HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/06/25 (2)
"' declare Nnder penalty 01 perjury that' am
emp!oyed by the CHy of ChuliJ Vista in tho
Of1ico of the City GIN;; ~:n~; 't:',1~ I p~5~r.:t~
this Agenda/Notice on ti":.z 8~¡Ii'.::tin e~~1rd at
Tuesday, June 25, 1996 1~n PubHc sor~es Euildi; ~'. ¡¡nrl.a C¡"Y Hall on Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DArED:, ~h> ¡, S1Gí'~~D ,~~ " Puhlic Services Building
,-
Joint Medin!! of the City of Chula Vi5ta
and Plannim.! Commission
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Councihnember.s Alevy _' Moot _' Padill. _' Rindone _' and
Mayor Horton _'
Planning Commissioners Davis _. Ray _. Safas _. Tarantino _'
Thomas _' Willett _' and Chair Tuchscher _.
*'......... '"
Eflectiv#! April I, 1994, there lIav#! bee1l new amendments 10 the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvent into open session to npoTt any final actions talen in closed session and 10 adjourn the meeting.
Because 0/ the tðSI involved, then will be 1U} vUJeataping o/the reconl1ened portion of the meeting. However,
fiMI action. reported will be recorr/ed In the minutes which wiU be available in Ihe Cily Clerk', Office.
*****
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOI.UTlONS AND ORDINANCES
The following iJem. have been IJIivertised ond/o, pos/ed as public hearings as reqtlired by IIlw. if you wish /0
"Peal to ony iJem, pleau fill out the "Request/a Speak Fona" available in the lobby and .ubmil it 10 the City
Cleric prio' to the meeting. (Complete the g,een fona to 'peal in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
thl! pink form to speak in opposition to the sla/I recornm~ndation.) Commems art limited ta five minutes per
individual.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS - Staff recommenùs the Council !U1d Plallni.ng Conunission
place the orùinances on first reading. (Deputy City Manager Krernpl)
A. ORDINANCE 2679 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHIJLA V[~'TA AND OTAY RANCH, L.P., A
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, TIGER DEVELOPMENT TWO, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY TIGERHEART INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS GENERAL PARTNER, VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTIIo'ERSHIP (first
readin¡Ü
B. ORDINANCE 2680 ADOPTING TIlE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGR£EMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHIJLA VISTA AND SNMB, LTD., JEWELS
OF CHARITY, AND STEVEN AND MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION (first
readilU!)
Agenda -2- June 25, 1996
C. ORDINANCE 2681 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATlON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEENTlIE CITY OFCHULA VISTA AND UNITED ENTERPRISES
LTD., A CALWORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (first readin2)
D. ORDINANCE 2682 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VlSfA AND GREGORY T. SMITH
AND GEORGIANA R. SMITH (first rradil1l!)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
170b is all opponulliry for the felleral pubüc to tuldl'tSS the CilJ Coullcil 011 any subject matler ...ilhill the
Council'sjurisdictioll Ihat is !l!I1 all ilem all thb ageNia/or pubüc discussioll. (State Úl.... ho.....er. gellerally
prohibils the CÜ} Caullcil/rom takillg actWlI 011 any issues 1101 illeluded an the posted ageNia.) 1/ you ...ish to
add7tSS the Councü on such a SubjtCIJ pl~as~ compkle the yellow "Requ~sllo Speal: Under Oral CommunÙations
Form· available ill the lobby and submil it ra the CÜ} Clerk prior 10 Ihe meetillg. Those who wish to speak.
please give your name and addrtss for record purposes and follow up at/ion. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
OTIIER BUSINESS
3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
4. MA VOR'S AND CHAIR'S REPORT(S)
5. COUNCIL AND COllfMISSIONERS COMMENTS
AD rOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a Regular Meeting of Ihe Planning Commission on Jun. 26. 1996 al 7:00 p.m. In the
City Council Chambers. and to a Special MeetinglWorksession of the City Council on June 25. 1996, immediately
following the Joint Meeting of the City CüuncillPlanning Cununission, th~nœ to the fe-gular City Council meeting
on July 9, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
· .. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT .. *
The City of Chula Vista. in complying with the Americans with Disahilitics Act (ADA), re.qUósl individWlls who
require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request
such accommodation at least forty·eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scht::duled services and
activities. Plea...~ contact the City Clerk: for specific infonnation at (619) 69J·5041 or Telecommunications D~vices
for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585-5655. Califurnia Relay Service is al,o available for the he>.ring impaired.
JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION ;¿
Item No,
Meeting Date 6/25/96
ITEM TITLB: Ordinances - Adopting Otay Ranch Pre-
Annexation Development Agreements Between:
A) ,¡O ~tay Ranch, L.P. , a California limited
partnership, Tiger Development Two, a California
limited partnership, by Tigerheart ,Inc. , a
California corporation; its general partner,
Village Development, a California general
partnership, and the City of Chula Vista;
.J. IR 9" ¿¡
BJ SNMB, Ltd. , Jewels of Charity, and steven and
Mary Birch Foundation, and the City of Chula Vista;
;).6f{/
C) united Enterprises, Ltd. , a California limited
partnership, and the City of Chula Vista; and
..2kg'i smith, and Georgiana Smith and
OJ Gr gory T. R.
the City of Chula vista.
r I'
SUBMITTED BY: ~P"ty Öty ..".~mp,[/C ",,,1"
Planning Directo ~. ~ 1.(/
Public Works Dire tol
otay Ranch projec Manager~~~~
. q
REVIEWED BY: C1ty Manager t/5 Vote: Yes No-X..
<-- -
The purpose of this item is to present four different development
agreements between the City of Chula vista and Village Development;
the Foundation; United Enterprises and Greg smith. These property
owners own the fee title to the majority of the lands on the
Western Parcel of the Otay Ranch, ranch house and the "inverted L"
parcel of land. The Development Agreements, amongst other things,
are necessary to achieve the Developers' support for annexation of
the otay Ranch Western Parcel as a unit and to meet certain
obligations of the Landfill Agreement between the County and the
City. Specifically, the Landfill Agreement requires that "Nuisance
Easements" be granted by the Property OWners to the County on lands
within an approximately 1,000 foot buffer area surrounding the otay
Landfill. Granting of the Easements is a pre-condition of any
annexation of otay Ranch Properties,
RECOMMENDATION: Place the Ordinances on First Reading,
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission will be reviewing and
taking action on the Agreements at a joint
meeting between the City Council and the
Planning Commission on June 25, 1996.
,;2 -/
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 2
BACltGROmm
A Sphere of Influence application and annexation application for
consideration and action are pending before the Local Agency
Formation Commission July 1, 1996 to annex the Western Parcel of
Otay Ranch plus the Ranch House and the inverted ilL" property. In
consideration of supporting the entire annexation described above
at one time, LAFCO has stressed that it is important to have the
majority of the property owners' support. These Agreements offer
that support.
In addition to the LAFCO process and negotiations with property
owners, the City has also been working cooperatively with the
County of San Diego. On May 15, 1996, a Property Tax Sharing
Agreement and an Agreement Regarding Jurisdiction Over and
Operation of the Otay Landfill were entered into between the City
and County. In mid to late April, draft development agreements
were submitted by Village Development and the Foundation, and in
early June by United Enterprises, The City put together a
review/negotiating team consisting of the Planning Director, Public
Works Director, otay Ranch Project Manager, Deputy City Manager and
the Acting City Attorney, as well as Peggy McCarberg, staff
contract attorney. Each of the applicants was represented by legal
counsel as well.
CEQA review is not required for the development agreement since an
in-depth review occurred when the environmental review was approved
for the otay Ranch General Development Plan and adopted by the City
on October 28, 1993. (Lona Beach Sav. and Loan v. Lana Beach
Federal, 232 Cal. Rptr. 772, 781-2 (1986) .
DISCUSSION
The following discussion focuses on the benefits of the Agreement
to the parties, a description of the terms of the Agreement which
are constant for all the parties, a description of certain
specifics to each party, and an outline of major policy issues.
1- Renefits to the Parties
a, Benefits to the City
· Developer support for annexation of the Otay Parcel
to Chula vista.
· assurance that the Developer will dedicate needed
R.O.W. for SR #125.
· granting of landfill nuisance easements to the
County for the Otay Landfill buffer area.
02.~1-
--.._.~_...._-_._-
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 3
· provision ot property tor the Chula vista Greenbelt
open space areas and MSCP compliance.
· assurance ot adequate public tacilities when
needed, and in some cases development ot excess
capacity or facilities sooner than required,
· compliance with the City's Growth Management
Program,
b. Bene~its to the DevelQDer
· vests permitted land uses, density, intensity ot
use per the approved General Development Plan and
timing and phasing ot development per Future
Discretionary Approvals (Le. , SPA Plan and Public
Facility Finance Plan) and in compliance with the
city's Growth Management Ordinance.
· grants the owner certainty to proceed with the
development of the property in general accordance
with today's ordinances, rules, regulations and
standards or as they may be changed in the future
citywide or east of I-80S,
· allows for fee credits and/or reimbursement
mechanisms tor extraordinary facility improvements
or pioneering thereof and specifies that DIF fees
will be used to facilitate regional backbone
facilities.
· allows the Developer to receive timely processing
on an equal basis with other Developers of Future
Discretionary Approvals and allows those approvals
to be covered by these Agreements.
2. Description of the Agreement Terms
The Agreement contains the following major points:
(1) The owners support the annexation, and the plan is to
complete annexation of the Otay Parcel by January 1, 1997
(an outside time frame - annexation is actually scheduled
July 1, 1996) .
(2) The term of the Agreement, as recommended by staff, is 20
years (the Developers want 40 years).
(3) Application of new or amended Rules, Regulations,
Ordinances, Resolutions, Standards and Policies,
..2~3
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 4
As stated above, the Developer would like to lock in and
have certainty as to what rules will apply to his project
while the city wants to retain as much flexibility as
possible. The Agreement permits changes in rules,
policies, etc, as long as they are applied citywide or
east of I-80S and do not unreasonably prevent or delay
the development of the Property to the approved uses,
densities or intensity of use. Changes necessitated by
changes in State or Federal law are also covered.
(4) Modifications to Existing Project Approvals are
contemplated and do not constitute an amendment to the
Agreement. Future Discretionary Approvals are also
contemplated and do not constitute an amendment to the
Agreement.
(5) The dedication and reservation of land is to be
consistent with the Existing Project Approvals,
(6) The timing for project construction is to only be
regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance and
threshold standards which include the adequate provision
of all public facilities needed to serve the project as
well as project phases through subsequent SPA and Public
Facility Finance Plan Approvals. The project is subject
to amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance subject
to certain conditions. Changes to the Growth Management
Ordinance and Threshold standards are to be consistent
with the purpose and intent of the existing Growth
Management Ordinance and generally applicable citywide or
east of I-80S or applicable to a benefit, fee district as
described in earlier sections. The Developer would like
added the phrase "and such changes would not prevent or
unreasonably delay the development of the Property
consistent with the Existing Project Approvals." This is
a policy issue discussed later in this report,
(7) Application of new/increased Fees and special Taxes are
contemplated and allowed so long as they are applicable
citywide or east of 1-805 or relate to some special fee
or benefit assessment district formed in accordance with
the Government Code.
(8) The city will accept and diligently process development
applications with the Developer paying for the staff and
consultant costs therewith.
(9) Length of validity of Tentative Maps. The Developer
would like to have the tentative map vested for the term
of the Agreement (20 or 40 years) while a tentative map
is ordinarily good for 3 years and can be extended
:¿~i
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 5
another 3 years for a total of 6 years, A compromise
proposed by the Developers is to have a tentative map
vest for 10 years for projects up to 3,000 dwelling units
and to allow tentative maps larger than 3,000 units to
vest additional time at the rate of one additional year
for each additional 300 units. This is a policy issue to
be discussed later in this report.
(10) Recognizes that the Developer can do certain work such as
grading at the pre-final map stage subject to City
approval and posting of required performance bonds.
Acknowledges the ability to record Superblock Final Maps
("A" Maps) for financing purposes as well as the standard
Final Maps (liB" Maps). Allows for maps to be recorded in
the name of builders or third parties and certain
transfer of obligations to occur with city approval.
(11) The Developer is obligated to dedicate or reserve land
and fund/construct public facilities as required by the
General Development Plan and subsequent approvals
(12) The SR #125 R.O.W. is to be dedicated to the City,
(13) Landfill nuisance easements are to be granted to the
County.
(14) The Developer is to comply with the provisions of any
Preserve Conveyance Plan and convey property as set forth
therein.
(15) The Developer is to comply with the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Program as adopted as part of the Existing Project
Approvals,
(16) The City has the right to withhold the issuance of
building permits if a threshold has been violated and
until the deficiency has been cured per the Growth
Management Ordinance. Permits may also be withheld where
public facilities required for thresholds have not been
committed, Unless the Developer is responsible for the
threshold violation, the Agreement is tolled while permit
issuance has been stopped.
(17) If the Developer constructs a facility which is the
obligation of another Developer or builds a facility of
increased supplemental size, the City will consider a
reimbursement district. Similarly, the Developer will
dedicate land for others to pioneer projects on the
Property.
./'
l) _ '::>
c;:J. ---
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 6
(18) The Developer agrees to pay DIF fees. The City agrees to
establish and use the DIF fees in an appropriate fashion.
The DIF can be modified if it incorporates reasonable
cost estimates to provide facilities based on specified
methodology and justification. The City can withhold
permits until the DIF is paid. The Developer can get DIF
credits when facilities are completed. The city will
undertake reasonable efforts to collect and impose the
DIF on others and spread the costs on an equitable basis.
The Property owner will pay its fair share of the DIF for
Otay River Road crossings and the City will pursue other
parties, such as the County and city of San Diego, to pay
their fair share as well. .
(19) The city will cooperate in the provision of utilities to
the Project.
(20) The City agrees that if they negotiate some long-term
participation or financial advantages with CTV on the SR
125 road that the City may share those advantages with
subsequent property owners/residents of the area.
(21) The Agreement contains provisions for annual review,
default, encumbrances and releases on property,
modification or suspension, assignment and delegation,
delay and amendments.
(22) A provision has been included that in the event of a
dispute between the parties that a mediation process be
followed. If any party commences litigation, the
prevailing party as determined by the court, will be
entitled to attorney's fees.
(23) The parties recognize that the Developer and the City are
negotiating agreements with the U.S. Fish and wildlife
and California Fish and Game to implement the "NCCP" and
the "MSCP" mUlti-species habitat programs. MOdifications
to the Existing Project Approvals will be required to be
processed by the City, paid for by the Developer, and
would not constitute an amendment to the Agreement.
3 . Aareement Terms Relating to Specific Parties
Because each agreement is with a separate Property Owner,
there are specific terms unique to each party by way of
benefits and acknowledgements.
a. united EnterDrises
The United Enterprises Agreement speaks specifically to
the Rock Quarry operations, which have been in existence
;!.-¿,
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 7
for about the last 40 years. Upon annexation, the Quarry
operations will become a legal non-conforming use in the
city. This is due to the fact that the use was
authorized by the county prior to an ordinance which
would otherwise require a use permit. A Reclamation Plan
is on file with the county and the state Division of
Mines and Geology. The main provision relating to the
Quarry states that the owner will be allowed the
continued use of the property for rock quarry use, that
applications for related uses will be processed by the
city for uses including such things as an asphalt and
concrete batch plant and sand and gravel operations, and
that planning for the ultimate non-quarry use of the
property shall be allowed as well.
b. The Foundation
The Foundation would like the City to consider certain
land use changes and infrastructure commitments regarding
their property. Those considerations are obviously
subject to future discretionary applications including
environmental review and public hearing and cannot be
pre-judged. Therefore, the terms of the Agreement are
along the lines of language stating that the City shall
process said applications and give them reasonable
consideration, The requests for land use changes the
applicant would like to make include the following:
transfer of residential units from Village J to Villages
2, 4 and 8; a change of the Village 3 land use from
industrial to industrial, commercial, recreational,
visitor serving and some residential, and a request to
expand the development areas of Villages 2, 3, 4, and 8
if environmental constraints can be satisfactorily
addressed, with regard to infrastructure, the Agreement
says the city will cooperate and work with CALTRANS to
facilitate improvements to the 1-805 and otay Valley Road
interchange when needed, as well as hold appropriate
hearings to revise the DIF. In addition, we will
initiate contact and pursue discussions concerning the
number, scheduling and financing of otay River road and
bridge crossing with the city and County of San Diego.
Ca village DeveloDment
A circumstance specific to Village Development is the
construction of additional east-west access, The
Agreement acknowledges that east-west access through the
property connecting to 1-805 may be needed at a time when
inadequate DIF monies are available and other developers
are not able to contribute either. In effect, Village
Development could be pioneering the facility at its cost.
,) /ì
d- ~ I
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 8
In that case, the City will be willing to consider a
traffic capacity development agreement, giving priority
status to some amount of project development. The
additional circulation capacity could be on either East
Palomar street or Orange Avenue. The Developer agrees to
proceed, if necessary, with orange Avenue first since it
provides potentially greater traffic capacity. In
addition, if SR-125 is constructed prior to construction
of east-west access, then the timing of construction
required for Palomar or Orange will be re-reviewed.
A second element specific to the Village Development
Agreement is the application of the Natural Communities
Conservation Act (NCCP) and the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) . The Developer has
negotiated agreements with the resource agencies to make
certain trade-offs of sensitive habitat land preservation
in some areas for more flexible development possibilities
in some other areas. This Agreement recognizes that
circum.stance, and the City agrees to reasonably consider
and process such amendments and consider them as part of
Existing Project Approvals and not requiring an amendment
to their Agreement.
A third factor, somewhat similar to what was mentioned
for the Foundation Agreement, would be to process and
reasonably consider an application for a land use change
necessitated by virtue of land use changes that will be
mandated in the otay Landfill buffer area. Land uses in
the 1,000 foot buffer area of Village 3 (east of the
landfill) are currently designated "Residential" and will
need to be changed to an acceptable "non-Residential"
designation. Village Properties would like to have an
amendment to the GDP considered to relocate those
residential uses elsewhere on the Project.
Maior Policy Tssues
The major policy issues, in staff's view, are only three at this
point. The issues are the agreement terms, application of growth
management changes and the length of time tentative maps remain in
effect.
1- A9reement Term - as stated earlier, the Developer wants a
40-year term and the City staff is of the opinion that a
20-year term is more than generous. While aCknowledging that
the project buildout could be 40 years or more, that doesn't
mean the Development Agreement can or should run that long.
Many things will change over even a 10 or 20-year period that
it is not prudent to vest entitlements for 40 years. The
Developer could seek an amendment or another Development
,2-/[
- _po
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 9
Agreement at that time, The City's existing agreements with
EastLake and Rancho del Rey have 7 or 10-year terms,
respectively. The recently approved Landfill Agreement with
the County has a term the length of operation of the landfill
or 50 years, whichever is earlier. We feel that is a
specialized agreement recognizing the uniqueness of a landfill
and ongoing monitoring even beyond closure and should not
establish a precedent for this type of agreement.
2. Growth Manaqement Ordinance/Threshold Standard Changes - The
Developers agree that they are subject to the provisions of
the Growth Management Ordinance including the Threshold
Standards and all of the public facility requirements
associated therewith, including existing and future approved
Public Facility Finance Plans (PFFP's) , They also agree that
they are subject to construct facilities to address project
required thresholds and the City retains the right to withhold
building permits should the relevant threshold be exceeded
until a deficiency is cured.
The issue then becomes whether Or not they are subject to
changes in the Growth Management Ordinance and under what
conditions. The Developer wants to be protected from
"arbitrary" changes, which Developer states would be
impossible to meet and which in effect would stop all
development and negate the purpose of the Development
Agreement. An example would be changing the traffic threshold
from level of service "C" to level of service "A" or changing
the fire threshold from responding to calls in 7 minutes B5%
of the time to 2 minutes 100% of the time. The City, on the
other hand, has to be able to reasonably refine, adjust and
change, or add, to the thresholds as times, standards and
circumstances change. The compromise suggestion was to allow
for change if implemented citywide or east of I-B05 and if the
changes met the purpose and intent section of the existing
ordinance. In other words, the driving motive of the
standards are to insure that adequate public facilities are
provided when needed and not as a means to impose housing caps
or stop development, The above conditions are acceptable to
staff and help to circumscribe the types of changes that will
be acceptable.
The Developers request that an additional phase be added
whereby the city may make changes to the Growth Management
Ordinance "which would not prevent or unreasonably delay the
development of the Property consistent with the Existing
project Approvals." This seems unacceptably broad, in
particular the reference to "unreasonably delay" since the
Growth Management Ordinance by its very nature sets
performance standards and infrastructure provisions and
phasina. Should a change in the ordinance result in a change
,) -9
Meeting Date 6/25/96
Page 10
in infrastructure phasing, then the timing of the Project
could very well be affected, The ability to change thresholds
has been an integral part of all of the city's development
agreements to date.
3. Length of validity of Tentative Subdivision Maps As mentioned
earlier, a tentative map normally has a 3-year life with a 3-
year extension. The terms of this Agreement call for a 10-
year life of a map not to exceed 3,000 units and for a map
with more than 3,000 units an additional year for each 300
units. Then a map with say 4,500 units would have a length of
15 years. The pOlicy issue is how long a period of time the
City wants a tentative map to exist before a new map has to be
filed. From a planning perspective, the longer the period the
map exists, the greater likelihood that circumstances of
development surrounding the mapped area will have changed or
the map and its conditions will have been dated, The options
would be to stick with the time frames in the current
Subdivision Map Act (i,e. 3 years with a 3-year extension),
shorten the lO-year base period, or state that smaller maps,
say less than 500 units, should not receive any special
consideration as to length, Another option would be to allow
for the Council to approve any extensions from 6 to 20 years
in length after the normal map extension period had run out,
All of the remaining Agreement terms and language are supported by
the Developers and staff as appropriate considerations for the
benefits occurring to both parties.
Fiscal TmDðct
It isn't possible to quantify the value of the Agreement to the
City or the other parties. Through annexation and the related
property tax, sales tax, etc" the city will realize significant
benefits, Likewise, the Developers benefit from the vesting and
certainty provided by the Agreement to be able to get loans and
sell and develop the Property in accordance with current and future
approvals.
M: \HOME\A;)MI N\nEVM;11 J
c7-/û
Item No. 2
Meeting Date 6/25/96
OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
ERRATA SHEET FOR AGREEMENTS
A. GREG SMITH AGREEMENT
7.2.1 Preserve Convevance Plan, The city and
~the Developer shall mutua1lv aaree UDon a eelll191y ,,:itfi aft)" eHistiftlJ
or yet te be adapted Preserve Conveyance Plan,-aflè The city shall
in aood faith consider for adoption auch a plan and the Developer
ahall convey property and/or fees in lieu of land as set forth in
such Plan.
B. FOUNDATION AGREEMENT
5.1,1 City "fiall reassflaaly consiEier aREi preeess
".,:i th J3ysper cnvi~BRmcRtal rcyiei,;, a :t"eEJueo.t fey tHe 'EraRsfcr af
residen_ial aRits fraæ Village J te Villa!cG 2, 4 aR~ 8 az the
~illa~Es arc iàLRtifieà iA tHe CÐP) .,
5.1.1 Citv shall reasonablv consider in its
discretion and with proper environmental review. a request to
increase the residential density of Villaaes 2. . and 8. UD to the
number of residential units provided in villaae 3 bv the County's
adopted GDP.
5.1.2 City shall reasonably consider in its
discretion and process with proper environmental review a request
to change the primary land Use designation for Village 3 from
Industrial to commercial, recreational, visitor-serving, and some
residential uses in addition to the Industrial Use. The exact
acreages of the residential, industrial, commercial, or other uses,
shall be agreed upon and set forth in a general plan amendment.
7.2.3 Preserve Convevance Plan. The city and
~the Developer shall mutually aqree uPon a oOIlll'ly ,,:itil afty cUÌ<3tiflE "
er yet te Be aEioptcd Preserve Conveyance Plan,-anà The city shall
in qood faith consider for adoption such a plan and the Developer
shall convey property and/or fees in lieu of land as set forth in
such Plan.
C. THE OTAY RANCH, L.P., ETC. AGREEMENT
2.17 "Future Discretionary Approvals" means all
permits and approvals by the City granted after the effective date
..)- /
and excluding existing Project Approvals, including, but not
limited to: (i) grading permits; (ii) site plan reviews;
(iii) design guidelines and reviews; (i v) precise plan reviews;
(v) sUbdivisions of the Property or re-subdivisions of the Property
previously subdivided pursuant to the SUbdivision Map Act,
(vi) conditional use permits; (vii) variances; (viii) encroachment
permi ts; (ix) Sectional Planning Area plans; (I!) Preserve
ceR7eyaftee Plan anà (x*) all other reviews, permits, and approvals
of any type which may be required from time to time to authorize
public or private on- or off-site facilities which are a part of
the Project.
4. Owner Consent to Annexation, Owner hereby consents to
and shall cooperate with the applications of City to declare that
the eta)' Valley Pareel land depicted in Exhibit D is within City's
sphere of influence and to annex the Gtay 'lalley Pareel land
depicted in Exhibit D to the City; provided, however, that Owner
may withdraw such consent and withhold further cooperation if the
City, prior to the Effective Date, adopts rules, regulations,
ordinances, pol icies, condi tions, environment a 1 regulations,
phasing controls, exactions, entitlements, assessments or fees
applicable to and governing development of the Property which are
inconsistent with, or render impractical development of the
Property according to, the Development Plan..... ar tfic aààitienal
eomlllitlllenta af City set fert" in ParaEjraphs S.1.1 threHEj" S.1.&,
Ðcle'í.~ .
5.2.3 At the bottom of Page 8, there is a
redundancy in that Section 5.2.3 is repeated. The correct Section
5.2.3 appears on page 9, with the heading Modifications to Existinq
Proiect Approvals.
NOTEI POLIC~ IOSBE
5.2.3 ~EJreelllent tAat tAe City anà Ðcvele~er may
IIIHtually seck anà aEjree to maàifieatiens ta the ExistinEj Prajcct
~p~rsvals. C~efl modific~tioR~ ar~ c6Rt£mplatc aD within tfic aaape
af this A~FeemeAt, aRå sh.J.ll, UpOR '~'rittoA acceptaRCE: ay all
13a:rties, eonGtitHte fer all ~Hr!,esÐs al9 EJ1Ísting Project ,""'I"reval.
The par~ies a~ree that aAY ouoh modifiC3tisRO may Rst eSAztitHtc aft
amcRà~eAt to this ~~reemcRt.
7.2,2 Land f i 11 Nuisance Easements, Developer
shall grant to the County by July 1, 1996 "Landfill Nuisance
Easements" substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E
The Easement shall cover all land which is within the Otay Landfill
Buffer Area of Villages 2, 3 and Planning Area 18B of the otay
Ranch GDPP as shown on Exhibit E hereto.
D. AS TO ALL PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
2.15 "Existing Project Approvals" means all discre-
tionary approvals affecting the Project which have been approved or
')..Id-
r.../ /1
established in conjunction with, or preceding, the effective date
consisting of, but not limited to the GDP, the Chula vista General
Plan, the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program adopted pursuant to
Resolution ~ 18288, the SPA One Plan and the Phase II Resource
Management Plan (RMP) , as may be amended from time to time
consistent with this agreement,
3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as a
development agreement upon the effective date of the Annexation
("the Effective Date"); provided, however, that if the Annexation
does not occur on or before 3anuary 1, 1997, this Agreement shall
be null and void. Any of the foregoing to the contrary notwith-
standing, from the effec£ivc date of first readinq of the ordinance
approving this Agreement, ee~ fer£A iR Para~ra~R 1.8, and unless or
until this Agreement becomes null and void, Owner shall be bound by
the terms of Paragraph 4. The Term of this Agreement for purposes
other than Paragraph 4 shall begin upon the Effective Date, and
shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years ("the Term")'.
5.22 Development of Property. The development of
the Property will be governed by this Agreement and Existing
Project Approvals and such development shall comply and be governed
by all rules, regulations, policies, resolutions, ordinances, and
standards in effect as of the Effective Date subject to the
provisions. of section ~ 5.2.1 below. The City shall retain its
discretionary authority as to Future Discretionary Approvals,
provided however, such Future Discretionary Approvals shall be
regulated by the Existing Project Approvals, this Agreement, and
city rules, regulations, standards, ordinances, resolutions and
policies in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and
subject to Section ~ 5.2.1.
6.4.3 Recordation of Final Subdivision Map in
Developer's Name; Transfer of Obliqations Under Subdivision
Improvement Aqreement(s) , If Developer so elects, it may defer the
conveyance of any super block lot to a Builder or third party until
after the final map of such super block lot has been recorded. If
Developer elects to proceed in this manner, it will enter into
City's standard subdivision improvement agreement(s) with City for
the improvements required as a condition to the reeeràatieR
approval of such map(s), Upon sale to a Builder or third party, if
such Builder or third party assumes Developer's obligations under
the improvement agreement and provides its own security and
insurance for the completion of the subdivision improvements as
approved by the city, Developer shall be released from liability
under the subdivision improvement agreement (s) and Developer's
security shall be ~eleased.
6,4.4 Transfer of Riqhts and Obliqations of
'Developer wants 40 year term
2policy issue
.-;)-(]
Development. Whenever Developer conveys a portion of the Property,
the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall transfer in
accordance with Section IS herein.
7.1 Condition to Developer's Obliqations to Dedicate. Fund or
Construct Public Facilities, Developer agrees to develop or
provide the public improvements, facilities, dedications, or
reservations of land and satiSfy other exactions conditioning the
development of the Property which are set forth hereinbelow. The
obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement are
conditioned upon: (i) the City not being in default of its obliga-
tions under this agreement; and (ii) the City not preventing or
unreasonably delaying the development of the property; and (iii)
the Agreement having not been suspended er meàified in response to
changes in state or federal law; and (iv) the City's obligations
having not been suspended pursuant to Section 13,2.
8.5 Development Impact Fee Credit. Upon the completion and
.ccectance bv the city of any public facility, the City shall
immediately credit Developer with the appropriate amount of cash
credits ("EDUs") as determined by Developer and City. However, if
the improvements are paid for through an Assessment District, the
City shall credit the Developer with the appropriate number of
Equivalent Dwelling Unit Credits (EDU's). Developer shall be
entitled to apply any and all credits accrued pursuant to this
subsection toward the required payment of future DIF for any phase,
stage or increment of development of the Project.
Bold/underline = new addition
Strikeout = deletion
N;\Shared\Attorney\Err4ta
<.2 - /f!
[i SOLOMON WAR D SEIDENWURM & S M I T H
~._._.- ------- _. -----
A LIMITED LIA.ßJUTY PARTNE¡¡>SHIP
~HCHAEL n 1I"~s~eEII CYNT\1IAL. (;WI!GD
LAYI1EN<.."EI. KAPU."· DANIEL E. G"~CF.i'lS:W'AIITZ
~lnlAIID F. ~\,CAIITHY ~\tcHA.l:L A. (;A"DIN'E~
!WWAIIDJ ~1dI'iTYI/f' CATHt;;I1INI:LI'UiJ/CIi
·...t'I.¡;.ioIFT8CH AU~"'" I.. 1'1"01>""
JEl'HHA öi..'IINliIUEII ""","""'l
.1I:H~III I. 5F1I1EN....'1o'H" JOSH~I)\,IH\I:O
J"'I'I'!lEY II. SIl.Hël!~\^,'I:
June 25, 1996 ....IGt'EI.^ SMtTH
"'OI!)\oVIl+ S)HTII 1¡;'IJJJAM n "'A~lJ. 111 (II~T
l1~ALULI.'OI.C\M.ù:-l
1I8If'!<::WTI. 50l.CMON
." P."P""''''''''_'''''P<.'IiAT1~'N
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: United Enterprises, Ltd.
Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
Hearing Date: June 25, 1996
Our File No. 46027.002
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning Commission:
We represent United Enterprises, Ltd. ("UE") in its capacity as OWner of the approximately
136.47 acres of property on which the Nelson Sloan Quarry currently operates (the
"Property").
ReQJlested Action.
We request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and City Council and
that the Mayor and City Council adopt Ordinance No. 26&1, thereby approving the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement between UE and the City of Chula Vista (the
"Agreement"), with the following modifications:
1. Revise Paragraph 3 of thc Agreement to provide that the term of the Agreement
shall continue for a period of forty (40) years; and
2. Revise Paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement by adding the following language to the end
of the last sentence of that paragraph: "and which would not prevent or unreasonably delay
the development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals". This change
would further modify the circumstances under which the City of Chu!a Vista (lhe "City")
could apply to the physic-a! development of thc Property subsequent changes to the City's
Growth Management Ordinance. 0-2-;;-
401 B Street, Suile 1200 8im Diego, Cãli[tlrnid lJ2101 Tcle¡,I",,,, (619) 23J·030] I'.w,unilc (619) 231.4755
Ui -.--.-...- -
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
June 25, 1996
Page 2
Additionally, we request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and City
Council and that the Mayor and City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2681, thereby approving
the Agreement with the present language of Paragraph 6.2 of the Agreement intact. This
paragraph provides that tentative subdivision maps for 3,000 or fewer dwelling units shall
remain valid for a term of ten (10) years and tentative subdivision maps for more than 3,000
dwelling units shall remain valid for a term of ten (10) years plus one (1) additional year for
every 300 dwelling units in excess of 3,000 dwelling units.
Discussion.
Forty-Year Term.
We have spent a significant amount of time negotiating with staff the provISIOns of the
Agrecment for presentation to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission. The
provisions of the Agreement included in the agenda package for this evening's joint meeting
reflect compromises which, although disappointing to UE in some respects, are acceptable to
DE with the modifications requested above.
The first requested modification would establish a forty-year life for thc Agreement, as opposed
to the twenty-year life which staff have proposed. The twenty-year life is insufficient to meet
the needs of DE with respect to the Property. As staff have indicated, the rock quarry has
operated on the Property for approximately forty years. We understand that an additional ten
to forty-year life is projected for the quarry.
DE continues to plan for the continued operation of the quarry throughout its life term and
the development of the Property for its ultimate uses only after the life term of the quarry has
expired. Annexation is of value to DE only at such time as it is prepared to mOve forward
to develop the ultimate uses of the Property. For these, among other, reasons, UE would not
of its own accord seek annexation into the City at this time.
We understand that at least several jurisdictions within the County of San Diego have cntcred
into development agreements for periods of time in excess of twenty (20) years. Ncither state
nor local legislation limits the terms of development agreements.
r2-/¿
[j ~- ---.....- ~--
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
June 25, 1996
Page J
For these reasons, among others, UE requests that Paragraph 3 of the Agreement be revised
to provide that the term of the Agreement continue for a period of forty (40) years. An
agreement of the type now before the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission for
consideration is of limited use to UE if its term does not extend beyond the lifc term of the
quarry and into the period of time during which the Property is developed for its ultimate
uscs.
Amendments to the Growth Mana~ement Ordinance.
The primary benefit to a property owner of entering into a development agreement is to
obtain certainty in the development process. In exchange for such certainty, the property
owner agrees to provide to the governing jurisdiction benefits such as those enumerated in
Paragraph 1.3 of the Agreement presented for consideration tonight.
To a significant extent, without further modification the provisions of Paragraph 5.2 of the
Agreement relating to changes in the City's Growth Management Ordinance recite limitations
on the City's powers which any project within the City's jurisdiction enjoy. The provision,
as written and proposed by staff, would not provide UE with the certainty that it needs in
order to enter into the Agreement with the City. The limiting language which we propose
be added to this provision docs no more than prote~"t the Existing Project Approvals as
discusscd in Paragraph 5 of the Agreemcnt. The language which we suggest be added is
consistent with Paragraph 5 of the Agreement and the underlying goals of the Agreement. For
these reasons, among others, UE requests that Paragraph 5.2 of the Agreement be revised to
provide that changes to the City's Growth Management Ordinance would apply to the
Property only if, among other things, they do not prevent or unreasonably delay the
development of the Property consistent with the Existing Project Approvals.
Tcntative Map.
UE, staff, and the other developers involved in the Otay Ranch Annexation have agreed upon
a compromise for the length of time in which tentative subdivision maps for the Property
would remain valid. UE requests that the language of Paragraph 6.2 be accepted and approved
by the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission.
eJ-/'/
/
Li -~-- ----------
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
June 25, 1996
Page 4
Conclusion.
The compromises which UE has made with staff are acceptable to UE with the modifications
to Paragraphs 3 and 5.2 of the Agreement requested and discussed in this letter. For the
reasons discussed above, among others, UE rcquests that the Planning Commission recommcnd
to the Mayor and the City Council and that the Mayor and the City Council adopt Ordinance
No. 2681, approving the Agreement with the present language of Paragraph 6.2 intact, and the
modifications requested to Paragraphs 3 and 5.2.
Sincerely,
~
Cynthia L. Eldred
SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH
A Limited Liability Partnership
CLE/ sgv
cc: United Enterprises, Ltd.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Ann Y. Moore, Interim City Attorney
SS,69694. I ,46027.002
,;) ~I K
Revised 6-24-96
ORDINANCE NO. 2679
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
OTAY RANCH, L.P. , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP,
TIGER DEVELOPMENT TWO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP BY TIGERHEART INC. , A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, ITS GENERAL PARTNER, VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, a City of Chula Vista application is pending
before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley
Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the development of the otay Valley Parcel will
require substantial pUblic improvements phased over a period of
time; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867,5 et seg.
provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements;
and
WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development
agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental
review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
adopted by the City on October 28, 1993. (Lono Beach Sav. & Loan
v. Lono Beach Redevel" 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held a
joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission and city Council have
reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City council of the city of Chula
vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for
a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel.
In accordance with Section 65867.5 of the Government
Code, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has
approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation
Development Agreement" for a portion of the Otay Valley
Parcel with otay Ranch, L.P. , a California limited
partnership, Tiger Development Two, a California limited
partnership, by Tigerheart Inc. , a California
corporation, its general partner, Village Development, a
~A.-I
...,...._..~--~._-_._---'--,.
California general partnership, on file in the office of
the City Clerk as Document No.
SECTION II: The Mayor of the city of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista,
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the ~irtietR elay fram a FIe! after its passal}c
effective date of annexation as set forth in the "tt"ched Pre-
Annexation DeveloDment Agreement.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Ov-- L') ~
George Krempl, Deputy City Ann Y. Moore, Interim
Manager City Attorney
C:\or\pr.annex.o~
~A.-.;¡,
Rev-h"\èd 6-24-96
ORDINANCE NO. 2680
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CIjt1LA VISTA
ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CIT¥ OF CaULA VISTA AND
SNMB, LTD., JEWELS OF CHARITY. AND STEVEN AND
MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION
WHEREAS, a City of Chula Vista application is pending
before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley
Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Otay Valley Parcel will
require substantial public improvements phased over a period of
time; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867.5 et seq,
provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements;
and
WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development
agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental
review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
adopted by. the City on October 28, 1993. (Lona Beach Sav, , Loan
v. Lona Beach Redeve1., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held a
joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission and City Council have
reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for
a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel.
In accordance with Section 65867.5 of the Government
Code, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has
approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation
Developmènt Agreement" for a portion of the Otay Valley
Parcel with SNMB, Ltd., Jewels of Charity, and steven and
Mary Birch Foundation on file in the office of the City
Clerk as Document No. .
-
SECTION II: The Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on
behalf of the city of Chula Vista.
" " K ,¿.'/? - I ,"
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in I
full force on the t"ir~ie~A day frem 8PJI:I after it3 pa3s8g£
effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre-
Annexation Development Aareement,
Presented by Approved as to form by
Ú-~ ~a
George Krempl, Deputy city Ann Y. Moore, Interim
Manager City Attorney
C:\or\pr..nnf..o~
I
. . -
.i
~-~ 6ß-c2
-;,... --- ----..--..
Revised 6-24-96
ORDINANCE NO, 2681
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD, , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, a City of Chula Vista application is pending
before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley
Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the development of the otay Valley Parcel will
require sUbstantial public improvements phased over a period of
time; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code 565867.5 et seq.
provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements;
and
WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development
agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental
review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
adopted by the City on October 28, 1993. (Lonq Beach Sav. & Loan
v. Lana Beach Redevel., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986)) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held a
joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have
reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for
a portion of the Otay Valley Parcel.
In accordance with Section 65867,5 of the Government
Code, the city Council of the City of Chula Vista has
approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation
Development Agreement" for a portion of the otay Valley
Parcel with United Enterprises, Ltd. , a California
limited partnership on file in the office of the City
Clerk as Document No,
SECTION II: The Mayor of the city of Chula Vista 15
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on
behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the ~t.-icth day from and after it~
c::)! C.-I
effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre-
Annexation Development Aareement,
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ V\ VîA .~<r- Q
George Krempl, Deputy City Ann ¥. . Interim
Moore,
Manager City Attorney
c: \or\ preannex. ov
d C-d,
Revised 6-24-96
ORDINANCE NO. 2682
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
GREGORY T. SMITH AND GEORGIANA R. SMITH
WHEREAS, a City of Chula Vista application is pending
before the County of San Diego and LAFCO to have the Otay Valley
Parcel included within City's sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the development of the otay Valley Parcel will
require substantial public improvements phased over a period of
time; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code §65867.5 et seg.
provides authority for cities to enter into development agreements;
and
WHEREAS, CEQA review is not required for the development
agreement since an in-depth review occurred when the environmental
review was approved for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
adopted by the City on October 28, 1993. (Lone¡ Beach Sav. & Loan
v. Lone¡ Beach Redevel., 232 Cal.Rptr. 772, 881-2 [1986]) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and city council held a
joint public hearing on June 25, 1996 to consider the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission and City Council have
reviewed the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and recommend its
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for
a portion of the otay Valley Parcel.
In accordance with Section 65867.5 of the Government
Code, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has
approved that certain document entitled "Pre-Annexation
Development Agrcement" for a portion of the Otay Valley
Parcel with Gregory T. Smith and Georgiana R. Smith on
file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.___
- .
SECTION II: The Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on
behalf of the city of Chula Vista.
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the tAirticth-<lùy frOl. 8Rà ilfter it!'! l"asoaE c
cl Ù-I
effective date of annexation as set forth in the attached Pre-
Annexation DeveloDment Agreement,
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ 1.1) Ì"A^",,-~
George Krempl, Deputy City Ann ¥. , Interim
Moore,
Manager City Attorney
C:\or\pre.nnex.o~
ç§ [j-d-