamation
will be presented by Mayor Horton to Hoppy Hopkins. Exalted Ruler of the Chula Vista Elks
Lodge #2011 and Garry Hummel. Youth Activities Chairman.
B. Proclaiming the week of May 3 through May 9, 1998 as "Municipal Clerks Week." The
proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to the staff of the City Clerk's Office.
C. Proclaiming Thursday, May 7, 1998 as "Work at Home Day." The proclamation will be
presented by Mayor Horton to Scott Alevy of Pacific Bell.
D. Proclamation "Extending a warm welcome to San Diego Flash on the commencement of their
1998 Soccer Season." The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to Y an Skwara,
President and General Manager.
E. Senator Wadie Deddeh will present a brief report on legislative activities in Sacramento during
the first quarter of 1998.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 15)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calentklr will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled
from the Consent Calentklr will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommentkltions and Action Items.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of
actions taken in Closed Session on 4/28/98, that there were no reportable actions which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported. It is recommended that the letter be received
and filed.
- --
. ~... "--.. --"-"-- .. . .--,~.,..__._._----
Agenda -2- May 5, 1998
B. Letters of resignation from the Town Center Project Area Committee - Jack Blakely and
Daniel L. Mason. It is recommended that the resignations be accepted with regret and the City
Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the
Public Library.
C. Letter from the Rados Brothers requesting consideration of a temporary four year u§e as a
financing vehicle to redevelop the site located at 798 Lagoon Drive. It is recommended that
because of the importance of this area of the Midbayfront, staff does not support an LCP
Amendment.
6. ORDINANCE 2732 AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.04, DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P-C
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (second
readi"" and adootion) - The application, submitted by The Eastlake Company
and co-sponsored by the City, proposes to amend Municipal Code Chapters
19.04, Definitions and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone. The proposed
amendments consist of expanding the definition of Community Purpose Facilities
(CPF) to allow open ball fields to the list of permitted uses identified in the
Definitions Section; Consolidate CPF requirements and criteria, presently
located in different Chapters, into a single Section of the above mentioned P-C,
Planned Community Zone; Convert the list of pennitted uses into Conditional
Use Permit uses; and establish criteria to limit the percentage of the required
CPF acreage that may be used for open recreational hall fields within a planned
community. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading
and adoption. (Director of Planning)
7. RESOLUTION 18981 AWARDING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF A REPLACEMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY COMMAND VEHICLE TO
JOHNSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID
NUMBER MP0285 WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY -
The City's fiscal year 1997/98 Equipment Replacement Budget adopted in June
of 1997, provides for the replacement of the Fire Department Emergency
Command Vehicle. The Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Resolution
Number 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids
with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage.
The City, therefore, has the right to participate in a current Orange County Fire
Authority bid from Johnson Equipment Company. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Fire Chief, Director of Finance and Director of Public
Works)
8. RESOLUTION 18982 ENDORSING THE ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE REGIONAL
LIBRARY AUTHORITY FOR A ONE QUARTER OF A CENT SALES
TAX TO BENEm PUBLIC LIBRARIES COUNTYWIDE, SUBJECT TO
THE APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS - On 1017197, Council endorsed the
formation of a Regional Library Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter
of a cent sales tax measure on the ballot. The Authority was established and has
now drafted such an ordinance. The Authority has also scheduled a vote of the
people on the Ordinance for March 1999. The Authority is now asking each
city in San Diego County to endorse the Ordinance as drafted. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director)
____._"____._n
Agenda -3- May 5, 1998
9. RESOLUTION 18983 GRANTING THE 1997 RICHARD WELSH MEMORIAL AWARD TO ST.
JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH - The Beautification Awards Committee has
nominated St. John's Episcopal Church, located at 760 First Avenue, for this
year's Richard Welsh Memorial Award for its excellence in architectural design.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
10. RESOLUTION 18984 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
NUMBER PE-416 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE CROSSING
AND OTHER FACILITIES WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 3066
NORTH SECOND A VENUE BY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY -
Sweetwater Authority is proposing to build a demineralization plant on a parcel
along North Second Avenue just north of State Route 54. The property is
divided by the Paradise Creek Channel, which the City maintains. In order to
connect the property for vehicles and personnel, the Authority has requested the
City to grant an encroachment permit to allow a bridge to be built across the
channel. According to Section 12.28 of the Municipal Code, this request must
be approved by Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
II. RESOLUTION 18985 DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CHANGES AND
MODIFICATIONS IN ASSESSMENTS LEVIED WITHIN CERTAIN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
AND ORDERING TIlE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT
PROCEDURES AS TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE
INCREASED - On 8/6/96, Council approved the changes and modifications in
proceedings and assessments in Assessment District Number 94-1 and approving
the Fourth Amendment to the AcquisitionlFinancing Agreement; and ordering
changes and modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District
Number 91-1. Due to changes in density in two subdivisions of EastIake
Greens, Units 10 and 16, The Eastlake Company has requested that due to
higher assessments in one subdivision, due to the density reduction, a change
and modification in the assessment districts be ordered. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
12. RESClLUTIClN 18986 APPROVING THE CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL AND ADOPTING IT
FOR USE IN PREPARATION OF MAPS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS
IN THE CITY - The City has a subdivision manual that was prepared in the
1980's. It is used by engineers of private developers and by City staff as a
guide for the preparation and checking of maps and construction plans. There
have been many changes in State law and procedures since the current manual
was adopted. The proposed manual has been updated to reflect those changes
and revised where necessary to enhance understanding and use of the desired
criteria. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
13. RESOLUTION 18987 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "THE NORMAN
PARK RECREATION FACILITY - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY (PRI94)" - Funding for this project was
budgeted during the fiscal year 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program budget
process. The project was budgeted to renovate the deteriorating shuffleboard
court area to meet American with Disability Act requirements, health and safety
standards, and to complement the new senior center built in 1991. The
renovation includes the reconstruction of the roof and the installation of
windows. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
__ . _ ~~_._ ~~T~""" ........................
Agenda -4- May 5, 1998
14. RESOLUTION 18988 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MCA CONCERTS, INC.(NOW UNIVERSAL
CONCERTS, INC.), DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1996 AMENDING THE
SCHEDULE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR - Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement with MCA Concerts
which requires the City to pay $150,000 to MCA to be used for construction of
a sound mitigation wall, the Council is requested to approve an amendment to
the Agreement modifying the payment schedule by extending the target
development dates which trigger payments to the MCA. The extension is
necessitated by unanticipated construction delays caused by an unusually wet
winter. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development) 4/5th's vote required.
15. REPORT APPLICATION OF THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM FOR
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EVEN START F AMIL Y
LITERACY GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 - The Chula
Vista Literacy Team has been a partner for the past eight years with the Chula
Vista Elementary School District's Even Start Program. The Library's Literacy
Team is now the lead applicant and fiscal agent in the current round of Even
Start applications. The program provides in-home and center-based educational
services to approximately 100 Chula Vista families. both parents and their young
children. [ awarded, $300,000 will be received to implement this program.
Staff recommends Council accept the report and ratify the application. (Library
Director)
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR ANDIOR JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting.
None submitted.
~. --, - ------
Agenda -5- May 5, 1998
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantiol discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, phase
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
16. RESOLUTION 18989 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT COMMENTS TO THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTH SAN
DIEGO BAY UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN
SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AN ACQUISITION BOUNDARY
WITH MODIFICATIONS - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
proposed a boundary for a National Wildlife Refuge for South San Diego Bay.
The establishment of the boundary is the first step in establishing 4,750 acres
(land/water area) Refuge for the area. Once the boundary is set, the Service can
begin to acquire private lands or negotiate management agreements for public
lands within the Refuge boundary. After acquisition of lands and completion of
agreements, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will develop a detailed
management plan for presetvation and enhancement of resources within the
Refuge. Stalf recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development)
17. RESOLUTION 18990 APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998/99 INCLUDING BOTH THE FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND THE
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS
AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - On 417198, Council held a
public hearing to review and receive public comment on the draft Consolidated
Annual Plan for tiscal year 1998/99 and to review all projects and programs
being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30 day comment period
to review the draft Consolidated Annual Plan began on 3/21198 and ended on
4/21/98. All public comments received by staff during the 30 day comment
period have been considered and, if deemed appropriate. incorporated into the
final version of the Consolidated Annual Plan. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
18. RESOLUTION 18991 RE-ENDORSING THE SITING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CAMPUS IN CHULA VISTA - Council has previously approved a site in the
Otay Ranch project for a public university, and has approved a resolution in
support of designating this site as a University of California campus. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
Agenda -6- May 5, 1998
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
A. Scheduling of meetings.
20. MAYOR'S REPORTIS)
A. RESOLUTION 18992 SUPPORTING AB 2228 (DAVIS) PETROLEUM: COMPETITION
Assembly Bill 2228 (Davis) Petroleum: competition declares that
nothing in State law preempts local authority in the field of distribution
and sales of motor vehicle fuels. This bill has been introduced to assist
the County of San Diego in its efforts to enforce the gasoline
"divorcement" ordinance also under consideration by the City. It is
recommended that the resolution be approved.
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
A. Regarding the matter of agreement between Coors Brewing Company and Universal Concerts,
Inc.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council meeting on May 12, 1998 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
- - --- _.__.__.~--_._._----_._._.. --.----. --,--
'" d~'are tinder penalty of perjury that , am
~~,::: oyed by t~e City of Chula Vista in the
. e of the CIty Clerk and that I posted
thIs Agenda/Notice on the BUlletin B d
Tuesday, May~, 1998 the PUbl~J.i9~Uilding and at C~:r Hat Council Cbambers
4:00 p.m. DATED. / . SIGNED g~ j'ublic Services Building
(immediately following the City Council M t" g) -
.;;-
.,
~
City of Chula Vista Citv Council
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amend!nents to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City
Manager or the City Council staJes otherwise at this nme, "the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following
items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the
Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is
required by low to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes
taken. However, due to the typical length 01 time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated
at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken,
and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the
minutes which will be avaiJoble in the City Clerk's Office.
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
. Chula Vista Police Officers Association v. City of Chula Vista.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: David Rowlands or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management. Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (lAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
-.--------- ."-.----- -----
April 30, 1998
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
.['Y'f
FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Mana~)~i<JJY~
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of May 5, 1998 ~I/
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city Council meeting of Tuesday, May 5, 1998. Comments regarding
the Written communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney reporting that the
City Council met in Closed Session on 4/28/98 to discuss the
Matter of Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U-
902-E) for Authority to Sell Electrical Generation Facilities
and Power Contracts; Conference with Legal Counsel regarding
anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 - one case; and labor negotiations.
The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on 4/28/98 to
discuss Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Third and
H Streets (Agency Parcels Nos. 568-450-39, 41, 42 and 45)
Redevelopment Agency and Chrismatt Corporation.
The City Attorney stated that to the best of his knowledge
from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 4/28/98,
there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown
Act to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESIGNATIONS OF JACK BLAKELY AND
DANIEL L. MASON FROM THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE BE
ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST
IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
5c. This is a letter from the Rados Brothers requesting
consideration of a temporary four year use as a financing
vehicle to redevelop the site located at 798 Lagoon Drive. IT
IS RECOMMENDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AREA OF
THE MIDBAYFRONT, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT AN LCP AMENDMENT.
~{
~~~
=~~~
~~~~
~~~"'-
OlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY A TIORNEY
Date: April 29, 1998
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: John M. Kaheny, City AttorneY~~
Re: Report Regarding Actions Take in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 4/28/98
The City Council met in Closed Session on 4/28/98 to discuss In the
Matter of the Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U
902-E) for Authority to Sell Electrical Generation Facilities and
Power Contracts; Conference with Legal Counsel regarding
anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9
-One Case; and labor negotiations.
The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on 4/28/98 to
discuss Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Third and H
Streets (Agency Parcels Nos. 568-450-39, 41, 42 and 45)
Redevelopment Agency and Chrismatt Corporation.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: Igk
C:\lt\clossess.no
S/l-/
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
tJ ""-...--
RECEIVED
"S18 Q2J P):24
April 20, 1998 8H ~LE~~~Š~mlt
Dear Pam Bttchan;
360 Third A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 422-1982 Pam it is with true regret that 1 must inform you that effective today 4/20/98, I
FAX
(619) 422-1452 Jack Blakely must resign from the Project Area committee I have truly enjoyed
the opportunity to serve on this committee and I look forward to working with
members of this committee in the future. Please pass along my regrets and
thank you for your assistance in this matter.
1998 omcers & Directors
President Sincerely,
Sharon Dowdy
Vice President ~
Eddie Chapman
Secretary Jack Blakely
David Rossi
Treasurer
Jim Fergus
Past President
David Rossi
Keith Hooper
Tom Money
Linda Navarro
Joana Patterson
Ben Patton
Stella Sutton
Phyllis Swanson
Bill Upham
Donna Vignapiano
WRITTEN COLWU~~U~~J'dCA TIONS
. /vø~
é'C 2 J¡::, ('I)
gh ¿ÇC]) 5Í3-/
------_._._._----_.._._._--~._-,~- ------------
RECEIVED
'518 aZ3 p 3 :24
~ Øtl/r1il PTOMETRV OI"l_IIIIST
~~~ www.cvopt.eam TY CLERK'S OF NIU L. MASON
'I'v¡'rA ~O'
4/22/'J8
To Redevelopment Agency
Dear Mayor Horton,
Due to city lega.l opinion a.s conveyed to me, I a.m resigning my
position on the Town Center project Area committee effective
immediately. As lIlY business is now in the Bonita Point plaza I
havE! been asked to resign. please note that my time spent on the
committee has been I feel very worthwhile and I wish the members
succese .s well a. economic success downtown. If I can be of
further ASsistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Daniel I...
O:>;ð >7~('¡) COMAAU~~iC':R0~y
a?£ WRITTEN
VÝ1' iCY
. ..-. .. . - '.0____'__'_
746 QtayLakes Rd. CbuJa Vista, CA. 91910 Tel: (619) 656-1081 Fax: (619) 656-1371
52J ~ cZ
tQ 3Ð\ld ~dO I'I\;I" ld i'IJS tLEt-9!õ9-6t9
!õQ:8t 866t/2:2:/ÞQ
- -.----.--,.---. . - - -.__._------~-_._...- "."
RECEIVED
RADOS BROS.
POST OFFICE Box 151 B4 '98 11II 28 P2 :07
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92735-0184
(714) 835-4612 CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(714) 835-2186 - FAX CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
March 27, 1998
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attention: Mayor and Councilmembers via City Clerk
(for public consideration)
City Manager I····
Redevelopment Director
City Attorney
Re: 798 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista MAR 3 I
I
Rados Property
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am the owner of the referenced property. The improvements consist of two
large metal industrial buildings containing about 40,000 square feet. The property has
lain vacant and fallow for over 10 years because it is zoned by the City in a way that is
so restrictive that no pennitted use wants to come there, and any use that wants to
come there is not pennitted. As a result of this "catch 22" zoning, the property is in a
dilapidated condition and has and will continue to remain fallow by the archaic and
unrealistic zoning ordinance.
The property has been stripped of anything of value by scavengers and thieves.
It has been over run by illegal users including drug dealers. prostitutes and the
homeless. Latest but not least, as you may have read in the newspaper, an illegal
transporter of hazardous waste has abandoned a trailer full of barrels of biomedical
waste on the site. The EPA Superfund has just finished the cleanup. It has become, in
the truest sense of the word, a blighted property.
Recently, we were able to negotiate a lease for four years with a start up
company which wanted to use the property as a site on which to conduct auto auctions.
The site is perfectly suited for their purposes because it has freeway visibility and
access, and one of the buildings could house the auction events and the smog
checking requirements imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. 150 or so
customers would be brought down to your undeveloped and underutilized bayfront area
twice a week by a massive investment in advertising, and the site would generate at
least $80,000 to $100,000 a year in sales tax revenue which is not being generated
cc,tfð: ~(>:J 5C"/WRlniN C,OMMUb~.CA TiONS
/n- -Y's;7? J:Y
0.,.,- '2' ~j)
-.. -- .. .
City of Chula Vista
Re: 798 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista
Rados Property
March 27, 1998
Page 2 of 4
This is equivalent to the sales tax generating power of a Price Club or a Sam's
Club, and is being handed to you on a silver platter without any City subsidy.
The proposed tenant has been asking the staff for months for permission to
operate on the site, and initially the very supportive Redevelopment staff told the
prospective tenant that it would be permitted as long as certain operating conditions
were met -- paint the building, remove the office structure, pave the parking lot,
ventilate the building, etc.
Three months have now come and gone, and the tenant is "chomping at the bit"
to go into business. Site meetings were held with 20 to 30 members of the City's staff
from all departments of the City. Based on continued meetings with staff, operational
protocols have been submitted and modified. No one from the City has once said or
implied that the site could not be used for an auto auction use. On that basis, the
proposed tenant signed a lease with us, subject to getting the final permit. Today, we
received a call from the tenant to cancel the lease!
The lease is for four years and has significant value to us. The four year use
has a value to the City of about $400,000 in sales tax and who knows how much more
in funds infused by the multitude of visitors into local restaurants lying immediately to
the north of the site.
The tenant has even commissioned a contract planner to submit plans, but he
can't give the tenant a quote because the City can't determine which department is
going to process the plans -- Planning or Redevelopment. There appears to be no
written guideline on how to allocate that responsibility. They have been waiting for 10
days just for a determination as to which department is going to process the plans!
Now, on the basis of the some legal reasoning that is not well documented, the
legal department has advised that the use will not be permitted.
We are absolutely floored. We are now being told at the 11th hour that the
Bayfront Specific Plan will now need to be amended in order to tolerate the use. This
will require a minimum processing time of three more months. And the tenant would
not be permitted to process a CUP under the proposed amended use until after the
amendment is approved, not simultaneously with the processing of the amendment.
That will require an additional two to three months which could be eliminated by
allowing simultaneous processing. Furthermore, the tenant is advised that there is no
provision for interim or temporary use rights while the Plan is in the process of being
amended. This means that a business which is ready to go and which will produce
needed rent to us and $100,000 a year in taxes for you can't even get started for a
least 6 more months.
5é-2
-
City of Chula Vista
Re: 798 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista
Rados Property
March 27, 1998
Page 3 of 4
Interim or temporary uses have been allowed in the past while the permit was
being processed as was the case with the previous auto auction use that was
established on the Bennet Greenwald property at 780 Bay Boulevard, just down the
street. Why not here? Why the disparate treatment?
Furthermore, the proposed tenant is willing to comply with all reasonable
conditions subsequently imposed, and we, the landlord, are willing to help.
It is reported to us by Mr. Bruce M. Boogaard, the tenant's attorney, that the
fundamental legal premise that is being used in rejecting the proposed auto auction use
is that, because the zoning does not specifically say "auto auctions" under the narrowly
defined allowed uses, it was intended to exclude any use not mentioned. Mr. Boogaard
muttered something to the effect: "Incluslo Unlus Est Exclusio Alteriusf' Yet
nowhere is such a law or maxim written in your zoning code. It appears to be an
unwritten policy and one specifically limited to the territory of the Bayfront Specific Plan,
not one typically used in the zoning ordinance or in the redevelopment areas of the
City, and not one that has been consistently applied in the Bayfront area itself.
So under the existing zoning, we can have an auto storage lot and an auto
parking lot, but we can't sell the cars to large assemblages of people. Furthermore, we
can have large assemblages of people if we were a circus or a carnival selling rides
and candy, or an exhibition hall selling different products each week instead of the
same product. Also, we could sell personal property items other than cars, such as
barber chairs, dental chairs, hospital equipment, office equipment, nursery equipment,
restaurant equipment, shoe repair equipment, and crematory equipment. But we can't
sell cars.
The bottom line under your zoning ordinance is that we can have a large supply
of parked cars on the lot, but we can't sell them. We can have large assemblages of
persons on the lot coming and going at all hours of the day and night who are allowed
to buy products, but they are not allowed to buy the product if the product is a car!
Is there a shred of common sense to this? We can have large groups of people
coming to the site in cars and leaving the site in cars, and we can fill the site with stored
or parked cars, but we can't allow the large number of people coming to the site in cars
to buy the cars that are stored on the site. This appears to be the most arbitrary and
capricious zoning that can be imagined. Everv aSDect of the auto auction use is
allowed exceDt the exchanae of monevl Does someone at the City have an
objection to the exchanae of monev?1?1
5c-;s
----------------.. --.---.---.....-.----.--
City of Chula Vista
Re: 798 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista
Rados Property
March 27, 1998
Page 4 of 4
Is this what you call permit streamlining and being business friendly? This is a
cruel hoax. It is without any wonder that Rohr's manufacturing facilities have left the
city and the state. It is without any wonder that your manufacturing capabilities have
dwindled to nothing.
We beseech you! Please let us put our land to productive use. If nothing else,
can't you use the "de minimus development" waiver exception allowed in Section
19.83.005? The tenant has been advised that an environmental study and a traffic
study will not even be required. It is right next to a freeway where the average ambient
noise level is well over 80 decibels, and any use of a PA system could be confined
inside the buildings. We would agree to demolish the northern most building which you
have claimed to be an eyesore, but the tenant needs a four year period with which to
recoup its initial investment and make a profit margin sufficient to attract it to the site.
If nothing else, you should consider the temporary four year use as a financing
vehicle to redevelop the site and the area. Surely that should suit the purposes of the
redevelopment area within which the site is located. What kind of redevelopment plan
would insist on the perpetuation of a blighted condition?
Please change the reputation of City of Chula Vista to allow it to be a business
friendly community again without sacrificing any of its good quality of life.
Sincerely,
RADOS BROS.
~S£D-P~
Alexander S. Rados
ASR:slg
cc: Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq.
(i'.'. 4.1,,",,;~ l'l. ')
c.Aì~
CÂAo..,,> ~\w...""",,--
C:I.-l~'\
~C-7
- - --- -.-..------- ._-_.__._._~.__.~----~----~-_._-----_.~._-_._-~-------------.-"
r\'..o~
-< ,/? r, #~'
ORDr\A...NCE NO. -" ~
- ~.
~ .
.~~N ORDr\ANCE OF TrlE CITY COUNCIL OF In' OF ~~
-¡..; ~\:>
CHULA VISTA .AM:EN"DJNG CHAPTERS 1 '(-\;~"'>
~ ~~
DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P-C PL. ~ ~r:3~""
ZONE OF TIΠCHULA VISTA O~'?-S ~
~ '\ ~): ~\;
~'(-¡0 ~~~ .q8
~O\\) O'?-\) \t!,
1. RECITALS '\~\;~~~'0'\s ').0
o~ p~
A... Application for Disc:retionaT)' Approval fI
"WHEREAS, a dnly vcrüied application for an amendment to the Chula
Vista Municipal Code was fiJed with the Planning Department of the City
of Chula Vista on January 12, 1998 as a co-spousored application between
The East:1aJœ Company and the City Df Chula Vista (" App1i=t'); and,
WEERE..tJ>, said application requests cenam amendments to Ch.apær
19.04, DefuritiDIJ5, and 19.48, P-C Planned Co=unity Zone, specifically
modiDcation of Chapær 19.04, Defuritions to add recreational ballfie1ds
as a "typical use" for considerntion in a CPF land use clistrict and to
refcrencethe listed uses as "typical uses", modiDcation of Chapter 19.48, --.
,.. .
P-C Planned Community Zone, to consolidate the regulations pertaining to
community pUIpose facilities into one section., conversion of the list of
pmnitted uses into Conditional use permit uses, and expansion of
Section 19.48.040, outlining the req1Ürements oia CPF Master Plan as
part of the Planned Community GDP(s) whenever r=eational ball fields
are included as conditional uses in the corresponding Sectional Planning
Area plans ("Disc:retionary Approvals") ; and,
B. Environmental Det=ination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has det=ined that
the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class
4(a) and 4(b) exemption; and,
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing
on said project on April 8, 1998, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the City
Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below.
~ t?7 ,/;
~ :J. City CDlU1ciJ R::cord of AppiicatioIl5
Vv'"HER.EAS, a duJy called and noticed public hearing was held before the
City Council ofth:: City ofCnuJa Vista on April 28, 1998, on the
Discretionary Approval Application, received the recommendatioIl5 of the
Plamring Commission, and heard pùblic testimony with regard to same;
and,
NOW, THEREFORE/BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do::s hereby fu¡d,
, . \
det=iDe aDd resolvf as follows: . "
I .
IT PLANNING COMJj1IsSION RECORD J
i: ,
Tne proceeðmgs mid all evidbce introduced befJre the Plaknng Commission at
their public ~ on this project held on April~, 1998, mId the minutes and
resolutions resuIti;þg th=frœD., are b=by mcoIþDIated. mID: the record of this
proceeåIDg. ! J'
¡ y,
! ! I \
m.. CERTIFlCATIOr OF COMPLIANCE WITH þEQA:,
I ' j
The EnviromnenþJ. Review Co\>rWnator has defemrined that this project is
.--c- exempt mm en~mnenta1 review under CEQjt>. as a Class 4(b) exemption.
I ,
, ,
IV. F1NDINGS i '
i
The City Counqil b=by fu¡ds that the propos¥ amendments tÒ,the Cl:iula Vista
Municipal Cod~ will address a nero Îor additio.al non-profit spo~ leagues within
the eastern ~ories of the City, and provide a/lditional f1exibilitX for developers
in marlœting ~ Community Purpose Facility! sites. The propos~ amendments
are consistent 'tith the City of Cl:iulaVista Genml Plan aDd publicnpcessity,
convenience, gþml w::lfare, and goM zoning practice support the ainendments.
I·
I ì
v. APPROVAL I '\ I
Based on the$ove, the City Council berèby .a~roves the proposed amendm'ents
to the Cl:iula sta Municipal Code, specifically 0 Cbapter 19.04 and Cbapter
19.48 as depi ed in Exhibit "A", attacbed here o.
This oråinaDce sball take effect and be in full force aDd effect on the thirtieth day
from aDd after its adoption.
I~ t ~;2
r I - ..J m___~___
Pr~s~t~è by Approved as to f 0= by
Rob::rt A Leiter J ow KabeIJY
PlamriDg Director City Attorney
~.
,
(t:\hom:\pWmmg\pall"\!,-"m9E~ .ord)
b~-)
J2dý-
7
Item___
Meeting Date 05/05/98
J g'ff? /
ITEM TITLE: Resolution A warding the Purchase Agreement of a Replacement
Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle to Johnson Equipment
Company through cooperative bid #MP0285 with the Orange County Fire
Authority.
SUBMITTED BY: Fire chie~ik) vf
D""Im" i,~" ~
Director of Public Works ,
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ .A (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...KJ
The City of Chula Vista FY 1997-98 Equipment Replacement Budget adopted in June of 1997,
provides for the replacement of the Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle. City ofChula
Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing
Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other govemment agencies for the purchase of materials
of common usage. The City, therefore, has the right to and is participating in a current Orange County
Fire Authority bid from Johnson Equipment Company.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution awarding the Purchase
Agreement for a Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle to Johnson Equipment Company.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: The FY97-98 equipment replacement budget provides for the replacement
purchase of a Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle. The On-Duty Battalion Chief currently
uses a 1991 3/4-ton pick-up truck as the Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle. The
Supplemental Budget Report detailing the replacement vehicles to be purchased during FY 97-98,
indicated that the replacement vehicle would be a Suburban type ( 3/4 ton, 4-door, 2-wheel drive, with
enclosed cargo area) vehicle, which has become the standard for this type of vehicle in the Fire
Service.
Extensive data was collected from other jurisdictions in the county, which have had recent experience
with the purchase and outfitting of command vehicles. It was specifically noted that it is important
that the manufacturer have significant experience in designing and constructing command vehicles
and that these types of units be part of a manufacturer's main product line rather than a design/build
or special case order. Products which are manufactured regularly tend to be more refined and have
greater design reliability and functionality. Specifications were developed by Fire Department staff
to support the Department's operational profile. After the specifications were established, City Staff
was infonned that Orange County Fire Authority had solicited bids for this type of command vehicle.
7---/
".---..- ------_..-..._"--~---_.,_._-
Item___
Meeting Date 05/05/98
Four companies that build this type of equipment were invited to bid. Only one bidder, Johnson
Equipment Company, located in Yorba Linda, California, responded. The Purchasing Agent has been
told that the lack of response was due to allocation problems ÍÌ"om the manufacturer. During Staff's
research, this company was identified by every Fire Department contacted, as the industry leader in
design, quality control, and customer service. Currently, in San Diego County, the Fire Departments
of San Marcos, Carlsbad, Oceanside, and San Miguel are using vehicles ÍÌ"om this vendor. Santee Fire
has a vehicle built by another vendor and have been very dissatisfied with the product received and
strongly recommended Johnson Equipment Company over the vendor they used.
In addition to Chula Vista, the Orange County cooperative bid has been used by the City of Riverside.
The City of Belle vue, Washington, has also expressed interest in taking advantage of the bid.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purchase ÍÌ"om the Orange County Fire Authority bid will provide Chula Vista with a turnkey
command vehicle to be manufactured for $54,643.77, including tax. This is $3,993.77 more than the
$50,560 budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund for this item. There are sufficient savings in
the Equipment Replacement Budget for this year because a number of other purchases have come in
under-budget. The difference in the cost of the Command Vehicle comes ÍÌ"om the estimates gathered
last year at this time, which were based on 1997 vehicle prices, installation and materials costs. As
this vehicle is a replacement in the City's fleet, the impact on the FY 1998/99 operating budget for
both the Fire Department and the Public Works Department (Central Garage) is expected to be
minimal.
D:\WINWORD\BUDGE1\A113 Fire Command Vehicle 97·98.doc
File#: 1320-50-DC
7-~
- --.,.-,.-,.-
RESOLUTION NO. 1,yC¡flYI
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AWARDING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF
A REPLACEMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY
COMMAND VEHICLE TO JOHNSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY
THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID #MP0285 WITH THE
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista FY 1997-98 Equipment
Replacement budget adopted in June of 1997, provides for the
replacement of the Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle; and
WHEREAS, Chula vista Municipal Code section 2.56.070 and
Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to
participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for
the purchase of materials of common usage; and
WHEREAS, the City has been invited to participate in a
current Orange County Fire Authority bid from Johnson Equipment
Company; and
WHEREAS, the purchase from the Orange County Fire
Authority bid will provide Chula vista with a "turnkey" command
vehicle to be manufactured for $54,643.77 including tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby award the purchase agreement of a
replacement Fire Department Emergency Command Vehicle to Johnson
Equipment Company at a cost of $54,653.77 including tax through
cooperative bid #MP0285 with the Orange County Fire Authority.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\command.veh
7-3
- _........~, ..,----_. . -. . -,.--.-_.,._~.- -. --'---"'-"'--~'''''.'.-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM [f
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1998
/8'1íl';;'"
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Endorsing the Ordinance Approved by the Regional
Library Authority for a One Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax to Benefit Public
Libraries Countywide, Subject to the Approval of the Voters
SUBMITIED BY, Lilm.YDi_~ M
REVIEWED BY: CityManag~ ~
~ ~
(4/5th Vote: Yes_No_XJ . #
On October 7, 1997, the City Council unanimously approved Resolution 18788 endorsing the <:i.)\J
formation of a Regional Library Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter of a cent sales ~
measure on the ballot and designating the Mayor to act as the City's representative (ATT ACHME ..
A). Over the last few months the Authority, made up of the mayors of the eighteen cities in San
Diego County (including Mayor Horton) and a representative ITOm the Board of Supervisors, have
met and unanimously approved a quarter of a cent sales tax ordinance to benefit county public
libraries. The Authority has also scheduled a vote of the people for March 1999. The Authority is
now asking each city in the county to endorse the ordinance. These endorsements will be the
foundation for efforts to win other organizational endorsements throughout the San Diego region.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution endorsing the Ordinance benefitting
public libraries (ATTACHMENT B) scheduled for a March 1999 vote of the people
NOT SCANNED
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees voted
unanimously, at their April 22, 1998 meeting, to endorsed placing the Ordinance, as drafted by the
Regional Library Authority, on the March 1999 ballot (ATTACHMENT C). lV01's,
DISCUSSION: ~
On February 19, 1998, the Regional Library Authority unanimously approved "An Ordinance
Benefitting Country Library Programs, Operations, and Facilities by Adopting for Five Years Only
a One Quarter Cent Transactions and Use Tax Commencing July 1, 1999 and Terminating June 30,
2004 and Establishing an Appropriate Limit for the San Diego County Regional Library Authority."
The Ordinance is very similar to the Ordinance placed on the 1996 ballot which garnered just under
60% ofthe vote in both the county and in Chula Vista.
The Ordinance includes a preamble which outlines the importance of tax-supported public libraries.
It then goes on to describe the mission of the Authority, which "...is to provide funding in accordance
with the terms of the Ordinance to local public libraries within the County of San Diego in order to
() ;-J
ITEM _, PAGE 2
MEETING DATE: MlIy5.1998
meet the current and future informational, educational, and cultural needs of the residents of the
county and to actively promote literacy, prosperity and democracy by providing £Tee and equal access
to life-long learning and the pursuit of knowledge through reading, technology and whatever other
methods may someday become available. "
The Ordinance clearly states that the one quarter cent sales tax, if approved by two-thirds of the
voters, will be collected beginning July 1, 1999 and last for only five years, ending on June 30, 2004.
If the region wishes to extend the tax, it must be reapproved by two-thirds of the voters in a
subsequent election. A portion of the tax revenues collected will be distributed to the Authority to
cover reasonable expenses, including reimbursement to the County for the cost of the election, costs
incurred in performing the annual audit, and the costs incurred by the County in representing the
Authority in any litigation. The remaining tax revenues collected will be distributed by the Authority
to each of the eighteen cities in the county and the County of San Diego on a pro rata basis based
upon the sales and use tax revenues generated in each of the eighteen cities and in the unincorporated
area of the County.
The Ordinance also outlines how each jurisdiction will spend the tax revenue. The Chula Vista
spending plan, which was unanimously approved by the City Council on December 9, 1997
(ATTACHMENT D), is stated in the Ordinance as:
* Add more £Tont desk staff and expand children's and youth programs
* Increase hours at all branch libraries and eliminate video fees
* Increase availability of public computers immediately, improve electronic access £Tom
home, create a dedicated trust fund for technology
* Build a new library east ofT-80S and repair Civic Center/Main Library
* Buy more books and library material immediately and create a dedicated trust fund
for books
Finally, the Ordinance calls for a maintenance of effort by each of the eight library jurisdictions (the
seven independent city libraries and the County Library). It requires that the tax revenues only be
used to supplement, and not supplant, the base level of support. The base level shall be either (1) the
amount of expenditures for library operation and maintenance in the 1996-97 fiscal year, or (2) the
average amount of expenditures for library operations and maintenance in the 1994-95, 1995-96, and
the 1996-97 fiscal years. The City will be required to make an irrevocable election as to which base
formula to use sixty days prior to the initial distribution of tax revenue. If the City does not meet its
base level of expenditures required by its maintenance of effort in any given fiscal year, the City will
have the amount of its shortfall withheld £Tom its distribution in the fiscal year following its shortfall.
The City will then have one year in which to meet its maintenance of effort requirement. If it does
so, then the withheld money will be distributed to the City. If the City does not meet its maintenance
of effort in the additional fiscal year, the amount withheld will be redistributed to the other cities and
County.
Or-;¿
ITEM , PAGE 3
MEETING DATE: May 5.1998
FISCAL IMPACT: SANDAG now estimates that if the sales tax measure is approved, the City
Library would receive an estimated $21.1 million over a five year period. The tax collection would
begin on July 1, 1999. On December 9, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution 18830 which
outlined the spending allocation plan for any library dedicated sales tax monies.
?f~~
-- ----..-"..-----------
RESOLUTION NO. /g"9f{~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ENDORSING THE ORDINANCE APPROVED
BY THE REGIONAL LIBRARY AUTHORITY FOR A ONE
QUARTER OF A CENT SALES TAX TO BENEFIT PUBLIC
LIBRARIES COUNTYWIDE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL
OF THE VOTERS
WHEREAS, on October 7, 1997, the City Council unanimously
approved Resolution 18788 endorsing the formation of a Regional
Library Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter of a cent
sales tax measure on the ballot and designating the Mayor to act as
the City's representative; and
WHEREAS, over the last few months the Authority, made up
of the mayors of the eighteen cities in San Diego County (including
Mayor Horton) and a representative from the Board of Supervisors,
have met and unanimously approved a quarter of a cent sales tax
ordinance to benefit county public libraries and has scheduled a
vote of the people for March 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Authority is now aSking each city in the
county to endorse the ordinance which will be the foundation for
efforts to win other organizational endorsements throughout the San
Diego region; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees voted unanimously,
at its April 22, 1998 meeting, to endorse placing the Ordinance, as
drafted by the Regional Library Authority, on the March 1999
ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby endorse the ordinance approved by
the Regional Library Authority for a One Quarter of a Cent Sales
. Tax to benefit public libraries countywide, subject to the approval
of the voters.
Presented by Approved as to form by
David Palmer, Library Director
C:\rs\library.tax
g>tj
"-_...._._..__._~.._-..-_..-._----_.-
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
lTEM_
í MEETJNG DATE 10/7/97
'\~
ITEM TITLE: Resolution \~ Taking a position to support the formation of a County Library
Authority for the purpose of placing a quarter of a cent sales tax measure on the
ballot and designating the Mayor to act as the City's representative on said
Authority
SUBMITTED BY: Library Directo~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
During October 1997, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to approve a resolution
to create a County-wide Library Authority.(ATTACHMENT A) This Authority will consider p1acing
a.quarter of a cent sales tax proposal on the June 2, 1998 ballot. Ifplaced on the ballot and approved
by a. two-thirds majority, the tax would be in effect for five years, would be dedicated to improvements
in library programs, operations and tàcilities only, and would provide Chula Vista with an estimated $20
million dollars. An identical effort in November of 1996 fell short of voter approval, although more
than 59"10 of the voters supported the measure. As proposed, the lJ."brary Authority will be similar in
form to the previous Authority which sunset after the November 1996 election.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution supporting the creation of the Library
Authority, and designate the Mayor to serve as the City's representative to the Authority.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The lJ."brary Board of Trustees voted unanimously
to request that the City Council support the fonnation of the County Library Authority
(ATTACHMENT B)
DISCUSSION
BacklZI'Ound
On June 11, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 18335 supporting a. legislative proposal for
a. library sales tax (SB 1958-Mello). This bill subsequently stalled in committee. The County then
investigated and evaluated alternative means of pursuing such a tax and chose to form a lJ."brary
Authority for the purpose of placing the proposal on the November 1996 ballot. On August 6, 1996,
the City Council approved Resolution 18390, which designated the Mayor to serve as the City's
representative to the Library Authority, and authorized a "yes" vote for the placement of the sales tax
issue before the voters. (ATTACHMENT C) In August 1996, the Mayors (or their representatives)
of the eighteen independent cities in the County and a member of the Board of Supervisors unanimously
voted to place a quarter of a cent tax measure for libraries on the November 1996 ballot.
Although the ballot measure failed to obtain the needed 2/3rds majority county-wide, an impressive
59.1% of the voters cast their vote in favor of the proposal. The yes vote was slightly higher in Chula
Vista, where 59.5% of the voters were in favor of the tax. In a number ofChula. Vista precincts the
number of yes votes exceeded 70%.
?~
~!!J
____~._~O_·._~,.__ ... ---- _.._,.__.,."'----~---~~--~
Item ~Page -L..
Meeting Date: 1017197
ProDosed Re-establishment of the Librarv Authority
After the November 1996 election, the Library Authority sunset. The proposal to re-establish a County
Library Authority is part of a regional effort to find the means of increasing the resources available to
libraries throughout the region. The organization and structure will be identical to that of the 1996
Authority, and created under the tenns of the State Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 7285.5. As
was described to Council in Item 11 of the August 6, 1996 City Council Agenda, the Authority will be
governed by a board of directors consisting of the Mayors of each of the 18 cities in the County plus
the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors.
The purpose of the authority will be to approve (by a 213 vote of the directors) the placement of a sales
tax proposal on the June 1998 ballot and will have all the powers set forth in the Revenue and Taxation
Code section 7285.5.
The proceeds of the sales tax (if approved by the voters) will be distributed directlv to each of the
eighteen cities in the County, and to the County for the unincorporated area of County, in proportion
to the sales tax revenues generated within each city and the unincorporated area of County.
As of the end of September; the Encinitas, Escondido, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway
and Santee City Councils have approved resolutions ÌII support of the Library Authority. The
remaining cities (including San Diego) are scheduled to votethis week. or next.
FISCAL IMPACT
On September 5, 1997 SANDAG estimated that Chula Vista. would receive $20,011,750 if the quarter
of a cent sales tax for libraries was approved for five years. This estimate is based upon tax collection
beginning July 1, 1998 and concluding on June 30,2003. It is estimated that $399,406,264 would be
raised County-wide. The monies could oIÙY be used to supplement current public library services
provided by the General Fund and not used to supplant current services. A proposed spending plan will
b~ brought to City Council for its approval once the Library Authority has been formally established
and the Authority establishes necessary time lines.
g;- ~ /0 -L/g/
~----~...- -- - ---
, ATTACHMENT A
(page B-1 )
Library advocates plan new tax vote I Two-thirds approval seen
possible with more campaign time
Roger M. Showley
STAFF WRITER
22-Sep-1997 Monday
A solid ma,jority of county voters endorsed Proposition A last November, a
temporary sales tax increase to upgrade more than 7S branch libraries. But
the S9 percent "yes" vote fell short of the required 66.7 percent needed
for passage.
So area mayors, librarians and library mends groups have quietly begun
OIW'ni7ing another appeal to voters.
Their goal: to win passage of what is being called "Son of Prop. A." a
revised tax: measure headed for the June 2 countywide ballot.
"We proved ourselves last time," said Katie Sullivan, president of Citizens
in Action for Local Libraries. "They know Ùle"will of the majority is for
libraries.."
fhe of'8"T'Î""rion and its related support groups had 89 days to campaign for
Proposition A last year, once it was placed on the ballot. That proved too
short a. time to raise funds and build public support, Sullivan and others
said.
They hope'more time to organize and campaign will generate enough votes for
P""~V this time.
Last week,. CALL rehired political consultaut Nancy Chase to raise funds.
11ìeteotative budget totals $629,000, with nearly half for direct-mail
advertisiDg. Members also interviewed two potential. campaign con..nItAnts.
Supervisors set to act
The coumy Board of Supervisors is set to pass a resolution Oct. 7 to
recoostitute the San Diego County Library Authority of 19 city and county
l~ ·J... ;ÿes.
Such an authority was created last year to sponsor Proposition A. but it
~ai when the measure lost.. The new authority would have the same power
to plaœ a tax: measure on the ballot and dictate terms for how the tax
prrv--l.. should be spent.
T..ast years Proposition A called for adding a quarter-percent to the
existing 7.7 S percent sales tax: for five years. The increase would have
added 5 cents to a $20 taxable purchase.
fš'r?
._...~.__.__._._..~u.___.~_._~,_______··"·___·,·
The projected $366.7 million in revenues was to go to the county's 18
cities and unincorporated area in proportion to what they generate in sales
taxes annually.
The growing economy is expected to boost the library revenues to $412
million if the new tax is structured the same way, according to the San
Diego Association of Governments.
The city of San Diego, which stood to receive half the money, planned to
spend one-third on 21 new or rebuilt branches and deposit the remainder
into an endowment fund with interest used to upgrade services at all 33
branches. The new main library being planned was not scheduled to receive
any funds.
Public library systems in Carlsbad. Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido,
National City and Oceanside had similar plans. The county library system,
wlúch operates libraries in 11 other cities and numerous unincorporated
communities, planned a combination of construction and service
improvements.
Ballot details not set
Marilyn Crouch, director of the county library system who is coordinating
the reforming of the library authority, said the organ;7"tional structure
is probably going to be identical to last year's.
But ballot details will be worked out between now and March 6, when the
fina1 wording must be submitted to the county registrar of voters.
San Diego's Board of Library Commissioners meets ar 7:30 a.m. today at the
Central Library, 820 ESt., to disr.uss a possible role in the new library
authority.
Several commissioners, particularly local author Charles Elster, think the
city made a mistake in excluding the main library from receiving any of the
funds. They think: some of the money will be needed to cover ovemms in the
SS9 million project budget.
Sales-tax revenues also could be helpful, many library supporters think,. in
covering the projected 84 percent iDaease in downtown operational costs.
The present 144,600-square-foot Ceøtral Library cost $4.4 million this year
to run. The proposed 315,000-square-foot new main library could cost up to
$3.7 million more, not counting inflation, in its first full year of
operations in 2001, according to a city manager report.
The San Diego City Council's Public Safety and Neighborhood Services
Committee is scheduled to endorse the library authority Wednesday with full
council action expected Oct. 6.
It is unclear whether the committee also would propose a separate charter
amendment, as it did last year, to govern the city's use of the library
money. Voters approved the measure. Proposition C, but it did not go into
effect when Proposition A lost.
Mayor's stance not told cY~y,
- ._----,--,,_."--~,,_.._---~------~.-
Mayor Susan Golding, who opposed the library tax last year because of
concern over its impact on the local economy, has not said if she would
change her mind this time. .
She is running for the U.S. Senate and would appear on the same ballot as
the tax measure. Four of the eight council members face re-election at the
same time.
Most area mayors or their representatives met last month in National City
to begin coordinating the drive for a new tax measure. They promised to
seek resolutions of support ITom their councils.
Meanwlúle, the San Diego County Public Law Library board is seeking a share
of the library tax revenues. The board, which oversees branches in downtown
and suburban county courthouse complexes, has so far obtained Lemon Grove's
endorsement, according to library director Charles Dyer.
Dyer said the law libraries' proposed $23.4 million share is 5.675 percent
of the total expected tax take - the same proportion spent on the law
libraries now ITom the total devoted to local public libraries.
The money would be used to improve services but not build or replace any of
~1aw libraries operating downtown or in Chula VISta, E1 Cajon and VISta.
Taxpayer group weighs in
The San Diego County Taxpayers Association. which opposed Proposition A.
has established a committee to propose changes in the authority and tax
measure to satistÿ the group's concerns about certain procedural details.
Polls conducted. last year show high support for librariesc But proponents
of'the library tax realize they will have to improve strategies and work
even harder to keep fÌ"Om coming up short agaiIL
They also think: other June measures, such as state school bonds and. the
proposed Padres ballpark and San Diego Convention Center expansion, would
receive more attention than libraries.
Consequently, money is being raised. for a San Diego Council on Literacy
campaign to increase bönry awareness.
Paul Brencick, council spolr"""'~n. said his board endorsed. the proposal
Sept 1 0 and is preparing a mem01""nrh.m ofunderst~nding-to make sure the
literacy group is not involved with the tax measure.
About $425,000 would be spent in two or three years,. he said, on
advertising and MI1C'-1ItiOnal outreach to schools and service groups. The
council's operating budget is $287,400. A 15-membersteeringcommittee is
to be created to oversee the new program.
"We've made it very clear to everyone involved. that we will not be involved
with any effort to become a political advocate of any type, . Brencick: said.
"We're more of a neutral agency trying to promote literacy, and libraries
are a great way to do that."
v9
-~_.__.,_._-_...- .---_._~_.__._._------_.._---.._-_.__._-_.-_.
ATTACHMENT B
Library Board of Trustees -2- August 27, 1997
B. Foundation
Director Palmer gave a brief overview of this project for the benefit of new
Trustee Charett. He reported that both the City Attorney and Finance Director
endorsed this endowment.
MSUC (Viescal Alexander) The Library Board
- A. Supports the Friends' of the Chula Vista Library's creation of a Designated
Fund (DEF) with the San Diego Community Foundation, designating the
Chula Vista Library as beneficiary.
Supports the concept that dividends ITom this fund are to be disbursed to
the Library and are restricted for the acquisition of materials and are to
augment the Library funds received ITom the City of Chula Vista. rather
than to supplant such funds.
S-upport the creation of identified projects on which to spend these funds
and include this documentation in the Library's annual written goals and
objectives.
Support the proposal that there will be no disbursement of funds to the-
Chula Vista Public Library until the year 2006 or until the Fund
accumulates $250,000.
B. Support the fund raising activities to "grow" the endowment, including:
L The hiring of a consultant to prepare (and perhaps conduct) a
capital fund raising campaign funded by the Friends.
2. The transfer of monies ITom the Library Donation Accounts into
theDEF.
3. The deposit of all future monetary gifts to the Chula Vista Public
Library (over $499) that are not designated. for a specific purpose
(other than materials acquisitions) into the DEF.
C. Reaffinn support for the design and installation of donor recognition
plaques at the Civic CenterlMain Library funded by the Friends.
g;. J j? "
. --_.~_..__.._._._..,---~---~-
Minutes
August 6, 1996 ATTACHMENT C
Page 2
7. RESOLUTION 18386 CALLJNG AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDJNG OF A SPECIAL
MUJI.'ICIPAL RUNOFF ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,1996 FOR SEATS 3
AND 4 REQUESTJNG THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TO
CONSOLIDATE THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL RUNOFF ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS
CODE - The Resolution before Council is for the purpose of calling a Special Municipal Runoff Election to be held
on Tuesday, 11/5196. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk)
8. RESOLUTION 18387 APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE
OTAY AND OTAY ANNEX LANDFILLS - On 7/1196, the Local Agency Formation Commission (L\FCO)
approved a reorganization which included the detachment of approximately 265 acres generally known as the Otay
Landfill from the City boundaries. At the time of that decision, LAFCO also approved a condition that the City
of Chula Vista and the County would enter into an agreement whereby Chula Vista would continue to provide fire
protection and emergency medical services (EMS) for the Otay Landfill for the term of the operation of the landfill.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief)
9. RESOUmON 18388 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADULT
BASIC EDUCATION SECTION 321 CARRYOVER GRANT FUNDS, WHICH AUGMENT A 1995/96
GRANT AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET - Due to an unexpected carryover of prior year unspent funds,
the California Department of Education has augmented the Library's Literacy Team Center's grant by $4,172 and
extended the grant period from 6/30/96 to 9130/96. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director)
4/5th's vote required.
10. RESOLUTION 18389 AClLYl.1N'G CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY - CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
SERVICES ACT, FAMILIES FOR LITERACY GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA
LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET TO
JNCLUDE .73 FTE POSmONS - The Chula Vista Literacy Team has been awarded a California Library Services
Act. Families for Literacy grant from the California State Library to develop and offer special family literacy
services to adult learners and their young children. This is the sixth year that the Literacy Team has been awarded
this grant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director) 4/Sth's vote required.
I!. RESOLUTION 18390 DESIGNATING THE MAYOR TO ACT AS THE CITY'S
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL LIBRARY AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND AUTHORIZING A "YES" VOTE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE SALES TAX ISSUE
BEFORE THE VOTERS ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT - On 711:3196, the County Board of Supervisors voted
unanimously to form a Library Authority for the purposes of placing a 1/4 cent library sales tax proposal on the
November ballot. This tax would be in effect for five years, and within Chula Vista, it is projected to raise
approximately $15-$19 million. This resolution would formally commit the City to participate in that Library
Authority and authorize a 'yes" vote on the placement of Authority's sales tax measure on the ballot. Staff
recoInlDlOllds approval of the resolution. (Library Director and Principal Management Assistant Young)
12.A. RESOLUTION 18391 ACCEPTING $250,000 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC), AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUI'E CEC CONTRACT FOR
$250,000 IN GRANT FUNDJNG, AND APPROPRIATING BUDGET FOR FUNDS THEREFOR - In
November 1995, the Governor approved legislation to provide a local company in the BECA incubator funds
tecJmology for research and development. The funds were specifically legislated for the sole purpose of sponsoring
8'--/ /
-------".- -----.._-~--_._._----
ATTACHMENT B
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE BENEFITTING COUNTYWIDE LIBRARY PROGRAMS,
OPERATIONS, AND FACILITIES BY ADOPTING FOR FIVE YEARS ONLY
A ONE QUARTER CENT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
COMMENCING JULY 1, 1999
AND TERMINATING JUNE 30, 2004
AND ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL LIBRARY AUTHORITY
* * * * *
The San Diego County Regional Library Authority ordains as
follows:
PREAMBLE. Whereas, the American dream - that every citizen
will have the opportunity to advance in our society as far as his
or her ability and willingness to work will allow - is a worthy
goal of all San Diego County residents, and
Whereas, free public libraries have been a vital part of making
that dream a reality for generations of Americans since the end
of the 19th century when communities across the nation raised
funds to match the grants by Andrew Carnegie, and
Whereas, previous generations have benefitted from tax-supported
public libraries in their communities, and
Whereas, to achieve the American dream today, every adult
American needs to be literate, and to possess the knowledge and
skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the
rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and
Whereas, while the computer revolution makes access to
information available worldwide, the cost of up-to-date
equipment, software, monthly service charges and of computer-use
training is substantial, and
Whereas, public libraries can provide such equipment, materials
and assistance by trained professionals at small cost to all
citizens, and
Whereas, lower educational levels and a corresponding lack of
opportunity are prime indicators of an individual's involvement
in drug abuse and crime, and
Whereas, the San Diego region seeks to develop an economy of
high-paying jobs requiring a high level of education, and
6~/ .:L ./
1
--~--- --- - ---_.~_.- ---'.'~ - --.--~-_._....-- _ __________...__ _. _ _ .m._..___
Whereas, San Diego County residents value knowledge and culture
and seek to instill that appreciation in succeeding generations,
and
Whereas, an up-to-date library in a neighborhood, town or
community enhances the quality of life and property values of its
residents, and
Whereas, local libraries serve both adults and youth as a
community center that brings people together on common grounds,
and
Whereas, up-to-date local libraries can be both a traditional
library and a "virtual" one that people can "visit" from their
home computers or from terminals in their neighborhood schools or
place of business, and
Whereas, the cities and the County of San Diego are not able to
provide a consistent level of excellence in modernizing their
local libraries with current revenues, and
Whereas, the cost of providing up-to-date information services to
all residents in San Diego County, should be reasonable and
equitable, and
Whereas, concern for the future of local libraries has brought
together elected officials from the cities and from the County of
San Diego pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Supervisors
to form the San Diego County Regional Library Authority, and
Whereas, the mission of the Authority is to provide funding in
accordance with the terms of this Ordinance to local public
libraries within the County of San Diego in order to meet the
current and future informational, educational and cultural needs
of the residents of the county and to actively promote literacy,
prosperity and democracy by providing free and equal access to
life-long learning and the pursuit of knowledge through reading,
technology and whatever other methods may someday become
available.
Therefore, the San Diego County Regional Library Authority,
representing the cities and the County of San Diego, having heard
and considered testimony regarding the current and future needs
of San Diego libraries, adopts this Community Libraries
Enhancement Ordinance and recommends and urges its approval by
the voters.
SECTION 1.0 BINDING INTENT. It is the intent of the
San Diego County Regional Library Authority (hereinafter
lAuthoritYii) that the revenues generated by this Ordinance be
used solely for the purpose of programs, operations, facilities,
SV/3 2
- -,._-_.._...._._--,~- .-_..._---~...- .-------...---..,,--......--"- -
·
and improvements for community and branch libraries, including
new technology, additional books and materials, youth reading,
homework programs, extended hours, renovation and construction of
new community and branch libraries, and other library related
purposes, as specified in this Ordinance. It is the intent of
the Authority that this Ordinance will augment the efforts of the
Serra cooperative Library System which links all libraries within
the county.
SECTION 2.0 TITLE AND APPLICABILITY. This Ordinance
shall be named the mCommunity Libraries Enhancement Ordinancem
(hereinafter mordinancel) and shall be applicable in the
incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of
San Diego.
SECTION 3.0 OPERATIVE DATE. The Operative Date of this
Ordinance shall be July 1, 1999, which is the first day of the
first calendar quarter more than 110 days after the adoption of
this Ordinance by the voters voting on this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.0 USE OF TAX REVENUES-EXPENDITURE PLAN. Any
and all transaction and use tax revenues shall be used
exclusively for countywide library programs, operations,
facilities, and improvements as follows:
4.1 USE OF TAX REVENUES. The uses of the tax
revenues shall include such items as new technology,
additional books and library materials, youth reading
and homework programs, safety, modernization, extended
hours, renovation operations and facilities,
construction of new libraries, and other library
related projects as specified in section 4.2 for each
community and branch library in the County of San
Diego. For purposes of the seven City library
jurisdictions and the County library jurisdiction, the
terms mlibrary programs and operationsm shall include
library related program administration and library
related computer system automation, subject to the
limitation for the County library jurisdiction set
forth under section 4.2.2(c).
The uses defined in the following expenditure
plans do not preclude privatization of programs,
services or facilities or the joint development of
programs services or facilities with other library,
educational or private entities. provisions for a
dedicated trust fund shall not preclude solicitation or
acceptance of any additional funding outside of this
Ordinance, either public or private. Revenue received
from transactions and use tax proceeds must supplement
and not replace funds required to be raised by
ordinances or policies relating to exactions, fees or
assessments on development. Revenue raised by this
Ordinance may be used to create a dedicated trust fund
at the discretion of each jurisdiction. The dedicated
3---/1 3
~"--_.- - ~-----_..._"..- -_._--_.__._-_._._,-~-_._.- -----_.~---
trust fund may be used at any time after adoption of
this Ordinance for either cash payments or debt
financing. A dedicated trust fund created pursuant to
this Ordinance may not be pledged as collateral for any
purpose other than those permitted by this Ordinance.
4.2 EXPENDITURE PLAN. The expenditure plan
describing the specific projects for which the tax
revenues may be expended is set forth below for each
community and branch library in the County of
San Diego. The following list of projects has been
approved and submitted by each city and the County and
reflects their local needs.
4.2.1 The specific projects for each
City library jurisdiction, and each branch
library which is part of the San Diego County
Library system, are as follows:
LIBRARY PROJECTS/SERVICE PROPOSALS FOR SALES TAX REVENUE
CARLSBAD CITY LIBRARY
· Materials.
· Extended hours of operation.
· Technology.
· Programs and special services.
· Facilities.
· Public service staff.
· Dedicated trust fund to support library operations.-
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY
· Add more front desk staff and expand children' and youth
programs.
· Increase hours at all branch libraries and eliminate video
fees.
· Increase availability of public computers immediately,
improve electronic access from home, and create a dedicated
trust fund for technolocrv.
?~)S- 4
---------------.-. .-...-~~~---~_._-- - .--..-.-,--.-
.
· Repair civic Center/Main Library and build a new library
east of I-80S.
· Buy more books and library material immediately and create
a dedicated trust fund for books.
CORONADO PUBLIC LIBRARY
· Sales tax revenue applies towards funding a planned major
expansion and renovation of the Coronado Public Library
building. Any sales tax revenues in excess of the
expansion needs would be used to purchase new books, other
media, and computer resources for public use.
DEL MAR BRANCH ISAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· Extend hours on weeknights or weekends.
· Improve children's services and programing.
· Augment the budget for books and other materials.
· support the computer center in staffing and equipment.
· contribute to library maintenance.
· 100% of annual sales tax revenue to be deposited in a
dedicated trust fund with income to be used for such items
as above.
EL CAJON/FLETCHER HILLS BRANCHES
ISAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· Provide more books and materials.
· Enhance reference services.
· Enhance access to computers and electronic information.
· Sponsor performance programs of a literary nature for
children and youth. Provide educational/cultural programs
for children and adults.
7·-j~ 5
------.------- -----, ---....,... - -~_._._~_._-~_.._.__.__.__.._.__._~_.-
.
· Extend hours of operation.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above.
ENCINITAS/CARDIFF-BY-THE SEA BRANCHES
(SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· Build a new Central Library.
· Provide additional books, extended hours, materials and
services necessary to meet the needs of the community.
ESCONDIDO PUBLIC LIBRARY
· ONE-FOURTH OF SALE TAX REVENUES WILL BE USED TO:
Expand the Main Library,
· Extend hours of service at the Main Library, the pioneer
Room archival facility, and the East Valley Branch Library.
· Expand business reference and youth services and make them
more accessible to residents.
· Provide additional books, media, and computer resources to
the public.
· THREE-QUARTERS OF SALES TAX REVENUES WILL BE PLACED IN A
DEDICATED TRUST FUND, WITH THE ANNUAL INTEREST USED TO PAY
THE OPERATING COSTS FOR THE ENHANCEMENTS TO LIBRARY
SERVICES LISTED ABOVE.
IMPERIAL BEACH BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· Provide more books and materials.
· Provide for capital improvements and renovation.
· Provide technology via new computers and equipment.
· Enhance reference services.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Extend hours of operation.
it>; 7 6
__...__'^__.~__M ._._ _.______.._.._____
.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
· contribute toward new combined school/public library or to
n..,,, 1 ;
LA MESA BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY!
· Increase hours of operation.
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide public access to new informational computers and
technology.
· Enhance reference services.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
· Expand the library facility.
· Create a dedicated trust fund for the long term security of
the branch to be used for any of the purposes set forth for
the branch.
LEMON GROVE BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY!
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide homework assistance for students.
· Provide educational programs for children and young adults.
· Provide access to new informational technology.
· Provide adult programming and adult literacy services.
· Remodeling and/or construction of larger facility.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
NATIONAL CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
ð>/~7
",--- .~,_._~--------~~---_._._---
· Replace the outdated library with a new facility designed
to meet the future needs of National City residents.
· The remainder of the funds would be placed in a dedicated
trust fund. The dedicated trust fund would provide annual
interest revenue for the following:
· Provide additional hours of library service.
· Provide funding for additional library services.
· Enhance the Library's materials collection.
· Provide increased access to electronic information.
OCEANSIDE PUBLIC LIBRARY
· Expand library services and facilities in the City of
Oceanside.
· Increase library service hours.
· Establish the collection budget for new library books and
materials.
· Upgrade, improve, and expand Bookmobile services for the
Oceanside communi tv.
· Provide up-to-date computer networks and information
technology to the communi tv.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to support library
materials and services.
POWAY BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY}
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide access to computers and electronic information
sources.
· Provide resources for school children.
· Provide educational programs for youth and adults.
· Add resources to facilitate library use.
· Provide state-of-the-art reference sources.
o~j9 8
~_·_",.~.·~_U·_ -_._..._+.._-~~..- ---...---.......-.--.
.
· Provide job and career-enhancement materials.
· Create "poway Library Dedicated Trust Fund" into which 90%
of sales tax revenue to be placed. The dedicated trust fund
will be used for any of the purposes set forth above.
10% of sales-tax revenue for more up-to-date books and
materials, and to provide access to informational
technology.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY
BRANCH LIBRARIES IN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
ALPINE BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide new books and materials for adults and children.
· Provide up-to-date reference materials.
· Provide after-school/summer programs for children and
homework assistance to students.
· Provide access to electronic information.
· Provide business and career development information.
· Plan and/or construct a new facility.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
BONITA-SUNNYSIDE BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation including Saturdays.
· Provide new books and materials for adults and children.
· Provide up-to-date reference materials.
· Provide after-school/summer programs for children and
homework assistance to students.
· Provide access to electronic information.
Y---d, (/ 9
-^------..._~._-----_.. _ _ --- .--...-.---.--.... _ -----_.._-~,---_.__._._.._.-..- -.-.--'.--.. ----~
.
· Provide business and career development information.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
BOOKMOBILE
· Add stops; increase frequency of stops.
· Provide newer and more reliable vehicle.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the bookmobile.
BORREGO SPRINGS BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Purchase new books and materials.
· Provide access to computers and technology.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
CAMPO-MORENA BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Enhance access to computers and technology.
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide programs for children, young adults, and adults.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
CASA DE ORO BRANCH
(f-r d.. / 10
u_ ____._____ -----,.-"-.-.- . _m'_~__·__·__·_·_·~________' -- -.-~--..-.,.-
.
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide educational programs for children.
· Provide access to computers and technology.
· Plan and/or construct a larger branch library.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
CREST BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide programs for children, young adults, and adults.
· Provide computers and electronic information.
· Provide for an expanded facility.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
DESCANSO BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide public computers and technology.
· Enhance reference collection and services.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
6- .".2 ~"U
_____+_.._.._._+_n__
.
. Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
FALLBROOK BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Establish community building fund for a larger branch
· Provide programs for youth, adults, and seniors.
· Provide enhanced reference services.
· Enhance access to computers and electronic information.
· Increase homework resources for students.
· Establish a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
JACUMBA BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide computers and technology.
· Provide homework resources for students
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
JULIAN BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and
weekends.
· Plan and/or construct a new facility.
· Provide access to computers and electronic information.
· Enhance reference services.
ðr~J
12
___._m_ .._...__-. ---"-_. - - ---- ---.--...----.,..-.--,-.--.-----.--.--..--.-
.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
LAKESIDE BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings weekends.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide computers and information technology.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
· Enhance reference service.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
LINCOLN ACRES BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
· Provide computers and information technology.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
PINE VALLEY BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide enhanced reference collection.
· Provide adult and children's programs.
· Provide computers and technology.
· Provide homework resources for students.
¿J'/;)f
13
_....._--_._"_..._.~_...- __"_.~·.._w. .__ _ __~_____.~~.._
.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
POTRERO BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide computers and technology.
· Provide programs for youth, adults, and seniors.
· Provide adult literacy services.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
RAMONA BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and
weekends.
· Enhance children's services and programs.
· Provide adult programs.
· Provide computers and technology.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Enhance reference materials and services.
· Enhance adult literacy services.
· Plan for larger facility.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
RANCHO SANTA FE BRANCH
· Provide up-to-date books and materials.
ðr d)þ
14
---- -------~-,. --------- ---"-..----- .._..._~_.__..----_._.._---
.
· Provide enhanced reference books and services.
· Provide books on audiotape and videotapes.
· Provide programs for adults and children.
· Enhance access to computers and technology
· Extend hours of operation.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
SPRING VALLEY BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide computers and technology.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Provide educational programs for children.
· Plan and/or construct a new facility.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
VALLEY CENTER BRANCH
· Extend hours of operation.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide educational programs for children £nd adults.
· Provide access to computers and technology.
· Enhance reference materials and services.
i5:.-c2? 15
- -~.---_._'.._----~_.'--'-"------~."-~
· Plan and/or construct a new facility.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO BRANCH LIBRARIES
(Does Not Include New Downtown Main Library)
· Approximately two-thirds of proceeds will be invested to
create a Dedicated Trust Fund for branch libraries.
Annual Interest earnings will be spent to provide:
· EXTENDED SERVICE HOURS AT ALL BRANCHES, including Sunday
hours and extended weekday service hours.
· UP-TO-DATE TECHNOLOGY IN ALL BRANCHES.
(a) Computer learning labs.
(b) Computer reference centers.
(c) Small Business Services.
(d) Access to electronic data bases.
(e) Library system upgrades.
(f) Computer specialists
· NEW BOOKS AND LIBRARY MATERIALS FOR ALL BRANCHES.
· BOOKMOBILE/VAN-SENIOR SERVICE.
· PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AT ALL BRANCHES.
(a) Literacy, youth-at-risk.
(b) Link branch libraries with schools, colleges, and other
libraries.
(c) Provide additional librarians for youth services in
each branch.
· APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF PROCEEDS WILL BE USED FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FOLLOWING BRANCH LIBRARIES:
Balboa, Beckwourth, Benjamin, Clairemont, College/Rolando,
Kensington, Normal Heights, La Jolla, Linda Vista, Logan
Heights, Mission Hills, Mission Valley, North Clairemont,
North Park, Oak Park, Ocean Beach, Paradise Hills, Point
Loma, San Carlos, San Ysidro, Serra Mesa, Skyline Hills,
Tierrasanta Universitv Communi tv , universitv Heiqhts.
'Err' .;2 ì 16
--_..-...~~----.-.---.---
· ESTABLISH CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR FUTURE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS:
East San Diego/City Heights, Otay Mesa/Nestor, Malcolm X,
Rancho penasquitos, Mira Mesa, Carmel Mountain Ranch,
Pacific Beach, Otay Mesa/East, Rancho Bernardo, Carmel
Valley, Scripps Ranch, University city North, all others as
needed, including Balboa, Beckwourth, Benjamin, Clairemont,
college/Rolando, Kensington, Normal Heights, La Jolla,
Linda vista, Logan Heights, Mission Hills, Mission valley,
North Clairemont, North Park, Oak Park, Ocean Beach,
Paradise Hills, Point Loma, San carlos, San Ysidro, Serra
Mesa, Skyline Hills, Tierrasanta, University Community,
Universitv Heiqhts.
6C:- c2 r
17
- - "--- -'-'~-' '--'---"-~ ---,-~- .
. In the fiscal year of 2000, one thousand dollars
($1,000.00) shall be allocated from income earned on the
Dedicated Trust Fund to each branch library and shall be
placed in a discretionary fund. In the fiscal year of 2001
and each fiscal year thereafter, the City shall increase
the discretionary fund allocation to each branch library
from the previous fiscal year by a factor equal to the
percentage growth in the U.S. Consumer Price Index from the
preceding calendar year. The branch library discretionary
funds are to be used for any branch library purpose that
the city Librarian, or his or her designee, in consultation
with City-recognized library support groups, deems
appropriate. No branch library discretionary fund shall
accumulate more than (3) years' worth of allocations at any
one time. The expenditure of income from the Dedicated
Trust Fund shall be the first priority for expenditures of
income from the Dedicated Trust Fund.
The city's Board of Library Commissioners shall recommend
to the City Manager and City council how to spend the
income for the Dedicated Trust Fund. The Board of Library
Commissioners shall recommend expenditures to the City
Manager and City Council for any branch library purposes
authorized with this Ordinance, such that a minimum of
fifty (50%) of the available income from the Dedicated
Trust Fund is spent annually.
For each fiscal year beginning in the Fiscal Year 2000, in
addition to moneys available to branch libraries from the
Dedicated Trust Fund, the city Council shall maintain the
entire library department's budget at at least the same
percentage of total General Fund Revenues as was allocated
in Fiscal year 1998. In the event that branch libraries
are expanded, added or closed during the fiscal year, each
fiscal year's allocation shall be adjusted as necessary to
reflect the expansion, increase or decrease in number of
branch libraries. For any expanded, new or closed branch
library facility, the amount of adjustment shall be
calculated using staffing standards adopted by the City
Council plus non-personnel expenses based on the average
cost per square foot of operating the City's branch
libraries.
SAN MARCOS BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY!
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide computers and electronic information technology.
ð~ :2 c¡ 18
--~..__.- ... .--..- ---_._------~.----"_. - --~-- --- ----.-..---..
.
· Provide programs for youth and adults.
· Enhance homework resources for students.
· Create a dedicated trust fund for the future benefit of the
branch.
At least 50% of sales tax revenue to be set aside in the
dedicated trust fund. The dedicated trust fund will be
used for any purpose set forth above for the branch.
Not to exceed 50% of the revenue will be used to expand San
Marcos library services, including, but not limited to the
items above.
SANTEE BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· Plan, construct and operate a new library facility.
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Provide enhanced reference books and services.
· Provide computers and informational technology.
· Provide job and career information.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
SOLANA BEACH BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY)
· contribute toward new combined school/public library or to
new branch library.
· Add hours of operation on weekdays and weeknights.
· Provide state-of-the-art reference sources.
· Add pUblic-use computer workstations.
· Provide new books and materials.
2(> 30 19
~-------~--_.-.- -"----_...~
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
VISTA BRANCH (SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY}
· Extend hours of operation, including evenings and weekends.
· Provide new books and materials.
· Enhance reference service.
· Enhance children's and young adult programs/services.
· Enhance adult and senior programs/services.
· Provide homework resources for students.
· Create a dedicated trust fund to be used for any of the
purposes set forth above for the branch.
4.2.2 The expenditure plan describing the specific projects
set forth above, shall be funded by the following estimated
allocations for each of the fiscal years specified:
1999/2000 - $75,041,337 Million
2000/2001 - $79,543,817 Million
2001/2002 - $84,316,446 Million
2002/2003 - $89,375,433 Million
2003/2004 - $94,737,959 Million
The estimated allocations set forth above shall be
distributed as follows:
(a) Each fiscal year, a portion of all the tax
revenues collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
distributed to the Authority to cover reasonable
expenses of the Authority which are necessary to carry
out its purposes as authorized in this Ordinance and by
the Resolution adopted by the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors on October 21, 1997, which established the
Authority. The costs to be reimbursed to the County are
the costs incurred in conducting the election at which
the tax is adopted, the costs incurred in performing the
annual audit, and the costs incurred by the County in
representing the Authority in any litigation.
!t<J/ 20
_._,_.~--.._-_.- -...-"--
(b) All remaining tax revenues collected pursuant
to this Ordinance shall be distributed by the Authority
to each of the eighteen Cities in the County of
San Diego, and the County of San Diego, on a pro rata
basis based upon the sales and use tax revenues
generated in each of the eighteen (18) cities and in the
unincorporated area of the County.
(c) Prior to distribution of the tax revenues to
the County and the eleven Cities served by the County
library jurisdiction, in each fiscal year (including
partial fiscal years in which the tax is effective) an
amount equal to one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of the
tax revenues collected in the unincorporated area of San
Diego county and the eleven cities which are part of the
county library jurisdiction shall be distributed from
the tax revenues collected in those eleven cities and
the unincorporated area of the county, to the county of
San Diego to cover costs associated with library related
program administration and library related computer
system automation in the county library jurisdiction.
Of the one and one-half percent (1 1/2%), one percent
(1%) shall be allocated for library related program
administration and one-half percent (1/2%) shall be
allocated for library related computer system
automation.
SECTION 5.0 PURPOSE. This Ordinance is adopted for the
following purposes, and for the uses of the tax revenues specified
in section 4.1, and directs that the provisions hereof be
interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
5.1 To adopt a retail transactions and use tax
ordinance for countywide library programs, operations,
and facilities in accordance with the provisions of Part
1.6 (commencing with section 7251) of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.5 of Part 1.7
of Division 2 which authorizes the Authority to adopt
this Ordinance which shall be operative if two-thirds of
the electors of the County of San Diego voting on the
measure vote to approve the adoption of the tax at the
June 2, 1998 election called for that purpose.
5.2 To adopt a retail transactions and use tax
Ordinance which incorporates provisions identical to
those of the Sales and Use Law of the State of
California, insofar as those provisions are not
inconsistent with the requirements and limitations
contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
5.3 To adopt a retail transactions and use tax
Ordinance which imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor
that can be administered and collected by the State Board of
Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as
Y--;1;2.. 21
_._-----_._-,.__._._--~~--"._------~._.__.-.._'~--_..---
practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation
from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures
followed by the state Board of Equalization in administering
and collecting the California state Sales and Use Taxes.
5.4 To adopt a retail transactions and use tax
Ordinance which can be administered in a manner which
will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent
with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, to minimize the cost of
collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the
same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon
persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 6.0 CONTRACT WITH STATE. Prior to the operative
date of this Ordinance, the Authority shall contract with the
State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to
the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax;
provided, that if the Authority shall not have contracted with the
State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall
nevertheless so contract, and in such a case, the operative date
shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the
execution of such a contract.
SECTION 7.0 TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE. For the privilege of
selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby
imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated
territory of San Diego County at the rate of one-quarter of one
percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all
tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and
after the operative date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8.0 PLACE OF SALE. For the purposes of this
Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of
business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property
sold is delivered by the retailer or his/her agent to an out-of-
state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-
of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall
include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the
state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery
is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of
business in the state or has more than one place of business, the
place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be
determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and
adopted by the State Board of Equalization.
SECTION 9.0 USE TAX RATE. An excise tax is hereby imposed
on the storage, use or other consumption in San Diego county of
tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and
after the operative date of this Ordinance for storage, use or
other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-quarter of
one percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price
shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to
state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery
?"- 5',3 22
__ ._~_u.___..__~_..._~._..____"..__·___'___'___~_·
is made.
SECTION 10.0 ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. Except
as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and, except insofar as
they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions
of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of
this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 11. 0 LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND
COLLECTION OF USE TAXES. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
11.1 Wherever the State of California is named or
referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this
Authority shall be substituted therefor. However, the
substitution shall not be made when:
11. 1. 1 The word "State" is used as a part of the
title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State
Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State
Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of
California.
11.1.2 The result of that substitution would require
action to be taken by or against this Authority or any
agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or
against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the
functions incident to the administration or operation of this
Ordinance.
11. 1. 3 In those sections, including, but not
necessarily limited to sections referring to the
exterior boundaries of the State of California, where
the result of the substitution would be to:
(a) Provide an exemption from this tax with
respect to certain sales, storage, use or
other consumption of tangible personal
property which would not otherwise be exempt
from this tax while such sales, storage, use
or other consumption remain subject to tax by
the State under the provisions of Part 1 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
or;
(b) Impose this tax with respect to certain sales,
storage, use or other consumption of tangible
personal property which would not be subject
to tax by the State under the said provision
of that Code.
11. 1. 4 Used in sections 6701, 6702 (except in
the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797
;jY' ;J l' 23
_ _ _.....___~_~__ ~ ·,...,.u_______________·__ ... ----_._..~"_..__.._~~-- "--~-,-,..._----_..-
,
or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
11. 2 The word "County" shall be substituted
for the word "state" in the phrase "retailer engaged in
business in this state" in Section 6203 and in the
definition of that phrase in section 6203.
SECTION 12.0 PERMIT NOT REQUIRED. If a seller's permit has
been issued to a retailer under section 6067 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be
required by this Ordinance.
SECTION 13.0 EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.
13 .1 There shall be excluded from the measure of
the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any
sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California
or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to
the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or
the amount of any state-administered transactions or use
tax.
13.2 There are exempted from the computation of
the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:
13.2.1 Sales of tangible personal property, other
than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of
aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the
county in which the sale is made and directly and
exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common
carriers of persons or property under the authority of
the laws of the state, the united States, or any foreign
government.
13.2.2 Sales of property to be used outside
San Diego County which is shipped to a point outside San
Diego County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by
delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or
by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to
a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this
paragraph, delivery to a point outside San Diego County
shall be satisfied:
(a) with respect to vehicles (other than
commercial vehicles) subject to
registration pursuant to Chapter 1
(commencing with section 4000) of
Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft
licensed in compliance with section 21411
of the Public utilities Code, and
undocumented vessels registered under
Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing
with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by
registration to an out-of-County address
(J~ Jþ 24
----------------- .------ . .---.---------..--.-.- ------~------_..__.__..__.__._~~
and by a declaration under
penalty of perjury, signed
by the buyer, stating that
such address is, in fact,
his or her principal place
of residence; and
(b) with respect to commercial
vehicles, by registration to a
place of business out-of-County
and declaration under penalty
of perjury, signed by the
buyer, that the vehicle will be
operated from that address.
13.2.3 The sale of tangible personal property if
the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a
fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into
prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
13.2.4 A lease of tangible personal property
which is a continuing sale of such property, for any
period of time for which the Lessor is obligated to
lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease
prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
13.2.5 For the purposes of subsections 13.2.3
and 13.2.4 of this section, the sale or lease of
tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be
obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period
of time for which any party to the contract or lease has
the unconditional right to terminate the contract or
lease upon notice, whether or not such right is
exercised.
13.3. There are exempted from the use tax
imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use or other
consumption in this County of tangible personal
property:
13.3.1 The gross receipts from the sale of which
have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-
administered transactions and use tax Ordinance.
13.3.2 Other than fuel or petroleum products
purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed
by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of
such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property
for hire or compensation under a certificate of public
convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of
this state, the united states, or any foreign
government. This exemption is in addition to the
exemptions provided in sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
13.3.3 If the purchaser is obligated to purchase
If> ;J, (, 25
___~__..~u,_" . ---~_.._-- ._,__.....M__~·______________
·
the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract
entered into prior to the operative date of this
Ordinance.
13.3.4 If the possession of, or the exercise of
any right or power over, the tangible personal property
arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of
such property for any period of time for which the
Lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount
fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this
Ordinance.
13.3.5 For the purposes of subsections 13.3.3
and 13.3.4 of this section, storage, use, or other
consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right
or power over, tangible personal property shall be
deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or
lease for any period of time for which any party to the
contract or lease has the unconditional right to
terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or
not such right is exercised.
13.3.6 Except as provided in subsection 13.3.7
of this section, a retailer engaged in business in the
County shall not be required to collect use tax from the
purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the
retailer ships or delivers the property into the County
or participates within the County in making the sale of
the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting
or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly,
at a place of business of the retailer in the County or
through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor,
subsidiary, or person in the county under the authority
of the retailer.
13.3.7 "A retailer engaged in business in the
County" shall also include any retailer of any of the
following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to
Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3
of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance
with section 21411 of the Public utilities Code, or
undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of
Division 3.5 (commencing with section 9840) of the
Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to
collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or
licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address
in the County.
13.4. Any person subject to use tax under this
Ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions
tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a
district imposing, or retailer liable for a
transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2
of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the
sale to the person of the property the storage, use
g>;?? 26
.__.....____.___..M..._...- - - - ----_..,-_.__._._-_._._---~----,---_..-
or other consumption of which is subject to the use
tax.
SECTION 14.0 AMENDMENTS. All amendments subsequent to the
effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and
which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically
become a part of this Ordinance, provided, however, that no such
amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by
this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall not be amended by the
Authority. This Ordinance cannot be extended without a vote of the
people of the County of San Diego.
SECTION 15.0 ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN. No injunction
or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue
in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State
or the Authority, or against any officer of the State or the
Authority, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this
Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.
SECTION 16.0. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. It is the intent of
this Ordinance and the Authority that a maintenance of effort
shall be required of the eight library jurisdictions in the
county. This maintenance of effort shall require that
transactions and use tax revenues provided from this measure be
used to supplement the base level of expenditures, as defined in
section 16.2, for library operations and maintenance for each
library jurisdiction in the County for the uses set forth under
section 4.2.1. The tax revenues shall not be used to supplant
this base level of expenditures for library operations and
maintenance as set forth herein.
16.1 The Authority shall not distribute any
funds pursuant to section 4.2.2(b) to any library
jurisdiction in any fiscal year until that library
jurisdiction has certified to the Authority on a
standard form adopted by the Authority, that it has
expended for the prior fiscal year an amount of
expenditures, not including expenditures supported by
the transactions and use tax revenues collected pursuant
to this Ordinance, at least equal to the base level of
expenditures, as defined in section 16.2. The Authority
shall, at its annual meeting review and approve each
jurisdiction's certification of maintenance of effort
prior to distributing revenue.
16.2 The base level of expenditures for each
of the seven City library jurisdictions and the county
library jurisdiction receiving transactions and use tax
revenues pursuant to this Ordinance, shall be either:
(i) the amount of expenditures for library operation and
maintenance in the 1996-97 fiscal year, or (ii) the
ð":Xl? 27
____..___n___ _______ --,-~~,--.-
-~-----~_."._--_.-
,
average amount of expenditures for library operations
and maintenance in the 1994-95, 1995-96, and the 1996-
97 fiscal years. Sixty (60) days prior to the initial
distribution of tax revenue, each library jurisdiction
shall make an irrevocable election as to which base
level of expenditures as set forth in (i) and (ii) above
it will be bound by. For the County library
jurisdiction, the County library dedicated share of
property tax revenues, which fluctuates based on
property tax values and allocations beyond the control
of the County, shall be excluded from the calculation of
the base level of expenditures. The County library's
dedicated share of property tax revenues, as required by
State law, are revenues that are restricted to library
purposes only, and may not be used for any other
purpose.
Contributions to the County library from cities
shall also be excluded from the calculation of the base
level of expenditures.
16.3 The following maintenance of effort rules
shall apply to the seven City library jurisdictions:
16.3.1 If a City library jurisdiction does not
meet its base level of expenditures required by its
maintenance of effort in any given fiscal year, that
library jurisdiction shall have the amount of its
shortfall withheld from its distributions in the fiscal
year following the fiscal year of its shortfall.
The Authority shall set aside the amount withheld from
distribution in an account in the name of the library
jurisdiction. The library jurisdiction shall have one additional
fiscal year (i.e. , the fiscal year immediately following the
fiscal year of the shortfall, hereinafter referred to as the
"additional fiscal year") in which to meet its maintenance of
effort requirement.
16.3.2 If the City library jurisdiction meets
its maintenance of effort requirement in the additional
fiscal year, the amount of the withheld transactions and
use tax revenues shall be distributed to the City
library jurisdiction. This distribution shall be made
in the fiscal year following the additional fiscal year
after the City library jurisdiction has certified to the
Authority that it has met its maintenance of effort in
the additional fiscal year.
16.3.3 If the City library jurisdiction does not
meet its maintenance of effort requirement in the
additional fiscal year, the amount of the withheld
transactions and use tax revenues shall be redistributed
¿;~ :19 28
_.__.~ ..'__ .m_~'_M____~____" --,,--,-,-,--,_.-'-~
to the other seventeen Cities and the County on a pro
rata basis for use pursuant to this Ordinance based upon
the sales and use tax revenues generated in the
additional fiscal year in each of the seventeen Cities
and in the unincorporated area of the County. This
distribution shall be made in the fiscal year following
the additional fiscal year after the Authority's Auditor
has certified that the City library jurisdiction did not
meet its maintenance of effort in the additional fiscal
year.
16.4 The following maintenance of effort rules
shall apply to the County library jurisdiction:
16.4.1 If the County library jurisdiction does
not meet its base level of expenditures required by its
maintenance of effort in any given fiscal year, the
County and the eleven cities within the county library
jurisdiction shall have the amount of the shortfall
withheld from their distributions in the fiscal year
following the fiscal year of the shortfall. The amounts
withheld from the County and the eleven cities within
the county library jurisdiction shall be on a pro rata
basis based upon the sales and use tax revenues
generated in the fiscal year of the shortfall in each of
the eleven cities and in the unincorporated area of the
County. The Authority shall set aside the amount
withheld from distribution in an account in the names of
the eleven Cities and the County, according to their
respective amounts. The County library jurisdiction
shall have one additional fiscal year (i.e. , the fiscal
year immediately following the fiscal year of the
shortfall, hereinafter referred to as the madditional
fiscal yearm) in which to meet its maintenance of effort
requirement.
16.4.2 If the county library jurisdiction meets
its maintenance of effort requirement in the additional
fiscal year, the amount of the withheld transactions and
use tax revenues shall be distributed to the eleven
Cities and the county. This distribution shall be made
in the fiscal year following the additional fiscal year
after the County library jurisdiction has certified to
the Authority that it has met its maintenance of effort
in the additional fiscal year.
16.4.3 If the county library jurisdiction does
not meet its maintenance of effort requirement in the
additional fiscal year, the amount of the withheld
transactions and use tax revenues shall be redistributed
to the other seven City library jurisdictions for use
pursuant to this Ordinance on a pro rata basis based
upon the sales and use tax revenues generated in the
additional fiscal year in each of the seven City library
r/JjO 29
--_._._-_.."._---_._--_.~._-_._._..._.--,.--
jurisdictions. This distribution shall be made in the
fiscal year following the additional fiscal year after
the Authority's Auditor has certified that the County
library jurisdiction did not meet its maintenance of
effort in the additional fiscal year.
16.5 An annual independent audit shall be
conducted to verify whether the library jurisdiction
complied with the maintenance of effort requirements.
16.7 The maintenance of effort requirement
shall continue to apply to each library jurisdiction to
any funds remaining, including any dedicated trust
funds, after the expiration of the tax. until such
funds are fully expended, each jurisdiction shall
certify to the San Diego Association of Governments
(mSANDAG,I) that it is complying with the maintenance of
effort requirement of this Ordinance and shall be
responsible for payment to SANDAG of any costs incurred
in reviewing the certification.
SECTION 17.0 DURATION OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. The
imposition of the transactions and use tax shall terminate five
(5) years after July 1, 1999, or the operative date of this
Ordinance, whichever is later.
SECTION 18.0. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and
the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 19.0 ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. The annual
appropriations limit for the Authority is established at
$95,000,000. The appropriations limit shall be subject to
adjustment as provided by law. All distributions and expenditures
by the Authority of the transactions and use tax revenues are
subject to the appropriations limit of the Authority.
SECTION 20.0 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance relates to the
levying and collecting of the Authority transactions and use taxes
and shall take effect immediately if adopted by a vote of the
voters, with the operative date as set out in section 3.0. Before
the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage of this
Ordinance, it shall be published once, in the , a
newspaper of general circulation published in San Diego county,
State of California, with the names of the members of the Board of
Directors of the Authority voting for and against the same.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ,
199 , by the following vote of the Authority, to wit:
-
ff"r1/¡ Chairperson of the San Diego County
30
.--.- ..-..---~---- ---
·
Regional Library Authority
The above ordinance was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2-26-
98
;ÇYfcÂ
31
-~_.,.__..... --~~._-- -------"
ATTACHMENT C D~4P}'
Minutes
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
~ril 22, 1998 LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM 3:30 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Clover, Vice Chair Alexander, Trustees Charett,
Valdovinos, Viesca and Student Member Peña
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Library Director Palmer, Paula Brown, Principal Librarian
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Coye, Nancy Lemke, Joan Roseman, Ignacio
Valdovinos
I. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 25, 1998
MSUC (ViescalValdovinos) to approve the minutes of the March 25, 1998 meeting as
mailed.
II. CONTINUED MATTERS
A. Library Master Plan
Director Palmer reviewed the Library Consultant's Fourth Progress Report, the
telephone survey, with the Trustees.
B. Library Sales Tax Initiative
MSUC (Viescal Alexander) to support the ordinance for the quarter of a cent sales
tax.
C. FY 1998-99 Budget
Director Palmer reported that City Manager Rowlands approved the Library's
request for an Administrative Office Assistant II at the South Chula Vista Library
and the salary review for the Library Volunteer Coordinator.
ð~Y3
-----------" ....-.--.- '-"---""-
ATTACHMENT D
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
MEETING DATE: 12/9/97
~?p
ITEM TITLE: Resolution \1{; Approving a Vision Statement and a Spending Allocation
Plan for the Proposed Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax For Libraries
SUBMITTED BY: Library Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5th Vote: Yes_No_1O
The Regional Library Authority has requested that each library jurisdiction prepare a "vision
statement" and a spending allocation plan for monies raised by the proposed quarter of a cent sales
tax. The Authority is scheduled to meet and review the plans from Chula Vista and the other library
systems on Thursday, December 11, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the "vision statement" and the spending
allocation plan for the anticipated revenue raised from the proposed quarter of a cent sales tax to
supplement current library service.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees met on
November 19, 1997 and voted to endorse the staff proposal (ATTACHMENT A).
DISCUSSION:
In the summer of 1996, the County Board of Supervisors created a Regional Library Authority which
ultimately placed a quarter of a cent sales tax for libraries on the November 1996 ballot. Although
the measure did not receive the necessary super majority, the measure was supported by 59% of
County's voters. The outcome was very similar in Chula Vista, where 59.5% of the voters agreed
to the proposed sales tax increase. In 42 of Chula Vista's 78 precincts, the yes vote was over 60%.
After the election, the Regional Library Authority expired.
On October 7,1997, the City Council approved Resolution 18788 (ATTACHMENT B) supporting
the re-fonnation of a County Library Authority for the purposes of placing another library sales tax
on the ballot and appointing the Mayor as the representative to the Authority.
On October 21, 1997, the County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 97-329 establishing the
County Regional Library Authority and specifying its purposes.
8'~t/-y
ITEM ,PAGE2
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
The new Library Authority met for the first time on November 3, 1997. Besides formally calling itself
to order, the members reviewed the 1996 election results. They also asked each library jurisdiction
to prepare two elements to be reviewed at their next meeting on December 11, 1997:
1. A vision statement which describes the philosophy behind the proposed spending
allocations
2 A spending allocation plan on how the monies raised would be spent
The Authority has not yet determined whether to place the sales tax measure on the June or
November 1998 ballot.
It is anticipated that should the quarter of a cent sales tax for libraries be approved, approximately
$79.8 million annually would be raised county-wide, with $4 million per year accruing to Chula Vista
based upon the amount of sales tax activity within the City. Sales tax earned in the City will stay in
the City. The tax would be collected for five years and would, eventually, total $20,000,000. This
figure could rise or fall depending on the amount of sales tax revenue. The monies could only be used
to supplement current public library services provided by the General Fund, and not used to supplant
current servicesl
In preparation for their recommendation to City Council, the Library Board of Trustees asked the
Library to solicit public input on spending priorities through a non-scientific survey
(ATTACHMENTS C & D). The survey was conducted the first week in November with over 1,000
patrons responding. The results showed that the respondents favored using the money in the
following priority:
(1) More Books (the majority of all respondents system-wide wanted more books and other
library materials)
(2) More Open Hours (South Chula Vista patrons selected this as the highest priority)
(3) Additional Public Use Computers
(4) New Library East ofI-805
(5) Additional Youth Services
IThe benchmark figure for "current services" would be the Library's General Fund budget
during the fiscal year the tax is approved by the voters. Therefore, if the vote is held in June, the
FY 1997-98 budget would be considered the base. If the vote is in November, the FY 1998-99
budget would instead be used. /'
g>~./
ITEM , PAGE 3
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
.
After a review of the options, the Library Board of Trustees, Friends of the Library, and staff
recommend the "vision statement" and a $20 million expenditure plan as outlined below. This
proposal is designed to appeal to a wide range of voters and to garner support fi:om all parts of the
community as well as meet high priority needs for library service.
PROPOSED VISION STATEMENT:
In direct response to citizen requests, the Chula Vista Public Library proposes to provide increased
access and improved services to residents
PROPOSED SPENDING ALLOCA nON PLAN
Buy More Books and Library Materials $6,100,000'
$1,850,000 would be spent over the five years to increase the number of books, videos,
compact discs, audio cassettes and other software products available to the public. This
infusion of funds would also allow the Library to eliminate the $15 a year Video Insurance
Fee which families must pay in order to check-out videos. .
$3,500,000 would be put into a perpetual book fund (or endowment) which would earn
approximately $300,000 annually for new books and library materials. Use of the interest
would not begin until after the tax expires in five years.
NOTE: Staff and the Library Board realizes that the Taxpayers Association opposes
this concept (ATTACHMENT E). However, the Library believes that by establishing
endowment funds for very specifically targeted purposes, the monies are being
allocated in a responsible, appropriate manner. Endowments show that the City is
looking to the future and not strictly relying upon the tax monies to pay for services
that will go away when the tax ends in five years. Instead, Library users will continue
to see new books and new technology for many, many years to come.
Over the course of five years, $750,000 would be allocated for Technical Services staff,
supplies and services to support the acquisition, cataloging and processing of the new
materials.
2The dollar figures represent the estimated total cost of each program element over the
course of the five year life span of the tax. The various elements combined total $20,000,000.
f[/;j~
ITEM ,PAGE 4
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
Increase Hours at all Branch Libraries $1,160,000
Approximately $232,000 would be spent annually, over the five year period, to increase
public service hours at all three branches. The per week hours would increase by ten (various
mornings, nights, Saturdays) at South Chula Vista, five at Civic CenterIMain (mornings 9 to
10), and EastLake by four (Sunday afternoons).
Add More Public Service Staff to Assist the Public $1,500,000
Approximately $300,000 a year would be spent to add 4.5 librarians (2 each at Civic
CenterIMain and South Chula Vista Libraries and .5 at EastLake Library) and 2.5 Library
Aides (1 each at Civic CenterIMain and South Chula Vista and .5 at EastLake) to provide
prompter service to the public, as well as expanded children's and youth services programs.
Increase Availability of Public Computers and New Technologies $550,000
$30,000 a year would be allocated for new computers and technology upgrades. With
information delivery now so reliant upon computer technology, public libraries are faced with
a never ending struggle to catch-up with public demands and expectations. Monies would
also be used to comply with the rrequent request to provide access to the Library's catalog
and other databases rrom all elementary and high schools as well as rrom home.
$400,000 would be used to create a perpetual technology fund (or endowment) for the
specific purpose of keeping abreast with new technologies. The fund should produce
approximately $35,000 a year beginning in year six. Use of the interest would not begin until
the tax expires in five years.
Construct an East-Side Branch Library $10,300,000
A majority of the dollars raised should be used to fast track the construction of a 30,000 square
foot library east ofI-805 as called for in the Library Facility Master Plan. This 30,000 square
foot project is to be funded 100% by Development Impact Fees (DIF). However, it is
anticipated that the total amount of public facility DIF funds needed will not be available until
2010. It has been determined that sales tax monies raised solely for libraries (which will go
directly into the General Fund) could be used for the construction as long as DIF monies
eventually reimburse the General Fund. These General Fund reimbursements could then be
used to pay for Library operations once the building is constructed. This concept has been
approved by the City Attorney's office and the City's Public Facilities DIF consultant.
~I?
ITEM , PAGE 5
MEETING DATE: 12\9/96
Under this proposal, a $10.3 million library could be constructed many years earlier than
anticipated and that a steady stream of revenue would be then available to operate the facility
for 9 to 10 years after completion.
Repair/Renovate the Civic Center Library $390,000
The worn carpet and decorative banners would be replaced, furniture would be repaired or
replaced, and the wiring and technological inftastructure would be improved.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As discussed above, if approved by two thirds of the votes, the quarter of a cent sales tax would raise
approximately $4 million a year, for five years, for the Chula Vista Public Library. The estimated $20
million would be used to supplement current General Fund support. The acutal amount of money
available will be dependent upon the sales tax collected within the City limits. The monies collected
would come directly to the City of Chula Vista and would be appropriated by City Council during the
annual budget process Approximately 87% of the accumulated tax monies would be spent on one
time appropriations (new building, endowments, etc.). The remaining 13% would be spent to increase
hours and add additional public service staff It is understood that these elements might cease at the
end of the five year life of the sales tax, unless the tax was renewed or other funding sources were
identified.
SVrf'~
._--~~_.__._--_...__._---~~---- .
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 9
Meeting Date 5/5/98
Iff'!?,,:;
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. Granting the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial
Award to St. John's Episcopal Church at 760 First Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Direct~ ofPlæm;o, ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ \Q /l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXj
For the past 23 years, the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce have
sponsored the annual Beautification A wards Banquet. The Beautification A wards Committee is
composed of members of the Chamber of Commerce, City Council, Planning Commission, Design
Review Committee and City staff. The Beautification A wards Committee reviews projects
completed during the previous year, determines potential award winners and conducts a tour of
the designated sites, and grants the beautification awards to those projects that have contributed
to the enhancement and beautification of the community.
On September 20, 1988, Council created the Richard Welsh Memorial Award in memory of Mr.
Richard Welsh, a long-time resident of the city and former member of the Design Review
Committee. The award is intended to recognize superior building funciton and design, as well
as unique characteristics which best exemplify a commitment to the beautification of the
community. This year the Beautification Awards Commimee and the Design Review Committee
have nominated St. John's Episcopal Church to receive the Richard Welsh Memorial Award.
RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council adopt the resolution granting the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial Award to S1.
John's Episcopal Church, and authorize the Mayor to present the award to the recipient at the
Beautification Awards Banquet at the San Diego Country Club on May 21, 1998.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On April 13, 1998, the Beautification Awards Committee voted unanimously to nominate the S1.
John's Episcopal Church to receive the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial Award. On April 20, 1998
the Design Review Committee voted unanimously to endorse the nomination.
DISCUSSION:
The remodel and expansion of an existing church/school complex was a result of a fire in 1990
9--/
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 5/5/98
which partially destroyed St. Johns Episcopal Church. The project consists of the construction
of a new 14,500 sq.ft. church complex, including relocation and remodel of the existing
sanctuary building, and other associated improvements such as tall spirals, gable roofs, exterior
courtyard, water fountains, and window treatments. The Beautification Awards Committee felt
that the project represents a significant enhancement to the community, and should be given the
special recognition associated with the Richard Welsh Award.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Richard Welsh Memorial Award Plaque costs approximately $250. The funds have been
budgeted in City Council Account 100-105-5222.
(m:\home\planning\maria\PCM9830.rev)
7--7
Resolution No. )3}?gv-3
A Resolution of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Granting the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial Award
To St. John's Episcopal Church
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1988, the City Council created the Richard Welsh Memorial
Award to recognize those projects that have, among other things, superior building functions and
design, as well, as unique characteristics that best exemplifY the builder's commitment to beautifY
our community, and;
WHEREAS, the Beautification Awards Committee held its annual meeting on February 23,
1998 and site tour April 13, 1998, and based upon exquisite architecture, superb combination of
colors and materials, landmark quality of the project, unique building articulation, and fluidity of
style and design voted unanimously to nominate the St. John's Episcopal Church located at 760 First
Avenue to receive the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial Award, and;
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee at their April 20, 1998 meeting considered the
nomination and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council grant the 1997 Richard
Welsh Memorial Award to St. John's Episcopal Church, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council at their May 5, 1998 meeting reviewed the nominated project
and concurred with the recommendation of the Beautification Awards Committee and the Design
Review Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby grants
the 1997 Richard Welsh Memorial Award to St. John's Episcopal Church located at 760 First
A venue and authorizes the Mayor to present the award to the recipient at the annual Beautification
Awards Banquet to be held at the San Diego Country Club on May 21, 1998.
Presented by Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
9-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /¿)
Meeting Date 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution IJYCjffrth .. th' fE hm P .
au onzmg e Issuance 0 ncroac ent enmt No.
PE-416 for construction of a bridge crossing and other facilities within
drainage easement at 3066 North Second Avenue by Sweetwater Authority
SUBMITTED BY: ,,="', of ""¡;,, Wod" ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ :./7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoX)
Sweetwater Authority is proposing to build a demineralization plant on a parcel along North Second
A venue just north of State Route 54. The property is divided by the Paradise Creek Channel, which
the City of Chula Vista maintains. In order to connect the property for vehicles and personnel, the
Authority has requested the City to grant an encroachment permit to allow a bridge to be built across
the channel. According to Section 12.28 of the Municipal Code, this request must be approved by
the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the subject resolution authorizing the City
Engineer to issue Encroachment Permit No. PE-416 and direct the City Clerk to record said
resolution and permit.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No Board or Commission actions are
required in this case.
DISCUSSION:
Recently, Sweetwater Authority submitted plans to construct a Demineralization Plant on a vacant
piece of property on North Second Avenue between State Route 54 and 30th Street. This 5.39-acre
parcel is divided by the Paradise Creek (V-type) concrete channel. In order to use the entire parcel,
a bridge over the channel, along the northerly property line is needed. The foundation of one of the
chlorine contact tanks encroaches approximately one to two feet inside the City's easement,
however, it is still ten feet from the channel wall. There are also portions of a pipe being located
within the easement, but are well away from the channel wall and will not interfere with the City's
ability to maintain the channel.
Plans and structural calculations have been submitted to and reviewed by the Engineering staff. It
has been determined by this review that there will be no stresses put on the walls of the channel.
/ tJ~ /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/5/98
The placement of the bridge will not hamper access to the channel by City crews and allow
maintenance to take place as usual.
The encroachment permit includes an indemnity clause holding the City, its agents and employees
harmless from damages resulting from the construction and maintenance of the bridge and other
facilities belonging to Sweetwater Authority.
The permit has been signed and that signature notarized by Sweetwater Authority and is now ready
to be issued. The permit will be recorded and run with the land.
FISCAL IMPACT: Due to the construction and maintenance responsibilities falling on the
Permittee, there is no direct costs to the City, except for the processing of this permit.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Locator plat
Exhibit "B" - Plat showing encroachments
Copy of Encroachment Permit PE-416 NOT SCANNED
Engineering Department File No. 0710-40-PE-416
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \PE-416.JWH
J¿J - ~
RESOLUTION NO. /?)' 9 Y Y
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE-416 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE CROSSING AND OTHER
FACILITIES WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 3066
NORTH SECOND AVENUE BY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Sweetwater Authority is proposing to build a
demineralization plant on a parcel along North Second Avenue just
north of State Route 54; and
WHEREAS, the property is divided by the Paradise Creek
Channel, which the City of Chula vista maintains; and
WHEREAS, in order to connect the property for vehicles
and personnel, the Authority has requested the City to grant an
encroachment permit to allow a bridge to be built across the
channel; and
WHEREAS, according to Chapter 12.28 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code, this request must be approved by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the issuance of
Encroachment Permit No. PE-416 for construction of a bridge
crossing and other facilities within drainage easement at 3066
North Second Avenue by Sweetwater Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to record this resolution and Encroachment Permit No. PE-
416.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~~~
John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Public Works
C:\rs\pe416.enc
/t/~;J
- ..---,..-..- ."' .-.---- .__._-~-_.- ,-_. .__...._.._..,.._~_..
~_.__.,._..._.-
: ,II) ~m
~ G
- .. ^ p.
_ .&'1(:,.,
-
? SITE
,
'------.::." ,
,
"
DWN BY: fx,."ð,r lA M
DATE: j¿J-ý
. ,-_.-- - ------_.- -- - ----.--- --
I~
I
, r I
-
;
¡
Nß1"5r1'
27~OO
N .,¡....,
27~OO'
P.O.B.
~ - 08'C5"2-
p. - 287.00'
i T . 20.29'
:. - 4Cl.51'
,..-- PIPING
i
T ¥F-STERl.. Y UNE OF ::NCROACHM::Nï AREA
50 FEET WIDE SHOWN SHADED
CONDEWNA 110N \
~
1/4 TA.¡.JK \
I
SECTION I
I
1-4 ~J~
.).
~ / .
~ I
.tD~ I
'" ,
I ïANK
~ (FUT)
". ./
.DO'2~.
R: 201§..OO
T - 6.00
L - 12.OC'
........
NOR RL Y UNE Of' SPRINC
I YAU.EY SANIT411DN
DISTRICT EASEMENT
.
DWN BY: EXHIBIT ~~8·
DATE: /¿J" 3/j'd-j /
Recording requested by and I
please return to:
City Clerk I
City of Chula Vista ft;
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
['" This documen1 benefits a
Public Agency; no recording
fee required. . (This space for Recorder's use, only) .
"
AffectS Assessor's Parcel No(s). 563-370-23"()() C.V. File No. 0710-40-PE-4l6
AUTHORIZATION FOR ENCROACHMENT IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY
Permit No. PE-416
Pursuant to Chapter 12.28 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, permission is hereby granted by the City of Chula
Vista (hereinafter "City") to: SWEETW A TER AUTHORITY. a Joint Powers Entity pursuant to Government Code
6500, (et seq.) (hereinafter "Permittee") whose mailing address is 505 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, to
do work within a portion of right-of-way belonging to the City of Chula Vista.
All terms and conditions of this permit as to the Permittee. shall be a burden upon Permittee's land and shall run with
the land. All conditions apply to Permittee and all hislher/their heirs, assigns, successors or transferees.
Whereas. the Permittee has requested the permission from City to encroach on said City's parcel adjacent to and for
the direct benefit of the following described property:
ADDRESS: 3066 North Second Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (See attached Exhibit" A")
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to do the following work with the inclusion of conditions contained herein:
Construct and maintain a vehicular bridge and various facilities appurtenant to Permittee's
demineralization plant within City's dr.ainage easement for Paradise Creek Channel as shown on the
attached plat.
(hereinafter "Encroachment.")
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the
parries hereto agree as follows:
Permission is hereby granted Permittee to iDstall the above-mentioned Encroachment on the real property of City
described above in accordance with the following conditions:
I. Encroachment shall be iDstalled and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner by Permittee as determined
by City.
2. Encroachment shall, in no way interfere with the maintenance of or operation of the existing concrete
channel, any existing utility, including but not limited to water meters, CATV and telephone pedestals, and
Page 1 /o-?
sewer lines. Any costs arising from changes of or to any facility due to the Encroachment shall be the sole
responsibility of Permittee.
3. Maintenance, removal or relocation of Encroachment shall be the sole responsibility of Permittee, andlor
Permittee's lessee, should there be any, at no expense to City.
4. Encroachment shall conform to all standards and specifications as stated in the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
including, but not limited to, the following:
A. The bridge shall be designed and constructed so as not to impact the structural integrity of the
existing PCC channel.
5. Permittee is to call Underground Service AJen (One call mark-out service) at l-8()(µ22-4133 a minimum
of two working days prior to any excavation being done in the public right-of-way, including post holes or
footing excavations.
6. For all above ground Encroachments which could logically be subject to graffiti or similar acts, Permittee
shall apply an anti-graffiti material to the encroaching object of a type and nature that is acceptable to the
Director of Public Works.
7. Permittee shall immediately remove any graffiti from the encroaching object.
8. City shall have the right to remove graffiti or paint the encroaching object, the paint being provided by
Permittee.
9. Permittee shall not allow Encroachment to block the existing course of surface drainage to the extent that it
may endanger the public or the propenies surrounding Permittee's property or cause ponding of water.
This permit is revocable upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Permittee, and upon such notice, the installation
must be removed or relocated, as and when specified by City, at Permittee's cost. If Permittee fails to remove or
relocate Encroachment within the period allotted, City may cause such work to be done and the cost thereof shall be
imposed as a lien upon Permittee's property.
Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees. from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys'
fees) arising out of the conduct of the Permittee, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others (including third
parties) in connection with the execution of the work coveted by this agreement. except only for those claims arising
from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Permittee's indemnification
shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or
employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Permittee at its
own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its
officers, agents, or employees. Permittee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the Permittee.
Permittee hereby agrees to and shall defend City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees
againat any claim, and in any suit or proceeding, at law or in equity, for damages caused, or alleged to have been
caused, by actions taken or alleged to have been taken under this permit by Permittee directly or by hisiher/their
agent(s), contractor(s), or agents or employees of same. Permittee further agrees to and shall indemnify and hold
harmless City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, as indemnitees, for any claim, suit
or proceeding submitted, brought or institoted against City as a result of actions taken, or alleged to have been taken,
under this permit. inclnding, but not limited to, any asserted liability for loss of or damage to property or for personal
injury, including death.
Tbe undersigned Permittee hereby accepts the foregoing Encroachment permit upon the terms and conditions stated
herein and agrees to comply with all stated terms and conditions and with all applicable laws, including any applicable
provision of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. It is further agreed that if any part of Permittee's Encroachment or
Page 2 /¿J ~ 7
Permitœe's rights under this Encroachment Permit should interfere with the future use of the City's right of way by
the general public, it must be removed or relocated at Permittee's expense and such right shall be terminated as and
when indicated by City.
In the event of a dispute arising as to the terms or interpretation of this permit, the City Engineer shall resolve said
dispute in his sole and unfettered discretion, reasonably applied.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
Permit approved by:
Date:
Clifford L. Swanson
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
(City Clerk to O1tach acknowledgmem.)
p~~~ 4- rç'-C¡f>
Signa . kl -r-f'~ Date:
Title: &eO.ef'í\~ fC\Q M ~
(Notary to O1tach acknowledgmem.)
NOTE: Pennittee is to submit a check or money order payable to County of San Diego equal to the total of $7.00
for the first page and $3.00 for each page thereafter, including notary acknowledgmems for all signatories.
"f' (For office use only) "f'
Encroachment has been constructed and is in compliance with the attached sketch.
Signed Dated
(Inspector)
[C:\WPS IIPEIPERMlT.416] Page 3 I ¿f)-~
CALIFORNIA ALL·PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- - - - ~ ---_.- - - - - - - -. - ---.----
~
~ I
I State of (jjßjftY'M4
~ :~F~~Ò
I
I
I personally appeared
"
"Y:..persOnallY known to me - OR - =:ì proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)
~
Î whose name(s') is/aæ- subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me thaI he/!>l<siiA8¥ executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by b
g his/h9fl1heir SiªRBIt:lre~ on the instrument the person(8r,
~ I@~~~-\ or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s{ acted,
I executed the instrument.
~ j ~N*-C Ja, _ WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_....QUIIJ 1
g i . MVCaM\.~~6.~
~ -- - - - - -
~ I1:i
~
~ OPTIONAL
g Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
g fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
~
~ Description of Attached Document
~ Title or Type of Document :R. ~{ Of;:i)
~
"
§ Document Date: ~~ Number of Pages: S
~ ,
i Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ':t ¡tí'J/Y2 ~ "
"
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
~ Signer's Name: ÎlLl0yeJ A ~ Yla~
~ Signer's Name:
~
~
~Individuai = Individual
corporati Officer m r = Corporate Officer
Title(s): J)JI¡ , ~' Title(s): ,
D Partner - ~ Limited General == Partner - ~ Limited =:ì General ,I
D Attorney-in-Fact =' Attorney-in-Fact ,
~ D Trustee =' Trustee
~ D Guardian or Conservator RIGHT THUMBPRINT :::: Guardian or Conservator RIGHT THUMBPRINT "
OF SIGNER OF SIGNER
:J Other: Top of thumb here - Other: Top of thumb here
~
I "
Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing:
~
I ~ "
~
<01995 N..""" N'",,,, A""""'" . 8236 A,mm"^,'" P,O B" 7184' C."',. P.o<, CA91309,7184 / ¿7- C; Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1·800-876-6827
-
EXHIBIT "A"
THAT PORTION OF40ACRELOT21N QUARTER SECTION 134 AND THAT
PORTION OF 40 ACRE LOT 11N QUARTER SECTION 135 AS SHOWN BY MAP OF
THE SUBDIVISION OF RANCHO DE LA NACION, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 166,FILED MAY11, 1869 IN THE OFFICE OFTHE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE
SW-cETWATER RIVER WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE OLD SAN DIEGO AND
ARIZONA RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTH 46· 11' 00" WEST, 192.61
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62·~0' 00" WEST, 166.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84· 01
00" WEST, 147.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63· 36' 00" WEST, 141.60 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 74' 28' DO" WEST, 141.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19· 32' 00" EAST, 328.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 71'42' 00" EAST, 15.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18·18' 00"
EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71" 42' 00" EAST, 835.35 FEET, TO THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID OLD SAN DIEGO AND ARIZONA RAILROAD RIGHT OF
WAY; THENCE NORTH 28· 45' 00" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN EDGEMERE
AVENUE AS SHOWN BY ROAD SURVEY NO. £70.
. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE
LAND CONVEYED AS PARCELS 1 AND 2 TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY
DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 4, 1970 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 222064 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THE INTEREST CONDEMNED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED
JULY 9, 1987AS FILENO. 87-385101 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
. .
J¿;~/Þ
~ r
NB7'57'1I
27:..00
,'<4,
27!>.OO·
.....
¿ - DB"DS'12"'
R _ 287.00'
T - 20.29'
l - 4Q.51' EASltRl y UN[ Of'
50 FEET YItOE
CONDEUNI\1Jct:
~-- PIPING
vF-S1ERL Y UN[ OF ENCROACHMENï AREA
50 FEET WIDE
CONDEMNATION SHOWN SHADED
1/4 .
SECTION íAl4K
134
.-- --.....
/' .
/
,
I ïANK
~ (FUT J
,
6-~·
R-201
T - 6.00
L - 12.00'
NOR
.
-
DWN BY: ENCROAC!-IUENT
DATE: +/15(98 30~b N. SECOAlD AVE. /,?J-//
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 5/05/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / ~ 9 ~ 3 Declaring Intention to Order Certain Changes
and Modifications in Assessments Levied Within Certain Assessment
Districts, Setting a Public Hearing Thereon and Ordering the Initiation of
Assessment Ballot Procedures as to Those Assessments Proposed to be
Increased.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
. ~d\
REVIEWED BY: City Managef\)~ bUG f}/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.x.)
On August 6, 1996, Council adopted Resolution No. 18378 & 18379 approving the changes and
modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District # 94-1 and approving the
Fourth Amendment to the Acquisition/Financing agreement; and ordering changes and
modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District #91-1. Due to changes in
density in two subdivisions of EastLake Greens, Units 10 & 16, The EastLake Company has
requested that due to higher assessments in one subdivision, due to the density reduction, a change
and modification in the assessment districts be ordered. Since the assessment for every parcel will
be reduced, no parcel will be above the 2 % annual limit. These changes will affect undeveloped
and unsold properties. No assessment on existing home owners will be modified by these actions.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council:
1). Adopt the Resolution declaring its intention to order certain changes and modifications to
the assessments, and;
2). Set the time and place for the Public Hearing for 6:00 P.M. June 23, 1998 in the Council
Chambers, Public Services Building and;
3). Order the initiation of assessment ballot procedures applicable to any parcel for which it
is proposed that the assessment will increase if the changes and modifications are
implemented.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The EastLake Company has requested that changes and modifications be ordered for three
assessment districts # 90-3, 91-1 and 94-1. The changes and modifications to these three
assessment districts is necessary due to a reduction in density in EastLake Greens Unit 16 and an
increase in density in EastLake Greens Unit 10 (Exhibit A). More specifically, Unit 16 is being
reduced from 109 Single Family Attached Condominiwns (87.2 Equivalent Dwelling Units) to 60
Single Family Detached Homes (EDU's). Thus a reduction in 27.2 EDU's requires the developer
//-)
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 5/05/98
to buy down the assessment districts by the number of EDU's reduced within that parcel. Unit
10 which is just to the south of Unit 16 is being proposed with a higher density 231 EDU's versus
184 EDU's, an increase of 47 single family detached homes. The net change in density for these
two subdivisions is an increase of about 20 EDU's (290.0 versus 271.2). Therefore, the EastLake
Company has requested that these two parcels' assessment district debt be changed and
modification to the Engineer's Report for these districts be adopted so that the assessment district
obligation for each home is similar and a density reduction buy down will not be required. The
debt transfer from one parcel to another is allowed since these two parcels are within the same
area of benefit and once the debt transfer is completed, each home will have similar combined
assessment district payments.
On August 6, 1996, the City Council approved Resolutions #18378 & 18379 (Exhibit B) which
ordered the changes and modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District #94-
1 and approving the Fourth Amendment to the Acquisition/Financing agreement; and ordering
changes and modifications in proceedings and assessments in Assessment District #91-1. The City
Council had desired that properties within EastLake Greens have assessments which are similar
and that the maximum assessment per EDU not exceed $9,267.44. The proposed changes and
modifications will reduce this maximum assessment amount per EDU to $8,835.08 for Unit 10
and $8,917.16 for Unit 16 (Exhibit C). If the changes and modifications are not approved by
Council, EastLake will be required to pay approximately $242,520.40 in buy down costs due to
the reduction in density for Unit 16. EastLake has provided the City with a cashier's check for
the full amount of the buy down.
Staff has been working with Financial Counsel, Ms. Barbara Hale-Carter of "Special District
Financing & Administration", and Legal Counsel, Mr. Warren B. Diven, Esq. of "Brown Diven
Hessell & Brewer", as agents for the City, in order to review the proposed changes in the
assessment districts. The following table summarizes the changes which are listed as "Exhibits"
to this report:
TABLE 1: Comparison of existing Assessment District spread versus proposed changes
and modifications.
UNIT - 10 UNIT - 10 UNIT - 16 UNIT - 16
ORIGINAL MODIFIED ORIGINAL MODIFIED
EDU's 184 SFD 231 SFD 109 SFDC* 60 SFD
A.D. # 90-3 $2,438.67 $1,942.49 $3,348.62 $4,866.67
A.D. # 91-1 $2,662.57 $2,551.34 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
A.D. # 94-1 $4,456.57 $4,341.25 $2,367.96 $ 394.43
TOTAL A.D. $9,557.81 $8,835.08 $9,372.65 $8,917.16
$IEDU
//~.,¿
-..-.---" . --...-
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 5/05/98
I ~~uChange per I I ($ 722.73) I I ($ 455.49) I
*SFDC = 109 Single Family Detached Condominiums (0.80 EDU/SFDC) equals 87.2 EDU's.
Assessment District # 90-3 funded Non-Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) backbone
infrastructure within the entire EastLake development. With the changes and modifications
proposed, there will be no additional debt transferred into either parcel (see Table 2), but due to
the increase in density for Unit 10, their assessment district obligation decreases by $496.18 per
EDU. Conversely for Unit 16, since there are less EDU's proposed, the assessment district
obligation increases by $1,518.05 per EDU (Exhibit D).
TABLE 2: Assessment District # 90 - 3 debt transfer.
UNIT ORIGINAL MODIFIED NET CHANGE
R - 10 $448,715.62 $448,715.62 NONE
R - 16 $292,000.02 $292,000.02 NONE
TOTAL $740,715.64 $740,715.40 NONE
NET CHANGE NONE NONE
Assessment District # 91-1 funded TDIF improvements within the EastLake Greens II, Parcel R-
26 and the EastLake Trails. The changes and modifications will transfer $99,445.10 from Unit
16 to Unit 10 (see Table 3), but due to the density changes there will not be any increase in
assessment for any EDU within these two parcels. The homes in Unit 10 will see a decrease of
$111.23 per EDU and the homes in Unit 16 will see no change to their assessment (Exhibit E).
TABLE 3: Assessment District # 91-1 debt transfer.
UNIT ORIGINAL MODIFIED NET CHANGE
R - 10 $489,913.38 $589,358.48 $99,445.10
R - 16 $318,809.30 $219,364.20 ($99,445.10)
TOTAL $808,722.68 $808,722.68 NONE
NET CHANGE NONE NONE
//~J
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 5/05/98
Assessment District 94-1 funded Non-TDIF backbone infrastructure within EastLake Greens II
and TDIF improvements within EastLake Greens IT, Parcel R-26 and the Trails. The changes and
modifications proposed, there will be an additional $182,820.45 transferred from Unit 16 to Unit
10 (see Table 4). The homes in Unit 10 will see a decrease of $115.32 per EDU primarily due
to the increase in density even though the parcel has an additional $182,820.45 of debt transferred
to it. Unit 16 homes will see their assessment district obligation decrease by $1,973.53 (Exhibit
F).
TABLE 4: Assessment District # 94-1 debt transfer.
UNIT ORIGINAL MODIFIED NET CHANGE
R-1O $820,009.14 $1,002,829.59 $182,820.45
R - 16 $206,486.02 $23,665.57 ($182,820.45)
TOTAL $1,026,495.16 $1,026,495.16 NONE
NET CHANGE NONE NONE
The City Council has previously initiated proceedings and held public hearings pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Act"), for assessment
districts designated as Assessment District #90-3, 91-1 and 94-1 (Collectively, the "Assessment
Districts").
When there is a transfer of debt from one parcel to another increasing assessment district
obligations, the requirements for "Proposition 218", the Right To Vote On Taxes Act" is
triggered. In compliance with Proposition 218 and State Law, there will be a Public Hearing
scheduled for June 23, 1998, which is at least 45 days in advance of tonight's Council Meeting.
At this time, staff is recommending to Council that certain changes and modifications are
necessary, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10353 of said Streets and Highways
Code and Article XIIID of the Constitution of the Sate of California ("Article XillD ") and Article
XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act, (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the
"Implementation Act") (the improvement Act, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act are
referred to collectively as the as the "Assessment Law"), it is necessary that this legislative body
adopt a Resolution briefly describing the proposed changes in certain assessments and giving
notice of a time and place for a public hearing where persons may appear and show cause why
said changes should not be ordered.
)/-1
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date 5/05/98
FISCAL IMPACT: EastLake Development Company will pay all costs associated with the
"Changes & Modifications" to Assessment Districts # 90-3,91-1 and 94-1. The City will receive
the benefit of full cost recovery for staff costs (estimated at $6,500) to be paid by EastLake and
not by the Assessment Districts. The impact of the change and modifications is to lower the
annual assessment to each home owner, per Table 1.
Exhibits: A - EastLake Greens Site utilization Plan ~ i~
B - Resolutions # 18378 & 18379 --
C - A.D. Spread Total for A.D. # 90-3, 91-1, and 94-1
D - A.D. # 90-3 Original and Modified Assessment Spread ~
E - A.D. # 91-1 Original and Modified Assessment Spread __
F - A.D. # 94-1 Original and Modified Assessment Spread ~
FILK 0725-1()'AD 90-3
0725-1()'AD 91-1
0725-1().AD 94-1
0725·lO·A Y099
0600-80-ELG 10
060().8().ELG16
Apr 30. 1998; 11 :42am
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\CMAD I016.FXR
r--
//-~
RESOLUTION NO. /r7r5'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN
ASSESSMENTS lEVIED WITmN CERTAIN ASSESSMENT DISTRIcrs, SE1TING A PUBUC
HEARING THEREON AND ORDERING THE INmATION OF ASSESSMENT BAlLOT
PROCEDURES AS TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE INCREASED
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, has previously
initiated proceedings and held public hearings pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal
ImprovèmentAct of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
(the "Improvement Act"), for assessment districts designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICf NOS.90-3, 91-1
and 94-1 (Collectively, the "Assessment Districts"); and,
WHEREAS, at this time it appears to this legislative body that certain changes and modifications are
necessary, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10353 of said Streets and Highways Code and
Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID" ) and the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the "Implementation Act")
(the Improvement Act, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act are referred to collectively as the
"Assessment Law"), it is necessary that this legislative body adopt a Resolution briefly describing the
proposed changes in certain assessments and giving notice of a time and place for a public hearing where
persons may appear and show cause why said changes should not be ordered.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. The public interest, convenience and necessity requires, and it is the intention of this
legislative body, to order certain changes and modifications in the proceedings and the assessments as set
forth in Exhibit A hereto which is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBUC HEARING IS HEREBY
SCHEDULED IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY, BEING THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1:76 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 23, 1998
AT 6:00 PM AT WHICH TIME THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROPOSED CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS. ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND
MODIFICATIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
RESOLUTION.
RIGHT TO STlRMTT ASSFSSMFNT RAI lOT
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT LAW, EACH RECORD OWNER OF
PROPERTY FOR WlßCH THE ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE INCREASED HAS THE RIGHT
TO SUBMIT AN ASSESSMENT BALLOT IN FAVOR OF OR IN OPPOSmON TO THE PROPOSED
INCREASE IN ASSESSMENT.
1
// - .I
ASSESSMENT BALLOTS WILL BE MAILED TO THE RECORD OWNER OF EACH PARCEL
LOCATED WITInN THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSED
TO BE INCREASED. EACH SUCH OWNER MAY COMPLEI'E SUCH ASSESSMENT BALLOT AND
THEREBY INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ASSESSMENT. ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT BAUOTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK
AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS AT OR BEFORE THE TIME SET FOR THE CLOSE OF THE
PUBUC HEARING:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNI,A 91910
A POSTMARK PRIOR TO SUCH DATE AND TIME WIlL NOT BE SUFFICIENT.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBUC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL CAUSE THE
ASSESSMENT BALLOTS TIMELY RECEIVED TO BE TABULATED. IF A MAJORITY PROTEST
EXISTS, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL NOT IMPOSE AN INCREASE IN THE ASSESSMENT ON
ANY PARCEL WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICf. A MAJORITY PROTEST EXISTS IF, UPON
THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBUC HEARING, ASSESSMENT BALLOTS SUBMITTED IN
OPPOSITION TO THE INCREASE IN ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICf
EXCEED THE ASSESSMENT BALLOTS SUBMITIED IN FAVOR OF SUCH INCREASE IN
ASSESSMENTS. IN TABULATING THE ASSESSMENT BALLOTS, THE ASSESSMENT BALLOTS
SHALL BE WEIGHTED ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTIONAL FINANCIAL OBUGATION OF
THE AFFECfED PROPERTY.
SECI10N 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to eertify to the adoption of this Resolution and cause
a copy to be published in a newspaper designated for the publication of legal notices once, not less than ten
(to) days prior to the public hearing,
SECTION 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mail notice of the Public Hearing and the adoption
of this Resolution, together with the assessment ballot materials, to the record owners of all real property
proposed to be assessed.
2
)/- )
. ^.-.-...---
SECTION 6. For any and all information relating to these proceedings, including information relating
to assessment ballot procedure, your attention is directed to the person designated below:
FRANK RIVERA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CAliFORNIA 91910
(619)691-5266
PREPARED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
John P. Lippit ~ ìVl&~ ~
John Kaheny
Director of Public Works City Attorney
,
3
J//J'/0yJ~ A~F
----~_...._--_.,. ....._____n_
-?PI) r-, ~«
-
~...... ~
! .....
Z , , T~:C
.¡..¡ .:::
'~ 'C 'C c: =, .-
« ~ "OQ' """'a::oOu)lÐtO""NN(Q~m...mm Q)NCI)mOC- " '" ·_·gf .J::.
.="'.m_o,...U)m....com..COU)O_IÐIÐO n,......,.,..."'.....n ~ '" \Iii Jj
F:I -- N'" -N-- - N ~ ...
....J N '"
a.. 0
.~ "",...U)CDcø..,.lDvtM-fD-M",..OI,()It)OID -'! U
O)l""cnOC":l"" , C\!~
'C
~c NC\Ì..r.";''';'Il)\oIt)''';U)Iri(þr--:ll)c,...&ri-~ :::Mmcri~..rcD " "'-6 i
.- - -
Z "a '"
. "
0 0 ! 0 0 Lt
. . . ~
- -
- ~ ,...,...mOO",...Il)~QNtO..mmU)m"M "'M_mMN_ ~ ~ U)MCDNO_OCl)lt)om_mCl)Mmm..,._~ m '" 0( ~ !! 3-
~ m"_"M""O""CI)...œN~-ocDm..r. -0 tn....""mcQ " mOIt)r:nor.nM-..MN....;...;,..;a:i..rlrici,..;o CD '"
0 --NNN___ M_N___N - -N - N 0 ---..-- - "''' N ~õ I ~
< " < - ," '"
, '" ~
, ~i I
N .. ~~ õ ~~~~ J ~
=- ~~ ~~lt:l ã
-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ onllBntnll) r.n :~
- ~:66666:¡¡~~~¡¡¡¡:¡~ ___-<\IIt)_ _~~ Uø~~~~ = ·
.n.n.n';'~6';' tH ·
....J ~~~_OO~oooomm..... m i
- - i::g~~~~~~ggggggg:ð! ~
~ :9.< - - uàà.z: !'CrEo Õ õõ a.c.c..c..o.o.c..~=~ 1i£ ~ A
"':0 __uë~~DDDØOOOOØØOOøoo š! ~ ·
ii 00000 00000 0 :::'a" &2.UCl)cøE J:-=C::C:C:C:CC::C:: ...Q ~
::> c:= œ~:g.r::: E E.~.2I~glGI cu GIlD CD CD CD=~ ~ i - ~
~ 000000000000000----- -----0- ãi S~ l ~
~ ««< ««< < ",- sa.o..:fm8~~8"8"8-c3"c3"&c3"~~ i
ëã ~~ -0-' ;Q - g . ~
::: ... .- ~ to ~ .~ ·
c-- .O_NM.~~~mmO_NM.~~~m ;; fJ) _. __N -NM...~ca"'" J:! ,!J . ·
m:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 æ ë,ª . ÓÔ7~'7C':1c?--:,,!0chciJchm'¡'ú> {]. Ü o ~ " ·
~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , . ~ o..a.( )CI)o..1U1..a.a.ooooooo ""'. '" e- ø ¡
ë¡;"Z II . .Q "z " 'õ . eO ·
, § I ! I II , à: l ~ l
"'! I ! ø ø
II: Z
.0(
W
a:
.0(
G
w
....
In
::;)
II)
·
·
·
·
ci;
, , UJ\I1 J;~
" ci;
ci; N
<Ì> N. ~Z~~
....'I\leo Ö
.... SLU ~~
-
<Ì>
- ~LUb
a
ci; .. ~<
/ ,/ .~ V1(!)
, , --
~ "
.. w w
0
0 0 ~
~
~
I
-.-- -~-_.._---- --__"._.0'__-
f;¡:,h l b;+ J5
RESOLUTION 18378
A RESOLUTION OFTHECITY COUNCILOFTHE CITY OFCHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CHANGES AND
MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO 91-1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has previousiy
adopted its Resolution of Intention and confirmed an assessment for certain works of
improvement in a special assessment district, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code
of the State, of California;. said special assessment district known and designated as
Assessment District No. 9T-1 (Telegraph Canyon' Road, Phase III (hereinafter referred to as
the" Assessment District:); and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the confirmation of the assessment and after the
improvements where ordered, but during the pendency of these proceedings, it has been
determined that certain parcels within EastLake Greens Phase II commonly referred to as R 1 ,
R3(s), R6, R10, R12, and R18 are proposed to be developed with less equivalent dwelling
units than were projected atthe time the Assessment District was formed and, consequently,
such parcels were assessed for mOte street improvements than now directly and specially
benefit such parcels; and
WHEREAS, the DIF credits to which such parcels are entitled as a result of the
confirmed assessments levied against such parcels exceeds the number of dwelling units
actually developed on such parcels; and
WHEREAS, that properties commonly referred to as R26 and The Trails can utilize the
excess DIF credits originally allocated to the above referenced parcels; and
WHEREAS, it therefore appears to be in the best public interest to order certain
changes and modifications to the ptoceedings, the Engineer's Report. and certain individual
assessments; and
WHEREAS, the owners of those properties for which the assessments are proposed
to be increased have both requested and consented to the proposed changes and
modifications including increase in the assessments on their properties.
NOW, THEE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
Secti on 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
Section 2. That it is hereby ordered that the changes be made as set forth in the
attached Exhibit" A", and the assessment roll shall be modified and amended to reflect
the modifications as set forth in said Exhibit "A", and the Engineer's Report,
assessment roll, and diagram shall be modified where appropriate.
Section 3. That said changes and modifications are hereby ordered pursuant to the
provisions of Section 10352 of the Streets and Highways Code. Such changes and
-3
Resolution 18378
Page 2
modifications will result in the increase in certain individual assessments, however, this
City council finds that the owners of such properties have both requested and
consented to such changes and modifications including the increase in the assessment
son the properties.
Section 4. That said changes and modifications, as so ordered, are in the best
interests of the property owners within the boundaries of the Assessment District and
the assessment roll and Engineer's Report, as modified pursuant to Section 1,
hereinabove, shall thereafter stand as the "Report" for all subsequent proceedings
relating to this Assessment District.
Section 5. That no public hearing is required for these changes and modifications
inasmuch as said modifications meet the intent and requirements of said Section
T 03 5 2 of the Streets and Highways Code, and it is further hereby determined that said
changes and modificatiGns are in the best public interest and convenience for the
Assessment District and the property owners affected thereby.
Presented by Approved as to form by
I~~ ~ v¡~
, n R. Lippitt Ann Y. Moore
blic Works Director Acting City Attorney
If
- --~----_._---~_.- -- - - -.
Resolution 18378
Page 3
Exhibit A
Assessment District No. 91-1
Modified Assessment RolI- Fund No. 6014-37
Assmts/Originally
APN Item No Confirmed Assmts/Modified
R20/23 (Co) 643-020-39
R26/Church 643-020-44 5026 $430,685.05 $760,462.56
Trails 643-030-04
R3(S)I7R1 643-030- 1 1 5040 427,760.19 $365,507.00
Trails 643-030- 14 0.00 $496,494.31
ELG-S, U27. U6, U4, 643-030-15 5038 $3,155.195.22 $2.399,851.12
&12, & U
R10 (Co I 643-070-04
R25-14 643- 100-01 5007 40,947.99 $32,173.46
(')
R25-6 643- 100-02 5008 17,549.14 $17,549.14
R25-4 643-100-03 5009 11,699.42 $11,699.42
R25-14 643- 100-04 SOlO 40,947.98 $40,947.98
R25-5 643- 100-05 5011 14,624_28 $ 1 4,624.28
R25-4 643- 100-06 5012 11 ,699.42 $ 11,699.42
R25-5 643- 100-07 5013 14,624.28 $ 1 4,624.28
R25-10 643- 100-08 5014 29,248.56 $29,248.56
R25-6 643-100-09 5015 17,549.14 $17,549.14
R25-10 643-100-10 16 29,248.56 $29,248.56
R3(N) 643-110-01 5041 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-02 5042 $3,656.07 $$3,656.07
643-110-03 5043 $3,656.07 $$3,656.07
643-" 0-04 5044 $3,656.07 $$3,656.07
643- 1 1 0-05 5045 $3,656.07 $$3,656.07
643- 1 1 0-06 5046 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643- 1 1 0-07 5047 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
- 643- 1 1 0-08 5048 $3.656.07 $$3,656.07
643- 1 1 0-09 5049 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
.5
--
Resolution 18378
Page 4
--
Assmts/Originally
APN Item No Confirmed Assmts/Modified
643-110-10 5050 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-11 5051 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-12 5052 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-TlO-13 5053 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-14 5054 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-15 5055 $3,656.07 . $3,656.07
643-110-16 5056 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-17 5057 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643·110·18 5058 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643·110·19 5059 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643· 110-20 5060 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-" 0·2 1 5061 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643- 110-22 5062 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-110·23 5063 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-24 5064 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 110-25 I 5065 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 110·26 5066 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 110·27 5067 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 110·28 5068 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-1 10-29 5069 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-1 10-30 5070 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-31 5071 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-" 0-32 5072 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-33 5073 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 1 10-34 5074 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-35 5075 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 1 10-36 5076 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 1 10-37 5077 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-38 5078 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-39 5079 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 1 10-40 5080 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
/
0
Resolution 18378
- Page 5
Assmts/Originally
APN Item No Confirmed Ass,!,\S/Modified·
643-110-41 50S1 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 1 10-42 5082 $3.656.07 S3,656.07
643-110-43 5083 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-44 5084 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-11 0-45 5085 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-46 5086 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-47 5087 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-48 5088 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 110·49 5089 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 1 10·50 5090 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-110-51 5091 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
R20(City) 643-130-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130·03 $3,ô56.07 $3,656.07
643- 130·04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130-05 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130-08 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 130-09 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-130-' 0 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130- 14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-17 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643·130-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 130-20 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
7
.H··_~·__
Resolution 18378
Page 6
AssmtslOriginally
APN Item No Confirmed Assmts/Modified
643-'30·2' $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-' 30-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-24 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30·25 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-' 30-26 $3,656..07 $3,656.07
643-' 30·27 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-28 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-29 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-30 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-3' $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-32 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-33 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130·34 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-35 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-36 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-37 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-' 30-38 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 130-39 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-40 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- , 30-4' $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-'30-42 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-43 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-'30-44 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-45 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-'30-46 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- , 30-47 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-'30-48 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643·'30·49 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-' 30-50 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-' 30-5' $3,656.07 $3,656.07
g-
------'.'.._- -'..' .---,._-------
Resolution 18378
Page 7
Assmts/Originally
APN Item No Confirmed Assm~slModified
643-130-52 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-53 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-54 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-55 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-56 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
- $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-57
643-130-58 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-59 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-60 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-61 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-130-62 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-63 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-130-64 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-65 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-66 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-130-67 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-130-68 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-05 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-08 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643·131-09 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-131-10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-11 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-12 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-131-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-14 53.656.07 $3,656.07
c¡
_ _m -----
Resolution 18378
Page 8
-
Assmts/Originally
APN Item No Confirmed AssmtslModified
643-131-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-16 . $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-19 $3,655.07 $3,656.07
643-131·20 $3,655.07 $3,656.07
.
-.. 643-131-21 $3,655.07 $3,656.07
643-131-22 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-24 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-131-25 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-131-28 10,968.21 10,968.21
R15 643-140-01 $3,656.07 $3,655.07
643-140-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140·04 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-140-05 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
- 643-140-06 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-140-07 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-08 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-09 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140·10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140·12 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-140-13 $3,655.07 $3,656.07
643-140-14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-18 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-140-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
/Ó
Resolution 18378
Page 9
Assmts/OriginaJly
APN Item No Confitmed Assmts/Modified
.
643-140·20 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-140-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-22 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643- 140-23 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643- 140-24- $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-140-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643·140-26 $3",656.07 $3,656.07
643- 140-27 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643- 140-28 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643- 140-29 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643· 1 40·30 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643- 140-31 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643- 140-32 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643- 140-33 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
. 643·141·02 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-03 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643· 141 ·04 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643·141-05 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643·141·06 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-07 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643·141 -08 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-09 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141·10 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-11 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-141·13 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-14 $3.656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-15 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-16 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-141·17 $3.656.07 $3.656.07
II
---- -- --~-~-^.._.
Resolution 18378
Page 1 0
Assmts/OriginaJly
APN Item No Confirmed Assmts/Modified
643-141-18 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-141-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643'141-20 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-141'-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643· 141-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-14'--24- $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643·141-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-26 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
643-141-27 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643·141-28 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-14-1-29 $3,656.07 $3.656.07
643-141·30 $3,656.07 $3,656.07
Golf Course $166,316.31 $166,316.31
TOTAL 643-141·30 $5,179,526.31 $5.179,526.31
-
12-
.'-....---.'"-.'""..-..'-.--------.-- .........-.....,-..---...
Resolution 18378
Page 11
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 6th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Rindone, Horton
NA YES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
~í~¿~aYot
ATTEST:
~ (} tJuIi.t:£
Beverly/A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beveriy A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 18378 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 6th day of August,
1996.
Executed this 6th day of August, 1996.
~ tl a,-dIU
Beverly Pl.. Authelet, City Clerk
/9
;; yt." k,;t- 13
;....
RESOLUTION NO.1 £379
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF 'THE CITY OF CHULA
VIST A, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CHANGES AND
MDDIFICA'TIDNS IN PRDCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENTS IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT"ND. .94-1 ŒASTLAKE GREENS II) AND
APPRDVING THE FDURT-H AMENDMENT TD THE
ACaUISITIDNlFlNANCING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY DF CHULA VISTA, CALlFDRNIA, has
previously adopted its Resolution of Intemion ônd confirmed an assessment for certain works
of improvement in a special assessment district,pursuam to the terms ônd provisions of the
-Municipallmprovemem Act of 1913", being Division 12 Dfthe Stri!ets-and Highways Code
Df 1:he State of Califomia; said eSpecial assessmem district known and rlesignated -as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 ŒASTlAKE GREENS II) (hereinafter referred "to BS 'the
·Assessmem District"); ônd
WHEREAS, subsequent 'to 'the confirmation of 'the ôssessmentand after 'the
improvements were ordered, but during the pendency of 'these proceedings, it tJas been
- . . determined that 'the cost of acquiring certain improvements financed by the Assessment
District was less than "the estimated cost of ôcquisition of such improvements as reflected in
the Final Engineer's Report and upon which 'the assessments were based; and
-
WHEREAS, subsequent to the confirmation of the assessment and <lfter the
improvements were ordered, but during the pendency of these proceedings, it has also.been
determined that certain parcels within Eastlake Greens Phase II commonly referred to as R 10
and R20 are proposed to be developed with less equivalent dwelling units than were projecti!d
at the time the Assessment District was iormed ônd, consequently, such parcels were
:assessed for more .street improvements than ·now directly 'and specially :benefit such parcels;
and
WHEREAS, the DIF credits to which such parcels are emit led as a result Df the
confirmed assessments levied against such parcels i!xceeds 1:he TIumber of dwelling units
actuallydevelDped cOn such parcels; and
WHEREAS, that properties commonly referr£!d 10 <IS R2£ and Ttae Trails can :utilize the
-excess DIF !:r£!dits 'originally allocated 10 the ôbove referenced parcels; and
WHEREAS. it 'therefore -appears to 'be in the 'bestpublic imerest to order certain
changes and modifications tothe proceedings, the Engineer's "Report", ônd certain individual
assessments; and
WHEREAS, Eastlaiœ Developmem Company C-fastlake-¡ ,the owner of certain ofthose
'Properties ior which the ôssessments are proposed 1:0 be increased, -has both requested and
consentBd 1:0 the proposed changes and modifications including the increase in 'the
·ôssessments on 'their properties; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the remainder of'those properties iorwhichthe "Bssessments
are proposed 10 be increased (the·N onconsenting Owners'''), have withheld their consent 1:0
(5
.-_.--, --~--~---_._-_.----_.'--'-"
..-- --
Resolution 18379
Page 2
the proposed changes and modifications including the in::rease in the assessments Dn their
properties; and
WH::REAS. 'in nrder 'to permit the City Council 'to .consider :and .:approve 'the _proposed
changes and modific¡nions without the necessity for õ notic~dpubiic -hearin,g. Eastlõke nas,
requested that1:he City õgree 10 further amend the AcquisitionlFinancin,g A,greement tiated
May 1.9.1.994 by and œtween'the City.and EastLake as such :agreement'has :been-previously
amended to date (the" AcquisitionlFinancing Agreement")'to provide (a)'that'the City withhold
the last payment due 'to Eastlake thereunder for the acquisition of public improvements
financed 'through 'the Assessment District No. .94-1 (the ~.withheld f'ayment~). (bl 'that
Eastlake deposit certain funds with the City in the form of cash Dr a letter of credit in -an
.amount which when combined with the Withheld PByment will be $ufficient 'to .pay :the debt
service due on March 2. 1.997 and September 2. 1.997 .and 'to call improvement bonds on
March 2~ 1.997 on.:a .principBI amount ~qual to the proposed increase.in :the..:assessments on
those -pro¡>9rties Dwned by the 'Nonconsenting Owners and (c) that such iunds:be:to .utilized
'to call such improvement bonds on March 2, 1997 if the City 'has not received the :consent
of 'the Nonconsenting Owners 'to the proposed changes and modifications including 'the
increase in 'the assessments on their properties by.January 1:5.1.997; .and
WH::REAS.'there has bee,n presented for consideration by this City Council a fourth
Amendment 'to 'the AcquisitionlFiriàncing Agreement (the "Fourth Amendment") which would
amend 'the Acquisitionmnancing Agreement as .provided in the .previous recital.
NOW, THEREFOR::. BE IT RESOLVED AS F[JLLDWS:
-.
SECïIDN 1. That 'the above recitals are all true and correct.
S::CTION 2. That.it is hereby ordered that 'the changes be made as set forth :in 'the
attached Exhibit "A" . and the assessment Toll shall be modified and
amended to reflect the modifications as set forth in said Exhibit "A~ .:and
'the Engineer's "Report", assessment roll and diagram shall be modified
where .appropriate; provided, ·however., 1he increase in 1heælssessments
on 'the .properties owned by the Nonconsentin,g Dwners shall become
£ffective cOnly.if the City shall. :on.or befor~ .January 1:ï. -:tBB£. ;have
.received 'the written consent of such 'NDnconsenting Qwners 10 such
.increase.
SECTiON 3. That said changes and modifications :ar£ner~by or.dered .pursuant 'to1he
.provisions of Section 10352 of 'the Streets Bnd .HighwBYS .code. Such
changes and modifications will result in an increase in .certain individual
assessments, however. this City Council finds that the Dwners of such
properties have requested -and consented :to such changes :and
modifications including 'the .increase .in ;the assessmBnts :on 'their
properties Dr the -increase .in the :assessments ,on such :properties is
conditional upon 'the receipt of such CDnsent CIS ;provided :in'the F.ourth
Amendment.
SECTION 4. That said _changes and modifications, as:so -ordered. .:arB :in 'the :best
interests of 'the .property owners within 'the boundaries of 'the
/G
- -- -~----.---_.-. - --_._-_._--_."._~._.. -----------~-_._--_.~.._._---
Resolution 18379
Page 3
Assessment District and the assessment roll and Engineer's "Report",
as modified pursuant to Section 1. hereinabove, shall thereafter stand
.as 1:he ·'Repor.t" for all subsequent .proceedin,gs :relating to this
Assessment District.
SECTION:5. That no public hearing is required for these !:hanges Bnd modifications
inasmuch as said modifications meet the intent and requirements of said
Section 10352 Df the Streets and Highways Code. cmdït cis iurther
hereby determined that said changes and modifications are 'in the best
public interest and conveniencB for the AssBssment District and the
property owners affected thereby.
SECTION 6. That said changBS and modifications .as set forth in the preliiDusly
TeferencBd Exhibit ~ A~ will cause a reduction in certain -assessments.
Inasmuch as said changes shall modify or eliminate certa in
improvements and thereby reducethe estimated benefits 'to be Teceived
from the modified or eliminated improvements for certain properties
withiiì',the Assessment DistriCl. it is hereby orDered that the savings
realized from the reduction in or elimination of 'the cost of such
improvements shall be applied as a credit on the individual.assessments
pursuant to Streets and .Highways Code Section 10427_1_
SECTION 7. 'Monies, as appropriate, shall be transferred from the Improvement Fund
to the Redemption Fund to call bonds as necessary :to .effectuate the
appropriate credits against assessments as set iDrth in Section £
'hereinabove.
SECTION 8. That the form of the Fourth Amendment is 'hereby approved
substantially in the form submined. The 'Mayor is hereby authorized to
-execute the final form of such amendment on behalf.of the City. The
City:Manger. subjeCltothe reviewofthe.Acting CityAttomey and Bond
·Counsel.. is authorized to approve changes in such amendment 'deemed
to be in the besÜnterestsDf the .city, 5uch·.t:hanges:tD ~'¡¡\lidenced by
1heexecution Df such amendment. .1'. .t:opy Df the final :TDrm ;Df such
.amendment shall be .kept-:-on file in the Office -ìJfthe City ,Clerk :to :be
ilcnown as Document iIIo. -C09£-130 and 'to'remain available for public
inspection.
?resentsd by Approved as to form by
..J n ?_ 1.ippin (~~~~~
Ann Y. Mo re
Irector uf -Public W Drks Acting City Attorney
(7
'-'-- - --,.,-----~..._._------_._.__._--
Page 4
Exhibit . A ~
Assessment District ND. 94-1
ACQuisitiDn Cost
TOT At ASSESSMENTS .
Current Modified
.co··· . .. .. ...
:CONSTRUCTION COST
Streets. Grading, Lands::aoing, and Dry Utilities :$1,804,343.00 $1,504,396.65
Water $382,345.00 .$431,547.00
Sewer $177.750.00 $61.423.00
Storm Drain I :$1,21-4,505.00 .$329,Fl-4.00
Reclaimed Water 5158,950.00 5100,282.00
DfF Streets I .$1 ;£39,338.00 $1.346,253.55
Subtotal construction cost I .$5,377,331.00 $3,773,44B.20
Cominpen:y !1 0%) I 5537.733.10 $210,998.11
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST I 55,.915,064.10 $3,984,447.31
INCIDENT At EXPENS""=S
1. Civil Engineering I $27.5,2662.00 5225.432.03
2. Soils Engineering :$81,824..91 $71,664.48
3. Surveying :$96,-£56.36 $65,217.11
4. Dry Utilities Engineering '$1.5,501.00 $10,085.75
5. Landscaping Ar:hltecl I 536.606.00 $4,848.89
'6. i'.ublic Agency 1Pr0j Mgmt & Assnn Eng) I .$7B,OOO.00 $135.753.30
7_ PJan Check & City 'fees $86,'521.tJO $12-4,576.59
: ,s. 'Ûty Bonds $32,:967~0 $18.422.87 .
;
:9. Bond Priming. Servicing '& Tlegistra1ion $1tJ,tJ00.tJO $"1tJ,OOO.OO
10. .Priming '& Advenising $1 ;OOO_tJO $1,OOO.tJO
11. Bond Counsel .$39.586.00 $39,734.60
12. Assessment Consulting $10,000.00 .$1,118.38
13. 'Financial Consultant I $42,000.00 $54;005.00
14. DIF Project City Administration $36,tJ55.00 $3,191.87
Ui. DlF Suppon ':595,020.00 $95,020.00
T DIal Incidentals $937,10.9.2:7 $860,470.B7
/3
..-.......................... .........1..,
Page 5
-
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS
.cunent , ·-Modified
~us 'Misœllaneous ACQuisitions $'57 ;7DO.DO : $'7l!.'52 _
Less DeveID ler 'Contribution ($1'.4.31:1.00 ($11.4;5:1-:1.;00
. l.~ Prepaid 1usessmerns ($224;727.'50 . ($224,727.50
Subtotal ACQuisition Expenses (Const + Incidenæl) $6.670;634.'87 , $4.505,'859.20 .
CDST OF ISSUA1\/CE
Reserve F>II1d $644;550;00 $'644 .'550.'00 .
Bond Discount $149.289..49 $1-49.289.-49
Subto;a¡ Cost of Issuance $793,639.49 $793;839..49
Balance 10 AsslISSmant $7,464,.47.4.36 :$5.299;69B.69
,-.
-
. -
Ie¡
,
~..+--~~ .-~-----"----- _"_on
ResDlutiDn 18379
Page 6
MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL
FUND NO. 6014-41
APN ttem"No ....mmufDrigiMllv Confirmed A.smnt.as: Modihed
:3A' ..
11120/23 (Co) . -643-U:W-39 a210,E31.D4 -S13<1,36B.31
fl26/Church -643-020-44 '5115 ' ~212.3S3.1B ' SO:OO ;
,
ir.iI. -643·D3D-t)4 5116 S'764;911J.24 . "1.188:628.40' '
R31SI/R1 643·D3D- 11 '51 DB '$452.401.21 -S315;942.4D .
ireile D43·U30·14 "511 6 ' 'S765.~2.!I7 '"58.291'"'2
ELG-S, U27. U25. U4. U12 & U I D43-D3D- 15 I 51D9 .3.Da9.D99.12 $ 1 .773.894 ;59
1110 ICo) '643-07D-t)4 :38 $960.52-4."72 $516.1101.15
1\23·1-4 "f;43-1DD-Dl . 5007· ;$39.21'.77 ;S35.21:3:oJ1 ,
1125-6 -643-1 DD-D2 I 500B, $1 6.11Cí7.52 $15;1191 ;32
'R2S-4 643· 1DD-D3 S009 $ 11.2D5.DB $1D;D60.1lB
1U5-1-4 ~3-10D-D4 '5010 $39;217 :7B $35.21:3.0S
R25-5 5':3·100'-0'5 50'11 $14.00'535 "12.'576.10'
R25-4 I 643-10'0'·05 I 5012 $11,2c)5.0B '510.D50.BB
R25·5 I 643·100-07 I 5013 51-4,00535 $12.576.10
I 5':3· 1 OD-OB ,
1\25-10 50'1-4 $28.012.70 $25.152.20
R25-6 I 643-10D-09 5015 $16.807.62 $15.091.32
1U5- 1D ,643·100·10 5016 'S28.D12:70 $25.1 S2.20
1\3(N! 643·11 D-01 91 $3.836.'50 $3.-485.'51
643-11D-C2 92 $3.836.50 I '$3.-485.'51
5':3·1 1 D-03 93 $3.B35.50 $3.4B5.51
£43-11D-D4 94 $3.B36:50 $3.48531
643·110-05 115 $3.D65C $3,.48531
$43·110-tIfi 115' S3,1!36SO . S:3,.485.'51 :
643·'10-Cí7 57 . 43.B36SO , S:3¡1185S1 ,
643-110-DB 58 S:3,1!36SO . U,.485.5'1 .
$3.B36S0 $:3.-485.51 ,
$43·, 1 D-D9 99
643·11D-'C 10C $3.B35.50 $3.-485.51
£43·'10-11 101 $3.B36SC $:3,-485.51 .
643·110-12 102 :S3.835:5C $3,485.'51
$43·11D-13 103 $3.83650 &3,.485:51
-643·11D-'4 104 S3~83650 $3.-485.51
:2C1 -
-. ---". ..__.~_.- - - - - ---------~_.__.__._._-_._._-_. -------..-
Resolution 1837£
Page 7
.
APN hem No Aasmnu:/Originlllly 1:.onfirmed A.amnt -as Modified
tI43·11 0-15 105 $3.836.50 $3,48531
. $3,485,'S'1 ,
643·110-16 106 $3.836,50
.
643·110·17 107 '$3.83650 ' $3.48551 '
'643·'10-18 108 $3.836.50 $3,485:S1
~3·110-19 109 :$3.113650 - $3,48531 ,
643·110·20 110 $3.83650 $3.48551 .
643·110-21 111 $3.83650 $3.485.51
I 543·110-22 112 $3.83650 $3,048S.51 !
~3·110·23 113 $3.836.50 $3,048S:51 ;
£43·1'0,24 114 $3;E3650 $3.-485.51 '
I £43·11 0·25 1'5 '$3.83650 $3,-485,'S'1 :
643·110-26 I '116 $3.E36.50 :$3.'48551
643·1'0-27 I . 1'17 $3.836.50 '$3,485.51
643·110-28 I 118 $3.836.50 $3,485:S1
'643·110·29 119 $3.836.50 $3.485.51
643·'10·30 120 $3,836.50 '$3,-48531 .
.
643·110-31 121 $3,836;50 $3 ,485.'51
'643-110·32 I 122 $3.836.50 $3,485,'S'1 :
'643·'10·33 I 123 $3.'83650 $3,485.51 .
I 643·110,34 I 124 '$3.836.50 '$3,485:51 .
, 643·110·35 I
'25 '$3.836.50 '$3,485;51 '
'54:3·110·36 126 $3;E36.50 . $3.-4115,'S'1 ;
.
643·110-:37 127 ' $3.836.50 . $3,-41!5S1
$43-'10-38 128 . ~ $3.a36.50 ~ - - - a.G5S1
". $3.Em.50 " , -'$3..48531'
; 643·110-39 129
, '$3.836.50 a.G5S1 ,
:&43·'1 D-4O 130
'643-11D-41 131 $3.a36.5O ' $3..85:S1
843·110-42 132 $3.83850 :$3,485:51 .
'643-'10-43 133 . $3.a36S0 . $3,-41!5S1
643·110-44 134 :S3;E36SO . a,-4115S1
643- 11D-45 '35 ' $3.a3S.50 ' a.-41!5.'S1' ;
~3·1'0-46 ' 136, a.836:S0. ' a.-4115S1'
.
643·110-47 . 137 ' '$3.a36.50 , $3.-411551
, $3,485:S1 '
'643·11D-48 138 $3.836.'50 -
~I
IU;;;.;JUIULIUII I~....J/~
Page 8
-
"PN Item No Assmnts/Oriøinallv C.onflfTned Aasmnt.. Modified
~3-1'0-49 '39 ·13.836.50 $3.485.51
-6<13·1'0-50 140 $3.'83S_50 $3.485.51
'$43'1' D-S1 141 $3,'836.'50 $3,485.51
1120 ICitv! "643-13D-01 .:$3;713.99 ~3,:163.op .
-6<13-13D-02 ~3.713.99 $3,:1S3.00
"643-13D-03 $3;713.99 $3.363.00
-6<13-13D-D'! $3;713;99 $3,:163.00
~3-13D-05 I .$3;713.99 'S3,:1S3.DO
-6<13·13o.OS I 0$3;713;99 $3,:163.00
-6<13-130.0' $3.713;99 $3,:163.00
-643-130.08 '$3;713.99 $3,:163'00
I -643-130.09 $3.713.99 ;13.363.00
'6'13·130.10 ;13.71:3.99 $3.363.00
, -6<13- 130. 1 1 $3.713.99 ~3.363.00
'643·130·12 ~3.713.99 $3.363.00
I 643-'3D-13 .$3.713.99 $3.363.00
~3-13o.'4 $3.713.99 $3.363.1>0
-6<13·13D-15 $3,71.3.99 $3.363.00
-6<13·13D-16 I $3;713.99 $3.363'00
-643-130.1' $3,713.99 $3,:163.00
'643·130.18 I .$3.713.99 :$3.363.00
~3-13o.19 I $3.713.99 $3.363.00
543-130.20 $3.713.99 $3,363.00
, '6'13·130.21 43;713'" $3,:163.'DO '
0643·130.22 . ... ~;?;J3.519 . U.363.:11O
ì -$43-'30.23 . G;7ô13.:!19 , $3,363.%10 .
,
. S43-13D-24 . $3;713;99 ¡ . U,:I63.OO
$43·13D-25 . U,713.99 $3.363.1>0
543-130·26 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
$43-130-27 $3.713;99 $3,:163.'DO
, 543·13D-2!! . 43.713S9 $3,:163.00
6'13·130-29 . "3;713.99 . $3,:163.1>0 '
"543-13D-30 $3;713.99 $3.363.00
'6'13·130·31 -$3;713_99 $3,363.1>0 .
~;2.
__n "-------.-... - ----..-----------
Resolution 18379
Page 9
.
-
APN ttern No _IOrigiNlUv!:onfmned -A..mnt:as Modified ;
.
$43-130·32 _ $3.713.99 $3,353;00 .
-643-130-33 $3.713.99 13.'363.00 .
$43-130-:34 $3.713.99 13.'363.00
:843-130-35 .1 :$3.713.99 $3.'353.00
643-130-35 :$3.713.99 $3.353.00
I 643-130-37 $3.713.99 $3.353.00
543- 130·3B $3.713.99 $3,363.00
543-130·39 :$3,713.99 :$3,363:00 .
643-130-40 I :$3.713.99 '$3.'363.00
I I '643-130-41 .$3.713.99 ::$3,363.t10
.643·130-42 .$3.713.99 $3,353.00
I 643· 1 30-43 I $3.713.99 13.353.00
I 543-130-44 $3.713.99 '$3.353.00
-643-130-45 "$3.ì12.!'9 '.$3.353.00
I 643·130-46 $3.713.99 .$3.363.00
-643-130-47 I $3.713.99 ::$3.'363.00 :
643-130-4B .$3.713.99 '$3,363.00
543-130-49 '$3.713.99 '$3.'363.00
I 643-130·50 I $3;713.99 '$3.363.00 '
I '643-130-51 I '$3.713.99 ·$3,363.t10 .
543-130·52 ::$3.713.99 ::$3.'363.t10
, 543-130-~ $3.713.99 .$3,363:00
,
$43·13D-54 , $3.713.99 , .3.363.t1O
: .; $43-130-55 $3.713.99 $3,363.00
: $43-130-55 $3.713~ . $3,363.00
$43·130·57 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
,
$43- 130-SB :$3.713.99 $3,363.00
$43-130-59 $3.713.99 $3.363:00
-643·130-150 $3.713.99 .3,363.00
:643·130-111 $3;713.99 $3;363.t1O
. '543·130-62 $3.713.99 ' $3;363.00
543-130-53 $3.713.99 $3,363.00 ,
.
-643-130-64 $3.713.99 $3.'363.00
~3-130-e5 $3;713.99 .:I :$3.363.t1O
o?3
Page 10
APN hem No Assmms/Origina11v Confirmed AUmn1 as: -Modified
I 64:3-, 30-55 $3.713.99 $3.353.0D
543· ,30-57 $3.713.99 $3.353.0D
,&43- .30-5B $3.713.99 $3,353.00
,
-643·'3'-t)1 $3;713.319 *3,353.00 .
'643·,3,-02 $3.713.99 *3,363;00
643·,31-03 $3;7'3.B9 $3,353.00
-643·,3,-04 $3;7,3.99 $3.'353.00
643·,3,·05 $3.713.99 ·S3,353.OO
643-131-06 $3.713.99 $3.353.00
-643·1:3,·07 $3.713.99 $3.353.00
.
-643-'3,·OB $3.7,3.99 $3.353.00
I -6<13·,3,·09 I $3.713.99 $3.'353.00
543·13,-,0 I $3.7,3.99 $3.'353.00
64:3-,3,·11 $3.7,3.99 .$3.353.00
643·13,-,2 $3.7,3.99 .$3.353.00
£':3-131-13 I $3.7,3.99 $3.353.00
643·,3,·1-4 I $3;713.99 $3.353.00
-643·,3,·,5 I '$3.7,3.99 $3.363.00
'643·,3,·,5 $3;7,3.99 $3.353:00
643·,31-,7 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
643·,3,·18 '$3.7,3.99 '$3;353.'00
'643'13,·19 $3.7,3.99 '$3;353.00
643-,3,·20 $3.713.99 I $3.'353.00
543·,31-:2, $3;713.:99 '$3.353.00
.. -6<13-,3,-22 *3;7,3.99 $3.353:00 .
.
, -643-,31·23 .3.713.99 ' $3.363;00 ,
, .
, -643,,3,-2-4 $3.7,3-'9 ¡ $3.'353.00 .
-643·,3,-25 Ð.7'3.:99 Ð.'363;OO
-643·,3,-25 $3.713.99 $3.'353.00
£43·,3,·27 $3.7,3.99 '$3.'353;00
'643-'3'-2B $11.,4,.97 $'0.tI89.110
'R'S '643·,.4\0-0, Ð.713.:99 $3.'363:00
643·,-40-02 $3.7,3.:99 $3.'353.'00
.
'643· ,-40-03 $3,7,3.99 $3.353:00
::<1/ .
-_.-,--- ,.--- -.-_-.,-
Resolution 18379
Page 11
I APN ttemNc A...mntsOrigin8I1V Ccnfitmed A..mnt .. Modified
643-140·04 . $3.713.99 $3,363.00
'643'140-05 $3;713.99 .$3,363.00
I $43-140-06 '$3.713.99 '$3.363.00
.
~3'140-07 $3,713.99 $3,363.00
-$43- 140-0S $3.713.99 $3,363.00
I ß43-140·09 '$3.713.99 $3,363.00
I .
'643- 140- 1 0 $3,713.99 $3,363.00
I .
"643-140·11 $3.713.99 $3,363.00
I "643- 1-40-12 :$3.7'13.99 '$3,363.00
I 643·1-40- U $3.713.99 $3,363;00
I 643·140-1-4 $3.713.99 $3,363;00
I -643-1-40·15 '$3.713.99 $3.363.00
I 643·140·16 $3.713.99 '$3.363.00
I 543·140·17 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
I
i 643- 1-40· _1 S $3.713.99 $3.363_00
I -643-1-40· 19 $3.713.99 $3.363.1)0
Ii I -643-140·20 $3,713.99 $3.363.00
I 543-140-21 $3.713.99 -$3.363.00 -
I "643-1-40·22 '$3.713.99 $3.363.00
I 643-1-40·23 $3.713.99 $3,363_00 .
543-140·24 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
'643-1-40-25 $3.713.99 '$3,363.00 .
.. "643-1-40-26 $3;713.99 ; $3,363.00 ,
$43-140-27 $3.7U-'9 i $3,363.00 .
- .
, $43-140-2B $3.713.99 '$3,363.00 '
I '643-140-29 '$3.713.99 $3,363.00
I "643-140-30 $3.713-'9 '$3,363.00
I
I '843·1-40-31 $3,713.99 '$3,363.00
I :
ß43- 140·32 '$3;713.99 $3,363.00
I '643-140-33 n,713.99 $3,363.00
"643-140-34 $3,713.99 '$3,363.00
-643-141-D1 $3.713.99 - $3,363.00 ,
"643-1-41-02 '$3.713.99 '$3,363.00
643-1-41-03 '$3.713.99 '$3.363.00
C:<S
----_.~_.~_.__.._._-- .._- ."._.._..~---
Resolution 18379
Page 12
I APN tt.m No A._m1ntc/Originallv Confirmed Asamnt a. Modified
643-''''-04 $3.713.99 $3.363.00
'643-1-41·05 $3;713.99 $3.363.00
643-1-41-06 $3;713.119 S3,363.o0
'643·1"'-07 :13.713.119 $3.363 .00
'643- 1-41-oS S3,713.99 $3.363.00
I '643-141-09 $3;713.119 $3,363.00
643-141-10 $3;713.99 S3.363.00
643·141-' 1 &3.713.99 S3.363.00
643-141-12 $3.713.99 "3,363.00 .
-643-''''-'3 $3;713.119 $3.363.00
'643-141-'4 I $3.713.99 "13.363.00
'643·1-41-15 $3.713.99 ''$3,363.00
643-1"1-16 .$3.713.99 '$3.363.00
I 643-14'" 7 I I $3.71:1.99 $3.363.00
I '643-141-1S $3.713.99 '$3.363.00
-643.141-191 .$3.713.119 $3.363.00
643-141-20 I $3.713.99 $3,363.00
643·141·21 .$3.713.99 $3,363.00
'643-141·22 $3;713.119 0&3,'363.00
543·'41·23 $3.713.99 $3,363_00
,
643·141·24 '$3.713.99 $3.363.00
643-141·25 '$3.713.99 $3.'363.00
643-141-26 $3.713.119 $3.'363;00
'643·141·27 $3 .713.99 $3,363;00
-
~141-2S $3.713.:99 ' $3,363;00
,
, '643·1<11-29 $3.713.119 $3,363.00
-643-1-41-30 $3,713.119 S3.363.OO ;
I Golf 'COUfR
"CT AL $7,..64.47<1.64 &5,299.964.-4S
~
-,-,.,~.,._---_....-._-,._--_.-
Resolution 18379
Page 13
-
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADO?ïED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
California, this 6th day of August, 1936. by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moct, Rindone, Horton
NAYES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
A/;~Aif /~
Shirle Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
- ~1()~
Beverly Pi..Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk ot the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
'the ioregoingResolutionNo. 18379 was Duly .passed, approved. and adopted by the City
Council at a T~gular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council .held on 'the 6th day :of August,
1996.
Executed 'this 6th Day of August, 1996.
'-ie~t 12/£!d-
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
;¿7
.....--.--- ---_._~...-
THIS PAGE BLANlC
c2f
-~--.--._-_.._._- -_.__.._------_._.._-----_...._.~._-----_._--_..-
r; I :oJ '" '"
'C 0 ~
° ~ <ri '"
« '" '" Oi.
f- UJ '6 '"
0 <Õ
¡¡; £L ::;; '"
I f-
X Z
UJ
UJ ::;; N N
1J)7ij ""
'" '"
CI) .5 '" '"
UJ '" ..,.-
en';:: ",- '"
IJ)O
«
:oJ "" '"
0'C 0 ~
UJ! <ri '"
'" 0;_
a::::o ""
UJ 0 ",,- '"
£L::;;
f-
Z
UJ N '"
::;;- "" '"
IJ) :!! '" N
IJ) -- '" '"
~.;:: '" "'-
IJ)O c¡j '"
«
'" '" '"
f-'C '" '" ..,.
(OJ 0; (OJ
Z~ 0 N '"
UJ -- '" 0 '"
::;;'8 c:i ",- ",'
IJ)::;; ..,. '" '"
IJ) 0 '" '"
UJ N- N-
fIJ
IJ) ..,. ..,. ""
« ~ '" ..,.
-,7ij <ri <ri (OJ
« .6 '" '" '"
f- '" "'- '"
o ï::: ",,- '" <Ô
f-O '" ;;; '" '"
"'- '" !1!
N- N
;¡¡
IJ) ¡;; 0 ¡ij
!:::'C '"
Z ~ N
=>~
CJ'8
Z::;:
:::¡
-'
UJ ..,. '" '"
$:- '" 0 '"
o .~ - ~ N
-'
« -~
f-O
0
f-
'C 0 0 0
¡;; 0 0;
~ '"
'" N N
~ CfJ"õ
... . 0
IJ)'" 6::;:
z"': UJ
UJ' -'
UJ~ « 0 N "!
« "'- f-- " '" ;:::
CJ'" o :!! "" ""
rO f- -- - N
f-'" ð
:oJ(/j
00
IJ)z
'....
",00
I-«¡:r: ~ 0; ¡:¡ 0
IJ)UJf- ~z
5g:~ w- e N
~ ~ '" '"
:SIJ)O w u 0
w ~ M M
:oJf-f- «rf
rZZ ..,. ..,.
UJUJ '" '"
0::;:::;:
u.1J)1J)
OfIJlJ)
>-UJUJ !::: ° '" 7ij
f-IJ)IJ)
_IJ)IJ) Z r!: r!: õ
0«« :oJ f-
2'1
-----~. ..0___.__----.
TillS PAGE BLA."NK
30
~I ::0" '" ...
... '"
("-' D CD N cD
o:::!-E ... '"
I- W" "'. '"
¡¡¡ 0.. 0 ~ ..,¡
::;;
I I-
2
X W
UJ ::;; ... ~
"' 7ij '"
"' .E <ri <ri
'" ....
W ... '"
"' ð Ñ Ñ
"'
«
::0 '" ...
0" ... '"
UJ! N cD
... '"
0:: 'C "'. '"
W 0 ..,¡
0.. ::;; ~
I-
2
W .... N
::;; 7ij '" '"
"' .E <ri <ri
"' '" ...
W·- ... '"
"' - Ñ ri
",0
«
N N ...
." '" 0 '"
I- .n 0 .n
2 CD
'" -¡: 0 -¡:
W 'C 0
::;; 0 oj Ñ 0"
"' ::;; ... '" ...
"' ... N ....
W
"'
"' N N ...
« '" 0 '"
-' 7ij .n g .n
;:: .E -¡: 0 -¡:
0 ð ",. Ñ 0"
I- ... '" ... '"
... N .... ~
N
'"'
"' ;;; 0 ¡;;
!:::." '"
2 CD N N
::J!-E
(9]
2::;;
:::¡
-'
W ... '" '"
;':- '" 0 '"
° ê - ~ N
-' .-
ct: OJ::
1-0
0
I-
~ 0 0
" ;;; 0 ¡;;
CD '"
'" N N
w:S
. 0
"' 5::;;
z W
W -'
W « 0 N N
0:: 1-- ..¡ '" -¡:
(9", o ê co '"
I' I- .- ~ N
1-8 ð
::0 .
00
"'2
'I-
«00
-c{ä: - .; N ;:;
",WI- ~z 0
5~~ ¿, N
mID .... '"
:5",0 ø U ~ 'i'
ø - '" '"
::01-1- «if.
zz ... ...
Iww '" '"
0::;;::;;
,,-",OJ
0"'"'
}oWUJ !::: 0 '" ]j
1-"'"' Z
_"'OJ Co Co 0
0«« ::0 ¡....
?/
.~
..
THIS PAGE BLANK
32--
~"'...'-_.'._." --- ~---- ---- --- ---- -----
=> ... ....
I 0 '" '" a
- m or; <D
0:: '" "'
>- w 'C "' <0
0 Ñ ri
õ5 0.. ::¡;
J: >-
2
X W
W ::¡; .... <0
(/) 1V "' '"
('oj -.i
(/) .¡; <0 N
W <0 0>
(/) ." Ñ Ñ
'" 0
..:
=> ... ....
0", '" 0
w~ or; cD
"'
D:::'6 "' <0
W 0 N- ri
o..::¡;
>-
2
w .... ....
::¡;- "' a
(/) ro ('oj cD
(J) .5 <0 "'
~ ';:: <0 <0
",0 N- ri
..:
'" a '"
... N <0
>-'" <ri -.i ('oj
z.! "' <0 N
W·- '" '" ....
::¡;"'8 0>- 0>' ai
(/)::¡; '" ¡;¡ a
(/) "' '"
w
(/)
(/) '" a '"
..: '" '" '"
....1V ,.,; 0; ('oj
<C .S OJ 0 N
>- '" ....
o 'C cñ ai ",-
>-0 '" ;;; a '"
... '" (!!
¡;¡
'"
'" ;;; a OJ
t=", '"
Z m N N
~~
C!J"'8
z::¡;
::¡
....
w ... 0> '"
~- '" a 0>
o ê ~ - N
.... .-
« .¡::
bO
>-
a a a
'" ;;; 0 OJ
m '"
'" N N
(/) 'C
::. 0
'" 0 ::¡;
z w
w ....
w ..: 0 N N
0:: >- 1V -.i '" r::
C!J 0 .5 '" '"
I';' >- ~ N
>-- 8
=>0>
00
(/)2
'>-
..:00
-<Cir ~ 0 N 0
"'w>- gz a
-0::", ¿, N
>0.._ ßã5 .... '"
:5(/)0 m 0 a
m ~ M M
::J~~ ..:~ ... ...
Iww '" <0
o::¡;::¡; a
U,"'(/) '"
0"''''
>-ww t= l'i '" l'i
>-"'(/) 2 ~
-"'''' 0 '" 0
0":": => >- >-
3.3
-.--. .~--,----~-~_._--_._-_.__.- "'-'--"-'"
·
TillS PAGE BLA1\TK
....:;.,~
;;17-·
~"--I "'" "' M
N "
o ~ :; -i
crS= 0'>
f- W" '" '"
¡¡; IL 0 ".
f-::¡¡
I Z
X W
W ::¡¡ "'- "'-
"' M
"'M cD ""
en .~ '" 0'>
W " "'.
(/) ï:: ""
",0 ~
«
'" "' M
0" N "
W~ :; ""
0'>
0::15 '" '"
W 0 ""
IL::¡¡
f-
Z
W "'- '"
::¡¡- '" '"
'" ro cD ,..:
en .£ '" '"
~ "1:: " '"
",0 "" N·
<
'" "'- '"
"' "' ~
f-" cri <Ii <Ii
Z~ N '" '"
W .- <X> '" "
::¡¡'8 Ñ ",. cD
",::¡¡ 8. N N
'" o.
W ~ ~
'"
'" " N '"
< 0
-'M cri cD <Ii
« .J; 8 <X> 0'>
f- " "
0·;:: 6 ",. ",.
f-O N 0 N <X>
<X> N o. e
N
'"'
'" ¡;; 0 ¡;;
t: " '"
z ~ N N
'" ~
ø'8
z::¡¡
::;
-'
W " '" M
s: <X> 0 '"
M ~ N
0 c
-' --
¡':'= 8
0
f-
0 0 0
" ¡;; 0 ¡;;
~ '"
'" N N
cn'O
:, 0
'" 0 ::¡¡
z W
w -'
w < 0 N N
'" f-- "" ,..: ;:::
ø 011 <X> <X>
I";" f- .- N
f-~ 0
",'"
00
"'z
'f-
<00
~c:(a:: ~ ó N 0
"'Wf- gz 0
-"'", 0- ¿, N
>IL_ ~ ~ "'- '"
:5"'0 o 0 0
o ~ '" '"
",f-f- <tf.
zz ~ ~
Iww '" '"
o::¡¡::¡¡
LL"''''
0"''''
>-WW t: 0 '" ~
f-UJUJ Z ~
_UJUJ '" '"
0« '" f-
35
.~._-_...- ......-..------......--.. ... ._._._.._".·~___m.._._
THIS PAGE BLANK
3~
Rešblution No.
EXHIBIT "A"
MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL SUMMARY
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 90-3. 91-1, 94-1
Assessments Assessments
Unit APN Original~ Confirmed As Modified
R-10 643-170-02 $1,758,638.14 $2,040,903.69
R-16 643-032-01 $817,295.34 $535,029.79
Total $2,575,933.48 $2,575,933.48
"-
.
.
Page 4
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J ;<
Meeting Date 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / ~'1 ??'"?- Approving the City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual and adopting it for use in preparation of maps and construction plans
in the City
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ,
REVIEWED BY, City M'~ ""ð /" ~ (415,", Vo"', Y~_NoXJ
The city has a subdivision manual that was prepared in the 1970's. It is used by engineers of private
developers and by city staff as a guide for the preparation and checking of maps and construction
plans. There have been many changes in state law and procedures (such as filing maps and plans in
a digital format) since the current manual was adopted. The proposed manual has been updated to
reflect those changes and revised where necessary to enhance understanding and use of the desired
criteria. This manual also reflects the reviews of draft copies by approximately 70 private developers,
their engineers and Public Works and Planning Department staff.
Adoption of this manual, together with previously adopted standard drawings and standard
specifications will provide uniform and consistent design of maps and construction plans in the city.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the subject resolution adopting the City ofChula
Vista Subdivision Manual for guidance in the preparation of maps and construction plans in the city.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No consideration is necessary by any of the
City's boards or commissions.
DISCUSSION:
As a charter city, Chula Vista has requirements and conditions for mapping that are unique to this city.
Also, various procedures and quidelines affecting design and construction of streets, grading and
underground utilities have evolved that are unique to this city. In order to consolidate these and allow
a more efficient design and checking process, the Public Works Department prepared a "Subdivision
Manual". The latest manual was prepared in the 1980's and is out of date. Numerous single and
multiple page supplements have been prepared to reflect some of the changes but they are
cumbersome to use and sometimes conflict with the published manual. Because of the extent of these
changes and because ofthe current surge in land development by new as well as continuing developers
in the city, early adoption ofthe updated manual is critical.
Section 1 of the manual provides definitions to terms used in the manual and briefly describes the
documents that control land development processing. An important addition is the criteria for ~
submittal of maps and plans. Mylars and prints will still be submitted for checking and filing and
construction, but digital copies (diskettes or data tapes) will also be required for archival purposes.
Maps and other physical data will be tied to the 1983 California Coordinate System and can be inserted
where applicable into the City GIS (Geographic Information System).
Most engineers presently prepare maps and plans using computers for design and/or mapping. To be
useful in retrieving and merging files, it is necessary to have a consistent system for describing the
layers and the type of information on each layer (such as Procedure ofSurvey-POS, Easements-EASE,
/.2-/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date: 5/5/98
etc.). Unfortunately, there is not a national or even a regional standard system for naming these layers
or defining what information will appear on them. Firms that presently use numbers or only a few
layers will need to modify their procedures or use a translation program to convert their data for use
by the City.
Section 2 of the manual provides guidelines for processing tentative and final maps for major
subdivisions and minor subdivisions (Parcel Maps). This section has been amended to included
current Planning Department procedures for preliminary maps as well as criteria for tentative maps.
One addition is to require a detail on the tentative map showing alternative lot plans for typical
locations of a driveway, utilities and at least one tree.
Procedures to locate and tie maps to CCS83 (California Coordinate System, Zone 6, NAD 83)
monuments are included. These ties are presently required in the County and are necessary to insert
new subdivisions within the City's GIS (Geographic Information System) map. The Public Works
Department has been compiling a list and plat of the existing city and county monuments to facilitate
this process.
Section 3 addresses general design criteria including streets, sewers and storm drains. This includes
updates to average sewage flow rates in the city. Sewer laterals greater than 15 feet deep will not be
allowed; if the main sewer is too deep, construction of a shallower, parallel sewer will be required for
the connections. Several clarifications have been added to improve design of intersections, including
cross gutters, curb returns and vertical curves. These are expected to result in fewer construction
conflicts and smoother vehicular and pedestrian travel.
Section 4 provides specific guidelines for processing construction plans for grading and other
improvements. These include detailed procedures for design of street profiles and curb returns. If
construction involves work within an existing street, procedures for preparing a traffic control plan for
lot access and traffic circulation are listed. Street tree easements are to be graded at a slope of 5 to I
(20%) or flatter. Flow charts, sample sheets, check lists and typical notes for improvement and
grading plans are included.
Section 5 contains a schedule for deposits and fees, submittal requirements (number of prints and other
documents) and a list of names and titles of city and county officials involved in map and plan
processing. It is expected that these will need to be updated periodically and, subject to approval of
the City Council, be made available as current appendices to the Subdivision Manual.
All of the developers and engineers doing work for the developers have received a final draft copy of
the subdivision manual in strikeout/underline format to allow them to quickly identify changes from
previous versions. We have received only minor comments and know of no opposition to this item.
All developers and engineers have been notified of tonight's item.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost to the City for preparation and printing of this manual has been
included in the operating budget of the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. A
portion of these costs will be recovered by future sales of the manual to engineers and developers
doing work in the City of Chula Vista.
Attachments: City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual H:\HOME\ENGINEER\REDSUBMN\A113SUBM.JAH
NOT SCANNED /;¿~;Z
RESOLUTION NO. ~~;?¿(~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBDIVISION MANUAL AND ADOPTING IT FOR USE IN
PREPARATION OF MAPS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PLANS IN
THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City has a subdivision manual that was
prepared in the 1980's which is used by engineers of private
developers and by city staff as a guide for the preparation and
checking of maps and constructions plans; and
WHEREAS, there have been many changes in state law and
procedures (such as filing maps and plans in a digital format)
since the current manual was adopted; and
WHEREAS, the proposed manual has been updated to reflect
those changes and revised where necessary to enhance understanding
and use of the desired criteria; and
WHEREAS, the manual also reflects the reviews of draft
copies by approximately 70 private developers, their engineers and
Public Works and Planning Department staff; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this manual, together with
previously adopted standard drawings and standard specifications
will provide uniform and consistent design of maps and construction
plans in the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual and adopting it for use in preparation of maps
and constructions plans in the city.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~~k
John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Public Works
C:\rs\subdivsn.man
/c2~3
____~.,_ _.·_...____u___._~_~____._
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
Item /.3
Meeting Date 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: R I' ¡èrl!5Z . bids and awarding contract for "The
eso utlOn cceptmg
Norman Park Recreation Facility - Partial Demolition and Construction, in
the City ofChula Vista, CA~94)"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
D"""'" of p"",, R<'re~ _ Sp=
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ /7' (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No -X.)
At 2:00 p.m. on March 25, 1998, in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "The Norman Park Recreation Facility - Partial
Demolition and Construction, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PRI94)" .
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve resolution accepting bids and awarding contract
for "Norman Park Recreation Facility - Partial Demolition and Construction, in the City of Chula
Vista, CA (PR-194)" to Knight Construction, San Diego, in the amount of $201,754.56.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funding for this project was budgeted during the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget process. This project was budgeted to renovate the deteriorating shuffleboard court area
to meet ADA (American with Disability Act) requirements, health and safety standards and to
complement the new senior center built in 1991. The renovation includes the reconstruction of
the roof and the installation of windows.
The project was originally advertized for bids in August 1997, but the low bid of $289,000
exceeded the funds available of $255,707. After reviewing the bids and discussing with the
contractors staff made a recommendation to council to reject all bids and re-bid the project with
some changes to the plans and specifications.
On November 18, 1997, Council by Resolution No. 18815, approved the "Resolution rejecting
bids for The Norman Park Recreation Facility - Partial Demolition and Construction in the City
of Chula Vista, CA (PRI94)" .
In the resolution, staff proposed the following changes:
);5--/
I I II
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/5/98
1. Re-designing the metal roof structure, using standard building materials; without
jeopardizing the architectural design. Also, modifying the window design by changing
them to a fixed position, rather than operable.
2. Eliminating the Additive Alternate "A"- air conditioning, and including it in the base bid.
By re-designing the metal roof and simplifying the windows, and revising the specifications to
include the air conditioning in the base contract, we believed that we would get bids that were
within the budgeted amount.
After re-evaluating the project, it was decided to have Alternate .. A" in the bid proposal to see
if, with better bids, there would be sufficient funding to do all the work. If bids had come in too
high, the alternate could still be eliminated. Based on the bids received, it is recommended that
the project be awarded to include Additive Alternate" A".
The project plans and specifications were revised, and the project was re-advertised for bids on
February 21, 1998 for a period of four weeks. Bids were received from seven contractors as
follows:
CONTRACTOR BASE BID ADDITIVE ALTERNATE TOTAL
AMOUNT "A"
Knight Construction, San Diego $196,554.56 $5,200.00 $201,754.56
Dez Construction, EI Cajon $208,500.00 $3,878.00 $212,378.00
Stevens Construction, National City $215,000.00 $6,777.00 $221,777.00
Jacobson Engineering Construction, $228,137.00 $4,100.00 $232,237.00
San Diego
Parry Construction, San Marcos $268,646.00 $2,200.00 $$270,846.00
Fordyce Construction, Santee $271,533.00 $3,500.00 $275,033.00
Lasater Construction, Inc., Carlsbad $296,090.00 $6,625.00 $302,715.00
The low bid by Knight Construction, is below the Architect's estimate of $205,000.00 by $3,245.44
or by 2%. The Architect's estimate was based on bids received for similar projects. It is our opinion
that staff received adequate bids for the project. We have verified the contractor's license and other
qualifications and determined that they are in good order. The low bidder has satisfactorily met all
the requirements. We, therefore, recommend awarding the contract to Knight Construction, San
Diego.
/]---,;z
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 5/5/98
Disclosure Statement
A copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement is attached.
DisadvanÙ\~ed Business Ente(prise Goal
The bids documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulations for meeting the
disadvantaged and women-owned business goals. A Community Development Department Staff (Judith
Foland, Community Development Specialist) has reviewed the bid documents submitted by the three
lowest bidders. Her conclusion is that the lowest bidder, Knight Construction, does meet the City's
requirements for D.B.E. participation (See Attachment B).
Staff also reviewed Knight Construction's eligibility status with regard to Federal Procurement Programs
and the status of the State Contractor's licenses. Neither Knight Construction, nor any other listed
subcontractors are excluded from Federal Procurement programs (list of parties excluded from Federal
Procurement or non-procurement programs as of January, 1998).
The Contractor's license for Knight Construction is current and in good standing. Knight Construction
has never done work for the City, however, a check of their references indicates their work has been
acceptable and that they consistently adhere to award contract price with minimal change orders, if any.
Prevailin~ Wa~e Statement
This project is primarily funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and a
contribution from the Norman Park Center Senior Club. Based on the current project funding guidelines,
Contractors are obligated to meet the prevailing wage requirements which were included as part of the
bid documents for this project. Prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Federal Department of
Labor.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and determined
that the project is exempt under section 15301 (a), Class I of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
FISCAL IMP ACT:
Financial Statement
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $201,754.56
B. Contingencies $ 4,914.44
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $206,669.00
/3---3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 5/5/98
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Norman Park Recreation Facility (PR-194)- Project $206,669.00
Accounts
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $206,669.00
Funding for this project was budgeted in the FY 97-98 CIP budget. There are two sources of funds for this
project: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds in the amount of $234,870; and a
contribution from the Norman Park Center Senior Club in the amount of $15,000. The action requested
tonight would allow staff to expend these funds for the renovation work. The project will require only
routine City maintenance upon completion.
Exhibit: A - Contractor's Disclosure Statement J\rO~
Exhibit: B - Memo from Community Development De proving Contractor
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\PRI94.AC ~
/3-i
RESOLUTION NO. /fš9~?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR "THE NORMAN PARK RECREATION
FACILITY - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUC-
TION, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (PR194)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on March 25, 1998, in Conference
Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following seven sealed bids for "The Norman Park
Recreation Facility - Partial Demolition and Construction, in the
city of Chula Vista, CA (PR194)":
CONTRACTOR BASE BID ADDITIVE ALTERNATE TOTAL
AMOUNT "A"
Knight Construction, San Diego $196,554.56 $5,200.00 $201,754.56
Dez Construction, E1 Cajon $208,500.00 $3,878.00 $212,378.00
Stevens Construction, National City $215,000.00 $6,777.00 $221,777. 00
Jacobson Engineering Construction, $228,137.00 $4,100.00 $232,237.00
San Diego
Parry Construction, San Marcos $268,646.00 $2,200.00 $$270,846.00
Fordyce Construction, Santee $271,533.00 $3,500.00 $275,033.00
Lasaler Construction, Inc., $296,090.00 $6,625.00 $302,715.00
Car1sbad
WHEREAS, the low bid by Knight Construction, is below the
Architect's estimate of $205,000.00 by $3,245.44 or by 2% which
estimate was based on bids received for similar projects; and
WHEREAS, it is staff's opinion that adequate bids were
received for the project and the low bidder has satisfactorily met all
the requirements and, therefore, staff recommends awarding the
contract to Knight Construction, San Diego; and
WHEREAS, the bids documents set forth participation
requirements per Federal Regulations for meeting the disadvantaged and
women-owned business goals and staff has reviewed the bid documents
submitted by the three lowest bidders and concluded that the lowest
1
13'~
- -------..-------. ---- ---- .
bidder, Knight Construction, does meet the city's requirements for
D.B.E. participation; and
WHEREAS, staff also reviewed Knight Construction's
eligibility status with regard to Federal Procurement Programs and the
status of the State Contractor's licenses and neither Knight
Construction, nor any other listed subcontractors are excluded from
Federal Procurement programs (list of parties excluded from Federal
Procurement or non-procurement programs as of January, 1998)¡ and
WHEREAS, this project is primarily funded through Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and a contribution from the
Norman Park Center Senior Club and based on the current project
funding guidelines, Contractors are obligated to meet the prevailing
wage requirements which were included as part of the bid documents for
this project (prevailing wage scales are those determined by the
Federal Department of Labor)¡ and
WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed
the work involved in this project and determined that the project is
exempt under section 15301 (a) , Class I of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City
of Chula vista does hereby accept the bids and award the contract for
"The Norman Park Recreation Facility - Partial Demolition and
Construction in the City of Chula Vista, Ca. (PR194)" to Knight
Construction, San Diego, in the amount of $201,754.56.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized
and directed to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of
Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of y
Public Works
C:\rs\nor~park.bìd
2
/.J --?
__m_______ '"_...._______
·\!f~!t' THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMEJ\'T
::-;7
',',
":- 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 pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. Lis! the names of all persons having a financial imerest in the properry which is the subject of the application or the Contract
, e.g., owner. applicant. Contractor. subcontractor, material supplier.
N/A
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pan.nership.
N/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.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with an:;.,. member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Piease 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 maner.
Peter Morlon
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in th~ aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date: 3/25/98 . . . U'OTE: Attach~~/r:.:_nff~
Signature of Contractorl Applicant
Duane Webster
Prim or type name of Contractorl Applicant
* Person Ís defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-pannership, Joint venture, association, social club. fraremal organization.
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or COUnIT)',cit)' municipality, district, or other politica.!
subdivision, or 011..1' other group or combination acting as a unit.
/3~? 46
--..-". --..-,-.. ._--_.__._.._-------_.._--_.~_.,.--
MEMORANDUM
April 17, 1998
TO: Jim Holmes, Civil Engineer
FROM: Judith Foland, Community Development Specialist j F-
SUBJECT: Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MBEIWBE)
Review of Construction Project PR-194
I have reviewed the bid package for the construction project PR-194 for MBE/WBE
compliance and have determined that Knight Construction has provided sufficient
documentation to comply with the City of Chula Vista MBE/WBE program.
Please call me at extension 5036 if you have any questions.
cc: Juan P. Arroyo - Housing Coordinator
~. ~ ~ -zL ,3 ~
4J~
c:\Officelwpwinlwpdocslcdbglmbewbelpr194
JJ~~
-----......---...-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1
Meeting Date 05-05-98
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION / ~ 1/ g-r APPROVING AN AMENOMENT TO THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ANO BETWEEN MCA CONCERTS, INC. (NOW
UNIVERSAL CONCERTS, INC.) AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DATED
NOVEMBER 15, 1996 AMENOING THE SCHEDULE FOR.THE REIMBURSEMENT OF
FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFORE
SUBMITTED BY: C~m"";~ On.l.pmoot O~.s .
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ (J ________ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
- -
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between MCA Concerts (now Universal Concerts, Inc.) and the City
of Chula Vista which requires the City to pay $150,000 to Universal Concerts, Inc. to be used for
construction of a sound mitigation wall, the Council is requested to approve an amendment to the Agreement
modifying the payment schedule by extending the target development dates which trigger payments to the
Universal Concerts, Inc. The extension is necessitated by unanticipated construction delays cause by an
unusually wet winter.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving an amendment to the Settlement
Agreement with MCA Concerts extending the target payment dates, and appropriate funds therefore..
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
MCA Concerts, Inc (the "Developer"), currently known as Universal Concerts, Inc., is constructing an
amphitheater ("Coors" Amphitheater) in the southeast section of the City. The grand opening of this facility,
originally planned for June 1998, has been. delayed approximately two months due to an unusually wet
winter season which has slowed construction.
The amphitheater project was the subject of litigation filed against the EIR by SNMB, major landowner of
the Otay Ranch. A Settlement Agreement between MCA and SNMB was executed late in 1996 resolving
the litigation. As part of the settlement with SNMB, the Developer agreed to construct a sound mitigation
wall to reduce noise impacts from concerts. Concurrent with the SNMB Agreement, MCA proposed a
Settlement Agreement with the City whereby the City agreed to assist in paying for construction of the
sound wall. The Council approved the Agreement in November 1996.
/~ --- /
~.._._-,_.- ^ _____M."_~_..~.,..·_·,__~____·_···_
Page 2. Item _
Meeting Date 05-05-98
Pursuant to the Agreement, the payment by the City to MCA, totalling $150,000, was conditioned on a
building permit for the amphitheater being issued by April 1, 1997 and MCA making a payment to SNMB
as stipulated in their Settlement Agreement. The City's Agreement with MCA was later modified such that
the City would pay the $150,000 reimbursement provided that the grading permit was issued by October
30, 1997, and the project building permit was issued by such time as to allow completion of the project
by June 1, 1998.
MCA pulled their grading permit in compliance with the modified agreement. However, the unusually high
amount of rainfall this winter delayed grading and foundation work resulting in a loss of approximately 46
working days. The amphitheater is now planned to open in July, hosting its first official concert on July
2"
Because the most recent delays in construction were caused by events outside of the control of the
Developer, and every effort has been made to make up the lost time, it is recommended that the Settlement
Agreement be amended to state that (1) the City will pay the Developer $ 75,000 within five business days
following the date on which the Developer pulls the first building permit for vertical construction of the
project, and (2), the remaining $75,000 shall be paid to the Developer after the first concert of the 1998
season provided that the first concert occurs no later than August 15, 1998. In the event that the first
concert does not occur by August 15, 1998, then the remaining $ 75,000 will be paid within five business
days after the first concert of the 1999 season.
Staff recommends this modification since it is clear that the Developer has and continues to make every
effort to expedite completion of the amphitheater and begin operating. To further incentivize rapid
completion and opening of the project, and to make sure we wouldn't be putting up all our money without
certainty of a significant number of shows following, staff recommends that the payments be split as
described above.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds for payment of the $150,000 were committed in November 1996 when the Settlement Agreement
with MCA was approved. However, no funds were appropriated. The Council is therefore requested to
appropriate the funds from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund.
Operations of the amphitheater will provide sublease, property tax and sales tax revenues to the City
annually as summarized below.
Proiected Citv Revenue
According to the Keyser Marston Financial Analysis (1995). the City will realize estimated revenue between
$13,536,661 (based on MCA/Kobey projections) and $10.423,572 (based on Keyser Marston projections)
over 20 years of operation and, respectively, between $5,290,214 and $3,967,941 over a 10 year project
life. These estimates, described in the chart below, are based on the sum of projected revenues from: ticket
/0./
--~._."._-----------
Page 3. Item _
Meeting Date 05-05-98
and parking assessment; Amphitheater food, beverage, and merchandise sales tax; swap meet sales tax;
business license fees; and property taxes. They do not include the performing arts fund.
Projected City Revenue Projected City Revenues
Ovet 10 Years Over 20 Years
MCA/Kobey Keyser Marston MCA/Kobey Keyser Marston
Revenue Sources Proiections Proiections Projections Proiections
3%-4% Ticket and Parking Assessment $3.795.559 $2.411.131 $ 7.771.594 $ 5.802.516
Amphitheater: Food, Beverage Sales Tax 361,112 191,187 846.417 459,070
Amphitheater: Merchandise Sales Tax 232,145 140,B75 544,125 33B,262
Amphitheater Subtotal $4.388.816 $2.743.193 $ 9.162.136 $ 6.599,848
Swap Meet Sales Tax 1,087,500 870,000 3,301.462 2,641,169
Swap Meet: Business license Fees 239.800 239.800 671.965 671.965
Swap Meet Subtotal $1.327.300 $1.109.800 $ 3.973.427 $ 3.313.134
Pro petty Tax 503.098 503.098 503.098 503.098
(Amphitheater + Swap Meet + Property
Tax):
Total Revenue Proiected $6.219,214 $4.356.091 $13.638.661 $10.416.080
Performino Arts Fund
In addition to the revenues cited above, the City will receive an estimated $2.1 million (KMA estimate) to
$3 million (MCA estimate) for the performing arts over 20 years of operation of the Amphitheater.
IFKI H:\HOMEICOMMOEV\STAFF.REPIOS-OS-98\AMENO.MCA IApril 29. 1998 IS:12pmll
/f-;1
^- -- _ _____·~,__··____,______·_m' ,__._____._.____.___ n_ ___.
RESOLUTION NO. / Y9g--r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN MCA CONCERTS,
INC. (NOW UNIVERSAL CONCERTS, INC.) AND THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1996, AMENDING THE
SCHEDULE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, Both the City of Chula Vista (the "City") and MCA Concerts, Inc. (the
(Developer"). currently known as Universal Concerts, Inc., were subject to pending litigation
brought by SNMB L.P. against construction of an amphitheater in the Otay River Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into a Settlement Agreement with SNMB L.P. for
resolution of the pending litigation which stipulated that the Developer would construct a sound
mitigation wall to reduce noise impacts from operation of the amphitheater; and
WHEREAS, the Developer and the City of Chula Vista Council entered into a
subsequent Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement"). dated November 15, 1998, stipulating that
the City would reimburse $150,000 to the Developer for construction of the sound wall; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the reimbursement of $150,000 was
conditioned on the building permit fot the amphitheater being issued by April 1, 1997, and MCA
making the required payment to SNMB; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement was amended such that the City would pay the
$150,000 to MCA if the grading permit was issued by October 30, 1998 and the project building
permit was issued by such time as to allow completion of the amphitheater by June 1, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Developer met the grading permit deadline for the project, but an
unusually wet wintet season has delayed construction activities by approximately one month and
the project is now anticipated to be completed early in July; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Agteement be amended a second time to
allow that the reimbursement to the Developer will be made incrementally as the building permits
are pulled and the first concert occurs; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement has been
prepared reflecting a new reimbursement schedule which is acceptable to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, funds to reimburse the Developer have not previously been
appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby resolve as follows:
(1) A Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement by and Between the City of Chula
Vista and MCA Concerts, Inc. dated November 15, 1996, is hereby approved on the terms
/f~J/
"-..-.....--.-..-----........-..-..-----"------...-..--..---,......---,.------..---.-
presented by staff.
(2) The Mayor is authorized to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City in
a form approved by the City Attorney.
(3) The City Council hereby appropriates $150,000 from the unappropriated balance of
the General Fund for the purpose of reimbursing the Developer for construction of the
sound wall.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~µ ~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
JI-~
I
_._."._~----_._~-~.~ .---------
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM /-..5'
MEETING DATE 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: Report on the application of the Chula Vista Literacy Team for
California Department of Education Even Start Family Literacy
Program grant funds for FY 1998-99.
SUBMlTIED BY ù'my D;rect,,~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~( s ote: YES _NO X)
On May 1, 1998 the Chula Vista Public Library submitted an application to the California
Department of Education for $300,000 in Even Start Family Litera¡;y Program grant funds
for FY 1998-99. Even Start is a federally funded, intergenerational family literacy program.
It is designed to provide intensive in-home and center -based services to parents and their
young children considered at high risk for future academic failure and continuing cycles of
poverty.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and approve the application.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board ofTrustees voted to
support the Library's application for California Department of Education Even Start Family
Literacy Program grant funding at their April 22, 1998 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The Chula Vista Literacy Team has been a partner for the past eight years (two, four-year
funding cycles) with the Chula Vista Elementary School District's Even Start Program. The
Library's Literacy Team is now the lead applicant and fiscal agent in the current round of
Even Start applications. The program will provide in-home, center-based, and library-based
educational services to approximately 100 Chula Vista families - both parents and their young
children. The Elementary School District will retain their role as the lead provider of services,
incuding submitting all requied reports to the State Department of Education. The Literacy
Center Coordinator, however, will serve as project co-director. The grant is based on a four-
year funding cycle, subject to the acceptance of continuation proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the grant funds are awarded, $300,000 will be received to
implement this program. Approximately 80% of the grant will be passed through to the
Chula Vista Elementary School District for salaries and other operational expenses. The
remaining 20% will be retained by the Chula Vista Literacy Team to develop the
instructional resource and children's book collection, to provide a .25 FTE Bilingual
Children's Librarian, and to contract with part-time adult education instructors. These
funds cannot supplant funds for the regular volunteer reading program.
/5'-/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item If,
Meeting Date 05/05/98
ITEM TITLE: /%9~/
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT
COMMENTS TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSEO SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WILOLlFE REFUGE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION
OF AN ACQUISITION BOUNDARY WITH MODIFICATIONS
SUBMITTED BY: C,~"""' D'"""';æ''' C j ,
Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~~~ (415ths Vote: Yes_ No..xJ
v v
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has proposed a boundary for a National
Wildlife Refuge for South San Diego Bay. The establishment of the boundary is the first step in establishing
4.750 acre (land/water area) Refuge for the area. Once the boundary is set, the Service can begin to
acquire private lands or negotiate management agreements for public lands (Port District and State Lands
Commission) within the Refuge boundary. After acquisition of lands and completion of agreements, the
USFWS will develop a detailed management plan for preservation and enhancement of resources within the
Refuge. The Service has issued a Draft Environmental Assessment, in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl, for public review and comment. The initial review period for the document
was 30 days, and has been extended an additional 60 days. The end of the 90 day period is May 11,
199B. On October 2B, 1997, Dean Rundle, Refuge Manager for the Service, gave a presentation to the
Council on the South San Oiego Bay National Wildlife Refuge proposal. Council indicated to Mr. Rundle at
that time that they would be reviewing and responding on the merits of the Refuge when staff and the
Council had an opportunity to review the appropriate documents.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to transmit comments
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South
San Oiego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in support of the adoption of an acquisition
boundary with modifications
BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Economic Oevelopment Commission considered
the proposed South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge at their meeting of April 1, 199B. Since the
proposal involved numerous environmental and political issues that had not been resolved at the time, the
Commission's action consisted of supporting City staff in their ultimate action and position regarding the
Refuge.
/¿~/
. ____~_"..._~.__,_.______..._~_,_.__. ..____ _______.__.._.._w
Page 2. Item _
Meeting Date 05105/98
DISCUSSION: South San Diego Bay provides habitat for a number of endangered and sensitive species,
and serves as an important winter resting stop for migrating birds along the Pacific Flyway. Because of
significant loss in habitat within the northern and central portions of San Diego Bay, the South Bay is
considered to be critical in maintaining natural resource value. For this reason, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service began several years ago to develop a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for the South Bay. The NWR
system consists of lands that are either federally owned or managed by the Service through a lease with
another public agency to provide federally controlled resource management activities. Management activities
could consist of habitat preservation, enhancement or creation, as well as limitation of activities that
degrade resource value and control of predation by other animals.
The City has expressed concern in the past that there is not enough information available for the City to
either support or oppose the creation of the South San Diego Bay NWR. Specifically, the management
activities that would take place that could limit use in and around the bay have not been identified. The
Service has indicated that a detailed management plan cannot be prepared until the refuge is set (i.e. all
properties are acquired and all agreements on public lands executed). This is because federal funding for
the management plan would not be available until the refuge lands were secured. The Service has also
stressed that the current action is setting of an acquisition boundary only, for which a management plan
is not required. Representatives from all South Bay cities have recently expressed concerns over whether
the formation of the boundary will irrevocably commit certain areas to inclusion into the NWR (whether
actual or perceptual) before enough understanding of the management activities is presented.
CHUlA VISTA ISSUES
With respect to the establishment of the acquisition boundary, there are four primary issues for which staff
has recommended specific resolution: 1) future develop potential of the Bayfront, 2) access to the Chula
Vista Marina, 3) impacts to recreational boating in the South Bay and 4) conflicts with the Otay Valley
Regional Park Concept Plan. The proposed boundary adjustments that would largely resolve these concerns
have been extensively discussed with the Service and representatives of the interested environmental
organizations. Based on these discussions, staff believes that the proposed changes would be acceptable.
Future Bavfront Development
Concerns have been expressed by staff in the past that establishment of the NWR in the South Bay would
have a "halo effect" on surrounding properties, requiring development proposals on the Bayfront to be held
to a higher environmental standard than would be the case without the NWR status. The Service addressed
this in the Draft Environmental Assessment by saying that "There is no regulatory buffer zone around
national wildlife refuges. landowners do not have to clear a higher level of review or additional regulatory
requirements because of the acquisition of neighboring lands into the National Wildlife Refuge System."
However, one of the stated causes of historical environmental damage to the bay has been increased
urbanization at its land borders. It is unknown whether future plans for urban development/redevelopment
of the Chula Vista Bayfront would be consistent with the goals of the Refuge. Staff feels that adjustment
/¿, ~.2
.... ....______u__ __ __ _ ~__m.·_.._..._..·_.,._._____.___._,___._.~____
Page 3. Item _
Meeting Date 05105/98
of the boundary of the Refuge away from potentially developable areas of the Bayfront would largely satisfy
this concern.
Marina Access
The City would be impacted if continuous access to the Chula Vista Marina were disallowed by the Refuge
proposal. The Service has indicated that all existing maintained navigation channels in the South Bay would
be operated under existing rules and conditions. Adjustment of the Refuge boundary westward of the
navigation channel serving the Marina would provide additional assurance that access is maintained.
Recreational Boatina
Users of the Chula Vista Marina and patrons of future recreation·oriented development on the Chula Vista
Bayfront could be restricted from using certain areas of the South Bay for recreational boating during the
winter months to protect migratory bird resting areas. Recreational boating is presently restricted by a
speed limit enforced by the Port District of five (5) miles per hour in the South San Diego Bay. The
proposed Refuge would likely result in a limitation of recreational boating activity (including personal
watercraft) within its boundaries from November to March. Staff is recommending that a request be made
to allow for some recreational boating outside of the navigational channels on a year·round basis.
Otav Vallev Reaional Park
An active recreation area in the Otay River Valley Regional Park Concept Plan is within the boundaries of
the proposed NWR and presumably would be inconsistent with the refuge. This conflict could be avoided
by exclusion of this active recreation area from the ultimate refuge boundary. It is the City's understanding
that the Service and the City of San Diego have agreed to commit this land to active park use, either
through direct acquisition by the City of San Diego or by a land swap between the City and the Service.
There should also be some assurance in the proposed Management Plan that trail linkages through the salt
works in areas proposed for the Refuge be maintained.
SOUTH BAY CITIES' ISSUES
Beyond Chula Vista's specific issues, the other South Bay cities and the Port District have expressed
concerns over access to a future marina in Imperial Beach, future use of the Navy radio tower facility for
a golf course, impacts to the Bayshore Bikeway and pedestrian access to the Bay, and impacts to future
bayfront development. Because of the concerns of these agencies, it has been suggested that a coordinated
effort be advanced to request an extension of the review period on the Environmental Assessment so that
a modified alternative to the Service's preferred alternative be developed and recommended to the Service.
The local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has turned down recent requests for additional time.
It has been suggested that the regional office in Portland be contacted for an extension.
Ii. ':J
Page 4. Item _
Meeting Date 05105198
One of the alternative proposals to management of resources in the South Bay is to form a JPA including
local stakeholders, rather than having a federal agency conduct management. This idea has not been
thoroughly explored, but could put the authority to resolve local issues in a more suitable context for the
cities. A JPA managed Refuge would not allow for federal management in the manner contemplated by the
proposed action of the Service. Such a concept would necessarily be a replacement to the proposed
National Wildlife Refuge. It is uncertain whether the Service would be able to support or participate in this
type of management project under the Wildlife Refuge Act.
It is staff's understanding that if the City were to take a position that would support efforts to develop
an alternative concept to the National Wildlife Refuge (e.g. a JPA), the environmental organizations that have
an interest in protecting resources in San Diego Bay would be strenuously opposed. Therefore, since the
City's issues are sufficiently addressed in the proposed compromise boundary, the exploration of a JPA
process is not considered necessary nor is it recommended.
OPTIONS
In light of the fact that the compromise position that staff has discussed with the Service and the
environmental groups is counterpoised with the proposal to establish a locally controlled resource
management mechanism, staff has drafted two letters of comment representing each position. Option A
would support the Service's efforts to establish the acquisition boundary provided that our requested
modifications are incorporated. Option B would request an extension of the review period until an
alternative process for defining boundaries and management of a refuge for the South Bay can be developed.
The recommended action and the accompanying resolution address Option A only.
Chula Vista's interests can be largely protected with the measures identified in Option A. Supporting an
extension of the review period to develop an alternative that includes some very controversial issues (Option
B) could put our ability to reach a compromise on Chula Vista's issues in jeopardy. For this reason, staff
is recommending that the Council select Option A as the official City Comment on the Environmental
Assessment.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact upon the City if the National Wildlife Refuge is created is
unknown. The project that is defined in the Environmental Assessment is formation of an acquisition
boundary only, which would not have a significant fiscal impact. However, management activities that will
take place within the proposed Refuge may preclude certain activities that would otherwise provide economic
benefits to Chula Vista. The adoption of the Management Plan will be the subject of future public review
and comment. It is not possible to quantify what the impacts would be at this time.
IJM H,IHOMBCOMMOEVISTAFF.REMD5-05-98ISS08NWR [April 30, 1998 111,41amll
I¿~'/
IiI 002
09300J!~6 SAN DIEGO NWR ,
04/30/9.6__'l'J!IL 1l:.2.8.,f.,AX. 78-.;r.ua·~ 8J.Ol- -- -.rSPWS~Tr-~..-šm-moo'm'--~oõr"_
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WlLDLIF.E SERVIC5
911 N1ì. 11 rh ÅVCIlUC
l'orIIand, Oce¡¡OIl 97232-4181
INIU:'L~~TDz
. .. --
FWS/ARW-RE Affi I 5 1988
Mr. Greg Cox
Cha.irmaø, Boerd ofSnpe:visom
San Diego Cotlllty
1600 Paci1ic Highway, Roott¡ 335
San Diego, CaIiforni.. 92101
Dear Mr. Cox:
Our Refuge MansgerDelmRtmdIcICçetJ1Jy ItIetwith statfofSanDic80 County and the cities of
8m Diego 8I1d Chula VISta regJirding DID' OVèJ'Japping baundazics fur Otay Valley Re¡iœ:œI Park
. (OVRP) atld South San Diego Bay National Wùd1i:fi: Rc1ùge Unit (South Bay :Re:&p) proposals.
W r: believe that our plOpCsaI& arc cOiXI,palible and compleD¡,eDÍ8ly, and ~ want to 8S5ure YOIt
that the U.S. Fish. and Wi1d1i:1i: Service (Seo:v:ice) will wwk with the County and both cities to
II1eet t1:uI goals ofbóth proposaI6.
Our SoL1tb Bay Refuge proposal has only one pottlUtiaI conflict with the OVRP Coœept Plan;
the OV'RP Plan pml";)_ new ba1I :fields at tbe south end. oíthe Eg¡er.GJño ami FlUItOn (¡:¡ow
City of SOIl Diego) pt1)pCrt͜ immlXfiare1y west of 1-5, in the extreme SOItthcast C<nIIm' of our
SOllth Bay Refuge proposal, Such developed facilities WOIÙd not be compatible with the mission
of the Nationa] Wildljfe Reii1gc System. CNWRs) or the purposl $ ofthc South Bay Refup.
Howev'lOf, the Semcc will work Wif.h you to rea1ù:e the OVRP CQŒCptPlan as proþosed..
If the Seniìce acq:uirI'Is these ptcpcrtics .tiŒt, we would be wi1IiDg to negotiate a land l:XI:baQge
with the County or one oftb.e cities 1br other property wjtbb one of gqr lppmVed ICCfIÛSÍtfoD
bcuadades. The COlmly of San Diego has I8Ðds wjtlñn oUt Ota.y-SweetwatmrllIld Vema] .PooII
Niltional Wi1t:IIifc Refuge ucitJ Iña.t we wonJd like to acquim, and. the City ofSanDiegQ has land
within thø V œœI Pools IIl1it and South B¡¡y Rdbge proposed bo1lDAbIy. We arc confidCllt !:bat
our n:spcctive realty spec:.1alists would be able to negotiate a xnutuany satiafåctory ~ge.
We also might be interested in discussing SCll:ll.e joint Ul2n&&ement aad devc:lopu¡.m ill tbc __ m.
question. The new South BaY:Rafllge. if a;ppII:Ived, probably wolÙd 1'f:qQire new pUblic ~cess
~.
/~~5
.-_-. ~ -_.~ ~.~~-_._,.,~-----_.__._---
iii! 003
04/30,q~.yT§Y 11~~~.~AX 7~i~~~§!:161 SAN DIEGO NWR
- - - USFWS 'iŒAiTY--.:;:;' SAN Dl:I!G(IÑi¥R- --- ---¡¡DOl--
The Honorab1= Greg Cox 2
site¡, and pexh6ps SO!DC .rlm¡";M~~ ÌDtetpIetive, or m";..t~an(;o facilities. n""Î'lÍOZUi about
thesc sites iIIId facilitÏes would be made, with. public iDput. durin¡ a :fInDre ~.I" ehensivc;
conservatiou. pJamring offi¡rt. One optian is that we could P>Ilbær with you to dovelop a 1iIci1ity'
with two &:idCII; a Servicc-ownc:d IIIId cpC\'atad South Bay R.e1Uge vWtw ûciIity an CIII. Bide.
with OVRP,oW11ed.and operated spDIt81itci1i:ties an the otber.
I also 8.ppßx:iate your c:oncam r=prdin,ø completion of the Bays},OIe Bicyt:le Path tbrou¡h our
proposed p¡oject Sf'CL We arrtic!pal:e tbat the bike path would :Ib1Iow tile CJå:ltiug r.IÎ1mad right..
of-wa.y lIltJund the salt ponds- Tho S"'-Yicc doCIII DOl in~ to acquire any real. property ÌIrtCI:e8t ill.
this right-of-way 00. beha1! of1he South Bay RefUge..
We undeœtmd that there ate competing proposals for 118e of the right-of,.way 8Dd thai it may not
be tho pcnnancnt route ofth.c b.ìkc path. T:fthe b;¡ce path clUJtlØt tolIaw tho existiDg.railroad
grade. 1he Service will work With local govennn"nl8 to:ðnd an aeceptable alternate route fhrough
the Egger-Ohio and FentOlleteas. Uwe acquire the BSlJar-Gl:ù.o azul Fenton pmpClL'liu, our
ultimate ggoù will be 10 rcmore wetIaud and upland habitats in t\1e area. The 1and is highly
disturbed, Uld any future resroration Will reqUÛe extensiw earth!l1OVing. We mticipate that wo
wo1Úd be ablo to dea:ign =taratioo. dikes aDd water oonlrol 5ÚIICtIIl'ðs to include c"'"P""ldc
, routes :for a bicyctc pa1:h through the Itlta.
Another valuable be:r¡ef¡t of St:ffiœ mauagetIlent of this IIrC& is IIBSistaDce 10 the City of Sm
Dio¡o in its nosponsibi1ities UDder the Multi-Bpcciœ Coœ.:rvation Plaa {MScp)_ If the Egpr-
Ohio ad Fenton properties are acquired by the Scxvice, our Rrdbge staft'would ~ t8Sp0DsibJe
for c=pliance with MSCP monitoring ~ on OUl'land This would _st the City of
San Diogo in mccting habitat protectio.o and.mani.tozin.¡~ of the MSCP, andJ'Oduçe
tbæ bUX'dert an lo.;al govemTtoQlt
We hope that you will S1IppOrt1hc: Servicc's proposal iQr the Smith San Diego Bay National
Wildlifil Refu¡e Unit with boundaries as proposed. W 0 tb.iJJk it is Wise that both plans COIlIÍnIICI
to include tho area in qllfl$tion in thckp1~i boundmies. Pem.ps we will be able to 1evc:rap
ea.Qb. other's re~es, and partn;r in the aèqnfs¡ûon ofthcøe laud¡; :âom 1IIiillng seDa. The
Parit and Ref4sc wouId ccmplcmøm ead1 other by pn:rvicl.ln¡ wildIiæ, open sPace. IIDd
recreatia.w opporturJities fur citizens of a11 the South Bay area com....".,;tias.
"
)6-1-
--^----~ .-
-"--"- ...------. ..._.-.---_._--~-----
SAN DIEGO NWR liif004
04/30/98 ~ 11:29 FAX 7809300258 - -- - ------------.-
U'll'~ 8 09:45 1:503231S181 USFWS RR.U.TY ...... SAN D ŒI:O !i1IR IiDOU3
The Hono.able Gre& Cox 3
Tha:ak you for your cnnm..I~-d in~ io. oUX'pmpo:sçd SDItth San Diego Bay NatÎQaaJ, Wildlife
ht\¡ge Unit. Please CDl!1Bct Dean Rmv1lc at the San Diego NatiODal W'üdIifc ~II CDD'lplex
headquartcs at (760) 930-0168 ¡fyou need mare ÙIfonnation.
Sinctnly,
,,'
,
- -
li/?
_"_____ - _..__..___.__~_ ___c______ _________
RESOLUTION NO. /070'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF CHUlA
VISTA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT COMMENTS TO
THE U.S. FISH AND WilDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTH SAN
DIEGO BAY UNIT, SAN DIEGO NATIONAL WilDLIFE REFUGE IN
SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AN ACQUISITION BOUNDARY
WITH MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a Draft Environmental
Assessment for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge; and
WHEREAS, the City, as a stakeholder in South Bay issues has expressed concerns
over the proposal and desires to express those concerns in the context of the public review of the
Environmental Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to address its concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City has gained support for its specific recommendations for a
modified boundary of the "Preferred Alternative" for the proposed Refuge from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and participating environmental organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City must formally transmit their comments identifying the modified
boundary as a part of a comment letter for the Environmental Assessment, a draft of which is
attached
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby:
Authorize the Mayor to ttansmit comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding
the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge in support of the adoption of an acquisition boundary with
modifications as identified in the attached letter.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Ch' 5t1~ ~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
Robert A. Leiter
Ditector of Planning
[(JM! H:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\NWA (April 29. 1998 (4:34pm)]
/b~Y
_ __,__··u__._,_·'_,_,",___"_,,__,,_,_,_,,, . ____..
ATTACHMENT A
OPTIONAL RESPONSE A
April 30, 1998
Mr. Dean Rundle
Refuge Manager
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT. SAN DIEGO
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dear Mr. Rundle:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed South San
Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The City understands that the proposed project
is definition of an acquisition boundary for the proposed Refuge. It is also our understanding that the
establishment of the refuge will occur when the Service acquires land or negotiates management agreements for
lands within the boundary. Further, the actual management activities, which involve issues that the City has
great interest in, will be detailed at a later date after the acquisition process is complete. The City would prefer
that all activities related to the establishment of the proposed Refuge, including management, be addressed now
rather that in incremental stages, and feels that such an approach more adequately meets the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl. The establishment and management of the Refuge is reasonably
foreseeable at this time and is "connected" to the establishment of acquisition boundaries, in accordance with
the definition provided in 40 CFR 1508.25.
Additionally, the Refuge boundary includes an active recreation area shown on the Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan, a product of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority formed between the City of Chula Vista, the
City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. This appears to be a clear conflict with the park plan, since
the refuge, by definition, cannot support active recreational uses. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.16, such
inconsistencies must be identified and addressed in the EA.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City has specific issues related to the Refuge planning efforts and has been
working with the Service and local environmental organizations to seek resolution. The following is a description
of those issues and the City's proposed resolution.
/d ~ c;
_"____m_..___ "__..__.__..
Mr. Dean Rundle Page 2
April 30, 1998
Prooosed Adiacent Uoland Develooment
The "preferred alternative" identified in the Environmental Assessment has the proposed refuge boundary adjacent
to the Chula Vista Bayfront. Because development of the northern bayfront area has been planned with
extensive environmental mitigation included in the City's Local Coastal Program, and since the management of
the mudflats and other sensitive areas located between the shoreline and the channel would logically be
connected with the existing Sweetwater Marsh NWR, the City requests that the proposed boundary of the
Refuge be moved westerly of the navigation channel for the Chula Vista Marina, as depicted in the attached
exhibit.
Navioation Channel Maintenance
Maintenance, dredging and operation of the existing navigation channel to the Chula Vista Marina and a proposed
"straightened channel" must not be precluded by the proposed National Wildlife Refuge. Adjustment of the
acquisition boundary to the west of this area, as described above, would avoid any future conflicts that might
arise.
Recreational Boating
It is understood that management of the Refuge would likely include limitations on recreational boating outside
of the navigation channels from November to March. This could impact recreation based land development in
Chula Vista and the operations of the Chula Vista Marina and proposed Nautical Activities Center (NAC). While
it is recognized that construction of the NAC has unresolved environmental issues, a provision for some year·
round boating activities outside the Marina must be reserved so that, at a minimum, a programmatic equivalent
of the NAC can be carried out. This must be addressed in the proposed Management Plan.
Conflicts with Otav Vallev Regional Park Planning
The preferred alternative refuge boundary includes an active recreation area shown on the Olay Valley Regional
Park Concept Plan. This conflict could be avoided by exclusion of this active recreation area from the ultimate
management area of the Refuge. 11 is the City's understanding that the Service and the City of San Diego have
agreed to commit this land to active park use, either through direct acquisition by the City of San Diego or by
a land swap between the City and the Service. There should also be some assurance in the proposed
Management Plan that trail linkages through the salt works in areas proposed for the Refuge be maintained.
Provided that the requested adjustments in the proposed boundary of the preferred alternative were made prior
to setting the acquisition boundary, the City would support the action of establishing an acquisition boundary for
the South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
J~ -/¿J
Mr. Dean Rundle Page 3
April 30, 1998
Thank you again for your attention to issues that are important to Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista remains
committed to balancing the needs of economic development and environmental protection, and believes that
creative solutions, including the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the preferred alternative can lead
to mutually beneficial results.
Sincerely,
Shirley Horton
Mayor
H,\HOM~COMMDEV\MONACO\LETTERS\NWR·I.EA
I¿ ~/I
---.. --_.~ ..-
Proposed Modified Boundary for the Preferred Alternative
South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
'- \ \
\ '
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ 1\
\ \ '"
'I,
\ \'0
\ ~ \ I,
\ ~ ~ \\\
\ \E \ ,:
\ \ ¡I,I
, "
\ , \ " \ r----....
~ \'\ ¡\; /t'......~
~. \' / ~~ \
C) \ Af,'~ '
- 1\ ~- I'"~ ..............._
::!l \ \\ 1NOff'f0Q"fV" , _---
("') \ _.-
\, ~/ ~ \ ---
\ ~DT .---,
o ~ '-1 '-,
() i', ~
tn ......... r../'
Þ \ SAIIDt~~/ I
'2
""'''''"'" l
us-.-
MOO -
~. / I
""""" I
I-
I--
4 772 Acres I
Alternative B - Preferred Alternative
/¡~/2
._.........- -".-..--"--.
ATTACHMENT B
OPTIONAL RESPONSE B
April 30, 1998
Mr. Dean Rundle
Refuge Manager
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT. SAN DIEGO
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dear Mr. Rundle:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed South San
Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The City understands that the proposed project
is definition of an acquisition boundary for the proposed Refuge. It is also our understanding that the
establishment of the refuge will occur when the Service acquires land or negotiates management agreements for
lands within the boundary. Further, the actual management activities, which involve issues that the City has
great interest in, will be detailed at a later date after the acquisition process is complete. The City would prefer
that all activities related to the establishment of the proposed Refuge, including management, be addressed now
rather that in incremental stages, and feels that such an approach more adequately meets the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl. The establishment and management of the Refuge is reasonably
foreseeable at this time and is "connected" to the establishment of acquisition boundaries, in accordance with
the definition provided in 40 CFR 1508.25.
Additionally, where the Refuge boundary includes an active recreation area shown on the Otay Valley Regional
Park Concept Plan, it represents a product of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority formed between the City of
Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. This appears to be a clear conflict with the
park plan, since the refuge, by definition, cannot support active recreational uses. In accordance with 40 CFR
1502.16, such inconsistencies must be identified and addressed.
General Issues Related to the National Wildlife Refune Conceot
The City of Chula Vista believes that the many stakeholders in San Diego Bay should have a more active role
in the definition and management of a resource management plan for the South Bay. In light of this fact and
the recent attention that has been focused on this issue by the publication of the Environmental Assessment,
the South Bay cities request that an extension of the review period be provided to encourage more discussion
on alternative concepts for resource management in South San Diego Bay.
/¿, ~/:3
Mr. Dean Rundle Page 2
April 30, 1998
One such alternative is the formation of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority including local government
representatives, federal and state resource agency representatives and local environmental interest groups. The
South Bay cities feel that a more locally initiated and controlled mechanism for resource protection, similar to
the Multiple Species Conservation Program concept, would put resource management in a more suitable local
context. local funding sources could also be used to supplement federal funding for a more successful effort.
Thank you again for your attention to issues that are important to Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista remains
committed to balancing the needs of economic development and environmental protection, and believes that
creative solutions can lead to mutually beneficial results.
Sincerely,
Shirley Horton
Mayor
H,IHOMEICOMMOEVlMONACOllETTERSINWR-2.EA
;¿r/ý f~-/l-Þ
_ __"___"__n"_'_'__'_"_~"_ "'______._...__
~þ~ - p
Comments to Regional Director Mike Spear, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
relative to the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge in South San Diego Bay,
4 May 1998
Good Afternoon, Mr. Spear, my name is Mitch Beauchamp.
I appreciate your coming to hear our concerns regarding the proposed
boundaries and management of a National Wildlife Refuge in the little remaining
natural portion of our bay. As a means of introduction I should state .that my family
has been in the region since 1890 and I have many photographs of the hunting
activities of my Great Uncle Ernie and his friend, Julius Weisser, in the South Bay,
so I know what the bay used to be like. When I was a biology student in 1961, my
biology teacher took a small group of us to the salt works to see the nesting birds
there. As a biological consultant since 1970, I am very rnmiliar with the floral and
faunal resources in the region and particularly in the southern portion of San Diego
Bay. I was one of the first directors of the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
Association which. through the persistent optimism of the McCoy's, brought this
center and refuge into existence. For the last three years I have been given the
honor of serving the residents of National City as an elected official; as ån appointed
member of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board I also serve the residents of
the region on mass transit issues. I know what's at stake here.
As a consultant in the mid 70's, I was involved with then Mayor Greg Cox in
attempting to get the Sweetwater Marsh placed under the administration of the Bay
Front Conservancy Trust, an organization with was set up by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency to administer the natural open space of their bay front. We
failed and the Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge has been in our way even since.
I say, "in our way", in that there has been no functional management of that system
since it was taken over by the federal agency you control from remote Portland and
your higher-ups in DC. The weeds at the F Street marsh continue to seed onto
private wetland open space ofRohr and it is up to my consulting firm to cle~ up
your refuge. A fill in that same marsh still remains, passing up the opportunity over
these past two decades to enhance that small gem of a marsh. Cab!e spools and
pontoons still float in Sweetwater Marsh. visible for the past 20 years from
Interstate 5, crushing Light-footed Clapper Rail nesting habitat following each high
tide. Mr. Spear, the thing we fear about a National Refuge is the continued
ineptness of management from afar.
Another fear is that of the fanciful fiat of some of your staff. There have been
a few stalwarts, such as Martin Kenny, Dean Runde!, Rebecca Young, Brian
Collins and Linda Dawes, who have some common sense and stick to their word.
But it is the loose cannons, the old unchanging, anti-social zealots and young kids
who have no experience in working with people, much less the resources you have
assigned to them, that strike fear in our hearts for the damage they do in the way
they interpret a rule or law. Mr. Spear, if a refuge is to work well in the southern
portion of San Diego Bay, it must be managed locally by those who are affected by
the decisions. It should be a Federal Wildlife Refuge, managed by a management
conference ofIocal biologists and decision makers, and local federal officials, not
some GS to the 10th in Portland or DC. Let's face it, you don't have any money
to take care of what you have. The City of Chula Vista and its redevelopment
agency have been footing the bill for most of the positive things that have happened
in the Sweetwater Marsh. In our Harbor District plan, we in National City have
designated one of our animal regulation officers to "manage" the wildlife around the
perimeter of the marsh since your staff cannot.
Mr. Spear, I oppose your agency's heavy handed, bureaucratic intrusion into
--~--_.-
San Diego Bay because it has demonstrated that it is not capable of managing and
funding the necessary activities of the refuge it now has. Through the Bay Front
Conservancy Trust we have done a better job. The private firm of West em S~t has
done a better job of managing the bird nesting habitat on their salt pond dikes which
I'm sure the Service would botch up with some new kid in charge, fresh fTom some
refuge in Kansas. Our State Lands Commission and Fish and Game also think so,
since they renewed the lease a decade or so ago with Western Salt.
If you want to have a refuge, then establish a local Management Conference,
including such groups as the Bay Front Conservancy Trust and other local elected
officials and non-profit representatives and incorporate that approach into the
management of the refuge. Don't try to bleed Chula Vista for future funding. Get a
decent budget. There is nothing more damaging than an agency that does not have
the resources to respond in planning matters where they have interposed themselves.
Just look at the mess you have created in southern California with the various
listings of threatened and endangered species. Talk about train wrecks! The
Service did no prior planning for the listing and your staff was and still is totally
unprepared to respond to permit issuance and interactive planning matters.
Although your Secretary has avowed no more train wrecks, the strategy now seems
to be one of just planned derailments. Thank God that guy with the pig tail finally
retired. Now maybe you can get it right at the Carlsbad office.
Because of the Service's poor proven track record in managing the refuge or
species listing, I do not trust it to do the logical thing. I fear that it will also
probably blow this opportunity also. Maybe you should let the current local Refuge
Manager make the decision as to how the management of the Refuge should be
organized to allow for local input and decision making. He seems to have a better
view of the situation.
But there is also another agenda regarding the establishment of a refuge in
south San Diego Bay. That is the issue of the City of San Diego using the resources
of local coastal communities to achieve mitigation for its past and continuing abuses
of northern bay resources, particularly eel grass beds. Until some reasonable
revenue sharing relationship can be worked out between these parties, the resolution
.
of a wildlife refuge will remain at a very high political plain, having absolutely
nothing to do with birds or bugs.
The issue of the boundaries of the Refuge need some attention. The taking of
lands by your broad circumscrip~on would preclude access by the City of Imperial
Beach to the bay. This is in direct violation of the State Constitution. Also, State
Lands Commission still manages land in the western portion of the bay. The
Unified Port District already has designated the open waters, aside :trom the
discharge channels of the power plant, as a conservation area. The warm water out
put :trom the South Bay Generating Station is responsible for the presence of the
Green Sea Turtles, so I wouldn't like to foul up that relationship. The boundaries
should be diminished to allow for Imperial Beach access, by way of a marina and
recognition of the role the post-Don Nay Unified Port District has been responsive
to environmental issues in the bay.
In closing r would like to state that, as for us in National City, we want to
encourage ecotourism in our region due to the rich diversity of biotic resources and
the sustainable nature of that industry. A bike path is a critical part of our Harbor
District plan. The Paradise Creek Marsh is a focus of prime commercial lands on
24th Street. Preservation of the remnant natural history of the bay is critical for our
continued economic viability. We have the local resourc~s to do the job. In
partnership with the federal government, though a cooperative process, we can
create a refuge embraced by a broad spectrum of the communities involved. By a
heavy handed, unilateral, federal action, you will only demonstrate how far the
federal bureaucracy has separated rrom the public it is to serve. And that approach
we will fight. A fight which you might not want to have in the current conse~ative
Congress.
I thank you for coming to hear our concerns. Now I would challenge you
and all of you colleagues to practice federalism as it is envisio~~er the U. S.
Constitution to protect the environment and produce jobs by working with us rather
than against us. We look forward to seeing you rrequently here in the South Bay.
-:;# /6- 6
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
DATE: May 5,1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Bob Leiter, Director ofPlanning~ r
SUBÆCT: Resource Conservation Commission Recommendations Re: Sòuth San Diego Bay
Wïldlife Refuge
The following recommendation is being transmitted to the City Council by the Resource
Conservation Commission (RCC) regarding the Environmental Assessment and Land Protection
Plan for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wùdlife Refuge. This
recommendation was presented at their regular meeting on Monday, May 4,1998.
The RCC recommended (vote 5 yes to 1 no, Bull) that the City Council support Alternative B (the
preferred alternative) for the formation of a Wildlife Refuge for the South San Diego Bay. In
addition, the Commission wished to present the following points in support of their
recommendation:
1) The Refuge allows financing that otherwise would not be available;
2) The Refuge boundary includes almost exclusively undeveloped land;
3) The United States Fish & Wildlife Service has assured no "halo" effect on adjoining
properties;
4) Any management plan would only pertain to willing participants;
5) The migratory bird season (Nov.-Mar.) is not a high boating season;
6) Most of the Refuge is too shallow for most boating;
7) The best use for this area is a Refuge that will benefit wildlife, ecotourism and the residents
of Chula Vista.
cc: Chris Salamone
Joe Gamble
Duane Bazzel
Doug Reid
RCC Members
(#21:\rccrefug.cim)
Sunday / J?----C-r
April 12, 1998
E ~ ¡;. ª ~ '" ¡r ~ g ¡¡>:g:E ~ ~ ;;: e..ra t:O t:O '!!I S' ¡;;... ~ C S' ¡; ¡;. S' .. .... Þ-3 ~ ~
~~~ '~~c~~~g 5·a~~~i=~~OM~~~g~Ka~~~·~ig
~ ~ g:OQ [OQ g.:S=&5·~~:;~ i'~ ()In ã. fi!g-o ~~-g. ¡t;'QJ ~~ ~ ¡...;
OQ_ tJ r+::I:Jg,. (þ (\Jet! OJ('þ "'1l.::r. 0.- -:
::C" ° ~ c:: . go '" £ . _ ° ::1 ~ :0 . <:1' ,. ,," - ..:r :; 5 ~
..... (þ :s AI' . :s Q. -. _. ... 0. ctI C
~œ~~. ~I"I:O"S' ~~'" ."'~~g~I~~~g ~s:osœ~I~C:r ... .<."C .
~;.r·~"~¡r~~~lt:Oll~~"~:O[_i:o[:;~:or~tt~~"~il" ~ 00
~
~~~&I~~·a~~¡;e.lg&!E..(iog;~:~¡;.~JI¡;..r:~~;O~ ~ ~ Q
a~œ~_~II~i~t¡;.fr~~~~g~~J'·rl~!~IIe.·I~~.rf ~. ~
Ii ª ~ " ß~ ':" œ . -" !!. n I ~. 0 ¡; 5~ :r ~ ¡; £ 9
.... . cø ..... 0"- ..:r ... 0 Q. "'!3 ~
e...~~~~O;. ~mJ&~[ :o~:~..H· ~g~ó",q ~
~~ ~¡¡.",~~ ¡¡ ~'!!I g-~!! e. , ~ ~.8.gJ.f~ ;¥ ~ n g. ~ ~
__('þ¡'~ aO OQEi('þ ~ _e~~~'@a -~gsn~ ~ ~
.~"80:E¡¡:èn o. .;;_( ,,0 .~. a:r..a
('þ e. ::I =: !tel.... (tIs'Q. =_.=;:1 0 ~
m.?12'::Iø.=cr'" ..I'D S 2.g:UJ 0 C'"~_~nCD o.¡¡"þ,1~~- 0
0... ~ ~ "1 "c ¡¡; '" .. . ä: 5 " :r -.. ¡¡> :S. "~
ü;-8C'Þi5:i'ctlff§: HC.~.....ctI~. = '~þ)ã.= fij;'~;' ~ .~.
... ., . I Q.CÞ().....cn.O' CII,(1IOJ::I :=
il::Jt!IIII!llllllilil~I~~!~I~!r!IIIII~!i C/.) ~ !!
~
~ ~~.~
"":rI('D~:I! actl,~. =OQ "'OJcnOJ. 2cl»=::I . ="'" IIIn<t:lþ C:
s·g ¡r "~"'~¡;;'~~g;.'f~' 'g;¡" 8.' P g~=1'11!~ ¡;'gi-~·e.5 ~""O g ~s g,ª" O:; ~èrC
_ goc.. [ . n .. C"'o.::t~ III" 0('D c:::I('D .ÞI:;.· OQ_-o.o t'D cê
~i~l~tl!~~¡il~ ill~ III~:I~:!I~¡ i¡}II!I~
ë ~1<:1" 0!j" . ª" s<:1'· o..~" - ¡;aC", ~
'iii.¡!ffil~l: ~I:~ !~i!;I~II;lt i~[litl:
.;¡
~o' t'DO~'" .....('J= .:]Q.I!. .«OQtT <11I0'2" fI -~ t'D=nt'D ª
ã ë. ,,' = ~ '8 ed!.q, ¡;: ¡¡ ~ ~ ¡;. i .. '0 ~ !I ! ~ ¡;;. g. 'ª ~ '0 ~ r ª- po e. g ~ ! cË ~
þ R -ræ·rn 0'0 Ct. I'D :reo:... Q.I» o~ ~c:rS' I'D .a g 0 Q..-3-
~i~g'g:"i~rt~ =I~E ~a..!\~;~=a~~~ <:1'IO¡¡rlg~
~ ~ g. ~ ¡;; 0 _ ~ s . . ¡; . ¡o ::1.'0 . ~ n I!. ~ a. ~. g,. a n ~ " ~
7~~·~~fç·~i~·r'(! [ii~ tl~ijll~·ij~1~[ J~~!~;i' ~
May 1 , 1998
Testimony of William E. Claycomb, President, SAVE OUR BAY, INC.
to be presented at the Chula Vista City Council Meeting on May
5, 1998, and Imperial Beach City Council Meeting on May 6, 1998.
I will read the first two sentences of the last paragraph of
The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial of Sunday, April 12, 1998.
REA D S
Eunice at SANDAG just told me that, by the year 2020, their
estimate is that we will have 1,157,700 more people in San Diego
County than we did in 1995. That's a 43% increase, SO
if you're at all concerned about the quali ty of life of
your children and grandchildren, you'd better do as the Union-
Tribune says and go for the National Wil~fe Refuge,_ AND THE
BIGGER THE BETTER! 1JJ¡fj~:!~
- --.... "-'---'--~--"'--~--~"'-'''-''-'--'---'---'--'-
· ;Jf/¿--l)
,
ENVIRONMENTAL REALm COALITION
--
1717 Kettner Blvd, Suite 100 . San Diego, Callfornla 9r»1 L5 ~: [~ [i Iii -:-
Phone (619) 235-0281· Fax (619) 232-3670 , ' . .. ,
e-mail: ehcoalitioll@igc.apc.org : I MAY _ 5 !99e.
Web Address: http://www.eJ1viroDmentalhealth.org~ -I I
>----:--m--:-í; : ~_..... ,
OUR FAX NUMBER IS (619) 232-3670
FAX TRANSMITIAL
TO: m~..1- C.()lÑ\~
FR?M: ~
DATE: May 5, 1998
FAX NUMBER: ( )
RE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover page): 3
COMMENTS:
" .. ..______~____ ____n______._____..._____
. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COALITION
. ¡:\ 1717 KettDer Boulevard. Suite 100' SaD DiegD, CA 92101· (619) 235-0281' Fax (619) 232-3670
c·mail: chcoalition@igc.apc.org . Web address: http://www.environmcntalhc.alth.org
IIoard ofDiftcton May 5, 1998
_. BonœII-Ropp6, Pn:o;dcnt BY FAX
Collhorulivo SABI!R
Sbmm KaIcmkiariDe, \IIœ I'I<sùIenI Dear Mayor Horton and Oro1a Visla City Councilmcmbers:
Projoct --.. Son Dqo
Counry Bar~
T..,y Poaina, MA, u- Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) strongly urges your support
S.D. CoßIIDIIIi!)' CoI.... District
Ridlllnl J...... Seaì:boy for the staff recommendation pPtion A regarding the South Bay National
M.A.A.C- Projc:a· Wildlife Refuge. .
Joé:Bnavo
Soutbwost _ rorEo......
-Woad__ The CbuJa Vista Alternative is the Best Alternative and eujoys .
Scan CbaIfioId
Ea¡1e94.1 FM broad-base of support
Marc: Cummiap The altcmati.ve outlined in the Chnla Vista Staff Report as Option
NodoIn Comminga _Won
Felicia _ A is the most reasonable, supportable alternative available. It protects
Qirl-'" Son DIcgo-lmperilll nesting and wintering wildlife uses, is scientifically defensible. and
CouncU
PIlllaPorlris addresses the concerns Dver future management through the convening of a
EHC Sill/[" RcprtSClllDlÍVO mnlti-stakeho1der advisory committee. At the same time. it addresses the
_Gill concerns of development interests in Chula Vista. This alternative results
MaIpæt Godsbolk
NmÎOIIaI SdIooI Oimia in the strong alignment heretofore unlikely allies. It is good for the Bay
Ruth Heifetz. and good for ChuJa Vuta. It is the right thing to do.
ucsn School or McdiåI1e
Ios! L....... JoIICI .
C-H.U.M.. UCSD School of The San Diego Bay Panel Supports the Refuge
Medicine
L)'D l.nqc The Refuge is also supported by the San Diego Bay Panel, a multi-
Projea Wildü& jurisdictional of over 30 fedenIl, state, and local agencies. The Panel was
Dan McKirDœ, PhD.
UCSD School of Medicine convened by state legislation to assess the environmental and ecological
Mark Mandel health of San Diego Bay. The Panel worked for 5 years on a
ltasbi Co_ Comprehensive Management Plan for San Diego Bay that was fmalizcd in
Loz PulOIDÙIO
Community Org:aniær Janwuy of this year. The Plan recolllmpJ>itc protection of the remaining
lay Powell resources in Bay with a N ationa! Wildlife Refuge.
Michael Sbamcs
Ut~iIy c.a..rœ.. Aclioa Netwedt
Nonœ Sullivøn Public Support For a National Wlldlife Refuge is Overwb"lnIiYIg
s.. OöegoAoduboa SodClY
Aßitialimu nnl~d for ûJe¡¡tifÏC#tÎtJn Over 1,000 area residents have expressed their snpport for
ptUpt1.tUfml)· protection of San Diego Bay in a National Wildlife Refuge. Over 20
Ex.alli.. DiRCtør local environmental groups have supported the refuge. Hundreds of
Diane TakYOriau individual residents of Chula Vista have placed their name in an ad
Missioo Sta_ supporting the refuge. (See attached)
EaYironnJeIIUIJ Heald! CoaJldon is We UIge your suppon of the establishment of the Chula Vista,
dediCAted 10 tM prevention and Modified Alternative B as the newest member of the National Wildlife
cleanup of toxic pon~. lhrraIeaing Refuge family.
ourb:alth. our~ti". amJ [œ
environment. We prtimoIe eaviran-
mental julia:. nxmitbr IDYCDUDCßI
aDd ¡ndutl)' açUOIII ~ cause
pollution. educaac c:ommuoitie8
radc haz:ank aDd toxies use
ICdDcIioII.lIIId........... tile public t
join our cmøe.
_...1oIaIIy ddoÍiIIoftco..-
wilbOO)boM4Ü1b. ...'
-. .....,- ...-.-.-,,---- ..._--~.-
-
- .
-
An Open Letter In Support
of the South San Diego Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
'10: Greø Cœ, SIm DIep er.a.v- s..per.¡- .
~ ShIrley SedAm ad 0mIa Viota Oty "'-___'-$
DavldMlllcolm,CcI . . J...... s... DIeco u.uw PortDllllric:t
W..1he ...........-. __ of CbuIa Vista ODd IIODiIa, core aboatlhe quoJity of oar eIIYironmoot. &mDieao Bay is· apœciOua aabl.
raI IeIOIIIœ IIIdIlle -. fisb, IDd wildlife in !be Bay... ÌD do... .1. DOeClofP""'""_ protcctÌOJL \\I: ""'" _Im......_ oov-
fortbe tis. FishandWh"1ftl'!~œ'tI ~..,r~...A~~fhe~"" s- ~RavNatinft2ll1Vt';~MIIPe-
WE sui'PoRTTBESOUl1l SAN DIEGO BA.YNATIONAL WILDLIlI'E REFVGEl WE URGE YOUTo DOTHESAMEI
-..... -"""" - - -- -- -- '-"'-
-- -.-. -- ...... --- -..- .,.--
~& ... a.iøJ.o... ...- -.- -- ......co_ --
....L.... . _ne. -- -.......- .....- -...- -
-...., ....1 Call. -- ""'.... -- ........... 01:""'" --
"'AIIiIII ' 0.0- .....- -.-. _w._ -- --
c-...~ -- ........- --- .........,....,...., ..-- --
-- _"'J-. -- ........~ -- ... ... --
.....JMI,À."'* ....- -- -"'- --- ...- .....--....."
.--. -""" -... -,- -- -- -""
.....l6rî .....CO_ -... -,- -- -..... -........
-- ....."J.Dk:i=dIiD .......Uldlw.-t -- ....- -- 0Jd,..........--..,.
....L_ -.... .......- -- -- -... -...,
-- _...- ....- -- --- -- --
....- . Dr........... .......- "'---T".- -- J.C............. --
-- --- _L_ -- -- -- --
...-: -- -- -- -- -- -...-
-- -- _co- """'"- .......c.6)ol:llll.l _L_ ---
-- .....- -- .........- ......... ---... c.s........
-- -- ......- -- -.... .... L"" --
CIdI...,..a; -- -- -- -""" ...- ...-
_L_ "-- - ......- -- -- -- ---
.....-.- -- 10_ -- -.... -- _L_
-_. -- .................. _L_ .....- -- --
-- _L_ -- ]I.- ..- DE..u.I..........., ........
--. .......- -....- ...- """- -..- --
-- -.... -- ...- .-- -- NWdrII....,
--- ...... ......- ....- -- ........F.__ .- .....,....,
KIdIo&.......... adIdM..... ............."""'Iif......JY ......- -- -- ...-
~__.Á:1tIt MldllII-.""-......,. -- ...- 0dIdIa"0Ip.~ -- --
- -- -- ......- .-!...- "-- --
aL_ -...- ""- -- ...... -- ....P......
-...... _L_ ,...w:.~1r. -- _...- ....- ..-
èw, --.¡. -- ."..,- -- -- -- ---
......... --- ow.. -"- -- .-...- .. ......
-~ -...... .....- .....>-....... . -- -..- --
.-.,....... ~a..~ ......- o c.I...M...... -- -- ........,...
_.II.c:.IIo -- -- ....- -- """".. -...... ...-
-...""- ...... 1.Mmœ,.. -- -............ ....- ..... ..... "'-J. .......
LwiIIII"~ _L_ -- -- .....- .....- ....-
CdIIIIIIIc.ft IlØlaAdliØDA.o.. .....&ClbJ:idd 0.. ............ ........- -- ...........WJ1IIa
-"""'" --- """"'-- -- ..- -- --
-- .....-- -- _.......~ ..-...., -- a--.r.'1iIIå.k
ewa.a.k; -...- ~__&A--=. -...- w.a...., hIk -- Iu..--,y_
-""" MIc:IM:II.OII.... ......- -- -.... --- ....-
......""'"' -- ....-- -- -- -- .......v.......,.
¡NOS011t.OS Al'OYAMOS AI. RI!1"UGIO NAaoNAL.PAR.\LA VlDASlLVJm.RE EN EL SUR DE LABABrADE SAN DIEGO!
¡LES PEDIMOS QUE UDS. TAMIIJEN APOYENI
~"II¡,._or_J 1W1d11111,. - ~~"""'''I . 8
- . ....c.IIII8a.......AIdiiiII....,....I*pOlqll..z*_~.....O'W.,..,.,...........,.I!iIIIII!a,~Nllherr.r:Soc:IIIJ,~_Qlllitrd
utt.............- . . ~ ..--.....a.D,..................~-~~~r:.;...~~~c.w~.:..--::..
'-"'........ÐIIp............0Ir.........1hId......__O"~......... .
C_1IIIp~1UII!-r.a.s.DìItt.......ImDilp...~..m.....a..r....
To.:ld )CIW_lotk 1iII.of lDppCftØ.or bmoœhdi omd:ec:ta...L _w BMIMt o.IIII.r
1113 _............I....."...,CA "'01. .........(111"..,..,.1;___
'i,<: -.
.~,_M_,_~'_O_'___ _ ,,'__"
---_.,,,._.,----'--, ',,--
I
- Draft Environmental
I Assessment and
- Land Protection Plan
~ Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit,
San Diego Natiorwl Wildlife Refuge
I
I
,
.
I
I
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Draft
Environmental Assessment
Proposed Sauth San Diego Bay Unit,
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
Prepared by
u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service
911 N.E. 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
January 1998
This is the legacy I would like to leave behind:
I would like to have stopped the ridicule
about the conservation of snails, lichens, and fungi, and
instead move the debate to which ecosystems
are the most recoverable and how we can save them,
making room for them and ourselves.
Mollie H. Beattie, Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1993-1996
Cover: California least terns, Kendal Morris
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................... 1
1.2 Proposed Action ..................................................... 3
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action ......................................... 4
1.5 Background ......................................................... 4
1.6 Project Area ........................................................ 6
1.7 Decisions To Be Made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.8 Issue Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.8.1 Issue Identification Process ..................................... 7
1.8.2 Issues to be Addressed in Detail ................................. 7
1.8.3 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.9 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.9.1 Conceptual Management and Land Protection Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.9.2 Interim Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.9.3 Comprehensive Conservation Plan .............................. 11
1.10 Other Related Agency Actions ........................................ 12
1.10.1 OtayValley Regional Park ....................................12
1.10.2 Memorandum of Understanding between Naval Computer and
Telecommunications Station, San Diego; Commander, Naval Base San Diego;
and United States Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1 0.3 Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.10.4 Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge ........................ 14
1.10.5 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and Habitat Conservation
Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.11 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.11.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge
Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. . . .. . . .21
2.1 Range of Alternatives. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Actions Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
2.3 Features Common to Alternatives A, B, and C, but Lacking in the No Action
Alternative ...................................................... 23
2.3.1 Land Protection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2 Management Under the National Wildlife Refuge System ............ 24
2.4 Alternatives for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit .................... 26
2.4.1 Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.2 Alternative B. (Preferred Alternative) ..........................27
2.4.3 Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR i Table of Contents
2.4.4 Alternative D. No Action .................................... 30
2.5 Comparative Summary of the Direct Actions and Effects ofthe Alternatives .....30
Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 34
3.1 Introduction ........................................................ 34
3.2 Biological Environment - Coastal Ecosystems ..,.,.."..""",..."",. 35
3.2.1 Submerged Lands Habitat and Wildlife Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.2.2 Eelgrass Habitats and Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.3 Mudflats (Intertidal) Habitats and Species ......................... 39
3.2.4 Salt Marsh Habitats and Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.5 Salt Pond Habitat and Species ..................................40
3.2.6 Beaches, Dunes, and Coastal Created Lands and Species ............. 42
3.2.7 Fallow Agricultural Lands and Species ...........................43
3.2.8 Riparian Habitats and Species ..................................44
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Belding's Savannah Sparrow. . . . . . . . . .44
3.3.1 Summary of Species' Uses of Study Area. . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .44
3.3.2 Recovery Plans for Threatened or Endangered Species with Components in
the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 Economic and Social Environment ..................................... 46
3.4.1 Western Salt Company Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4.2 Quality of Life and Popular Activities ............................ 52
3.4.3 Boating .................................................... 54
3.4.4 South San Diego Bay Public Access Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................55
4.1 Introduction ........................................................ 55
4.2 Coastal Ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2.1 Effects on Submerged Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.2 Effects on Eelgrass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.3 Effects on Mudflat/Intertidal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2.4 Effects on Salt Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2.5 Effects on Salt Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.6 Effects on Beaches, Dunes, and Coastal Created Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2.7 Effects on Fallow Agricultural Lands ............................62
4.2.8 Effects on Riparian Habitats and Species ......................... 63
4.3 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Belding's Savannah Sparrow .64
4.4 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.4.1 Effects on Salt Works ........................................ 72
4.4.2 Effects on Quality of Life .....................................73
4.4.3 Effects on Recreational Boating ................................ 76
4.4.4 Effects on Public Access to the Bay ............................. 76
4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR ii Table of Contents
4.7 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ...........................77
4.8 Cumulative Impacts ................................................. 78
Chapter 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND COMPLIANCE............... 80
5.1 Coordination With Other Agencies and Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2 Environmental Consultation and Compliance .............................81
Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS ..............................................85
REFERENCES .............................................................. 86
MAPS
Map 1. Project location, proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge ................................................... 2
Map 2. Local landmarks and place names. South San Diego Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Map 3. Boundary alternatives, proposed South San Diego Bay Unit ............... 22
Map 4. Habitats, South San Diego Bay ...................................... 36
MapS. Land ownership, South San Diego Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Map 6. Recreation in and near study area, South San Diego Bay .................. 53
Map 7. Location of nesting areas, and waterfowl observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
TABLES
Table 1. Property Tax Revenue for Affected Jurisdictions in the Study Area for
1992-93 ........................................................ 10
Table 2. Acres of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative A,
South San Diego Bay Unit. ......................................... 27
Table 3. Acreage of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative
B, South San Diego Bay Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 4. Acreage of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative
C, South San Diego Bay Unit. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 5. Comparison of Acres Potentially Acquired under Alternatives A-D .........31
Table 6. Comparative Summary of Effects of Refuge Boundary Extension and Acquisition
for Alternatives A-D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 7. Number of breeding pairs of listed birds and several seabirds of concern at the salt
ponds, 1993 and 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Table 8. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species That Occur Within the
South San Diego Bay Unit. ......................................... 45
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Hi Table of Contents
- ---- ---~.._--"~._---_._._-----_.._._--_....-
Table 9. Applicable Recovery Plan Components for Rail, Tern, Pelican, and Plant, South
San Diego Bay. .................................................. 46
Table 10. Population, Areas, and Leading Industries of Communities. ...............47
Table 11. Effects on Listed Species And Belding's Savannah Sparrow by Alternative. .. 65
Table 12. Components of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives
A through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 13. Components of the California Least Tern's Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives
A through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 14. Components of the Brown Pelican's Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives A
through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table IS. Components ofthe Salt Marsh Bird's Beak Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives
A through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 16. Interim Compatibility Detennination Detennination Summary of Wildlife-
dependent Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
APPENDICES
Appendix A 1978 alternative
Appendix B Próposed alternatives, March 1992 San Diego Bay Refuge Planning Update Map
Appendix C Distribution list
Appendix D Glossary
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR iv Table of Contents
_ .u_,_,__..__.._.'. .'._, ______~___u.~_______
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego County, California
Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) helps conserve the rich and varied natural heritage
of the San Diego region. The diverse habitats contained within the Refuge boundaries are
protected and managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) as wildlife habitat for the
continuing benefit of the American people (see map I). The Service proposes to protect the last
remaining wildlife habitat in and around the southern end of San Diego Bay as part of the
Refuge. The proposed South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is
located within the politicaijurisdictions of the cities ofImperial Beach, Chuls Vista, Coronado,
National City, and San Diego.
This draft environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the alternatives for and the effects of
establishing an approved Refuge boundary, then acquiring and managing lands within this
boundary as wildlife habitat. This assessment will be used by the Service to encourage public
input in the acquisition planning process, and to determine whether the proposed establishment
ofthe South San Diego Bay Unit would have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. The environmental assessment is part of the Service's decision-making process in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
1.2 Proposed Action
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to establish an approved boundary for the South San
Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Once the boundary is approved, the
Service would negotiate with willing participants to acquire land within this boundary. Lands
acquired or managed under special agreement would, as permitted and negotiated, be added to
the National Wildlife Refuge System and managed accordingly (see section 2.3.2). Lands not
added to the National Wildlife Refuge System would continue to be managed by their owners.
South San Diego Bay Unil Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 1 Chapter 1
----------
IAAP 1
LEGEND
- VERNAL POOLS
STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
APPROVED BOUNDARY
IØr ~
San WnœnÑ
--0 0 . . '2 Ie"
I... I , ,
. 0 ...
, , , , , ,
..
.
...
ev
SAN DIEGO
NATIONAL
Pacific SWEETWATER
IIARSH raREST
NWR
Ocean
PROPOSED SOUTH
SAN DIEGO BAY U I ale
UNIT
------ NexIco
BLIoI'S OTAY NATIONAL
LAND AND WILDUFE
WANAGEIIEIIT AREA
Project location, proposed South San Diego
Bay Unit, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
.... .............1..,.
2
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action
Since the 1850s, the upper two-thirds of San Diego Bay has been converted trom a fertile,
shallow, flat-bottomed bay surrounded by extensive mudflats and salt marshes to a series of
dredged navigational channels edged by wharves, shipping berths, docks, and urban development
(Port 1990). In the past 70 years, urban development and navigational projects have greatly
altered or eliminated the natural habitats of San Diego Bay. Ninety to one hundred percent of the
shallow submerged lands, intertidaVmudflats, and salt marshes have been eliminated in the north
and central Bay areas. About 65 percent of the South Bay's original shallow submerged lands
and 39 percent of its original intertidal/mudflats remain; only small remnants of salt marsh still
exist (Port 1990).
A major calving area for gray whales until the advent of whaling, the Bay once teemed with
edible fish and shellfish. Hundreds of thousands of brant, surf scoter, and other waterfowl
wintered on the Bay (Port 1990). Similar numbers of migrating shorebirds and nesting seabirds
arrived each year to nest, rest, and feed in the Bay's shallow water, eelgrass, mudflats, and salt
marshes.
Development drastically changed the health and productivity of the Bay. Decades of industrial
pollution and raw-sewage dumping destroyed the water quality and the tragi Ie, shallow-
water/bay-floor ecosystem. Shellfish and edible fish populations were greatly reduced. The
numbers of some wintering waterfowl dwindled by up to 90 percent (Port 1990). Nesting
seabirds and migrating shorebirds still arriving found suitable nesting sites restricted to the salt
ponds and other remnant patches on the south end of the Bay.
Hundreds of thousands of migrating shorebirds, nesting seabirds, and wintering waterfowl depend
on the South Bay, a vital link in the Pacific Flyway. Massive numbers of birds fly back and forth
between the Bay and the agricultural fields, riparian woodlands, and salt marsh of the Tijuana River
National Estuarine Research Reserve, which lies a short distance to the south.
Nearly all of San Diego's shallow water, eelgrass, mudflats and salt marshes--crucial habitat for
many species of birds and invertebrates-have been eliminated except in the South Bay area.
These South Bay habitats now receive some indirect protection because of their status as
wetlands or navigable waters. Many types of activities and development cannot occur without
regulatory review and restrictions. However, wildlife needs are not proactively protected ftom
disturbance unless a federally listed threatened or endangered species is present. These needs
include food sources, hiding places, nesting and rearing sites, and safe resting places. All
habitats left in the South Bay have been damaged as a result of ongoing development;
recreational and commercial activities; air, water and noise pollution; disturbance trom predators
and other intruders; and invasion by nounative species. Habitats are threatened with further
degradation.
These remaining ecosystems must be proactively protected as wildlife habitat if San Diego Bay
is to maintain its native wildlife into the 21 st Century and beyond. Existing habitats need to be
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 3 Chapter 1
- ----- --------_._~..__._-~---_.._..._-_.
proactively managed, protected, and enhanced to continue to meet the needs of the species that
depend on them. Undeveloped areas too damaged to provide good habitat need to be restored to
provide homes for the species displaced by development elsewhere in the Bay.
Not all of the original habitat functions of the Bay can be restored. For example, it is unlikely
that gray whales would return to the Bay to give birth. However, the remaining shallow waters,
mudflats, and salt marshes could become more hospitable for remaining wildlife. Native species
with little remaining habitat, such as light-footed clapper rail, would have the opportunity to
increase in numbers if areas that once sustained them are recreated. The Service has an
opportunity to counterbalance the heavy development and use of most ofthe Bay by protecting
and reviving the small portion of the Bay where native habitats remain.
San Diego, renowned for its beautiful bay setting, attracts over 35 million visitors annually.
Hundreds ofthousands of people come to San Diego County specifically to view wildlife,
particularly birds. The largest and densest concentration of birds in the study area is found in the
artificially diked ponds that are owned by the Western Salt Company and used to produce salt
(see map 2). It is difficult for Western Salt to accommodate visitors wanting to view this
massive bird gathering, and viewing locations with adequate nearby parking are limited. The
Service would have an opportunity to work with Western Salt and local community groups, as
willing, to establish one or more viewing sites where public access would not damage the area's
nesting, resting, and feeding habitat for birds and other wildlife.
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The proposed action has three purposes:
I) To provide the Service with authority to acquire or otherwise protect wildlife habitat
under the National Wildlife Refuge System. Protection would follow acquisition (ftom
willing participants) or negotiated agreements (see land protection plan, chapter IV).
2) To provide the Service with the opportunity to manage, enhance, restore, and protect
Refuge areas for the benefit of federally listed and other trust species. Specific
management activities involving more than minor change will not be addressed by this
document (see section 2.3.2).
3) To provide opportunity for the Service to develop compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational activities in partnership with local communities (see sections 1.11.1 and
2.3.2).
1.5 Background
Service planning for this Refuge Unit began in 1978, but has been intermittent since then. The
Service completed an environmental assessment for protection of south San Diego Bay, with a
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 4 Chapter 1
Map 2. LOCAL LANDMARKS AND PLACE NAMES, SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
o STUDY AREA
o Oto 6feet
~ to 12 feet
. to 18 feet
. over 18 feet
,
,
CHULA YIS'D\
WlLDUFE
RESERVE
BIOlOGY
'", ØTUDY
.~ AREA
~'"
:¡: '--...\
g
;11 il
'"
~
I,::'
0 \~
'.~
"'~
e~
.~~
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-
5
-_.~---~- -._-'~-,....__.~...~--,-_.-._---_.--
signed Finding of No Significant Impact, in 1979 (FWS 1979a). The Service implemented a
portion of this decision as Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, which protects high
marsh areas. However, the Service did not implement the lower Bay portions addressing the salt
ponds and vicinity (see appendix A). The Service will not implement the 1979 decision without
reevaluating the project and updating infonnation.
The Service began revisiting the establishment of a Refuge in the South Bay beginning in 1990.
In response to input provided at many public meetings, the Service proposed three Refuge
boundary alternatives. The Service widely circulated these boundary alternatives in one of the
three San Diego Bay Refuge Planning Updates mailed to interested parties over the last two
years (see appendix B). While these boundaries were not finalized, they were based on the best
infonnation available at the time and were presented to the public during scoping meetings.
These boundaries represent the areas of concern to both the Service and the public and appear in
the Planning Updates for general discussion and infonnation.
In 1995, the Service published two reports on bird use of the South Bay (FWS 1995a, 1995b).
As staff analyzed the reports in preparation of this document, it became clear that Alternative 2
(see appendix B), as presented in the updates, would not protect any more important open water
habitat than Alternative 3. The infonnation from these reports indicated that the open waters of
the South Bay were important habitat for feeding and resting waterfowl and seabirds (see section
3.2.1). The open waters include submerged land, eelgrass, and inundated mudflat habitats.
As the Service reevaluated conservation needs, the full study area became Alternative A. Then
the Service removed potential restoration areas that had more conflict with other land uses to
fonn a preferred alternative, Alternative B. The Service used the proposed Refuge Unit
boundary from the 1979 decision to fonn Alternative C. Alternative C is included in this EA to
contrast the levels of protection provided for the South Bay by the 1979 decision and the 1997
proposal.
1.6 Project Area
The project area for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit lies at the southern end of San
Diego County, approximately 5 miles north of the border between the United States and Mexico
(see map 1). San Diego Bay is a crescent-shaped estuary located about 5 miles north of the
Mexico/U.S. border along the California coastline. The Bay is about 14 miles long and nearly 3
miles across at its widest point. Its watershed covers 415 square miles.
The 5-000-acre project area stretches westward from the 24th Street Channel to just north of
Crown Cove, southward around the salt ponds, and then northward along the Bay's edge. It
extends through the jurisdictions of several local governments, including the cities of Imperial
Beach, Chula Vista, Coronado, National City, and San Diego.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 6 Chapter 1
....~ - ---..--"'--~-.-.--~_._....-'.- --.....-...---.---..
1.7 Decisions To Be Made
Based on the analysis documented in this environmental assessment, the following decisions will
be made by the Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon:
1. Determine whether or not the Service should establish a South San Diego Bay Unit of the
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
Ifso,
2. Select an approved Refuge boundary that, based on the assessment, best fulfills the
purposes for establishing the Unit.
3. Determine whether the selected alternative would have a significant impact upon the
quality ofthe human environment.
1.8 Issue Identification
1.8.1 Issue Identification Process
In the development of this draft environmental assessment, the Service has complied with the
purpose and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
Before the Service developed the draft, scoping activities were undertaken with a variety of
Federal, State, County, and local governments, as well as private groups and individuals (see also
chapter 5). Early in the planning process for the South San Diego Bay proposal, the Service
conducted nine public meetings and organized a citizens' working group and policy working
group to solicit comments and help define the boundaries of the alternatives. The Service also
used ongoing biological research begun in 1992 to identify issues and help define the boundaries
of the alternatives. Public notices, public meetings, personal contacts, telephone interviews, and
correspondence were used to gather input on the proposed project.
1.8.2 Issues to be Addressed in Detail
These issues are discussed in detail in chapters 3 and 4.
Biological Issues
Coastal Ecosystems have degraded to the point that many plant and animal species have
been harmed.
Eighty percent of California's coastal wetlands have been converted to urban or agricultural use,
and many native plant and animal species have disappeared from South San Diego Bay.
Remaining wetlands and wildlife habitats need restoration and protection from incremental
degradation or outright destruction. While South San Diego Bay is internationally important to
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 7 Chapter 1
nesting seabirds, migrating shorebirds, and wintering waterfowl, intensive recreation and urban
activities are disturbing the last remaining habitat.
Several threatened and endangered species are confined to a small percentage of their
original ranges due to land and marine development practices.
Loss of native habitat has led to the decline of several native species that are now federally listed
as threatened or endangered. The South Bay is part of the remaining native habitat that must be
protected to help recover the populations of these species. The study area contains nesting,
resting, and feeding habitat for six listed bird species, and feeding habitat for one listed sea turtle.
One listed plant, salt marsh bird's beak, is also found here. The County of San Diego is home to
more federally listed species than any other county in the continental U.S.
Economic and Social Issues
Existing salt works could be affected by the proposal.
Western Salt Company contributes to the local economy. There is a concern that the salt works
could be affected by the Refuge proposal.
The quality of life and familiar activities could be affected by the proposal.
Many respondents are concerned about how the Refuge might affect the character of adjacent
communities. Of specific concern are effects on existing recreational activities, including
ecotourism, the YMCA Camp Surf, the Bayside Bikeway, and the railroad.
Wildlife protection measures could restrict winter boating activities in some portions of the
proposed Refuge.
Wintering waterfowl need resting and feeding areas that are undisturbed by boat traffic from
November through March. The Service would detennine where seasonal restrictions on boating
would be necessary (see section 3.2.1). These restrictions would, in time, lead to a decrease in
areas open to recreational boaters using South Bay waters at certain times of year.
The public, especially residents of Imperial Beach, lacks access to the south end of the Bay
to fish, to use nonmotorized boats, and to experience the ecosystem.
During public meetings and in subsequent correspondence, residents said they wanted a public
access point in the south end of the Bay. This document discusses the concept of an access point
or points; however, any actual proposals would be developed in a separate planning effort (see
section 1.9.2). Any access point(s) and wildlife-dependent recreational activities would need to
be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established (see section 1.11.1).
South San Diego Bay Unil Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 8 Chapter 1
1.8.3 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis
The following issues are discussed in this section only, and are not carried through in chapters 3
and 4. These issues do not warrant more detailed analysis because the potential for impact is
minimal or nonexistent.
The proposed Refuge could stop marine development projects.
No Service action under any alternative would affect existing navigational projects. Inclusion
within a Refuge boundary would not increase Service authority over these projects beyond
existing Federal and State protections such as the Endangered Species Act, various sections of
the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the State Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and State and
local land use regulations. Existing channels and marine developments would continue to be
maintained and dredged by the responsible parties to the depths agreed to in applicable permits
and decision documents. The Service's authority would increase only if the U.S. Coast Guard,
State, and the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) entered into formal agreements with the
Service.
This report will not analyze the effects of inclusion within the proposed Refuge boundary on
speculative projects. In the last three decades, several proposals have been made that involve
massive dredging in previously undisturbed shallow submerged lands, placing fill in the waters
ofthe United States in areas exceeding 10 acres, potential take of endangered or threatened
species, or breaching the barrier strand that separates the most shallow part of the Bay from the
ocean. Such projects will continue to be scrutinized by all levels of government and the public
under existing environmental review processes, and under economic and technical feasibility
analyses by private and governmental funding sources, before receiving the permits and funding
necessary to proceed.
It is not known if any of these projects are feasible, since none are being formally pursued at this
time. None are expected to become active in the reasonably foreseeable future. Any such
proposals would have difficulty gaining approval, regardless of the presence or absence of a
refuge, because of their significant environmental impacts. Tidal wetlands and special aquatic
sites would be destroyed, water quality could be degraded, and the existence of some federally
listed species could be jeopardized.
The proposed Refuge could stop commercial net and commercial sport fishing.
No commercial net fishing occurs in the South Bay. The limited commercial fishery that
recently used gill nets to catch striped mullet in the South Bay is now gone. This fishery was
conducted under experimental gear permits issued by the Fish and Game Commission, since the
set gill nets once used by the industry are now illegal. As many as five gill-net fishermen were
issued permits; only one fisherman received a permit in 1995 (Ca. DFG, in conversation, 1995).
In 1996, this last individual did not acquire a permit (Ca. DFG, in conversation, 1996).
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 9 Chapter 1
Although little data are available on charter boats for sport fishing in south San Diego Bay, the
shallowness of the water significantly limits the size of boat that can be used and the areas that
can be navigated. South San Diego Bay is not a significant commercial charter fishing boat
attraction (ibid).
The proposed Refuge could harm local public finances by decreasing the amount oftaxable
land base.
An economic study conducted for the Service in 1994 indicated that the action alternative would
benefit local public finances over time (Niehaus, 1994). A variety of taxes provide funding for
local governments. The basic property tax rate is one percent of the assessed value ofland and
improvements. The County collects the tax and then distributes the collections among the taxing
jurisdictions within the County. Property tax collections amounted to $1.3 billion in all
jurisdictions within the County, exclusive oflevies for voter-approved bonded indebtedness
(Niehaus 1994). Ownerships associated with Western Salt Company and Egger and Ghio are the
sole source of property taxes paid in the study area.
Table 1 provides general information on general revenues and tax revenues. In comparison to
the total general fund for each community, revenues generated by the private land within the
study area are very small.
Table 1. Property Tax Revenue for Affected Jurisdictions in the Study Area for 1992-93*
Jurisdiction General Fund Western Salt Egger & H.G.
Revenue FY 1993 Property Taxes Ghio/Fenton Fenton Co.
Chula Vista $45.2 million $0 $0 $0
Coronado $15.4 million $1,578 $0 $0
Imperial Beach $6.8 million $352 $0 $0
National City $16.5 million $707 $0 $0
San Diego $420 million $2,323 $792 $260
County of $1.8 billion $3,273 $729 $240
San Diego
Other I $14,539 $ 3,274 $ 1,077
'Source: Niehaus, 1994
'Other jurisdictions include special districts, such as school districts.
Although the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own land, several factors
offset the potential hardship for local governments from loss of property tax revenue. First,
refuge lands and waters demand little in the way of expensive infrastructure or services. Second,
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 10 Chapter 1
- -.--.-----" --- -- -.-- - --~.._,,_. .
when the Service acquires private land in fee, Congress allocates payments to the Service to pay
counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act to partially compensate for the loss of property
taxes. Third, refuge status typically results in larger numbers of visitors, and local goverrunents
benefit ITom increased sales and lodging taxes. According to Niehaus (1994), the annual net
gains ITom sales and lodging taxes would total at least $57,300 for the smallest South San Diego
Bay protection area, and as much as $147,400 for the largest proposal, not including Revenue
Sharing Act funds.
In South San Diego Bay, the economic contributions of ecotourism under the most conservative
estimates would be more than twice the value of the property tax losses should all private
property owners in the study area choose to sell their property to the Service (Niehaus, 1994). In
addition, the counties would receive Refuge Revenue Sharing funds if private lands, or lands
belonging to the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach are purchased outright. (Until such
parcels are purchased and appraised, the amount of offset is unknown, so these funds have not
been included in this discussion.) While these benefits are not significant in comparison to the
$1.8 billion in tax revenues collected within the County of San Diego, they do represent a net
gain for each community in the study area.
1.9 San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts
1.9.1 Conceptual Management and Land Protection Plans
The Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, which included
the proposed South Bay Unit, was reviewed by landowners, agencies, and interested citizens.
The Service has considered the public comments in finalizing this document, which is referenced
as a planning document. The conceptual management plan gives a general overview of how the
proposed Refuge would be operated and managed, but it does not provide extensive detail,
pinpoint where facilities would be located, or show where public use would be allowed.
The draft land protection plan for the proposecl South San Diego Bay Unit, which identifies land
acquisition strategies, is bound behind this environmental assessment.
1.9.2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
As lands are acquired by the Service, a comprehensive conservation plan and step-down Refuge
management plans would be prepared. The comprehensive conservation plan would provide
details for the management of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and would specifY the
types and locations of public use activities and habitat management activities. This plan,
developed through the public involvement process, would include detailed environmental
analysis and the identification of compatible public uses that would be permitted within the San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 11 Chapter 1
The comprehensive conservation plan, step-down Refuge management plans, and associated
National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents would analyze the environmental
impacts and project alternatives for public use and wildlife-dependent recreational activities
within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit. These documents would address proposed and
potential public use activities such as environmental education and interpretation. The Service
would use comments received during the public review period that identified public use activities
and management issues to develop the comprehensive conservation plan and step-down Refuge
management plans for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit.
Since the comprehensive conservation planning process would require years and may not be
started for years, the Service would address public use separately, soon after lands are acquired.
The Service would propose a public access plan. The plan would be developed with input from
all interested parties and would be conducted in compliance with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requirements.
1 .1 0 Other Related Actions
Several related actions, initiated by a variety of government agencies and private organizations,
would complement the establishment of the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit. These
independent actions include the Otay Valley Regional Park, Memorandum of Understanding
between the Navy and the Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Tijuana Slough
National Wildlife Refuge, and Multiple Species Conservation Program. These related agency
actions are stand-alone projects that would continue to be planned, funded, and implemented
independently of the Service's action and decision on the South San Diego Bay Unit. As
applicable, these actions are analyzed as part of the no action alternative and cumulative impacts
(see chapter 4).
1.10.1 Otay Valley Regional Park
The cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego propose to create an Otay
Valley Regional Park that stretches along the Otay River from South San Diego Bay to the
Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs. In 1990, the jurisdictions entered into a Joint Exercise of
Power Authority Agreement for coordinated planning, acquisition, and design for the Otay
Valley Regional Park. In 1997, they presented the Preliminary Draft Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan. The draft concept plan identifies study areas for an open space core/preserve area,
recreation areas adjacent to the open space preserve, a loop trail system, and interpretive centers
for environmental and educational programs.
The concept plan proposes an Otay Valley Regional Park study area that overlaps approved and
proposed portions ofthe San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. In the Vernal Pools Unit, the
overlap occurs near Lower Otay Reservoir and Otay Mesa. The boundary of the Regional Park
study area overlaps the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit in the salt ponds (see map 2). The
overlap occurs between the railroad bed (the tideward boundary of the park study area) and the
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 12 Chapter 1
.. _._.___..._._.~..._.____. _ .w___.~__ ..... "._.._"~
landward limits of parcels owned by Western Salt or its subsidiaries (the landward boundary of
the Refuge study area). At the Otay-Sweetwater Unit, overlap occurs at the Upper and Lower
Otay reservoirs and the eastern Otay River Valley. The proposed Regional Park is an important
regional conservation initiative that would protect a significant riparian corridor between the
proposed South San Diego Bay Unit and the Otay-Sweetwater Unit.
1.10.2 Memorandum of Understanding between Naval Computer and
Telecommunications Station, San Diego; Commander, Naval Base San
Diego; and United States Fish & Wildlife Service
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on December 12, 1996 and is valid for
20 years, with five-year review intervals. The agreement implements a policy of coordination
and cooperation between the Navy and the Service to develop a habitat bank and implementation
plan for effective conservation, long-tenn protection, and management of the natural
communities and sensitive species at the Naval Radio Receiving Facility at Imperial Beach. The
purpose of the habitat bank is to provide compensation opportunities to offset future Naval
impacts to natural resources and sensitive species in the San Diego Bay area. An implementation
plan is being completed. When the plan is complete and approved by both parties, it will be
signed and become part of the MOU.
Approximately 350 acres of natural and disturbed vegetation are included in the MOU,
representing protection of a key zone connecting Bay and ocean habitats, as well as protection
and enhancement of native habitats for targeted native species. Targeted species include, but are
not limited to, California least tern, western snowy plover, salt marsh bird's beak, Belding's
savannah sparrow, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, short-eared owl, San Diego coast barrel
cactus, Nuttal's lotus, San Diego blacktailjack rabbit, coast woolly heads, globose dune beetles,
and two species of tiger beetles.
The parties agree that a) functional ecosystems will be maintained and restored; b) viable
populations of target species will be maintained and restored; c) existing wildlife corridors and
habitat linkages between critical resource areas on site will be maintained or improved; d) native
vegetation areas will be maintained or expanded in ecologically significant areas with a focus on
regional habitat needs; and e) tenn, mitigation ratios, and success criteria will be established in
the implementation plan. The MOU has no effect on Camp Surf, which is not included in the
MOU boundaries.
1.10.3 Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Sweetwater Marsh consists of 316 acres of salt marsh and coastal uplands on the South Bay in
the City ofChula Vista and National City. The Refuge is located at the northeastern boundary of
the study area. The Nature Interpretive Center is operated by the City of Chula Vista. The
Center offers extensive interpretive programs including fonnal environmental education classes.
The Refuge provides habitat for California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, salt marsh bird's
South San Diego Bay Unil Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 13 Chapter 1
beak, Palmer's frankenia, and a variety of migrating shorebirds and wintering waterfowl. Over
200 species of birds have been recorded at Sweetwater Marsh.
1.10.4 Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Tijuana Slough consists of 1,056 acres of open water, tidal salt marsh, beach dune, riparian, and
upland habitat in the City ofImperial Beach. The Refuge is part of the 2,530-acre Tijuana River
National Estuarine Research Reserve. The Reserve is operated jointly by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, the San Diego County Parks Department, and the Service.
The Refuge provides habitat for California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, least Bell's vireo,
brown pelican, salt marsh bird' s beak, and a variety of migrating shorebirds and wintering
waterfowl. To date, 378 species of birds have been recorded.
The Service is in the process of updating the Refuge's comprehensive management plan. The
plan is available on the world wide web at http://www.r1.fws.gov/planninglplnhome.html.
1.10.5 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and Habitat
Conservation Plans
The City of San Diego and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service completed anEIRlEIS Issuance of
Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area (City of San Diego and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service 1997) and Record of Decision. The MSCP identifies the most important
remaining habitats for 85 species to be protected. By protecting the most important areas, all
participants hope to create an opportunity for the listed species to continue or grow in number,
and to prevent other species from becoming threatened or endangered by loss of their homes.
The Secretary of the Interior regulates take oflisted species on non-Federal land under Section
10(a)(I)(B) of the ESA.
Nonnally, the Service reviews site-specific proposals for direct take or incidental habitat
disturbance under the Endangered Species Act in the Section 10(a)(I)(B) pennit process, which
includes preparing a habitat conservation plan. The MSCP will streamline the process. The
process will allow participating cities to apply once for a pennit for all proposed habitat
disturbance within their jurisdictions. Once a city has a pennit, the city must decide where,
when, and how the legal amount of development will occur, guided by land use plans,
subdivision regulations, and zoning.
The MSCP Plan covers 85 species (20 of which are listed), with emphasis on the federally
endangered California gnatcatcher. The subregional (programmatic) MSCP Plan covers the
southwestern portion of San Diego County (582,243-acre planning area or roughly 900 square
miles). Of the 582,243-acre MSCP planning area, 171,917 acres are proposed to be conserved
and up to 410,326 acres may be disturbed once all the cities obtain pennits and implement their
subarea plans.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 14 Chapter 1
--......-.-.. "._~_.._..
Only the City of San Diego currently has an incidental take pennit. Within the 582,243-acre
MSCP planning area, the City of San Diego Subarea Plan covers 206,124 acres (all areas within
the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, plus the Cornerstone Lands owned by the City Water
Utilities Department). Ofthis 206,1 24-acre planning area, the City of San Diego will conserve
52,012 acres and disturb up to 154,112 acres.
A small but important part of the San Diego Bay and environs (two percent) is conserved in the
MSCP Plan. This includes the privately owned portions of Western Salt Company ponds that
have been diked off from the Bay, as well as Pond 20, the MKEG/Fenton Parcel, and Area 2 (see
map 2). (The Fenton Parcel belongs to the City of San Diego.) A majority of the Bay is outside
the MSCP planning boundary because the tidally influenced portions of the Bay fall within State
and Port jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction of any of the participating communities. By
establishing the South San Diego Bay Unit, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would augment and
complement the MSCP protection ofthe salt works and the rest of the MSCP area. This
environmental assessment incorporates the analysis of effects from MSCP EIS/EIR for South
Bay and overall cumulative effects in San Diego County.
Because submerged lands administered by the San Diego Unified Port District and the State
Lands Commission are not included in the MSCP, both must prepare a separate habitat
conservation plan and pennit application for any proposed activities that would cause take of
federally listed species. Navy lands are also not included in the MSCP planning area since
Federal agencies apply to the Service for take authorization under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, not Section 10.
In addition to the MSCP, the Service has issued three pennits for take oflisted species in San
Diego County based on the habitat conservation plans (HCP) and Natural Community
Conservation Plans (NCCP):
I. Fieldstone/La Costa and City of Carlsbad HCP. This pennit covers adverse effects to
63 species and any take of the 4 species that are listed. The pennit includes a 1,955-acre
planning area, of which 942 acres will be conserved and up to 1,013 acres will be
disturbed, in the southeast portion ofthe City of Carlsbad.
2. SDG& E Subregional NCCP. This pennit covers adverse effects to 110 species and
any take of the 18 species that are listed. This pennit includes the entire service area: San
Diego County west of the desert, portions of Orange County, and the Moreno
Compressor Station in Riverside County. They anticipate adversely affecting 124
acres. A block of 240 acres of off-site habitat will be conserved.
3. Poway Subarea HCP. This pennit covers adverse effects to 43 species and any take of
the 7 species that are listed. It covers the area under the jurisdiction of the City of Po way,
located in the center ofthe coastal slope of San Diego County, approximately midway
between the cities of San Diego and Escondido. The pennit includes a 25,000-acre
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 15 Chapter 1
planning area, of which 10,800 acres will be conserved and up to 14,200 acres will be
disturbed.
1.11 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's
fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The
Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and
animals, certain marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our
Nation's fish and wildlife resources is shared with other Federal agencies and State and Tribal
governments.
As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS). The NWRS is the only nationwide system of Federal land managed and protected for
wildlife and their habitats. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer
a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for
the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 use 668dd et. seq.).
Unlike other Federal lands that are managed under a multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests
administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by the BLM), units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System are managed as primary-use areas. That is, they are managed
primarily for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and secondarily for other uses. In
addition, refuges are closed to uses other than conservation and management of fish, wildlife and
plants, including public use, unless specifically and formally opened.
Before secondary uses are allowed on national wildlife refuges, Federal law requires that they be
formally determined to be "compatible" with the purpose for which the refuge was established.
For recreational uses to be allowed, a refuge manager must further determine that adequate
funding and staffing are available for the development, operation, and maintenance ofthe
activity.
A refuge purpose may be specified in or derived from Federal law, proclamation, executive
order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum. In
addition to providing a basis for making compatibility determinations, a refuge's purpose also
serves as a vision or broad mission statement for refuge management and the public.
Guiding Principles ofthe National Wildlife Refuge System
1. Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high-quality habitat, and without fish
and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will
continue to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat
within refuges.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 16 Chapter 1
_ 'a.'.._._·~·.____"." _____,__~____.___._~~_._.._ ___...___
2. Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
3. Partuerships. America's sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on
protecting valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships
with other Federal agencies, State agencies, local government, Tribes, organizations,
industry, and the general public can make significant contributions to the growth and
management of the Refuge System.
4. Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open opportunity to
participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our national wildlife
refuges.
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
I. To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) all species
of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
2. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource.
3. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands.
4. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and the human's
role in the environment; and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome,
and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these
activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, including the Vemal Pools, Otay-Sweetwater, and
proposed South San Diego Bay Units, would be managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public
Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 and other relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies.
Purpose ofthe San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
The purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is to protect, manage, and restore
habitats for federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds and to
maintain and enhance the biological diversity of native plants and animals.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 17 Chapter 1
Interim Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
The following goals ofthe San Diego Refuge reflect the core mission of the Fish & Wildlife
Service to protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing compatible
opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the region.
1. Endangered Species/Essential Habitats: To protect, restore, and enhance native habitats to
aid in the recovery of federally listed endangered and threatened species and to prevent the
listing of additional species.
2. Biodiversity: To protect, manage, and restore the rare coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
riparian woodland, vernal pool, coastal dune, and wetland habitats representative of the
biological diversity of the southwestern San Diego region.
3. Cooperative Programs: To create partnerships and provide leadership in coordinating the
land management activities of Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments and agencies,
and with academia, private conservation organizations, and citizens in support ofthe
Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve system.
4. Migratory Birds: To provide breeding, migration, and wintering habitat for migratory
birds, with emphasis on nesting seabird and migrating shorebird breeding habitat, and
wintering waterfowl habitat.
5. Public Use: To provide safe and high quality opportunities for compatible wildlife-
dependent educational and recreational activities that foster public appreciation of the
unique natural heritage of the San Diego region.
The authorities for the establishment of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge are the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543), as amended; Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d,
715e, 715f-715r), as amended; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (PL 99-645) and
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460-k-4), as amended. The Endangered Species
Act of 1973, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986,
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 authorize the
Service to use funds made available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(D.S.C. 4601-4601-11), as amended, to acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for fish and
wildlife conservation purposes. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 authorizes the
Service to use funds allocated by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission from the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Federal monies used to acquire private lands through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer
continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 18 Chapter 1
. ._..,·w,_"_._________·_____·___·___,_______~_________·---
1.11.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge
Uses
A compatible use on a refuge is a secondary use that will not materially interfere with or detract
trom the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. Some compatible uses may be
supportive of refuge purposes, while others may be of a nonconflicting nature. All secondary
uses, such as public use of trails for observing wildlife, must be compatible with the purposes of
the refuge. Compatibility detenninations also require an analysis of the availability of Service
funding and staff to oversee the activity pursuant to the Refuge Recreation Act. If the proposed
use is found compatible, the use may be authorized by the refuge manager if management funds
and staff are available and other laws and regulations are satisfied. All secondary uses are
discretionary even if the use is compatible and funding and staffing are available. Compatibility
detenninations ensure that the natural resources are protected while providing for uses on the
refuges that are consistent with wildlife management.
The Service completed an interim compatibility detennination for the South San Diego Bay
study area on June 30, 1997. Five ofthe six priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities
identified in 1997 occur in the study area: fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental interpretation, and environmental education. All five were detennined to be
compatible.
The continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational activities would also require the
detennination ofthe Service's authority to regulate the activity, availability of funds and staff to
oversee the activity, and an analysis of any environmental impacts pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act. Hunting does not OCCttr in the study area.
Potential new public access points at the southern end of the Bay would be identified during the
management plan process. Public access planning and final site selection would consider public
need and input, parking and accessibility, wildlife inventory and species-needs data, and Refuge
resources to detennine where, when, and what types of access are compatible with the purposes
for which the Refuge was established, and feasible for the Service to implement. Protection of
wildlife habitat, especially for feeding, resting, and nesting birds and their young, would define
the types of visitor activities and access allowed. The Service would seek partnerships with local
governments and entities in operation and maintenance of any public access points.
1.11.2 Implications of Refuge Designation on Neighboring Lands
The designation of a national wildlife refuge acquisition boundary does not effect regulatory
environmental compliance requirements for neighboring lands. Compliance requirements for
proposed development projects for unacquired lands within the refuge boundary, and for lands
adjacent or in proximity to the approved boundary, do not change when the acquisition boundary
is approved.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 19 Chapter 1
All projects and landowners must comply with regulatory provisions of the Clean Water Act,
River and Harbors Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and other
Federal, State and local environmental laws. Whether lands are adjacent to or included within an
approved national wildlife refuge boundary is not relevant to the requirements to comply with
those laws protecting wetlands and endangered species.
There is no regulatory buffer zone around national wildlife refuges. Landowners do not have to
clear a higher level of review or additional regulatory requirements because of the acquisition of
neighboring lands into the National Wildlife Refuge System.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 20 Chapter 1
._~-_.._-_.~.,_.._,.~~._-_.._--_.~-_..
Chapter 2. AL TERNA TIVES, INCLUDING THE
PREFERRED AL TERNA TIVE
This chapter describes the four alternatives considered by the Service for the proposed South San
Diego Bay Unit (see map 3). The alternatives address the purposes and needs identified in
sections 1.3 and 1.4.
2.1 Range of Alternatives
The Service identified a variety of habitat protection options through meetings with Federal,
State, and local agencies; private groups and individuals; and through wildlife research and other
relevant studies. The alternatives differ in the acreage of land proposed for Service acquisition
and management. As part of the no action alternative, the Service would not acquire or manage
any land within the Sottth San Diego Bay Unit. Acquisition methods are detennined by Federal
law and policy, and whether the owner is private, or local, State, or Federal government.
2.2 Actions Common to All Alternatives
The following types of protection and habitat enhancement are in effect throughout the study
area:
1. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits harassment, harm, or killing of
individuals; destruction of habitat; or any other fonn of take offederally listed species
without first applying for a Section 10 pennit. The ESA prohibits take of plant species on
Federal land. Belding's savannah sparrow is not a federally listed species, and no ESA
protection applies.
2. The Navy prevents damage from trespass and development at the Naval Radio Receiving
Facility. It also enhances habitat for native and listed species, as part ofthe
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Navy and the Service.
3. California Environmental Quality Act requires a full pttblic analysis of certain proposed
projects and their environmental effects.
4. Existing Federal and State laws and regulations and State and local land use development
standards limit wetland fill or dredging activities.
5. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that the California Coastal
Commission review any project proposed in the coastal zone. Projects cannot proceed
unless they are consistent with this Act.
6. The California Department of State Parks and Recreation is restoring the Silver Strand
parcel with native vegetation. Public uses that do not compromise the restoration goals of
this project could be allowed.
7. The Port enforces a 5-mph speed limit for the South Bay between March 16 and October
14 annually.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 21 Chapter 2
MAP 3. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES, PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT
-- 'I 'r_J I¡/
II II
\\....,~"!"'-- \ \ NImDNALCITY__
I r- , I'r---
-- III III
III III
1\1 1\1
- _III _1,1
\1\ .......... - III ..........
III
1\1 III
\ III \ III
- III III
. I I' i 11\
~ III . II
III III
III III
-. III III
~ I ~ I
II Q. II --
':i III _ 'J! II ---
0 11::-- 0 II~-
- \.1 '....... L1 "
0 0
0 \ " ,.r./ - ~ \ " ,r-/
~ I 'v I 'v
Z ,........ z I.......
I -- I --
I I
I I I I
/' /'
I I
~_.-
I
I 4772 Acres I
--
Alternative B - Preferred Alternative
- II I¡/
\ \1 """...."!"'__ 1 Silver Strand State Beach
\ Ilr--
\ \ II I
- 2 Area Two
\ ~I
\ II I 3 MKEG I Fenton Parcel
\ I I
\ ",_III 4 Pond 20
- \ -- \ \ \ CH\SlAV!STA
\ III
\ 1'1 0 2 3
\ III 1
\ III ~--- - -
- \ III Miles
\ II,
\ III
\ III
~ \ II
- I I
Q. I I
'J! I III _--
o 111_-
-,
- o L, "-
~ \ '....... ,r./
, ',/
Z I .......
I --
- \
-- I I
-
~. /'
~ I
-
I
I 2 203 Acres I
- Alternative C 22
2.3 Features Common to Alternatives A, 8, and C, but Lacking in
the No Action Alternative
2.3.1 Land Protection and Acquisition Options
The Service has no authority to acquire land or negotiate agreements on behalf of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) except within an approved refuge boundary. Therefore, the
boundary provides opportunities for the landowners and the Service to work cooperatively. Once
a boundary is approved, the Service still has no authority to protect or manage wildlife or habitat
on a given property as part of the NWRS unless and until a property owner willingly enters into
an agreement with the Service. Protection as part of the NWRS begins when a refuge boundary
has been approved and a property owner has willingly signed a contract with the Service. Types
of agreements include sale, easement, lease, or in the case of a State or Federal agency,
cooperative agreement.
The Service could protect and manage land using several different mechanisms, depending upon
the landowner's and the Service's interest in the land. The South San Diego Bay land protection
plan, included at the end of this document, further describes Service policies on land acquisition
and management inside Refuge boundaries.
Federalland. The Service is limited to pursuing a cooperative agreement or land exchange with
the Navy. Under a cooperative management agreement, the Service could conduct specific
wildlife management activities on specific land, as mutually agreed. Such an agreement could
result in an overlay refuge on Navy land. Current leases between the Navy and other State and
local agencies would not be affected by cooperative agreements with the Service. In the unlikely
event that the land is declared excess and disposed of as part of the Base Relocation and Closure
Act, the Department of the Navy could ultimately transfer the land to the Service.
State land. By policy, the Service is not permitted to purchase State land. The Service's habitat
protection options on State-administered land are limited to leases, exchanges, or cooperative
agreements. (This State land is submerged and best recognized as open water.)
Port land. For land under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District (port), the
Service could pursue a number of habitat protection options, including cooperative agreements,
conservation easements, or fee title purchase. The Service is not permitted to purchase in fee
title any State-owned tidelands under Port trusteeship. The Port and the Service would mutually
determine habitat protection agreements.
Private land and land owned by local governments. On private land, the Service has the
greatest number of acquisition options: 1) acquisition of all (fee title) or some property rights
(easements), and 2) acceptance of donated land, fee title, or easement. Privately owned land
within the proposed Refuge boundary would be unaffected by inclusion within the boundary
until and unless landowners choose to participate. Local government lands are public, but the
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 23 Chapter 2
- -.--.-.-"---.-..-.-.-
Service's acquisition options on local government-owned lands are similar to those for private
lands. The City of San Diego recently purchased the Fenton parcel (see map 5), and the City of
Imperial Beach owns a .14-acre parcel within the proposed boundary that is too small to be
shown on map 5.
The San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development Board (SDMTDB) owns the railroad
right-of-way, which is the alternative route for the Bayshore Bikeway. The bikeway and railroad
line are both included in the proposed Refuge boundary. The Service will not seek to acquire,
operate, maintain, or manage either. The inclusion of both, however, is an opportunity for the
Refuge to work in partnership with other cornmunity activities.
2.3.2 Management as Part of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The Service would manage acquired land within the approved boundary as a unit ofthe National
Wildlife Refuge System (see section 1.11). The NWRS is the only nationwide system of
federally owned land dedicated to protection of fish, wildlife, and plants. There are over 500
national wildlife refuges across the United States. The first refuges were designated by President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. The National Wildlife Refuge System has several unique
characteristics that separate Refuge System protection from any other Federal, State, local, or
private programs that protect wildlife or habitat.
1) Refuge land is protected for fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats in perpetuity. No other
fonn of protection has equal assurance of being there "forever" for wildlife.
2) Under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, the single mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System-protection of wildlife and habitat-is unequivocal. It does
not provide for multiple, competing purposes.
3) Each refuge is part of the 51O-unit, 92 million-acre system that stretches nationwide for
wildlife protection. Migratory birds that would be protected at this Refuge would also be
protected at many other refuges along their flyways. People all over the country recognize that
any refuge is a haven for wildlife. This recognition is very helpful for communities seeking to
attract visitors to view birds and wildlife.
4) As part of the agency responsible for listing, protecting and recovering species in danger of
becoming extinct, the NWRS has a strong focus on and commitment to protecting listed plants
and animals, protecting and enhancing the habitat used by these species, and actively using
refuge land and agency expertise in wildlife biology to help increase populations of these species
enough so that they may recover from the threat of extinction.
5) The NWRS is managed and operated by an agency staffed by professional wildlife managers
whose sole task is the inventory, protection, and management offish, wildlife, plants, and their
habitats. Refuge staff frequently move to three or more refuges in their careers, often in different
parts of the country, bringing a breadth and depth of experience unequaled by other protection
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 24 Chapter 2
networks of smaller geographic scope. Other fish, wildlife, plant, or habitat specialists working
in other programs within the Service apply their expertise, research, and assistance to refuges
regularly.
6) While refuges are closed to public use except where specifically opened, national wildlife
refuge status allows the Service to bring Federal dollars and other resources to a refuge to
promote compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Thus, overall recreational opportunities are
trequently increased on land brought into the Refuge System.
7) Refuges are responsive to local needs and interests regarding protection of fish, wildlife, and
habitats when implementing fish, wildlife, and plant management activities. Over the next IS
years, every refuge in the country will prepare or update a IS-year comprehensive conservation
plan to guide the management and operation of the refuge. Each plan will be developed with the
participation of citizens, elected leaders, and interested groups.
Management activities on national wildlife refuges generally include I) monitoring the status and
recovery of endangered, threatened, and candidate species; 2) controlling nonnative species;
3) restoring and enhancing native habitats; 4) protecting migratory birds and their habitats; and
5) providing high-quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Information on habitats
and wildlife is shared throughout the NWRS to coordinate management efforts as necessary.
This environmental assessment describes potential management actions in very general terms
because this is a decision-making document for a proposed Refuge boundary and land protection
plan (attached) only. The Service would examine different management alternatives during the
management plan process once land is acquired (see section 1.9.2). The Service has authority
under 50 CFR to provide basic refuge manag~ment actions and to implement small-scale,
individual activities on acquired land.
During subsequent management planning, the Service would address proposals for two issues
raised by the Refuge proposal: I) public access points, and 2) effects on boaters trom protecting
migratory waterfowl and seabirds trom disturbance in fall and winter. The Service is
introducing both issues for public discussion now in preparation for the management planning
process.
Ifthe Refuge boundary is approved, the Service would identify, then select, one or more
potential new public access points at the southern end of the Bay. The Service would seek
partnerships with local governments and entities in operation and maintenance of the access
point or points.
Service acquisition ofpublic1y owned tidelands of South San Diego Bay would be limited to the
negotiation of cooperative agreements, permits, or leases, with the existing trustees-San Diego
Unified Port District (port) and the State Lands Commission. These acquired tidelands would
become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 25 Chapter 2
~._.__^_._.._ .·m·__~____~_·_'_____··_
Some restrictions on recreational boating would likely be required for the Refuge to meets its
goal of protecting concentrations of wintering waterfowl. Restrictions could include establishing
boat-tree sanctuary areas trom November to March, continuing existing speed limits, and
possibly creating no-wake zones. Restrictions on boat operation adjacent to salt pond dikes
during the seabird nesting period may also be necessary. Restrictions could be as great as
restricting boats to existing navigation channels only, but could also include establishing smaller
sanctuaries closed to boating during the fall and winter. Boat use of navigation channels that
serve existing South Bay marina facilities would not be affected.
Establishment of a Refuge boundary does not provide the Service with authority to unilaterally
impose boating restrictions. That authority would depend on the willing participation of the
existing trustee agencies. Regulations establishing boating restrictions would have to be
promulgated by State and Port authorities and the U. S. Coast Guard. They would be part of, or
subsequent to, negotiated agreements to establish national wildlife refttge status on State or Port
lands. The Service would assimilate any new boating regulations as Refuge regulations, which
would be enforceable by Refuge law enforcement personnel. Refuge enforcement personnel
would cooperate with other enforcement agencies to a mutually agreeable extent, which could
include joint patrolling or cross-deputization.
2.4 Alternatives for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit,
Including the Preferred Alternative
2.4.1 Alternative A: 5,OOO-acre Unit
Acquisition Area and Methods. Alternative A would include about 4,994 acres of public and
private land within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit Boundary (map 3). Table 2 shows
current landowners and the acreage of important habitats identified for protection as part of the
proposed Refuge Unit.
The following areas would be excluded trom the alternative:
1. Land and water areas and commercial operations of the Chula Vista harbor area and boat
yards, and any portion of the City ofChula Vista above the mean high water level (see
map 2).
2. All of the Coronado Cays area.
3. All property of San Diego Gas & Electric above the mean high water level.
4. An II-acre crystallizer pond adjacent to the packaging and shipping area.
5. The 4-acre salt packaging and shipping area adjacent to Bay Boulevard (includes
buildings and other improvements at Western Salt Company).
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 26 Chapter 2
Table 2. Acres of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative A,
South San Diego Bay Unit.
State Port PrivateILocal Gov't*
Submerged Land 8 766 912 35 1,721
Eelgrass 1 297 366 27 691
Mudflat/intertidal 0 9 309 174 492
Salt Marsh** 14 0 33 10 57
Salt Pond 13 0 2 1,160 1,175
Beaches, Dunes, 574 0 70 52 696
and Created Land
Riparian 0 0 0 8 8
Fallow 0 0 0 154 154
Agricultural Land
Total Acres 610 1,072 1,692 1,620 4,994
· Includes cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach, and San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development
Board's railroad holdings.
.. Does not include acreage along dikes in salt ponds.
2.4.2 Alternative B: 4,750-acre Unit (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative B would be very similar to A, but would exclude three areas on the perimeter of the
study area. The southern boundary would include a 100- foot buffer of the Otay River in the
Pond 20 area, from the high-water line on the landward side.
Acquisition Areas and Methods. Alternative B would include about 4,772 acres of public and
private land within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit (map 3). Alternative B would cover
about 96 percent of Alternative A. Table 3 shows important habitats identified for protection as
part of the proposed Refuge Unit boundaries, and the current landowners.
The following areas would be excluded from the alternative:
1. Land and water areas and commercial operations of the Chula Vista Marine Center harbor
area and boat yards, and any portion ofthe City of Chula Vista above the mean high
water level (see map 2).
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 27 Chapter 2
_._....._~-_._.._---_....-.._.- ,,-....-..-., ...~._---_.._-
2. All of Coronado Cays area.
3. All property of San Diego Gas & Electric above the mean high water level.
4. Western Salt Area 2 and Pond 20, except for the 100- foot buffer along the Otay River in
Pond 20.
5. An II-acre crystallizer pond adjacent to the packaging and shipping area.
6. A 4-acre salt packaging and shipping area adjacent to Bay Boulevard (includes buildings
and other improvements at Western Salt Company).
7. Silver Strand State Beach.
Table 3. Acreage of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative B,
South San Diego Bay Unit.
iº~~~~iJi¡ . ¡:::im:i!i!i!I!!!!ii!:~~~li,i!!!:
"·'·H" ".'.·...0·'·"·,· "'00'""",,,1"0,.'0 ,.. ,,'
'0'_...0..00..00·;·.........'.0
';';'::>':.<':r:""";;':';';:;
Navy State Port Private! Local Gov't* .·..··,.·.··".·,'.......000
":o><:"+;:;:TIF<
. ';':;:";'0'11"
Submerged Land 8 766 912 35 1,721
Eelgrass I 297 366 27 691
Mudflat/intertidal 0 9 309 174 492
Salt Marsh** 14 0 33 10 57
Salt Pond 13 0 2 1,023 1,038
Beaches, Dunes, and 488 0 62 39 589
Created Land
Riparian 0 0 0 8 8
Fallow Agricultural 0 0 0 146 146
Land
Total Acres 524 1,072 1,684 1,462 4,742
· Includes cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach, and San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development
Board's railroad holdings.
.. Does not inclnde acreage along dikes in salt ponds.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 28 Chapter 2
2.4.3 Alternative C: 2,200-acre Unit
Alternative C is the preferred alternative from the 1978 environmental assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact. This boundary encompasses the salt ponds and includes Pond 20, Area 2,
and part of the MKEG parcel. The only parts of Emory Cove that are included are those south of
Emory Channel. The Navy land is not included.
Alternative C has been modified for this document to include about 10 acres of created land
south of the Otay River that provide a IOO-foot buffer for the river. This buffer zone was added
to simplify mapping and boundary lines.
Acquisition Areas and Methods. Alternative C would include about 2,203 acres of public and
private land within the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit (map 3). The area proposed for
protection is approximately 44 percent of Alternative A. Table 4 shows current landowners and
important habitats identified for protection as part of the proposed Refuge Unit.
The following areas would be excluded from the alternative:
1. Land and water areas and commercial operations of the Chula Vista Marine Center harbor
area and boat yards, and any portion of the City ofChula Vista above the mean high
water level (see map 2).
2. All areas north ofthe Emory Channel and the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, including the
land and water area and commercial operations of the Chula Vista harbor area, the area
north to the boat yards, all of Coronado Cays, and Silver Strand State Beach.
3. A 4-acre salt packaging and shipping area adjacent to Bay Boulevard (includes buildings
and other improvements at Western Salt Company).
4. An II-acre crystallizer pond adjacent to the packaging and shipping area.
5. The U.S. Naval Radio Facility.
6. Silver Strand State Beach.
7. All but parcel 62103020 of the MKEG /Fenton property (shown, but not numbered, on
map 3).
8. All property of San Diego Gas & Electric above the mean high water level.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 29 Chapter 2
....-.......-.-.. . ....-".-....------.-.-. ----,--- - -~._-.
Table 4. Acreage of Habitats, by Ownership, Proposed for Acquisition under Alternative C,
South San Diego Bay Unit.
State Private! Local Gov't*
Submerged Land 0 62 283 35 380
Eelgrass 0 I 22 27 50
Mudflat/intertidal 0 9 246 174 429
Salt Marsb** 14 0 30 10 54
Salt Pond 13 0 2 1,160 1,175
Beaches, Dunes, and 7 0 30 52 89
Created Land
Riparian 0 0 0 3 3
Fallow Agricultural 0 0 0 23 23
Land
Total Acres 34 72 613 1,484 2,203
· Includes cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach, and San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development
Board's railroad holdings.
** Does not include acreage along dikes in salt ponds.
2.4.4 Alternative 0 (No Action)
Acquisition Areas and Methods. As part of the no action alternative, the Service would not
acquire, manage, or protect any land as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the South
Bay. Protection and habitat enhancement described in section 2.2 would occur.
2.5 Comparative Summary of the Direct Actions and Effects of the
Alternatives
Table 5 provides a comparison of the number of acres potentially acquired for Alternatives A
through D. Table 6 summarizes the effects of Alternatives A through D. These effects are
analyzed in detail in chapter 4.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 30 Chapter 2
Table 5. Comparison of Acres Potentially Acquired under Alternatives A-D
Submerged Land 1,721 1,721 1,721 380 0
Eelgrass 691 691 691 50 0
MudflatJintertida1 492 492 492 429 0
Salt Marsh* 57 57 57 54 0
Salt Pond 1,175 1,175 1,038 1,175 0
Beaches, Dunes, 696 696 589 89 0
and Created Land
Riparian 8 8 8 3 0
Fallow 154 154 146 23 0
Agricultural Land
Total Acres 4,994 4,994 4,742 2,203 0
(round to (round to (round to
5,000) 4,750) 2,200)
. Does not include acreage along dikes in salt ponds.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 31 Chapter 2
-"------.... ...-. -_.~_._..~~-~--_.~---_.~~
Table 6. Comparative Summary of Effects of Refuge Bouudary Extension and Acquisition
for Alternatives A-D.
Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
5,000 acres 4,750 acres 2,200 acres o acres
(Preferred
Alternative)
Coastal In addition to In addition to In addition to Provides NWRS protection
Ecosystem Alternative D, Alternative D, provides Alternative D, provides and management for 0% of all
provides NWRS NWRS protection and NWRS protection and coastal ecosystem habitats.
protection and management in management in Non-NWRS protection and
management in perpetuity for up to perpetuity for up to management includes
perpetuity for up to 96% of coastal 44% of coastal Endangered Species Act,
100% of study area ecosystem habitats, ecosystem habitats, MOD between Navy and
coastal ecosystem including up to * * 5 84 including up to *** I 69 Service, MSCP Plan, Federal,
habitats, including up acres of potential acres of potential Refuge State, and local wetland and
to *807 acres of Refuge restoration restoration areas. Would waterway development
potential Refuge areas. W QuId increase increase quality and standards, CA CEQA, Coastal
restoration areas. quality and quantity of quantity of habitat, Zone Management Act, and
Would increase habitat, create an create an opportunity for State habitat restoration
quality and quantity opportunity for increase in population. projects. Incremental loss of
of habitat, create an increase in population. habitats expected to occur
opportunity for over time, decreasing the
increase in quality and quantity of
population. resting, nesting and feeding
habitat in the South Bay.
Migratory waterfowl,
especially surf scoter and
scaup, at greatest risk.
Threatened Above protection and Above protection and Above protection and Alternative D expected, over
and management would management, with management provide time, to decrease the quality
Endangered create an opportunity effects similar to opportunity for and quantity of feeding,
Species, for increase in Alternative A. population of plover to nesting, and/or resting habitat
Belding's population for rail, Alternative B would stabilize, and for listed animals due to
Savannah tern, pelican, plover, have 238 fewer acres of populations of rail, disturbance from incremental
Sparrow plant, and sparrow. potential Refuge sparrow, plant to development, and increased
Addresses recovery habitat restoration. increase; would not winter recreational boating.
plan components for provide opportunity for Salt marsh bird' s beak
rail, four areas for tern and pelican to provided opportunity to
tern, the full extent stabilize or increase. increase population by Navy
possible in South Addresses recovery plan management. No recovery
Bay for pelican, three components for rail, two plan components met at this
areas for plant. areas for tern, a portion time for the rail, tern,
of pelican habitat in the pelican, and plant.
Bay, two areas for plant.
* includes Silver Strand State Beach, all ofMKEGlFenton, Radio Facility, 10 acres buffering Otay
River and Pond 20 and Area 2.
** includes all ofMKEGlFenton, Radio Facility and 10 acres buffering Otay River.
***includes 23 acres ofMKEG parcel, 10 acres buffering Otay River and Pond 20 and Area 2.
Soulh San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 32 Chapter 2
(Page 2) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Issue
Salt Works Possible restructuring Same as Alternative A, Same as no action Salt production expected to
or phase-out on salt except Pond 20 same as alternative. continue at existing levels.
production from no action. Development of 7 acres on
active ponds; Fenton parcel expected,
potential decrease in adding up to 172 jobs.
development on Unknown degree of
Pond 20 and development of Pond 20 until
MKEGlFenton it is determined whether
parcel. jurisdictional wetlands exist,
and if so, the amount.
Quality of Same as Alternative Same as Alternative 0, Same as Alternative D, Silver Strand State Beach
Life 0, except except biodiversity and except biodiversity and parcel, bikeway, railroad and
biodiversity and intrinsic value increase intrinsic value increase excursion train all proceed as
intrinsic value associated with Refuge associated with Refuge owner and public interest and
increase associated protection and protection and funding allow. Camp Surf
with Refuge management is management is between continues as long as the Navy
protection and between $32 million $11 million and $108 extends its lease. No increase
management is and $325 million million annually. in biodiversity and intrinsic
between $32 million annually. value associated with Refuge
and $325 million protection and management,
annually. since none would occur.
Winter Seasonal waterfowl Same as Alternative A. Same as A, but areas Five mile per hour speed limit
Boating sanctuary would under consideration as continues; no seasonal
move fall and winter sanctuary would occur waterfowl sanctuary area
boating from south of Emory Cnve proposed.
undetermined and Chula Vista Marina
portions of South only.
Bay (as a destination)
to other portions of
the Bay. Areas
considered for
sanctuary would be
south of Crown Cove
and 24th St. Channel.
Five-mile-per-hour
speed limit would
continue.
Navigational channel
traffic would
continue.
Public Greatest number of Same as Alternative A. Several options for new No opportunity for additional
Access options for new public access to the Bay. public access to the Bay.
public access to the
Bay.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 33 Chapter 2
---.-..---. ".. _.._--_...._-_._~-~_.
Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social and economic factors within the South
San Diego Bay area that are relevant to the issues described in chapter I (see section 1.8.2). The
South San Diego Bay study area includes the Bay from south of the Sweetwater Channel to
Imperial Beach and south San Diego (See map 2).
The South Bay continues to serve as a vital link in the Pacific Flyway. San Diego Bay is
recognized as an important wintering area for waterfowl such as surf scoter, scaup, brant, and
bufflehead, and for shorebirds such as northern phalarope and red knot. The study area is an
important breeding ground for black skimmer and several species of tern. The agricultural fields,
riparian woodlands, and salt marshes of the Tijuana River Valley and Tijuana National Estuarine
Sanctuary all lie a short distance to the south of San Diego Bay, and casual observations indicate
massive movement of birds back and forth between these nesting and foraging areas (FWS, in
conversation, 1996).
Much of the discussion of birds in this chapter is based on two bird observation counts. These
bird counts are snapshots of one year's Bay use, rather than predictors of where types of birds or
individual species will always be found. In a 1993-1994 year-long program of weekly surveys,
the Service recorded more than 522,000 bird observations, representing 3.7 million bird-use
days, in the salt ponds alone (FWS I 994a). In mid-August and early December, almost 200,000
birds at a time were found in South San Diego Bay (ibid). In a separate study, the Service (FWS
1995b) counted an additional 80,000 waterfowl sightings, representing about 628,000 bird-use
days, in the open waters of the South Bay during the same time period. These numbers of
observations are not a census of each bird counted once; they are direct counts of birds present in
specific locations, once a week for a year, and some birds are counted more than once. The
counts are likely an underrepresentation of bird use due to the geographic and temporal limits of
the inventories.
An example of a similar type of inventory of people would result by counting individuals in Old
Town San Diego every Friday night over the course of the year. The cumulative count would
include full-time residents, employees, vacationers, and people from greater San Diego out for
dinner or shopping. At the end of the year, some people would be counted only once, some a
few times, and some every week. When counts are analyzed and mapped, overall patterns would
appear, showing the locations ofthe most popular restaurants and shops, the number of dining
and shopping trips, the busiest seasons, and the relative importance ofthe area for dining and
shopping for that year. The numbers would not, however, tell you exactly how many individuals
set foot in Old Town over the year.
For the purpose of deciding which alternative to select, discussion will be limited to the four
groups of birds the Service is most concerned with protecting under this proposal: migrating
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 34 Chapter 3
shorebirds, wintering waterfowl, nesting seabirds, and federally listed birds and other species.
Because other categories of birds and other fish and wildlife that use the Bay are not central to
the decision of whether to create a Refuge in Sottth Bay, they are not discussed in detail. The
boundaries of the Service bird inventory area were slightly larger than the study area. This
environmental assessment only uses counts for areas within the study area boundaries, so the bird
numbers that follow are smaller than those from the total study ofthe South Bay.
3.2 Biological Environment-Coastal Ecosystems
Map 4 shows habitats of greatest concern. Shallow South Bay waters do not always form
distinct habitat boundaries. The size and shape of eelgrass beds change from year to year in
response to currents, tidal variations, major floods or storms, or other disturbances. An area that
is at the seaward edge of a mudflat one year may be inundated the next, and mayor may not be
covered with eelgrass. As the tide recedes, pools supporting eelgrass occur in the mudflats. Salt
marsh can also be gained or lost depending on fluctuations in water levels.
3.2.1 Submerged Lands Habitat and Wildlife Species
Submerged lands provide .crucial wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, especially surf
scoter, scaup, bufflehead, and brant. Both resident and migratory birds use the open waters of
the study area. Many ofthese birds rest and feed together on the open water, congregating in
large groups called rafts.
The study area contains about 2,454 acres of submerged lands and eelgrass, which appear as
open water. All of the undredged submerged lands in the study area are 12 feet in depth or less.
About 57 percent are also under 6 feet in depth, and 26 percent are under 3 feet in depth.
During the 1993-1994 bird survey, at least 54 species of waterbirds were observed to use the
submerged lands for feeding and resting (FWS 1995b). The Service made just under 80,000
waterfowl observations, representing about 628,000 bird-use days (95 percent surf scoter and
scaup) (FWS 1995b). The Service counted the highest number of waterfowl observations on
January 21,1994, when 7,605 waterfowl were sighted.
Submerged land, eelgrass, mudflat, and salt marsh habitats from Emory Cove south to the salt
ponds supported at least 63 bird species, primarily seabirds and shorebirds, that were feeding,
staging, or courting. Observations totaled 50,205 (FWS 1 994a). The close proximity of these
habitats increases the use ofthe area by birds by providing a "one-stop shopping" area, with
feeding, nesting, and resting available for a wide variety of birds, especially terns and black
skimmer.
Unrelated to the weekly surveys, the Service also conducts once-annual counts of waterfowl in
San Diego Bay as a whole, without distinguishing between observations made in Central or
South Bay. These counts are made in midwinter by the Office of Migratory Bird Management to
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 35 Chapter 3
------------ -
Map 4. HABITATS, SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
Βi'J SUbmorged Land 0 Mudflat . Salt Ponds D Beaches, Dunes & Created Land IZ:2J Mean Lower Low Water
. Eelgrass . Sak Marsh . Riparian . Fallow Agricultural Land and 6 foot depth
o O. t 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-
36
---~~---r-'---~--'-----"---'-'--- .. --.-...--------~
estimate peak waterfowl populations throughout the nation. These counts allow comparisons of
waterfowl use in different locations because the counts are all done in the same time period, and
many are done ITom airplanes, thereby reducing the double-counting of birds. In 1994, the
Central and South Bay provided habitat for 52 percent of the south coast region's midwinter
duck population, including 72 percent of the surf scoter, 66 percent of the brant, and 44 percent
ofthe buffiehead (1994b). The Service did not survey scaup in the south coast region in 1993-
1994; in 1992, however, central and South Bay provided habitat to 44 percent of the south coast
region's midwinter scaup population (ibid). Surfscoter observations indicated that 15 percent of
the State's midwinter population and 10 percent of the entire flyway's midwinter population
were found in Central and South Bay (ibid). Thirty-one percent of the State's midwinter brant
population was observed in Central and South Bay (ibid).
California least tern, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, green sea turtle, and bald eagle, all listed
and protected under the Endangered Species Act, forage in the Bay. From a species survival
perspective, the eagle uses the Bay incidentally and inITequently, and the Bay is one of tens of
thousands of potential foraging areas nationwide. No eagles were counted by the Service (FWS
1995b). Peregrine falcon, also found nationwide, forages in the study area and has established
nesting sites adjacent to the study area. Two peregrines were tallied by the Service (1995b) in
the submerged lands and eelgrass areas. Sea turtles occasionally feed in the Bay, but do not
reproduce here.
In contrast, California least tern and brown pelican rely more heavily on South Bay habitats for
their survival. California least tern feeds near one of the few nesting areas available in southern
California. Brown pelican uses the submerged lands for resting and foraging, as well as a staging
area for fall migration. Juvenile pelicans scatter ITom the Bay to find new territory.
Nearly 300 species of invertebrate animals, ranging ITom worms and snails to clams, crabs, and
shrimp, occur in the Bay. These invertebrates provide a food source for seabirds, shorebirds, and
waterfowl. At least 22 fish species, including seven that are important to people for recreational
fishing, spend some portion of their life cycle in the South Bay. Notable species include barred
sand bass, spotted sand bass, diamond turbot, California halibut, and black croaker. Sardine and
anchovy populations, once decimated by the bait fishery, are again increasing, providing
abundant food for birds (port 1990).
Waterfowl congregate into rafts of hundreds, even thousands, of birds. Over 95 percent of the
scaup and scoter counted in the South Bay were observed ITom November through March (FWS
I 994b).
Wildlife studies on the effect of disturbance to migratory birds in other areas show that boat
disturbances during spring and fall migrations decrease waterbird access to feeding areas,
especially for waterfowl (FWS, correspondence 1992).
In addition to interfering with feeding, disturbance can hann waterfowl and seabirds
behaviorally. A study conducted at Point Lorna National Monument evaluated human
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 37 Chapter 3
----- ------_.__..._-,._-----_._-_.~_...- u, .'. "'n"
disturbance to a group of208 pelicans. At pelican nesting colonies and roost sites, sudden
disturbance caused rapid flushing of the entire group, confused flight around the roost, scattering
and disappearance of some birds, and return of remaining birds generally within five minutes at
the same site or nearby (Jacques, et a!. 1987). Subsequent disturbances generally resulted in
stronger reactions; a greater proportion of birds left the area each time. After the first
disturbance, 85 percent returned. After the second disturbance, 13 percent returned. After the
third disturbance, only three percent returned (Jacques, et a!. 1987).
Two marine mammal species, California sea lion and Pacific bottle-nosed dolphin, are found in
the study area's submerged lands (FWS, unpublished data 1995d). The Service (1995d) noted
five dolphins and four sea lions as incidental observations during the waterbird survey. All of
the sea lions and two of the dolphins were seen in the northern half of the study area, but three of
the dolphins were observed in the southernmost end of the Bay.
3.2.2 Eelgrass Habitats and Species
Eelgrass is thick green vegetation submerged through most of the ebb and flow of the tides, but
sometimes exposed at lowest tide. Eelgrass beds are an extremely important component of the
Bay food web. They provide food and cover for many species of Bay invertebrates and fish,
which in turn are eaten by many other species of fish and birds. In addition, numerous fish
species rely on eelgrass for spawning, rearing, and feeding areas. Eelgrass beds are moderately
to heavily used by both seabirds and waterfowl for feeding.
The study area contains 691 acres of eelgrass beds--over 90 percent of the eelgrass remaining in
San Diego Bay. Shallow water areas on the east and west sides of the South Bay support
eelgrass beds (see map 4). These beds have been expanding in South Bay since cities and
industry stopped dumping raw sewage and industrial pollution into the water (port 1990). The
largest areas are in the vicinity of Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge between
navigational channels; and in Crown and Emory Coves, connected by a band following the edge
of Coronado Cays, and between Crown Cove and Sweetwater Marsh.
Waterfowl, especially surf scoter, scaup, and brant, are present in high numbers from late fall
through winter (as noted under the description of submerged lands, see section 3.2.1). Migrating
and wintering brant feed extensively on eelgrass when available. During weekly surveys
conducted in 1993-1994, the Service made a total of 5,667 brant observations, representing
43,812 bird-use days, with a peak count of 714 on March 29, 1994 (FWS 1994b).
A small population of Pacific green sea turtle, a federally threatened species, has been sighted at
the San Diego Gas & Electric power plant. This is the only area on the west coast of the United
States where sea turtles are known to congregate, and their use appears to be incidental. They
seem to be attracted to the wann water discharged by the power plant, but their origins and
migratory habits are unknown. The turtles feed on eelgrass growing in beds near the San Diego
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 38 Chapter 3
Gas & Electric channel. This population will be discussed only in general tenns, similar to
discussions on bald eagle and peregrine falcon.
3.2.3 Mudflats (Intertidal) Habitats and Species
Mudflats, or intertidal areas, are important resting or feeding locations for many birds. These
seemingly barren stretches of mud, exposed during low tides, are rich in organic matter and
invertebrates. The study area contains about 492 acres of mudflats.
Mudflats provide abundant food for a vast array of fish and bird species, and serve as crucial
foraging habitat for the shorebirds when the tide is out. Western snowy plover, Belding's
savannah sparrow, western sandpiper, dunlin, marbled godwit, and willet are just a few of the
species that forage on the mudflats during low tide (FWS 1994a). California least tern, other
terns, and black skimmer forage in the waters over sttbmerged mudflats during high tide.
Most of the South Bay shoreline in the study area, with the exception of the Coronado Cays, is
bordered by at least a thin band of mudflat. Emory Cove and the area south to the salt ponds
support extremely high populations of birds (see section 3.2.1). In the mudflats that adjoin the
salt ponds, the Service made 50,000 bird observations, primarily seabirds and shorebirds, during
the 1993-94 surveys. Sixty-seven species were represented (FWS 1994a).
3.2.4 Salt Marsh Habitats and Species
Salt marsh habitat provides nesting, feeding, and high-tide escape area for a variety of species,
including the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow. Salt marsh in the study
area is characterized by low-growing vegetation, thick in some patches and sparse in others,
dominated by pickleweed. Salt marsh habitat is particularly rare due to losses fÌ"om shoreline
development. Salt marsh is the driest tidally-influenced habitat in the continuum fÌ"om open
water to dry upland.
The study area contains at least 57 acres of salt marsh in six locations: adjacent to Sweetwater
Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, the J Street fill, the salt ponds,
the Otay River channel, and the biology study area. Salt marsh areas at the salt ponds and Chula
Vista Wildlife Reserve are too small to be visible on the maps in this analysis.
Critical salt marsh acreage exists in long, narrow strips along some of the dikes in the salt ponds
and along the tidally-influenced portions of the Otay River. These salt marsh areas are not
included in the 57 acres. No separate bird count data are available for salt marsh strips along the
dikes. Eelgrass, mudflat, and salt marsh habitats within an area fÌ"om Emory Cove south to the
salt ponds have extremely high concentrations of birds (see section 3.2.1).
The last 300- foot stretch of the Otay River is tidally influenced and has a riparian zone of salt
marsh vegetation, primarily pickleweed, that supported nesting light-footed clapper rail until
recently. This Otay River salt marsh provides resting, nesting, or foraging habitat for at least 56
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 39 Chapter 3
- - - _...._._---_._~-_._-----~--.-_._------------
species, representing 7,807 bird observations, counted during weekly surveys (FWS 1994a). Six
pairs of nesting Belding's savannah sparrow were counted along the Otay River and the J Street
marsh in 1996 (FWS, in conversation, 1996).
The federally endangered light-footed clapper rail spends its life in the salt marsh, and depends
upon it entirely for feeding, resting, and nesting. Because the rails are losing habitat and being
killed by predators, populations have greatly declined in the San Diego area. Statewide, only 325
light-footed clapper rails, nesting in 14 wetlands, were known to exist in 1996 (ibid).
Belding's savannah sparrow nests exclusively in patches of pickle weed, feeding in the salt marsh
and in the mudflats. In 1996, the Service counted 71 nesting pairs of Belding's savannah
sparrow in the salt marsh strips along the dikes at the salt ponds, and 31 nesting pairs in the 27-
acre biology study area on the southeast corner ofthe study area between Emory Cove and the
salt ponds (see map 2).
3.2.5 Salt Pond Habitat and Species
Salt ponds in the South Bay provide habitat for over-migrating shorebirds, wintering waterfowl,
and nesting seabirds. The Service made 312,000 shorebird observations, 64,000 seabird
observations, and 70,000 waterfowl observations (see section 3.1) at the salt ponds in 1993-1994
during weekly surveys (FWS 1994a). Gulls do not nest at the salt works. The salt ponds are
particularly important for shorebirds and seabirds because they represent one of the few large
feeding, resting, and nesting areas remaining along the highly urbanized southern California
coast. The salt ponds on the south end ofthe Bay are a specialized habitat type in South San
Diego Bay, interspersing shallow open water with mudflats, dry dikes, and salt marsh. The study
area contains about 1,175 acres of salt ponds, consisting of diked open water cells of differing
levels of salinity, plus Pond 20, which is not inundated.
The diked ponds allow escape ITom rising tides while providing large amounts of food in the
fonn of brine shrimp and brine flies. A wide variety of birds migrate here ITom both the northern
and southern hemispheres; shorebirds stay in the salt ponds before returning to nesting grounds,
and seabirds arrive at the salt ponds to nest. Salt pond dikes support nesting western snowy
plovers (federally listed as threatened), Belding's savannah sparrows, and colonies of Caspian,
Forster's, gull-billed, California least (federally listed as endangered), and royal terns, in addition
to one of only two nesting colonies of elegant terns in the United States (FWS 1995a and c). The
South Bay is one of three primary locations in California where black skimmers nest (FWS
1993). In 1993, double-crested connorants made 43 nests on an abandoned barge at the salt
ponds; this increased to 47 in 1997 (FWS 1993, 1997b). In 1993, 10 western snowy plover nests
and 62 California least tern nests were initiated along the salt ponds dikes (FWS 1993). In 1995,
18 California least tern nests were initiated at the salt ponds (Ca. DFG unpublished 1995).
There are a variety of nesting seabirds and two listed birds of concern to the Service that nest at
the salt ponds. Table 7 indicates the numbers of the species for which the most data are available
for the last five years.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 40 Chapter 3
Table 7. Number of Breeding Pairs of Listed Birds and Several Seabirds of Concern at the
Salt Ponds, 1993 and 1994.
Birds 1993' 19942
Elegant Tern 312 80
Royal Tern 10 0
Caspian 280 320
Gull-billed Tern 10 9
Black Skimmer 326 310
Western Snowy Plover 7 I
California Least tern 62 nests 523
1. FWS t993
2. FWS 1995c
3. California Department ofFish and Game 1994
Twenty-seven species of shorebirds account for 70 percent of the overall abundance, with the
red-necked phalarope and western sandpiper the most abundant species (FWS 1994a). Counts
include birds located in Emory Cove, adjacent to the salt ponds. Shorebirds use the ponds for
feeding and resting during high tides. Other shorebird species found here include willet, marbled
godwit, dowitcher, black-bellied plover, and black-necked stilt. The ponds are used for resting
and foraging by many species of waterfowl, including lesser scaup, bufflehead, American
wigeon, ruddy duck, brant, surf scoter, red-breasted merganser, mallard, and gadwall. Gulls,
terns, black skimmers, and pelicans, including the federally endangered brown pelican, use dikes
for evening roosts after feeding at sea or in other parts ofthe Bay.
Although the habitat provides abundantly for some of the birds' needs, the pressure of the
surrounding urban areas prevents their reproduction rate from reaching full potential. Threats to
nesting and resting birds in the salt ponds include documented instances of disturbance, injury,
and death by predators; death and injury from entanglement in fishing line; disturbance from
trespassers (FWS 1993, FWS, in conversation 1996, FWS 1995a); and inadvertent disturbance
from salt pond operation and maintenance activities.
Disturbance to nesting birds can hann a species' ability to reproduce and increase its population.
Eggs may be crushed or eggs and chicks may be exposed to the elements and predators. As a
result, the parents may abandon the nest or the chicks may die. In some species, brooding birds
and chicks depend upon food brought by the other parent. Ifthe mate is killed by predators, or
unable to supply the brooding bird or young with food because people or animals are at the nest
site, the chances of raising young successfully are greatly decreased. As discussed in the
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessmenl
San Diego NWR 41 Chapter 3
submerged lands section, disruptions of feeding and resting add additional stresses in adult birds,
particularly for birds using these areas for "refueling" during migration.
3.2.6 Beaches, Dunes, and Coastal Created Lands and Species
Coastal created land was fonned from repeated deposits of dredged material from other locations
in the Bay. These lands provide important habitat for listed species, migrating shorebirds, and
nesting seabirds. Created land is found at the D-Street fill adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge, at the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, and at Silver Strand State Beach.
Beaches and dunes are found at the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, which is a composite of
several other habitats including vernal pools, nontidal wetlands, and old fields. For the purposes
of this study, the Naval Radio Receiving Facility is loosely described as beaches and dunes. all
amounts of created land are also found in the salt ponds and along the Otay River.
Naval Radio Receiving Facility. The Naval Radio Receiving Facility occupies the southern end
of the coastal barrier beach and dune system, known as the Silver Strand, that separates the Bay
from the Pacific Ocean. Bounded to the north and south by urban development, the Naval Radio
Receiving Facility is one ofthe last relatively large, undeveloped coastal habitatsin San Diego
County.
Approximately 120 acres of the Receiving Facility have been developed for facilities operations
and roads, leaving about 428 acres of undeveloped, vegetated land. The majority of undeveloped
land is in the northern, eastern, and western sides of the Receiving Facility infrastructure. This
area consists of a variety of native and introduced grasses, shrubs, and scattered trees (Navy
1989). Several natural plant communities are interspersed, including Diegan coastal sage scrub,
maritime succulent scrub, southern fore dunes, vernal pools, southern coastal salt marsh, and
freshwater marsh. Large portions of the undeveloped area are degraded and dominated by ice
plant, an invasive nonnative species.
The Naval Radio Receiving Facility supports a variety of native and nonnative vegetation. The
federally endangered salt marsh bird's beak, a species of saline and alkaline habitats, has been
documented on Naval Radio Receiving Facility lands at the YMCA Camp Surf. Federally listed
animal species using facility lands include California least tern, western snowy plover, brown
pelican, and American peregrine falcon (Navy 1989). Belding's savannah sparrow is found at
the site. The facility's population of Nuttall's lotus, a rare coastal plant found throughout the site,
is reportedly the second largest known in the nation.
The ocean dunes provide habitat for a variety of seabirds and shorebirds. The interior habitats
support common bird species: mourning dove, house finch, western meadow lark, and white-
crowned sparrow. Raptors such as red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk,
Cooper's hawk, merlin, and osprey roost in inland cypress trees and forage in open areas.
Created lands fonned by deposition of dredged sediments occur in several areas. These areas are
vegetated or unvegetated, a mosaic of uplands and wetlands, small depressions and hummocks,
with varying degrees of disturbance and wildlife habitat management.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 42 Chapter 3
D-Street Fill. The D-Street fill is created land originally intended as part of a shoreline
development project that was never completed. The majority ofthe fill area became part of
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and the remainder is owned by the Port. The
Service grades both the Service-owned and Port-owned portions of the fill annually to remove
vegetation. The grading is conducted to preserve suitable nesting habitat for two ground-nesting
species, the endangered California least tern and the threatened snowy plover. These species
prefer sparsely vegetated sand for nesting sites. In 1994, eight pairs of California least tern
fledged three young; in 1995,26 pairs fledged eight young, and in 1996,25 California least tern
pairs produced 26 young that matured to flight. In 1994, five western snowy plover nests were
initiated, and all were unsuccessful in fledging young; in 1995, 11 nesting attempts resulted in
seven young, and in 1996, seven plover nests produced seven fledglings (Ca.DFG 1994-1996;
FWS 1997).
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve. Created land is also found at the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve,
where dredged material was used to develop new habitat for wildlife, including a colony of
California least tern, that are dependent on mudflats and salt marsh, The area is a popular
feeding and resting area for nesting seabirds, migrating shorebirds, and wintering waterfowl.
Nesting California least terns have failed in some years because predators killed adults and
young and destroyed eggs (FWS 1993). However, the Service has documented some nesting
(FWS 1994a).
Silver Strand State Beach. Silver Strand State Beach consists of 87 acres of beach and dune
land leased by the California Department of State Parks fÌom the Naval Amphibious Base.
Originally part of the Bayside beach shoreline, the area was expanded and raised with dredged
material. Characterized by a few low sand dunes and a wide, flattened sandy terrace, Silver
Strand State Beach presently supports a variety of native and nonnative vegetation. Native
vegetation is patchily distributed; nonnative ice plant dominates much of the site. Despite its
disturbed nature, this area supports a number of listed and/or sensitive species. Four western
snowy plover nested there in 1995 (Powell, 1996). The area also supports wandering skipper, a
sensitive butterfly species associated with southern California coastal dune ecosystems where its
host plant, salt grass, is present.
The Silver Strand State Beach site historically supported several animal and plant species that
might be established through appropriate management. These species include California least
tern, western snowy plover, California homed lark, silvery legless lizard, tiger beetle, coastal
dunes milk vetch, Palmer's fÌankenia, and coast wallflower (Ca. DFG 1992).
3.2.7 Fallow Agricultural Lands and Species
The MKEG/Fenton area consists of former wetlands that were diked and drained decades ago
and mostly converted to agricultural use. The MKEG/Fenton area lies between the southernmost
extension of the salt ponds and the Interstate Highway. Although this area supports limited
numbers of wildlife, it possesses high potential for wetland restoration by virtue of its low
elevation, past history as tidal wetlands, and relatively undeveloped nature. The site is also
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 43 Chapter 3
suitable for other less intensive types of habitat enhancement measures using existing surface
water patterns.
Although agriculture was discontinued in 1986, most of the area is occasionally disked to control
weeds. The fallow agricultural land includes soils classed as prime farm land. The area contains
wetlands, disturbed fields, and shrubby areas that support modest numbers of wildlife. No
surveys or censuses of wildlife for the MKEG/Fenton parcel are available.
3.2.8 Riparian Habitats and Species
Riparian vegetation established on the benns along the Otay River in the MKEG/Fenton area
supports several migratory songbird species. The river channel also contains salt marsh and
mudflat areas. The Service included the Otay River from the mouth upstream to Area 2 in the
1993-94 bird census. The Service noted over 6,000 shorebird observations, 1,400 waterfowl
observations, and 500 seabird observations (FWS 1994a). Up to six nesting Belding's savannah
sparrow pairs have been counted, and until recently, light-footed clapper rail were observed
nesting in the salt marsh along the Otay River (FWS, in conversation, 1996). The habitat is
degraded and the tallest trees are an exotic species, eucalyptus; however, the riparian functions of
shading some of the river and buffering disturbances from nearby development are intact.
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Belding's
Savannah Sparrow
3.3.1 Summary of Species' Uses of Study Area
Eight species listed under the Endangered Species Act occur in the area and are shown, along
with their status, in table 8.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 44 Chapter 3
Table 8. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species That Occur Within the
,- South San Diego Bay Unit.
~ I Species I Habitat [ Listing Status I
- Light-footed Clapper Rail Salt marsh Endangered
California Least Tern Salt ponds, mudflats, submerged lands, beaches, Endangered
~ dunes, and coastal created land
Western Snowy Plover Salt ponds, mudflats, beaches, dunes, and Threatened
coastal created land
---,
American Peregrine Falcon Created lands, salt ponds Endangered
Bald Eagle Submerged lands Threatened
-
Brown Pelican Submerged lands, salt ponds, mudflats, beaches, Endangered
dunes, and coastal created land
-' Green Sea Turtle Eelgrass, submerged lands Threatened
Salt Marsh Bird's Beak Beaches, dunes, and coastal created land, salt Endangered
-~ marsh
Source: 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12 1996, FWS 1994a and b, FWS 1995a and b, San Diego Unified Port District 1990.
-- 3.3.2 Recovery Plans for Federally Threatened or Endangered Species
with Components in the Study Area
These federally listed species are further discussed under their associated habitats. Most of these
species have little remaining habitat in San Diego Bay, and the proposed Refuge Unit is one of
,- the last places left for them to winter, migrate to, or nest.
Bald eagle, green sea turtle and American Peregrine falcon are not analyzed in detail, since the
- study area is such a minuscule portion of the two species' continental ranges. Of the remaining
listed species, recovery plans have been completed for light-footed clapper rail, California least
tern, brown pelican, and salt marsh bird's beak. The recovery plans for western snowy plover
-- and green sea turtle are not finalized, and the plan for the California least tern is being updated.
Table 9 summarizes the recovery plan components that pertain, or could pertain, to the South
Bay. For more detail, please refer to the plans (FWS 1985a, 1980, 1983, 1985b).
--
,-
--
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 45 Chapter 3
Table 9. Applicable Recovery Plan Components for Rail, Tern, Pelican, and Plant, South
San Diego Bay.
Plan Light-footed California Least Brown Pelican Salt Marsh
Components Clapper Rail Tern Bird's Beak
Primary DOWN LIST AS DELIST by: DELIST by: DELIST by:
Objective THREATENED by: Maintaining at least Restoring and Protecting plants in
(In entirety, not Increasing the 1,200 breeding pairs maintaining stable, 12 major marshes of
just applicable California breeding in at least 20 coastal self-sustaining at least 20 acres
components) populations to at least wetlands while populations of the within the historic
800 pairs in 30 preserving the California brown range of the plant in
marshes with 10,000 Baja, California pelican throughout the U.S., for 10
acres total. terns. its range. years in a row.
Primary I. Manage habitat to I. Provide nesting 1. Maintain existing 1. Protect plants and
Actions enhance numbers. and feeding habitat Mexican habitats on Service
2. Reestablish rails in in California. populations. and military land.
San Diego area. 2. Protect non- 2. Protect feeding, 2. Revise amount of
3. Obtain data on the nesting, feeding and nesting, resting, and habitat to delist as
rail's ecosystem. resting areas. offshore habitat. needed.
4. Measure progress 3. Encourage 3. Restore 3. Reestablish plant
of management. protection outside population size and in suitable marshes.
5. Maintain habitat the U.S. productivity to a 4. Monitor plants
maps. 4. Measure progress self-sustaining level and habitats.
6. Solicit necessary of management. in the Southern 5. Enforce laws.
public support. 5. Designate California Bight. 6. Educate public
7. Use laws to protect "critical habitat." about plant and
rail. habitat.
Essential or Sites to preserve and On page 55 of the No portion of the Known sites for
Otherwise enhance: The J street recovery plan, study area is plant: Silver Strand
Identified marsh, the mouth of South San Diego specifically near Emory
Habitat the Otay River, and Bay is identified as identified in the Channel, and Otay
the biology study area. a key habitat unit. recovery plan, River. South San
partially due to the Diego Bay is
plan not identifying identified as
essential habitat. suitable habitat not
known to contain
plant.
3.4 Economic and Social Environment
The project area is located entirely within San Diego County, California, and straddles the
jurisdictions of the cities of San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial
Beach. San Diego County encompasses approximately 2.7 million acres (4,261 square miles)
and 18 incorporated cities.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 46 Chapter 3
0-.- _ _,,_ __..___ ___ _0_______________________._ _'._0_.__
Population
The rate of population growth in the San Diego region during the past decade is among the
highest in the nation. Between 1980-1990, the nation's population increased 10.2 percent, while
California showed a 25.7 percent gain. In comparison, the San Diego region grew by 34.2
percent, ITom 1,861,846 to 2,498,016 people. The San Diego metropolitan statistical area ranked
15th in population in the nation, according to the 1990 census.
San Diego County has a diverse economic base that includes a strong government sector (due in
part to the presence of U.S. Navy installations throughout the area) and active tourism-related
industries. This economic base has sheltered the region to a degree from the recessionary effects
experienced elsewhere throughout the southern California region. The services industry, which
includes both personal and business services, employs the largest percentage of people in the
region. In South San Diego Bay, the manufacturing sector dominates the employment picture.
Retail trade and services industries are the other main employment sectors in South San Diego
Bay. The following table highlights the population, area, and leading industry of each
community.
Table 10. Population, Areas, and Leading Industries of Communities. *
Jurisdiction Population Change in Pop. Area Leading
1990 1980 to 1990 (in acres) Industry
County of San Diego 2,500,000 up 34% 2.7 million Services
City of Imperial Beach 26,512 up 17% 2,845 Government,
military
City of Coronado 26,540 up41% 5,300 Government,
military
National City 54,249 up 11% 5,536 Govemment,
military
City of Chula Vista 135,163 up 61% 16,960 Retail trade
City of San Diego 1,110,549 up 27% 210,560 Services
'Source: Niehaus 1994
Ownership and Land Use
Map 5 shows the general land ownership pattern within the South Bay area. Navy-administered
lands include the Naval Radio Receiving Facility and a 87-acre parcel north of Crown Cove.
The State of California and the Port own the majority of the submerged lands and tidelands. The
salt ponds are owned by the Western Salt company. The MKEG/Fenton area consists of two
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 47 Chapter 3
.~..~-
adjacent parcels. The MKEG parcel is owned by Egger and Ghio Corporation and the Fenton
parcel is owned by the City of San Diego.
Navy-Administered Lands. The Naval Radio Receiving Facility is located on 549 acres at the
southern end of San Diego Bay on the coastal barrier peninsula known as the Silver Strand,
within the City of Coronado's boundary. The 87-acre parcel (included in Alternative A) located
north of Crown Cove is the southern end of the Naval Amphibious Base.
About 120 acres ofthe Naval Radio Receiving Facility land are intensively developed with the
Wullenweber antenna and associated infrastructure and facilities. Because operating the
Wullenweber antenna requires large, unrestricted open areas, height restrictions are imposed on
development within a specified area surrounding the antenna. The Navy's Naval Radio
Receiving Facility Master Plan recommends that the remaining undeveloped lands remain as
such.
The Navy has granted land easements to various State, local, and public agencies. The YMCA
Surf Camp leases 80 acres along the Pacific Ocean; the San Diego County Department of
Education leases 27 acres at the south end of Emory Cove as an education ecological preserve,
biology study area, and wildlife sanctuary; and CaITrans leases a 10 foot right-of-way for a
bikeway along the easement for State Highway 75 (see map 2). In addition, the Navy has
granted a 30-foot wide water main easement, running north and south, to the California Water
and Telephone Company, and easements to Imperial Beach for a beach groin and various other
utility and street improvements.
A 87-acre parcel at the southern end of the Naval Amphibious Base is leased to the California
Department of State Parks (State Parks) as part of Silver Stand State Beach. Originally part of
the bayside beach shoreline, the area was expanded and the elevation raised with dredged
material. The area is now characterized by a few low sand dunes and a wide, flattened, sandy
terrace.
State-Administered Lands. The State of California claims nearly all tidelands within the State.
These lands are administered by the California State Lands Commission, which holds these lands
in trust for the people of California. The California Coastal Commission is another key agency
in the administration of these trust resources. As the implementing agency for the California
Coastal Act, it is responsible for regulating, monitoring, and planning land and water uses in and
around the Bay. The Port has jurisdiction over all navigation occurring in the Bay. A host of
other Federal, State, and local agencies also have regulatory authority, mainly focused on
protection ofhurnan health or the environment, in the Bay.
Navigational channels are located on State submerged lands (see map 2). The Service currently
comments on proposals to change dredging patterns, or create new fills, under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 48 Chapter 3
Map 5. LAND OWNERSHIP, SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
mrm San Diego Gas & Electric Lease I2\2J City Boundary . UNITED STÄTES NAVY . CITY OF SAN DIEGO
~ Department of State Parks Lea88 ŒO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Ii EGGER+GHIO CO INC . SAN DIEGO+ARIZONA
~ Western Batt Co lease . WESTERN SALT CO D STATE OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN
o 0.1 0,2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0,8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
~..
49
The lands held in trust by the State of California are used for a variety of activities, ranging ftom
defense (military activities) and commerce (navigational channels, commercial fishing, etc.), to
recreation and aesthetic appreciation. Approximately 612 acres of State-owned tidelands are
leased to the Western Salt company.
Port-Administered Lands. The Port was created by the California State Legislature, which
conveyed certain tidelands to the Port to act as trustee for administration. The Port has
regulatory duties and proprietary rights over the tidelands under its jurisdiction, as provided by
the legislature. The Port has a wide variety of responsibilities ranging ftom the acquisition,
construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of harbor works and
improvements to the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The Port
provides law enforcement patrols of Bay waters. Although its main emphasis is development of
the Bay for commerce, the Port has obligations to preserve and enhance important natural
resources within its jurisdiction.
Navigational channels are located on Port submerged lands. The Service currently comments on
proposals to change dredging patterns, or proposals for new fills from dredging, under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act, and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
Salt Works. The salt works is operated by Western Salt Company, a subsidiary of Fenton-
Western Properties, Inc. Approximately 791 acres of the salt works are owned by Fenton-
Western. Another 612 acres, two-thirds of which are used to produce sodium chloride and
magnesium chloride for industrial use, are leased ftom the State of California. The remainder is
estuary.
Portions ofthe salt works tideward of the railroad right-of-way are zoned open space, and
portions landward of the railroad right-of-way are zoned open space with a special study area
overlay (City of San Diego, in conversation, 1997; City of San Diego 1997). Two categories of
overlays exist, one for the magnesium ponds in Area 2, and a second type for the remainder of
the salt ponds. The open space designation means that commercial, residential, or industrial
structures are not pennitted in any sensitive areas. The special study area overlay means that the
City of San Diego would delineate exactly where and how much of the property is sensitive, and
how much is not. The delineation would be provided by Western Salt Company and be subject
to City review. The areas outside the boundaries of the sensitive areas may be given pennits for
residential, commercial or industrial development. Until the study is complete, and the City has
issued pennits, the amount and type of development potential for the salt works is unknown
(City of San Diego, in conversation, 1997).
Railroad. The railroad ownership in the study area is not completely known, and apparently, not
completely resolved. According to County of San Diego Tax Assessor's records, about 8 acres
are owned by the San Diego and Eastern Arizona Railroad, and the ownership of about 2 acres is
unknown. The portion running between the City ofImperial Beach and the biology study area is
owned by the Navy. The San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development Board
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 50 Chapter 3
. _._-- ... -_._-_..._..,--,--_._-------~_.._-,_._._-_._.._-----_...--
(SDMTDB) has stated that it owns portions of the railroad (SDMTDB, in conversation, 1996). It
is not the purpose of this document to detennine ownership, rather to report the best available
infonnation. For the purposes of this discussion, however, SDMTDB will be assumed to be the
owner.
The portion of the railroad in the City of San Diego is used for rail car storage and for salt
shipping. The portion of the railroad that adjoins the City ofImperial Beach has been converted
to a bike trail by that City. The Transportation Development Board has a long-range plan to
develop an excursion train along the San Diego route.
Fallow Agricultural land. The MKEG/Fenton Area contains 146 acres: the 126-acre MKEG
property owned by the Egger and Ghio Corporation, and the 20-acre Fenton parcel, which was
recently purchased by the City of San Diego (see map 5). An additional 8 acres of fallow
agricultural land, located to the south of the MKEG parcel, is owned by Western Salt. Until
1986, the MKEG/Fenton parcel was primarily used for the production of truck crops. Now the
area remains fallow and is periodically disked to control weed growth.
The MKEG/Fenton area is included within City of San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor Community
Plan, designating the MKEG/Fenton area as community open space with a special study area
overlay. Portions subject to inundation from a 100-year frequency flood are zoned Floodway;
immediately adjacent lands are zoned as Floodway Fringe. Development potential is unknown
(see discussion in preceding Salt Works section).
In addition to zoning restrictions, 25 property easements within the area restrict or prohibit
certain land use activities. The fallow agricultural land is included within the Otay Valley
Regional Park study area boundaries, as presented in the conceptual plan.
3.4.1 Western Salt Company Operations
Western Salt Company employs 20 to 30 people, depending on production levels (Niehaus
1994). Payroll earnings for these employees were considered proprietary infonnation and not
reported by the finn; however, based on average earnings per job in the County, $26,637 in
constant 1992 dollars, total earnings for employees of Western Salt Company were estimated at
$665,900 (based on an average of25 employees) (Niehaus 1994). Gross sales figures for the
finn were also considered proprietary and not reported by Western Salt Company. However,
based on average gross output per job in the salt production sector (U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis 1993) of$195,471 in 1992 dollars, gross sales for Western Salt Company were
estimated at $4.9 million (assuming an average of25 employees) (ibid).
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 51 Chapter 3
3.4.2 Quality of Life and Popular Activities
San Diego is an established tourist destination. According to the San Diego Convention and
Visitors Bureau, the greater San Diego Bay area registered 35.6 million visitors in 1992 (Niehaus
1994). No known surveys show the type and amount of outdoor recreational activities in which
San Diego Bay area residents and visitors participated. However, the California Department of
Parks and Recreation surveyed California residents in 1992 and found that Californians tend to
prefer natural and undeveloped areas or nature-oriented recreation areas for their outdoor
recreational activities, rather than highly developed parks and recreation areas (ibid).
Participation is greatest in activities that require less expense, less equipment, and less technical
skill. Map 6 shows the general locations of several types of popular recreation found in the
South Bay and adjoining area.
Principal attractions in South San Diego Bay area include the Chula Vista Nature Center at the
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and Silver Strand State Beach. In addition, the
Chula Vista harbor provides small-boat marina services, with about 890 slips. The Silver Strand
State Beach area is not presently open to public use east of highway 75, but a small day
use/picnic site is open immediately to the south. State Parks has a proposal and approved
funding for native habitat restoration and possibly development of a public boardwalk. Baywide,
fishing is popular, especially during the spring and summer (Ca. DFG 1992). Boat fishing
primarily occurs outside the study area within three miles of the Bay entrance (Ca.DFG 1990,
Ca. DFG1995a). Public pier fishing occurs on the Sweetwater Channel, at Coronado, and at the
Chula Vista Marine Center. Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge and Border Field State
Park lie further south ofthe project area.
In 1997, two annual bird watching festivals debuted in the vicinity. The Salton Sea International
Bird festival drew about 920 bird watchers (600 from out of state), who spent an estimated
$259,000, and the Imperial Beach Bird Fest drew about 700 people (23 percent from outside the
County), who spent an estimated $178,000 (Klein and Edwards, public presentation, 1997).
Remaining natural areas in the Bay represent home for both wildlife and people, providing wide-
open views, recreational opportunities, environmental education, beautiful vistas, flood control,
and water-quality enhancement. The proximity and availability ofthese public benefits
contribute to the San Diego metropolitan area's high quality of life.
The YMCA Camp Surf, the biology study area, and the bikeway along Highway 75 all serve
outdoor and educational needs for residents of all ages. All occur as leased activities on Navy
land.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 52 Chapter 3
~_m_ _...__.._._..._____m__'._.____._,__'_ ..__m"'m"___
. .
.
~
;~
. ...
"
.
~
~
~
-- ..
3.4.3 Boating
San Diego is famous for water-dependent recreation. Boating is a popular activity, especially in
the summer, and the Bay is known world-wide as a premier year-round boating resource. One
company leads kayaking tours through the South Bay that highlight views of sea turtles near the
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve. No boat inventories are available to depict actual usage by season
or by day of the week, but the Service noted boats using the South Bay during the 1993-94
weekly bird inventory. About 73 percent of the boats were power boats, about 14 percent were
sail boats, 6 percent were jet skis, and 8 percent were sailboards (windsurfers). About 40 percent
of all boating occurred from November through March. Fifty-four percent of the sail boat and jet
ski use, 38 percent of the powerboat use, and 27 percent of the windsurfing occurred during this
time period.
About 81 percent of the Service-counted boats were seen north of the Chula Vista Marina and the
southern end of the Coronado Cays. The study did not note whether boats were recreating all
around South Bay or using navigational channels to travel to and from the area. Speed limits
throughout South Bay are 5 miles per hour at all times, and no wake is pennitted.
3.4.4 South San Diego Bay Public Access Points
Several types of public access points exist in or adjacent to the study area on the east and west
sides of the Bay. Boat ramps are located at National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. Public
pier fishing and wildlife observation points occur on the Sweetwater Channel, Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge, the biology study area, at Coronado, and at the Chula Vista Marine
Center.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 54 Chapter 3
_. _.______ __.________._ - - - __ ___~~..__._ .... n._.'_____
Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyzes and compares the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur
with the implementation of each alternative. The effects of Alternatives A through D are
analyzed using the physical, biological, and social and economic factors that are relevant to the
issues described in chapter I (see section 1.8.2 and chapter 3). Environmental impacts that
would likely occur ifthe Service does not acquire any additional lands for the South San Diego
Bay Unit are described under the no action alternative (Alternative D) (see section 2.2).
This EA refers to Refuge protection and management throughout chapter 4. As explained in
section 2.3.1, the existence of a refuge boundary around a property alone does not provide any
additional protection or management for wildlife or habitat. Only when the property owner and
the Service willingly enter into an agreement to safeguard habitats or species can the Service
manage the land as part of a national wildlife refuge. Types of acquisition include sale, donation,
exchange, lease, easement, agreement, and cooperative agreement. Chapter 4 analyzes the
effects of the Service acquiring land.
Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the six characteristics unique to National Wildlife Refuge
System protection (see Section 2.3.2) would provide benefits to wildlife and habitats not
available under any other protection alternatives. The effects of these benefits will be identified
under each of the issues. Please refer to section 2.3.2 for the typical management activities used
in this analysis as a basis for estimating the effect of Refuge protection and management on
habitats, and on the economic and social environment.
4.2 Coastal Ecosystems
The effects of Refuge acquisition and management provided by each of the alternatives are
described and compared both by types of habitats and by the uses of those habitats by species or
types of birds. Refuge management would occur when the Service acquires lands or enters into
cooperative agreements for the actions described in section 2.3.1. Please refer to the actions
described under each alternative: Alternative A, section 2.4.1; Alternative B, section 2.4.2;
Alternative C, section 2.4.3; and Alternative D, section 2.4.4.
In summary, Service acquisition and management proposed under Alternatives A and B would
pennit the Service to protect, enhance, or restore all of the remaining habitats left in the study
area. National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) management of the area would maintain or
increase the value of the entire South Bay as habitat for wintering waterfowl, migrating
shorebirds, and nesting seabirds. Refuge management such as habitat enhancement and control
of exotic plants would create an opportunity for these birds to increase in population, to the
extent that South Bay habitat is the limiting population factor. Refuges actively monitor and
inventory the wildlife habitat for the listed plant and animals and Belding's savannah sparrow.
The Service may control predators at key nesting areas, during the breeding season only, to
protect nesting birds that are federally listed and seabirds that nest in colonies.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 55 Chapter 4
Under Alternative C, the Service would acquire and manage only the salt ponds and the
adjoining mudflats and shallow water, a total of about 2,200 acres, as part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Service would focus on habitat acquisition and manageinent at the
salt ponds for migrating shorebirds and nesting seabirds, listed species, and Belding's savannah
sparrow. Refuge management such as exotic plant species control and habitat enhancement
would create an opportunity for these birds to increase in population.
Since only a small portion of the submerged lands and eelgrass would be national wildlife refuge,
mudflats outside the Refuge would be expected to decrease in value over time to the detriment of
wintering waterfowl, nesting seabirds, and migrating shorebirds. Habitat for the listed plant and
animals could be protected by actions of other agencies or through non-refuge agreements
between the Service and landowners. A majority of the submerged land used by wintering
waterfowl would not be managed as part of the NWRS, and little other direct management of the
habitat exists.
Under Alternatives A, B, and C, inclusion in the NWRS would bring pennanent protection, a
single mission to protect fish, wildlife and habitats, an extensive agency network of wildlife
management expertise and a nationwide connection to other important habitat, a strong
commitment to protecting and recovering federally listed species, Federal funding, and sanctuary
areas dedicated to wildlife. These actions have the effect of making the proposed protection
pennanent, effective, focused, and consistent throughout the range of birds that migrate many
thousands of miles.
Chapter 4 includes estimates of the portions of each boundary area that the Service considers
poor habitat or even unusable by most wildlife without restoration. The boundaries of
Alternative A include authority for the Service to restore (or help restore) up to 807 acres that are
now nonproductive for wildlife, for a total protection area of about 5,000 acres. Alternative B
would restore up to 584 acres (of the approximately 4,750-acre total) that are nonproductive for
wildlife. The boundary of Alternative C includes about 169 acres a (of the 2,200-acre total) that
would potentially be restored as wildlifè habitat. Ifthe Refuge is established, the Service would
detennine the details of restoration activities during the comprehensive conservation planning
process.
Under Alternative D, the no action alternative, the Service would not seek acquisition or
management of any South Bay habitat as part of the NWRS. Habitat for the listed plant and
animals would be protected by actions of other agencies or through non-refuge agreements
between the Service and landowners. Under Alternative D, habitat protection would continue for
an unknown length of time, at an unknown level, and be conducted by a variety of agencies
operating under a variety of missions not necessarily related to wildlife protection or recovery of
federally listed species. The quality of habitat and opportunity for species to thrive that exist
today is not expected to remain at current levels and is expected to incrementally deteriorate.
The geographic scope of the wildlife management would not be expected to reach beyond the
County of San Diego.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 56 Chapter 4
---"------...-.--. -_.. - ~--.._.__..._-_.__.__._-._-~_._-_.~---,---,-_._-_.".~-._----
4.2.1 Effects on Submerged Lands
Alternatives A and B. Refuge acquisition and management would decrease boating disturbance
to wildlife during fall and winter. A decrease in disturbance would maintain or increase the
value of up to 1,721 acres of submerged land (whether designated winter sanctuary or not) as
feeding and resting habitat for nesting seabirds, wintering waterfowl, and listed species. Until a
separate public planning process is completed, however, the Service will not know the exact
locations or time periods that would be set aside for bird protection. Refuge management would
be adequate to maintain populations, or possibly create an opportunity for these birds to increase
in population, to the extent that the South Bay is the limiting factor for population growth. Birds
most benefitting from acquisition and protection of submerged lands are wintering brant, surf
scoter, scaup and other wintering waterfowl, and nesting terns, black skimmer, and other seabirds
that forage in the South Bay (see map 7). Benefitting listed species are California least tern and
brown pelican. All of Emory Cove would be protected and managed (see section 3.2.1).
Alternative C. Acquisition and management as part ofthe NWRS would maintain or decrease
boating disturbance to wildlife during fall and winter. The decrease in disturbance would
maintain or increase the value of up to 380 acres of submerged land (22 percent) as habitat for
foraging seabirds and wintering waterfowl (see map 7). Refuge protection of about 22 percent of
the submerged land is not expected to be adequate to maintain current populations in the study
area for the long tenn. Submerged lands in the southern third of Emory Cove would receive
Refuge protection.
Alternative D (no action). No existing submerged land habitats would be protected from
recreational boating disturbance beyond current levels of enforcement of a 5-mile-per-hour speed
limit throughout the South Bay. Over time, continued disturbance from fall and winter boating
would decrease the value of 1,721 acres of submerged land as feeding and resting habitat for
nesting seabirds and wintering waterfowl. As the San Diego area's population increases, more
boating during the winter months is expected to increase disturbances and stress for birds.
Should disturbances increase, the species most likely to lose feeding and resting habitat are
brown pelican, California least tern, wintering waterfowl, and nesting seabirds.
4.2.2 Effects on Eelgrass
Alternatives A and B. Implementation of Alternatives A and B would result in effects on
eelgrass similar to the effects on submerged land (section 4.2.1). Refuge status would maintain
or increase the value of all of the eelgrass beds in the study area (up to 691 acres), almost all that
remain in the entire San Diego Bay. It would also create an opportunity for populations of
invertebrates (wonns, snails, clams, shrimp, and crabs) and fish to expand, benefitting species
that are most dependent on the eelgrass such as brant and sea turtle. Wildlife most benefitting
from decreased disturbance of eelgrass are wintering waterfowl and nesting seabirds (see map 7).
Alternative C. Refuge protection would decrease boating disturbance in fall and winter on 50
acres of eelgrass, and maintain or increase the value of the habitat for feeding and resting
seabirds and wintering waterfowl (see map 7). Since only seven percent of the South Bay
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 57 Chapter 4
. .
. .
. : .
. ...... . 'o.¿;'fi;Vh
If ",'
" '''i!iÞ,df;i&'?''
~,""...ç.2'.oi:O"""';';""·f'{'~'··'
~._. ~
',... .. ":, ..'
~"''o''''''''''8'''' ..-' ..
."W .. ,
.,,,
.." ".~
. < ,....
,c-,_
..c·'.;'" ..:..,-.,,,,,,..' ~ 1\
"-?~~,. ' ,
.. ~ """ ,'c, " .i. .
. ,,~ i,\~;,~:·:·_~f;, ""... .
;:~\
"1~~
."j
~ 'J-r"
/
,." ·iJ
'o~
. ..... . ..... ....
. .
'... -..;
. ,.
.. : 1'\
I \
\ j£L
'.. .,
.....,¡;:: /
.
" .
,
.
" . .
. . .
, , , . ..
-- ,. .:.
-- , ..
-- .. .
-- .. "
-
; ..c .
eelgrass beds would be protected under the National Wildlife Refuge System, the value of the
eelgrass beds outside the boundaries of Alternative C is not known. Eelgrass in the southern
third of Emory Cove would receive protection.
Alternative D (no action). The eelgrass beds would be expected to remain the same size or
expand. If the Service takes no action, however, continued boating disturbance over time would
decrease the value of 69I acres of eelgrass as habitat for sea turtle, nesting seabirds, and
wintering waterfowl. Populations of eelgrass-dependent wildlife would not be expected to have
an opportunity to expand without protection and management of the eelgrass. Eelgrass habitats
would receive the same protection as submerged land habitats under the no action alternative.
Should disturbances increase, the species most likely to lose feeding and resting habitat are
brown pelican, California least tern, brant, other wintering waterfowl, and nesting seabirds.
4.2.3 Effects on Mudflat/Intertidal Areas
Alternatives A and B. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value
of 492 acres of mudflats as feeding and resting habitat for migrating shorebirds and nesting
seabirds. Birds most benefitting from protection and management of mudflat/intertidal areas are
western snowy plover, brown pelican, nesting seabirds, wintering waterfowl, and migrating
shorebirds. These are the last remaining mudflats in San Diego Bay. Refuge acquisition and
management of a 100-foot buffer (about 10 acres) on the landward side of the Otay River would
also enhance the value of mudflats along the Otay River channel. All of Emory Cove would be
protected.
Alternative C. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value of 429
acres of mudflats, similar to the effects of Alternatives A and B. Refuge acquisition and
management ofa 100-foot buffer (10 acres) on the landward side of the Otay River would also
enhance the value of mudflats along the Otay'River channel. The southern third of Emory Cove
would receive protection.
Alternative D (no action). With no Refuge protection and management, the value of 492 acres
of mudflats would decrease over time as feeding and resting habitat for nesting seabirds and
wintering waterfowl. Should additional mudflats be filled, dredged, or otherwise made unusable
by wildlife, the species most likely to lose feeding and/or resting habitat are western snowy
plover, brown pelican, nesting seabirds, wintering waterfowl, and migrating shorebirds.
4.2.4 Effects on Salt Marsh
Alternative A. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value of 57
acres of salt marsh as habitat for salt marsh bird' s beak, and as feeding, resting, or nesting habitat
for light-footed clapper rail, California least tern, Belding's savannah sparrow, nesting seabirds,
migrating shorebirds, and wintering waterfowl. Refuge acquisition and management of a 100-
foot buffer (10 acres) on the landward side ofthe Otay River would also enhance the value of
salt marsh along the Otay River channel.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 59 Chapter 4
Enhancement and restoration of habitat, combined with active Refuge management, could
enhance nesting success and allow for population increases. Potentially, the Service could
restore up to 282 acres more salt marsh than under the no action alternative. In addition, an
undetennined portion of the 428 acres at the Naval Radio Receiving Facility would be restored
as salt marsh with Service participation. Habitat would be protected for 71 nesting pairs of
Belding's savannah sparrow in the salt ponds, and 31 nesting pairs in the biology study area.
Refuge management would also improve salt marsh along the Otay River that supported nesting
light-footed clapper rail until recently. With additional Refuge safeguards and management,
light-footed clapper rail may again nest in the salt marsh along the Otay River.
Refuge protection and management would maintain habitat continuity from the submerged lands
to eelgrass to mudflat/intertidal to salt marsh in all six areas: D-Street fill, Chula Vista Wildlife
Reserve, J Street, the salt ponds, the Otay River channel, and the biology study area.
Alternative B. The effects of Refuge protection and management would be the same as in
Alternative A, except with up to 146 acres of potential habitat restoration instead of 282 acres,
plus Service participation in restoring an undetennined portion of the 428 acres of the Naval
Radio Receiving Facility that are undeveloped.
Alternative C. The effects of Refuge protection and management would be similar to effects of
Alternative A, except that acquisition and management would maintain or increase the value of
54 acres (95 percent). The riparian buffer would include three acres. Refuge management would
potentially restore up to 159 acres of salt marsh.
Refuge protection and management would maintain or enhance the continuum from submerged
land to eelgrass to mudflat/intertidal to salt marsh in five ofthe six remaining areas: Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve, J Street, the salt ponds, the Otay River channel, and the biology study area.
Alternative D (no action). Without Refuge protection and management, the value of 57 acres of
salt marsh as feeding, nesting, and resting habitat would decrease over time for light-footed
clapper rail, nesting seabirds, migrating shorebirds, Belding's savannah sparrow, and wintering
waterfowl. Habitat values in these 57 acres would also be degraded for salt marsh bird's beak.
Disturbance from people is expected to increase, since salt marshes in the South Bay adjoin
upland, high-population, urban areas. Should additional salt marsh habitat be filled, the plant
and birds most likely to lose habitat are salt marsh bird's beak, light-footed clapper rail, western
snowy plover, Belding's savannah sparrow, nesting seabirds, and migrating shorebirds. The salt
marsh at the biology study area is protected from development by the County of San Diego.
4.2.5 Effects on Salt Ponds
Alternatives A and C. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value
of 1,175 acres of salt pond as nesting, feeding, and/or resting habitat for nesting seabirds,
migrating shorebirds, western snowy plover, California least tern, brown pelican, Belding's
savannah sparrow, and wintering waterfowl. Refuge management would create the opportunity
for these birds to increase their populations, to the extent that the South Bay is the limiting factor
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 60 Chapter 4
for population growth. The Service would have authority to enter into habitat management
agreements on 1,175 more acres than under the no action alternative.
Refuge management would protect western snowy plover nests, California least tern nests (Ca.
DFG unpublished 1995), one of three primary locations in California where black skimmers nest
(FWS 1993), and one of only two nesting colonies of elegant terns in the United States (ibid).
Alternative B. The effects of Refuge protection and management would be the similar to
Alternative A, protecting 1,175 acres of salt pond. Pond 20 and Area 2, which are potential
habitat restoration areas, would be excluded, the same as under the no action alternative.
Alternative D (no action). The quality ofthe habitat for migrating shorebirds, wintering
waterfowl, and nesting seabirds at the salt ponds is expected to decrease over time, with
inadvertent disturbance from salt extraction processes. Current levels of protection and
management provided by Western Salt would be expected as long as salt extraction continues.
4.2.6 Effects on Beaches, Dunes, and Coastal Created Land
Alternative A. Refuge protection and management such as active wildlife management, control
of exotic species, and habitat enhancement would maintain or increase the value of 696 acres of
beaches, dunes, and coastal created land. The species and birds most benefitting would be salt
marsh bird's beak, light-footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow, nesting seabirds,
migrating shorebirds, and wintering waterfowl. Populations of the plant and these birds would
have the opportunity to increase, to the extent that the South Bay is the limiting population
factor. Refuge acquisition and management would increase the value of all four sites: the area
adjoining Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, the
Naval Radio Receiving Facility, and the Silver Strand State Beach area.
Naval Radio Receiving Facility. By extending Refuge protection and management to the Naval
Radio Receiving Facility, the Service would reinforce existing habitat protection and
management programs pursuant to the Navy's memorandum of understanding with the Service.
Programs would include protecting and enhancing nesting habitat for the western snowy plover
and California least tern, protecting and enhancing habitat for salt marsh bird's beak and light-
footed clapper rail, and protecting beach feeding habitat for the brown pelican.
Silver Strand State Beach Area. The habitat restoration plan for native species currently being
implemented by California at Silver Strand State Beach area would be complemented by Refuge
management activities.
D-Street fill and the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve. The D-Street fill area adjoining
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve would receive
increased protection and management under the National Wildlife Refuge System. Additional
management would include habitat enhancement, control of exotic plants, and active wildlife
management.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 61 Chapter 4
-.~... - -, --- ---- . _.._-~."-,._,._.- -- ..__._-"'---_._------_._----~
Both sites could better support nesting California least tern or nesting western snowy plover and
create opportunity for improved nesting success. The Service may control predators at these two
sites during nesting season to decrease the number of adults and young killed on the nest, and to
increase the number of fledglings that survive.
Benefitting species at the four sites would include migrating shorebirds, nesting seabirds, and all
listed species except the sea turtle. Protection and management of these areas would provide an
opportunity for populations of brown pelican, California least tern, western snowy plover, and
salt marsh bird's beak to stabilize or increase.
Alternative B. The level of Refuge protection and management would be similar to that in
Alternative A, except that Alternative B excludes the Silver Strand State Beach. Alternative B
would maintain or increase the habitat value of 589 more acres than the no action alternative.
Alternative C. Refuge management would maintain or increase the value of 89 acres (13
percent) of beaches, dunes, and coastal created land as habitat for nesting seabirds, migrating
shorebirds, light-footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow, wintering waterfowl, and salt
marsh bird's beak. The Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve would be protected with Refuge status,
which would benefit feeding and resting seabirds, migrating shorebirds, and brown pelican.
Refuge status would also improve the quality of nesting habitat for western snowy plover and
California least tern and create opportunity for improved nesting success at the Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve, similar to Alternative A.
Alternative D (no action). No land would be protected under the National Wildlife Refuge
System. A lack of Refuge protection and management for beaches, dunes, and coastal created
land would be expected to decrease the value of these habitats for nesting seabirds, migrating
shorebirds, light-footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow, wintering waterfowl, and salt
marsh bird's beak. Populations of these birds and plant would decrease over time.
4.2.7 Effects on Fallow Agricultural Lands
Alternatives A and B. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value
of 154 acres and 146 acres, respectively, off allow agricultural lands as wildlife habitat. Wildlife
numbers and diversity would increase over time. The Service would, dependent upon willing
landowners and adequate staffing and funding, seek acquisition sufficient to restore up to 154
more acres and 146 more acres, respectively, than the no action alternative. Any habitat
enhancement proposals would first be coordinated with State, Coastal Zone Management, local,
and regional plans. Ifthe Service enhances habitat for native species, these species would have
an opportunity to increase their numbers in the region.
The fallow agricultural land includes soils classified as prime farm land. The Service leases
refuge land for agricultural production in situations that benefit wildlife and meet specific refuge
management goals. Protection and management as part of the NWRS would not prevent future
use of the land for agriculture; however, the urban setting would make agriculture difficult, if not
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 62 Chapter 4
-
impossible, to implement. Agricultural use of the land ended in 1986. The management plan
process would be the forum for deciding whether to change the current fallow state of the land by
beginning new agricultural uses.
Alternative C. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value of 23
acres (15 percent) of fallow agricultural lands as wildlife habitat. The effects would be similar to
Alternatives A and B, but would involve much less land and therefore, provide much less benefit
to wildlife.
Alternative D (no action). With no Refuge protection and management, the value of wildlife
habitat would remain the same or decrease on 154 acres of fallow agricultural land. Current
zoning and potential flood hazards suggest that the MKEG parcels may have limited
development potential. Land use may change to agricultural or recreational use pennitted under
local standards. The wetlands, disturbed fields, and shrubby areas would continue to support
modest numbers of wildlife, and the small area outside the floodplain probably would be
developed and lost as wildlife habitat.
The present zoning of open space allows no development on about 7 acres of the 20-acre Fenton
parcel. A second layer of zoning notes that this area is also a special study area, and may have
developable portions of unknown size. Considering the value and limited availability of develop
able land in the San Diego area, it is likely that this land will be developed to its full potential.
The development would be limited because the remaining portion ofthe property is within the
Otay River floodplain.
Other agencies or organizations may initiate protective actions to conserve open space on this
parcel. The MKEG/Fenton site might be restored to salt marsh in the course of developing the
proposed Otay Valley Regional Park. Restoråtion or protection from development without
restoration would increase habitat diversity and benefit wildlife populations.
4.2.8 Effects on Riparian Habitats and Species
Alternatives A and B. Refuge protection and management would maintain or increase the value
of 8 acres of existing habitat plus another 10 acres of created land within 100 feet of the Otay
River. This buffer would provide a physical buffer in and along the Otay River (see sections
4.2.3 and 4.2.4) between high-use areas for birds and high-use areas for people. These
alternatives would protect 8 acres more existing riparian habitat than the no action alternative. In
time, riparian vegetation within the overall 100- foot wide buffer would mature into woodlands,
and wildlife habitat value in the riparian area and in the River would be expected to increase.
Alternative C. The level of Service protection and management would be the same as in
Alternatives A and B, except that riparian zone protection and management would end at Area 2,
protecting about 3 acres more than the no action alternative. The effects ofthe 100-foot wide
buffer would be the same.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 63 Chapter 4
_ _" _._._.._~_"._~_._'"._._"_.__.'...."___. .'.. .u__.~,._,._
Alternative D (no action). With no Refuge protection and management, the 8 acres of riparian
habitat would be expected to decrease in value due to development. Development in the 100-
foot buffer area would likely result in increased disturbance from people, or in clearing and
redevelopment with nonnative, ornamental vegetation. The result would be a decrease in habitat
value in the riparian area and the river for nesting seabirds, migrating shorebirds, Belding's
savannah sparrow, and wintering waterfowl in and along the River. The existing degraded
riparian habitat would be expected to support little wildlife in its present state even if
development does not occur.
4.3 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and
Belding's Savannah Sparrow
This section consolidates and summarizes the overall effects to listed species described under
each habitat type (see section 4.2). Under Alternatives A, B, and C, inclusion in the NWRS
would bring pennanent protection, a single mission to protect fish, wildlife and habitats, an
extensive agency network of wildlife management expertise, a nationwide connection to other
important habitat, a strong focus on protecting and recovering federally listed species, Federal
funding, and sanctuary areas dedicated to wildlife alone. These actions would make the
proposed action pennanent, effective, focused, consistent, and protective throughout the range of
migratory birds that use South Bay. Under Alternative D, protection would continue for an
unknown length of time and be conducted by a variety of agencies operating under a variety of
missions not necessarily related to wildlife protection or recovery of federally listed species. The
geographic scope would not be expected to reach beyond the County of San Diego.
Effects on listed species and Belding's savannah sparrow are described by alternative in table 11.
Descriptions of the recovery plan components addressed by each alternative follow in tables 12
through 15. Please refer to table 9 in chapter 3, or to the plans themselves, for more recovery
plan detail. Recovery plans do not exist for all of the species.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 64 Chapter 4
Table 11. Effects on Listed Species And Belding's Savannah Sparrow by Alternative.
(Note: All acreages are estimates)
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Light- Would maintain or Same as A, Would maintain or W QuId maintain or
footed increase quality and except that up to increase quality and decrease the quality and
Clapper quantity of habitat, 146 acres could quantity of habitat, quantity of habitat and
Rail create an opportunity potentially be create an opportunity potential for population
for increase in restored in for increase in success of the light-
population. 57 acres addition to population. 54 acres of footed clapper rail in the
of habitat would have restored areas at habitat would have South Bay over time,
Refuge protection and the Radio Refuge protection and due to birds being
management and up to Facility. management and up to disturbed, injured or
282 acres could 159 acres could killed by predators, and
potentially be potentially be restored. incremental10ss to
restored, plus an development.
undetermined portion
of the 428 acres at the
Radio Facility.
California Would maintain or Same as Would maintain or Would not increase the
Least Tern increase the quality Alternative A. increase the quality and quality and quantity of
and quantity of quantity of habitat, and habitat, and would not
habitat, and create create opportunity for create opportunity for
opportunity for increase in population increase in population
increase in population and number of viable and number of viable
and number of viable nesting colonies. Open nesting colonies.
nesting colonies. water foraging areas Habitat would not
Refuge protection and not protected. Refuge receive protection from
management for protection and predators and would
remaining habitat in management for become increasingly
the study area. southern nesting unable to support tern
habitat in South Bay. over time.
Brown Would permit Same as Would permit limited Would not permit
Pelican opportunity for Alternative A. opportunity for opportunity for
increase in population increase in population expansion of population
by protecting and by protecting and numbers since the
managing open water managing salt pond quality and quantity of
and salt pond habitat. habitat, but not open habitat would not be
Refuge protection and water habitat. Refuge enhanced over time.
management for all of protection and Habitat would not
habitat in study area. management of 2,203 receive protection from
acres of habitat. recreational boats, and
would become
increasingly unable to
support pelican over
time.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 65 Chapter 4
.-----.~. -_..__.._-_....,.._--_._._._~
(Page 2) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Species
Western Would maintain or Similar to A, Would maintain or Would decrease quality
Snowy increase quality and with Refuge increase quality and and quantity of habitat,
Plover quantity of habitat, protection and quantity of habitat, and not create an
create an opportunity management for create an opportunity opportunity for increase
for increase in all nesting areas for increase in in population. Habitat
population and in the study area. population and number would not receive
number of viable An of viable nests. Refuge protection from
nests. Refuge undetermined protection and predators, and would
protection and portion of the management for become increasingly
management for all 428-acre Radio nesting habitat in the unable to support plover
nesting habitat in the Facility would southern end of South over time.
study area and all potentially be Bay. No potential
potential restoration restored. restoration areas are
areas, up to 87 acres, identified at this time.
plus an undetermined
portion of the 428-
acre Radio Facility.
Salt Marsh Would maintain or Same as A, Similar to A, with 54 Navy actions would
Bird's Beak increase quality and except that 146 acres of Refuge increase quality and
quantity of habitat, acres could protection and quantity of habitat,
create an opportunity potentially be management and 159 create an opportunity for
for increase in restored, plus acres that could increase in population at
population. Refuge an undetermined potentially be restored. the Naval Radio
protection and portion of the Receiving Facility under
management for 57 428 acres at the the MOU, possibly 3 or
acres of habitat. Radio Facility. 4 additional colonies
Restoration would established in the study
occur on up to 282 area.
acres, for 3 to 5 new
colonies, and on an
undetermined portion
of the 428 acres at the
Naval Radio
Receiving Facility.
Pacific Would maintain or Same as Refuge protection for Turtle would be
Green Sea increase quality of Alternative A. 430 acres of eelgrass increasingly disturbed
Turtle habitat. Refuge and submerged land, by boat traffic and may
protection for 2,412 including the eelgrass decrease its use of the
acres of eelgrass and where turtle is found. South Bay.
submerged land.
Bald Eagle Would improve Same as Would maintain quality Would maintain quality
quality of habitat. Alternative A. of habitat. of habitat.
American Same as bald eagle. Same as Same as bald eagle. Same as bald eagle.
Peregrine Alternative A.
Falcon
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 66 Chapter 4
(Page 3) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AIternative D
Species
Belding's Would maintain or Same as Sintilar to A, except Would decrease quality
Savannah increase quality and Alternative A, Refuge protection and and quantity of habitat
Sparrow quantity of habitat, except that up to management of acres over time and not create
create an opportunity 146 acres of of habitat plus 159 an opportunity for
for increase in habitat could acres that could increase in population.
population. Refuge potentially be potentially be restored Belding's savannah
protection and restored as as nesting habitat. sparrow is not a
management for 108 nesting habitat. federally listed species
nesting pairs, 57 acres and would not be
of nesting habitat. Up protected under the
to 282 acres would Endangered Species Act.
potentially be restored Other protection and
as nesting habitat, plus management described
an undetermined in the introduction to
number of acres at the section 4.2.8 would
Radio Facility. apply. State endangered
species protection and
management would be
provided for 108 nesting
pairs.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 67 Chapter 4
"._.._.._____._ __·_·___·__~____~___'_'.".'._..____.U
Table 12. Components of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives A
through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal
Plan Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Components (Preferred (No Action)
Alternative)
Contribution Acquisition would Same as A, but Same as A, but with 54 Navy would
to Primary contribute to down with 156 acres of acres under Refuge contribute to down-
Objective listing requirement habitat that could protection and listing by restoring
by increasing the potentially be management plus 159 habitat at the Naval
number of breeding restored. acres that could Radio Receiving
pairs and the acreage potentially be restored. Facility.
of protected coastal
wetlands. Refuge
protection and
management for 57
acres of salt marsh
and 282 acres that
could potentially be
restored, plus an
undetemtined
number of acres at
the Naval Radio
Receiving Facility.
Contribution Would contribute to Same as A. Same as A. Navy would
to Primary action 7; actions 1 contribute to actions
Actions through 6 would 1,3,4,5, and 7.
(Please see Table 9 occur during
for specific actions). management.
Protection All three sites Same as A. Same as A. The biology study
and identified would be area, one of the
Management preserved and three sites, would be
of Essential or enhanced. preserved and
Otherwise enhanced.
- Identified
Habitat
-
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 68 Chapter 4
Table 13. Components of the California Least Tern's Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives A
through D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal
Plan Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
components (Preferred (No Action)
Alternative)
Primary Acquisition would Same as A. Acquisition would Navy would
Objective contribute to delisting contribute to the contribute to the
by creating an number of breeding number of breeding
opportunity for pairs found in the pairs on Navy land
increasing the number salt ponds and under the MOD.
of breeding pairs inunediate vicinity.
throughout South San Only nesting habitat
Diego Bay at all and nominal
known sites in the feeding habitat
study area. Both would be protected.
nesting and feeding
habitat would be
protected.
Primary Would contribute to I, Same as A. Would contribute to Navy would
Actions 2, 4, and 5 throughout 4 and 5. contribute to actions
(Please see Table 9 South Bay and 1,3, and 4 on Navy
for specific actions) immediate vicinity. land under the
MOU.
Essential or Would contribute Same as A. Would contribute Navy would
Otherwise protection and protection and contribute land
Identified management for all of management to the covered under the
Habitat South San Diego Bay. salt ponds and MOD.
vicinity.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 69 Chapter 4
···_··_"··_·__~__··___'___m'__________.__~._. w'O'.. _._
TabIe 14. Components ofthe Brown Pelican's Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives A throngh D,
South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal
Plan Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AIternative D
components (Preferred (No action)
Alternative)
Primary Acquisition would Same as A. Similar to A, but Does not contribute
Objective contribute to delisting protecting 45 % of adequate habitat
by protecting and habitat in study protection and
managing all habitat area. management
in the study area, necessary to restore
creating an and maintain
opportunity for population in South
populations to be Bay.
restored and
maintained throughout
South San Diego Bay.
Primary Would contribute Same as A. Similar to A, but Limited Navy
Actions toward 2 except for would contribute contribution toward
(please see Table 9 nesting habitat nominal open water 2,exceptfornesting
for spec:iftc actions) throughout South San feeding areas habitat. Protection
Diego Bay. toward 2. and management
exclusively on Navy
land affected by
MOD.
Essential or No portion of study No portion of study No portion of study No portion of study
otherwise area specifically area specifically area specifically area specifically
identified identified. identified. identified. identified.
habitat
.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 70 Chapter 4
.
Table 15. Components of the SaIt Marsh Bird's Beak Recovery Plan Met by Alternatives A
throngh D, South San Diego Bay Refuge Proposal
Plan Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
components (Preferred (No action)
Alternative)
Primary Acquisition would Same as A, except Same as A, except Navy would
Objective contribute to delisting that 146 acres of that 159 acres of contribute by
by protection and habitat could habitat could protecting and
management of plant potentially be potentially be enhancing existing
colonies on Navy restored. restored. colonies on the
land; up to 282 acres Naval Radio
of habitat could Receiving Facility.
potentially be
restored, plus an
undetermined portion
of the 428 acres at the
Radio Facility.
Enhancement!
restoration would
provide 3-5 more
major nuirsh areas.
Primary Acquisition would Same as A. Would address 2 , 3, The Navy MOU
Actions contribute to I and 5. 4,5,6. plan is expected to
(please see Table 9 Management activities address all but
for specific adions) would contribute to 2, action 6 on Navy
3,4,6. land. These
documents have not
been completed or
released for review.
Essential or All remaining suitable Same as A. Suitable habitat in None of the
otherwise habitat in South San the salt ponds and remaining suitable
identified Diego Bay would be vicinity would be habitat would be
habitat protected as part of protected as part of protected as part of
the Refuge and the Refuge and the Refuge or
available for available for available for
reintroduction. reintroduction. Refuge-sponsored
reintroduction.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 71 Chapter 4
--." .-..--...- -.,.-. --,._~-~---_._._-_._-~.~.._._----_.__.._,.
4.4 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment
Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the proposed inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System
would bring pennanent protection of wildlife habitat, national recognition as a wildlife haven,
opportunity for citizen input in management planning, professional operation by wildlife experts,
Federal funding, and no Service-sponsored activities competing with wildlife. Effects would be
expected to include some increase in tourists attracted for birdwatching (due to NWRS name
recognition), more active public participation in the operation of the area for wildlife, and more
opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
4.4.1 Effects on Salt Works
The salt works, for the discussion of section 4.3.2, includes the MKEG/Fenton parcel and
Western Salt Pond 20. These two parcels, which are entirely or partially owned by Western Salt
or associates, once produced salt, but are no longer doing so.
Alternative A.
Active salt production ponds and Area 2: If the Service acquires Western Salt Company in fee
(purchase, transfer, or donation), and salt production activities are phased out over time, an
estimated 25 jobs could be lost (Niehaus 1994). Annual losses of earnings and sales are
projected at $670,000 and $4.9 million, respectively (ibid). Since this is the only viable area for
salt production in the region, this activity would not be able to relocate to another site nearby.
If the Service instead enters into an agreement with Western Salt that allows salt production to
continue, Alternative A would have no effect on the annual salt output, earnings, sales, and
payment of property taxes.
· MKEG/Fenton: This area is not being used for salt production, so there would be no effect on
the salt works regardless ofthe fate ofthe parcels. If the Service acquired and managed the
parcel, development would not occur on areas that have development potential. Because of the
special study area zoning overlay, the amount of foregone development is unknown. Until the
special study area process establishes otherwise, no development is pennitted (City of San
Diego, in conversation 1997).
Pond 20: Western Salt Pond 20 is not being used for salt production; therefore, acquisition of
Pond 20 by the Service would have no effect on salt production. If the Service acquires the
· parcel, the company would receive the same amount ofreimbursement as if the parcel were sold
to any other buyer, since the Service would pay appraised market value. Development potential,
and potential foregone development that would result ifthe Service acquired Pond 20, is
unknown for the same reasons as for the MKEG/Fenton parcel.
Alternative B.
Active salt production ponds and Area 2: The effects would be the same as under Alternative A.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 72 Chapter 4
·
J
MKEG/Fenton: The effects would be the same as under Alternative A.
Pond 20: Pond 20 is not included in Alternative B. This alternative would have no effect on the
operation of the salt works.
Alternative C.
Active salt production ponds and Area 2: The effects would be the same as under Alternative A.
MKEG/Fenton: This area is not being used for salt production, so there would be no effect on
the salt works regardless of the fate of the parcels. Only 23 acres of the MKEG parcel, and none
of the Fenton parcel, would be included within the boundary.
Pond 20: The effects would be the same as under Alternative A.
Alternative D.
Active salt production ponds and Area 2: Alternative A would have no effect on the annual salt
output. Expansion of the salt works onto Western Salt's currently leased but inactive parcels,
though unlikely, would result in an additional 5 to 10 jobs (Niehaus 1994).
MKEG/Fenton: This area is not being used for salt production, so effects on the salt works
would be the same regardless of the fate of the parcels. Under the no action alternative, however,
development could occur on the 7 acres of the Fenton property designated for
commercial/industrial use. This development would result in up to an estimated 172 additional
jobs, depending on the type and extent of the development allowed (Niehaus 1994).
Pond 20: Western Salt Pond 20 is not being used for salt production, so effects on the salt works
would be the same regardless of the fate of the parcels. The Anny Corps of Engineers has not
detennined whether federally regulated wetlands exist on Pond 20, or how much of the site is
upland. Development potential would be affected by this detennination.
4.4.2 Effects on Quality of Life
Issues include whether the surf camp would continue, and how boating, the proposed Bayshore
Bikeway trail, and the railroad and potential excursion train would be affected. The Service also
analyzed the effects of the proposed Refuge on overall desirability ofliving in the San Diego
area. This desirability is often referred to as quality oflife.
A more abstract measure of the effects of alternatives on quality oflife is to estimate monetary
values associated with habitat protection and management in the South San Diego Bay area. The
two interdependent measures are monetary values associated with biodiversity and intrinsic
(existence and bequest) values (Niehaus, 1994). Biodiversity is a measure of the variety ofliving
things and their processes, including the variety of plants and animals, the genetic differences
among them, and the communities in which they are found.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 73 Chapter 4
L ----........,-..--.-.-".."..--.-...-..-....,-".-...
Biodiversity values in a community's natural areas are a measure of quality oflife in a
community. Intrinsic values represent the amount users would be willing to pay, over and above
what they would need to pay, in order to enjoy the recreational experiences associated with
habitat and wildlife protection and management. These values are a measure of how desirable a
community is as a place to live. The intrinsic values are reflected in property values, ratings of
livability by national publications, and community reputation.
Biodiversity and intrinsic values are detennined by the amount and type of area protected. This
relationship is not a simple one. In general, however, the greater the area protected under an
alternative, the greater the biodiversity, and the greater the expected intrinsic value. While any
additional habitat protection program would increase this community value, the National
Wildlife Refuge System would provide the most pennanent increase.
The existing biodiversity value in the San Diego area would be expected to decline without
additional protection and management under the National Wildlife Refuge System. A precise
measure of the rate of decline of South San Diego Bay resources is not possible, since it depends
on complicated biological, ecological, and human interactions over a long period of time into the
future. Niehaus (1994) provides a comparative description, estimating that Alternative A would
hold these values at 100 percent oftheir current level. Intrinsic values, another more quantitative
measure of quality of life, are those values associated simply with the presence of a resource,
regardless of values derived from direct or indirect use.
Alternative A. The Service would not seek any changes in current leases and agreements
between the Navy and other entities. This includes continued operation of the 80-acre YMCA
Surf Camp, the 27-acre biology study area, and the easement for State Highway 75 with
additionallO-foot right-of-way for a bikeway. The Service would also not seek any changes to
utility and infrastructure easements: a 30-foot-wide water main easement running north and south
to the California Water and Telephone Company; and easements to Imperial Beach for beach
groin and various other utility and street improvements. All of these leases and agreements
would continue to be the full responsibility ofthe Navy. The Service would acquire land subject
to existing easements and leases.
The Bayshore Bikeway and railroad line are both included within the proposed Refuge boundary.
The Service would not seek to acquire or operate, maintain, or manage either. The inclusion of
both, however, would be an opportunity for the Refuge coordinate with other community
activities. The legal use of either the bikeway or the railroad, whether the railroad is used for
freight or excursion trains, would be unaffected by the fact that they would pass through a refuge
boundary.
Since the Silver Strand parcel is administered by the Navy and leased to State Parks, the
Service's only habitat protection and management option would be a cooperative agreement with
these administering agencies. State Parks has begun its efforts to restore native, coastal
vegetation at the Silver Strand parcel, a project that is benefitting coastal habitat-associated
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 74 Chapter 4
wildlife. With an overlay refuge, the Service could cooperate with the State on its habitat
restoration efforts.
Intrinsic values under Alternative A are likely to be greater than the other alternatives, although
not in direct proportion to the various areas protected. The public's willingness to pay for these
non-use values is discussed in section 3.3.5, with values on the order of$IO to $100 per
household per year identified as representative ofthe value California households place on the
protection of resources such as South San Diego Bay. Alternative A would add $3 to $30 per
household per year to this valuation.
For Alternative A, the incremental biodiversity and intrinsic value associated with habitat
conservation can be approximated by multiplying the 10,830,000 households in California by $3
to $30 per household per year (Niehaus 1994). This results in a representative estimate of$32
million to $325 million per year of additional value added as a result of the Refuge's presence.
These amounts benefit the regional economy but would not be a significant change.
Alternative B. Alternative B would have the same effects on the bikeway, the railroad, and the
Naval Radio Receiving Facility as Alternative A. Alternative B excludes the Silver Strand
parcel, Pond 20, and Area 2. Alternative B would add a combination of biodiversity and intrinsic
values similar to Alternative A, $32 million to $325 million per year. These amounts would
benefit the regional economy but would not be a significant change.
Alternative C. Alternative C excludes the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, and would not affect
operations there (see map 5). Alternative C would add $1 to $10 per household per year of
intrinsic value. Alternative C would keep biodiversity at 80 percent of Alternative A, plus
intrinsic values, together estimated to be $11 million to $108 million annually (Niehaus, 1994).
These amounts would benefit the regional economy but would not be a significant change.
Alternative D (no action). The no action alternative would not affect the YMCA Surf Camp,
the biology study area, and the CalTrans easement for State Highway 75 with additionallO-foot
right-of-way for a bikeway. There would be no effect on the Radio facility's utility and
infrastructure easements: a 30-foot-wide water main easement, running north and south to the
California Water and Telephone Company; and easements to Imperial Beach for beach groin and
various other utility and street improvements.
Since no Refuge would be approved under Alternative D, no direct project-related increases in
biodiversity or intrinsic values would accrue. The project area is expected to continue to support
some level of environmental amenities (recreational use values, biodiversity values, and intrinsic
values) for people living in the immediate area, in California, and elsewhere. These amenities,
however, are likely to decline over time as development and other actions reduce the scale or
environmental productivity of area resources.
A precise measure of the rate of decline is not possible. For this discussion, Niehaus estimated
that biodiversity would be expected to decline to 70 percent of Alternative A.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 75 Chapter 4
- --_.--._.~. _·_··________~__"____.'____m_·.·__~_~
4.4.3. Effects on Recreational Boating
Alternatives A and B. The primary effect on recreation would be the potential to seasonally
restrict recreational boating during the waterfowl wintering season. This action would protect
internationally significant fall migration and wintering habitat for migrating shore birds,
wintering waterfowl, and nesting seabirds.
Alternative A is expected to affect the largest number and types of watercraft, since it covers the
greatest area. Most ofthe boats using this area are already limited to navigational channels
because the waters outside the channels are extremely shallow (see map 6). Jet skis and
sailboards would be more affected by any restrictions because they are able to navigate in these
shallow areas. With the exception of the dredged channels, 100 percent ofthe study area is less
than 12 feet deep; 57 percent is also under 6 feet deep, and 26 percent is under three feet deep.
The Service would work closely with the public to identify the times and locations of the
restricted areas during the management plan process. About 40 percent of the boats counted by
the Service (FWS 1994a) were sighted between November and March, the peak period of
wintering waterfowl use. The Service does not know, however, how many of these boats were
using the navigational channels to travel to another location for recreation, versus those whose
owners had chosen the South Bay as their destination. Boaters' use of the navigational channels
would be unaffected.
Alternative C. Boating restrictions under Alternative C would cover a smaller area than under
the other action alternatives, and would require the concurrence of the U.S. Coast Guard, State,
and Port. Restrictions would be expected to affect very few boaters because most of the waters
within this alternative are less than three feet deep. Jet skis and sailboards would be more likely
to be affected by restrictions than other watercraft because they are able to navigate in these
shallow areas.
Alternative D (no action). Boating activities would continue in the Bay, and would be expected
to increase, unless the U.S. Coast Guard, State, or Port further restrict boat traffic.
4.4.4 Effects on Public Access to the Bay
The development of new public access points in the South Bay is limited by the lack of public
land. Residents in the South Bay area have indicated the need for access to the Bay. While the
particulars of new access points would be developed in the planning process, this section will
look briefly at general effects of increasing Bay access.
Alternatives A. and B. These alternatives offer the most options. The existing access point at
Chula Vista would be unaffected. Service staff and expertise would be used to develop a public
access point and public use program. Resources would include Federal funding and the
experience and expertise of Service wildlife managers and outdoor recreation professionals in
developing access points and public use programs.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 76 Chapter 4
Alternative C. Altemative C is similar to Altematives A and B, with a smaller area and fewer
potential access point sites. The existing access point at Chula Vista would be unaffected.
Alternative D (no action). The no action alternative would not provide an opportunity for
additional public access to the Bay. The existing access point at Chula Vista would be
unaffected.
4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No direct or indirect actions to the environment would result from Alternatives A, B, or C.
Refuge boundary approval in itself has no effect on property. Once land is acquired, the Service
would prevent incremental adverse impacts, such as degradation and loss of habitat over time, to
the lands and their associated native plants and animals.
4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources (see descriptions in
chapter 3) associated with the proposed habitat protection and management or the other action
alternatives. Under the no action alternative, if habitats are not protected and continue to decline,
some plant and animal species would become extirpated over time, causing an irreversible and
irretrievable loss.
4.7 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity
The private lands in the study area are closed to public use. If these lands are added to the
Refuge System, some would remain set aside exclusively for wildlife, while some areas would be
opened to the public for wildlife-dependent recreation compatible with the Refuge's purposes. If
seasonal protection areas are designated in State and Port waters in South San Diego Bay, boats
(including personal watercraft) would be required to stay within navigational channels in some
areas during the fall and winter. This designation would be dependent upon U.S. Coast Guard,
State, and Port agreement, and the restricted area would be detennined in a public forum in full
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) and rule-making procedures
under the Administrative Procedures Act. The restriction of boats to navigational channels
would be a short-tenn recreational activity cost balanced against the Bay's long-tenn ability to
support waterbird populations.
The proposed habitat protection and management program proposed as part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is pennanent and exclusively dedicated to maintain the long-tenn
productivity of South San Diego Bay habitats for fish and wildlife. The local short-tenn uses of
the environment following acquisition and management ofthe proposed Refuge Unit could
include wetland restoration and enhancement and the development of administrative and public
use facilities. The resulting long-tenn productivity would include increased protection and
management of threatened and endangered species, wintering waterfowl, nesting seabirds,
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 77 Chapter 4
"^ .__._--~._.- "^--.---.-
migrating shorebirds, and a myriad of wetland-dependent species. This protection and
management could result in population increases for these species. The public would also gain
long-tenn opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation and education and enhanced quality of
life.
4.8 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed South San Diego Bay Unit would be one of three units of San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge and one of five refuge system units in San Diego County. National wildlife
refuges complement a number of other Federal, State, and local habitat conservation projects and
proposals in the area (see Section 1.9 and 1.10). Without these cumulative actions, the last
pieces of native, natural habitat could be converted into roads, houses, malls, ranches and other
developments. Remaining habitats could be made unusable by wildlife due to destructive
recreational uses or trespass. Several species could become lost to the County of San Diego or
even become extinct without these protective commitments. The MSCP environmental impact
statement (see section 1.10.5), which has been incorporated into this environmental assessment,
analyses the potential loss of species under the no-action alternative.
The cumulative effects of the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit, along with the other
conservation projects (MSCP, other refuges, regional parks, etc.) should be sufficient to maintain
the open space, quality of life, and biodiversity of southwestern San Diego County, prevent
significant losses of species and populations, and prevent listing of additional species as
threatened or endangered with extinction. Hence, the cumulative impact of these projects is to
prevent rather than cause significant changes in the human environment. For additional detail,
please refer to the MSCP EIS.
San Diego County has a large and diverse economy, with tourism contributing $3.67 billion
(Niehaus 1994). Cumulative effects ofthis Refuge Unit proposal on the economy, in
combination with other conservation proposals, are projected to be an increase in the number of
tourists seeking to view wildlife, especially birds. The addition of a Refuge in South Bay would
bolster efforts to maximize ecotourism in the vicinity, in particular the new birding festivals
begun this year in Salton Sea and Imperial Beach. In relation to the rest of the economy, the
economic impact of changes to property taxes, sales and lodging taxes, the overall economy, and
increased ecotourism would be beneficial but slight, and would not significantly effect the
economy of the region.
The combination of local land protection proposals would slightly decrease potential
development in some areas, and some land would also be removed from tax roles in some cases.
These effects were discussed in detail in the MSCP EIS. The proposed Refuge in South Bay
would have no effect on development or ownership of any properties outside but adjoining or
near the proposed Refuge boundary (see section 1.11.2).
Residential tax revenues rarely cover the costs of infrastructure (water, roads, parks, sewers),
schools, law enforcement, and other public services. Commercial and industrial tax revenues
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 78 Chapter 4
-
often provide a larger percentage ofthese infrastructure and service costs. A Refuge unit would
require none ofthese services at the expense oflocal govemment. Cumulatively, the foregone
local tax base, new housing base, new commercial property base, and govemmental expense is
not significant in light of the large scale of the County of San Diego's housing base and
economy. Cumulatively, by the scale of the County's economy, the expenses to local
govemments that would be avoided by managing land as wildlife habitat instead of developing it
also are not significant.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 79 Chapter 4
Chapter 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND
COMPLIANCE
5.1 Coordination With Other Agencies and Public Involvement
In planning for the proposed South San Diego Bay Refuge Unit, the Service is coordinating with
the following Federal agencies: U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, and International Boundary and
Water Commission. The Service is similarly coordinating with the following State agencies:
California Department ofFish and Game, California State Lands Commission, California Coastal
Conservancy, California Coastal Commission, California Department of State Parks and
Recreation, and California Environmental Protection Agency.
The Service consulted with local agencies including the Unified Port of San Diego, San Diego
County Supervisor's Office, San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego
County Planning Department, San Diego Area Governments, and the cities of Chula Vista,
Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego.
This document has been distributed to the following Native American Tribes: Campo Mission,
Jamul, LaPosta, Manzanita, Mesa Grande, San Pasqual, Sycuan, Torres-Martinez, and Viejas.
The Service has invited and continues to encourage public participation through an extensive
public involvement program consisting of public infonnation meetings, working groups, and
project planning updates. Since the summer of 1990, seven public infonnation meetings have
been conducted in the South San Diego Bay area in an effort to identify issues and concerns
associated with the proposed project.
Working Groups
The Service fonned a Citizens Working Group and Policy Review Group to represent affected
publics and jurisdictions during the development of habitat protection alternatives. The Citizens
Working Group and the Policy Review Group helped develop alternatives for this draft
environmental assessment.
Planning Updates
The Service prepared and mailed three South San Diego Habitat Protection Program Planning
Updates (November 1992, April 1993, October 1993) to keep interested publics infonned of
progress with this project. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Planning Update (October
- 1995, March 1996, November 1997) replaced the planning update for the South San Diego Bay
Habitat Protection Program. The Service mailed another planning update for the South San
Diego project in November 1997. All of the agencies and interested parties mentioned above
received copies of the San Diego conceptual management plan, planning updates, and this draft
environmental assessment.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 80 Chapter 5
-
Distribution and Availability
The Service sent this draft environmental assessment (EA) to interested agencies, organizations,
groups, landowners, and individuals for review and comment (see appendix C). The EA is also
available on the World Wide Web from the planning website at the following address:
http://www.rlfws.gov/planning/plnhome.html. Comments received by the Service will be
considered and, as appropriate, addressed in the final environmental assessment.
5.2 Environmental Consultation and Compliance
In undertaking the proposed action, the Service would comply with a number of Federal laws,
regulations, and executive orders, including the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended; Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended; Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970; Intergovemmental Review of Federal Programs (Executive Order 12372); Protection of
Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988);
Hazardous Materials Detenninations (Secretarial Order 3127); and Executive Orders 12898 and
12966.
Key consultations include Environmental Justice, Coastal Zone Management Act, National
Historic Preservation Act, and Hazardous Materials detenninations. These consultations are
briefly discussed below.
Environmental Justice
The proposed Refuge Unit directly benefits low and moderate-income residents in the study area
by maintaining or improving natural areas near their homes, a standard measure of quality of life
in any community. Lack offonnal status of the area as a public wildlife resource prevents a
sense of ownership. A refuge would help residents feel that the Bay is for everyone. Refuge
protection would help ensure that wildlife and habitat endure to provide environmental education
opportunities for all ages.
The Refuge Unit would increase opportunities for families to view wildlife and natural areas
without driving long distances, and neighborhood schools would have an additional
environmental education resource close at hand. The Refuge Unit would allow San Diego and
Imperial Beach youth to experience natural areas and wildlife as a part of their community and
their growing-up experience.
Land use within the proposed Refuge Unit area would be consistent with County and City zoning
and land-use plans. The proposed action promotes reasonable and appropriate uses of the land
and waters that preserve the natural character and protect the natural resources and ecology of the
area. Refuges do not release chemical or other pollutants into the air or water, create noise
pollution, or present new safety dangers.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 81 Chapter 5
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Service has made an application to the California Coastal Commission concurrent with the
release of this EA. The application requests a detennination that designating a national wildlife
refuge in the South Bay would be a use consistent with the California Coastal Management
Program.
Cultural Resources
A review by the San Diego State University Department of Anthropology indicates that several
historic and archaeological sites have been recorded in South San Diego Bay. Early military use
in the vicinity of the Radio Facility is considered historically significant. Numerous early Native
American camp sites have been recorded around the Bay. Federal agencies are required to
protect such resources under Executive Order 11593, Protection of Historic, Archaeological, and
Scientific Properties. State agencies are likewise required to avoid impacts to historic and
archaeological properties under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Hazardous Materials
Environmental contaminants occur throughout San Diego Bay, primarily from toxic chemicals
from industry on the Bay and in the watershed, and from nonpoint source pollution throughout
the watershed. San Diego Bay's watershed drains into five creeks, which collect nonpoint source
pollutants generated within the watershed and deliver them to the Bay. Urban runoff also
delivers nonpoint source pollutants through the stonn drain system, which ultimately empties
into the Bay.
Nonpoint source pollutants include petroleum products, tire dust, asbestos, pesticides, fertilizers,
phosphates, nitrates, colifonn bacteria and other pathogens, sediment, and trash. The Navy has
operated a shipyard in the Bay for decades, contributing oil, paint and related chemicals, metals,
and solvents into the water. Operation and maintenance of over 8,000 recreational boats on San
Diego Bay contributes contaminants such as oil, sewage, and antifouling paint to the Bay.
Discharges of groundwater are also a source of contamination to the Bay due to the many plumes
oftoxic and hazardous chemicals that have contaminated the groundwater underneath San Diego.
The San Diego Regional Quality Control Board's major problems of concern are PCBs,
petroleum wastes, copper, organotin compounds, and a variety of other trace metal toxins and
chemicals. The primary areas of concern are the more industrialized central and outer portions of
San Diego Bay; there are contaminant concerns in South San Diego Bay as well.
Service contaminant surveys were conducted in August 1990. Potential problems described in
the 1990 survey included trace elements originating from urban runoff, marinas, and the San
Diego Gas and Electric power plant. In addition, the area had documented concerns about
metals, organotins, and petroleum hydrocarbons (SDIWQP 1989), elevated DDE levels in terns
nesting in South San Diego Bay (Ohlendorf 1985), and unexplained gull mortality in that area.
In 1992, the Service conducted contaminant sampling in South Bay and reviewed data from
several other contaminant studies conducted in San Diego Bay during 1991-1992. Sediments at
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
.
San Diego NWR 82 Chapter 5
three sites contained metals (copper, nickel, zinc, and lead) exceeding certain guidelines for the
protection of aquatic organisms, but no levels were considered high enough to require cleanup.
PCBs were not detected in sediment samples, but were detected in biota samples at levels below
hazard thresholds. Aliphatic hydrocarbons, P AHs, organotins, and most organochlorine
pesticides were largely nondetectable in sediments and food chain biota or were at levels below
most hazard thresholds. However, the eggs of all bird species had elevated concentrations of
DDT-related compounds, likely as a result ofDDE contamination previously documented in
coastal southern California. The Service study concluded that no site-specific contamination
issues were identified that would require remedial action, nor were any identified that should
prohibit acquisition of the areas under consideration for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit.
Limited environmental contaminant sampling has been conducted in the MKEG/Fenton area, as
reported in the Lower Gtay River Wetlands Enhancement Plan. Results from this contaminant
survey indicated that hazardous materials were used and are stored in the area. Soil samples
indicated elevated concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (DDT, DDD, DDE). Hazardous
materials stored on site included items typical of farming operations such as fuels, oils, grease,
and pesticides.
The only potential contaminant problem on the Radio Facility was cleaned up in 1993. A total of
76 underground fuel tanks were removed from the fonner barracks site. The cleanup has been
certified as complete by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and responsible State and
local agencies. There are no contaminant concerns associated with the 40-acre Navy site at
Silver Strand State Park.
Compatibility Determination ofInterim Public Uses
In compliance with Executive Order 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Service has identified the wildlife-dependent public activities now
occurring on the potential acquisition area, and analyzed them for compatibility with the
purposes for which the Refuge was created (see section 1.11.1). The Service completed its
interim compatibility detennination on June 30,1997. Refuge land is closed to public access
until opened. Areas to be open for public use would be detennined after land with an existing
public use is acquired. The compatibility detennination covers the interim period between the
time the Service acquires a parcel until a plan has been fonnally adopted for long-tenn
management. The Service would prepare a public use plan, using public input, to detennine
exactly what types of activities would be pennitted and where they would be allowed.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 83 Chapter 5
Table 16. Interim Compatibility Determination Summary of Wildlife-dependent
Recreational Activities
Wildlife-dependent Existing Compatible Funds and Staff Interim
Recreational Activity Activity? for Interim Available to Use
Period? Manage? Allowed?
Wildlife Observation Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Interpretation
Wildlife Photography Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental Yes Yes Yes Yes
Education
Hunting No No No No
Fishing Yes Yes Yes Yes
.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 84 Chapter 5
Chapter 6. LIST OF PREPARERS
Primary Authors
Abbey Gantenbein Kucera, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty,
Refuges and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon (B.S. Applied Ecology and Community Planning; M.S.
Geography); 18 years of inventorying and protecting wildlife habitat
Ben Harrison, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Habitat Conservation, Ecological Services,
Portland, Oregon (B.S. Natural Resource Management; M.S. Plant and Soil Science); 14 years
involvement in habitat protection programs
Primary Reviewers
Charles J. Houghten, Supervisor, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife,
Portland, Oregon
Cathy T. Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Planning Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges and Wildlife,
Portland, Oregon
Georgia L. Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist, Acquisition Branch, Division of Realty, Refuges
and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon
Dean Rundle, Project Leader, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Carlsbad,
California
Andrew R. Yuen, Deputy Refuge Manager, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex,
Refuges and Wildlife, Carlsbad, California
Jeff Manning, Biologist, Branch of Wetlands and Coastal Resources, Division of Habitat
Conservation, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California
Doreen Stadtlander, Biologist, Branch of Wetlands and Coastal Resources, Division of Habitat
Conservation, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California
Acknowledgements
Julie Gillum, Editor, Portland, Oregon
Ronald A. Beitel and Fabio Feruzzi, Geographic Infonnation Systems, Portland, Oregon
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR 85 Chapter 6
. -, . -----."'-..-".-.-.,--
References
California Department ofFish and Game. 1992. California Least Tern Breeding Survey, 1992
Season. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report 91-11. 35 pp.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1992. Grant Proposal: Silver Strand Ecosystem
Restoration Project, Silver Strand State Beach, San Diego County, California. 33 pp.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1990. Unpublished data and report on mullet landings
and San Diego Bay fishing.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1994. Unpublished data sheets tallying California
Least Tern Breeding Survey, 1994 Season.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1995a. Verbal conversation concerning mullet harvest
and fishing pennits in the South Bay with Kimberly McKee-Lewis on June 3.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1995b. Unpublished data sheets tallying California
Least Tern Breeding Survey, 1995 Season.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1996a. Verbal conversation concerning mullet harvest
and fishing pennits in the South Bay with Kimberly McKee-Lewis on May 28.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1996b. Correspondence from Kimberly McKee-Lewis
with a data table showing the number of pounds of mullet harvested, by year, from 1979 to
1995. Letter sent June 6.
California Department ofFish and Game. 1996c. Unpublished data sheets tallying California
Least Tern Breeding Survey, 1996 Season.
Otay-Nestor Community Plan. 1996. City of San Diego Planning Department.
City of San Diego and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Final EIR/EIS for Issuance of Take
Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area.
Otay-Nestor Community Plan. City of San Diego Planning Department. 1997. Phone
conversation RE open space and special study area overlay zoning with Ella Paris on
November 5.
South San Diego Bay Draft Environmental Assessment
Habitat Protection Program 86 References
Klein, M. And C. Edwards. 1997. Multi-media presentation titled: Ecotourism in San Diego
County. San Diego Nature Festivals, San Diego, California.
Jacques, D.L. and D.W. Anderson. 1987. Conservation implications of habitat use and behavior
of wintering brown pelicans (Pelicanus occidentalis californicus).
Niehaus, Robert D. Inc. 1994. South San Diego Bay Habitat Protection Program
Socioeconomic Study.
Ohlendorf, H.M., F.e. Schaffner, T.W. Custer, C.J. Stafford. 1985. Reproduction and
organochlorine contaminants in terns at San Diego Bay. Colonial Waterbirds. Vol. 8, No.
1 :42-53.
Powell, A.N. and C.L. Collier. 1994. The status of western snowy plovers (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1994. Report to California Department ofFish
and Game, Sacramento, CA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
Powell, A.N., C.L. Collier, and B.L. Peterson. 1995. The status of western snowy
plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1995. Report to California
Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento, CA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
OR.
Powell, A.N., B.L. Peterson, and J.M. Terp. 1996. The status of western snoJ.1.y plovers
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1996. Report to California
Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento, CA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
OR.
Public Law 105-57 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 16 USC 668dd.
San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel. 1989. San Diego Bay--1988 Annual Report. 85
pp.
San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development Board. 1997. Phone conversation RE
railroad ownership, and future disposition with Jack Limber on January 3.
San Diego Unified Port District and California State Coastal Conservancy. 1990. South San
Diego Bay Enhancement Plan. 4 volumes. Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. A.S. Hawkins, R.C. Hanson, H.K.
Nelson, H.M. Reeves, eds. 1984. Flyways, Pioneering waterfowl management in North
America. U. S. Govemment Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 517 pp.
South San Diego Bay Draft Environmental Assessment
Habitat Protection Program 87 References
_.._..~_..._._--,--~--,,-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Acquisition Ascertainment Report-- Light-footed Clapper
Rail and California Least Tern. Portland, Oregon. 91 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. California Least Tern Recovery Plan. 58 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt
Marshes: A Community Profile. 110 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. 179 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985a. Light-footed Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. 121 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985b. Salt Marsh Bird's Beak Recovery Plan. 55 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Nongame Bird Strategies. Washington, D.C. 22 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Correspondence dated November 27,1992 RE Draft
Environmental Impact Report Chula Vista Bayfront Plan Amendment Nautical Center, from
R. Zembal to D. Nay, Port Director, San Diego Unified Port District. 7 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Studies of the Birds of South San Diego Bay: Fiscal Year
1993 Progress Report of San Diego Bay/Southern California Bay and Estuary Program.
Carlsbad, California. 30 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Colonial seabirds and the western snowy plover nesting
in south San Diego Bay 1993. Stadtlander, D. report prepared for Bay and Estuary Program,
Carlsbad, California. 29pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Avifauna of South San Diego Bay: the Western Salt
Works 1993-1994. Stadtlander, D. And J. Konecny. Report prepared for Coastal Ecosystem
Program, Carlsbad, California. 25 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. A Summary of Colonial Seabirds and the Western
Sno1ry Plover Nesting at Western Salt, South San Diego Bay, California, During 1994.
Konecny, John, report prepared for Coastal Ecosystem Program, Carlsbad, California. 23 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Waterbirds of Central and South San Diego Bay 1993-
1994. Manning, Jeffrey A. Report prepared for Coastal Ecosystem Program, Carlsbad,
. California. 4S pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995c. History of the California Least Tern Nesting at San
Diego Bay 1978-1994. Doreen Stadtlander. Carlsbad, California. 13 pp.
South San Diego Bay Draft Environmental Assessment
Habitat Protection Program 88 References
.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995d. Unpublished counts of water vessels and marine
mammals taken during bird surveys for the report: Waterbirds of Central and South San
Diego Bay 1993-1994.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995e. Proposed South San Diego Bay National Wildlife RefUge
Level III Preacquisition Contaminant Survey. Carlsbad, California. 20 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Phone conversation with Richard Zembal, Carlsbad Field
Office, RE counts of Belding's Savannah Sparrow and salt pond nesting threats for birds on
October 22.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Written electronic memo on 1997 seabird nesting at
Western Salt from John Konecny, Carlsbad Office. October 14, 1997.
U.S. Naval Facilities Enginering Command. 1989. Natural Resource Management Plan,
Imperial Beach, California. 55 pp plus appendices.
South San Diego Bay Draft Environmental Assessment
Habitat Protection Program 89 References
Appendix A: Map from 1979 Environmental Assessment
. \
\.
.\
\.
. \
, '
.\
\'1 ~
\.
,\
\' J
'.\
, .
. I I.OC.l.T10" ..loP
\ ,
. \
\ ,
. \
\ .
'\
I,
I'. ~
'.\
Ii .-.-.-. N
. { ¡
I' .
~,\ \
!,' ,
. \ \ . ," '.'LI:
~\.. .
.., I
g~' \
'iii'
I., .,\
~ \~'
..\ ,~\
\\'~ì SWEETWATER
¡;:¡=., MARSH ARI!:AS
. ~~."'\
~\ \ ,\}
...,¡\~
r
' i\",
!.,;;.
\ Îì~
SAN \\~\~ O/éGO
'H
i í~\!.
. ,.
\., I 8 A r
.,. ,~
. \ \\
~~i~~).r/
I" ./
, \ .--..
"" \\ .-.-.....
'" ' ..-.to.
< ì \ \ ------ .+..
"< , ,,-" ~
... , "-.
<> ~_.\ ..............
,
<> I
"
"' ......
.... STATION 11II.... "
@
. --sAM---'ii'io----
..,.
<> <;9"-
, ~,<IJ'
... .,!>.'
,
<>
"< IMPERIAL
..
-- ESSENTIAL HABITAT BOUNOARY
1..--, FIGURE I. SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
I
i LOCATION MAP
----- --.- ----.------.-.--...-.-
Appendix B: Proposed Alternative Boundaries for a National Wildlife Refuge at South Bay, sent
out in the 1996 Planning Update.
Sweetwater Worsh sweetwater Marsh
Nationol Wikflife Notional Wlklllfe
Refuge Refuge
% %
"'- "'-
... ...
<..> <..>
0 0
<..> <..>
4: 4:
<3 <3
~ ~
,
PoIm AVfI
m ", m ".
~ Im~rlal Beach ~I ~ Imperial Beach ~I
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
5,200 acres 3.125 aCAS
Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife
Refuge South San Diego Bay
Planning Area
Proposed San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge
%
"'-
...
'6
0 4000 8000 FT
0 2 . KM
<..> ,
4:
<3
~
Figure 5. South San Diego Bay
Habitat Protection Program
;¡ Preliminary Alternatives
Imperial Beach
Alternative 3
2.200 acres
Appendix C
Distribution List for Environmental Assessment
Federal and State Congressional Offices Department of Transportation
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Congressman Ron Packard Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Congressman Brian P. Bilbray Immigration and Naturalization Service
U.S. Congressman Bob Filner
U.S. Congressman Randy "Duke" Native American Tribes
Cunningham Campo Mission
U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter Jamul
State Senator Ray Haynes La Posta
State Senator David G. Kelley Manzanita
State Senator William A. Craven Mesa Grande
State Senator Lucy Killea San Pasqual
State Senator Steve Peace Santa Ysabel Mission
State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian Sycuan
State Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith Torres-Martinez
State Assemblyman Susan Davis Viejas
State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin
State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert State and Local Agencies
State Assemblywoman Denise Moreno State of California
Ducheny California Coastal Commission
California Energy Commission
Federal Agencies California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture Department ofFish and Game
U.S. Forest Service Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Department of Defense Department of Parks and Recreation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation
U.S. Navy Department of Water Resources
U.S. Marine Corps Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Interior Fish and Game Commission
Bureau ofIndian Affairs Native american Heritage Commission
Bureau of Land Management Office of Historic Preservation
Bureau of Mines Office of Planning and Research
Bureau of Reclamation Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Park Service Resources Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Coastal Conservancy
u.s. Geological Survey State Lands Commission
Wildlife Conservation Board
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix C
San Diego County San Diego County Branch Libraries
Board of Supervisors (continued)
Department of Parks and Recreation Descano
Department of Planning and Land Use East County Bookmobile
Department of Public Works EI Cajon
Environmental Health Service Fletcher Hills
Valle de Oro Planning Group Imperial Beach
Jamul/Dulzura Planning Group Lakeside
Spring Valley Planning Group La Mesa
Sweetwater Planning Group Lemon Grove
Lakeside Planning Group Poway
Spring Valley
City of San Diego
Airport Division City of San Diego Libraries
City Council Central
City Manager Mira Mesa
Department of Parks and Recreation North Clairemont
Department of Water Utilities Otay Mesa
Office of the Mayor Rancho Penasquitos
San Y sidro
City of Chula Vista Scripps-MiraMar
Serra Mesa
City of Coronado Skyline Hills
Tierrasanta
City of EI Cajon University Community
Valencia Park
City of La Mesa
City Libraries
City ofImperial Beach Chula Vista
National City
City of National City El Cajon
San Diego Association of Governments Landowners
Public Libraries Private Individuals and Groups
San Diego County Branch Libraries
Alpine Media
Bonita-Sunnyside
Campo-Moreno Village
Casa de Oro
Crest
Del Mar
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix C
--
Appendix D
,- Glossary
Acquisition
_. The method by which land is brought into the National Wildlife Refuge System. Types
of acquisition agreements include sale, easement, lease, or in the case of a State or
Federal agency, cooperative agreement.
_.
Alternative
A reasonable way to fix the identified problem, satisfY the stated need, or take advantage
_. of the stated opportunity.
Approved refuge boundary
- A project boundary that the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An
approved refuge boundary only designates those lands that the Fish & Wildlife
_. Service has authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval
of a refuge boundary does not grant the Fish & Wildlife Service jurisdiction or
~ control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge
boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of
the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under an
- agreement that provides for management as part of the Refuge System.
Beach groin
A rigid structure built out at an angle from a shore to protect the shore fÌ'om erosion by
currents, tides and waves; or to trap sand for making a beach.
-- Biological diversity or biodiversity
The variety oflife and its processes, including the variety ofliving organisms, the
genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they
occur.
- Bird-use day
A way to convert counts of birds in order to accurately compare bird use in different areas
or the same area in two or more time periods. A bird-use day estimates the equivalent
- amount of use one bird would get from one day in an area. A bird-use day is based on the
number of birds using an area and the number of times birds were counted and over what
period of time. Bird-use days do not account for differences in bird sizes or habitat
-- needs, nor for differences in the areas surveyed. The fonnula used for calculating bird-
use days is as follows: Total number of birds multiplied by the total number of days of
the bird count, divided by the number of times the survey was taken.
-~
- South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
-'
Candidate species
A species for which the Service has on file sufficient infonnation on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) to support a proposal to list as a threatened or endangered
species.
Categorical Exclusion
A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in procedures
adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Compatible use
A use that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of
the System or the purposes of a refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
A document that identifies the management actions that will occur on a refuge. The CCP
provides a description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance for the
refuge. CCPs establish management direction to achieve refuge purposes.
Concept Plan
A document developed early in the establishment a new refuge, designed to provide the
public with a vision of what the refuge may accomplish.
Conceptual Management Plan
A document that presents a broad overview ofthe Service's proposed management
approach to lands included within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Management
actions are finalized only after additional planning and public input, generally in the fonn
ofaCCP.
Conservation easement
A legal document that conveys (transfers) specific land-use rights to a secondary party for
a specified length oftime. For example, a conservation easement granted in perpetuity
may convey development and management rights to the Service, while providing for
continued use by the land owner for compatible purposes.
Cooperative agreement
A habitat protection action in which no property rights are acquired. An agreement is
usually long-tenn and can be modified by either party. Lands under a cooperative
agreement do not necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
Created land
Land made by repeatedly layering dredged materials on low or submerged lands until the
desired or maximum possible elevation is achieved.
Donation of land
A citizen or group may wish to give land or interests in land to the Service for the
benefit of wildlife. Aside from the cost factor, these acquisitions are no different than
any other means ofland acquisition. Gifts and donations have the same planning
requirements as purchases.
Ecoregion
A territory defined by a combination of biological, social, and geographic criteria,
rather than geopolitical considerations. Frequently, major river basins, mountain ranges,
characteristic vegetation, or other major landfonns define the basic extent of an
ecoregion.
Eminent domain
The authority given to Federal agencies to condemn land for the public good. Although
it is Service policy to purchase land only from willing sellers, the Service does have
this authority and occasionally uses it.
Endemic species
A species native to and restricted to a particular locality, habitat, or geographical area.
Endemism
The extent to which the plants and animals of a region are unique to that region.
Ecosystem
A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their
associated nonliving environments.
Endangered species
A species officially recognized by Federal and State agencies to be in immediate
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, offers alternatives to
such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to detennine
whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or Finding of No Significant
Impact.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action,
adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action,
short-tenn uses ofthe environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of
long-tenn productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources.
Fee title
The acquisition of most or all ofthe rights and interest to a tract of land.
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
An agency decision prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
supported by an environmental assessment, to proceed with a proposed action. The
FONSI briefly describes the Federal action to take place and presents why the action will
have no significant effect on the human environment.
Flyway
A migration corridor plus northern and southern end destinations used by migratory birds.
Habitat within flyways must provide adequate food, water and safe resting spots,
including spring and summer nesting areas. Habitat within flyways also must provide
wintering areas with enough food in fall and winter to allow the birds to put on weight for
the spring flight back with enough strength to immediately nest and rear young. Small
side flyways used by a few birds merge into larger and larger flyways used by more and
more birds. In North America, the four greatest routes are the Atlantic Flyway, the
Mississippi Flyway, Central Flyway, and Pacific Flyway. Individual birds may not
always use the same flyway from year to year.
Forage
The entire process of a wild animal finding and eating food. Foraging can include
activities such as searching for, locating, digging, gathering, chasing and capturing, and
carrying food back to a nest, den or different location to eat.
Habitat
The environment in which a plant or animal lives (includes vegetation, soil, water, and
other factors).
Intrinsic value
The value of a thing for its own sake without being compared to or measured by anything
else; the extent to which a thing is good in itself.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
Land Protection Plan (LPP)
A document that identifies and prioritizes lands for potential willing-seller acquisition,
and also describes other methods of providing protection. Landowners within project
boundaries will find this document, which is released with the environmental
assessments, most useful.
Lease
An agreement for full or specified use for a specified length of time in return for a rental
payment. A lease generally includes occupancy rights. The rights revert back to the
owner at the tennination ofthe lease. This device is useful when the objectives are not
perpetual or the owners are unable to provide other fonns ofland transfer. The property
remains on the tax rolls during the tenn of the lease.
Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHP A)
An area in southwestern San Diego County where habitat is conserved for wildlife uses as
part of the Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
A habitat protection plan for 85 species' habitat needs and the protection of natural
communities for a900-square-mile area in southwestern San Diego County. The MSCP
resulted in the Service issuing a Section 10 pennit under the Endangered Species Act to
the State of California. The pennit allows unintentional harm occurring to 85 species
during the course of other activities, within the boundaries identified in the MHP A. The
most likely harm would be the destruction of habitat and the most likely activity would
be building construction.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (4.2 use S4321 et seq.)
The law that requires a Federal agency to I) consider every significant aspect of the
environmental impact of a proposed action, 2) involve the public in its decision-making
process when considering environmental concerns, 3) use a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach to decision-making, and 4) consider a reasonable range of
alternatives, in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
National Wildlife Refuge System
A national network oflands and waters administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plants of the United States for
the benefit of present and future Americans.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program
A habitat conservation program instituted by the State of California in 1991 to encourage
the preservation of natural communities before species within those communities are
threatened with extinction.
Overlay national wildlife refuge
Lands and waters that are under the primary jurisdiction of one Federal agency where a
refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Primary administration is retained by the host agency. Wildlife
management must be compatible with those uses for which the primary agency acquired
the land.
Public involvement
The process by which interested and affected individuals, organizations, agencies, and
governmental entities participate in the planning and decision-making process.
Refuge purposes
The purposes specified in or derived from document that created the refuge. Types of
documents include the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order,
donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
A Joint Powers Agency that undertakes regional planning on behalf of its 19 members:
18 cities and the County of San Diego.
Step-down management plans
Plans that describe management strategies and implementation schedules. Step-down
management plans deal with specific management subjects (e.g., crop lands,
wilderness, and fire).
Study area
The limits of the area analyzed in the environmental assessment as shown on
Map 2.
Take
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any endangered or threatened wildlife species
(or plant species on Federal land), or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. By
Supreme Court decision, take also includes destruction of a listed species' habitat.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
.
Threatened species
Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Wildlife-dependent recreation
A legal use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
or environmental education and interpretation.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act
A law (Public Law 91-646, as amended) that provides certain benefits and payments to
persons displaced as a result ofFWS acquisition ofland.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Environmental Assessment
San Diego NWR Appendix D
-
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
- Draft
- Land Protection Plan
.
- Proposed Sauth San Diego Bay Unit,
~ San Diego Naiiorwl Wildlife Refuge
-
-
-
-
-
.-
~
~
-
,....
-
~
,.-
~
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Draft
land Protection Plan
Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit,
San Diego National Wikllife Refuge
Prepared by
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
911 N.E. 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232,4181
January 1998
. "..-.....-..-,.... ""-"'-'-'---"'-~'-'-""~'-'-"""'-'---'-' -,,-...-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................. 1
I. Project Description .......................................................... 1
II. Threats to or Status of the Resource to Be Protected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III. Objectives of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. Protection Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Methods of Protection and Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
V. Social and Cultural Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI. Coordination and Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VII. Summary of Proposed Action ................................................8
TABLES
Table 1. Tracts within the preferred altemative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Habitats sought for protection under the preferred alternative ................. 9
MAP
Map I. Tracts, South San Diego Bay ........................................ 5
----- "- -----..-- -- "-----".- .
DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN
PROPOSED SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY UNIT
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego County, California
INTRODUCTION
This draft land protection plan outlines various habitat protection methods the Service would use
for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit (Unit) of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
(Refuge). This plan presents the minimum interests in land needed to meet habitat and wildlife
management goals for the proposed Unit.
Nothing in this land protection plan constitutes an offer to purchase private property, a taking of
private property, or a usurpation ofthe authority of the State of California, San Diego County, or
any other jurisdiction to regulate land use within the proposed Unit. This plan is intended to
guide subsequent land protection activities subject to the availability of funds and other
constraints.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Service proposes to establish an approved Refuge boundary, and provide National Wildlife
Refuge System protection and management for 4,772 acres in South San Diego Bay by
establishing a national wildlife refuge. The Service's proposed action is described under section
2.4.2 in the EA. The South Bay's estuarine habitats consist mainly of submerged lands edged by
mudflats, eelgrass beds, salt marsh, beaches, dunes, and created land. At the southern end of the
Bay, the proposed Unit would encompass Western Salt Works, which consists mainly of salt
ponds with some fallow agricultural land traversed by the Otay River riparian corridor.
In order to protect and manage wildlife and habitat in the proposed Unit, the Service would
pursue the following actions with willing participants:
. Negotiate to acquire fee title or some lesser property interest in the properties of the San
Diego Unified Port District (Port), Western Salt Company, and the cities of San Diego
and Imperial Beach. The Service would concentrate on enhancing habitat for wintering
waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, nesting seabirds, and listed birds. A second desired use
of these acquired areas would be to pennit public access to the South Bay for wildlife-
dependent, refuge-compatible recreational uses.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 1
. Negotiate cooperative agreements or leases with the State to protect open water habitat
for wintering waterfowl and nesting seabirds from recreational boat disturbances from
November through March. These protections would require the approval ofthe U.S.
Coast Guard, which would promulgate the rule necessary to set standards for navigation
in the South Bay.
. Negotiate a cooperative agreement for overlay refuge status for Navy land at the Naval
· Radio Receiving Facility, in order to collaborate with the Navy to improve habitat values.
This overlay would include the biology study area, enabling San Diego County and the
Service to work together for habitat protection and enhancement.
The Service proposes to acquire land primarily under the authority of the Endangered Species
Act ofl973, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 7l5e,
715f-715r). The Service would seek funding from the congressionally administered Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF is maintained by surplus property sales, certain
motorboat fuels taxes, entrance fees for certain Federal areas, and revenue generated by off-shore
oil and gas leases. The Service may also seek funding from the Migratory Bird Conservation
· Fund, which is administered by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This fund is
maintained by congressional appropriations under the Wetland Loan Act (16 U.S.C. 7l5K-3 -
7l5k-5; 75 Stat. 813), as amended, and from Duck Stamp sales. The Service would manage this
land under several authorities, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
II. THREATS TO OR STATUS OF THE RESOURCE TO BE
PROTECTED
· More than 90 percent of San Diego Bay's original estuarine habitats have been lost to
development. Remaining habitats are now found almost exclusively in the South Bay. These
habitats are important to over 600,000 migrating, nesting, and wintering waterfowl, shorebirds,
and seabirds. Six resident animal species and one plant species are protected under the
Endangered Species Act.
Most habitats in the study area are protected to varying degrees by Federal environmental
safeguards, combined with the land-use planning processes of California and local govemments.
Encroaching development and population pressures, however, continue to degrade wildlife
values of wetland, riparian, and floodplain habitats. In addition, the existing safeguards are
· designed to prevent destruction, but not to proactively enhance values, or undo past damage.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 2
-
III. OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED ACTION
The Service has three objectives in creating the South San Diego Bay Unit:
1) To provide the Service with authority to acquire or otherwise protect wildlife habitat
under the National Wildlife Refuge System. Protection would follow acquisition (from
willing participants) or negotiated agreements (see EA section 2.3.1).
2) To provide the Service with the opportunity to manage, enhance, restore, and protect
Refuge areas for the benefit of federaUy listed and other trust species. Specific
management activities involving more than minor change will not be addressed by this
document (see section 2.3.2).
3) To provide opportunity for the Service to develop compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational activities in partnership with local communities (see sections 1.11.1 and
2.3.2).
IV. PROTECTION METHODS
Because so little of the original estuary remains in San Diego Bay, the methods and areas of
potential land acquisition identified below are not prioritized. The Service would seek every
opportunity to protect any portion ofthe proposed Unit.
A. Methods of Protection and Acquisition
Willing Seller Policy
It is the policy of the Service to acquire areas only from willing participants under general
authorities such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act. Landowners within the
project boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any other interest in their property are
under no obligation to negotiate with or sell to the Service. In all acquisitions, the Service is
required by law to offer 100 percent of fair market value, as detennined by an approved appraisal
that meets professional standards and Federal requirements.
The Service, like other Federal agencies, has been given the power of eminent domain. Eminent
domain allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands, such as
easements, for the public good. The Service very rarely uses this power. The Service nonnally
acquires land from willing participants and is not often compelled to buy specific habitats within
a rigid time frame. Most of the few Service condemnations that do occur are "friendly;" that is,
they are done with the consent of the landowner to detennine the legal landowner if there are
multiple claims to the title, or settle a difference of opinion on appraised value.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 3
·
In very rare cases, the Service has condemned private land when directed by Congress, as a last
resort when all other negotiation attempts have failed to prevent land use that could cause
irreparable damage to the resources for which the unit (refuge, etc.) was established, or to
consolidate Federal ownership to effectively manage or develop the unit.
· Under condemnation, as in all purchases ofland or real property interests, the Service is required
by law to offer 100 percent of fair market value, as detennined by an approved appraisal that
meets professional standards and Federal requirements.
1. Leases and Cooperative Agreements. A landowner can lease certain development and
management rights to the Service for reimbursement as specified by mutual agreement. The
Service can enter into leases through purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer. The landowner
pays any applicable property taxes.
The Service can also enter into cooperative agreements with landowners to improve wildlife
· habitat management. Cooperative agreements may specifY shared responsibilities, or a transfer
of funds from the Service to another entity or vice-versa for management purposes. Leases and
cooperative agreements could be applied to land under any type of ownership in the study area.
2. Conservation Easements. Easements are a type of refuge acquisition where the landowner
pennanently transfers some, but not all, property rights to the Service as specified by mutual
agreement. Under a conservation easement, a landowner could agree not to engage in activities
damaging to wildlife habitat resources, and the Service could manage the land for wildlife. The
Service can acquire easements through purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer, depending on
the tenns of the easement. The property owner pays any applicable property taxes. The Service
· could negotiate conservation easements on land under any type of ownership.
3. Fee Title Acquisition. The Service acquires land by outright purchase (fee title) when 1) the
land's fish and wildlife resources require pennanent protection that is not otherwise available,
2) the land is needed for development associated with public use, 3) a pending land use could
otherwise harm wildlife habitats, or 4) purchase is the most practical and economical way to
assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee title acquisition transfers any property rights
owned by the landowner, including mineral and water rights, to the Federal govemment. A fee
title interest may be acquired by purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer. The Service could
acquire in fee any lands. Navy and State lands would be acquired only through exchanges, and
in the case of Navy land, transfer through the Federal land disposal process.
B. Land Ownership (see map 1)
1. Federallands. The Naval Radio Receiving Facility belongs to the Federal Govemment and
is administered by the U.S. Navy. The Service is limited to pursuing a cooperative agreement
with the Navy, exchanging land, or accepting a transfer (in the unlikely event that the site would
be excessed under the Base Realigr¡ment and Closure Act). Federal lands managed under such
cooperative agreements can be considered part ofthe National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 4
Map 1. TRACTS, SOUTH SAN DIEGO BAY
,
-. I \
\ I
1\
\ I
1\
\ \
, I
\ I
1\
CORONADO II \
, \
I I
\ \
\ I
\ \
\ \
, \
2 \ \
\ I
\ I
1\
\ \
\ \
\ I
\ I
\ \
1\
1\
\ \
\ I
\ \
1\
1\
1\
1\
\ \
II
\ \
¡=:J STATE OF CALIFORNIA III WESTERN SALT CO III SAN DIEGO+ARIZONA [llI]]] SIII'1 Diego Gee I. Electric Leu.
EASTERN
_ UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT _ EGGER+GHIO CD INC ~ w.otem Sol' Co 1.0...
_ UNITED STATES NAVY _ CITY DF SAN DIEGO
- OQ1Q2UU~5~8Q7MQ91
-
5
(see EA section 1.11) and are referred to as an overlay refuge. The Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department of the Navy and the Service (see EA section 1.10.2) does
not make these lands part of the NWRS. Under a cooperative management agreement, the
Service would conduct mutually-agreed-upon wildlife management activities such as inventory
and protection of identified sensitive areas.
2. State lands. The Service could negotiate exchanges, leases, or cooperative agreements on
State-administered lands. If the Service obtains an interest in land such as a lease, that interest
would become part of the NWRS for the duration of the lease. Land managed under a
cooperative agreement mayor may not be part of the NWRS, depending upon the tenns of the
agreement. These lands would be managed for wildlife protection, primarily to decrease
disturbance of waterfowl by boating from November through March.
3. Port lands. The Service could negotiate with the Port under any ofthe acquisition methods
for lands under Port jurisdiction. If the Service acquires some property rights (lease or
conservation easement), or all property rights (fee title), for wildlife conservation, those lands
could become part of San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. These lands would be managed for
wildlife protection, primarily to protect nesting areas for listed species. Service acquisition
options on Port lands that are also state-trust tidelands are the same as for State Lands.
4. Private and local government lands. The greatest number of acquisition options exist on
private lands and lands belonging to the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach. Private lands
and lands owned by local govemments identified within the preferred alternative consist of the
salt works area and land adjacent to the southeast corner ofthe salt works (known as the
MKEG/Fenton parcel).
The Service would seek conservation easements, cooperative agreements, leases, or fee title
ownership of all or part of the Western Salt Company salt works, the MKEG/Fenton property
and the 100- foot buffer along the Otay River. The greater the interest the Service acquires in
land, the greater the opportunities to enhance habitat. Fee title ownership would allow
restoration of habitat and would allow more opportunity for Refuge-compatible public uses.
Table I identifies the parcels that the Service would seek to acquire, listing owners, tract number,
acreage, and the desired method of acquisition. The tract numbers on table I correspond to the
tract numbers on map 1, with the exception of several tiny parcels that are too small to map.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 6
- -"--~.
Table 1. Tracts in the Preferred Alternative
Tract Owner Acquisition Acreage
I United States of America MOU 481.45
- la United States of America MOU 0.56
Ib United States of America MOU 33.88
2 State of California Lease 1225.17
2a State of California Lease 616.29
3 City of Imperial Beach Fee 0.14
4 City of San Diego Fee 20.05
- 4a City of San Diego Fee 0.26
5 Port District Fee 1627.67
10 Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 80.06
lOa Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 14.15
lOb Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 3.17
10c Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 2.89
- 10d Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 3.46
lOe Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 3.10
10f Egger and Ghio Co, Inc. Fee 18.17
11 San Diego and Arizona Eastern None 6.27
lla San Diego and Arizona Eastern None 0.21
12 Western Salt Co. Fee 631.91
12a Western Salt Co. Fee 36.82
12b Western Salt Co. Fee 0.51
12c Western Salt Co. Fee 17.41
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 7
V. SOCIAL AND CUL TURAL IMPACTS
The current quality oflife for communities and individuals around the South San Diego Bay
would be expected to be the same or better as a result of the presence ofthe Refuge. The Refuge
would eventually provide some wildlife-dependent public uses, thus increasing local and regional
opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreational activities. The Refuge is projected to increase
tourism by about 88,000 visitors annually (Niehaus 1994). These visitors are expected to
increase the amount of sales receipts, sales tax, and lodging tax coming into the surrounding
cities of National City, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, San Diego, and Coronado.
The presence of the Refuge is not expected to change most activities and public use patterns in
South Bay. The exception is recreational boating activities. The Service would seek to protect
important waterfowl wintering areas from recreational boating disturbance between November
and March. Specific proposals for protective closures would be developed during the
management plan process, which would start after fonnal establishment of the Refuge. This plan
would be developed with input from the public and any other interested party.
The Service could acquire undeveloped land in Pond 20 and the MKEG/Fenton parcel that may
have development potential. The Service cannot detennine the amount of development that
would be foregone should the Service acquire the parcels, however, because the City of San
Diego has not established the amount and type of development that may be pennitted.
VI. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
The Service worked with a variety of interested parties to identify issues and concerns associated
with the proposed Refuge. These interested parties included members of the public, interested
private groups, elected officials, and State, Federal, Tribal, and local govemment agencies. The
Service's public involvement activities included hosting public scoping meetings, developing
and mailing planning updates, requesting infonnation, undertaking fonnal consultations, and
responding to inquiries. The Service provided infonnation about the proposal to the media and
other interested or affected parties throughout the public scoping period.
The Service held public meetings during October 17-19, 1995, in three locations in San Diego
County. These meetings were publicized in the planning updates and news releases to area
newspapers, radio, and television.
VII. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to protect and enhance about 4,750 acres of native
estuarine habitat remaining in South San Diego Bay and environs. The Service would negotiate
to acquire in fee title all lands but those administered by the Navy, but some protection would be
achieved through cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, and leases. All habitat
types are considered very high priority. Much of the wildlife in the study area, especially
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 8
waterfowl and seabirds, depend upon a variety of South Bay habitat types for different life needs.
Table 2 identifies the types of habitat and ownership the Service proposes to acquire.
Table 2. Acreage of habitats, by ownership, proposed for protection, South San Diego Bay
Unit.
State Port PrivateILocal Gov't*
Submerged land 8 766 912 35 1,721
- Eelgrass I 297 366 27 691
Mud flat/intertidal 0 9 309 174 492
Salt marsh** 14 0 33 10 57
Salt Pond 13 0 2 1,023 1,038
Beaches, dnnes, and 488 0 62 39 589
created land
Riparian 0 0 0 8 8
Fallow AgricultnraI 0 0 0 146 146
land
Total 524 1,072 1,684 1,462 4,742
(round
to
4,750)
· Includes San Diego Metropolitan Transportation Development Board's railroad holdings.
.. Does not include acreage along dikes in salt ponds.
South San Diego Bay Unit Draft Land Protection Plan
San Diego NWR 9
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1
Meeting Date D..5lD..5l.9.8.
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /g9C¡ó Approving the Consolidated Annual Plan for Fiscal Year
1998·99 Including Both the FY 1998·99 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Budgets and Authorizing Transmittal of the
FY 1998·99 Consolidated Annual Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ~þ ,
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: YeslL No~
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing to review and receive public comment on the draft
Consolidated Annual Plan for fiscal year 1998·99 and to review all projects and programs being considered for CDBG
and HOME funding. The 3D day comment period to review the draft Consolidated Annual Plan ended on April 21,
1998. All public comments received by staff during the 30 day comment period have been considered and, if deemed
appropriate, incorporated into the final version of the Consolidated Annual Plan.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Consolidated Annual Plan which includes staff
recommendations for both the CDBG and HOME programs for 1998·99. These recommendations can be found in the
Consolidated Annual Plan and are also described in this report.
The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive $2,008,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from HUD for 1998·99. Staff has
identified additional unexpended CDBG funds in the amount of $31.408 from program year 1996·97 and $29,000 in
program income from a revolving loan fund for a total of $2,068.408. In addition to CDBG, the City will receive
$784,00D in HDME funds from HUD. Combining the CDBG and HOME funds, the City will be able to invest in the
community a total of $2,852.408 in HUD entitlement funds for 1998·99.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the Consolidated Annual Plan for FY 1998·
99, including both the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)
program budgets for FY 1998·99, and authorizing transmittal of the Consolidated Annual Plan for FY 1998·99 to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of members from
the Cultural Arts Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, and the Parks & Recreation Commission have reviewed
the public service funding applications and have made funding recommendations (see Attachment A). The committee's
recommendations are also included in this staff report when the individual public service funding requests are
discussed.
If - (
- _____.__.._.____m ...______._...._____~___~..___.,.._~
Page 2. Item L 1
Meeting Date 05105/9B
DISCUSSION:
This report will discuss the following topics:
Part A: The Consolidated Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 1998·99. the HUD required planning document and annual
application document for the City's COBG and HOME programs (Attachment B).
Part B: The proposed 1998·99 CDBG Budget. includes funding for the categories of Public Service, Community
Projects, Capital Improvement Projects, and Administration and Planning.
Part C: The proposed 1998·99 HOME BudDet. includes funding for City Administration, Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) operations, and New Construction.
Please note that substantial detail on all of the comoonents of the CDBG budget is provided in the CDBG Notebook
that was distributed to the Council for the Amil 7. 1998 public hearing.
PART A
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN· FY 1998·99
in 1995, the Consolidated Plan introduced a new consolidated process from HUO that replaced all current planning
and application requirements of four formula programs with a single submission. These are the CDBG, HOME,
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing for Persons With Aids (HOPWA) programs. Because the City of Chula
Vista is an entitlement jurisdiction for only the COBG and HOME programs, it is these two programs only that will be
consolidated under the Consolidated Plan. This does not preclude, however, the City or any local non profit
organizations from applying during the Plan period for ESG and HOPWA funds on a competitive basis with other
jurisdictions.
HUD requires that all jurisdictions submit a Consolidated Annual Plan for 1998·99. This plan must be approved by
HUD before any federal HUD funds will be made available for expenditure by the City. It is anticipated that through
this document, and other efforts HUD is implementing, that jurisdictions will be relieved of repetitive and burdensome
planning and reporting requirements. This process will also assist jurisdictions to coordinate and manage all federal
resource programs under one consolidated approach.
Per HUD regulations, the City held a 30 day comment period for the public to review the Consolidated Annual Plan and
make comments or suggest changes. This 30 day comment period ended on April 21, 1998. All comments and/or
suggestions received orally or in writing from the public will be recorded in the appendix of the final document.
If -d-.
-- -.---...---... ...,'--,,---' -
Page 3. Item .1..1
Meeting Date 05105/98
PART B
PROPOSED 1998·99 CDBG BUDGET
For the 1998·99 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista will receive $2,008,000 in entitlement funds from HUD.
Added to this amount is $31,408 in unexpended CDBG funds from program year 1996·97 and $29,000 in program
income from a revolving loan fund. HUD regulations allow any unexpended CDBG funds from prior years to be
reallocated. The CDBG funds will be budgeted as follows:
CDBG BUDGET
Funding Category Number of Recommended
Requests Funding
Public Service Requests 17 $310,261
Community Projects 11 $343,335
Capital Improvement Projects 7 $1,062,812
Administration & Planning 6 $352,000
TOTAL 40 $2,068.408
In order to be eligible for funding, a project or service must address at least one of the CDBG national objectives, which
are (1) benefit primarily low and moderate income families; (2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight;
and (3) meet other community needs having a particular emergency (disaster, etc.). All of the projects recommended
for funding meet the national objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate income families, with the exception
of SBCS Graffiti Eradication and Building & Housing's Community Preservation programs which meet the national
objective to aid in the prevention of slum and blight.
PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING .REQUEST
The recommended budget for Public Services is $310,261. The City received seventeen (17) eligible requests
for social service funding from the non profit community organizations, totaling $581,899. Public Service funding
is restricted by HUD regulations to a maximum of 15% of a jurisdiction's annual entitlement and program
income. Currently, staff is recommending funding this category at the 15% funding level of $310,261. Thus,
reductions in other categories of CDBG funding would not increase the amount available for Public Services.
Programs that are eligible for public service funding are those programs run by non profit organizations that provide
a direct public or social service to low income persons of the community. Staff recommendations for public service
funding, along with the CDBG Ad·Hoc Committee's recommendations, are summarized below.
In 1997·98, a total of 18 public service programs were funded with $361,350. For 1998·99, a total of 12 are being
recommended for funding with $310,261.
/7-3
. - _....._._ - _'m_..' __ .____.._....___ . ..._ ".. _..________._.___,_____.~_._____.___
Page 4. Item Jj
Meeting Date 05/05/98
Methodology for Making Recommendations: In developing staff recommendations, staff utilized the following
principles:
1. The recommendations of the CDBG Ad·Hoc Committee constituted a valuable guide from citizens conversant
in the categories of public service need in the Chula Vista community and is the starting point for
consideration of funding levels, while recognizing that some significant exceptions might be appropriate where
important information might exist which fell outside the normal purview of the Ad·Hoc Committee.
2. Recommended funding levels for public services should not be below levels that make the offered CDBG
eligible activities infeasible.
3. Funding preferences should go to programs which best meet the criteria of providing services to Chula Vista,
providing services from a local base, not duplicating existing services, and having a successful track record.
These criteria can sometimes be in conflict, and their application requires careful balancing.
The above principles were utilized as follows:
1. Staff used last year's approved funding level for each program as an initial basis from which to make
recommendations.
2. Staff took into account the recommendations of the CDBG Ad·Hoc Committee which was some what
consistent with the amounts requested by the organizations.
3. As per Council direction, staff gave priority to locally·based organizations which are proposing to primarily
service Chula Vista residents.
Fundinv Recommendations: All of the programs requesting funding are identified below. The information provided
includes the amount of funds requested, the funding recommendation of the CDBG Ad·Hoc Committee, and the staff
funding recommendation. If a program is recommended for funding, then staff has determined that it is a viable
program at the recommended level of funding.
NOTE: Given the heevy demend for public service funding and the limited funds available in the COBS program, it
is always a difficult process to choose emong the many beneficial programs requesting assistance. The
COBS Ad·Hoc Committee and staff have attempted to construct recommendations that maximize overall
benefit through including es many deserving programs as possible, while providing funding for each program
at a level which allows the program to deliver a reasonable level of progrem benefit.
Please note that the COBG Notebook previously provided to Council contains detailed information about the requesting
organizations and their programs.
/Î-c/
_..___~_._.____. _ _.__._._~_.___..+_ ~___..M"_'..._._.'_._'_U"___ __ _ __ ,,___ _." __~__..__",,_._. ," ____. _ ________ ___ _n___.___....·. _n
Page 5. Item .LJ
Meeting Date 05105/98
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Youth Services
TAB 1 Request $148,354
CHUlA VISTA YOUTH SERVICES NETWORI( Prior Year funding $113,000
Committee Recommendation $120.680
Stalf Recommendation $112,000
Staff recommends $112,000 in funding due to the current constraint on the CDBG Public Services budget. This agency
submitted a collaborative funding request which includes South Bay Community Services. Chula Vista Police Activities
league, South Bay Family YMCA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Vista Square Healthy Start, the Chula Vista
Coordinating Council, MAAC Project, and the Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Department.
The Ad·Hoc Committee recommendation of $120.680 was based on the Committee's utilizing the Council approved policies
and procedures regarding collaborative proposals and the organization's being physically located in the City of Chula Vista.
The Committee was also supportive of the Youth Service Network's programs. 8talf recommends funding this program
in the amount of $120.000.
TAB 2 Request $25.000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHUlA VISTA Prior Year Funding $19.500
Committee RecommendatIOn $19.500
Stalf Recommendation $12,850
The Boys & Girls Club provides positive activities and opportunities to develop the health, self esteem and character of
the youth of the community. Funds will be used for maintenance and utility expenses associated with the "l" Street
facility.
TAB 3 CHUlA VISTA MUSIC CONSERVATORY Request $10.000
Prior Year Funding New Request
Committee RecommendatIOn $10.000
Stalf Recommendation $0
The Chula Vista Music Conservatory provides an after school music program for the Chula Vista Elementary School
District.
The Ad·Hoc Committee recommended funding this program at the requested level of $10,000. The Committee determined
that this program provides incentives for kids. A member from the Cultural Arts Commission who served as an Ad· Hoc
Committee member felt this program would qualify for future funding when the Chula Vista Coors Amphitheater
contributes to a Cultural Arts fund.
Staff recommends not funding this program at this time and encourage the CV Music Conservatory to apply for funding
when proceeds from the Chula Vista Coors Amphitheater establishes a Cultural Arts Fund. Stalf will notify the Chula Vista
Music Conservatory when a Cultural Arts Funds has been established.
/1-S'
,--.-
Page 6, Item 1....1
Meeting Date 05/05/98
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Youth Services
Staff and the Ad·Hoc Committee do not recommend funding this program. According to the Council approved Priorities,
Policies and Procedures all organization applying for COBG funds must be an established 501{c}3 non profit corporation.
Currently. Millennium Entrepreneurs is not a 501{c)3 non profit corporation.
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Senior Services
This program successfully provides a much needed service by providing home delivered hot meals to seniors. Staff
recommends funding this program for $12,000 and encourages Meals on Wheels and St. Charles Nutrition Center to form
a collaborative proposal for next year since the services provided are similar in nature.
This program provides home delivered hot meals to seniors. Staff is recommending not to fund this program this year due
to the duplicative services provided by Meals on Wheels. however, staff encourages 8t. Charles Nutrition Center to form
a collaborative proposal with Meals on Wheels for next year since the services provided are similar in nature.
This program successfully provides a much needed service by providing services that match low income seniors with
individuals looking for housing at a reduced cost.
This program provides a much needed service by providing adult day care and attempts to prevent institutionalization and
improve the quality of life for disabled and disadvantaged senior citizens.
/1 - ro
_.-.._...-._--_......_...~-_.._~._~_._--- ,..
Page 7. Item D
Meeting Date 05105198
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Miscellaneous
TAB 9 ACCESS CENTER/ARC OF SAN DIEGO Request $12,000
Pflor Year funding $3.000
Committee Recommendation $6,000
Staff Recommendation $5.000
Last year the Access Center received funding in the amount of $3,000. This program year the Access Center in proposing
a collaborative project with ARC of San Diego to conduct a series of Employment Transition Workshops for Chula Vista
residents with physical and developmental disabilities.
TAB 10 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES Request $25.000
PROJECT HANO Prior Year Funding $13.000
Committee Recommendation $15.000
Stall RecommendatIOn $12,000
Project Hand provides a much needed service by providing an emergency and career assistance center that provides clients
with shelter, food, clothing. transportation, medication, job search assistance, and utility assistance.
This program provides education and outreach services to children, youth and families to aid in the prevention of violence.
This collaborative proposal is comprised of South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Department, the Center for
Community Solutions, YWCA Domestic Violence Services. and YMCA Family Stress Counseling Services.
Thursday's Meal provides free hot meals to the homeless and very low income residents of Chula Vista.
11 - 7
- -- ~-- - -------------. -.----..-....----..-.--'---"'.---"'-'--"--
Page 8. Item ..Lj
Meeting Date 05105198
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Miscellaneous
TAB 13 SAN YSIDRO HEALTH CENTER Request $33.775
Prior Year Fundmg New Request
Committee Recommendation $0
Staff Recommendation $0
Staff and the Ad·Hoc Committee recommend not to fund this program. The Ad·Hoc Committee felt that the 8an Ysidro
Health Center program did not have the qualifications to meet the COBG criteria and were unable to indicate in their budget
how the CDBG funds would be spent. In addition. there was a consensus within the Ad· Hoc Committee that this service
is duplicative to Scripps Dtay Health Center.
TAB 14 CHULA VISTA THERAPEUTICS PROGRAM Request $35,440
Prior Year Funding $25,000
Committee Recommendation $7.000
Staff Recommendation $25.000
This program benefits the developmentally disabled and physically challenged children. teenagers, and adults throughout
the South Bay. Conducted at Lauderbach Center. Chula Vista Women's Club and Parkway Community Center, the
therapeutics program offers positive recreational activities for the participants.
The Ad·Hoc Committee's recommendation is based upon the Therapeutics Program's unavailability to make a formal
presentation to the Committee. Staff learned that the spokesperson for the Therapeutics Program had to respond to a
family emergency and was unabie to appoint a staff person to make the presentation. Therapeutics program. staff was
present at the Public Hearing held on April 7, 1998 in the event Council had comments or questions.
TAB 15 SCRIPPS OTAY FAMILY HEALTH CENTER Request $20,000
Prior Year Funding New Request
Committee Recommendation $7.000
Staff Recommendation $0
Due to the current restraint on the CDBG Public Services budget, staff recommends not funding this program this year.
TAB 16 CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM CENTER Request $14.000
Prior Year Funding $17.000
Committee Recommendation $14,000
Staff Recommendation $14,000
This collaborative proposal is comprised of the Chula Vista Public Library, the Chula Vista Adult Schooi and the Altrusa
Club of Chula Vista. The literacy Team Center provides individualized instruction to adults and has proven to be very
effective in the number of individuals it serves and in the leveraging of resources.
/1-?
_ ___.___ _ _______ "_-"'.'__m.. --- --_.._..----~._-~-~.,-_._-,---"-,
Page 9. Item 1-J
Meeting Date 05105/98
PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS· Miscellaneous
OTAY RECREATION CENTER Request $80.500
P"or Year Funding New Request
Committee RecommendatIOn NA
Stall Recommendation $71.213
The City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24.1994. On October 21,1997, the Council approved the
purchase of the land for the project site at 3554 Main Street. The Otay Recreation Center will include 9.280 square feet
of multi·purpose/use recreation courts and 5,684 square feet of support facilities such as public restrooms. cralt rooms.
and other common areas.
The Center will be stalled with a Recreation Supervisor II and 3.70 FTE of Recreation hourly stall. The stall will be
operating the Center and planning and supervising various recreation programs for the participants who use the facility.
Various program include folkloric, ballet, cooking, arts and cralts and a variety of dance classes. A community garden will
also be a part of the program.
This proposal was not reviewed by the COBG Ad·Hoc Committee since it was anticipated that funding for this program
would be budgeted through the General Fund. However, it has been determined that the General Fund is unable to fund
this program due to current budget constraints.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS SUMMARY
The recommended budget for Community Project funding is $343,335. It includes the following types of eligible
activities [a] Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance; [b] Special Activities by Community Based Development
Organizations (CBDOs); and [c] Special Economic Development Activities. Staff has determined that these proposals
are eligible for CDBG funding, will primarily benefit low income households, and do not fit the category of public
services which are subject to a 15% funding cap. There is no HUD restriction on the amount of CDBG funding
that can be used for Community Projects. The twelve recommended projects are as follows:
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance
TAB 17 lUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES Request $25.000
CARING NEIGHBOR PROGRAM P"or Year Funding $24.000
Committee Recommendation $25.000
Stall Recommendation $23,835
PURPOSE: lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing health and safety home repairs to
seniors. Most of the labor is donated by local South Bay contractors.
RATIONALE: This program continues to meet the overwhelming demand from Chula Vista seniors to this type of
assistance. The program has been of great assistance to City Housing Rehabilitation staff in response
to requests from the public for small and/or emergency repairs.
/7-9
. .__.._____._ ___n _ __.__ _ _ _~_.___..___..__'" U'_' _.~.______.._...~_____..~ ___._.____
Page 10. Item 1J
Meeting Date 05105198
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Noiohborhood Rovitalization/lnterim Assistance
TAB 18 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES Request $37.000
GRAFFITI ERADICATION PROGRAM Prior Year Funding $35.000
Staff Recommendation $30.000
PURPOSE: South Bay Community Services ¡SBCSI , in partnership with the Chula Vista Police Oepartment, is
requesting funds to continue their convnunity effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private businesses
and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds are applied to
staff salaries, volunteer expenses, supplies, mileage and insurance.
RATIONALE: This program has demonstrated some success in the community and has developed a track record
during the last several years. However, staff encourages the SBCS Graffiti program to collaborate
with the City of Chula Vista Building & Housing Oepartment since these programs contribute toward
community preservation.
TAB 19 BUILDING & HOUSING OEPARTMENT Request $200.000
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM Prior Year Fundmg $50.000
Staff Recommendation $50,000
PURPOSE: This program increases code enforcement activity in the City and provides access to free
dumpsters for facilitating trash and debris removal.
RATIONALE: This program will improve the quality of life in neighborhoods where code violations are a problem.
Staff recommends the Building & Housing Oepartment and SBCS Graffiti program to coliaborate
since both programs contribute toward community preservation.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Spocial Activities bv Communitv Based Develooment Or~anizations
TAB 20 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES Request $61.200
OFFICE RENT Prior Year Funding $61.200
Stall Recommendation $22,000
PURPOSE: Funds are being requested to pay office rent of 5,100 square feet of office space at 315 Fourth
Avenue. These offices house 80uth Bay Community Services ¡SBCS), which provides a host of social
services which benefit low income households in the City.
RATIONALE: Based on HUO reguiations related to Community Based Oevelopment Organizations (CBOOI, SBCS
qualifies under this category as an "umbrella" organization which offers community and economic
development activities. This proposal benefits the City in that rents would be collected for the General
Fund from SBCS for the office space they occupy. 8taff is recommending that this program be funded
with both COBG and HOME funds. HOME funds can be used for Community Housing Oevelopment
Organizations (CHOOs) or non profit developers creating affordable housing. The balance of funds
necessary to fund this project in the amount of $39,300 will come from the HOME program for a
combined total of $61,200.
(1- (()
- _._--_._.._..__.__._-~,,,._..._._-_..,._.._.,".._-_._..,---'---
Page 11. Item D
Meeting Date 05105/98
Community Projects· Soecia/ Activities bv Communitv Based Deve/ooment Organizations
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES Request $70.000
COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT PROGRAM PrIOr Year Fundmg $70.112
Staff Recommendation $65,000
PURPOSE: The mission of this program is to initiate economic development for the extremely low, and low and
moderate income residents of Chula Vista. Efforts include developing affordable housing. performing
neighborhood improvement projects. and creating economic advancement options. The City has
funded this activity for the past seven years and the result has been that the City and the Agency has
partnered with SBCS on such projects as the short·term and transitional housing facilities on Fourth
Avenue and the Cordova affordable housing project.
RATIONALE: Staff is recommending that this program be funded in the amount of $65,000. It was expected that
funds for this program would be budgeted from HOME set·aside funds for the development and/or
sponsorship of affordable housing. SBCS is requesting funding to offset administrative and
operational costs for the Community Development Program. HUD has determined that these costs
cannot be budgeted from HOME set·aside funds. Staff is therefore recommending funding this
program with CoBG funds.
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Soecia/ Economic Deve/ooment Activities
TAB 21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Request $10.000
MEXICO MARI(ET ANALYSIS Prior Vear Funding New Request
Staff Recommendation $10.000
PURPOSE: The Mexico Market Analysis is needed to provide basic. current data pertaining to the Tijuana market
and to the Tijuana consumer spending impacts on Chula Vista.
RATIONALE: This data is essential to the City's Economic Development efforts to assist existing Chula Vista
businesses to take advantage of their proximity to Mexico, and to attract outside businesses which
already conduct trade or have the potential to trade with Mexico. The Economic Development
Commission voted to support the Mexico Market Analysis CDBG application contingent upon the study
being conducted by or in partnership with local businesses and business organizations.
TAB 22 COMMUNITV DEVElOPMENT DEPARTMENT Request $20,000
SECTION 108 REVOLVING lOAN PROGRAM Prior Vear Funding New Request
Staff Recommendation $20,000
PURPOSE: The Chula Vista Small Business Revolving loan Fund (RLF) Program is currently being developed by
staff and a consultant. A loan administrator will conduct activities such as program marketing,
credit anaiysis, ioan packaging and servicing.
RATIONALE: The Chula Vista RlF will be used to provide incentive financing for expanding or new companies within
the City of Chula Vista. The Economic Development Commission voted to support the Section 108
CDBG application.
!Î-f!
...~---,_.--
Page 12, Item ..L'I
Meeting Date 05105198
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Special Economic Oevelooment Activities
TAB 23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Request $25,000
CLUSTER STUDY Prior Year Funding New Request
, Staff Recommendation $25,000
PURPOSE: The Chula Vista Cluster Study will identify existing and emerging concentrated industry groups· or .
clusters· and to analyze related economic development opportunities.
RATIONALE: The data collected from the Ciuster Study will assist the City develop economic development
strategies and related business retention, expansion and retention programs. The Economic
Development Commission voted to support the Cluster Study CDBG application contingent upon the
study being conducted by or in partnership with local businesses and business organizations.
TAB 24 CHICANO FEDERA nON Request $5.000
MICRO LOAN PROGRAM Prior Funding $7.000
Staff Recommendation $5,000
PURPOSE: The purpose of this program is to train low income Latina women the skills necessary to start up a
day care facility. The funds will specifically be used for a micro loan program to pay the up·front
costs, such as licensing fees, materials, child·proofing the home, etc.
RATIONALE: This program will assist women with few occupational and educational skills toward self·sufficiency
through operating their own day care business at home.
TAB 25 BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMERCE ALLIANCE Request $100.000
Prior Year Funding $50.000
Staff Recommendation $50,000
PURPOSE: Requested funds will be used for additional modular offices to increase BECA's ability to earn income
needed to meeting operational expenses.
RATIONALE: Staff recommends funding this program in the amount of $50,000 for their requested purpose or for
operational expenses if necessary. The EDA funding grant for BECA operational expenses expires
June 30, 1 g981although it is anticipated that "rollover" funds could last to December '98i.
/1- Id-
--_.~_._-~..._...-.,-,_.'-'-----'---"-~---" . . --"'--'--'
Page 13. Item ..L 1
Meeting Date 05105/98
COMMUNITY PROJECTS· Special Economic OeveloDment Activities
TAB 26 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES/YMCA Request $33,600
TEEN CLUB Prior Year Funding $33.600
Staff Recommendation $26,500
PURPOSE: The Teen Center Club provided support services and opportunities for older youth. ages 15 to 21 years
of age, and includes youth employment, cultural activities, educational enrichment. and youth
leadership development. The funds requested will support the rental and maintenance of the Teen
Club.
RATIONALE: 8taff recommends funding this program in the amount of $26.500. This amount will be sufficient
for SBCS to pay for space rent of $20.500 and utility expenses estimated at $6.000.
TAB 27 SOUTHWESTERN COllEGE Request $22,500
SOUTH COUNTY CAREER CENTER Prior Year Funding $16,000
Staff Recommendation $16.000
PURPOSE: The South County Career Center provides a one·stop center for career assessment; job training and
placement for unemployed South County residents.
RATIONALE: Staff recommends funding this program in the amount of $16.000. This program has a proven track
record for assisting South County clients with acquiring the skills and networking ability for iob
placement.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The recommended budget for capital improvement projects is $1.062.812. Of this amount $61.744 is for
Community CIPs with $1,001.068 for City CIP requests. All six of the following recommended projects have been
or would be funded on a multi· year basis. The amount requested may not actually represent the total amount needed
by the proiect in its entirety. There is no HUD restriction on the amount of CDBG entitlement that can be used
for Capital Improvements.
Community CIP Requests
TAB 28 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHUlA VISTA Request $11.744
RESTROOM RENOVATION Prior Year Funding New Request
Staff Recommendation $11)44
Funds will be used to install new restroom stalls in the two men/boys and two women/giris restrooms at the Club's Oleander
Center.
/1-/3
---- - --- ------...- --.----..-.- _ __...___..__u_.__~___...__.._,.._·_.,..._
Page 14, Item .L'1
Meeting Date 05105/98
Community CIP Requests
TAB 29 CHUlA VISTA AMERICAN LITTlE lEAGUE Request $50.000
YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX Prior Year Funding New Request
Staff Recommendation $50,000
Funds will be used to construct a sports complex at Hilltop Middle 8chool through a joint use agreement between the City
of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Union High School Oistrict and Chula Vista American little league.
Incorporated into the joint use agreement between the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista little
league will be a provision that the Chula Vista American little league will have access to the fiaids for a specified number
of years. In addition, the recommended funds is considered seed money for start·up costs associated with providing field
improvements to Hilltop Middle School after which CVAll will need to raise additional funds through fund raising efforts.
SHARP/CV ElEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Request $250.000
MOBilE HEALTH CARE CLINIC Prior Year Funding New Request
Stafl Recommendation $0
CDBG funding is being requested for the purchase of a vehicle for modification into a Mobile Health Care Clinic to
incorporate two furnished exam rooms. education area. stat laboratory and medication unit. The primary purpose of this
program is to reduce absenteeism due to illness and to provide health care for school·aged children without the benefit of
health insurance coverage.
Staff recognized the need for this type of program, however. due to the current constraint on the CIP budget. staff
recommends funding this program next fiscal year. In addition, staff would like 8HARP/CV Elementary School District to
provide a detailed work plan outlining the program, budget, and fund raising activities.
City CIP Requests
TAB 30 OTAY RECREATION CENTER Request $885.568
Pnor Year Funding $430.000
Staff Recommendation $815,568
The City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24. 1994. Phase I is to include the design and construction
of a 14,964 square foot community center. The gymnasium portion will include 9.280 square feet of multi·purpose/use
recreation courts and 5,684 square feet of support facilities. Construction of the gym to be completed by fall 1998 with
opening scheduled for January 1999.
Staff is recommending funding this project in the amount of $815.568. The balance of $70.000 will be incorporated into
a Section 108 loan in the amount of $215,000 1$145.000 previously approved by Council for FY 1996·97 and $70,000
for 1998·99) to close the gap for funding for this project. With the $815,568 recommended funding and the $215,000 in
Section 108 loan funds. this project will not require further funding in the future. This will allow the City to fund other CIP
projects that have been unable to be considered for CDBG funding.
/1- ref
._~-"_.~_._~ - --"-,---------..,--.. ----,-~ .. '.-.- ..-
Page 15. Item J...1
Meeting Date 05105198
City CIP Requests
TAB 31 ADA CURB CUTS ANNUAL PROGRAM Request $50.000
Prior Year Funding $50,000
Staff Recommendation $50,000
FY 1998·99 appropriations would provide for the construction of concrete wheelchair ramps at an estimated 47
different locations in the City. Curb Cuts are a requirement of the ADA.
TAB 32 DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHTING Request $45.500
Prior Year Funding New Request
Staff RecommendatIOn $45.500
This project includes installation of two double·cobra street light standards in the two median islands located in the center
of Third Avenue south of F Street and one single·cobra street light standard just north of G 8treet on tha east side of Third
Avenue plus electrical recepticals and additional conduit for future expansion of electrical service.
TAB 33 NEW ANIMAL SHELTER STREET IMPROVEMENTS Request $90.000
Prior Year Funding New Request
Staff Recommendation $90,000
This allocation provides a funding source for the design or construction of unanticipated street projects. The funds are
recommended to be used toward street improvements around the proposed animal shelter at 110 and 130 Beyer Way.
Work will include curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaped median along Beyer Way. Sidewalk improvements will begin at
1771 Fourth Avenue and end at the corner of Beyer Way and Main Street.
ADMINISTRATION & PLANNINS
HUO regulations limit expenditures in this category to 20% of the annual COBS entitlement amount, which
can total up to $413,681. Any reductions made to any other categories in the COBS budget, or any
replacement of COBS funding by other sources of funding will not provide the opportunity to increase
funding in this category.
The proposed budget for 1998·99 includes $ 250,000 for program administration. These administrative costs
represent approximately 12% of the total budget and includes staff costs for coordination, accounting, monitoring
subrecipients, environmental review, and reporting requirements.
----
11-/~
.. .. .. . .--- .-.....~-.....__._~.._._--_._...__....-
Page 16, Item L 1
Meeting Date 05105/98
In addition, staff recommends funding for five organizations who are requesting funding for Administration & Planning
activities, as follows:
TAB 34 CHUlA VISTA CLUSTER COORDINATING COUNCil Request $20.000
COMMUNITY COllABORATIVE DIRECTOR Prior Year Fundmg $20.000
Staff Recommendation $20,000
The Cluster established a Community Collaborative Oirector position which directs the Welfare Reform Task Force called
Solutions South Bay. The Task Force is sponsored by the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, the Human Services Council.
and the City of Chula Vista. The Director position plays an active role in the design and implementation of Chula Vista's
plan for weifare reform and coordination of existing collaboratives in the community.
TAB 35 REmDNAlTASK FORCE DN THE HDMEŒSS Request $1.000
Prior Year Fundmg $1.000
Staff Recommendation $1.000
The Regional Task Force on the Homeless publishes special studies which are incorporated into local documents such as
the Housing Element, Consolidated Annual Plan, and Grant proposals for federal and state funding.
TAB 36 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO Request $39,000
Prior Year Funding $38.000
Staff Recommendation $38.000
The Fair Housing Council assists the City of Chula Vista meet it obligation under the Consolidated Planning process to
engage in an ongoing analysis of the impediments of fair housing and engage in fair housing planning to remove such
impediments.
TAB 37 CHUlA VISTA HUMAN SERVICES COUNCil Request $28.000
Prior Year Funding $28,000
Staff Recommendatron $ 28,000
Chula Vista Human Services Council provides leadership and coordination of all human service providers in Chula Vista.
The communication, networking, and coalition building avoids duplications of services and provide for more effective use
of human resource provider personnel in Chula Vista and the 80uth Bay.
TAB 38 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Request $30.000
HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR Prior Year Funding $30,000
Staff Recommendation $15,000
The Human Services Coordinator facilitates the provision of social services and coordinates information and referral at
the Norman Park Senior Center. The HSC also assists with subrecipient monitoring and coordination of existing
collaboratives in the community.
Staff is recommending funding in the amount of $15,000. Historically, this position has received CDBG funding at this
level, however, staff increased the level of funding to reimburse the General Fund for assisting the Boys & Girls Club during
their financial difficulties. This increase was on a one·time basis.
(7-((P
Page 17. Item .L 1
Meeting Date 05105/98
PART C
PROPOSED FY 1998·99 HOME BUDGET
The Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) allocates funds by formula directly to state and local
governments to promote affordable housing. Participating jurisdictions are able to provide assistance to both for·
profit and non profit housing developers or directly Qualified home buyers or renters. The assistance may take the
form of grants, loans, advances, equity investments, and interest subsidies.
The City will receive $784,000 in HOME funds from HUD for FY 1998·99. The final version of the Consolidated
Annual Plan for FY 1998·99 is attached as Attachment B. The final version is presented here for discussion and
approval.
HOME fnnds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and ownership opportunities through new
construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant·based rental assistance. Over the past four years the
City has received over $4 million in HOME funds and used these funds to support new construction and acquisition
activities related to the development of affordable housing.
HOME BUDGET
Funding Requests Recommended Funding
Staff Administration $78.400
Community Housing Development $117,000
Organization (CHOO) Operations
Eastlake Greens Affordable Housing $549.400
Program
SBCS . Office Rent $39,200
TOTAL $784,000
/'7 - (7
Page 18. Item L1
Meeting Date 05/0519..8
The following proposals are included in the CDBG Notebook under HOME Program Budget in the following sequence:
TAB 39 HOME Staff Administration Staff Recommendation $78.400
Administrative costs for city staff to oversee the HOME program. These administrative costs represent 10% of the HOME
budget. These costs include staff costs for coordination. accounting, environmental review, and HUO reporting
requirements.
TAB 40 COMMUNITY HOUSING OEVELOPMENT Staff Recommendation $117,000
ORGANIZATION (CHOOI OPERATIONS
HOME program regulations require a participating jurisdiction to set·aside 15% of the annual HOME entitlement for a
Community Housing Oevelopment Organization (CHOO) for the purpose of developing and/or supporting the City of Chula
Vista in providing affordable housing projects in the City. South Bay Community Services is a legally recognized CHOO.
TAB 41 EASTlAKE GREENS AFFOROABLE HOUSING Staff RecommendatIon $549.400
PROJECT
As part of the Affordable Housing Agreement between Eastlake Oevelopment Corporation and the City of Chula Vista.
Eastlake is required to set·aside 130 units for low income households. Eastlake is attempting to provide those 130 units
as a for·sale product. Funds will be used to provide down payment and closing cost assistance to low income households
who qualify to participate in the down payment and closing cost program. This program is in the process of being
developed by staff.
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES Request $39,200
OFFICE RENT Staff RecommendatIon $39.200
Funds are being requested to pay office rent on 5.100 square feet of office space at 315 Fourth Avenue. These offices
house South Bay Community Services which provides a host of services which benefit low income households.
Based on HUO regulations related to Community Based Development Organizations ICBOO), SBCS qualifies under this
category as an "umbrella" organization which offers community and economic development activities. Staff is
recommending that this program be funded from both COBG and HOME funds. HOME funds can be used for Community
Housing Oevelopment Organizations (CHOOs) or non profit developers creating affordable housing. The balance of funds
necessary to fund this project in the amount of $22.000 will come from the COBG program for a combined total of
$61,200.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $2,008,000 in CDBG entitlement funds. Added to this amount will be
$31,408 from unexpended CDBG funds from program year 1996·97 and $29,000 in program income from a revolving
loan fund for a total of $2,068,408. In addition, the City will receive $784,000 in HOME funds for 1998·99. The
grand total of 1998·99 CDBG and HOME funds to be used for eligible programs and projects will be $2,852,408.
Attachments:
Attachment A . CDBG Ad·Hoc Committee Funding Recommendations I!IØ'I'SCANNED
Attachment B . Consolidated Annual Plan for FY 1998·99 J'tfOT SCM'NEn
/1 - (g
_ _____..____________ __ _ _____..______________... _____..____________..______ __"_""'___U
RESOLUTION NO. /([19 ¡!)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 INCLUDING BOTH THE 1998-99
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND THE
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS
AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITT AL OF THE 1998-99
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has prepared a Consolidated Annual Plan for
fiscal year 1998-99 per HUD Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista will receive a 1998-99 CDBG entitlement of
$2,008,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista will receive a 1998-99 HOME entitlement of
$784,000; and
WHEREAS, the City will reallocate $31,408 of CDBG unexpended funds from fiscal
year 1996-97, and $29,000 in program income from a revolving loan fund; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed its Citizen Participation Plan and held a Public
Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs on April 7, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Community Development Plan and has
determined that all of the proposed activities are consistent with said Plan and meet the CDBG
national objectives to benefit primarily low income households or aid in the prevention of slums
and blight; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to fund
special activities by certain subrecipients to implement neighborhood revitalization and community
economic development projects in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Community
Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby find, order, determine and resolve the approval of the Consolidated Annual Plan for
fiscal year 1998-99, the staff recommendation as set forth in the proposed 1998-99 Staff
Recommendations for both the CDBG and HOME programs, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (1) the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approves the Community Development Plan a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit 2; and (2) the Community Development Director is authorized to transmit the
Consolidated Annual Plan for fiscal year 1998-99 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
pre~l ~y ~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
/7~/q
". - _.._.~_.______.~~_.. __ ____.__ - _.__ . o_.0._.__ _ ____~,,_
EXHIBIT 1
CDBG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Public Service Requests· 15% Cap ($310,261)
Tab PublIc Service FY 1998-99 CDBG Ad-Hoc FY 1998-99
Funding Committee Staff
Request Recommendation Recommendation
1 CV Youth Services Network $148,354 $120,680 $112,198
2 Boys & Girls Club - Maintenance $25,000 $20,500 $12,850
3 Chula Vista Music Conservatory $10,000 $10,000 $0
4 Millennium Entrepreneurs $81,700 $0 $0
5 Meals on Wheels $13,520 $13,520 $12,000
6 St. Charles Nutrition Center $20,510 $7,000 $0
7 LSS - Shared Housing $6,000 $6,000 $4,000
8 Adult Protective Services $12,000 $8,500 $7,000
9 Access Center/ARC of San Diego $12,000 $6,000 $5,000
10 LSS - Project Hand $25,000 $15,000 $12,000
11 CV Family Violence $39,100 $36,000 $33,000
12 Thursday's Meal $5,000 $5,000 $2,000
13 San Ysidro Health Center $33,775 $0 $0
14 Chula Vista Therapeutic Program $35,440 $7,000 $25,000
15 Scripps Otay Family Health Ctr. $20,000 $7,000 $0
16 Chula Vista Literacy Team Ctr. $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Otay Recreation Center $80,500 $71,213
TOTAL $581 ,899 $276,200 $310,261
/1 - ;)-ò
-----.--. _ _____~. .___.__m______,_____ __ ___________..__._.'.___ __ ___
CCBG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Community Project Requests - No Cap
FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Tab Community Projects Funding Request Staff Recommendation
17 LSS - Caring Neighbors $25,000 $23,835
18 SBCS - Graffiti Program $37,000 $30,000
19 B/H Community Preservation $200,000 $50,000
20 SBCS - Office Rent $61,200 $22,000
21 Mexico Market Analysis $10,000 $10,000
22 Section 108 Revolving Loan $20,000 $20,000
23 Cluster Study $25,000 $25,000
24 Chicano Federation - Micro Loan $5,000 $5,000
Program
25 BECA - Facility Improvements $100,000 $50,000
26 SBCSNMCA Teen Club $33,600 $26,500
27 Southwestern College - South $22,500 $16,000
County Career Center
SBCS Community Development $70,000 $65,000
Program
Total $539,300 $343,335
Capital Improvement Program Requests - No Cap
Tab FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Capital Improvement Program Funding Request Staff Recommendation
28 Boys & Girls Club - Restroom Renovation $11,744 $11,744
29 Chula Vista American Little League $50,000 $50,000
30 Otay Recreation Center $885,568 $815,568
31 ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program $50,000 $50,000
32 Downtown Street Lighting - Phase II $45,500 $45,500
33 New Animal Shelter Improvements $90,000 $90,000
SHARP/CV Elementary School District $125,000 $0
Total $1,257,812 $1,062,812
/1 - ;:2-1
CCBG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Administration & Planning - 20% Cap ($413,681)
FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Tab Administration & Planning Funding Requests Staff Recommendation
34 CV Coordinating Council - Collaborative $20,000 $20,000
Director
35 Regional Task Force on the Homeless $1,000 $1,000
36 Fair Housing Council of San Diego $39,000 $38,000
37 CV Human Services Council $28,000 $28,000
38 Parks & Recreation - Human Svcs Coord. $30,000 $15,000
39 City Staff Administration $283,600 $250.000
.
Total $401,600 $352,000
HOME Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
TAB Funding Requests FY 1998-99
Staff Recommendation
Staff Administration $78,400
Community Housing Development $117,000
Organization (CHDO) Operations
Eastlake Greens Affordable Housing $549,400
Project
SBCS - Office Rent $39,200
TOTAL $784,000
/1-;);;) (¡t
iLl
_..._.._--_.._~. .._-----~..__._"---~.~._- . __.______ _..,_,...._._____u
EXHIBIT 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FY 1998-99
The City of Chula Vista will utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds primarily to
benefit low and moderate income persons based on the needs, goals, and objectives established in this
Community Development Plan. A minimum of 70 % of the funding will be utilized for this purpose.
NEEDS: The City has identified the following community development needs:
1. To revitalize and improve deteriorating neighborhoods
2. To provide adequate public facilities throughout the community
3. To expand economic opportunities
4. To preserve, improve, and increase the supply of affordable housing
5. To enhance the provision of human services
GOALS: The City shall:
1. Plan, design, and construct capital improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods.
2. Construct public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers in
neighborhoods deficient in such facilities.
3. Assist in the provision of human services to senior citizens, youth, and families in need.
4. Promote decent and affordable housing for all residents and prevent housing
discrimination.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of senior citizens, including
housing, nutrition, health, transportation, and related services.
2. Provide assistance to organizations which provide counseling and support to adults
recovering from substance abuse or involved in domestic violence.
3. Provide assistance to organizations which provide basic needs assistance and/or assist
people who are homeless, unemployed, or disable to become self-sufficient.
4. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of youth and their families,
including prevention and counseling programs for substance abuse, child abuse, and
juvenile delinquency.
5. Provide assistance to organizations which promote literacy.
6. Construct public improvements to enhance the quality of life for residents, including parks,
community centers, libraries, and other public facilities.
7. Construct public improvements to alleviate public hazards and revitalize deteriorating
neighborhoods, including street, drainage, and lighting improvements.
8. Promote small businesses and the creation of jobs through planning studies, infrastructure
improvement, technical assistance, and financial programs.
9. Provide assistance to neighborhood and community based organizations to initiate
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and affordable housing programs.
10. Furnish fair housing information, counseling, testing, and mediation services.
/7-d-3
--~--_.. .~-_.~._+--- .__.. _,,_._.mm______ . -.---- - -+.--. .- _.-.-._----~_.-----_..._.---- - ~-----,_._~---------_.._-
EXHIBIT 1
CCBG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Public Service Requests - 15% Cap ($310,261)
Tab Public Service FY 1998-99 CDBG Ad-Hoc FY 1998-99
Funding Committee Staff
Request Recommendation Recommendation
1 CV Youth Services Network $148,354 $120,680 $112,198
2 Boys & Girls Club - Maintenance $25,000 $20,500 $15,000
3 Chula Vista Music Conservatory $10,000 $10,000 $0
4 Millennium Entrepreneurs $81,700 $0 $0
5 Meals on Wheels $13,520 $13,520 $12,000
6 St. Charles Nutrition Center $20,510 $7,000 $2,500
7 LSS - Shared Housing $6,000 $6,000 $4,000
8 Adult Protective Services $12,000 $8,500 $7,000
9 Access Center/ARC of San Diego $12,000 $6,000 $5,000
10 LSS - Project Hand $25,000 $15,000 $12,000
11 CV Family Violence $39,100 $36,000 $33,000
12 Thursday's Meal $5,000 $5,000 $4,000
13 San Ysidro Health Center $33,775 $0 $0
14 Chula Vista Therapeutic Program $35,440 $7,000 $25,000
15 Scripps Otay Family Health Ctr. $20,000 $7,000 $0
16 Chula Vista Literacy Team Ctr. $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Otay Recreation Center $80,500 $64,563
TOTAL $581 ,899 $276,200 $310,261
17'd~
CDBG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Community Project Requests - No Cap
FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Tab Community Projects Funding Request Staff Recommendation
17 LSS - Caring Neighbors $25,000 $23,835
18 SBCS - Graffiti Program $37,000 $30,000
19 B/H Community Preservation $200,000 $50,000
20 SBCS - Office Rent $61,200 $22,000
21 Mexico Market Analysis $10,000 $0
22 Section 108 Revolving Loan $20,000 $20,000
23 Cluster Study $25,000 $25,000
24 Chicano Federation - Micro Loan $5,000 $5,000
Program
25 BECA - Facility Improvements $100,000 $50,000
26 SBCSNMCA Teen Club $33,600 $26,500
27 Southwestern College - South $22,500 $16,000
County Career Center
SBCS Community Development $70,000 $65,000
Program
Total $539,300 $333,335
Capital Improvement Program Requests - No Cap
Tab FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Capital Improvement Program Funding Request Staff Recommendation
28 Boys & Girls Club - Restroom Renovation $11,744 $11,744
29 Chula Vista American Little League $50,000 $50,000
30 Otay Recreation Center $885,568 $815,568
31 ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program $50,000 $50,000
32 Downtown Street Lighting - Phase II $45,500 $45,500
33 New Animal Shelter Improvements $90,000 $90,000
SHARP/CV Elementary School District $250,000 $0
Total $1,382,812 $1,062,812
!7:2~
~"'- --~----_._--- --------...-..---....-......
CCSG Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
Administration & Planning - 20% Cap ($413,681)
FY 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Tab Administration & Planning Funding Requests Staff Recommendation
34 CV Coordinating Council - Collaborative $20,000 $20,000
Director
35 Regional Task Force on the Homeless $1,000 $1,000
36 Fair Housing Council of San Diego $39,000 $38,000
37 CV Human Services Council $28,000 $28,000
38 Parks & Recreation - Human Svcs Coord. $30,000 $15,000
39 City Staff Administration $283,600 $260,000
Total $401,600 $362,000
HOME Funding Recommendations
FY 1998-99
TAB Funding Requests FY 1998-99
Staff Recommendation
Staff Administration $78,400
Community Housing Development $117,000
Organization (CHDO) Operations
Eastlake Greens Affordable Housing $549,400
Project
SBCS - Office Rent $39,200
TOTAL $784,000
) ? ~ d, ~ /fl-ttc-h Ii - B
_ _________..__..___________ u _
Attachment A -:IF/?
i
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MINUTES
CDBG AD-HOC COMMITTEE
Monday, March 2, 1998 Conference Room
6:00 p.m. Community Development Housing Division
CALL TO ORDER
PRESENT: Members Lopez-Gonzalez, Dufresne, Flach, McAllister
STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist Foland,
Administrative Secretary (Acting) Hernandez
CDBG AD-HOC COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS:
CHULA VISTA PARKSIRECREATION THERAPEUTICS PROGRAM, Committee
Members opted not to make any funding recommendations until the end of meeting to see what
funds were left since the Therapeutics Program did not make a CDBG presentation during the
scheduled times. Committee Members voted to grant $7,000 towards the Therapeutics Program.
SAN YSIDRO HEALTH CENTER - Committee Member Flach stated that he did not think that
this program had the qualifications to meet the CDBG criteria. He stated that the program wasn't
clear on their budget on how funds were being spent. In addition, there was a consensus that there
were duplicated services. The Committee voted not to fund this program.
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LmRARY LITERACY TEAM CENTER - The Committee indicated
that this program is requesting less than last year and in addition they have volunteers to help.
The Committee granted the full funding of $14,000.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA - In the previous years the Boys and Girls Club
experienced fInancial problems, therefore, Member McAllister indicated that the youth shouldn't
be penalized because of bad management of funds. The funds that the Club is requesting is for
maintenance and rent of the facility. The Committee agreed to grant $20,500.
MEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO - The Committee agreed to fund the full
request of $13 ,520.
CHULA VISTA MUSIC CONSERVATORY AFTER SCHOOL MUSIC PROGRAM - The
Committee thought that Mr. and Mrs. Faast were doing a tremendous job with this program and
in addition, they received recognition for their program from Channel 10. This program provides
incentives for kids. The Committee granted the full funding of $10,000. Mr. McAllister asked
that when Ms. Faast makes her presentation before the Council, as a Member of the Culture Arts
Commission, can he also go before Council to endorse this program.
/!- (
_,"A._~... -.,.----....-----
Mr. Arroyo responded yes.
ACCESS CENTER OF SAN DIEGO EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION WORKSHOPS - The
Committee granted $6,000 to this program since this is the olÙY program that assists disabled adult
clients.
MILLENNIUM ENTREPRENEURS - Ms. Foland indicated that she spoke with Larry
O'Donnell, BEBC Manager inquiring about this program. She stated that Mr. O'Donnell
indicated that Millennium Entrepreneurs will be using the facility to bring students in for a tour
of the facility to talk with the tenants to fmd out what these tenants do. Millennium Entrepreneurs
would like for BECA tenants to act as a mentor for these students. Millennium Entrepreneurs will
be using BECA's 501(c)3 status. Ms. Foland indicated that Millennium needs to established their
own non-profit thereby, partnering with BECA and then doing the mentoring program that
Millennium wants to do. Ms. Foland will suggest to Millennium Entrepreneurs to go out and
partner with BECA anyway, get the partnership established while working towards 501(c)3 status,
then next year coming back with a request and showing results. Ms. Foland asked Ms. Tonja,
representative of Millennium Entrepreneurs, what was the minimum amount of CDBG funding
that they could receive and still have a viable program. Ms. Tonja responded $30,000. The
Committee recommend not to fund this program because they need to see results and statistics of
this program.
THURSDAY'S MEAL - The Committee agreed to fund the full amount of $5,000 because they
feel that no other program provides meals for the homeless in the City. Member Flach indicated
that he would like to see some of these meal programs get together and share some common
facility .
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES - The Committee agreed to fund this program with a 5%
increase from last year totaling in the amount of $8,500.
ST. CHARLES NUTRITION CENTER - The Committee agreed to fund this program in the
amount of $7,000 but with a recommendation that they collaborate with Meals-on-Whee1s and
verifying income of participants.
SCRIPPS OTAY FAMILY HEALTH CENTER - Committee agreed that since this is a new
request, the Committee granted 1/3 of their request which equal to $7,000.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES SHARED HOUSING - Committee granted the full funding
request of $6,000.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES CARING NEIGHBOR PROGRAM - Committee granted
the full funding request of $25,000 because of all the labor work they provide.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES PROJECT HAND - Committee agreed to increase 5 % from
last year's request, recommending $15,000.
/J-d.-
-_..,--- . .',. - .-...,.__..__.,_._-_._..~---,_.,-,-_._---,._-_.~.._---.-..-.
CV YOUTH SERVICES NETWORK - There was a consensus to grant $120,680 due to all the
after school programs they provide.
CV FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION - Committee agreed to grant $36,000 to this
program.
Alicia Hernandez, Recorder
/1-3
. ~~....- _ _m ...__._..__._._.._.....,,_~___~._"__. _ _____.___.___._,._._._,~u·,___·,.._..·___ ____
Attachment B
ClW OF
CHUlA VISTA
Annual Action Plan for FY 1998-99
Executive Summary
Citizen Participation
On April 7, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing to review and receive public comment
on the draft Annual Plan for fiscal year 1998-99 and to review all projects and programs being
considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day public comment period ended on April
21, 1998. During this time no public comment regarding the use of CDBG and HOME funds was
submitted. A copy of the draft Annual Plan was available for public review at the Chula Vista
Civic Center Library located at 365 "F" Street. A copy was also available for public review at
the Community Development Department offices.
CDBG Proposed Projects
The City of Chula Vista is expected to receive a Community Development Block Grant entitlement
of $2,008,000. In addition, the City reallocated $31,408 from unexpended CDBG funds for FY
1996-97 and incorporated $29,000 of program income from a revolving loan fund for a total of
$2,068,408. These funds will be used for the following eligible activities:
· Public Services - the City will budget $310,261 for social service activities that will be
undertaken to provide services in the areas of family violence, homelessness, child care,
job training, literacy programs, senior services, and health care related projects.
· Community Projects - A total of $343,335 has been budgeted and includes the following
types of eligible activities [a] Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance; [b] Special
Activities by Community,Based Development Organizations; and [c] Special Economic
Development Activities.
· Capital Improvement Projects - The recommended budget for capital improvement
projects is $1,062,812. Of this amount $61,744 is for Community CIPs with
$1,001,068 for City CIPs. All six of the projects have been or will be funded on
a multi-year basis.
· Administration and Planning - The City has budgeted $252,000 for program
administration and $102,000 for other administration and planning programs
addressing Fair Housing, Homelessness, and Human Service related issues.
i
/3 - (
. - . - _.___________ - - - . ___ _... ___ ---0' ___ ..._....__,___._.._~_ ..~.".__
· Section 108 Loan - The City anticipates applying for a Section 108 loan in the
amount of $215,000 for fInancing a portion of the Otay Recreation Center. Current
CDBG funding for this project is estimated at $2.3 million. Construction on this
project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1998 with anticipated opening in
January 1999. The Section 108 loan is the balance necessary to fully fund the Otay
Recreation Center.
HOME Proposed Projects
The City of Chula Vista is expected to receive a HOME Investment Partnership entitlement of
$784,000. These funds will be used for the following:
· City Administration - The City can allocate 10% or $78,400 of its HOME funds for
administration. These funds will be used for overall administration and coordination of
the HOME Program as well as staff time devoted to individually HOME-funded projects
and programs.
· Community Housing Development Organization - Per HUD regulations, the City is setting
aside 15% of the FY 1998-99 allocation for a legally recognized Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) for the development and/or support in assisting the
City provide affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income households.
For FY 1998-99 the City will set-aside $117,000 for CHDO affordable housing projects.
· East/ake Greens Development - The City anticipates using approximately $549,400 in
HOME funds for a down payment assistace program to assist 130 fIrst-time home buyers
purchase affordable housing units. This project is located in the eastern portion of the
City. Total unit development will consist of 1300 units. As part of the Inclusionary
Zoning requirements the developer is obligated to provide 10% of total unit production of
low and moderate income housing. The 130 units represents Eastlake's obligation to
provide low income housing.
· South Bay Community Services - Funds in the amount of $39,200 will be provided to SBCS
for office rental expenses. As a recognized CHDO, 5% of a participating jurisdiction's
annual allocation may be budgeted for operational expenditures for a CHDO. The $39,200
represents 5% of Chula Vista's annual HOME entitlement for 1998-99.
ii
ß-;)..
." ---..-.-,.....-----....-.-......--.- -,.,,-- . "'.--.....--------.
cnv OF
CHUlA VISTA
Consolidated Annual Plan
Fiscal Year 1998-99
This Consolidated Annual Plan delineates the City's plans for use of funds during the fiscal year 1998-99.
The Plan describes: A) the resources available for program implementation; B) activity to be undertaken;
C) monitoring; D) homelessness; E) anti-poverty strategy; F) coordination; G) obstacles to underserved
needs; H) geographic location for expenditure of CDBG funds; and I) section 108 loan for Otay Recreation
Center. This plan is consistent with the priority housing needs, priority homeless needs, priority special
needs populations, and priority non-housing community development needs listed in the City of Chula
Vista's Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 1995-1999.
A. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
Financing Resources
Financing resources for addressing housing and community development needs are fairly limited for the
City. To ultimately reach the goals of the City, a variety of resources must be used to achieve each
objective. Table 1 describes the eligible activities of a variety of resources identified in this section. The
limited City resources must be leveraged with additional funds from private and public sources and
programs. Partnerships with banks, nonprofit, and private developers are needed. Achieving these goals
requires community volunteer efforts to raise funds, solicit grants and donate time. The City can facilitate
the use of developers and potential homeowners of tax -exempt fInancing (bond issuances), low income tax
credits, and other tax credit programs.
The City anticipates using the following federal programs for implementation of the Consolidated Annual
Plan:
· Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - the City is an entitlement City and receives an
annual grant from the federal government. These funds can be used for public facilities, services,
or housing for low income (80% and below the median County income) persons. For FY 1998-99
the City is expected to receive $2,008,000 in CDBG funds.
· HOME Program - the City also receives an annual grant from the HUD program through a
jurisdictionally competitive process. The funds can be used for new housing construction, housing
rehabilitation, rental assistance or to assist first time home buyers. For FY 1998-99 the City is
expected to receive $784,000 in HOME funds.
· Section 8 Rental Assistance - the County of San Diego operates the City's program and will receive
HUD funding for the next five years to provide rental assistance for low income families (50% of
median County income).
· Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act - a variety of programs are available to fund homeless
transitional housing programs and emergency shelters.
· HUD 202 Program - funds are for new construction of senior housing.
The City of Chula Vista Annual Plan
Consolidated Plan 1;3-3 One-Year Use of Funds
- ---.------- .'___._u__·___.·____·_________·__·_'M__.·'.·____~·__·___~.__
0 Federal tax exempt housing revenue bonds provide low interest bonds for the acquisition and
construction of low income housing projects.
The City also plans to use funds through the following State or local government programs:
0 Redevelopment Agency 20% Set-Aside Program - every year, the City's Redevelopment Agency
sets aside approximately twenty percent of the tax increment revenue it generates from its five
redevelopment project areas to be used for the development and rehabilitation of affordable
housing.
0 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program - tax credits for first-time home buyers. To date the City has
assisted approximately 150 first-time home buyers. The City received approximately six hundred
and sixty six million in 1998 from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee.
The City supports the application of other entities within the City for programs which would assist the City
in reaching the goals of the Plan. These programs include Emergency Shelter Grant, Supportive Housing,
Housing for Persons with AIDS, low income housing tax credits, and mortgage revenue bonds. See Table
2: Support of Applications by Other Entities.
As other programs from the State and Federal government arise during the five year planning period which
will assist the City in reaching the goals and objectives of the Plan, the City will pursue those resources.
Non-Profit Resources
Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resource to the City. The following
developers and service providers are some of the non profits who have been active in the City and play an
important role in the Plan.
0 Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISe) - Residential, commercial or mixed-use projects
serving low income persons. LISC offers non profit capacity building and pre-development grants
and loans.
0 California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRe) - Provides pennanent financing of multi-
family rental and limited equity housing cooperatives.
0 South Bay Community Services (SBCS) - Multi-service social service agency and affordable
housing developer working closely with the City on numerous community improvement projects.
For-Profit Resources
0 Bank of America - Residential, commercial or mixed,use projects serving low income persons.
Bank of America offers assistance in the fonn of construction loans and rehabilitation loans.
2
13 -<-I
"_".__'_._.M~ _._>__
~.::;. .::;.
- .~ .~
æ ~
0.... .... "{:¡
ð::E ,
., " .s "
.:!! ,,-" 'õb ....~
- ;.¡;::E .S '¡;
:E " " E '" "'&
" " " ~"-< .. ~ "
- B B S " ~ ° ..8
.. -.:::S
« '" "," ~ '"
.~ " .~ ° B o ..... 0..
... ~ " "'- '" .... .~ :;
'" " '" " bD~ ~--
:ë ,,< § "( ;> ';¡; ~ ~.~ SdJ_~M ~
:ª' c .... 1;j 5 ¡." «> <I to) " .~ i': . ~ N " ""
¡::: ..... CJ ..... "'p"o<1: In ~Cr:;:l.; ¿
¡;:¡ .2 19 ~ ~ o.a~y{/ .2 ã ~ 150""~0 ~
..... ::s..... (,/ 11)
'~:-SCQ<C ·;;~CQe~CIJ ;;;S 1:: :r: 0 :r:
..... ..c 0 c; .- ..c 0 0 11.) 0 .-..c c o°:I:o'-'
= t'j E ..... " '" S c S:.= " '" "- :.:::E'-'EVJ
0"'.:: 0 c g-.::ooc..c cr.... '" ..cOVl 11)
<~:r:~ <~:r:¡ij:r:æ " " " æ:r:'ã ~ §
<~'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::> . :I:
00
¡,.¡ " bO ,g "" 0 0 IU ,,-
.... ;5 .S ê ~.:: .; a ° e
... .s ~ $t" ""-8
;;: ° ..8 co"" -8~
¡¡.... ~ ~ æ .~r ¡¡ ..
¡,.¡.... "" .. '" c:JJ5~~ ~ 8
...;¡'" ¡¡..s § " .0.
=u = ~.~ .; .:: "'0 Zl ~ " '"
.£.2 " "
« .51 .,. c iã '" " § 'S
- ~.ß U .,!: Õ t'j ...."'3 0
...;¡... ... > "- c:J¡jU .;Q g-
" .-
....Z 'C 60", ;51:> e 8 v) 0 '" ..
<¡,.¡ .. 0- B :, 8§<..8;5 ~.~
., .. " ,& ~ r.r.i
>~ ... "'§ "'c:I .5 §':<¡~ £
<~ Q ª~ -8 '" .....0""
~Q.¡«I"'O ~~~
000 60'" ¡¡ 6 1::<6 ~ ~ 'p
¡,.¡...;¡ .; ~-: o ~ = (1) 'p bO
~~ ~ § .2 ..8 e bJ) ¡a o..~ ° " s
:e .~ $ '" ..2'~'~ .S 01) 0..:.0
~ ç.::: ~.;;; ·E " i': Þ S S § B
""'O¡,.¡ -'- (.) c:Jß coo·.... "'0 ° " '"
....U'" ¡i¡:r:",u", :r: '" s
~ooQ
~~¡; -0
ião ...,
"0
~¡::~ c:Joô '"
"
"",0 °
,,0 '"
~~ ° . ..
... 0 _N "
S!~ ¡¡ 0 ><:I'" ""
0 _ bO ..
.. ..,ç " c ..s
~8 z " .-
00 s"" "'~
= r- ,,-c .2 <
Q~ '" ° " .= ~
.. , -....
~~ .. bO "00 """
.. .s >", Èo
E " ,
"" or- 8..ö
U¡;; " þg;
=- " "-
~~ .... .- - 0'"
00 §~ b08
=00 ""'" sc:J .s < ¡i¡
;::¡;::¡ ::E~ s><:l '" ""
~o 0'" 00 =;5 0
° .-
=: :r:;;: uS :r: ~ :r:
~
0
¡:.,
...
... '"
t: '"
'" E !
¡¡ e "
s
f '" .2 .t
.. ~ "
.. .. .,.
E 0 ~ " ~.s
.. .::
=- ....
=- ." oS'"
Ë '3 " ,,~
" § ~ e~
""
~ ° ~~
.... U '"
,..; «Î .ci .~ g
uu
13 --S'
-.-.. "M' . "'._ .....__..,_...__..,,_,_._~___ _,_______.,_ __ _..~_._
¡¡~
'" .. "
.. 0::: "
<= -«;
.¡: g~
.. " ..
... "
OJ ~~
< " c
B 0 '" " " § 11) In C " ..
.. .- " u " o u ..
.~ t) c .~ .- ~ "
:¡; .~ E ~ u " ''3 E ~
::¡ c Ë·!2 " C: s:: u ._
:~ .~ ".!2 Ë.~ C: ° Ë '" <!.
< ,9 d ¡g .9 ~ c ..... .-
- "' '" o ¡g rn u.I 0 C - v.I !ZI ð
~ ~.~o~~t "' "' '.0 ._ C .( r.F.J .- $ c.<:
< < .i::;'::::: 0
( J._ U ~ Q) 0 .;¡; :: 0 t: rn''''; U
v::s~~>~ '5 '5 .- .D U '5 0 '-.D '5
e8"o-5§§' " '" '" g.~ at c
c ! ff..c ~ c 0..
~~~~~~ " <~Z~rJš (,,) Q) Q) <1J
~ <~z~
. . . . . . . . . . . .
00 "'-"'-'0 :€:€ "'- ~ -5 v¡"'''O
¡;.¡ bl)"'0
.S ~ .; 00" 0 o .- " æ
- ~ "'- ~ ~ ~ .;
"'" t; - <I.) . 0) ca * '" '" ~ e
.~~] Ñ '0 :s! 1õ >. ~ 0
> ~.o .- " '" 0 8. = ..c ;a
.8 .5 ~ "' .0 ",0::
"'- ~ ~ CJ) ~~~ o " ..9: 0 o..'P
¡;.¡- ~ c .§ - '0
...;¡"'" o ~ CI:I Q) o " " ,,- 11) ~ ;::I ;.:::::
þ"'-"-5 ~o< <U§] ;. " > Q) 0'-
~~ " " " \1) 0...... g 00
.51 ;.::::: 0 ~..c::::: ~ ~ . ~..c-g '0.0 "'0 .... bl)~.2
«I Ð VJ OJ) ¡¡ .- j!J ~ -::: tE OJ) ::=
... ::s .c "'0 ::I ~ C æ ~ ~
...;¡"'" CI. .;!3 .s :ë t;: 0 "" e .-
,<Z .¡: "'§iSE d : C "' '" 0'" o 01)' gf ~
" ""-5 ~ bl) ~ ,S ] '> ~
" c..ti;i £ ~ rn .~ 9".5
~~ '" ~ = . rn " ~ " _,,'0 I rn _._ 11)
.. .... 11) VI _ C "' C " ,,- æ
~ o..¡Q~!+:: ,,~ e s.~ "'0 o " g 0.5 (,,)
E " 0 ¡¡ C: æ " 0
§ ,,- 0 -'" u .0 .0 ~"
000 . t3 Š 9- .~ æ e ~ :: ~ ~ o " 11> CI'Í d ti:i
¡;.¡...;¡ B~]§ "' e' ~ ;. .s > Q) 0 .....
¡(j " ~ o .- ._.¡::] '"0
U~ t+=< t.-=: rn 'E 1:: .- <1)
~ <U 11) = - °u ~o~ ~ 0::= 8. ë
grti- ª&
.....~¡;.¡--- æ",,-5-¡;¡ c ;. ri0 æ ",.g ~ ~~ ~ £
.... <1) .... t,) o ï:: ~ ~ '" "' ~ '"
O.;jtE..9: C ::1'- c:J ~ d ~ ~ .5 .5
~O~¡¡ p::: c.. >..c ",'0
00...=
~[:2t:,g '<t
~¡;'¡Z" ~
~""';;;¡~ c:J
<~'-' CJ)
.. ~
~~ a ~ ~
"'
.. ~
=-8 z bl)
a c:J E
~~ f! ~ 0..
~~ .!j " '"
IOJ) -¡¡ " "
0 .0 ¡¡¡ ¡¡;
u" .. CJ) .~ "
=- G æ N -
~~ "' 0 -
¡¡ co '" U N co
=00 ,,< ~ " C
;;;¡;;;¡ b" .!2'5 ° .!2
t) 5 -¡¡ ~ ü
=-0 e "
~~ .0 " "
= ~ CJ) CJ) CJ)
c=::
0 ~
'0
¡:., "
"
.e
.. §
"
CI. ~
~ "'
a
a
f! 0 .!:! "
IOJ) ó: ~.s
e "
;. 0.;
=- .- .s'"
.,.
ü " ~
'" e~
e
0 ~:.:::
u .. ..
"
.c è"
öð
ß-0
~.__."_.,--_.. - - - --_._---_._--_._--~-.~-,-,._-_....-..__...-------~.__..
o
-
o
N 00 ~
S I:: '1::i
<I) 8 "'C 0 ~ I:
:¡ 8 æ æ§ "" ...~
.-.- +-' <1)'- -
~ b"'" .~ ] ~ .~ g ~
:= <nE <I) "'1:;= t: ::::~
~ "0 e ~ 8 ';; 8. 8. .s ~
" "Q. "''' g .-" " 0 ,
~ ('do _0 ~ "'t;:IC <I) 0 $..0 ...
:E rn d) ~ 8 <I) .8 8 8 .~ ~ ~
'::'... ..,8 > C::!:>. .;¡:; 1+-0... .-¡: " .Eo 0 ~ ~
...... ._ 11) ¡;;; C'I:I U') 0 I=: 0 0 I
~ :-= 0 .£ 0.. C'O 11) 11) 0 '.;:i '';:: C ~
~ u 0..11)""" S8 en 05 U'J~o I:::
tS~o.oo..o.o-Sribl)·.¡::;;;" +-' :E~ §:.=:E ~
11) C 0 C'd ~._ c::! ~ 0 ~ <1)'- U'- <I) ~
() S ._~ <I) bJ) co .E .;;;;¡ to) - 0 .- .0 .0 .- .-
:Ë 'en ë t ~ {).9 ..9 ê- 15: 50] ~ ] 50 §
~o_l1)~ooeo~ 0 00 0000
~~~~~~~~~" ~ <~ Z~<~
. . . . . . . . .::;:1. . . . . .......
00
~]~ ~~ ~~ Bài~
Eo- ~ ~ (115: c....g. 13 § v ~
s: '... .:::1 oSc.. ....<.¡;.;:¡~....
o.o~' 0<1) c::!'- æ.oo
" '" " 0" 1::..0:: """',,"
r_' :--I .;::¡ C'I:I 0 C 0 (1) VI 0""" Cd C
~E-4 ~-'"ª t3 ..=>t OJJS:::S~õ
:--IU ~5o ..... ode S .~
~ ~ = ~ 8 ..9 c v :-= 8 ~ '0 'õ ~ a
<~ s o;;;".~ -~ .0 ~ §<I)'~e
~E- ë.. 8,S"'C sEe =t=:::..
<z ï: ....0..0 [/)~ t+::o..0o>
~ C,, <.S E 'S- "'C a 0 CO'- 0 0 ..= ..9
,;, ~, 0 ',-, ..... UJ _ - ...... ~,
0......- ... bJ)..... "'0.....- 11) co 11) co .....
....- .. "So .... "'O-~.... ....>~.o
~ .;;;< c C':3 ( ) _ 11) C (1)
-< ¡:., "",g "'0 8 ~ í:9 "'0 ·c.s ~ '"0 ~ ~
000 11)0 dO 8Cdr.f.l "",,"'0>.>
,_, " " .- ~ ""... '" ª - 0
~~ <1)80 is· C'j....æ s tl-o
u~ UCO"'O N[ß 0c.. ~"'I::Io...
~ ;> ~ ~ ] ~ 'ê 'E ~s ª Š ~ :Ë v ~ g
~ r¡¡¡;¡ .-. ~ I-< ~ ""' ~ = 0 õ) 'S ] § 0
.....O~'Q ,,"00 Oo~ ...2..0:: ~.D"'.DS
~oo;;..;
~~~~~ ~
~ = I ;;.-..
~z~ v gbO
¡..; ~ ;;;¡ .. ~ "1;\,.5
-<~- 8 S <~
;> ~ 4.1.~ e ~ d) $:
~~ a?2 e v (J~
~O '" < "" ¡; ª]
¡:., u Z E 2 Uo .5 "
.... s " ~ ... "
... ~ ",,,,, !;,... ""~
~ ~ .. "'.. ",.."
~ ~ ~ õ &: .ª -Ë.
e .~ <U ..d v ::1._
U ~ "'1::1 tIJ tIJ e c,::::
... " <"" :>. 0 :I::!!
..¡ z .~ ª ~:I: ¡::: .;: ¡g
=~ §5 ~ ~æ E<æ
;;;¡ ... " "" ...- .. <oS ... k
"""' 0 "'1::1 v..c bO .- ::I: 00
¡:"O "::I S'¿¡E '"uE
=.,¡'" .,¡ ~"" u~,,"
¡::¡::
o :;;-
roo. "
::I
.5
E
o
.. "
c. ~
~ §
a Sb ....
'" 0 ..
~ ~! S II:
o v... ~=.s
=-:·Èi ~ -~
.-... ~~
õ ~ i ~
~ ~ ~~
O ~ ~~~
- ~-
U rJ'1 ~ 5;
.. AI::
.D ~ eð
13 - 7
$
¡¡ ¡;~
00 8 ,S! "
~ " " ~~
.S! " >
~ " " 00 8 0 fi~
:~ u u " " ~
~ ¡¡¡ .~ .9 ;>- " "
OJ tð e ~;;S
-< ~ ~
.~ " õ c. 00 è
.. 00 00 .9 .- S " ~
:æ 00 00 :> - 0 Q)
:i ..: ..: u " " Þ'- c. ~
~ ~ Ë·9 " o -8 .~ 0 ¿
" " ''¡:: c S :g Ø::
¡;¡ S' S' ¡g Š.52 $U,s..:_ ~
~ ~ c ..... .... .- 00 E!
U:O='¡;; ::.", 00 S
" " .c .- ,.c t'j Q) 0 ~
S s :< '" " CI;I 0.. g 0 do)
0 0 ( ) -5 8" ~~~~':'
:t :t Z¡X:..:
. . . . . .
'" oOiho;l) " ~- "'t:I CI) 0 ~ Q)
~ = "'tj . 01)
5 0 '" ãe...._~ .9 ¡¡ :2 .S
- ~ § " ¡¡ ...... ~ g ô
E-< S..o 0..9 VJ8::E..o!:j «i 0 ¡n
......0.....:1...... _ .c"
- o -Š" VI = ~ -C;.5 S;.~ 0 :'="'000
> ..... (I) ~ t!S 4-0 ....... .g ..0.... ..... Q) VI ..0
~.5 .S o 01)..... ~ = ::s ....
~- .s (\).8 ~ ..... ~ ~ oS "0
...¡E-< -OObl) .::......;.a.- ~ ..c ~ 0 0
c..... 11)._ Q) ~ tn t'j 11) 0..0 tI'J
~~ " 2 ~ Ë S :ë..osln ].5 ~ ~ ::s ~ ,,"
.9 .....lj:;oo ,.$tJ..c2 . (,,) 0 0 o tIJ e 0
~ - æ -:Sou 0 fÈ"
...¡E-< ~ 0.. 0 0....0 'æ S >, 13 .s ~ ~ 0.. 1000 S (,,) ~
Co S ~ 0:< . ;> 0..:-= '-= > 0 00
:;:z ï: .u CI'J ¡I) Q) ;-Š ¡n; ...2 5 Eo-- 8. "'0 tE 0.5 Œ:: u
OJ ~~~i~ .c. " In..c ~ o.~
>~ 00 ..:s..... "'0 8 ã"'O ~ s.. 8
.. :.a...'-7u 'æ '" . ¡¡¡ 0
<f ¡:¡ o tS (I) CI.) > o:S bJJ ... ..9 ~.Q Ô c..
" 0 - S t> "'6'h~ t'j v.I.5 0;1) c.. ~]Èg.g
"'0 ~ ~ .I: .g c. a ~.~ s ~§;g§"O
~...¡ ~e t'j< '-._ 0._ ¡¡ .... '"O""=',f:!
" bI) 00 1š~..cøþbÏ) 2 ~ II) ã'''''
~~ 'c.~ ë,.c S·2
-< at ~ 'ü .... "'" .... = 53 ::s's.. :-=
". u U 0] 0:.= .- .~ CI:I::s ,.c
~ c Q)..... U 8 EL~ 5 ¡;¡e-"e-:Eg uþ'"
õ;¡~.-, :t -¡¡ S' ¡¡¡ ~ 04-0 c.>'- i
u,.c.o o..tS .s 0 >< bI) E--8~8~..o
....o~." .c " '" ~ooU....
~"';;..~
~~!::~ ª '"
gª
~¡::~8 ~ - "
" ~ bI) '6 .9
bI) bI) J:
<::;'-' ..: 0 ~ E-
>::; " ".I: " U :.= 5
s u " 1<i ¡;¡ .- "
;0 '" ¡¡¡ :@ OJ ~ 0
=-u Z .5..0 t;:: I-< -5S-
'€ bI)
~~ 8 <'-< g .S ¡x: 0
bl)æ " bl)U
'" U 00
~~ ~ .S " " " ~
.. ~ 0 .- "
00 bI) '6 00 "
0 " '" :t 5 :<
~ ~
uç; ¡:,. o bI) "
:tt U § :to
::Jz '" 0 " '" ,
ï§ ::E ~ u 'í§ ª
=- "
õ;¡'" <E " ~ ~ <E ~
=-;;;J .- S :< ._ bI)
"¡j 0 0 - 0
0 ::E 0 '" ~
:= u:t ...¡ up..
¡:¡::
0
'""
~
""
"
.. .S
Co §
>,
I-< u
S ~
..
E s S "
.. '" f~
0 ..
~ ..
¡:,. 0 ~
.. oS'"
¡:,. '" ~
~ e~
'" ~::::
~
'" " "
"
N õ"
üa
13 -7
--.....- ------.--- --,-.-----. . -~.- .. _...,....- '-"'-
"
ë; (fJ !3
.... - ~
" lii 0
"" @, -¡¡ ¡;~
~ "
~ § " ~ ..!i! ..
.:!! . .g.c ~~
- ,Q¡g"" g~
:~ " " "
o " lii " " "
- " § § § .. ..
... 3 S § ~~
-< " .- " .:<J .:<J .:<J
.!/ (fJ - ~ . .9 ~ ~ ~ ~
"'0 Q., 11) ¡ß ~ ~ ~
.J:¡ " § > .- - -< < " < ~
:~ ¿. c·t:: " "
".9 Ë .... .... 0 ....
'"C 0 .~ " " .- " .:.
¡;¡ o.oãoõ .2 g ~ » qg » ~
" "'" " "
:.a 0.0 ~ 11) -..... 0 CQ CQ;: CQ
B·5 ~ ~ :§] u " ".g "
t'j c 11) 0 §.d¡:t § §"" e
::E """ 0. ,,"" " 0
'" .... ~ <~Z :I: :I:~ :I:
. P..~ ~ . . . . . . .
00
r-1 ~ - " " ~ bl) ~ " .... "" .
"" e .- "" " .S ~ <2 v .~
"'" ~"Ei . ¡H
E-< "" 0 ~ ~ .. .:: "" In £:.t::
::= ~ " ~ o.~ .... ~ " " §
õ .-= '" ~ 0. bl)~
bl)bl)0 ~ ~
.S] ¡¡ @, » 0. '" .... Ii
r-1"'" ~ .- @, ,Q bl)"
,..; E-< "". 0 ~ 0 1 " 1§ § 0
t) 11) "'0 """ .¡gbl) 0..... "" "
~~ " ~ 0 ~ Q.. o 0. - e ::E "
.51 13:..$'"0 ~ .~ _ bl) "" 0 _ .5.è
'-.~ 8 ã ».S .:<J """
,..; E-< - " . ~ ¿ '" " ~ ....
'" o ._ 4> en » 0 :< - :< " " " 0
,<Z ï: c § ~.~ ,,"" '" "'0 bl) . ",,'" Ei e .S
... " - ª':::: '" ~ " 0
o Ii bl) bl)~ ~oE
~~ ¡r¡ ..... ~ 11) " " lJ<S .- "
t:: co ~ bOoE 6 ~ "" 0 0.:I:""
~ °o"'O.þ <:ëUl lii " ~ .-= "..::-lii
~ o..u"""ctJ ... '" » ",5 Ei .S ~ ¡g :< .-
"'0 d ;>-.~-= 0"E.c :.::: 10.-0 " " 0;':::: o § Š
r-1,..; d~"'O 8:<2 E ~ bl)'-
~.J:¡ " ",,Q 0""0
~~ """ bl) g ~ (OJ 11) bl)]
:g .~ .5 (fJ '" ~ "" bl) "
8. ~ .... " 1:: 1:: " ~ ~.S
lii.g o ....
> ::I "'0 ::s æ ~ ::E"" ....¡ bl):<
;:¡r-1~ o 0' ~ .= 0.... 0 o " .S 0
.....0 "0 ...." "" N<2bD ....¡~ . lii
~oo¡::¡" 0..... '" . ."'-
;;.. :I
~r:2~! '" a
ª »N I'-
~ ¡:n§ 8 "",
.... 5b
" 0
bl)" ,!:; "
<~'-' bl) <'" bl)
.S ~ '"
>~ " "" " .§ " ~ r
sao Ei " " " ~ » :2 §
" '" S 2 "
~u z ::E 0. 0. bl) CQ
o 0. 1::~ " " @, ~
~¡::¡ Ei " -¡¡< 0< e Ei 2 ....
f > , ::E::E 0
" 0 :i!': ,Q
g " bl) :I:
<~ bl) ] .5 ~æ ""
" ~ þ þ¡J bl)
u" .... " ~"" .S '-' .- S .¡¡
I>. '6' .~ æ '" " '§ § " z
:=¡z < z·g Ii Ii > .~
="'" " :> '" . - '" 2
;:¡oo ~ '" " " .- 0.
" '" , " .... " 0 8'§
~;:¡ ~ - 00 ..... " 0 u ""
::::10\= "" ~
0 " ..c 0\ .- " ~
:= 0 u-s ""< .; .<5 U
CI:i
0
...
bl)
'" "
" '"
" "
" .S "
'" "
» " ~
... 0
"
Ei ~
~ ~ ¡:
" Ei Ei
.... " .¡: ..
bl) f " "
" .... ~ ~¡¡:
.... bl) bl) "
I>. E " =:
.... .s...
I>. I>. " ~ .. ~
" .. õi Ei e.g
- " .:: =
"
- " .. .... ~::::
'" ...;¡ I>. bl) .. ¡;
"
.... ..; . .. -È'§
...1>.
uu
P -Cj
","--'---~-'~ ."H'_ _"_a _'_"U__
=~
~ ..!! "
.!! ....¡;
~ ]~
:~
~ " ..
" ~~
-< '" .§
" .9 ..
;Q - 1:) '"
';;' u '" ~
¡;¡ Ë·9", Ë ,¡.
~ !9 .S! ~ ~
"
o ..... - 0
U:O='r¡::
.D .- U
" '" " "
.DC'
'" '" u '"
Zo>::< Z
.. .. .. ..
00
r..¡ bJ) bJ)..!.. "C [) , ... '0
.... .5 § '§ ¡¡¡.D !5 ~ ª
E-< -§- S '" ~
.... oEæ=o "'O.~ Q.,
;, ,J:I:2.£eE æg~
r..¡.... :> ~ Q,- - '" ...
...;¡E-< o 'u I..i: OJ) 0
8..-5$3 o '" "
~~ '" ~o~Z § 8..'~ ~
.9 I :ë 0
'" _ u § ;:1 0
...;¡E-< ~ .. ....
Q, t:]~ gf~ " Q, S
,<Z 'J: '0 0
u o 6h bJ)'r¡:: 8- .8 ª g
;,r..¡ ~ S ._ .5 5 0
" I"J'J ~ .-
<~ ¡:¡ ~ª..c::õ .!! &".;
'0 _:>
-§J3g.g :20..91:>
000 ~ - '"
r..¡...;¡ <;:: '" .g ~ .£ '(51
o .- .:0 ~ æ= I"J'J 0 ~ 8..
~~ 9--'§-8..Qe v; 1:>~"'O-
" ~ ê .- Q,-§ o~-$3
~r..¡--- o § ª ~ .:' g ¡g "
....0 ~ ZU~~~,J:I o Q., «S ~
~oo~"
... =
~~~;§ - '" 00
~¡::~8 ¡¡ ~
~ '0
...
~~'-' '" ¡g
:>
'" .5 <
æ20 s ~ -§
'"
="U z þ ~
~~ B 1j ~ ¡¡¡
E
.. §¡j ..Hi
u" e o~ '" 6b
I>. U '" §£
~~ «S.S!
'§ ë :I:..
=", ] .5
~~ <E 0
;; e- '" ~
="0 '0 "
'" 0 '" 0
= UU ...:I:
~
0
iii;;
..
"
'C
"
'" '"
Q, .S -.
» ~-g
... ~ "
S " "
" .-
'" ... =
... " 0 <! "
.. o u
0 ~~ ~~
... ~ ~
I>.
'" S oS'"
~ '" " ~
'" ...
:> .. Ô~
.- '"
... ... ~~
1>.1>.
"
... ,5' §
uu
(ß -( 0
^""O'_ .·..n - -- +.....--..-,." --- ------.-.---.---.'
Table 2
u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Support of Applications by Other Entities Report
Funding Source Support Application
by Other Entities?
A. Formula/Entitlement Programs
ESG y
Public Housing Comprehensive Grant Y
B. Competitive Programs
HOPE I Y
HOPE 2 Y
HOPE 3 Y
ESG Y
Supportive Housing y
HOPW A Y
Safe Havens y
Rural Homeless Housing y
Section 202 Elderly y
Section 811 Handicapped y
Moderate Rehab SRO y
Rental Vouchers y
Rental Certificates y
Public Housing Development y
Public Housing MROP y
Public Housing CIAP y
LIHTC Y
City 01 Chula Vista Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan 9 One-Year Use 01 Funds
13 - / (
-_.__._~.._. -
B. ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN
Table 3: Funding Sources illustrates the City's CDBG and HOME allocations and program income
available for the coming fiscal year. Table 4: Listing of Proposed Projects identifies the projects requesting
financial assistance from the CDBG and HOME programs.
C. MONITORING
Careful evaluation of the housing and public service delivery system can be the most effective tool in
detecting gaps and making appropriate modifications. Chula Vista monitors its subgrantees, conducts in-
house reviews of progress reports and expenditures and perfonns on-site visits to ensure compliance with
federal regulations. Agreements made with subgrantees encourage unifonn reporting to achieve consistent
infonnation on beneficiaries. Technical assistance is provided when necessary.
D. HOMELESSNESS
The City of Chula Vista will continue to support the efforts of South Bay Community Services transitional
and short-tenn housing projects which assist the homeless and in addition, will fund the following projects
to help the homeless in fiscal year 1998-99:
· Thursday's Meal
· San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless
· Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand
E. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY
As part of the City's Anti-Poverty Strategy, the City will endeavor to integrate social services and housing
activities for households below the poverty line. These efforts include, but are not limited to the following:
· South Bay Community Services KIDSBIZ Prog-ram: This program teaches "at-risk" youths to use
their entrepreneurial skills in a positive way. Teenagers are taught to develop their own business
plans and to run their own business.
· Earned Income Tax Credit Prol!ram: SBCS has hired a program coordinator to do outreach and
education to community residents about the Earned Income Tax Credit. This coordinator assists
in qualifying citizens in applying for the tax credit. The goal of this program is to have 200
families receive the tax credit. Eligible families are working parents with children earning under
$23,050 per year.
· Park Village Apartments: On-site day care and job training services are offered at this very low
income apartment complex.
· Casa Nueva Vida I & II: Residents are required to secure an income and save money for their first
month's rent plus security deposit. They are referred to outside job training agencies for help in
securing a job. Independent living skills are taught in areas of health, nutrition, immunizations,
parenting, and other pertinent issues. Individual and family counseling is also offered.
F. COORDINATION
The City will coordinate and implement its strategies through the following activities:
Activity : Target available CDBG funding to those areas and population exhibiting the greatest need.
City of Chula Vista Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan 10 One-Year Use of Funds
¡3 -Id--.
.-_.-------- . _.__.__..~_.- ----.----...-...-..-
Activity : Encourage social service providers to work with developers and CHDOs to provide
"service-enriched housing". Services include health care referrals, financial counseling,
and case management.
Activity: Assist county, state, federal, educational, and private organizations involved in economic
development and job training in targeting their efforts toward those areas of Chula Vista
exhibiting the greatest need.
G. OBSTACLES TO UNDESERVED NEEDS
the City is continuing in its effort to remove obstacles to undeserved needs throughout the community. The
City has made a commitment to budget CDBG funds at the maximum allowable to offer citizens much
needed programs and services in the area of literacy, job training, youth activities, senior services, violence
prevention, and health care assistance for low income families.
H. GEOGRAPmC AREAS FOR EXPENDITURE OF CDBG FUNDS
The City plans to use CDBG funds in areas of the City where improvements is most needed. Many of the
projects assisted with CDBG are located in the western portion of the city which is also the oldest areas
where infrastructure improvements and revitalization is needed. The City continues to implement ADA
improvements throughout the community as required by federal mandate.
I. SECTION 108 LOAN
The City anticipates applying for a Section 108 loan in the amount of $215,000 for financing a portion of
the Otay Recreation Center. Current CDBG funding for this project is estimated at $2.3 million.
Construction on this project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1998 with anticipated opening January
1999. The Section 108 loan is the balance necessary to fully fund the Otay Recreation Center.
PROPOSED 1998-99 HOME BUDGET
The Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) allocated funds by formula directly to state
and local governments to promote affordable housing. Participating jurisdictions are able to provide this
assistance to both for-profit and non-profit housing developers or directly to qualified home buyers or
renters. The assistance may take the form of grants, loans, advances, equity investments, and interest
subsidies.
To date, the City has been allocated $4,047,000 in HOME funds since 1992 when the program was
created. HOME funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and home ownership opportunities
through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance. In addition,
HOME funds can be used to fund operational costs for Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit, community-based organization that has, or intends to retain, staff
with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves. Currently, South Bay
Community Services is the only designated CHDO in the City of Chula Vista.
The City is required to provide a 25 percent match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing
rehabilitation, and acquisition of standard housing. A 30 percent match is required for new construction.
Some examples of allowable matching contributions would include Redevelopment Agency Low and
Moderate Income Housing Funds, land value (donated or a loan), on and off-site improvements, waiver
of local and state taxes or fees, voluntary labor in connection with site preparation. If a project exceeds
the required match, the excess credit can be applied to future projects.
City of Chula Vista Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan 11 .6-/3 One-Year Use of Funds
--~-_...- -- - - ----+--~_.__.,.._._",."--_.._"._.~-".__.-_._,.
ESTIMATED 1998-99 USE OF HOME FUNDS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1
Funding Requests Recommended
Funding
Staff Administration $78,400
Community Housing Development $117,000
Organization (CHDO)
Eastiake Greens Affordable $549,400
Housing Project
SBCS - Office Rent $39,200
TOTAL $784,000
The following is a brief description of the above HOME activities being recommended for
funding:
Staff Administration
Administrative costs for city staff to oversee the HOME program. These administrative costs
represent 10% of the HOME budget. These costs include staff costs for coordination, accounting,
environmental review, and HUD reporting requirements.
CHDO 15% Set Aside
Per HUD regulations a City is required to set,aside 15 % of the annual allocation for Community
Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) to assist the City in development and/or support in
providing affordable housing projects for low and moderate income families. For FY 1998-99,
the City of Chula Vista is setting aside $117,000 for CHDO housing projects.
CHDO Operation
The $36,800 proposed for CHDO operation costs is eannarked for South Bay Community
Services, the only organization in Chula Vista to be designated as a CHDO. Currently, staff is
recommending that the City fund their Community Development Program with $36,200 in CDBG
funds. By utilizing HOME funds to fund the SBCS Community Development Program, the City
will free up CDBG funds that can be used for other activities to benefit low and moderate income
households. The Community Development Program has been funded by the City for the past six
years, and during that time have become a well respected affordable housing producer. Last year
this CHDO operation was funded from both CDBG and HOME funds.
I The City has the option to modify the amounts by category in the future without HUD approval if the need
arises.
City of Chula Vista 12 /3 -I <I Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan One- Year Use of Funds
CHDO Monitoring
A careful evaluation of the CHDO delivery system is an effective way to determine the
organization is carrying out the goals and objectives in providing affordable housing. The City
of Chula Vista will be monitoring South Bay Community Services in the same manner that it
monitors CDBG subrecipients. An annual financial examination of the organization will be
performed along with requiring South Bay Community service to submit quarterly progress
reports. At year end, staff will tour the South Bay Community Services facility and related
projects that were assisted with HOME funds.
Eastlake Green Affordable Housing Project
As part of the Affordable Housing Agreement between Eastlake Development Corporation and the
City of Chula Vista, Eastlake is required to set-aside 130 units for low income households.
Eastlake is attempting to provide those 130 units as a for-sale product. In order to assist low
income households qualify for these units, the City is in the process of developing a down payment
and closing cost program.
Geographic Location for HOME Funds
The City of Chula Vista has committed HOME funds to various projects throughout the city.
These projects are designed to target low and moderate income households at or under 60% of
median income. Located at Industrial and Ada Street is the Trolley Terrace Town home project.
This eighteen unit multifamily complex is located near retail and transportation facilities. The
estimated cost of the project is $3.0 million with constructed expected to begin by mid-1998 .
Funds for the project will come from HOME ($800,000 in prior year funds), Tax Credits ($1.3
million), Bank of America ($500,000), and Local Initiative Support Corporation - LlSC for gap
financing.
Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City has been proactive in developing affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate
income households. Current affordable housing developments include Trolley Terrace (18 units)
and Cordova (40 units). The land for Cordova was donated by the developer, the City will
provide $400,000 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, LlSC will provide gap
financing, and tax credits will also be utilized.
The City actively encourages developers to set-aside 10% of newly developed units for affordable
housing purposes. The City also strongly supports the County of San Diego's effort as supplying
public housing such as Dorothy Street and L Street. As part of the Housing Element, the City
works closely with developers in negotiating affordable housing agreements which require a 10%
unit set-aside for low and moderate income housing. Five percent for households at or below 80%
of median income and 5% for moderate income households. Projects that meet this criteria are
Salt Creek Ranch (131 units), Sunbow II (97 units), and Otay Ranch (184 units). All these
projects are located on the Eastern portion of the city. Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds
have been targeted for these project, however HOME funds could also be used.
Due to the increase price of for-sale housing, the City is developing a down payment assistance
program. Since the down payment and closing costs require a large cash outlay, the transition
from rental to for-sale housing can be a hardship for most low and moderate income households.
City of Chula Vista 13;3-/:;: Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan One-Year Use of Funds
-------..- ....,--
The City will provide subsidy funds for the down payment in the form of a loan and will also
provide a portion of the closing costs in the fonn of a grant. Funds for this program will be
utilized from HOME FY 1998,99 funds.
Maintaining Affordable Housing
In 1968, HUD developed the 236 program that provided both mortgage insurance and mortgage
interest reduction to any for'profit or non,profit developer who agreed to build affordable housing
units for families. Chula Vista has four projects which were HUD financed using the 236
program. Currently, two of these projects are nearing the expiration of the affordability term.
Castle Park Garden Apartments consisting of 62 non,elderly units and Rancho Vista Apartments
consisting of 24 non-elderly units. The city is attempting to preserve these units through a
partnership with the apartment owner, lending institutions, and non-profit organizations.
The City also maintains affordable housing through the Community Housing Improvement
Program (CHIP). The purpose of this program is to assist low income households rehabilitate
their existing home. Both single-family and mobile homes are eligible to receive assistance.
Currently, Low and Moderate Income Housing funds are used to fund this program.
Lead-Based Paint
The City currently assists homeowners alleviate lead-based paint hazards through the Community
Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). When lead,based paint is discovered through the
rehabilitation of the property, funds are used to remove and dispose of the paint chips and to
repaint the house. The City utilizes the Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds for this
purpose. No federal or state funds are used in conjunction with this program.
Housing Authority
In 1995 the City received HUD certification to operate as a Housing Authority. The focus of the
Chula Vista Housing Authority is on the development of affordable housing through land
acquisition, bond indebtedness, and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. The Section 108
rental assistance program will continue to be administered by the County of San Diego. Chula
Vista fully supports the County of San Diego in their application for vouchers.
City Administration
The City can allocate 10% or $78,400 of its HOME funds for administration. These funds will
be used for overall administration and coordination of the HOME Program as well as staff time
devoted to individually HOME-funded projects and programs. HOME funds used for
administration do not require a match.
City of Chula Vista t3-/G Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan 14 One- Year Use of Funds
_ ________ ~ __.._.~_.._u~ . _ _~.d._,__·_. --_._-
Table 3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPD Cousolidated Plan
Funding Sources
Entitlement Grant (includes reallocated funds) $2,823,4082
Unprogrammed Prior Year's Income not previously reported $0
Surplus Funds $0
Return of Grant Funds $0
Total Estimated Pro!!ram Income $29,000
I Total Funding Sources: I $2,852,4081
Estimated Program Income
Description Grantee Subrecipient
1. Revolving Loan Fund $29,000
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Estimated Program Income $29,000
2 CDBG Entitlement of $2,008,000 including reallocated 1996·97 CDBG funds of $31 ,408; and HOME
funds in the amount of $784,000 for a total entitlement amount of $2,823,408.
City of Chula Vista 13-/7 Annual Plan:
Consolidated Plan 15 One-Year Use of Funds
_m·.·· _ _ __.._..._._..._._~_._,_~__._.__._~___._...."____'____'_._~--_._"_.
0000008 0
gER-EA-fhER-EA-O tA-
N Ñ
~ ~
~ ~
.,. .,.
III
GI t?
I:! ~ C1
::::s rn c:
:::> .-
o O-g
... I"
C ~
Q) D ~
E «w ~
I- -' ~
t? W:;:rn <I: Q.
C. mt?~Q.~<l:1- ~
o DrnOOrnIO õ
- UWII<l:Q.1- I-
a>
>
Q) (/)
C ...
CJ
C C Q) <=-
ta ta ·....0 !!!
,g- "
^ .. c:
..... "
........a.. t? com
.-I.., -- mC)
.....Q)~:ß ~ð
"U....Q) 0 s:.2t2
ta(/)·- !'-CD"
C)~ 0 ~ 0 0 ]j
C·- C. rn.c: .... c:
.-- - - (1) (1) Q)
(/)00 o..!.::J ãim :=
:::I(/).. :ë;; ~ DD U
OC^ " '" 0 1::C: 'C
o ... a.. Ó 0 (t ,2 ~ Û
:x:" ....0 :g iñ ~ Ii)]¡ .ê õ
~~ ~ ~o
o C .... ",0(1 E 'C "'!
'W, Ø0UJ 000
... a.. C '" .-.-,., U ~!'-
C " .- c: ,,> 0 .'C _ "'
"'... '-'..... :.:: .~('OCCt::c ':> Q)
.... t/) CIJ -s -tV (t :> 16
E .- ê ~.c«ê.i5 - .3 >
... ...J "cñ.8U~,.,~ ' ð: 0
... 8ffi.!!:! ø>-='õ' . N _ g
ca -cQ)-8~>-ãia:ë:::::: § en a
C. c c .-- Q) Q) to .- Q) 0
Q) cot¡::.!e è:'ËIU E co .~ ~ ......
C c>..c,~(t Q)«t:: a CD Q) CJ)
o ol-wu" roo::( co N 1-.... ......
~ ~m .~>-:::J:::!g. 0 0 a..c:g en
*ft 0 (.J Q:) (I)'£: (t 0"--=-0 Z Z t-- ~ « «
v. 2: "..f¡"mrn·ü "' U
~ Q) ~èb'::;E5SC:§ ro
.."I Z C ~ E::J U):J:.¡::¡ _
U) 5'~~oo'>-Uoro .!e
" "0 Urn " >
o o-a. _ -cnt5
.- >-..a E >.ad9 c: Q) ~
2:: Cf)_roC'O:J(I):.¡::¡...... ::J
Q) Q) 0 om 0>5 co'"'"' .c:
en "Cro>..c:cu coð ('-. (.)
£; .~ ~ co:;~~~~ ~ .,
:J Vol I-co'CO(l)J::o.... _ Q)
o Q) Q.Q)'CU)Q)üoro « :t::
>- 0 e..c: C_:.¡:; ua.. .... :::J
(t '~ ro-mo's:õcuttl 0 C/)
1i.í Q) 6r!: C;-gts.cû)û) ~ > tti
:> U) e ¡ß·§.!e<c.255 :ß I :J
.!2 ~ a..~.s :s..~ü~.!2 ã) :5 æ
:J.c 02::Ce·-0:J:J E'- .. >
.c :J :.ë Q) IV 80:E.c:.c: 0 3: 1: .. «
ü a.. I- (I) E a..C>Ut) I ~ ...~:§: €
Q) 0 ~.~ g ::J
:5:5 ~Q)" 0
.9-.9- 'Õ>.6~ LL
Q) Q) :=:J 0 it)
II WC/J...J M
8 ¡j-fr
o
----- -~,--"._"- - . ----~.~,-,,---
0000000 0
~fhfhfhEß-Eß-:ß fA-
N- C\Î
~ ~
'" '"
III
C ) C)
~ ~ æ
- <fJ c:
- :J'-
o O-g
.... J:::J
t: 0 a:
t ) W 0
E <Cf- ~
C) W$:<fJ ;;ï! 0..
Q. OOC)~o..W«f- ro
o O<fJOO<fJJ:O Õ
- üWII~~~ ~
t )
>
t ) III
C ....
CJ
C C t )
t'CI t'CI',""
.c-O
.. D.. ..
__D.. rom
.J W ø ~ m
Q)"'C ~ ;::ð
oð........_ OM
t'CI"" ~ __ Q)
__'A " t--<D _
W'''Cv, en 00.æ
C·- 0 .... c:
.- _0 C. 5 ã) ..c Q).s .!E
'A 0 ::J....... .... 1ti (t _
V,, A 0 'I"'"" :J 00 U
::s VI a.. >- 0 0
o CD.. "! >- t§ a¡~
....0 0 0 g l!!:;:::¡ :!:::E~
....0....0 :g It; N <fJ.s¡ ._0
~ ~ ~o
°Ce! !5 -g~
....D..C "u ~It;
C .- .0 _
t ) 0 .... -c= ;¡: $
III C:'~ 0 ro
E .- co;:o.-o ...J > C1)
..J (/) c: ï:: "0
.... " E-c ro , 0.. s:
a.. 0 We: _ >
ca æ -g.æ:J~ ~ëþ
Q. C a:I (l)LL~ m .!! ._
m II) Q) .:J~ ....... a. c:
G,) ë Q)~bC):= ~ 'õ ::IE
C .- :'¡:;Q)·-c:o N Q)
CIJ 'S; U) C:._ co . ... E
::E .- ~ :J'P..... 0 0 0 -g 0
en ~Éê-§æ zz ròU)ü
. s U)m8'£~
~ '~~..c ~CI)
> .- Q) CD Q)...J
ro >o.J::5 (I) "
- ......... c:
..ê c..a.õ \1)£
Ü .c.Q,c a.....
- .2~"Säj.E ('-.
o üQ)o>-2 (f)
.0 U)"O>'cø 0
:J en ;:: oQ)mS _
U- Q) '--.c Co «
o <.9 ...._:J Q) "-
en'- V'_ (.J 0 0
;:: 2: ad.!!:! 0 U c: ('0.
¡ñ <1) U):!:::.... 0 ro rn >
'oJ (f) >ocm....c: U'JI:
oð u 0.eõ.em ..!!!
UJ:'= ccoœ"O'E m£
>...c CD Q.ro Q)'- E .- .....
o::S ..co...cøco 03: 1:::-:...
m a.. l-oo:JE I$ ...!!$
Q) 0 .è;- ,Q. co
.r:...c: :: U" ._
.......... ..c .....
B-..e- "õ..6 ~
Q) Q) :.=:J 0
II WCI)...J
g /3 - (9
o
-------...------ -...._._.._._------~..._--.
0000000 0
8i09-f;ß-ER-tI7fA-g fß-
C\Î C\Ì
~ ~
<I> <I>
IJ
GI l?
~ ~ ~
:2 ~.~
o o-g
.... J:::>
C ~
Q) 0 ~
« W ,Q
E I- ~
l? W$:(/) ;;! Cl.
Co ml?~Cl.~«1- ~
o 0(/)00(/)J:0 Õ
OWJ:J:«Cl.1- I-
Q)
>
Q) .¡g
C to)
CCQ) =
tIS tIS ·...0 ~
- .,
,C1l.... <=
... .,
__11. l? rom
..,. ...,......... 0) 0>
AJlQ)"'C ~ ;::0
wg"'G) 0 Q~
tIS 11)'- .... CD .£1
C)-c 1: 0 0 .,
C .- 0 ~ >. .. .. E
.-- Co - _ CD CD Q)
II) 0 () CD .... ... _ ._
O .- - CD com _0
::::s0... :is 0 :2 CO
OCIl. ::> N LlJ ""<= 'tJ
o a.. Ó 0 m.Q Æ:1û
::I:,,,....O :g:;;:g 1ñ:g¡ .5õ
~~ ~ ~o
°c E 'tJ '"
tÐ en 0 od
....Il.C .E", 0 ~:;;
C,,,- Cl.- _
(1)'-'1;) ~-gm ~.g!
E .- ~ m E q ~ Q)
...J '0- ...J ._ "'C
.... ~ <= 0 ð:: "'
... «I~~ . N ... 5-
ea ~c:....~ ::=:::c:zo
Co - CD Q) c: (t .9:1 ._
"Ca..~Q) -o.C
(1) Q) Q)ã):.: co '(3 ::I
C ~'tJ'tJ" 0 ., E
o ~.~ >. "! ..c E
. C) C)(/) ~ goo R:J 0
tIJ Æ rJJaQ)Q) ZZ 1.0(/)0
. 0._ (/J - C)
~ c: E....§m
~ e! :g,o=æ
.... ~"'C>o
CD ......!!! ._
m a.,c Q) ~
Q) JaŒE:H
~ Q)'_o~ ~.
'-' Q)"C.c ~ (/)
J!! en € G)c co 0
CD E S..c: ~ U) _
CD e! c:õ~~ ~
.e: C) 0'tJ'-"C 0
:S e (I) c:~ Q) (". ><c: a.. ã;CO-> (1)_
0.... Q) en c:!¡:: :ß I
J!!.2 ::2 0';;>' ã) ..c:
CU c: Q)"i= c: CU E :!:::
Q) IV ..c Q)';:;"'C 0 ;: "E ;..:..
~ UJ ~ 00:.: co I ~ .,.~ $
<l) 0 ;:;'.9- co
J: J: := 0., ._
-- .c -
..e- ..e- 'Õ)..6 ~
Q) CD :=:J 0
I:r: WCI)...J
g ß -.:J-O
o
---..--.--- """--- ._.__.._"._~_._..._____.___._..__....__ ____. ._,._.u___
0000000 0
gfß-Eß-fR-Eß-tftg Eß-
..¢ -..:i
'" '"
III
( ) ø
~ ~ t»
::s en c:
=> .-
o O-g
.... J::J
C ~
II) 0 ~
E « w .g
ø w:;:t; ;;! 0-
C. mø~O-w«~ ro
o OenOOenIO Õ
- üWII«O-~ ~
II)
>
II) J!!
o u
C C II) ""
ca ca ·0-' !!!
.0- Q)
Q. ... c:
... Q)
--cQ. ø ~m
.,,# -- Q)Q)
..... II) -C '" ;:: 0
~""'Q) ~ OM
ca 1/)'- t:: ¡¡; Q)
C)-c 0 ~ 0 0 ]j
C = C. (/) __ >- .... c:
-- Q) 1:: Q) Q) CD
1/)00 .2 - Q) 1ií1ií =
::II/)... :is è5 :E 00 Ü
OCQ. "N W t::c: ..,
o a.. Ó 0 roO ~_
:I:O~ L{) r-... 0 èñ~ "ËS
..... 0 0 It') '"'" c.. ~ g
00.... E ..,<q
WI 0 00
....Q.C Ü ~I'-
CO"- _L{)
II) 1ií ~$
E .- 0 g!
...J '- S -.J ._
~ .E:: ;...èï.
- c:0 C\I _
'" C» 0 Q) . ::=:: ffi C/)
a. .£ E..E$ ~ ï5. æ
Q) CIJ OO(/) aJ.ÕCl)
C g 0)-:8 ~~~
:I: .5·¡¡;~ 0 0 o.c:g
~" "t:I (fJ.!:Q) zz 1'-"«
V~ Q)::S _ U LO en
'- 0 C):::J
~ tU .!:c:"t:I
..., .J:: _.,...<1)
,,, II) -....
V> g1! '" 0
:ß ~~ro èñ
.!:! .Q:c ai 0;
~ '" Q) E ". «
~ CI) .~ø~ en ü
(õ E ~~ ro º cõ
'õ ~ "01::0) ~ ]?
o C) :J.-.5 0 >
en e o..!a~ ('-. > ('¡
c: a.. :CCUCl) ~ _ _
ro '- "C-5C/) wI .È
CD.2 ~'> Q) ã) ..c: U
..c: c: cu·_ø E=="
"5 Q) ..c:"C 0 0 3: ë -, ã:f
...J (J) (1).5:5 :I: m ...~:g ~
Q)Q ~'ðg û5
== :ëQ):';= LL
.9-B- '(;)15 f3 0
Q) Q) :.=:::J 0 """
IJ: WU>-I C\I
I'-
§ ¡S -.;) (
- - -__.___....._..._.___. _. .." "__ ..___.'.' m__.___ __ ___,__.,_.____._~._._
0000000 0
gER-ER-fflfA-Wg EA-
r--: r-:
.,. .,.
III
CII (!)
~ ~ œ
::I UJ c:
=> .-
o O-g
- J:::>
C ~
Q) 0 ~
« W .Q
E f- ~
(!) W5:UJ <l. "-
~ OO(!)~"-ø«f- m
o OUJoOUJJ:O Õ
- UW~I~~~ ~
Q)
>
Q) II)
o -
CJ
C C Q) <::-
III III ·~o i!!
..Q- "
a.. ... c:
... "
......11. (!) 000>
...."..., '"-' C)C)
.....Q)'C:ß ;:::ò
~"'CI) 0 Q£2
III .ft·- .... CD "
C)'C v. 2: 0 0 Q;
c:: -- 0 ~ >. .... E
.- _0 c. 0 Q) ï:: tV ~ .!1:!
III 0 .-........ IV 16 (U _
:::Jrn~ ::c 0 ;Q 00 ü
OCIl. ::> N W t::c: -C
o c.. c:i 0 ro.Q ~'Ô
:I:U-O :g:;; g ëñ]1 .50'
.... Co ...J 0
00- -C E -c"1
WI c: 0 00
-Il.C "'. ü ~:;;
CU- ~-
III' ... "C C c: :> Q.)
\,II' f/) Q).- Q) ... 16
E .- e>"S! E -'0 >
...J cu.= >- .¡::
t:: 'E°o 'a..
....-gcu£"õ.. Ñ'-
ca æCU~tnE ;::::::c:",
C. >.?;-cu E Q) .!. .il Q)
"" Q).- rn co 10.. ...... ._ (I)
W" 1....(6._ '- 0 ""'-J () I/)
O Q.::J"CC)'- 0 Q) Q)
oC"'-ceC ~....-c
.... c: a.m 0 0 0 -g "'C
~" £}~rocn~ zz [(;cn<C
Vtl a._-C::J c: a
::J E~~.gQ) ,....
jo~cuE ~
ca c...~ > ~ (J)
en tn E"C ~(U «
~ ~.- S'!:: æ u
.~ ·~-g~~E~ ~
Q) Q)ro:!:om(U b; t)
CJ) en UJc_>.cno 0 :>
Q) E Q).Q o..c t'GJ:. _
> >- Cf. o:!::: « ro
.- ~ .- ~ ~ c:J:: co '- "'5
1:5 C) õ:,=cQ)'=::Q) 0 ..c:
.23 e !! ra tV.!:::! m..c: ('0. > U
e a.. e §"g15.c ¡;- ~ -J: -"
a.. .... a..:¡:¡ tV --c Q) Q)
.=::.Q -.3 c.o.e.... W :; ~
::J c: "'5:;::; Q)ï:: 1::"5 E ._ ....
"C ( ,) "C (I)"C " "-c os: ë.. en
....- en c:c: E ~
-. <(._.- en co I æ ...~ ~ """')
Q) 0 .?;- .9- § 1i.í
== B~:¡:¡ ~
.9- .9- 'Õ)..s B ......
Q) Q) :=::::1 0 0
II WUJ...J C"')
00
§ /3-;);}.
,-._-- - -"" - - - .--_._-~ .. -- ----. -...- .~..._..- ---'~-_.""-------~------"----
0000000 0
8ER-~ER-WW8 ER-
¿ I.Ô
'" '"
UI
CD t?
~ ~ æ
;:, (f) I::
:J .-
o O-g
- I::J
C ~
Q) 0 ~
E _W g
~ I- ~
t? W$:(f) -' 0-
C. mt?~O--«~ m
o O(f)OO~IO Õ
- üWII«O-I- I-
Q)
>
Q) III
C Õ '"
CCQ) ¡¡
ca ca -"'!"'t (/) Q.)
- 0 8 z
.QD..... .- _
... ~ '"
__D.. .,'¡; "''''
....I"" en Q.) C)C)
..... ..... a. _ _
~-~ '0 (f) ~o
1;(1) ~..c: Q~ cu
CI'tJ III c. "" ::; ¡g ã;
C:: 0c. ~ ~ .... 'E
-- 0 :c¡ ã) c: Q.) Q) Q)
11I11I0 æ ~ 0 ê616 Ü
:::::I ... 0 ~ 00
o cD.. I "! ., tl:: '0
O ~ 0 a.. CUC .!!_
:I:.... ~.... _._ ._ 0
00 :g '" ¡;¡ (f)]¡ .50'
.... a. ...J 0
°CCI 'E E '0",
Q) VJ 0 00
- D.. C 13 E c.'" ü ~....
C 0 .- Q) >. 0 ~ _ to
"'" .... ·_o......c:·_ ... :> Q)
- III 0-- ø- Q) ;> _
E 10.. a.:t:::~ c: ~ 0 «J
.- Q.E ~ C5~"O.... ...J .~
~...J 8> ~w~ :l:.£ æ ~ ;... à:
Q) '--C:Q)_ C\I _
ca .- ro0Q)..c:ccn.o _c:
C. 0 ~o "''01- <1>,5:.2. _'" ., "'.,
.,.- E> .-
CD C:.c 'c ~ . >0,= Q) èõ .90 ~
C ~ S! Q.)I,-(/) 0-£ 0 () Q)
- 0 ø ro~"'ã.æ.... C\! ~ L.. M
o U C'Dû.í:= E't:'.!! 0 0 o.o::g a
rn t) roõ5~ CÞ &ái z z ~ ~ <t: N
a:: CJ-5møQ)Eo (J)
~ <{ .Ec3~C5.-- <
o ~o..c:-"'ã.Q)Q) ü
en a.UÜSx'~~ _
.~ eSC5C:Q)~a. &
o a.O-Q)E.eu~ Q)
c: OJ(/) mOo ._
m .~ Q) a.a..!1-c >.. CI
(/) .....- 0..9: c: c: (1) ('0. c
- ,æ0..c:øcom..c: en co
o c:c:~[;.g.ø- 0 (f)
.... C1>CUï::'OoQ)ø -« _
Q) UC/) 0 :e:¡::; (t Q)
ë øõ~-g cu:B~ <5 ê
Q) ø c: (t a.'_3:2 ('. > CD
ü ~ü o-:¡:: ~ en ~ _ >
CI).... uct::e B..2 0 C) Q) I «
~ Q) «« ø,Ci)Cõ 0..5 ã) .; b
u..c: m..c::c>. "'Co. E'- ._
f.) Õ ..c:~ ~..c~ c: 8 0 3: "E.:-:... .....,'"
« 1-:>1-0.:>(0 I ~ ...~ ~ >
Q) 0 ~.~ § 'ë:
== ß( ):'¡::; =:I
.9-..e- 'a.s B U')
Q) Q) :.:::1 0 (j)
II WVJ-I ~
'"
g ,¿ ,;73
-..-.-.----...-- -...--..------.--.---.
0000000 0
869-~ER-ER-ER-g ER-
N' Ñ
~ ~
'" '"
III
Q <:>
~ ~ æ
::::s ~.s
o o-g
- :r:"
C 0 ~
Q) w 0
E <l:f- -' ~
<:> W:S;ø « a.
C. ~<:>~a.OO«f- ro
o oøoOø:r:o Õ
- üw:r::r:«a.f- f-
Q)
>
Q) J!
o u
C C Q) c-
IU IU '~O i!!
....- '"
.... Q. ... c:
... '"
....-Q. <:> - 00'"
~w '-' CO Q)C')
.....Q)"C iß Q; :;::ð
wg""CU 0 c: Qc?
IU ... .- '" .... to ~
CI"C v. C: <:> 0 0 '"
C·_O ~ -; ....1:
.-- C. ~ _ Q) Q) Q)
o (,) ... a. _ _ ._
~CI)~ 15 ~ ~ ~~ ü
OCQ. "N a. tc: "
o a. ci a ra ,2 ~ C3'
=U'õ :g:;; ~ ù5ï :§8
00'" E ,,"'!
w, 0 00
-Q.C ü ~:;;
CU" 8 -",
Q) UI c: ~1ij
E .- .æ -' .2:
~ ...J .~ ..c: , a:
~-ë~ N'-
CU (t 0 (t X 53 /I'J
C. .... 0 CD (t ._ Q.)
m- UJ '-' Q. en
Q) "'C Q)"':D Q).üCl')
O c: "'11)0 0 Q) Q)
co ~='- C'! .a -0
I w¿ 00 O::J"'C
en 13 -g-£šg ai Z Z ro (fJ <{ a
. .~ tU.r: cu 0 ..-
.... 0 »"''' c: N
-.I ct g~:a.B C)
"'Ø"'E~ «
U) ~'E ~ ()
~ Q)~ ¿ra Ò
.- E()o~ C)
2: Q)ø:'¡::¡:= ('-. Q)
Q) c: Q) m:.;::::¡ (fJ ._
en co.Qõ:J 0 0
- I/J en> a."'C - c:
,~Q) --0 en &:: « co
0.2 "'C Ì5.c: to .... C/)
o ~ c: (0- 0 ~
cn ~ m(ij....Q,) ('-'> '"
c: Æ I..c:+:g ~ _ ª
e! u 13::~~ ..9:!I Q)
QJ:.: Q) Q)'- II) Q) .;:; >
.r:..c '~"E=ëñ E ._ .;..; «
'5 ~ e Q).Q /I'J 0 :t C:':-:"'..c:
...J..... a.. 0 <..'I co I ¡g ...!!:! ~ '5
(1)0 b·9-0C: 0
..c:.c: := Yo._ u..
-- J:)....-
.Q..Q. 'õ,ß B a
Q) Q) :=:J 0 'I""
II WC/)...J C"')
~ IS ,;;2 c.(
.. ---.-----. -, ._.._-------_._.__.~.,_._-- ----~-_._._,_.__._..._.._,.
0000000 0
8tß-**Cß-Eß-8 Eß-
M M
'" '"
... ...
III
CII "
~ ~ ~
::I en c:
::::> .-
o O-g
... I:J
C ~
Q) CI ~
E _W ~
~ f- ~
" W$:en ;;! a.
Co OO,,::¡a.ø«f- m
o ClenOOenIO Õ
- üWII~~~ ~
Q)
> :¡¡
Q) II) i;
C 1:) 'Ë
CCQ) U
C'CI C'CI.õ' a¡
.Q 0..- ... õ
... "
....."Co.. '¡;, <XJO>
-' œ œ œ
-.JItm-g z ;::õ
~..., It... 't) 0 ("')
caW" c: r:::- Q)
CI"C ~ '" 0 ~ ];!
C -- """ ~.s:::; ..', c:
·--0" (/) (j):; Q)J!! Æ
In 0 ::J -- 1ûaJ _
::sø.. .c 0 .J!. 00 ()
o Co.. « "! 0 "'§ a¡
...0 zoo "'._ "'õ'
.....,"''1- LO f'..,. \:D û)-a:;: E-
.....'-'0 0 LO ..... 'ã. ::J8
0c 0 E -0"'
C) - « 0 00
....c..C ¡ß Uø ü:2rò
C () .- c: ,,__ ~., _
"......., 0 ._ 0 0 Q.) ~ Q)
- II) .- 2:" ~ ,. _
E -- ~ Q).º~~ uiû5 .9 .~
.....J è: ~E.~a.0 c:~ I a:
... II) U Q) c.. 0._ _
ca E (U>E~:gE ~E
- Q)~ tn-CO _ CD VJ
a. cð -= a. 8 '>- 01.1.. ~ '5. m
Q) ::J(l) (1)« OJ'-ø
C § o.s:::;·!!!.!!!~u 0 ~ Q)
.- '0-- ::J'-OI::: N ... ...
- c:c:CU.s:::;Cc:: <:).c '0
w: CU'- tnü::l>- 0 0 ......::J""C
UJ > c:32&..E-c zz 1.000« 0
Q) oaJoøEc: .....
:::) ct :';::¡oc..~OaJ ~
" fj- ".;;U ui 0>
o ::Jø>~"'Q) «
c: 'O'~'-Q)Ou U
Q) Q)=1ûcn":::'~
o (l)EoþQ)Q) cõ
:> Ë ~J!!.c·ëE(I) ct.i C'" $
~ ~ ':;-gJgg :JE~ B.~ C/) >
E C) ettl Q)cè: Q .!!!
ca e Q...c fI) E.s:::;~ Q) « :::I
IJ... c.. E"S:ë8:'.Q(I) 0 ë3
s Q) ~ g.~ >.c> C) ('-. > .
(I) E C) .mQ)o.f;; "'_ Q.)
.>- 'C 0 ¿mID E:-=-Qi en I :::J
U "-(1)0 t(l)ø Q) c:
cu. c......CJ::mQ)c: ã;..c: Q)
"S:.¡::; (I):B~"Sa.E:::J e:!::: >
J::.5 :C:coocuoo 0 3: E;..:.. «
u"'" l-o'>CI)CCU ::r: m ...!:!:! ~ €
mo Þ·e-c:o :J
.r:..s:::; := ~._ 0
- - ..c.... - L1...
.e-.e- ·5 B B
Q) Q) =:J 0 ~
I:r: WCfJ...J C"')
~
8 13-~~-
- - ___._n____.__...___...'.._ ._.......____..__~~_._.__"_."_.._...___ ~___.__
0000008 0
8 Eo9- Eo9- Eo9- Eo9- Eo9- o~ ...
. N
N ...
...
UI t9
~ Z C)
.. ¡¡; "
:::J ::> 'õ
0 0 "
::¡
J: u.
.... 0 -
I: 0
tII w -
~ f- ...J 0-
E W en <t ¡;;
c.. gc:J~g,gj:n) õ
.2 8æII«c..~ f-
tII
~ I/ '"
'"
C Õ "
ã;
I: I: tII ]! E
0
C'CI C'CI'~ " J:
.cã:e "
" " .,0>
~"C11. ~ m ~ ~
~ 0
'" 0 ~~
oðtll"C !S .c "
....tII .~ ~ 00 ã;
C)C'CII/ '" 'E
" " Qj Qj "
1::2 ° 0
en ~ f!' 16 16 U
.- Õ c.. " 00
~ " "
I/ I/ o :is 0 a. t: " "-
i51:ò: ::¡ N 0 19~ :!::: ()
a. c:i 0 E-
en " :J :5
:1:0.... '" I"- 0 C.
0 '" ., E ",,<
....Uo '" 0 o ¡2
° C C) '" ü ::;;: '"
" - "
....11.1: ã; ~ -
I:U'- E o '" "
tII 1ií 0 ...J .~ ~
.c ~a.:s:
E .- " ~'Eb
1:: ...J .c'
-$ ~.~ 1=
o.~
:1 -;;;> co .- :::I
o " E
-'" N ~ E
tII "'-
,,::¡ '" 0 ci .0 0
C E.c ~Z I"- ::¡ Ü
_ü ",en
en ~õ
"",
::J ~'E
-"
(1):2
"'"
en " "
0 'S: ~ ",.
~ 2E en
~8 0
¡;; > "'" «
" I ".- -
::;;: ::;;:~ 0
oð "'0 ",. >
'" '" -i;'~ '" -
-,., '" :ß J:
'" "
" ã; " " ã)~
f!' E f!'> E .- 'E.:-:..
::¡ ::¡" o ~ " '"
.c 0 .c" J: " .. "is..-
f- J: f-'" '" ~'õ §
" 0
.c.c := Q):¡::;
- - -" - rJ
0.0. ·æ..c
ã3ã3 .- :::I 0
J: J: WCI)...J
N
(; /3-d-~
0
-...--. --
"- ----- .-....--
.->---
00000°8 0
8E09-fhMME09-0 to")
LÔ LÔ
N N
'" '"
U
GI CJ
~ ~ ~
:J ~.5
o O-g
+' ~::I
~ ~ ~
( ) 0_
...... W .Q
E -f--
CJ W$:'" ;¡! Q.
~ mø~~æ~~ ro
o o",oo",J:O Õ
- UWJ:J:«Q.f- f-
( )
>
( ) I/
o +'
U
~ C ( )
ca ca ·.....0 iß
.c- 0
11. ... .-
..... 2: ~
....."C- "ñi "''''
--' VJ.... 0) 0)
( )"C " __
..... 1:J <:: ~ 0
~....Q) Q) Q) E?C2
_ca... e.e. CJ ....co ~
w'''C v. - 0 0 "
~.- 0 IS ~ .... ë
.--c. '-.- a. GJQ) Q)
O "C Q.) 0 _ _ ._
In 0 c: -- Q) roro C3
:::::s tIJ ... ~ 0 a.. Q 0 "'C
0~1l. ~ 0 'l::g "
.... 0 '" 0 0 CO._ ""
....,..... "'.... '" U5a; E
....'-'0 0 LO N a. :.J
0001 !5 -g
+'Il.C ü ::;:
CU; co _
( ) I/ - ~ ~
E .- 0 0 .3 æ Q)
...J -......... "C
1:: "''''' , E '5
~'5~ .- E >
ca Q).Q:S¡: ~ Q) ~
c.. .Qui:!! ~~ï=
Q) ~.~ ~ co c:> :J
O _Ë 0 0 _ E
"':¡:¡ '" ~ co E
"co- 00 000
E - Q) I'-- 0
en i!! ~1j I?- Z Z '" -' ü
OJ 0·-$
::::I 0 ~ ....e.~.5
-" J::
c.. Q) Ea.g
~ E e (1):5
:;:; 0 0» en
:J:r: 0 e c:
"e. C: à:a.E~u) ('0.
-- '"
e ~ ~.- (f) ~ 0
Q)..... .- a)""C-c _
.r: en '5-1::.- «
I-"C Q)z.ttI.~ ....
ctI IV a.U) ~"'C 0
1;) cv œ~ ~.5 ~ >
.- Z Q)-C-c (1)-
> tU .,c>.Q)Q) Q):I:
~ 'õ I-É;g:s ø :5
:J Q) Q,) m c: m E ._
.c a. .r: CD o.~ 0 3: ë ..:-:..
U CJ) I--J: (J"'C :r: ~ ...~ ~
Q) 0 ~ ,9- co
.J::.c ::=0"._
- - ..c -
.9-.9- 'Õ>.E~
Q) Q) ==:J 0
x:r: W(J)...J
...
8 /3 -;2.7
- . -.....--..--.. - ,---" - .- -
00000°8 0
gto")to")tß-ER-ER-o ER-
.,¡ ..¡
~ ~
'" '"
I/)
( ) ø
~ ~ 0
::s ~.5
o O-g
- I::J
C ~
( ) 0 ~
W °
E ~~ -' ~
(9 W$:CJJ ..: 0..
C. m(9~o..~..:~ ro
o OCJJOOCJJIO Õ
- UWII,,:o..~ ~
( )
>
( ) III
C -
(.)
CCQ) =
IV IV '-0 I!!
.c- "
ft ... C
...... "
....._n. (9 = 000>
....I W '-" (U CD m
.....Jt(1)"C ~ Q) ;::Ò
wgi""'CI) 0 C Q~
IV III ._" .... CO "
C)"C 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ]i
C .- C. rJ)" .... c
.-- W - Q) Q.) Q,)
(/)°0 .~ '-" a. 1016:=
::::sena.. :is 0 g 00 ~
O C'" ::s C\, a.. t c Q.)
0.... a.. 0 0 ca.Q :'!:û
J:()-O :g tõ;;; ø]¡ .~O
.... Co ...J 0
00'" E -0"1
WI 0 00
-n.C U ~tõ
C () .- ",-0 _
Q).... _cQ) 3;$
U) :J CU (J)~ 0 ro
E '- ,c_ "'_ . >
..J UO;¡: _._
~ (1)0 .£ a:
..c:'5 § ~ Ñ .....
ca :: (f.):.¡::¡ CU ::::;:, ~ C/)
C. 0_= L.. ca ._ Q)
-rom -a.ø
(1) "'C:J Q:!::: 0) 13 UJ
C m~ u::: ~ IV 2:!
ï:: t/) 0) . ..c "C
c.,s:c c: 0 0 ~:J "C
tn E.~""'·õ Z Z LO en ct: ;:
. 8> ·i 0>
=» .~~~ ~ a;
-..c:>- ~
~ ro", 0 Ü
t;;.," (I)-CU-
ea 0 (1)- (t _
.E o...c:¿ 0 S
.- e""'ü C) .~
...J o.~ Q) (". >
o ¡;",--.c; CJ)
:= Q.)(tJ0..... 0 cu
..c UJ > .s..c..c: _ "5
:J Q) :.æ.-::s:!::: <t: ..c:
a...2 ....--'ü 3: .... ü
co ~ ou"O . 0 _
..... Q) .c= (\: mb (". > Q)
.~ U'J ~-§ ~..c:ï= ~ _ ::::¡
> 0 oa...a.~:J Q) I ~
J!!:.:: °m:«:ëE ã).c:. >
:J.c en..... C'OE E:!::: .. <{
..c::J :ë!2Q)û)o 03: ë;..:., CD
U a.. 1->£11)0 Iæ ...!!:!~ C)
4>0 ~.g.c æ
..c:..c: := O".Q '-
- - '" - 0
c.. a. '-.c ~
Q)Q) g::¡o Q)
II W(f)...J ffl
CO
8 ,6-;;22
,_._~ .....___. _ ".···~.m . _.'___ ... .___~_____..._._ . ,_ 'n _._ .."...__.. _.. .'_____..._
C")ooooo~ 0
T'""MMMMMN '"
N. T'""-
~ ....
.... '"
'"
III (!)
GI
U z C)
.. ¡¡; c:
:::J ::::> 'õ
0 0 c:
:J
I u.
- 0 (;
c
CII W 'C:
~f- -' a.
E W en <{ (ij
Co ~(!)::;;a.¡¡;<{b Õ
0 oenOOen5:f- f-
OWII<{
CII
>
CII II)
C Õ
c c CII 1i!
CIS CIS .~ Q)
.a-O c: "'0)
...a..â: Q)
f2. ~~
::>'C ~ 0
U) Q £:2
O/SCII'C 1J Q)
.... CD Q;
-CII '1': 00
C)ClSII) .. Q) 'E
Q) Q)
c:Eo en .c: J!J _
~ '5 '" '" Ü
.- Õ Co " 00
C; 0 "0
II) II) 0 :¡; >- to c: J!J~
:J N 0 s:§
Scâ: a. .- "
ci 0 E ~
.... '" en~ .- 0
ZO_ '" ~ Q, -'0
0 '" E "0 "'!
_UO 0 00
o C C) ü ::;;....
"0 -'"
-a..C tt:æ ;;: .2
CU'- c:s C) 0-
CII ø -' .c
.2 en c: :J
E .- ãJ~'ë Q) , a.
...J Q)L.,C:..c: Ñ'-
1:: L.,::::Jco_ ::=:: ~ en
u 0- L.,
Q)..c: 0..0 co .- Q)
CIS ~ Q, U)
0:: "0- ~ 'õ m
Co ctI§c:tn
+:CUE N ~ L.,
CII L.,ctlL.,ctI . .c "0
C oSQ)Q)L., o 0 o :J "0
J!H3"E g zz [õcn<t
enQ)Q)a.. ~
~ ~
00::0 ~ 0)
u_ Q) c::.,: a;
::> ::t:: 0J::.2·õ
Sw-;-ro.æ <{
tn....cQ)Q) 0
Ii; caLL+:C:s..c: <i
'E <5~ e~; ". 1ñ
Q) .... ·Q)enen en :>
"'CMc..::::J::::J 0
0 Q)"C 0 0
en c: Q)'!:: 0 « '"
c: U) ::::JctI..cctl1 "5
.2 1J (; .c:
1ií Q)-=> 0
'1': ..c-.§: C)en ~~
~ - <5 c:"E 1i>
" Q) := en!;::"(i) ca :ß I
Q) en ~.- ctI·- 0.. ~
0:: .2 en 2:-2:·Õ ã)=
"'C Q) tn Q)._ E .- 1i5
>. :¡; c: Q.Q) Q.i o ;;: c:,.:..:.
'" :J ::::J::::J..c:::J Q) U) c:
Õ a. LLcn....tnQ. I Q) >"õ.. C .¡¡;
U)
Q) 0 ~ 'õ 0 ::;;
== =: Q) +:
.c ~ r¡ ;¡i;
Q,Q, '5 ..c
ã)ã) .- ::::J 0 '"
II wcn...J '"
N ¡3 - ~c¡
~
0
_._,-~--~-~_._. -.-'-
__.n ..._____.___"_
IOOOOoo:g 0
~~~~~~co .,.
ri ri
N N
.,. .,.
III
III CJ
U Z
.. ë;; '"
::::I "
0 ::> '5
0 "
- I =>
C LL
CII 0 ~
..;W 0
E ."
" W~t:.; ;;! 0-
Q, ID ,,:2 O-ë;;-O: I- -¡¡;
° OenOOenIO ~
ãi üWII-O:O-I-
>
CII If
C -
(,,)
CCCII
tIS tIS .-
.0-0
... D.. ...
:J'OD.. '" CX) '"
oðCll'O " ~ð
u
-CII '2 §~
CltlSlf "
" Q;
c:2 ° en 'E
~ ,., Qj åj
.- Õ Q, 0 Q;' '5j .!!!
1f 1f 0 .¡: ~ 1U 1ii ë3
" ~ 'C 00
::::I ... en 0 ¡¡j
° CD.. N t:: " 'C
.2~
J:0.... ;¡¡ cj 0 ca .2 .- u
.... 0 û54í E ~
....UO 0 "' N ._ 0
ã. -'0
° C CI " E 'C ~
.Q 0 00
-D..C ü :2 ....
CU'- 1ií - "'
CII ø .-- ~ .2
:50 o co "
E .- CO" ...J.È: "'C
t:: ..J ""'"
,,=> ;"O-~
~"
tIS ~ ~"" ~E~
Q, 0 o_ m Q) .-
-" .5.!: -'ã. c:
CII "" E'" co .- :J
C '" ",=> o U E
'Q; "e N !! E
Z :25 o 0 o..c 0
~ '" >", Z Z [(;~c..>
" Eo
."
:J co 0.._
ü E:¡¡
, co'"
'" ~"
:s 8'E
'2 5.8 ".
~"
" 0·- en
en -"~ 0
-¡¡; ·2>0"': :;;:
,,- 0
'õ Zo-" ~
0 -co 0
en "':s- ~;:::
" .5 Q) :ß I
!!! æC:Q)
~ üco_
" " o" m5
"" "" /1)'- :J E .- Ë ..
'5 Õ "'- o ~
"""'0
-' I-co> I " "ûì'
'" þ:9. e-
" 0
55 :.:: (J 0
15 Q) :0::::;
0.0. 'o,.Q B
ã)ã) :.:: :J 0
II wen-,
....
~ ¡8,~
0
0
._____"__"'"_____,___~_ -0'0'- ".."~_"..____._
0000000 0
gER-tI)-ER-Eß-ER-g ER-
0- ci
'" '"
... ...
III
GI C)
~ ~ 0
- en I::
- :J'-
o O-g
+' ~"
~ ~ ~
CI) 0 ~
E ~W ~
C) w~~ <i! "-
a. mC)~"-ø~~ m
o oenOOenJ:O Õ
- üWJ:J:~"-~ ~
CI)
>
CI) /I
o +'
t.)
~ ~ CI)
ca ca·....
.a-o
~Il.~
....._Il. 'E coO>
-' w ø œ œ
.....CI)"C E ;::ð
~~CD B !i2~
\Wø ~ ~~
C)"C O.E 0 0
C'-a. WI:: ....
'--0 û ..c: Q) CD
/I 0 tD -- "5 1510
::stn.. "C ~ 0 00
0~1l. 0 N >- tl::
o Ü 0 0 caO ca-
J:O.... 1.0 I'-- LO û5~ Q).£
.... 0 'I"'" 1.0 ...... c.. .4: 8:
00.... E 'C"'
WI 0 00
+'Il.C OJ ü ~:;;
CO+; =.8 _ Q)
CI) U §..coo ~ro
E ...J- :æ j-g~ .3 .~ ~
+' 0 "<11 , ..
... :s .9--....00 _D..::>
ca to ~ ~C)B ~ E
a. W ....:.;:¡Sc mÆ~
Q)øcoQ) -c.C
Q) :.e € Q),Q"C gs '(3 ::J
C ~ m~"C~ NWE
e c.a.d~ ~ a :c E
. C.9 c:.... Q) 0 0 r-...::I 0
U') ._~.~ .s -g z z 1.0 VJ Ü
VJ 1IJ"';t::(tI
:) I I~i~
1: 1:E,,::¡
Q) CD"t::bW
C/) CIJ [._ c:
b bw§ëi.i
'c 'co e..ð ('-.
~ ~U~ ~
o OD.. .....¡:: <t:
u Umëi>c. 0
>. >-(¡)£c ('.'>
(t <0._ Q.)o ~ _
CC cc>::J"C Q) I
..c: ø :5.!!!.f;;,S Q) ..c:
'S:5 ::I::Ië.5 E~.....
o 0 0-" 8 <11 0 ~ I:: ^
en Cl)U Co I æ ...!!:! $
Q) 0 b .9- co
J:..c: =~._
-- .0.....-
.9-.9- 'õ.E ~
(() CI) :.::J 0
II W(I)...J
co
8 ;3-31
,,_.,_.._._.._,_..,~
0000000 0
g Eß. ~ fA- fA- fA- 8. fA-
ci 0
'" '"
'" '"
UI
CII <9
~ ~ 0
- CIJ 0:
- ::J'-
o O-g
- I:J
C ~
Q) 0 ~
« w .2
E f- -' ~
<9 w:S;CIJ « Cl.
~ ~<9~Cl.ø«f- ~
o OCIJOOCIJIO Õ
üWII«Cl.f- f-
Q)
>
Q) J
C -
(.)
C C Q)
I'G I'G'-'
.a-O
.. a.. ..
-"Ca.. 'E ~ roC)
.J ø ~ œ œ
...G)"C E ~ ;::0
"V....CÞ Q.) Q) 0C2
"""ca'A e" ;::::(0
w'''C VI .E -- 0 0
C·- 0 o:.!!1 .. ..
.- _0 c. w Õ' a. ttI .s
J 0 Q) -- 0 êUm
::s ,II. "'C N CD 00
VI ... 0 a a..
OCa.. ü N 0 to:
o a 0 co ,2 (tI
J:O.... LO!';:: it) èñã> ~
.... 0 ~"N ëi«
°Ce! ¡¡ '8
-a..C E" ü ~
CO- ~" _
CI) 1;) .... ã. g. 3:_
E -- e ~o 8"0 C: .3 æ CD
.......J a.. ro "gã)':; m ;... E ~
... r::: E~¡¡; a.õ ...... E >
C'G .2 'i::cu"C::::J"C :::=:: Q) ~
Q. êii 0.0 e r::: ~ > 'c
Q) ~ .~.Q.9 CHO co c3 ::::J
C Q) O>"'C"C,,"C 0. ~ _ E
t/) r::: r::: Q)::J . ~ E
~ (ñm~~>< 00 ~oo
UJ a.. g$Q).D'+= ZZ 1l)...J(,)
~ :r:S.D"O.9
~ ~ ~t/)~g"'C
::::J Q) ':Jo C
E C)J:::>-Eco
E .E~~~ ø
o ;gc:§..c:§
Ü ::::J·Õ_.Q>:.;::;
a:p- Q) Q) co u)
C) -S..c:r:::o"C ~
.E ~ æl-;;"> g 0
~ iou)'i~€ ~
o E'+'- Q) r.n 0 0 ....
:r: t::Q)"Cc.u.Q 0
.... m:C 8:E C)J:: ('-. >
""V 0.-- ø c ,91 rJ) _
0> Q) (/) 0> C:'- Q) IIJ I
c.... O§r:::ot5c ..!!..c:
:s ~ o.:.c:.¡::; !:!::!.!::: WE '"
:= _ Q) "'= m.... " ~_
::::J .c. ::::J- 0 0 ;:Þ c: ;..:..
CD 0 I- f!:!..c ~ u£ I m .. Æ ~
þo.o:
Q) 0 .-·õ 0
-5-5 BIl)+::
.9- .9- 'Õ)..6 ~
Q) Q) :=::::J 0
II WCI)...J
'"
8 ¡Ô-3;;L
0000000 0
gtR-~Eß-~b'7~ *
C\,r 0)- "t--
N '" <0
...... ...
III
CII (')
~ ~ C)
- CIJ c:
- :J'-
o O-g
.... I::J
C ~
Q 0 ~
« w .2
E t- ~
(') W$:CIJ ;i D-
C. m(')~D-~«t- ro
o QClJOO(/JIO õ
ØWII«D-t- I-
Q c:
> ';;
Q III 1;;
0.... 0
(,) ü
CCQ OJ
ca ca ...... :É
.Q - 0 '"
... c.. ... :v ..-
ft ~~ _
::J"'C.... Oc.. e ~~
.....Q 'C 01 :g ;::2;
"V....Q) Oc Q) Q~
... III III I'E (') .... <0 .!!!
....'C 0 ü-c ~ 0 0 2
C .- .... w«.!!! .... c:
.- "'õ .... :E::R £ g- .s.s .~
g¡ III 2 0:0 ¡; ~ ~ ~ ü
o c c.. Iõ C"! 0 t:: c: -g
.... 0 m'l:: 0 0 "'.2 ._
.....U.... "''''!:; 0 ù5ãí E
.... 0 T'"" c.. .., ..... c. ::¡
00'" '" E -c
WI Q) 0 0
....Q.C ~ g> ü :¡:
CU+:; 0 :a _
Q .ft ",.c: »._ ~
VI - > 0
E .- .....-0 m 0 ...J
~ MC:Q)C)~
t:: -"'E~
CU-c -c: - N
- 'E - CD 0 (1)'- N .
\V Q) C:co._z.. ::=::N en
C. a::: ~ 3:'~C/)Ü ~ C> ~
(1) B ~ 9 3:~!l) ::.g 0 ¡ß
o IE IE~-ºCIJ= N 0 -6
o Q0ii:-CI) 00 OI"C
UJ >-~~§1i). zz r;;ü<t: 0
ø [CUmE'ëñ¡ß 0;
~ Q) cn..c"Ov>·_ ..-
~ 0 oQ)~"'Ccu~ _
.- - (,,) 0 CU-c Co ....'
~ "'C!E'-cc:::::J «
~ ~o~-cut:: Ü
en 1;) 3: 0
b CD m In bO ~ S
.- ::::JQ)O)'-co (I)
c: tT.s::. QUI ('0. ._
:J ~,-'2:Q)Ug> (J) >
E C) . W£ asëi) º ~
E c: Q) (I) '" _ « ::J
o .- c: ~ ~
Ü Q) ::::J-æ.- (t 0 ....
.c C:._ IIJ .J::. 0 Ü
>- Q) ~ g3:!~~ ~ > ai
¿,g (ije:( (I) O.t:!..c (J) I :J
_J:: c: ro Q) c
.;; iB ~€o~C)"E ã>£ Q)
:::J £ c::Jø:::l8o E·-..... >
o 0 ::::J 0 0 0 Q)1a= 0 3: c:..:-:.. «
(fJ LLLLJ::J:: .... CD I Q) Q) en ..c
(I) >"Õ.C 1::
Q) 0 :!::'(3 0 ::J
£= :ðQ):'¡:¡ 0
Coo. '-..s~ u.
Q)ã> g:JO 1.0
II WC/)...J M
§ 13-33
----.------ -----..-
0000000 0
gtß-~(fl-(fl-(fl-g (fl-
0- ci
~ ~
'" '"
III
CD (!)
~ ~ æ
::::s CIJ"
::J .-
o O-g
..... J:::I
C ~
Q) 0 ~
« W .Q
E f- ~
(!) W$:CIJ ;i D..
C. mø::ED..ø«f- ro
o OCIJOOCIJJ:O Õ
ÜWJ:J:«D..f- f-
Q)
>
Q) rn
C .....
o
C C Q) f¡
III III ..... "
.0-0 .s
... a. ... .!!1
........ a. ~ co '"
'-w « ~~
.....Q)"C ro ~o
wg....Q) 0 0("')
C)n:JU) ï:: U) j::::;(õ
:Eo "5 ffi 00
C C. Q) u> .. ..
.- _0 I- :ô Q) QJ 2
rn 0 - C rom
::;,0.. °8"Ci) 00
OCft W N ::I "'''
o ... CD 0 aJ J9.2 ~
J:()_ co.... 0 ClJa; 0
.... 0 ..... l(') ..... ï5.. ....,
°CC'I ~ -g
-a.C ~ ü ::E
C()- Q) _
Q) .....rn to ~ ;:_
E co co 0 c:
.- ::2 "O!:: ...J Q) Q)
t:: ...J E!g 'E~
8 Q)._ ~,,>
CG 'x t:: f= ctÍ ~ :v þ
c. Q) B Q):t:: co > ._
""= J::U) _ 0 c:
Q) ..:::: w-> OJ CD ::3
C ~ ~.9.!!! ~ ro ~
CD O"C::J 0 0 0 0 0
E '- C..c: r--. 0
en t ~~ü Z Z to...J Ü
co .- CD c
:::J c. ;:"" 0
Q) Cf):;;t/.I
o .¡;; '"13
- >,E co
c C¡;ctla.
CD cl::E
E « "'._
c. _.~C) ".
o QJC c: U)
Ci) ~r-:c 0
> cu CD c _
Q) ::2= Q) «
o 0 a. ....
b 8- ~ ('. 0
.- .- C>( ) U) >
CeI) ><c: r.n-
::J._ Q).¡:: E Q) I
E~ Qj ::ëij~ ãj =:;
Em:5 wt::c E·-...
OE:: 0 J:Q.)Q 03: c;...:..
ü<C I- Q.U I ~ ...~ ~
CD 0 ~.~ ð
== :c (J)"
.9-.9- '~.s ~
Q) Q) :=::J 0
II W(J)...J
~
g ¡3 -34
00 0
00000 0 (ß-
g Eß- (ß- W (ß- (ß- 0.
. 0
o N
N .,.
.,.
III "
ø z ~
u _ c:
... CJ)._
::I ::;) 'C
o 0 §
I U.
- 0 ~
C W ~
II) ~~ ~ ~
E W>(I) « _
á1"::;:~ëñ«b ~
0. O(l)OO(l)~~ ~
o OWII«
ãi W
> ()
II) I/) c:
o - $
CJ .!!1
C C II) ~
111 111 ·....0 «
- - "'0>
,Qa......~ 0>0>
... a.. c: ;:: õ
::J"C CO OM
II)"C £ ~æ
oð_1I) u. ., 00
111 .ft Õ W ..
-"C v. W.,., ¡¡; W
w. 0 ~_ _ II) _ _
C·- ._"" -" W CO CO
_0. 00 - c: 00
.- 0 .... (") ._
I/) 0 O~ 0 ~ t: c: .,
:::::II/)... Wi; N aJ $j1 -"
o CO a.. «u. R 0 (I) ~ ~
"'r-.... Co LO N a.
...,. 'C:_ E '8
~ '"' 0 'S: W 0 ~
- - 'C 0 ~
00 CI ~'S: _
a..C W 0 3:_
- a:: 5.., 0 c: W
C U :¡:¡ '" O.!!! ~ W 'C
II) I/) 0 _c: Eo;:
E·- - 'C CO ;t E :>
..J c: w"-E -w~
1:: 0 II) ~>._
:w :30 -oc:
111 () W () '" " ::J
0. ~ -"3: ~_E
= W . co E
... , 'S;C: 0 () 0
... - ~ 00 r--00
o :¡¡ Ea zz",~
E eO)
~ t C).~
. ~ e-g «i
:J Q) Q.roû)
o "C 0.'>-
c:X
1: 1: ::;IQ)ro
WE Cl> u.o'S ('0.
E c....."e: (/)
Co a. roC)ü 0
o 0 0 c_ _
Q) ëD ...J·üo <c
ð) [; g>æ=ª, 0
o 0 'S; C(j (". >
- U 'õti= Q) ~ _
;E:" .- > Q).c: Q.) I
c: E Q) >- _ J::
::J 0 c::;c: ( ) _
E c: C:._ E'j¡ 1:'""
E 8 w1!£ ° W .,
C'I:I -'=c';: I Q) "'__
00 w 1-.-.. (f. ~a.c:
()...J Q) 0 .-'õ 0
.r:..r:. := Q) ~
- - .c '- m
Coo. 'Õ)..co
mID Uj~.9
II
§ 13-3:)
-_.~----
00 0
00000 0 ER-
a ~^ fA- fA- ER- fA- 0
o~ _
. It)
It) N
N '"
'"
III C)
œ Z œ
U _ c:
... en._
:::::I :J-g
o 0 ~
:r: L.L.
- 0:s
C w ~
ø ~~ ~ ~
E w>oo ~ _
gC):;;g¡ëñ~b ~
~ 8~~:r:~~~ ~
(jj
>
ø (
C Õ "
C ø g
; III'~ -ffi
.c _11. e ,¡; to g¡
~ 11. ø ~ð
::J-c ~ Q!:2
Ø-c '" ....CD
oð-ø .11 ø 00
III ( É" .. Q;
CI-c 0 :;¡ ~ :z * êií
C=a. ~,e.:g 00
iiioo 0 8 .~ 1:::5 ø
:;,( ~ W ~ OJ 2"" .c
o COil. OJ R 0 oo~ .s¡
::I:.... ~It)~ E-g
....00 .9 <3 :;;
o C CI "''2 . ~
-Il.C >- :¡¡"':ß 0'E"
C 0 +: ." œi!?"" ~ " 12
ø ( .a c: ,,'õ' , E ~
E·- 00 1j¡1ñª ~E
...J ~ '-~o x"þ
- .æ ><õ c. '" 1; 'õ'
~ ø" , ~ ~
III .a~:s g- :g C) E
a. ü 'Ë.h'E ~~E
ø - ~ g-~ 0 0 R.3 <3
C :¡¡ =ec. Z Z It)
E == 0)0
,.. 1:: ~ ~ãj
V,I «I >-_ >
a. -CCI.IQ)
~ Q) ~~"C
o en c.~
ë E Q)~!5
"E Q) 1i).!! c: ('-.
c. E ~"'8 00
.Q g. UEm º
"ãj "'¡S." ~
~ ã> ~c:.æ 0
o 0 > 8.!!! ". >
b 0 l!! O)~ ~ I
'-.- :J I:: Q) Q)
c: E .r:;.- N Q) ..c
E g ü e>~ E ~ 'E ""
Eo CD Q) co 0 Q) tn
o ..eEc: :r: Q) "'Q._
<3 w ~"'" ,,13 ~.õ.§
J:: J:: ._ Q) _
- - ..c.... l'{J
Q.c.. 'æ..cu
ø4) m~..9
:r: :r:
§ ¡6-~
--------
0000008 ~
8~tIt~(ß-ER-a~
- "'
"' '"
'"
:! ~
U Z æ
.... Cñ.5
~ :J 'tJ
o 0 §
I U.
- 0_
C W.2
Q ~~ ~ ~
E ~ w>rJ) « _
IDC)::;;a.¡¡;«Ó .!!!
C. OrJ)OOrJ)~~ ~
o üWII«
ãi
>
Q III "
C - 0
CJ æ
C C Q 1ñ
ca ca .~ "Ü)
- 0 u
.Qo.... « oog¡
... 0. Q) c- !2?_
......... en e! ~O
..J ..., 'C Q) 0 C"')
....Q "C e-" i':ëõ ~
....1ijQ $ ~ 00 $
C) III ,,~ .... a¡
cocO ";' ~ " $$ =
:=c. 0 0 c.. alas ()
.- 0 u - 0 CI CI
III 0 .- 0 " t:" a¡
::::I III ... ::;; N a. '" 0 '" 'õ'
o COo. ü R g Ci5]j .50
........ 0:> It') N C. ...JQ
.... U 0 ~ E 'tJ "1
.... 0 00
°CC) "'E! ü~:;:;
-o.c -æ r¡ ;:$
C .- =">' o~
Q Ut; ii!,s", -;.¡::
E - 1ñ~'tJ a.
...J ""''' N ë:
- o;:E x" u
... -" 0 '" ._ "
ca u ,,~ co.8-::¡
C. -gE'" oájE!
Q :::100) t"'!....'C
""'" 3: c 0 ..c 'C
C 0)'- 00 ,,::::::Joe(
£i~æ zz LOU)
", g, "1ij1ñ N
v~ "~~,s 0
::J <5 =]i'jt N
c ~cn'C m
~ ë: §~'* t'5
- Q) :.¡:; 0._
o E cu-O ('-. ci
c a. :VE~ ~ OJ
o 0 'C e! ((J _ .~
1U Q) WotU « 0
.... > LL. 0 (I) .... C
"" 0 15.1ñ 0 '"
"0 "8 ".> rJ)
Q) (.J (\: c en_
LL.._ 0 ttI_1/) (I) I ..;
o E :ë..2.!!!:ß ~ ~ :g
c 0 üboe: _......
as c: .... cïi.i E '§ ë..:-:.. ~
~ 0 mom::] 0 Q) (f.I W
J:: U "c'-E 5..c I Q) ..._ _ 'C
ü W I- ¡¡:: IIJ bQ.c c:
mo '-130 N
=-5 :B~:'¡:; N
Q.a. ·5..c~ a
ã)ã) m~..9 (õ
II
~ ß-37
o
--------
-_._-~ --.----
- ~._._,_.._---~- -----
0000008 0
gER-ER-ER-ER-ER-o ...
å å
"' "'
... ...
U)
CII (9
U Z
.. ¡¡; C>
::::J '"
0 ::> '5
0 '"
- I "
C LL
tI) 0 -
«W 0
E .'"
(9 w:s:tñ <i! a.
Q, <II(9::i:a. ¡¡;«f- ro
.2 OenOOenIO Õ
OWII«a.f- f-
tI)
>
tI) III
C -
CJ ~
C C tI)
III 11I.-. '"
.c-o s
... a.. ... <I)
.¡¡;
::J"a.. <I) ., '"
« "''''
oðtl)" - -
'ij ~ 0
-tI) ~~
C IIIIII .¡: <I) a>
c:5!o .c: a> 00 ãj
" <I) <:
.- Õ Q, a> :<;- <I) Q) Q) .!!2
f- a>
III III ° 0 M '" 16 16 Ü
::::I ... 0 .¡¡; 00
OCa.. W ~ " t: '" "
<II $-
:I: 0.... <II 0 OJ 0 .- "
., .... 0 û5~ E ~
....00 ~ "' " ._ 0
ã. ...J 0
° C C E " '"
" 0 00
-a..C a> 0 ::i: ....
CO'- " - "'
tI) ûi _a> ~ $
OJ a>
E .- -'" o OJ
"a> ...J .~
1:: ...J '8E -
;'a.
III E8 " -
m.5 :;:::; ffi Cf.I
Q, ~ BE ~.ã. m
tI) '" :g ïJ :ß
C ~ :'¡:;cu
:.r;Q) N ~ "-
;¡: "0 . .c "
~ 0 0 o " " 0
OJ_ Z z rf;cn« ~
a> -~
!! 2= '"
~
::J a> "'O:.ë '"
E Q)CUcri «
E <I) <I) a> 0
0 ,,- <I)
0 <: a>« '" .,-
a> .cO a> 1;;
ro _W Q,
<: E =cc x 0-' :>
Q, ~ a>
a> 0 Cf.ImC) en OJ
E ãj 0 '5
"'0 cu.5 ;¡:
'" > "'a>- .c:
!è a> ,,_OJ is 0
0 -,,-
.;; ",a> >.
'" " "'0._ a. ~>
~oo OJ
W 'E <1)- ~
- <1)-_ a>I
0 a> <I) a>
a> '" ,,:sa> ø-5
'E 0 OJ
:6¡¡: E E .- 'Ë .. a.
0 " o ~
"" W 0:::0.9 I a> a>U>' OJ
<I) >..ã. ~ '"
a> 0 :=-130 .'"
-5 -5 OJ
:.ë Q):'¡:; ::i:
Q,Q, .5>..a rJ ....
ø ø = :J 0 ....
I I wen...J ...
"' 13 -.3 f
"
0
0
-......-..,.--... -~_.._--~-,--~----- -"-"-~----~ ....-~--
0000000 0
~&"tM-fA-Eß-Eß-~ fA-
cD cD
N N
'" '"
UI
QI c>
~ ~ 0
- 00"
- :::J'-
o O-g
- :r:::>
C ~
Q) 0_
« W .Q
E f--
c> W~oo ;;! a.
Co mc>~a.ø«f- m
o ooooOoo:r:o Õ
- üWII~~~ ~
Q)
>
Q) f/
o -
CJ
C C Q)
III III'~
.a-O
... D.. ...
~_D.. rom
~ ~ ~ ~
__Q)'C., ~o
wu....Q) _ Q~
C) III f/ :¡¡ r-- 8 J!2
'Co () 0 .!!!
C·- Co - ~ .... c:
·-0 ;; û"5 22 .~
f/ f/ O 15:;:- 0 """ ü
::;,... >- 0 >- 00
Or::c.. "! 0 t§ -g_
:I: ° CI ~ ~ S+:: E.£
C)-O 8 '" N 00 J!2 ._ 0
.... Co ...J 0
00.... E -0'"
...., 0 00
-D..C vi () ~iì;
CC)- ., _
.... .- ø
(1) U) ..c õ:'$ ~ 15
E·- .2 "'õ'- , > .,
..J ~ ~'C~
- () "'''' 'a.5
... c: 'C 0)- 0. _ >
ca tD c:>'~:c ~ë
Co ~ m...... :::I CIJ (i' Q) ~
r- (fJC'\I:=:.... '-""ë.. c:
CI) Q.) 0:::1 Q) 0:) ._ :::I
O « .~- ()~ 0 ~ E
ü è:LO..;'QJ '" .... E
~ ( J...... ffi- 0 0 o.g 0
U) '>- "'!ß E= Z Z iì; 00 ()
~ t OI>.:::J
~ IS i~~~
.- Q...s::: Q.-c
2: :::J,,!::: E c:
Q) (I)...cvea
en "E (/)g,.c..;
>- Q) ~...."5æ
'" E .-., 0 E
c: 0. >'0>, (".
::s 0 eo (f.I.!: en
E ø 0.1... Q).~ CI
E > ..cS-C C: ;;:
o Q) :::J ø~Q.)'" ....
Ü 0 Ü Q) 0_ c: 0
>. 0 :¡::¡.!: (0 Q) ('. >
(t .- gï::'C§E ~_
DJ § Q):::Jc:¡::¡g- Q)I
= c 1-5«:~ã) CD£;
:::I 0 Q) 0.( ,):::J > E 'S; _
o 0 .c Q.CI"C Q) 0 :> c: ..:-:..
U) LU 1-0 co Q)"C :r: ~ ...~ $
Q) 0 ~.9- c:
..c:..c := 0., .Q
- - ..c -
.9-..Q. '5 is ~
Q) Q) :=::J 0
II WU}...J
§ ¡3 -3 9
0000000 0
gElt~f;I7fA.fA-g Eß-
<6 cD
~ ~
'" '"
III
QI t9
~ ~ en
:::I en c:
:J .-
o O-g
.... I::J
C ~
Q) CI ~
E ~W ~
t9 W:;:tñ ~ a.
~ mt9~a.ø~~ ro
o ClenOOenIO õ
- UWII~a.~ ~
Q)
>
Q) I/)
o ....
u
C C Q)
I'CS I'CS '-'0 '"
.c- c:
a.. ... .-
... '" c:_
:J "'C ... 'œ ë CO Q)
Q)"""'" I- Q) ~Q?
......... ..., - C ,.... 0
ug Q) C Q) 0C2
....I'CSI/) "E t9 i':",
""''''C - a a
C.- 0 ~ ~ ....
·--OD. - Q) a. Q.)Q)
I/) 0 a. __ 0 __
I/) E ,.... CD (t co
::::I... W 0 a. CICI
o Co.. "! 0 '1::c:
..... 0 :r: a a g.Q cnû
....U'+- \0...... a Cl)ã) ..c_
.... 0 a LO ...... a. ~g
00 E -0'"
en - 0 00
....a..C :¡¡ U ~r;;
C U .- a.E _
Q) ....1/) m.9a> :;::2
- U) u 0 (t
E·- c: IJ!! ...J >
...J "" ._
.., ü co. 'èï..
... O~ _
CG i roæ :;t51°o
c. ro :ßcn. ~'ã.~
Q) U"C.~ en 00 .- r.n
.- c- a U Q)
C -- >.- c: N Q) "-
+-0" eecu 0.0"0
§ 0.-:2 0 0 ......:J "0 .....
(/J 0 .....crJ'J ZZ IOC/)c{ .....
. ü !!.º,~ Q)
:J £ g+oÔ~ 0;
5 üg§ ex:
U) (¡)Eo ()
Q)~Ü m
Q) æ:g= 1;)
~ Uoo:J ",. :>
= >-(t ,~ C/) cu
o - ....v.J 0 _
ü § Q)-c - :J
c: o~~ ~ c3
Q; U rJ 0 0 .
1i) s...."ã. ~ > "E
Q) ::J,g E I/) I (t
;:.... 0.... II) Q) >
..t: Q) Cl)Q.)C ã) J:: ~
'S J:: Q)"E:J E::..:J
o 0- J::Q).... 0;: 'E,;..:., 0
en I- uS :r: ~ ...~ 2.. ~
WQ ~.§-§ ro
=£ is Q); CCI
.9-,9- '5>.0 ~ ,....
Q) Q) :.::J 0 ::
:r::r: WC/)...J ,....
§ ß-c/.Ò
_._~_ ___ .0. _.~_,..._..~_. m_M"~__'__'_._. _ __ .U".··.__.
0000000 0
gEß-Eß-Eß-Eß-Eß-g Eß-
LÖ LÔ
CD CD
.,. '"
III
GI (!)
~ ~ ~
- en c:
- ::;¡.-
o O-g
.... I:J
C ~
CII O_
w 0
E <~-
(!) W$:en :;;! <l.
C. m(!)~<l.ø<~ ~
o OenOOenIO Õ
üWII<<l.~ ~
CII
> c:
CII ) .9
0.... ¡¡;
C CJ .!:!
C CII c:
m m·~ ~ _
.c;:;-e i5 e!
...... "
...._0.. is c: "''''
-'''''' 0 Q) 0)0)
G)"c 5. S2. ;:::ð
oð....Q) ~C) Vol f2£2
.... 1'\1 .A 0.5; -0 I'- CD ,g¡
w''''C v, z:2 Õ a 0 Q)
C .- 0 '^ ':¡.c: .... 1::
.- - C. '-Jt'n ~ CD Q) Q) Q)
", 0 (DLW ~ en _... :.::
VI 0 O~ ~ :::I ca ca ()
jtJ)... (,)'ü 00 00"C
o Co.. '" "! I t:c: "
...0 <.>c.. 00 ro,Q:!:::û
....,...... ",,,, I'- 0 û5ãí E-
.... '-' 0 ~U It) It) ~ :.:J g
00.... 1:: E -0"1
WI Q,) 0 00
....Il.C E ü ~!õ
C,..- "- _
CII""'.... .9 CI 3:0
tI) Q).!: 0 :=
E·- > UJ ...J .c Q)
...J IV:J :J "C
~ 0 ~ ~<l.~
œ ~ ~. ~~b
C. c: .c- (U.gæ.-
:::J _ c: _ Q. c:
CII E '"" '" ._ :J
O E 'EE O~E
o Co C'\I '- E
8 :¡.Q 0 0 ~.g 0
en , wg;! ZZ \OCf.)U
en :2~
::::I ~ ~~
ë: "-"
Q) co'õ'
en ;;....
5"-
~ .c:
~ tam ~.
:::J -:::J en
E .êe CI
E üS <ë
8 'õ~ 0
>- bE ('0'>
m C) .- c: en _
caE .5~:J :G::r:
J:~ tn ø~ ã)J:
"SO) :J "ii)&' E:!:::
oe ~ (/)Q. 0 3': ë..:-:..
U)c. « 0 J: m ...!!! $
IDe ~.§'§
= -= :c Q) :.¡:¡
.E- .9- '5.c B
Q) Q) :.:::::J 0
I:I: WU)...J
~ /3-c/f
'M__~._ .. _._._._..,______~_ _ ____ ___.n'____
~ooooo~ 0
r---~ Y). fA- * fA- fA- ""'R fA-
~ ~
~ ~
.,. .,.
I/
GI l:>
~ ~ 0
;:, en"
:J .-
o o-g
- :r:::I
C ~
II) CI ~
E «w ~
f- -' ~
l:> W$:en « Q.
Q, ml:>~Q.ø«f- ~
o ClenOOen:r:O õ
UW:r::r:«Q.f- f-
II)
>
II) J!l
C (J
C C II)
tIS tIS '-'
,g-O
... e.. ...
::J "0 e.. co (])
"" .... (/ Q? Q?
~~w m ~o
wg"'(1)..... e~
_tIS II):¡:¡ ....'" .!!1
"""0 0 u 0 0 2
C·- ....c: .... "
·--0.... ..... ô .r:: Q) Q) Q)
In 0 ::J - ..... 16m :.=
=U)~ 0 0 g OQ Ü
OCe.. >- "! >- 1::" ~
....0 0 ~ 8 l!!~ :!::E3
....U.... "'.- N en Q) 0
.... 0 o...~ "'ã. ::¡ a
°Ce! Ii; ¡¡ -g~
""c..s::: § -g U ::2"
CU·- :¡::¡ Q)co _1.0
(1)'" cu £(1) ~ 2
II) >0 "-0 0 '"
E .- .- -' >
.......J g~..ê t æ
~ ~ co- _
"" -..... C\I -"
,,, E II) ro :::::: Q) U'J
C. 0 Ecn ~"j5..æ
Q) e oE 0:)._"",
..... 00 a Q)
C ¡ß =0 N ~.... ......
rn.... ci.D~ ......
ex:: <l>ø 0 0 ",::J "0 0)
~" .... Q) Z Z LO U) « ......
V~ co ~ .... C)
ü) Q)~ «
::J .- c: .... Ü
> =~ ..
(t mc: co
"S 1;) Q) 1;)
..c c: E ._
ü 'õ 0 >
- -3: C". ~
o "0"0 U) ::J
-§ æfä 9 <3
ë3 ::::J II) <C _
CD >. .... Q)
en ..c 0 0 ::J
:s -..0 ",. > "
rn ==_ en Q)
....., 3: r::::: IIJ J: >
oð.... U')Q> ~ «
IJ) Q) "0 E Q) ..c ....
>- -£ C:oø E:!:::..... Q)
o 0 :::I~:!::: 0 3: C:;.:.., "0
(II LL UJ ItU ...~~ æ
f/J >- c.. c: CD
Q) 0 :!:::"(3 0 -
£-E :5Q):P 0
,g. ,g. '6>..5 ~ ......
Q) Q) :.=:J 0 0
II WCfJ...J ~
§ ,d-cfé).
oooooog 0
gEA-EA-EA-f:R-f:R-o .,.
- ó
g to
.,. .,.
III
GI "
U z
.. 00 '"
:¡ "
0 :::J 'õ
Q "
.... I ::>
C LL
CI) 0 5
E <w ."
" w:;:ti.; ;;! 0..
Co 00,,:20..00<1- Iii
° O(/)QQ(/)IQ Õ
ã) üWII<o..l- I-
>
CI) 1/1
C ....
(J
C C CI)
CO CO '-'
.a-O -c""
"- a.. "-
:;)"Ca.. ,,!!! co OJ
"''''
oðCl)"c ",,, ~~
",,,, ~o
....CI) :.;::;C) Q£2
ClCOI/I :=- I'CD '"
·0 en 00 ]j
c:2 0 "'-
LL" .r= Q) Q.i "
.- Õ Co '" ~ '5 .!!1
.>1 E ro m
1/1 1/1 ° :c~ ~ 0 00 C3
::::I "- 0 >-
OCa.. ::>0 N 0 t:: " -C
o..~ 0 0 '" 0 2~
::1:0.... C- ,- 0
ME I' to û5~ E ~
....00 to ~ ._ 0
0_ C. ..J 0
° C CI E -C ~
0 00
....a..c ü :2 I'
CO'- - to
CI) ø 1õ ;: 2
o '"
E .- ¡j ...J .E;
1:: .... C. ;"'0..
CO E N -
::=::: ID en
Co 8 ro ._ Q.)
CI) '" ò5' .9- ~
o 0 '"
C t:: C\ ~ ....
0
C- . -" -C
'" '" 0 0 o ::> -C
en ::> '" Z z [õUJ«
'"
. '" u
:;) '" 0
..J 2 c;;
'" 1;) ~
E " OJ
:::; 8 '"
" o~ ü
13 _0 ". ro
-CO
.¡;: ",.r= (/) 1;)
'" '" ",0 0 :;;
E E ::>(/) :;;:
< !!! "'.!!1 ~ '"
'" '" -"-c 0 :;
1;) 0 =-c ~;:: .r=
:;; a: .~::¡¡ :ß I ü
'" .r= "'c- ã)-S qf
:; '5 -CO ~
"'" E .-
-" 0 ::J= o ;: ë .. 1i5
ü >- LLI I '" '" <ñ'
'" i- :ë- 'E'" "")
'" 0 1;)
-S-S := 0 0
:.ë Q.):';::; '"
C-c- .ö,.o ~ W
ã)ã) := ::J 0 to
I I W(/)..J ...
OJ 13 - 43
N
0
0
"---. -----.-.. .------ -----+-'--'---'-- -'----- . _.___~..__ __m"___
000 0
rocooo CD ~
f8 fß- tR- ER- fß- ER- tt)~
. It)
It) ~
~ '"
00 ....
....
g¡ ô
u z C>
... ëi5.£
:¡ ::J 'C
o 0 §
~ I ~
- 0 ~
... W 0
Q) ~~ ~ ~
E ô W>ø < _
mô::;;o..¡¡;<~ S
c.. OØOOØI~ ~
o üWII<o..
ã)
>
Q) UI :ß
C ~
t) ._
C C Q) ~
CIS .!!! 'õ' ::
.ell... ê "'" oom
.. a.. 0 ~ ~!2?
::J" "'" ~o
.... (t c: 0 M
...Q)... i!!" i'::ìD ~
....'!::Q) t) ô 00 .&
.w UI ,,~ c:
CD... 0:: ~ .. ¡,; "
... 0 "- ,,_ ._
S:::=c.. iii ô 0 1\îoco Ü
.- 0 -'" - " 0
UI 0 ~~ 'C
UI a:I 0 a. t:c: Q.)
::I.. 0.. '" 0 co 0 ._
OCIl. Ó 0 _'" E
O LL I""- 0 (f) ~ ._
~'I- MLO..... Q....J
,. 0 0 E 'C
...."" 0 0
°CCD """, ü ~
~ a.. C .r: -g'§ ~ _
C"'- ;(30 o¡¡¡
Q)"" UI "'C cO ...J
... .- c: I E
E - --- c:
...J (3 o~.º N ~
t:: .£2 ~ 15 ::=:: Q) (/J
<1:11:::\1) ro > _
- OL...o....· -0(9
.W -co._t):ß OOôm
c.. '!!!::>"'i!!.- 0__.
,,, .... C"'O :'!::: N co ""U
W ""'''-,,~ Ó t)~
C ¡¡~ ~¿J!! ~ ~ iõ.3 ü
. ü~ëi.i~t:
~ c:.(t a.~
. 0..... c:....
::J "'coE::>~
g¡-o;:::.~CI)
.... .....:!::::-
.... OCQ)::JO
Q) Q).Q..c Eã)
"E O::ül-_ Q) "'.
Q) >-:::J .0... (/)
ü S~:Ui1! Q
c: I/) Oc:1:J!cu «
0" "0 Q) :::J ....
-:.;::::; u u CD C'" 0
l'CI.- .c .... '"
Q) 13 ::"'Cb~v ~ ;:::
ts cu 0 c'2 c-GO (/J I
Q) u.. _ ca::J U'HD Q)
a:: ,$:2 Q) ~Ealt'i ø É
>-::c ~(i.i Ere"'C Eo :t c: :-:...
(t :J .c CD 0 _ c: Q) I/)
Õ a. a..-c um (t I ¡:g .. 'Q. c
Q) 0 ~'õ 0
J::..c = Q) +::
-;~ :eß~
ã)'ã) g:;¡o
I:I: WCJ)...J
§ J3-4Ý
...~..~" ~~_ ~u..,,~
0000000 0
gfA-fA-fA-fA-fßg '"
c:i c:i
"' "'
'" '"
II)
GI t?
U z
.. ëi5 C)
::¡ c:
0 ::> '5
0 c:
- I ::>
C LL
t ) 0 ~
-o:W 0
E .¡:
t? W:;:tñ ;;! a.
C. 1Dt?::;:a.¡¡;-O:1- ¡¡;
.2 O(l)OO(l)IO Õ
UWIIc(a..1- l-
t )
>
t ) .I!!
c u
C C t )
tU tU '-'
.c-O
... a.. ...
::J"Co.. coo>
~~
oðt )"C <n ~o
-t ) Q) Q~
C)tUtI) <n ª .... <D Q)
-" 'õ 00 a;
c:E ° ~ '" ë
.- Õ c. :§: LL Qj Qj .!!I
Q) .\1 1tí 1tí
tI) tI) 0 'tI ~ :ë 00 t3
:;, ... èi5 0 'tI
o Co.. N ::> 1:: c:
...J 0 a. as .Q .$
::I: 0_ '" .... .... û5 Q) Ë
_00 0 "' ... ë. ::J
o C C) E 'tI
0 0
-o..C ë ü ::;:
Co .- Q) -
t ) ûi -~- ~ -
E .- O~ 0 o c: Q)
§:sC ...J Q) 'tI
t:: ...I .- Q) , E ~
Õ....E ~c:
tU 2'" Q) £:i.:v>.
c. -~.= (i>:!:::
ê- ::::J _ 0 c:
t ) 0",0- CO t? ::>
C oE~ 0_ E
CD~as "! 13 E
.c:Q)Q) o 0 o 0 0
en ::c:Cõ z z (õ...Ju
E .E as (/)
::J f! ~1tí"5
C)
e 'S: ~~
a. eE::;
¡¡; c.~u
::> o ~ .
c: ;;'m~ ".
c: (I)
-0: ~'5U 0
<n ::::J Q; CD «
'5 ~ (1)(1)£
Ü ::> .c.c: c: :s
-e õ = ~.- ~ >
::> 2 ·3.S:J ~<i <n -
Ü 1ñ (/)(1)00 Q) I
-0: '" -C(:s:.¡:;« Q;5
.¡, C:c:13Q) E .-
0 o ~ 'E ..
-0: c: æ8.2£ Q) .,
- I æ
Q) 0 b:9- 'E'
.c:.c: := 0 0
- - :.ë Q):'¡:;
Q,Q, .¡;,.c 13
Q;Q; := ::::J 0
II W(I)...J
cry ß_L(S-
0
0
0000000 0
~Eß-ER-ER-Eß-fA.~ fA.
LÔ ui
'" '"
.,. .,.
III
GI c.?
~ ~ æ
~ ~.!:
o O-g
... I"
C ~
Q 0 ~
-"" w .9
E -f- ~
c.? W$:en <i! a.
~ mc.?~a.w<{f- m
o OenOOenIO Õ
- üWII~~~ ~
Q
>
Q I/)
o ...
CJ
C C Q
III III·.....
-0
,g a.. ... ,,=
... a.. c: OJ
..... .,.. co Q)::::- OJ m
.J ~ co m m
Q)"'C ~ffi:v ;::ð
oð ... Q .,c.? c: 0 ~
- .-- Q) - <0
.....v I/) ~ '" r--
w'"'C O(/) 'oJ 00
s::: -- 0 ~"E -; .. ..
'_-O~ OQ)E û Q. .æ.æ
I/) 0 .- ~ 0 OJ OJ
::::Sel)... :a~ 0 Q) 00
OCa.. "0 N a. -ec:
o 11.. 0. 0 0 CO.2 co
;: () õ 8.ê to g 1ñ ~ ~
°Ot» g -g
"'a..C "Q) ü ~
C U +:i ro2 § B.§ -
Q I/) ... ('(I...... ._ II) 3:: .....
.co.... ....c 0 c
E .- 8.2 æ 't3 OJ -' Q)
... ..J , ",_c.?~ c. , E
... OJ" 0)_ Q) X _ c:
:CcQ>oU')Q) 0....
[ õ~ð;€~ ~ :§: ~ ~
Q "tJ'- a.,a co rI'\ en
c~°Q)~ Q\J (/)
O 0 m_ c:;]_ C\I _ ~
::!'.- 0"'" c:.... . ro "'C
= ",::-c.J: ~ m.e 0 0 0 (,,) "'C
Q) - IV_.......> Z Z r-- 0 _
UJ en 0 E :::I"C«3 1.0 ...J .....
. CO coo................
..... .J: 0 (/)CO~....
.... a. ""Q)"'_C:
(tI'-::: C:J: 0 0
=Q)ªco~o ~
C) S.;:; Q)1ijÕ-æ C)
§ ~c:3- c: œ
..c: ._.-.......-&~.º
0) (/) (/)"t:J.-._:'!::: . «
.- Q)"O"'- ø"C Q,) ",. Ü
...J "....~--"o 00
..... :Jml-~U')CO'- 0 m
Q) -" ...<0 è: _ ......
Q) oC-o-Q)"Q) _ '"
.... em (/) c: ....... ._
en- '--... ( )roø .... >
'h' (/) (1)~.J: - 0
c: U__..o_CI)co ('0- > OJ
Q)..c: OJ - (,) (/) -::;
;: .-O>C: 8 c: 13'" '" - _
.s.... e= (.) I O:.¡::¡t) ~ I t5
c: Q) a.ã)Q)COêi)Q.Q) Q)J:
::.;:; .!a Q)£C:I~ C1>Ci) E :;: _ oj
o 0 ..c:.... c_ u_ 0 ;> C:"::S
o 1-ë;).!:·c;;CJ)~O I Q) Q) <ñ c:
(/J ...- '-" Q)
<D 0 =ª' .§" g >
:5.;:; ~Q):;::O «
.9-.9- 'Õ)..ð B :g
Q) Q) :.=:J 0 .r:.
II WC/)...J I-
§ 6-c;ro
0000008 0
8fA-fA-fA-fA-fA-a '"
å å
0> 0>
'" '"
11/
CII <:J
U Z
.. ¡¡; OJ
::::s "
0 ::> 'ë
0 "
- :r: "
C u.
Q) 0 ~
<{ w .2
E <:J w:;:t; ;;! a:
c. aJ<:J:2a.¡¡;<{1- õi
0 o CIJOOCIJ:r: 0 Õ
ãi uw:r::r: <{a. I- I-
>
Q) III
C -
u
C C Q)
III III'~ '"
.a-O 'E
... Q. ... "
::J"CQ. E 1!i 000>
oðQ)"C " " ~~
> " ~ 0
-Q) e " Q~
C)IIIIII 0. <:J ,... CD
E ~ 00
c:E ° "
.- õ c. w -¡;- 'ã. å.i å.i
~ ~ 0 16 16
III III 0 0 "
::::I C ... û5 a. 00
N t:: "
°oQ. 0 0
~ 0 '" 0 '"
:I:u.... '" ,... 0 û5~ ~
.... 0 0 on ~ 'ã. <{
°c C) '" E '"
" 0 0
-Q.c " . u :2
0>-
cU'- ~'" -
Q) ûí "'3: ;: -
"'~ o "
E .- 'E" ..J "
t:: ...J ,,>- E
E"
"aJ ~E
III >0 :::=::: Q) en
C. '" e'" '" > "
~ 0 '"
Q) 'E o.~ 00 <:J '"
C " E'" ~ - Q)
.- "
E -'" '1 -6
" "0 o 0 o 0 '"
en > ~~ zz [Ò...J«
e 1ñ~
::J 0. "E16 ~
.5 ~
"'~ 0>
W ;:$ ~
0- 0>
~ -"
û5 "'.¡¡¡ <{
,,- u
~ "'''' ".
$ "E CIJ J!!
ãj ".- 0 '"
.c: .c" :;¡: :>
'"
CIJ " =-c 0 '"
õi ':; ;:" :;
E Ü ",'" ~;::= .c:
2 ",0 u
.¡: ,,0. iß :r:
<{ 1ñ .2e -.c: :>;
;: £ 0. " - ~
"" E .- 'E "
" o ;:
Z .!; .c:.c: " 'ÜÌ
1-- :r: " Q;
'" >"ë.. c-
" 0 :!: '(3 0 >-
££ "
:.ë Q):'¡::¡ aJ
0. 0. ï~}..c ~ 0
Ci)"Q) := :J 0 ~
:r::r: WCIJ..J ~
'" /3 -cfÎ
'"
0
0
0000000 0
g~~tß-Eß-Eß-g Eo')
å ci
N N
.,. .,.
III
GI "
~ ~ æ
::::s en"
:J .-
o O-g
- J::J
C ~
( ) 0 ~
E «w ~
f- ~
" W$:en ;i Q.
Co m"~Q.ø«f- m
o OenOOenJ:O Õ
- ÜWJ:J:«Q.f- f-
( )
>
( ) III
C -
tJ
C C ( )
CO CO '-'
.a-O
... a.. ...
~"Ca.. ~~
~. "C ~ _ _
~w m ~o
wg.....G) '- QC2
....CU'" ~ "-CD Æ
...."C 0 " 0 0 J!!
C·-"", ~ C> .... c
·-0 .... .- - CD Q,) Q)
III III 0 §.,., Æ êií êií ü
::s... ('0 0 c.. 00
OCe.. ã: C"! ~ t::c ~
O 0 CUO -û
:I:..... 0 r--- Il.. û5:';:::' 'Ë--
,. ON"" ~ Æ ._ 0
....'-' a. ...JO
0C.... E ,,~
WI 0 00
..... 0.. c ~ go () ~ [õ
C,,,,+:; ctI;eC§ _ ( ,)
( ) '-' III "f- "'.2", ;: êií
E .- ~ ê 8.!§ ~ ~ .:!
..... ...J ~ 0 '- c:.e; , J\
... 0..... 0 Q).... .....
.cQ)õEo Ñ'-
ca coO::: Q) Q) 0 . ::=:: c: (/)
C. =Q).!:::i5..(,.)Z' fa.~ Q)
CD 8ª~.ê-g·§ ~·ít ~
C ~Q)J::"CroE C'\I I!:! ....
ï::5:l-cEE 00 ci.g:g
en .- :JE~ :>'~.2 8 z z It; C/) <{
. () _ CU C)Q)
~ § E U)CDëi)'" ..ê
o c: 0't)J:: Q) I!:!_
ü 0 Ü( ,)~"Croc: 0
C):.p ('tI.!:::: 0 Q)~'; .....
c ~ -o"CCI)J:::> Q) C»
'+=' 1ñ Q)"5 (1,1-;; ~.~ a;
ro '¡:: .c._ C:._ 0- «
.f:._ .~J::OQ).....e ('0.
"E E :c==sõco en ü
o "C mc-....«Lc 0 ~
o « t) 0 eno Q) ã..æ «- S'"
Ü ,,'- > -
"C :!:::.-cnß ~ >'_
ro c '- (/)"Cü-cu 0
û5 co !!&.~CU1ñC) ('0. > ~
.- C) IIJ as C'- c ~ _ :::I
>.5 ..:! 5 0 cu>~ Q.) I J::
.æ C (1)Q>(f. J!!-¡i< ã).c ü
:;:¡ C Q) Q) ~ >-::J Q) E :!:: _
J:: J!! .c.!:::: 0 ctlJ::_ 0 == "E.. G3
o Il.. I-OLL 0..00 I æ ...~ g I!:!
Q)Q þ,9-c: en~
.- (,) 0
££ :6Q):;:¡ G
.9-.9- 'Õ)..c ~ 0
"" =:J 0 v
II wcn...J Lt')
§ ;ð - c/<t
0000000 0
g.ER-~Y;fß-Eß-¡§t fß-
~ ~
'" '"
III
CII (9
~ ~ ~
::J en.~
o ::J-o
.... 0 §
C I LL
CD a ~
E CW ~
(9 w:;:tñ :;;! a.
0. ~(9~a.oo<~ m
o aWOOWIO õ
- üWII<a.~ ~
CD
>
CD I/)
o ....
u
C C CD :g
ca ca '-'0 .!'!
.c- Q)
... Il. ... E
::J,,1l. ~ ~~
...Q)"C ~ ;::ð
wu....Q) ra OM
~nsrn 0 t::::Cõ Æ
W1"'C .c. a 0 Q)
C.- 0 0) ~ . _co
- ,,~ .. .
·--0.... .,,- UJ .as Æ
I/) 0 " OJ OJ -
::Sl/) " "' 0 aa ü
~ ra a UJ ~
OCIl. ¡¡: "! ~ 1:" Q)
O 0 Q) mO =-_
:I:U.... 0.... a. Iij'$ Ë~
.. 0 N an 10 c.. ~8
00.... E -o"'!
'W, 0 0 a
....a..C ~t:ñ ü :::¡;:,....,
C U .- en _ c: _ Lt)
"III. .... Q) a:5:¡:; ~ 0
W" II) .c.:2c: 0=
E "- .~ õ=s ...J..c
~ ..J :g13 ê';; ~ æ
a.OOêU NE
ca cn"'õÜ1i) XQ)UJ
C. cn_"";-o.s "is.. ~
Q) Æ.£¡fic: CO'õU)
O <J) Q)-o E co a Q) Q)
CI) EQ) _ N .... ....
Æ 0mÆ~ 00 o.o:g
en Q)E I SLLl Q) Z Z rõ ~ ct:
Q) 0)-0
-: 0 .c.e-c.æ ('t)
....I I - 0--.... N
cuUJo ~
Q) oc::J"",- N
.c. .- 0
- a>o.>Il!! (j)
c:: 0.... ra «
o (j) <s co ~ en ()
Q) 0 u..c._&. .
o =i ~·g(l)o ('-. 0
o _ (/).c. to.... (/) C)
u.. > co 3:.c. a. 0 .~
~ I 1-0001: « 0
UJ -Q):Jco
OJ..... CQ.- (I).... .... c:
"'V c:"'C C) 0 ro
I- en .Q2$ ('0.> (j)
- VJ C)CI) c:"'C UJ _ .
~ Æ Q)- Q) æ :ß I "'C
o Q) a:::.~ E . - .c. (t
.- E ,,::> " Q) _ 0
C) Q) (1) 0 E .- ..... a:::
Q) 0 .c. c..oJ!! 0 :: c: :-:...
a::: I I- CI)"t;)D.. I ~ ...~ ~ ~
0)0 b·9-c:o ::>
.c..c. := ~._ a:::
-- .0""-
.9-.9- "a,.B ~ ~
Q) Q) :=:J 0 (J)
II W(f)-I C"')
§ 13 -49
0000000 0
gfß-ER-ER-ER-ER-g fR-
05 o:S
M M
... ...
III
GI CJ
~ ~ ~
::J en c:
~ .-
o O-g
- I::>
C ~
Q 0 ~
.- W ,Q
E ~f- ~
CJ W~en ;;! a.
C. OOCJ~a.W«f- m
o OenOOenIO Õ
- üWII~~~ ~
Q
>
Q III
C -
CJ
C C Q
ca ca .~ :ßã:
.c - 0 ",,,,
D.. ... .- <.)
... D.. .~ I:
::I - õ·- <=- CO 0>
w «E ~ 2?!2?
~Q "C ~ w -0
wg ... Q) c:- c: 6;2 ~
ca .- 0 Q) r-... CD Q)
C).... tn ~:;¡:::: (9 0 a Q)
.... 0 00 _ .....
C .- C. N W .... c:
.- _0 :t:o - ( ) Q) Q)
U) 0 '-- a. 16 m :=
::s U) ... ~õ ~ goo ~
O CD.. .!!1. ~ a. tc: w
O O..c a 0 co 0 :!::: ~
.... ::> ..... -'- E-
: 0 'õ N~ L{) g if) ~ ~ g
°Ccn g '8~
....D..I: ~ C) () :::a:~
CO'- ._ c: _
Q 't: >c¡ .¡¡; ~ JB
VI ro c: ::J 0 cu
E .- -.- 0 ...J >
...J ::JCQ)J:: 'I::
t:: .c:C:.c:....., a.
uco_- _
ca õõ:õ.s! ~ ë ø
Q. >."0 U).!: ro .~ Q)
Q ;::.9!'¡;'¡ Q) à5'.- ~
u cu >'0> . 0 U Q)
C -c-rofl> C\I Q) ....
a>:=COc>'E '..5"C
o 5£æcQ) 00 :2:J"'C
en C) øCt»Q)E ZZ LO(fJ«
. .~ û)0c"C:.a
~ 0 'æU~æ&
æ § ~~g>C)E T'"
(fJ:'= :=- O.!:·- ~
- ~ U(¡)c0oC C'\I
o ø §-ct'Dgg Q)
.- ï:: oCc.c:ø «
U._ u :J.-.... Q) ('-. Ü
c: E c: 0).- > (fJ
15"C g>.Q ~J!! 0 0 ci
ü « ë¡;1iit»ÒE « ~
0) -0 ::JC)C:cn~ .... ._
c: c: 0= 0)..... 0 0
"Ci) ro I-8.sæ.9 ~> c
::::J g> '=CI')(/)EC> (1)- co
0._ ctI_ f/ '- C Q) I (/)
:r: 2 u..:;:Q)~·ë Q) £; >;
.... mQ)Ua.C E'- .. co
ëõ J!! ..c:meeJ!! 0;: ë..:-:.. 3:
LL a.. I- E Q,,- a. I ~ .. Æ ~ "C
mo ~'8'g ~
== :ã~; m
.9-.9- 'C»..c B ~
Q) Q) :.::J 0 N
II WU)..J CO
'"
§ J3 --5Õ
0000008 0
8 EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- OR .,.
- '"
'" N
N .,.
.,.
III "
GI Z 0)
t) ¡¡j c:
.. '5
::I => c:
0 0 :J
I LL
- 0 0
C UJ ~
Q) ~I- ...J a.
E UJ en « ro
Q, á1"ðê5GJ:fò õ
8æII«Q..}- I-
°
ãi
>
Q) tI)
o t)
C C Q)
III III·....
.0-0 c: "'0)
...Il.è: 0 !2?ð
=>"C ~ ~ Qr2
œ Q
oðQ)"C E .... ID ãj
~ Q 00
-Q) .E c: 'E
C)lIItI) -" Q Q.) Qj .!!!
c:2o .51 8 10 m Ü
.- Õ Q, :ë Q 00 "
:J ID Q. 1:: c: ~Û
tI) tI) ° a. 0 0 sg
5cè: N Q E-
Ü 0 a. en,g¡ .- 8
.... "- ...J '"
:I: 0.... ~ '" ~ E
N " .
....00 0 00
u ::;: r;;
°0 C) ÕC.c -
-Il.C "'- ;;: ~
BEg o '"
C .- ...J .:!:
Q)0t) ¡ß ~.Èen , ~
~ B B_u ~ a.
E .- N -
>.- ~:.= 0 C :::::: æ (I)
t:: ..J o2:gc..Q)co co ._ Q)
c.~~ª~s - "- '"
III == c: B (I) Q)'~ ~ 'õ ~
Q, g CO'c~» N Q ~
. ..c u
Q) ::3E::3o~co o 0 o :J "
0 'õ 8.ÈE~~:ê z z tõen<C 0
c: (1)15 § g>Q)ü 0;
:J
tn 0 Bõ Q):S ~.~ 0;
ü .- - 0
=> '" ~ c:~'5 Eã) «
B o .c c: Ü
en~ . c: 0 c: oj
'2: c: ~s.º""" ~
Q CO._ (I):!:: (I) (¡) <-. 1i5
Eu·-- Q) :>
en :Jo>83:!Q. en
c: I8.!!:! >(¡) 0 '"
'" co :Jue-c ;:;: :;
E --c.c C Q..s: 0 .c:
:J .~ C:ü CO-c 0 Ü
I >coc: RC:'- ~;;:: ai
'" CO Q.'- C)co Q. :ß I :J
1i5 "5:ce~(I)B c:
:> .ce-8oBs - .c: Q
~ Q - >
ü~'>.!'2: 0 >. E .- "E:,;..:.,
'" Q o ;;: «
:; .c: Q)COeQ)Q)~CO Q '" .c:
Õ I Q Þ ïS. c
.c: ~~ c..c: (I)....CD '" 1::
Ü Q 0 .- 'õ 0 :J
.c: .c: :5~:æ 0
- - LL
"-"- :~.g g
ã)ã) 0
I I wen...J '"
.... ;:3-51
'"
0
0
~--- "_._--~._._.-
0000008 0
8~~ER-ER-ER-o ER-
LÔ LÔ
~ ~
.,. .,.
/II
GI (!)
~ ~ en
::s UJ c:
::;) .-
o O-g
- :r:"
C ~
( ) 0 ~
E _w ~
"'- I- ...J '-
(!) WS:UJ -0: a.
Q, OO(!)~a.w-o:~ rn
o OUJoOUJ:r:o Õ
- UW~I<~I- l-
( )
>
( ) III
C -
(J
C C ( )
ta ta .....
.0-0
... D.. ... c:
...._D.. ~ oom
--'''''' .... ~ 0)0>
....tItCÞ"C ~ ~ ;::õ
"V....Q) ~ ~ e~ Q)
....talll _" .....CD _
....," C C) 0 0 Q)
C .- 2 Ü - .. .. E
·--0.... - Q) SS Æ
III 0 .c CD a. "'''' Ü
:::::10... æ 0 0 00 "C
O CD.. N " tc: "
O u ci a.. (t .2 ;t::::
:r: ~ ..... I"- 0 -- E
O ON'" N UJ.£1 ._
~ ~ ~
°CC) c: g -g
-D..C .2 ü ~
s::: .- tI') .....
( )°ùi 'ð 3:_
E'- '- ~~ S~Q)
t::...J .s "", 'E~
~ £1:: C\ìE>
ca :t;; (I)~ . :::::: Q) ~
c. ..... ,Scu..... ~ê;.¡::
CD g ;gES coC)::J
,... .- '- c 0 E
C ~ =0" N-
ø °"ËU . ~ E
Q) J!!.-.... 0 0 0 0 0
C/) .2 ....:30 ZZ tr.¡....JU
. 2 .8_'1::
::J Q) tU (U Q)
en c .~.SU)
c 0 'E'E~
cu:¡::¡ 00....
E ~ 8 8~
"u) c:
I·- (1)"0 (\3
c·5 ~ æ E ('-.
o E ._ '- en
:¡::¡ "C 2: (1)0 a
g¡ -0: ".~Z «
t5"C U) 2: Q) '-
c c ~ 0
Q) co cuQ)- ",. >
a::: en E~ê6 ø_
oð.5: ::::J.~Cü ¡ß I
ø C I 0.... õ).c
~ c Q) ~:v E:t::.;.;
co.!2 ..c_- 3: C ..
Q. c.. I-O~ ~æ ...~:§.:
mo þ,Q.c
..c.r:; == 0" .2
- - ..c -
.Q. .Q. '5..0 ~
C1) Q) :.=:J 0
II WU)...J
§ AS-,j-¿;Z
.. .__._...~----..._,--,._.-_.,..- -..-"--.- -_...~.._-------"---_._,~ -------
aaaaaag 0
afAoafAofAofAo~ '"
0'" .
R CÕ 0)
ß f'-. ~
N '" '"
'"
III "
GI
I:! z C>
¡¡; c:
'i5
::::s ::> c:
0 0 "
I LL
- 0 ~
C 0
W ~
CI) ~f- -' 0..
E W C/J « ro
æ:,,::;:o..¡¡;«Ö õ
Q, OC/JOOC/J6:f- f-
0 UWII«
ãi c:
> .Q
CI) J!! ~
c (.) '"
'2
C C CI) 'Ë
CIS CIS '-' ~
,g-O ~ co'"
...a.à: E l'! "'S1!
i!! " ;0:0
:J"C c: 0'"
cðCl)"C C> " t:::<õ
0 Q. 00
-CI) .t
C)ClSII) l'! " it) .æ
c:E 0 a. (¡j '"
" 0 00 C>
.- 'õ c. c: ¡g " c:
II) II) 0 " 0.. '" c: ëñ
" N 0 .æ~ "
5cà: ci 0 C/J~ 0
« I"- 0 c. I
:I: 0_ ~ '" ~ E '"
N 0
_UO 0 ::;:
U
o C C) -
" ;¡: -
-a.C CD o c:
C .- 0 -' "
Cl)Uûj U , E
E .- " ME
...J :; x~~
t:: " ~oU)
CIS " co " '"
'" 0_"
Q, à; C"! B -6
CI) > o 0 o 0 '"
0 [n-sc:( 0
C .9 z z ~
c: '"
~ ~ 'æ c;;
c i!! 1;; «
:J 0 1;; þ U
:¡:¡ '2 'õ m
Cc. Ë is . 1;;
O"¡: '" -", ". :>
c(,) « !!JE C/J '"
III 'æ "'''' 0 '5
GI~ 86, « .c
û5 "e ~ U
- W >c. 0 oj
-GI :'=w ". >
> ::;: ~~ '" - "
0 g¡ I c:
CJ;::i "
I ·!ao iü5 ~
GIg - à; .~I
" E .- 1:.:-:..
õ"- CD .c E", o ;¡: " '" .c
...J:I 0 Õ "'c: I " .. .ë. 'E' '"
0 U «", '" ~'õ 0 "
" 0 0
.c .c := Q) :.= LL
- - .c ~ 11
c.c. .6> .0 '"
iü ã) .- ~ 0 l"-
I I WU)-S N
'" ;Ó' ,.:1-3
'"
0
0
0000000 0
8~~0ER-08 fh
"",,- "",,-
~ ~
~ ~
.,. .,.
U
CII C>
~ ~ œ
- C/J c:
- ::>.-
o O-g
- ~"
C ~ ~
tII 0 ~
E CW ~
c> w:s;tñ ;;! a.
Co ooc>:;:a.wc~ ~
o QC/JooC/J:X:O õ
IQW:X::X:Ca.~ ~
tII c:
> -;
tII J! 1;;
C CJ 8
c C tII C>
ca ca I~ :§
.põ:~ ~ 1i
_a.. c. ~
::J 'C o<>::g co g¡
tII'C Or¡ Q) ~ð
~-~. c> ~
"VIR"" o.~ - QC2
.... ,,, II) :x: E.. .... CD
....- Ü " 0 0
C ... 0 " -
.- ... wC 0 .. ..
.- _0 .... 00::::: 0 S2' ..c Q) Q)
ø 0 ~~ - Q) ãí m
::J en ... ~~ 0 ~ 0 0 C)
o C a.. 0 "! ~ '" c: .E
o CC1::: 0 ..... cu 0 (I) û
:I: 0""0 mea [õ ~ û5]! 50'
.... '1"'""0. Q. :I:o
00.... ,?, E ,,~
WI 0 0 00
-a..c "'~~ ü :;:....
c: "- 'I"'"" 0._ _ 10
tII 0 - ~:¡;¡ü ~ .!!
Ell) .- c: Q) 0 '"
.- øcu.r:; ...J > Q)
...J "'--0 "¡::"'C
- .,!. C:Q) , a. 5
... ( )Q)O')O -. :>
ca ØEcbJ: ~ ë Þ
~ o~ü ~Q)._
.... - 00) .... _ "ã. c:
CI) "'Oëii......e co '(j ~
C i!! >>- 0 Q) E
'S Q)lL.8 C\! I... E
C",.,....o 0 0 a -g 0
U'J ~O or-: z z [õ en U
w°LL.'\"'""
::J ~[5 oW>
._.... c: Q)
U o'(ñ'tJ
m:: 5(ij
Q) $g..c1
:2 g E~ ~ . (".
ø (1)..0_00 C/)
<f E;:;m:=õ _
- Q)+:;-C:>Q) L...I
Q) .= c:.... ;;..~ «
en 6-Q)~.e!2 ....
~ mãjcu.!:2Q. 0
ih .... :J_>" ('. >
..... C) CEOcu~ ~_
0.5 :::>CU5"S£ .£!! J:
C gj :r: II) a...c c: Q) -5
J: 0 ....:= a.ü 0 E·s;...
J: Q)- :J_ 0. 0 ;> c: ..:-:..
() a.. 0 ø 0 U) I ~ ...~ ~
IV 0 ~.~ §
;; -5 :E CD :.¡::;
.9-.9- "Õ).Q B
Q) Q) :=:J 0
J::r: WCI)...J
Š ,ð -~--Z/
OQoaaaO a
fß.~~~ER-ER-~ ER-
a) ai
... ...
on on
... ...
III
CII CJ
~ ~ 0
:5 ~.~
o O-g
- 0:::J
C ~
0) 0 ~
E CW ~
CJ w~t; <i! 0..
C. c WCJ~o..øc~ ro
o = 00000000:0 Õ
uwo:o:co..~ ~
0)
>
0) f/
c - -
tJ "
C CO).,
CIS CIS ·0..... ~ ~
- '" -
.cD..... a. !!!
... ft " .,
....._.... ;:: "., 000)
-' w 0 ~ ~
_"O)"C 0 Q. ~O
IíiiIg ~ Q) k; CJ) !;2 s:'2
...ClSf/ ,., '0 1'-'"
...."C 0 ::J 0 0 0
C -- ..c .c .. ..
.- _0 c. ., 1! Q;' ., ., .,
tn 0 Ec;:;= ~ 16m
:::::If/ ... ~'" 0 0 00
OCft 1;; "! 0: 1::"
o ... a::tñ a a .s! .9
::I: (,) .... on" I'- '" 00 1ií
.... 0 0« it) 'r"" C.
°CC) .,!. g
1:D...: g¡ u
(,) - .,
0) f/ E _
E .- 0 C., .,
10' ~
_ .... "" E '5
... .- Q) c: :>
CIS õ §E Q;~
C. (1) _0. >.-
'- 00 0 c:
CI) e ('I)Q) (!) :JE
C 0.. ~> -
~., '" E
. g> S-C 0 0 g 0
( ) ëi.i Q)~ ZZ...J()
::J 0.,
..... 0".,
-' :I: CD '-
Q) (¡)C>
- "ëi)Q)
.c .,""
~ rol!;!
o k;(;)
"" "'w'" ".
C::J 00
(/) .Q Q.) 0
c: Q.)J:: -
., E- C
~ 0.£ 0
(!) .J::(f.I ('0.
C) (1):': IIJ >
~ c E§ U):E
(t .-.- Q)
+:õ (/) ::!: IV Q) -=
(/) iS~:2 E .¡ .¡..;
co::I: .- (/) 0 C ;..:..
W ~ co I ~ ...~!f1,
(1) 0 ~.~ §
-£ £ :B Q) :.¡::¡
.9-.9- 13).cB
Q.) Q.) :=:J 0
II WU)...J
Š ;ð - S~-
-. - _.,._---..__.-.~ --- ---,~-_.."_..._- --.. -- .- -.--
0000008 0
gfA-tA-fA-fA-fA-a fA-
LÖ LÒ
~ ~
N N
.,. .,.
U
CII (!)
~ ~ ~
- C/J c:
- =>.-
o O-g
- :r: '"
Co':
G) ~ w .2
E -f- ~
(!) wS:C/J <i! '::
c. m(!)~~ø<f- ø
o oC/JOOC/J:r:O Õ
- uw:r::r:<~f- f-
G)
>
G) I/ '"
o - ~
ccg 'G
('I .!!! 'õ' ¡f
.c a.. .. ¡¡;
..a.. c: ~
:J" ~ ë ~C»
Q)"'C ra ~ ;:~
Oc!S.... ,'n ~ Q) 0 C"1
as"" U C) r:::ëD ~
CÐ't: I/ ., ~ 0 0 .,
c·- 0 a::: ~ .... E
.-"õQ. ~ Õ' g- .æ,æ.~
~I/ ~ (¡j ~ ~ ~~ ~
OCIl. ~ "! 0 "'§ .,
.... 0 u. 0 0 ø._ '"
......... (") I"-- a C/J- - E
O 0 0 '" '" .£! ._
~ ~ ~
°OCÐ § "8
-Il.C u ~
c 0- C) _
G)O't: .., ;;:_
v, 0 0 C
E .- c: ~ ., .,
t:: ...I :g 'E~
q:: -c:::>
ca .... S ~j¡)~
C. Q,) - co > ._
- c: _ 0 c:
Q) c: 0"': coC):J
O c3 ,=,æ ~ _ E
r¡ c: . r¡ E
. C:._ Q) 0 0 a 0 0
~" ~"'i5.() Z Z !Ò...J U
VI m ~c:
., Øo
::J t; c:"'
., øø
a:: .Q~
>- ",0
ø 0"
- ~'"
o c: >. ('-.
oS: en
æ (/J ~O º
o Q) (I) Q) «
...J:.= ens:.
co:= -,:: Õ
a ~ ~o ~>
'I"'"" LL co c: en _
§ 0 ~.g ~ ::r:
.-:.: Et' Q) s:.
õ..c.co E:!:::.....
Q):::J ::I Q, 0 ~ c: ,.:..:.,
(/) a.. en ra J: æ ...!f! ~
4>0 ~'§-a
=-5 :BCD+:
.9- .9- ë».5 ~
Q) Q) :::::J 0
::r:J: W(I)-I
'"
8 /3 -:::,~
-- --.- -----.-..,-,.--..-.. ~---"'-'--~-----'-'---------
~.. --.-.--.....-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / g/
Meeting Date 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 18991 Re-endorsing the siting of a University of California
campus in Chula Vista
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ,1f;t
REVIEWED BY: City Managerí'~íV (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
b.(
Recent efforts to obtain commitments for the identification of a future University of California
campus on a designated site within the Otay Ranch have prompted the need for current
endorsements of identified site. Proposed for Council action is a resolution which re-endorses the
designated university site within the Otay Ranch. On October 28, 1993 both the County of San
Diego and the City of Chula Vista jointly approved a General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
for the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch, which includes an 1,100 acre site for a future university.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution re-
endorsing the siting of a University of California campus in Chula Vista.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
In 1991, the City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the location of a site for a University of
California campus within the Otay Ranch. This resolution, along with similar resolutions of
endorsement from the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, were transmitted to the
University of California.
/fJ~ I
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 3/17/98
On October 28, 1993, the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista jointly adopted a
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch which identified an
1,100 acre site for a future university campus. This site overlooks Otay Lake and the Otay Valley
and is adjacent to the Arco Olympic Training Center and the Eastern Urban Center planned for
the Otay Ranch.
Subsequently, the University of California did select one additional campus site to be constructed
in Central California (Merced).
Discussion
Senator Peace, in his recent discussions with the UCCV Task Force, stated that it is his belief that
there is a very good, but short window of opportunity to have the Chula Vista site designated as
a future campus. Though construction would not begin for many years, having the site formally
designated by the UC Board of Regents is the fIrst step. Because a number of local legislators are
in positions of authority in the state Legislature, this may be our best opportunity in years.
Getting the campus designation is his highest priority this legislative session, and he encouraged
efforts to give him the support he needs to carry this through the state budget process.
In support of these efforts, and to show continuing community-wide support it is recommended
that Council adopt the attached Draft Council Resolution re-endorsing the siting of a University
of California campus on the Otay Ranch.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is anticipated with the proposed action. Staff efforts will continue to be supported
through the General Fund.
(H:\SHAREDlPLANN1NGlUC.A11)
/;5--- c?--
- - ---- ,~._._-
RESOLUTION NO. /ff'1~/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RE-ENDORSING THE SITING OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CAMPUS IN CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, The University of California Board of Regents have previously expressed a
desire to construct one or more new University of California campuses; and
WHEREAS, an additional campus site has been already selected in Merced, California
to accommodate a demonstrated need for additional student facilities; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego region is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and
Nation; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch is one of the largest land holdings adjacent to an urban area
in the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego jointly approved a General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch on October 28, 1993
which includes a site for an 1,100 acre university overlooking Otay Lakes and the Otay Valley;
and
WHEREAS, Otay Ranch offers an unparalleled opportunity to plan and construct a
magnificent new community; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch is located in the South San Diego County subregion, an
area that is experiencing strong economic and population growth; and
WHEREAS, South San Diego County is ethnically and culturally diverse due to its
proximity to the International Border; and
WHEREAS, South San Diego County will become a major regional hub due to
development on Otay Mesa and the SR-1 25 corridor; and
WHEREAS, South San Diego County has gained international stature due to the U.S.
Arco Olympic Training Center located in Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the approved General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the Otay
Ranch and the City of Chula Vista General Plan designate a major area of the Otay Ranch as
a major regional commercial destination through the development of the Eastern Urban Center;
and
WHEREAS, overwhelming interest has been expressed by the public to locate a
University of California campus within the Otay Ranch; and
/%/J
Resolution No.
Page No.2
WHEREAS, a University of California campus would enhance the economic, educational
and cultural vitality of the San Diego region in general and the South San Diego County in
particular; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby re-endorse the designated site within the Otay Ranch as a new University of California
campus.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Shirley Horton Q;¿~ fr-
Mayor City Attorney
(H:ISHAREDIPLANNINGIUNIV.CCRI
/g~7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2¿J/J
-
Meeting Date 5/5/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution -I g99~ Supporting AB 2228 {Davis} Petroleum:
competition
SUBMITTED BY: Legislative Committee 4/5 Vote: Yes - NoX
Assembly Bill 2228 (Davis) Petroleum: competition declares that nothing in state law
preempts local authority in the field of distribution and sales of motor vehicle fuels.
This bill has been introduced to assist the County of San Diego in its efforts to
enforce the gasoline "divorcement" ordinance also under consideration by the City of
Chula Vista.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution supporting AB
2228. This proposed legislation will benefit the City should Chula Vista wish to adopt
a gasoline "divorcement" ordinance similar to that recently adopted by the County of
San Diego.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
BackQround
In January of this year the County of San Diego adopted an ordinance which prohibits
refiner-operated retail service stations (also known as "divorcement"). The ordinance
includes a provision for branded motor fuel franchisees (e.g. local Shell, ARCO,
Chevron stations) to purchase branded motor fuel from any location or through any
vendor in a refiner's wholesale fuel network (commonly referred to as "open supply"
regulation) . The ordinance also prohibits price discrimination and overcharges by
refiners. The Chula Vista City Council considered a similar action on 2/10/98 but has
not yet held the second reading and adoption of a divorcement ordinance.
In response to the County of San Diego's actions, the Western Regional Petroleum
Association (WRPA) has filed a lawsuit which alleges, in part, that local ordinances
of this type are invalid because state law preempts local control over gasoline
regulation.
)f)d ' I
_____.._M__" -_._,"-_._-- . -- -+-, ---.------. - -.-...-.----- -------._-_..,,--""---_._----~._-_.,.,..,--~._-_._'--~--
Page 2 Item No._
Meeting Date: 5/5/98
Working cooperatively with the County of San Diego, Assemblymember Susan Davis
has introduced AB 2228. This bill clarifies that no preemption exists in state law
which prohibits local agencies from enacting ordinances which regulate the
distribution or sale of motor vehicle fuels. This bill will assist local agencies by
negating the above-stated segment of the WRPA lawsuit.
Assemblymember Davis stresses that AB 2228 is not an effort to regulate the oil
industry but, rather, a clarification of current state law.
Assemblymember Davis is requesting letters of support for AB 2228 from all the cities
within the region and has provided a copy of such a letter submitted by the City of
Encinitas. Because this issue is not covered in the City's adopted 1998 Legislative
Program, Council action is required in order for the City to take a position on the bill.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Undetermined. While the costs associated with the WRPA lawsuit are being borne by
the County of San Diego, it is not certain what other suits might be filed against local
agencies adopting a similar ordinance. To the extent that AB 2228 clarifies the
absence of a state preemption of local authority in this matter, the bill is deserving of
support and might facilitate Chula Vista adopting the County's model ordinance. The
County of San Diego Board of Supervisors believes that County-wide enforcement of
the divorcement ordinance will lead to lowered gasoline prices for the consumer.
Should this occur, there would be a corresponding reduction in the amount of gasoline
tax received by the City.
attachments:
· Analysis of AB 2228 ---
· Text of AB 2228 ---
· Request for support from Assemblymember Davis ----
· Letter of support from City of Encinitas ~
· Resolution ---
· Minutes of 211 0/98 Chula Vista City Council meeting concerning divorcement
ordinance ~ ~ C;:1.JvIJ'v~
c:\...\ccm\ab2228.113
c20/'?'-- c2.
------,.... _..'-- -..--..'""..---.-- --._- --------_.... -..-- ------ _._._._._._._..~_._.__.,._..._--_._._._-.----~----~--_.--~_..,-,._._--
RESOLUTION NO. / ð'97l-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING AB 2228 (DAVIS)
PETROLEUM: COMPETITION
WHEREAS, in January, 1998, the County of San Diego
adopted an ordinance which prohibits refiner-operated retail
service stations (also known as "divorcement"); and
WHEREAS, in response to the County of San Diego's
actions, the Western Regional Petroleum Association (WRPA) has
filed a lawsuit which alleges, in part, that local ordinances of
this type are invalid because state law preempts local control over
gasoline regulation; and
WHEREAS, working cooperatively with the County of San
Diego, Assemblymember Susan Davis has introduced AB 2228 which
clarifies that no preemption exists in state law which prohibits
local agencies from enacting ordinances which regulate the
distribution or sale of motor vehicle fuels; and
WHEREAS, this bill will assist local agencies by negating
the above-stated segment of the WRPA lawsuit; and
WHEREAS, Assemblymember Davis stresses that AB 2228 is
not an effort to regulate the oil industry but, rather a
clarification of current state law; and
WHEREAS, Assemblymember Davis is requesting letters of
support for AB 2228 from all the cities within the region; and
WHEREAS, because this issue is not covered in the city's
adopted 1998 Legislative Program, Council action is required in
order for the City to take a position on the bill.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby support AB 2228 (Davis) Petroleum:
competition.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Shirley Horton, Mayor
C:\rs\ab2228.sup
;2¿/,,1 '"' 3
_ -.-.--.-.-- -- -.--....... ~-,- ------.... .-.~-_._..- - ------"."-"_.._-_._._.._._---_._-----_._._------_.-~--~-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
April 27, 1998
I BILL I AUTHOR I TITLE I INTRODUCED I AMENDED
AB 2228 Davis Petroleum: competition 2/19/98 I --
CITY POSITION LEAGUE POSITION RELATED BILLS ADDRESSED BY LEG. PROGRAM
PENDING NONE NONE No; Council Action Required
STATUS: Pending in Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection, Government Efficiency and Economic Development; hearing
5/5198 and in Assembly Local Government, no hearing date set
8ACKGROUND: On January 7, 1998 the County Board of Supervisors indicated that a December ruling of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had reaffirmed the fact that San Diego County residents
pay significantly higher average retail prices for gasoline than their counterparts in Los
Angeles. The FTC identified six vertically integrated oil companies that control approximately
90% of the gasoline sold at both the wholesale and retail level in San Diego County. The
FTC found there was "no explanation other than anti-competitive forces why gasoline prices
in San Diego are higher than Los Angeles."
On January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted a "divorcement" ordinance which
has three main components: (1) a prohibition against refiner-operated retail service stations,
(2) a provision for branded motor fuel franchisees to purchase branded motor fuel from any
location or through any vendor in a refiner's wholesale fuel network (commonly referred to
as "open supply" regulation) and (3) a prohibition against price discrimination and
overcharges by refiners. The City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista have held public
hearings and first readings of an identical ordinance (on 2/2/98 and 2/10/98 respectively).
but have not adopted the ordinance.
The Western Regional Petroleum Association (WRPA) has filed a lawsuit against the County
of San Diego in response to the ordinance. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that local ordinances
of this type are invalid because state law preempts local control over gasoline regulation.
AB 2228 would: Declare that no preemption exists in state law which prohibits local agencies from enacting
ordinances which regulate the distribution or sale of motor vehicle fuels. This bill will assist
local agencies by negating the above-stated segment of the WRPA lawsuit.
FISCAL IMPACT: Undetermined. While the costs associated with the current WRPA lawsuit are being borne
by the County of San Diego, it is not certain what other suits might be filed against local
agencies adopting a similar ordinance. To the extent that AB 2228 clarifies the absence of
a state preemption of local authority in this matter, the bill is deserving of support. It should
be noted, however, that should the local ordinance adoption have the desired effect of
lowering the price of gasoline paid by consumers in San Diego, there will be a correlated
reduction in the amount of gasoline tax received by local government agencies throughout
the region.
DATE TO COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION LETTERS
5/5/98 SUPPORT YES
C:\wp51 \ANAL YSES\ab2228.ana
c:2tl/9~ý i
I
-+~'^ - -.-------..---,. " ._.-~."-~.- _..~_.._.~---~-~-,-,-~-_._-----
AB2228 http://wNw.sen.ca.gov/htbin/ca-html.. .00.AB2228]CURRVER. TXT; 1/bill/AB2228
AS 2228 Petroleum: competition.
BILL NUMBER: AB 2228 INTRODUCED 02119/98
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Davis
FEBRUARY 19, 1998
An act to add Section 21200.1 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to petroleum.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AS 2228, as introduced, Davis. Petroleum: competition.
Under existing state law, a refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle
fuels is prohibited from discriminating in price between different purchasers if the effect of the
discrimination is harmful to competition, as specified.
This bill would provide that nothing in state law shall invalidate an ordinance of, or be
construed to prohibit the adoption of an ordinance by, a city, city and county, or county, if that
ordinance regulates competition in the refining, wholesale or retail distributing, pricing,
manufacturing, or transporting of motor vehicle fuels or oils.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
SECTION 1. Section 21200.1 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
21200.1. Nothing in this code or in any other statute shall invalidate an ordinance of, or be
construed to prohibit the adoption of an ordinance by, a city, city and county, or county, if that
ordinance regulates competition in the refining, wholesale or retail distributing, pricing,
manufacturing, or transporting of motor vehicle fuels or oils.
Jt1ð~f"
1 of 1 04/13/9814:40:00
____m_m__ ___..._..__......_.'..,_._.'______ __ - __________.___.,._____'.M_n....___,·,,·_._____
APR-B9-1998 14'18 ASSEMBLYWOMAN SUSAN DAVIS 619 294 2348 P.02/e5
STRIi CAPITOL CHAIR.
110. _ 1M2B49 ~J.tuthIV _ Pf'IOTECTION.
SACAAMIHTO, 0A_1 IIOI/EINIENTAl EFRCIII«:Y'
c-'s) 44&-1210 ICONOMIC DEVB.DI'IIEII1'
. . '-"',
ClBTAICT QFRCE 4útli!øhiia-~~g¡sWut'~ IUÞGET
1O'to UNlYãRSt1'Y AVENUE EDUCIO'IOM
IlUJΠC_ HEALTH
SAHDII!iJO.OA 112103 INTIIVWIONAL TRADE
(S'S) 29'-7800 SUSAN A,. DAVIS . œv&CPMII'IT
ASSE!œ.YWOMAN, SEvENTYoI!HXTJ DISTftIQT
April 9. 1998
Shirley Horton, Mayor
City of Chu1a Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
I am writing to request a letter of support from the City of Chula Vista fur Assembly Bill 2228,
which I have introduced this _ion to address the issue of state preemption in the field of
distribution and sales of motor vehicle fuels.
As you know. the Western States Petroleum ÁBsociatiœ has tiled suit IIgIÜnBt the County of San
Diego Blleging, in part, that state law preempts local authority in this field. AB 2228. which will
be heard by the Assembly Consumer Protecticm, Govmmnental Efficiency and Economic
Development Committee on May Sill, clarifies that nothing in slate: law prohibits a city or tounty
from adopting an ordinance regulating the sale and/or dlstl'ibution of motor vehicle fuelJl.
I have enclosed II copy of AB 2228 and a support letter submitted by the City ofEncinitas.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mark Pettis in my District Office at (619) 294-7600 if you have
any questions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
..,L-.a~
SUSAN A. DAVIS
ÁBsemblymember, 7611I District
SADImp
Sm1Ing 1M City øfSIII Di'JØ
....
-"'IIoOJIO/III~
#/9~ &-
-.--......--.--..-..-..-.,-...,.-.....- ---.-.-- ----~--'"_..._'^". -^.._._.~,.~-,-----,-,-_._-_._,,,_.,"~-_.- ---,------- -----
APR-09-1998 14' 19 ASSEMBLYWOMAN SUSAN DAVIS 619 294 2348 P.0S/0S
DIS1IIcrQffIŒ
MAR 2 7 1998
City at om... of
Encinitas Mayor
MIuch 26, 1998
I.ou þt»II
N_
The Honorable HOWIId Kalooaïan
74th District
. 701 Palomar Aùport Road, Suite 190
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Cbuch Du MIli6r
Dqou.. MA,... ReI AB 2228 P.woleum Competition
Dear Howard:
Jø~.r:."~ On behalf of the City of Encini1lls, I am as1dng for your support of AB 2228 (Davis)
which would strengthen petroleum "divoWW'lp.nt'" ortllnJl1'lces adopted by various el_
and the County of San Diego. Conaumers in our IIIgKm are paying a premium for
gasoline which caD110t bl: somly attributable 1D IIIIII"kct pricing. EDcinitas. like several
other San Diego county cities, bas adopted an ordinance which promotes cmnpetition
Sb,/Iø c,,""""" by reducing oil companies' vmtica1 marlœt control.
Cau.adl M.mu..
ABtns would provide that DOtbin¡ in state law sball invelidatc, or prohibit the
adoption of an ordinance by a city or county that regulates competition In ,.,fInll1g,
wholesale or ratail distributing, pricing, manufacturing, or transporting of motor
vehicle fuels or oils.
Job" DJlul$
CoII.Ic:Il Mcmbco I ask for your SI1P1)Ort in ur¡ing your colleagues. to join you in supporting this
legislation.
Lauren M. Wasmrman
Ci'7M_
,/wmIIi I'. B Encinitas City Counoil
AølrtalX CRy MM.., c:
Susan Davis. 16th District
Greg Cox, Chair, San Diego County BoIU'd of Supervisors
Capri &; Clay
,:Io¡IiIlb222I.hr ~~P/IPfII
TEL 7Q1.63~1 / FAX 760·6.13-2627 505 So Vukan ^_... Ençjni..., Cailfomla '2824·"." TOO 7'fO.43302700
TOTAL P. 05
ø?tfld- ? !PC/l-¡1
--,_....,- ____"_.H___.___..____ ____,_.. - ----.- ---~. ---..-- ~""-~.
~im,rt.es I
February 10, 1998 I
Page 7 I
~
WITH APPURTENANCES, AND APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER 97-2 (OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE ONE)
John Lippitt, Public Works Director, indicated that this is to provide the
backbone infrastructure for Village One cf.Otay Ranch. It is in conformance with i
Proposition 218. There has been a ballot; the results will be announced after ,
the public hearing is closed.
This being the time and placed as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no one indicating a desire to address the Council, the public hearing
was closed..
Mr. Lippitt announced that the results of the election. It passed with one vote
yes which was 100% of the represented landowners.
RESOLUTIONS 18890, 18891, 18892, AND 18893 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE,
headings read, texts waived, passed and approved unan~ously 5-0.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
............. .
-........ .
:....... . ACTION ITEMS
:::::::::)t
.... ., 19. ORDINANCE 2720 ADDING A CHAPTER RELATING
...... .. TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
~.. . . . . . '.: .'. : . REGULA:rING TIlE DISTRIBUTION OF GASOLINE AND THE OPERATION OF GASOLINE SERVICE
.. ... .., STATIONS (first readinq) - In response to Councils' concern regarding the need
......... .
C······
"-..... . to protect the City's consumers from artificially high gasoline prices, the City
.... .
.... . Attorney has drafted an ordinance to add to the Municipal Code. The proposed
ordinance maintains the following three strategies for lowering gasoline prices:
(1) a prohibition and phasing out of refiner operated ( i.e. "Company operated")
retail services stations (commonly referred as "divorcement"); (2) a provision
to allow branded motor fuel franchisees to purchase branded motor fuel from any
location or through any vendor in a refiner's wholesale fuel network (commonly
referred to as "open supply" regulation, similar to the 1997 Peace Bill, Senate
Bill 404); and (3) prohibitions against price discrimination and overcharges by
refiners. If Counc il adopts the proposed ordinance, it is recommended that,
prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the City enter into a legally
binding agreement with the County of San Diego to defend and indemnify the City
from any legal challenges to the ordinance, or to share the cost of defense. Per
staff's recommendation, the ordinance was placed on first reaaing. (City
Attorney)
John Kaheny, City Attorney, stated that we will be discussing a further
recommendation on the implementation procedure when Council adjourned into Closed
Session due to the threat of pending litigation~
The following addressed Council:
. Tim Cohelan, 'attorney, 701 "C" Street, San Diego, spoke in ,favor of the
proposal. His involvement in this springs from some involvement in litigation
against the California refiners that refine and market the gasoline that has been
required in California since March 1996.
. Greg Cox, Supervisor, 647 Windsor Circle, Chula Vista, 91910, stated that
the rationale and reason for this is because the people in San Diego County pay
anywhere from 15 to 20 cents or more per gallon of gasoline than the people in
~ Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties pay for the same grade of gasoline.
It has been estimated that the cost to purchasers in San Diego County has been
about $163 million in the last two years that we have been overcharged in
comparison to the residents in the other counties. We have made every effort to
get an explanation from the oil companies, and yet we have not received a
reasonable explanation as to why there is a significant differential in cost ~
We would like to have gas in San Diego available at a fair and competitive rate
,<¡:P~- ~
- -.-..-- . .-- ~ .- .... ____.._,_._·_.......,·'·....m._._·......, m_.·'·_ _ _ .M>·'__··._·._,·____.__ _..._._-~..,-_...-
\
Minutes
February 10, 1998
Page 8
.\
that isn't artificially inflated. There are three components to the County's
ordinance: (1 ) remove price control mechanisms such as zone pricing; (2)
increase competition through a larger network of dealers; (3) create less company
operated stations. The Board of Supervisors was looking for a partner in this.
They would like to think that the cities which have come on board now have every
bit of the same concern in regards to potential litigation. The way their
ordinance is set up would dictate that unless we get 2/3s of the population in
the County of San Diego represented by their respective jurisdictions to pass
similar ordinances, we won't have an ordinance at all. There are legal reasons
why this is important. We can't have an ordinance that applies in the
unincorporated part of the County. There have been some discussions within the
last few days between the City and County of San Diego to come up with an
agreement in regards to a hold harmless so that if you pass this ordinance and
the oil companies chose to sue one of the cities, there would be a willingness
to come into the defense and aid of those cities. It was their anticipation that
if this has enough support in the region that we would seek a declaratory relief
and that would go a long way towards minimizing any potential litigation and
liability in the event the ordinance would be found to be unconstitutional. He
asked for Council's consideration to pass an ordinance similar to the ones which
have been passed by the County and City of San Diego, and cities of La Mesa, El
Cajon, Imperial Beach, Santee, and what is being contemplated for Del Mar,
Escondido, and Oceanside. These ordinances are substantially consistent with the
ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors.
Councilmember Rindone asked that assuming Chula Vista takes a position of support
with the first reading of the ordinance, if all of those municipalities that have
done so to date, where are we on the percentage of territory as far as the 2/3s
relationship. .
Supervisor Cox replied that based upon the population figures of January 1, 1997
with the County of San Diego and assuming that the City of San Diego and other
cities place their ordinances on second reading, that would represent about 68%
of the population in the region. With the three additional cities of Del Mar,
Escondida, and'Oceanside, it would bring add another 10\. If Chula Vista passes
their ordinance, it would be almost 85%. The more cities who pass substantially
similar ordinances, the better their arguments will be in regards to the legality
of the ordinance.
Councilmember Rindone asked staff if there was anything provided to Council that
if this was adopted would allow the oil companies not to be impacted by the
proceedings? He wanted to insure that if these proceedings are adopted, there
would not be an escape clause~
Bart Meisfeld, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the ordinance as drafted does
not go to the.wholesale level; it is more directed to the retail. Although the
Supervisor did indicate that there is one portion that will allow the dealers in
San Diego County to go to any type of refinery distribution system even to Los
Angeles to get their gasoline.
· Martin Calvo, 974 paseo Entrada, Chula Vista, 91910, member of the Economic
Development Commission and representing TQM Manufacturing, encouraged the Council
to go forward and implement this ordinance.
· Salim 8ettayed, 1671 Abalone Point Court, Chula Vista, field supervisor for
Arco PM. He was concerned about the divorcement issue since no one has come up
with' a answer to the gasoline prices in San Diego. Everyone wants to resolve the
issue, but he did not feel divorcement was the answer to the problem.
· Penny Daoodi, 2489 LaCosta, EastLake, 91915, urged a no vote on the .
divorcement issue.
· John Rak, 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, Director of Government Issues
for Arco Products Co., stated that the dealer-price service stations were selling
gasoline at a higher price than the average Area station in San Diego County
which are company-owned stations. The County ordinance is purporting to be a
):¿J,-tj- <;
.-------.- __'M" -----. ""---- .- -..--"-------,--~.._._-_..---------~--~-_._----.~~---------"--.' ..---
/
I
/
I
I Minutes
¡ February 10, 1998
Page 9
·
cure-all for all of San Diego County's higher gasoline prices. This ordinance
is not new and will not reduce prices. This ordinance has been introduced into
any environment that the dealer organizations can find that has a perceived price
problem where a political environment invites it. The people of San Diego do
have a legitimate concern that they pay more for gasoline than some other
geographic areas. The following differences between San Diego and Los Angeles
can account for about 5 cents for pipeline transportation costs, 2 cents per
gallon for a pareñt to dealer margin, and the higher costs for building service
stations and doing business in San Diego.
Councilmember Moot challenged Mr. Rak with the following questions: (1) Does
Arco dictate through zone pricing, the price by which the independent franchisees
purchase their gas through their leases? (2) Do you charge the same price for
the company owned stations or a different price? (3) Will they provide the price
that they charge company owned stations for the gasoline?
Mr. Rak stated that Mr. Moot was assuming that the price begins at the wholesale
leve 1. Price starts from the retail side. Arco has different trade zones. San
Ysidro and Chula Vista are in the same trade zone. They would be willing to
provide the price they charge to company-owned stations. He stated that he had
a lessee-dealer station in San Ysidro that charges a $1.499 for gasoline and a
station in Chula Vista that is company-operated that charges $1. 299, and both
were charged the same price by the company.
Councilmember Moot stated that if he could provide the City Attorney the
information by which Arco supplies gasoline to its company-owned stations; in
other words, what their company-owned station pays for that gasoline.
· Mr. Rak responded that they would be happy to do that.
Councilmember Moot asked for an explanation as to why under zone pr~c~ng a
branded franchiser in Chula Vista would be required to buy gasoline, for example
at 74 cents per gallon without taxes and the same gasoline station in Escondido
would be able to buy at 66 cents.' Why can't a station in Chula Vista buy its gas
for the same price as a gas station in Escondida.
Mr. Rak responded that these are different trade areas. Retail price is the
mechanism in which they determine their wholesale price to that dealer. They
want to keep their dealers happy. Their wholesale price is carried off the
retail price in that particular area. Since Escondida is more competitive and
has more service stations per population and per area, they are a more
competitive area. If we charged them the same price, it wouldn't be fair to the
dealers. They would not be able to match the competition in that area.
Councilmember Moot asked isn't it true the reason they are more competitive is
because they have more independent stations and less company-owned stations?
Mr. Rak stated that was not true.
Mayor Horton asked him to explain why Big Bear is that much cheaper than Chula
Vista and other areas in San Diego County.
Mr. Rak stated he was not an expert in the way those particular areas are priced,
but the alternative for people going up there, they can fuel up in San Bernardino
and drive up there; therefore, they have to keep the price competitive in order
for those stations in Big Bear to be able to sell the volumes that those dealers
need to make a reasonable profit for themselves.
· Mayor Horton asked why didn't they keep the prices competitive in the San Diego
County region comparable to Los Angeles.
Mr. Rak stated that the retail prices are the things that are determined by the
dealers. There are 750 stations in this area and over 600 of them are
independent dealers. They are setting the street prices.
~jPff JO
,., .. -_._._~-----"-_._._- _ ---_.._--~.....,._...,,_....._._..- .._-_......_-_._~--~~ _ _ .--.---- ...,._.~---_._-----_._---_._----_.__._---.-~-
Minutes '
February 10, 1998 ~
Page 10
councilmember Moot stated that he was misleading the public. The price that an ~ ,41
independent franchise branded station pays is dictated by their lease. The oil
company that they have their lease with tells them on any given day what they pay
for the price of gas delivered to them. Therefore, they control the price
through the lease with that independent station.
Mr. Rak responded that the Arco manager surveys the neighborhood stations to see
what he needs to post on his marquee so that he could sell the appropriate volume
and get a reasonable margin to be able to survive in this world. Their pricing
is geared to give him the ability to compete with that local market. It is the
retail price that determines the wholesale price.
Councilmember Moot stated that the only problem with what he was saying was that
he has talked with people personally who own franchise gas stations, and they all
tell him the same thing. The price that they buy their gas for under the terms
of their lease is dictated by the oil company that brands them. The oil
companies tell them through zone pricing what they can buy their gasoline for.
Isn't this true?
Mr. Rak stated that what is true is that they charge their dealers a price based
upon the competitive geographic area that they are in. To allow them to survive
and to be able to make a reasonable profit at their service station.
Councilmember Moot asked that same dealer is not free under the terms of their
lease to go to Los Angeles and buy from a different terminal, are they?
Mr. Rak responded that under the terms of that franchise that the dealer entered
into, he cannot go to Los Angeles to pick up that gasoline from our station.
Councilmember Moot asked if Arco Products had a problem with the dealer in Chula .
Vista going up to Los Angeles and buying branded gasoline at a cheaper price and
trucking it down to San Diego.
Mr. Rak replied that the Council should have a problem with that because there
is nothing that says that if the dealer picks up gasoline cheaper and brings it
here that he has to give that to you. It is just as easy for him to put it in
his pocket. The retail price is setting what he puts on the marquee. There is
nothing in this law that will guarantee that any kind of price advantage will be
passed on to the consumer.
. Joseph Serchovich, 3426 Evergreen Road, Bonita, 91902, a franchise Arco
dealer, commented on the difference in price in Reno, Nevada. There was a time
that they had three or four months where they had to truck the gasoline from Los
Angeles because the pipeline was closed. That accounted for most of the high
prices. The gentleman from Arco mentioned that the gasoline sold for $1.49, but
the Arco stations in San Diego sold the gas for $1. 32. That is still a lot
higher than $1.19 that the independent dealer had in Los Angeles. Arco always
says that they are the lowest price dealer, and they always bring examples from
San Francisco where they have only one company-owned station, and they still have
very high prices. If we have so many company-owned stations in San Diego, and
they are the cheapest price, why are we paying so much higher since their
reasoning is that many company-owned stations bring the price down, so why are
the prices so high. He stated that through the zone pricing and the control they
have on the pricing on the street, they do ~queeze their margins. When it comes
time to renew a contract, they are told this is the contract; there are no
negotiations; take it or they wil1 take over. He felt these things lead to
control of the market.
. Michael D. St. Clair, 1523 Vista Grande Road, El Cajon, 92019, Arco gas .
dealer in San Ysidro, he has watched the price zones over the years and compare
the differences. The zone pricing that has been presented is for no other
purpose but to control the regional market. In every hearing that he has been
to on this issue, the elected officials have asked the oil companies the one
question that they refuse to answer which is why are the gas prices in Los
Angeles 15 to 20 cents lower than they are in San Diego. The answer to the
~ó'ð,j I
..___. __ ~____._._.__,,__ ___~_________~_____. ____._____.__.____ m_~_" _______ _.___.. ._________..__.__..-. ____ __~______
Minutes
February 10, 1998
Page 11
question which they do not want to give is because of the amount of control that
they have over the market in the entire San Diego area, especially in the South
Bay area. The way they control it is through the zone pricing. These are zones
which they set up, and they are secretive. This is the first time in ten years
he has heard anyone from Arco that has actually stated that the zones with Chula
vista and San Ysidro are the same. To suggest that the company-operated stations
are actually lowe~ prices is false. In Chula Vista, there is one of the largest
concentrations of company operations with Arco, and Chula Vista has paid the
highest prices along with San Ysidro over the last ten to thirteen years. If it
were true that company operations lowers its prices, then Chula Vista should have
the lowest prices in San Diego County, but we have always had the highest.
. Anita Mangels, 50S N. Brand, Glendale, representing Western States
Petroleum Association of California, which is a non-profit trade association
based in Glendale, California, stated that there are no company operated Shell
stations to divorce in San Diego. If you go forward with divorcement, you are
asking all the company operations to get out, and they can all raise their
prices. You are not going to impact the margins, no matter who owns the station,
they will charge whatever the market will bare. Everyone knows there is a price
differential. The question which has not been answered is how will divorcement
make that different. Even if every city in San Diego adopted a similar
ordinance, it is not going to have a positive impact on prices of gasoline
anywhere in the county~ Council needs to be aware and consider closely that you
are putting jobs at stake, you're not going to make prices go down and you may
make them go up, and in the end, you may have to address the problem again.
. E. J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, Chula Vista stated that all of a sudden
the action that we are taking in the County has done something to someone to make
. prices drop, because recently the price of gasoline has dropped. He urged
. Council to proceed.
. Michael Wickham, 1020 Surrey Court, Bonita, a 76 franchise dealer in Mira
Mesa. He informed Council that his father-in-law runs two Shell stations in San
Diego; they are not company-owned stations, but the company sets the retail price
through E-mail that he gets every day. The gentleman from Arco told council that
retail prices is what sets prices. The Lundberg Survey is what the oil companies
use to find out prices. He gets called once a week by the Lundberg Survey. He
has never been asked what his retail price was. The question is, what is his
dealer tank wagon. Dealer tank wagon sets prices, not retail pricing. Chula
Vista is known as an area that has been red zoned by every oil company in San
Diego. In the last ten years, Chula Vista has paid more than National City,
Spring Valley, and £1 Cajon. He warned Council to listen very carefully when the
oil companies talk.
. Fred Tayco, l160 Nevin Street, San Diego, Policy Advisor to Supervisor
Roberts, stated that Supervisor Roberts has been following this issue since April
1996 when he first raised questions at the California Air Resources Board. He
stated that the bottom line is that the oil industry has never been able to
answer why does San Diego pay 10 to 15 cents more than Orange, Los Angeles, and
Riverside Counties. He recommended that the Council listen to the dealers that
are within Chula Vista who have to pay the high wholesale prices. There are 722
stations in San Diego County. What would Council prefer? Seven hundred and
twenty-two stations actively competing to keep prices down or 6 major oil
companies dictating what price they pay?
· Safir Delgin, 2489 La Costa, Chula Vista, 91915, Arco Supervisor for the
Chula Vista area, stated he did a gas survey last week and the station in San
Ysidro was $1.49; his station which was about two miles away was $1.29~ There
C ' is a 20 cent difference between his station and most of the franchisees.
· . .
At 8:45 p.m~ Council adjourned to Closed Session. The meeting reconvened at 9:17
p.m. with all members of the Council present.
· . . ,,2¿J/J-/;Z
." -.--~--,---_.~---_._--~--." --------------- ~ .. -~--_."~---- ~---_._------_.,---"-.- -~~-------"---- -----~-,~---_..._-,-_._~-------"----
Minutes
February 10, 1998
Page 12
.\
Councilmember Moot stated that he has spent some time with people who own
stations in Chula Vista who have experienced how this process works first hand.
In effect, company-owned stations are the vehicle by which prices are kept
artificially high. It is done through a fairly sophisticated method by which a
company-owned station does not get their price dictated to them by the oil
company. The oil company and the station are one in the same and that price is
supplied to that station at whatever the oil company wants to give to them. The
price with an independent branded station is done through their lease. They are
required to accept gas delivered to them by the oil company, and their prices are
dictated by zone pricing set by the oil company. They currently do not have the
abili ty to go into the open market and buy on the open market. It is this
problem that makes it, in conjunction with the large percentages of company-owned
gas stations in San Diego County, that allows them to in effect control the price
through the prices set by the company-owned stations. A company-owned station
can set their prices 2 to 4 cents a gallon less and still make just as much money
because they make up in volume for what they lose in price. When the oil company
dictates to the independent· branded stations their price through zone pricing in
order to continue to operate at margins to make money, they have to raise their
prices. Then the company-owned stations follow suit and their prices go up
slightly, but somewhat less than the branded stations. He felt it would be very
interesting when the City Attorney writes the gentleman from Area a letter and
asks for the information which indicates the price at which the company-owned
stations acquire gasoline from their particular oil company. He predicted that
we will never see that information, because they will never be able to show that
the price is the same as the price dictated under the zone market prices and that
are dictated to the independent branded stations.
Councilmember Salas stated that one of the things which bothered her were not
only the veiled threat!; of litigation, but also the threat that Arco would .
withhold its funding of the Olympic Training Center if Council took this action.
She hoped this was not the position of Arco.
Councilmember Padilla stated that in looking at the difference in the price zone
in North San Diego County versus South San Diego County and for representatives
from the Association and the company-owned interests to indicate that the retail
end drives the wholesale market, this was reverse economics. The recent
attention to the issue has caused prices on both ends to incrementally fall
throughout the County just as the first steps toward unified action by
jurisdictions in the County began to take place. He felt it was interesting to
have some admission by representatives of the industry that the final solution
was going to be on the wholesale end, at the state and federal regulatory end..
This entire problem wasn' t going to be solved until we have overcome those
obstacles in the legislature and in Washington and that we have the ability to
take action successfully at those levels to address what was going on at the
wholesale level. .He did not think this particular ordinance was going to solve
the current market problem immediately, but that it would impact the
proliferation and continuation of a problem whereby the wholesalers could
practice market manipulation and, after a short period of time, the independents
would not be able to keep up and would go out of business. Unfortunately, the
San Diego region has maintained this, and the market has sustained this for a
short period of time, but he felt that it was time that big oil looked south and
realized that this wasn't going to continue without some action. Therefore, his
vote, although it was not a solution in its entirety, was going to have his
support.
Councilmember Rindone stated this may not be the panacea to solve all the
problem, but it was a step in the right direction. The issues of the wholesale
pricing and the distribution practices were issues to be dealt with, but he felt
it was obvious that within the last two weeks or so, in anticipation of this .
measure coming before the Council, prices at the local service stations have
dropped significantly. He did not feel this would have occurred otherwise. He
was pleased to join his colleagues in support of the ordinance in order to deal
with an issue that the constituents have been very concerned about for a long
time.
, ),cJ4- /.3
--_~______._._,._.____ ··___·"_··'~_·_'__·_·______~_'_·____··__.____'··__W···_,....___.."
Minutes
February 10, 1998
Page 13
ORDINANCE 2720 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, heading read, text
waived and approved unanimously 5-0.
20. RESOLUTION 18894 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SECTION 108
APPLICATION TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TO AUTHORIZE $1 MILLION FOR
FUNDING THE A CHULA VISTA SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM - Council
previously approved hiring a consultant to assist staff to develop a HUD Section
108 Loan Program. On 8/5/97, Council approved the Consultant's Phase I
feasibility findings and directed staff and the cOI15ultant to proceed with
preparing a Section 108 Generic Application and developing a Small Business
Revolving Loan Fund Program. Staff is now recommending that Council approve
submission of the Generic Application to HUD for a $1 million in Section 108 loan
authorization, giving Chula Vista the option to access these funds in the future
for specific loans to private business. Per staff's recommendation, the
resolution was approved 5-0. (Director of Community Development)
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development, stated this project has been before Council on
several occasions. She introduced the consultant, Chuck Wolfe, of Clagget, Wolfe
and Associates, who has worked with staff in putting the application together.
RESOLUTION 18894 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOOT, heading read, text waived, passed
and approved unanimously 5-0.
20.1A. ORDINANCE 2721 AMENDING SECTION 2.05.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE
(first readino) - The Police Chief has recently promoted two lieutenants to the
. rank of Police Captain, filling vacancies created by one recent retirement ~nd
the "unfreezing" of a six month vacant position. The restructuring of the
Executive Management of the department (as a result of the long-term vacancy) has
proven beneficial and at the same time, highlighted the need for a "Number Two"
person. Per staff's recommendation, the ordinance on first reading and the
resolution was approved 5-0. (Chief of Police)
.18. RESOLUTION 18895 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO CREATE THE
POSITION OF ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AMENDING RESOLUTION 18829 TO PLACE THIS
POSITION IN SALARY BAND E-2, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 17468 TO ADD THIS POSITION
TO THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT LIST OF CLASSIFICATIONS - 4/5th's vote required.
ORDINANCE 2721 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 18895 OFFERED BY MAYOR
HORTON, beadings read, texts waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
No items were pulled.
OTHER BUSINESS
21. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS)
. Stated there was a memo on the dais that explained the status of the
sinkhole at 1655 Malta Avenue. There wasn't a lot of damage which occurred in
terms of property, and there was no injuries or loss of life. It was the
collapse of a 36 inch storm sewer line that clogged up the area which caused the
sinkhole. The problem has been fixed.
. There will be .a joint meeting with the Chula Vista Elementary School
District Board on Wednesday, February IB at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room.
22. MAYOR'S REPORTIS) - none. ",),¿Jd//7
-----_._-_.~--_._----,--_._-_._---~-_..._-*.~_._--------.. --.- ..--....--...-.-----..- -_.._-,-----------~--~--------~-
Apr-22-98 11:2SA IHA 619-t-238-t-7036 P_OI
i
~ ...... -- D c= c= ^" p
_.n p.a.-.- o.........~.., --c::_...._c:s.:t ..:00'" A'L~cooa-.LÞ'J,. ~co'l1.~'"
1&1.' ~7. - .~50 7.' tl.~91 2.~-..~
1iIIIàJI.!:-. n:;,.......'L oI'rJ...._ .." .."0. ~~ .~,\~
,- ---.-.
l5 ~ Œ Ü '~!
-- -
April 21, 1991 -- APR 2 3 1998
-
,
-rllc Honorable slùrlcy Hortoa ---- --- - :---.1
Maynr of Chllla visa.
276 t'ourth Avennc
(.."hula VISIa; CA 91910
RE: Caors sponsorship aJ UDlvcolll A..pllilheatrc
Dear Mayor Hutton and Mem1lcrs of dac Coldleil:
I read wit1l scrious concem for our yOllah aad thc large Hispank population in Ihe South
Ray area ÏII tile larest issue of dlc Imperial Beach ;md SOuth Co1uIt)' "Eagle and Times'
aflbc propOKd ap'cclIIc:Id betwcca Coon Rrcwing Company ..4 univeruJ Concerts Ine;
far a conçcn vemae in (..'IInla ViSIa.
As I am lure you wclllœo.., tbe IlK uf alwho' and other cIrugs is U50Cialed wim thc
leading causes of death aø4 iDjllI)' a_, _agcrs ami young adulù_ This type of
CODcert venue fllaees heel' Jll'odncts in a vc[)' atuactivc cnvironment for our youth witb
no ......ntion of the )1UtcIItial f~ harm III" ri:!ll< in iL~ IISC_
I ce.rtaillly hope tlAt thi. lgn:ena.:øt will øeed tile IIJ'PI"OYaI of your officcs and will
alloweu.b!ic ~J!.U_t..J!.~~ IU~. pas....." - If I ..... plov1uc yOu ..Ii)¡ any mIIlD""a'
"íiìrérimaüon or psislance, please doII'l hesitate to COBlact me at ....orll: 619 - 292 - S670.
p" )9<6
. l)')Urn:~~j t.j I z& ·.'Î
. a.nnan y
(,¿W)
15 -,<, 0"'-
f ! CrÞ c"..
~'r I
C-('. c/'1 ~I ~~/ e" 1(-
eN'IS S4.i(¡lllðo..(.
\
';¿/,4~/
C
... __''''..__.____ _~_.____,_,_,__,.____.___________._'_n__ _ _ _~ ._,,_.______,______
April 23, 1998
MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patty wes~~ü~
SUBJECT: AMPHITHEATER NAME - COMPLAINT
Dan Tomsky (719-2533 cell#) phoned our offices to voice his concern of the
name of the amphitheater (Coors). He feels it q~ good example for the
youth oJ ou, w"","""ty. ) ,
~/' /' q 8 /
/' L1 (Z'ô 1
(---------'1'::' 01 ~ 0 /;v- ,
y /
/ ." ~
YO, ß
))y "
{; þ (~
trY\, l çf-
It
t '-
~ 1/J-"'c2
-- ---~._-~-------------------------------,------,..- - - ___nO "~_,___ ___________________~____..,_~_____~.._'___________
gro~ ~cÅ)/9
May 5, 1998
MCA RECORDS
UNIVERSAL RECORDS
GEFFEN/DGC RECORDS
INTERSCOPE RECORDS
MCA NASHVILLE/DECCA
GRP RECORDING co.
HIP-O RECORDS
MCA MUSIC PUBLISHING
UNIVERSAL CONCERTS
UNIVERSAL MUSIC INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSAL MUSIC SPECIAL MARKETS
UNIVERSAL MUSIC & VIDEO DISTRIBUTION
To the honorable Mayor of Chula Vista and members of the Chula Vista City Council:
Pursuant to tonight's Chula Vista City Council agenda item with regard to the naming of Coors
Amphitheatre, we would like to take this opportunity to provide some infonuation which we feel should be
considered in the Council's discussion of this issue. We believe that the information below will not only
clarify this situation but will also serve as a positive platfonu from which to develop valuable programs
which can help support the youth of Chula Vista.
Sponsorships and partnerships are a critical component of Universal Concerts' (and most modem
day amphitheatre owners) ability to fmance and develop such amphitheatres. These agreements guarantee
revenue streams over several years, provide marketing support on an ongoing basis and, in fact, provide
experience and support for responsible behavior programs which are important to any responsible alcoholic
beverage vendor. These agreements typically include naming rights to the facility and concert series. You
will note that Universal Concerts' original credentials presentation to the City of Chula Vista included
mention of one of our most prestigious and successful amphitheatres, Molson Amphitheatre in Toronto.
Molson Amphitheatre is a partnership between Universal Concerts and Molson Breweries, and is located
on the property of the Toronto parks department's esteemed Ontario Place, a children's education and
recreational park. Universal Concerts has similar partnerships with Coors in Los Angeles ("The Coors
Light Concert Series at Universal Amphitheatre"), Denver ("The Coors Light Summer of Stars" concert
series), and Washington state ('The Coors Light Concert Series at The Gorge"). Many other private and
municipal entities look to alcoholic beverage companies to help support the development of arenas and
stadiums including Denver's highly successful Coors Field baseball stadium, which caters to a family
audience.
Although we contacted several major corporations to discuss this opportunity ( including sucb
companies as Ford Dealers of Southern California, Novus/Discover cards, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and
Tropicana), Coors Brewing Company was the only corporation which demonstrated an interest in a
sponsorship for a Chula Vista amphitheatre. Furthenuore, Universal Concerts has had such a positive
experience working with Coors in our other markets that we were very pleased that such a responsible and
dedicated company would share our interest and enthusiasm in this exciting market.
For a facility such as an amphitheatre, stadium or arena which customarily serves alcoholic
beverages as part of its concession mix, we believe that Coors Brewing Company offers substantial
knowledge and experience in the mission to present responsible drinking messages. Coors Brewing
Company is in fact a leader in the creation and support of educational programs that communicate the
importance of responsible decisions through both community programs and its advertising and promotional
messages. Just a few of these programs are noted below:
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP
2050 OTAY VALLEY ROAD'. CHULA VISTA CA 91911 TEL 619 671 9816 FAX 619 671 9830
!\ .:2/,4-3
--~---- -.~ ----------~-+--- ~-
For Youth and Teens
Coors is a major sponsor of "An Apple a Day," a prevention education curriculum designed to
teach 5-11 year olds the skills that will help them avoid substance abuse and other unhealthy and
risky behaviors;
Coors encourages youth service through ongoing support of the National Association of Service
and Conservation Corps and Youth Service America, programs which seek to build teens' self
esteem and healthy lifestyles, thereby diminishing their propensity to participate in self-
destructive activities including underage drinking;
Coors provides [mancial and other support to "Courtrooms to Classrooms," a program developed
by district attorneys to bring law enforcement officials into classrooms to help prevent young
people from becoming involved in illegal and unsafe activities;
"Alcohol, Drunk Driving and You" (ADDY), which Coors helped establish and continues to
support, is the youth program of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving. The program
has reduced alcohol- and drug-related auto accidents among teenage drivers through an award-
winning school curriculum, a parent-teen discussion guide, a school assembly guide and a multi-
faceted community demonstration program. ADDY has been recognized by the National Safety
council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Programs for College Campuses
Coors supports effective on-campus programs including:
National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week, an annual event held on more than 3.000
campuses nationwide;
BACCHUS - Boost Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of University Students. Some
600 affiliated chapters promote responsible attitudes toward alcohol beverages.
Community Partnerships
Coors and its distributors form partnerships with retailers, local business leaders, educators,
families, civic leaders and other groups to provide effective alcohol education
Coors partners with the National coalition Against Domestic Violence to support shelters around
the country. The Silver Bullets, a women's professional baseball team launched by Coors in
1994, coordinate fund-raisers for shelters in market where the team plays, and players speak to
kids about the importance of self-esteem and empowerment to help them avoid abusive
relationships later in live.
Based on our experience, no other company has such extensive programming to support the efforts of
schools and communities and encourage responsible behavior. We believe that Coors offers tremendous
opportunities to customize these existing programs and to develop new programs to promote responsible
drinking amongst the youth of your community.
,j 111 -'f
__ __ - ______________._ - .____.___~_..____.._.._,_____~____.._ ____"________...,_,__~__________~..___,____.,___ __ __ __.___n____ -- -~---
We hope that this information not only diminishes any council member's concern with our
association with Coors Brewing Company but also inspires interested parties to contact us and Coors in
order to develop strong programs promoting responsible behavior throughout the community. We look
forward to discussing these exciting opportunities with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerel)!
JO~an oeck
Vice President
Universal Concerts
.;2/ í-J - b
--~_._-------~------,._-~~-------_..