HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1999/07/20
July 20, 1999
"I declare undAlOlilNDl\ of perjury that' am
, C" f C' )'3 ., 5'3 'n t"e
em')loJed by hie ,l'i'1 0 ,,1' ,,'. .' .
Office of the City Cler;{ and thSl~ I ~,03.Cj
this AgcncaJf"io'i:'::C en tt:e Suli8t;n \3;y::,,:j ,ct
CALL TO ORDER ~~T~~~liW9l1S B~;~~~~ ,-,.AI lY on ..
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton.
6:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A Oath of Office: Bob White - Safety Commission; and Dan Horn - Economic
Development Commission..
B. Chula Vista 7 Tourist Attraction Marketing ofChula Vista.
C. Presentation of certification of appreciation to High School Artist Jennifer Hodge
by former Councilmember Leonard Moore. (Continued from July 13, 1999)
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 7)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent
Calendar 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
removed 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 Calendar will be discussed afier
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 July 13, 1999, that there were no
actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed.
6. RESOLUTION 19543, THE CITY COUNCIL, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NUMBER 97-1
(OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT lOT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGES 1
& 5]) ORDERING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF ZONE B
OF CFD 97-1
Community Facilities District 97-1 was formed to fund the perpetual maintenance of
landscaping within the right of way and City owned slopes within Otay Ranch SPA 1.
Separate maintenance zones were established over the ownership of the two Developers
(McMillin Otay Ranch and the Otay Ranch Company) to account for the fact that the major
Agenda
2
July 20, 1999
slopes within the McMillin Otay Ranch are maintained by the Home Owner's Association
while Community Facilities District 97-1 will fund the maintenance of the slopes within the
Otay Ranch Company's ownership. These two developers have subsequently modified their
ownership on a common boundary.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
7. RESOLUTION 19544, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT FOR PURCHASING CAPACITY
RIGHTS AND TRANSPORTING W ASTEW ATER IN THE FRISBIE TRUNK SYSTEM
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
This agreement is to provide the City with adequate capacity and equitable allocation for the
maintenance, operation and capital replacement costs for the Frisbie Trunk of the Spring
Valley Sanitation System until the year 2050. The agreement will reserve sewer capacity
rights of2 million gallons per day for the City in the Frisbie Trunk to provide sewer services
for the existing and future developments in the surrounding tributary areas.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
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 a "Request to
Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
8. PUBLIC HEARING PCA 99-01, CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE STANDARDS AND
PROCESSING FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES - CITY INITIATED
ORDINANCE 2793, AMENDING SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
(FIRST READING)
'The Planning and Building Department was requested by the Economic Development
Commission to re-evaluate the Large Family Day Care Homes ordinance in anticipation of
a critical surge in demand resulting from the Welfare Reform Legislation. The Needs
Assessment Committee of the San Diego County Child Care Planning Council has identified
the City as a "high needs community" in the South Bay area. The biggest need identified was
care for infants and after school care for school-age children.
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning
and Building)
Agenda
3
July 20, 1999
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON PCM-97-11A, REQUEST TO AMEND THE OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
- APPLICANT: THE OT A Y RANCH COMP ANY (CONTINUED FROM JULY 13, 1999)
RESOLUTION 19538, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource
Management Plan to implement the recently approved Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Sub-Regional Plan and SPA One amendments for Village One and Village One West by
revising the Resource Management Plan Preserve Map and text. The map amendment will
add development areas in Village One and Village One West in exchange for adding open
space areas in Villages 13 and 15. In addition, amendments to the Resource Management
Plan text and tables are proposed to implement the applicant's agreement with the wildlife
agencies.
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building)
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
10. INVITATION TO CEBU CITY TO ENTER INTO A SISTER CITY AFFILIATION
Recommendation: Council adopt the International Friendship Commission's recommendation
and request the Mayor send a letter of invitation, to become a Sister City, to the Mayor of
Cebu City. (International Friendship Commission)
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial
discussions and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the public. The
items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations
may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any
item, pleasefill out a "Request to Speak "form (available in the lobby) and submit
it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
11. REPORT ON CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) BUS PAINT SCHEME
The report presents two new paint schemes for the Chula Vista Transit fleet.
Staff recommendation: That Council approved either of the following paint schemes for new
Chula Vista Transit buses: (1) Maroon and gold stripes on a white background; or (2) Blue
and gold stripes on a white background (Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
A Scheduling of meetings.
Agenda
4
July 20, 1999
13. MAYOR'S REPORTS
A Ratification of appointment to the Economic Development Commission - William A
Hall (Chamber's nomination) (to fill vacancy created by Commissioner Compton,
whose tenn expired on June 30, 1999).
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session and thence to the Regular Meeting of July 27, 1999, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
***Ajoint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency
will be held immediately following the City Council meeting. ***
"I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
em~ioyed by the City of Chula Vista in the
ac;ce of the Cit} tlNi< en'J that I pos,ed
this Agenda/No': !'''e on tho Sulie"i:in Board at
Tuesday, July 20,1999 the PUh'iC0;~es Building and../ ~n Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED. ;7. "'7 SIGNED S .' -Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Cbuncil Meeting)
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City
Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, 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 law 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 of 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 available in the City Clerk's Office.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
· Four cases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8
.
Property:
428 "F" Street, Chula Vista, California 91910. Assessor's
Parcel Number 568-181-34,35,36,37 (portion), 41 (portion).
Negotiating Parties: Security Trust Company and City ofChula Vista (Sid Morris).
Under Negotiations: Property Acquisition
July 14,1999
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council /'UA
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manage~"~\
City Council Meeting of July 20,1999
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, July 20, 1999. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that, to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on July 13, 1999, 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.
DDR:mab
~V?-
~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
July 14, 1999
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney ~~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 7/13/99
To:
Re:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista did not met in
Closed Session on 7/13/99.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on
7/13/99 to discuss:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8:
Property:
428 "F
91910.
34, 35,
Street, Chula Vista, California
Assessor's Parcel Number 568-181-
36, 37 (portion), 41 (portion)
Negotiating Parties:
Security Trust Company and City of Chula
Vista (Sid Morris)
Under Negotiation:
Property Acquisition
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: 19k
H.\.oo".\lcrr."..\lt\clo,..,a.oc
5 /)~ )
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691-5037' FAX (619) 409-5823
@ Po.t.Con.~....rREY"lAdPap..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item~
Meeting Date 7/20/99
Resolution /9ftf}of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities
District No. 97-1 (Open Space Maintenance District [Otay Ranch SPA One,
Villages 1 & 5]) ordering certain modifications to the boundaries of Zone B of
CFD 97-1
DirectorofPublicWor~ ~
CityManag~ ~ ~\
CFD 97 -I was formed to fund the perpetual maintenance oflandscaping within the right of way and City
owned slopes within Otay Ranch SPA 1. Separate maintenance zones were established over the
ownership ofthe two Developers (McMillin Otay Ranch and the Otay Ranch Company) to account for
the fact that the major slopes within the McMillin Otay Ranch are maintained by the Home Owner's
Association while CFD 97-1 will fund the maintenance ofthe slopes within the Otay Ranch Company's
ownership. These two Developers have subsequently modified their ownership on a common boundary
("the Land Swap"). Tonight's action will mirror these changes within the CFD.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.K.)
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution ordering certain changes and
modifications CFD 97-1
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
CFD 97 -1 was formed September 15, 1998, pursuant to the provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982". The district contains two zones: Zone A includes all SPA I property and both
developers, Zone B is composed of all SPA I property except the McMillin Otay Ranch (see Exhibit A).
Zone A maintains all major channels, medians, parkways and public pedestrian paths. Zone B primarily
maintains the slopes of the major roads within the Otay Ranch ownership. As stated above, the Home
Owner's Association maintains the slopes along major streets within the McMillin Otay Ranch.
The Zone B Boundarv Change
The City approved a Lot Line Adjustment in Village One ofthe Otay Ranch project which allowed the
Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Otay Ranch to perform the land swap at their common boundary
(see Exhibit B). The Otay Ranch Company will develop Neighborhoods 12, 13, and 14 and Otay Ranch
McMillin will control the development of Neighborhood 12E.
Both developers have requested that the City process the proposed change to Zone B to make it
consistent with the land swap. The new boundaries of Zone B will exclude that piece of land received
by McMillin and will incorporate the property received by the Otay Ranch Company (see Exhibit C).
This change is consistent with and conforms to the intent of both developers and the City. The total
~-/
Page 2, Item (;0
Meeting Date 7/20/99
maximum tax of the zone remains unchanged. Bond Counsel (Brown, Diven, Hessell & Brewer) has
recommended that since the special taxes are not increasing that a public hearing is not necessary.
Therefore, by adopting the proposed resolution, Council will be approving the proposed change to the
boundaries of Zone B.
FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with the proposed change in the Zone B boundaries of the
district are being borne by both developers. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - CFD 97-1 Zones Boundary
Exhibit B - Landswap Lot line adjustment
Exhibit C - New Zone B Configuration
H:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA IZONEB3.DOC
July 14, 1999 (1:59PM)! TA
File:0725-30-0SD034
t--~
RESOLUTION NO. ;';1~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 97-1 (OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT [OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGES 1 & 5] )
ORDERING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE
BOUNDARIES OF ZONE B OF CFD 97-1
WHEREAS, CFD 97-1 was formed to fund the perpetual
maintenance of landscaping within the right of way and City owned
slopes within Otay Ranch SPA I; and
WHEREAS, separate maintenance zones were established over
the ownership of the two Developers (McMillin otay Ranch and the
Otay Ranch Company) to account for the fact that the major slopes
within the McMillin Otay Ranch are maintained by the Homeowner's
Association while CFD 97-1 will fund the maintenance of the slopes
within the Otay Ranch Company's ownership; and
WHEREAS, the Developers have subsequently modified their
ownership on a common boundary ("the Land Swap") and have requested
that the City process the proposed change to Zone B to make it
consistent with the land swap; and
WHEREAS, Zone B is composed of all SPA I property except
the McMillin Otay Ranch and Zone B primarily maintains the slopes
of the major roads within the Otay Ranch ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista, acting in its capacity as the legislative body
of Community Facilities District No. 97-1 (Open Space Maintenance
District [Otay Ranch SPA One, Villages 1 & 5]), does hereby order
certain modifications to the boundaries of Zone B of CFD 97-1 as
shown on Exhibits A and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, to make it consistent with the land swap between
McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch Company.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
CL~~
John M. Kaheny, City ttorney
H:\home\attorney\reso\zoneb.cfd
?-"3
...
\
..
-
.~
.:!:
,..,
'"
- '"
, =
r-- _ _
C"I :: 0
-"'-
:..l __
-- = =
;...- :1.0
- - -
.:!:';: :;,
::..GE;:
~ 17,1 ~ =
-..... ~ Co.I c
:=:: au
=::00:
- u _ _
~ == a:: c
r-l to. c.N
~o ::
..: - CJ
:; <: t:
- ~ -
a ~ c
= :-:
w ::
:::::
,..,
...,
-%-
t--1
=
.s
:
"--.
---
-
'"
";:
-
JI>
.-;,::
-
- '"
, '"
r- =
a.. '" =
o = ~
;z;~;
- = f':
.~.; =
.....,. OIl
-;;~c
.- ~ =
UQ",=
- fI) 1:1: U
.- Q"l C.
=;00=
..c===
~.- ~ ~
foiI;:c.=
[;1;,0=
.c-~
0= -< ~
= ~ '"
Eicr.l;Z;
Ei"5
= =
U '"
c:::
...
~
o
'-'
.
.
""
N
co
-:~
0""
z c
g.g
::E,J:) ui
- ~ c
" " 0
U C ._
a () ia
0.. oS !<
" ~ c
~~;a
\\
'.
,;.
Q
"-
u
~
.~ 5
"
~ ~
.~ ~
t c
~~
]~!~
,,<<
..-l I I
<ell
" "
c c
o 0
NN
z_
.
"
to
-
"
.;:
-
'"
is
..
- "
. =
..... '" =
'=' = 0
- ~.-
,,- -
"i: .5 E
- '" =
.~.... Cl)
~""'=
.JI rI.l ~ =
""""" G.l CJ Q
:::: ~u
..c=ooG,)
.-.- =
.c~=Q
~ r.. 1iN
cO =
'-.. G.l
= .... ..
= .... ..
e =- =
aoou
0"::
U ~
'"
c=:
>.
'"
-
o
'0'
0\. ~
"". \;
.~ --.
"..
z_
\
i-~
--
McMillin
Otay Ra
ncb
,-
i
I
!
,
i
c.tJJ.I'~.' ,.
6,J..>eUr{
f~~eo
fJ",. -JAf1
.",-,."-
; ,_ ~ ,tj1~~-;"
.S' ,,,'-':'~;,~J~vY~'\ "
tf-? .
Cl
...
U
"
oS
.S
oS "
"i g
~ t
.- .c
1:: "
8.,.
00
"O~ B..;j
4)= C,I)
,,<<
...l I I
<al
" "
:5 5
NN
r
C'
..
.-
...
-
..~
~
.... ..
, ..
r- =
~ ~ =
~ = ~
.... ...-
"'"'--
- = ~
u..... a.
.- ~ 6\,
-e~1C
..... ~ 1:1
U~..~
.....~~u
..... Q,) Cot
:S; tI:2::
-====
~.(J ~ Q,)
~ ~ l:l. =
f;l;,O~
~...~
'a -< ~
= =- ..
6~Z
6'5
~ =
U ~
l:I:
[;>
-
e,
'"
M
-
00
-:~
0"0
Z !3
!iro
;:S.<> .
d) ~ S
(J c ._
~ l1) ~
'" oS "
8 a J3
"'''''"0
_z_
t-6
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item 7
'i Meeting Date 7r1oi99
Resolution I j'S~pproving agreement between the City of Chu1a Vi sta and
the County of San Diego Spring Valley Sanitation District for purchasing capacity
rights and transporting wastewater in the Frisbie Trunk System and authorizing
the Mayor to execute said agree ent
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~ ....-? (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X.)
This agreement is entered into between the Spring Valley Sanitation District (District) of the County of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista (City) to provide the City with adequate capacity and equitable
allocation for the maintenance, operation and capital replacement costs for the Frisbie Trunk of the
Spring Valley Sanitation System until the year 2050. The agreement will reser ve sewer capacity rights
of two million gallons per day for the City of Chula Vista in the Frisbie Trunk to provide sewer service s
for the existing and future developments in the surrounding tributary areas.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving agreement between the City
of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego Spring Valley Sanitation District for purchasing capacity
rights and transporting wastewater in the Frisbie Trunk System and authorizing the Mayor to execute
said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Spring Valley Sanitation District owns and maintains the Central Avenue sewer, Frisbie sewer and
Bonita Meadows Lane sewer (hereinafter referred to as the "Frisbie Trunk") from the intersection of
Bonita Meadows Lane and Proctor Valley Road to the intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue.
The Frisbie Trunk is depicted in Exhibit A of the attached Agreement. Chu1a Vista owns and maintains
a sewer line in Proctor Valley Road which connects to District's Frisbie Trunk, which in turn connects
to District's Spring Valley Sewer Outfall.
On May 20, 1997, the Spring Valley Sanitation District, the City of San of Diego and the City of Chu1a
Vista executed the "Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and the Spring Valley Sanitation
District for the Transportation of Wastewater in the Spring Valley Joint System" wherein provisions
were made for the discharge into the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System of sewage originating
within the designated areas of Chu1a Vista. Pursuant to the "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement
Between the City of San Diego and Participating Agencies in the Metropolitan Sewerage System"
approved on May 18, 1998, and expiring on December 31, 2050, the District has the right to discharge
up to 10.978 and Chu1a Vista has the right to discharge up to 19.843 million gallons per day of sewage
into the Metropolitan System. On February 13, 1996, Chu1a Vista adopted Council Policy No. 570-02,
a copy of which is labeled as Exhibit B in the attached agreement, which establishes conditions for
7-/
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 7/20/99
connections to Chula Vista sanitary sewers by properties not within the incorporated limits of Chula
Vista.
Chula Vista and the District deem it mutually desirable and advantageous for the District to allow Chu1a
Vista to discharge sewage into District's Frisbie Trunk and for Chu1a Vista to allow the District to
discharge sewage into Chu1a Vista's Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer under the terms, conditions and
restrictions set forth in the attached agreement and in accordance with the terms of the existing
agreements and policy described above.
The purpose of this agreement is to establish the rights, privileges and duties of the parties concerning
the use of the District's Frisbie Trunk by Chu1a Vista, the construction and maintenance of co nnections
to said trunk by Chu1a Vista, specify the areas within the City of Chu1a Vista to be served by the
District's Frisbie Trunk, set standards governing waste discharges and sewage flow, establish fees and
charges and the determining methods used in ascertaining the amount of sewage discharged into the
District's Frisbie Trunk.
During a TV-inspection of the Central Avenue sewer in February 1999, it was reported that there are
sags in the Central A venue sewer line. It was further determined that these sags will reduce the capacity
and cause blockages in the Central A venue sewer. Since the repair of these sags is only needed to
accommodate the additional sewer capacity requested by Chu1a Vista, Engineering Staff agreed to
recommend payment of $100,000 to the District toward the repair of the line. This agreement is
scheduled to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors on July 21, 1999.
FISCAL IMPACT:
During fiscal year 2000/2001, the City of Chula Vista will pay the District a one time payment of
$100,000 from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve fund (No. 293(0), toward repairing the sags in Central
Avenue sewer trunk. The City of Chu1a Vista will continue to pay Metro Service charges, and
maintenance and operation charges to the Spring Valley Sanitation District in accordance with the
"Agreement between the City of Chu1a Vista and the Spring Valley Sanitation District for the
Transportation of Wastewater in the Spring Valley Joint System". The City of Chu1a Vista will pay to
the District a proportionate share for the future capital replacement costs of the Frisbie Trunk based on
the amount of sewage discharged into District's Frisbie Trunk from Chu1a Vista's connections to the
total amount of sewage discharged from District's Frisbie Trunk into the Spring Valley Sewer Outfall
at the time when said capital replacements are needed. If said share is calculated to be 1 ess than 67.8 %
(capacity ratio), it is agreed that the District shall use 67.8 % to calculate the amount of Chula Vista's
share.
Attachments:
Attachment A - July 21, 1999 County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Information Sheet
Attachment B - Agreement and Attached Exhibits
File: 0790-7Q-KY073
H:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAIFRISBEE.iRN
July 13, 1999 (3:4!lpm)
7~2
RESOLUTION NO. ;';1~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT FOR
PURCHASING CAPACITY RIGHTS AND TRANSPORTING
WASTEWATER N THE FRISBIE TRUNK SYSTEM AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Spring Valley Sanitation District of the
County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista have negotiated an
agreement to provide the City with adequate capacity and equitable
allocation for the maintenance, operation and capital replacement
costs for the Frisbie Trunk of the Spring Valley Sanitation System
until the year 2050; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will reserve sewer capacity rights
of 2 million gallons per day for the city of Chula vista in the
.Frisbie Trunk to provide sewer services for the existing and future
developments in the surrounding tributary areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Agreement between the
City of Chula vista and the County of San Diego Spring Valley
Sanitation District for Purchasing Capacity Rights and Transporting
Wastewater in the Frisbie Trunk System, a copy of which shall be
kept on file in the Office of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
H:\home\attorney\reso\spring.val
7-3
ATTACHMENT A
~?
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET
SUBJECT:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SPRING
VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT FOR THE CONNECTION OF C1TY'S
PROCTOR V ALLEY TRUNK SEWER TO DISTRICT'S FRISBIE TRUNK
(DISTRICT 1,2 & 4)
CONCURRENCES r~
COUNTY COUNSEL Approval of Form [mi[] N/A
Type of Fonn: [X] Standard Form [] ordinan) [ ] Res
Review Board Lener Only [] Yes [X] N/A
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/AUDITOR [X] ~ j N/A
Requires Four Votes [ ] Yes [X] No
[Xl Contract
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER [] Ves [X] N/A
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES [] Yes [X] N/A
CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL [] Yes [X] N/A
OTHER CONCURRENCE(S):
BUSINESS IMP ACT STATEMENT: [] Yes [X] N/ A
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS:
November 12, 1996 (San I) Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Spring Valley
Sanitation District for the Transponation of Wastewater in the Spring Valley Joint System
(District I, 2 & 4).
BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE:
ATIACHMENT(S): Three copies of the Agreement between the City orChula Vista and Spring Valley Sanitation
District for the Connection of City's Proctor Valley Road sewer to District's Frisbie Trunk.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
CONTACT PERSON:
Bai Wong
Name
(526) 874-4091
Phone
(526) 874-4050
Fax
0384
Mail Station
B wongxpw@co.san-diego.ca.us
E-Mail
r, Director (Acting)
July 21,1999
Meeting Date
/
This page blank
7
/.-/
ATTACHMENT B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
FOR THE CONNECTION OF CITY'S PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD SEWER
TO DISTRICT'S FRISBIE TRUNK
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of
,1999,
by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called
"Chula Vista", and the SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, a county sanitation
district, hereinafter called the "District", is made with reference to the following facts:
WITNESSETH:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
1. The District has constructed, or has caused the construction of, Central
Avenue sewer, Frisbie trunk sewer and Bonita Meadows Lane sewer (hereinafter referred
to as the "Frisbie Trunk") from the intersection of Bonita Meadows Lane and Proctor
Valley Road to the intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue. The Frisbie Trunk is
depicted in Exhibit A.
2. Chula Vista has constructed, or has caused the construction of, a sewer
line in Proctor Valley Road (a County Road), (hereinafter referred to as the "Proctor
Valley Trunk Sewer") in accordance with Chula Vista Drawing Nos. 91-186 through 91-
196 in the unincorporated territory of the County of San Diego. Said sewer connects to
District's Frisbie Trunk, which in tum connects to District's Spring Valley Outfall Sewer.
3. On the 20th day of May, 1997, the City of San Diego, Chula Vista and the
District executed the "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
WASTEWATER IN THE SPRING VALLEY JOINT SYSTEM" (County of San Diego
'7
~
Contract No. 71907) wherein provisions were made for the discharge Into tne San Dleg::
Metropolitan Sewerage System of sewage onginating within a designated area of Ch:;la
Vista.
4. Pursuant to the agreement "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement
between the City of San Diego and Participating Agencies in the Metropolitan Sewerage
System" (hereinafter referred as "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement" approved
on May 18. 1998, and expiring on December 31, 2050, the District has the right to
discharge up to 10.978 and Chula Vista has the right to discharge up to 19.843 million
gallons of sewage daily into the Metropolitan System.
5. The Chula Vista City Council adopted Policy No. 570-02, on February 13.
1996, a CODY of which is attached as Exhibit g. which establishes conditions for
connection to Chula Vista sanitary sewers by properties not within the incorporated limits
of Chula Vista.
6. During a lV-inspection of the Central Avenue sewer in February 1999. it
was reported that there are sags in the Central Avenue sewer. It was further
determined that these sags would reduce the capacity and cause blockages in the
Central Avenue sewer. It was also determined that with these existing sags, the
Central Avenue sewer will not be adequate to transport the combined ultimate peak
flows of sewage generated from Chula Vista and the District in the future, and the
Central Avenue sewer is and will be adequate to transport ultimate sewage flows
generated solely by the District.
7. Chula Vista and the District deem it mutually desirable and advantageous
for the District to allow Chula Vista to discharge sewage into District's Frisbie Trunk and
-
,
i
for Chula Vista t::l all::lw tne District t::l discharge sewage Int::l Chula Vistas Pr::lcwr Valle\'
Trunk Sewer, under the terms, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth.
8. This agreement. therefore. shall establish the rights, privileges and duties of
the parties concerning the use of the District's Frisbie Trunk by Chula Vista; the
construction and maintenance of connections to said trunk by Chula Vista; specify the
area within the City of Chula Vista to be served by the District's Frisbie Trunk under the
terms of this agreement; set standards governing waste discharges and sewage flow:
establish rent, fees and charges and their determining methods used in ascertaining the
amount of sewage discharged into the District's Frisbie Trunk which is to be charged
against Chula Vista's capacity rights in the Metropolitan System.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This agreement shall take effect immediately.
Section 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
Chula Vista hereby grants to District for a period commencing from the effective
date of this agreement until December 31, 2050, the right to connect District's sewer Jines
to Chula Vista's Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer and discharge sewage into it for
transportation, and District hereby grants to Chula Vista for a period commencing from
the effective date of this agreement until December 31, 2050, the right to connect Chula
Vista's sewer lines to District's Frisbie Trunk and discharge sewage into it for
transportation, subject to the terms, conditions and restrictions of this agreement.
Section 3. CONNECTIONS.
A. Chula Vista, at its sole expense, shall construct, install, maintain,
~
repair. replace and/or reconstruct aU c:>nnecti:>:ls and appurtenances t:> Dlstrds
Frisbie Trunk installed or constructed by Chula Vista under the terms of tnls
agreement.
B. District, at its sole expense, shall construct. install, maintain, repair.
replace and/or reconstruct all connections and appurtenances to Chula Vista's
Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer installed or constructed by District under the terms of
this agreement. Said connections shall comply with the following conditions:
1. Properties non-contiguous to Chula Vista, which are located
within the "Non-Restricted Area" on Exhibit C shall be permitted by Chula
Vista to connect to the Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer without restrictions and
without being subject to Chula Vista Policy No. 570-02.
2. Properties that cannot annex to Chula Vista upon connection
to the Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer or that are located in the non-restricted
area shall be subject to District sewer service charge until annexed to Chula
Vista.
3. Properties outside Chula Vista that need to be served by
Chula Vista's Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer shall be within the boundary of
the Proctor Valley Sewer Benefit Area as shown on Exhibit D.
4. Properties outside Chula Vista and within the boundary of
the Proctor Valley Sewer Benefit Area, which are connected or wish to be
connected to Chula Vista shall be subject to Chula Vista Policy No. 570-
02.
/
, /'1
"---'
5. Distri::t shall reo::>:: to C:l'.Jl2 Vista any ::nanges J;'"', t~s
number of District's EDUs connected to Chuia Vista's Proctor Valley Tru:lk
Sewer on a semi-annual basis.
6. District shall obtain prior approval from ChuJa Vista for
connections to Chula Vista sewer lines within Chula Vista serving District's
properties located outside the non-restricted area.
Section 4. ENGINEER'S APPROVAL.
The location, installation, construction, repair (except emergency repairs)
replacement and/or reconstruction of each and every such connection and appurtenance
shall be in accordance with County design standards. Standard Specifications for Pubiic
Works Construction and San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings.
Section 5. MAP.
Where a new subdivision will be connected to the Proctor Valley or Frisbie Trunk.
Chula Vista shall furnish the District a copy of the Final Map as recorded showing the
areas to be served by the connection prior to the construction or installation of the
connection. The areas shown on said maps shall be the only areas served by such
connection under the terms of this agreement. and in no event shall Chula Vista allow any
areas not shown on said maps to be served by such connection.
Section 6. AREA TO BE SERVED.
Only that area which is within the City of Chula Vista and within the Sweetwater
River Basin or immediately adjacent to said Sweetwater River Basin and capable of being
served by a sewerage system within said Sweetwater River Basin by gravity flow sewers
shall be served by District's Frisbie Trunk under the terms of this agreement: provided
r7
I
I
.
h:>wever. that l:l the event Cnula Vista an:lexes and in::mp:>rates within its b:>u:ldaries
areas lYing within said Sweetwater River 3asm or said areas immediately adjacent 10 sa I:)
Sweetwater River Basin, which are not incorporated within the boundaries of Chula Vista
on the effective date of this agreement, said areas, on the date of such annexation, shall
become eligible to be served by District's Frisbie Trunk under the terms of this
agreement; provided, further, however, that areas outside of such areas as above
described may be served on a temporary basis with the written consent of the District's
Engineer which written consent shall specify such area and the duration of such
temporary service. Chula Vista and District agree that for purposes of this agreement the
boundaries, extent and limit of said Sweetwater River Basin shall be as delineated on the
plat attached hereto and marked Exhibit E which by this agreement is made a part of this
agreement. In no event shall Chula Vista permit property other than that described in this
section to connect to or otherwise to be served by District's Frisbie Trunk through sewer
lines or connections owned or operated by Chula Vista.
Section 7. LIMITATIONS ON TYPE AND CONDITION OF SEWAGE.
A. All sewage discharged into the District's Frisbie Trunk shall meet the
standards established by the City of San Diego pursuant to Section II.F of the
aforementioned Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement of 1998. Chula Vista
shall not discharge into District's Frisbie Trunk any sewage or wastes which do not
meet the standards established by and for the District under appropriate
ordinances, resolutions, rules or regulations. Chula Vista shall regulate and
prohibit the discharge into any sewer line connected to and served by District's
Frisbie Trunk of sewage and wastes, which do not meet the quality, and standards
~
-;
so established by the Distn::t Chula VIsta shall also comply with the aDDlicaDle
statutes. rules and regulations of agencies of the United States of Amenca. the
State of Galifomia, and the City of San Diego having jurisdiction over the
collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage and wastes.
B. Ghula Vista shall not allow excessive infiltration or any surface or storm
waters to be discharged into any sewer system or facilities served by District's
Frisbie Trunk.
Section 8. METERING
Ghula Vista flow meter CV12 shall be operated and maintained and quarterly
calibrated by Chula Vista or its agents. at its sole expense, and be in good working
condition for the duration of this agreement. Flow data information obtained from the
meter will be made available to the City of San Diego and the District through direct
computerized flow monitoring system and through quarterly reports provided by Chula
Vista.
From time to time, the District may at its own discretion conduct capacity
measurements to determine actual peak and average daily flows through direct
computerized flow monitoring system. The results of these measurements may be used
to verify, or to cause Ghula Vista or its agents to restore; the accuracy of said meter
installed by Ghula Vista.
Section 9. PEAK FLOW.
For the purposes of this agreement, "peak flow" shall mean the maximum
instantaneous discharge of sewage expressed as a rate of flow in million gallons per day
(mgd). During the term of this agreement Chula Vista shall have the right to discharge
:/
peak flow Into the Districts Frisbie Trunk not to exceed 2 mgd. and the Dlstnct snail nave
the obligation to receive such peak flow from Chula Vista. Temporary increases In tne
permitted peak flow resulting from rainfall shall not be considered violations of this
agreement; provided, however, that the District is not obligated to receive from Chula
Vista nor is Chula Vista privileged to discharge into District's Frisbie Trunk any amounts in
excess of the permitted peak flow under this agreement which could endanger the public
health or safety.
If Chula Vista exceeds the permitted peak flow on more than a temporary basis
(no more than thirty consecutive days in each fiscal year) and such excess is caused by a
defect in the sewer system of Chula Vista capable of being corrected or the excess is
caused by the discharge into the sewer system of Chula Vista by a sewer user of a large
quantity of sewage in a short period of time or by other sources, Chula Vista shall cause
such defect to be corrected to prevent the excess or shall cause the sewer user to
construct and operate appropriate facilities to spread the discharge of sewage into its
sewer system or make necessary adjustments in its sewerage system so as to reduce the
peak flow to the permitted quantity.
If the excessive peak flow from Chula Vista's connections to District's Frisbie Trunk
causes the District to exceed its permitted peak flow into the Metropolitan System as
determined by Section VII of the "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement of 1998"
between the City of San Diego and the District as a participating agency in the
Metropolitan Sewerage System, and because of such excess the District is required to
pay additional sums of money to the City of San Diego for such excess capacity needs as
specified in said Section VII of said agreement, Chula Vista shall reimburse the District for
/0
the portion of such amount wnicn are aliocaole 10 Cnuia Vista's excess peak fiow
Section 10. INFILTRATION
It is untlerstood and agreed that there will be inflow of water into District's Friso.e
Trunk because of leakage between the point or points at which the sewage from Chula
Vista is delivered to District's Frisbie Trunk and the connection of the Frisbie Trunk to the
Spring Valley Outfall Sewer. The District shall estimate the total waters that infiltrated the
District's Frisbie Trunk (sometimes referred to herein as "infiltration") by analyzing meter
readings and counts of EDUs and apportion the same amongst all of such users in the
proportion that the amount of sewage discharged into the District's Frisbie Trunk by each
such user bears to the total amount of the sewage discharged into the District's Frisbie
Trunk by all of such users of said trunk sewer. However, the amount of infiltration
apportioned to each such user shall not exceed 10% of the amount of sewage discharged
into the Frisbie Trunk by each such user. Such amount shall be deemed a part of the
sewage of such user for all purposes.
Section 11. REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE.
A. The term "EDU" as used in this agreement shall mean a single family
dwelling unit. Chula Vista shall use the current County Uniform Sewerage
Ordinance to establish EDUs for both residential and commercialfindustrial
EDUs. Wnere a hotel. motel. trailer court, commercial or industrial establishment
or other type of enterprise or operation which normally generates a different
volume of sewage than a single family dwelling is being served by District's
Frisbie Trunk; Chula Vista, with approval of the District, shall assign to each such
establishment, enterprise or operation a number of EDUs in proportion to the
. ;
estimated am::Junt 0: sewage generated. Said number of EDUs so aSSigned snalJ
be used in computing the amount of sewage discharged into the District's ~rls::Jle
Trunk.. Said assignment shall be made for each such establi~hment. enterpnse
or operation being served by the District's Frisbie Trunk. on the date when
sewage is first discharged from Chula Vista's sewers into District's Frisbie Trunk.
under the terms of this agreement.
Thereafter, upon the connection of any such establishment, enterprise or
operation to a sewer line being served by District's Frisbie Trunk., or upon the
change in use of any property within Chula Vista which is served by District's
Frisbie Trunk, which change in use would affect the volume of sewage generated
by such propen:y. Chula Vista shall report to the District the date of such
connection or change in use and assign an appropriate number of EDUs to such
property with approval of the District's Engineer.
B. Chula Vista shall report to the District on a quarterly basis the number
of ED Us of unmetered connections within Chula Vista, which EDUs are being
served by District's Frisbie Trunk..
C. The Frisbie Trunk. Sewer except its portion in Central Avenue was
oversized to serve areas outside the original assessment area, and a charge of
$50 for each EDU connection was established by District to pay the cost of said
over-sizing.
Prior to construction or installation of each Chula Vista's connection to
District's Frisbie Trunk., Chula Vista shall charge and collect a one-time fee of
$50.00 per EDU for the purpose of reimbursing the District the cost for over-
..'~
sizing tne Frisbie Trunk. Chuia Vista shall remit such fees c:)lIected t:) the
District on quarterly basIs.
D. Prior to construction or installation of each District's connection to Chula
Vista's Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer, District shall charge and collect a
reimbursement fee for each EDU in the District and to be served by Chula Vista's
Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer. for the purpose of reimbursing the builders or their
beneficiaries the cost of constructing the Proctor Valley Trunk Sewer. The amount
of reimbursement fee shall be in accordance with the reimbursement district to be
formed by Chula Vista per Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. District
shall semi-annually remit such fees collected to Chula Vista.
Section 11.5. REPAIRING SAGS IN CENTRAL AVENUE SEWER
In order to repair the existing sags in Central Avenue sewer. it is agreed
that Chula Vista shall pay to the District a one-time amount of 5100.000. The
payment of said amount shall be paid by Chula Vista to the District before
October 1, 2000.
The District is responsible for, and shall complete the repair within three
(3) years starting this fiscal year 1999-2000.
Chula Vista will continue to contribute flows to the Frisbie Trunk prior to
and during the completion of the repairs.
Section 12. SERVICE CHARGE.
A. Metro Service Charge. Sewage discharging from Chula Vista into the
District's Frisbie Trunk shall be subject to Metro Service Charge under the same
terms, conditions and restrictions as are specified in the "Agreement between the
/'
,/J
City of Chula Vista ana the Spring Valley Sanitation District for the Trans::>::Jr1ati::>n
.
of Wastewater in the Spring Valley Joint System". dated May 20.1997. an::! snal
be considered the same as sewage discharging from Chula Vista into the Districts
Spring Valley Outfall Sewer.
B. District's M & 0 Charge. Sewage discharging from Chula Vista into the
District's Frisbie Trunk shall be subject to District's M & 0 Charge under the same
terms, conditions and restrictions as are specified in the "Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and the Spring Valley Sanitation District for the Transportation
of Wastewater in the Spring VaHey Joint System". dated May 20. 1997, and shall
be considered the same as sewage discharging from Chula Vista Into the District's
Spring Valley Outfall Sewer.
C. Capital Replacement Charges.
1. Chula Vista shall pay to the District a proportionate share for the
capital replacement costs of the District's Frisbie Trunk such as
reconstruction, replacement or repairs, as the amount of sewage
discharged into District's Frisbie Trunk from Chula Vista's connections to the
total amount of sewage discharged from District's Frisbie Trunk into the
Spring Valley Outfall Sewer at the time when said reconstruction.
replacement or repairs becomes necessary. If said share is calculated to
be less than 67.8%, it is agreed that District shall use 67_8% to calculate the
amount of Chula Vista's share in capital replacement costs for District's
Frisbie Trunk. Such amount of said proportionate share computed by the
District shall be based on the actual costs of reconstruction, replacement
,-
/ /
and repairs of District's Frisbie Trunk. including all costs of surveym;
design, construction, easement acquisition, environmental studies and/or
environmental impact reports. processing required permits through
agencies, implementation of environmental mitigation measures. field
inspection and project administration to complete such reconstruction.
replacement or repair project.
2. The charge provided for in subparagraph 1 here-in-above shall be
paid annually on February 1 after presentation of a bill for said charge by
the District on or before the preceding April 1.
It is understood by the parties hereto that the service charge computed pursuant to
either subparagraphs A. 8, and C is to cover/recover, respectively, (i) the District's
prorated share of the maintenance and operation costs of the San Diego Metropolitan
Sewerage System which the District must pay to the City of San Diego under the terms of
the aforementioned "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement" of 1998, and (ii) Chula
Vista's share for the District's costs in maintaining and operating the Frisbie Trunk.
The Service Charge as computed in this section will be adjusted from time to time
for any increase or decrease in the Metropolitan Sewerage System charges, and District's
M & 0 and Capital Replacement costs in maintaining and operating the Frisbie Trunk. A
copy of the District's Annual Expenditure Report shall be furnished to Chula Vista upon
request.
Section 13. CHARGE AGAINST CAPACITY RIGHTS IN METROPOLITAN
SYSTEM.
A. All sewage discharged into District's Frisbie Trunk through Chula Vista's
, .--
/ r-,
/ -
connections. under the terms of this agreement an::: thereafter dls::narge: Into tne
San Diego Metropolitan Sewera;)e System. and all Infiltration allo::a::>18 to C'1:.Jia
Vista as determined by Section 10 of this agreement, shall be charged against
Chula Vista's capacity rights in the Metropolitan System as such rights have been
determined by the aforementioned "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement" of
1998.
The average daily flow of such sewage to be so charged against Chula
Vista's capacity rights shall be determined in accordance with Section 13 of the
"Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Spring Valley Sanitation
District for the Transportation of Wastewater in the Spring Valley Joint System" of
.
1997.
Section 14. TRANSFER OF TERRITORY. If, because of annexation, transfers,
consolidations or other cause, any territory within the City of Chula Vista served by the
District's Frisbie Trunk is transferred to another jurisdiction, Chula Vista shall remain
responsible and be charged for the sewage and infiltrated waters from such territory
discharged into the District's Frisbie Trunk as provided in this agreement until the parties
hereto execute an appropriate amendment to this agreement transferring such
responsibility and the obligation to make payments pursuant to this agreement to such
other jurisdiction.
Section 15. REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT. The District's
Frisbie Trunk shall be maintained by District in good repair and good working order in
accordance with sound engineering practices. It shall be the duty of the District to make
repairs on said trunk sewer and to make replacements (including reconstruction) required
//
/0
to keep said trunk sewer In good operating condition. Except as provided In SeCTion 16
hereof, all repairs. reconstruction an::i replacements shall be part of the SERVICE
CHARGE as specified in Section 12 of this agreement.
Section 16. MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT OR REPAIRS.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15, hereof, if, as a result of natural disaster,
operation of Federal or State law or other causes beyond the District's control. it becomes
necessary for the District to undertake major reconstruction, replacement or repairs of
said trunk sewer or any portion thereof, Chula Vista shall reimburse the District for a
proportionate share of the net costs of such reconstruction, replacement or repairs. The
same share formula specified in Section 12(C) here-in-above shall also apply to this
section.
Chula Vista shall share in any Federal or State grant funding, insurance or other
reimbursement proceeds that may be obtained by District for such major reconstruction,
replacement or repairs, in a=rdance with the same share formula specified in Section
12(C) here-In-above.
Section 17. INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. In the event of an interruption of
service to Chula Vista by the District's Frisbie Trunk, as a result of disaster, operation of
State or Federal law, discontinuance of or interruption of service to the district of the San
Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System, or any other cause beyond the control of the
District, District shall bear no liability and shall be held free and harmless by Chula Vista
from any claims and liabilities for any injury to or damage to any person or persons or
property or for the death of any person or persons arising from or out of such interruption
of service or for any other damages or costs incurred by Chula Vista as a result of such
~
!
!
interruption of service.
Section 18 ARBITRATION. All controversies arising OUI of the Interpretatlo~ O~
application of this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with tnis
section. The matter in controversy shall be submitted to a single arbitrator mutually
.
selected by the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to section 10240.8-
10240.13 of the Public Contract Code. The arbitration decision shall be decided under
the law of this State, shall be supported by substantial evidence and in writing, and shall
contain the basis for the decision, the findings of fact and the conclusions of law. A party
may, within the applicable time period and upon the ground specified in this section and
in Article 1 (commencing with section 1285) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, petition the court to confirm. correct. or vacate the decision rendered
by the arbitrator. A court shall vacate the decision, or part, or part thereof, if it determines
either that the decision, of part thereof, is not supported by substantial evidence or that is
not decided under or in accordance with the laws of this State.
Section 19. NOTICE. Notices required or permitted under this agreement shall be
sufficiently given if in writing and if either served personally upon or mailed by registered
or certified mail to the clerk or secretary of the goveming body of the affected party to this
agreement.
Section 20. LIABILITY. Nothing herein contained shall operate to relieve Chula
Vista of any liability for damages to persons or property arising from or out of the
installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and/or
reconstruction of the aforesaid sewer connections and appurtenances or from any action
or inaction of Chula Vista or of its officers, agents or employees in connection therewith.
:.7
,/ (J
Nothing herein contained shaI: o;:>erate to relieve District of anv liability To'
. .
damages to persons Dr property arising from Dr out of the installation. construc!lo~.
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and/or reconstruction of the aforesaid sewer
connections and appurtenances or from any action or inaction of District or of its officers,
agents or employees in connection therewith.
Section 21. INDEMNITY - INSURANCE.
A. Chula Vista Indemnity. To the extent it may legally do so, Chula Vista
shall defend and save and hold free and harmless the District and its agents.
officers and employees from any claim, liabilities, penalties or fines for injury to or
damage to any person or property or for the death of any person arising from or
out of any act or omission of Chula Vista, its agents, officers, emplovees or
contractors, arising from or out of any defects in the installation, construction,
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and/or reconstruction of said sewer
connections and/or appurtenances, including sewage flow meters installed
according to Section 8 of this Agreement.
B. District Indemnity. To the extent it may legally do so. District shall
defend and save and hold free and harmless Chula Vista and its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, liabilities, penalties or fines for injury to or damage
to any person or property or for the death of any person arising from or out of any
act or omission of District, its agents, officers, employees or contractors, arising
from or out of any defects in the installation, construction, operation. maintenance,
repair, replacement and/or reconstruction of said sewer connections and/or
appurtenances.
..l
I
Section 22. TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence of this agreement.
Section 23. SEVERABILl1Y. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or word of this agreement, or the application thereof, to any party, or any other person or
.
circumstance is for any reason held invalid, it shall be deemed severable and the validity
of the remainder of the agreement or the application of such provision to the other parties
or to any other persons or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. Each party hereby
declares that it would have entered into this agreement and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase and word thereof irrespective of the fact that one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or words, or the application thereof to
any party or any other person or circumstance be held invalid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be
executed by the respective officials.
Approved as to form and legality
THE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA
.
this day of
,1999
By
City Attomey
of the City of Chula Vista.
Approved as to form and legality
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
this _ day of
,1999
County Counsel
BY
Thomas J. Pastuszka
Clerk of District Board of Directors
By
, Deputy
/. )
.~J
S<l3A3dS ----%~~i..€..., -
. ~~dtfO?-\l'"
.~~~ I"
Jr/
/ \~
:4-
, ~W
~'Z't,
~ ,~3
~ \ .......
<f)\~!
. . ~
. s
.. )L
'- . Z
\ . ~
_____----e~0j':;",>. D~~L
\ ~.>
~I ,'?'
V", v ·
~\ \ ..
~~ \
w. ..
';L ·
? \ ..
7 \ ..
l".. ~.. ..i't~ i
~~, I. \'>'\~~
~"\\ ~(#\,~~.!i/ '. \--- \!
~ \ ~ ,; -d.------ '?!\J.
\ ~/,'\~"
\ \ I! 12. ·
o \ \ ~"'o'C-
. ' ~" \1\
. ~~ 0.1
~~ ~il~~\ I ~
i\ ~\. ~ ~~\ ~ ~.-.~~"
0\-_L~" ~s ):
o \! \ ~
\
-'
UJ
Z_____ROLUNG HILLS
0'
~
~
......../ '-
! ~.
~?-'i
,
'--
v'
\~
/ !-.-
/2
\
0<V
..... ,....
~I 0'<"
ell ~ ~
~ <v<()
y\
!
<(
Ol:t/&..{~ ~) ------!~
fr"//1 81 r:..f
a J {)'---
. .<" ~$ 1V/c:to7
/~ / lC
( ,~/~
'\ v~o,~.s><!t,
0'"
(
\
c---
-~').-
oJ ~~. \_~\\
.y. .'
I ~...: '
\>1. '.',
't,. .~ \'"
~', \
'Z---
~.
z' .
::::>
.fE
w
iD
en
. , if -------"
-~.......-
-"-
~
';-~ --j '\
/ \ . . \
~. \ '
\
~
!
\:-
;'
-'-_/ /
\
\
-- .......,
..4:S
/
/
I
/'
!
,
/
(
,/
!
I~
# '
&
~
I
'-----
~
"
,
!
\
\\ \
\\~
, ,;
--"
w
~
J (/)
~
2
"
~
Z
::l
<(~
I-W
,mm
,,~ en
if2
i LL
::.:::
z
:J
cg:
Zw
w-
C)a:l
~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This page blank
/) r
?- ~
EXHIBIT B
1 OF 3
r
COUNCIL POLICY
crTI' OF CHUL~ VISTA
SUBJECT:
SEWER SERVlCE TO PROPERTY NOT
WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY
POLIcY
NUMBER
570-02
EFFECTIVE
DATE
02-13-96
PAGE
10f3
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 18214
I DATED:
02-13-96
BACKGROUND
The City Council established the current version of Council Policy No. 570-02 with the adoption of Resolution No.
16598 on June 2, 1992. This policy was inleDded to ruide Slaff in providing efficieul and legal service to the public
with respect to providing =nnections to the City sewer system for properties not within the City boundary.
However, since the adoption of the revised policy, a number of properties have been required to pursue such
~1>nn~~ons be::ause of the failure of septic systems, but not connections have been made in accordance with its
provisions.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for the connection of properties outside the City to sewers whicb (1) are preseutly part of the
I City seWer system, or (2) are connected to County Sanitation DisL;ct sewer lines which discharge into City fac.ilities.
POLICY
The City Council, in cooperation with the San Diego County Board of SUpervisors, hereby establishes the fOllowing
policy and procedures relative 10 the connection of properties outside the boundaries of the City to City sewers or to a
San Diego County Sanilaly District sewer which lies within the Cbula V 1Sla Sphere of Influence and discharges into a
City sewer.
In the eveut that the Policy, when applies to a specific instance, would rm the opinion of the property owner) result in
the inefficient provision of service, the propeny owner may apply for an exemption from the provisions of the Policy.
. :n such an instance, the property owner shall pay a non-refundable administntive fee of $1,000 to the City prior to
the initiation of any staff worle in connection with the application.
The tenns "adjacent", "contiguous", "City sewer", and "District sewer" as used in this policy sbaII be defined as
follows:
1. "Adjacent" is a location which lies closely to, but not necessarily touching or having a common
boundary with a specific feature.
2. "Contiguous" locations are those which directly abut City territory, or adjoin streets which adjoin
City territory.
3. "City sewer" is a sewer owned by the City or a sewer owned by a County Sanitation District, but
operated and maintained by the City under an agre:ment with the County Sanitation District.
4. "District sewer" is a sewer owned by a County Sanitation District or owned by the City, but
operated and maintained by a Sanitation District under an agreemeut with the City.
r, r~
?-~
EXHIBITB
2 OF 3
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITI' OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECf:
SEWER SERVICE TO PROPERTY NOT
WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY
POLlCY
NUMBER.
570-02
EFFECTIVE
DATE
02-13-96
.
PAGE
2of3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 18214
I DATED:
02-13-96
The listed procedures are based upon the pnmise that a property which is COllllected to a City sewer should ultimalcly
be included within the City. If a property owner proposes COllllection to a SanitatiOll District sewer which does not
discharge into a City aewe:r, it should not be requiIcd to seek ~~";OII.
I.
PROPERTIES CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY AND CONNECTING TO A CITY
- SEWER.: -
A. Properties in this situatiOll sb.all be required to execute an Irrevocable Offer of Annexation to the City,
or to complete lIIlII,u,;on where appropriate, and pay appropriate fees (Capacity and ongoing Sewer Service
Clwges, along with a Connection Permit Fee and !AIc:ral Construction a.arge) to the City.
. B. The City sb.all construCt the sewer lalenII and provide such service UIlder an Out of Ag=r:y service
agreement, with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) fees paid by the property owner at the
time the agrecmcot is approved by !.AFCO.
C. If the property is """"-led through a Sanitation District sewer or a long Ia1cra1 within UDincorpoJ1llcd
te:rritory to a City sewer within incorporated te:rritory, the property OWDC' sb.all also execute a Grant of Lien
to the City in an am<l1ll11 sufficient to guarantee a proporticmate share of !.AFCO, State and City fees and
charges for future ."n~.til)n and pre-zoning in a specific amount, as _;~"..n by the City to be adequate to
. .,caver that share. Said proporticmate share sb.all be ,~""..,! to be equal to twenty per cent (20%) of the
estimaIed cost (at the time the property is connected) of said fees and charges for -""'''';on and pre-zoning
of the individual property.
D. The:reaftcr, the City sb.all collect normal City sewer service charges and pay appropriate San Diego
Metropolitan Sewenge System (Metro) and Sanitation District charges.
E. When an appropriate number of contiguous lots or pan:cJs are ann~.hle to the City (normally in
groups of 10 or more, but could be less in a particular situation, Cbula Vista, at its option, may require
initiation of annexatiOll prD'"....n;"gs. annexation proc....!;"gs may be initiated by property owner petition or
by Resolution of Application adopted by the City Council. Upon payment of all related fees and charges by
the affected property owner(s) and completion process, Cbula Vista sb.all release any outstanding lien on the
affected properties.
PROPERTIES NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY AND CONNECTING TO A CITY
. 'SEWER:
n.
.
A. Properties in this situation which. are directly colllleclcd to, and receive sewer service through a City
sewer, shall be requiIcd to execute an Irrevocable Offer of Annexation to the City, pay appropriate fees
(Capacity and ongoing Sewer serVice Clwges, along with a Connection Permit Fee and Latcra1 Construction
Clwge) to the City and enter into an Out Of Agency agreement with.LAFCO and a collllection agreement
with the City for the provision of sewer scrvice, with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) fees
paid by the property owner at the time the agreement is approved by LAFCO.
... B. Sections I.B, I.C, I.D, and I.E are also applicable.
/~' 1'/
./ :-.;.-
.:~-i
.
EXHIBIT B
3 OF 3
~
COUNCIL POLICY
CI1Y OF CHUU. VISTA
SUBJECT:
SEWER SERVICE TO PROPERTY NOT
WI1IDN '!BE CITY BOUNDARY
POLICY
J\"UMBER
570-02
EFFECI'IVE
DATE
02-13-96
PAGE
3oi3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 18214
I DATED:
02-13-96
m. PROPERTIES CONNECTING TO A SANITATION DISTRICT SEWER:
r-
"".
,
A. Properties in this situation, which arc directly connecled 10 (and receive service tIuough) a Sanila1ion
District -, shall JUlIlex 10 the DistrictllDd pay all appropriate fees lIDd charges 10 said District. In the
eVea! thai the District sew... dischazges into a downstream City SCWer, the property own... shall also OXOCUle
lID Irrevocable Off... of .Ann~.tion to the City. fw1her, if thai branch of the City's SCWer system discharges
directly inlo the Metro system IlIth... than discharging into the SpIing Valley Outfall Sewer, the property
ownor shall execule a GIlID! of Lien to the City in an amount sufficient to guarantee a proponionate share of
LAFCO, State, lIDd City fees and charges for future annexation and pre-zoning in a specific amount, as
estimated by the City to be adequate 10 COVer thai share. Said proponiOnate share shall be lISSWDcd 10 be
equal to tweaty per ceotel' (20%) of the estimaled cost (at the time the property is connecte<l) of said fees and
charges for JUlIlexation and pre-zoning of the individual property.
B. Thereafter, the District shall collect nonna! District sewer service charges and pay appropriate Metro .
charges. If the District sewer dischazges into a downstream City sewer which., in tum, discharges directly in
the Metro system, the District sba!l also pay appropriate Metro charges to the City. i
C. When an appropriate numbec of contiguous lots or parcels are ann."b1e to the City, Cbula Vista, at
its option, sba!l require initiation of JUlIlexation p,..".-dings. Annexation Prn<'--lings may be initiated by
property OWDer petition or by Resolution of Application adopte<l by the City Council. Upon pa)'meDt of all
n:!ated fees and charges by the property owner(s) and completion of the annexation process, Cbula VISta
shall release any outstanding liea On the affected property(ies).
D. Thereafter, the City shall collect normal sewer service charges an pay appropriate Metro charges and,
if the line discharges into the Spring Valley Outfall Sewer, !IlIDsportation charges to the District.
7.r--
{~~
This page blank
o /
Ly
C)
z
,.......,~ 8:e5~
'~~
LJ)~ enLL
3 t> ~t;>
Z AS ~ I- ~~25
~ i~~
~
:r: C~
c iii G~~~
G
~~~~
'~ ~ @~
en ~~~~
ROUING HILLS LN I ~
'~i
~
~
Yi
~ ~~
-</ /
"/ /~-r
/
'" .- //
SPEYERS Wy
, i
i II
I I
! '
i " I
i_9oH::>NIflj13
\.
I ~
:~~
i~ U)
iU) ~
:::.:::: ()
iZ_
cl~~
ZIUJ ff3
W!_ 0::
C)llD z
~!~O
'LL Z
I
!\
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
----
~. S /.' ,---1
; '\ !.-- /
~::....,...
, ~ ,
/.0'
'.,.:'"
.. ,~
, ,
,;,h>\'~':~o
,. ,
"
s':'\\;~::";~; .
,\:1
,,' .....
.\;,
. ,~ I
r::-.
.;.
. \ ; \
':,: i//fi '
"
,....',..
..,,!.
',,'
i.?~g;S'
;:;;{i",':
," ;:)\~: ,.",\
, ".' '.; ; ~ : .
"".-
'i:~'.:\ .
~~~~;::.",
I
I
I
,,',I
.,'
\.
-,.,J
.~.: '
---~/ --'
,~~:/."',;.'- '__ - I . , '
- - ,: '::;i%~f.j::>:
\i,~:~-<','),~ .", ..,.....,.~..'...;~~~::"
,- \ \\"'~.~;-
.-. . .' ,', '-.
: -, ~ ,,"-' . ..-".
_nn'___
-,"\'
;'<-l~~:-
, "
'<', "
I"
o.:',l:.
-j '.
;1'
--
~ :~ .
;.l,
, "H;:'W0~;
,
,
L
lii-L;',
..... ,.~;,;>"
-- ,.,~j' p,"
, \,:;:''.:~~01;\1 (':;~i';'~ ,.
.
'.t
I.
~
,
.,
L
-'
w
=>-
,,-
-'"
~~
<.
""..
_.
m-
w-
",-
,,~
:;~
,<
..
,. ,
w
'"
",,,,
"'w
;;~
oW),', '
-,-Sl::' ','
ir~ ' ,
-c:,a: ..
........
~~<~..
f _,,:
.,
t
('
,
,
(
,~ 1.
~
"
\
\
.,
\
:' I ;1:i..
. r:: ~a:
'.. ~~i
J ;t./I/;
. ;_~_,'I.
\
"
1.
\
/,;;'
~.
'W
5
',""
'"
"',.
...
f//f
,
,
t
, ;
':'~ :;:,
,
,
~,
1: I\'
!iCl'l
.~~
ZO
0<
Glut
'"
,,!
.
\~:~.;:~~:~~;/ / '. ~.~,
,\i\t' ~~T~f
<"j ,,:~f:! .:-:...~:im-
,,'. ,"'" "''}3:
i r'~..I:f,.~ffi:" ):, olll
,~ ';~.z.~-
',',~ Jf~.~ ,,'O:J'
....... ,l;1c::g::
'_.~ ~ :~f!-l-
""Z
_'\~i
.~
Co, ' tiJH
~ \~=
':':~~:,~'~
~t
,,'" ::i' ,:'
. ~ ,,' : .,' " .
, '_~~~.' 'J"
-~.,.,- "
- ~::- ..
~; .-----.
\ ~ /--
'v_--------7 - z&
,
..
"~ l_
,;
~~
','. ,.'
:r-....~-
, ./i ~~~ .~./
...(~
\.
~
. I
,'~ \
I
._,1
,
,
/'
,'f;.'; ,
: .~1i! : \
'. J~F!>i ; .:'
/. ,\ . ~ ~. ; i
: '
.,
,
'.
"
',:-.',;'
:':~~,';'?;" l
!"j':' I.
\, :
~ ,/' ..c
-~
" >!:'~
~ ;(~<
...->.jf)W
::Q"-C:::)'-~
... .-0 -')-
- .,.....>.-
.... ..Q'<~
~ ...c:~ffi
~ ,/f--!! Ul
. '\.,'
,.~
. :!"
"
'.
~ ~ ',' ,':. -
,.',', -'."
, "
,~~ ,! )
"
-,.
\
, '
;
:..- \ '~:,
.i>.:lJ \~~,\.
.'),
...,. ;.,;.
, ,
.',
;' '-,
! /
- ......'. ...-'~:;-..,.~_.-'
-., '~. -..,~
':~>:.~-;..;;
i'\
.._~L\J_:_ ~ \. \ ..-.. "l
\';_ .>'~:"' "0'>)(7"'"
. " I;' ,"
. ..:,>J11fi'l ' "
>"'j~.Y:-\;
" "'-")~\:-.\\~, - ',,'
;:'~~~\i~): ;,>:\, .:"
1,',,-"
_ i' /
!
,.t'..
,,'
-,'"!'
'.
,,'
" ~ i
~\ ,a::i ,,"-,
. "'\I~I, .'....
,'" ~ ,...
,~<-<",l.. ~ \'
g '~_.,~
" iii >-=>
',;. .:\;,. .~j~Ji~ "
:,.".~,,<../.o\," -. "
_' _ \:...:z./ . it;~ a:: ../~, 11'",-
, ' /,,;/nJ I . /'\ ,'d'
",'" ,. ,/,ftz/i!P'l1 ,\ ,...J \'\
,., I' """ AU. beL) ;,
,\: ':OJ .rar/trfl ;(:\ \ I'
. ,:;::/f/!: '~, :~,'<.~:~~~::};;i:\.~_;~d
, ,J>'}ll;II.. ';'f""
. . .. \ I, ". ~" ...,,:1
\, ~, _ _ .' _.I" 1::\'"_,, :~--:
,:: '~,,}. T ,:;i~:'" . :
,
,
\
, !II
j ilili I
lOll .
li/'iji I
! :illlilj : I
j lillllll!! I
. !, I !
~ ~ I I !
,.~u .. uu;; u..~ iii i
..~~ . ~.. o. ilo: "
:............-.....
;~-;: . ~!~"'! &'&.,~ .~ .
~~~~:.~::~;
~ .~~ ~.~ m.~
~ !!~~ ~~!! !!! !
< "'!~!" "'''! lI;? "
. ou...... u..
......"'ll""'....,
"'u~!' ~
: !:::~ ~~~ * :
u
!!ffllill!lI1i
f; IRin~~i~!I!1
I j J I 1'1'..,
" 'I j 'I' I' - < it
!"Il:,_' j lu J!"li J ;jl
'f 'f," J.t lin ,hI :1-'1 '
UII!J! IIH!! Itlh.mhu I_Ii
i :Inm~~!n!~:1
21
r--
----
This page blank
:3()
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-99-01, Consideration of an amendment to Section
19.58.147 of the Municipal Code to revise standards and processing for
large family day care homes. - City Initiated.
Ordinance J793 of the City of Chula Vista amending Section 19.58.147
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to required standards for large
family day care homes.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and BUN\ ~!
REVIEWED BY: City Manager:w.. \uIk ~\
The Planning and Building Department IJas ;;ested by the Economic Development
Commission in July 1998, to reevaluate the Large Family Day Care Homes ordinance in
anticipation of a critical surge in demand resulting from the Welfare Reform Legislation. The
Needs Assessment Committee of the San Diego County Child Care Planning Council has
identified the City of Chu1a Vista as a "high needs community" in the South Bay area. The
biggest need identified was care for infants and after school age children.
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
As a result of meetings with the Child Care Task Force, the Planning Division has accumulated a
great deal of data regarding large family day care facilities. Additionally, since the initial Task
Force meeting, the Planning Division staff has been in contact with Dana Lovelace, Child Care
Advocate for the State of California, Department of Social Services. As a result of our research
and input from the State, we are recommending that the current process and requirements be
modified.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that, as a procedural amendment, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the General
Rille exemption section 15061 (b )(3).
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance modifying the
existing large family day care provisions (Section 19.58.147) of the Municipal Code.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Child Care Commission reviewed
the proposal on December 1, 1998 and was supportive of the changes to the ordinance proposed by
staff as well as a reduction in fees and process streamlining. The Chairperson of the Commission
has also submitted a letter expressing her general concerns which is included as Attachment 3.
g>j
c'>
Page 2, Item No: <::
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
The Planning Commission considered this proposal on April 14, 1999 and voted 7-0 to approve a
Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the amendment in accordance with the
draft City Council Ordinance No. . In addition to adopting the Resolution, the Planning
Commission made the following recommendations which have been incorporated into the attached
ordinance:
1. Add a condition "I": "a business license will be obtained concurrently with the use permit."
2. Add a condition "J": "at the City's discretion, an annual review of the permit may be done to
determine compliance with State and City requirements and the permits conditions of
approval."
Additionally, the Commission also expressed concern that with the reduction in fees that the City
may not be able to recoup the cost of staff time and mailing. With the reduction in the number of
properties being noticed this should not be a problem.
DISCUSSION:
Federal welfare refonn legislation (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996) became effective in July 1998. This legislation essentially placed work requirements
and time limits on assistance for welfare recipients. The Economic Development Commission
believed that this legislation would result in an increased demand for additional affordable daycare
facilities within the City.
Staff responded to the concerns of the Economic Development Commission by developing a
program which would simplify the process for obtaining approval of a large family daycare permit
as well as making it more affordable and less time consuming. Currently the process takes
approximately 37 days to complete and the City places the following requirements on an applicant:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family daycare
home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant or other affected party. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the
zoning administrator's decision to the planning commission.
C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property.
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
1. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being defined
as the shortest distance between the property lines of any such facilities; and
A:\Al13finallfd.rpt.doc
g>'/J-
Page 3, Item No: e
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street with said
measurements being defined as the shortest distance between front property lines,
as measured along the same street, of any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet City
Standards and be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as measured from the
edge of sidewalk to any vertical obstruction. The driveway shall be available during all
hours of operation for the loading and unloading of children. If a garage exists on-site, it
must be utilized for parking of personal vehicle(s). In the event that less than a two-car
garage exists on-site, the owner must designate an area on-site other than on the driveway
so that a total of two personal vehicles can be parked on-site, including the garage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant must comply with all other Municipal Code
provisions as to parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant traffic
problems, the zoning administrator shall request review of the application by the city
traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer may impose accessory requirements for the
daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety levels within the
vicinity of the home.
G. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be provided. Outdoor play activity shall
not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding
properties. The zoning administrator may impose reasonable requirements to alleviate
noise, including but not limited to installation of a six foot high block wall around the
perimeter of the rear yard.
Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code outlines criteria which must be met in order to grant a
large family day care permit. These criteria are based on State law (Health and Safety Code
Sections 1597.30 et seq) which gives the local jurisdiction the ability to impose standards,
restrictions and requirements concerning: 1.) spacing and concentration, 2.) traffic control, 3.)
parking, and; 4.) noise control relating to such homes. The following existing areas of the
Municipal Code have been identified as not being in compliance with State law.
1. The Health and Safety Code states that noticing shall be within a IOO-foot radius. The
current code requires noticing of up to 300-foot radius.
2. The City can no longer regulate play area square footages or dimensions. While cities
were allowed to require this in the past, recent State legislation has been adopted which
takes away the City's authority to regulate this aspect oflarge family.
3. The City cannot require a block wall to attenuate noise. Any noise standards shall be
A:\Al13finallfd.rpt.doc
8'r;1
......."
Page 4, Item No: L
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
consistent with local noise ordinances and shall take into consideration the noise levels
generated by children.
Additionally, the Child Care Advocate for the State of California expressed concern regarding
the following related issues:
1. The $350 administrative use pennit fee for a large family day cm-e is too high for those
who are attempting to open a large family day care business.
2. The application and site plan submittal requirement is too complex. They are seeking
simpler and less duplicative documentation.
3. The current spacing and distancing requirements is too stringent and should be
reconsidered. The City's current spacing between facilities is 1200 feet if they are on the
same street and 300 feet if on adjacent streets. Ms. Lovelace indicated that the typical
spacing requirement for other cities in San Diego County is approximately 500 feet.
4. The processing is too time consuming and complex. They would prefer that the large
family day care homes be allowed as a matter of right, rather than through the
administrative CUP process.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the input from the Child Care Commission and the State of California Child
Care Advocate. Staff has also met with the Child Care Task Force on two occasions and has
considered their concerns regarding the provision of affordable child care in relation to the
current Welfare Refonn Legislation.
Required Code Amendments
Staff is recommending that the Municipal Code be amended to be in compliance with State law.
(See Exhibit A). Specifically, Section 19.58.147 (G) and (H) are proposed to be amended.
These sections regulate noticing radius, play area square footage and potential block wall
requirements.
Suggested Processing Amendments
Additionally, staff believes that a more streamlined and efficient method of processing large
family day care permits could be accomplished by instituting the following changes:
. Coordinate with the State Community Care Licensing Agency and Fire Marshal for the use
of similar forms. This could provide a simpler and more efficient process for both the
applicant and staff. Staff is currently working with the State Licensing Agency to develop
these forms.
A:\Al13fmallfd.rpt.doc
8'--1
Page 5, Item No: g
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
. Revise the Child Care handout and fonns at the counter to reflect the streamlined process,
new fees and submittal requirements. The revised fee can be considered since the noticing
requirements are being reduced from 300 to 100 feet. Planning Division staff is currently
working on development of new fonns for the public counter.
. Currently, the State Child Care Advocate holds twice a month meetings with potential
providers at the Nonnan Park Center. A City staff member will be available to attend these
meetings as needed to provide and explain the revised handout, application forms and
procedures.
. Current Site Plan requirements could be modified. Since the size of the play area will not be
regulated, this requirement would be deleted from the submittal requirement.
. Streamline the process from its current 37 day timeframe to 15 days, by noticing concurrently
with routing to other City departments. Staff is currently implementing this procedure.
Spacing Reauirements
Staff has considered the concern regarding reducing the spacing requirements for large family
day care homes, however, is not in support of reducing those requirements at this time. The
current spacing requirements were reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council on
November 5, 1997 and December 16, 1997 respectively. At those hearings the 300 foot
requirement was actually added due to the concern regarding overconcentration of large family
day care homes in a neighborhood. The State Child Care Advocate believes that our spacing
requirements should be reduced to be more consistent with other communities in the San Diego
region. Staff briefly reviewed spacing requirements for other communities in the San Diego
region and this survey indicated a wide range of distance restrictions; essentially from no
restriction to 700 feet. Staff is not comfortable with pursuing a reduction in spacing unless
specifically directed by the City Council especially in light of the recent action to be more
stringent with this requirement.
CUP Reauirement
State law gives local jurisdictions three options for licensing large family day care facilities.
State code indicates that a County or City can approve large family day care homes "by right",
may "grant a non-discretionary permit", or require a "Use Pennit". The City is currently using
the "Use Permit" option. Staff is recommending that the Use Permit option be retained, but that
the process be simplified and the time frame shortened. The time frame would be shortened by
concurrently noticing the project while the application is being routed to the various City
departments for their input. Staff believes that it is important to provide noticing to surrounding
properties, and this is something that would not occur if either of the first two options for
processing were chosen.
A:\Al13flllllllfd.rpt.doc
g~5
Page 6, Item No: ?
Meeting Date: 7/20/99
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments
and permit processing procedures:
1. Reduction of noticing from 300 feet to 100 feet.
2. Elimination of the 1,200 square foot play area requirement.
3. Elimination of the block wall requirement.
4. Reduction of the fee for a Large Family Day Care Permit to $150.
5. Reduction in the processing time for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit from 37 days
to approximately 15 days.
6. Planning Division staff attendance at the twice monthly orientation meetings.
Items 1-3 require specific Municipal Code amendments and are reflected in the attached draft
ordinance. Item 4 will be brought back before the City Council as a consent item for final review
and approval and Items 5 and 6 are process changes which are currently being implemented by
City staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
There may be some impact to the City in terms of lost revenue due to the proposed reduction in fees
from $350 to $150. However, it is anticipated that at least a portion of this will be negated due to
the reduction in notice radius from 300 to 100 feet.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution
2. Locator Map
3. Correspondence
A:\Al13finallfd.rpt.doc
2~b
ORDINANCE NO. J. 79/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a proposal to amend the Municipal Code
Section 19.58.147 relating to Large Family Daycare specifically, to change the notice
requirement from 300 to 100 feet, eliminate the 1200 square foot play area, and to
eliminate the potential requirement of a block wall to attenuate noise; and
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Ordinance standards for large family daycare
facilities regarding block wall, play area and noticing will be brought into confonnance
with State regulations by approval of this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes creating policies and application procedures to
streamline the current large family daycare process; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, will be compatible with
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this
proposal as a procedural amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under the General Rille exemption Section 15061(b)(3).
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1999 the City Planning Commission voted 7-0
recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Code text amendment to Section
19.58.147 in accordance with Resolution No. PCA-99-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set time and place for a hearing on said Municipal
Code Amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circillation in the city least ten days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July
20, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
find, determine, resolve and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.58.147 of the Chilla Vista Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
8" ?
A large family daycare home shall be allowed in the R-E and R-l zones, and
within the PC designated RE and RS zones, upon the issuance of large family
daycare pennit by the zoning administrator and in compliance with the following
standards:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 100 feet of the proposed large family
daycare home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit.
B. The pennit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is
requested by the applicant or other affected party by the hearing deadline date.
The applicant or other affected party may appeal the zoning administrator's
decision to the planning commission.
C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the
property .
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
1. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being
defined as the shortest distance between the property lines of any such
facilities; and
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street with
said measurements being defined as the shortest distance between front
property lines, as measured along the same street, of any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet
City standards and be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as
measured from the edge of sidewalk to any vertical obstruction. The driveway
shall be available during all hours of operation for the loading and unloading of
children. If a garage exists on-site, it must be utilized for parking of personal
vehicle(s). In the event that less than a two-car garage exists on-site, the owner
must designate an area on-site other than on the driveway so that a total of two
personal vehicles can be parked on-site, including the garage. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, applicant must comply with all other Municipal Code provisions as
to parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant
traffic problems, the zoning administrator shall request review of the application
by the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer may impose accessory
requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of
traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home.
A:\PCA9901CC.ORD.doc
g,o
G. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yards of the
home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on
surrounding properties.
1. A business license will be obtained concurrently with the use permit.
J. At the City's discretion, an annual review of the permit may be done to determine
compliance with the pennit's conditions of approval and state and City
requirements.
SECTION II: FINDINGS
The City COlfficil hereby finds that the text amendment will enhance the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista, will bring the City Municipal Code in
conformance with State law and is consistent with the General Plan and is supported by
public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
SECTION III: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and its
second reading and adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter,
Director of Planning and Building
0-~~
John M. Kaheny,
City Attorney
H:\SHARED\A TTORNEY\PCA9901 CC.ord.doc
lfrJ
19.58.147
Family Dayesre homes, Large.
A large family daycare home shall he allowed in the R-E and R-I zones, and within the PC designated RE
and RS zones, upon the issuance of a large family daycare pennit by the zoning administrator and in compliance
with the following standards:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within;oo 100 feet of the proposed large family daycare home at least
ten days prior to consideration of the pennit.
B. The pennit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or
other affected party by the hearing deadline date. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the
zoning administrator's decision to the planning commission.
C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property.
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
I. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being dermed as the shortest
distance between the property lines of any such facilities; and
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street wi!." said measurements being
defined as the shortest distance between front property lines, as measured along the same street, of
any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet City Standards and be a
minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as measured from the edge of sidewalk to any vertical
obstruction. The driveway shall be available during all hours of operation for the loading and unloading of
children. If a garage exists on-site, it must be utilized for parking of personal vehicle(s). In the event that
less than a two-car garage exists on-site, the owner must designate an area on-site other than on the
driveway so that a total of two personal vehicles can be parked on-site, including the garage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant must comply with al1 other Municipal Code provisions as to
parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant traffic problems, the zoning
administrator shal1 request review of the application by the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer
may impose accessory requirements for the daycare pennit in these instances to insure maintenance of
traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home.
G. A Hsaele rear ~'afEl ~la:.' area e[I,299 sEI. ft. skall Be J3F8":iEleEl Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in
the front or exterior side yard of the home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding properties.-+i>e
zaRing aei:minis1mter Ria:,' iHlJ38Se FsaseBaele reE!HifemBBts 18 aUe";iate Reise, inehuJing em: Bet limiteel ta installatieB
sf a sin feet kigk BlesI: ',':alllH"ewui the paFimeter efthe Fear yan:1.
I. A business license will be obtained concurrently witb the use permit.
J. At the City's discretion, an annual review ofthe permit may be done.
(Ord 2717 !iI, 1998; Ord 2269 !i2, 1988; Ord 2123 !iI, 1985; Ord 2111 !i8, 1985).
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MAR1A\AMEND\19S8147A.WPD
g -/ {)
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
April 14, 1999
Comm sioner Castaneda stated he could support the proposal with modifications. First, the beer
garden at e open-air market should be promoted as nothing more than a snack bar that happens
to sell beer, ot a beer garden. Secondly, the sale of beer 3 hours prior to the event should be
reduced to 2 h rs. Thirdly, Cmr. Castaneda does not have a concern with minors being allowed
to go into the SI er Bullet Lounge accompanied by an adult before and during the concert,
however, they sho d be restricted after the end of the concert. His experience in other venues
has been that the at sphere in these lounges are not appropriate for minors.
Public Hearing re-opene
Buck Martin, General Manage f Coors Amphitheater responded to Commissioner Castaneda's
proposed changes. He stated th Universal Concert's philosophy is one of providing a service
to their customers. The sale of alco I 3 hours prior to the concert is by no means economically
driven, but is driven by a desire to pr ide a complete service to the customer.
Mr. Martin further stated that he has wor d in many different venues throughout the United
Stated and each jurisdiction has some kin of an open container restriction, however, the
enforcement of the restrictions is somewhat gra in all jurisdictions.
MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (4-3-0-0) that the Planning mission adopt Resolution PCC-95-47M
recommending that the City Council approve the pro sed modification in accordance with
the findings and subject to the conditions in the Draft uncil Resolution with the following
changes:
a. The ODen-Air Market
M-9 That the wording be changed from "exterior beer g den" to "A snack bar that
offers beer shall be restricted to persons age 21 and over
parent or legal guardian."
Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda, Ray and Tarantino voting again
b. The Exterior Beer Garden
M-6 Add at the end of this condition "and at the end of 3 months, st will review
the merits of maintaining the provision to sell alcohol 3 hours prior t
concert vs. 2 hours and will report back to the Commission."
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-99-01, Consideration of an amendment to Section 19.58.147 of the
Municipal Code to revise standards and processing for large family day
care homes. - City initiated.
8ackground: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning reported that due to changes in federal
legislation regarding Welfare reform there is a belief that a demand for day care facilities has
risen, therefore, in July 1998 the Economic Development Commission requested that the
Planning Department re-evaluate the Large Family Day Care Homes ordinance.
If') /
I/7T/lCH M ~ NT 1
Planning Commission Minutes
. 6 .
April 14, 1999
The San Diego County Child Care Planning Council has identified the City of Chula Vista as a
"high needs community" in the South Bay area, and the greatest need identified is care for infants
and after school age children.
Staff met with Dana Lovelace, a Child Care Advocate with the State of California Department of
Social Services and she identified areas where in her opinion current City Ordinance is not in
conformance with current State Law.
The City's Child Care Commission reviewed the proposal in December 1998 and were
supportive of the ordinance changes and recommended staff look into a reduction in fees and
streamlining of our current process.
The Municipal Code outlines criteria which are based on State law which grants local jurisdiction
the ability to improve standards, restrictions and requirements as it relates to:
1. spacing and concentration
2. traffic control
3. parking, and
4. noise control relating to such homes.
The following existing areas of the Municipal Code have been identified as not being in
compliance with State law.
1. The City cannot require noticing beyond the 100 foot radius. The current Code
requires noticing of up to 300 foot radius.
2. The City cannot regulate play area square footage or dimensions.
3. The City cannot require a block wall to attenuate noise
It is the State's position that the City cannot impose standards on large family day care facilities
that would not normally be imposed upon a typical single family residence.
Additionally, the State agency expressed concern with the following:
1. The $350 administrative fee that is currently charged is somewhat prohibitive to those
who are attempting to establish a day care.
2. That the site plan submittal requirement is too complex
3. The current spacing and distancing requirement is too stringent. Currently spacing
between facilities on the same street is 1200 feet and 300 feet if on adjacent streets.
The typical spacing requirement for other cities in San Diego County is approximately
500 feet, and
4. The processing time is too time consuming and complex.
Staff believes a more efficient method of processing LFDC permits could be accomplished by
instituting the following:
1. Coordinate with the State Community Care Licensing agency and Fire Marshal to create
forms that are consistent, not duplicative, and easier to fill out.
g'--/2
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
April 14, 1999
2. Current the State Advocate meets twice monthly with potential providers, and a City
staff member would be available to attend these meetings as needed to provide and
explain the revised handouts, application forms and procedures.
3. Simplify the site plan requirement, and
4. Streamline the process from the current 37 days to approximately 15 days by noticing
concurrently with routing to other City departments.
There are two areas that, although they are not State requirements the State Advocate has made
recommendations on, however, staff does not agree with them. They are:
1. That the spacing requirements be reduced to be more consistent with other jurisdictions
in the region.
Staff reviewed other communities and the survey indicated a wide range of distance
restrictions from no restriction, to 700 feet. In light of recent action to be more
stringent with this requirement, staff is not comfortable pursuing this unless specifically
directed by the Commission.
2. State law gives local jurisdictions three options for licensing large family day care
faci I ities:
a. by right - requires no permit from the City, only the State
b. grant a non-discretionary permit - allowing standard-type conditions without
the discretion of adding specific conditions to address a problem; and
c. a Use Permit - enables the City to add conditions relating to health and safety
issues, and also provides noticing to neighbors, which the other two do not.
The City currently uses the Use Permit process and staff is recommending that it be
continued, implementing new streamlining processes.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-99-01
recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the existing large family day care
provisions (Section 19,58.147) of the Municipal Code.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Castaneda asked if the $150.00 is an accurate reflection of the processing costs
and the City requires proof of certification from the State before a permit is issued.
Mr. Sandoval responded that the City does require proof of certification from the State, and the
processing cost most likely exceeds $150.00, however, for the better good of the community, the
City will absorb the extra cost.
Commissioner Ray stated that he would like staff to re-evaluate the fee schedule to be more
reflective of what the true processing costs; that the obtaining of a business license be done
concurrently with the permit processing; and that the noticing costs be incurred by the applicant.
~r/J
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
April 14, 1999
Commissioner O'Neill expressed concerns with the disparity in parking restrictions for any home-
based business and a large family day care. In addition, he does not support reducing the
noticing distance from 300 feet to 100 and asked what recourse the City has to maintain that
distance.
Mr. Sandoval responded that this is one of the reasons that staff supports continuing the permit
process as is because it at least grants the City the ability imposing certain conditions to deal with
some of the impacts that could be anticipated.
Elizabeth Hull, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the State believes they have pre-empted the
City in the noticing distance requirements from 300 feet to 100 feet, however, it is the City
Attorney's belief that the language of the statute is ambiguous and it would be a policy decision
to challenge the State in this area.
Ms. Hull further indicated that parking requirements is within the City's purview and can be
addressed through the permit process.
Commissioner Thomas supports staff's recommendation to maintain the current Use Permit
thereby granting the City the greatest latitude in having some say in the process, and also would
support any reasonable measure to challenge the State in its position on the noticing distance.
Commissioner Hall stated that his experience having served on the Child Care Commission, is
that this is a "hot" topic because there is a need for child care providers. The City needs to make
sure it is in compliance with State regulations and cautioned against being too stringent, however,
it is good that the City exercise its ability to legally maximize its input, which is through the
current permit process. In addition, Cmr. Hall asked if there was any history of complaints from
surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Sandoval responded that there are presently 23 large family day cares in the community, and
after checking with Code Enforcement they have indicated that no complaints have been raised
by surrounding neighbors.
Public Hearing opened 9:15.
No public input.
Public Hearing closed 9:15.
MSC (Castaneda/Ray) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-99-01
recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the existing large family day
care provisions (Section 19,58.147) of the Municipal Code with the following
recommendations:
1. Add a sentence to Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code A. HThe City will recover from
the applicant cost of mailing notices to properties within 100 feet of the proposed daycare
home;
2. Add a condition HI." stating that Ha business license will be obtained concurrently with the
use permit"; and
3. Add a condition HJ." stating that Hat City's discretion, an annual review of the permit may
be done." Motion carried.
gv~ ) 1(
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-99-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STANDARDS
FOR LARGE F AMIL Y DA YCARE HOMES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is proposing a streamlined and efficient
method of processing large family day care permits in accordance with the State of
California regulations; and
WHEREAS, certain aspects of Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code are
currently not in compliance with State law' and
WHEREAS, specifically the amendment to Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal
Code relating to Large Family Day Care, relates to play area square footage, noticing
requirements, block wall requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
April 14, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposal, as a procedural
amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the
General Rule exemption section 15061(b)(3).
,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS
PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that
the City Council amend Section 19.598.147 of the Municipal Code to allow for the
revised standards for large family day care homes as shown on Exhibit "A";,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the City Council.
e-- ) 3
A-rr k-+t M t-t0\ I
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of April by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
John Willet, Chairman
Diana Vargas, Secretary
A:\PCA9901PCRESO.dot
o~J?
There is a shortage of day care spots for young children in Chula Vista. Family day care is the easiest way
to fill the shortage. This gives parents a choice as to a home setting or an institutionalized setting. The
people who do day care for a living don't make any large amounts of money at it. It is a modest income.
The people who want to do this have to love kids and want to take care of them.
The issue of requiring people to have block walls to stop noise is a very costly requirement. The noise from
a family day care would be minimal, no more than you would have from a large family. This is usually a
business run in day time hours. The city has ordinances against excessive noise and if a day care were to
cause a noise problem this could be taken care of through existing ordinances. There are two adults
supervising at a large family day care and the only noise would be children playing. Again no more than a
large family would make.
Several child care commissioners have driven to see how the spacing of 1200 feet works. This is a very long
block. It prevented a lady from getting a liscence because a neighbor down at the end of the block and on
the comer had a liscense. We checked with other cites and found that 300 feet was the nonn. 1200 feet
seems excessive when we drove to look at far apart the two houses were.
We hope that the planning commission will consider these changes because there is a shortage and large
centers do not take infants. With welfare refonn many mothers of infants are not able to get jobs because
the cannot find child care. Making it easier for those who are willing and want to take care of children is the
goal of the child care comission.
"~.
f5~/ 7
AIIA:GHMcN-r d-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
SECTION 19.58.147 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a proposal to amend the Municipal Code
Section 19.58.147 relating to Large Family Daycare specifically, to change the notice
requirement from 300 to 100 feet, eliminate the 1200 square foot play area, and to
eliminate the potential requirement of a block wall to attenuate noise; and
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Ordinance standards for large family daycare
facilities regarding block wall, play area and noticing will be brought into conformance
with State regulations by approval of this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes creating policies and application procedures to
streamline the current large family daycare process; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, will be compatible with
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this
proposal as a procedural amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under the General Rule exemption Section 15061(b)(3).
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1999 the City Planning Commission voted 7-0
recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Code text amendment to Section
19.58.147 in accordance with Resolution No. PCA-99-0 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set time and place for a hearing on said Municipal
Code Amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city least ten days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July
20, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
find, determine, resolve and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.58.147 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
~r Irs
A large family daycare home shall be allowed in the R-E and R-1 zones, and
within the PC designated RE and RS zones, upon the issuance of large family
day care permit by the zoning administrator and in compliance with the following
standards:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 100 feet of the proposed large family
daycare home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is
requested by the applicant or other affected party by the hearing deadline date.
The applicant or other affected party may appeal the zoning administrator's
decision to the planning commission.
C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the
property.
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
1. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being
defined as the shortest distance between the property lines of any such
facilities; and
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street with
said measurements being defined as the shortest distance between front
property lines, as measured along the same street, of any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet
City standards and be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as
measured from the edge of sidewalk to any vertical obstruction. The driveway
shall be available during all hours of operation for the loading and unloading of
children. If a garage exists on-site, it must be utilized for parking of personal
vehicle(s). In the event that less than a two-car garage exists on-site, the owner
must designate an area on-site other than on the driveway so that a total of two
personal vehicles can be parked on-site, including the garage. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, applicant must comply with all other Municipal Code provisions as
to parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant
traffic problems, the zoning administrator shall request review of the application
by the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer may impose accessory
requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of
traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home.
A:\PCA9901CC.ORD.doc
g-j ;;
G. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yards of the
home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on
surrounding properties.
1. A business license will be obtained concurrently with the use pennit.
J. At the City's discretion, an annual review of the permit may be done.
SECTION II; FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that the text amendment will enhance the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista, will bring the City Municipal Code in
confonnance with State law and is consistent with the General Plan and is supported by
public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter,
Director of Planning and Building
John Kaheny,
City Attorney
f[ 020
A:\PCA9901CC.ORD.doc
19.58.147
Family Daycare homes, Large.
A large family daycare home shall be allowed in the R-E and R-I zones, and within the PC designated RE
and RS zones, upon the issuance of a large family daycare permit by the zoning administrator and in compliance
with the following standards:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within;QG 100 feet of the proposed large family daycare home at least
ten days prior to consideration of the permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or
other affected party by the hearing deadline date. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the
zoning administrator's decision to the planning commission.
C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property.
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
I. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being dermed as the shortest
distance between the property lines of any such facilities; and
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street with said measurements being
defmed as the shortest distance between front property lines, as measured along the same street, of
any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet City Standards and be a
minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as measured from the edge of sidewalk to any vertical
obstruction. The driveway shall be available during all hours of operation for the loading and unloading of
children. If a garage exists on-site, it must be utilized for parking of personal vehicle(s). In the event that
less than a two-car garage exists on-site, the owner must designate an area on-site other than on the
driveway so that a total of two personal vehicles can be parked on-site, including the garage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant must comply with all other Municipal Code provisions as to
parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant traffic problems, the zoning
administrator shall request review of the application by the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer
may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of
traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home.
G. J. ,,"aBle rear yard ~Iay area efl,2QQ s<t. ft. shall be pfO...illell. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in
the front or exterior side yard of the home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding properties.--+he
~8RiRg aaministJ'ateF RiB.)' imJ38Se FeasBBable r8ElUiremems t8 alle':iate Reiae, iBehuliBg lnlt Ret limitea te iRstaUatisR
sf a siu feet Riga 8lesI: "::all 9fBl:lBa tile J3erimeter efthe Fear j'aFel.
1. A business license will be obtained concurrently witb the use permit.
J. At the City's discretion, an annual review of the permit may be done.
(Ord 2717 !II, 1998; Ord 2269 !l2, 1988; Ord 2123 !II, 1985; Ord 2111 !l8, 1985).
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARIA\AMEND\1958147A.WPD
Sc2/
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 20, 1999
TO:
The Honorable Qr and City Council
David Rowlands, City Manager
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning & Building ;flit"
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: PCM 97-11A; Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan
Amendment
On July 13, 1999, the City Council continued the public hearing on the proposed
amendment to the Otay Ranch'Phase 2 Resource Management Plan in order for staff to
address concerns of the other Otay Ranch property owners. Staff is still in the process of
collecting information to address those concerns.
Staff requests the City Council continue the public hearing indefinitely in order to allow
staff to address the concerns of the other property owners. Staff will renotice the public
hearing when the item returns to the City Council.
9
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: '1
Meeting Date: 07/20/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-97-11A: Request to amend the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan Phase Two Resource Management Plan - Applicant: The
Otay Ranch Company.
Resolution / 7-'>)' ~proving amendments to the Otay Ranch Phase Two
Resource Management Plan. ~
Director ofPc;ning and BUi1ding~
City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No..xJ
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management
Plan (RMP) to implement the recently approved Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional
Plan (GDP/SRP) and SPA One amendments for Village One and Village One West. This
amendment would be accomplished by revising the RMP Preserve Map and text. The map
amendment will add development areas in Village One and Village One West in exchange for adding
open space areas in Villages 13 and 15. In addition, amendments to the RMP text and tables are
proposed to implement the applicant's agreement with the Wildlife Agencies.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the project and determined that it is in
substantial conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR-90-01, SPA Plan, EIR-95-01,
Subsequent EIR-97-03 and other related environmental documents, and that the project would not
result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the proposed
project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental impacts previously identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the amendment to the Otay Ranch
Phase Two Resource Management Plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on April 14, 1999 and voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of the amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan. On February
1, 1999, the Resource Conversation Commission voted 5 to 2 (Marquez, Fisher) to recommend
approval of the amendments to the RMP Phase 2 Plan. Minutes of the RCC meeting are in
Attachment 10.
I-I
. '-7
Item NO"----1-
Page 2, Meeting Date: 7--99
BACKGROUND:
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP)
In November of 1995, the Baldwin Companies sent a letter to the City, County of San Diego and the
Wildlife Agencies that summarized the elements of the Otay Ranch portion of the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. The letter contained elements of a proposed agreement
between the City, County and Wildlife Agencies concerning the MSCP Subarea Plan relative to the
land the Baldwin Companies controlled at that time. The letter was never transformed into a formal
agreement, however, the Wildlife Agencies responded with a February 22, 1996 letter agreeing to
six of the elements except for the deletion of the maritime succulent scrub restoration requirement.
The agencies did not support the deletion of this restoration requirement so it is not part of staffs
recommendation to the City Council. The County of San Diego included the Baldwin letter as an
appendix to their MSCP Subarea Plan, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors without
objection by the Wildlife Agencies. The letter also then becomes part of the Implementing
Agreement between the County and the Wildlife Agencies. City staff is considering the same
appendix to the City Subarea Plan for consistency with the County's plan.
On November 10, 1998, the City Council approved GDP amendments on the Otay Ranch to
implement the tentative MSCP agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies. The GDP
amendments changed land uses in Village One West, Villages 13 (the Resort Site) and Village 15
(south of the Lower Otay Reservoir). The GDP amendments added development area in Village One
West in exchange for the deletion of development areas in Villages 13 and 15. This amendment to
the RMP was postponed to ensure consistency between the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and other
projects such as Olympic Parkway. Staff is far enough along with the preparation of the Subarea
Plan to proceed with the RMP amendments.
The RMP needs to be amended to keep the preserve boundaries and text consistent with the GDP.
The following amendments to the RMP Phase 2 are proposed:
DISCUSSION:
Resource Preserve Map (Phase 2 RMP, page 3)
Discussion:
As part of the agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies relating to the
MSCP, the agencies agreed to authorize the disturbance of sensitive habitat in the Poggi
Canyon area (Villages One and Village One West) in exchange for adding preservation of
land within Village 13 and Village 15. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modifY
the Preserve map to reflect these changes by adding portions of Village 13 and Village 15
to the Preserve and deleting the Poggi Canyon area from the Preserve.
td.-
Item No.:l
Page 3, Meeting Date: 7--99
Analysis:
The habitat in Village One West is isolated and disconnected from the preserve while the
areas in Villages 13 and 15 are adjacent to the larger Preserve area in the Proctor Valley
Parcel and San Y sidro Mountain Parcel. The Wildlife Agencies believe preserving the habitat
in Villages 13 and 15 will provide a wider wildlife corridor between the San Y sidro
Mountains and Jamu1 Mountain. A wider corridor will provide a better Preserve design in
the opinion of the Agencies. The SPA One West EIR found that the exchange would have
a higher long-term biological resource value because of the isolation of the Poggi Canyon
area from the rest of the Preserve. The EIR concluded that the conversion ofland in Villages
13 and 15 to open space could be considered a reasonable trade off for the proposed
exchange for the Villages One West area. The City Council approved the underlying GDP
land uses for this amendment on November 10,1998.
Ownership Map (Phase 2 RMP, page 71)
Discussion:
The Phase 2 RMP contains an ownership map depicting the major ownerships within Otay
Ranch when the SPA One Plan was approved in June of 1996. At that time, there were five
major owners of the Otay Ranch. The map was initially included in the RMP because
ownership patterns affected the implementation of various RMP policies. A revised
ownership map with the current 11 owners is included in the Phase 2 RMP to reflect current
ownership patterns.
Analysis:
Ownership is important in the RMP because of the requirement to convey preserve land as
development occurs. Recently, the McMillin Companies acquired the Marian Communities
Inc. property which now provides them with sufficient preserve land to convey for their
development in Villages One and Five.
Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration (Phase 2 RMP, pages 74-75,135,139)
Discussion:
Section C.2 of the Baldwin letter proposes the elimination of the coastal sage scrub
restoration requirement. The resources agencies agreed in Point 4 of their letter that the
applicant need not restore CSS as initially required by the GDP and Resource Management
Plan. The purpose of this amendment is to clarifY that CSS restoration is not a requirement
of the applicant's project. Exhibit 15 is updated to indicate that the total area of CCS
preserved still meets the RMP preservation requirements.
Analysis:
The habitat in the exchange areas in Village 13 and 15 is, for the most part, Coastal sage
scrub and adjacent to existing Preserve areas. The Wildlife Agencies agreed to eliminate the
9;1
Item No.: '1
Page 4, Meeting Date: 7--99
restoration requirement as part of the agreement for preserving better quality habitat in
Village 13 and 15. Attachment 8 is the amended Exhibit 15 from the RMP 2 and indicates
that the restoration requirement is now less for Villages 1. 13 and 15 while the requirement
for the other villages remains the same based on the restoration ratio established in the RMP.
The table indicates that since less CSS is impacted bv development less is required to be
restored. Ranch-wide resolution of the CSS restoration requirement for the other property
owners remains an issue to be finalized in the MSCP between the City and the resource
agencIes.
This amendment was analyzed for its environmental impacts in the SF A One West ElK The
Wildlife Agencies were sent copies of the EIR for their review and comment. As indicated
in Attachment 9. page 14-1. Responses to Comments. the agencies are not listed as
submitting comments on the ElK The agencies chose not to comment on the RMP
amendments and the agreement as described in the EIR. Staff has taken the non-response bv
the Wildlife Agencies as an indication of their continued support of the agreement. The
Agencies have also verballv indicated their support of the agreement in on-going discussion
on the Preserve and the implementation of the RMP.
Grazing Prohibition (Phase 2 RMP, page 133)
Discussion:
The RMP prohibits cattle grazing within certain areas of Otay Ranch starting in late 1997
and early 1998 based upon assumption that entitlements and actual development would
proceed faster than they actually occurred. Accordingly, the specific time frame identified
in the RMP was misleading. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to tie the prohibition
of grazing to a specific entitlement event, such as the issuance of the first final map.
Ana1vsis:
The practical effect of the changed language is negligible since, with or without the
clarifying amendment, grazing is currently prohibited in the areas identified in the RMP.
Steep Slope Calculation/Analysis (Phase 2 RMP, pages 162 and 163)
Discussion:
As indicated earlier, the MSCP agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies
permitted development within the Poggi Canyon areas (Villages One and Two) and deleted
development from portions of Villages 13 and 15. The purpose of this proposed amendment
is to modify the slope calculations for these villages to reflect the agreement and the GDP
amendment recently enacted incorporating the agreement. Additionally, the specific analysis
relative to slope impacts in SPA One is deleted because it is out of date.
9-1
Item No.:~
Page 5, Meeting Date: 7--99
Ana1vsis:
The Otay Ranch GDP requires 25% of the steep slopes (25% or greater) ranch-wide to be
preserved. The purpose of this calculation and analysis is to track the preservation of the
steep slopes. Since most of the new open space contains steep slopes, the development of
Villages One and Two will be balance with the new open space areas in Villages 13 and 15
and, therefore, the GDP requirement is maintained.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan is
consistent with Otay Ranch GDP policies and the applicant's agreement with the Wildlife Agencies.
These amendments will bring the RMP into consistency with the GDP amendments approved by the
City Council in November of 1998. Staff recommends approval of the Phase 2 RMP amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is included in the scope of the staffing agreement with The Otay Ranch Company. All
costs are covered by the deposit account under the staffing agreement.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution PCM 97-11A
2. Planning Commission Minutes 4/14/99
3. Locator Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Otay Ranch Phase Two RMP Amendments
6. The Baldwin Letter of Agreement, November 10,1995
7. Wildlife Agencies letter, February 22, 1996
8. Otay Ranch CSS Restoration by Village, Exhibit 15, RMP 2
9. Page 14-1 , SPA One Amendment EIR, Responses to Comments
10. Resource Conservation Commission Minutes of February 1, 1999 meeting
H:\HOME\PLANNING\OT A YRNCH\RMP2 _Amend _ CC _ STFRP .doc
9~S-
RESOLUTION NO.
/9'sY IS
.'
,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OTAY RANCH PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan AND Phase 1 Resource
Management Plan (RMP) were approved on October 28, 1998, and the Otay Ranch Specific
Planning Area One Plan and Phase 2 RMP were approved on June 4, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on November 10,1995, the Baldwin Company proposed a Multiple Species
Conservation Plan agreement with the Wildlife Agencies to amend the Otay Ranch GDP which
called for the reduction of development areas in Villages 13 and 15 in exchange for expansion of
development areas in Village One and Village One West in Poggi Canyon,; and
WHEREAS, on February 16,1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan which deleted development areas in Villages 13 and 15 and added
development area west of Pas eo Ranchero to the SPA One Plan; and
"
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the amendments
to the Phase 2 RMP fall under the purview ofEIR 95-01, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
April 14, 1999 and voted 7-0 to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-95-01C
recommending to the City Council approval ofthe amendment to the Phase 2 RMP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the
Phase 2 RMP and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of Village One and Village Five at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on
July 13, 1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the amendment to the PHASE 2 RMP introduced before
the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this matter held on April 14, 1999 and
the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby
approves the amendment to the PHASE 2 RMP based on the following findings and all other
~ -;g>- 0
evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed changes, and subject to the following
findings:
FINDINGS
The amendment to the PHASE 2 RMP is consistent with the General Plan and the General
Development Plan for the following reasons:
1. The land area exchanged produces a superior biological open preserve in that the area in
Poggi canyon is surrounded by development and not connected to a larger open system.
2. The area north and south of the Lower Otay Reservoir, on which development rights are
being deleted, is adjacent to a larger open space system; and
3. The Wildlife Agencies have detennined that amendments to the implementation standards
for Coastal sage scrub are acceptable.
APPROVAL OF AMENDED PHASE 2 RMP
The City Council hereby approveg,the amended PHASE 2 RMP for the Otay Ranch as set
forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference..
Presented by
Approved as to form by
lJ-- ~ frv---
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
H:\SHARED\ATTORNEY\CCrmp.RES.doc
2
~/?
q
..1'
.'.....P
...,
i
/
.-/'
The Honorable Alvin Garcia
Mayor of Cebu City
Cebu City, 6000
Philippines
Dear Mayor Garcia,
It is with great pleasure that I invite Cebu City to enter into a Sister City affiliation with the
City of Chula Vista. This invitation is on behalf of the many citizens of our city, as well
as our International Friendship Commission, who have come to know and love Cebu City
and vote unanimously in favor of the affiliation.
As we look to the future of this alliance, we envision a growing awareness and
appreciation of each other's culture and people. From small beginnings, we hope this
partnership will continue for many generations, fostering educational, economic, and
professional exchanges. We look forward to the limitless possibilities of this relationship.
Although this partnership must begin on an official basis between the governments of
our two cities, we see the strength and vitality of this long-term association resting wholly
in the hands of our citizen volunteers and participants. To this end, we have in place
an active group of "Friends of Cebu City" here in Chula Vista. We suggest that Cebu
City form a similar body of volunteers to form a group of "Friends of Chula Vista".
The City of Chula Vista's International Friendship Commission has been working very
closely with the Philippine community in our city to bring about this exciting opportunity
for our two cities. We truly hope that Cebu City will consider a Sister City relationship
with the City of Chula Vista.
We eagerly await your decision.
Sincerely,
Shirley Horton
Mayor
cc: Cynthia Maka
Fran Larson
'e;~~~2gS -;;-.':..'.
~.: S~::.:._-:
--:':::S:;'-
~'::::'3~ __
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
March 24,1818
!
4:00 P.M.
Th. meeting was called to order 114:00 P.M.
,
,
Mr' .,.,. P,..ant: Chair Laraon, Membera Breitfelder, Catanzaro, Chou, Ciotti, Garcia,
Marentez
!
,
Mambar Ablant: Cracked (Excused due 10 dNth In family)
Approval of Minute.
M!:!UC (Breitfelder/Catanzllro) February 24, 1999 minutes as submitted.
Raport from Chair
ChBir Larson asked if the Commissioners have turned in their "Statement of Economic
Int.reat" to the City Clerk. She admonished them to do so Quickly.
U~ni.hed BUlina..
A. Report on "Friends of lrapuato" PotlucKlMeeting of Februery 28. 1999. The potlucl<,
glvan to generate interest in re..stablishing the inactive "Friends of Irapuato
Association", was deemed unsuccessful by Ihe Commissioners. There is no "~rass
roots', interest or support from Ihe citizens of Chula Vista regarding our SillIer City
relationship with Irapuato, Mexico.
Mr. Catanzaro questioned why a copy of the written agende; used by Actin~
President of "Friends Of Irapualo., Nancy Taboada; was not given tc the IFC in
advance.
MSUC (Catanzaro/Larson) In the future. any agenda to be presented alan IFe
sponsored event shall be presented to the IFC, in advance, and approved for
presentation at that event. A copy of the final a~enda will, in advance of event, be
made avanable to each Commissioner.
B. Irapuato Sister City Reiationship - At this time there is no active relationship, in Chuls
Vista, with I rapuato , Mexico.
Council person Mary Salas, has requested that the IFe send a recommendation to
the City Council regarding future Sister City relations with Irapuato.
~~ ~2,~??S ~2:::
~:.g4::4'::;'':':
~R;'::~-
;;'.:..GE
MOTION: (Breltfelder/Catanzaro) Move that the IFC recommend to the City
Council that the Sister City relationship betw9lln Chula Vista an:!
Irapuato. Mexico be severed. And, that we follow ShUer Cities
Intem.tional guidelines for 'divorcing" ounsel".' from irapuato.
Vote: In Favor of: Larson, Breitfekler, Catanzaro, Ciotti, Chou. Garcia
AppOsed: None
Abstain: Marentez
Motion paAeCl.
C. I New Tape Recorder
MSUC (Catanzaro/Ciotti) To replace the bmken tape recorder.
D. Prospective Chula VlstalCebu City, Phillippines Sister City - Guidelines for finalizing
the steps to becoming a Sister City with Chul. Vista were given to our guest, Emilio
Legasti, from an already established and active 'Frlends of Cebu City", here in Chula
Vistl! and to Commissioner Oscar Garcia,
MSUC (BreltfelderICatanzaro) That the IFe recognize and welcome the active
"Friends of Cebu City" and requellt tnat our Mayor send a letter of invitation, to
become a Sister City, to the Mayor of Cet.. :ity.
Meeting edjoumed at 5:30 P.M.
~.~~
Lorraine Alexander
Secretary
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / I
Meeting Date 7/20/99
ITEM TITLE: Report on Chula Vista Transit (CVT) Bus Paint Scheme
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works f}\ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~ ~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X)
Fifteen new 40 foot buses are on order for tAe..tVT fleet, and delivery is anticipated in August
2000. These buses will replace 15 ofthe oldest CVT buses, or almost half of the 33 bus fleet.
Council may wish to consider a new paint scheme (colors and design) for the buses at this time for
the following reasons: (1) CVT has embarked on an aggressive bus replacement program, and it is
anticipated that the entire fleet will be replaced within the next five years; (2) a new paint scheme
would be one way to symbolize the "new" and technologically advanced CVT fleet, consisting of
40 foot, "low floor" CNG buses; and (3) the existing paint scheme has been used since 1984; if
Council wishes to change the paint scheme, beginning with these 15 buses would be an
appropriate time to do so.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Accept this report; and
2. Approve a new paint scheme for new CVT buses as shown on Attachment 1 (maroon and gold
stripes on a white background) or Attachment 2 (blue and gold stripes on a white background).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
In anticipation that Council might wish to consider a new paint scheme for the CVT fleet,
beginning with the 15 CNG buses on order, Transit staff requested MTDB's graphic design staff
to develop various exterior designs and colors for consideration. Some of these designs were
similar to the existing paint scheme (solid maroon bus with blue stripe, as presented on
Attachment 3), and others consisted of a variety of designs and color combinations.
After reviewing the numerous options, both City Transit staff and MTDB staff selected the basic
stripe pattern shown in Attachments 1 through 4. The next consideration was a series of color
combinations. The Transit Coordinator at this point presented the stripe design and a few color
combinations to the Public Information Officer. The Transit Coordinator and the Public
Information Officer both recommend the following:
11---- I
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 7/20/99
. a change from the present paint scheme, represented by Attachment 3.
. a change to the paint scheme in Attachment 1 (maroon and gold stripes on a white
background), or Attachment 2 ( blue and gold stripes on a white background).
Following are some other points for Council's information and consideration:
. During the corning years, some (and possibly all) of the other bus operators in the
region will be changing to a stripe design on a white background represented on
Attachments 1, 2, and 4.
. The MTDB contract routes (the routes that operate out ofthe Main Street facility
in Chula Vista and generally serve portions of South Bay) plan to use the red and
blue stripe design shown on Attachment 4. San Diego Transit's colors are also red
and blue, but they currently use a horizontal stripe design and have not yet made a
decision about changing the design on new buses.
. The recommended new CVT paint scheme in either Attachments 1 or 2 would
accomplish the following: it would differentiate CVT from other systems because of
the color combinations (either maroon and gold or blue and gold); but the stripe
design would also link CVT to other operators as part of the regional network of
services.
. The interior colors of the new buses (seats, flooring, etc) would be coordinated
with the exterior colors selected by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: The paint scheme (design and two colors) are included in the cost of
the buses on order. There would be no impact on the cost of the buses related to the
recommended paint schemes presented in Attachments 1 or 2.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended CVT bus paint scheme: maroon and gold stripe
2. Recommended CVT bus paint scheme: blue and gold stripe
3. Existing CVT bus paint scheme
4. Proposed bus paint scheme for MTDB contract services routes
DS-028
)/- ;L
..
1I111111 D II
" BJ
~l' ..'
iD':~ .....
- ();
::r'!
II E. ,;
i .. '~
. <
i
· ~'~8J
',. ]
Ii.
~ ]
.i.
~(
;;;'iBJ'
"">l~. T
"L_-_,_:, ,
;~1' I
';t~1~ t l
\l"";Q.;'f.:r;;>i',c: I
5~#!, of
'~~lt ~
4"1"'- !
;~" I
i
-
~;
-;
I
I~
.
.
i.O~
'8]'....",..,',...".';.'...
;/". .!'
~;}. ;.-'
8J
IBJ
~
-BJ
D
=
I
.
i ....00-....1 .
~' II i I'
ii , I
S :1 I
; ,;, (I
~ .1
~,-I, I!
· ..
I
//-:)
)>
~
)>
()
I
s:
m
z
-l
......
~o~
-
. I;
1I)i.
I
!I
i
I
i
Ol.,..,..
LlJ
-
~,
-;
]
I ~
'=='
I
J/~i
.
I
!I
i
I
i
:!:i
-l
)>
o
I
s:
m
z
-l
I'V
- .
III
(t; ~II .
.,-
:-
<?l
,
-. I
.
II
10
II"
" ~
e, .. i
-"
8
~~
.
-
"."
M ...... 8
" ';'i ~
~ .'......1.'...,... ill
,. ~
. .
~
, ".
, .
. .
" =.
;n
. <
I
.Ii
~
I
i'
I
.Ii
~
I
i
II
II -
II
~II
e~1I
~
-II
-
II~~I
)>
--l
~
o
I
:s:::
m
z
--l
c..v
n
III1I III D II C
fBJ
i:
::l
~
IBJ
__I
-
F .(0 ~
I ...
-
iii" I
I
I
'"
! g
8]1
i~
18]
18]
!f
~
3
D
E:
.
/j/P I
~
0'
~
~
ill '
-'
e>1
.. ,
III I
~
--l
)>
o
I
:s::
m
z
--l
~
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
Joanne Clayton
President Elect
Gary Nordstrom
Vice Presidents:
Scoll Alavy
Kevin l<reulzcl
Ben Richardson
Bev Turner
Members:
Marilyn Cristobal, DDS
Larry Cunningham
Patty Dnvis
Jose Doria
Bill Hall
Henri Harb
Kim Kilkenny
Enrique Melgar
Len Moore
Scott Mosher
Fran Muncey
Robert Penner, MD
Jim Pieri
Todd Stone
Past President
Brad Wilson
Executive Director
Rod Davis
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
July 1, 1999
.1 Ji._~~ J Wi L
...u. 2 - 009
The Honorable Shirley Horton
Mayor City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
r:rI!JNCi:(jff~
Dear Mayor Horton:
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
nominates Bill Hall to fill the Chamber's allocated seat on the
Economic Development Commission.
Sincerely,
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
A?t#{tp
od Davis
Executive Director
JYdj
2 3 3 F 0 U R T -H A V E N U E . C H U L A V 1ST A, C A L I FOR N 1 A 9 1 9 1 0 . TEL.
ACCREDITED
C1UIINIIDI'COIIIII[1lC(
.~...... 0' .D....'..,
O'u...."..""..
(619) 420-6603