HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/12/17
III declare IInder penalty of perjury that I aM
employed by the City of Chuia Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and th", , posled
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
Tuesday, December 17, 1996 the PUbIiC~S r, vi'1!s Building an~, tAC~lty HaI~~ .. Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED. /. '3'/J?- SIGNED Z_ ~ Public Services Building
'7 L
Relrn]ar Meetinll of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Moot_, Padilla _, Rindone _, Salas _, and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
3. Employee Christmas Music Presentation.
b. Proclamation commending the Chula Vista Police Department for their dedicated support and
holiday spirit for 'Shop with a Cop." The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to
Agent Nicole DePriest who will be accepting the proclamation on behalf of the Department.
c. Proclamation commending the "Police Activities League." The proclamation will be presented
by Mayor Horton to Sgl. Don Hunter.
d. Chula Vista has again been recognized as a leader in natural resource conservation. The award
was presented by the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps to the City and the
Urban Corps of San Diego. Presenting the award to the City are Sam Duran, Executive Director
of the Conservation Corps of San Diego, and Stuart Watson, Recycling Manager, Conservation
Corps of San Diego.
e. Annual Report by Port Commissioner David Malcolm.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no Videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 16)
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 pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knnwledge from observance of
actions taken in Closed Session on 12/10/96, that there were no reportable actions which are
required under the Brown At to he reported. It is recommended .
Agenda
-2-
December 17, 1996
b. Resignation from tbe Design Review Commission - Jobn A. Stokes. It is recommended that
the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately
according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6. ORDINANCE 2693 AMENDING CHAFfER 5.56 - TOBACCO AND WEED SALES AND
SMOKING TO PROHIBIT SELF-SERVICE SALES OF CIGARETTES,
TOBACCO, AND WEED PRODUCTS (second readins! and adootionl _ On
1/17/95, Council approved a $120,000 24-month grant from the California
Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section. $30,000 was
appropriated for the first six months of the program. Authorization was also
given by Council to execute Service Provider Sub-Contracts with a provision for
extensions through the life of the grant based on satisfactory performance and
funding availability. The State authorized the second installment of the grant,
in the amount of $60,000, for fiscal year 1995/96 and now has authorized the
third installment, in the amount of $30,000, for fiscal year 1996/97. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
7. RESOLUTION 18522 AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 15961 AS HAS BEEN AMENDED
BY RESOLUTION NUMBERS 15998 AND 16044 TO ADD DESIGNATED
EMPLOYEES TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE APPENDIX _
The Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its
Conflict of Interest Code biennially to determine if it is accurate or,
alternatively, that the Code must be amended. Council is the code reviewing
body for the City agencies and any other local government agency whose
jurisdiction is solely within the City. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (City Attorney)
8.A. RESOLUTION 18523 ELIMINATING THE ANNUAL MANDATORY UNPAID LEAVE
REINSTATING SALARY REDUCTIONS FOR EXECUTIVE MANAGERS,
MID-MANAGERS AND CITY COUNCIL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR - At the 7/11/95 Council meeting, an annual mandatory furlough
program was instituted for all Executives, Middle Managers, City Council and
the Unrepresented group. This was implemented to maintain consistency with
the Chula Vista Employees Association's (CVEA) recently approved
Memorandum of Understanding. The implementation of this mandatory
furlough had the impact of reducing affected employees salaries by 1.92 %. It
is recommended that this salary reduction be eliminated for the current fiscal
year while maintaining the 40 hour leave hours and fully eliminating this
program for 1997/98. It is recommended that the furlough program remain for
the Unrepresented group as they have requested and that a $600 stipend be paid
to each member and that the bilingual pay be increased commensurate with
CVEA. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (City Manager) 4/5tb's
vote required.
B. RESOLUTION 18524 AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFIT RESOLUTION FOR THE
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR - 4/5tb's vote required.
Agenda
-3-
December 17, 1996
9. RESOLUTION 18525 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT WITH THE WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS
(WCE) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 THROUGH 1997/98 AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS _ Negotiation teams representing the City and
WCE have reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding covering
fiscal year 1995/96 through fiscal year 1997/98. The proposed MOU was
ratified hy WCE memhers on 12/12/96. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Dave Byers, City Chief Negotiator for WCE) 4/5th's vote
required.
10. RESOLUTION 18511 AMENDING THE BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN CLASSlFICATlONS - Included in the
1996/97 budget were recommendations to reclassify certain positions which were
approved by Council in the budget adoption. At that time, however, there were
several classification issues that had not yet been resolved and it was anticipated
that staff would return to Council with recommendations regarding these
classifications within several months. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Human Resources) Continued from the meeting of
U/IO/96.
11. RESOLUTION 18526 APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE SWEETWATER
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL
LOCATED IN RANCHO DEL REY DEVELOPMENT AND VOYAGER
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATED ON EAST "J" STREET - The
Rancho Del Rey Voyager Park Supplemental Subdivision Improvement
Agreement was approved in July, 1995. The project includes the development
of a middle school and a neighborhood park. It is anticipated that the project,
including the construction of the middle school and the adjacent neighborhood
park, will hegin in March, 1997 with completion in 1998. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLUTION 18527 APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION AND MODlFICATlON
AGREEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OPERATING
AGREEMENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
AND THE SWEETWATER UN1FIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - On 3/12/92,
the City entered into a Joint Use Agreement with the Sweetwater Union High
School District and the Boys and Girls Club for the operation and maintenance
of the Community Youth Center on "L" Street. A First Extension was
authorized by Council in July, 1993 with provision to extend the agreement if
the Club continued the provision of appropriate services and support during their
operational hours at the Center. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
13. RESOLUTION 18528 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE'S ARCO TRAINING CENTER IN CHULA
VISTA FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF EASTLAKE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (ELMD) NUMBER 1 ZONE "c" - The United
States Olympic Committee's ARCO Training Center (ATC) is requesting the
City enter into an agreement to allow the ATe to maintain the 3.5 acres of
landscaping and improvements along Wueste Road versuS conveying the
property to the City for maintenance under the City's Open Space Section. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
Agenda
-4-
December 17, 1996
14. RESOLUTION 18529 APPROVING THE PRINCIPLES OFUNDERST ANDING BETWEEN THE
CITlES OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DlEGO, RATlFYING THE
RELATED LETTER AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1996
BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE PRINCIPLES - Staff has been negotiating since August, 1996
with the City of San Diego and the AFFORD group of participating sewer
agencies of the Metro Sewer System over the appropriate costs to charge
AFFORD for the cost of improvements to the Metro Sewer System. The parties
have tentatively agreed to a list of 13 "Principles of Understanding" that are
proposed to be a basis of modifying or creating a new agreement for sewage
treatment. Chula Vista has also jointly signed a letter with the City of San
Diego concerning Principle of Understanding Number 13, extension of capacity
rights to the year 2050. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
15. REPORT APPROVING ENHANCEMENT OF EAST "H" STREET LANDSCAPE-
1M Development Company, the developers for Rancho La Cuesta, have
proposed to enhance the landscaping of slopes, medians and parkways along
East "R" Street, in the EastLake Maintenance District Number 1 "Zone D"
Open Space assessment area. The enhancement would include the planting of
195 box Scbinus Molles (Pepper Trees) along the slopes, parkways and medians.
They also propose to plant an additional 1,288 one-gallon Cistus Purpureas
(Rock Rose) throughout the medians. Staff recommends Council approve 1M
Development's request to enhance the landscape along East "R" Street in the
EastLake Maintenance District-Zone "D", subject to staff conditions. (Director
of Parks and Recreation)
16. REPORT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM LEE ANN MEACHAM
REGARDING DEFERRAL AND LlEN AGREEMENT GRANTED TO
OWNERS OF 403 QUEEN ANNE DRIVE - Lee Ann Meacham, owner of the
property at 403 Queen Anne Drive, has submitted a written communication to
Council requesting that the City remove its existing lien on the property. The
lien was accepted by the City in 1987 to guarantee the future installation of
public improvements that were deferred when the Meachams had an addition
done on their home. Staff recommends Council accept the report and authorize
staff to subordinate the existing lien amount to second position. (Director of
Public Works)
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City CouncU on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
Agenda
-5-
December 17, 1996
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition 10 the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
17.
PUBLIC HEARING
18.
PUBLIC HEARING
TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - The Plan consists
of the County-wide Summary Plan and Siting Etements. The Summary Plan
outlines the Source Reduction, Reuse, Recycling, Compo sting Plans and Waste
Generation Estimates for all jurisdictions within the County. The Siting Element
is intended to identify the disposal capacity needed by jurisdictions within the
County for a IS year period. Staff recommends the Dublic hearin~ be continued
to the meetin2' of 117/97. (Conservation Coordinator)
CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT NUMBER 127 ALONG PALOMAR STREET FROM
INTERSTATE 5 TO iNDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - On 11/5/96, Council
approved a public hearing to be held to determine whether the public health,
safety or general welfare requires the formation of an underground utility district
along Palomar Street from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued
from the meeting of 12/10/96.
RESOLUTION 18530 ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 127
ALONG PALOMAR STREET FROM INTERSTATE 5 TO iNDUSTRIAL
BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY
ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSION
19.
PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE OTAY RANCH REORGANIZATION NUMBER I
CONSISTING OF ANNEXING PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH TO
THE CITY, DETACHING THE OTAY LANDFILL FROM THE CITY
AND DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT - In August, 1995, Council authorized the filing
of a reorganization application with LAFCa for the atay Ranch Reorganization
Number I that would annex the majority of the atay Valley Parcel, the Mary
Patrick Birch Ranch House and the Inverted "L" to the City. LAFCO approved
the reorganization, designated the City as the conducting authority and
authorized Council to complete the reorganization proceedings. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager,
Otay Ranch)
RESOLUTION 18531 ORDERING THE CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE OTAY
RANCH REORGANIZATION NUMBER I ANNEXING TERRITORY TO
THE CITY, DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE CITY AND
DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE RURAL FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
Agenda
20.
REPORT
21.
PUBLIC HEARING
-6-
December 17, 1996
.....
SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT
(Item # 20 - 22)
CONSIDERATION OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SUBSEQUENT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SFEIR 95-04 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN
THE REPORT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT (GPA-96-01,
PCM-96-05, FSElR-95-04 - The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for
the San Miguel Ranch project and adjacent Mother Miguel Estates parcel
analyzes environmental impacts and recommends mitigation. Staff recommends
that Council consider the FSEIR. (Director of Planning) {This item does not
uire a ublic hearin but is related to the followin two ublic hearin s.
GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04 - CONSIDERATION OF A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN
MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A FINAL
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST
AND SOUTH OF SAN MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND NORTHEAST OF
PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD - EMERALD PROPERTIES, INC. - The
applicant proposes to amend the Chula Vista General Plan for certain portions
of the property regulated by the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan,
a 2,590 acre residential master planned community originally approved in 1993.
These proposed General Plan changes would coincide with requested
amendments to the General Development Plan. The applicant has prepared two
General Development Plan amendments, the Horseshoe Bend Plan and the
Proctor Valley Plan, each reflecting an alternate alignment for State Route 125,
a planned tollway which will either bisect the property or traverse its edge. The
Plan, which reflects the alignment chosen by the State, would be the Plan which
goes forward to the next planning phase. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 18532 CERTlFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FSElR 95-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT;
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY (GPA-96-01);
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-96-05); MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
22.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2694
GPA-96-02, PCZ-96-C; CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND PC PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR
APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE SOUTH PARCEL OF THE SAN MIGUEL
RANCH PROPERTY--ALGERT/SCOTT (MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES)
The owners of the 10.1 acres (Mother Miguel Estates), located adjacent to the
north side of the San Miguel Ranch property's south parcel, propose to amend
the General Plan to Low-Medium Residential. the same classification requested.
for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch property. Also requested is the prezoning
of the property to the PC zone, the same prezone as presently exists on the San
Miguel Ranch. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading
and approve the resolution. (Director of Planning)
APPROVING THE PREZONlNG OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 10.1 ACRES TO
THE PC ZONE (PCZ-96-C) (first readiDlr)
Agenda
-7-
December 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 18533 CERTIFYlNG THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FSEIR-95-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT
WHICH INCLUDES THE MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY;
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY FOR THE MOTHER
MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY (GPA-96-02); MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
.....
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items wiU be considered individuaUy by the Council
and staffrecommendfltions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
23. RESOLUTION 18534 APPROVING THE CONCEPT OF THE PROPOSED WORKFORCE AND
EMPLOYER'S SERVICE CENTER (WESC)/SAN DIEGO COUNTy
OmCE FACILITY, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ASSIST THE
WESC/COUNTY IN SECURING A FACILITY IN CHULA VISTA AND
TO IDENTIFY RELATED FINANCING OPTIONS; AND TO PREPARE
AN MOU FOR COOPERATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
The WESC, a broad based collaborative of job training entities, are looking for
a facility with the County considering co-locating offices. The proposed WESC
would be an asset to the City's labor force and economic development efforts.
The Bayview Commerce Center and a proposed build-to-suit parcel behind the
Broadway Price Club have been identified as potential sites. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
24. RESOLUTION 18535 WAIVING THE SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE FOR SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, MCA, INC. AND WHITEWATER
WATER PARK, INC. BASED ON PURCHASE OF METRO SEWAGE
CAPACITY FROM CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND APPROVING
PURCHASE OF SEWAGE CAPACITY FROM CITY OF NATIONAL
CITY _ San Diego Gas and Electric Company has been ordered by the Regional
Water Quality Board to desist in depositing certain waste waters from operation
of the Power Plant into the San Diego Bay and instead deposit it into the sewer.
Other projects in Chula Vista also have special circumstances whereby they want
sewage capacity, but want relief in the City's Sewer Connection Charge of
$2,200 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Staff has proposed that for special
circumstances, if additional capacity can be purchased in the Metro System from
another system, the City would consider waiving the connection charge. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-8-
December 17, 1996
25.
REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC ARTS PROJECT ON THE
BA YFRONT FOR FUNDING BY THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICT'S ART FUND - The San Diego Unified Port District approved a
Public Art Master Plan in 1992. One purpose of the plan is to enable the
provision of artwork on the tidelands around San Diego Bay for the enjoyment
of residents and visitors. The Port's intention is to have member cities assist
with the selection of the art to be placed withio each community. The Port has
set aside in excess of $4,500,000 to fund various art projects proposed by
member cities. The Port has hired a full-time Public Art Coordinator to oversee
the proposal process and selection of artwork, and the disbursement of funds.
Staff recommends Council: (1) Direct staff to proceed with submitting the
proposed art project to the San Diego Unified Port District for consideration of
funding and installation; (2) Support staffs recommendation for the choice of
art pieces; (3) Support staffs preferred installation site recommendations (Option
Number 1 - "P" Street - Lagoon Drive), however, three site options would be
submitted to the Port District; and (4) Provide direction on pursuing other art-
related ideas that were generated by the community, staff and Council for
inclusion in future projects on the bayfront. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent CalenOOr.
Agenoo items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
26. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
27. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
a. Ratification of Appointment to the Library Board of Trustees - Eleanore Valdovinos.
28. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the regular City Council meeting on January 7, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers.
A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.
lol declare IInder penalty of perJury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Viete in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
Tuesday, December 17, 1996 this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
5:30 p.m. the Public S rvic s Building and e~~~ on
DATED /..2. /3 CSIGNEDe~-"
Soecial Meetin2 of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
Councilmembers Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _, Salas _, and
Mayor Horton _'
1.
ROLL CALL:
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
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.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Anticipated litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
. Metro sewer issues.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the regular City Council meeting on December 17, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
~f
SPECIAL ORDERS
December 11, 1996
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City COU~Cil / \.'W
John D. Goss, City ManagerJ-\ \vv~(V\>A ~\
Michael T. Meacham, Conservation cYoordinator ext. 5122~
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Special Orders for December 17, 1996; National Award, Exemplary
Conservation Project of 1996, for the Used Oil Recycling Project
The City of Chula Vista has again been recognized as a leader in natural resource conservation;
this time with a national award from the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps
(NASCC). The award was presented to the City and Urban Corps of San Diego, a local
conservation corps in recognition of their cooperative efforts regarding the Used Oil Recycling
Project. The Used Oil Recycling Project was chosen from more than 100 national nominations as
the Exemplary Conservation Project of 1996.
Presenting the Award are Sam Duran, Executive Director of the Conservation Corps of San Diego
and Stuart Watson, Recycling Manager, Conservation Corps of San Diego.
Improperly disposed of motor oil is the greatest polluter of our lakes, rivers and San Diego Bay.
The City of Chula Vista established the project to educate residents about the importance of
recycling and to create convenient oil recycling opportunities throughout the South Bay. The
project has been implemented by local youth employed through the Urban Corps of San Diego.
Chula Vista is the lead jurisdiction in providing the service that includes Chula Vista, Imperial
Beach and National City. The project has been funded by the California Integrated Waste
Management Board.
NASCC is a membership organization of almost 150 conservation organizations throughout the
United States. NASCC members employ youth to work on community service and conservation
projects. The Urban Corps of San Diego provides job-training and education to unemployed
youth while they work on community service and conservation projects. The Urban Corps of San
Diego has also assisted the City with litter abatement, beach clean-ups, special event recycling,
Christmas tree recycling and the City's office recycling program. The Urban Corps is funded
through donations, fee for service contracts and grants.
mtm: cas-rcc
oilaward.so
Printed on Post-Consummer Recycled Paper, Naturally!
J/cI~ I
~u~
:~_:
~~--~
~......""-.......
.....~- .....
OlY Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CIIY A TIORNEY
From:
December 12, 1996
The Honorable Mayor and city council ~~
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney ~ ~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed session
for the Meeting of 12/10/96
Date:
To:
Re:
The city council met in Closed Session to discuss Metro Sewer,
labor negotiations and Public Employee release.
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:lgk
C:\lt\clossess.no
5a,'1
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
,tit Pool<Aw'nlJReo;)<HlP~
~ECEIVEO
December 4, 1996
'96 lIe -5 P 1 :09
Mayor Shirley Horton I City Council Members
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
.Y.. ..IF 6W!..A Viii/II,
8' tl"S tmCE
Dear Mayor Horton / Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to serve your selves, this city and the community on
the Design Review Commission (DRC). In recent weeks, events have transpired
with my full time job and with my family that require that I dedicate additional
time to both of them. Even though the DRC requires only 2 Monday's per month,
the responsibilities have come to the point that I do not feel that I can perform my
duties properly with my increased job and home responsibilities. Subsequently, I
have had to re-prioritize my responsibilities and drop some activities.
In light of the above information, please accept this letter as my resignation from the
Design Review Commission, effective as of December 31,1996.
Again, thank you for the appointment. It is my hope that as matters permit, that I
may be considered again for service to Chula Vista at a future date.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 293-8277.
ResP:.~UllY !)
c~~Y1-~
John A. Stokes
cc..-:
WRITTEt~
""ill<' W'1
~ c---v7
~
~Ollf!< '" m '1 "'Il;,r'"'''''' a "'''';:;OD.!I~''
'_' 'w; ."" ;,;_ i~:,,~?\~_ Ji,h):; 1: r,,; rt'-,'~':;.;:" ~ '-1 "i",',,:,:~" . ~?~y;l :.~.
\;~~: '~-tl.'~\~lQ'f(.iUU"tj~~~jpt.':r\ lB 12" '-~';A;;JJ
A /o?-)7jJ?
56-- /
~~~~
~ ?.t_/O-96~'
ORDINANCE NO. ,;J.,;, 9J
c<.~O~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA ^ ~TA
AMENDING CHAPTER 5.56 "TOBACCO AND ~nI'''!;ALES
AND SMOKING" OF THE CHULA VISTA ~'C'IPAL CODE
TO PROHIBIT SELF-SERVICE SAL~t~~~ CIGARETTES,
TOBACCO, AND WEED PRODUC~~ ~
~\.G '
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: That ChaptEi-r 5.56 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
5.56.010 Intent and purpose of provisions.
It is the intent of this chapter to provide regulatory
measures for the use, sale or possession of tobacco and tobacco
products, as well as other weed, plant, vegetable or other non-
tobacco products used for the purpose of smoking, to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of all citizens from the
problems and discomfort of air pollution by the smoking of pipes,
cigars or cigarettes in certain places of public assemblage and to
reinforce the prohibition on the use of tobacco, tobacco products
and weed, plant, vegetable or other non-tobacco products used for
the purpose of smoking, by youths under the age of eighteen, in the
interest of reducing the demonstrated hazards to health resulting
in the use of such products, especially cigarettes. It is the
purpose of the city council to eliminate the easy availability of
such products to minors, particularly by means of the unsupervised
or poorly supervised vending machines, by imposing strict standards
of responsibility upon the owners or lessees of the premises where
said vending machines are located.
5.56.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of section 5.56. the followinq words are
defined as follows. unless otherwise set forth:
k "Business" means anv sole pr~prietorship. ioint venture.
cor~oration or other business entitv formed for profit makinq
pur_oses. includinq retail establishments where qoods or
services are sold as well as professional corporations and
other entities where leqal. medical. dental. enqineerinq.
architectural or other professional services are delivered.
!L. "Effective Date" means Januarv 16. 1997. the date this
ordinance becomes effective.
1
~~'/I
~ "Em 10 ee" means an erson who is em 10 ed b an em 10 er
in consideration for direct or indirect waqes or profit. and
any person who volunteers his or her services for a non-profit
entitv.
.!l:.. "Minor" means any individual who is less than eiqhteen years
old.
L. "Non- rofit ntit" means an cor oration unincor orated
association 'lor other entity created for charitable.
philanthropic~ educational. character-buildinq. political.
social or othe similar ur oses the net roceeds from the
o erations of hich are committed to the romotion of the
ob'ectives or oses of the entit and not to rivate ain.
A ublic a enc is not a "non- rofit entit " within the
meaninq of this~ction.
,
\
.E.... "Person" shall mea artnershi coo erative
association riva cor oration ersonal re resentatiye
receiver trustee a si nee or an other Ie al entit .
means 0 en dis la
tObacco-related
has access to
of tobacco
romotional
wi thout the
!h
Ii.. "Tobacco Product" means a
tobacco smokeless tobacco
which ma be utilized for sm
manner of inqestion.
.:L.. "Tobacco retailer" shall mean or overnmental
entit that 0 erates a store s and booth concession or
other lace at which sales of to acco roducts are made to
purchasers for consumption or use.
L "Tobacco vendinq machine" means any ~ectronic or mechanical
device or a liance the 0 eration of hich de ends u on the
in coin 0
of value
or
or
K..
'\
"Vendor-assisted" means only a store emploYQe has access to
the tobacco product and assists the customer ~ supplYinq the
product. The customer does not take possession 'qf the product
until it is purchased.
5.56.030. Siqnaqe Reauired.
enqaqe in the sale of a tobacco
lainl visible si~n at the ~oint
which states "The SALE OF TOBACCO
2
~ ~/;;L
December 17, 1996
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and Council
SUBJECT: Comments from Carolyn Butler re: Smoking Ordinance
Item 6 on tonight's agenda (Second reading and Adoption)
Mrs. Carolyn Butler called to inform Council that she opposes amending the Smoking
Ordinance to prohibit self-service sales of cigarette or tobacco products. Mrs. Butler
insists that youth will now' Jump over the counters," or 'strong arm" clerks to get
cigarettes. Kids desperate for cigarettes might even resort to 'stealing women's
purses" or "breaking into locked displays."
Mrs. Butler maintains that it is a parent's responsibility to monitor their children, and
wants her name noted for the record as supporting local businesses.
ab
t-?
.:r +cm -+4 (p
December 17, 1996
MEMO TO:
The Mayor & City Council
FROM:
Patricia Salvacion
SUBJECT:
TOBACCO ORDINANCE
Ms. Diane Acke (297-9308) called the office this afternoon to give her support for the
Tobacco Ordinance.
(, - g'"
t
:r -tc:::m ~ to
r. (
J~:___:.~.
DEe \ 0 .
\ ~---.-T- r.'
I r' ,.,~:
L-__-,..c-,:.-,---,C----.-
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Dear Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobac~o Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically:
L Enforcing photo ID check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco ,vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
Let us join communities such as Powa)' and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help deter our youth
from tobacco.
1A()cywdJ
..---- .
y)yo. !roCo uJ;l(
?
Chu\CA ViS~1 CK
9(01c)
t,-1
U:::,
- 9
L_. ____._..
. ,
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca.,91910
Dear Mayor Horton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
1. Enforcing photo ID check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper waming labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, "tough ordinances that will help
. deter our youth from tobacco.
Sincerely, I~ ')
0/m~ J. Lk~
(./tu/ ct tll 5~--, Ccr
t{l; i/o
t,-jp
; ~ ,.
,...----
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca,,91910
Dear Mayor Horton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
I, Enforcing photo lD check at the time of tobacco purchase,
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco,
Sincerely,
I
I
I
lI~c~~ I
uJ:z t/~ C/J ' 1/98 I
I
,
I
i,-/j
.!'
n-'-
u~.,
.- q
,..
. -...."-~.
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca.,9 I 91 0
Dear Mayor Horton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
. 1. Enforcing photo 10 check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City of Chula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco.
IV1 t1-drl ;4
Sincerely,
Itj;Je=~7 7 ~
4-
I
,
I
-4vJ ~ -I
t1 IvvLl..'t V/;,,4)' ell- <J /7'/ c
j, - / .,2.
~
n::.' - ()
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca.,9l9l 0
Dear Mayor Horton and Council: .
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
1. Enforcing photo ID check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating selfs'ervjce purchasing ofrobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco.
rlc\cke5'S .
I f'c..i{:C:, L/
,,-
\
\ ,r,
~ \ .. ~ ;/
<:, . '---1 Y C'";jcly%JLL"-
..J,n"i),L:2IZ ,J
Sincerely,
, I
(::: \i L) b i/<::A c,-
. CrT-
I
(~I(( ))
&~/J
~. ,._.....;"_'^<:;..~~2.&~~:'t;;.-;f:(:''''~:;:~';_:,~'~;~t~.ib:~~J;E~.G::~~~.,:*. .
..,.......:....,
DU' - 9
L:_'
"---'
December 5, 1996
70 EI Rancho Vista
Chula Vista, Ca. 919] 0
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca.,91910
Dear Mayor Hurton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
I. Enforcing photo 10 check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco:
Sincerely,
d:1LV4'c..zcaJ~~;z{ /7;?N~
Christine A. Smith Malone
t -It(
r-.-~-T~---(._.'.' .-'-
~; ;....:.::. -.-.-
Jack & Tina Matthias
450 Flower STreet
Chula Vista,CA 91910
I : iJ~t I l ,,'" ,
. ~ ~t~k;0?;i1: 1')1
,
Chula Vista City Council
2764lhAvc
Chub Visla, Ca,,'l1'l1 0
Dear Mayor Horton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
1. Enforcing photo 10 check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco. advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco.
Si~
t. ~if
,I ,1.(,:
.' '1'1>11
;,.' ) .'1':1'
,
From: SOMA To: Laith Zilla
Date: 12/12J96 Time: 20:29:24
Puge 1 Of.g
,
., .
0C'
~
WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL BY THE CHULI
VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO BAN SELF-SERVICE DlSPLA YS FOR TOBACCO. WI
URGE THE COUNCIL TO 'WORK WITH RET,1 'LERS TO DEVELOP .
,
/ . RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SA LES 1'0 ~..
i. . NAME (print) sn
1. G:e.V',,-V'~ ~6",-'?,.lq .
~~~
<JIm
5 u/,Q/1 "-0/1 __-'
U7 ctl4. v/sAi
2.
,
\
L '(i'v-/^J;}J~=5 ~ \
~/fttR~
UltSdi/ aJ);h
Q
-----
_,_~~0~5 C. V.
\ ---~-
------------------
'C/~~
,
iL--~
i
~~15.1
.' . I
'1'\' '1 '
" , I
I I' ~~r;A' ;2t-v~s _
16. '~____________~
d ----
I 7!: ". ~~ r_ _____ ~ -----~---
"'
,
I :'
,
,
!
'------'
y
~~
~--
f'
[,,_/?i
, I
: 8,1
I ,I
I'
,I
! .:
I'
I
r I, ,~IJiI:1 I: I I, ", I I' ' i , I
: : ilt,l:L;;L,.jI', : I Dal.: 12L~6 Timc:'20':29:24 ::,";,: III "I: :"il' ' pag~ or!! i :,
.Ll. ,1, I
'i" i Ii,', I' i ; ,
I!. i, , '; ': I ' : I I, " ,
: _.,. , ! 1 'I . :), ',' I '. I _ _ __'
'I!WE TiJE UNDERSIGNEDAREiOPpdsED TO 'h-ni PROPOSAL BY THE CHUL!
VISTA: CITY COUNCIL TO BAN SELF-SERVICE ,DuiPLA YSFOR TOBACCO. WI
, ,... , '\ ,';. " ' .. .
! ,UR'GE THE, COUNCIL 'TO ,WORK WITH RETAILERS[ TO DEVELOP
, (RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SALES TO MINORS. I
"J
:'11, 'I' I " I ':
, t : 1 I' ~
. - I I 1\)
I' . NAME (print) -"'T ADDRESS / CITY
, I' I, 1 - \ >l:, (1 \) I I;
; L SLD 1\ ;Rt~ I ' I -.
j~ili~k,
r '" ; '1A I
;11: 'i,l ' ,"
I I "
I' ,,' J I
';cV.'v/r :
j"-T:
il ,I 1
,1111 )
III"!' \ I ,.
~~ ili fli', ~ J ,':
I I II ,f,:;
, ' "i'i : , '
_ i I ~ ' '
'1'," cA
",' I S v/ ~~ 1-1-- 1~l'i19 \) I
LI :();'jT, rfJ I),
/ ,II i " " ,I
/ i I~' ',I I[
/' I; . fh:_ I
it!:df/7/) , :' ~y;? /"'?, !
/".. ' i
'I " i' ,'I
"/1. c\!" cr"t:91C(/(: '~i
/ ,
,
, I
~i,
I
I !~b Jif/-o G
: [.-
2., ,
I ,
, ,
I "
,
I !
I "
Uti _~
I I I
. ", ' ! ------.
, , I
j . '\) ,
I I . f:\
I 4, ~o()oL-f6tJ60)uM
) I I , ' .
'111: L~~~;
Ij p"f' I
I:~ 5' 1 I-
'. .1 '
C :11
T~ ;
I :ii: I I
. ! lito /if", ~v'L>i'
16; I ; r
n : 1
r' .~ i I I r
,;.~ '~. 57J::');t/m;~.;;-
I,if ,/EE '~ ~
' ij. ~ I ;
,',,;! I ~
'I' I:~
'1,:'1 I If! : ; ~ i ---::r-
I ~L 'I ,;::~'----
I " , ,
li'l,t, 'I"'! I'
i')'j 'i)' I I
~ ,.1, I: . !
I; ,'III' \. I
" . I I: I
'I
'.
(I
1'1
, I
I
SIGNATURE
~~~
W~
I
, ,
"
, ,
I
;'
I'
, , I !
, !i)7: , I " I,' ,
" j
I [, I' ! I ,I
ii, I I !I I' I
.: 'I :' ,
, " I I ,
1 "j ,
From: SOMA To: L.ililh Zilla
D;:~!e: 12/1:~t')(i TirllC: ~;:J:-':~U..l
PiJ(J~3 org'
Wj;'1'HL' IJN[)j;'R""("'''!;'\') \n~,' nl'I'(')'SI"I') '1"") 'I'I"IJ:' "'!:>C'I:>(J'S",\' IVr THE CHlil i
,. L, I .'.. ,~I, I ,. _ ,," .....j '_., \.. ,. , ,I '.. L. , . .. _
\11""1' , C"1'1".' ("0 U I" C"'II ')" (j P ".,- <~ I:' I I;'..';; ':' I) . i:' (' !;' 0' I ''-1' I ,'I: '.-' 1;(J",IJ 'I' C'\ D ,\'(' ( '0' ", I
....: .:):-\. I _ , '- j ", n 1-''' I , ,-' '...~ '.' t.. \. 1, ~ ~ J._ ,_~ l_I,~' ...' ~:l It. ) d, \___ ,_, " ,) Ii
UI"GE 1'1-11" ....)(1"'(".'1 "1'(' '\'('1')' '\'!'/'u r.[....- i'Jr.'p" '['0 P""I'If)'"
. ~ " ,I ":., l.. t ._.j ~ _.' l., J) '11'.):'.0. :iI., ~' "I'; t !r~~ ,,:.< l A ...I ..~~ ~\ ~~! t. :.....r ;.:,. v' :, __..... r" i
RESPONSIBLE I'ROGR.\,'d 10 s'rop SAl ES TO Mii'lOf::S.
.--:-
N~Mrl . Tr'TT I.lJI'Pk-c,/C"'"'' SIC'" 'ITP!,
__l_ _~~.L_~~-LP.I ~ n_U_.__.h_...._.__._~..~__5..t:__~~..~"._.. ~ ':,..:~..).f.~....: :.~~.;~~ ,..._.. _~_ l~ l__",~... ..._.... .. ,__,~"".."._._",...._._.~_._~...... ,_:~_L~-9-_..~....~;L...~..,~~
o I -. ; d..f--JL~ ~fl. Ev-~
1Jo", f{\1A. CUlU-S 7? , "
I.
+< ob -ee1 CO (" {\~_
.~9(
,--.-- ~
2.
(
3. ~ 5!4j__ ...1'
;.~fruy
".
~. ~~Dk8~,
~A~.COL1
7. 0D:$
ll.kdc _~Jtro '
- '7.;/-
/~
,
/'3'1;-;;).3
/CtJout2
4. kK L r1e-'fO~;Y^-7
,-
6.
J.
,
v
,
, 2. ?? cPA If
/9//
C-A. qlql/i
s.
I
6 -/1'-
From: SOMA To: laitl, Zilla
Date: 12/17./96 Tillie: 20:29:2.1
P09' 4 of tj
WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL BY THE CHULA
VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO BAN SELF-SERVICE DISPLA YS FOR TOBACCO. WE
URGE THE COUNCIL TO WORK WITH RETAILERS TO DEVELOP A
RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SALES TO MINORS.
NAME (1Irint)
STREET ADDRESS / CITY
SIGNATURE
@4
,
~~
I.. ~:
- ;=.-J-v.....-L-
Or V. 04-1(91/
2. (], Jh elf -+ CO~O vVl1 JfZ_
.;:;. :; =
" ;-. c.LL U{?'-h~
ff~~
,
~y- ~~W
f) _ '
.yYl~
.
, ,.-
~. I/ ,,;;-
c V 0/1'1/1
3. A"d--<.w '1kw-rr/
"
,
. (
f ',.,. L: ~'~
....
c.. ~ I
-
; ~~g,q~
;J~ /j~
G. ./ (a? ~~t:'.4/'--'t.
" (; ICI' /1
l. I "~ ,
J 4 yYt Q <; flu h ; 6
D_I'~ t?:u-5SD~
.R~~
~
7.
s. h~ tv~$
?f~,J;(~k>1
b"S
( (I (
I
,
I
I
I
;//
/} r/7~
t-/1
10. ,
',:'~I' 'I',:, "I.~', 'jill" ; ": 'I "; ,I , 'I II' I' " i I II II "I 'I ' I,
I, '!;, '1 111; "',, I t I I I 1 I' II
l' I ~ " 'I' tl I, I ' 11 I' "
I , ,'IJI:I; t!,f"1 i" 't; '1. 1\1:,1 I I j 1 ' I I r I , j, I t, I I I
.!. 'I ..I-j . ! j f I ii, 1 I I
From: SOMA iTo: Lvith ZilIo 1 Date: 12/12196 Time' 20 29 24 I . I' I :
litl, 'jll' II :1 II: 1,1 ii' ":) , "I
III ',I 01 "I I I I I ' I
, 'II ,f' I I I, : " I, II ' II" : ' I
~ ' t I l ,I I i I I , I I II I
f: t \1 1 ' t I ,I, I.
I ~VE THE UNDEHSIGNED 'ARE' OPPOSED TC) THE PROl~OSAL BY THE CHULi
: I !
'VISTA CITY 'COUNCIL TO BAN SELF-SERVICE DISPLAYS FOR TOBACCO. WI
., 1'-0' '''''r' . ,
URGE, THE, COUNCIL TO WORK WITH RETAILERS' TO DEVELOP
,,;(' ,. 1 ).. :.
!HESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SALES TO J\iJINORS. ' I
I' '1' ' I ! ' , I
l.'!, ' i' I III 1'1 ' , !:,I ' I [1
II'NAM,E (IlrinfL ,I ~:rRI~ET .0DDI~I'~~~ / CTfV___-'....._._____ I SIGNATURE
, II, :'1' , II I ------,-,-
'IIII! ,,', III I:
['1/ I, ' ~ of ~
,'.:!II I I' I' ~Jd(-e,:~~,(5
" "" I II
I' ,I' I I'
"1 I,
i ! 2] I" , ::
, I I i Ii, i II
'i'!I:I"I"~" ,I
I I I I · "
('ill II I:"_~!;','I:I:
. ~3;1,;d' I 1'1
[:1 i II
, ia/J;Jg~:
I 1, I I ,:.., J , ~,Il -,,-
I. .~ ': '_f~~. _ _ .~, ._t,~...
I II
I II!'
! i~ 5. ;
. i'!
\ri:-i III'
! 1'1'
16'1'
, , I
'il i '
I: ~,
'lj I
7:, '
, :11
II;
!II
8;11 '
\11 i
, :\
1'1
I il \
, I
P 09 ",fa': f? '
, '
"
, t . !U\,-~tt
I' ,I
I I 'I"l
:11' '
I,
j :11,
" ,"
1 :', J
, I
1
I! '
,I, . I I 1
, I I I"
I:, 'I , 1 ' ,
I i:I' :'~, I 1 I ,I' I : ;
! ~' \:. ',;~/~?~~ P, :i-//~ ~~ i
1'1'1' -<('1"' ~l~ /(/ /I(
I,' !I ,",
"I Ii
II
"
II i
,/~
_t..;.....i
" ,1'
,'n,l.
1 J,'
....... ..,,:.
I.
I"'l
" i
I "
, ,
. "J'
, ,
c./r;/;l#
,
'4"" r.-i
. '..;
'i
il
I
" , II ' , I
I I Ii I ' .: I
" , 1 I, -, ',I II I "
__ ;~__.'. ,~_Q'p4 '; 9191/ I
Ii, . .
<- ('~i,V::C, 9/9/(
, ' ,
~-=-+H'! '1.1:
,. i" I It: "
: "i~ ill'l : ,I _i_ .jl)1 \ 'I)
I , "i. ,'[ " ,I:
I j II P, . . 11 .." I
, ,
~~..:_ L~;P ,..~ ..~, :: ~ (2 L/.
-" Iii ~,~,'~i\--I" -",' - '"
II " .;, II 1[,
, I I: i~ I i! Ir,:, I':'
'i I ':1' I'
.: I I'
"1
"
,I
, I'
U/'/5 ~rd
I I
','~' "-
, ,,>, 1 ~J--~~'
, I'~~-=-----
, ~: :;' , . ii'
!,CI~'.i II'
, I G,.l : /7 I "'J" t,
'!<'3L~ll < ._"I~_
I I"III~I:,:,
, ! 1 I I' i ~ 0 I j ,I l' \ ;.
I' I I I ' . I','
I I:: !:j ';,Lb'
I: "
,I
I,
,j
I
, I'
, I
: II
,<:::',4.-( 1/9'1
,
~ I
::1
I:
,
I . I '
, '1/ ' "I'I:!
,11',' '" I
* ~ I I ~
, I,
,
From: ;;OMA TQ: L~ith Zilla
'I i'"
, I'i ! I '
; [I I
I' '
. i
I
I I'
I
1i
I Oato: 12112/96 Timo: 20:29:24
\,
:1
Pag.lolt I
,
WE THE UNDERSiGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL BY THE CHULf
I, I ' '
'V:ISTA CITY COUNCIL TO BAN SELF,.SERVICE I.HSPLA YS FOR 'rOBACCO. WI
, URGE THE COUNCIL TO WORK WITH RETAILERS TO DEVELOp:.
.I ,r .
RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SALES TO MINORS.
II
'i 'I
,
l, .
'NAME (Ilrint)
0ZJL~cL ~\'I \ I(~rci I ~Il u ~l\dLV~A~ \)
I : ,)',11, G;k ~I,' '1')(\ '1 \'stb\Cf) CJ i:l ):'~,V':-,;} 1 ~ ~,j '1':: I ;1, · ,J) I
II' '::,11 I', 'II' 'I , '. : :1 :;, ~/',<Y!G(:,I- 1'1,' ;i ',:,11i :
::t,' ," I\J~h/Y\ KO'-fbc\ II' :! I '1'1 I' , 'I'
, " I'. ~. _.---' I ' ,r 'Y';?i I I I, I
" , I I" -- : !'- ,=.:-r--eJ,.....1': ,T! I ,i;,
'~.. ~!&c::;Jt;i::l4-~~{~1 L' !
..~.~ '__ ,..~,_ ~.~i1j(::l_l]lcj1L!!IfI/
1ox~ttP!t;r7:; ,I . I
,. ,-./- ~.~. :--' _~4."' "j:Jtt/L~_fJL.&1 flt;!/
, d . -.- .
: 1{,U5:'5r=:L-L-- JC) IJ.1,-F'::>0 rJ . ~
'l ~., .' 'J ',(.~ H' ,-" r t/ d4 111//
?iii' ~ ~~(d\-':: '- /A _ d ':;''-:.. .-- tj,.. ... "
-~~ OMvT~ ~~ "
" .' .'~ /"~' ~ r4"r,/IJ;> ..A ~ '\ l{' ')
, (]/I (IV 1 . / ' (' I ^ ,e.
_ V_I '2=C..,.A.. ~
'9"1~;A'/1L~.,\
7/'1/"' , ~I
, p
1
I- I I >,
", ~;~~~ t'~ nuiQV~i<,
.,i~.;' /:- ~.": ':: ~:'~..~,' /~:,' > '
~"CJ ~~ G:-6L\ . CyCf ( (
I. )\-!') . l,'
, :. I
I. '
I.
4., i
,
i i
': 5'i
!'''', I'
1 '
6.
"
! I'
I I
7'1 !
I ,
..1 I.
, I
I II
IS.
t
I :
;, J
,
!
I
ST H Ii: E T ..b D D \3. E~~liTI..L-._...._.__-,___...:'i.U;;_~ A lJj ~f:
,
I':, li ! i 111:1
I : 1 ,I
I "I!
I'i I
,
"
: I
II
'i I
,
, !
I
, If
,
I I
, I I
, ,I, I
I ,
)~,i'
(, 'I t
" ,
1 ': ~:
",II'j
. ' i"
'1"1 ;
From: SOMA To: Laith Zilla
! il"
: I
I
WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE: PROPOSAL BY THE CHULI
'VIS)' A CITY COUNCIL TO BAN SELFlI-SERVICE DISPLAYS FOR TOBACCO. WI
I. . 1 .
URGE, THE COUNCIL TO WORK WITH RETAILERS TO DEVELOP .
.I J' -.! I I., i .
RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM TO STOP SALES TO MINORS.
t' -- - - '. 11
I '
,
Date: 12112/913 Time: 20:29:24
,
?agn'Yor.f)
~ u
"
. NAME (print)
I
t. I ~';\ ""'\'S'\.D';;,,~~
I, [' .. I I . .' I I
I l .~"'::,'.._ :-::J.~.~")., - I
'III " ,. . '~--. ',I I
Q' ; II' ~~~ ~\";,,\:!ll ~,' ~\~~"
II I " II I " I ' ' I!I I, ,I' I.' ,
~ / P'+U7UO " /}, ,j~rJl1l2..j)- 11! :
III ; .,< ,.:.:.-...... ~',j ~ - '.~ ..1)'
H, . X~~I---U,,\.~~ [4. 0/'1i(
I :'
STIU:ET ADDRE~S I CI'I:.!.....~__._______.SlGNATV1~E
i
~~~~,~~.
I'" I
, ,III
I'
',I,ll
~ I,
~'l'
I
'i i ,i ,I
I, II 1\
. II i. I
, 11'1,11'
I' , II ~i i t I
,
I ~ i
:1,
,I
I,
I '
I'i
[I;
, ' ,
, , ,
) ')
! ,
II
,
,'11
I I"
, .
I,
I
,
31,
II
,11"
,1\
4'1
I
roD 'I
~
., 5.
".~
i'..
"oI':~
;1,
I ,
I
'I
i 6,j I
11 'I'
, i
I I
" :
\, 7. ,
I 'I
I,i
I' I j
, 'I
8.
1,,1
I I ,
I
I
I
._--'
"
"
I '
I
~M~~@:~~)~7
. 0/;,) ;;;;,/'~ 5'
. { . 4/.
. /7/0"' '_I
,I,
I
~~~
;"-;;'-/' / ~y-
_-.!..::...~rF/
I I
~--=~-~=--~-,-
,
i
I
, '
, ,
II
'I
I
I
1
II
I
'[' ,I 'I
I[ ,
I I I
,
, ,
\1
,
I
d:
'il
, i
I
I'
"
I
'I
'I
" ;
t',2..)
h
"
I
'.
"
!
, I
r", _ 9
L:=,
December 5, 1996
70 El Rancho Vista
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
ChuJa Vista, Ca.,91910
Dear Mayor Hurton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding ChuJa Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
I. Enforcing photo ID check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco.
Sincerely,
dU\i4'!:"2(.aJ'JrI"//( /?IN:~
Christine A. Smith Malone
t -It(
t -"-
Jack & Tina Matthias
450 Flower STreet
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1" i ~.,ge I .Z. i'.', ,j
bc....~. i'
< V'.'.'.~' \ '" " '-~,::; =~
6,.___.. ",.1' ,'~
-~"..~..'
Chula Vista City Council
276 4th Ave
Chula Vista, Ca.,9191 0
Dear Mayor Horton and Council:
I wish to express my support of Councilman Padilla's efforts regarding Chula Vista's Tobacco Ordinance.
I support all efforts to make cigarette access to minors as difficult as possible.
Specifically;
I. Enforcing photo ID check at the time of tobacco purchase.
2. Requiring tobacco products remain in original packaging to maintain proper warning labels.
3. Prohibiting the use of tobacco vending machines in the City ofChula Vista..
4. Eliminating self service purchasing of tobacco products.
5. Banning tobacco advertisement displays in store windows.
Let us join communities such as Poway and Coronado and establish new, tough ordinances that will help
deter our youth from tobacco.
Sincerely,
t. "if
CXTY COUNCXL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM 1
MEETING DATE: 12/17/96
1'Y5,u
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution
Amending Resolution No. 15961 as has been Amended
by Resolution Nos. 15998 and 16044 to Add
Designated Employees to the Conflict of Interest
Code Appendix
SUBMITTED BY. City Attorney
4/SthB Vote. Yes__No X
The Political Reform Act requires every local government
Conflict of Interest Code biennially to determine if
alternatively, that the Code must be amended.
agency to review its
it is accurate or,
The City Council is the code reviewing body for the city agencies and any other
local government agency whose jurisdiction is solely within the City.
BOARDS/COMMISSION ACTION. N/A
RECOMMENDATION. Adopt the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND.
In conjunction with a review of Personnel records, it is recommended that the
fOllowing positions be added as Designated positions.
Deputy City Attorneys, Animal Control Manager, Assistant to the
Mayor and Council, Business Office Manager, "BECA Contract Manager,
SEBe Manager, BECA Director, Conservation Coordinator, Development
Projects Manager, Environmental Resource Manager, Library Automation
Manager, Principal Management Analyst, and Senior Economic
Development specialist.
The following positions are presently Designated Positions, but have had title
changes since the last amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code:
Code Enforcement Officers, Budget Manager,
Development specialist, Senior Parks Supervisor,
civil Engineer and Fleet Manager.
Senior Economic
Revenue Manager,
If amendments to the City's Code whose jurisdiction is solely within the City are
necessary, the Code must be forwarded to the City Council for approval by
December 29, 1996. An agency's amended code is not effective until it has been
approved by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT. N/A
C:\a113\conflict,cod
7-/
/1]'5,,2 ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 15961 AS
HAS BEEN AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 15998 AND
16044 TO ADD DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES TO THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE APPENDIX
WHEREAS, on December 18, 1990, the City Council approved
a new Conflict of Interest Code in resolution form by Resolution
No. 15961, to be effective upon repeal of the existing ordinance
version of the Conflict of Interest Code for the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, the City Council approved
Resolution No. 15998 amending Resolution No. 15961 to add Senior
Planners and Charter Review Commission members to the Appendix
thereto, along with establishing their disclosure categories; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 1991, the City Council approved
Resolution 16044 amending Resolution No. 15961 by adding to the
Appendix thereof the Board of Library Trustee members as designated
employees with Disclosure Categories 2, 6 and 7; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that the
positions of Deputy city Attorneys, Animal Control Manager,
Assistant to the Mayor and council, Code Enforcement Officers,
Budget Manager, Business Office Manager, BECA Contract Manager,
BEBC Manager, BECA Director, Conservation Coordinator, Development
Projects Manager, Environmental Resource Manager, Fleet Manager,
Library Automation Manager, Senior Parks Supervisor, Principal
Management Analyst, Revenue Manager, and Senior Economic
Development Specialist also shall be Designated Employees within
particular disclosure categories.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby amend Resolution No. 15961 as has
been amended by Resolution Nos. 15998 and 16044 by adding the
designated positions so that the Appendix to the Conflict of
Interest Code now reads as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments effected by
this resolution shall become effective January 16, 1997.
Presented and Approved as to form by
'~'~mC-./7_/- _~.,7
~ ' . . -. , <-~ /J.-t1A:.,' ~-
John .' ~eny, City A4-orney d in
7-2
APPENDIX A
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
1. Mayor, Councilmembers/Chairman
Members of Redevelopment Agency
2. city Manager/Executive Director
3. city Attorney/Agency Attorney
4. Finance Director/Chief Financial
Officer
5. Assistant Finance Director/
Agency Investor
6. Members of the Planning Commission
7. Director of Community Development/
8. city Clerk
9. Deputy city Clerk
10. Assistant City Attorneys
11. DeDuty city Attorneys
12. All other Department Heads, Assistant and
Deputy city Managers and Assistant and Deputy
Department Heads
13. Animal Control Manaqer
14. Assistant to the Mayor and Council
15. Battalion Chief
16. BEBC Manaqer
17. BECA Contract Manaaer
18. BECA Director
19. Building and Housing Inspectors (Senior, II and I)
and Code Enforcement Officers
20. Building Services Superintendent
21. Budqet Manaqer
22. Business Office Manaqer
7"';
!/
!/
!!-/
!!-/
!!-/
!!-/
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
5, 6
5, 7
3, 6
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
3, 7
3, 5, 6
5
5
23. Buyer
24. Chief Plans Examiner
25. civil Enqineer
26. Conservation Coordinator
27. DeveloDment proiects Manaaer
28. Environmental Resource Manaaer
29. Environmental Review Coordinator
30. Fleet Manaaer
31. Fire Marshal
32. Housing Coordinator
33. Open Space coordinator
34. Open Space Inspector
35. Landscape Architect
36. Librarv Automation Manaaer
37. Permit Engineer
38. Plans Examiner
39. Police captain
40. Principal community Development Specialist
41. Principal Librarian
42. PrinciDal Manaaement Analvst
43. principal Management Assistant
44. Principal Planner
45. Public Information Coordinator
46. Public Works Inspector (Senior, I and II)
47. Public Works Maintenance Superintendent
48. purchasing Agent
49. Redevelopment Coordinator
1, 7
3
3, 4, 5
3, 4, 6, 7
3, 4, 6, 7
3, 4, 6, 7
3, 4
5, 6
3, 6
3, 4, 7
4, 6
4, 6
2, 4, 7
5, 7
3, 4, 6
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
3, 4, 6, 7
6
5, 7
5, 7
1, 2, 7
4, 5
3, 4
3, 5, 6
1, 7
3, 4, 6, 7
?~ If
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Revenue Manaqer
Risk Manager
Senior Accountant
Senior civil Engineer
Senior Economic Development Specialist
senior Parks Supervisor
Senior Planner
Transit Coordinator
Traffic Engineer
Board of Appeals and Advisors Members
Board of Ethics Members
Board of Library Trustee Members
Charter Review commission Members
Civil Service Commission Members
commission on Aging Members
Design Review committee Members
Economic Development commission Members
Growth Management oversight Committee Members
Human Relations Commission Members
International Friendship commission Members
otay Valley Road Project Committee Members
Parks and Recreation Commission Members
Resource conservation commission Members
Safety commission Members
Southwest Project Area Committee Members
Town Centre Project Area Committee Members
7.. f'
1, 2, 7
1, 7
3
3, 4, 5
3, 4, 6, 7
3, 6
2, 4, 7
5, 7
3, 4, 5
2,5
1, 2, 7
2, 6, 7
1, 2, 7
3
1, 7
2, 4, 7
1, 2, 7
2, 4, 7
2, 7
1, 7
3, 7
2, 4, 7
2, 4, 7
2, 7
3, 7
3, 7
76. Consultants
If designated in their
contracts, for the
categories specified in
their contracts by
Council, the Agency, City
Manager/Executive
Director, or Purchasing
Agent.
~/ As required by Government Code SS87200-872120. Included for
disqualification purposes only. See Government Code S87200
for disclosure requirements.
Note: Underscored positions are added and/or job title changes.
7'/,
Item
Meding Date 12117/96
~'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
/'
. ITEM TITLE: Resolution / F~5 ..2 ;J
A. Eliminating the annual mandatory unpaid leave reinstating salary
reductions for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers and City
Council and appropriating funds therefor
/y.ot.
B. Amending the fringe benefit resolution for the Unrepresented
employees and appropriating funds therefor
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager~
(4/5ths Vote: YesXXNo->
At the July 11, 1995 City Council meeting, an annual mandatory furlough program was
instituted for all Executives, Middle Managers, City Council and the Unrepresented group. This
was implemented to maintain consistency with the Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA)
recently approved MOU. The implementation of this mandatory furlough had the impact of
reducing affected employees salaries by 1. 92 % . It is recommended that this salary reduction
be eliminated for Executives, Middle Managers and City Council for the current fiscal year and
then fully eliminating the mandatory furlough program for 1997-98. It is also recommended
that the furlough program remain for the Unrepresented group, at their request, and that a $600
stipend be paid to each member and that bilingual pay for their members be increased
commensurate with CVEA.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the proposed resolution eliminating the
mandatory unpaid furlough for Executives, Middle Managers and City Council for FY 1996-97,
reimbursing those employees for reductions taken to date while maintaining the 40 leave hours
for the current fiscal year (1996-97) and fully eliminating this program for 1997-98; creating a
$4,000 discretionary fund to address salary inequities; granting the Unrepresented group a
stipend of $600 and an increase in bilingual pay from $35 to $40 per month; and appropriating
funds therefor.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As a result of lengthy negotiations with CVEA which ended in the implementation of an
enhancement to the retirement plan, it was agreed that a mandatory unpaid 40 hour work
furlough would be instituted. As a result of this agreement the mandatory furlough was
extended to include Western Council of Engineers, Executive Managers, Middle Managers, City
Council and Unrepresented employees. Specifically excluded were Executives and Middle
Managers who are not part of the Miscellaneous retirement program or Safety retirement
members.
~"I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 1/23/95
The program, implemented beginning in July of 1995, gave employees a bank of 40 furlough
leave hours. Employees could take 8 of this total any time during the year with approval of
their department head. The remaining 32 hours were mandated to be used for the 4 days
between the Christmas and New Years hard holidays. The City would close completely during
the mandatory leave days and the two hard holidays. Only essential city services continued
during this time period, such as safety and some library and recreation programs.
Employees in the classification of Executive, Middle Management and Unrepresented employees
are not covered by an MOU, but rather are granted adjustments to salary and benefits levels by
an amending resolution. Often these changes follow those which have been granted to CVEA
and WCE. All five groups have not been granted a salary increase since December of 1992,
when an across the board 5% was implemented. During this same time period these groups,
however, were given an increase in retirement benefits from a 2 % at 60 plan to a 2 % at 55 plan.
The implementation of the unpaid furlough was in part to create savings to pay for the increased
cost of the new retirement plan.
The cost to eliminate the salary reduction which funded the furlough for the each of the groups
is as follows:
Total
$ 2,240
$ 51,808
$ 69.577
$123,625
City Council
Executive Management
Middle Management
As was also recommended to Council, an additional $4,000 discretionary fund is requested to
be set aside for use by the City Manager to address certain salary inequity issues as well as to
maintain the City's competitive position regarding certain key positions. This process has been
used in the past very successfully and it is recommended to be continued.
The Unrepresented group has requested that the furlough remain and has requested a one-time
stipend of $600 to each of their 14 members. This stipend will not apply to any employee not
in an Unrepresented class on December 10, 1996. As part of the request for the Unrepresented
group it is also recommended that the Bi-lingual pay be increased from $35 to $40 per month,
the same as authorized for CVEA members. The total cost of this increase is $8,580.
One issue that has not been addressed and is an issue that has been brought up since we talked
to the City Council last Tuesday is that of the safety personnel included in the middle
management group. These include three Battalion Chiefs and the Fire Marshal. The 1.92%
salary reduction was not applied to these positions since they receive a different PERS retirement
plan and they were not affected by the furlough. These positions are more closely aligned with
those classifications represented by the IAFF, who negotiated complete pickup of their PERS
contribution (9%) in their MOU for 1996-97. For the middle management fire safety positions,
~"'...2-
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 1/23/95
the City only pays 7% of the employee contribution to PERS. Since we are recommending the
reinstatement of the 1.92% for other middle managers, it may be appropriate as a matter of
equity to pick up the remaining 2 % employee share of the PERS contribution, which would be
a similar increase to that accorded other middle managers and would provide the same benefit
as the fire fighters receive. The cost of providing this benefit retroactive to the beginning of the
fiscal year is $5,692.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is recommended that the funding for the salary and benefit adjustments be appropriated from
the unappropriated balance of the general fund based on unanticipated revenue received this
fiscal year. Specific funding which has been received but was not included in the adopted
budget is $247,250 from Bonds issued by the city on behalf of SDG&E. The approval of the
resolutions will not amend the salary plan nor the salaries budgeted for the affected positions,
as the savings from the 1.92 % reduction were reflected only in the Non-departmental budget.
It is recommended that $136,205 be appropriated to the 5108 account in Non-Departmental
budget (0730). An additional $5,692 would need to be appropriated if the 2% PERS pick up
is approved for safety middle managers.
M: Ihomeladmin lidglbennies
8'~
RESOLUTION NO. 18523
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ELIMINATING THE ANNUAL MANDATORY
UNPAID LEAVE REINSTATING SALARY REDUCTIONS FOR
EXECUTIVE MANAGERS, MID-MANAGERS AND CITY
COUNCIL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS,
annual mandatory
Executives, Middle
group; and
at the July 11, 1995 city Council meeting, an
furlough program was instituted for all
Managers, City Council and the Unrepresented
WHEREAS, this was implemented to maintain consistency
with the Chula vista Employees Association (CVEA) recently approved
MOU; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of this mandatory furlough
had the impact of reducing affected employees salaries by 1.92%;
and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that this salary reduction be
eliminated for Executives, Middle Managers and City Council for the
current fiscal year while maintaining the 40 hour leave hours, then
fully eliminating this program for 1997-98; and
WHEREAS, as a matter of equity, it is recommended to pick
up the remaining 2% employee share of the PERS contribution for the
three Battalion Chiefs and the Fire Marshal, which would be a
similar increase to that accorded other middle managers and would
provide the same benefits as the fire fighters receive, at a cost
of $5,692.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby eliminate the mandatory unpaid
furlough for Executive Managers, Mid-Managers and City Council for
the current fiscal year (1996-97) and reimburse those employees for
reductions taken to date while maintaining the 40 leave hours for
the current fiscal year (1996-97).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $133,317 is
hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the general
fund based on unanticipated revenue received this year to the 5108
account in Non-Departmental budget (0730).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a $4,000 discretionary fund
for salary increases is hereby created.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
y#--
City Att
John D. Goss, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 18'..5'.2.'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFIT
RESOLUTION FOR THE UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS,
annual mandatory
Executives, Middle
group; and
at the July 11, 1995 city Council meeting, an
furlough program was instituted for all
Managers, city Council and the Unrepresented
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the furlough program
remain for the Unrepresented Group and that a $600 stipend be paid
to each member and that the bilingual pay be increased to $40 per
month, commensurate with CVEA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend the fringe benefit resolution
for the Unrepresented employees as set forth in Attachment "A" to
increase the bilingual pay to $40 per month, and that a $600
stipend be paid to each of their 14 members employed in an
Unrepresented class on December 10, 1996.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $8,580 is
hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the general
fund based on unanticipated revenue received this year to the 5108
account in Non-Departmental budget (0730).
Presented by
Approved as to form by
C:\r8\furlough.no
~
John D. Goss, city Manager
8' g., /
ATTACHMENT "A"
EXECUTIVE, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND UNREPRESENTED
FRINGE BENEFIT COMPENSATION
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
III. UNREPRESENTED GROUP
A. Membership
BEBC Administrative Assistant/Office Manager
California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) Analyst
California Border Alliance Group (CBAG) Secretary
Confidential Administrative Secretary
Confidential Bi-lingual Secretary
Deputy City Clerk
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Legal Assistant
Personnel Analyst
Receptionist/Mayor and Council Assistant
Risk Analyst
Secretary to the Assistant City Manager
Secretary to the City Attorney
Secretary to the Mayor/City Council
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency
Training Coordinator
B. Fringe Benefits
1. Retirement
The City will pay the 7% employee's contribution to the Public Employees
Retirement System.
2. Deferred Compensation Plans
(A) Employees in the Unrepresented group may participate in the City's
approved deferred compensation plans.
(B) There will be a cap of 25% of the adjusted flex plan balance which
may be used for deferred compensation, provided the employee
has contributed a like amount during the same fiscal year.
8'8r~
3. Flexible Benefit Plan
Effective 7/1/93, the Unrepresented Group will receive $5380 each annually
to be used for the purchase of employee benefits as specified in the CVEA
Memorandum of Understanding for FY 1993-94, and any additional uses
approved by City Council.
4. Health and Dental Payroll Deductions Treated as Pre-Tax
Under Sections 125, 105, and 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, the City
will treat all payroll deductions for health and dental care on a pre-tax
basis, unless an affected ernployee requests that such deductions be
taxed. If the City does not rneet IRS regulations or if the IRS regulations
change for any reason, this benefit may be discontinued.
5. Medical Premium Retirement Benefit Plan
The City will offer a medical premium retirement benefit plan, under Section
457 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code, through the JPEBA, Joint Powers
Employees Benefit Authority (or an equivalent plan). This program will
provide employees the option of making unlimited pre-tax contributions
from their wages to pre-fund post-retirement health insurance premium
costs for themselves and their dependents. Since IRS Section 457(f)
requires restrictions on the program that can result in forfeiture of the
contributions to the City for specified reasons, employees are advised to
carefully review the information that will be provided on the program prior
to deciding whether or when to participate.
Participating employees will pay the participant costs (currently $24 per
year). If the City does not meet IRS regulations or if the IRS regulations
change for any reason, this benefit maybe discontinued.
6. Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA's)
Employees may elect to budget by salary reduction, for certain health and
dependent care reimbursements on a pre-tax basis. The rules governing
FSA's are contained in the Internal Revenue Code. If IRS regulations
change or the City does not met IRS regulations, this benefit may be
discontinued.
(A) Health Care FSA - Employees may reduce their salary up to $2,500
to pay for eligible health related expenses. Salary reductions not
spent by the end of the plan year, by law, are forfeited to the City.
(B) Dependent Care FSA - Employees may reduce their salary up to
$5,000 to pay for eligible dependent care. Salary reductions not
spent by the end of the plan year, by law, are forfeited to the City.
(C) FSA Administration - Participating employees will pay the monthly,
per employee or per transaction administration fees, if any.
8'/1-;]
7. Long Term Disability Insurance
The City will pay the full cost of the long term disability insurance premium
for the Unrepresented group.
8. Professional Enrichment
A total of $2,250 will be set aside, outside the flex plan, for professional
enrichment. Professional enrichment may be used for conferences and
training. An individual may use no more than $200 per fiscal year.
9. Life Insurance
City pays for life insurance policy in the amount of $17,000 each. An
additional $3,000 group term life insurance policy is included in the flexible
benefits plan.
10. PERS
The PERS 1959 Survivors Benefits Third Level employee premium cost per
month will be paid by the City.
11. Sick Leave Reimbursement
Sick leave shall accrue and be reimbursed as designated in the Civil
Service Rules, Chapter 2.00, Section 2.02.
12. Vacation
Unrepresented employees earn ten days vacation per year in the first
through fourth year of continuous employment, fifteen days vacation per
year in the fifth through fifteenth year of continuous service, and twenty
days per year after completion of fifteen years of continuous service. An
employee may not accumulate more than three times the number of
vacation days accrued annually. Unrepresented employees who have in
excess of the three year limit will have until June 9, 1994, to reduce their
vacation balance to the three year maximum. Any vacation time in excess
of the three year maximum on June 10, 1994, will be transferred to an
excess vacation account where it will remain available for use or cash out
upon separation from City service, at the employee's option. From that
time forward, no vacation credits in excess of the three year maximum will
be accrued. Accumulated unused vacation credits remaining upon
separation from City service shall be paid off in cash.
13. Holidays
The Unrepresented group will be credited 4 normal work days each fiscal
yearforfloating holidays (Lincoln's and Washington Birthday's, Admissions
Day, and Veteran's Day). Floating holiday time will be pro-
rated at time of hire based on which of the four holidays have not yet
passed. Floating holiday time must be used within the fiscal year for which
&>'8''1
it is credited and will not be accumulated from year to year. Floating
holiday time in an employee's last fiscal year of City employment will be
pro-rated based on which of the four holidays have passed at the time of
separation from City service. Employees who have not used this pro-rated
amount of floating holiday time for their last fiscal year shall be paid off in
cash for the unused amount upon separation. Employees who use floating
holiday time and leave City service before the holiday passes will be
charged for such time.
The City will be closed on the following paid hard holidays: Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Day after Thanksgiving, Christmas, New
Year's Day, Memorial Day.
14. Mileage Reimbursement
As specified in FY 93-94 CVEA Memorandum of Understanding.
15. Bilingual Pay
Those employees who, upon recommendation of the department head,
approval of the Personnel Department, and successful completion of a
Bilingual Performance Evaluation, are required to continuously use their
bilingual skills in the performance of their duties, will receive $40 per month
in addition to their regular pay.
16. Miscellaneous
The following provIsions of the FY 1993-94 CVEA Memorandum of
Understanding shall apply to the Unrepresented group:
Section 2.01 B
Section 2.01C
Section 2.22 -
Acting Pay
Job Sharing
Career Advancement
[WP:MISC\B-F-B.93.94]
8"e~3
SUBMITTED BY:
Item_'l.
Meeting Date 12117/96
Resolution jllPtprOving the Memorandum of
Understanding concerning wages and other conditions of
employment with the Western Council of Engineers for FY
1995/96 thru FY 1997/98 and appropriating funds.
Dave Byers, City Chief Negotiator for WCE~
(j
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 'p (4/5ths Vote: Yes---X-No_)
Negotiating teams representing the City and the Western Council of Engineers (WCE)
have reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering FY
1995/96 thru FY 1997/98. The proposed MOU was ratified by WCE members on
December 12, 1996. The major terms and conditions of the proposed MOU are
highlighted below.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the MOU with
WCE and appropriating the funds required for FY 96-97.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: City and WCE representatives began meeting in May 1996, in an
effort to come to agreement on terms and conditions of employment for FY 1995-96.
On December 11, 1996, City and WCE representatives reached tentative agreement on
an agreement covering the period July 7, 1995 through July 2, 1998. On December 12,
1996, WCE members ratified the agreement. All changes to the exiSting terms and
conditions of employment are within Council Guidelines.
The changes contained in the new terms and conditions of employment for WCE
members are as follows:
. Wal!es: FY 96/97 the stipend is changed from $250 to $325.
FY97/98 the 4% cap as applied to the survey is removed.
. Mileal!e: FY 96/97 Increase the rate by three cents per mile for each of
the three mileage categories. The top rate would change from $0.26 per
mile to $0.29 per mile.
. Work Week: The City agrees to a side letter in which a commitment is
made to attempt to exempt those eligible WCE members from the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) for the purpose of allowing them to work a 9/80 work
schedule. WCE recognizes that not all of their members will be able to be
exempted.
. Deferred Comp Flex Amount: The amount of the flexible benefit plan
allowed to be contributed to deferred comp is increased to 25%.
. Professional emichment: The total amount in the fund remains at
$5,500 for FY 96/97, but the amount allowed per employee per year is
increased to $250. For the term of the MOU, should the number of WCE
9-/
Page 2, ltem___
Meeting Date 12/17/96
represented employees increase above 22, then the City agrees to increase
the fund by $250 for each represented employee above that number.
. Sick Leave Reimbursement: Sick leave reimbursement on a prorated basis
will be allowed in the event a represented employee were laid off.
o Work Fur1oul!:h: Beginning with FY 96/97 (as of July 96), the Work
Furlough for WCE members is eliminated, which will restore the 1.92% to
their salaries which the five days of furlough represents. Should WCE
members wish to take off during the furlough period between Christmas
and New Years' Days, they will be required to use vacation or other
authorized leave.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this MOD is within the guidelines established
by Council. The additional funds that will be required for Fiscal Years 96-97 and 97-
98 are as follows:
o FY 1996-97 $24,075
o FY 1997-98 $24,500
The funds for FY 96-97 are appropriated in the accompanying resolution. The funds
for FY 97-98 will be included in the proposed Budget presented to Council in the
Spring of 1997.
9 " 2..
RESOLUTION NO.
11'5'/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-
STANDING CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE WESTERN
COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Management Negotiation Team representing the
city Manager of the City of Chu1a Vista, acting for and on behalf
of the City council of the City of Chula vista, have heretofore met
and conferred with the Chula Vista Chapter, Western council of
Engineers, an organization representing certain members of the
classified employees in the city of Chula Vista, in accordance with
the provisions of section 3500 et seq. of the Government Code of
the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding jointly prepared
by said parties as a result of meeting and conferring in good faith
includes the following recommended changes:
Waqes:
FY 96/97: The stipend is changed from $250 to $325
FY 97/98: The 4% cap as applied to the survey is
removed.
Mileaqe: FY 96/97: Increase the rate by three cents per mile
for each of the three mileage categories.
The tope rate would change from $0.26 per
mile to $0.29 per mile.
The city agrees to a side letter in which a
commitment is made to attempt to exempt those
eligible WCE members from the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) for the purpose of
allowing them to work a 9/80 work schedule.
WCE recognizes that not all of their members
will be able to be exempted.
Work Week:
Deferred Comp
Flex Amount:
Professional
Enrichment:
The amount of the flexible benefit plan
allowed to be contributed to deferred comp is
increased to 25%.
The total amount in the fund remains at $5,500
for FY 96/97, but the amount allowed per
employee per year is increased to $250. For
the term of the MOU, should the number of WCE
represented employees increase above 22, then
the city agrees to increase the fund by $250
for each represented employee above that
number.
9" :3
sick Leave
Reimbursement:
sick leave reimbursement on a prorated basis
will be allowed in the event a represented
employee is laid off.
Work Furlouqh: Beginning with FY 96/97, the Work Furlough for
WCE members is eliminated, which will restore
the 1.92% to their salaries which the five
days of furlough represents. Should WCE
members wish to take off during the furlough
period between Christmas and New Year's Day,
they will be required to use vacation or other
authorized leave.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Memorandum of
Understanding concerning wages and other terms and conditions of
employment with the Western Council of Engineers for Fiscal Year
1995/96 through Fiscal Year 1997/98.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $24,075 is hereby
appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the general fund
based on unanticipated revenue received this fiscal year to the
following accounts:
0730-5108
1401-5225
$23,775
300
$24,075
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Dave Byers, city Chief
Negotiator for WCE
C:\rs\wce
9 --'/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
/t?
MEETING DATE 12/17/96
'1'51/
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION Amending the budget to provide for salary
adjustments for certain classifications.
SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCEd
REVIEWED BY, CITY MANAGE~ (4I51h Vote, YosX No_]
Each year departments submit requests for review of individual positions to determine if
the duties and responsibilities assigned to that position are consistent with those detailed
in the corresponding job description. Each such request is assigned to a Personnel
Analyst for an indepth job analysis, which includes a statement of duties, completed by the
incumbent and reviewed and approved by the supervisor and Department Head; meetings
with the incumbent and supervisor to more closely examine individual job functions, and
determine the necessity and appropriateness of each; a review of salary level in
comparison to classifications within Chula Vista's classification plan and to comparable
classifications (if available) in other public agencies of similar size and structure. A final
recommendation is then made via the Director of Human Resources to the City Manager
and subsequently to the City Council.
Approximately a year ago, as part of the 1996/97 budget process, requests to reclassify
certain positions were submitted. At the time of adoption of the budget, these
classification studies had not been completed and it was anticipated that staff would return
to Council with recommendations regarding these positions within several months. The
goal was to return with these studies, and appropriate recommendations, by July 1 st, but
the studies were not completed until August 2nd. It is recommended that these proposed
increases be implemented by that date except where reclassifications were submitted at
a later date or the position is currently vacant and therefore these reflect a different
effective date. Also, because of the elapsed time, these employees (where the position
is currently filled) have been working out-of-c1ass for some period of time and, as a matter
of equity and morale these reclassifications are recommended to be implemented as
proposed.
The recommendations presented below are no less significant than those addressed in the
budget document, though, for a variety of reasons, they were not presented at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution amending the budget to provide for
classification/salary adjustments as specified below.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
/~ ../
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
DISCUSSION:
At the time Personnel Analysts were conducting classification studies as part of the budget
process, the same staff also undertook a comprehensive study of the professional
Planning series (Senior Planner, Associate Planner and Assistant Planner). This involved
meeting with all incumbents to determine duties, levels of responsibility, etc., as well as the
conduct of external salary surveys and internal salary comparisons.
Since the Planning Department study was extensive, it was anticipated that at the
conclusion of that study, recommendations would be presented to Council accompanied
by recommendations to resolve several other outstanding classification issues. Due to a
number of factors influencing Planning Department staffing (pending retirements, vacant
positions, and possible restructuring), completion of that study has been delayed.
However, the other classification adjustments recommended below are issues that staff
believes should be addressed as soon as possible.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/OPERATIONS DIVISION
Current Title: Administrative Office Assistant I
# of positions in classification: 2
Recommendation
Title: Administrative Office Specialist
Position Status: Filled
Current E-Step Salary: $22,230
Proposed E-Step Salary: $29,157
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $6,927
% Increase: 31 %
ANALYSIS - In 1990, the newly created position of Administrative Office Assistant
I was first filled. It quickly became apparent that the duties were above the
Administrative Office Assistant I level, however, the incumbent proved to have
escalating performance problems that made evaluation of the duties and
responsibilities extremely difficult. That incumbent left the City in 1993. Since no
evaluation had been conducted, the position was again filled at the Administrative
Office Assistant I level. It is now apparent to staff that the duties are well above the
Page. 2
/~ . :l.
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Administrative Office Assistant I level due to increase of the City's infrastructure and
population and the resulting increase in number and complexity of complaints
processed by this position.
What has lead directly to the increase in level of responsibility has been a
restructuring of the clerical section of Public Works/Operations. At one point. staffing
in the section included an Administrative Office Specialist, Senior Administrative
Office Specialist. and an Administrative Office Assistant I. The two higher level
positions had responsibility for dealing with many of the citizen complaints that the
Administrative Office Assistant I currently handles. However, as the Administrative
Office Specialist was reclassified to Public Works Technician, that position has
assumed responsibility for the Work Management System. The incumbent inputs and
analyzes data, works with the Risk Analyst on claims against the City and handles
billing and the division budget. The Senior Administrative Office Specialist processes
and monitors the more complicated, lengthy purchase order's, functions as a
department secretary and handles all confidential secretarial responsibilities. This
incumbent is also time clerk for Public Works Operations, a division third only to the
Police Department and Fire Department in complexity of payroll due to the amount of
overtime, call-back and standby pay.
This leaves all reception, dispatching, and citizen complaints to be handled by the
Administrative Office Assistant I. The incumbent answers initial complaint calls,
makes a determination as to the City's responsibility or whether it more appropriately
belongs to a water district or contractor; if it is the City's responsibility, determines
whether it is the responsibility of Public Works Operations or Engineering, Animal
Control, etc.; works closely with the other utilities and ensuring that the citizen
receives the necessary service; and consistent with our philosophy of public service,
provides as much information to the citizen as possible rather than simply transferring
the call. Additionally, in many cases, the incumbent is dealing with the citizen on one
line and dispatching the appropriate Public Works/Operations crew at the same time.
The incumbent also coordinates with the appropriate Public Works supervisor in
resolving the citizen's complaint. Another primary function of this position is the
maintenance of the computer data base for citizen complaints - a system that was
established by the incumbent and maintained in order to provide easy access and a
complete record of citizen complaints received.
When comparing this position to a Administrative Office Specialist or Secretary (both
classes at the salary level proposed for this class). it becomes clear that the duties
and responsibilities are equivalent. The following chart illustrates some specific
examples of that comparability.
Page. 3 .,
)/)"'j
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Administrative Office Current duties of the Administrative Office Administrative Office
Assistant I incumbent Specialist Assistant III
Administrative Office
Assistant I
Provides routine clerical Provides difficult, Provides difficult, Difficult clerical support
support. complex or specialized complex or specialized tasks.
administrative office administrative office
support. support.
Provides receptionist Complex or difficult Complex or difficult Considerable amount of
duties. tasks. tasks. typing.
Works within established Use of independent Use of independent
guidelines. judgement. judgement.
Requires technical skills Requires technical skills Payroll, supplies.
such as dispatching, such as dispatching,
computer operations computer operations
beyond word processing. beyond word processing
except dispatching.
Interprets policies, rules Interprets policies, rules, Super-journey level
and procedures. procedures, and payroll clerical position.
responsibilities.
Recordkeeping and filing. Maintains records Maintains records
management system. management system.
Orders supplies.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/OPERATIONS DIVISION
Current Title: Custodial Services Supervisor
# of positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Title: Custodial Services Supervisor
Position Status: Filled
Current E-Step Salary: $35,143
Proposed E-Step Salary: $44,131
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $8,988
% Increase: 25.58%,
Page. 4 J
1"'7
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
ANALYSIS - Though the title of this one-position classification was changed in the
last several years from Supervising Custodian to Custodian Services Supervisor, the
salary issue was not addressed. It is now staff's opinion that there is an internal
inequity and that the compensation for the assigned duties and responsibilities is
inadequate for the level of responsibility. Since there is insufficient county wide data
to compare against, staff looked to other classifications within our internal structure.
The most appropriate comparison is to Public Works Supervisor. A Public Works
Supervisor has a span of control of typically 5 to 8 Maintenance Workers I, II, and
Senior Equipment Operators. The Custodial Services Supervisor has a span of control
of 15 to 16 including some part-time and temporary employees.
This position has grown over the past several years from one supervIsing basic
routine custodial functions to one dealing with serious personnel issues, complex
safety issues such as Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), toxicity issues,
environmental concerns, heightened safety requirements, more stringent laws relating
to chemicals and blood borne pathogen issues. Additionally, responsibility has
increased in the area of contract supervision; in particular, pest control, any
contracting out of custodial services and window cleaning.
When compared to a Public Works Supervisor, this position has at least the same
level of responsibility, a greater span of control and does not have the two
subordinate supervisory levels that the Public Works Supervisor has (Senior
Maintenance Worker and Equipment Operator). The Custodial Services Supervisor
has only a Custodian II, designed to function as a lead Custodian, not a supervisor.
An example of the level of management responsibilities assigned to this positions is
the recent termination of a Custodian II. This was a difficult, extensive discipline,
followed by a lengthy and involved Civil Service Commission hearing. The Custodial
Services Supervisor was an intergal part of the management team dealing with the
issue. Had that situation occurred in the Streets or Sewer section, a Senior Public
Works Supervisor would have been the department representative assigned to deal
with the issue.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/OPERATIONS DIVISION
Current Title: Construction Specialist II/Carpenter
# of positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Page. 5 ~/J /
,v'.:JI
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Title: Construction Specialist II/Carpenter-Locksmith
Position Status: Filled
Current E-Step Salary: $34,967
Proposed E-Step Salary: $37,590
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $2,623
% Increase: 7.5%
ANALYSIS - The impetus for this classification review was the addition of
considerable locksmith responsibilities. These newly assigned duties are essential to
the Citywide maintenance and re-keying efforts of the department and will continue
to increase both in scope and percentage of the job duties. As with the Custodial
Services Supervisor, there were no comparable positions in other agencies. An
internal comparison was difficult because there were no classifications in the City that
combined two distinctly different skilled trades. It was, however, determined that
positions in other agencies where primary responsibility is locksmithing were paid at
a higher rate than for carpenter, electrician, HV AC etc.; therefore, it is recommended
that the salary for this classification be increased 7.5% to accommodate the new,
higher level locksmith duties and that the title and job description be changed to more
accurately reflect the nature of the job.
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT/OPERATIONS DIVISION
Current Title: Supervising Tree Trimmer
# of positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Title: Supervising Tree Trimmer
Position Status: Vacant
Current E-Step Salary: $45,081
Proposed E-Step Salary: $46,840
Effective Date: December 20, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $1,759
% Increase: 3.90%
ANALYSIS - As a result of restructuring, the position of Supervising Tree Trimmer was
created late in the 1996/97 budget process. At that time, the salary was set at the level
of a Public Works Supervisor without the benefit of a classification/salary analysis.
Page. 6 I~"~
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Subsequently, staff has conducted that analysis and is recommending that the salary be
set midway between a Public Works Supervisor and Senior Public Works Supervisor.
This recommendation is based upon a number of factors. The position, when filled in the
past, was at the Senior Public Works Supervisor level. As the result of re-structuring,
there is now one less crew, a reduced span of control, and fewer personnel issues. While
it is reasonable to establish a salary somewhat lower than it has been in the past, in staff's
opinion it should be above the Public Works Supervisor level. This position will function
as the City's tree maintenance expert, (not only in street and park tree issues, but in open
space) and will focus more time on supervision, address the increasing number of citizen
complaints and become more involved in contract monitoring.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
Current Title: Permit Engineer
# of positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Title: Permit Engineer
Position Status: Filled
Current E-Step Salary: $52,396
Proposed E-Step Salary: $55,330
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $2,934
% Increase: 5.6%
ANALYSIS - In 1990 one of the Engineering Technician's II resigned and the position was
reclassified to Assistant Engineer 111I to accommodate the higher level duties and
responsibilities that were assigned. At that time, there was adequate spread between the
Permit Engineer (supervisor of the section) and the Assistant Engineer 1/11. As the
Assistant Engineer advanced from the I to the II level and subsequently obtained a 5% pay
differential for Registration (as permitted in the MOU), the spread not only narrowed, but
reversed. Currently the Assistant Engineer II is paid 0.35% MORE than the Permit
Engineer.
The department has considered several alternatives to resolve this issue, including
transferring the Assistant Engineer II to another section. However, none of the options
evaluated was appropriate due to workload, skill and knowledge level required, and cost
efficiency.
In addition to changes in the subordinate position, the duties assigned to the Permit
Page. 7 I'''' J
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Engineer have increased since 1990. Essentially, the duties and responsibilities of a
Permit Engineer are the same as those of Civil Engineers. Both are working supervisors
of units within a major section of the Engineering division. The difference is that a Civil
Engineer is registered as a Civil Engineer by the State of California and can independently
sign plans and fill in for a Senior Civil Engineer. While Civil Engineers may sign plans, they
typically do not, because all plans are signed by a Senior Civil Engineer and the City
Engineer. While there is slightly more knowledge and experience required of the Civil
Engineers which allows them to undertake a wider variety of slightly more difficult tasks,
the Civil Engineer and Permit Engineer job functions are quite similar. The resulting spread
between the Civil and Permit Engineer would be 5%.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Current Title: Planning Technician II
# of positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Title: Planning Technician III
Position Status: Filled
Current E-Step Salary: $34,660
Proposed E-Step Salary: $38,278
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $3,618
% Increase: 10.44%
ANALYSIS - This position originally functioned as one of the three primary technical
support positions providing service at the Planning Department public counter. The duties
and responsibilities currently assigned to this are at the Planning Technician III level
consistent with that position. The duties of the Planning Technician III are been met by the
incumbent. Typical duties and responsibilities included providing information and
assistance to the public, at the counter and by phone, regarding zoning and subdivision
regulations and the General Plan. Technicians II explain City and department procedures
for filing and processing zoning applications, review simple plans, enter data into a city
wide automated data base, drafting, plan checking and related tasks at that level.
As the department downsized and restructured, the position evolved into one who's
counter assistance included providing clarification and explanation of the City's zoning
ordinances, the Subdivision Map Act, the Municipal Code, Environmental laws, planning
and land use standards, State and Federal statutes, etc.
The position has also been expanded to include the writing of staff reports relating to
Page. 8 I~- r
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
variances and conditional use permits, preceded by a thorough evaluation of the issue and
followed by appropriate documentation and letters to the applicant. This position is
supported at the counter on a limited basis by two Assistant Planners. There are currently
two Planning Technician's III in the department in other divisions performing duties similar
to this position.
POLICE DEPARTMENT/ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION
Current Title: Administrative Office Assistant I
Recommendation
Title: Administrative Office Assistant II
Position Status: Vacant
Current E-Step Salary: $22,230
Proposed E-Step Salary: $25,387
Effective Date: December 20, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $3,157
% Increase: 14.2%,
ANALYSIS - As Chula Vista has expanded its Animal Control services by contracting with
other cities, the role of this position has expanded. The change is the direct result of the
need for more and higher level clerical/secretarial support from this singular clerical
position. Initially this position was responsible for reception duties and some cash
handling; it was part-time, supplemented by volunteer hours. As the need for automation,
more sophisticated cash handling procedures and the sheer volume of customer service
issues increased, it was apparent that part-time staff was not enough. While a full-time
Administrative Office Assistant I provided basic reception assistance, it was still in
adequate in the level of support it could provide. The recommended II level will allow for
the journey level clerical assistance required at this time and would be consistent with
similar positions in other departments.
ANANCEDEPARTMENT
Current Title: Senior Accounting Assistant
# of Positions in classification: 1
Recommendation
Title: Senior Accounting Assistant
Position Status: Filled
Page. 9
//)-1
ITEM
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Current E-Step Salary: $31,701
Proposed E-Step Salary: $33,936
Effective Date: August 2, 1996
Increase in Annual Salary: $2,235
% Increase: 7.05%
ANALYSIS: Last fiscal year studies were conducted on the classifications of Customer
Service Representative and Accounting Assistant II (classes unique to the Finance
Department). These studies resulted in upgrades in classification and/or salary in each
case without evaluation of the supervisor of these two positions, Senior Accounting
Assistant, even though there has been a historical alignment between the Senior
Accounting Assistant and the two other classifications. The spreads were (prior to
adjustment) 13%, and 15.7%, respectively; and (subsequent to the adjustment) are, 7.4%
and 8.7%, respectively. This has resulted in salary compression between supervisor and
supervised.
A review of the job descriptions for each of the three classifications indicated that the
duties and responsibilities which justified the original salary spreads have not changed.
The Senior Accounting Assistant continues to require significantly more responsibility,
automony and decision-making discretion than the subordinate positions. The Senior
Accounting Assistant reports to the Revenue Manager (an Executive position in the
Finance Department) and receives minimal direction. Acting as the City's Business
Licence Officer, this position communicates directly with many businesses and is
responsible for responding to the most difficult customer complaints as well as providing
direction and supervision of subordinate staff.
This para-professional classification is the highest level in the non-professional accounting
series and it is important to maintain the appropriate salary spread within this career
ladder. The recommended adjustment accomplishes that. It also moves the Senior
Accounting Assistant more in line with comparable positions in other agencies. (A local
salary survey showed the Senior Accounting Assistant currently 14% below the mean.)
Fiscal Impact: There will be no additional fiscal impact in 1996/97 as departments are
able to absorb the increased costs through salary savings. Annual fiscal impact in
subsequent years will be $37,170.
Page. 10
/IJ"/d
Revised 12-17-96
RESOLUTION NO. 18511
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, each year departments submit requests for
classification reviews resulting from current and/or anticipated
changes in a position's primary duties; and
WHEREAS, those requests are assigned to a Personnel
Analyst for an in-depth job analysis, salary review and
recommendation regarding title and salary; and
WHEREAS, in the 1996/97 budget process, requests to
reclassify certain positions were submitted; and
WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of the budget, these
classification studies had not been completed and it was
anticipated that staff would return to Council with recommendations
regarding these positions within several months.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend the budget to provide for
salary adjustments or reclassifications for certain classifications
as follows:
Effective
position E-Step Salary % Increase Date
Administrative $29,157 8/2/96
Office Specialist ~
Custodial Services $44,131 25.58% 8/2/96
supervisor
Construction $37,590 7.5% 8/2/96
Specialist II/
Carpenter-Locksmith
Supervising Tree $46,840 3.90% 12/20/96
Trimmer
Permit Engineer $55,330 5.6% 8/2/96
Planning Technician $38,278 8/2/96
III -
Administrative $25,387 12/20/96
Office Assistant II
Senior Accounting $33,935 7.05% 8/2/96
Assistant
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Candy Emerson, Director of
Human Resources
10-11
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date 12/10/96
//
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution I ~..t:1. t, Approving a Joint Use Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and the Sweetwater Union High School District for the
Middle School located in Rancho Del Rey Development and Voyager
Neighborhood Park located on East J Street
Director of Parks, ~ec.reation ~\ zpen spa~
City Manage~ ~ ~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No-.U
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The Rancho del Rey Voyager Park Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement was approved in
July of 1995 between City of Chula Vista and the Rancho Del Rey Investors for the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III. This project includes the development of a middle school and a neighborhood park. It is anticipated
that the project, including the construction of the middle school and the adjacent neighborhood park, will
begin in March of 1997, with completion in 1998.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution regarding the Joint Use
Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Sweetwater Union High School District for the
facilities located at Voyager Neighborhood Park and Middle School.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At the November 27,1996 meeting of the Parks
and Recreation Commission (minutes attached as "A"), the Commission voted 6-0 (1 absent) to support
staff's recommendation regarding the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the
Sweetwater Union High School District for the facilities located at Voyager Neighborhood Park and
Middle School.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On July 5, 1995, the City Council approved the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for
Rancho del Rey Spa III. The Agreement specifies the construction of a neighborhood park adjacent to
the District's middle school (as yet unnamed). After completion, the 12.5 acre neighborhood park will
contain two regulation-size soccer fields, tot lots, picnic areas, restrooms with concession stand and
parking areas. The middle school will provide four softball fields, classrooms, basketball and lighted
arena courts, handball courts, a multi-purpose building/covered venue and parking.
In accordance with similar joint use agreements between the City of Chula Vista and the Sweetwater
Union High School District (EastLake High School and Chula Vista Community Park, and Chula Vista
[M:\home\parl.:srec\A1l3\ - yoyagerj.A13 - ] 1-26-96]
1
//-/
Item:
Meeting Date
/1
12/10/96
Youth Center); and recognizing the need to provide park acreage and recreational facilities to this area
of the community; the City and the District negotiated the proposed joint use agreement.
Joint Use Agreement with Sweetwater Union High School District
In order to take advantage of both middle school and park and recreation opportumtles, staff has
negotiated a proposed Joint Use Agreement with Sweetwater Union High School District to share each
agency's facilities. This agreement is in accordance with a similar agreement with EastLake High School
and Chula Vista Community Park. Of all the points submitted in the Joint Use Agreement, the main
issues are:
1. Tenn: A proposal for a 12 year term joint use for the City to use the District's softball fields,
classrooms, out-door basketball and lighted arenas, and multi-purpose building/covered venues.
The District will be able to use the City's soccer fields.
However, there are strict provisions in the Agreement regarding the ability of either party to get
out of the Agreement; to wit: failure to repair major damage to a facility, and then only with one
(1) year's notice. The City Attorney's Office has provided for an interim incentive to cause
major damage to be repaired: i.e., the other party has the right to remove one or more facilities
from the License Agreement.
In addition, each party may, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of their governing Board, and a
finding, reasonably determined, that there is good cause to suspend the License; suspend the
licenses granted in the Agreement, for a period not to exceed three (3) months per suspension.
2. Rules and Regulations: Stipulation of rules and regulations for the use of each parties' facilities
(by each party and by sponsored groups), including master calendaring and quarterly scheduled
meetings.
3. Hours and Days of Use: Identification of the hours during which each party may utilize each
other's facilities. The District may use the City's athletic fields, during school hours, which are
from 8:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The District may not, unless agreed to
by both parties, use the City's athletic fields after 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or any time
on weekends. The Agreement also specifies that the use of the City's facilities must be by
students enrolled at the middle school, and their after-school program sponsored by the District.
The City may use the District's facilities ( as specified in the Agreement) after 3:30 p.m. five (5)
days a week and all day on the weekends/holidays; except when the City's use would compete
with the District's use of its own facilities.
The specific times and days of use are to be determined by each party during quarterly scheduling
meetings and through a master calendaring system, which will ameliorate conflicts. Field
allocations for youth athletics groups will also be included in this scheduling. The quarterly
[M:\home\parksrec\A1I3\ - voyagerj.Al3 - 11-26-96]
2
II' .2
Item:
Meeting Date 12/10/96
II
scheduling meetings allow each party to enter into an operational memorandum of understanding
which does not jeopardize the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
4. Operation, Maintenance and Repair: Terms under which the City and the District will each
operate, maintain and repair, at their own expense, their own Facilities.
5. Share Equipment: The City and the District may, for the purposes of conducting recreation or
special event activities, share equipment.
6. Insurance: Each party to the Agreement is liable for all property damage and personal injury
that occurs by the parties to the Agreement or by sponsored groups. There are provisions in the
Agreement for reciprocal indemnity not caused by design, construction, maintenance or repair,
and provisions for liability for design, construction, or for losses caused by repair and
maintenance. In addition, each party shall secure, at their own cost, property damage insurance
for fire, extended coverages, and vandalism insurance on all insurable facilities owned by the
respective parties; and liability insurance. The Risk Manager has reviewed these provisions and
concurs.
This Agreement contains provisions which obscure traditional property rights. Even though the Voyager
Neighborhood Park may be the property of the City, the District will, during school hours, have
occupational rights during their school year. Of course, the opposite is true with the City's occupation
of the District's facilities. This will implement an effort by the City to enter into mutually beneficial
cooperative use arrangements with other public agencies.
SUMMARY: The Joint Use Agreement is an excellent opportunity for each agency to cooperate
together; and it will generate the maximum use of shrinking resources for both the City and the District.
Both the park and the school facilities will provide much needed recreational programming for the
residents in the area. The Sweetwater Union High School District is in agreement with all conditions and
requirements of the proposed Joint Use Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement provides for recreational programming at the middle school at no
cost to the City. In essence, this is a cost avoidance feature which saves the City maintenance/and
recreation programming budget funding. The fiscal impacts of the operation and maintenance of Voyager
Neighborhood Park will be brought forth as part of the FY 1997-1998 budget.
Attachments: :..H ~~ the November 27, 1996 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
1''''''' - Map of proposed joint use areas
"C" - Proposed Joint Use Agreement
[M:\home\parksrec\AI13\ - voyagerj,A13 - 11-26-96]
3
II, :J
RESOLUTION NO. / fl'f.2-t,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE
MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATED IN RANCHO DEL REY
DEVELOPMENT AND VOYAGER NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
LOCATED ON EAST J STREET
WHEREAS, the Rancho del Rey voyager Park Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement was approved in July of 1995
between City of Chula vista and. the Rancho Del Rey Investors for
the Rancho Del Rey SPA III; and
WHEREAS, said project includes the development of a
middle school and a neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, staff
Agreement with Sweetwater
agency's facilities.
has negotiated a proposed Joint Use
Union High School District to share each
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve a Joint Use Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and the Sweetwater Union High
School District for the Middle School located in Rancho del Rey
Development and Voyager Neighborhood park located on East J Street,
a copy of which is on file in the office of the city Clerk as
Document No.
BE
Chula Vista
Agreement for
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
C:\rs\voyager
cit
ttorney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
//...t(
ATTACHMENT I1A11
DRAFT
Minutes of a
Regular Meeting of the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, 6:30 p.m.
November 27. , 996
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Public Services Building
*******************
Excerpt section of the November 27, 1996 Meeting Minutes.
5, ACTION ITEMS
New Business
5. Joint Use Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Sweetwater Union High
School District....
MSCU (DennisonWaccaro) moved and seconded the statI recommendation to support the
Joint Use Agreementwith the Sweetwater Union High School District located in Rancho Del
Rey Development and Voyager Neighborhood Park located on East "J" Street,
[a:\PRMTS96.NOV]
II;>
MASTER PLAN
VOYAGER PARK, MIDDLE SCHOOL
II~~
.... ffi
~
. .. '" '.. ,..
I! I ~/~,
ATTACHMENT C-1
JOINT USE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND THE
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATED IN RANCHO
DEL REY DEVELOPMENT AND VOYAGER NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK LOCATED ON EAST J STREET
This AGREEMENT, is made and entered into on
1996 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the
date last executed by the parties ("Effective Date"), by and
between the city of Chula vista, a chartered municipal corporation
of the State of California ("city") and the Sweetwater Union High
School District ("District"), a political subdivision of the State
of California, and is made with reference to the following facts:
1. Recitals.
1.1 Whereas, cities, and school district may cooperate with
each other in the development and execution of adequate programs of
community recreation; and
1.2 Whereas, the city and
through cooperative efforts,
recreation and athletic programs
expenditure; and
District are mutually agreed that
the highest quality community
can be made with the least public
1.3 Whereas, a need for community recreational facilities
exist in the neighborhoods of eastern Chula vista which is of
concern to both the City and the District; and
1.4 Whereas, the City and the District have mutually agreed
that the provision of adequate community recreation facilities and
programs are essential for the physical well being and general
welfare of the people of Chula vista; and
1.5 Whereas,
city and District
facilities; and
land and funds exist under the control of the
which could accommodate a joint use of
1.6 Whereas, the city and the District now seek to enter
into a formal agreement defining the responsibilities and rights of
the parties concerning the joint use of the parties' facilities.
2. Definitions.
2.1 Description of the Location and Facilities.
1
//5 / /I~?
,
ATTACHMENT C-2
2.1.1 The City's Facilities. The City currently owns
land on which it will cause to have constructed and will operate
two regulation soccer fields and a restroom facility ("City
Facilities"), located at the Voyager Neighborhood Park on East "J"
street, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, state of
California, as diagrammatically presented in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. City intends to
continue using and operating City Facilities throughout the term of
this Agreement.
2.1.2 The District's Facilities. The District
currently owns land located at the Middle School at 1174 East "J"
Street in the City of Chula Vista, on which exists a cluster of
four softball fields, classrooms, basketball and lighted arena
courts, handball courts, a multi-purpose building/covered
regulation size basketball facility and parking adjacent to the
venues ("District Facilities") located in the city of Chula Vista,
County of San Diego, State of California, as diagrammatically
presented in Exhibit "A" hereto. District intends to continue
using and operating District Facilities throughout the term of the
Agreement.
2.2 School and Non-School Hours Defined.
As the term is used herein, the term "School Hours" shall mean
the hours, not exceeding the first eight hours per school day, of
a day officially designated by the District as a school day of the
middle school located at Rancho del Rey and during which the
District conducts regular academic classes for all or a substantial
portion of the student body of students wi thin the off icial
attendance area of the middle school at Rancho del Rey. At the
time of this Agreement the School Hours are currently planned to be
from 8:15 a.m. to 3:10 p.m., Monday through Friday depending upon
date to be determined on a year round or regular school schedule.
These hours may be subject to modification from time to time by
official action of the District School Board, and such hours will
be controlled by both parties during the quarterly scheduling
meetings, as referenced in this Agreement.
As the term is used herein, "Non-school hours", shall mean all
hours other than School Hours.
2.3 Host and Guest Party.
As used herein, a "Host Party" shall mean the party that owns
a Facility herein defined in the.context of describing or referring
to that party's relationship with the party using said Facility.
"Guest Party" shall mean the party which has the authority by
the provisions of this Agreement to use a Facility herein defined,
and owned by the Host Party, in the context of describing or
referring to that party's relationship with the Host Party.
2
1/'6'
,
AIIACHMtNI c-~
2.4 Sponsored Group Defined.
As the term is used herein in the context of a Guest Party
sponsoring a group who may use a Host Party Facility, a "Sponsored
Group" shall mean one or more persons who have been given written
permission by the Guest Party to use and conduct an activity at a
Facility herein defined owned by a Host Party pursuant to the
license herein granted to the Guest Party..
2.5 Time Rights.
As used herein, "Time Rights" shall refer to the preferential
right of a Party to use or operate a Facility as determined by this
Agreement.
2.6 SCheduling Meetings.
As used herein, "Scheduling Meetings" refers to quarterly
mandatory meetings between the parties' staff members to confer
jointly with regard to the party's specific need to uSe the other
party's Facilities at times other than the specified Time Rights.
2.7 city Special Use Day.
As used herein, "City Special Use Days" shall mean 10 days
during a given calendar year for which the City has indicated, in
writing to District 60 days in advance of the required date, a need
for City to conduct an event during School Hours at a District
Facility.
3. Obligatory Provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, the
parties agree as follows:
3.1 Right of Use Between city and District.
3.1.1
Bilateral Grant of License to Use.
On the terms and conditions herein specified, and upon
the condition that Guest Party complies with the terms, conditions
and covenants herein contained, the Host Party hereby grants to the
Guest Party, for the Term herein specified, a non-exclusive but
preferential (according to the terms herein contained) license for
the Guest Party, and Guest Party's sponsored Groups to enter upon,
occupy, use and operate said Host Party Facilities ("License"). At
such time as the License herein granted to one party is terminated,
both licenses shall terminate.
3
//''1
,
f1.1 1f-\l.,Hlvlt.l1j J L,-'t
3.1.2
License Inclusions.
The License herein granted to a Guest Party includes the
right to temporarily place naterials and equipment necessary for
conducting recreational or special event activities at the Host
Facilities, subject to written approval, which shall not be'
unreasonably withheld or unreasonably conditioned, of the Host
Party. Such materials and equipment shall be maintained at the
sole risk of the Guest Party placing or erecting them and are
subject to removal at the request of the Host Party upon a
determination of the Host Party that the materials or equipment
constitutes a blighting influence, impedes recreational activity,
or poses a threat to the health or safety of the Host Party, or the
public. '
3.2 Term of Agreement.
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and expire on January 1, 2008 ("Nominal Term").
3 . 2 . 1
Extensions of Nominal Term.
On the condition that the parties have a valid grant of
license hereunder, the parties agree that each will review and
consider, at a public hearing of which the other party has been
given notice and the opportunity to be heard (not otherwise
published except for listing on the Agenda of the meeting of the
governing board of each party), the advantages and disadvantages of
extending the nominal Term of this Agreement. Each Party agrees to
use good faith and best efforts to render a decision prior to the
end of the Nominal Term.
3.2.2
Suspension of Licenses.
This Agreement r,ay not, during the Nominal Term, be
terminated by either party for reasons herein specified, but, in
addi tion to such other legal remedies as a party may have for
enforcement, the governing Board of either party may, upon the
affirmative vote of 4/5ths of their members, and a finding,
reasonably determined, that there is good cause to suspend the
license, and identifying such cause, which finding shall be
contained in a written resolution of its governing board, suspend
the license herein granted for a period of not to exceed three
months per suspension.
3.2.2.1 'There shall be no limit on the number
of successive suspensions as long as the cause for the suspension
remains.
3.2.2.2 "Good cause" for a suspension may
include: (1) one party has engaged in a course of conduct of not
4
If-II)
,
f-\ j If-\l,MJ'It:.I'l I l.-;j
performing its obligations under the terms of this Agreement; or
(2) that a Host Party's Facilities are in a condition detrimental
to the health and safety of prospective users thereof; or (3) one
party fails to appropriate sufficient funds for the operation and
maintenance of its Facilities.
3.2.2.3 "Good Cause" shall not include a
spite motive, a personality conflict, or political difference of
opinions between the governments, or the members thereof, or
disputes between the two agencies over other business matters
unrelated to the city Facilities or District Facilities.
3.2.2.4 A superior court, upon application by
a party for a writ of mandate ordering a party to reasonably
determine that good cause exists, shall have the right to
independently review and make a judgment on the evidence as to
whether good cause exists.
3.3
Repair.
Termination, Removal or Suspension for Failure to
3.3.1 Termination for Unrepaired Major Damage to a
Facility. If the Guest Party determines that the Host Party is not
diligently pursuing the repair of a Host Party's Facility which has
suffered damage greater than normal wear and tear, regardless of
the availability of funds to accomplish same, the Guest Party shall
have the option of terminating this Agreement on a one year notice,
during which time the Host Party may attempt to accomplish the
repair. If the repair is substantially accomplished within the one
year notice period, this Agreement shall not terminate. The right
to terminate is independent of the right of a party to suspend or
right: of a party to remove a Facility from the terms of this
Agreement.
3.3.2 Removal of Facility for Unrepaired Maj or Damage
to a Facility. If the Guest Party determines that the Host Party
is not diligently pursuing the repair of a Host Party's Facility
which has suffered damage greater than normal wear an tear
(regardless of the availability of funds to accomplish same), but
the damage is not of such a nature as to prohibit all functional
use of all Facilities of the Host Party, after giving the Host
Party 90 days notice of the need for said repair ("Notice of Need
Period"), the Guest Party shall have the option of removing. all or
a portion of the Facilities owned by the Guest Party from the
provisions of the License herein granted on 60 days advance written
notice of intent to remove Facilities from the provisions of the
License herein granted ("Notice of Removal Period"). If the repair
is substantially accomplished prior to the expiration of the Notice
of Removal Period, the Guest Party's option right to remove a
Facility is terminated. If the repair ~s accomplished after the
expiration of the Notice of Removal Period, the Guest Party shall
return the previously removed Facilities to the terms of the
5
I / ~ II
,
A I I ALHMt.I~ I \--0
License herein granted. This right
independent of the right of a party to
to terminate this Agreement.
to remove a Facility is
suspend or right of a party
3.3.3 Suspension. Nothing in this section shall
preclude the right of suspension hereinabove granted to a Party for
failure of the other Party to timely effect a repair as required by
this Agreement.
3.4 Priority Access to a Facility.
3.4.1
Preferential Access to District Facilities.
3.4.1.1 Non-School Hours. Absent written
agreement to the contrary as to specific times and circumstances,
the License herein granted to the city to use the Facilities of the
District shall, during Non-School Hours, have preference over
competing District-proposed uses except for those competing
District-proposed uses which occur during Non-School Hours on a
School Day following School Hours until 3:30 p.m. of said School
Day, and then, only as to those District Facilities for which the
District has indicated, in writing to City 60 days in advance of
the required date, a need to conduct an after-school program for
students who are, in substantial part, enrolled at the middle
school located in Rancho del Rey development, and the after-school
program is either sponsored by the California Interscholastic
Federation or is sponsored by the District as a performing art
activity.
3.4.1.2 School Hours. Absent written
agreement to the contrary as to specific times and circumstances,
the License herein granted to the City to use the Facilities of the
District shall, during School Hours, not have preference over
actual competing District uses, except for City Special Use Days.
City will use good faith efforts to identify the 10 city Special
Use Days during the Scheduling Meetings.
3.4.2
Preferential Access to city Facilities.
3.4.2.1 Non-School Hours. Absent written
agreement to the contrary as to specific times and circumstances,
the License herein granted to the District to use the Facilities of
the City shall, during Non-School Hours, not have prefere~ce over
city-proposed uses except as to those District-proposed uses which
occur during Non-School Hours on a School Day, and then, only as to
those City Facilities for which the District has indicated, in
writing to city 60 days in advance of the date of use, a need to
conduct an after-school program for students who are, in
substantial part, enrolled at the middle school located in Rancho
del Rey development, and the after-school program is sponsored by
the California Interscholastic Federation.
6
//... /:l.
,
A I I AL.Hlvlt.l~ I \...- I
3.4.2.2 School Hours. Absent written
agreement to the contrary as to specific times and circumstances,
the License herein granted to the District to use the Facilities of
the city shall, during School Hours, have preference over actual
city uses, except City Special Use Days.
3.5 Use Limitations.
Use Duty. It is expressly agreed that the Facilities licensed
hereunder are to be used, and shall be used, for the purposes of
providing recreational and educational facilities and corresponding
projects and programs intended to promote physical, mental, and
moral well being, and for such other related or incidental purposes
as may first be approved in writing by the chief executive officer
of the Host Party, and for no other purpose whatsoever. A Guest
Party shall not use a Host Party's Facilities for any other purpose
("Use Duty") .
3.5.1 Specific Violations of
limitation as to other possible violations of
Party shall specifically not permit the
themselves or their Sponsored Groups:
Use Duty. wi thout
the Use Duty, a Guest
following uses by
3.5.1.1 Political Activities. A Guest Party
shall not use and shall not permit or tolerate the use of a Host
Party Facility for campaigning or otherwise working for the
nomination or election of any individual to any public office,
partisan or nonpartisan, or for any ballot measure, including any
initiative, referendum or advisory vote, except with the advance
written permission of the Host Party. A Guest Party may use a Host
Party's Facility, with the advance written permission of the City
Council, as a forum for open public debate by candidates on the
condition that no member of the public shall be excluded therefrom.
3.5.1.2 A Guest Party, while using a Host
Party's Facilities, shall abide by the policies, rules, regulations
and ordinances adopted in good faith by the Host Party as a
restriction on the general use of the Facilities and other
similarly situate facilities of the Host Party.
3.6 Conflict Scheduling Duty i Scheduling Periods i Scheduling
Meetings.
3.6.1 Duty to Hold Scheduling Meeting. On a
quarterly basis commencing and. occurring each year not later than
January, March, June, September, or on such other date as the
parties may agree, but in no event later than 70 days prior to the
commencement of the period which shall be the subject of the
meeting ("Scheduling Period"), city and District, by and through
their respectively assigned staff members, shall meet and confer
jointly with regard to the specific time needs that each party
7
1/.. I"
.
1-\ I II-\L..fll'l...n I ""'-U
shall require of the Facilities subject to this Agreement during
the next Scheduling Period that may occur outside of their own Time
Rights. Each party is required to attend Scheduling Meetings. It
shall also be a permissible subject of such meetings to discuss
operational problems experienced by the Parties.
3.6.2 Release of Time. At a Scheduling Meeting,
either party may request the use of the other party's Time Rights.
The holders of the Time Rights may refuse the other party's request
only after considering in good faith, among other reasons: (1)
The ability of the holding party to schedule recurring programming;
(2) The relative public benefits to be derived from the uses
proposed by the parties for the Time Rights, and (3) The fact that
Time Rights were originally allotted in order to accommodate a
particular function or use. Concession of Time Rights between the
parties shall be made without compensation, and no party shall
demand or request same. If agreement cannot be reached at the
staff level (including a meeting between the city Manager of the
city and the District's Superintendent), the city council and the
Board of the District shall meet in a joint session to resolve the
dispute. Except as otherwise provided herein, no party is
required, at such Scheduling meetings, to surrender their Time
Rights.
3.6.3 Duty to Reduce to writing; Entitlement to Rely.
If the parties reach an agreement as to a transfer or a
reprioritization of Time Rights to the other party for a given
Scheduling Period, such agreement shall be reduced to writing and
upon execution, may be relied upon by either Party to schedule
events and programs during such transferred time periods.
3.6.4 The duties imposed on the parties by this
section shall be referred to as the "Conflict Scheduling Duties."
3.7 Duty to Supervise.
During all such times as all or part of a Host Party Facility
is used by a Guest Party, or a Sponsored Group of a Guest Party, as
herein permitted, the Guest Party shall be responsible for
providing and shall provide sufficient staffing and competent, on-
site supervision of said Sponsored Group by an appropriate
contingent of responsible adults, and such appropriate security
therefore necessary to prevent property damage or intentional
personal injury to any person.
3.8 operation Expense, "Maintenance and Repair.
Except as herein provided, the City and the District each
agree to operate, maintain and repair, at their own expense, their
own Facilities in its condition as it exists upon completion of
construction of such Facilities, or a functional equivalent of
8
I/-IJ(
.
A j I ALHIVltl'll \...-
their condition as it exists upon completion of construction,
normal wear and tear excepted.
3.8.1
Major Repairs.
To the extent that a Major Repair to a Facility is
required, the Host Party shall diligently attempt, in good faith to
secure the repair of the Facility by estimating the cost of repair,
budgeting funds for same, designing the repair, and implementing
the design, all of which shall be done to the extent that funds are
available to do so.
3.8.2
Identifiable Damage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Guest Party, or one
of its Sponsored Groups, or one of its members, guest or attendees,
has caused damage to a Facility, regardless of whether the damage
was caused by the negligence of the Guest Party, the Guest Party
shall pay, or shall cause their insurance company to pay, for the
repair of same.
3.8.3
Fee Waiver.
A Host Party shall make its Facilities available to the
Guest Party, or a Sponsored Group of a Guest Party, free of charge
for athletic events, recreational activities, special events, and
any other event, unless a fee is charged to the users or attendees
at such event or activity. Pursuant to the provisions of State
Education Code section 10902, no admission price shall be charged
by the District for events conducted by it under the license herein
except for amateur athletic contests, demonstrations, or exhibits
and other educational events. Nothing herein shall operate as a
limitation on the right of the City to charge a fee for the use of
the City's Facilities or the District's Facilities at such time
when same is under license to the city. If such a fee is charged,
unless the parties otherwise agree, the Host Party may impose a
charge on the Guest Party for use of the Facility on the same basis
as the rate Guest Party charges the users or attendees, but such
amount may not exceed the fee charged by the Guest Party.
3.9 Facility Modification or Removal Rights.
No Facility shall be modified or removed for service except
for restrictions due to periodic maintenance, repair or improvement
unless such other modification or removal is authorized by written
resolution of the governing board of a party.
9
//-/.5
,
t\ I In......llI"l'-ll I '-' ..LV
3.10 operational Matters.
3.10.l
Procedure Training.
The Guest Party shall caused and train its employees to
comply with procedures in a manual ("Procedures Manual") prepared
by the Host Party for the use of a Host Party's Facility regarding
utility turn-offs, alarm responses, locking up/closing, key
distribution, facility damage (including graffiti reporting).
3.10.2
signs.
The Host Party to a Facility may erect or display any
banners, pennants, flags, posters; signs, decorations, marquees,
awnings, or similar devices or advertising ("Signs") on, around, or
in the immediate vicinity of the Facility without the prior written
consent of the Guest Party.
The Guest Party may, with the advance written permission
of the Host Party, erect or display any temporary Signs on, around,
or in the immediate vicinity of the Facility.
If any Sign of a Guest Party is found on the premises of
a Host party in violation of this section, Guest Party agrees to
remove the sign at its expense within 24 hours notice thereof by
the Host Party, or the Host Party may thereupon remove the item at
the Guest Party's cost.
3.10.3
Hazardous Materials.
If a party knows or has reasonable cause to believe,
that any hazardous substance has been released on or about the
premises on which any Facility is located or proximate to, that
party shall give written notice to the chief executive officer of
the Board of the other party within ten (10) days of receipt of
such knowledge or cause for belief. Provided however, if a party
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that such substance is an
imminent and substantial anger to public health and safety, said
party shall notify the chief executive officer immediately upon
receipt .of this knowledge or belief and shall take all actions
necessary to alleviate such danger. A party shall notify the other
party immediately of any notice of violation received or initiation
of environmental actions or suits, publicly or privately brought,
relative to the premises. In addition, neither party shall utilize
or sell any hazardous substance.on the property without the prior
written consent of the other, except for normal cleaning,
construction or other similar types of supplies.
10
I/r /"
,
A I I Al"Hlvlt.Pll l..-ll
3.10.4
standard of Employees.
A Guest Party, and its employees and agents, shall at
all times conduct themselves and the operations a Host Party's
Facility in a prudent manner.
3.10.5
Normal Cleanup Maintenance.
Except for conditions which may be corrected by normal
janitorial services, each Guest Party shall leave a Host Party's
Facility at the conclusion of their use in a neat and clean
condition and one that does not impose any additional duty on the
janitorial and custodial services staff, or upon the next occupant
of the Facility. This includes the" duty of each party to place its
Facility, after each usage by a party or Sponsored Group, to
prepare the Facility for any subsequent use.
3.10.6
other Rules Promulgated by city.
A Guest Party shall abide by any and all reasonable
rules and procedures promulgated by the Host Party, and as may be
amended from time to time, with regard to the usage of the
Facility.
3.11 Insurance, Indemnity, and Risk Sharing Duties.
3.11. 1
Liability for Damage--Property and Personal
Injury.
A Guest Party shall be liable for all property damage
and personal injury that arises from its conduct or that of a
Sponsored Group of a Guest party, or their members, guests or
attendees, while on the property of a Host Party in connection with
a License covered by this Agreement, regardless of whether it is at
a Facility of the Host Party, and shall hold the Host Party
harmless from any and all such loss, adverse judgments,
settlements, or other liability, and shall defend the Host Party
with regard to same at the request and tender of the Host Party.
3.11.2 Reciprocal Indemni ty for Invitee's, Employee's,
or Trespasser's Personal and Property Injuries Not Caused by
Design, Construction, Maintenance or Repair.
Each Party ("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each other
Party ("Indemnified Party"), hol.ds the Indemnified Party harmless,
and agrees to defend the Indemnlfied party, against loss, damage or
liability on a claim in connection with a License covered by the
Agreement, the adverse judgment, adverse order on, or good faith
settlement of, such a claim, including attorneys fees and court
costs in defending such claim, suffered by an Indemnified Party due
to personal injury to, or damage to the property of, an invitee
11
II- /7
,
Al 114.1,HJvltJ't I l..-lL
(including a permittee) of an Indemnif ied Party (" Indemnif ied' s
Invitee"), an employee ("Indemnified's Employee") of an Indemnified
Party, or to a trespasser or other uninvited person, at the
Facility (except to the extent that said claim is based on an actor
omission of design, construction, including building materials,
maintenance or non-maintenance, repair or non-repair by the
Indemnifying Party) primarilY caused by the act or omission of the
Indemnifying Party, their employees or invitees.
3.11. 3
Suffered by a Party
or Repair.
Reciprocal Indemnity for Property Damage
Not Caused by Design, Construction, Maintenance
3.11.3.1 Property Damage. Each Party
("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each other Party ("Indemnified
Party") and holds the Indemnif ied Party harmless, from any property
damage suffered by the Indemnified Party at the Facility in
connection with a License covered by this Agreement primarily
caused by the act or omission of the Indemnifying Party, their
employees or invitees, other than by acts of design, construction
(including building materials). maintenance or non-maintenance,
repair or non-repair.
3.11.3.2 Claim on Property Damage. Each Party
("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each other Party ("Indemnified
Party") and holds the Indemnified Party harmless from, and agrees
to defend the Indemnified Party on, for any liability on any claim
for property damage suffered a Party at the Facility in connection
with a License covered by this Agreement (except to the extent that
such claim is based on an act or omission of design, construction,
including building materials, maintenance or non-maintenance,
repair or non-repair by the Indemnifying Party) primarily caused by
the act or omission of the Indemnifying party, or their employees,
other than by acts of design, construction (including building
materials), maintenance or non-maintenance, repair or non-repair.
3.11.4
Liability for Design and Construction.
Loss, damage or liability sustained by a Party during
the term of the Joint Use Agreement, either directly or indirectly
as a result of a third party claim of injury, damage, or other
loss, resulting primarily from, or claimed to be caused by,
inadequate or improper design of the Facility, construction of the
Facility. choice of building materials used in the Facility,
modifications of the Facility shall be borne equally by the city
and the District. This covenant shall survive the termination of
this agreement.
12
//~/r
,
A I J AL..Hlvlt.I'll L- 1.5
3.11. 5
Liability for Losses Caused by Repair and
Maintenance.
Losses sustained by a Party during the use of a license
to a Guest Party, either directly or indirectly as a result of a
third party claim of injury, damage, or other loss, resulting
primarily from, or claimed to be caused by, inadequate or improper
repair or non-repair of the Facility, or maintenance or non-
maintenance of the Facility, shall be borne equally by the Parties.
This covenant shall survive the termination of this agreement.
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Property Damage Insurance. Host Party shall
secure at their cost fire, extended coverage, and vandalism
insurance policies on all insurable Facilities owned by all Parties
on the premises in an amount to cover 100 percent of the
replacement value, with not to exceed a $10,000 deductible. Any
proceeds from a loss shall be used as follows: rebuilding or
repairing the damaged property. Any damage loss which is within
the limits of the $10,000 deductible shall be distributed to the
parties in the same manner as Major Repairs.
3.12. 2 Liability Insurance. Each party shall, at
their own expense throughout the term of this agreement, maintain
an "occurrence" public liability policy in the amount of not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). Such policies shall cover
all injury or damage, including death, suffered by any party or
parties present on the premises at the behest of, or under the
supervision of, such Party on or in connection with the use or
operation of the premises. The city and District may maintain
their normal "self-insured retention ("SIR") amount", and shall be
responsible for all losses incurred with the amount of said SIR.
4. Rights Expressly Reserved by the Parties.
4.1 Related council Actions. By the granting of this
license, neither party is obligating itself to any other
governmental agent, board, commission, or agency with regard to any
other discretionary action relating to development or operation of
a Facility. Discretionary action includes, but is not limited to
re-zonings, variances, environmental clearances or any. other
governmental agency approvals which may be required for the
development and operation of the Facility.
4.2 No Liability for Lack of Quiet Enj oyment. If a Host
Party for any reason cannot deliver possession or quiet enjoyment
of a Facility, or any portion thereof, or if a Host Party is
dispossessed therefrom, the Host Party shall not be liable to Guest
Party for any loss or damage resulting therefrom, but such may be
13
)/'/9
.
A 11 ACHMtl~ I C-14
treated as a basis for suspension, termination or removal in the
same manner as a need for a Major Repair of a Facility.
4.3 Eminent Domain. Nothing herein shall be construed as an
abandonment of a party's right of eminent domain.
4.4 Rights Reserved. All rights not specifically granted by
this Agreement shall be specifically and generally reserved to the
parties.
5. Remedies for Breach.
5.1 If a party shall default in the performance of any
covenant or condition required by this Agreement to be performed by
such party, then the other party.will give the breaching party
written notice citing such default and demand the breaching party
or any person claiming rights through breaching party to correct
such default noticed, and upon giving such notice, the breaching
party shall correct such default as soon as practicable, but in no
event, later than 30 days. Failure of breaching party to correct
default shall not result in termination of the License which is the
subj ect matter of this Agreement, but may be the basis for an
injunctive order, writ of mandate, or other equitable action.
Neither party shall have the remedy of monetary damage against the
other.
5.2 Waiver. Any waiver of a default by either party is not
a waiver of any other default. Any waiver of a default must be in
writing and be executed by the chief executive officer of the party
in order to constitute a valid and binding waiver. Delay or
failure to exercise a remedy or right is not a waiver of that or
any other remedy or right under this lease. The use of one remedy
or right for any default does not waive the use of another remedy
or right for the same default or for another or later default.
5.3 Miscellaneous.
5.3.1
Construction Against Draftsman.
This agreement has been fully negotiated by all parties,
and no construction or interpretation is to be made hereof on the
basis of draftsmanship of the document.
5.3.2
Successors.
Time is of Essence; provisions Binding on
Time is of the essence of all of the terms, covenants
and conditions of this lease and, except as otherwise provided
herein, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this lease
shall apply to, benefit and bind the successors and assigns of the
respective parties, jointly and individually.
14
I/-,).()
,
AT1Al-HMtNI l--1
5.3.3
Assignment and Subletting.
Except as herein provided, neither party shall assign
this license, or any interest therein, nor sublicense the real
property or any part thereof, or any right or privilege appurtenant
thereto, nor suffer any other person except employees, agents '.
guests and permittees of the party, to use or occupy the real
property or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of
the other person. A consent to assignment, subletting, occupation
or use by any other person shall not be deemed to be a consent to
any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another
person. Any such assignment or subletting without such consent
shall be void. The license granted by this Agreement is personal
to the grantee.
5.3.4
Encumbrances.
Neither party may encumber this license, its leasehold
estate and its improvements thereon by deed of trust, mortgage,
chattel mortgage or other security instrument during the terms
hereof.
5.3.5
No Inverse condemnation.
The exercise of any right under this lease shall not be
interpreted as an exercise of the power of eminent domain and shall
not impose any liability upon either party for inverse
condemnation.
5.3.6
Notices.
All notices and demands shall be given in writing by
personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid. Notices
shall be addressed as appears below for the respective Party i
provided that, if any Party gives notice of a change of name or
address, notices shall be appropriately modified to reflect such
changes. Notices shall be deemed received seventy-two (72) hours
after deposit in the united States mail.
Notice to the District:
Sweetwater union High School District
Superintendent
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Notice to the City:
city of Chula vista
City Manager
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
15
/1'.2/
.
ATTACHMENT C-lf
5.3.7
compliance with Law.
Both parties shall at all times in the maintenance,
occupancy, and operation of a Facility comply with all applicable
laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations of City, County, state,
and Federal Governments, at that party's sole cost and expense. In
addition, both parties shall comply with any and all notices issued
by the other party under the authority of any such law, statute,
ordinance, or regulation.
5.3.8
city Approval.
The approval or consent of City, wherever required in
this license, shall mean the written approval or consent of the
city Manager unless otherwise specified, without need for further
resolution by the City Council.
5.3.9
Partial Invalidity.
If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this
license is found invalid, void, or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions will remain in
full force and effect.
5.3.10
captions.
The section headings, and captions for various articles
an paragraphs shall not be held to define, limit, augment, or
describe the scope, content, or intent of any.or all parts of this
lease. The numbers of the paragraphs and pages of this lease may
not be consecutive. Such lack of consecutive numbers is
intentional and shall have no effect on the enforceability of this
lease.
5.3.11
Entire Understanding.
This license contains the entire understanding of the
parties. Both parties, by signing this agreement, agree that there
are no other written or oral understandings between the parties
with respect to the licensed premises. Each party has relied on
its own examination of the premises, advice from its own attorneys,
and the warranties, representations, and covenants of the lease.
itself. Each of the parties in this license agrees that nb other
party, agent, or attorney of any other party has made any promise,
representation, or warranty whatsoever which is not contained in
this lease.
The failure or refusal of any party to read the license
or other documents, inspect the premises, and obtain legal or other
advice relevant to this transaction constitutes a waiver of any
objections, contention, or claim that might have been based on
these actions. No modification, amendment, or alteration of this
16
>>~~
>
ATACHMI:NI C-ll
lease will be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all
parties.
5.3.12
Disputes.
Any dispute involving this Agreement may be submitted in
writing to the City's Director of Parks and Recreation of his/her
designee and to the District's Assistant Superintendent of Planning
and Facilities and the District's High School Principal. The
parties, in good faith, shall attempt to resolve said dispute
before arbitration may be sought by either Party.
5.3.13
Amendment.
This Agreement may only be amended by the written
consent of all the Parties at the time of such amendment.
5.3.14
Entire Agreement.
This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement and
contains the -entire agreement of the Parties on the matters
covered. No other agreement, statement or promise made by any
Party or by any employee, officer or agent of any Party that is not
in writing and signed by all Parties, shall be binding.
5.3.15
working Memorandum.
The city's Director of Parks and Recreation and the
District's Assistant superintendent of Planning and Facilities or
their designees may enter into an operational memorandum
("operational Memorandum") which is intended to permit the two
parties, at a staff level, to work cooperatively together in
dealing with the day-to-day operational problems that may be
encountered in the administration of jointly using each other's
Facilities. Such Operational memorandum shall have no validity or
effect on this Agreement whatsoever, and shall not constitute a
waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. If there is a
disparity between the provisions of such Operational memorandum and
the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement
shall control, except that neither party shall be liable for
damages to the other party for past acts conducted under the
authority of such operational Memorandum.
5.3.16
Exhibits.
All exhibits to which reference is made are deemed
incorporated in this Agreement~ whether or not actually attached.
17
/1-:;' :1
;
ATTACHMENT C-18
5.3.17
Further Assurances.
Each Party hereto agrees to perform any further acts and
to execute and deliver any further documents which may be
reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
5.3.18
Governing Law.
This Agreement has been executed in and shall be
governed by the laws of the state of California.
5.3.19
Headings and Interpretation.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole and in
accordance with its fair meaning. . captions and hearings are for
convenience and shall not be used in construing meaning.
5.3.20
Counterparts.
The Agreements may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
5.3.21
Authority.
The city and the District represent that the individuals
signing this Agreement have. full right and authority to bind their
respective Parties to this Agreement.
5.3.22
Invalidity.
If any term, covenant, .condi tion or provision of this
Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be
affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
5.3.23
No strict Construction.
This Agreement shall not be strictly construed against
any Party hereto.
5.3.24 Nothing
interest in real property to
permit this Agreement to be
herein gives rise to a recordable
either party. No party shall cause or
recorded with the Recorder's Office.
18
/I,.,lf
,
ATTACHMENT C-19
IN
executed this
understood the
to its terms:
WITNESS HEREOF, the City and the District have
Agreement thereby indicating they have read and
same, and indicate their full and complete consent
DATED:
City of Chula vista
BY:
Shirley Horton
Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet
city Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
DATED:
Sweetwater Union High
School District
BY:
President
Board of Trustees
BY:
District Superintendent
c: \Ag\ELHigh
19
//...:;'5
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
/~
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution /y5,)..? Approving the Second Extension and
Modification Agreement to the Community Youth Center Operating
Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, the Chula Vista Boys and
Girls Club, and the Sweetwater Unified School District
Director of Parks, Recreatil'.~~d Open spac~
City Manage~ ~~) (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No-XJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On March 12, 1992, the City entered into a Joint Use Agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School
District and the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista for the operation and maintenance of the Community
Youth Center ofChula Vista on "L" Street. A First Extension of this Agreement was authorized by the
City Council in July of 1993 with provisions to extend the Agreement if the Club continued the provision
of appropriate services and support during their operational hours at the Center. Staff is satisfied with
the Club's performance, and is recommending that the Agreement receive a Second Extension until July
of 1999. The intent of this report is to discuss the modifications to the original agreement contained in
the Second Extension and provide a status report on the operation of the Community Youth Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Extension and Modification
Agreement to the Community Youth Center Operating Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, the
Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club, and the Sweetwater Unified School District until July 1999.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On August IS, 1996, the Parks and Recreation
Commission voted (5-0; 2 absent) to accept staff's recommendation to support the Second Extension and
Modification Agreement to the Community Youth Center Operating Agreement (Minutes are Attachment
tlAtl).
DISCUSSION: The Chula Vista Community Youth Center has provided a community collaborative that
designates facility use by three partners. City staff members have been working closely with the Club
and District since the Center opened in 1991. The evaluation of the Club's programs has been an
ongoing process, as has the evaluation of the Club's and District's care of the physical plant. Quarterly
meetings with all three entities have taken place, as well as meetings to discuss specific use schedules at
the facility.
The Second Extension of this Agreement includes a modification to the original Agreement which allows
the Club to provide contractual maintenance services in lieu of the School District's janitorial services.
[NETWORK - ss - Al13 - YCloint.A13 - December 5,1996]
1
).,2" I
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
Because of the diverse usage of this facility, and the need of janitorial services during hours when the
District's union employees do not work, it was determined by the District, City, and Club that janitorial
maintenance should be contracted through the Club.
The District has experienced problems in providing the quality and quantity of janitorial maintenance for
the types and times of usage for this building and has been working with the District's union to address
the problems. The District agrees that contractual maintenance is the best method to provide adequate
service to this facility. Staff in charge of facility management from the District, the Club and the City
have written and approved the specifications for the janitorial maintenance contract. All three agencies
will review bids received and choose the contractor. It is believed that contract maintenance will provide
a better service level. The Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works Operations will continue
to monitor maintenance to ensure the new contractual maintenance is providing the service contracted for.
It is not believed that this new arrangement will offer any cost savings.
The Club will contract out the janitorial maintenance of the Youth Center; the District will continue to
provide ground maintenance and minor repairs (and the City will provide major repairs), CIP's, and
general oversight of the Agreement. The costs will remain the same with the Club paying 40 %, District
40% and City 20% for proportionate use. Any large expenses will be determined by each agency as
provided by the proportionate use schedule of the facility.
The Boys and Girls Club and the Sweetwater Union High School District have reviewed the Second
Extension and modifications, and they are in full support of staff's recommendation to approve the
Agreement.
Community Youth Center Status Renort
The Club has been offering a wide variety of programs for youth from ages 6 to 18. The Center is open
five days each week, on a year-round basis, for drop-in and latch key activities that include games, crafts,
field trips, athletic activities and teen programming. The Club's progranuning is based in part on the
results of interest surveys that are conducted through the participants. Most activities are separated by
age, and specific times are designated for different age groups at the facility . Average daily attendance
during the Club's operation is approximately 175. In addition to drop-in activities, the Club offers more
structured programs. Annual attendance is estimated at 50,000.
The District provides curriculum classes at the site for Chula Vista High School which includes the use
of gymnasium, multi-purpose room, and dance room. The District's annual estimated attendance is
60,000.
The City eliminated it's staff operation of the Youth Center as part of Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget and
has operated the facility only for fee-based youth athletics (basketballlindoor soccer), with an annual
attendance of 15,000. The City has included in the FY 1996-97 budget, a rental fee for the use of the
Youth Center by rental groups on the weekends. This is new revenue for FY 1996/97. The City
continues to support the collaborative use of the Center with an appropriated budget in the amount of
[NETWORK - ss - All3 - YCJoint.A13 ~ December 5, 1996]
2
),2'.2
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
$38,661 to provide the City's 20% share of expenses. The quarterly in arrears payment schedule will
be modified to monthly billings by the Club to the District and City. All other shared expenses will be
in regular quarterly billings.
FISCAL IMPACT: $38,861 in supplies and services and operating capital, appropriated for Fiscal Year
1996-97, approved by the Council on June 25, 1996.
Attachments:~" -
...ot~B .
Minutes from the August 15, 1996 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting
Community Youth Center Operating Agreement - Second Extension and
Modification Agreement to the Community Youth Center Operating
Agreement
lien _
Resolution No. 17158 and First Extension Agreement for the Community
Youth Center Operating Agreement
rt~C~~
~O
[NETWORK ~ S5 - A1l3 - YCloinLA13 - December 5, 1996]
3
/,;2':>
RESOLUTION NO. Ilf.5.:2;/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION AND
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY YOUTH
CENTER OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, THE CHULA VISTA BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB, AND THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1992, the City entered into a Joint
Use Agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District and
the Boys and Girls Club of Chula vista for the operation and
maintenance of the Community Youth Center of Chula vista on "L"
street; and
WHEREAS, a First Extension of this Agreement was
authorized by the City Council in July of 1993 with provisions to
extend the Agreement if the Club continued the provision of
appropriate services and support during their operational hours at
the Center; and
WHEREAS, staff is satisfied with the Club's performance,
and is recommending that the Agreement receive a Second Extension
until July of 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the Second Extension and
Modification Agreement to the Community Youth Center Operating
Agreement between the City of Chula vista, the Chula vista Boys and
Girls Club and the Sweetwater Union High School District, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.
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
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
C:\rs\CYC.2nd
l.:l-t(
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
August 15, 1996
PAGE 3
Commissioner Vaccaro abstained on the vote ofthe request of the Memorial Plaque
for Hector Delgado.
New Business
A. Chula Vista Community Center Joint Use Agreement Amendment
Commissioner Dennison asked if the Chula Vista Community Center has complied
with the rules. Director Valenzuela replied that the Center has complied with the
rules.
MSUC (Helton/RadclitIe) to accept the stall's recommendation for the Chula Vista
Community Center Joint Use Agreement Amendment.
B. Port Art Proiect
Sunny Shy, Deputy Director of Recreation, presented to the Commissioners the Port
Art Project entitled "The Wave". The actual piece will be 18 feet tall in size, 38 feet
wide, and 15 feet deep.
Vice Chair Helton was concerned that the children will be climbing to the top of
the sculpture and would hurt themselves.
MSUC (Helton/Dennison) to accept the stall's recommendation of the Proposed
Development of a Specific Arts Project on the Bayfront for Funding by the San
Diego Unified Port District's Art Fund.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Written Correspondence - None
B. Commissioners' Comments
Vice Chair Helton said if there are changes to the agenda, second notices should not
be sent out.
Commissioner Radcliffe said that packets should not be sent twice if there are
changes made. We should receive them at the meeting.
Commissioner Vaccaro changed his vote to no, from abstain, on the Memorial
Plaque for Hector Delgado.
Respecfully Submitted
Carol Ree, Acting Recording Secretary
[a;\PRMTS96.AUG]
/:2-.>
ATTACHMENT "B-1"
Community Youth Center
Operating Agreement
Second Extension and Modification Agreement
to the
Community Youth Center Operating Agreement
1. Parties
This Agreement ("Agreement"), dated December 10, 1996 for
the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last
executed by the parties, is executed between the City of Chula
Vista, a municipal corporation ("City"); the Boys & Girls Club of
Chula Vista, Inc., a nonprofit public benefit corporation, d.b.a.
Boys & Girls Club of Chula vista ("Club"); and the Sweetwater
Union High School District, a political subdivision of the State
of California ("District"); and is made with reference to the
following recitals:
2. Recitals, References and Definitions
2.1. Whereas the parties entered into the "Community Youth
Center Operating Agreement" dated March 12, 1992 and
effective April 2, 1992 providing for the operation and
maintenance of the Chula Vista Community Youth Center,
located at 465 L street, Chula Vista, California ("Original
Agreement"); and,
2.2. Whereas section 3.7 of the Original Agreement provides
that the agreement may from time to time be extended and may
be extended on such terms that conditions as may be mutually
agreeable to the parties; and,
2.3. Whereas on or about July 13, 1993 the parties entered
into the "First Extension Agreement for the Extension of the
Community Youth Center Operating Agreement" by which the
operating agreement was extended to July 1, 1995; and,
2.4. Whereas the parties have been treating, despite the
nominal expiration of the first extension agreement, the
operating agreement to be and remain in full force and
effect since July 1, 1995; and,
2.5. Whereas the Parties desire to continue the Community
Youth Center Operating Agreement in full force and effect
for the term of the extension herein granted or agreed upon
under the terms and conditions herein contained,
November 11, 1996
Page 1
/~--7/.,1-k
ATTACHMENT "B-2"
3. Obligatory provisions
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
3.1 The Community Youth Center Operating Agreement is and
has been deemed to be in full force and effect since July 1,
1995 and shall remain in effect until July 1, 2000.
3.2 Retroactive Validation. All terms, conditions, promises
and covenants contained in the original Agreement shall be
deemed to have been in full force and effect between July 1,
1995 and the effective date of this Agreement.
3.3 Prospective Matters. From and after the effective date
of this Agreement until the end of the extension term
hearing granted, all terms, conditions, promises and
covenants shall be deemed to be in full force and effect
except as follows:
3.3.1
"Section 5.4.1 "Maintenance and Minor
Repairs" of section 5.4 "Maintenance, Repair,
utility and Reimbursement Duties" shall read
as follows:"
"The Club shall provide all maintenance to
the facility, which shall include all
custodial services for the facility required
to maintain it at all time in a clean,
orderly and usable condition, free of
graffiti and shall further include all
janitorial services necessary to clean the
facility, restoring it on a daily basis to an
orderly condition. District shall make all
minor repairs as necessary on a daily basis.
Club shall advance all costs to fulfill this
duty of janitorial service and District shall
advance all costs to fulfill this duty of
daily minor repairs and the Club will bill
the city and District on a monthly basis, the
District shall bill each of the other parties
quarterly in arrears for each parties
proportionate share according to the method
herein permitted for sharing Maintenance and
Minor Repair Costs. Said bill shall be due
and payable in 30 days and if not paid within
that time come interest thereon will accrue
at the rate 1/2% per month."
November 11, 1996
Page 2
;,:2 , ?
AI IALHI'ltI11 .. ~-j..
3 . 3 . 2
section 5.4.3 of 5.4 "Maintenance, Repair,
utility and Reimbursement Duties" is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"The District and city shall make Club
immediately aware of any deficiencies in the
facility which are observed by the Club
custodial maintainer in which could have a
detrimental effect on the condition or
longevity of the building, equipment, or
fixtures in the facility or which could pose
health or safety hazards to any person."
3.4. Except as expressly amended herein all other terms
and conditions, covenants and promises as contained in
the original Agreement shall continue to remain in full
force and effect until the termination of this
extension, to wit: July I, 2000.
(End of page. Next Page is signature Page.)
November II, 1996
Page 3
/,). - g-"
ATTACHMENT "B-4"
Signature Page to
Second Extension and Modification Agreement
to the
community Youth Center Operating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, having been duly
authorized by their respective boards to execute this operating
Agreement, and having duly read and understood the terms and
provisions hereof, do hereby set their hand to indicate their
intent to be bound by the terms hereof.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Dated
By:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet,
city Clerk
Approved as to form:
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
Dated:
By:
Scott Mosher, Executive Director
Dated:
By:
President
Sweetwater High School District
Date:
By:
COlIyouLh.ag
November 11, 1996
Page 4
/.2-i
ATTACHMENT "6-5"
Exhibits:
A: Joint Use Agreement
B: Floor Plan of Facility, Showing storage Rooms 1 - 3
November 11, 1996
IrJ-/P
Page 5
ATTACHMENT "C-l"-
RESOLUTION NO. 17158
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OPERATING AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1992, the City entered into a Joint Use Agreement
with the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Boys and Girls Club of
Chula Vista for the operation and maintenance of the Community Youth Center on
"L" Street; and,
WHEREAS, a section of that Agreement stipulates tht the City will review
the operations of the Boys and Girls Club periodically, and that the City shall
extend the term of the agreement if the Club,is providing appropriate services
and support during their operating hours at the Center; and,
WHEREAS, staff is satisfied with the Club's performance, and is
recommending that the Agreement be extended to July I, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve the First Extension Agreement for the Community Youth
Center Operating Agreement, known as document number C093-115, a copy of which
is 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.
'pp. · ";1):'
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela
Director of Par s
~0
ATTACHMENT "C-2"
FIRST EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION
OF THE COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OPERATING AGREEMENT
This Agreement, entered into this 12,{J.... day of ]"....~ ,
1993 for the purposes of reference only and effective as of'the
date last executed between the parties, is executed between THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("City"); THE BOYS AND
CIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA, INC., a nonprofit public benefit
corporation, d.b.a. Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista ("Club");
and the SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California ("District"); and was made
with reference to the following facts:
R E C I TAL S
WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement dated
March 12, 1992 for the purposes of reference entitled "Community
Youth Center Operating Agreement" by which the City and the
District granted to Club certain rights to occupy and operate the
Community Youth Center as the term is therein defined on certain
terms, conditions, covenants and promises therein contained; and,
WHEREAS, section 3.7 permits the city to review in the
first instance between January and April of 1993, and annually
thereafter, the operations of the Club at the facility including
the Club's provisions of programming, the extent to which it meets
elementary, junior and high school youth needs, their maintenance
of the facility and other factors, all of which are more fully
articulated therein, and upon satisfaction with the performance of
the Club to the date of review, the City Council is ~ntitled to
extend the license therein granted by execution of an Extension
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the hereinabove referenced
factors regarding the Club's operation at the facility, and is
generally satisfied therewith.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Community Youth Center Operating Agreement is
hereby extended to July 1, 1995. All other terms, conditions,
promises and covenants therein contained shall remain in full force
and effect, unaffected by the provisions of this First Extension
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, having been fully
authorized by their respective boards to execute this Agreement,
and having duly read and understood the terms and provisions
hereof, do hereby set their hand to indicate their intent to be
bound by the terms hereof.
1
/.;. -/",,2.
K \'1 ~S~
c..o"\ ~- l\'
DATED: J-, I; )-9 Iff?
( , / /
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~~-
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
Attest~~~ (/ {i~-d!Jll
City lerk
" ttr
f:\HOME\A TTORNEY\CYCxtn.l st
2
IcJ-j:!>
ATTACHMENT "C-3"
DATED;
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
OF CHULA VISTA
lU-~~\N-.o~~
DATEDr /~ ;tit13
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH
SCHOO~
ATTACHMENT "C-4"
RESOLUTION NO. 16545
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SWEETWATER UNION
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CHULA VISTA BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMUNITY
YOUTH CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, at the September 17, 1991 Council meeting, staff was directed to
negotiate and bring back an operating agreement for the Community Youth Center
to allow the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista to utilize the facility a
majority of time when it is not in use by the School District; and,
WHEREAS, in this agreement,
community uses by the Parks
organizations; and,
there would also be opportunities for other
and Recreation Department and Community
WHEREAS, staff has negotiated an agreement that is acceptable to the School
District and the Boys and Girls Club.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve an agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School
District and the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club for the operation and
maintenance of the Community Youth Center, known as document number C092-045, a
copy of which is 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.
J,~7::::r
Director of Parks & Recreation
Presented by
Appro ed as to for
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
102-1'1
ATTACHMENT "C-5"
Community Youth Center
Operating Agreement
1. Parties
This Agreement ("Agreement" or, alternatively, "Operating
Agreement"), dated March 12, 1992 for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties,
is executed between the City of Chu1a vista, a municipal
corporation ("city"); the Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Inc.,
a nonprofit public benefit corporation, d.b.a. Boys & Girls Club
of Chula vista ("Club"); and the Sweetwater Union High School
District, a political subdivision of the State of California
("District"); and is made with reference to the following
recitals:
2. Recitals, References and Definitions
2.1. City and District entered into an agreement dated
September 1, 1988, entitled "Ground Lease and Joint Use Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and Sweetwater Union High school
District Regarding Youth Facility at Chula vista High School"
("Joint Use Agreement") which Joint Use Agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and thereby incorporated herein by
reference; and,
2.2. The property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement ("Property") is commonly known as 465 L street, Chula
vista, California, and is legally described the same as described
in Exhibit A of the Joint Use Agreement, attached hereto, and
includes the Community Youth Facility recently constructed
thereon; and,
2.3. Pursuant to the Joint Use Agreement, District leased
the Property to the city, and City was required to, and has
designed and constructed, to the satisfaction of the District and
in full compliance with that portion of the Joint Use Agreement,
a Community Youth Facility ("Facility") thereupon which Facility
contains the floor plan and rooms described as set forth in the
attached Exhibit B ("Floor Plan"), the parking lot, and parkways.
References in this agreement to rooms of the Facility shall be
the rooms as displayed in the Floor Plan; and,
2.4. For the purposes of reference only and without intent
to modify the original use rights created by the Joint Use
Agreement, "School Hours" or, alternatively, "District Time"
shall mean the time between 7:30 a.m. and 2:25 p.m., Monday
cl\lb8. wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 1
.,...-
1,,2..../.>
(<,1("s..,5
~9 2.-oY:'"
ATTACHMENT "C-6"
through Friday, except District recognized holidays, between
September 12 of one year to June 22 of the following year,
inclusive ("School Year") at Chula vista High School ("Regular
School Day", a term which applies to these regular school hours
during the School Year). "Non-School Hours" or, alternatively,
"City Time" shall mean all hours other than School Hours. Incon-
sistencies in use rights established by this Operating Agreement
and the Joint Use Agreement will be resolved by reference to the
Joint Use Agreement except as expressly provided to the contrary
herein; and
2.5. The city, at its regular council meeting of September
17, 1991, did direct staff to meet and confer with the Club to
provide that the Club use and operate the Facility in a manner
consistent with the Joint Use Agreement and according to the
terms of this Agreement; and,
3. Grant of Partial License to Club as Operator; Term
3.1. city Grant to Club.
3.1.1. Weekdays. Subject to the Exceptions herein
permitted, and except for areas of the Facility herein
specifically and exclusively reserved to another party ("Reserved
Areas"), and upon the condition that Club complies with the
terms, conditions and covenants herein contained, City herepy
grants to Club, for a term to June 15, 1993, the license to enter
upon, occupy, use and operate, according to the terms, conditions
and covenants herein contained, the Facility during the portion
of City Time occurring between Monday commencing at 12:01 a.m.
through Friday, concluding at 11:59 p.m., inclusive.
3.1. 2. omitted.
As used herein, the term "Club Time" shall refer to that portion
of the City Time that has be licensed to the Club by the
provisions of this Section.
3.2. District Grant to Club.
3.2.1. During school Year. Upon the condition that
Club complies with the terms, conditions and covenants herein
contained, and on the further condition that City grant of
license to Club of Club Time is and continues to be in full force
and effect as same may be extended from time to time as herein
allowed, and has not otherwise been canceled or terminated ,
District hereby grants to Club, for a term to June 15, 199B, the
license to enter upon, occupy, use and operate, according to the
terms, conditions and covenants herein contained, the Facility
during the portion of District Time occurring between 7:30 a.m.
clubB.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 2
/,).~/?
ATTACHMENT "C-7"
and 8:30 a.m., Monday through Friday on a Regular School Day
("ClUb's Morning Time from District").
3.2.2. City Consent. City consents to District's
grant of license to Club as herein contained. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to permit District to license
other users of the Facility, and city, by consenting to
the license to Club in this particular situation shall
not be deemed to be a waiver of the City's right to
object to other licenses of the Facility by District.
3.3. Specified Exceptions.
3.3.1. June Graduation, at such date as is set at the
annual scheduling meeting in April.
3.3.2. School Open House, at such date as is set at
the annual scheduling meeting in April.
3.4. Unspecified Exceptions. city shall have the right to
alter, amend, modify, change, contract or eliminate, Club Time as
follows:
3.4.1. ClF/Performing Art Activity Programs. For that
portion of Club Time occurring on a School Day
following School Hours until 4:30 p.m., and for tnose
rooms of the Facility for which the District has
indicated, in writing to city and Club 60 days in
advance of the required date, a need to conduct an
after-school program for California Interscholastic
Federation or performing art activities ("District
After-School Time"), the City may cancel the Club Time
by giving notice to the Club 30 days in advance of the
required date, that city has temporarily licensed the
District to occupy that portion of the Facility during
such District After-School Time, and upon doing so, the
designated portion of Club Time shall be canceled.
3.4.2. Change in School Days. For that portion of
Club Time occurring at a time when, due to an extension
in the normal school hours of a Regular School Day
("Extended School Day") or due to an increase in the
number of regular session school days held in a given
year ("New School Day"), an Extended School Day or a
New School Day is occurring simultaneously with Club
Time, the city may cancel the Club Time by 60 days
notice to Club that City has licensed the District to
occupy that portion of the Facility during such time,
and upon doing so, the designated portion of Club Time
shall be canceled.
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 3
1,2-/7
ATTACHMENT "C-S"
3.4.3. Summer SChool/Intercession After School
Programs. For that portion of Club Time occurring on a
day ("summer Schoel Day") on which the District
conducts a duly designated Summer School program, and
that portion of said Summer School Day immediately
following said summer school program until 4:30 p.m.,
and for those rooms of the Facility, for which the
District has indicated, in writing 60 days prior to the
date, a need to conduct an after-school program ("After
Summer School Program") for enrolled students
("District After Summer School Time"), the city may
cancel Club Time by notice to the Club that city has
temporarily licensed the District to occupy that
portion of the Facility during such District After
Summer School Time, and upon doing so, the designated
portion of Club Time shall be canceled.
3.4.4. Special city Function. Upon 30 days notice to
Club, city may cancel as to all or any room of the
Facility, Club Time in order to prepare for, conduct
and clean up following any function authorized by the
city council of City to be held at said Facility.
3.5. Reserved Areas.
3.5.1. city's Storage Room, No 1. Excepted from" the
license herein granted is the area of storage Room No. 1 which is
hereby specifically reserved and granted to the exclusive and
full time use of city during the term of this Agreement.
3.5.2. District's storage Room, No.2. Excepted from
the license herein granted is the area of storage Room No. 2
which is hereby specifically reserved and granted to the
exclusive and full time use of District during the term of this
Agreement.
3.5.3. Club's Storage Room, No.3. Notwithstanding
the limitations that the grant of license to Club is as to
certain hours of the day and days of the week and year, license
is hereby granted to Club by City and District for a term that is
coterminous with the right of Club to use and operate the
Facility, unless sooner terminated by city on 30 days written
notice, for the full time and exclusive use of Storage Room No.
3.
3.5.4.
limitations that
hours of the day
granted to Club,
Joint storage Room, No.4. Notwithstanding the
the grant of license to Club is as to certain
and days of the week and year, license is hereby
city and District by City and District for a
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 4
)~ -r6'
ATTACHMENT "C-9"
term that is coterminous with the right of Club to use and
operate the Facility, unless sooner terminated by city on 30 days
written notice, for the joint use by all parties of Storage Room
No.4.
3.6. Nothing herein gives rise to a recordable interest in
real property to the Club. No party shall cause or permit this
Agreement to be recorded with the Recorder's Office.
3.7. Extensions of Grant.
For so long as the Club is operating the Facility during
Club Time under a currently valid grant of license which has not
been sooner revoked, terminated or otherwise lapsed, city Council
agrees that City will at their convenience between January and
April of i993, and for each extension period thereafter, review
Club's operations at the Facility, which shall include the Club's
provision of programming, and the extent which it is designed to
meet the needs of elementary, junior and high school youth, and
which shall further include the nature and extent to which they
have adequately maintained the Facility, or otherwise contributed
to the cost of said maintenance, and which shall further include
a review of the advantages and disadvantages from continuing to
permit the Club to operate at the Facility. In the event that
the city is satisfied with the performance of the Club to the
date of review, City Council shall extend the license herein
granted by the execution of an extension agreement ("Extension
Agreements") for one year increments, but in no event may the
contract be extended, in total, under the terms of this provision
beyond 3 1/2 additional years. City Council agrees to use good
faith and best efforts to render a decision prior to two months
prior to the end of the term, as same may be, from time to time,
extended. Any Extension Agreement may contain any additional
terms and conditions that are mutually agreeable to the parties.
If the City tenders an Extension Agreement to the Club which is
unacceptable to the Club, the previous license under which the
Club was operating shall terminate according to its then existing
term, and upon said termination, Club shall vacate and surrender
the premises. Nothing in is this section shall prevent the City,
in their sole discretion, from re-licensing the Club if they so
desire.
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 5
1eJ.;/7
ATTACHMENT "C-IO"
4. Duties of Club.
4.1. Use Duty.
It is expressly agreed that the Facility is licensed to Club
solely for the purposes of providing primarily the youth, and
secondarily the Chula vista community in general, with a recrea-
tional and educational facility and corresponding projects and
programs intended to promote their physical, mental, and moral
well being, and for such other related or incidental purposes as
may first be approved in writing by the city Manager and for no
other purpose whatsoever. Club shall not use the Facility for
any other purpose ("Use Duty").
4.1.1. Specific Violations of Use Duty. Without
limitation as to other possible violations of the Use Duty, the
Club shall specifically not permit the following uses:
4.1.1.1. Political Activities. Club shall not
use and shall not permit or tolerate the use of the
Facility for campaigning or otherwise working for the
nomination or election of any individual to any public
office, partisan or nonpartisan, or for any ballot
measure, including any initiative, referendum, or
advisory vote, except with the advance written
permission of the city Council. The Club may use. the
Facility, with the advance written permission of the
City council, as a forum for open public debate by
candidates on the condition that no member of the
public shall be excluded therefrom.
4.1.1.2. Regular Church Services.
use and shall not permit or tolerate the
Facility for regular church or religious
Club shall
use of the
services.
not
4.1.1.3. Alcohol and Drugs. Club shall not allow
alcohol or illegal drugs to be sold, used or consumed
in, on or about the Facility. Club shall not permit or
allow any portion of the Facility to be rented or
utilized by any person, group or company that intends
to provide alcoholic beverages at an event or meeting.
The Club shall make these facts known, in writing and
through oral communications, to all staff members and
participants at the Facility.
4.1.1.4. Bingo. Club shall not allow the rental
of the Facility for the playing of bingo.
4.1.1.5. Video Games. Club shall not permit
video games to be played at the Facility without
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 6
1.2,.2-0
ATTACHMENT "C-11"
further approval of city.
4.2. programming Duties.
4.2.1. All of the duties of the Club herein in this
section entitled "Programming Duties" imposed shall be
collectively referred to as the Club's "programming Duties."
4.2.2. Needs Survey Duty. All of the duties of the
Club and or the City herein in this Subsection entitled "Needs
Survey Duty" imposed shall be collectively referred to as the
Club's and/or the City's "Needs Survey Duty," as appropriate.
4.2.2.1. Commencing on the execution of this
Operating Agreement, and at such other interval
thereafter as may be designated by the city, if the
Club License is extended by City, but in no event later
than 20 days thereafter, Club and city shall jointly
prepare a survey plan ("Needs Survey Plan") which shall
provide for a survey ("Needs Survey") of the .
programming interests and programming needs of youth in
the elementary, junior and senior high school age
bracket.
4.2.2.2. Upon satisfactory agreement between the
Club and the city of the Needs Survey Plan, Club and
city shall perform and shall, not later that 20 days
thereafter conclude, at an equally shared cost and ex-
pense, the approved Needs Survey according to the
approved Needs Survey Plan.
4.2.3. Permanent Program Duty.
4.2.3.1. Upon completion of the Needs Survey, and
in no event later than 30 days thereafter, Club shall
present a proposed plan ("Permanent Program Plan")
providing for the continuous use of the Facility during
the Club Time and designed to efficiently and
substantially satisfy the legitimate needs of .the
elementary, junior and senior high age bracket youth as
identified in the Needs survey results.
4.2.3.2. Corrections and Adjustments in
programming. At any time after implementation of the
Permanent Program Plan, if the City, by and through its
City Manager, reasonably determines that all or any
portion of the Club's programs are not meeting the
needs of the elementary, junior and high school age
youth effectively and efficiently, city may issue to
Club a notice to cure said deficiency or inadequacy
clubB.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 7
/ ,). ... ,).. (
ATTACHMENT "C-12"
within such time as the City Manager determines is
practical, but in no event later than three (3) months
("Notice to Cure Deficient Programming"). Club shall
cure such defects or inadequacies within the time
provided.
4.2.3.3. The Club and the city shall meet and
confer at least quarterly to discuss their programming
plans and facilitate cooperate programming as deemed
feasible in an effort to coordinate services and avoid
duplication of services as both Parties agree is
reasonable.
4.2.3.4. Club shall implement a Permanent Program
Plan within 60 days from the date of this Agreement,
and maintain said Plan in accordance with its terms.
4.3. conflict Scheduling Duty (as between city, District
and Club); Scheduling Periods.
4.3.l.
to this Agreement
by this operating
"Time Rights" shall refer to right of a party
to use and operate this Facility as determined
Agreement or by the Joint Use Agreement.
4.3.2. On a quarter-year basis, or on such more
frequent schedule as city shall set ("Scheduling Period"),
commencing and occurring on such specific date as the city shall
set not later than 70 days prior to the commencement of the
Scheduling Period, Club, City and District shall meet and confer
jointly with regard to the specific time needs that each party
shall require of the Facility during the next Scheduling Period
that may occur outside of their own individual Time Rights. Such
meetings shall be referred to as "Scheduling Meetings". Each
party is required to attend Scheduling Meetings. It shall also
be a permissible subject of such quarterly meetings to discuss
operational problems experienced by the Parties.
4.3.3. Upon any party's request ("Requesting Party")
of another party ("Requested Party") to concede Time Rights
otherwise granted to the Requested party ("Requested Time"), the
Requested Party shall either concede the Time Rights, or advance,
in good faith, legitimate justification for not surrendering Time
Rights, and in doing so, shall consider, among other things: (I)
The ability of the Requested Party to schedule reliable programm-
ing; (2) The public benefits achieved by their proposed use of
the Facility during the Requested Time as balanced against (3)
the public benefits to be achieved by the Requesting Party's
proposed use of the Facility during the Requested Time; (4) the
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 8
/ .,2 .... :l. )....
ATTACHMENT "C-13':
primary youth serving purpose to which the Facility is to be put;
(5) the fact that Time Rights were allotted to the Requested
Party in the first instance in order to carry out a particular
function. Concession of Time Rights between the parties shall be
made without compensation, and no party shall demand or request
same. If after this discussion, impasse is reached, City Council
shall be the final arbiter of time rights. Except as otherwise
provided herein, no party is required, at such Scheduling
Meetings, to surrender their Time Rights. Nothing herein shall
be deemed to compromise or diminish the city's right to cancel
Club Time as herein above permitted, and it is hereby expressly
acknowledged that city intends to exercise such cancellation
right as to Club Time needed by District to conduct their
basketball practice and games.
4.3.4. The duties imposed on the parties by this
Section shall be referred to as the "Conflict scheduling Duties."
4.4. Community Group Permitting Duties; Master Calendaring
of Club Time.
4.4.1. Duty to Permit other Group Use.
During such periods of Club Time not otherwise conceded
to the District or City that the Club does not have a pro-
posed organized group use of the Facility, or of any par-
ticular room thereof ("Unused Time Slots"), Club shall'grant
permits to public benefit groups and private benefit groups
from the community requesting to use the Facility or
Facility rooms as Club deems most appropriate giving due
consideration to the following guidelines and priorities:
(1) A group that proposes a benefit to youth should have
priority to a group that proposes a benefit to non-youth;
(2) A group that proposes a benefit to more Chula vista
residents should have priority over a group that proposes a
benefit to fewer residents; (3) A group that proposes a use
of greater public benefit to a larger number of people
should have priority over a group that proposes a use with a
lesser public benefit or to a lesser number of people; (4) A
group posing a lesser risk of injury to persons or property
should be given priority over a group that poses a greater
risk of injury to persons or property; (5) The order in
which the request for usage was received. Club shall give
little if any consideration to the rents or fees that a
group is willing to pay when selecting between a non-profit,
public benefit group and a private user.
4.4.2.
all or part
used by one
Duty to Supervise. During all such times as
of the Facility is permitted by the Club to be
or more community groups as herein permitted,
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 9
I,), ,:l3
ATTACHMENT "C-14"
the Club shall provide competent, on-site superv1s10n of
said group by an appropriate contingent of responsible
adults, and such appropriate security therefore necessary to
prevent property damage or intentional personal injury.
4.4.3. Liability for Damage--Property and Personal
Injury. Club shall be liable for all property damage and
personal injury that occurs by its permittee or their guests
or attendees, and shall hold the City and District harmless
from any and all such liability.
4.5. Calendaring Duty.
As a result of Club's execution of their Programming
Duty, their Conflict Scheduling Duty, and their Community Group
Permitting Duty, Club shall prepare, mail to City, District and
such community groups requesting notice, 15 days in advance, and
post 15 days in advance in a conspicuous place at the main
entrance to said Facility, a monthly calendar in such form as is
acceptable to the city and School District of the proposed usage
of the Facility including usage of Gymnasium, Multi-purpose Room
and Dance Room, for the upcoming calendar month. Unused Time
Slots shall be clearly marked thereon.
4.6. Management Duty.
Throughout the term of this license, Club shall provide
competent management of the Facility to the satisfaction of the
city Manager ("Management Duty"). "competent Management" as used
herein means demonstrated ability in the management and operation
of a youth serving facility and related activities in an
administratively and fiscally competent manner.
4.7. Audit Duty.
Upon demand by the city, Club shall permit City to conduct a
full inspection of all books and records of Club as same shall,
in the opinion of the city Manager, relate to the Club's
management and operation of the Facility, or to the performance
of any terms, covenant or condition of this Agreement. Club
agrees to make any and all records and accounts available to City
for inspection at all reasonable times, so that City can
determine Club's compliance with this license. These records and
accounts will be made available by Club at such place as Club
shall designate within the City of Chula Vista, and will be
complete and accurate showing all income and receipts from use of
the premises. Club's failure to keep and maintain such records
and make them available for inspection by city is a breach of
this license and cause for termination. Club shall maintain all
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page .10
/.2. "'~l(
ATTACHMENT "C-15"
such records and accounts for a minimum period of five (5) years.
4.8. Operational Duties.
4.8.1. Permit Fees and Rental Rates.
Club shall be permitted to charge and collect from
permittees rents and/or fees for the use of the Facility during
Club Time except that the rents and fees charged shall be
pursuant to a written schedule that is reviewed and approved by
the city in advance. The Club may have two sets of rates and
fees, one of which shall provide a schedule of rates and fees for
community oriented, public benefit, non-profit groups ("Non-
Profit Rates") that reflect merely a fair distribution of the
Club's costs of operations, and shall not contain a profit
component. The City shall not participate in the proceeds from
Non-Profit Rates. The Club may also propose a set of rates to be
charged to other users which may contain a profit component
("Private Party Rates"), and when approved by the City, and upon
imposition and collection, the Club shall divide the Profit
Component (i.e., the differential between the Non Profit Rates
and the Private Party Rates) of the proceeds from the Private
Party Rates with the city on a 50-50 basis.
4.8.2. Log Book.
All parties shall keep, maintain and permit the
inspection by all other parties of, a joint log book in a form
approved by the City in which the Club shall maintain a record of
acts of vandalism, repairs, incidents of graffiti, and other
major incidents.
4.8.3. Procedure Training.
Club shall cause and train its employees to comply with
procedures in a manual ("Procedures Manual") city prepares
regarding utility turn-offs, alarm responses, locking up/closing,
key distribution, facility damage (including graffiti reporting).
4.8.4. Wood Floor Maintenance.
In the event that the floor of the GYmnasium or Dance
Room is used for two or more activities during a single shift by
any Party and prior to normal janitorial servicing, said Party
shall sweep same before every new activity. This procedure shall
be contained in the Club procedures manual.
4.8.5. Keying and Rekeying of Locks
The Parties agree that the keying and rekeying of
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 11
/.;2 ....,;...$
ATTACHMENT "C-16"
interior locks should be arranged by the city under contract with
Best Lock systems (in San Diego).
4.8.6. Alarm System.
Between Monday through Friday, District will arm in the
evening and unarm in the morning the alarm system. On Saturday
and Sunday, city will arm in the evening and unarm in the morning
the alarm system. District will respond to emergency alarm
calls, secure building and call city for major repairs, the cost
of which may be charged to the parties on the Gross Common Pot
Method.
4.8.7. Normal Cleanup Maintenance.
Except for conditions which may be corrected by normal
janitorial services, all parties shall leave the Facility at the
conclusion of their daily time allotment in a neat and clean
condition and one that does not imposed any additional duty on
the janitorial and custodial services staff, or upon the next
occupant of the Facility.
4.8.8. Other Rules Promulgated by city.
Club shall abide by any and all reasonable rules and
procedures promulgated by the City, as same may be, from time to
time amended, with regard to the usage of the Facility.
4.8.9. Improvements/Mechanics Liens.
Club shall not permit any work of improvement to occur
on the Facility without the express written permission of the
city and District, and shall not permit any mechanics lien to be
placed against said Facility.
4.8.10. signs. Club agrees not to erect or display
outside the premises any banners, pennants, flags, posters,
signs, decorations, marquees, awnings, or similar devices or
advertising without the prior written consent of city, obtained
by and from the Design Review Committee of said City. City
agrees, subject to review and approval according to normal City
standards, to the placement and maintenance of a separate sign
which reads: "Chula vista Boys & Girls Club", or some facsimile
thereof. If any such unauthorized item is found on the premises,
Club agrees to remove the item at its expense within 24 hours
notice thereof by city, or City may thereupon remove the item at
Club's cost. Club shall be solely responsible for the placement,
the cost, the maintenance, and at the termination of their
license, the removal of such sign.
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 12
/,;l"'~(,
ATTACHMENT "C-17"
4.8.11. Hazardous Materials. If Club knows or has
reasonable cause to believe, that any hazardous substance has
been released on or beneath the premises, Club shall give written
notice to the City Manager within ten (10) days of receipt of
such knowledge or cause for belief. Provided however, if CLUB
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that such substance is
an imminent and substantial danger to public health and safety,
Club shall notify the City Manager immediately upon receipt of
this knowledge or belief and shall take all actions necessary to
alleviate such danger. Club will notify the City Manager
immediately of any notice of violation received or initiation of
environmental actions or private suits relative to the premises.
In addition, ClUb shall not utilize or sell any hazardous
substance on the property without the prior written consent of
the City.
4.8.12. Youth Access. No member of the Club may be
refused admittance to the Club or the Facility on the basis of
his or her inability to afford the membership fee.
4.8.13. Bylaws.
Club Bylaws shall be on file in the office of the Parks
Director prior to City execution of this lease.
4.8.14. standard of Employees.
CLUB and its employees shall at all times conduct
themselves and the operations on the leased premises in a
creditable manner. Furthermore, employees of the Club shall
conduct pre-employment background investigations on all employees
which investigations shall include, but not be limited to,
reference checks, fingerprint clearances, and other steps which
the Club may require.
4.8.15. staffing.
ClUb shall provide sufficient staffing of events and
programs to be held or conducted at the Facility during Club Time
which shall, in the absence of written permission or direction
otherwise from the City, shall include at least one staff member
for each 15 children.
4.9. Insurance, Indemnity, and Risk Sharing Duties.
4.9.1. Reciprocal Indemnity for Invitee's, Employee's,
or Trespasser's Personal and Property Injuries Not Caused by
Design, Construction, Maintenance or Repair.
Each Party ("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 13
I,J.-;'?
ATTACHMENT "C-18"
other Party ("Indemnified Party"), holds the Indemnified Party
harmless, and agrees to defend the Indemnified party, against
loss, damage or liability ona claim, the adverse judgment,
adverse order on, or good faith settlement of, such a claim,
including attorneys fees and court costs in defending such claim,
suffered by an Indemnified Party due to personal injury to, or
damage to the property of, an invitee (including a permittee) of
an Indemnified Party ("Indemnified's Invitee"), an employee
("Indemnified's Employee") of an Indemnified Party, or to a
trespasser or other uninvited person, at the Facility (except to
the extent that said claim is based on an act or omission of
design, construction, including building materials, maintenance
or non-maintenance, repair or non-repair by the Indemnifying
Party) primarily caused by the act or omission of the
Indemnifying Party, their employees or invitees.
4.9.2. Reciprocal Indemnity for Property Damage
Suffered by a Party Not Caused by Design,. Construction,
Maintenance or Repair.
4.9.2.1. Property Damage. Each Party
("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each other party ("Indemnified
Party") and holds the Indemnified Party harmless, from any
property damage suffered by the Indemnified Party at the Facility
primarily caused by the act or omission of the Indemnifying
Party, their employees or invitees, other than by acts of design,
construction (including building materials), maintenance or non-
maintenance, repair or non-repair.
4.9.2.2. Claim on Property Damage. Each Party
("Indemnifying Party") indemnifies each other Party ("Indemnified
Party") and holds the Indemnified Party harmless from, and agrees
to defend the Indemnified Party on, for any liability on any
claim for property damage suffered a Party at the Facility
. (except to the extent that such claim is based on an act or
omission of design, construction, including building materials,
maintenance or non-maintenance, repair or non-repair by the
Indemnifying Party) primarily caused by the act or omission of
the Indemnifying Party, or their employees, other than by acts of
design, construction (including building materials), maintenance
or non-maintenance, repair or non-repair.
4.9.3. Liability for Design and Construction.
Loss, damage or liability sustained by a Party during
the term of the Joint Use Agreement, either directly or indirect-
ly as a result of a third party claim of injury, damage, or other
loss, resulting primarily from, or claimed to be caused by,
inadequate or improper design of the Facility, construction of
the Facility, choice of building materials used in the Facility,
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 14
/-2....,)..~
ATTACHMENT "C-19"
modifications of the Facility shall be borne equally by the city
and the District. This covenant shall survive the termination of
this agreement.
4.9.4. Liability for Losses Caused by Repair and
Maintenance.
Losses sustained by a Party during the grant of City's
license to Club, either directly or indirectly as a result of a
third party claim of injury, damage, or other loss, resulting
primarily from, or claimed to be caused by, inadequate or
improper repair or non-repair of the Facility, or maintenance or
non-maintenance of the Facility, shall be borne equally by the
Parties. This covenant shall survive the termination of this
agreement.
4.9.5. Insurance.
4.9.5.1. property Damage Insurance. District
shall secure at their cost in the first instance Facility
specific fire, extended coverage, and vandalism insurance policy
on all insurable real property owned by all Parties on the
premises in an amount to cover 100 percent of the replacement
value, with a $10,000 deductible. Any proceeds from a loss shall
be payable jointly to City and District, and shall be ultimately
used as follows: The proceeds shall be placed in a trust fund to
be reinvested in rebuilding or repairing the damaged property.
District shall bill the parties for the premium for this policy
in accordance with the Common Pot Gross Method immediately upon
receipt of the insurance invoice. said bill shall be paid within
30 days, or interest thereon shall accrue at the rate of 1 1/2%
per month. Failure of Club to pay such a bill within 60 days
shall be grounds for termination by city. Any damage loss which
is within the limits of the $10,000 deductible shall be
distributed to the parties in the same manner as Major Repairs.
4.9.5.2. Liability Insurance. Each Party shall,
at their own expense, throughout the term of this agreement,
maintain an "occurrence" public liability policy in the amount of
not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). Such policies
shall cover all injury or damage, including death, suffered by
any party or parties present on the premises at the behest of, or
under the supervision of, such Party on or in connection with the
use or operation of the premises. The Club shall have not more
than a $1,000 deductible, and shall be responsible for all losses
incurred within the amount of said deductible. The City and
District may maintain its normal "self-insured retention ("SIR")
amount", and shall be responsible for all losses incurred with
the amount of said SIR.
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 15
1)-"',). 7
ATTACHMENT "C-20"
Club's responsibility to maintain said insurance
also includes the following:
(1) Additional Insured. Said insurance
policies will name City and District as
an additional insured, protect the City
and District against any legal costs in
defending claims, and will not terminate
without sixty (60) days' prior written
notice to City and District. All
insurance companies must be satisfactory
to city and District and licensed to do
business in California. A copy of the
insurance policy will remain on file
with city during the entire term of the
license. At least thirty (30) days
prior to the expiration of each policy,
Club shall furnish a certificate(s)
showing that a new or extended policy
has been obtained which meets the terms
of this license.
(2) Modification. city, at its discretion,
may require the revision of amounts and
coverages at any time during the term by
giving Club sixty (60) days' prior
written notice. City'S requirements
shall be designed to assure protection
from and against the kind and extent of
risk existing on the premises.
(3) Accident Reports. Club shall report to
city any accident causing injury to
persons or property on the premises.
This report shall contain the names and
addresses of the parties involved, a
statement of the circumstances, the date
and hour, the names and addresses of any
witnesses and other pertinent
information.
(4) Failure to Comply. If Club fails or
refuses to take out and maintain the
require insurance, or fails to provide
the proof of coverage, City has the
right to obtain the insurance. Club
shall reimburse City for the premiums
paid with interest at the maximum
allowable legal rate then in effect in
California. city shall give notice of
clubB.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 16
J.).'J()
ATTACHMENT "C-21"
the payment of premiums within thirty
(30) days of payment stating the amount
paid, names of the insurer(s) and rate
of interest. Said reimbursement and
interest shall be paid by Club on the
first (1st) day of the month following
the notice of payment by city.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions
of this subsection (4), if Club fails or
refuses to take out or maintain
insurance as required in this license,
or fails to provide the proof of
insurance, city has the right to declare
this license in default without further
notice to Club and city shall be
entitled to exercise all legal remedies
in the event of such default.
4.10 Waste, Damage, or Destruction.
Club agrees to give notice to city and District of any fire
or other damage that may occur at the Facility within two (2)
days of such fire or damage. Club agrees not to commit or suffer
to be committed any waste or injury or any public or private
nuisance, to keep the Facility clean and clear of refuse and
obstructions, and to dispose of all garbage, trash, and rubbish
in a manner satisfactory to city. If the Club shall damage the
Facility or permit the Facility to be damaged by its employees or
invitees to the extent that the Facility, or any part thereof is
not decent, safe, healthy and sanitary, Club agrees to make or
cause to be made full repair of said damage and to restore the
premises to the condition which existed prior to said damage; or,
at city's option, Club agrees to clear and remove from the
Facility all debris resulting from said damage and rebuild the
premises in accordance with plans and specifications previously
submitted to city and approved in writing in order to replace in
kind and scope the operation which existed prior to such damage,
using for either purpose any insurance proceeds therefrom.
Club agrees that preliminary steps performing repairs, res-
toration, or replacement of the premises shall be commenced by
Club within thirty (30) days, and the required repairs, restora-
tion, or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time
thereafter.
4.11. Termination Duties.
4.11.1. At the expiration or earlier termination of
this license in the manner herein permitted, Club shall
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 17
I~'J/
ATTACHMENT "C-22"
surrender the premises to City free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances, except those liens and encumbrances which
existed on the date of execution hereof, and in a decent,
safe and sanitary condition and in substantially the same
condition as when licensed to the Club, ordinary wear and
tear excepted.
4.11.2. Holding Over. Any holding over by Club after
expiration or termination shall not be considered as a
renewal or extension of this license. The occupancy of the
premises after the expiration or termination of this
agreement constitutes a daily license, and all other terms
and conditions of this agreement shall continue in full
force and effect; provided, however, City shall have the
right to institute an increase in rent to bring the rent to
fair market value and/or to terminate the holdover tenancy
at will.
4.12. Reporting Duties.
Club shall provide city with a current version of its
mission and goals to be fulfilled at said facility, and an
annual report of its operations in such form as may be
approved by the City but which shall, at a minimum,
demonstrate the number of youth served, on a program by
program basis.
5. Joint Party Duties.
5.1. Cost Sharing Methods and Terms.
5.1. 1. "Common Pot Gross Method". Costs distributed
to the parties under this method ("common Pot Gross Method")
shall be distributed on the basis of 40% to the Club, 40% to the
District and 20% to the City. This percentage distribution shall
be an eligible subject for reconsideration during extension
requests.
5.1.2. "Capital Method". Costs distributed to the
parties under this method ("Capital Method") shall be distributed
as follows: (1) to the Club on the basis of 36% (Common Pot
Gross Method Percent above) times a fraction the numerator of
which is the number of years, prorated to the nearest month,
remaining under the term of said license and the denominator of
which is the number of years of useful life of object which is
the subject matter of the expenditure; (2) to the city on the
basis of 29% times a fraction the numerator of which is number of
years remaining under the ground lease as specified in the joint
use agreement, not to exceed the useful life of the object with
is the subject matter of the expenditure, the denominator of
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 18
1.2-:;J:2
ATTACHMENT "C-23"
which is the useful life of the object; and to the District for
the balance of the expenditure.
5.2. Definitions.
5.2.1. "Minor Repair" is an expenditure designed to
return all or a portion of the Facility to its current condition
or functionality, and which is less than $2,500 and which is on
an object that will have a useful life of less than one (l) year.
5.2.2. "Major Repair" is an expenditure designed to
return all or a portion of the Facility to its current condition
or functionality, and which is $2,500 or greater or which is on
an object that will have a useful life of one (l) year or
greater.
5.2.3. "Improvement" is an expenditure designed to
place all or a portion of the Facility in a better condition or
functionality that its current condition or functionality.
5.2.4. "utility Costs" include expenditures on the
Facility for electricity, gas, water, sewer, solid waste removal,
cable television, and alarm maintenance and reporting costs.
Telephone shall not be considered a utility Cost.
5.2.5. "Maintenance Costs" include expenditures for
grounds maintenance required to keep the grounds and outside of
Facility in a neat and clean condition, free of graffiti, and to
keep the landscaping and other grounds vegetation healthy, and to
provide normal janitorial services to the inside of the Facility,
including dusting, shampooing carpets, polishing and waxing
floors, replacement lighting, etc.
5.2.6. "Useful Life". The city shall, after meeting
and conferring with the District in a spirit of cooperation, have
the authority to establish the useful life of an object which is
the subject matter of an expenditure, which authority it shall
reasonably and fairly exercise.
5.3. Cost Sharing.
5.3.1. Telephone Costs. Each party shall be
responsible for providing and paying for their own telephone and
telephone lines as they deem appropriate, and for providing a
locking mechanism to assure only those persons they desire using
same access thereto.
5.3.2. utility Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Minor
Repairs shall be divided among the parties under the Common Pot
Gross Method. Insurance costs, if a joint insurance policy is
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 19
I.). ~ .11
ATTACHMENT "C-24"
acquired as hereinabove discussed, shall be divided among the
parties under the Common Pot Gross Method.
5.3.3. Major Repairs shall be paid for by the party
causing same, but if not attributable to an identifiable party,
they shall be divided among the parties under the Capital Method.
Major Repairs caused by a third party which could have been
avoided by proper supervision of a party to this agreement shall
be deemed to be attributable to the party which was responsible
for provided the supervision. Any Major Repairs shall be done
only after review of the repair plans and specifications, and
approval thereof, by the city.
5.3.4. Improvements shall be agreed to in advance
between the City and the District as to design and construction.
The proponent of the improvement shall meet and confer with the
Club as to same but Club's consent shall not be required. Upon
agreement as to the Improvement between the City and District,
the cost thereof shall be divided between the parties on the
basis of the Capital Method, except that the cost to the Club
shall not exceed 1% per year of the Club's gross budget
appropriation, unless the Club consents thereto, but if the Club
fails to consent to the excess, and the City and the District
agrees to proceed with the improvement, the Club shall not have
access to the improvement as part of the license which is the
subject matter of this agreement.
5.3.5. The granting of the two licenses by City and
District to Club may give rise to the duty of the Club, imposed
by the state, by and through the San Diego County Assessor, to
pay a possessory interest tax, and if same should occur, Club
shall be solely liable for the payment of said tax ("Tax Payment
Duty"). This clause is intended to provide the disclaimer
required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 107.6, a copy of
which Club has read and understands.
5.4. Maintenance, Repair, utility and Reimbursement Duties.
5.4.1. Maintenance and Minor Repairs. The Di~lrict
shall provide all maintenance to the Facility, which shall
include all custodial services for the Facility required to
maintain it at all times in a clean, orderly, and usable
condition, free of graffiti and shall further include all
janitorial services necessary to clean the Facility, restoring it
on a daily basis to an orderly condition. District shall make
all Minor Repairs as necessary on a daily basis. District shall
advance all costs to fulfill this duty and shall bill each party
quarterly in arrears for each party's proportionate share
according to the method herein permitted for sharing Maintenance
and Minor Repairs Costs. Said bill shall be due and payable in
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 20
~~
ATTACHMENT "C-25"
30 days, and if not paid within that time,
accrue at the rate of 1 1/2% per month. I
ot ' lowe
interest thereon will
't'
a
,
unds for t
.-----.
5.4.2. utility Costs. All utilities shall be taken
out and maintained in the name of the City, and shall be paid in
the first instance by the City. city shall bill each party
quarterly in arrears for each party's proportionate share
according to the method herein permitted for the sharing of
utility Costs. Said bill shall be due and payable in 30 days,
and if not paid within that time, interest thereon will accrue at
the rate of 1 1/2% per month. In addition to such other remedies
are allowed by law, failure of Club to pay such a bill within 60
days shall be grounds for termination by City.
5.4.3. The District and Club shall make city
immediately aware of any deficiencies in the Facility which are
observed by the District's custodial staff and which could have a
detrimental effect on the condition or longevity of the building,
equipment, or fixtures in the Facility or which could pose health
or safety hazards to any person.
5.4.4. Major Repairs. District shall meet and confer
with the City as to the need for making a Major Repair, and the
City and District shall agree as to the design and construction
of the Major Repair. upon reaching agreement, the City shall
make the Major Repair, advance the costs thereof, place the
proper claim against any applicable insurance policy as
appropriate, and shall bill each party in arrears for their sole
or proportionate share according to the cost sharing method
hereinabove set forth. Said bill shall be due and payable in 30
days, and if not paid within that time, interest thereon will
accrue at rate of 1 1/2% per month. In addition to such other
remedies are allowed by law, failure of Club to pay such a bill
within 60 days shall be grounds for termination by city. Any
insurance proceeds realized by the District shall be distributed
to the parties in proportion to the cost contributed to the
repair.
5.4.4.1. Warranty Work. For any Major Repair
required as a result of the breach of the
construction contractor, or otherwise covered by
the contractor's warranty, the city will make a
good faith effort to require the contractor to
repair same ("Warranty Work") during the warranty
period, and without contribution by the Parties.
Any such "Warranty Work" shall be conducted under
the supervision of the city, by and through its
Public Works Department.
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/community Youth genter
March 12, 1992 Page 21
/.2~ )>
ATTACHMENT "C-26"
6. Rights Expressly Reserved by city.
6.1. Related council Actions. By the granting of this
license, neither city nor theChu1a vista city Council is
obligating itself to any other governmental agent, board,
commission, or agency with regard to any other discretionary
action relating to development or operation of the Facility.
Discretionary action includes, but is not limited to
rezonings, variances, environmental clearances or any other
governmental agency approvals which may be required for the
development and operation of the Facility.
6.2. No Liability for Lack of Quiet Enjoyment. If city for
any reason cannot deliver possession or quiet enjoyment of the
premises or any portion thereof to Club or if Club is dispos-
sessed therefrom, the city shall not liable to Club for any loss
or damage resulting therefrom.
6.3. Eminent Domain. Nothing herein shall be construed as
an abandonment of the city's or District's right of eminent
domain of this license. Upon the exercise of eminent domain
against the Club's interest herein contained by any entity with
the power of eminent domain, the license shall forthwith
terminate without compensation and any interest therein which the
Club may have shall revert to the city.
6.4. Rights Reserved. All rights not specifically granted
by the city to Club shall be specifically and generally reserved
to the city.
7. Remedies for Breach.
7.1. If Club shall default in the performance of any
covenant or condition required by this Agreement to be performed
by Club, then city will give Club written notice citing such
default and demand the Club or any person claiming rights through
Club to correct such default noticed, and upon giving such
notice, Club shall correct such default as soon as practicable,
but in no event, later than 30 days. Failure of Club to correct
default shall result in termination of the License which is the
subject matter of this Agreement; and city may enter and take
possession of the premises.
7.2. Waiver. Any city waiver of a default is not a waiver
of any other default. Any waiver of a default must be in writing
and be executed by the city Manager in order to constitute a
valid and binding waiver. City delay or failure to exercise a
remedy or right is not a waiver of that or any other remedy or
right under this lease. The use of one remedy or right for any
default does not waive the use of another remedy or right for the
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/Community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 22
~~v
ATTACHMtNI "1.--0
same default or for another or later default.
7.3. summary Eviction Procedures Apply. Except as
hereinabove provided, breach by Club of any of the terms,
conditions or covenants herein contained which the Club is
obligated to perform shall, at the option of the city be an
independent basis for termination of the license herein granted,
and upon exercise of the power of termination, all laws and rules
relating to summary eviction and unlawful detainer apply to
Club'S occupancy of the Facility.
8. Miscellaneous.
8.1. Construction Against Draftsman.
This agreement has been fully negotiated by all parties, and
no construction or interpretation is to be made hereof on the
basis of draftsmanship of the document.
8.2 Time is of Essence; provisions Binding on Successors.
Time is of the essence of all of the terms, covenants and
conditions of this lease and, except as otherwise provided
herein, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this lease
shall apply to, benefit and bind the successors and assigns of
the respective parties, jointly and individually.
8.3. Assignment and Subletting.
Except as herein provided, Club shall not assign this
license, or any interest therein, and shall not sublicense the
real property or any part thereof, or any right or privilege
appurtenant thereto, or suffer any other person, except
employees, agents, guests and permittees of Club, to use or
occupy the real property or any part thereof, without the prior
written consent of the city in each instance. A consent to
assignment, subletting, occupation or use by any other person
shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment,
subletting, occupation or use by another person. Any such
assignment or subletting without such consent shall be void, and
shall, at the option of city, terminate this lease. This lease
shall not, nor shall any interest of Club, by operation of law,
without the written consent of the city. The license granted by
this operating Agreement is personal to Club.
8.4. Encumbrance.
Club may not encumber this license, its leasehold estate and
its improvements thereon by deed of trust, mortgage, chattel
mortgage or other security instrument during the terms hereof.
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 23
/.1'3 ?
ATTACHMENT "C-28"
8.5. Waiver.
Any city waiver of a default is not a waiver of any other
default. Any waiver of a default must be in writing and be
executed by the city Manager in order to constitute a valid and
binding waiver. city delay or failure to exercise a remedy or
right is not a waiver of that or any other remedy or right under
this lease. The use of one remedy or right for any default does
not waive the use of another remedy or right for the same default
or for another or later default. city's acceptance of any rents
is not a waiver of any default preceding the rent payment. city
and Club specifically agree that the property constituting the
premises is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of the
city of Chula vista and that any failure by the City Manager or
city staff to discover a default or take prompt action to require
the cure of any default shall not result in an equitable
estoppel, but City shall at all times, subject to applicable
statute of limitations, have the legal right to require the cure
of any default when and as such defaults are discovered or when
and as the city council directs the City Manager to take action
or require the cure of any default after such default is brought
to the attention of the city Council by the city Manager or by an
concerned citizen.
8.6. No Inverse Condemnation.
The exercise of any city right under this lease shall hot be
interpreted as an exercise of the power of eminent domain and
shall not impose any liability upon city for inverse
condemnation.
8.7. Notices.
Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall
be in writing and may be served personally or by United states
mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Club at the Facility or at
such other address designated to Club and to City as follows:
For city:
city Manager
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
For Club:
Boys and Girls Club of Chula vista
Attention: Executive Director
1301 Oleander Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91911
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 24
~~y
ATTACHMENT "C-29"
For District:
Sweetwater High School District
Attention: Andy Campbell
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91911
8.8. Compliance with Law.
Club shall at all times in the maintenance, occupancy, and
operation of the Facility comply with all applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, and regulations of city, County, state, an
Federal Governments, at Club's sole cost and expense. In
addition, Club shall comply with any and all notices issued by
the City Manager or his authorized representative under the
authority of any such law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.
8.B.1. Specifically, Club shall demonstrate to City
that it is either required to obtain a state license of day
care operation, or the basis upon which it is exempt from
state regulation, and shall upon request by the city,
provide such State assurances as City shall require.
8.9. city Approval.
The approval or consent of city, wherever required in this
license, shall mean the written approval or consent of the city
Manager unless otherwise specified, without need for further
resolution by the city Council.
B.10. Nondiscrimination.
Club agrees not to discriminate in any manner against any
person or persons on account of race, marital status, sex,
religious creed, color, ancestry, national origin, age, or
physical handicap in Club's use of the premises, including, but
not limited to the providing of goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations, and the obtaining and
holding of employment.
B.11. Equal opportunity.
Club agrees to implement a legally sufficient Equal
Opportunity Program. The program's goal shall be the attainment
of employment for minorities and women in all areas of
employment.
B.12. Partial Invalidity.
If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this
clubB.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 25
1.2' J'7
ATTACHMENT "C-30"
license is found invalid, void, or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions will remain in
full force and effect.
8.13. captions.
The section headings, and captions for various articles and
paragraphs shall not be held to define, limit, augment, or
describe the scope, content, or intent of any or all parts of
this lease. The numbers of the paragraphs and pages of this
lease may not be consecutive. Such lack of consecutive numbers
is intentional and shall have no effect on the enforceability of
this lease.
8.14. Entire Understanding.
This license contains the entire understanding of the
parties. Club, by signing this agreement, agrees that there is
no other written or oral understanding between the parties with
respect to the leased premises. Each party has relied on its own
examination of the premises, advice from its own attorneys, and
the warranties, representations, nd covenants of the lease
itself. Each of the parties in this license agrees that no other
party, agent, or attorney of any other party has made any
promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever which is not
contained in this lease.
The failure or refusal of any party to read the license or
other documents, inspect the premises, and obtain legal or other
advice relevant to this transaction constitutes a waiver of any
objection, contention, or claim that might have been based on
these actions. No modification, amendment, or alteration of this
lease will be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all
parties.
8.15. city Employee Participation Policy.
It is the policy of city that all City contracts, agreements
or leases with consultants, vendors or clubs shall include a
condition that the contract, agreement or lease may be
unilaterally and immediately terminated by City if the contractor
or Club employs an individual who within the twelve months
immediately preceding such employment did in his/her capacity as
a city officer or employee participate in negotiations with or
otherwise have an influence on the recommendation made to the
city Council in connection with the selection of the contractor
or Club.
8.16. Relocation Payments.
club8.wp License and operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 26
~,~
ATTACHMENT "C-31"
Club understands and agrees that it shall not be entitled to
any relocation payment whatsoever upon termination of this lease.
(End of page. Next Page is signature Page.)
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth Center
March 12, 1992 Page 27
~~
ATTACHMENT "C-32"
Signature Page to
Community Youth Center
operating Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, having been duly
authorized by their respective boards to execute this Operating
Agreement, and having duly read and understood the terms and
provisions hereof, do hereby set their hand to indicate their
intent to be bound by the terms hereof.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Dated Lj--t~rL
By:ff&/;A_
Tim Nader, Mayor
d;er O:J2
Bruce M. Boo rd,
city Attorne
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Robe
Dated:
~ lid- /<r;l
J - L \0 -0,2.
By:
Scott
Dated:
Sweetwater High School District
Date:
By:
:::2
o G!
Exhibits:
A: Joint Use Agreement
B: Floor Plan of Facility, Showing storage Rooms 1 - 4
club8.wp License and Operating Agreement/community Youth center
March 12, 1992 Page 28
/.2-'7",')..
...,l'>..~....",,~... ,..,
ATTACHMENT "C-33"
i
!
i
i
i
!
,
i
N
%
~
...
@
2
s .,.f.
-
~ ....,
-, -
3 , ,
, 4
..' 700 sq ft
I
,
,
,
, -
I , -.
I ;:[
'r.::
. -r - -
I 11097 "
. sq ft
I
. ~ , -
. I
.
, , ,
. .
\ . ,
\ . I
, , /. I
. ~ I
. " ...., ,
, , ......-.-..-... ,.,'
"
". .'
-------~
-
-
I.
I
-
2
.
I
. .
~~
... ..
I
,.
I t
I .
I
1 ~...-__ ~~
\, \\, 945 IIq ft
=-
\ '-,
, ..,............. ,.. -~.
',.....--. ' . .
, ~
...... \"-2
'.__.______~ I
1. City Storage
2. District Storage
3. Club Storage
4. Mutually shared storage
FLOOR PLAN
/.2-1,3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
1:1
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution }f'.5',;..8' Approving an Agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and The United States Olympic Committee's ARCO Training Center
in Chula Vista for Landscape Maintenance of EastLake Maintenance District
(ELMD) No. 1 Zone "C"
Director of parks. and Recr~lr ~d Open spa~
City Manage~ ~ CJ.!!l) (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No 2D
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The United States Olympic Committee's ARCO Training Center (ATC) in Chula Vista is requesting the
City to enter into an agreement to allow the ATC to maintain the 3.5 acres of landscaping and
improvements along Wueste Road versus conveying the property to the City for maintenance under the
City's Open Space Section.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the Agreement with the United States Olympic
Committee's ARCO Training Center to maintain the landscaping and improvements along Wueste Road
in ELMD No.#1 Zone "C."
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The City and the National Sports Training Foundation entered into a Supplemental
Parcel Map Improvement Agreement on May 3, 1993 to comply with the SPA Plan for the property
known as the ARCO Training Center. As a condition of the SPA Plan, the owner would provide certain
improvements adjacent to Wueste Road, including, without limitation, walking trails, bike path and
related landscaping and improvements.
The improvement agreement required the establishment of an assessment district for the maintenance.
The agreement also calls for the District's maintenance cost to be spread to the property owner (ATC),
until the commercial property known as "Eastlake III" is constructed and included in the maintenance
assessment district.
The improvements were scheduled for turnover to the City in FY 94/95; however, this did not occur due
to administrative changes within the ATC organization. The area is being maintained by the ATC
through a landscape contractor.
City staff and ATC staff met on May 22, 1996 to discuss the turnover of the Wueste Road landscape
improvements. Upon review of the proposed budget formulated by the Department, the Director of the
Area Training Center noted the landscape area maintenance is being performed satisfactorily at
[M:\home\parksrec\A113 - ARCOTC.AI3 - December 5, 1996]
-1-
1:3" /
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
approximately one third the cost estimated by the Department of Parks and Recreation and Open Space.
ATC made a verbal request for the City to consider an agreement for them to continue to maintain the
landscape area.
A TC estimates that they pay approximately $8,329 per year for the maintenance of the landscape area.
The City's estimate on costs to maintain the area is $30,560. There are two main reasons for the
difference in the City's maintenance cost estimate and the actual cost currently paid by ATC. First is the
economy of scale. The Wueste Road landscape area is only 3.546 acres and maintenance can be absorbed
by the current contractor maintaining the interior 150 acres. An open space assessment by the City would
cost the A TC approximately $18,000 - $26,000 per year. All staff costs and maintenance would be borne
by the property owner which is not part of the district.
It is common practice for landscape companies to absorb projects at or below cost for the prestige and
public relations derived from maintaining high visibility projects. Secondly, City administrative and
overhead cost are included in the City's cost estimates.
Staff concurs that the City would probably not be able to obtain a maintenance bid as low as the existing
cost to ATC. The Director of the Arco Training Center has requested that the City allow the ATC to
continue the maintenance of the Wueste Road improvements with their contractor to economize the A TC's
operating expenditures. This will save the ATC approximately $22,231 annually over the City's estimate.
The City has prepared an agreement to allow the A TC to continue maintenance of the Wueste Road
landscape improvements. The agreement is for three years, with two, one year extensions. Incorporated
in the agreement are safeguards to ensure the maintenance is performed to City standards and there are
indemnity provisions for both parties for the use of the paths along Wueste Road.
FISCAL IMPACT: The ATC will bear all costs associated with the maintenance of landscape along
Wueste Road.
Attachment:
Proposed Agreement Between the City and the Arco Training Center
[M:\home\parksrec\Al13 - ARCOTC.A13 - December 5, 1996]
-2-
13. .J-
RESOLUTION NO.
/ 8"..Q ~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE'S ARCO TRAINING CENTER IN
CHULA VISTA FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF
EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (ELMD) NO. 1
ZONE "c"
WHEREAS, the United States Olympic Committee's ARCO
Training Center (ATC) in Chula vista is requesting the city to
enter into an agreement to allow the ATC to maintain 3.5 acres of
landscaping and improvements along Wueste Road versus conveying the
property to the City for maintenance under the City'S Open space
Section.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between the
city of Chula vista and the United States Olympic Committee and the
Chula vista ARCO Training Center for landscape maintenance, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the city Clerk as Document No.
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
C:\rs\ARCO
ney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
/3~3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
VISTA ARCO TRAINING
MAINTENANCE
CITY OF CHULA
COMMITTEE AND
CENTER FOR
VISTA AND
THE CHULA
LANDSCAPE
This Agreement is made and entered into this day
of , 1996, by and between the City of Chula Vista,
a municipal corporation, ("CITY") and United States Olympic
Committee and the Chula vista ARCO Training Center, a non-profit
corporation ("USOC") with reference to the following recitals:
WHEREAS, CITY and USOC are parties to a Supplemental
Parcel Map Improvement Agreement ("Improvement Agreement"),
recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office as Document No.
1993-0402856, regarding in part certain improvements adjacent to
Wueste Road;
WHEREAS, the parties have or shortly will have fulfilled
the requirements of the Improvement Agreement as to the Wueste Road
improvements;
WHEREAS, USOC has in its employ a commercial landscape
contractor which has been maintaining USOC property at and near
Wueste Road;
WHEREAS, USOC and CITY are concerned about the appearance
and continued maintenance of the Wueste Road Improvements; and
WHEREAS, USOC wishes to continue at its expense the
uniform appearance and maintenance of the Wueste Road Improvements
by means of its landscape contractor and the CITY is amenable to
such continuity.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties that:
1. USOC will retain the services of a commercial
landscape company ("Contractor") at USOC'S sole cost and expense,
to perform to and for the pr imary benef it of CITY, landscape
maintenance for that portion of the Wueste Road Improvements as
identified on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
("City Property").
2. USOC shall provide landscape maintenance for city
Property commencing as of the last date appearing on the attached
signature page of this Agreement through December 31, 1997, unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The
parties may mutually agree to extend the term of this Agreement for
two (2) additional one year periods through December 31, 1998 and
through December 31, 1999.
1
/.1-1
3. The City may terminate this Agreement for any reason
by giving specific 90 day written notice to USOC.
4. USOC agrees that Contractor, at USOC's direction and
supervision, shall provide landscape maintenance in a professional
manner, consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under
similar conditions and in simi lar locations. Should the City's
Director of Parks and Recreation ("Director") reasonably determine
at any time that the landscape maintenance fails to meet the
foregoing level of care or skill, Director may give USOC written
Notice of Defect with 30 days from date of receipt of such notice
to cure the defective landscape maintenance. After expiration of
such 30 days, should the landscape contractor's cure be deemed
unacceptable or insufficient by Director, Director will give USOC
a written Second Notice of Defect to cure such defect within 15
days of receipt thereof. On or after expiration of such 15 days,
Director will determine whether the contractor's response to the
Second Notice of Defect satisfactorily cured the defect. If in the
Director's reasonable determination the defect has not been cured,
city may, without any further notice to USOC exercise all rights
City has under the Improvement Agreement and any other agreements
with USOC, including the right to amend the EastLake I Open Space
Assessment District for the maintenance of city Property.
5. USOC agrees to provide CITY within 30 days of USOC's
execution of this Agreement, written proof that Contractor has
named "City of Chula Vista, its appointed and elected officials and
employees" as additional named insureds on Contractor's commercial
general liabil i ty insurance. USOC agrees that it will require
Contractor to maintain such coverage throughout the term of this
Agreement and any extensions hereof.
6. In consideration thereof, CITY agrees to hold USOC
harmless, and defend and indemnify USOC against and from any and
all claims, losses, and damages arising out of the conduct of
members of the public in their use and enjoyment of City Property,
except only for those claims arising from the negligence or willful
misconduct of USOC and Contractor, and their agents or employees.
7. USOC acknowledges and agrees that CITY has no duty to
and shall not be required to compensate Contractor for work it
performs. The parties agree that performance under this Agreement
may not be enforced by any person or entity not a party to this
Agreement.
2
/:J-f
18. Any written notices shall be directed as follows:
CITY:
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
USOC:
United states Olympic Committee
1 Olympic Plaza
Colorado Springs, CO 80909-5760
3
JJ-;'
DATED:
DATED:
C:Ag.t\USOC
SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE AND ARca TRAINING CENTER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
AND THE CHULA VISTA ARCO TRAINING
CENTER
By:
Print Name: Thomas C. Wilkinson
Title:
Executive Director
4
/J- ?
- --
, 11
~'
<. I I
-~~~'" ~ !
, / I I
. . ,
i
. .
J!
.
i
I J
I, I
II
II
II , ~ I
II
II
" "I
w I ~ ~
2l
2 "lll . U
, ;;~
;; .
... I I I
d II .
2l !
il 1 ,
.
II
\j I
~ I
!
, 1
iJ
i ! .: I
l i
I'
~ ~ Iii Ill!' ~ , l;'j
~ ~ 'II! I'h'lllll " 1 ' i
< '-1 ~ i' L -,' i , ; I
:5 ~ Tl 'i!'ill' ! J.
I II !h1h!111
w ~
~ ,'Ii I !l1l1: !I ~ (!Jj I'I
:
....I I ,! il jhlll' ,I . ! J,
.
I- .;1_ -II" 'I i ' i 1 i
(f.l ilL; I \"; I ~
~ ~ l.h! 'OW" u...... .~7 ,
j" 'II' il . ; I
~ ,i !'iilI1ilih!di .' .
.,
:!
..
i '1'.l~!lIi". .
i I' I .
-',
..a '"
~~ l
I ~
\
~ ""~""'1.
I
/:J-Y
-
~
i = I ---:I:. .;P'r,,\
Ii ii J~---~'< d-
UJ ~. /l u-......;;;.~
~51 ''-.. I '\
.." " .
~ i) J' III!
~ ___'---- i'I;
.I.
III ,I
Ii!
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I t"
Meeting Date 12/17/96
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution / 9'.n. ~PProving the Principles of Understanding between
the City of San Diego and the AFFORD Group and the November 26,
1996 letter of understanding between the City of San Diego and City of
Chula Vista. IlAl/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works lf~ n J
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJGt bvv~l (4/5ths Vote: Yes~oX)
Chula Vista has an existing contract with the Qty t7San Diego whereby Chula Vista receives
sewer treatment and disposal service from the "Metro" system (the 1960 "Metro Contract").
Under this contract Chula Vista has certain capacity rights and the right to service through 2003,
with one ten year option to extend until 2013. In recent years, Chula Vista and other contract
agencies have disputed with San Diego over a number of issues related to sewer service including
disputes over payment and cost sharing for new facilities, management and maintenance costs and
water reclamation and the rights and obligations of the parties under their Metro Contracts.
Staff has been negotiating since August of 1996 with the City of San Diego, both independently
and later as a member of "Agencies for Fair and Objective Rate Decisions" (AFFORD) which
consists of participating sewer agencies of the Metro Sewer System, over the appropriate costs to
charge participating Metro agencies for the cost of improvements to the Metro Sewer System and
other disputed contract requirements. The parties have tentatively agreed to a list of 13
"Principles of Understanding." These principles were developed as a means to resolve differences
now and are proposed to be a basis of modifying our existing agreement, or creating a new
agreement, for Sewage treatment. Chula Vista has also jointly signed a side letter with the City
of San Diego regarding Principle of Understanding #13 concerning extension of capacity rights
to the year 2050.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council Approve the resolution accepting the Principles of
Understanding and ratifying the November 26, 1996 Letter Agreement between the Cities of
Chula Vista and San Diego concerning Principle of Understanding #13.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Chula Vista and 10 other Sewage Agencies have been in dispute with the City of San Diego over
the distribution of costs for the expensive sewer upgrade being constructed by the City of San
I'I~/
Page 2
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Diego at the order of the Court. All the Agencies have been paying, under protest, the sewage
treatment bill that San Diego has submitted. San Diego, at the advice of their attorneys, have not
been able to use the moneys for expenses or to pay for capital improvements. All the parties agree
to remove the protests as a condition of signing the Principles. San Diego has indicated that it has
kept protested monies related to system expansion in an escrow fund until the protest is resolved.
Principles of Understanding
The Principles of Understanding are attached (Exhibit A). The major provisions of the Principles
are as follows and will be used as the basis for negotiating a new agreement and/or modifying the
existing 1960 Agreements between the participating agencies and the City of San Diego:
Prindple
rornmp.nt~
1.
Creates a Metro Commission to establish participation in decision making by
member Agencies. The Commission will be formed with members appointed by
each agency to make recommendations to the San Diego City Council regarding
the future operations of the Metro System. The composition of the Commission,
by elected officials, City Managers or technical staff, is yet to be determined.
Staff will return with a further update on this matter in the near future.
2.
Provides that costs for M&O as well as capital will be charged to each agency
based on flow. A regional capacity charge Jl1lI}' be established for agency flows
beyond their current capacity. Our Special Legal Counsel has reviewed this charge
and advises that, while such a fee may be possible, there are strict limitations on
the amount of such fees and the manner in which they might be imposed on Chula
Vista. This satisfies a major concern of Chula Vista. Under the Special Act
District there was going to be a high connection charge established for all new
connections even though Chula Vista has been paying for excess capacity for many
years.
3.
Allows San Diego to buy back capacity from Agencies that have excess capacity.
Also Agencies can sell capacity between themselves as allowed in the current
agreement. This is good for Chula Vista since we could get capacity from other
Agencies for lessor amaunts than the costs for regional capacity.
5.
Acknowledges that the region needs to operate 45 mgd of reclaimed water by the
year 2010. It states that San Diego will work through the MC (Metro
Commission) to develop the most cost effective approach.
/ ,/'.2
Page 3
Meeting Date 12/17/96
6.
Relates that San Diego and Later Participating Agencies (LP A' S)1 will continue to
be responsible to bring the Point Lorna Plant to its original design of 234 mgd.
Since Chula Vista is a Participating Agency, the Later Participating Agencies will
be responsible for costs that Chula Vista doesn't have to pay.
7.
Recognizes that San Diego is currently in final design for South Bay reclamation
facilities that will cost the Participating Agencies around $40 million. This
Principle provides that the reclamation project will be studied by an independent
Consultant, selected by the Commission, to determine if it is necessary to build
those facilities in the near future or build a more economic facility at a later date.
This would allow the Agencies to raise their rates incrementally over a longer
period of time, rather than facing the necessity of higher rate increases now.
9.
Provides that the Metro agencies we will share in the cost of Primary and
Secondary Treatment of the North City Water reclamation Plant. We will also
front fund the Tertiary portion (water reclamation portion), but water users will
pay the M&O costs for the tertiary portion, and eventually pay the sewer users
back for the capital costs of the Tertiary portion. This Principle represents one of
the major concessions on the part of Chula Vista and other Metro Agencies.
13.
Provides that new or amended long term agreements will be completed between the
Participating Agencies and San Diego by November 1, 1997. Chula Vista has a
separate letter agreement (Exhibit B) that guarantees us capacity and use rights in
the system to the year 2050 whether or not agreement is reached on a new contract
as long as we pay our fair share based on flow. This provision was very important
to Chula Vista and we held out in signing the "Principles" without this special
understanding. The Principles commit Chula Vista to long term financing of the
North City facilities and other facilities to comply with the Clean Water Act and
allow Pt. Lorna to remain at Advanced Primary and we did not want our capacity
rights to end in 2003 or 2013.
Staff believes that the principles are a reasonable accommodation of the parties competing
interests, are fair to everyone, and are probably the best that could be obtained under all the
circumstances. Arbitration would be very lengthy and costly, and would include the risk of loss
on some or all issues resulting in costs to Chula Vista exceeding those agreed to in the principles.
Based on our long term commitment with San Diego, and assuming Pt. Lorna can remain at
advanced Primary, and given the principle that cost sharing will be based on proportion of flow,
this is a good deal for Chula Vista.
'LPNs are defined as those agencies who joined after the initial formation of the Metro System. These agencies
include the Cities of Del Mar and Poway and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District. The original participating
agencies include Otay Municipal Water District, the County of San Diego and the Cities of Chula Vista, La Mesa,
Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, Lemon Grove and El Cajon.
J'I-:J
Page 4
Meeting Date 12/17/96
In analyzing the cost benefit of our negotiations with San Diego, staff reevaluated previous studies
by staff and Dudek and Associates, the City's engineering consultant on sewer matters, we found
that we could not go independent for the same cost that San Diego will be charging under the
Principles.
LEGAL ISSUES
City staff has also worked closely with our special legal counsel on sewer matters, Dwight
Worden, throughout this process. The following is a synopsis of his findings regarding the
principles and their relationship to our existing Metro Contract and our rights of arbitration.
Exhibit C provides a more complete explanation of Mr. Worden's legal analysis.
1. The principles are not an amendment to Chula Vista's existing metro contract.
According to Mr. Worden, Chula Vista's existing metro contract will remain in effect
whether or not the principles are approved. If the principles are approved but not
performed by either party (Chula Vista or San Diego), then rights exist under the
principles to enforce the principles. At the same time, the parties also retain rights under
the existing metro contract including our current arbitration rights.
2. The principles are "executory" in that their implementation requires further negotiation and
agreement.
The parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith toward a new or amended long-term
metro contract. If the contracts are not successfully negotiated, there is still some
uncertainty as to where the parties will stand. However, Mr. Worden opines that in this
instance, Chula Vista will have the option of either (I) seeking to enforce the principles
either through arbitration or other legal action, and/or (2) continuing to rely on its existing
metro contract and our side letter agreement for service through 2050 (Exhibit B).
3. The side letter agreement provides Chula Vista with substantial protection against the
uncertainties inherent in the principles.
As noted previously, the letter of agreement with San Diego guarantees Chula Vista
capacity rights and the right to use the metro system through the year 2050 in exchange
for Chula Vista's commitment to pay its fair share of systems cost based on flow. The
rights guaranteed in this letter are not dependent upon the outcome of negotiations toward
the new long-term contracts called for by the principles.
Staff and Mr. Worden believe that this condition substantially protects Chula Vista against
the possibility that negotiations under the principles might fail or that Chula Vista might
be found to have made financial commitments to the principles that extend beyond the term
of its use and capacity rights.
/1- 'f
Page 5
Meeting Date 12/17/96
4. Disposition of monies paid under protest.
While not directly addressed, Chula Vista's acceptance of the principles will result in the
City relinquishing any claim to funds paid to San Diego under protest as well as any
additional funds paid during the one-year contract negotiation term called for in the
principles, at least to November 1997. If the principles are not implemented at that point
because new long-term contracts have not been successfully negotiated, Mr. Worden
believes that Chula Vista can reassert its prior positions, can again begin paying under
protest and will have the right to go to arbitration under its current agreement.
Staff and Mr. Worden believe that this is a reasonable risk given the current status of our
negotiations and represents a good faith effort on the part of Chula Vista to resolve a
regional issue.
5. Approval of the principles in conjunction with the side letter agreement is reasonable and
prudent from a legal perspective.
Overall, staff and our special legal counsel support the principles as being in the best
interest of this city. Mr. Worden notes that from a legal perspective, approval of the
principles wi11lock these benefits in for Chula Vista. With the added guarantees and the
protection of the side letter, staff and Mr. Worden recommends adoption of the principles
as a prudent action that should be taken by this City Council.
STATUS OF APPROVAL BY OTHER AGENCIES
Staff has been informed that the participating AFFORD member agencies and the City of San
Diego have approved the Principles.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total capital cost of the Metropolitan Sewerage System up to the year 2003 is $1,218,640,000.
The proportionate share for the participating agencies is $350,105,000. Chula Vista's share based
on flow is about $70 million for the capital costs only. The capital costs will be financed over a
period of 25 years. This does not include interest costs or M&O costs or the costs to operate the
Chula Vista distribution system. Due to Principle #7, about $40 million dollars of cost for the
Participating Agencies (#8 million for Chula Vista) will be deferred until there is further study.
The cost of financing the fully developed $70 million would be about $5.5 million annually. It
is apparent that the monthly sewer charge for Chula Vista rate payers will need to be addressed
by Council during the next several years. After a through analysis of future costs on a year by
year basis, and the revenues received by connection charges and other categories, staff will be able
to return in the spring with a detailed study which will address long term rates. The Council had
earlier approved a payment to AFFORD of $60,000 for our share of the cost of an Audit of San
Diego costs.
/{~
Page 6
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Attachments: Exhibit A - Principles of Understancl"
Exhibit B - Letter Agreement with San mego tor Principfe713
Exhibit C - Memo From Dwight Worden
M:\HOME\ENOINEER\AOENDA \prinund.jpl
/I(-t
RESOLUTION NO. 1j"~.,2.?
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO, RATIFYING THE RELATED
LETTER AGREEMENT DATED 11/26/96 BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PRINCIPLES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has a contract with the City of San Diego which
provides Chula Vista with certain capacity and use rights in the Metro Sewer System; and,
WHEREAS, numerous other cities and sewer districts also have contracts with San
Diego for sewer service; and,
WHEREAS, Chula Vista and the other contract agencies have had ongoing
disputes with San Diego over billing and other matters arising under these Metro contracts;
and,
WHEREAS, as a result of extended negotiations, the "Principles of Understanding"
("Principles") attached to the staff report as Exhibit "A" have been prepared as a proposed
means for clarifying some issues that have arisen under the Metro Contracts and for
providing a procedure to negotiate and, hopefully, resolve the remaining sewer issues
without the need for expensive and time-consuming arbitration or litigation; and,
WHEREAS, the Metro contract agencies, including Chula Vista, have joined an
organization called AFFORD, the members of which Chula Vista understands have all
approved the Principles attached to the staff report as Exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the items set forth in the Principles, the City of Chula
Vista staff has negotiated a separate letter agreement dated November 26, 1996,
guaranteeing Chula Vista its capacity rights in, and right to use, the Metro Sewer System
through the year 2050 in exchange for Chula Vista's commitment to pay its "fair share" of
system costs based on flow in a 234 mgd system, a copy of which letter agreement is
attached to the staff report as Exhibit "8"; and,
WHEREAS, in approving the Principles, Chula Vista is expressly relying on the
commitments made to Chula Vista in the letter agreement, and would not approve the
Principles without the commitments reflected therein on the part of San Diego; and,
WHEREAS, in approving the Principles, it is Chula Vista's understanding that
neither the Principles nor the letter agreement reduces or restricts Chula Vista's rights
under its existing Metro Contract, and Chula Vista understands that it retains its rights
under its existing Metro Contract as discussed in more detail in the attached Staff Reports;
and,
F:ICLlENTSICITCHDISEWERIDOCUMENTICITCHD1.597
1
;0/,/
WHEREAS, approval of the Principles represents a reasonable accommodation of
the competing interests of San Diego and Chula Vista, and is in furtherance of the public
health, safety, and general welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Principles of Understanding attached to the staff report as Exhibit "An
are hereby approved.
3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Principles on behalf of the
City of Chula Vista.
4. The City Manager and his staff, with the assistance of the City's special
sewer consultants, are directed and authorized to proceed to implement and
carry forward the Principles and to take any and all further actions
reasonably necessary to carry out the Principles.
5. The November 26, 1996, letter agreement attached to the staff report as
Exhibit "B" is hereby ratified.
Passed and adopted this
following vote:
day of
, 19_ by the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
F:ICLlENTSICITCHDISEWER'DOCUMENT\CITCHD1.597
2 J<1-8' );'1- '1
FROM ;D. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 755 5198
Uf.\,"-lU-aU IUr. lU.:Jr 1",111 vr \lUUL.n Vil"1n
1996,12-19
l' nJ\ !lV, 1,.1,1, ..,hJU"'vlJ.1L..
16;18 #228 P.02/13
I. ""'1
,.r.
,~
'-'
ENCLOSURE 'd"( ~ (!
/1 rr*", /1-
11/6196
Page 1 of6
f\ Nfrl.- 'C-V At!> ~
l'RlNCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
13Y
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AFFORD
AS OF
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
oj ~
~~
Prtndple #1
'The City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies shall establish a "Metro Commission" (MC)
by December 1996, with the following organization structufe:
1. The MC shall serve as an advisory body to the San Diego City Council. City
Counc;ij will have the final decinon lIlI to the operation oftbe Metropolitan Sewetage
System (Meno System).
2. Each Pllrticipa.ting Agency, along with the City of San Diego. shall appoint a
representative to the MC,
3. The position oflhe Me with respecl to MeltQ System decisions shall be presented
to the San Diego City Council in written 51alf reports. Whenever the Participatil1g
Agencies lIlld the City of San Diego differ lIS to a decision impacting the
Panicipating Agencies, the staff report to the City Council shall contain the
dinentmg view of the PartIcipating Agencies and the Council shall make spec:ifie
findings whi,gb detail tho reaaons for their dedirlDll.
4. Commission's rcsponsi'bilitill5 (not all bu:Jusivc):
(a) MllStcr planning
(b) Capital Improvement Plan
(e) Annual budget
Cd) Annual a\ldit
. (e) Filumclng
JIf"/CJ
FROM =D. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 755 5198
III.'" l.\.l IJU IUL. 11..1......1 V.ill VI VIIVwll V,l.UUl
1996~12-19
~ 11.11 "...., ""...L,J'rI......,..,..,~"'"
16=18 #228 P.03/13
"
PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
BY
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AFFORD
AS OF
NOVEMBER 6.1996
'-
ENCLOSURE .a /
,47T/1d ~ i.
11/61!l6
Pllge 2 016
Prineinle #2
The City of San Diego's Metro System provides a regional ,ervice through contractual agI'Cl:IIlc:nts
to the Participating Agencies. Participating Agencies 8l'e responsible for pa.ying their fair share.
based on their proportionate flow within the Metro System. for the entire Metro System including
but not limited. to the Point Loma and North City facilities up 10 their current contract capacity.
which includes 234 MOD plus all facilities required by the Ocean PollutiClb R.=duction Act of 1994
(OPRA), 115 well lIS any additional obligations outlined in these agreed upon Principles of
Undelltanding.
A "1lI1ifoi::m n:gional CIlpllI:ity charge" (or other equitable m!!thod) will be explOred by the Me upon
j<<>; rmroatlon ll)r allocating anc.t paying tOr WlOable capacity over 234 MOD plus all facilities required
by OPRA Useable capacity shall be defined as met!. systDll1 capllCity that meet:! the curn:nt OPRA
and waiver requirements.
Prlnciple #3
The City of San Diego will consider the re.~ of eJu;clllS capacity with any of the Participating
Agencies, and any Juch re-purchase shall be voluntaly on the part of the City and Participating
Apncy. As. provided for under the existing contrac:tll, Participating Agencies may 8ell capacity to
each other, howeVer, tba City hu the right 10 lIpprOVIl all1nlnJfilrs to prevent imbalancing within tbi;
Metro convcylUlce system.
/'1-//
FROM ;D. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 755 5198
Utu-IU-~O JU~ lU'~O ulll vr unULn Vl~ln
1996.12-19
rnn. n:u. UH'~O~~UIC.
16;19 #228 P.04/13
rluu
'.
-
.....
ENCLOSURE #../
1Id If ({
A~6
P~ie: J offi
PlUNCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
py
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AFFORD
AS OF
NOVEMBER 6, I SlSl6
Prinoiple #4
San Diego, in coopel:lll:ion with tM Participating Age:ncie:s, ,hall continue to P\lmle legislative and
regulatoty remedies to minimiZl! the cost of operalion of the Metro SysteJ1l. while: meeting acienco
based prudc:nt oceao. discharge requirements.
Prindple #5
San Diego will pblll for the coll:muction of rel;!lIma!;joD facilities in accordance with the waiver
legiSliltion in COlll;ert with Participating Agencies. The parties agree that the 'additional IS MGD
rC(:)aimcd water c;apacity required by OPRA, beyond the: 30 MOD Ilt the: North City Watc:r
ReclamatiDn PIll.l\t, will be Ill:lUeved by the City of San Diego and/or other Participating Agencies
by the legislative: deadline of 20 I 0, WlIC65 the law is modified to delcrte this requlxemenL
The Me will idc:ntifY the most c:ost/operatIonally emet.ive SClutiDll5 to providing this adQitionall S
MOD reclaimed water clIpa4:ity,llll.d will share in the c:cst of the construction of water reclamation
facilities by other Participatinll Agencies that 8fe pm of the Mdlo System IIOd that help meet thb
gOIlL Funding for rec:lamiltion facUlties shall be in lIC1:ordanc. with PMlPipl; #9.
I tf .; /,J-
FROM '0. DWI~HT WORDEN 619 766 6198
"L,..., .1\01 ""'.... IUL. .1\01'0.1\01 "',1,11 VI Vlll,,1&.11 V.1";111
1996,12-19
IIHI .tv, U,l"""'U"",,,",U1L
16'19 #228 P.06/13
II VI
~
-
ENCLOSURE ~/
PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
BY
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AFFORD
ASap
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
1116196
A;;-~ . ~ I'
Prin~i"le i6
Sill Diego 5hal1 re-e3tablish Metro's sh.an:, as previously inwolced by 5811 Diego, of cost on the
. following facilities 115:;ocill.tc:d with the Metro System. The Participating Agencies shall continue
to pay their fair share oftbe Metro colSts for these facilities as follows:
PROJECT METRO SHARE REASON
Pump Station #2 (pumps 7 &8) 29% auilcl-out
North M~ Int=;eptor 55% Oversized fllCility
Sedimentation BlISins #9 ilIlcl #10 66% Build-out pIllje~t .
Sedimentation Basins #11 and #12 24% Build-out project
Certain Lllter Pani~pating Agencies (poway, Padre Dam, Lakeside/Alpine, and WInter Gardens)
will continue to pay the cost for the Sedimcntatiol.I Basins #9 and #10 Project, and the Sedimentation
BlISins #11 and #12 Project, based on 100%. All Participating Agencies will be required to pay
operation and main1l:rulrlce costs for tbe:le PIlljects ba$ed on 100% of share.
Prlfttlip]iP/ .7
5811 Diego agrees not to advertise the construction con1racts for the South Say W AU:r RDolamation
Plant and related facUities not prewiously col11racted until a joint cngineering. study baa been
perf'onned. San Diego 8I).d the Participating Agencies agrce to complete Ibis nudy lIS soon as
posaible, with a target date of June I, 1997, which DIlly be l!X'lended by the parties IS Ci=stance5
requlre. San Diego and the Partlcip!lllng Azmcies agree to hire through Pldre DIUD, Municipal
Water Dbtri"t, ancltO 5bIu:e (San Diego - 70% and Participating Agencies - 30%) the cost for llIl
independent l:I1gineeriD& consultant to conduct an 0 bjlCtive analym of the South Bay FllCilities
(excluding South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall) including alternatives, need for the project, si1.iD& and
;0/, /;J
FRQM =0. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 765 5198
U~u-IU-~O IUC IU'U~ vIII vr unULM VI~IM
1996,12-19
rM^ NU. OI~OOOOOI~
16=20 #228 P.06/13
r.uo
-'
ENCLOSURE #/
PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
BY .
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AFFORD
AS OF '
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
1lI6196
Page S of6
4r1Ac/,. It II
timiDg to achieve a useful ~ty of234 MOD pillS all facilities required by OPRA. SlQl Diego aDd
the Participating Agencies willlqlpoint a3Ub-commit1ee to determine the scope of worle and to mw
. the llclec.tion of a consultant 1111 8001111 pOssible. Tho sub-committee will be comprised of: the City
MRnlIgers from the City of San Diego, the City of Del Mar, the City of La M~a. IlIld the City of
Chula Vista; the Genml Ml1ll8ieJ'. Paclre D1IID. Mumcipal Wate.t Dilllrict; and the Chicf
Admioistnrtive Officer. County of San Diego. Tho sub-eommittec will be R'SpollSibll' for reviewing
and managing the work of the consultant. The rosults of the stud)' will be presented 1Q the MC for
their reviow and consideration. It Is the Goal of the Me to tepOrt the study results and provide a
recomDlcondation to the San Diego City Council within 60 day' of eompletion of the study.
Principle #8
The costs (cumnt estimate $77.1 million) for the South Bay Land/Ocean Outiall (SOI:lth Bay Outfnll)
will be allocated to San Diego IIIId the Plllticipating Agencies based on their proportionate flows
within the Metro System, which 1m! Curmltly e:ltimated to ~: San Diego. 70"/4 and Participating
Agenciell - 30%. The aVl:nlge dry weather flow for the Metro portion ofthe South Bay Outfall is
74 MOD. However, 5l1li Diego will agtIle \0 pun:hase 4.& MOD (e9WnIlted value - $5.0 million) of
the Participating Agmcies' 22.2 MGD (estimlUed vnluc - 523.1 million) capacity in the South Bay
Outfall. SlW. Diego will consider selima back portions ofthill capacity 1Q any Qf the Panicipaling
Agencies that may wish to purchaso it in the fttture. Any such oate shall be voluntary on the: part of
SlID Diego and the ParticipatinS Agencies.
~rint'~plE! fIQ
Panicipiltin& AGCDcies will panicipate in lhlI cost 8haziog (CIP and operatins ex.penses) tOr primary
and llllconduy 1roatment lit !be North City Water Reclamation Plant, uod the corresponding com tor
Jt.f" 1'/
FROM =0. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 755 5198
U~V-1U-OU IU~ II.UU viii ur vnULH VI~IH
1996~12-19
rH^ NU. OI~OOOOOI~
16=21 #228 P.07/13
/'.U~
~
~
ENCLOSURE ~/
PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTANDING
AS AGREED TO
BY
CITY OF SAN Dmoo AND AFFORD
AS OF
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
11/6196
Page 6 of6
#f~h lff
sludg", I1"eatment at the Northem Biosolids Processing Facilities. The Pll!til'ipating Agencies will
participate in lhe: cost sharing (elP) fw tertiII[)' portion oflhe tteatment process of the North City
. Water Reclamation Plant provided that reclaimed wa.ter users pay the tertiary operation and
mainl:enance coflt, and that the eIP coatS are repaid from future sales of m:laimed water.
Principle #10
The Metro System, including the Participating Agencies, shall not pa)' for City of Sau Diego right-
of-way dmrges.
Principle #11
The City is committed to stabilizing the Metro invoidng process_
Prinejnle #12
San Diego will ~insta.te the March, 1995 concessions fw those Participating Ageucies that reach
agreement with San Diego on all disputed Issues by December 1, 1996.
PtiJlc;nle it 11
New long-term uniform sewage disposal agreem,euis or lIIDendmellts to existing agreements, which
will in<>lu<k but not be limited to provisions for coo.t:ll1uatiO.ll. of servil'e:! for an additional 20 to 40
years, will'll. developed by the Me by November 1, 1997.
[\::\WlIhImhu6I101,",vl
If-I>
FROM 10. DWIGHT WORDEN
w__ .v ~v IVw ~~'V~
619 755 5198 1996.12-19
Vol II VI VI lUL.l I 1I1~1'1 1111\ lW. UJ.;I:.,IU;.I;.IUll.
16.21 #228 P.08/13
r, IU
I'RO.lI!CT
NUMBER
~085.0
4/J.119.0
40-186.0
4!l.18l,0
41;-910.2
4S-Q23.0
40.910.4
48-187.0 .
4&-190.8
40.!l21.0
415-055.0
48.181.0
46.081,0
4S-1120. I
42-910,7
4t)-91 0.0
4t>-910.5
4lJ.1S9.0
45-189.1
NEW CIP
46-147.0
48-147.1
40.010.6
42-1111,3
45-925.0
42-910.B
42.910.1
48-188.0
42-91 1.4
4&-131.0
, 40-910.3
40-1110.7
42-910.3
46-WO.7
4El-l10.0
46-170.0
4El-132.0
4El-134.0
_129.0
46-171.0
45-900. I
46-180.0
46-172.0
42-924.0
42.910.9
46-179.0
CIT't'Of SAftotliEOO.MrnlOPOU'TAiI(WASTEWA1'efl DEPAF\~T ENCLOSURE 6g
CAPITAL COST ESCALATED THROUGH FY 20031'~#
BCHD FINANCING NOT INCLUDED ~_ . /-r 2
, -" I~A I'
3% INFLA liON FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998,2000, 4% THEReA~R A-7T AdJ 11
ME..r8,OPOLlTAtl SI;WERAGE_SY~IEM .
PROJIiCT
NAME
Administration Building Expansion.PLwrp
Annual Allocation Point Lom~ Plant
BiOllo~ds Dermnslration Prcjoct .,
Chemical Feed Sy&lems Upgnode
Clean Waler Program PredOl$ign & Engin""ring SUpport
Dairy MSr! Road ena Bridge Improvamllllts
Eest Mission Ba)' Efflwnt Pipeline
environmental Monitorilli & Tachnicsl Services Lab
Fiesta ISlanda FlICilftiealmplllVemenls
FIR? Phase II Dios.t..d Sludge & C8ntrate Pipeline
FIRP Pump Station
FOI'e8 Main I & Z Co".,.ion Study
Mitro Pump Slation .1
MGlro System Opel'iltions CCI'Itcr
Million Gor!!" Walor l'ledamaUon Plant
M.sl,," YanCy I:fflullf\l Pipeline
Mis.ion yalley Sludge Pipeline
Mission yalley Waler Reclamation Plant
Mission yalley Water ReclamilUon Plan~ Phase II
MOC - Energy Upgrade
Modified Ws.teWiller Treatment Faeilily Plan
Modified Waolewslsr Treatment Slate Ocean Compllsnce
North City l;IlIuent Pipeline
North City Raw lSllJage & Water Pipelines
Nonn City Sludge Processing Facilities
North City Tunnel Connector
Nonh City water Reclelnillion Plent
NOI1ll Shoreline Pro\ecticn Improvements
NOI1Ilem Sludge Procs.sing Facility Phase II
OcNn Outfall Intake S1rueture
OIay \lalla)' Effluent Pipeline
Otay Vlllle)' Sludge PIpeline
0111)' V"lIey Watsr RedilJJ1ation Plant
PlWTP Di9ester Compressor
PLWTP Scum R8m0va1 System
Point Lama - Digas1er Fac.ity Upgrade & Expansion
Point Lorns - Plant Acens Road
PDlnt Lorn.. " South Effluent Oulil!lll Channel
Point Lam" Dige.tars "Ii & i'IZ-Ro~ a. Healing
Point Lorna Facilil)' Repair
point LDIT1II Master PI."
Point Lorna North Operat;,," BUildil1ll
Point Lo,"" (Xean Outfall Parallel Pipeline
Point Lorna Par1<in!l Fadllty
Point LOITlil Plant Secanllary Conversion
P....l Loma Power Generation l Distribution
Page 1 of2
ALLOC"TION FOOTNOlf!
% NUMB~
100'llo .. -
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100')1,
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100'li
100%
100% (2)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% (2)
100%
100"4 (2)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
lOll'll.
100%
100%
100"4
100%
lOO'llo
100%
100%
1 DO'!/,
100%
100%
NET
PIIO.JEcr
COSTI1>> (~)
S2.134.o00
10.947,000
173,000
634.000
76.275,000
19,365,000
1.557,000
203,000
8.833.000
32,392,000
42.551,000
2.733,000
2,383,000
8.420,000
57,000
105.000
104.000
789.000
7.003.000
68.000
22.705.000
228,000
847,000
18,309,000
3.097.000
12.308.000
I 13.607,000
2,2511,000
226.018,000
48D.Q00
66,000
1.170.000
312,000
97.000
15,327.000
50.631.000
920,000
24,385,000
14,701,000
4.000
91,000
793,000
20.000
21l1i.DOll
399.000
18,913,000
Jo/,/t
PA"
ALLOCABLE
cqw:1!!-
$1130,000
3.230,000
52.000
187,000
22,SZ4.000
5.B07,000
458,000
61,000
1.957,000
9,713,000
12,889,000
808,000
703.000
2,508,000
lB,OOO
30,000
30,000
227.000
2.101.000
20,000
7,313,000
112.000
247,000
'5,488.000
918,000
3,696,000
33,735,000
666.000
67,743,000
138,000
18,000
360.000
81.000
29,000
4,521.000
15,181,000
271,000
7.1ll4.ooo
4,337,000
1,000
27,000
234.000
8,000
119,000
118.000
5;578,000
FROM ;D. DWIGHT WORDEN 619 755 5198 1996.12-19
U~V IV OU JUG Jl'U~ VIII ur vnu~n YJutn rM^ nu, Ol~~OO~Dr~
-
PROJECT
loI'tt@!iR
42-920.3
46-135.0
46-175,0
40-820.5
46-17e.0
46-087.0
40-S1 O.S
48-501.0. .
45-502.0
45-910.3
46-1 so.a
46-1;0.4
40-020.0
40-920.1
42-911.0
42-910.2
48-154.0
40-910.1
40-911.1
40-911.2
42-910.5
42-810.8
40-S11,3
40-911.4
45-111.0
46.155.0
40-911.5
45-910.1
45-S20.0
46-104.0
46-088.0
46-177.0
40-101.0
16;22 #228 P.09/13
r.l1
CITY OF s"i;i'6IEGO. UETROPOUT..,. W"S~TeR OEP"'RTIII~T H~ CLOS U R E ;t.t" '2.
CAPITAL COST ESCALATED THROUGH FY 2003/o~&
.,OND ~INANCING NOT INCLUDED "'~e. 2-d' .2.
3% INFLATION FOrt FISCAL YEAIl.S 19911-2000. 4% THEIl.EAFTErt Nr-r" ~ J '14 I,
METRQPOLlT AN SEWEBA.-GE SYSTEM n 71 F"fl.4I.
NET PA'S
P~!CT ALLl>"AIl~E
COSTllll'j COST III _
S944.000 S278.000
J.Z57.DOO 961.000
5,542.000 1.535,000
13.341.000 3,M,OOO
3,363.000 IKl2,DOO
1.144.000 338,000
4.000 1.000
2. 188.000 1l~,OOO
9.501.000 2.850,000
22.301.000 8.834,000
162.000 48,000
350,000 103.000
12,189.000 3,820,000
5.755.000 1.655.000
7.000 2,000
9114.000 294,000
12,773.000 3,704.000
64.355.000 19.182,000
156,000 <16.000
50.000 15,000
120.000 35,000
104,622.000 31.382.000
26."e.oOO 6,098.000
31.000 8.000
14.904.000 40381.000
2,1Sa.D00 619.000
35.075.000 10.3<16.000
1,766.000 521,000
32, 785.000 9,818.000
58.850.000 9,511,000
17,057.000 3,6'5.000
M14,Ooo 981,DDD
1!.G.Il9.01JO UIl!.DOIl
S1,218,840,000 S350,105.000
PROJIU:T
NAIlIIE
Point Lama 5etlimentation Baaint 1 - 8
Point Lama Shorelina Protection
Point Lama SIIUIh Aerated Gril Removel
Point Lama Tunnel Outfall
Point lame Water Tank & PipeRne
Point lama-Poly",... had Facility
PDintlamalSoull1 Bay Sluclge Pipeline
Poolad Conting.....,. (Fund 41506)
Pooled CMtingency (Fund 41 SDgl
Program Planning & Studies Ac:\ivitiel
Pump Stalion ., & I#Z Hoitt Syetem.
Replacement Df (4) MolDr Coni'''' Conte"
Roee Canyon Trunk Sewer - CNvP portjon
San Diego River Oullall
San pasqual Sludge land Application Facilities
Sludge & Bloselida Managem...,' F..cillty
SCIUIh B..y Land CuIf,,11
SOUIh Bay Oc:ean Outfall
SoUh Bay Secondary Sewel'li Pha.e I
!lout" Bay Secondary Sewers Phne It
50uth Bay Bludge PFl>CeSSing Faciliti....
South B.y Waler f(eclamomon Plant
South Bay Waler Redamatian Sewer & Pump Station
South I!.i1Isl Olay M....a SIUllge Pipelin..
South Metro Imarcplor Reliab
Slate Ocean Plan compliance Facllllla, . Phase I
Slale Qcaan Plan 'Complian;e FBCllties.PhaSG II
Trucked Uquid Wallta Oiapo.al
Wastewater Oparations Management NelwOl1l (Comnet)
North MellO IlWerceplor
paint Lama Sedimenlalkln Buins 9 - 10
Paint Loma Sedimentation Basins 11 _ 12
Pump Station .2 - Pump. 7-8
TOTAL
ALLOCATION FOOTNOTE
% NUMBE'l.
'00%
100%
100"'"
100~
100"'"
100%
,00%
100%
100%
100"'"
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
'00%
100%
100%
100%
100%
'DO'!/,
100%
100%
100%
100% (2)
100%
100%
55%
66%
24%
29%
(3)
(3)
(<I)
(5)
(6)
(7)
ElmnIDJfS;
(1) TOIII cos'" no! 'educed by bond rO'l,,"cing.
o & M COSls and debt urvice COilG are "not inciuded in !his wolkBhoel.
(2) TDlSI CaSlin. glBnts = net coat.
(3)'The City IlhallllUYliS.O mll"on _ oflho PAs capacity;n I~e South Sey L.nIllO.....n Oull'alL
(4) ss% cll"""blc I" PiII1iapating Agende. ana Later partlClpaline Agilnc:i._
(s) 66% allocable 10 Particlpaline Agent;iee and 100'16 !Illocable III Leier Partit:lpllling Agendell.
(6) 24'l6 allacablo to Participating Agencies and 100"'" elloeable to laler Partil:lpallng Agencies.
(7) 29"," allocable to Participating Agencies and 100% allDQIble la Laler Partldp"~'ng Agenci"".
(8) All Doll." are r/Junaed to the nea'llSl thouaand.
. 1'110; iIIlp>O'3i '1IIZt196 MMM, C~C, HRG
PaQe2of2
11-/ ?
EXHIBIT B
November 26, 1996
NOTE: QRIGINALLY SIGNED BY JACK MCGRORY
ON 11/26/96. IN PROCESS OF OBTAINING
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE FOR OUR RECORDS.
Jack McGrory, City Manager
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Jack:
Principles of Understanding
A concern has been raised by the City ofChula Vista over Principle No. 13 of the Proposed
Principles of Understanding. Specifically, Chula Vista seeks assurances that in return for their
commitment to pay for sewage treatment they (Chula Vista) will have an extended duration for such
treatment. The City of San Diego is cognizant that the existing Sewage Disposal Agreements need
to be amended and such an amendment must include an appropriate extension of the term of the
sewage Disposal Agreements.
This letter is being issued to provide clarification concerning Principle No. 13. In order to
facilitate the consideration of the Principles of Understanding, the City of San Diego and the City of
Chula Vista mutually agree that the City of San Diego will guarantee to the City of Chula Vista all
required regional sewage capacity and rights to use the system through the year 2050. The parties
agree to negotiate in good faith as provided in the Principles of Understanding and Chula Vista
acknowledges its obligations to pay for such treatment based on Chula Vista's proportionate flow
within the Metro System, which system shall include 234 mgd plus all facilities required by law as
well as any additional obligations agreed to between the two cities.
Agreed to by the City of Chula Vista
Agreed to by the City of San Diego
By:
By:
City Manager
City Manager
N:\SHARED\ENGINEER\MCGROR Y.WPD
J'i,/8
"'1":0'1 '0_ IJl.JIG~T WOFll1l;N
61' '756 1$198
19':35,12-1~
rH^ I'iU. Ol~Ot!~~OI'
1!l96,1I'.QlB
16=23 #226 P.10/13
r,I4
FROM :0. DWIGHT WORDEN
V~V lV QV IU~ 11'U~
619 755 5198
lJlll l,Jr 'mULH V l~lH
;: ~
~
15:27 1147 P.~2/04
~D. "DWIGm WORDEN
. A J-"OF~;ioIiION"1. C:D.."o"",TIO~
"8;1~'AY5NU@.SU"",'DI
aO~~~"",",,"iI'a'"
IIltl170li1-aftOtIo -(411')41'-'''''
lr.t,)Cre1Dlh!'.l-6''''
CllY CQVl'lClL ANI> STAFF '
,~~ ft[:f;1fI;. ~
. w. SCOTTWII...l.IAM'I
..........u. H. ElIJ$ Ia
~AI",GIUtNPOPlP
1'wI1Q1AELB. ~IPE~~
FROM:
D_ DWlGHr WORDEN. SPECrAl COUNSEL ON st:WER. lSSUBS
~;pI
TO:
lIE: Pll.QPOSED AFFORD 'lUl'<l'CIPLES: LEGAL ANALYSIS
DAre:.D~6.199(i
'Ibi, me1l1Q will o14dnw. ill B\III1lIIIlY. .CI018 of Ihc: key leglII im1es raise4 by thB proposed.
approval b)' OtuJa Vista altbe AFfOlW ~1a. .Acl4ilioasl".1Il malysj, _ cli5cussi0ll hIlS bllen
pmYided to 'ountil....d staf[ in ,lOBed ,mion 1114 by c:oo!ideIItial JDeIl.IOfIIIld\ll!l w11h reprd \0 b
rtIare4 arltitratiollllili'" iosue&. '
SUMMAllYOFFACTS
CI1uI.. Vista. h.. ID e><isliog COIllIllCllNith San DiIllO whereby ChlIlI. Viila re""j"e5 sewer
trelUlmnt llD4 dIspo$lll servU:. wm 111. "M8lro" 5)'lrtCm' (the 1960 "MClIro CoIl\rK.t''). Under 'Ibis
tontr..t CbIili. Vj~ lie 1be rl&ht 10 'eMee Ihmugb 2003, wilh one tta yek oplion t\I ""=4 llIltil 3OL3.
In mC8nl ~ars. Chula Vo IIIJd ok \;onIrllC;t aaendes have disput.d wi1h SlID Dieso OVlIl' . JIUIJIb<< of
Ww:s l'UIatcd to ......r "Met and Ibe rip IIlId obflp!i0D,5 oflhe plllies IIIIder Ib,ir Metro Coo.tt1IcIB.'
1'Iu:M disputes, eeurll11r. em lie S1lIII1lIam.4 ..:
(1) Dispule& OVl:r paymllllt lll1I1 WIt IblUinl fi)r certain Dew fllcililies proposed by SID Diego.
ineludlng tbe NOI1Il City lle\:llUJllllion PlllIIt
(2.) Di>pub:! oVCllllllDll,/lomlllll md lJIaint-m." or lb. Metro systalD IIld II""" th..... c:osIS
Ilaw bIm 1l1~ lIIId bWed.
(3) Di5p\lla over whose obliti!iOll it iJ QIIdl:f tile Metro Contfd to PIO' for 'A'lllcl
~on.
To preserve ill riP1l i111bll cIiIpuled lIR8I CInl1& Viala bu ban paymg ilS sewer bilIinp from
Sill Diese, .1<;> 011 1N!It1'S i114iJpIl1r, ~der protest",! 0lId. VWA Ibo deD1lllded erbitrlllim oftbo
'Tlla Merro Symm is described. ill lhe 1960 M....o COlltract. as amended. ...... ~ is
compri..d or lb. )>L Loma _t PlIa1,lIllljarTrensmiwDn (lClillliQ. sllOdllG hen41ing fecilitiOll. and
Bll_ oulOOl
· Tbl' foUowillg OItael:~, Iliso have Mello (;QlltJlIet.,'lIITl1oup ~ 1m115 of me COJIlrlClS fOr
1I1t Ori;ia8lIlHllDDers "hrIiClip_ APes" (Cb~ VIJtll, )... in some. resJlllQl dill'GIllllt !tom lb.
tllrmlI tbr1be ~a1e1er PIII1icipIliDg Ageud.... 0
"Th. MeUo COIIII'aeI nlq.Bm tIrat Chula Vwa "pllJlIIIC1. pl'Cllllst" W 1b6t Chula Vim will,..
tefimd fol1ow.illg WIIIIliOll. 011. lilY 4it,1ItM ~en& wherw Chul. Viwl pm.
; (-/,
FROM =D. DWIGHT WORDEN
U&v-,ur~u lue II'U~
.;
519 755 5198
iJlJ I ur l,nULI1 Vl:lll1
"'" ...~ 755 51..e
1996.12-19
rHK NU. bj~b~~~oj,
16=23 ~22B P.11/13
~; 14
FRCJ'1 'D. ;lloIlaHf "ORDEN
.~~.1~6 15=28 1147 p.eove4
A- 71 A-CA. ,(.)f
4isputodmaUers"" eallodforbyilli MItro ConInet. ln~of'th.""f'CMIlIDdriskofubill"alio... ChuIa
Vim, San Dieao. and the other MRo lJiem1)er agencies .,gag1!4 ill 111 exttnde4 selles or SdtJllIIIent
diKIlSl\Qm. del.,m, arbllrnOD ill ~ iDmim. 'The rmdt Dfdwe di.~~iOft' is tM AFFORJ) l'rinQpl.
now Wor, eowICiI. T1wl'J'lmipla were developod iI5 a _ to (1) ",olve some 4ifrCR!llC'1 by
providillg olarlficalion ill 1119 Priaciplel no",. ad (2.) as unellf1Uo providn suvmue for 1I~lItbe
remainine ilillPj lee4ing to IItW or amllDlled, Igng-tiltm ~tro AgreeJQeQW to repIatethe t1IJ1In,l\lelro
C.."lrUl!l. The priIlcipl.. pfCll'ido that 1h85. DeW QlIIIr..u ue.10 1)e lI8go!i\ltCd en4 :ripe4 by Novembllr
1997 (see, l'rim:iplll 13). 1n addition. CbuIa. VislA!1alf Suc:cesltblly ...eoliated a lIIliqua IIld sq>1fM1 ,ide
letter IIllt_t willi SI\Il DilllO gu&l1II1tee1nl Cbula Vista ~ac:ily rigJll!lllld SeMU rips in the Mlllro
system lhroUBh lhc year 2050 (se. eopy,ublllin.d With ,Iatf lepon).
MAJOR LHOAL ISSUES.
1. Thill PrinciDla .... Not An Amendment oEth. E>.istim! Metro CanInK:t.
Owl" V"uta'. ClIistiDI Mclr9 Allotment wiU mneiD ill pl_ eYeD if the Principles ar. approved.
The PriJlQplcs IIn Ii "'I'arllll agraIImlIl Jrth. ~lpl#s an: DOt putormlNl by Iilh...,.rty (ClNl.. vura
Or SaD DiellO) then the o1hcr,~ Ill~ hav. riahts IIDdlll1h. l'rinciplea 10 .moree 1M PliIIclples. Atll,
fllJOe time. C1. pari.. allO main dllir rigbtJ onder !he Meuo Conrrsct.
Wbat \be Principles do pnmd. is G~IIrifiC&liOJl," by .greemlllll of the p8l1ies 1IJ to c:ertllin 5llbjea!
IdOr.....d w me Metro Coulr~ts, ill. pllt1i~ar. the Prino1pllll olariey ClW18iII biJIin, llU8l18eJIWDls I;JD
mid!elS IQ! have been in dUplltll. The staff repOl1lNldr;JICS tbeJe ;.,1101 IlIld the fiI'lanciaI irnplic:aliCll\S'
lhereofiD _ det.,l.
1. ",. 'rincir.les IlrO "ExeculolY"iIIlhat Their Jmalarun1aliCllllteauira )'urther
!:i!8P.t!lIIan 1114 A_mllll.
III par1i~u1ll1', Principl' 13 reqUires Chula Visl4ll1ld \h. olllllr plU1illJ to negollllle n good fllith
to..."II\:\s new Dr amended kmc terJn MellO Con\Tlloll G1d 10 RlQlla lhlll"" or _elId ~lS by
Noverober 1997. Jf1be new ~ are not wou.sar1ll1} lJOltVtllltc4.1bere g WInO UIICeI1ainIy U 10
eItBC1ly whon Ibe paRiQ stanll It is my Dpinioll1:ballfthBt bappenJ, Chala Vista will Qv" 1bD o,tio.. Q!
lli1hcr (1) MeIdDg to OIIf'orco 11m PrilIl1ipIes, in arbittation or colll't, i.... ~I. ~eitnmt party 10
negotiatll md CUWlll a DeW llOIIUaet iIlaOOd faith 15 cilled wr by ~ple 13, adlot (2) to CClmiD.. 10
roly 01\ its existing MlIlI'o COllll'ac.lll1d llIe lide letrer AsrIllllIlllllt:lbr IllnIiI:e lIImueh 20'0 and to R-8li5lll1
its prior ,DllitillllS dlopullnll ~ Q! Jl&)'IIlmt, lie:., ja llI\)' lItbitr@Dll,.lM4j1dion, 1iti88d0ll, DC
1If:l8O\iati000lbat follows aflor fllililtO III OOlllPIoIo IIM__llorl of_ Ions honn wnrrac.l$.
B_e the Prim:iples do not 1llptfi5ly provide \Wlal i5 10 happen in November 199'7 if new
A&t"8IlIJI8lIU Ut not signed, md bllQlR oftbe t111certalndes lIl. \lIa1 !qud (Cllllla Villa WIII1led to be :&ul"
liIat ifilll,Pp",ved 1he PriIleiplllS tllaIlts commlllllOl11S on l'inImcl8llBsu.. set 1brtb in 1be Prillciplm; woQld
notellOllllld tlc)-llIId 11le1lDllo.fCIIlJla Visr&'lIljhtto lIIe 1be syst_1lIIder1lleMelto COIIIral:t, Le.. 2013)
CJwI. Vola stafI' .l\I!&dicltd tbo side letter ~ to red\Ioe riakl.bl.1his Ng8I1i.
3. -n... Sid.. Latter A""",mentProvid.. CIml. VIsta 9o'itI!!i~ Protection A"""'Itlhe
J]nce.rtallltieo llme.c:nr in II1e PriIldDle$.
TIle lOll'" Agrc:emeot guullllJcs Qrula Vista its Cllpacitr rigbra u4 ri;Jl ro use the MOIrO SyatelQ
1'i,;LO
FROM :D. DWIGHT WORDEN
u~v .v VY IY~ ~~'W~
619 755 5198
\/111 VI v'lua..n V.l..:JJn
1996.12-19
f"^ I1U. OIOOC'~'OU
16=24 #228 P.12/13
r. J~
:- ,_.-
FRElM 'D. IJU I GHT WORDEiN
'-"
"1'3 7!;!; Sl9a
l~.1'zCI*l
lS.28 I1G7 ~.~~DG
, .
rA.....,/ 't!;!
/trT/1Y41.
1IIlou8h lb. year 20'0. in udumg!l for ClnalII Vista'. ~mmitmlantto pay its "fair shllf.- "rl'Y$t~m COifs.
'based 011 110.... ill . 234 Million Gallon per Day ("MGD") 1)'$"111, 1Iuw;b 1m y<PIC 20$0. 111.. ri;hls
guanIIIteecl iIIlhis lettei'ltlllet Gepdent UpOIl1he OlllCOIllll mOsa Il8J:Otiati\llll1C>wards new lung tmn
conlre<;b A1IedforllylhlPrillcipl-. i.., evlllliflJlaPrinciples do DOtc:omel~ fruition in 1hetbnn ofnew
Ioni lmllGOA1nRI, Olw... V1SlII. is ~ ib W. IUd .llplICityrillhts. It is my opiIWla 1bAl this
$\lbstantiallj pro~ Chula VlSt4qainst !be possibility that nqotilllions under lIlal'tIn&:lplos mi!IJII Ji111 Of
tha% Cb1l1a V1&ta misllt b. found to !lave ,made finllldall7JllllDitll\elll5 in lb, Prillcipla bit ex181ld beyond
1hc tetm QtilS \I:liiI!IQCS ~ty rillbb.
Ilia ''filUure''samUio. ChulaVlsta'1 apacitylll1llllStrirhlJ; 11111 tb9tomlS of~1herofore,
would bl ClMIed by its Ulristing Metro CotrtriIcl1brousJt 2013. UI\llIIin8 Ch1lIa VI5ta IIlalrcises its option
. to 8lIIIIld. 1f1he POCOl do Dot ~ on 1ho illto1pRlllllion III the MlIlI'o Conhc:t, Chili. Visla and SlIll
Diego eedl 1m." melr dispule MS01uIion U1d wbilfaliVll rigbb II providllcl ill ~ 1;JQstl..,; MRQ Codlrac:t.
After 20U wheA 1IIe Metro Conlrad apices. Ifnew long Ulnn agrteIIIeIIlS Be 3tI11110t in pllll:O CallGC:nuiQ
COMidm4 \lIllikely) Chllla V"1Sla _llId bave illl ~acity IlIId \>Sa rilh" Il'WlllJlIoIlllo 2OSO by !he JeIIa"
qrecn.nt, IIl1<l WO\I\II hava lIII QbIipliop. to pay ilS "fair Ibate" of cOlts based llIIl1QW in a 234 MOD
S)'S1an. bIIt ....l,lIl\d not b&VI l wtitlOll doCUllM!llt spmtjins th, ~s Qfb relatilll1$bip. If CbWa V'1St"
UId Sa Dia,o wtre- unable 10 8tl"ee ClIl1M lenns lIJId condiliDl1S of' payinG OHlII DlJler m&tlCl!IlIIIder
this IOalaDQ .tier 2013, lIlli.r!lattly III arbilntion or Iitisatim _vld be req1lired 10 lIlc the speclilcl of 1Ile
terI1II ofp~eall. &U:. lmportlllllly, Chula Vma would lIollaa.. ils ~~ 0I"1IS8 ri&D ill ""y &UCh
pr_dinll "'-we lh~ lI'e guwaDtee4 by1ho l.......llIP''''''''....,
4. DipoJ'tion ofl\!_ Paid. Under p",!IlI!:
W1W.. the Princ:iplllll dQ ~t direGlIJ' ad4m. tht di,~IiOJl. ofmCllli" paid "1mcIer pTOllsl", lIlld
c:on~lly Ih.... is UQcmtUl\l)' on this fnmt. it is my opillil1lllMt mostlibly CIulla. Vista wiI1 be
relinqllisbing lIIlY claim to ftmds lIIreedy fail! to Saa Diego II well IS lllllll)' IlIldilionlll AmcIs paid duriDi
.. tInn of Ole Principles, It IIlUt to November 1m. Iftht Prlncipl., do lIQt cQIlla to fnliliun. It lhlll
poinI b....uIe: new IODS lOI1n llgI'_m. }uwlulol ~ _~ neJOti-a. au JDy opinioa that
Cbula Vim, al1bltpoirlt. ~Jl"'IS!ertits prior posilQIII. ggJ _pin beJin plYinlWldcr~ and will
h.. the risJI1: to ao to ubinlion IS to III)' disputed p~ad.II under il! existing MetI'o CanIratt. To
n1111al JUtO UlIl1 Chula V"1S1li tmd S8lI Diego In OI.lhco 'lllIIIe "wave1ength" 00 1IIiI i51l1',1 haw propomt
thllt a COVCII" lelle1lKWMpaII)' 1be priDQpllli (assuming IIpproYIII by ywr c:oancil) thIll..tuifies ihis poi1lt
(- cop)' 8l'tadled). '.
.!. Aenronl of The PriNiBlM. In Coniundioo with mil Sid.'Letter A2T'e8mIIInt Is ll....GIlahle
""" Pn.dafrom .1.--1 '-~
N d~ in ywr sfefFrepDrt, 1lim IIn imporlllIIt ccmc.ssllllll 011 the put of SUI DiBSO hft~
ill 1ho lrindpl. thel tuft III the ~ of Chul& Vllta, IlII4 0\',,1111 your _......t staIF 8\lppoltllhe
l'rin;ipl. II in ehula Vislllo'$ be5l: ~ From I. Icplpot'IP'.uye topptovd af1lM:.1'rinQple5 wiU.
IIJIIIIlinrthe olh.... pulieIlIppfol'e them as wolI, 10" 1II11l1e beallfits in fur CbuJa VistL With lb, 8dcled
gu.ar1l1lfw IIDd proleWC>l\!I of lb. side lotter, it ill my opiDion tblll ChIlIa Vilta wollld tHo ..:1in. JeIIIOI\IIbJy
IIIUI pl'lldmtly aom .le&11 pwspedlve iflhc collllcll, II II ml111r ofpolic:y, decidoos to appnlve cbe
PrInCiples.
6t'hcro iJ 81....,., & rilk" llowol'.... th. if Cbull. Vn brcadl. ill Metro ConlnGt or btwdIOIIIbe
1IltC A.ploJmd 1bat. W1Il1 or iRitl:1IltIT ~OUId liDc1 that CbI1la Va loaes is rigJa..
/'1.,~1
~THE LAW OFFICES OF
?;RE~~~~Y C!?~?~~
462 STEVENS AVENUE, SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
[619] 755-6604. [619J 459-7979
FAX [619] 755-5198
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
TRACY R. RICHMOND
W SCOTT WILLIAMS
JAMES H. ELLIS III
CRYSTAL CRAWFORD
MICHAEL S. HABERKORN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF
FROM:
D. DWIGHT WORDEN, SPECIAL COUNSEL ON SEWER ISSUES
DATE:
December 11, 1996
RE:
PROPOSED AFFORD PRINCIPLES: LEGAL ANALYSIS
This memo will address, in summary, some of the key legal issues raised by the proposed
approval by Chula Vista of the AFFORD Principles. Additional legal analysis and discussion has
been provided to council and staff in closed session and by confidential memorandum with regard
to the related arbitration/litigation issues.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Chula Vista has an existing contract with San Diego whereby Chula Vista receives sewer
treatment and disposal service from the "Metro" system' (the 1960 "Metro Contract"). Under
this contract Chula Vista has certain capacity rights and the right to service through 2003, with
one ten year option to extend until 2013. In recent years, Chula Vista and other contract agencies
have disputed with San Diego over a number of issues related to sewer service and the rights and
obligations of the parties under their Metro Contracts'> These disputes, generally, can be
summarized as:
lThe Metro System is described in the 1960 Metro Contract, as amended, and generally is
comprised of the Pt. Loma treatment Plant, major Transmission facilities, sludge handling
facilities, and an ocean outfall.
2 The other agencies with Metro Contracts are divided into two groups. The first group is
comprised of the "Participating Agencies", and represents the agencies that signed initial
agreements with San Diego at the beginning before PI. Loma was even constructed. The second
group is comprised of "Later Participating Agencies" and represents those agencies who joined
the system sometime thereafter. The terms of the contracts for the original "Participating
Agencies", including Chula Vista, are in some respects different from and more favorable than the
terms for the "Later Participating Agencies".
{,t- / ~ /y'-.,2;2-
CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 1996
Page 2
(1) Disputes over payment and cost sharing for certain new facilities proposed by San
Diego, including the North City Reclamation Plant.
(2) Disputes over management and maintenance of the Metro system and how these
costs have been allocated and billed.
(3) Disputes over whose obligation it is under the Metro Contracts to pay for water
reclamation.
To preserve its rights as to matters it disputed Chula Vista has been paying its sewer
billings from San Diego, as to all matters in dispute, "under protest".3 Chula Vista also demanded
arbitration of the disputed matters as called for by its Metro Contract. In lieu of the expense and
risk of arbitration, Chula Vista, San Diego, and the other Metro member agencies engaged in an
extended series of settlement discussions, delaying arbitration in the interim. The result of these
discussions is the AFFORD Principles now before your council.
The Principles were developed as a means to (1) resolve some differences by providing
clarification in the Principles now, and (2) as a means to provide a structure for negotiating the
remaining items leading to new or amended, long-term Metro Agreements to replace the existing
Metro Contracts. The Principles provide that these new contracts are to be negotiated and signed
by November 1997 (see, Principle 13). In addition, Chula Vista staff successfully negotiated a
unique and separate side letter agreement with San Diego guaranteeing Chula Vista capacity
rights and service rights in the Metro system through the year 2050 (see Exhibit "B" to the staff
report).
'The Metro Contract requires that Chula Vista "pay under protest" but that Chula Vista
will get a refund following arbitration on any disputed payment where Chula Vista prevails.
~ If",:;;J
CITY COUNC~
December 11, 1996
Page 3
MAJOR LEGAL ISSUES
1. The Principles are Not An Amendment ofChula Vista's ExistinlZ Metro Contract.
Chula Vista's existing Metro Agreement will remain in effect whether or not the Principles
are approved. The Principles are a separate agreement. If the Principles are approved, but not
performed by either party (Chula Vista or San Diego), then the other party may have rights under
the Principles to enforce the Principles. At the same time, the parties also retain their rights under
the Metro Contract, including the dispute resolution and enforcement remedies under the Metro
Contract.
What the Principles do provide is "clarification" by agreement of the parties as to certain
subjects addressed in the Metro Contracts. In particular, the Principles c1arii)' certain billing
matters that have been in dispute. The staff report addresses the specific issues addressed in the
Principles and the financial implications thereof in some detail.
2. The Principles are "Executory" in That Their Implementation Requires Further
Negotiation and Agreement.
In particular, Principle 13 requires Chula Vista and the other parties to negotiate in good
faith towards new or amended long term Metro Contracts and to execute the new or amended
contracts by November 1997. If the new contracts are not successfully negotiated, there is some
uncertainly as to exactly where the parties stand. It is my opinion that if that happens, Chula
Vista will have the option of either (1) seeking to enforce the Principles, in arbitration or court,
i.e., compelling a recalcitrant party to negotiate and execute a new long term contract in good
faith as called for by Principle 13, and/or (2) to continue to rely on its existing Metro Contract
and the side letter Agreement for service through 2050 and to re-assert its prior positions
disputing matters of payment, etc., in any arbitration, mediation, litigation, or negotiation that
follows any failure to complete the execution of new long term contracts under Principle 13.
Because the Principles do not expressly provide what is to happen after November 1997 if
new or amended long term contracts are not signed, and because Chula Vista wanted to be sure
that if it approved the Principles its concessions and commitments on financial issues set forth in
the Principles would not extend beyond the term ofChula Vista's capacity rights in the Metro
system or beyond the term of its right to use the system under the Metro Contract, i.e., 2013,
Chula Vista staff negotiated the side letter agreement to reduce risks in this regard.
~ Itf,,2. 'I
CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 1996
Page 4
3. The Side Letter Agreement Provides Chula Vista with Substantial Protection
Ag:ainst The Uncertainties Inherent in the Principles.
The letter Agreement guarantees Chula Vista its capacity rights and right to use the Metro
System through the year 2050, in exchange for Chula Vista's commitment to pay its "fair share"
of system costs, based on flow in a 234 Million Gallon per Day ("MGD") system, through the
year 2050. The rights guaranteed in this letter are not dependent upon the outcome of the
negotiations towards new long term contracts called for by the Principles, i.e., even if the
Principles do not come to fruition in the form of new long term contracts, Chula Vista is
guaranteed its use and capacity rights.
It is my opinion that this substantially protects Chula Vista against the possibility that
negotiations under the Principles might fail or that Chula Vista might be found to have made
financial commitments in the Principles that extend beyond the term of its use and capacity rights.
In a "failure to sign new contracts" scenario, Chula Vista's capacity and use rights, and the
terms of payment therefore, would be covered by its existing Metro Contract through 2013,
assuming Chula Vista exercises its option to extend. If the parties do not agree on the
interpretation of the Metro Contract, Chula Vista and San Diego each have their dispute
resolution and arbitration rights as provided in the existing Metro Contract. After 2013 when the
Metro Contract expires, ifnew long term agreements are still not in place (a scenario considered
unlikely) Chula Vista would have its capacity and use rights guaranteed to 2050 by the letter
agreement, and would have an obligation to pay its "fair share" of costs based on flow in a 234
MGD system, hut would not have a written document specifYing the details of the relationship. If
Chula Vista and San Diego were unable to agree on the terms and conditions of payment, or on
other matters under this scenario after 2013, ultimately an arbitration or litigation would be
required to fix the specifics of the terms of payments, etc. Importantly, Chula Vista would not
lose its capacity or use rights in any such proceeding because these are guaranteed by the letter
agreement through 2050"
4There is always the risk, however, that if Chula Vista breaches its Metro Contract or
breeches the letter Agreement that a court or arbitrator could find that Chula Vista losses its rights.
~/r',,2f
CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 1996
Page 5
4. Disposition of Moneys Paid Under Protest.
While the Principles do not directly address the disposition of monies paid by Chula Vista
"under protest", and consequently there is uncertainty on this front, it is my opinion that most
likely Chula Vista will be relinquishing any claim to funds already paid to San Diego "under
protest" as well as to any additional funds paid during the term of the Principles, at least to
November 1997. If the Principles do not come to fruition, at that point (November 1997)
because new long term agreements have not been successfully negotiated, it is my opinion that
Chula Vista can re-assert its prior positons, can again begin paying under protest, and will have
the right to go to arbitration as to any disputed payments under its existing Metro Contract.
5. Approval of The Principles. in Coniunction with the Side Letter Agreement. Is
Reasonable and Prudent from a Legal Perspective.
As detailed in your staff report, there are important concessions on the part of San Diego
reflected in the Principles that run to the advantage of Chula Vista, as there are in the letter
agreement. Overall your management staff supports the Principles as in Chula Vista's best
interests. From a legal perspective approval of the Principles will lock these benefits in for Chula
Vista. With the added guarantees and protections of the side letter, it is my opinion that Chula
Vista would be acting reasonably and prudently from a legal perspective if the council, as a matter
of policy, decides to approve the Principles.
I will attend your Council meeting on this item and will be happy to answer questions and
provide clarification on these complex matters upon request.
LAW OFFICE OF D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A Professional Corporation
BY&,QV ~
D. Dwight Worden, Esq.
c:
John Lippitt
Sid Morris
John Goss
John Kaheny
~ )~".2?
FROM 'D. DWIGHT WORDEN
u~v ~w ~~ I~ 1~'~v
619 766 619B
V.l I J V' VI1UL.1J V' hllJl
1996,12-19
I'M I1V. UJOi.JOU:'.'Il.
16'26
tl22B P.13/13
r, It:
-
FI"J:Qr-;" :D.. CblICVfT IolCJIFC~
.~.
6191 755 Sl99
1':3":iS.l~
lS=2T al~7 P4e1~~.
/f-r1/:J0A" :B'
........
""WI. ~....... IIiJ~PI~E.s g.
~P,r,,~~!!I~<?~~~
"C:2~~.:iUI1E'tOZ
SOUONA RACIoI,CN.IOANlA UG""
. r.,8J"',J..Coe.. ..It.;tJ.a6t.'1ljJ7.
Fo'X Iii.) "!.$-S".
CII.OIV1t1QMoT""'CPIr;Jert
,....""CY to. ",,:.HMgNllI
tN. SCO'J'r ~
~CS ".ICU.'S"
E:AYSTAl.. CAAWIIIOAQ
""ICl...-cI,..).HI'\D"'I4C)"H
Otl'lGOIII'CI ~ CCV1!1t linE'!
Da.t....
, '1./"" [~"
,
'l'Qtal Sheets:
(Including Cover
't
Shaat)
1U:CElvP.:ll.: Jo" f\ L ,~,'q""" } ,;.It) Mo~\ S S"
company Name; C. ~~ \:j" ,~
Fax N'Q.: .Ji!I':"SI::rJ; ~g'S'- 5"bl'2....
'"
Phone No.:
SUDP: LA" o"lI'n"J!R OJ' D. mn:GII'.l WOMB'"
Individual' 2> NUll!.: D """ \fl """'f \ to. ~'<<A tA,.)
...../
Phone No.:
Lll 19 I 755-5504
Fll.X NQ. :
rill!!!) 755-51'18
~.: A\PPevt{>/S$Wt.f'l....-
n_: "U"'-.Po"" C"nEN\:t> ~1'l. ~I:I..\..
Othar COlllllents: h3.r loA o,)v"" c...,. ~ ~.t.j) I" e \J ~f"C,tJ
') - ''"'"
'ff\~~ -+-co rY\.UUl.. Ma.....re..!Jtl. "l .)1\'-:J''''~lIY\,
....b.~ iYOU,,^,l"',I\ C;\"\.ll"'u.18 t\.e"r ~ ,~w...', '" . .
Ori~inal Haile4; Yes
No
v
-:.-~
FOR OPPle. OSB OBLY
"-""" Clll"'" ~ \ft"'-<lJ cu.., ....., C. V
..-no UM!;
~
"
~I?XD&RTIALIT~ BOTICB
~
"
The ~'C::a IIICcaIt"'lnr'nv: (his J'A,DItCLLIi tl"tlflahvhn IIKIr ~u,... ~fi-"'I.l ill'lf'~t:ien ....icb h l"VilUy
privi'L1l8W. ...~ inf.r-...t::i<Ol'l r. 'M"""" ililOly.for dI. UIMr of 'Ch. trdl"iul or en'Cf'tJ,..... Ilxrvc.. if Y'OU Ire ""t the int~
rlCi.illf\C. Qr ~ ~t,otl res~rbl.. f..,. dtliuril'll 'I to tJ\. fm:endId ,..dpfftot. ,., al"l "Ir.., ,-,if,. 'Ih.t ~ cliac.\Hu"..
~rftt. dhl:rit..ltl'"" ... l&tr of' any of tlt. i'.,f"....l:i'" pwurtl:ai"", in &hr. traotab$fon ill 1V'(Ctl., "eIIIIITED. If YIU aM
recdnd tll." tf"lllYfJ.$fan r" ctrtIT. p\U$ie t""il~t'lY' rtfJc.[f., lMo I)y 'le!t~O'II. ~nIlf ..it'dl.. "'1'1.1r11L ,,-.npJI,'''' t. us. nank
YllOI.' . " .
/4-;2.7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date:I2/17/96
15'
SUBMITTED BY:
Report: Approving Enhancement of East "H" Street Landscape
Director of Parks, Recreatio~n d Open spac~
, h C
City Manager~ 'at -v (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No..xJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
JM Development Company, the developers for Rancho La Cuesta (formerly Salt Creek Ranch), have
proposed to enhance the landscaping of slopes, medians and parkways along East "H", in the EastLake
Maintenance District #1 "Zone D" Open Space assessment area (Letter from JM Development is
Attachment "A"). The enhancement would include the planting of 195 box schinus moUes (pepper trees)
along the slopes, parkways and medians. They also propose to plant additional 1288 one-gallon cistus
purpureas (rock rose shrubs) throughout the medians (Proposed Enchancement Plan is Attachment "B").
The primary purpose of JM's proposal is to beautify the main entry to their Development Phase I & II.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve JM Development's request to enhance the
landscape along East "H" street in the EastLake Maintenance District-Zone "D," subject to
staff conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: One of the reasons for bringing this item to the Council is the 1994 public protest on
the open space assessment amount. Therefore it is important to give Council a brief history concerning
this particular assessment district. On June 14, 1994, several residents appeared before the City Council
to express concerns regarding the proposed assessment levied for "Zone D." They objected to the cost,
and questioned the utility of landscaping the SR-125 slopes and wondered why natural habitat needed
maintenance. Council deferred setting the assessment levy for ELMD "Zone D" and directed staff to
meet with the residents regarding possible cost control measures (Minutes of June 14, 1994 Council
Meeting are Attachment "C-l"). The Engineering Department, Open Space Section in Parks and
Recreation Department, and the Baldwin Company's representatives met with approximately 30 property
owners to brainstorm options for reducing costs and improve the assessment notification process. There
were four main issues:
1. Why should the neighborhood pay to maintain City land?
2. Why should the residents pay for maintenance costs of SR-125 slopes, the biological preserve,
or the SDG&E easement?
3. What is the appropriate budget amount for irrigation and contractual services?
{NETWORK - me - A1l3 - EASTH.A13 - December 10, 19961
1
15-/
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
4. What is the appropriate budget amount for trash collection, disposal and materials to maintain the
structure, and why weren't these additional costs being paid from reserves?
As the result of these meetings, staff proposed appropriate maintenance work which lowered the
assessment costs from $355 per to $259 per homeowner per year. Although progress was made in
reducing the annual assessment, the residents felt the cost was still too high. Staff's report to Council
on August 2, 1994 presented the ideas from the residents and recommended an annual assessment of
$259. After considerable dialogue, Council directed staff to evaluate the cost impacts of deleting the
landscape maintenance of the SR-125 slopes, and establish a natural landscaping plan (no irrigation)
designed to prevent slope erosion. It was Council's position that if the homeowners, Caltrans or the
developer wanted a more extensive landscaping, they could do so at their own expense. Finally, Council
added a third amendment to further reduce the assessment to the homeowner by an additional $100 to
$159 per year (Minutes of August 2, 1994 Council Meeting are Attachment "C-2").
The following measures were incorporated to create a maintenance plan with a reduced landscape
maintenance budget.
1. Limit the litter pick-up on a quarterly basis;
2. Reduce fertilization to once annually;
3. Modify the irrigation area from a highly irrigated installation to minimum irrigation;
4. Eliminate adjacent slopes; and
5. Modify portions of SDG&E easement from irrigated slopes to non-irrigated slopes.
The amended plan was presented to Council on December 20, 1994 without any resident protest (Council
Minutes are Attachment "C-3").
Since JM Development proposes to pay for enhanced landscaping, their proposal appears to be consistent
with the city's efforts to keep assessment cost contained within Open Space Zone "D," complying with
Council direction. JM estimates the cost of these improvements to be $72,434 (Attachment "D"). The
Department recommends approval with the following conditions attached:
1. The new planting will require additional irrigation, and this should be the responsibility of JM
Development to pay all costs during the establishment period of two years. The water
requirements for the new plantings will be calculated by the project architect for reimbursement
purposes.
2. The developer will be responsible to replace any plantings that fail to survive during the two year
establishment period.
[NETWORK _ me - AI13 - EASTH.AI3 - December 10, 1996]
2
15',2.
3. The tree planting will meet the Public Work Department's standards for planting of trees on
median, parkway, and slopes adjacent to sidewalk to minimize impact to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
JM Development held a forum for the residents in ELMD Zone "D" on September 21, 1996 to explain
the enhancement plan. Notices were sent to approximately 500 residents. Fifteen homeowners attended
the forum and were unanimously in support of the proposed enhancement along East "H" Street. The
homeowners requested the developer and City staff inspect the site two years after installation to review
the quality of the plant material. The developer will be obligated to replace trees and shrubs that are in
unsatisfactory condition.
It is anticipated that the two year establishment period will begin in February, 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with enhancing and maintaining the landscape of the mediums,
parkways and slopes along East "H" will be the responsibility of the developer during the two year
maintenance establishment period. When the City takes over the enhanced landscaping, there may be a
minor financial impact for the long term maintenance of the trees. Most of the trees are not situated in
a landscaped area which is a hazard to public safety, or threatens public property, and thus, will not need
extensive trimming. Staff believes any additional costs to the assessment district will be insignificant and,
in all likelihood, absorbed in the maintenance contract. In addition, the new trees will be well-established
after the two year maintenance period, and able to utilize existing irrigation, and the shrubs are drought-
tolerant.
Attachments:
S" -
:f~1l"
"e-I"
~ ::~:;::
~ "D"
~
JM's Letter dated October 21, 1996
Enhancement Plan
Council Minutes of June 14, 1994
Council Minutes of August 2, 1994
Council Minutes of December 20, 1994
Cost Estimate
[NETWORK ~ me - A1l3 - EASfH.A13 - December 1],1996)
3
If, ;J
NUV-Lb-~b 1::.;,'-1:':' ,j-"..)J'j..,h ULVLL.:....;,'HL.h-l.
.ill Ul:::l b:::.L "..:J0G
PAGe.:
2/ J
J.m The JM Devdopment
. . Company, Ine.
~.,.
I ; ~
~ ,,"" ""t;:j;."-- '\,.
t."l . -.:..,1
4 '1 - . ~-.~
ATTACHMrNT "A"
2300 80sweU Road. Suile 209. Chula Vista.. Calitorni:a 91'914 . (619) 656.4300 . Fa~ (619) 656.4-306
. May 14, 1996
Mr. Jess Valenzuela
Director of the Parks & Recreation Dept.
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fomth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
It is the desire of 1M Development Company to enhance the landscape of the existing
parkway and median landscape planting and irrigation along those portions of 'H' Street
which are adjacent to our residential development projects. Specifically those portions of
'H' Street from station 88+00 to 108+00. In addition it would be our iDtent to modifY, at
our expense, the existing landscape plantings.
We would propose fimdamental changes to the streetscape which will have three main
positive effects. First, the Sycamores and Eucalyptus which have not performed, or have
died, will be replaced with SchWus molle. Trees which will be added will also be
Schinus molle. While creating a stronger statement on the street, this approach will result
wa streetscape of predominately one species of tree which will cause the maintenance
procedures to be less varied. Second, the shrub species which we would propose to add,
such as the Myoporum and Acacia will mature into spreading groundcovers requiring less
water and weeding than do the existing groundcovers which currently make up the
streetscape. Third., 1M Development is proposing to provide for incremental maintenance
costs over and above the current LLMD assessment funds. 1M Development will provide
any additional funds to maintain tbis area of 'H' Street during which this new materia!
will become established. 'When established, the IlUldscape will be a simpler palette of
materials requiring more similar water requirements and a lesser variety of maintenance
procedures.
Alternatively, JM Development could assume the maintenance of the planting and
irrigation systems for a period of two years commencing at a mutually agreed time. At
the completion of the period of time, we would have the option of continuing the
maintenance or returning that responsibility to the City management of the Landscape
Assessment District. It would be our intent that during this period the City would retain
ownership of the water meters serving these landscape areas. The current fees paid into
the Maintenance District for the care of this area would be credited to 1M Development
during the period we are providing the maintenance.
/5-t(
NOV-26~86 15;45 FROM:JM DEVELOPMENT
1L];619 656 4306
PAGE
:J/J
Jess Valenzue1a
H Street Landscape
May 14, 1996
We have provided you, Marty and Joel with plans of the proposed plant materials
additions for your review. TIris work has been prepared on 'D' sheets to become a part of
the record set of documents when the work is completed.
We look forward to meeting with you again to review our proposal and address any
issues you might have. Please return this proposal and advise. Should you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (619) 656-4300 ex. 101.
Sincerely,
The 1M Development Company, Inc.
LlIslb
/~.. 5"
II
'"
.....
1)
=
~
E
~
>
0
~
Q.
~
-
~
Q.
~
u "
'"
"0 ~
c:
" 1
...J
~
0; ~
"'
b ~
VJ "
:r:
V;
~
'"
15' "
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT .e~l. Page 1
Minutes
August 2, 1994
Page 9
Mayor Nader stated Council bad been told there was some policy or agreement among the various transit agencies,
including Cbula Vista Transit, tbat would preclude tbe City from earmarking revenue from sucb a program for
discounted bus passes for youth, a differential rate, or any sucb purpose. He questioned if that was something that
was covered by or related to the item before Council.
William Gustafson, Transit Director, responded that it was not. The item before Council was related to the sharing
of revenue from past sales and the setting of fares. The restriction on tbe use of revenue from advertising was more
directly related to the Transportation Development Act itself.
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, responded tbat be did not believe it was included in tbe legislative program,
but could be added.
Mayor Nader requested that the issue of State legislation restricting the utilization of revenues from bus
advertisements be placed under his comments on the next agenda.
RESOLUTION 17585 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
18. RESOLUTION 17586 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO
TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) - The amendmenti\o tbe agreement for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/95 continues
Cbula Vista Transit's participation in regional transit information service at a cost of $21,541, a 5.6 % decrease from
the FY 1993/94 cost of $22,766. Staff recommends approval of tbe resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Continued from tbe meeting of 7/26/94.
RESOLUTION 17586 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
*" 19. RESOLUTION 17600 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
,TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND LEVYING
THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1994/95 FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NUMBER ONE - ZONE D - On 6/14/94, Council directed staff to meet with the property owners of Salt Creek
I to discuss the open space (EastLake Maintenance District Number I - Zone D) budget and proposed assessments
for FY 1994/95 before Council would consider levying tbe annual assessment. The item considers the issues raised
at tbe meeting. Staff recommends approval of tbe resolution. (Director of Public Works) Tbis item will not be
considered Drior to 6:00 D.m.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed actions taken by staff in working with tbe residents of tbe district.
The original assessment was $355 and bad been lowered to $259 for Zone D. The cost was near the mean for all
tbe parcels in tbe eastern area and was lower tban many of tbe otber districts.
. Ken MacTiernan, 2261 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposItIon of tbe staff
recommendation. He did not feel the neigbborbood bad been given time to attend the meeting due to tbe short
notice given. Staff bad not addressed the issue of removing the slopes adjacent to tbe SR 125 corridor. If tbe City,
Baldwin, or Caltrans required tbe slopes tbey sbould bave to pay for it, and if no one asked for the slopes to be
graded Baldwin sbould pay. Residents did not feel SR 125 was a benefit to tbe neigbborbood, but to tbe entire City.
If tbe slopes could not be removed from the budget be requested tbat Council consider cbanging the landscaping
to a less expensive coverage. Aestbetics would take a back seat in comparison to tbe potential of saving money.
He questioned wbetber maintenance on tbe slopes could be deleted witb nature taking over. If the area became a
fire hazard, reserve funds could be used for fire clearance. County probation crews could also do the work.
Mayor Nader questioned if tbere would be any adverse consequences if the slopes were allowed to be taken over
by natural vegetation, i.e. 1) it would not look pretty; or 2) no vegetation would take bold and erosion would tben
cause tbe public street rigbt-of-way to become a hazard.
JS''' l
ATTACHMENT "C-l" Page 2
Minutes
August 2, 1994
Page 10
Joel, Chew, Open Space Coordinator, responded the landscape architect advocated tbatthe City not abandon the
project. The plant material was in need of maintenance in perpetuity.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the two points raised were accurate. Another issue would
be a policy'issue Council would have to deal with, i.e. did the Council want the slopes to appear in a natural state
or highly marli<;ured and aesthetically pleasing.
Mayor Nader questioned if the issue came down to the appearance of the plant material.
Mr. Valenzuela responded that was correct.
Mayor Nader questioned ,if there was an impediment to utilizing the probation crews.
Mr. Valenzuela responded the City did use probation crews for open space brush clearances, trash removal, etc.
It was in the proposed budget, but had been taken out to lower the assessment.
Mayor Nader questioned if the City provided an estimate as part of a bid package.
· Dara Woolley, 2284 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation
as she felt there were many things unanswered. A large portion of the reduction in the fees was based on a mistake
by Baldwin rather than the City. The only thing that had been done to reduce the fees was the deletion of the
clearing. An area had been dedicated to coastal sage and she questioned why natural vegetation could not be,
allowed on the slopes. The slopes and on/off ramps were built at the City's request and would benefit the entire
City. She felt the entire City should share in the costs. She had been told staff had twenty years of experience in
preparing budgets, but a lot had changed in twenty years, i.e. drought conditions, poor economy, and people that
could not afford to pay more on a continuing basis. She requested that Council walk through the neighborhood.
Mayor Nader questioned if Ms. Woolley preferred native vegetation.
Ms. Woolley responded that she did and felt it fit the name of the neighborhood. She stated the graph showing the
total special taxes and assessments did not include their zone. An additional paragraph had been added at the bottom
which stated Zone D would be included.
· David Digiamballista, 2269 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, stated over thirty people had attended
the budget hearings and if people had more notice of the present meeting there would be a larger turn out.
Mayor Nader questioned when the residents were notified.
Mr. Digiamballista responded that he had talked to Ms. Snider on Friday and received a FAX on Saturday
confirming the meeting. Their district was primarily slope maintenance and not street maintenance, 75% of the
budget was to take care of the slopes. There should be some type of provision that staled they did not have to treat
something that was not visible from the street the same way as a street was treated. There should also be a
provision for unnecessary expenses such as performance bonds. It was nol appropriate for the homeowners to be
charged. The neighborhood did not want SR 125 built as they felt it would be a blight on their area. SR 125 would
benefillhe entire City more than the neighborhood and recommended the cost to maintain the City land for SR 125
be paid for out of general funds. If the City did not want to pay for the land they could give it back to the district
to take care of or return it to Baldwin for development.
I>,r
ATTACHMENT "C-l" Page 3
Minutes
August 2, 1994
Page 11
Mayor Nader questioned wh~n the notice for the meeting was distributed.
Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, responded the notice went out on July 18th and confirmed with Mr. Digiambattista
on August 2nd. Two notices were sent, i.e. one that the meeting would be on August 2nd and the second that it
would be heard at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Nader stated he was concerned about how nature was being taken out of City design. The water
conservation changes he had proposed several years ago for common areas of new development were intended to
promote natural landscaping. He was concerned that if they let it revert it was unknown as to what vegetation
would take hold. The purpose of tbe grading and SR 125 was one that transcended the immediate neighborhood
although he was uncertain the City would allow the new developments without assurance that some of those things
would be paid for that new development necessitated. Residential development in California did not even pay its
own way for services unless the special assessments, Mello Roos, etc. was added in to make it a break even project.
He felt the homeowners preference should be honored. He preferred to take the slopes out of the assessment and
if the homeowners association did not like that and wanted different landscaping, as long as it was legal, they could
approve a different landscaping plan and pay for it.
MS (Nader/Fox) to direct staff to bring back a revised amendment removing the cost of landscaping
maintenance of the SR 125 slopes.
Councilmember Moore stated the SR 125 corridor did nOjll begin in Salt Creek and if it was done for one district
it should be done for all districts. He questioned who would pay for and maintain the slopes and erosion damage
if removed from the district.
Mayor Nader stated the photographic evidence showed that EastLake already had a natural slope in the area. His
motion did not remove the slope from the open space district, but removed the cost for maintenance of the current
landscaping which would allow natural vegetation. If someone did not like the natural vegetation they could take
it over along with the cost. Government would not be mandating that the homeowners pay for the landscaping plan.
Staff had informed him that the only problem was aesthetics.
Mr. Valenzuela stated erosion was also an issue.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader, agreed to by Second of Motion) to direct staff to return with a lower
cost natural landscaping plan designed to prevent erosion with the understanding that if the homeowners,
Caltrans, or the developer wanted a more expensive plan they could do so at their own expense.
Councilmember Rindone questioned of the $259/year how much was related to the cost for the maintenance of the
slopes in question.
Mr. Lippitt responded the staff estimate was approximately $lOO/EDU.
Councilmember Moore questioned if the Maker and Second of the Motion would agree to add "for route 125
right-of-way and associated slopes while still deterring erosion of the area". Agreed to by the Maker and
Second of the Motion.
Mayor Nader stated any option would be open to the Council when the report was brought back. He wanted staff
to address the erosion aspect and what bad to be done.
Mr. Lippitt stated he had been informed that what had originally been planted on the EastLake slopes was similar
to what was being recommended. The Homeowners Association did have responsibility for the EastLake side and
it was over a period of time that they stopped maintaining the slopes. It was a managed non-maintenance program.
The City would have to get to the tax assessor by 8110/94, which was a legal deadline. The assessment could be
reduced during the year at a cost of $35 per parcel or the City could write a check to each property.
Mr. Boogaard stated it was critical as it had to be on the tax rolls within a printers time frame.
/5'- i
ATTACHMENT "C-l" Page 4
Minutes
August 2, 1994
Page 12
Cou!,cilmember Moore questioned if part of the fee was to build up a 50 % reserve.
Mr. Lippitt responded the developer was creating the reserve as the City did not plan to take over the district until
the first of the year. Staff recommended a full years assessment as the law made it subject to a majority protest.
A six month1eserve was included in the assessment. .
.
Councilmember'Moore questioned if there would be a problem in reducing the assessment by the amount of the
reserves.
Mr. Lippitt stated that would be approximately half. He preferred to reduce the assessment by the estimated
reduction for the slopes,J.e. approximately $100.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: (Nader, agreed to by the Second of the Motion) to reduce
the proposed assessment by $100 and have staff return with the report as called for in the original motion.
,
Councilmember Moore felt it should be tied to the anticipated reduction by reducing the area and maintenance.
Councilmember Rindone staled the homeowners should understand that in order to provide for natural vegetation
and erosion control it would not be a full $100. That figure was unknown at the present time and the reserves
would need to fill that out. There would also be an adjustment the year after next to cover that amount.
i'
VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
Councilmember Moore stated there should be a review on an annual basis in the spring of the number of years
needed to water for natural landscaping.
Mr. Valenzuela stated staff would do that.
RESOLUTION 17600, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Mayor Nader stated the assessment would be set at $159.00.
Mr. MacTiernan questioned if Council would change the developers process of notifying homeowners of their
obligations.
Mayor Nader stated there was an existing ordinance which required that all assessments be on a separate form, with
red letters of a certain size, notifying homeowners of their obligations. He felt it was a problem of monitoring and
compliance with the law which was staffs job.
Councilmember Rindone felt a letter should be sent to all developers planning to pull permits within the coming year
advising them of their legal obligatioos.
· · · Councilmember Fox left the meeting at 7:53 p.m. . . .
20. REPORT JOINT MEETING WITH SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE BOARD TO
DISCUSS TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT - The background information is submitted to Council in preparation
for the joint meeting on 8/10/94 with Southwestern College Board to discuss the transit facility project. Staff
recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works)
Mr. Goss stated the meeting had beeo scheduled for 8/10/94 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 801 at Southwestern College.
The item was on the Council's agenda to: I) remind Council about the meeting; 2) have Council review the staff
report summarizing the issues; and 3) receive Council input. He then reviewed the issues that would be addressed.
Staff had developed alternatives which they felt the College would consider.
Council member Rindone hoped that a middle ground could be found that would provide the needs for service of
the students and community for the present time and in the future. He felt the staff report and oral report should
15"~/tJ
ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 1
Minutes
June 14, 1994
Page 11
significant increase, i.e. 4 %. The majority of the change was due to the lack of reserves to reduce the assessment
as had been done in the past.
MOTION: (Rindone) to place the item on the 6/21/94 agenda for reconsideration. Motion died for lack of
second.
Mayor Nader stated it had not been shown to his satisfaction that the need for the specific services provided justified
that drastic of an increase in the assessment.
Councilmember Moore stated the assessment had not been doubled. It had been reduced in the past due to the
reserves. He questioned what the status would be of Open Space District 10 if no action was taken by Council.
Mr. Boogaard stated if no action was taken he would recommend that it be agendized for the 6/21/94 meeting. The
costs of the district needed to be financed.
Councilmember Rindone requested that Item 20 be agendized under his comments for the 6/21/94 meeting.
;ff
21. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-9, 11, 14, IS, 17,
18, 20, 23, 24, AND 26, AND BA Y BOULEVARD, EASTLAKE AND TOWN CENTER MAINTENANCE
DISTRICTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 - In accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.07, the City Engineer
prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the open space districts. The reports were accepted and the
required public hearings were set by Council at its meeting of 4/19/94. The agenda statement includes information
related to the above districts and general information related to Open Space District 10. Specifics of Open Space
District 10 are addressed in item 20 on the agenda. Staff recommends Council direct staff to tally all protests and
approve the resolution. (Director of Parks & Recreation and Director of Public Works) Continued from the
meeting of 617/94.
RESOLUTION 17532 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODmCATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 FOR OPEN SPACE DlSTRICT
NUMBERS 1-9, 11, 14, IS, 17, 18,20,23,24, AND 26, AND BA Y BOULEVARD, EASTLAKE AND TOWN
CENTER MAINTENANCE DISTRiCTS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE BUDGETS BY
COUNCIL
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that a considerable number of written protests were
received on EastLake Maintenance District Zone D. The protests were tallied and staff met with several
representatives of the area. The meeting with the property owners was scheduled for 6/22/94 to see if there was
a way to reduce the assessments. The assessments for Zone 0 were based on staff estimates because the District
had not been taken over until January. An additional eleven written protests were received prior to the meeting.
Staff estimated that to be about a 22 % protest by area. Staff was recommending Council close the hearing and
allow staff to meet with the residents to see if there was a lower amount and bring back.a resolution to Council in
July to levy the assessment. .
Councilmember Moore questioned if the initial $7.00 fee had been explained in writing to the property owners.
He felt a written explanation should be handed out at the meeting,
Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, responded the letter was not tailored to their specific district and in'!he future that
would be done. . .
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. David Digiamhuttista, 2269 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Zone D, stated they wbuld
like consideration given to the fact that it was a first year budget and therefore, there was no cost
base to compare it to. The largest land owner had voted for the people that had yet to move into
the area. The disclosure that had been signed by the property owners omitted the fact that the
/5-/1
ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 2
Minutes
June 14, 1994
Page 12
SDG&E easement would be included in the zone, the land set aside for SR 125 was in the zone,
and tbat tbe developer was paying a significant amount of money to provide maintenance.
. Arthur Schaefer, 2203 Lago Madero, Cbula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated most of
the zone was bigb cbaparral or coastal cbaparral open area, under higb power lines, or erosion
controls on the hill. He felt the increase was excessive and that the disclosures were vague.
. Phil A. Gaugham, 455 Rivercreek Court, Cbula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, submitted
a written protest petition with eleven names of property owners. He requested that the item be
continued until after the meeting between tbe property owners and staff. The signatures presented
were greater tban 60% of tbe people that lived in the area. The majority of the land ownership
was the Baldwin Company and they bad voted for people and bomes that did not exist.
Mr. Boogaard informed Council tbat a revised resolution was on the dais tbat deleted Zone D and would allow
Council to take action on tbe otber districts. A new resolution could be brought back at a later date dealing with
Zone D.
. Terry Lewis, 457 Rivercreek Court, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated ber
problem was witb tbe disclosure statement. She had been unable to obtain information regarding
the assessment districts and Mello Roos assessments for ber area and wbat they covered. At a
minimum, she felt the builders owed the people purcbasing property a clear piece of paper that
stated what the tax rate was, the Mello Roos tax, the assessment district number and the amount
of the assessment. The property owners sbould be given an opportunity to discuss privatizing part
of the area.
Mayor Nader stated Council bad passed an ordinance that required a specific disclosure form and he felt the City
Attorney should look at the notice to see if it conformed to tbe legal requirements.
. Bertha J. MacTiernan, 2261 Rolling Ridge Road, Cbula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D,
stated they bad lived in their bome for two months. Baldwin would not sigu the petition and it
was up to the Council to help the voting public. She requested that Council not vote on the
assessment.
. Ken MacTiernan, 2261 Rolling Ridge Road, Cbula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, did not
feel it was fair to pull Zone D out because representatives from the other districts were not in
attendance. He requested that tbe entii'e item be continued. He did not feel the property owners
should be held bostage due to Baldwin's ownership, as they bad a conflict of interest. He
requested tbat Council be concerned regarding their taxes and postpone action until the property
owners had an opportunity to meet with staff.
. April Scbaefer, 2203 Lago Madero, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated the
majority of the land they were being assessed on was land that could not be built on, i.e. native
species that were protected by law and required no maintenance. Chaparral was under the
SDG&E right-{)f-way and tbe only areas being maintained were the ramps for SR 125 and erosion
control on tbe bills. She requested that Council continue tbe item until the property owners bad
an opportunity to meet with staff.
. Pbyllis Altomare, 1160 Sundown Lane, Cbula Vista, CA, District 4 and District 18, stated tbe residents
of the districts were disgusted and would not appear at tbe public meetings. She requested that
Council postpone their decision and allow them to discuss it with staff. Most of the area in
District 4 was cbaparral. The assessments continued to go up wben they sbould be going down
because tbe vegetation was established. Sbe felt part of the problem was the contractor.
Council member Rindone questioned wbat procedures were in place to ensure tbe work was being performed as .
required. .
Joel Chew, Open Space Coordinator, stated the inspectors had weekly meetings witb contractors of all districts.
The work was also monitored on a daily basis in the field. The contractor had a set work schedule along with daily
work orders issued by the City.
u:/~
ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 3
Minutes
June 14, 1994
Page J3
. Dara Wooley, 2284 Rolling Ridge Road, Chula Vista, CA, Open Space Maintenance Zone D, stated the
staff recommendation to close the public hearing would not allow further protests and she did not
feel that was fair to those property owners that could not attend the meeting. She stated she was
still working on Baldwin to obtain their signature on the protest.
Mayor Nader stated Council would technically close the public hearing, but any subsequent meeting at which
Council voted on consideration of setting an assessment would be a public meeting and the public would be legally
allowed to speak to Council. He requested clarification regarding the ability to receive protests after the closure
of the public hearing.
Mr. Lippitt responded the recommendation was that if the public hearing was closed, no further written protests
would be received. Staff would be working with the property owners to consider a lower assessment.
Mayor Nader stated Council could consider further written assessments and Were not bound by that. Due to the
property ownership by Baldwin, it would be up to Council discretion regardless the number of signatures in protest.
Mr. Lippill stated that was correct.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone felt staff should have an overhead depicting the maintenance areas at the next meeting.
Council was suggesting that there might be a resolution on mitigating the costs while still providing the protection,
but not necessarily at the full scale being recommended. Staff should look at alternatives that were not cost
prohibitive.
MSC (NaderlRindone) to defer EastLake Maintenance Zone D to the July 12, 1994 meeting and direct staff
to hold a meeting with residents regarding cost control measures and report back to Council. Approved 4-0-1
with Horton absent.
Mayor Nader stated he continued to have concerns regarding the costs of maintaining open space that had been there
all along in most cases. He felt cost savings could be achieved on some of the open space maintenance districts.
A motion had been unanimously passed directing staff to look at cost reduction measures and he did not see those
recommendations before Council for consideration. His intent in voting for that motion was that it would be
received before Council would be ask~ to vote on any of the proposed assessments. Council had an obligation to
control costs as best they could. He felt that could be done by: I) maintaining native vegetation wherever possible;
and 2) privatization or allowing non-natural open space to be administered through a local homeowners association.
He felt the City was holding the line on most of the districts, but several had excessive increases. Therefore, he
was not prepared to vote on Districts 4, 24, EastLake I, and EastLake Greens as they had very large increases.
Councilmember Moore stated Council made the policy and staff had to design something that would fit the politX.
He questioned whether there should be a cap on all open space districts, except Zone D, for the next two years.
He felt that should be explored in the report back to Council. The districts were in place to enhance the individual
properties, but the City could not allow the costs to automatically move up. .
RESOLUTION 17532, REVISED TO DELETE ZONE D, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
reading or the text was waived.
AMENDMENT: (Nader) to direct that all assessment increases be capped at a 10% annual increase and staff
bring back a budget that would achieve that (Zone D not included in the motion).
Mr. Boogaard recommended Council receive staff input regarding the amendment. If action was taken, he proposed
that it be done by minute action rather than inclusion in the resolution. He felt the motion could have an impact
on the City's ability to finance some of the open space districts.
Councilmember Moore questioned whether any contracts had been let out.
/~ I.J
ATTACHMENT "C-2" Page 4
Minutes
June 14, 1994
Page 14
Mr. Chew responded that the contracts would be before Council at their 6/21/94 meeting. All contracts were for
a period of one year with three additional one year renewals.
SECOND TO AMENDMENT: (Moore)
Mayor Nader stated he had reached the 10% arbitrarily and he was not tied to that number. It was an issue that
could he revisited prior to the letting of contracts in any given year. One of the protests had been from a senior
citizen who simply could not afford the increase in Zone A.
Mr. Boogaard urged Council to direct staff to bring back a report that would study the impact of the proposal so
Council would know what the consequences were in terms the City's ability to finance open space districts. If the
City had to stop irrigating it could result in landscape damage they were currently unaware of and he wanted
Council to be more fully advised in those regards.
Council member Fox stated he agreed with the concerns expressed by the City Attorney and questioned whether
Council would be advised at the time the contracts were brought to Council.
Mayor Nader stated under the motion, the existing assessment would be the base level under which the irrigation
had been performed and the landscape had not withered or died. Staff should find a way to bring the costs down.
AMENDMENT: (RindonelNader) cap of no more than 10% of the prior year assessment unless the
assessment of the prior year was abated by 50% or more of the reserves, staff to analyze prior to next weeks
meeting and report the impacts. Maker of original amendment and Second agreed to incorporate into original
amendment.
Councilmember Rindone stated if the formula proposed was unrealistic he wanted staff to give Council other
recommendations or a phase in recommendation to accomplish it.
VOTE ON AMENDMENTS: approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
Mr. Boogaard questioned whether Council wanted the CAP to apply to the current year.
Mayor Nader responded that was correct.
'"
MSC (Nader/Fox) to continue the item for one week to allow staff time to recalculate the assessment in
accordance with the motion passed. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. Carolyn F.J. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, informed Council she had recently been restricted
by an airline from traveling due to her handicaps. She requested that the transportation committee/commission be
reinstated. .
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
22. RESOLUTION 17533 ADOPTING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AND GRlEV ANCE PROCEDURE - This item has been previously presented at
a Council Workshop on 1128/94. At that time, Council directed staff to solicit additional p\lblic comments on the'
City's ADA compliance efforts and incorporate such comments into the compliance program. Staff has held two
1->' J t{
ATTACHMENT "C-3" Page 1
Minutes
December 20, 1994
Page 5
problem. Exposure was mainly limitc:J 10 suit hy honJhohJ~rs for p.lyment ami th~re had heen no ut::ht service
payments mis~J.
RESOLUTIONS 17769 AND 17770 OFFERED BY COUNCIL~IEMBER PADILLA, ~eadin~ 01 the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
15. RESOLUTION 17771 REMOVING HISTORICAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 644 SECOND A VENUE - The owner of 644 SeconJ Avenue has requesteJ that hdoric,l site
permit control of any modification to the structure be removed with th~ site ucsignation remaining. The R:.;:;(~:_'-r:~
Conservation Commission has recommended approval of the request. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
if:
16.A. REPORT AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE EASTLAKE MAIl\iTEhA~CE
DISTRICT ~ ZONE liD" - Annual assessments in EastLake Maintenance District Number One. Zone "D" Wt:;,(<;;
reduced to provide a naturallanJscape plan ttlf the slopes adjacent to SR-125 and proviJe the necessary erosion
control. EastLake Landscape Maintenance DistriL,t Numher One is now ready for acceptance from the developer
and a contract for landscape maintenance is now required. Staff re..:ommends Council accept the report and approve
the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation and Direl.:tor of Puhlic Works)
r.
B. RESOLUTION 17772 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT TO R.C. LANDSCAPE CO~IPANY TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
TO ZONE "D" OF THE EASTLAKE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE
Councilmember Rindone stated staff had done an exempbry .ioh on a very difticult and controversial project.
17. REPORT "NOTICE OF A V AILABILlTY OF DRAFT LOSS PERMIT" AND "DRAFT
LOSS PERMIT" (CS-95-04) FOR THE WIDENING OF WUESTE ROAD AT THE OLYMPIC TRAINING
CENTER - Last year the Federal Departmont of the Interior aJopteJ tho Special 4(d) nile regulating the habitat
"loss" of the California Gnatcatcher. The Special Rule links protection of the hird to the California Natural
Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. Prior to the preparation of an overall NCC? plan, the process
allows the "loss" 01 up to tive percent of the Coastal Sage Snuh (CSS), which is the habitat for the Gnatcatcher.
In August 1994, Council adopteJ an amenJment to the Municipal CoJe which implements the Federal Special 4(d)
rule at a local level. The proposal for the loss of .20 acres of Diegan CSS as a reslllt of the widening of Wueste
Road at the entrance to the Olympic Training Center is the third such permit oefore Council. Staff recommends
Council accept the loss permit as drafted. (Director of Planning)
. . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. .
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
18. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ABATEMENT OFTHETRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS TlIAN EIGHT PERCENT DURING CALENDAR
YEAR 1995 - On 10/25/90, Council adopted Ordinam:e 2407 eslahlishing a maximum Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOn rate of ten percent. and provideJ for annual ah~ltement hearings at whiL:h time the maximum tax could be
lowered to not less than the current nlk of eight pen:ent. Council h.ls helJ puhliL: he~lrings and ahateJ th~ tax to
eight percent for calenJar years 1991 through 1994, the s:.ame rate it has heen since 1978. On 11/22/94, Council
directed staff to meet with the Chamher of Commerce, the Hotd/Motd Association and interested motel owners
to discuss various options for abating/increasing the TOT rales for c<llenuar year 1995. Preliminary discussions with
representatives have resulted in their request to ahate any increase for at le<lst ninety days, or until 4/1/94, in order
to allow further dialogue. Staff recommenJs Council: (I) ConJuctthe puhlic hearing and approve the resolution;
(2) Direct staff to continue Jiscussions with the Chamher of Commerce, the HotellMotel Association anJ interesteJ
motel owners regarding various options for ahating/incrt'asing the TOT rates for the period of 4/1/95 through
12131195. (Director of Finance)
/f... /5'
ATTACHMENT "C-3" Page 2
Minutes
December 20, 1994
Page 6
RESOLUTION 17773 APPROVING ABATEMENT Of TilE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR THE PERIOD Of JANUARY I, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
This being ~he time and place as advertised. the public hC<lring was d~c1i.1rcJ open. There h~ing no puhlic testi,mony.
the public bearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 17773 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER fOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
19. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-95-03: CONSIDERATION Of TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
A PROJECT KNOWN AS VENTANA, TRACT 95-03, INVOLVING 109 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
ON 13.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE Of SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE, SOUTH OF
CLUBHOUSE DRIVE, AND SUBMITTED BY BREHM COMMUNITIES -Brehm Communities has submitted
a Tentative Subdivision Map known as Ventana, Tract 95-03, in order 10 subdivide 13.7 acres inlo 109 single family
lots and three open space lots. The property is designated as ?,m:d R-20 within the EastLake Greens Planned
Community. and is located on the west side of South Greensview Drive, south of Cluhhollse Drive. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17774 APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R-20, KNOWN AS VENTAN'A, TRACT 95-03, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING TilE MITIGATED ~IONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR IS-94-19
This being the time and place as advertised, the puhlic hearing was dedared closed.
· Scot Sandstrom, 2835 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, CA, representing Br~hm Communities, stated
they were in support of the staff recommendation. The project was their tifth in EastL:tke.
There being no further public testimony, the public bearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Rindone stated a pattern had devdopecJ early in EastLake which promoted the devdopment of cul-
de-sacs and hindered a good flow of traffic. He questioned whether that was a position takt:n hy a previous Council.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded tbat part of the IOllayoul Ii>r tbe project hefore Council was becaUSe
it was a golf course community. In looking at new prqjects .staff W.IS promoting the lIse of a grid pattern.
Councilmember Rindone stated if staff was concerned with pressure from dcvdopers they should hring the issue
back to Council for a policy decision.
RESOLUTION 17774 OFFERED BY COUNCIL~IE~IBER fOX, reading or the lext was waived, passed and
approved unanimously.
20. PUBLIC HEARING ACQUISITION Of CERTAIN RIGHT-Of-WAY fOR EAST "J" STREET
On 7/18/91, Council approved the tentatiVe subdivision map for Rancbo dol Roy SPA III, Tmct 90-02. In order
to comply with the tentative map conditions, Rancho dd Rey Partnership is rel)uired to construd an off-site portion
of East "J" Street. It requires street right-of-way across property owned hy Susie Mary Bennett. The property is
located between Paseo Ladera and River Ash Drive and consisls of about 1.07 acres. The dt,>rts of Rancho dol
Rey Partnership to obtain the property by negotialion have failed. Due to time conslraints, Rancho dol Rey
Partnership cannot wait any longer and eminent domain proceedings must hegin. Staff recommends approval of
tbe resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17775 DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO
ACQUIRE CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EAST "J" STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
/.s-://J
ATTACHMENT "D"
BURTON
ASSOCIATES
lIlIllCAPI UtlJllfCTURI liD PUIIM.II,
EAST 'H' STREET-LANDSCAPE PLANTING IMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
Prepared 19 Apri11996 . #96.010
Quantity Unit Cost Total
EXISTING TREE REMOVAL
Tree and concrete root barrier removal 43 EACH $200.00 $8,600.00
PLANTING:
Mulch:
Median planting areas 6,300 S.F. $0.25 $1,575.00
Trees:
5 Gallon 32 EACH $25.00 $800.00
24" Box 96 EACH $200.00 $19,200.00
36" Box 67 EACH $525.00 $35,175.00
Shrubs:
1 Gallon @ 3' o.C. (6,300 S.F. X 0.11) 693 EACH $5.50 $3,811.50
1 Gallon @ 8' o.C. (3,285 S.F.x 0.016) 53 EACH $5.50 $291.50
1 Gallon @ 10' O.c. (54,165 S.F.X 0.01) 542 EACH $5.50 $2,981.00
GRAND TOTAL $72,434.00
Exclusions:
mulch in parkway planting areas and on
slope planting areas, grading and
drainage, any irrigation modifications,
goveming agency permit fees.
TEL; (SlnJ94.J2C4
FAX: (619 i J 9 4.72 B 1
12760 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SUITE 120 w, s , U" I 0"
· SAN DIEGO. CAliFORNIA 92130 · " l I 2 I 3 \
If''''/?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12/17/96
It
ITEM TITLE: Report on written communication from Lee Ann Meacham regarding
Deferral and Lien Agreement gr ted to owners of 403 Queen Anne Drive
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ bVd ---; 4/5th vote: Yes No X
Lee Ann Meacham, owner of the property at 403 Queen Anne has submitted a written
communication to the City Council requesting that the City remove its existing lien on the
property. The lien was accepted by the City in 1987 to guarantee the future installation of public
improvements that were deferred when the Meachams had an addition done on their home. This
report discusses the issues involving the deferral and lien.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept this report and authorize staff to subordinate an
updated lien to second position with respect to the first trust deed.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: No Board or Commission action
is required on this matter.
DISCUSSION:
David and Lee Ann Meacham, owners of the property located at 403 Queen Anne Drive
(southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Queen Anne Drive), added 413 square feet to their single
family home in 1987, increasing the size of their house by 55 % . The addition consisted of a
bedroom, bathroom and laundry room estimated at that time to cost $19,000. Chapter 12.24 of
the Municipal Code sets the standards for requiring dedication of right-of-way and construction
of public improvements as a condition of building permits.
The requirement to install public improvements was set during the Building Permit process in
accordance with the following section of the Municipal Code:
12.24.040
Installation of public improvements - Required - Standards and specifications.
Every person erecting, constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing, improving, converting or relocating any
building or structure as defined herein in the city shall install, prior to the completion of such building or
structure, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and other ordinances of the city, sidewalks, curbs
and gntters, pavement in streets, highways and alleys from the gntter or edge oftravelway, if no gntters have
been required, to the centerline or such portion of major streets as are required for subdivisions, and
necessary drainage facilities and lighting structures. All public improvements required pursuant to this
section shall be installed in accordance with standards and specifications adopted by the city council, and in
conformity to the state Select System of Streets and Highways, the circulation element of the general plan
of the city, and any specific plan adopted by the city; provided further, that street lighting, including
/J, --/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12/17/96
The permits required for the construction of said public improvements shall be secured prior to the frame
or electrical inspection approval in connection with the construction or erection of any building or structure;
provided however, that the frame and electrical inspection may be made upon the acceptance of an
appropriate acknowledgment of the nature and extent of the obligations contained in this chapter,
guaranteeing compliance with the requirements contained herein prior to the completion of said building
or structure. (Ord. 1566 ~I, 1974; Ord. 1205 ~2 (part), 1969; prior code ~27.504).
In 1987, Section 12.24.020 of the Municipal Code stated in part:
"Building or structure" means any building or structure of which the cost price of erecting the same is in
excess of ten thousand dollars, or any building or structure moved or installed upon property for
residential, commercial and industrial use, or such building or structure for use as a place for the
assemblage of persons.
Thus, under the provisions of the Municipal Code at the time, the Meachams were required to
construct public improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along their street frontage. Since
their property is at the comer of Fourth Avenue and Queen Anne Drive, they were required to
install improvements along both streets. The total estimated cost of these improvements was
$6,700.
The Meachams requested a deferral of the requirement and the request was granted on the basis
that it would be more practical to install the improvements as an overall project. The City
accepted a lien of $6,700 on the property in lieu of a cash bond to guarantee the future
construction of those improvements.
By written communication dated October 24, 1996, the Meachams explained how the City
imposed the requirement to install all public improvements because of a room addition totaling
413 square feet. Staff was within its authority according to the Municipal Code to require the
improvements. The letter also states that they attempted to refinance their mortgage, but cannot,
due to the City's lien on the property. In the past, residents who were granted deferrals with
recorded liens as security have been able to place a cash bond with the City in an equal amount
in order to have the City release the lien. As a routine practice, the City has also usually agreed
to subordinate the lien to second position behind the ftrst trust deed in cases such as this.
Subordination would allow the Meachams to refinance their mortgage. In other subordination
cases, however, staff has been assured that its lien is protected by a safe margin of mortgage-to-
equity ratio.
Mrs. Meacham's letter discusses the inequity of the requirement by the City to improve both
Queen Anne Drive and Fourth A venue frontages. Historically, owners of corner properties have
been left with the responsibility for the entire frontage. Council Policy No. 505-03, which was
adopted in September, 1994 (after the Meacham's permit) now limits the public improvements'
costs to just 25 % of the on-site building costs. This provision (in most cases) would limit the
improvements to just one street frontage, thereby lessening the apparent inequity. Council
Policy 505-03 is attached.
Site conditions have not changed with respect to public improvements; there are no curbs,
gutters or sidewalks on either Fourth Avenue or Queen Anne Drive; only asphalt berm at the
edge of pavement.
It ";L
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 12/17/96
The City currently is installing curb, gutter and sidewalk along Fourth Avenue from Naples
Street south to Orange A venue, but only on the east side. This project was specifically intended
to be part of an overall program to construct sidewalks along the major routes to the new South
Chula Vista Library from the areas schools. The program adopted a plan to implement the
construction of sidewalks along several streets in the south Chula Vista area and only provided
sidewalk along one side in many cases in order to stretch the City's available resources as far
as possible. If the Council had adopted a program to construct walks along both sides of all
streets the available funding would have dictated that the program be spread out over a much
longer period of time. Eliminating improvements on the west side of Fourth Avenue allowed
expenditures for street improvements needed in other areas. Most of the City's available street
financing is needed to fund a barely adequate resurfacing program and to do major work on the
highest volume streets with much more critical needs.
Staff has done an estimate of what the improvements would cost in today's dollars. The
following is a breakdown of the items that were required in 1987, using updated unit prices:
1.
Curb, gutter and sidewalk
Queen Anne Dr. frontage 75 LF $30.60/LF $2,295
Fourth Ave. frontage 135 LF $30.60/LF $4,131
Berm removal
Queen Anne Dr. frontage 75 LF $1.00/LF $75
Fourth Ave. frontage 135 LF $1.oo/LF $135
Sidewalk ramp Lump sum 1,000.00 LS $1.000
Subtotal $7,636
10% Contingencies 764
Total $8,400
2.
3.
Individual totals without pedestrian ramp:
Queen Anne Drive
Fourth Avenue
$2,600
$4,700
Since the time of the original deferral, the Council has also adopted Policy No. 563-02 (dated
2/23/93) and revised Subsection 12.24.020 (B) of the Municipal Code, providing the home
owner more latitude in situations such as this (copy of that policy is attached). The threshold
under the current Code is now $21,390 (based on $20,000 multiplied by the Construction Cost
Index factor included in the Engineering News Record publication) of on-site improvements
before the City can require the owner to construct street improvements. Additionally, with
respect to single family homes, the addition to the home must consist of at least one bedroom.
As an added consideration, the Policy limits the public improvements to just 25 % of the home
improvement costs.
The valuation of the Meachams' home improvements ($19,000) done in 1987 in today's dollars,
using the difference in Building Cost Index from the publication Engineering News Record
between then and today, would be 129% of the cost in 1987, or $24,500. With current policy,
/t. ';J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 12/17/96
however, the amount the owners would be responsible for is 25 % of the onsite work, or $6,125
worth of public improvements (25% of $25,400).
ALTERNATIVES
. The Meachams have the option to attempt the formation of a block act to have the entire
Queen Anne Drive improvements installed. In this manner, under Council Policy 505-01
regarding City participation in 1911 Block Act proceedings, the City would pick up the costs for
engineering, inspection and administrative services, and all the owners would be able to pay for
the construction costs over a ten-year period. In addition, under this policy the City would pay
one-half the cost of the improvements on the side street (in this case Fourth Avenue). This
option was mentioned to the Meachams, but apparently there was little interest on their part to
act on it. Also, in light of the recent passage of Proposition 218, it may be far more difficult
to obtain a vote from the residents along the block to form an improvement district.
. Council may opt to rescind the lien altogether. However, this action would set a
precedent for many other similar cases the City has on file (recorded Deferral and Lien
Agreements). The old policy of accepting a lien instead of other types of security was a logical
means of securing a guarantee of future participation by the owner in the case of an overall
project to construct the improvements. Release of a lien without another type of assurance of
future payment (cash, surety bonds, etc.) leaves the City unprotected.
. City subordinate to second position to the trust deed. Revise the lien amount to reflect
the total financial obligation in today's dollars, but limit the amount under Council Policy 563-02
(25 % of current costs of the on-site work), then subordinate its lien to the lender, after staff is
assured that the subordination will not jeopardize the City's ability to collect on its lien.
. Allow the Meachams to replace lien with a cash bond. This option may place an undue
financial hardship on the Meachams. However, in the past, this was the only provision to get
a lien released, other than to install the improvements.
. City install the improvements. In view of the current fiscal constraints, it is not
recommended that the City expend funds to install improvements along this block of Queen Anne
Drive. It is a residential street connecting Fourth and Fifth Avenues and not shown on the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. It is staff's belief that Gas Tax Funds allocated to the
City or Block Grant Funds may be better used for more heavily traveled streets in this area.
. Call in the deferral and require Meachams to install improvements. The Deferral and
Lien Agreement stipulates that the owners, upon written notice by the City, are to install the
public improvements. However, since there have been no other frontages improved along Queen
Anne Drive or Fourth Avenue and the benefit received by doing the work would be minimal,
imposing this condition at this time seems inappropriate.
. Reduce the amount of the lien to $6,125. Under all current city policies the Meachams
would only be responsible for putting up $6,125 as 25 % of the building permit valuation if they
came in for a permit today. However, the City has been accepting deferrals and liens for as
long as staff can remember. This has created quite a long list of properties that could be subject
JJ.'f
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 12/17/96
to a reduction. In most cases these property owners have put up cash deposits. There have also
been many deferrals called in over the years where the City has done either a block act or an
overall City project where the property owners had to pay the full amount of the improvements.
reducing the amount of the lien could set a precedent that could create future problems. It
would, however, appear to be the fairest option.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends the alternative of reducing the lien amount using the current public
improvement and building unit costs, and incorporate Policy 563-02 as discussed earlier (25 %
of $25,400), or $6,125, and subordinate the lien to second position. If Council opts for this
action, staff will ensure that the loan-to-equity ratio will safeguard the City's lien.
FISCAL IMPACT: No application fee has been collected for this action. Staff time in
preparation of this report will come from the General Fund. Future costs for installation of the
public improvements will either be paid for by the oWner in the case of a 1911 Act, or in the
case of a CIP project putting in the improvements, City Funds could be used.
Council Referral No. 3030
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Plat of area.
~;9:0Uncil Policy No. 505-03
Council Policy No. 563-02
_(; Council Policy No. 505-01
~ "$' Copy of original Deferral & Lien Agreement
~O
JWH[Original File No. PD-044]
[0740-20-PD-001]
[M:IHOMEIENGJNEERIAGENDA IMEACHAM.JWH]
/~ ':f'
) I I L
,~J,j.PLE 5 ~-
::J I.
i I
I I
,
i - . - ,
_ 1- _1_ _ _ __ " --I WE ISSER WAY : ! T\
, - ~_ ,n ()
, T\ '- --"i - - --- C
I . i
-1 : , , 70
I , ,
, f-----. -
1:. : , I -1
i : i :r:
EMERSON 1ST. I -- --.
, I ,
-
, - - - -
------- )> - -
! ! - - I" --" , :
< i I i I
------- , I i
m i ,
I ! , i i
, I )> ---
I I i . I
, , <.
-'-l i
, m
QUEEN I I ANNE DR. i
, . ,
- .. -
I I I ! , ~>,
i I I ,
, 'if 403 c: I l,,~
I ~
I SUBJEC.T SJ7E
\ I ~o
1 I I I i1 - - --- I
r-n , I I -- -- ,
, i ' I I I I===-~
--, n .. n' ,
I I I ' -
I I f.--
I I I I '
I
I ! I
OXFORD ST.
I I " I I I I I I \ I I
:! I I , I f---I
,
II I i
I I I ! i
I : I I I I
---1 1 !,J, I )-,
I \ i I I I
I :
r~ I I I
\ ! \
I I I I
I , ,-..
~\W' "" I ~ "T1
"T1 I "\< r '\:::D 0
, Jr;:l I \ /0
\1 I '-
~ \ I \ ~ :::0
<..
I - -;
-L I I I I ' . ::r:
, . I :-l :-1
... I r FILE NO. PDDOI
DWN BY: EXHI81 T ':.4 II
J~ "y
DATE:
f?Tl1lc/;. ~ 2.
COUNCIL POLICY
CIn' OF CHUIA VISTA
SUBJECf: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VlSTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECfIVE
DATE
PAGE
1 OF 6
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83
I DATED: 08-30-83
BACKGROUND
There are properties v.~thin the City limits that do not have full street improvements. In the past, Council has
directed the ovmers of critical unimproved parcels to install their missing public improvements. The 1911
Block Act Proceedings were utilized in most instances. As an encouragement for property O'WIler participation.
the City has connibuted funds for the completion of certain items of work (i.e., grading, pavement
installation, etc.). Also, the City consistently has connibuted engineering inspection and administrative
services at no charge to the property owner(s). However, there is no Council adopted policy regarding City
participation in 1911 Block Act improvement construction proceedings.
This policy is designed to encourage the installation of missing improvements along developed residential lots.
It specifically sets City participation goals for the improvement of comer, non-comer, and double frontage
residential lots. The policy reaffirms City Council intent to require the installation of public improvements
adjacent to undeveloped property (residential, commercial, and industrial) through the formation of 1911 Act
Assessment Disnicts or through the subdivision and building permit approval procedures.
This policy shall only apply to areas incorporated on or before this policy's effective date.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for participation by the City in the construction of public improvements \~a the 1911
Block Act Proceedings (Chapter 27, Street and Highways Code of the State of California).
POlJCY
The City Council establishes the following policy for City participation in 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings:
1. General Participation
a. The City, at no cost to the property owner(s) shall provide all engineering, inspection and
administrative set\~ces necessary to install missing improvements via the 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings.
b_ It shall be the City's responsibility to relocate all eXlStmg public improvements found to be in
conflict with the proposed street improvement construction. Such improvements shall include, but
not be limited to: street lights, traffic signal standards, drainage structures, fire hydrants, etc.
c. Engineering staff shall meet individually with each property owner prior to the program's public
hearing to hand deliver initial correspondence and to explain the plans, proceedings and this policy.
Final engineering plans and project specifications shall reflect as close as practicable, the property
owner(s) concerns provided they reflect standard engineering practice.
-
./t-?
COU~CIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUU vISTA
11 1M cA :Ii r
\
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VJSTA IN J911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 2 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
d. Prior to the end of each fiscal year, the City Engineer shall submit to the City Council for approval
under this program, a recommended list of projects for scheduling in the ensuing fIScal year.
Funding for the program shall be determined annually and shown in the Capital Improvement
Program.
e. City participation in this program shall be limited to developed parcels that cannot be split into lots
or building sites.
2. Developed Residential Lots
a. Non.Comer Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to overlay or reconstruct the roadway travelway adjacent to
Don-corner lots when the travelway is already improved and needs an overlay or reconstruction to
accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements.
The City's responsibility described above is shown on Figure 1 (anached).
b. Corner Lots
For the purposes of this policy, the corner lot front lot line shall be defmed to be the shorter of the
two adjacent street lot lines. In this case of a non-rectangular corner lot, the front lot line shall be
the average width of the lot. (See Figure 2).
Jt shall be the City's responsibility to:
(1) Install curb, guner, sidewalk and pavement (if non-existent) adjacent to 1/2 the corner lot's side
street frontage.
(2) Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street's travelway when needed to accommodate
drainage or traffic safety requirements.
(3) In the event that there are improvements already existing along the corner lot's side property
frontage already existing, these improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be
removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed.
The City's responsibility described above is depicted on Figure 3 (anached).
3_ Dual Fronta2e Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
Jt,~
AlIA, -A Pr:L-
COUI'CIL POLICY
CI1Y OF OlUL.\. VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 3 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
a. Install curb, guner, sidewalk, and pavement (if non-existent) adjacent to the entire lot's rear street
frontage.
b. Overlay or reconstrUct the lot's rear street travel way when needed to accommodate drainage or
traffic safety purposes.
For purposes of this policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having frontage on two parallel or
approximately parallel streets, none of which is an "alley".
4. Developed Industrial/Commercial Lots
The City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to developed
industriaVcommerciallots shall be limited to:
a. The overlay or reconstrUction of existing roadway travelway areas when found to be req'..lired for
drainage or traffic safety purposes.
5. Undeveloped Residential. Industrial and Commercial Lots
This policy shall reaffirm the City Council's intent to require the installation of missing improvements
adjacent to undeveloped lots (both corner and non-corner with and without double street frontages)
through:
a. 1911 Act Assessment District procedures.
b. subdivision requirements, and
c. building permit approval requirements.
There shall be no City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to undeveloped
residential, industrial and commercial lots. In the event that an owper petitions the City for inclusion of
his/her undeveloped parcel in a 1911 Block Act Program, all expenses shall be borne by said owper.
6. Applicabilitv
This policy shall be applicable to areas within the Chula Vista City limits on or before its effective date.
/~~9
I
COUl"CIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUIA \1STA
,UBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF G1ULA
VlSTA IN 1911 BLOO< ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
~
'7to;;~
POLICY
NUMBER
505-01
:!J~
EFFECTIVE
DATE
08-30-83
PAGE
4 OF 6
DATED: 08-30-83
c:
0
>, 0>
~ U .
:>0>
.. c:
~ ~
oJ:> '"
c: '"
'" 0 :>
c: u ..
8- 0 Co
.... ..,
'" .. 0>
'" .., c:
lu cc ..-
~ 0'"
>, '"
~ >, .-
t') .. ><
u - ..,
i.(I ..,
:> ~
t!1 0 0
i::
~
I.(
t:
-
...J
<=>
,I II
...,1 ,I
I II ~ I
I I' ell!
I II ~
I II ~~
I II >:::'>
so....,. I 11 ~"\U,
I 11/ \oj
I
I
I
I I
I
I
.>< ;x
,...--
I ~ VJ I N .>< .>< ><
I !: ~ L_...,
I ,,\)
L..'::..~__;.J
I I'
, II I
I II
I
I it\(
I
.., I
I II ~~
I 1\ !:>:s
~~
I 1\
../1 II I
V>
Z
o
c.
V>
...
cc
0-
Z
...
:0:
...2:
>co
occ
ccc;
c.o
Xc:
-c.
0-0-
uO
co....
><cc
l5~
....c:
<=>0
u
_ 0
-z:
C'O
-z:
f
/~ ../t)
""
c:
0
c: '"
0 '"
c:
.., E
"" ....
.. -
~ -
c: .., ..
0 c: ~
>, .. '"
~ .... - c:
..
- .., ..,
- .. 0> 0
oJ:> c: ~
0> ..,
'" c: u '"
c: .., ..,
0 0 ..
Q .. 0>
'" 0 :>
.., .... .. tr
a: .., ..,
'"' 0> ..
.. 0>
.., .. :> '"'
! ~ '" ..
'" .... i
0
.... .. ....
0> 0. 0
.. '" -
.., c: - ..
0. .. E
0 ~ .., .
.. .. 0> ..
C. .., .. -...
0> .... c:
0> ~l'
:> .. 0>
'" c: c: 01:..,
t:: 0> :>
. 00
. .eo ..,.. ...
.. >- ::~
:> .."
u c... ..-
. . .
- N '"
~I-Cl'w...,t-
Ll..a::oz~C(CJWJ
,
COUl'\CIL POLICY
CITI' OF CHUL\. VISTA
505-01
EFFECTIVE
DATE
08-30-83
PAGE
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF mULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
5 OF 6
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
DATED: 08-30-83
>-
...
-'
.,
V>
Z
o
Co
V>
'-'
co z
o
......-
=:0_
w -' '"
z Z
L-'c::_
b~~
r-::::L..l
Co 0'"
:<: u~
- 0
co
..."'...,
~5~
<.0-,
""z
u"'...
0"'0
-'U-'
::: ...,
co...
- 'z
-zo
0">0<::
-z....
0 9
(I rUJ
~ ::2~ I I:
O.J
-I (\J Ci I II
u. I 'I
d " I 'I
() I "
I : I
I "'"
~
'"
x
0
..
..
~ '"
"
:-
.J ::;
c-J ~
'"
::::, ""
1- '"
" ~
-"'"
1 ... "
'" 0
"" ...
...
~
-0
",3
.J 0-
'" '"
""'.t::.
c-J. ""'"
0
-- .....
... 0
...J
-------
-------
0
\
()
/~ - / /
/J1TA d. iJ;L
\
COUNCIL POLICY
CITI' OF CHUL4. VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF mULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
ADOPTED BY:
>-
--
-'
""
V>
15
Co.
V>
0..;
c:
--
~
::
~
>
c
c:
- ~
::<
~
--c
'-' c:
<=-
'" --
we
c_
CC:
-=
-c:o
C'C
-...,
.>~
''7;;~
0.,.
Resolution No. 11373
'"
'"
l
...
...
'"
"
:!
::;
~
~
~
i<J
:..
~
~
-- ~
" I...
~ I II I... ~
t" II ,~~
~ f\.11 - ~
I Il)
I II ~ ~
~ ::/U f
II~TT ,\U
2TIl
-.J
::.
~ to, ~
'"
'"
."
'"
" '"
.- ~
~ C
c.: 0
." ...
~
'"
'_ 0
x
"'~
C'
"= t.J
~ -
,,::0
o
...~
.... 0
~------l
r ,
r r..
,,,," 'Cl
, :< tI) I ~
I .... ~ It.:..
I ~Q ~_-'o
I --:t I '"
I '" I "
I '" , .,
l___...J
.J.C'1.10 .a~()#1.:1
POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
505-01 08-30-83 6 OF 6
DATED: 08-30-83
'"
... .
.. .... >,
...'" ....0 ' ....
00 c:_ ... ~~
c: E ~ '" 0
0 0>, c: 0 '"
~ u~ "''''
>, .... u", >- ou
.... ..'" ~uu
u ..~ ......-
:> .. 0.
'" U ...
"'0'" .... :>o~
.., ....~ .........
'" u :.~ .... ...
c:~- "'~...
'" 0"- ' u
c: u",_ '" ... c: c:
0 , e .. .. :n"
0. '" '" ... -Co
'" ...>... ... "'''''''
'" .. CJCol; ... > co-
c: ... Co.. -.J -= .J .. ..
0 -.J -.J C". "'0."
,., co-'" ::: " 0
~ >-.c.:::"I 0'1_,,, CJ CO-..
fl:l._ fl:l ,.,,,...
'-' -..." . co- tg-- "'0
'- \1\-- ":::t:~ -...
C,J.- t";) ... " c '-...... 1:..'
> " ... ;:::1-.- toJ-- -
0",,,, u",- > " '"
0"''''
N
, ... ,
... ...
'" -... '"
.... " ....
co- " 0 r.. "
".= '" ....- 0 '"
.- .... u .. " .... u ..
..>< c0- .... ~~ '" .....
... " "'... '" ... "'.... '"
.. '" - u c: C.i'- - U "
0._ >.< .- > "'-" >. <: .-
'" .. ... ..
,., '" tJ X..>< 0 0.'" 0 ~..><o
... ." " '" u'" u u'"
.. 0 "'- .. 0
x- 0-." ." tJ '" 0_ -"
- ..."" '" .- u.= ..."" '"
~ ....... :. ......
-" ... ...
'" 0 0 0'- .. 0 0-
"'- ....... ::: .... 0.", ...... ::>
'" ... '" '" '" '"
c: .... '" "''''
0 .. '" ... '" '" ... '"
0. c: " 0 ... ....c: ::: c: 0 ...
'" 0 'O.- ...- 'O.-
'" ... .-
- .....>< _ u - .....><
'" ."... c.... ~~c c....
c.: c: "" 0 . - i'... i
.
... .. '" c:.... :. '" .. c0- t:. '"
'" - ..- C" ..,.J " '" e - " ....
~ :J:--j/t.,,_ c :. 0._ .. ..>< ..- c:
.......CJ..,I-....o~ '-.c: ... ...... 0 ~
VI U c: It) Vl '" ...- .. '"
L. ." Q,_ "'" ~ ... 0..- '" '"
>, . ." --' K e > -- - " e >
... LQ.VlEQ,lQ,lO ...... .. E ... '" 0
... CJ -OI"'L '" C.::.:: 0 , .... r..
'" ....D\I<L.C_a. ... ..... u ... c:.- ~
0. -'8&1""'0 E ~. . 0'>_ ... 0
0 ::J I C:L._ - c: '" c: ...-
... C'l_ C.w QJ '" ... .... '"
c.. 1CI0C'-.cD'l -.c: c:....c: ""
. c~--'c: :. ~_.... c:
D CLI 0_ '" 0-
'-C-QJG,1 ." =c:~ '" '" ...
::s .".- > c_ "" 0'_ c: > ,,- ...
1.01-_."....__. . ,,- .. .,,---
0._ .. E 0.- . E
. . .
'" .... - '" ....
V"I po.. a:: ,""",....I ~ V'l~a::Wo.lW~
w..==o%~cc~w-l "'-0",",
It ,/.,2..
COUI'CIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
if/filch d:13
\
SUBJECT: DEFERRAL AND LIEN AGREEMEt-.1S
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 17640
505-03 09/06/94
I DATED: 09/06/94
1 OF 2
BACKGROUND
Whenever an owner developes his land in the City, he or she must install any missing public improvements in
accordance with current standards as required by Section 12.24.040 of the Municipal Code. In certain cases,
ho.....ever, those improvements may be deferred due to the existing conditions surrounding the property. At
the time the ordinance providing such deferrals was adopted, security for the future completion of the
improvements by the owner/developer could be in the form of cash, surety bonds, pass book, or a lien against
the property in favor of the City.
The Council previously delegated authority to the City Engieer to approve deferrals and to accept liens on the
property to secure the deferral. The reporr recommended that security be only in the form of cash bonds or,
in the case of demonstrated hardship, the City accept a lien against the property being developed.
After this authority was shifted, the department found that it was relatively easy to make a determinatiC::l of
demonstrated hardship for an owner wanting to build a single family home, remodel or add to hislher
existing single family dwelling and, on his/her authority, accept a lien in the place of the cash bond. In the
case of all other types of development (i.e., multi.family residences, industrial and commercial buildings),
since these uses au all 'for-profit' ventures, it was generally much more difficult to make the necessaty
determination of financial hardship. As a result of this, liens were, as a general rule, not allowe~ for these
laner uses based solely on staffs authority.
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to provide a means of streamlining the deferral process and curbing the number
of appeals appearing on the Council's docket.
POUCY
The following Deferral and Lien Agreement Policy is hereby established:
1. Only after all other efforts have been made to acquire a cash bond and failed, will the City consider
accepting a lien on the property.
2. Staff may approve deferral and lien agreements up to an amount of $30,000 for any deferral granted by
staff, whetherresidential, multi-residential, industrial or commercial property.
3.c+.d~:~bove amount of authority is to be increased or decreased annually beginning on the first of
~ f the year following the date of adoption of this policy. The increase or decrease is to be
etermined by the Construction Cost Index factor as presented in McGraw-Hili's national publication
Engineering News Record. (Construction Cost Index Value - 5059.07, Dee. 1992)
/J, ..,:1
/ti [1-/e.-//. or- ----
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITY OF CHULA VlSTA
SUBJECT: DEFERRAL AND LIEN AGREEMEJ'oiTS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
20F2
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 17640
505-03 09/06/94
I DATED: 09/06/94
4. Council is to consider deferral and lien agreements which exceed those authorized to be approved by
staff.
5. In order for the City to consider accepting a lien, the total of the lien, plus all indebtness against the
property shall not exceed: a) 75% of the value of the property in the case of commercial, industrial or
multi.family residential and; b) 80% of the value of single. family residential.
6.. Before the City can agree to accept a lien, the applicant is to provide the following items:
A. A title report issued within 60 days of submittal showing all indebtedness and encumbrances against
the property.
B. An appraisal showing current value of the property.
C. In case of non.profit public service organizations the Council can, on a case by case basis, waive the
requirements contained in 6A and B, above and in lieu thereof accept a lotbook report which
provides ownership and trust deed information. In making the decision to waive the requirement
contained in 6A and B the Council shall consider the type of organization, the length of time they
have been providing a service to the community and their stability of f~:ure continuance of that
service.
7. Whenever a deferral and lien is approved, the standard deferral and lien agreement prepared by the
City Attorney (copy artached) shall be utilized.
8. Staff shall forward a report to Council in the month of January of every off.numbered year. Said report
is to include the total number of deferrals and the comparison of the dollar amounts of liens versus cash
bonds.
ORlGINAL RESQumON ADOPTING nns POUCY WAS: 16979 APPROVED 02103/93.
J/, ../'1
Council Policy No. 505-03
Deferral and Lien Agreements
Effective Authorized
Date Amount
01/01/94
01/01/95
01/01/96
$30,000
$30,727
$31,209
ENR Construction
Cost Index
5310.22
5438.87
5524.15
A TTflUJ. fl--5
Date of ENR
Index
Dec. 1993
Dec. 1994
Dec. 1995
/~ ;/f
fl77/iuJ1 . P-1'
POUCY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 3 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2/23/93
. B. COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
1. The owners of these types of developments shall be required to dedicate needed
public right-of-way and install all required public improvements on or adjacent
to owners' property, whenever the building permit valuation exceeds the amount
specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020, except in the following circumstances:
a. The on-site work involves only exterior, cosmetic improvements which are
intended to improve the appearance of the building and the building permit
valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
b. The on-site work involves tenant or lessee improvements with no change
in use and/or no additional floor space and the building permit valuation
for said on-site work exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section
12.20.020.
In the above-mentioned exceptions, the owner shall, never the less, dedicate
needed right-of-way and enter into an agreement with the City to not protest the
formation of a Block Act or similar proceeding to cause the improvements to be
installed.
2. In circumstances where public improvements are in place, but do not meet current
adopted street standards, or as called out in the Circulation Element of the City's
General Plan or any Specific Plan adopted by the City, and the building permit
valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020, the
reconstruction of street improvements, including widening, will be required when
the valuation of said reconstruction of the improvements is 50 % or less than that
of the on-site work. The owner shall dedicate any additional right-of-way needed
for such reconstruction or widening.
3. Construction of any new building, including a "move-on" building, shall trigger
the requirement to install missing public improvements, whether it be multi-
residential, co=ercial or industrial property.
~ll
/& -I?
!f1111uh :it r
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POllCY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 1 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2/23/93
BACKGROUND
Section 12.24.020 of the Municipal Code designates the dollar value of a building permit which
triggers the need to install public improvements. In addition, Section 12.24.010 states, "The
nature and extent of the dedication or improvements required pursuant to this chapter shall be
limited to the danger that the proposed development or construction will tend to create, add or
impose a burden upon the public rights-of-way of the City." There are no guidelines as to what
constitutes a danger or what may impose a burden upon the public rights-of-way.
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to provide more defmed guidelines for staff to determine when
to add the requirement to dedicate right-of-way and/or install/alter public improvements in the
rights-of-way adjoining a property under development or redevelopment.
POllCY
No building permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall first:
A. Single Familv Residential ProoertY:
1. The owner shall only be required to: a) dedicate needed right-of-way and; b)
enter into an agreement with the City to not protest the formation of a Block Act
or similar proceeding to cause the improvements to be installed in the following
circumstances:
a. The work being performed is remodeling with no square footage added to
the structure, the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specified
in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020 and lack of public improvements is not
known to create a danger to the general public.
7"- ;J-
I~'/?
If rille-Ii :t5 r
POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 2 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2/23/93
b. The work being performed adds square footage that is not providing a new
bedroom, the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specified in
C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020 and lack of public improvements is not
known to create a danger to the general public.
c. Where improvements are in place and a traffic study or the City Engineer
determines that the widening of the street to meet current standards is not
warranted.
2. The owner shall dedicate of right-of-way and construct public improvements in
the following circumstances:
a. In any case where a building is constructed or moved onto a site.
b. The on-site work being performed includes adding a bedroom and the total
valuation of the building permit exceeds the amount specified in
C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
c. The on-site work being performed increases the size of the house more
than 25 % and the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specified
in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
d. Where a known danger exists that can be corrected by the installation of
the public improvements if the building permit valuation exceeds the
amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020, no matter what type
of work is being done on-site.
e. The public improvements are in place across the frontage and a traffic
study indicates a need to widen or modify the street 'and the building
permit valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section
12.20.020.
3. The cost of the public improvements shall be limited to 25% of the building
permit valuation.
4-3-
It~/r
.>- ..- j 11 1 1/1(/) an I 079 I
~:;;(~1t "f~,,,,, FOR THE OEF:R:~ BOF THE I"" ALLA TI 01< 0;' "C 'c' . ,f' ~', !
~0 f 1/)1-"' CERTAIN PUBLIC H1PROVEI.1ENTS 1I~ THE CITY OF CHULA VI~TA
y! III. II AND LIEN SECURII~G THE FUTURE INSTALLATIOI~ OF SAlDSi?3 Jt.\: ! I AM 9: 27
(l t)/./V.i-' "' HlPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY DImEO BY .--.
V4 0 I U DAVID S. ~lEACHAf.1 AtW LOCATED AT 403 QUEEN ANNE DR~VE[:O~lsrJ:(I'I~-O',;[t: i
0"' 1" IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA .. . T 'C" . )'::..J
I
;"" ,.
,r >-~~ ...
THIS AGREEI'lENT, made and entered into thi s c7'l day of f) fi.fY/J7ij/(/) ,
192), by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation,
herelnafter referred to as "City" and DAVID S. ~lEACHAI~, hereinafter referred NO FEE
to as "Property Owner";
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS, Property Owner has applied to the City Engineer of the City of
Chul a Vi sta for an exempti on to the provi si ons of Secti on 12.24.040 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, in accordance with the requirements and conditions
of Section 12.24.070 of said Code, which provides, generally, for the
install ati on of certai n publ ic improvements upon any dedi cated street or
streets adjacent to a lot or parcel upon which a structure or building is to
be installed, erected, or moved upon, and
WHEREAS, said Section 12.24.070 provides that if the City Engineer, in his
discretion, feels that said installation of public improvements would cause a
defective condition to the property or it would be extremely impractical to
install or construct the same, then the City Engineer, upon finding that
grounds for said exception from the requirements of Section 12.24.040 were
reasonable and were in conformance with the requirements of Section 12.24.070
for said exemption, may grant said exemption, which may be limited to a
specified period of time, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer did grant said request for an exemption to the
provisions of Section 12.24.040 on the conditions set forth hereinafter, for
the property at 403 Queen Anne Drive in the City of Chula Vista, and did find
that the grounds for said request for an exemption were reasonable and were in
conformance with the requirements of Section 12.24.070.
IJaW, THEREFORE, IT IS I~UTUALLY AGREEO by and between the parties hereto as
foll ows:
1. That Property Owner, David S. f.1eacham, in lieu of making the
improvements specified herein, prior to final inspection or the
giving of a certificate of occupancy, agrees, covenants and promises
that he will install, construct or cause to be installed or
constructed the improvements hereinafter set forth within thirty (30)
days of written notice from the City Engineer to install said
improvements, or within three years, expiring on !/r=c.€h7!?,.;2. Z8
1990 , whichever occurs first.
I/, ..../i
2399
2. For the fai thful perfomance of the promi ses and covenants herei n
contained, Property Owner hereby grants to the City of Chula Vista a
1 i en upon the property herei n descri bed, and in the event that
Property Owner, hi s successors, hei rs, assi gns, or transferees, fail
to install or construct said improvements in the manner and within
the time specified herein, they agree that City may do any or all of
the foll owi ng:
(al Install or construct said improvements by contract or otherwise,
and permission is hereby granted to City or its contractors and
contractor's employees to enter upon any portion or portions of
sai d property reasonably necessary for sai d constructi on, and
the entire cost and expense of said improvements shall be
charged against said property and said cost and expense shall be
payab 1 e by Property Owner, hi s successors, hei rs, assi gns, or
assignees, immediately upon completion of said improvements, and
in the event the same is not paid within thirty (30) days from
said completion, the City may foreclose said lien, as provided
by law for the foreclosure of mortgages, and Property Owner
agrees that the amount of said lien includes attorney's fees
which shall be taxed as a cost in any suit or foreclosure.
(b) Direct the City Engineer to estimate the cost of the work
requi red to compl ete sai d improvements, and foreclose sai d 1 i en
in said amount.
(cl Foreclose said lien as a mortgage.
(d) Pursue any other remedy, legal or equitable by law, for the
foreclosure of a lien, and Property Owner, his heirs and
assigns, shall pay reasonable attorney's fees to be taxed as a
cost in said proceedings.
3. At any time during the period herein provi ded, Property Owner, hi s
heirs, assigns, or transferees, may make a cash deposit with the City
in the amount estimated by the City Engineer to cover the total cost
of the improvements. If sai d cash deposit is made pri or to the
recording of this agreement, then said agreement shall not be
recorded as long as said cash is on deposit with the City. If said
cash deposit is withdrawn from the Ci ty, sai d agreement shall be
recorded. If thi s agreement has been recorded and then sai d cash
deposit is made, the City may release said lien of record and hold
thi s agreement or any new agreement unrecorded as long as sai d cash
deposit is left with the City.
4. The Property Owner is responsible for the performance of work as
1 i sted below. The currently estimated cost of sai d improvements and
the amount of the 1 i en is the sum of $6,407.00. The work to be
performed shall be done in accordance with the pl ans and
specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as follows:
-2-
/t. '-2.~
....
2400
ESTINATE
ITEMS OF WORK
Item
Quantity
Unit Price
Total
Curb, gutter & sidewalk
Si dew a 1 k ramp
Existing berm removal
201 L.F.
1 Each
24.50/L.F.
800 Eac h
L.S.
$4,924.50
800.00
100.00
$5,824.50
582.50
$6,407.00
TOTAL
10% contingencies
Lien amount required
5. It is further understood and agreed that Owner and/or his/her heirs,
assignees or successors in interest shall at such time as a 1911 or
1913 Act petition is circulated, sign said petition and that said
party does hereby waive all rights to protest in the event such a
1911 or 1913 Act proceeding is instituted.
W WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thi s agreement to be
executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PROPERTY OWNER:
Engi neer
~~~~
David S. Meacham
ATTEST
City C1 erk
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
C,ty ,,'1j ~
WPC 3439E!3143E
-3-
~ ,.:;../
December 17, 1996
City of Chula Vista
Mayor
City Council
As a family, we are property owners at 590 Roosevelt in
Chula Vista CA. We purchased this property in 1989. There is a
stipulation made by the city of Chula Vista that should a fire occur
on this property and damages occur to 60 percent of the structure
of the property, then a rebuild has to be commercial.
Last year this property was put on the market. The real estate
company, Caldwell Bankers, had a buyer for this property,
however, they could not find a lender that would lend with the
stipulation of the 60 percent rebuild.
This month we tried to obtain a loan in order to complete
some improvements to this triplex. We were told by the lenders
that they could not lend money on this property for the same
reason. The lender would need a "100 percent rebuild letter".
Investors will not buy the loan with the 60 percent stipulation. We
were therefore denied this loan.
We contacted the city of Chula Vista, Planning Department,
and was told that they could not provide the lenders with this
letter. The zoning code is law and cannot be broken. They stated
that this was an unusual situation and they were not sure what to
do about our situation, however, we could proceed with requesting
a re-zoning with three-thousand dollars up front and it would be
heard four times by city council. We asked when this particular
zoning was implemented; we were told that for fifty dollars they
would research this and find the answer for us.
1
~~ a-..UJ~c.:r~ -I
This is not an answer to our problem.
As a family, we have invested a tremendous amount of
money in this triplex. We have three lower-income people living on
this property. We have done our part to keep the property clean,
and up to code. We have even passed the last city inspection of
the rentals with flying colors.
Now the city of Chula Vista is asking our family to risk our
investment.
We cannot sell the property because of the 60 percent
restriction.
We cannot get a loan on the property because of the 60
percent restriction.
The value of the property at 590 Roosevelt was appraised at
230,000 dollars. We cannot get a penny out of it. It has lost all
value and now is a zero value with this stipulation.
Because of this stipulation on the property of 590 Roosevelt,
Chula Vista, CA, we are now in a great financial loss. We have
lost initial investment money, the building money for a four car
garage, the monthly loan amounts, utility payments, insurance and
tax payments, upkeep and improvements.
We are requesting that the city of Chula Vista issue a waiver
of the 60 percent restriction on this property in order to ensure our
family of the right to the private ownership and sale of this
property.
Sincerely,
Bonnie C. Dillon
Cynthia K. Dillon
Pamela S. Davidson
2
~~
. -,;2..
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. I 7
Date 12/17/96
PUBLIC HEARING: To Review and Consider Adoption of the County
of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Plan consists of the
County-Wide Summary Plan and Siting Elements. The Summary Plan
Outlines the Source Reduction, Reuse, Recycling, Composting Plans and
Waste Generation Estimates for all jurisdictions Within the County. The
Siting Element is Intended to Identify the Disposal Capacity Needed by
Jurisdictions Within the County for a Fifteen Year Period.
Michael 1. Meacham ~
cconservation CO~C:trdin~ator L~.
lty Manager '-JI .~
_ 4/5th Vote: Yes_ No....x.
The City of Chula Vista has prepared and transmitted staff comments on the preliminary draft of
the County wide Plan pursuant to Section 41750 of the Public Resources Code. The final
comments from City Council regarding the County Plan from must be submitted to the County
with the City's approval or dis-approval of the documents prior to January 21, 1997. If the City
makes no comment prior to the deadline the Plan will be deemed approved. Recent events in the
local solid waste industry have generated potential impacts to the City that staff believes should be
addressed in the City's comments.
Recommendation:
Staffrecommends that the public hearing be held over to January 7, 1997.
/7-/
PUBUC HEARING CHECK UST
SUBJECf:
/,/ / .----
~~
C7-~.Jk ,,--/ ~'7),
/)JI7J9~
/ //7j--
tJ ;:~ \I 0~~_y
!
U~
.--:; <--
~ />-J.-c.A!-4~
PUBUC HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
f7 /?:,
>,.~. t/ ~,,......,--
/
----
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR P0CATIO~ -- BY FAX
PUBUCATlON DATE // /',;;::, //&
/ /
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
II
/,' 7tBY HAND~; BY MAIL
--
~
NO. MAILED
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK / li.2 /'7 i-
/ I
;/
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
---
Planning
Originating Department
/
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
/ / j; J /;t:fJ
/ /
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
-55-
i7rt(
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
public hearing to consider the following:
Reviewing and adopting the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management
Plan. The Plan consists of the Countywide Summary Plan and Siting Element. The
final comments regarding the County Plan will be submitted to the County and
subsequently to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for review and
approval. Contact the City Conservation Coordinator at 691-5122 if you have
questions regarding the document.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
December 17, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: November 13, 1996
//~3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date
Item-'Y
12/17/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing Consideration of Establishing Underground Utility
District No. 127 Along Palomar Street from Interstate S to Industrial
Boulevard.
Resolution jr5j'~tabliShing Underground Utility District No. 127
along Palomar Street from Interstate S to Industrial Boulevard and
authorizing the expenditure of Utility Allocation Funds to subsidize private
service lateral conversion
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public worksfil
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ --7~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On November S, 1996 by Resolution No. I 848iJe City Council ordered a public hearing to be held
on December 10, 1996 to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires the
formation of an underground utility district along Palomar Street from Interstate S to Industrial
Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I. Conduct a Public Hearing on the formation of Underground Utility District No. 127;
2. Approve a Resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of approximately $126,150
in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead
facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Utility Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of SDG&E, Pacific Bell,
Cox Communications, Chula Vista Cable and the City agreed to propose to the City Council the
formation of a district to convert the overhead facilities along Palomar Street from Interstate 5 to
Industrial Boulevard. The conversion project will be done in conjunction with the proposed
widening of Palomar Street during FY 1998/99 and FY 99/00. The proposed utility undergrounding
district along Palomar Street is about 1,000 feet long running from Interstate 5 to Industrial
Boulevard (See Exhibit A). The estimated cost for undergrounding the utilities is $126, ISO. East
and west of the proposed district, undergrounding of overhead utilities has been completed. The
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count on Palomar Street from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard is
approximately 31,180.
/~,/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12 /17 /96
Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of Palomar Street
because:
1. Palomar Street is a major east/west thoroughfare in the southern portion of Chula Vista
and an entrance to the City. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will
contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street.
2. The subject section of Palomar Street is classified in the General Plan's Circulation
Element as a six-lane major street.
3. U ndergrounding has been completed on Palomar Street east of Industrial Boulevard and
there are no overhead wires over Interstate 5, thus making the proposed district a closing
link between previously undergrounded sections.
4. The proposed widening and reconstruction of Palomar Street between 1-5 and Industrial
Boulevard significantly increased the ranking of the subject street section in the City's
adopted utility conversion program, thus making it a priority project. The project is
proposed to be included in the City's CIP Program as project ST-922; Palomar Street - 1-5
to Industrial Boulevard, with design to begin in FY 1998/99. The conversion project
will take place in connection with the construction of street improvements, which will
follow completion of design and acquisition of right-of-way. The street improvements will
include new street lights.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a public
hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the under-
grounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City. The intent of the public
hearing is to give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed
district to underground utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility
companies to underground all overhead lines and remove all existing wooden utility poles within
the District and to require property owners to convert their service connections from sources within
the District to underground.
The conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and conduit installation
from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established
a mechanism that helps property owners with the cost of converting overhead electrical services
work from the distribution lines to the structure. Said policy provides for the reimbursement of
property owners at a rate of $30 per foot of trenching.
Exhibit B lists all properties (of which there are eight) within the District. Four of the parcels will
be reimbursed a total of $6,150. Two properties, parcel 2 and parcel 5 will continue to receive
overhead electrical service from sources (utility poles) outside of the district. The telephone and
cable service for Parcel 2 originates from a pole within the district and will be undergrounded.
18",)..
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 12 /17 /96
Electrical service for this parcel originates from outside the district and will continue to be provided
from the rear. The dwelling on Parcel 5 is over 200 feet from the roadway and an additional utility
pole is located between the Palomar Street right-of-way and the structure. The electrical and
telephone services between the right-of-way and the on site utility pole will be undergrounded. The
utilities to the dwelling will remain overhead because the source (utility pole on parcel five) is out
side of the District. The remaining two parcels are vacant.
A public hearing notice has been mailed to all property owners and occupants of property located
within the boundaries of the proposed district.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private
property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be $126,150. SDG&E's
allocation funds (Rille 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. Street light installation will
be included in the street improvement project.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Boundary Map ;t\}
Exhibit B - Reimbursement Schedule SC~.
~O~
DCD:mji
File No: 081 0-20-A Y -096
File No: 0735-IO-STM-922-9
(M :1. .IEngineerlAgendalUUD 12 7b.dcd)
IK"J
RESOLUTION NO.
/lfJP
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO.
127 ALONG PALOMAR STREET FROM INTERSTATE 5 TO
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO
SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 18484, a public hearing was
called for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the lOth day of December, 1996, in
the Council Chambers of the city of Chula vista at 276 Fourth
Avenue in said city, to ascertain whether the public health, safety
or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar or associated service within that certain area of the city
more particularly described as follows:
All that property lying along Palomar Street from
Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard and enclosed within
the boundary as shown on the plat attached hereto as
Attachment "A" of subject Underground Utility District.
and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all
affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment
roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for
the time required by law, and
WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held,
and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be
heard. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds and determines that the public
health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated structures, and the underground installation
of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated services, the above-described area is hereby
declared an Underground utility District, and is designated as such
in the city of Chula vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",
and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the
boundaries of said District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council shall, by
subsequent resolution, fix the date on which affected property
owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does
1
J?,{
hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated service within said Underground Utility
District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk is hereby
instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons ownlng
real property within said Underground utility District of the
adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of
said adoption. said City Clerk shall further notify said property
owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such
property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or
other similar or. associated service, they, or such occupant shall,
by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary
facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service
from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new
location, subject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs
of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public
utilities commission of the state of California as of the date of
adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by
mailing a copy of this resolution to affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected
utility companies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds
that the Underground utility District herein created is in the
general public interest for the following reasons:
1.
Palomar is a major east/west thoroughfare in the southern
portion of Chula vista and an entrance to the City. The
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will
contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing
major street.
2.
The subject section of Palomar Street is classified in
the General Plan's Circulation Element as a six-lane
major street.
3.
Undergrounding has been completed on Palomar Street east
of Industrial Boulevard and there are no overhead wires
over Interstate 5, thus making the proposed district a
closing link between previously undergrounded sections.
4.
The proposed widening and reconstruction of Palomar
Street significantly increased the ranking of the subject
street section in the City's adopted utility conversion
program, thus making it a priority project. The project
is proposed to be included in the city's CIP Program as
project ST-922i Palomar Street 1-5 to Industrial
Boulevard, with design to begin in FY 1998/99. The
conversion project will take place in connection with the
2
/3"' ..$
construction of street improvements, which will follow
completion of design and acquisition of right-of-way.
The street improvements will include new street lights.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby
authorize the use of approximately $126,150 in utility allocation
funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead
facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
M. Kaheny,
torney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\underg.dis
3
/~,?
l:J l:J
= i
III
-
tII
0 ...
0'\ ..
--
N ;;-
0'\
--
\0 en
0'\ -J
tn
<
tn
Z
en
"d
~
0
~
tIl
~ tll
~~~
~tzj~ m
- ::0
tllG)o< X
::0
tzjO~ I
~~"d lJJ
tz.l
ZH>>j
Zo -i
HG)::o
~tl"d ~
H::o
~tIlO )>
~"d
::00 ~
HtIl
H(1tz.l
S~tl
qZ~
tIlO
~. H
::0.....1:"'
H",H
~-..J~
tll
0
8
tz.l
~
"dtl
::OH
Otll
"d~
0::0
tIlH
tz.l(1
tl~
tl"d
~~
~(1
ldtz.l
HI:"'
(1
~~
~~
~ ~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
-,
I
I
-l
I
Ul
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
."
r
0
3:
- ~
-
-
- :::0
-
-
-
-
-
- 75'
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (J)
-
- -i
-
-
-
-
-
0'\
--J
- --
00
-F-- .~
s <. t:--
C4LE 1"
'" 200'
It?',
11/26/96
E X H
B
II B "
T
CHULA VISTA UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT NO. 127
PALOMAR
STREET
BETYEEN INERTSTATE 5 AND INDUSTRIAL BLVD.
(Tax APN Info - 10 / 141 96)
REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
Page
PAR
NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OYNER
OYNER'S ADDRESS
SITE ADDRESS I
ASS. PAR. NO. I
LAND USE
Utilities
to be
Undergrounded
REIMBURSEMENT
length/Amount
Com men t s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E T C
50'
louis & Alex Noriega
183 Camino Vista Real
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1198 Trenton Street
6170710900
S. F. HOUSE
.
$1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1193 Trenton Street
6170720600
S. F. HOUSE
E T C
$0
Jose & lupe Anton
1193 Trenton Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911
o H Elect from rear (65')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0
Jose & lupe Anton
1193 Trenton Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911
3
1193 Trenton Street
6170720700
VACANT lOT
Vacant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1196 Industrial Blvd.
6170720800
S. F. HOUSE
E T
65'
Stephen & Helen Murphee
753 Dorothy Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911
$1,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
795 Palomar Street
6220206500
S. F. HOUSE
E T
$0
Cima N.V.
P.O. Box 432234
San Ysidro, CA 92143
OH Serv to remain from ex pole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
795 Palomar Street
6220205100
VACANT lOT
$0
Cima N.V.
P.O. Box 432234
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Vacant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------.-----------.
E T C
55'
$1,650
P.O. Box 432234
San Ysidro, CA 92143
7
781 Palomar Street
6220200500
S. F. HOUSE
Cima N.V.
-----------------------------_.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.-----
E T
35'
$1,050
Cima N.V.
P.O. Box 432234
San Ysidro, CA 92143
8
765 Palomar Street
6220206800
VACANT LOT wI VEG.
STAND & OLD HOUSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exist service thru old vacant house
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. E
. T
. C -
Electrical Service
Telephone Service
Cable Service
(M:\UUDist\PALOMAR\SiteAdd.R2P)
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT :
205
Feet of trench @ $30/ft = $6,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1l1'''Y
,
I I
,
I
I I ~-
_l.._lr____ "
I "T'\
I --.I
i -.
:J:.
------- )>
<
------- m
lL
NAPLES ST.
-\
, ,-
I
EMERSON
! I I
i I
1-- ----
QUEEN
I I
I , ,
I
'n! I I
L-l I I
I I
!
OXFORD
I
I
DWN BY:
DATE:
"T\
"T\
--I
I...L.
I
i
.-
! ; I I
i i i
WAY I I Ii"
0~l------ g
, I 1J
II!I -tf----
I ,---- .,..
, i ST. I ...... I- - - -.
rl
r FILE NO. ppDOI
. WEI SSER
; I I
I ,
i I
I I
,
- - - j
I I
. I
I I i
I
I I
DR. i
, I
I i
I I '
I I ANNE
, .
I I I! '
i ~..
(' 1 ~~.
') ~
~ ~~ --.-
;g..
o
- nn
#403
SUBJE.CT SITE
I '
I I I
I ~
I
ST.
I , I I
. I
I,J,
,-
I I I I
'! 'J,' I
!
I
I I
i '
i
:~) I
r T J I
~~~.
< /
, (Tl'
~
~
T.
:-l
-
I
i
~
I I \
I 1 I
EXHI81 T ';4 II
18'-7
l> ----
<
m
I
. _ _ ----.J
- -1__1
--I
I
"T\
o
1'-
::0
--I
I
1177/16/;. ft J!..
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
1 OF 6
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83
I DATED: 08-30-83
BACKGROUND
There are properties within the City limits that do not have full street improvements. In the past, Council has
directed the owners of critical unimproved parcels to install their missing public improvements. The 1911
Block Act Proceedings were utilized in most instances. As an encouragement for property owner participation,
the City has contributed funds for the completion of certain items of work (Le., grading, pavement
installation, etc.). Also, the City consistently has contributed engineering inspection and administrative
services at no charge to the property owner(s). However, there is no Council adopted policy regarding City
participation in 1911 Block Act improvement construction proceedings.
This policy is designed to encourage the installation of missing improvements along developed residential lots.
It specifically sets City participation goals for the improvement of comer, non-comer, and double frontage
residential lots. The policy reaffirms City Council intent to require the installation of public improvements
adjacent to undeveloped property (residential, commercial, and industrial) through the formation of 1911 Act
Assessment Districts or through the subdivision and building permit approval procedures.
This policy shall only apply to areas incorporated on or before this policy's effective date.
PURPOSE'
To establish a policy for participation by the City in the construction of public improvements via the 1911
Block Act Proceedings (Chapter 27, Street and Highways Code of the State of California).
POUCY
The City Council establishes the following policy for City participation in 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings:
1. General Participation
a. The City, at no cost to the property owner(s) shall provide all engineering, inspection and
administrative services necessary to install missing improvements via the 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings.
b. It shall be the City's responsibility to relocate all eXtstmg public improvements found to be in
conflict with the proposed street improvement construction. Such improvements shall include, but
not be limited to: street lights, traffic signal standards, drainage structures, fire hydrants, etc.
c. Engineering staff shall meet individually with each property owner prior to the program's public
hearing to hand deliver initial correspondence and to explain the plans, proceedings and this policy.
Final engineering plans and project specifications shall reflect as close as practicable, the property
owner(s) concerns provided they reflect standard engineering practice.
Ir,- It?
If i1AclJ JJ r
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUU VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY DiE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 2 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
d. Prior to the end of each fiscal year, the City Engineer shall submit to the City Council for approval
under this program, a recommended list of projects for scheduling in the ensuing f!Scal year.
Funding for the program shall be determined annually and shown in the Capital Improvement
Program.
e. City participation in this program shall be limited to developed parcels that cannot be split into lots
or building sites.
2. Developed Residential Lots
a. Non-Corner Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to overlay or reconstruct the roadway travelway adjacent to
non-corner lots when the travelway is already improved and needs an overlay or reconstruction to
accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements.
The City's responsibility described above is shown on Figure 1 (anached).
b. Corner Lots
For the purposes of this policy, the corner lot front lot line shall be defmed to be the shorter of the
two adjacent street lot lines. In this case of a non-rectangular corner lot, the front lot line shall be
the average width of the lot. (See Figure 2).
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
(1) Install curb, guner, sidewalk and pavement (if non-existent) adjacent to 1/2 the corner lot's side
street frontage.
(2) Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street's travelway when needed to accommodate
drainage or traffic safety requirements.
(3) In the event that there are improvements already existing along the corner lot's side property
frontage already existing, these improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be
removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed.
The City's responsibility described above is depicted on Figure 3 (anached).
3. Dual Fronta2e Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
I?"//
A r/JI I" J. .J:1".J._
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 3 Of 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
a. Install curb, guner, sidewalk, and pavement (if non-existent) adjacent to the entire lot's rear street
frontage.
b. Overlay or reconstruct the lot's rear street travelway when needed to accommodate drainage or
traffic safety purposes.
For purposes of this policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having frontage on two parallel or
approximately parallel streets, none of which is an "alley".
4. Developed Industrial/Commercial Lots
The City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to developed
industriaVcommercial lots shall be limited to:
a. The overlay or reconstruction of existing roadway travelway areas when found to be required for
drainage or traffic safety purposes.
5. Undeveloped Residential. Industrial and Commercial Lots
This policy shall reaffirm the City Council's intent to require the installation of missing improvements
adjacent to undeveloped lots (both comer and non-comer with and without double street frontages)
through:
a. 1911 Act Assessment District procedures.
b. subdivision requirements, and
c. building permit approval requirements.
There shall be no City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to undeveloped
residential, industrial and commercial lots. In the event that an owner petitions the City for inclusion of
his/her undeveloped parcel in a 1911 Block Act Program, all expenses shall be borne by said owner.
6. ApplicabilitY
This policy shall be applicable to areas within the Chula Vista City limits on or before its effective date.
18'-- / :2...
COUNCIL POLICY
CIIT OF CHULA VISTA
~UBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF Q-lULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
~
,..
.....
" II
,,~; II
11 ~ 1
II ~
\)tli
II ~
II ~~
11 l::~
11 ~....,
"'0". ... '
1'/ \\j
II
II .,
II
II I
II
II
-.;;;::1 ?
~-- ><
I ~ IlJ 1 "'!,
I ~ ~ L_..,
I ,,~
iii 'l: ~
~____.J
x
I II
I II I
I II
I
I i~
I
....~I
"I II ~~
I \I ~~
~~
I II
~I II I
-'
-
co
V'>
%
o
"'-
V'>
w
e<
....
%
w
:L
w::E:
>0::
0'"
"''''
"'-0
xc::
-"'-
........
'-'0
<-'
",e<
!5~
-''''
=0
'-'
_ 0
a:e
-%
POLICY
NUMBER
505-01
11"/3
EFFECTIVE
DATE
08-30-83
DATED: 08-30-83
:tJ~
PAGE
40F6
COU]';'CIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUrA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY TIlE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
505-01
EFFECTIVE
DATE
08-30-83
PAGE
5 OF 6
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
DATED: 08-30-83
>-
>-
-'
c:l
'"
%
o
c..
'"
'""'
C< %
o
>->--
%0>-
'""' -'<<
'" %
.....c::-
> w::
0%C<
,..<='""'
c.. 0 >-
;: Uw
- 0
'"
>-""'""'
u -'%
<< "'-
"'-'
><z
uc:>-
0>-0
-'u-,
c: '""'
C< >-
-'5
O::~<=
-z...
u 9
II I-lJJ
~ :2~ I I:
O..J
~ N [):: I "
u. I I,
d II I II
U I "
I : I
I ...
'^
'"
~
L
L
~ ..
'"
..J ~
...
s: '^
..
~
1- '"
'" '^
-...
"'c
'" 0
~L
...
'^
-0
~
"'...
..J ""
.. '"
...~
c-J. "'...
0
-- L'"
... 0
-l
----
-------
-------
d
\
t>
IS"I'/
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
ADOPTED BY:
>-
I-
~
c:>
'"
z
o
Co.
'"
....
C<
I-
Z
....
:<:
....
>
o
C<
0..:<:
>:<
-C<
L:l
1-0
<..>'"
<0..
., I-
<..>0
o~
-'
C:Q:
-=
-Q:
C'O
-..,
<>~
.,~~
0.,.
Resolution No. 11373
'"
'"
!
..
..
..
e:
'"
""
-'
~
=<
~
~
~
~
o
~ I II
~ II
~~II
I 11
I II
II
I
~
l..:
\... J....
,~ ~
t')
~ III
;:, Q
IJ -
-f
'"
..
'"
'"
" '"
.- -'
-e:
'" 0
"'..
-
'"
._ 0
'"
,"-'
C'
'" '"
.... .=
e:....
o
..-
"'0
~------i
I I
I ..
I "'lJ I Cl
I < tI) I~
I ..... ~ 11.1..
I .... 0 __-' \)
I ::?:t I '"
I:t.( 1 S?
I llJ I ..,
L_ __-!
.J.CJ? JO ./."'063
I
-t-
- . - ~ to
r! "" ~,
~ r:::rr;n~.J.07_.JfYO;Y:>'
~~ ~ - ..........3 4-
~::i J.33C!1.LS ~".LrrOt3'::>' '
;::~
!!~
~~
POLICY
NUMBER
505-01
EFFECTIVE
DATE
08-30-83
I}1TA d. iJ.J-
\
PAGE
6 OF 6
DATED: 08-30-83
,
..
_..J C Q,I
o ~ ~
""-:l Q,I
c: .., \",l .."
'"' '" "' .-'
E"':l "- VI'" V'l
""..... \",J c:
> '^~ >..~.-
.. .. ..
Q.",:) ::t~o
CJ_ u ~::;-
"O~~ o_~
~ L_ "- c:l Q,I
.. ..
~Q.,^ 00-
Q,I QJ ... -' s.
CJ CJ"O CJ L Q./
.....c::l c: 0 L
,...-Ju ft:lo....
~-""'c - 6.~
.eC'l-c.~..,i';'
c:: '^ E .... c ..,
:lC'-~~ft:l_C
......- ~ L L..,; C W
VI ft:l t- "" '^ E
-- ; Q...... '" Q,I
L... . ft:l · E >
~c-=.: 5"~e
-,..,... "'" L - ~
...,. C\_ -'''''
e QJ '-"" ~ L._
Q,I CJ'" G.I
-.cc_.c~
CLl:&~-c;.=
_ c: "0 ~ GJ '"
0'- c: > c::- "'"
~ c:_ lID ""___
Co._ lID E
>,
....
-
-
"
...
..
...'"
00
e: ~ .
00>,
_ u-'
"'u",
u..'-
:> ..
"0'"
..,..,
'" u
c:: ..,.....
oe:'-
U",'-
, E ..
"' OJ ..
..>-'
..
.. c:...,
o
C''''
>,e:C'
,..,.... .."
--'e:
L. ""',_
Q.I..... f':l
> " ..
O"'"t>
.0
'"
e:
o
0.
'"
'"
Q:
>,
-'
<..>
C'
e:.=
.- -'
.>< <'>
.. e:
.. '"
0._
,
..
'"
-'
e:
"'
U
>,
-'
..
. -'
'" -' '"
- u c
>..<: .-
CJ CJ ;~ 0
"'C C "'0 u'"
:;t- ~;:~
~~ Lcg~
CJ 0 0 Q'_
~- ..,...=
~ GJI-g
.:"" s:: s:: 0'"
\00 0 .._
L _...~
~ -.. Q. L.
10 VI g'.., ~ ..;
.. ..- C ..,
.--Ji/.IO"'-C
......Q.I..........,OQ,l
VlUClOlI"I E
I- 10 c.- "'" GJ
. fa'" JC e >
I- Co "'" e GJ GJ Q
QJ -01"''''
-CJ'lI<LC_~
.., C ".... Q E
= 0 I C 1-_
CJ'l_ s::.... GJ
l'I:I 0 c....~ CJ'l
.clJct'-...c
L.C'-Q,/GJo-;
= 10'''' > c_ '"
u-_",.___.
Co_ IV e
-
.0
'"
c
o
0.
'"
"
..
..
j
>,
..,
..
"
c..
o
..
...
.
'" ..,
,"H-a::...,,,,,,,~
..cc:oz:~c~....
/r'15
....
"'0
e:_
~ "'
,,"t>
>-
..'"
0.
'"
..,-
-
'" "'
, U
'" ..
..
-c:.
..
"''''''''
-,--,
-'~~
" c
C"I~" tJ
0<'>
.oc",
.. C e:
=-.-
u.._
'-
o
-
o
>,
. ..,
'C~~
e:o",
ou
- u u
-'..-
u '-
:>0'-
....,..
.., ..
",-,-,
e: e:
e~'"
'" '" "'
..><'>
.. '"
..o.c
o
."..
>,e:..
~._ "'C
- -'
.. "'"'
~.- ...
> " '"
o ","Q
'"
. .
N ..,
V\~O::"""w~
V'I_Cw
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
1171IJGh d:l3
I
SUBJECT: DEFERRAL AND LIEN AGREEMENTS
POLlCY
NUMBER
I
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 17640
505-03 09/06/94
I DATED: 09/06/94
1 OF 2
BACKGROUND
Whenever an owner developes his land in the City, he or she must install any missing public improvements in
accordance with current standards as required by Section 12.24.040 of the Municipal Code. In certain cases,
however, those improvements may be deferred due to the existing conditions surrounding the property. At
the time the ordinance providing such deferrals was adopted, security for the future completion of the
improvements by the owner/developer could be in the form of cash, surety bonds, pass book, or a lien against
the property in favor of the City.
The Council previously delegated authority to the City Engieer to approve deferrals and to accept liens on the
property to secure the deferral. The report recommended that security be only in the form of cash bonds or,
in the case of demonstrated hardship, the City accept a lien against the property being developed.
After this authority was sbifted, the department found that it was relatively easy to make a determinatic:1 of
demonstrated hardship for an owner wanting to build a single family home, remodel or add to his/ber
existing single family dwelling and, on his/her authority, accept a lien in the place of the cash bond. In the
case of all other types of development (i.e., multi-family residences, industrial and commercial buildings),
since these uses are all 'for.profit' ventures, it was generally much more difficult to make the necessary
determination of financial hardship. As a result of this, liens were, as a general rule, not allowecl (or these
latter uses based solely on staffs authority.
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to provide a means of streamlining the deferral process and curbing the number
of appeals appearing on the Council's docket.
POUCY
The following Deferral and Lien Agreement Policy is hereby established:
1. Only after all other efforts have been made to acquire a cash bond and failed, will the City consider
accepting a lien on the property.
2. Staff may approve deferral and lien agreements up to an amount of $30,000 for any deferral granted by
staff, whether residential, multi-residential, industrial or commercial property.
l~~:~bove amount of authority is to be increased or decreased annually beginning on the first of
f the year following the date of adoption of this policy. The increase or decrease is to be
etermined by the ConstrUction Cost Index factor as presented in McGraw-Hili's national publication
Engineering News Record. (ConstrUction Cost Index Value - 5059.07, Dee. 1992)
/S'''/?
1}-1119clJ. ~ 3
COUNCIL POLICY
CITI' OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: DEFERRAL AND LIEN AGREEMENTS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 17640
505-03 09/06/94 2 OF 2
I DATED: 09/06/94
4. Council is to ronsider deferral and lien agreements which exceed those authorized to be approved by
staff.
5. In order for the City to consider accepting a lien, the total of the lien, plus all indebtness against the
property shall not exceed: a) 75% of the value of the property in the case of commercial, industrial or
multi-family residential and; b) 80% of the value of single-family residential.
6. Before the City can agree to accept a lien, the applicant is to provide the fol1owing items:
A. A title report issued within 60 days of subminal showing all indebtedness and encumbrances against
the property.
B. An appraisal showing current value of the property.
C. In case of non.profit public service organizations the Council can, on a case by case basis, waive the
requirements contained in 6A and B, above and in lieu thereof accept a lotbook report which
provides ownership and trust deed information. In making the decision to waive the requirement
contained in 6A and B the Council shall consider the type of organization, the length of time they
have been providing a service to the community and their stability of f-c:ure continuance of that
service.
7. Whenever a deferral and lien is approved, the standard deferral and lien agreement prepared by the
City Anorney (copy attached) shall be utilized.
8. Staff shal1 forward a report to Council in the month of January of every off.numbered year. Said report
is to include the total number of deferrals and the comparison of the dol1ar amounts of liens versus cash
bonds.
ORIGINAL RESOUTnON AOOPl1NG nns POllCY WAS: 16979 APPROVED 02103/93.
/J>"/7
Council Policy No. 505-03
Deferral and Lien Agreements
Effective Authorized
Date Amount
01/01/94
01/01/95
01/01/96
$30,000
$30,727
$31,209
ENR Construction
Cost Index
5310.22
5438.87
5524.15
A !T1ld!. .f;:l:-3
Date of ENR
Index
Dec. 1993
Dec. 1994
Dec. 1995
18"/~
It 11/;6h . ;/;;if
POUCY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 3 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2/23/93
B. COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
1. The owners of these types of developments shall be required to dedicate needed
public right-of-way and install all required public improvements on or adjacent
to owners' property, whenever the building permit valuation exceeds the amount
specified in C.V .M.C., Section 12.20.020, except in the following circumstances:
a. The on-site work involves only exterior, cosmetic improvements which are
intended to improve the appearance of the building and the building permit
valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
b. The on-site work involves tenant or lessee improvements with no change
in use and/or no additional floor space and the building permit valuation
for said on-site work exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section
12.20.020.
In the above-mentioned exceptions, the owner shall, never the less, dedicate
needed right-of-way and enter into an agreement with the City to not protest the
formation of a Block Act or similar proceeding to cause the improvements to be
installed.
2. In circumstances where public improvements are in place, but do not meet current
adopted street standards, or as called out in the Circulation Element of the City's
General Plan or any Specific Plan adopted by the City, and the building permit
valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020, the
reconstruction of street improvements, including widening, will be required when
the valuation of said reconstruction of the improvements is 50% or less than that
of the on-site work. The owner shall dedicate any additional rigbt-of-way needed
for such reconstruction or widening.
3. Construction of any new building, including a "move-on" building, shall trigger
the requirement to install missing public improvements, whether it be multi-
residential, commercial or industrial property.
4-/
14".;19
f{11f!uh jJ r
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POllCY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 1 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2123/93
BACKGROUND
Section 12.24.020 of the Municipal Code designates the dollar value of a building permit which
triggers the need to install public improvements. In addition, Section 12.24.010 states, "The
nature and extent of the dedication or improvements required pursuant to this chapter shall be
limited to the danger that the proposed development or construction will tend to create, add or
impose a burden upon the public rights-of-way of the City." There are no guidelines as to what
constitutes a danger or what may impose a burden upon the public rights-of-way.
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to provide more defmed guidelines for staff to determine when
to add the requirement to dedicate right-of-way and/or install/alter public improvements in the
rights-of-way adjoining a property under development or redevelopment.
POllCY
No building permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall fIrst:
A. Single Familv Residential PropertY:
1. The owner shall only be required to: a) dedicate needed right-of-way and; b)
enter into an agreement with the City to not protest the formation of a Block Act
or similar proceeding to cause the improvements to be installed in the following
circumstances:
a. The work being performed is remodeling with no square footage added to
the structure, the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specifIed
in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020 and lack of public improvements is not
known to create a danger to the general public.
Lj- .J-
/?''''.H:?
ffrrll~11 -j;t r
POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
SUBJECT: NUMBER DATE NUMBER
On-site improvement activity to
trigger installation of public 563-02 2/23/93 Page 2 of 3
improvements
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16994 DATED: 2/23/93
b. The work being performed adds square footage that is not providing a new
bedroom, the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specified in
C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020 and lack of public improvements is not
known to create a danger to the general public.
c. Where improvements are in place and a traffic study or the City Engineer
determines that the widening of the street to meet current standards is not
warranted.
2. The owner shaH dedicate of right-of-way and construct public improvements in
the foHowing circumstances:
a. In any case where a building is constructed or moved onto a site.
b. The on-site work being performed includes adding a bedroom and the total
valuation of the building permit exceeds the amount specified in
C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
c. The on-site work being performed increases the size of the house more
than 25 % and the building permit valuation exceeds the amount specified
in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020.
d. Where a known danger exists that can be corrected by the installation of
the public improvements if the building permit valuation exceeds the
amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section 12.20.020, no matter what type
of work is being done on-site.
e. The public improvements are in place across the frontage and a traffic
study indicates a need to widen or modify the street -and the building
permit valuation exceeds the amount specified in C.V.M.C., Section
12.20.020.
3. The cost of the public improvements shall be limited to 25% of the building
permit valuation.
L(- J-
Itr",;J. !
, .'.' -:r: L117/lU7 S-:Lt6, 0 7 9 I " <'
> _ _ r / ] 0 r :./i-' v
..).,.,,_'J 'jv )./ 2398 ,'-
C!/)i ~&(t J, o/AGREEMENT FOR THE DEFERRAL OF THE IIJSTALLATION oJ .r/'F;F:?%')';,!
y 10 If)" [/) CER:NA~NL[~~L1ECCJ~1[NR~vi~'~N;JTJ;JE T~is{1~LYA~iOliH~~AS:lJ0]~ Jt~! II AM 9 27
() jAJ/./~./ :-- I~1PROVEMENTS OI~ THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ,'..
Uv f\ I U DAVID S. MEACHAI.' AND LOCATED AT 403 QUEEN ANNE DR~VEcoVut~i;i; ."'I~'oJi E."" I
OJ 1P IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ' , T "co .'Df2..J
/
THIS AGREEf.1ENT, made and entered into thi s ';{7 day of !JfJ.I'l/J71}/(/) ,
1917, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation,
herelnafter referred to as "City" and DAVID S. MEACHAM, hereinafter referred NO FEE
to as "Property Owner";
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS, Property Owner has applied to the City Engineer of the City of
Chul a Vi sta for an exempti on to the provi si ons of Secti on 12.24.040 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, in accordance with the requirements and conditions
of Section 12.24.070 of said Code, which provides, generally, for the
installation of certain public improvements upon any dedicated street or
streets adjacent to a lot or parcel upon which a structure or building is to
be installed, erected, or moved upon, and
WHEREAS, said Section 12.24.070 provides that if the City Engineer, in his
discretion, feels that said installation of public improvements would cause a
defective condition to the property or it would be extremely impractical to
install or construct the same, then the City Engineer, upon finding that
grounds for said exception from the requirements of Section 12.24.040 were
reasonable and were in conformance with the requirements of Section 12.24.070
for said exemption, may grant said exemption, which may be limited to a
specified period of time, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer did grant said request for an exemption to the
provisions of Section 12.24.040 on the conditions set forth hereinafter, for
the property at 403 Queen Anne Drive in the City of Chula Vista, and did find
that the grounds for said request for an exemption were reasonable and were in
conformance with the requirements of Section 12.24.070.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the parti es hereto as
follows:
1. That Property Owner, David S. Meacham, in lieu of making the
improvements specified herein, prior to final inspection or the
giving of a certificate of occupancy, agrees, covenants and promises
that he will install, construct or cause to be installed or
constructed the improvements hereinafter set forth within thirty (30)
days of written notice from the City Engineer to install said
improvements, or within three years, expiring on Pec-€/r7!?E;2 28
19'10 , whichever occurs first.
/ i"" ,)..~
2399
2. For the fai thful performance of the promi ses and covenants herei n
contained, Property Owner hereby grants to the City of Chula Vista a
lien upon the property herein described, and in the event that
Property Owner, his successors, heirs, assigns, or transferees, fail
to install or construct said improvements in the manner and within
the ti me specifi ed herei n, they agree that Ci ty may do any or all of
the fo 11 owi ng:
(a) Install or construct said improvements by contract or otherwise,
and permission is hereby granted to City or its contractors and
contractor's employees to enter upon any portion or portions of
sai d property reasonably necessary for sai d constructi on, and
the entire cost and expense of said improvements shall be
charged against said property and said cost and expense shall be
payab 1 e by Property Owner, hi s successors, hei rs, assi gns, or
assignees, immediately upon completion of said improvements, and
in the event the same is not pai d wi thi n thi rty (30) days from
said completion, the City may foreclose said lien, as provided
by law for the foreclosure of mortgages, and Property Owner
agrees that the amount of sai d 1 i en i ncl udes attorney's fees
which shall be taxed as a cost in any suit or foreclosure.
(b) Direct the City Engineer to estimate the cost of the work
required to complete said improvements, and foreclose said lien
in said amount.
(c) Foreclose said lien as a mortgage.
(d) Pursue any other remedy, 1 egal or equi tab 1 e by 1 aw, for the
foreclosure of a lien, and Property Owner, his heirs and
assigns, shall pay reasonable attorney's fees to be taxed as a
cost in said proceedings.
3. At any time during the period herein provided, Property Owner, his
heirs, assigns, or transferees, may make a cash deposit with the City
in the amount estimated by the City Engineer to cover the total cost
of the improvements. If said cash deposit is made prior to the
recording of this agreement, then said agreement shall not be
recorded as long as sai d cash is on depos i t with the City. I f sa i d
cash deposit is wi thdrawn from the Ci ty, sai d agreement shall be
recorded. If thi s agreement has been recorded and then sai d cash
deposit is made, the City may release said lien of record and hold
thi s agreement or any new agreement unrecorded as long as sai d cash
deposit is left with the City.
4. The Property Owner is responsible for the performance of work as
listed below. The currently estimated cost of said improvements and
the amount of the 1 i en is the sum of $6,407.00. The work to be
performed sha 11 be done in accordance with the plans and
specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as follows:
-2-
18'" t?l,3
" .
2400
EST HlA TE
ITEMS OF WORK
Quantity
Unit Price
Total
Item
Curb, gutter & sidewalk
Sidewalk ramp
Existing berm removal
201 L.F.
1 Each
24.50/L.F.
800 Eac h
L.S.
$4,924.50
800.00
100.00
$5,824.50
582.50
$6,407.00
TOTAL
10% contingencies
Lien amount required
5. It is further understood and agreed that Owner and/or his/her heirs,
assignees or successors in interest shall at such time as a 1911 or
1913 Act petition is circulated, sign said petition and that said
party does hereby waive all rights to protest in the event such a
1911 or 1913 Act proceeding is instituted.
IN WITHESS WHEREOF, the parti es hereto have caused thi s agreement to be
executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PROPERTY OWNER:
Engi neer
~~
David S. Meacham
ATTEST
Ci ty C1 erk
rm by
(Attach Notary Acknowledgment)
City ,,7J ~
WPC 3439E/3l43E
-3-
/~ ,. tJ.. 'f
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .!2
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
Resolution No. /3"5'..1Jesolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista ordering the changes of organization for the Otay Ranch
Reorganization No. 1 annexing territory to the City of Chula Vista,
detaching territory from the City and detaching territory from the
Rural Fire Protection District.
Public Hearing: To consider the Otay Ranch Reorganization No. 1
consisting of annexing portions of the Otay Ranch to the City,
detaching the Otay Landfill from the City and detaching territory from
the Rural Fire Protection District. 1
SUBMITTED BY: Special Planning Projects ~~~er, OUi
REVIEWED BY, Ci<y M=g~ ~ lJ<!!I (4I5th' Vo,", V.. _ No X)
In August of 1995, the City Council authorized the filing of a reorganization application
with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the Otay Ranch
Reorganization No.1. The proposed reorganization would annex the majority of the Otay
Valley Parcel, the Mary Patrick Birch Estate Ranch House and the Inverted 'L" area to
the City of Chula Vista. The Project Team filed the reorganization with LAFCO on April
8, 1996. LAFCO approved the reorganization, designated the City as the conducting
authority and authorized the City Council to complete the reorganization proceeding.
Those proceedings require the Council to hold a noticed hearing on the reorganization and
adopt a resolution ordering the reorganization if a majority protest of landowners is not
received. Since the annexation area is uninhabited, only property owner protests have a
legal effect on the reorganization under State law. The reorganization is terminated if
protested by property owners controlling 50% or more of the total assessed value of the
annexation. If no majority land value protest is received, the Council is authorized by
LAFCO to adopt a resolution ordering the change in organization subject to the LAFCO
conditions for maintaining fire service to the Otay Landfill and County of San Diego
receiving the landfill nuisance easements.
State law provides one year from the LAFCO approval date for the cities to complete the
reorganization proceedings. In this case, the City must complete the reorganization by July
1, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct the hearing and, if a majority
land value protest is not received, adopt the attached resolution ordering the change in
A1l31217.DOC
19'/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
organization for the Otay Ranch Reorganization NO.1 annexing 9,100 acres of the Otay
Valley Parcel, the Mary Patrick Birch Ranch House property and the Inverted 'L"
planning area to the City, detaching the Otay Landfill from the City, detaching the
Inverted 'L" planning area and the ranch house property from the Rural Fire Protection
District and directing the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the resolution with the
Executive Officer ofLAFCO.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: As indicated previously, San Diego LAFCO conducted their public
hearing on the City's proposed reorganization on July 1, 1996. The Commission approved
the City's request for a comprehensive annexation of the entire Otay Valley or Western
Parcel with the exception of the Otay Landfill. As proposed in the landfill agreement with
the County, the application also included the detachment of the existing portion of the
Otay Landfill from the City and excluded the 250-acre landfill extension area from the
Sphere of Influence. The entire landfill area was designated as a Special Study Area by
LAFCO. Since the City will surround the landfill, it will become a County 'Island" within
the City. LAFCO made the necessary finding to support the creation of this island.
LAFCO has required as a condition of the reorganization that the City enter into an
agreement with San Diego county to continue to provide fire protection services to the
landfill. The agreement was approved by the County Board of Supervisors at their July 30,
1996 meeting and by the City Council at the August 6, 1996 meeting.
Annexations and detachments are subject to LAFCO review and approval under the
Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. If more than one
annexation or detachment is proposed in a single application, then the action is considered
a reorganization. There are three actions authorized by LAFCO for the City Council to
consider: 1) annexation of the Otay Valley Parcel, the Inverted 'L" planning area and the
Ranch House property to the City, 2) detachment of the Otay Landfill from the City, and
3) detachment of the Inverted 'L" and Ranch House properties from the Rural Fire
Protection District (RFPD). The City has been authorized by LAFCO to process the
RFPD detachment since LAFCO policies discourage overlapping service boundaries and
the City will be providing fire protection to these properties.
BACKGROUND: On February 5, 1996, LAFCO amended the City's sphere of influence
to include the majority of the Otay Valley Parcel and the Inverted 'L" planning area. The
Ranch House property was already within the city's sphere. The County 'peninsula" was
not included at that time due to the on-going landfill and property tax negotiations. On
July 1, 1996, after the successful completion of these negotiations, LAFCO amended the
City's sphere to include the County "peninsula".
Under the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (GCS 5600, et.
seq.), an annexation can be initiated by either the property owner or the City. In this
instance, the City initiated the proceeding for the reorganization. LAFCO agreed that
A1l3-1217.DOC
19~2
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
additional territory is necessary for proper planning and future extension of City services
to serve the entire reorganization area. The three reorganization areas are:
The Otay Valley or Western Parcel - The Otay Valley or Western Parcel is the
largest of the areas authorized for annexation encompassing approximately 8,664
acres. This area is surrounded on the west, north and east by the City of Chula
Vista and is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north, Heritage Road on
the west, the southern slopes of Otay Valley on the south and Lower Otay
Reservoir on the east. The Otay River Valley comprises the southern boundary of
and is wholly included within the Planning Area.
There are several parcels that are not part of the Otay Ranch which are also
included within this Planning Area. These parcels range. in size from
approximately 9 acres to 136 acres and include the Nelson/Sloan rock quarry, the
Otay Water District future reservoir sites, the existing City of San Diego reservoir
and several privately-owned properties. This area excludes the 250-acre landfill
extension site.
The Inverted "L" Planning Area - The Inverted 'L" Planning Area is
approximately 530 acres in size. This area includes the Inverted 'L" Parcel of the
Otay Ranch, the Watson property and two smaller Clarkson and Turner parcels.
All of these parcels are part of the Sphere Study. These properties are adjacent
northeast of the Salt Creek Ranch project and, due to topography, relate more to
the existing City limits than to Proctor Valley. Annexation of this area represents
logical extension of City services.
The Mary Patrick Birch Ranch House Property - The Ranch House property is
approximately 168 acres in size and owned by the Stephen and Mary Patrick Birch
Foundation. The area surrounding the Ranch House is designated within the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) as Special Conference Center and Low
Density Residential. The Ranch House area was within the City's 1985 Sphere of
Influence. The existing Ranch House complex is surrounded by the City on two
sides and needs sewer service.
LAFCO also considered the City's reorganization application on July 1,1996. In August of
1995, the City Council had authorized City staff to file a reorganization application with
LAFCO to annex these areas to the City. Due to on-going property tax and landfill
agreement negotiations, the application was not filed until April 8, 1996. The
reorganization application also included the detachment of the existing portion of the Otay
Landfill within the City and the detachment of the Inverted 'L" and Ranch House
properties from the RFPD.
Rural Fire Protection District - The detachment from the District was proposed to avoid
duplication of fire protection services to these areas. Chief Bagnell of the RFPD has
AII3.1217.DOC
19-J
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
expressed concern to LAFCO staff regarding the effect the reorganization will have on the
RFPD property tax generation and budget. Project Team has met with Chief Bagnell
several times along with LAFCO staff during the processing of the sphere update and
reorganization application. As provided for in State law, the District's concerns were
considered during the property tax negotiations with the County. During these
negotiations, the County represented the special districts as required under State law. No
funds were allocated to the RFPD under the property tax agreement.
Otay Landfill- The detachment of the 250-acre Otay Landfill from the City and deletion
of the 265-acre landfill extension from the sphere will create a 515-acre County 'island"
within the City. LAFCO was able to make the findings to support the creation of this
island and designated the area as a Special Study Area in the Sphere. The Community
Development Department is in the process of preparing the detachment of the landfill from
the Otay Valley redevelopment area and will bring that item forward for Council action in
the near future.
Proctor Valley Road - During public agency review of the reorganization proposal, the
County Public Works Department requested that the City take over maintenance of
Proctor Valley Road in the County between the Inverted 'L" and the City boundary at the
Salt Creek Ranch project. Proctor V alley Road cuts through the very southeasterly corner
of the Inverted 'L"north of the Upper Otay Reservoir. Proctor Valley Road is a dirt road
in this location and, according to the City Director of Public Works, the City does not
have the equipment to maintain the road. The reorganization application was amended to
delete the small portion (.75 acre) of Proctor Valley Road right-of-way leaving
maintenance responsibility with the County.
LAFCO Authorization - On July 1, 1996, LAFCO held a public hearing on the proposed
reorganization. LAFCO approved the reorganization imposing two conditions in their
resolution. The first requires the City and the County to enter into an agreement whereby
the City will continue to provide fire protection services to the Otay Landfill after
detachment. Secondly, that the City receives written notice from the County indicating the
County has received properly executed landfill nuisance easements. The County Board of
Supervisors approved the fire service agreement at their July 30, 1996 meeting and is
scheduled to consider the easements in the near future. Staff will report on their status at
the City Council hearing.
LAFCO directed the City to order the following actions in their approval:
1. Annex 9,355 acres to the City
2. Detach 265 acres from the City (existing landfill)
3. Detach 664 acres from the Rural Fire Protection District.
LAFCO designated the City as the conducting authority for the reorganization and
authorized the City to conduct the proceedings in compliance with State law and the
Al13-1217.DOC
/9"~
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
LAFCO resolution. Since the reorganization area is uninhabited, the City Council is
required to hold a publicly noticed hearing to receive protest from property owners. The
reorganization is terminated if protested by property owners controlling 50% or more of
the total assessed value of the annexation is received by the City. Land value is determined
from the latest regular San Diego County tax roles. If no majority land value protest is
received, the City Council is authorized to order the reorganization by adopting the
attached resolution. The City Clerk is directed to file the certified resolution with the
Executive Director of LAFCO. The reorganization is completed and effective when the
Executive Director records the resolution with the County Recorder and files the
resolution and fees with the State Board of Equalization (SBE).
Pre-annexation development agreements were negotiated and adopted by the City Council
for Village DevelopmentlOtay Ranch L.P./Tiger Development Two/Tigerheart, Inc.,
United Enterprises, and Greg Smith on July 9, 1996. Baldwin Builders agreement was
adopted by the Council on October 22, 1996 and the Village Development/Otay Ranch,
L.P. agreement was amended on November 26, 1996. The development agreement
ordinances for SNMB, Inc., Jewels of Charity and the Stephen and Mary Patrick Birch
Foundation were introduced on August 20, 1996 and adoption continued. Adoption of
these development agreements is contingent on the County receiving acceptable landfill
nuisance easements as required by the landfill agreement. The easements have not yet been
signed by the appropriate party for SNMB. When the easements are signed, the
development agreements will be brought forward to City Council for adoption. If the
easements are not signed by December 17, 1996, staff will be requesting this
reorganization protest hearing be continued until the easements are signed.
All development agreements contain provisions for property owner support of the
reorganization. Staff is not anticipating property owner protest to the reorganization.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Impact on the General Fund:
There is no impact of processing the reorganization application on the General Fund
because Village Development is reimbursing the Project Team and other City staff time
through a deposit account. Village Development has paid the LAFCO reorganization filing
fee of$25,370 and will pay the $4,450 SBE fee. Staff has received fair share contributions
for the LAFCO fee from 7 of the 26 other property owners within the annexation area.
EastLake, Gerhardt, Groman, Smith, Ross, Turner, and Watson have contributed to the
LAFCO fee. Baldwin Builders, Smith and Watson have contributed to the SBE fee.
With the successful conclusion of the property tax negotiations and the establishment of
the reserve fund, no operating expenses to the General fund are anticipated.
A1l3-1217.DOC
/7:5'
Page 6, Item _
Meeting Date: December 17. 1996
Impact on Project Team Staffing:
There is no impact because processing costs have been included in the Project Team
budget. However, at the time this Agenda Statement was prepared, Village Development
was past due on the November bill of$58,504.16. Staff recommends the Council hold the
hearing but not adopt the resolution until Village Development's accounts with the City
are current. Staff will present an oral report at the hearing on the status of Village
Development's accounts.
Attachments: A" 1996 Sphere ofInfluence Map
t "B" Otay Ranch Reorganization No. I Map
Council Resolution of Ordering the Reorganization
~CO Resolution Approving the Otay Ranch Reorganization No. I
City Council Resolution No. 17991 applying for Otay Ranch Reorganization No. I
Reorganization Legal Description
Al13.1217.DOC / , ' t
{)o" ,,'
r<.......v I ~_'i. !y
{.:: i'! 'T'c
RESOLUTION NO. J'if.5J J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ORDERING THE CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE
OrA Y RANCH REORGANIZATION NO.1 ANNEXING TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DETACIllNG TERRITORY FROM
THE CITY AND DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE RURAL
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on August I, 1995 the Chula Vista City Council adopted
Resolution No, 17991, a resolution of application pursuant to Sections 56000, et. seq,
of the State Government Code to annex territory to the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, On February 5 and July 1,1996, the San Diego Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved amendments to the City of Chula Vista
Sphere of Influence that added territory to the City's Sphere; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Reorganization No.1 was flied with the San
Diego Local Agency Formation Commission on February 8, 1996, to annex territory to
the City of Chula Vista, detach the territory from the City and detach territory from the
Rural Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission held a noticed public hearing on
July I, 1996 and approved the reorganization and authorized the City to be the
conducting authority to complete the proceedings for the reorganization; and,
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission waived the restriction in
Government Code Section 56.375 with respect to the Otay Landfill detachment from the
City of Chula Vista determining that the island restriction would be detrimental to the
orderly development of the community and the area could not be reasonably annexed to
another city or incorporate as a new city; and,
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission approved the reorganization with
the modified boundaries as described in Exhibit A (attached hereto) subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to completion of the conducting authority proceedings, the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall execute a
contract or agreement providing that fire protection services
currently provided to the Otay Landfill by Chula Vista will
continue to be provided by the City following the detachment of
the territory from Chula Vista (Government Code Section 56844
[rD.
2. Prior to completion of the reorganization proceedings, the
;'-l
Resolution No.
Page 2
conducting authority shall have received written notice form the
County of San Diego that properly executed landfill buffer
easements have been delivered to the County (Government Codes
Section 56844[hHv]); and
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch Reorganization No.1 is necessary to: extend
local governmental services to the reorganization area under a comprehensive plan and
place all of the Otay Landfill under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego; and ,
WHEREAS, the regular San Diego County assessment roll is used; and,
WHEREAS, the reorganization area will not be subject to bonded
indebtedness; and,
WHEREAS, the LAFCO Commission directed the City of Chula Vista to
order the following actions:
1. Annexation of 9,354.10 acres to the City of Chula Vista;
2. Detachment of 265.05 acres from the City of Chula Vista; and,
3. Detachment of 664.10 acres from the Rural Fire Protection
District.
WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-01 analyzed
the impacts of the annexation and the LAFCO adopted, pursuant to Section 15096 (h)
of the State CEQA GuideliRes, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations previously adopted by the City Council as lead agency; and,
WHEREAS, the City conducted reorganization proceedings in accordance
with Government Code Section 57000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on December 17, 1996 in accordance with the LAFCO resolution and
Government Code Section 57002; and,
WHEREAS, the reorganization area is uninhabited and the City has
determined that a majority landowner protest was not filed.
NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TIlE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Chula Vista does hereby fmd, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. That FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided
/9... ~
Resolution No.
Page 3
adequate prior review.
2. That the City Council orders the following actions for the reorganization with the
modified boundaries described in Exhibit "A" upon the County receiving properly
executed landfill buffer easements.
A. Annexation of 9,354.10 acres to the City of Chula Vista;
B. Detachment of 265.05 acres from the City of Chula Vista; and,
C. Detachment of 664.10 acres from the Rural Fire Protection District.
3. That the City Clerk file a certified copy of this resolution ordering the
reorganization with the Executive Officer of the LAFCO upon receiving notice
that the County of San Diego has received properly executed landfill easements.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Projects
Manager
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote:
A YES: Council members:
NA YES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
{q - q
/
1,......1 .
J, ! \
Jffi.
\~,:'-II. 'Q
y~ ~
:-1
(!)
~
(!)
.!::
o..(!)
(/) ~
'" (!)
_ OJ
.!::2 c;=
>-'=
",-
OJ 0
.!::
!,' , ()
t,! )(~-,.,.
:1.:
I
"
_.. ~\ . -".----r: 'l;:-''''--=-''':''-=''':''=;'
I':'I/...J'.'l '..
i i..c.'.: 'i ' ,
I(
, -
.'....
<.
,
"
dfl1
\
(
J
.
.
'1
,
,
I
I
,
i
g
...
E
:S2
~..
~-
';gc.
..=
'tlll~.
<'" .
~o\
0=
....~"
...~
:r::;-,!!!
~=
a
~'
,=
en
~('
I-
-
o::l
:::c
x
LU
<t
~
~
~"
..!:J
,=
,i --:>
".':7).
,0
'V"
"'("':"
~~...
."
.
".\.,'
. .~
';~:\
w
t)
z
w
::>
...J
u.
Z
-
u.
0
W
0::: w
w C'l
-
:c .......
-
a.. t-
., "'C
en Cl
-
~ c-
o
I- "'C
en <l:
! ; :>
~
...J
:J
:c
u
u.
0
>-
I-
-
t)
,1.
,
Cll
(!)
~
i::<l:
"'C >-
C:"'C
Cll OJ
...JCi)
>--
Cll ctl
5 '(3
(!)
0.
en
\: ;~.
,
r,
_';-__n__'_.~,
'.~
'"
, ...
,
,
.
, .
\ ':
, '
'.}
l."
',.
"';:<'"
\ \.
"
,
..c......... '
".
\
\ ...'\
. i
,:\,..1..
~., .....
,
>, '"
.... ~
'" -0 ~
"'-0 '" ~
U; t: - '" ~
l/l..... -0 z~ ~
::J ._ 0 c:J - - z
> 0 >O>~ t:t: t: ;;: '" 0
"'0 -00> -0 '" ;:
~CD "'....'" E;:; "'E t: .... ~ ~
-"'::J "'-<l:
::J >, ::J..c:_ '" l/l..c:
0 .c~ ..c: a...... E><l/l OU ....J.!:! >, <. -
Z uu ucn-S 0"", a....'" >,u-o .... r
ut:., 0-", "'O>::J :!O
UJ .,t:.... ....0>.... - c.z .
~ ~<l:<l: c..O<l: Ocncn :!
UJ Co
....J ...
~ m c:
<.:
0
~
<.:
-
1Il
oS!
:2
m
:..of
. ...
"",
...5
'!:c
.. C
> m
.50:
..
,,~
eo
iii'"
ilg
E.
I .'"
0..
~;;
L-,H
-'
I
L, .,
I
,I
,-}
\.--1
J
)
f'~
,
N~
~I
C>
.
o
z
s::
ra 0
..... .-
(f).....
.- ra
>.!:::!
a:lras::
+J '5 ~
:c.s:: i::'
._ () 0
J:_Q)
><00:::
W >..s::
:!:: u
() s::
ra
0:::
>.
ro
.....
o
l
J~-I!
Minute Item: 6
Ref. No.: R096-11
fit
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE
"CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH
REORGANIZATION NO.1"
On motion of Commissioner Mathis, seconded by Commissioner Sasso, the
following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, a resolution of application was submitted to this Commission for
annexation of territory to the City of Chula Vista, which resolution was adopted by the City
Council of Chula Vista as Resolution No. 17991, dated August 1, 1995, pursuant to Title
5, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been modified to a reorganization, which includes
detachment of territory from the City of Chula Vista and the Rural Fire Protection District;
and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed for reorganization is as described in the
application on file with the Local Agency Formation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer of the Commission has filed his report on said
reorganization, which report was received and considered by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 56828, the Executive Officer of
this Commission set a public hearing on the proposed reorganization for July 1, 1996, and
gave notice of the date, time, and place of said hearing in accordance with Government
Code Sections 56834 and 56835;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby finds,
determines, and orders as follows:
(1) The hearing was held on the date set therefore, and due notice of said
hearing was given in the manner required by law.
(2) At that hearing the Commission called for, heard, and considered all
interested parties and read and considered the report of the Executive Officer.
(3) In accordance with Government Code Section 57002, the Commission
hereby declares that this action requires a noticed public hearing by the conducting
authority.
19' /e:L.
(4) The Commission adopts, pursuant to Section 150!;l6(h) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations previously
adopted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto.
(5) . The Commission adopts the findings included in the resolution of approval
of the City of Chula Vista for the impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report and
Addendum, and certifies that the mitigation is within the jurisdiction of the City and not
LAFCO because the affected resources and services will be within the city limits upon
annexation.
(6) The Commission waives the restrictions contained in Government Code
Section 56375 with respect to the detachment of the Otay Landfill territory from the City of
Chula Vista and determines that:
a) the application of the island restriction would be detrimental to the
orderly development of the community; and
b) the area what will be enclosed by the annexation is so located that it
cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a
new city.
(7) The Commission hereby approves the reorganization with modified
boundaries as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the following conditions:
a) Prior to completion of conducting authority proceedings, the City of
Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall execute a contract or
agreement providing that fire protection services currently provided to
the Otay Landfill by Chula Vista will continue to be provided by the
City following detachment of the territory from Chula Vista
(Government Code Section 56844[r]).
b) Prior to completion of reorganization proceedings, the conducting
authority shall have received written notice from the County of San
Diego that properly executed landfill buffer easements have been
delivered to the County (Government Code Section 56844[h][v]).
(8) The boundaries of the territory as described in Exhibit A are definite and
certain.
(9) The boundaries of the territory do not conform to lines of assessment and
ownership.
(10) The Rural Fire Protection District is a registered-voter district.
2 /~'IJ
(11) The reorganization territory includes a total of 9,619.15 acres and is
uninhabited.
(12) The territory proposed for reorganization is hereby designated the "City of
Chula Vista Otay Ranch Reorganization No.1".
(13) The Commission hereby designates the City of Chula Vista as the conducting
authority and authorizes the City Council to conduct proceedings in compliance with this
resolution.
(14) The Commission directs the City of Chula Vista as conducting authority, to
order the following actions:
a) Annexation of 9,354.10 acres to the City of Chula Vista;
b) Detachment of 265.05 acres from the City of Chula Vista; and
c) Detachment of 664.10 acres from the Rural Fire Protection District.
(15) The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified
copies of this resolution as provided in Section 56853 of the Government Code.
11-/:/
Passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San
Diego this 1st day of July, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Childs, Cox, Horton, Howard, Jacob, Mathis,
Sasso, and Vanderlaan
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Hom
ABSTAINING:
None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, MICHAEL D. OTT, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the
County of San Diego, State of Califomia, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy with the original resolution adopted by said Commission at its regular meeting on
July 1, 1996, which original resolution is now on file in my office; and that same contains
a full, true, and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand this 9th day of July, 1996.
lIIu #-
MICHAEL D. OTT
Executive Officer
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
J~-t>
RESOLUTION NO. 17991
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MAKING APPLICATION TO THE SAN DIEGO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OFTHE
OTAY RANCH ANNEXATION NO.1
WHEREAS. on March 21. 1995, the City Council approved by Resolution No. 17831
the 1995 Sphere of Influence Update Study for the City of Chula Vista; and.
WHEREAS. on March 30. 1995. the City of Chula Vista filed the 1995 Sphere of
Influence Update Study with the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
requesting that Planning Areas 1. 2 and 3. shown on Figure 3. attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, be added to the City of Chula Vista's Sphere of
Influence; and.
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch House property, shown on Figure 3. is presently within
the City's Sphere of Influence; and.
WHEREAS. in accordance with Part 3. Chapter 1 of the Cortese/Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56650 et seq.l. the City of Chula
Vista is requesting to annex Planning Areas 1 and 3 of the 1995 Sphere of Influence Update
Study and the Ranch House property, subsequent to LAFCO's approval of the 1995 Sphere
of Influence Update Study; and.
WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista believes a comprehensive annexation of Planning
Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House property will enable the City to plan and finance public
infrastructure improvements to serve the Otay Ranch; and.
WHEREAS. the proposed annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House
Property is consistent with the 1995 Sphere of influence Update Study submitted to LAFCO;
and.
WHEREAS. Government Code Section 56653 requires a plan for providing public
services for the affected territory to be annexed be submitted with the resolution of
application for an annexation; and.
WHEREAS. the requirements of the Government Code Section 56653 for the plan for
providing service are satisfied for Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House property by
the Public Facility Implementations Plan of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
those plans are further refined at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level by the Otay Ranch
SPA One Facility Master Plans and the Public Facilities Finance Plan (referred to herein
collectively as "Plans"); and.
WHEREAS. the above described Plans will be submitted as part of the annexation
application to LAFCO and are hereby incorporated by reference to this resolution; and.
WHEREAS. LAFCO. as the decision making authority. will be considering the
environmental impacts of the anneXiJtlon being requested herein; and
19'1t
Resolution No. 17991
Page 2
WHEREAS, it is intended that the environmental impacts of the annexation will be
analyzed in the City's Otay Ranch SPA One EIR and the City will submit that EIR to LAFCO
upon certification by City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. That the City Council hereby petitions LAFCO, pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Act, for
the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 of the 1995 Sphere of Influence Update
Study and the Ranch House property to the City of Chula Vista.
2. That the annexation is conditioned upon the City of Chula Vista reaching a satisfactory
tax sharing agreement with the County of San Diego and satisfactory resolving other
outstanding issues.
3. That the City Council hereby directs City staff to file this resolution including the plans
for public services and the annexation application with LAFCO for the proposed
annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 of the 1995 Sphere of Influence Update Study
and the Ranch House property to the City of Chula Vista.
-
ved as t
~
Presented by:
Gerald J. Jamris a
Special Planning Projects Manager
Otay Ranch
f
/9 -/7
Resolution No. 1 7$~1
Page 3
AREAS
OF
ANNEXATION
Plan
...-
I~
11
lID
~
___IU
ChuIa V_
......buJla v_ .......
----.- ..
< ..,.
N Ii
o
~-
-..
0.&3
0.&3 IoIiIoo
Annexation Areas
[..n.
D
om, Ranch Ivoa
Cl~1C ~~"'
19'/8"
Resolution No. 17991
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 1 st day of August. 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Counei/members:
Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NAYES:
Couneilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Couneilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Couneilmembers:
None
Horton, Mayor
~'
ATTEST:
/'1. {)
.,:(! . . ',~~'
'xUllj.Q . (2-;ri (iJ__
Beverly IA. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17991 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 1 st day of August,
1995. .
Executed this 1 st day of August, 1995.
;
Tr-;: FORE:G0IN3 Ir--:STR:.JMENT IS A
CCW-:CCT COF"{ OF -:-c..;:: C~;Gi;\J':',L ON
::>'::~;~:'-(:7~~" .'~: ~l::" ::
. ,)9-,-,-
.... ,',:.-.~ ;..,.~ :'j, l;!, 'f C!_~
[: ~ :~':" ", L -,,'
i 1_
/~ -/7
R096-11
"CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH
REORGANIZATION NO.1"
PARCEL 1
Annexation to the City of Chula Vista and
Detachment from the Rural Fire Protection District
All those portions of Sections 24 and 25, Township 17 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to United States
Government Survey, lying within the following described boundary:
Beginning at the center of said Section 24, being the northeast corner of Boundary of the City of
Chuta Vista, as described in "Salt Creek Ranch Reorganization" to the City of Chuta Vista by
City Council Resolution No. 16630 effective July 9,1992;
1
1. thence along the north-south centerline of said Section 24 and along the east line of
said Boundary South 0'42'58" West (record South 0'43'21" West), 2,659.97 feet to the
north quarter comer of said Section 25;
2. thence along the north-south centeriine of said Section 25, South 0'34'18" West,
1,664.90 feet to the southerly line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 25;
3. thence along said southerly line South 88'33'27" East, 67~.68 feet to the southeast
comer thereof;
4. thence North 0'30'33" East, 333.37 feet to the south line of the North Half ofthe
Northeast Quarter of said Section 25;
5. thence along the south line thereof South 88'35'25" East to the northwesterly line
of Road Survey No. 172 (Proctor Valley Road), map on file in the County Engineer's
Office of said County;
5A. thence northeasterly along said northwesterly line of Proctor Valley Road to the east
line of said Section 25;
6. thence along said east line North 0'19'22" East, to the northeast corner of said
Section 25;
Exhibit A /? "',2..0
Page 1 of 17
7. thence along the east line of said Section 24 North 0010'07" East, 2,664.34 feet to the
east quarter comer thereof;
8. . thence continuing along said east line of Section 24 North 0026'42" East, 2,663.96 feet
to the northeast comer of said Section 24;
9. thence along the north line thereof North 89034'53" West, 2,645.21 feet to the north
quarter comer of said Section 24;
...J ,-_
1 O. ~ thence continuing along the north line thereof North 89057'20" West, 2,622.43 feet to
the northwest comer of said Section 24;
11. . thence along the west line thereof South 01034'19" West, 1,287.74 feetto the
. southwest comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24;
12. thence along the south line thereof South 89022'36" East, 1,320.75 feet to the,
southeast comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
13. thence along the east line of the Southwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter South
~ 1008'23" West, 1,300.84 feet to the southeast comer being a point on the east-west
center line of section line of said Section 24, being also a point in the north line of said
Boundary of the City of Chula Vista;
14. . ~ thence along said east-west ceriter line South 88048'26" East, 1,330.41 feet to the point
of beginning.
Exhibit A
Page2of17
/9 ",l.)
PARCEL 2
Annexation to the City of Chula Vista and
Detachment from the Rural Fire Protection District
All that portion of Rancho Janal, Altas Rancho Otay (Dominguez), in the County of San Diego,
State of California, said portion being shown on Record of Survey 10096, filed June 13, 1985
as File No. 85-21 0248. of Official records in the Office of the County Recorder for said County
and further described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest comer of Tract "A", as said Tract "A" is shown on Map No. 988 filed
on May 21, 1906 in the Office of said County Recorder and described in deed recorded in
Book of Deeds 389, Page 259 of Deeds, said comer also being on the 120 foot contour line,
being 120 feet, more or less, in elevation above the stream bed, of the Upper Otay Reservoir
as surveyed by B. Harris in 1895; thence continuing along said 120 foot contour line for the
following courses:
1. South 53000'00" West 350.00 feet;
2. thence South 56011'00" West 249.80 feet;
3. thence North 70019'00" West 250.00 feet
4. thence South 84041'00" West 264.00 feet
5. thence North 56019'00" West 216.00 feet
..' ".<. .
6. thenc~ South 4201'1'00" West 298.30 feet
7. thence S~uth 65~41'OO" West 188.90 feet
8. thence North 22019'00" West 283.10 feet;
9. thence North 82049'00" West 167.00 feet;
10. thence South 42011'00" West 355.30 feet;
11. thence NorJ1 59049' Wesf308.10 feet;
12. thence South 77'11'00" West to the centerline of the Road Survey for County Highway
Commission Route 9 and the north boundary of Parcel 111 described in deed to
Steven and Mary Birch Foundation, Inc., as Doc. No. 1994-0438270 of Official
Elecords;
13. thence along said north line of Birch Foundation, Inc. deed South 87'45'00" West
123.05 feet, more or less, to an angle point therein;
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 17
I~;,..l~
14. thence North 75034' West, 224.61 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of the land
described in deed.to the City of San Diego, recorded January 13,1913, in Book 598,
Page 54 of Deeds of said County, being also the westerly boundary of the 120 foot
contour line of the Upper Otay Reservoir per Map No. 989, filed in the Recorder's Office
of said County, being also a point in the easterly line of the Boundary of the City of
Chula Vista, as described in Parcel 1 of 'Eastlake/Olympic Site Reorganization"
Annexation to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No. 15543 effective
March 6; 1990;
15. thence along said Boundary described in Resolution No. 15543 the following courses
and distances: South 03"44'47" East 21.05 feet to a comer point therein, being also a
point in the westerly boundary of the land described in deed from Henry J. Fenton, et
ux, to Union Trust Company of San Diego, recorded March 12, 1928, in Book 1458,
Page 76 of Deeds;
16. .- thence continuing along said Boundary described in Resolution No. 15543 and along
said westerly boundary of Fenton land North 75013'38" West 48.78 feet;
17. thence South 64030'22" West 111.23 feet;
18. thence South 41057'22" West, 350.62 feet;
19. thence South 57042'22' West, 200.50 feet;
20. thence South 55018'22 West, 209.80 feet;
21.' thence South 48016'22" West, 42.88 feet;
- . 22. thence South 51053'26" West 334.56 feet to a comer point in said Boundary described
in Resolution 15543 and a comer point in said Fenton land, said point being also a
comer in the Boundary'of the City of Chula Vista, as described in"Eastlake Greens
Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No. 15274 effective
August 29,1989; thence along said Boundary described in Resolution No'. 15274 and
continuing along the west boundary of said Fenton land the following course and
distances:
23. South 53025'00" West 266.70 feet;
24. thence South 32041' East to a comer point in the northerly line of the Boundary of the
City of Chula Vista, as described in Parcel 2 of said 'Eastlake/Olympic Site
Reorganization" Annexation to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No.
15543 effective March 6, 1990;
25. thence along the northerly line oJ said Parcel 2 the following courses and distances:
South 77'38'00" East, 1100.86 feet, more or less, to an angle point therein;
26. thence South 12022'00" West 37.57 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of Road
Survey No. 558 (Otay Lakes Road);
Exhibit A
Page40f17
19~,23
27. thence continuing along said northerly line South 76'49'30" East 659.32 feet to the
beginning of a tangent 4970 foot radius curve concave northe~ly;
28. thence easterly along said curve through a central angle of 1049'57" a distance of
158.96 feet;
29.- - thence South 78039'37" East 1322.63 feet to an angle point in said Boundary described
in Resolution No. 15543; -
30. thence South 11020'33" West, 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of said Road
Survey No. 558;
31. - thence along said southerly right-of-way line of Road Survey No. 558 South 78039'37" -
East, 158 feet, more or less, to a point of curve in said southerly right-of-way line,
concave northwesterly, having a radius of 530.00 feet; thence continuing along said
southerly right-of-way line and following along the arc of said curve northeasterly to
Station E. C. 619+51.75 therein as shown on said Road Survey;
32. thence continuing along said southerly right-of-way line North 25054' East, 312 feet,
more or less, to a point on the outer boundary of the 100 foot strip lying outside of and
above the 150 foot contour line, being 150 feet, more or less, in elevation above the
stream bed, of Lower Otay Reservoir as surveyed by Lew B. Harris in 1906 and
recorded as said Map Nos. 988 and 989 filed on May 21,1906 in the Office of the said
San Diego County Recorder;
33. thence along said outer boundary North 0000'46" East, 73 feet, more or less, to an
angle point therein;
34. . thence North" 0002'14" West, 35.5 feet, more or less, to the southeast comer of Parcel -
131 of said Birch Foundation, Inc. deed and shown on said Record of Survey Map No.
10096, being a point in' said outer boundary of the 100 foot strip; thence continuing
along the easterly boundary of said Birch Foundation, Inc. deed the following courses
and distances, as described in said deed to Birch Foundation, Inc.:
35. North 01019'08" East, 25.66 feet to a tangent to Circle "J" described therein, the center
of which bears South 88040'52" East, 100.00 feet;
36. thence northerly along said Circle "J" through a central angle of 17000'00" a distance of
29.67 feet;
37. thence leaving tangentially said Circle "J", North 18'19'08" East, 225.96 feet;
38. thence North 3'10'52" West, 30.10 feet to an iron pipe "A" from which a hub and tack
"B" bears North 47'40'52" West, a distance of 441.74 feet, said iron pipe "A" and said
l:1ub and tack "8" collinear with said outer boundary;
39. thence North 47'40'52" West, 441.74 feet to said hub and tack;
40. thence North 88'21'18" East, 506.47 feet;
41. thence Nor,h 63'51'18" East, 11557 feet;
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 17
17''''- 'I
42. thence North 49"21'18" East, 73.39 feet;
43. thence North 6"51'18" East, 56.11 feet to a tangent to Circle "L", the center of which
bears South 83"07'42" East, 100.00 feet;
44. thence Northerly along said Circle "L" through a central angle of 7"19'24", a distance of
12.78 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly edge of the right of way of Road Survey
No. 558 CIS said road existed on March 22, 1938 when City of San Diego Resolution
. No. 47344 was adopted, said right of way being 30 feet on each side of the center line
."..... of said Road Survey No. 588; thence leaving said outer boundary and continuing
along said right of way for the following two courses:
45. proceeding northeasterly along Circle "M", the center of which bears South 41"59'49"
East, 1030.00 feet through a central angle of 00"08'57" a distance of 2.68 feet, more or
less, to'a point radial to EC Station 631+14.97 of said Road Survey No. 558;
46. thence leaving tangentially said Circle "M" North 48"09'08" East, 133.82 feet; . .
47. thence leaving said right of way North 34"37'40. West, 31.96 feet (North 34"37'42"
West, 30.96 feet per Record of Survey), more or less, to said outer boundary; thence
continuing along said outer boundary for the following two courses:
48.: . North 34037'42" West, 45.94 feet;
49. thence North 46"37'4:2" West, 24.25 feet;
50. thence leaving s?id outer boundary North 70"42'42" West, 351.45 feet;
51.:: thence North 00023'36" West, 443.16 feet, more or less, to the Point Of Beginning.
--:.
~
Exhibit A /9"',2-J
Page6of17
PARCEL 3
Annexation to the City of Chula Vista
All those portions of Quarter Sections 12 through 15, and portions of Quarter Sections 11, 16,
37 through 41, 64 and 65 in Rancho de la Nacion, according to Map No. 166, filed in the San
Diego County Recorde(s Office on May 11, 1869, together with portions of Sections 34 in
Township 11 South, Range 1 West and Fractional Sections 3 and 4 in Township 18 South,
Range 1 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to United States Government Survey, together with a portion of the Otay
Ranch according to Map No. 862, filed in the San Diego County Recorde(s Office on February
7, 1900, described as follows:
1. Beginning at the northeast comer of said Fractional Section 4, being the Point of .
Beginning of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as described in "Two Roads To Be
Widened Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No. 15968
effective January 2, 1991; thence along the Easterly line of said Section 4 and along
said Boundary South 00"01'13" East, 110.23 feet;
2. thenCe leaving said easterly line South 72"04'47" West, 31.61 feet;
3. thence South 61"02'22" West, 18.46 feet;
4. thence South 39"33'50" West, 91.00 feet;
5. thence South 27"29'39" West, 57.92 feet;
6. thence South 72"12'45" West, 204.56 feet;
7. thence South 63"40'54" West, 50.38 feet;
8. thence South 33"06'06" West, 42.26 feet;
9. thence North 79"30'34" West, 48.55 feet;
10. thence North 38"23'57" West, 64.22 feet;
11. thence North 71"58'47" West, 22.72 feet;
12. thence South 74"25'53" West, 66.21 feet;
13. thence South 89"19'14" West, 51.44 feet;
14. thence North 65"46'35" West, 33.23 feet;
-
15. thence South 49'52'55" West, 26.22 feet;
16. thence North 63'12'41" West, 21.20 feet;
17, thence South 79'19'56" \'1'est, 57658 feet;
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 17
/9 ;,,2.1,
18. thence South 18040'04" West, 52.00 feet;
19. thence North 83003'53" West, 149.89 feet;
20. thence North 21026'28" W~st, 19.35 feet;
21. thence South 62055'59" West, 814.46 feet;
22.
thence South 56044'28" West, 381.49 feet;
23. "thence South 72031'27" West, 249.39 feet;
24. thence South 50016'44" West, 191.91 feet;
25. thence South 66036'07" West, 312.55 feet;
26.
thence South 39019'01" West, 131.60 feet;
27. thence South 50021'14" West, 238.81 feet;
28. thence South 44044'17" West, 579.26 feet;
29. thence South 09047'58" West, 99.86 feet;
30. thence South 42006'21" West, 270.19 feet;
31. . thence South 75019'30" West, 58.30 feet;
32.
thence South 52011'31" West, 65.97 feet;
33.
34.
35.
thence South 60002'27" West, 62.02 feet;
thence South 16007'22" West, 87.40 feet;
thence South 33001'09" West, 65.84 feet;
36. thence South 45038'21" West, 233.29 feet;
37. thence South 45003'05" West, 221.30 feet;
38. thence South 37"14'47" West, 73.06 feet;
39. thence South 61037'23" West, 51.49 feet;
40. thence South 43010'43" West, 106.57 feet;
41. thence South 30'30'22" West, 35.20 feet;
42. thence South 11'30'39" West, 43.05 feet;
43. thence South 59'15'26" West, 12272 feet;
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 17
.c;:.--,..J
:.- -:::~.~ ,; - . .-
".....- .'--.
J?-,27
-..' ~
-.;:.-- '.::~...
..- ....'-..
--..' -.
:..:.: ,r_':.-:,3:'~ ::';':.;::~.j
- --~'.- _:1', _ ~_ -,".:: --.
:
44. thence South 41 '26'54" West, 126.13 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 80.00 foot
radius curve concave northwesterly, to which a radial line bears North 88'46'42" East;
45. thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 111 '45'40"
a distance of 156.05 feet;
46. thence South 69'10'08" West, 135.99 feet;
47. thence South 41 '28'14" West, 92.58 feet;
46. thence South 48'35'43" West, 66.45 feet;
49. thence South 57'25'03" West, 59.98 feet;
50. thence South 69'00'02" West, 129.76 feet;
51. thence South 44'40'47" West, 73.37 feet;
52. thence South 57'44'06" West, 197.72 feet;
53. thence South 66'44'44" West, 142.95 feet;
54. thence South 67'26'15" West, 39.15 feet;
55. thence South 60'59'08" West, 134.88 feet;
56. thence South 13'44'06" West, 170.20 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 240.00
foot radius curve concave northwesterly, to which a radial bears South 58'47'05" East;-
57. thence southwesterly along the arc of said'curVe through a central angle of 51'29'49"_~
distance of 215.71 feet; .
58. thence South 00'58'16" West, 25.96 feet;
59. thence South 89'36'01" West, 48.74 feet;
60. thence South 81'21'35" West, 26.36 feet;
61. thence South 31'15'46" West, 59.46 feet;
62. thence South 45'29'53" West, 33.36 feet;
63. thence South 47'43'16" West, 113.49 feet;
64. thence South 60'59'52" West, 33.02 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 80.00 foot
radius curve concave northwesterly, to which a radial lines bears North 73'52'39" East;
65. thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 61'10'39" a
distance of 65.42 feet;
66. thence South 45'03'1 S" West, 80.08 feet:
Exhibit A
Page 9 of 17
/9" ,2.y
67. thence South 35"46'14" West, 12.30 feet;
68. thence South 78"00'03" West, 25.11 feet;
69. thence South 78"33'02" West, 101.56 feet;
70. thence South 63"10'02" West, 105.28 feet;
-
71. thence South 55000'00" West, 16.04 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 180.00
foot radius curve concave southeasterly, to which a radial line bears North 69005'16"
West;
72. thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle 09018'07" a
distance of 29.22 feet;
73. thence South 11036'37" West, 58.88 feet;
-
74. thence South 00006'50" West, 176.04 feet; .
75. thence South 82'09'29" West, 180.81 feet;
76. thence South 33047'14" West, 174.77 feet;
77. thence South 60'13'16" West 214.49 feet;
78. thence South 68'54'28" West, 62.27 feet;
. .
79.""thence South 55'23'59" West, 93.23 fe~t;
80.:' - thence South 40'53'05" West, 198.25 feet;.
81.
82.
thence South 33049'01" West, 247.82 feet;
thence South 60026'36" West, 70.26 feet;
83. thence South 77'28'16" West, 65.27 feet;
84. thence North 80'50'26" West, 42.28 feet;
85. thence North 72'29'01" West, 34.92 feet;
86. thence North 80'07'06" West, 11.00 feet;
87. thence South 16'36'08" West, 25.00 feet;
88. thence South 45'47'12" West, 77.62 feet;
89. thence South 75'29'48" West, 95.51 feet;
90. thence No:-th 78'36'58" West, 57.27 feet;
Exhibit A
Page100f17
-,-~:..... .=-. ""_c... '-
- :-. -:. ~-:; .~;-.c_ -: ~'..-: -,.."':.
. ,-'-
- ~ -. ,.{. -
'C.:. .' - .
o
/~ ' ..;. 7
91. thence South 52'01'05" West, 36.01 feet;
92. thence South 15'31'05" West, 54.87 feet;
93. thence South 64'04'17" West, 49.12 feet;
94. thence South 72'58'28" West, 67.62 feet;
95. thence South 65'15'05" West, 39.08 feet;
96. thence South 77'18'52" West, 44.76 feet;
97. thence South 76'47'09" West, 43.44 feet;
98. thence South 25'42'37" West, 179.57 feet;
99. thence South 60'20'52" West, 173.39 feet;
100. thence South 60'33'37" West, 271.06 feet; ,
. - . .
101. thence North 59'16'06" West, 72.64 feet;. .
102. thenCe North 33'34'04" West, 102.40 feet;
. -
103. thence South 38'29'24" West, 50.08 feet;
104. thence South 49'33'19" West, 50.04 feet;
- ..-_. '.
105.'-', thence South 63026'23" West, 55.04 feet;
106: thence South 68'17'51" West, 50.54 feet;
~.. -- -- ,- --,
. :;, - ~ ......;-~.~ ~.- -.; -
. -
-" !-
~. ..:.. ~ .::- ~ - ....'- ,---
-'~ ,.' .
- -~...-
107. . thence South 68'58'42" West, 90.18 feet;
~ .-'. ..
108. thence South 73'06'10" West, 51.02 feet;,
109. thence South 80'57'00" West, 56.16 feet;
110. thence South 23'01'15" East, 21.00 feet;
111. thence South 66'58'45" West, 70.00 feet;
112. thence North 23'01'15" West, 30.56 feet;
113. thence South 66'58'45" West, 43.97 feet;
114. thence South 57"10'03" west, 66.16 feet:
115. thence South 63'19'31" West, 65.49 feet:
116. thence South 69'08'58" West, 31.89 feet;
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 17
/9 "30
117. thence South 73"03'34" West, 80.03 feet;
118. thence South 75"37'10" West, 76.26 feet;
119. thence South 29"01'12" West, 42.68 feet;
120. thence South 66"58'45" West, 60.00 feet;
121. thence South 66"01'41" West, 8.61 feet;
122. thence North 73"16'23" West, 43.40 feet;
123. thence South 66"52'36" West, 59.00 feet;
124. thence South 37"13'36" West, 106.99 feet;
125. thence South 57"30'55" West 13.55 feet to a point on the easterly line of the East 1/5
of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Quarter Section 41 of said Map
166, being a comer point in said Boundary of the City of Chulia Vista as described in
"Two Roads To Be Widened Annexation";
126. thence along said easterly line North 18"40'26" West, 78.09 feet to a point on the
southerly line of Telegraph Canyon Road, being the most.westerly northwesterly comer
of said Boundary of the City of Chula Vista as described in "Two Roads To Be Widened
Annexation", being also a point in the southerly line of Boundary of the City of Chula
_. Vista, as described in "EI Rancho del Rey's Phase 1 Annexation" to the City of Chula
Vista by City Council Resolution No. 6048 effective May 4, 1971, and recorded as
Ordinance No. 1337 on August 10, 1971 as File/Page No. 176709 of Official_Records;.
127. thence southwesterly along said Telegraph Canyon Road and along said southerly line:
of said "EI Rancho del Rey's Phase 1 Annexation" 400 feet, more or less, to an
intersection with the southeasterly line of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as
described in Parcel "C" of "Two Roads To Be Widened Annexation" to the City of Chula
Vista by City Council Resolution No. 15968 effective January 2, 1991;
128. thence along the southerly line of said Parcel"C" South 72012'51" West 244.21 feet to
the southeast comer of Parcel"B" of said Resolution No. 15968, being a point in the
east line of said Quarter Section 64;
129. thence along the southerly line of said Parcel"B" South 71"15'36" West, 44.63 feet;
130. thence South 47"04'29" West, 88.48 feet;
131. thence North 72'18'23" West, 93.87 feet
-
132. thence North 20'59'55" West, 99.95 feet;
133. thence South 88'36'34" West, 444.43 feet to said southerly line of Telegraph Canyon
Road, being the most westerly corner of said "Parcel B", being also a point in the
southerly line of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as described in said "EI Rancho
del Rey's ?hase 1 Annexation";
Exhibit A
Page 12 of 17
11" J /
134. thence easterly or westerly along said southerly line of Telegraph Canyon Road and
along said southerly line of "EI Rancho del Rey's Phase 1 Annexation., whichever the
case may be, to the northeast comer of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as
described in Parcel 1 of .Telegraph Canyon South Part 11 (Sunbow) Annexation" to the
City of Chula Vista. by City Council Resolution No. 15526 effective March 7,1990,
being a point in the westerly line of the East Half of the East Half of said Quarter
Section ?4;
135. thence along the east line of said Parcel 1 of "Telegraph Canyon South Part II
(Sunbow) Annexation" and along said westerly line of the East Half of the East Half of
Quarter Section 64 South 17051'45" East, 2,168.25 feet to the southeast comer
thereof;
136. thence along the westerly line of the East Half of the East Half of said Quarter Section
65 South 17051'45" East 660.00 feet to the southerly line of the northerly 660.00 feet
thereof;
137. thence along said southerly line South 72009'34" West, 659.01 feet to the north-south
centerline of said Quarter Section 65; .
138. thence along said north-south centerline South 17"51'47" East, 903.23 feet to the
southerly line of said Quarter Section 65;
139. thence North 71057'19" East 245.68 feet along said southerly line to the easterly line of
Lot 1 of Fractional Section 17 in Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San Bemardino
Meridian, in sa~d County and State, being the westerly line of said Otay Rancho;
- -
140. thence along said westerly line of Otay Rancho South 18037'03" East, 2,115.10 feet to
a point in said line that is distant thereon North 18037'03. West, 741.41 feet from the
most northerly northea!;t comer of that land described in deed to the County of San
Diego, recorded April 16, 1962 as File No. 64315 of Official Records, in the Office of
said County Recorder,
141. thence leaving said westerly boundary North 74046'28. East, 3,829.86 feet;
142. thence South 02020'57" East, 2,922.01 feet;
143. thence South 60002'27. West, 3,064.44 feet to a point in said westerly line of Otay
Rancho, being the most southerly comer of said Fractional Sectional 17;
144. thence along said westerly line South 18037'03" East, 2,088.64 feet to a point in said
westerly line that is distant thereon North 18037'03. West, 850.00 feet from the east
quarter comer of Fractional Section 20, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San
Bemardino Meridian, as shown on Otay Industrial Park, Map No. 8147, filed in the
Office of said County Recorder,
145. thence leaving said Rancho boundary North 71.22'54" East, 55.00 feet;
146. thence South 18.37'06" West, parallel with said Rancho boundary line, 200.00 feet:
Exhibit A /9- J,)...
Page 13 of 17
thence South 71022'54" West, 55.00 feet to said Rancho boundary line;
thence South 18.37'03" East, 5,545.76 feet to the most southerly comer of said Otay
Rancho;
thence along the southerly boundary thereof North 71.23'00" East, 22,981.45 feet to
the southeast comer of said Otay Rancho;
thence along the easterly line thereof North 18.53'09" West, 2,547.46 feet to a point in
. . the boundary of land shown on Record of Survey 12371, recorded in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County October 9, 1989;
thence along the boundary of said Record of Survey South 71018'29" West, 517.90
feet to a comer therein;
thence continuing along said boundary North 18.42'57" West, 729.50 feet to a comer
ther~in;
thence continuing along said boundary North 73.21'37" East, 516.13 feet to said
easterly line Rancho Otay;
thence North 18.53'09" West, 10,032.73 feet along said easterly line to the southeast
comer of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as described in Parcel 1 of "Two Roads
To Be Widened Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No.
15968 effective January 2,1991, distant thereon said easterly line South 18.53'09"
East, 63.84 feet from the northeast comer thereof, said comer being a point in the arc
_ of a non-tangent 1,196.00 foot radius curve concave southerly, a radial line to said
o point bears. ~orth 10.41'27" We.s,t (record North 10.41'51" West); . . .
_"i.
155. n thence leaving said easterly boundary and along the southerly boundary of said Parcel
~ 1'westerly along said CUrve through"a central angle of 07.21'14" an arc distance of
153.51 feet;
156. thence tangent to said curve South 71.57'19" West 291.96 feet
157. thence South 00.57'52" East 112.70 feet;
158. thence South 89002'08" West, 60.00 feet;
159. thence North 00.57'52" West, 94.26 feet;
160. thence South 71.57'19" West 490.45 feet;
161. thence South 70054'49" West, 660.11 feet;
"
162. thence South 71.57'19" West, 100.00 feet;
163. thence South 710',8'15" West, 176.01 feet;
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 17
/7" ~?
164. thence North 18.02'41" West, 68.00 feet to the northerly line of said Map 862 and a
point in the south line of Bounda!)' of the City of Chula Vista, as described in "East
Lake Greens Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No.
15274 effective September 7, 1989;
165. thence along the northerly line of said Map 862, South 71.57'19" West, 100.75 feet,
more or less, to the northeasterly corner of Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as
describe'd in Parcel 2 of "Eastlake Greens Expansion Annexation" to the City of Chula
'. Vista by San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission No. CA95-3 effective July 18,
1995, being a point of cusp of a 2,000.00 foot radius curve concave southeasterty, to
which a radial line bears North 18.02'41" West (record North 18.03'05" West);
166. thence leaving said northerty line of Map 862 southwesterty along the arc of said curve
through a central angle of 21.28'27" a distance of 743.77 feet;
167. thence South 50.38'52" West 448.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent 2,000.00 foot
radius curve concave nqrthwesterty;
168, . thence southwesterty along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 29.13'53" a
distance of 1,020.37 feet;
169. thence South 79.52'45" West 318.99 feet to the beginning of a tangent 5,000.00 foot
radius curve concave southeasterly;
170. thence southwesterty along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 7047'50" a
distance of 680.43 feet;
171. thence North 40022'57" West 357.94 feet to said north line of Map 862 and the
northerly line of Otay Rancho;
172. thence along said northerty line of Otay Rancho, South 71.57'19" West, 1,039.70 feet
to the most southerty comer of Rancho Janal according to Map thereof No. 989, filed in
the County Recorder's Office of said County, May 21, 1906;
173. thence along the westerly line thereof North 0.41'46" East, 1333,85 feet to the most
southerly comer of Bounda!)' of the City of Chula Vista, as described in Parcel 1 of
"Eastlake Greens Expansion Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by San Diego Local
Agency Formation Commission No. CA95-3 effective July 18,1995;
174. thence along the southwe"sterly line of said Bounda!)', North 41.24'35" West, 966.18
feet;
175. thence North 39.41'49" West, 256.59 feet, more or less, to an angle point in said
Bounda!)', said point lying in a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly, measured at
Fight angles, to the east.west center line of said Section 3, being also the southerty line
in Bound a!)' of the City of Chula Vista, as described in "Eastlake Greens Annexation" to
the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No. 15274 effective September 7,
i989;
Exhibit A /'1' J t(
Page15of17
176. thence along said parallel line along said Boundary of "Eastlake Greens Annexation"
North 88'18'26" West, 1,816.66 feet to the southeast comer of the northerly 10.00 feet
of the westerly 10.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 3;
177. thence North 0'47'24' East, 10.00 feet to the southerly line of the northeast quarter of
, said section 3;
178.
~-;
thencE! North 88'18'26' West, 30.00 feet along the east-west center line of said Section
,3 to a line parallel with and 20.00 feet, measured at right angles, to the north-south
" - center line of said Section 3;
179.
thence northerly along said parallel line North 0'47'24" East to the southerly line of
. Boundary of the City of Chula Vista, as described in "Telegraph Canyon East
Annexation" to the City of Chula Vista by City Council Resolution No. 16916 effective
January 25, 1993, being the southeasterly line of Otay Lakes Road as described in
"Parcel 4 Street Dedication" as per Final Order of Condemnation by Document 90-
064524, recorded on February 5, 1990, records of said county;
180.
. , ~ ;
thence southwesterly along said Boundary of "Telegraph Canyon East Annexation" and
along said Final Order of Condemnation to the westerly line of said Southwest Quarter
of Section 3, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, being a point in the easterly line of
said Fractional Section 4;
181.- ' thence along the said easterly line of said Section 4 to the Point of Beginning.
f
0'
.- '::,">:...-'\.
t~~ .~
~. i -
-
/7" :J>EXhibit A
Page 16 of 17
PARCEL 4
Detachment from the City of Chula Vista
Fractional Lots 3 and 4, the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter 'of Section 17 and the
Southeast Quarter of Section 18, all in Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino
. Base and Meridian, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to United States Government Survey, the perimeter of said land being described as
follows:
Beginning at the Southeast comer of said Section 18, as shown on L.S. Map No. 275, filed in
the office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 5, 1926;
1. thence along the southerly line of said Section 18, North 89'17'13" West, 2647.03 feet to
the South Quarter Corner of said Section 18;
2. thence along the north - south centerline of Section 18, North 0'05'20' East, 2719.06 feet to
the Northwest Comer of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 18;
3. thence along the north line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 18, South 89'15'16'
East, 2646.92 feet to the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 18, said
corner also being the Northwest Comer of Lol3 of said Section 17;
4. thence alClng the north line of Lot 3 of said Section 17, South 88'55'00' East, 1128.12 feet
to the Northeast Comer of said Lot 3, said comer also being a point on the westerly
boundary of Otay Rancho;
5. thence along the westerly boundary of said Otay Rancho, South 19'00'00' East, 2893.04
feet to the Southeast comer of Lot 4 of said Section 17;
6. thence along the south line of said Lot 4 and the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of said Section 17, North 88'55'00" West, 2074.27 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
;;-roved by the Local Agency Formation
Commission of San Diego
JUL - 1 1996
~~ J II Ij/L
""'f~''Y, 1/.1iJ!/
Exhibit A /7 - :r "
Page17of17
l~
I 1:;.
N. 89057"20' W. 2.622.43'
N. 89034'53" W. 2,645.21'
"13
<~.
,...
2Sw
NW 114 N~/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NE 114 NW1/4
I
I
I
I
I
530. i ACRES
I
-----1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l'. ~~
,,-o.{t
i~
~41
0, ...
....
~ ,...,:
C')- .,
o "!
o
:i
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
1---
I
I
I
I J ~~~IrO(Q)!M
I ~~~...
.l;!<
, ~".
..~<o<o'> ~...
et~o. ~
cf#: ~
~"J' I G
.<o.~ I o~
~ IO~
I
I
I
...r I ""l'.;
.;;........ ':-"Y
---+---
<:.-e ';~.dbythlLocaIApncyForm'lion
I Commlaalon 01 San 01110
,
1,320.75'
S. 89"22'36' E.
NE 1I.c
to
C>
..;
'"
'"
N
uj
N
...
io
N
.
o
:i
uj
M ~
f" '"
~ g
.:... '1
o
SE 1/<4 NW1I4
:i
1,330.41'
S. 88048'26' E.
POS
T,
17
;... ~~
C>
oj
"'
'"
N SE,I<
S. uj R. 1 W,
c,
"'
N S.B.8.M.
...
.
0
:i
~
"l
...
'"
'"
N
uj
;...
o
o
West line -Satt Creek Ranch
Reoroaniulton. Resolutton
No. 16630. 1-S-92
.
o
:i
r;""
~..,
'i90
-------------
'JUL - 1 1996
~/d ~/fi
o
"!
...
'"
~
25
.30
Ul
N 1/2 NE 1.4 SEe 25
~ N
N
c:i en
<') -
~ b
o
uj
c,
-
N1120FNWlI':OF
SW 1/<4 OF NE 11<
SEe 2S
...
..,
o
o
Z
z
S. 88035'25' E. 2,016.94' ~
S. 88033'27" E N. 0030'33' E. ,?-'J' I
I 672 68' . 333.37" ,..-l. ,
. ",v
! ~~ -.!.'r''''
O'?-
G'\
,?-O
~
~~~IrO(Q)~
DATE:
7- 1 -96
MAPPING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
LAFCO: R096-11
AREA: 529.10 AC
PG. NO: 1-61 & 25
585-150-01&02
B/L: 595-050-02 THRU 09
1291,1292,
THOP.AS BROS: 1293
SCALE: I" = 1000'
I'M PAGE: 28G
I'M: 63164,63165
JMlrn By:M. SCHURR
PARCEL 1 ANNEXATION ("Inverted 'L''')
TO THE C'TY OF CHULA VISTA
DETACHMENT FROM RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
/9'37
. a "
~i~~(\
"",uc.E
''''''hLW
8..,.:.....
,,~-l\~
w~i .
-Ill I:!
B- _0
:2
- .
'-
-''"'k
~, ,~
..z.....
-";_.."
;;;;.;
~::'DJ..:'"
:~i:i:;::
. .........
D :,.:.:,
I........
OOZ'%=
.'wi-:._
.......
'. .
-.
~:' ;:
\0_ ::
5 z
..
1/:'
j
ib
~'1
'.
Co
00
n
~"I
~~.
~=~
..or
~;e
!~!
t
~
~-
-.
'.
~-
,~
~x
\2;:l
ofi=
".
..,
r~
i;"~ .
.........
~.....""
t'.. ~..
..,'J"t.~
..........~:,.
o
~~~
.'.
~.!
;~~
"
~~:
. ~:/
2:.
.h
l"
~ i:
~~
,-
, "
, .
0"
l\ ~
g ~
,
.~
~.
/,
"
II
II '1'
.; II
5 " 0
:" Ilf ~
; If f!:
:: ~'
or ,
,
'I CI)
~, !;!
,/ 5
If ~
~I ~
I 0
,
~ ,f
Ji ~I/'
~ :; If
1:. f "
~~fl/1-.
., ! i , .,
II ..J~
Z' 1.>";
I '
, c::
1/
II
'I
II
..; 'I
fA
.. /1 ...
~ /1 ~
'I
,;fl
,
oJ oJ
...~ -
~'
~
..
::;..
.-
Ji '"
:.. i-
s. ii
..~ ,-
z;; z:~
.
@
=
<=
Ul
UJ
a:
u
<
'"
...
@!.
~
~
~
=
<=;
<.3.
"
:!ll
". ,
:"~:
-'-
'"
0"..
Ji
..
~
~i
:E
\c..~
?,o
"'"
~Jl
c=,
-=
..,
~
..i ~
~g
..
.-
-'
.~
=>.
-,
.0
~i
- a c
a~~h~ '"
-'5:!s'"' to-
~- :
~:;il\::
-~ i~
B _0
t
....
",
~
.?r
. ",lo....
.." "
...
'~":."'"
~.....;,
""~.;.
-
'....1""'.
'{',
'\.....~r
..~:~..
,......
/9- J Y"#
:1
.
,"
."
wI!
,,~
~l
H
<0
0
u L() '"
- (\j <0 l"l.
~ 0 m.
- N'
I <6 '"
<0 0 0 .
- , t:
OJ q rn 0 c
0 m
L() I 0 II
0: (1) - . I'
'"
- .. m "
.. g '" "
0 .. :E
~ ..
tJ . H C
3 Cl "- ~
Po III
~ ~
tJ :c t;
H
"" 0 a:
"" c Ii;
0 lU is
lD a:: z
CD 0
= l'll .c:~g
0 0 I-!!! UJ
H to : > f-
to to ~<o
Z ..Ie:
~ ~ ,,0..
lD o=w
H ~ - oe:
~ I- u.. u:
~O...J
Cl >< x 1:~
= ~ w-~
H Oe:
1>1 Z!!!::E
a 0 z~o
~ t- e:
tJ OU.
g Nt-!z
..J UJ
~ W ::E
H () J:
0
~ 0:: ~
~ ~
a. 0
to
0::
0:
:J
" .q- I
<0 0 <.0 U
I
OJ 0 co C') (f)
I <.0
L() Ii) (\j - 2
(\j II -
0 -
I = .. 0 ><
~
~ - Cl C') III
.. .c: <.0
.. ~ 1>1 ;
..
1'4 ~ ~ ~
Eo< ..0:
..0: tJ Q
Q o:l Eo< Eo<
I A~CY For~
- .c','ocod by the loca
~' e 11-~U;.inn of S n D1eFo
-
JUL - 1 1996
I
',/ I. ,) ;.//
;-:>;/,:;, f -~' _ J..;-- ;;~--, .- ~-
:-'.;~:.~..,fr ' i /-
/tj, J J
~
'II: 10-.,),-
.r..)
"'",n.'.. 'a.&$I.rJ'
~I DO",.
.......J.....
~"
'0'
I
a I ~ I. w ..1 .~ $
-~-~ ----i-----r' -~~~-~~--
Gr~J.11Q R~. ::-":., ;::;
- l/st!'.! I I 4; 1 ,
~f"'!!' I I 1
"'flill' 1 I I
., - 1 I 1
-. ...-1....-" -.- J...____L_____ J _____
1 I I ,
1 , I I
H I 12 I I) I '4 I
I I I I
1 1 I I
---,-----+-----r----~-----
1.: I I 1 1
'(I 20 J 1. I I' I 17 I
"I 1 I 1 I
- I --{ I I I I I
- .~/ ~' / i----~-----~----+----i-----
~.""'-':L.. I I . I I I I
--... I J 2\ I u I u I 2. I
----~ ---~~--l I 1 I I
I 5 I I I I I
1 U~" ,-----;-----L-____I_____.1_____
I ~co I RANCHO OTAY I I i
-t; 1 ,J, Ii -.:~ ' "MAP .NO. 852 I " 1 " 1
o - - _.l_ ~.....lJd--..Jo;{- -J 8,690 Ac. I I I
~ I f~IJl'~~l..o.Jl.O I I I 1
'" 1 "',,'"'' 0 L ,
o II I ;i:~"l.Sy! O~ I. I ----~-- ---1-----,-----:-----
I frB'riS i 3D. 1 I 1 1 I
Jd~~, .. z <e( I JI I >> I JJ I .)t I
1---' :IC--':::;-l ' I I 1
1 a: " I 1
" I lL--__-;_____~____~-----~-----
I .;.i , 1 .1 I 1
1'/.< I I , 1 I
--- 'J/f_~" I " I " ,
/J', 'I I
li(};" L.--- ~-----I -----'-----TI-----
J}/i" ,oJ.;' ~l I
Ui Ji:: iHlm~U~ :
-' ..I "." u "t...) ..
- l~--....' ; I I -. I I
I 1 I I
'''Jrt.. L____...J
1.1I).~
.
-'en
"'co
~en
..,
. /. og
.. r J.~ ~
, Jo"'fliJer--'/" ......u.
. - z
. ~/, '::;I..-~
- .1f~- I a::
,~I
~I
I
.
"
"
..
"
"
"
"
"
..,...anu ..
""..n~ ..
Il,,.,r,,'t.
l.Il.....
"OIAlllOll.tl__'-".
Ollfll'-"""_
IOQ. '<0. '.... ~_l'_"
:~; ~ .'~n~;... ~Jt~;.."". . _ 'U),'
:~~ ~ ~~;.';;"t- '~1 ;o"',n'
:ll ~ r:i~;~~:-: ,:!.::
'.. 1 ,O"~..,,'. '00 \t'
::~ ~ ;::~::;:: :~:.':
'.. ~ '~01'.,". ","00
'.. f. l'"/q" '.1.\100"" L. "~'r
'",l"')O)l_ "110
'01 o. l"'J13' '.1.00000 ,. '.0:0....
.., \ 'nn~. _,....
"n ~ . '.,~" . _ ',""'otr l' """'J'
", ~ '0">1 Jl. '''.1''
~:xIOO'
", .
J~
,:
........l...,
N, ... ...~.. .
N, ",,"n'..
._v.n.'1.- '0.00'
DET AIL
1':>00"
DET AIL 2
1'!lOO'
i l
I.
1iS <.0
=
.' !22
<~
-~
~.~ I ~.
-'
q =
.,
~u \p
~ f~
, '.
.
~
"
!
,
,
DATE: 4-25'96 MAPPING DIVISION LAJ'co I R096-"
SCllLE: /11=20001 BAN DIEGO COUNTY ABBtSBOR'S OFFICE AREAl 8,690.00 AC
TRJI PAGE: 8K,BA.eS,8c.26F PG. NO. 1-6,1-61,1'82
TR1I: gg~~..~~~~~1l30~8, .PARCEl 3" ANNEXATION ("Western Parcel") 6~i'~HRU 6<6
TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA BILl
DRAWN DY: M SCHUR R THOKJ\S 1311,1331,
BROS I I'>.'>.:>
-- --
r
7L
_.>-I.e'"
0'1":< .....--
\.\~t. , o. t
~t~\.i '000
~,.s S "
w
.
ON 3
o~
in'
",co
.N
co~
co~
Vl
N.W. COR, LOT 3
N.E. COR.
S.E. 1/4. SEC. 18
N
O!
<0
...
<0
N
.-
---
.E. COR.
LOT 4
j-..
N
~
~
o
N
I
I
~----
I . ~
o
IS.W..1j4.. S.W.1j4. ~
SEC; 1 7 ~
I T.18S., R.I.W., ~
I S.B.B.M.
4
co
u
w
Vl
ci
o
.U
11:1.
ow
a: vi
IL~ ~~~ !Nl(Q). ~11~
I")
o
r-:
...
<0
N
S.E. 1/4 SECTION 18
T. 18 S.. R. I. W.
S.B.B.M.
w
<0
in
~
en
co
(f)
N.W. COR.
S.E. 1/4. SEC 18
N 0'05'20' E
I DATE: 4-26-96
1
i SCALE: I" = 600'
RA PAGE: 8 - A
TRA: 01126
DRAWN By:M SCHURR
.
I")
~
~
~
en
co
---oyrad e Locel Agency Forme:tio:1
.. f'" Co mission of 52" Diego
S. 1/4 CORNER
SECTION 18
2719.06'
."-,,,' I /. ,,'Of!
il'/I/?~;j;---..."'f;--/~
.....J~j-:7?~/:~.ot".:I. ' I. ! _ + J
',"" -.,'-' .. '.
LUCCI R096-11
AREA: 265.05 AC
PG. NO I I - B
644-010-06 & 07
B/L: -020-03&04
1~0-J4
THOHAS BROS: 1331-A4
HAPPING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
'OTAY LANDFILL" DETACHMENT
FROM THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
19"'~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
dL?
Meeting Date 12/17/96
ITEM TITLE: Report: Consideration of the San Miguel Ranch Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report FSEIR 95-04 in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the report for the San Miguel Ranch
Project (GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning $(()_Il
REVIEWED BV, C;~ M",g,,~ ~ D:!.IJ (41'"'" Vo... V,,_No-'O
Emerald Properties Corporation (EPC) has caused to be prepared a Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the consideration of a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) for San Miguel Ranch.
Potential impacts of a General Plan Amendment for Mother Miguel Estates (consisting of
two parcels totaling 10.14 acres) located directly adjacent to the south parcel of San Miguel
Ranch are also analyzed in the FSEIR. The two following agenda items describe and
analyze the proposed General Plan Amendments and General Development Plan
Amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the San Miguel Ranch FSEIR 95-04 in accordance with the recommendations
contained in the report for the San Miguel Ranch project (GP A-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-
95-04) following on this agenda.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Resource Conservation Commission (RCC): The RCC met on September 9, 1996 to review
the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). Commissioner Marquez
revised and added to an earlier motion (seconded by Thomas): that the RCC recommends
City Council recognize that they do not want development on the north, and even if there
is no development on the north, the devastating impacts to biological resources to the south
still exist, vote 5-0, motion carried. A motion was made (Burrascano/Yamada) that the
DSEIR for San Miguel Ranch is adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act:
vote 5-0. The minutes are attached. (Attachment 1)
San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee (SMRCAC): The SMRCAC met on
September 5, 1996. A motion was unanimously approved that the Committee concurs with
the impacts identified in the DSEIR but these impacts should be able to be mitigated to a
,].p - /
'-
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
level of insignificance at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level on all but air quality and
grading/visual quality. At the SPA level the SMRCAC recommends mitigation rather than
findings of overriding social and economic benefits should be pursued. (Algert/Gilman)
The minutes are attached. (Attachment 2)
Planning Commission (PC): The Planning Commission public hearing for the DSEIR
scheduled for September 25, 1996 was continued to October 9, 1996 to allow time for staff
to clarify issues raised in the letters of comment. On October 9, 1996, the Planning
Commission closed the public hearing and review period and directed staff to prepare the
FSEIR with Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Minutes of the October 9, 1996 meeting are in the FSEIR. On November
20, 1996, the Planning Commission certified the FSEIR as complying with CEQA.
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
In March, 1993 Chula Vista City Council approved the original San Miguel Ranch GDP and
certified the Final EIR 90-02.
The adopted GDP conditionally approved up to 1,619 single family units (357 one-acre lots
on the north parcel and 1,262 lots on the south parcel) on 2,590 acres of land. The
approval allows for an overall gross density (across the entire 2,590 acres) of .63 du/ac. In
addition to residential development, the GDP allows for commercial uses, a community
park, an elementary school, a conference/resort center, community purpose facility uses and
permanent open space (over 63 percent of the site). Upon approval of the GDP, the
property was pre-zoned for Planned Community (PC).
The FSEIR analyzes EPC's redesign of the project as discussed in the following agenda
item.
The FSEIR evaluates environmental impacts of amendments to the San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan and the City's General Plan for two separate projects proposed
by EPC. Two alternative land use plans have been submitted for consideration based on
two proposed alignments for the SR-125 Tollway: the Proctor Valley Alignment and the
Horseshoe Bend Alignment (referred to as the Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation Alignment
by Caltrans). A description of these land use plans and alignments are in the project
description section that follows.
.2P ... .2..
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
B. Project Description
The following agenda item provides a detailed description of the proposed project.
Discretionary Actions
Project approval would require the following discretionary actions regardless of which GDP
is adopted:
1. Annexation to the City of Chula Vista subsequent to the approval of a SPA Plan
2. Amendment (GP A) of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General
Plan to adopt the following proposed changes:
a. Redesignation for Low, Low-medium and Medium-High Residential, Retail
Commercial, institutional and open space/park uses,
b. Relocation of Retail Commercial, Community Park and Elementary School
sites to proposed locations,
c. Reconfiguration of the Circulation Element map to reflect the GDP
circulation plan and
d. Realignment eastward of SR-125 right-of-way (Horseshoe Bend Plan only)
3. Amendment and adoption of a General Development Plan.
4. Redesignating the Mother Miguel Estates property in the General Plan from Low
to Low-Medium Residential
5. Prezoning Mother Miguel Estates to "Planned Community"
C. Comments on the DSEIR and FSEIR
A public hearing was held on the DSEIR to consider and hear comments. All comments,
written and oral, that were made prior to the close of the public hearing have been
responded to adequately in the FSEIR.
Responses to all of these comments were prepared and included in the FSEIR for the
Planning Commission's review at the November 20, 1996 meeting. An additional letter of
comment from the California Native Plant Society was received subsequent to the close of
the public comment period on October 28, 1996. As per CEQA Section 21092.5 (c), the
;1.11' J
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Lead Agency is not required to respond to comments not received within the specified time
period. The letter from the California Native Plant Society is not included in the FSEIR
Response to Comment Section but is attached to this report along with responses and was
included in the Planning Commission's agenda package for the November 20, 1996 meeting.
(Attachment 3)
At the November 20, 1996 meeting, additional testimony and letters of comment were
received. The comments and letters did not require changes to the FSEIR. The letters are
attached. (Attachments 4 and 5) as are the minutes (Attachment 6). At the November 20,
1996 meeting, the applicant proposed a new plan which is detailed in the following staff
report. The Commission certified the FSEIR.
D. Analysis
Program level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into two categories:
significant and unmitigated and significant, but mitigated. The significant and unmitigated
program and cumulative impacts require a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the
adoption of CEQA Findings in order to approve the project. This statement reflects the
Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the FSEIR to ensure consistency in the
environmental review process. The impacts by category are:
1. Significant and unmitigable program level environmental impacts
Land Use
The FSEIR identified impacts of increased density on the southern parcel and as a result
impacts to community character for both the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend Plans as
significant. The FSEIR identified these impacts, as did the CEQA Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations. Land use impacts associated with locating residential lots
adjacent to a large electrical substation can be mitigated to below a level of significance at
the SPA level of review by: buffering, providing potential buyers with exhibits and
describing future SDG&E Plans. Land use impacts still remain significant due to density
and community character concerns.
Air Quality
The FSEIR identified that both alignment GDPs will impact air quality almost exclusively
through the vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project and that air pollution
emissions would exceed significance thresholds for the adopted GDP and both proposed
GDPs. Mitigation measures include that the project applicant: (1) prepare an Air Quality
Improvement Plan that includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures and
other direct or indirect means of reducing emissions and (2) implements a park and ride
,;.p..{
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
facility within the project. These measures do not reduce impacts to below a level of
significance. The Findings of Fact discuss this and Overriding Considerations are
recommended.
LandformNisual Quality
The FSEIR evaluates both the Proctor Valley and the Horseshoe Bend GDPs. Both would
require extensive grading and landform reconfiguration. With the Proctor Valley Plan
development on the south parcel would require grading of an estimated 9.9 million cubic
yards of earth. Gobblers Knob would be removed and terraced manufactured slopes would
step down to Proctor Valley Road. The prominent Horseshoe Bend landform would be
retained. With the Horseshoe Bend Plan grading on the south would also be extensive and
would reconfigure landforms including removal of a portion of Horseshoe Bend, primarily
as a result of the SR-125 alignment proposed by CALTRANS. An estimated 9.7 million
cubic yards of earth would be graded on the south parcel. This would result in an average
of 17,766 cubic yards graded per acre.
The elimination of Gobbler's Knob (in both GDP's) and impacts to scenic roadway views
are considered significant. Compliance with hillside development guidelines and City
landform grading policies during the SPA Plan review, as well as implementation of
landscaping and development planning consistent with General Plan guidelines for scenic
roadways are recommended mitigation measures.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
The FSEIR concluded that impacts to trail systems were significant at the GDP level due
to (I) portions of the trail system traversing and following SDG&E easements (not accepted
under the City's Park and Recreation Guidelines); (2) the bisecting of various routes of
existing trails by construction of the project and SR-125, and (3) the lack of onsite
Greenbelt trail system implementation.
Mitigation measures include movement of proposed trails so they are outside SDG&E
easements and the provisions of structures to allow trail users to cross over, under or
around SR-125. The applicant has now proposed trails on their property. CalTrans has
stated they will provide structures for trail users to cross over, under or around SR-125.
Although at the GDP level, these impacts are significant, specific measures to implement
these actions at the SPA level will mitigate impacts to below a level of significance.
2. Significant but mitigated program level impacts
Impacts to the following categories can be mitigated to below a level of significance at the
project level:
,).d-.r
Page 6, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
. Biology (with no development on the north)
. Transportation
. Noise
. Public Services and Facilities (with no development on the north)
Biology
The FSEIR stated that at the GDP level of development, neither plan includes development
on the north. Elimination of development on the North will preserve 1298 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres
of annual grassland.
This mitigation plan is consistent with an agreement referred to as the "Points of
Agreement" between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and
Game and EPC executed on May 3, 1996. The Points of Agreement (a copy of which can
be found in the Response to Comments section of the FSEIR) discuss the conservation of
146 acres including a 211-acre preserve for Otay tarplant, on the south parcel as
compensation for impacts to other sensitive resources. In addition, mitigation for impacts
to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers on the southern parcel, 166 acres will be set aside
on the north parcel.
The initial comment letter received from USFWS dated September 18, 1996 stated that even
with the above mitigation and agreements with the resource agencies, "impacts still remain
significant and unmitigated." A subsequent letter forwarded by USFWS on October 9,1996,
supersedes that letter. The Service stated their concern with the magnitude of the impacts
to sensitive species; however, the Service indicated that they intend to comply with the
Points of Agreement. This was confirmed in telephone conversations with Mr. Gail C.
Kobetich, Field Office Supervisor, and memorialized in the Planning Department's letter
to Mr. Kobetich dated October 11, 1996 to which no disagreement with the City's
understanding of the Resource Agency's intent to comply with the Points of Agreement was
registered.
The mitigation is also consistent with the Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program and
the City of Chula Vista's Draft Subarea Plan Map, both of which identify the north parcel
of San Miguel Ranch as a key element for preservation.
Other comments from USFWS and CDFG included corrections to the number of
gnatcatchers and Coastal Barrel Cactus that would be impacted, requirements for analysis
of the impacts associated with the Mother Miguel Estates GP A, and clarification regarding
-2~-c,
Page 7, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
mitigation ratios required with California Department of Fish and Game Streambed
Alteration Agreement and Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits. The SEIR text has been
revised accordingly. Requirements for information on specific impacts to sensitive species
will be addressed at the SPA level. Other mitigation measures regarding: permits,
hydroseeding, landscaping, timing of grading activities, and site preparation activities are
included in the document. If the option of developing on the north is chosen, biological
impacts would be considered significant and unmitigated.
Transportation
The Proctor Valley Plan and the Horseshoe Bend Plan would result in a decrease in ADT
below levels anticipated by the Adopted GDP. Both Alignment GDPs would not
significantly contribute to a freeway, tollway or roadway segment performance.
Implementation of either Alignment GDP would result in significant impacts to traffic, but
would result in an incremental addition of project-related trips to cumulative volumes onto
the circulation system which, in some cases, exceeds the City's goal of LOS C. An
amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element or other appropriate
solutions to reclassify sections of Proctor Valley and San Miguel Road may still be required
prior to the SPA and tentative map approval. This will be incorporated into the FSEIR.
Noise
Significant impacts would occur since noise levels in many areas in the southern portion
of the proposed development, as designed, would exceed 65dBA due to traffic noise along
proposed State Route 125 within the development. The precise location and geometry of
any noise barriers will be contingent upon final selection of an SR-125 alignment and upon
final grading plans for individual developments. Specific noise attenuation mitigation
measures will be identified at the SPA level.
Public Services and Utilities
Mitigation measures for: Water, Sewerage, Police Protection, Fire Protection, Emergency
Medical Service Protection, Schools, Gas and Electric and Solid Waste Disposal are detailed
in the FSEIR. In brief, they include: the applicant's provision of a Water Master Plan,
Water Conservation Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, payment of supplemental development
impact fees for police protection, partial funding required in the form of a development fee
for fire services, implementation of an acceptable brush management plan, approval of the
Chula Vista Elementary School District that the proposed elementary school site will be
acceptable to the District, and Mello- Roos Community Facilities District financing or other
financial with the Sweetwater Union High School District. If the alternative with
development on the North is selected, there are unmitigated impacts to Police, Fire and
Emergency Service Protection.
,J./).. "}
Page 8, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
3. Cumulative Environmental Impacts
The FSEIR provides a comprehensive examination of buildout of the San Miguel Ranch
and other major projects in southern San Diego County. When considered in conjunction
with other development projects in southern San Diego County, the following are
considered significant and unmitigable cumulative environmental impacts:
Biological Resources
Transportation
Air Quality
Noise
Schools
Water/Wastewater
Parks, Recreation
FISCAL IMPACT: None. As provided for in the three party agreement, EPC has paid for
the preparation of the Draft and FSEIR.
Attachments
I
41 4.
f 5.
6.
Minutes of the Resource Conservation Commission for Sept. 9, 1996
Minutes of the San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee, Sept. 5,1996
Letter from Cindy Burrascano, Chapter President of the California Native Plant Society, October 28,
1996
Letter from Kim Seibly, Associate Land Planner, SDG&E, November 19, 1996
Letter from John Hammond, Chairman of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, November 20,
1996
Minutes of thc Planning Commission Meeting, November 20, 1996
(b:\smr.eir)
~/) -- ~
ATTACHMENT 1
(jj/fi./
-/./. 'j
"~/"( Ji vZ 0
MINUTES OF THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
- /-
~-?
4C2I?6E2
~ SECRETi'Rl R..
931 Pe2 SEP 2S '95 12:19
.
~ OF A SCHEDULED :REGULAllMb.l:.urm
R.esource Conse:'vUioo ComrPit,i 00
Chu1a YIS1a, Ca!ifomia
6:30 P.M.
Monday, September 9. 1996
Council Conference Room
City HaIl Building
.
CALL Mtb liNG TO ORDElVR01LCALL: M-n"iwas called to order at 6:37P.M. by Chair
Bumseano. Present: Baztua lteid, pt."""" Department ~ Cofrl...;..;onen BurrllClnO.
Hall, 'Iboma.s, Marquez, FISher, and y,.....~.
Also pre$en1: 10hn Rojas, Chula VISta Historical Soei~ J'e:ffHoward.:&trada Land pl,,,,,irlg:
and Betty DeHone, San Miguel project.
~PROV AL OF MINUI'BS: It was MSUC (MarquellHall) to approve the mltnrtcs of the
muting of August 26, 1996, with the following comc:tions:
. P&ge 2, pan.pph 7, "Commissioner HaI1 questioned VIbethcr this project conformed to
the m."tl.te of CEQA DOt to c:any out ~ducini development."
. Page 3, add to paragraph I, "A cost r...m,.t~ was requested and Ms. Glugow Slid she
will provide the information to RCC." .
. Pan. S, ecnnct the ~jl"'g to "Pond Turtles" in the c;enter cf'pangraph.
. Under Commissioner's Comments OIl Page S, change to "Ccmm1nlonerHaII was
. concerned that Fuller Ford, 1$ the responsible party for the toxic material contaminIting
the loil of their former business 1oc:ation on Broadway,should be required to c1C1l1 it up,
rather than the City having to usumc the additional cost of disposing the materlal. "
. Plge 6, "Commissioner Marqu= WIllted to note her discouragement of the P"~ or
the CbulI. VlStaMarina andJab'lltest!unn1 in a redevelopment area.....
Vote 6-0, motion carried.
.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John Rojas, Chula VlstI Historical Society, presented hia most
recently published book, Chula J'lsta'$ Trees. 'Ihis will be available for we to the public.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Itrnew of San Miguel Ranch ErR .1e:ffHowazQ, Senior PImmer ofEltrada Land
PWuling. presented an overnew oftbc project area. BettyDeHone, u author of the dtX::llm'-.
also was present to answer detailed questions OIl the project. She.utod that the ~
ten1cred mostly &round SItUS &OiD& throrJP the area, with the main analysis aurroundin& land
use &l'OUlld Bonita and &lotli the fi~"., connectOr1. She sta1ed the lower residcmial c!ensity
WOIlld be around Bonita, with the gremr density through the Sah Creek mu. Ms.:bid DOted
tMt the lUbuu plan dnft curn:ntly c;irt:l't.tmg J.hc;Jw$ no developmem within the north parcel
The hope is that the resource agencies will purchue the land and use it IS mitiption b'~"i
.
- 3
~,,/~
TillS PAGE BLANK
- ,:j,.-
~
~ss SECR8if<lR..
931 Pro 5EP 26 '96 12:2'0
ltesource COIUel'Vati01l Commission
Paltt2
.
Ms. De.Hone mtcd the SR125 alignment t:brtlIlghHormhoe Bend was not p.&licd bec:auJe it
splits the community one-third and two-thirds, and most of the landform becomes oblitmted.
N1 attempt was made to tie the project together ~ Mount Miguel Road, a key ~1~ for
~~vity.
Commissioner Bum.scano wu co~ about the significant traffic and air poIluticm ~ctJ
They are already ~g below level of JCMcc Uld J10 plans have been made for a troUer to
rc1iM these impacts. MI. DeHone pointed out that they're &Ircady umnitigable and laeJeocod
page 3.4.8 for the studies. She pointed out some discretionary actions they looked at illcludillg
JIl.-.lion to Cbula VISta for physical connectivity, land use and development impacts, and
amendment from prczoning to planned wmm1mity. They elso looked at the impicU of Proctor
Valley GDPlHorseshoe Bend GDP. DOrth Illd aoutbfllO project GDP, and reduced density GDP,
all bued 011 50% of the land being estate lots. Page 2.15, givC$ a 5lIIlIlnII'Y of1.Ulits per acre.
She explained that the WId form altcntiOll is less than signifiClll1It 1he GDP levd and could DOt
be reduced to below LOS. Baeh of the altemaUvC$ are J10t ,,"mph1e.
.
];iology was not eva1umd in the a.me form IS 1bc a1t~. They looked to 1he U.S. Fish"
Wildlife for prcsel'Vl.lion ofmultispociC$.
Commissioner Hall asked whelher devdopnum WI.S required to keep 166 acres preserved CIl1 the
north for ~Mectivity to the south. Ms. DdIone stated it wu not, plus, in conjunc:tioll with the .
WCP. dediCl.ted land for gross ~e is 1500 \lIIlts on 500 acres or 31.Ulits per acre in the
Proctor VaIley area. She also Jt&ted that the applica.nt requests no c!evclopment to the north
parcc1.
Ms. Reid pointed out that the :EIR ahe:rnatives show I vzricty of different plans based 011 the
proposed alignment of SRl25.
Cl'Immi.o:ioner Fisher Riteratcd that the RCC bad already recommended the No Project
Alternative, u voted 011 at the A;1gust 26, 1996, meeting; fUrthe:', that if the City CouncilI%lUSt
approve the SRl2S projec:t, that Ahe:rnWve #6 be the recc"....'-rled a1ipm=t. He added that
biologisU have found Silky Pocket Mice adjacent to the south lites, Baja Ca!if'omia Racer found
in the Cbu1a VISta fragment adj&eem to the aouth lite., and the crec-"....-spottcd Buttdy found
around Oay Mountain (clole ~gh to the projoct iitc). He requested that these be adc1rcued
and adequately~. MI. DeHone wiD ref'erthis to her stafi'and f'orwar~ report to ltCC.
[eo-n;..~oner Fuber left the meetin& 117;52 P.M.]
Ms. DeHone save a traffic overview stI%lng that -the existing conditions arc aJrcady ~,c:ted It
below level of acrvice. !he circ:ul.a1i01l e1rmPntJ that exist arc significant and unmitigable
o~ She atalcd that the project created three criteria to base its filIdin&s:
L LOS threshold D or welle - to be lignificam
b. LOS for roadway must \es:sen by one filll LOS se&ment l
c. Significant traflic volume by this project be over S% to WUt"IIl1 significant c:riteriL ·
- y ;)..t/''I/
~
EXPRESS SECRET 14< J R..
931 F"34 5EP 26'96 12:21
.
Pa~3
~ourcc Conse:vttion Commi,sion
She sated that lIlOJt ~B WU'C aIrudy low &lid that this project may or may DOt be hnpacte4
filrtber. The regional ~ is set by CaITrw and MIDB, and these are 0IJt oflhe acope
of this project. However, ~ mitigation wiI1 be made 10 resolve sipificant ;",*"ct.I
ICCOrding to CEQA. Mr. Boward ItIted that the intenc;tiona 1t""""\I to SR.IZ5 It variouI points
are still below LOS and SRl25 6005 Dot brins any kind ofimprcM:meDt.
Coll'lmissioner'I'bonw had I major ~ Ibaut the designer'. rC$pCl%lSl'bility to plan for multi-
modalities. The tn.IlSportation e1em-t. showd alIQW for eme:gmcy pI'O"isiollS (fire and police)
and public; tn.IlSportltion to improve the level of seMc:e from F iI1lO%De places. She 1110 asked
wby building I heway wowd not Improve the tnffic tlQW to an acceptable Ievc1 or acMce.
Ms. DcHone stated that the GDP does address public; tnnaportation and will be part of the
improvements for the project. Information On this issue Is 1cx:ated iI1lhe Air Quality Menon for
an improvmlent plan to reduce trlfiic;. No light rail is p'.''''ed It this time, but I Park IlllI Ride
facility will be 1\'Zilable.
A motion WI$ made (BurrascaDoIl'h) to reiterate the :RCC'. ariic:t motion to applOW the
No Project altel'll.!tive 01' the Proctor Valley aIienmcnt a1temative, if'rleCa~"Y. Purther
c!iJelmion followed.
. C.nmmi..loner Marquez qumioned whether the slopes and ternln were 6eve1opsh1e land. Ma
I>eHone mted it was not, that it was steep terrain. The area is Ievd a1'OUDd Hor1eIhoe Bend,
comes to a ridge point, then drops off'steeply. C~nioner MarqI= WIS c:oncemed that the
llUl'llber of Gnatca1chllll and Cactus Wr=s, 10eated along the DOrth part:el, would be Dnrlct'"
AJ the focused on habitll acreage on parcels and didn't look It inclividualllUn:lbera, Ihe stated .
that the north option will reduce Cactus Wrens down from thirteen pain to leVa\. Arty other
alte:native cowd impact up to 36 pair1 of~ Wren. CommissionerThomu DOted that
\iifi'emlt JlUdies wen inconsistent On the CIIctI1I WRIl and that the ~ data b DOt upcbtf'd into
tbcsc tzbles. The RCC was assured that timing on grading will be resWtcd c!uriDi -i"i
aea.son. a.s already mandated by the U.S. F'1Ih &: Wildlif'e. It is noted that OM pair ofCllt:tl.,
Wren is located in the Vt:ry northerDmost part of the project and the rat is DOt in the project area.
Commissioner Hall questioned bow Bonita VISta Middle School an4 E'stT ...1<-, High Scboot will
be imp&c:ted and how the would handle the Clpacity. Mr. &ward exp1aiDed that school fees will
be amssed with the project in lieu of a lite, with additional bl.l"'l"! dODe by the cJisere1ion of
the Planning Depart:men1. The project c:um:DtIy hu planned only for an elm......!)' Wooo\. The
di!i'erc:m f;""""'"g needs of the district ~ be met by the project.
~nioner Hall questioned bow the project Would handle ~ WIler poUntioD oftbe
Sw.Awater :Reservoir. Although this is m SRl1S problem IlllI DOt in the ICope oftbe project,
Ms. DeHoneltl1ed that the north ~ slopes will be cut 10 it draIns 10 the lIOUth. Mr. Boward
confirmed that the lOuth pared will not impact the Sweetwater ltr:semlir. The aoaI oftbc GDP
iI to eliminate ury flow to the %Mr. 'Ibis project will also use the WIler reclamation plant and
have I separate pipe 5)'JUm for RCIaimed WI.ter. 'Ibis is alre&dy part of the project roquin::ment.
-.S----2~ '/,,<
.
.
4~:2
D?RESS 5ECRET~lR..
931 Pas 5EP :2& '96 12:21
Resource Conservation C=miuiOD
~4
.
J.ho, the infrastructure is already there at the ncd level and this is dmiled at the SPA 1ml.
1be motioD wu rest~t~A (Burrucanorrhomas) to reiterate its earliel' motioD (August 26, 1996)
for a No Project Altcmative or the Ahernative ##6 or SR.12S. ec--m.PODeI' Marquez; miso4
and added to the motion (sect'l'ded by Tbomu): that the R.CC wanu City CoIlncil to recogniu
that even if'there is no deve1opm= on the north, tho dtvlst.~8 impacts to biologic:ll raourt:a
to the south still exist, and the RCC rec;omrncndI DO d~e1opment aD the DOI1b parcel of the San
MiguelR.ancb; in theevelll that there is an SR.12S aDd in the event that .1--..lIl1f1..Ml1ionfor
alignment must be given. the ll.CC I~I,"..enrt.1heProctorVaI1ey alipn= of SlU2S; 'YOte
5-0, motiOD carried.
. .
It iJ noted that the Specific Plan will address solutions and WBya thc$e impacts will be mitipt.ed.
Commissioner Burraseano requested that amal1."".....m.1 trappings be required for the SPA level
analysis.
A motion wu made (Bum.seanolYamada) that the DrIft Subsequent ~ Impact
Report for the San Miguel Ranch is adequate UDdel' the CIlifornia Ezrviroum=Ul Quality Act;
'YOt: S.o, motion carried.
~
Commissioner ~U"T1.scanO memioned that the re;owce dOc:l~ for the MSCP program were .
not available in the librazy u requested by resource agencies. Staff'to c:beck on the awilability
of aaid documents.
.
2. :Review ofPWming Cc!"",;,.;on Asenda for Sqltember 11, 1996:
L Variance ZA V-96-13: Request to ~cccd mIlCmllm lot ClOVeI'IP 1341 Pm DrM;
Public hearing; no action by !tCC.
b. PCM.97-02: Request to dmlC'lisll and reeol)wuc:t project 11219 Madrona S1.; Public
hearin& no action by ll.CC.
e. SUPS-96-06: Request for CUP at 2400 Faivre Street; Public; hwing. ewm1"lone:r
HaI1 commented that the c;ompany be responsible for deaD-vp of oU or toxic; Jtl"e".l
that escapes from the trueb.
STAFFR.BPOR.I: None.
CHAmMAN'S COMMENTS: Com",;.$iQDc:r Bumsc:ano requested c;cnmeil fiIl1he ftc:&DCy on
the ll.CC.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: C'O"""'l~oner BUln$CIDO relIyed C'~..inN!l' Faber'.
comment: In a c;onstruetiOD site area olfEast B Street near Te;n Nova, 'Wtl:brJ have thrown.
significant a.mmmt oftrUh into the open apace preserve area.. He ~ th~ be made to
clun it up and JUy out of the ~
~ ~- e:J.~., /3
.
.
.
.
4622b0""2
E>?R5S xCRETI'R 1 R.
932 PIll SEP a, '96 12:23 _
ResO'JTCC Con'CI"t~tion Commi.uion
P&jlC S
CommiS$ioner Muqu~ -. Commissionera were e:lCOuraged to I1teIld the COWldl mmina to
speak 011 the SRl2S aItematives. She aho requested Barbara Bamburger come before the
COlllIllission to update them Oll her aurellt projects. -
ComminionerYIm&da Rquestcd. pCr,onfrom the Tn.fIic Dep...~.peak OD ttaflic ~'::tI
in the eastern territories, bow TransNet money is worldng towards fUture upgrada and new
cleveIopment, and update on SR-12S,
ADI0URNMENT: The meeting wu Idjoumed by c::IWr Burrucano at 9: 17 P.M.
R=spcctfulIy submitted,
ExPREss SEcRnAlUAL SERVICES
~~
~
- ?
;;2tJ ~-J f
,
MINUTES
SAN MIGUEL RANCH 1.:1l'.IL1!J'l'S ADVISORY COMMln!ili
'. SEPTEMBER 5, 1996
MEETING NO.8
--
PRESENT: Barbara Gilman, Chairperson
lim Algert
Michael Beck
Ray YIDZOn
ABSENT: Craig Adams
Steve Gilles
Michael Roark
STAFF: Paul Manganelli
Barbara Reid
The minutes of the August IS, 1996 meeting were approved as submitted. (Gilman, Algert)
Barbara Reid, staff environmental planner, briefed the Committee on the Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch project. She stated that the deatl1in~ for
comments is 9-11-96 but comments will be accepted up to the pt.nn;'1g Commission bearing on
9-25-96. She described those impacts which were deemed significant and not fully mitigated to
the level of insignificance identified for both alternative GDP', as follows: land use,
landform/visual quality, air quality and parks. recreation and open space. Considerable
discussion regarding land use and unmitigated impacts ensued. Also discussetl were the City
Greenbelt and trails.
(
Beck questioned mitigation ratios and how the 166 acres of north parcel mitigation was derived
as mitigation for impacts on south parcel development in the EIR for the 1993 plan. (Note: The
ratio was two acres of dedicated open space on the north parcel for each acre of development
impact to the south parcel.)
..
Algert questioned the rationale of the statement in the draft SEIR that the Parks and Recreation
Department does not want trails in SDG&E easements.
There was some discussion regarding SR-l25 and its impacts on the project and affected
communities and on the existing and plonnl".d trail system in the region.
A motion wasttnon;mously aPProved that'the cOiiiiDittCe wu:..,... with the in,p>octs ideDtified in
the SEIR but these impacts should be able to be mitigated to a level of insignificance at the SPA
level on all but air quality and gradinglvisual quality. Mitigation rather ahan ftntl;'1gS of
overriding socialand,C9>nomic benefits should be pumIC!1. (AlgertlGilman) .
After discussion, the Committee voted 4-0 to recommend that the General Plan be I'ment\M to
delete the Low Residential indicated on the north parcel in conformance with the proposed
General Development Plan Amendment which now indicates no north parcel development for
both GDP alternatives. (Beck/Gilman) '.
.,. -
(
"
ccmin,9-5
- :J.d" if
TIDS PAGE BLANK
-/1" -
.
.
.
,
Staff discussed the following topics with the Committee:
. Staff and the developer are still dis<"1JSsing appropriate locations for the community park and
the elementary school.
. Staff will make presentations on the project to the SweetWater Community Group on October
1st and the Sweetwater Civic Association on October 2nd.
. Staff will hold community forums regarding the project for Sunnyside residents on September
19th and the Salt Creek I development (south of the SMR project) on September 16th.
The meeting was adjourned to an indefinite date. If anything occurs to warrant the Committee's
attention between now and the end of 1996 when the City CouIlcil coiuiders the project, staff
will contact the Chairperson who will convene another meeting. If not, the Committee will again
begin regular meetings when the SPA plan and master tentative map are submitted by the
applicant. During the interim, staff will keep the Committee apprised of the progress of the
planning and environm~ review p~ws for the project.
Note: The pllInning CommkqOD hearing regarding the SEIR bas been rescheduled to
October 9, 1996, at 7:00 PM.
Hinutes preparea by Paul .Hanganelli (Ul-5256)
ccmin.9-5
-I,') -~,/t
ATTACHME .T 3
LETTER OM HE CALIFORNIA
.NATIVE T SOCIETY AND
SPONSE
_/:3~
~
,--LiLl/U rH1a r~[l[rUe P{avlt SocieL \7
S,~ D;~o' C~,~.-:- ? 0 30>: i ~oJ ,,~ D;,.o,
~j ....,:::-v "'-y''''''' - - _..- _____J .....,:,
Ms. B",-bara Reid
PlaIlJ"1~"1g Dep2rtment
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourill Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
:,;
Re: D~'1 Subsequent Enviro=en!zl Impact Report for the San Mi;
Gen~ Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendme
EIR 95-04 SCN No. 96051038
Ms. Reid:
The San Diego Chapter oftbe Califomia Native Plam Society ((N"PS) would like.
to provide commentS to be considered prior to the ceriiiication of the above referenced
document. Our chapter did not provide comments during the forruZl comment period due
to a misunders....anding of the adequacy of the ErR and prior mitigatio.n obligations.
The subsequent EIR is intended to identify and analyze the signiiicance of
errvironmeT..aI effects which would result from alllendmems to. the CllITently approved
gen~ develo.pment pIa.., (GDP) fo.r Rancho San Miguel (EIR 92-02; SCH No..
90010155). The existing GDP for SanMiguel Ranch (appro.ved by the Chula Vis:::a City
Council en March 23,1993) allows fer 1,619 dwelling llIli+..s, 357 en the north and 1,262
on the south. Its implementation would result in direct impactS to coastal sage SCl'JD,
southern mixed chaparru, wetlands, and annual (npnnative) grasslands, as well as coas-..aJ
Califernia gnatca1chers, ca...'"tUS .wrens, Otay tarplant, and other. sensitive plant taxa.
PI It is our understanding thirt a subsequent EIR is required when project changes are
proposed which 'i'/ill require itllportant revisions of the previous ErR due to tbe
involvement of new signifi=t environmental impacts Dot considered in the previous
document. Eme:raid Properties Corporation propos...'"S revisions to the existing GDP in
response to the Stite Route J25 South (SR J25) alignment selected by Caltrans. These..
revisions to the GDP trigger the need for the preparation ef the subsequent ErR which
discusses three alternatives: Proctor Valley GDP, Proctor Valley Norill Parcel
Preservation GDP, and Horseshoe Bend GDP. As pm of the Proctor Valley Nonh Parcel
Preservation a..,d Horseshoe Bend GDPs, 2. mitigation Da.'l.lc would be cre2.ted on the north
Darcel. The final ErR for tbe Rancho San Ivfiguel GDP (ErR 92-02; SCH No. 90010J55)
discusses sproiic mitigation measures for irnpacts which would result to habitats and
~--cies frem development on the south parcel including Diegan coastal sage scrub,
v:,e-Jands, and v;aterways, California adolphia (Ado!phia californica), coast barrel cactus
(Ferocactus viridescens), Ot2.Y tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens), San Diego marsh elder
(Iva hayesiana), spiny rush (Juncus acutus), a.'ld cactus "'TeIL Recommendations were
~ . ~-/7
~ Dedicated to _~eF-eservation of cdifornia native ffom
\ TIDS PAGE BLANK
\
\
\
\
\
\ /
>\
'\
\
\,-
\".
,
\
,
"
\.
~\,
\.
\
\
\,
\
\
'\
'\
\
\
'.
~ ;'-1-
"
I
/
J~ "CiiLI/UYYlla l~atrve PLant Societv
::>150 ~3:e for p;oje-::t re.:jesign to 2V0~c1 2 ?O?~iZljO:J oi" 2pproxi~2.tejy 10.000 Pzlr:1er's
-- ii...6ook (:JCT;JO?or.cJla rx~.Lr:7eri). T:'1ese \\'e7e irlciuded as a miti!?2lionpJ2.0.'1 fOT Lt,p
I!TZp~-,"j~ '''. 0 . . . . . ~ __
;ou',,~ ;;:seel (Se?:=b~ 2, ] 992, conw:Jed V.1trun the Rancho Sz" Miguel General
D",'e!~?m= Plan, V olulne I: Fm2l Envi,-o:u-nental L>npact Report E1R 90--02) and
incJud~ the follo''':u-'g (which are briefly st.,umariz....-j):
PI
Preservation and r::cordation of at least 186 acres of gnatC2lcher o=pied Diegan
coas-LZl sage scrub (no Jess th.m nine pairs of gnatcatchers and three pairs of cactus
wren) and no less than 126 acres ofuno=pied Diegan coastal sage scrub (for a
to:2l of312 acres).
Avoidance ofwetl2.'lds and habitat creation for unavoidable impacts.
Pres-.-.vation of50% of identified California adolphia in open space, as well as
babit2! el'.hancemem through transplinti.,g of California adolphia seedlings
In situ preserv-<.t:ion of no less than 1 j 9 J coast barrel cactus in open space, as well
as implementation of a salvage 2.'ld transplant progIam. . . .
Establis!>u-nent oi a preserve area oi no less'than 21 acres for Otay tarplant,
~'"ment ofbabitat for Otay tar plant, and formulation of a Memorandum of
Agreement Vi7th t:.ie California Department offish and Game.
Transplant progra.'l1 for San Diego m2.rsn elder.
Transplant progrun for spiny rush.
The final paragraph of this mitigation progra,-n states tha:t its adoption would reduce
project impacts to biological resources to a level wbich is less than significant, with the
_exception ofi..npacts to (f.zy tzrplant and Palmers gnpplinghook.
It "''as our assumption that measures outlined in this mitigation program wouid
als<1 be part oithe mitigation required for the revised GDP as the fact that they wouicin't
be included was not discussed specifically in the biology section of the subsequent ErR. As
P2 a result, we did not feel the need to co=ent on this document It has come to our
mention that these species-specific mitigation measures will not be incorporated as
conditions oi approval for the revised GDP. The existing GDP requirement for
preservation of312 acres of coastal sage scrub preservation was to mitigate for impacts to
coast.al sage scrub OCv-upied by gnatcatchers and cactus "'Tens and distnbuted as J 46 acres
on the sOlr'.nem parcel and 166 acres on the nor.bem parceL It was not intended to
mitigate for sigillficallt impacts to individual sensitive plant species or wetlz,"1Ck It clearly
does not m.'tigG!e those impacts nor were these impacts jd~ed in the EIR
If the species-specific mitigation measures are not included, the project "'w result
in sigillfi=, u=itigated i,-npacts to biological resources which should hive been
;2~1Y
@ Dedicated to the p;'eservatiol1. of CaIifomia l1.ative f[ora.
..:~ ~ II~
P4
';~Ziillur Yl/{{ l\Jatlve Plavlt Societ:!]
"I"" ~'" .,. "" _",
"':;S-'s<e.d i~ ce-=", :ne $:.lU~-U::Tlt CL'\- ""'ner, :'"Je S'"::>s~uem t:L"\. only s:a:ed t};zl 'L~e
~ .....~ ~ -
e&-i,':;':2o'1 of ce'\'e!o?::.Je::t :<:rom the ;]0:-;;' pz.;ce] "';ot:1G ::litigate bioiogical impa.:::s
res'~:sg ITO;;] cieve!opwen! on the sou-,-~ pz.;ce1 ior t.~e Pro.:::or ValJ~7NorJJ Parcel
Pre~'Zrion OpDOil aad Horseshoe Bend GDPs as all deve10pmein on the nonh parcel
wowd be eliminazed. It also S"cated that impacts resuJtL."lg from the implementation of the
Pro.:::or Valley GDP would be signiiic2.nt ~,d unmitigared Cbecause development on the
norch pz.;cel wowd still be permitted). \V1111e CNps r=gnizes that the California
Envir~=ental Qu2!ity Act allows the City oiChula ViS"ca to approve a project which has
signiDc2nt, t=itigated impacts (based upon a S"LZ!e:Iient of overridi.ng COnsiderations), the
City = do so only after such ioformatioll h2s been disclosed to the public. We do not feel .
th2t the S'.1bsequent EIR accomplished this task.
In SUInllJary, the draft subsequent ErR needs to be revised to clearly discuss project
'rrroacts associared with each of the GDP alternatives as theyreJate to the three SR 125
ali~e!rt altelmuves. An accurate and comolete discussion of mitigation measUres also
n~s to be pro.ided. We appreciate YOur ~efuJ consid~on ofrhese COrnrnems V.-hich
we reGliz.e are submitted after the close of L':te ..>,'ritten public CO!llll)em period. We would
also like to be informed of the date and ti.tDe at which the Planning Coriunission 2nd the
City Council "'ill make decisions upon the ErR. Please send notice of these hearings to our
Chapter President at 771 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, CA 9J910, or COntact l.!S by phone ax
824-3236 or 421-5767. .
SincerelY:t
~~.
Cindy.3urrascano
Chapter Presidem"
cc: William E. Tippets, CDFG
Na:ucy Gil:b<>.n, USFWS
~..... ~ '/7
,cr'; Deili".ted to the lJreservation of Cpliforn;a Mt;z,e From
'-~ - / "/ ~
,
~
.
/--
p.
PI
c..\LlfORo"\L\ :\.UIVE PL.\:\T SOCIEIT - OCTOBER 28, 1996
0.- ._
It is correct that the pre"~ous EIR (EIR-92-02) , which is adopted by reference in
SEIR-95-04, recommended mitigation measures on a species-by-species and habitat-
by-habitat basis. EIR-92-02 also "spoke" to the need for the Scientific Re~ew Panel
to complete their work in determining the significance of this site on a regional basis
and a need to perform a SPA Level analysis at the time a Specific Plan is submitted
by the applicant. Subsequent to the certification of EIR-92-02, the MSCP process
was initiated and the analysis of biological impacts in the Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report, SEIR-95-04 is based on the expected adoption of the MSCP and the
Points of Agreement signed by the Resource Agencies and EPC. In the event the
MSCP Subarea Plan is riot approved and adopted by the City of Chula Vista,
subsequent impact analysis and mitigation measures, as well as coordination with the
USFWS and the CDFG would be required prior to approval of the SPA for San
Miguel Ranch.
P2
See response PI above. In accordance with the Points of Agreement, the plan
described therein including conservation of 146 acres, a 21-acre preserve for Otay
tarplant on the south parcel as compensation for impacts to other sensitive resources
and the setting aside of 166 acres on the north parcel is intended to mitigate for
multispecies impacts. (See responses to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Semce and
California Department of Fish and Game).
P3
In accordance \\~th the mitigation identified in the Points of Agreement, the impacts
have been mitigated to below a level of significance. This has been disclosed
adequately in the EIR and copies of the Points of Agreement are included in the
Letters of Comment. This is in agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Semce
and California Department of Fish and Game responses. The Proctor Valley GDP
does not disclose any development on the North. The "Proctor Valley GDP with
development on the north" is not one of the two plans proposed by the applicant or
by City staff. The EIR discloses that if the alternative of "Proctor Valley GDP with
development on the north" is approved, biological impacts will be significant and
unmitigated. The EIR has disclosed the impacts of choosing this alternative and this
information has been disclosed to the public as follows. CEQA Guidelines
encourage, but do not require, public hearings discussing the DEIR. The City of
Chula Vista environmental procedures do require a public hearing on the DEIR.
The City of Chula Vista has forwarded Notices of the public hearing on the Draft
EIR to property owners within 1000 feet of the project in addition to interested
indi~duals and organizations including the California Native Plant Society. Notices
of the Public Hearing on the Final EIR at the Planning Co=ission and Council
were also forwarded to the interested organizations and indi~duals. Copies of both
the Draft and Final EIRs have been made available to the public in the Planning
Department and at the Chula Vista Public Library on Fourth Avenue. In the event
that the City of Chula Vista Council decides to approve the alternative \\~th
development on the North, the project would need to be continued and staff directed
-LtJ~
- /6-
.,
.
P4
to prepare amendments to the Overriding Considerations and Findings to include
Overriding Considerations and Findings dealing with Biologicallmpacts.
There are two SR 125 alignment alternatives through the San Miguel Ranch
property. The impacts have been adequately analyzed and disclosed in the ErR.
- At).,.2/
.
~.
so f1 E San Diego Gas & Electric
An Enova Company
P.D BOX 16Jl . SA.t-; DIEGO. ell. 92112"'150.619 i 6%-ZOOO
Nov;; 0
- 7996
,.
November 19, 1996
FILE NO.
City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Attn: City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
~1a-Vlsta,CA-9191D--__ _
------
_ RE: Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report - 95-04 for San Miguel Rancl] '.
Dear Members ofthe Planning Commission:
~.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced document. SDG&E's
interest in the proposed project is due to its proximity to the Miguel substation, one of the
most important regional energy facilities on SDG&E's system, and the existing and
planned transmission lines that serve the substation.
\.'\
)
SDG&E has been working with both the City of Chula Vista and Emerald Properties
since the initiation of this project. Emerald Properties has been very understanding and
helpful in our joint efforts to reduce land use conflicts between proposed residential uses
and SDG&E facilities. The two proposed plans in the Final EIR which include no
development on the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch are an improvement from previous
plans submitted in relation to land use compatibility \\~th SDG&E's Miguel Substation
and adjacent transmission lines.
SDG&E supports both Amended General Development Plans that don't include
development on the north parcel that the applicant is proposing. SDG&E also supports
t.l)e proposed development for the south parcel of San Miguel Ra..'1ch described in the
Final EIR. However, there is an existing General Plan Alternative which proposes a
reduced development potential limited to a maximum of 50 residential units on 107 acres
of the north parcel, if it is not preserved as open space. As stated in the September 11,
1996 letter, SDG&E opposes any development on the north parcel that is south of the 520
contour line.
SDG&E does not oppose most forms of development adjacent to our facilities. However,
past experience has proven that residential uses near energy facilities are seldom
compatible. SDG&E's experience suggests that the public frequently objects when new
or upgraded electrical facilities are planned in proximity to existing neighborhoods. This
. creates future problems for the local jurisdiction as well as SDG&E.
-~P"2)-
I
S PAGE BLANK /
;1
1/
/
"
N
J
:1
_ ,_::;;.L _
/!
l'
/i
\
\
\
\ j'
)<
, \
,( 1
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
,
\
,
\
\
"
Il
;'
\
\
\
\,
"
\
\
.
)
.
Again, SDG&E appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Planning Commission
regarding the Final EIR for San Miguel Ranch. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at (619) 696-2415.
Sincerely,
~~
Kim Seibly
Associate Land Planner
cc: Paul Manganelli
Bob Leiter
Mark Faulkner
-~ ,2d'':<)
.~
\
\
\\ATTACHMENT 5
\
LETTER FR M THE SWEETWATER
. .
COMMUNI PLAN.NING GROUP
\\
NOVEMBER'20, 1996
\
\
\
/
I
{
i
- ;;L-s'~'
SWEETW A TEn
Community
Planning
Group
20 November 1996
To: Planning Commission, City of Chula Vista
Subject: San Miguel Ranch; GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04
.
The Sweetwater Community Planning Group views this project with some alarm. Once
again, a project which will be developed in the City, proposes to revise the
Sweetwater Community Plan to attempt to lessen the project impact on residents of
Chula Vista. This GPA suggests that the County should revise the Sweetwater
circulation element to upgrade San Miguel Road to a 4 lane collector. This upgrade
will destroy one of the oldest communities in the Sunnyside area because San Miguel
Road wasn't planned for 4 lanes. The current 2 lane road can't even be improved to
two lane standards because the sidewalks would encroach on some front doorsteps.
For this project to suggest that homes be taken and the character of the community
permanently altered so that a new and initially characterless development can be
developed is ludicrous. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group demands that
this request to modify the Sweetwater Community Plan Circulation Element be deleted
A second issue which we have raised in various forums is related to the discharge of
storm waters. The current development of Salt Creek has made no provisions to
control the discharge of storm waters into what we refer to as 'Central Creek". The
increased peak flows and lack of retention/metering has already caused increased
erosion on the Buie property along Proctor Valley Road and serious siltation
downstream through the Bonita Highlands and the Chula Vista Golf Course. The
combined impacts of this project and the proposed SR125 will further exacerbate this
problem. Recent court decisions have allowed downstream property owners to seek
redress from upstream agencies which fail to control storm runoff adequately. There
isn't any discussion of this issue in the project description.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 479-0665.
di-GD~~
.
John A Hammond, Chair
Sweetwater Community Planning Group
cc: Supervisor Cox, District 1
P.O. Box 460, Bonita, California 91908-0460 t/
- ;;)./7- H',,).,
~
\
\
\
-~)(f
~
Excerpt From Preliminarv 11/20/96 Plannimr Commission Minutes
ITEM 1:
REPORT: EIR-95-04; CONSIDER CERTIFYING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT (GDPA) FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR), AS COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Assistant Planning Director Lee gave the background of the project, and then turned the
presentation over to Associate Planner Reid. Ms. Reid stated it would be a team presentation
by Betty Dehoney of Tetra Tech and Dan Marum of BRW. She noted that the plan was an
amendment to the plan which had been approved in 1993, and would not be the last plan or
enviromnental document which would be reviewed for this project. The enviromnental analysis
was at the fIrst tier, based on build-out. When the applicant proposes a SPA Plan which would
include the phasing of the project and a Public Facilities Financing Plan, a Tier 2 EIR would
be prepared.
Ms. Dehoney of Tetra Tech noted that several issues were identifIed regarding biological
resources during the preparation of the DEIR. Most of them focused on the adequacy of the
mitigation measures. She said the City had conducted substantial coordination with U. S. Fish
& Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game, and they had reached the
conclusions that the "Points of Agreement" among California Department of Fish & Game, U.
S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Emerald Properties was valid, and she noted specifIc aspects
of the "Points of Agreement". Other issues raised during the response to comments included
wetlands impacts, and those would be addressed at the SPA level with the associated mitigation
measures, based upon the quality of the habitat and the impacts. At this point in time, the U.
S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game had concurred with the
analysis and the identifIcation that the impacts had been reduced to below a level of signifIcance
as identifIed in the EIR.
Mr. Dan Marum of BRW, the traffic consultant presented graphics on the conclusions which had
been reached on the traffIc analysis at the General Development Plan level. Issues dealt with
during the response to comments indicated a clarification of the program level of analysis which
was conducted for the study which determines the long-range buildout conditions for the
transportation network serving the project in the northeastern Chula Vista planning area. Mr.
Marum stated that the SPA level analysis to be conducted on this project would determine
interim network conditions, network capacity, and project mitigation requirements as the project
evolves and is phased over time. In addition, the Otay Ranch Transportation Analysis process
which had been developed for that effort had been applied to the San Miguel project to
determine significant project impacts to off-site facilities. He clarified that for the Otay Ranch
project, a process was developed in a subcommittee forum with County and City representatives
involved. They had tried to carry that over for consistency on this project. Based on the
County review comments provided in 1993 on the previous GDP, it was determined that the
County Circulation Element would required an amendment in order to accommodate background
plus project related traffic under build-out conditions.
- ;)~,. 25
,
/
/
/
\
\
\
\TIDS PAGE :ijLANK
\ ..:
\
\
\
,
,
\
.
\
'>
\
\, /
\ /
;,r
.\
/ j,
!
j
/
/
/
J
" .
- -).: ....
Associate Planner Reid stated that she had heard from County of San Diego staff that day who
stated they had reviewed the conditions of approval in the staff report, including the formation
of the technical committee consisting of appropriate staff from the County Departments of Public
W orles Planning and Land Use to provide input to the SPA level study of areawide transportation
planning concerns, and they would not be attending the meeting. She noted the EIR responded
to all of the issues that were brought up by Commissioners at the public hearing.
Chair Tarantino conftrmed that questions and comments would be received after item 2.
_ :~".2-(,
Associate Planner Reid stated that she had heard from County of San Diego staff that day who
stated they had reviewed the conditions of approval in the staff report, including the formation
of the technical committee consisting of appropriate staff from the County Departments of Public
Works Planning and Land Use to provide input to the SPA level study of areawide transportation
planning concerns, and they would not be attending the meeting. She noted the EIR responded
to all of the issues that were brought up by Commissioners at the public hearing.
Chair Tarantino confmned that questions and comments would be received after item 2.
- ~",;l?
Public Hearing: GP A-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04 - Consideration
of a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan and a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for Property Located Southeast of the Sweetwater Reservoir, West
and South of San Miguel Mountain and Northeast of Proctor Valley Road
- Emerald Properties, Inc.
Resolution 1~J'Jt?certifYing the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (FSEIR 95-04) for the San Miguel Ranch project; amending
the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista for the San Miguel Ranch
property (GP A-96-01); approving an amendment to the San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan (PCM-96-05); making certain Findings of Fact
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;fi:6
REVIEWED BY: City Manageu~ \M'
" 0 ,,/7'
The applicant, Emerald Properties Corporation (EPC) , proposes to amend the Chula Vista
General Plan for certain portions of the property regulated by the San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan, a 2590 acre residential planned community originally approved in 1993.
These amendments would implement proposed changes to the General Development Plan. Also
requested is the establishment of specific locations in the General Plan for an elementary school,
a community park and a retail commercial center.
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;J. /
Meeting Date 12/17/96
4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX
In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of two General Development Plan amendments,
referred to as the Horseshoe Bend Plan and the Proctor Valley Plan, each reflecting an alternate
alignment of SR-125, a planned tollway which will either bisect the property or traverse its edge.
The plan which reflects the alignment chosen by the State would be the plan which goes forward
to the next planning phase.
On January 13, 1996, the Council approved a set of Goals and Objectives with which to guide
the development of the San Miguel Ranch project. These Goals and Objectives are included in
the General Development Plan text and were used in the evaluation of the proposed project.
.,2/-/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. certify that the Final SEIR for the San Miguel Ranch has been prepared in compliance
with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the
City of Chula Vista;
2. make CEQA Findings of Fact and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and;
3. based on the findings in Section C and D of the Draft City Council Resolution, approve
the General Plan Amendment and amended General Development Plans.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
At its November 20, 1996 meeting, by a 7-0 vote, the City Planning Commission recommended
approval of the General Plan Amendment as requested, and approval of General Development
Plan Amendments which reflect up to 1394 dwelling units for the Horseshoe Bend Plan and up
to 1432 dwelling units for the Proctor Valley Plan (Resolution - Attachment 1, Minutes -
Attachment 2).
At its August 15, 1996 meeting, by a 4-0 vote with 3 absent, the San Miguel Ranch Citizens'
Advisory Committee recommended that certain land uses and densities be changed as indicated
in their minutes (Attachment 3) and as discussed below. The Committee further recommended
that no development be permitted on the North Parcel of the project and that the General Plan
be amended to reflect that recommendation.
At its September 9, 1996 meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission, by a 5-0 vote,
recommended that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch
project be found adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act and further
recommended that no development be permitted on the North Parcel of the project. (Minutes -
Attachment 4)
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site consists of two parcels of undeveloped land composed of steeply sloping
hillsides and valleys, including Mother Miguel Mountain. The North Parcel, containing 1852
acres, is separated from the 738-acre South Parcel by property owned by San Diego Gas and
Electric.
;2. J - ;;..
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
2. Existinl! Zoninl! and Land Use
Except for a caretaker's house and appurtenant structures located on the north parcel, the
property is vacant and has not yet been annexed to the City. The County's Sweetwater
Community Plan designates the property SPA 0.28 (Specific Plan Area, 0.28 dwelling units per
acre) and zoned S88 Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation to the City, development of the
property would be regulated by the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) ,
approved in 1993, and the PC (Planned Community) Zone regulations. The approved GDP
allows consideration of a maximum of 357 estate lots and a conference center/retreat on the
North Parcel and up to 1262 lots ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to over one-half acre
on the South Parcel, all subject to further environmental review and specific SPA and site
analysis. Also approved were 96 multiple family dwelling units and a 14 acre shopping center
along with an elementary school, community park and two community facility sites, all on the
South Parcel. The remainder of the two parcels, containing about 1630 acres, is designated open
space.
The zoning and land use of areas adjacent to the proposed development area of the project
(South Parcel) follow (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map):
North: The San Diego Gas and Electric Company's electric transmission facilities,
County zoned S87 (Limited Control), and a portion of the County community of
Sunnyside zoned RRl (Rural Residential) and improved with single family dwellings on
lots of one acre or larger, a kennel, and horse training and boarding facilities. Adjacent
to the north end of the North Parcel is a portion of the San Diego National Wildlife
Refuge.
South: A portion of the vacant Buie Bonita Meadows property, County zoned S88
(Specific Plan Area); approximately 52 vacant lots, County zoned A70 (Agricultural)
(referred to elsewhere in this report as the southern out-parcels); the Salt Creek I
development, zoned PC (Planned Community) and improved with single family dwellings
and condominiums; and a portion of the presently undeveloped Salt Creek Ranch, also
zoned PC and approved for a variety of residential housing.
East: The westerly portion of Salt Creek Ranch and property owned by the Dtay Water
District which is County zoned S87 and partially improved with sewage treatment
facilities.
West: A portion of the Buie Bonita Meadows property.
.2/- 'J
RESOLUTION NO.
11"53..2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FSEIR 95-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT; AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE SAN MIGUEL
RANCH PROPERTY (GPA-96-01); APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN
MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-96-05); MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CAUFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, Emerald Properties Corporation, hereafter referred to as "applicant", has submitted
an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-01) to be approved on the 2590.2
acre San Miguel Ranch property generally located north and east of Proctor Valley Road, south
and east of the community of Sunnyside and southwest of San Miguel Mountain; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has added certain recommended changes to the General Plan
Amendment application which amends the General Plan Text and General Plan Diagram for the
property, to which the applicant has agreed, said amendments being a part of this Resolution,
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for an amendment to the San Miguel
Ranch General Development Plan (Case # PCM-96-05) for the San Miguel Ranch property
which generally reflects the proposed amendments to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated
August, 1996, was prepared for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following
issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project:
Land Use
Landforrn/Visual Quality
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of
Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was
given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and
d/-t(
WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing, accepted
public testimony and closed the public comment period on the Draft Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the General
Development Plan Amendment on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December 17,
1996, regarding the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan
Amendment and the General Development Plan Amendment;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
A. FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR)
1. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch General
Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996,
consists of:
a. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR-95-04, SCH #96051038)
dated August, 1996, which contains 1) the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and
2) Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR.
b. Appendices A through D to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report dated
August 1996.
2. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed and
considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
4. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report is hereby certified by the City
Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and all applicable guidelines.
-2-
;2/-S-
B. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The City Council hereby adopts amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan to be considered
in conjunction with the final selection by the State of California of the alignment of State Route-
125, which impacts the property over which this Amendment concerns. This Amendment shall
apply to two land use distribution alternatives, each dependent upon a separate route location
chosen by the State.
This General Plan Amendment shall assign and distribute residential land use densities for the
San Miguel Ranch property and establish the location of sites for an Elementary School, a
Community Park and a Retail Commercial center on the General Plan Diagram, which are
presently indicated in nonspecific locations on the Diagram. This Amendment shall also apply
to the General Plan Text relative to Chapter 14, Eastern Territories Plan. Both the amended
General Plan Diagrams and Text are attached to and shall be made part of this Resolution.
C. ADOPTION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves amendments to the San Miguel Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP), entitled San Miguel Ranch Amended Proctor Valley General Development Plan,
dated December, 1996 and San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development
Plan, dated December, 1996, both attached to and made a part of this Resolution. This approval
shall be subject to the conditions enumerated below, which shall be complied with prior to the
approval of any Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan for this project. Since the applicant has
chosen to prepare two plans, one reflecting each alternative location of the proposed SR-125
Tollway, the plan which reflects the alternative route location chosen by the State of California
shall be the plan on which SPA plans may be prepared.
1. The alternative GDP which reflects the route of SR-125 rejected by the State shall be null
and void.
2. The applicant shall:
a. Design a trail system to the satisfaction of the Directors of Parks and Recreation
and Planning which is consistent with the policies of the Chula Vista General Plan
and is in substantial conformance with the trail system indicated on the GDP
figure providing project-associated trails to be located within the San Miguel
Ranch property and which links to existing and planned trails in the area.
b. Link the Community Park and the Elementary School by a trail/sidewalk system
in a manner approved by the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning.
-3-
,'/./- V
c. Provide a mffilmum 3-acre private park within the area designated Medium
Residential Residential to be owned and operated by a homeowner's association
established for the "Medium" area.
d. Prepare a comprehensive buffer plan for the visual separation of the project and
the existing and planned facilities of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's
Miguel Substation through measures such as landscaping, significant topographic
variation, homesite orientation and other appropriate methods.
e. Prepare a brush management plan which analyzes and reduces impacts related to
placing homes in close proximity to large areas of natural vegetation.
f. Prepare a Sectional Planning Area plan traffic analysis in the SEIR which:
(1) Determines the existing and ultimate capacity and levels of service for the
existing road network serving the project area.
(2) Formulates a project phasing plan which is consistent with the phasing and
financing of on- and off-site public street facilities as a component of the
Public Facilities Financing Plan as required by the SPA regulations.
(3) Determines the types and phasing of interim on-site and off-site street
facilities should SR-125 not be constructed before or concurrent with the
proposed construction of the project.
(4) Determines the types and locations of off-site street facilities required to
provide appropriate access to the Sweetwater Valley.
(5) Determines impacts of the entire project at a maximum dwelling unit
buildout on the levels of service for the existing and planned road network
serving the project area.
g. Receive approval, if required, of an amendment to the County of San Diego
General Plan Circulation Element, or other action acceptable to the County,
which provides for off-site access to the Sweetwater Valley from the project.
3. A technical committee consisting of appropriate staff from the City Engineering and
Planning Departments and the County Departments of Public Works and Planning and
Land Use shall be established to provide input to the SPA-level study of area-wide
transportation planning concerns.
4. The dwelling unit totals of 1432 units for the Proctor Valley Plan and 1394 units for the
Horseshoe Bend Plan are approved in principle. The ultimate total, resulting from more
specific SPA and Tentative Map planning and site analysis, may require a reduction in
these numbers. Actual development entitlements shall also be predicated upon the
availability of public services and sufficient capacity of the area road network as
determined by the traffic analysis required in Condition 2f.
-4-
021-7
5. The density of the area designated Medium Residential shall not exceed seven dwe\1ing
units per gross acre.
6. The minimum net lot size in the area designated LM-l shall be 7,000 square feet in
conformance with the clustering provisions of Section 6.3 of the General Plan.
7. A minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the proposed SR-125 alignment on the
Horseshoe Bend Plan or a minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the diagonal
SDG&E right-of-way on the Proctor Valley Plan shall be improved to the Residential
Estates Zone standards in order to maintain a balance of at least 50 percent of all lots in
the western area of the project as estate-sized lots in the vicinity of the Bonita/Sunnyside
community.
8. Environmental review shall be accomplished for annexation of any lands which will be
annexed to the City in conjunction with the annexation of the San Miguel Ranch
property. This condition may be waived only if (1) the Subarea Plan of the Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) precludes any development of the North Parcel,
or (2) the Wildlife Agencies purchase the area of the North Parcel on which the General
Plan designates that development may occur or (3) it is determined by the Chula Vista
City Council that given the eventual disposition of the North Parcel for ownership and
maintenance purposes, either though the MSCP or other means, it is not in the best
interest of the City of Chula Vista to annex the North Parcel into its corporate
boundaries.
9. The SPA plan shall define criteria by which the design of the project in the vicinity of
Bonita/Sunnyside provides, to the extent feasible, the highest possible degree of
compatibility between this community and the project.
10. The San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee, presently appointed and serving,
shall continue to provide citizen input into the SPA plan and subsequent Tentative Map
processes required by the previous resolution of approval (Resolution 17057).
C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT FINDINGS
Land Use Element
The amendments to the General Plan and General Development Plan provide a broader
range of densities and housing opportunities in the easterly portion of the subject property
adjacent to the Salt Creek developments, which have similar residential densities, while
retaining the lower density areas presently indicated Low Residential on the General Plan
near the semi-rural areas of the community of Sunnyside. The amendment more precisely
locates the Neighborhood Commercial area, Elementary School and the Community Park,
-5-
;21-8"
all of which are presently designated in "floating" locations on the General Plan diagram.
Circulation Element
The Circulation system design included in the San Miguel Ranch General Development
Plan provides for a four-lane collector road slightly to the south of the location depicted
on the General Plan diagram and the Circulation Element. This more advantageous
location removes it as a direct alignment with existing San Miguel Road in the
unincorporated area to the north. In this manner, the interchange of San Miguel Road and
State Route-125 shifts to the south and diminishes impacts to San Miguel Road between
the interchange and Bonita Road. Trails and bicycle lanes required by the Circulation
Element will be provided via the General Development Plan and subsequent Sectional
Planning Area plan and Tentative Map.
Public Facilities Element
The General Development Plan and implementing future Sectional Planning Area plan
will provide the framework for the provision of master plans for water, wastewater,
drainage/flood control, sewer and other systems as appropriate. Amendments to the
General Plan and General Development Plan will not impact the provision and
implementation of these plans.
Housing Element
The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan include
the provision of a variety of housing types and low- and moderate-income housing for
the project to implement the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Growth Management Element
The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan relative
to the provision of public facilities and the phasing of development subject to their
availability implement the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Before any
construction may occur as a result of this General Plan Amendment and General
Development Plan Amendment, a Public Facilities Financing Plan, a part of the Sectional
Planning Area process, must first be prepared to insure that all public facilities are
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
Parks and Recreation Element
The General Development Plan provides the Community Park, recreational trails and
-6-
.2j-q
open space required by the General Plan for the subject property.
Safety Element
No geologic hazards have been identified for the subject property although all
development resulting from this General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan
Amendment must conform with recommendations of a qualified engineering geologist.
The implementing Sectional Planning Area plan will provide brush management and fuel
modification requirements for fire safety.
Noise Element
The Noise Element of the General Plan requires that the City enforce regulations related
to noise from traffic and conflicting land uses. The General Development Plan and future
implementing Sectional Planning Area plan will mitigate noise as required by the
measures indicated in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
D. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
I. Adoption of Findings.
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
"Candidate Findings of Fact" (Document Number attached).
2. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 95-04 and in the Candidate
Findings of Fact, the Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures
described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will
become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent, the City, or the
School district) assigned thereby to implement same.
3. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in
the above subparagraph 2, each of the alternatives to the project which were
identified as potentially feasible in SEIR-95-04 are found not to be feasible since
they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified
significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation
measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
-7-
.,2/./ t/
4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program")
incorporated in the SEIR Section 6.0. The Council hereby finds that the Program
is designed to ensure that during project implementation the permittee/project
applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings
if Fact and the Program.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Document No.
attached), identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that
render the unavoidable significant adverse effects acceptable.
E. Notice of Determination
The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed, after City
Council approval of this project, to insure that a Notice of Determination is filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego.
F. Invalidity: Automatic Revocation
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect
ab initio.
G. One General Plan Amendment
It is the intention of the City Council that its action on the San Miguel Ranch by this
Resolution and its action on the General Plan Amendment for the companion item Mother
Miguel Estates be and is one General Plan Amendment for the purposes of the State Law
limitation on the number of allowable General Plan Amendments in one year.
-8-
,?/ - /1
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
'}'/-I ~
-9-
Approved as to form by
n M. Kaheny
City Attorney
FIGURE 1
Mother Miguel Estates
SDG&E
Miguel
Substation
San Miguel Ranch
SR-125 Alternative -
Proctor Valley Bonita Meadows
Alignment
Upper
Omy Lake
Otay Ranch
"
! I E:!..tlake Greens
I,
r"lr"-'
I ,.-...........
\ .l L.-'-- \ to
_....1 \ Eas .,'
tlake TraIls \
, , I
\ Olympic\tt
',,,, Training \ \
,z: Center'
-p.
I
I
-k
,
Vicinity Map
'-'--
;iI-I}
No Scale
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
3. Proposed Proiect
a. General Plan Amendment (GPA)
EPC proposes to amend the City's General Plan Diagram and Text for both the North Parcel
and the South Parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The North Parcel would retain a land use
designation which permits consideration for development of up to 50 units on 107 acres. with
the remaining 1,745 acres to be designated as "Open Space." For the South Parcel, two
amendments are proposed which correspond to the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend GDP
proposals.
The Proctor Valley Plan proposes to designate the westerly portion of the South Parcel as Low
Residential (0-3 du/ac), the easterly portion as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac),
Public/Quasi-Public, Commercial Retail, Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac), Community
Park, Elementary School and Open Space. Please see General Plan diagram (Figure 2) to
follow.
The Horseshoe Bend Plan proposes to designate the property west of the proposed SR 125 as
Residential Low (0-3 du/ac), similar to the Proctor Valley GPA, and the property east of SR 125
similar to the Proctor Valley GPA proposal described above as indicated on the General Plan
diagram (Figure 3) to follow.
A recommended addition to the General Plan text which defines the Amendment is appended as
Attachment 5.
,2/-/'/
2
e(
.....
c.
>
w
.....
...
e(
>
D::
o
to-
U
o
D::
C.
U)
c.
-
::c
U)
2
o
-
to-
e(
.....
w
D::
W
U)
:)
Q
2
e(
...
u - = ~
-'" ~ ~ ~
:> '7 ~ ~ ~ - =
- = -
." u
u >
<= <= ~ ~-
u...J :> :> c~
(f) -0 -0 - 0':::
C">
::::> ~ u '" '" E E ~ :> "'--
::E ::EC"> :> '" < ~ ~ - ~
< i .~ :0""::: ..c -'= 0:...'= <
'< '<= -0 U ~ 0 -<=
>- C1.I.~ C"> ~-o
0 :z 0 0 0-- u ~ u ~
~ ~ ~ ~:>- ::E ::E:r - ~ .~ I- :>- ~< I-
:z: ::E ~
"" :::>
n I I I ::E I I I
-< ~ ~ 0 ""
~ .2 :z
--' ~ ,- U
~,,-
~'
-;::;?,1
:?!I"\'''' \1
/I.'." . '>>
II! i\\\\ .
"
<
~ ::
~~i
....";&
=;~ ~~
~~~~
-..-...,
..;;:= =--
~~~~
~fn
u
u u
.=> u =
~
.""'~ C- O
~ "",-.=
~ U._ ~ ~
U -- ~ C ~ U U
< ::c~ u ~ u
"'" ~ :> '" C- ~ ~
~U
U ~ ~O 0 ~~ ==
~ :z I I I
= ~
:::> ~
~ 0
.
"
o
~
~
~
e_
0"
_ 0
"V.=
_ u
- --
O~ _
~-='~<=
~=~c..
." o:::U_=
- c.J _ ....
-g.~Z~~~~
:;::~=U:::;;:;:,.::
-~-
0:... '"; E
-;....'"
>-~~-
U!~~ ~
~~~~~:
........ ....=..::l.... C
~~~i]~-~
<
u:;
2
<
o
z
w
:<
<
z
<::
...J
"-
...J
<::
c::
w
z
w
"
o
w
rn
o
"-
o
0:
"-
u
u
~
u
::E
~
I-
~
>-
~
.~
~
~
_ 0
- 0
>-
-'
u
<
~
"
~
o
o
o
-~
.'
'-
u
c:
"
Ct:l CC Qj
a.J ~
~ " ro
.Ql Q..
~ ::;;5
~i5~ ~ ....J
~ III
(/)- ~
'"
~ ~ 0
>
~
~ l) III
~ rn ,
" ...J ~
c:
--- ,
Z \
~
<
~
~
<
:z
<
~
>-
-0
:>
C
'"
~
u
C
~
.=>
<
>-
-0
:>
~
z
o
I-
<
-'
=>
U
=:
~
=
::
o
U
o
U
>-
:::>
:::
'" u
C
~'"
~U
u
<=>
~
-;::
~
u
uC
~0
:;:
u
>
C
:::>
.
.
.
u
u
c-
~
0..
c
~
u
~
~
<
u
~
~
~
II II
-,\\f/-
CIJ
o
ff :-.~ 6
6:; 3'~
~l)~~
~~~}2
:-g~D ]
:.5 a .......: Co.
~ ..,~-~~
51 l: 0::: 5'
;I" - ~o
~~ g.~-5
.~-:U~_
.. Co. i.>"-;;I 0
.a ~ ~~ ~ ~
;Z~v.I.:: c......
~< ~ ~
'itc ... c ....
... E~ 0 ~
~ ~ ;-:3
u
+1 II
-'
=
=>
"-
~=.,.,u .............
__......u.........._
ce.
<=>
C
"'" -
:>
..c u
::: -a ...,
~u-
cv::: :J
~E;;
=:::i::::E
~
-;;;-
~-:;;
~-=:
'" -
~.:=
u
I
CIJ
o
z
c:t
...I
c..
C
Z
w
m
w
o
x:
'"
w
'"
0::
o
x:
'"
c..
-
x:
'"
z
o
-
to-
c:t
...I
W
0::
w
'"
:)
c
z
c:t
...I
<:
~
u
..., ~
:': >
~ ~-
..r:: c:~
0_
.., -- ~
~ ~ ~-
-< 2 .3 _ c:
~-
U ~ 0 -E
= ~ 2-0
~ = >- >- ~-<
:::E
:::E I I I n
0
u LJ
~
~
~~i
....=IE
1~~~
~
~
l-
V">
>-
V">
u ~
..0 u c:
~
.,,~ C- o
~ ~ ."
~ u__ ~
U -- - c: - ~ .:=
-< ::o~ ~ ~ -
..., ~ ~~ ~ _u ~
~ ~
u ~ ~O 0 ~= ~
~ :z: I I I
co ~
:::> "-
"- 0 -
;:;
-'"
'-
'"
::;
<
o
~
'"
::;
<
z
<
...J
"-
...J
<
c:
'"
z
'"
"
o
'"
Ul
o
"-
o
c:
"-
<:
~
=
-<
:z:
-<
~
~
>-
-0
~
c
-<
>-
-0
~
~
=::..;:
_... 0...
~;;~
HI!
:z:
o
I-
-<
~
::::>
u
"'"
o
:<
;;-
---
co... ""'=' E
~'.
=- 0 -:;: -
~~~E-;:
E~-:::;< E
E....::::o~c;;C;'O
~.9c:-~;:
.z:;;;;::':
H~;lH
0..
."
'-
>
~
--l
~
~
c:
u
~
~
T
I
u
.~
<
V">
~
o
~.
--l
~
:::
o
u
~
c:
o
U
..0
:::>
(J)
o
!f'i.g
~~~:
~~~~ .
~~e~~
:"'=co ;;
._~~--
.,:; .........::e..
.,.. ......
.::; ...~-~ l:i
~ ~ 0 <;:: 5
- ., - 8..0
fj s-~.a
~ i !ll~
~
I-
0-
00
~o
~~
-~
0"":::: ~ c:
o..='::-~ 0
~==... -.....
...... ~u ~.:;:;_
....::::~e~::...c:
~2~~~22
/
I
.I::
()
c
~ l1l_
(Yo;
- ()
ri:l Cll _
::> l1l
.Ql 0...
~ ~ .I::
~ ~ 'c~ .... --l
.' ro~ '"
Ul_ - ....
~ ro 0
~ ;; >
1-1 '" ....
~ '" OJ
;; Ul
'" ' .
; (J) c: -.J \;
...-.... d./ - / t
'--.
.
>-
~
~
>
c:
:::>
.
.
.
~
~
0">
~
c: _
~~
c:
~ ~
~U
u
~ c:
~~
~U
o
~
~
=
~
<:
u
~
~
~
>-
II ~ I
u = ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ '-;' ~ 00
-0 = ~ -
l..U
<./')
:::>
E E
~ ~
-0 -0
~ ~ ~ ~ E E
-< :::E :::EO"> ~ ~
~ '" "'~ -0 -..c: -
>- ~.~ 0">
:z: 0 0 0-- ~
~ ~ ~ ~>- :::E :::E::t: ~
Cl 0 ~
~ ~ I I
~
= -
o
:z
-<
--'
~-
~.
~1~~\1
;\\////
::::. ~
:;.:;:;
~
<
o
.
=-.<-:::- ..=:
- . ~
::t: .... c: - ...
~ ~~ ~ =;;
...... <>-~:::E u
u
-<
--
u
*1 II
~
=
::::>
c:..
~.....u ...........
_=.....u-'....._
0">
c:
."
~
~
-<
=
>-
~
:::>
Cl
:z:
..r:: u
~-o ...,
~~-
G.>= ::I
~ E ~
c.:::=i::::E
~
-;;-;::
--
~~
c:~
~-o
<.:>.::
o
I
(J)
o
Page 8, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
b. General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments
EPC proposes to amend the Rancho San Miguel (renamed San Miguel Ranch) General
Development Plan for the North Parcel from 357 units to the conservation of the entire property
as open space, consistent with the proposed Multiple Species Conservation Program.
The South Parcel is proposed to be amended from Low Residential and small areas of Low-
Medium Residential and Neighborhood Commercial, with a residential unit yield of 1,262 units
to Low (.5-3 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac), Medium (6-11 du/ac) and
Medium-High (11-18 du/ac) Residential and Retail Commercial yielding up to 1,394 units on
the Horseshoe Bend Plan and 1,432 units on the Proctor Valley Plan.
Both the approved GDP and the originally proposed GDP Amendments reflected an alignment
of State Route 125 which skirts the west side of the South Parcel along a portion of the Proctor
Valley Road right-of-way. In recent months, it became clear that a second SR-125 alignment,
which bisects the San Miguel Ranch, was gaining favor as a viable alternative alignment. This
alignment is referred to as the Horseshoe Bend alignment because it traverses the center of the
V-shaped ridge known as Horseshoe Bend. On September 10, 1996, the City Council endorsed
this alternative alignment. As a consequence, EPC has prepared two GDP amendments, each
reflecting a proposed alignment of SR-125. These plans are referred to in this report as the
Proctor Valley Plan and the Horseshoe Bend Plan.
Because a preferred alignment of SR-125 will not have been chosen by the time this project goes
to hearing, EPC is requesting that both GDP alternatives be approved, and the plan which
reflects the chosen alignment will be the one which goes forward to the next levels of planning,
the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and the Master Tentative Map.
The following GDP diagrams (Figures 2 and 3) reflect the proposed GDP alternate plans and
Table 1 following reflects the adopted GDP and the amended GDP's as proposed by the
applicant.
.2/- /?
FIGURE 2
~m~lilld~d PIr@~~@1r VI ~~~~:v
G~Iil~IF@~ D~'l#~~@IPlflii1~Iil~ P~@1il
San Miguel Ranch
Emerald Properties Corporation
.-': .,'os,'"
. ',."/'../.'.
::':'/"/:,".
?:i~%
'.-
. ........,>y<.':'. ..
.:./~:;?;~~/~
November, 1995 -,
~ ~!!B..I:t.J!!!!P!!ing
E: \PROJ~CTS\JJ30i X\FiNAl.. \GD::>G,]=:::l.DWG
" .....
/
];'08, ,
f' ~/ . .TJ;! .
..- - -:. "". . -.. . :::-.~~;/:){....:-
;'" _r_"-I ~"'os- '-"'. ....-.__.J. """-
~I;",i
o. ""'.. ~<:~:><. . c'
qs':' .
"
el-/-/~
NovlMllbet, 1996
~ b!!E.(U:!!!J:I.!]ing
E: \PROJECTS\33301 CAC\FiNAL \GL:l?GDPA3.DWG
FIGURE 3
Am~Ii1@~@ H(QlII~@~~(Ql@ 18\~1i1@
G@U1@lI~~ D@\f@~(Q)~m@U1~ P~~U1
San Miguel Ranch
Emerald Properties Corporation
<>
,;u -/1
Page 11, Item_
Meeting Date 12/17/96
TABLE 1
Land Use Category Adopted GDP Proctor Valley GDP Horseshoe Bend GDP
Residential Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units
Low (0-3 du/ac) 933.5 1523 153.5 287 132.3 184
Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac) 6.0 96 151.4 573 165.8 624
Medium (6-11 du/ac) -- -- 72.8 459 67.5 473
Medium-High (11-18 du/ac) -- -- 7.8 113 7.8 113
Residential Totals 939.5 1619 385.5 1432 373.4 1394
Commercial
Neighborhood 14.0 13.9 13.9
Visitor 6.7 -- --
Commercial Totals 20.7 13.9 13.9
Institutional
Elementary School 11.9 12.4 12.4
Community Public Service 8.5 7.5 7.5
Institutional Totals 20.4 19.9 19.9
Parks/Onen Snace
Community Park 20.7 19.0 19.0
Open Space 1630.0 2108.7 2099.6
4. Chanl!es to Conditions SubseQuent to Planninl! Commission Hearinl!
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's land planner tested the plan as
recommended by the Commission and Staff to determine whether 1394 units could be obtained
in accordance with the conditions approved which were based on Staff's midpoint analysis. He
determined that the yield would be considerable lower because of the severity of the topography
and the configuration of the development areas in the west end of the property. After study of
the preliminary design, Staff concurred with this determination.
While all involved understand that the final yield ultimately determined by SPA Plan and
Tentative Map level planning may fall short of 1394 units in the Horseshoe Bend Plan, two
conditions, as previously written, guaranteed that this shortfall would occur. To rectify this
situation, Staff is recommending changes to Conditions 5 and 7 which vary somewhat with those
previously recommended to the Commission and subsequently adopted. Staff apprised the
Commission of these changes at their December 11, 1996 meeting and they concurred with the
changes.
~/. :2d
Page 12, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Condition 5, as amended, would increase the density of the area designated Medium Residential
from 6 to 7 units per acre. This condition was amended to give the applicant the opportunity to
transfer some units from west to east as necessary while still maintaining the residential
character of the Medium area as primarily single family and, at the same time, maintaining
conformance to the General Plan.
Condition 7, as amended, would give the applicant the flexibility to apply the RE (Residential
Estates Zone) standards to the Low Residential component of the project. This zone requires
minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet but also permits up to 25 % of these lots to be as low
as 15,000 square feet. The reason for the change is to provide more estate-size lots on the west
side of the project, thus reducing the number of lots transferred to the east side in the form of
smaller lots.
As a consequence of the changes discussed above, EPC has reduced the requested number of
units on the Horseshoe Bend Plan from 1498, which they had previously requested, to 1394, as
recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff, and also agreed to provide the Medium
area with a 3-acre private park to provide a community focal point and activity center for this
area.
In addition to the changes noted above, staff is also recommending a minor change to Condition
2f. at the request of the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use. The change
deals with the required SPA level traffic study and clarifies that the study will determine the
impacts of the entire project at buildout on the levels of service of the area road network.
5. Public and Al!encv Inout
a. San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee
On February 13, 1996, the City Council appointed a seven-person committee to provide citizen
input into the planning process for this project. After eight meetings, the Committee made the
recommendations indicated below. The Committee opted not to make recommendations
regarding specific numbers of dwelling units at this level of planning. It should be noted that the
changes to the Plan described in Section 4 above occurred after the Committee made its
recommendations, but since these changes were considered by Staff to be relatively minor, no
separate meeting of the Committee was called to discuss them to discuss them. The changes
were discussed with the Chairperson, however.
The only changes to the Proctor Valley Plan recommended by the Committee would occur in
Area LM2. The Committee recommended that 40% of this area be redesignated Low
Residential. Since the westerly 15 acres of LM2 is now the location of the Community Park,
staff does not support this change.
,),/-.2/
Page 13, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the Committee recommended several amendments as
follows:
Area Lb (now OS)--Change from Low to Low-Medium - this has not been done because this
area has been changed to Open Space.
Area LMI (now L-b)--Change from Low-Medium to Low - this has been done.
Area LM4 (now L-M2)--Change 40% of area from Low-Medium to Low - this has not been
done because the community park has been relocated to a portion of this area.
Area ESnRelocate ES (Elementary School) east of SR-125 - this has been done.
Area NP--Relocate Neighborhood Park adjacent to ES - the latest plan deleted the park.
Note: The development areas noted above correspond to the areas indicated on the draft GDP
the Committee was working with at the time their recommendations were made. Some of the
numbering has since been changed.
Regarding the SEIR, the Committee recommended that, except for air quality and grading/visual
quality, all environmental impacts be mitigated to a level of insignificance rather than providing
findings of overriding considerations.
b. Public Forums
During the course of the processing of this project, staff made presentations to the Sweetwater
Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and held separate
community forums with residents and property owners of the Sunnyside Community, the Salt
Creek I development and the southerly adjacent County parcels. Invitations were mailed to
owners of about 767 parcels but the three forums were sparsely attended. The eight persons who
attended the Sunnyside forum, the Planning Group and the Civic Association all expressed
concerns regarding traffic on the Bonita/Sunnyside road system, drainage from existing and
proposed projects, residential densities and impacts from SR-125. The primary concern of the
six Salt Creek I residents in attendance centered on the present lack of park facilities in their
neighborhood and compatibility of planned uses with their development. Concerns of four of the
owners of the adjacent southerly County properties centered on the impacts to their properties
by the proposed SR-125 alignments, annexation possibilities and future provision of services to
this presently undeveloped area.
c. County Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU)
In response to a request by City Staff for comments regarding the project, DPLU's letter dated
October 30, 1996 (Attachment 6), centered on two issues: (I) conformance to the Eastern Bonita
Specific Planning Area as indicated in the County Sweetwater Community Plan, and (2)
neighborhood compatibility.
,2/-..2Z-
Page 14, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Regarding Community Plan conformance, while that Plan allocates a maximum of 759 dwelling
units to the San Miguel Ranch property, the proposed amendment provides for fewer units than
the existing San Miguel Ranch plan, provides more open space by deleting all development from
the high habitat value North Parcel, conforms to the sub-area plan of the MSCP for this region
and provides residential densities at the midpoint density range of the Chula Vista General Plan,
which will govern the development of the property upon annexation to the City.
The GDP does conform with several conditions of the Community Plan relative to clustering on
flatter portions of the property, development phasing, sensitivity to SR-125, compatibility with
SDG&E facilities, provision of adequate commercial uses to serve the area, provision of
recreation areas and trails, protection of the Sweetwater Reservoir, habitat protection and
provision and phasing of public facilities.
Regarding neighborhood compatibility, this topic is addressed elsewhere in this staff report.
d. County Department of Public Works
The County Public Works Department responded to a request for comments relative to the draft
SEIR and stated that they believe that first tier traffic report prepared for the draft was
inadequate. The Department of Planning and Land Use concurred with that view. The response
to comments section of the SEIR addresses these and other concerns noted in their letter.
6. Analvsis
General Plan Compliance
The General Plan Amendments (GPA) described in the "Proposed Project" section above would
permit a density range of from 758 units (baseline) up to 1,981 units (high) with a midpoint of
1,432 units for the Proctor Valley GPA; and, a density range of from 739 units (baseline) up
to 1,928 units (high) with a midpoint of 1,394 units for the Horseshoe Bend GPA (Please see
following GP midpoint analysis Tables 2 & 3). An evaluation by staff to determine the
appropriate density for the project can be found below.
The proposed General Development Plan Amendments parallel the General Plan (GP) land use
designations described above with the following exceptions: one subarea on the western side of
the project reflects a Low-Medium designation under the Low (0-3 du/ac) category of the GP,
and one subarea on the east side of the project would be designated Medium under the Low
Medium (3-6 du/ac) category of the GP.
Through the clustering provisions of Section 6.3 of the GP a project may aggregate dwelling
units onto a reduced land area in order to achieve a more sensitive response to the site. In the
western side of both GDPs, under the proposed Low density GP category, the clustering policies
;ll r..2;!
Page 15, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
will permit a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. (net), not to exceed 4.5 units per net acre, which
is consistent with the project Low-Medium GDP designation in the west for each proposed GDP.
However, the overall character of the Low density area is required by the GP to be
predominantly estate, similar to the Sweetwater Valley. Staff interprets this to mean that at least
50 % of the lots in the Low density area shall be V2 acre or larger in accordance with Residential
Estate zone standards.
Under the policies of the GP for the Low Medium category located on the east side of the
project, densities may be shifted to provide a variety of housing types, consistent with those
defmed in the GP for the Low Medium category. Both GDPs propose a Medium designation,
which is intended to permit density shifts to this area from other residential areas of the project.
However, the character and product types of this area must still must still be consistent with GP
policies.
Section 6.3 of the GP contains criteria by which to evaluate whether a project should be
permitted to go from the baseline density to midpoint or above. The following criteria is used
to evaluate whether a project can achieve midpoint:
1. Compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns, both
l.lrban and rural, natural and manmade, in order to achieve an overall reduction
in land use friction.
2. Sensitive response to the physical characteristics of the site having to do with:
a. Landform grading, Surrounding and/or internal existing and proposed
circulation patterns as shown in the Circulation Element.
b. Relationship to open space/greenbelt systems as shown on the Plan
Diagram.
c. Environmental considerations and natural amenities.
d. Visual and functional quality.
3. Achievement of a variety of housing types permissible within the character of the
"range" and responsive to the improvement of the townscape, sophistication, and
livability of the area.
It may be determined that the appropriate density for a project should be above the midpoint of
the range. In such instance, the project shall contain features which provide exceptional and
extraordinary benefits to the residents of the City of Chula Vista, as interpreted by the City
Council after review by the Planning Commission.
;21--<1
Page 16, Item_
Meeting Date 12/17/96
The applicant does not propose to exceed the midpoint densities of either proposed Plan. Staff
has evaluated the criteria cited above and has determined that both Plans are in substantial
conformance these criteria and that the project warrants development at the midpoint density.
It should be noted that the Proctor Valley GDP midpoint exceeds that of the Horseshoe Bend
GDP primarily because of the loss of approximately 21 acres of SR-125 right-of-way. The
General Plan shows an illustrative and conceptual alignment for SR-125 and the GDP was based
on the same illustrative alignment. Each alignment has a different impact on the overall amount
of developable land with the Horseshoe Bend alignment being the more impactive of the two.
-2/- .2.b
Table 2
Page 17, Item_
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Amended General Plan "Midpoint" Residential Density Analysis
Horseshoe Bend Plan
Land Use Acres
L 241.1 121 482 723
LM 177.4 532 799 1,064
7.8 86 113 140
426.3 739 1394 1928
1.00 1.89 2.61
du/ac du/ac du/ac
0 0 0
1394 1928
0.29 0.54 0.74
du/ac du/ac du/ac
Table 3
Amended General Plan "Midpoint" Residential Density Analysis
Proctor Vallev Plan
Density Rance
Svmbol Land Use Acres Baseline I Midpoint I Hich
< < ......... ........................ ....................<................... ..... ............................< ................
L Low (.5 - 3 DU/Acre) 248.4 124 497 745
LM Low Medium (3 - 6 DU/Acre) 182.6 548 822 1,096
MH Medium (11 - 18 DU/Acre) 7.8 86 113 140
South Parcel Residential Total 438.8 758 1,432 1.981
Average Gross Density Over 738.2 Acres 1.03 1.94 268
(South Parcel Only) du/ac du/ac du/ac
1\ < ........... C ....... ...... ..<...< < ... C............... <.. ....<.......
~ Open Space 1.852.0 0 0 0
<2290:8 758 1432 1<981
Average Gross Density Over 2,590.2 Acres 0.29 0.55 0.76
(Entire Proiect) du/ac du/ac du/ac
General Plan Midpoint Density Assumptions:
L 2.0 du/ac
LM 4.5 du/ac
M 8.5 du/ac
MH 14.5 du/ac
H 22.0 du/ac
,,}/,...2 "
Page 18, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Land Use Issues
As previously listed, in addition to the environmental issues discussed in the SEIR, there are
several land use issues associated with this proposed project. These include land use densities
and distributions, compatibility/interface with adjacent communities, traffic, loss of estate
housing opportunities, and the disposition of the southerly adjacent parcels. Discussion of each
of these issues follows.
a. Land use DensitieslDistribution
As discussed above, the GPAs and GDPs now under consideration represent a joint planning
effort which staff believes reflects a satisfactory response to the concerns regarding previously
submitted draft GDPs. In addition, the plan gives the region the opportunity to retain the entire
North Parcel in open space. While the number of dwelling units on the south Parcel would
increase by 132 for the Horseshoe Bend Plan and 170 for the Proctor Valley Plan, the retention
of the North Parcel in open space result in an overall reduction in potential dwelling units by
225 for the Horseshoe Bend Plan and 187 for the Proctor Valley Plan over the entire 2590 acres
compared with the approved 1993 plan. Both plans provide a total of about 2100 acres of open
space, an increase of approximately 470 acres. In addition, the proposed plans would result in
the reduction of grading quantities by more than 25 % .
b. North Parcel Issues
The original draft GDP amendment, which reflected only the Proctor Valley alignment of SR-
125, did not propose any development on the North Parcel. The accompanying General Plan
Amendment application reflected the draft GDP. Subsequently, preliminary comments received
from some members of the City Council at the time the Council considered the goals and
objectives for the project indicated some sentiment for at least a limited number of estate lots
on the North Parcel. In response, the second and third iterations of the draft GDP provided 50
one-acre lots on that parcel. When it became apparent that the Horseshoe Bend alignment of SR-
125 was a viable alternative tollway route, the applicant prepared a second draft GDP reflecting
that alignment. That plan did not provide any North Parcel lots. Subsequently, EPC amended
its GDP application to exclude any development on the North Parcel for either alternative draft
GDP. The applicant's reasons for this action follows:
1. EPC has opted to enter into a conservation agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. Among
other things, this agreement requires that, in order for EPC to obtain any "take
authorizations" for the South Parcel from the aforementioned agencies, eg, permission
to develop in areas which contain sensitive biological species, no development of the
North Parcel would be permitted. The City is not a party to this agreement.
021-,)..7
Page 19, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
2. Eliminating North Parcel development would be in conformance with one alternative of
the City's draft MSCP Subarea Plan and the Multiple Habitat Planning Area map
prepared by staff for the Subarea Plan.
3. The draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicates that any development of the
North Parcel would result in unmitigable biological impacts.
4. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the proximity of SR-125 with its attendant noise and
emissions and the requirement for crossing this tollway to access the estate lot area on
the North Parcel would, in EPC's opinion, render the property undesirable for estate lots
from a marketing perspective.
As previously mentioned, EPC has unilaterally entered into a conservation agreement with the
Wildlife Agencies which, among other provisions, requires the Agencies to purchase
approximately 500 acres on the westerly portion of the North Parcel within a two year
timeframe. Staffrecognizes EPC's desire to retain its development options for the North Parcel
in the event the Agencies fail to consummate the purchase, per the agreement. To accomplish
this goal, staff believes that caveats are needed in the General Plan to ensure that, while Open
Space is the primary General Plan designation for the North Parcel, there will be a secondary
land use designation that, should acquisition not occur, some estate residential development may
be considered in the future. In this regard, staff recommends identifying the North Parcel as
"Open Space" on the General Plan Land Use Diagram with a footnote referencing text language
which explains when and how a secondary residential land use, amounting to no more than 50
estate units on 107 acres (as analyzed in an SEIR alternative), would go into effect. EPC concurs
with this approach. The diagrams and recommended General Plan language are attached
(Attachment 9).
As it applies to the North Parcel, the City's draft Subarea Plan of the MSCP provides two
alternative preserve designs: (1) the Existing GDP Alternative reflecting land uses indicated on
the GDP approved in 1993 and the corresponding land uses presently depicted on the General
Plan, and (2) the Modified GDP Alternative which is similar to (1) except that it would preclude
any North Parcel development. The Wildlife Agencies consider the North Parcel the key
component of the MSCP for this region because if its extensive and diverse biological habitat.
As a result of the value of the North Parcel, as previously stated, EPC's conservation agreement
with the Wildlife Agencies precludes any development on that parcel. This agreement is in
accord with the Modified GDP Alternative which also indicates no development on the North
Parcel. The wording of this agreement confirms that no take authorizations would be permitted
by the Wildlife Agencies on the South Parcel without it.
A companion issue to the development or non-development of the North Parcel is the potential
loss of estate lot opportunities on the property. While the GDP would provide for some large
lots in the one-half to two-thirds acre range on the South Parcel, estate lots in excess of one acre
021-2~
Page 20, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
may be inappropriate there. Staff believes that the rationale behind the removal of the lots from
the North Parcel previously discussed is valid. The issue of providing the opportunity for estate
lot housing is not confmed to the subject property but, rather, is a matter which has City-wide
implications. This topic is the subject of the attached issue discussion (Attachment 7).
c. Interface-Compatibility with Surrounding Communities
Community areas located adjacent to San Miguel Ranch, which will be impacted to varying
degrees by the project, are the County community of Sunnyside and the Salt Creek I and Salt
Creek Ranch projects, both in the City. Attached to this staff report is an issue discussion
(Attachment 8) which examines how the San Miguel Ranch property may be developed in a
manner which is as compatible as possible with these adjacent existing and planned community
areas.
In the case of the Sunnyside area, the conclusions reached were that the transition between semi-
rural Sunnyside and the suburban San Miguel Ranch will result in some degree of
incompatibility, but the provision of larger and deeper adjacent lots and elevation differential
combined with contoured slopes, enhanced slope landscaping and other design elements adjacent
to Sunnyside should assist in softening the impact between the two community types. As is also
the case with the adjacent Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch developments, careful planning at
the SPA and TM levels will be required to insure compatibility.
d. Traffic
An important issue discussed in the SEIR is traffic impacts on the area resulting from this
project. The SEIR concluded that traffic from the project would have a minimal impact on the
regional roadway system and that the project would produce less traffic than the previously
approved GDP. This does not mean that there are no traffic problems in this area. There are
several road segments which are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service, with or
without this project. Stated in another way, the project would provide an insignificant amount
of traffic to some roads which are already operating at levels of service considered higher than
optimum.
Traffic associated with the project, as well as other future developments, is dependent upon the
construction of SR-125 for a majority of project trips in order to maintain acceptable levels of
service on area roadways. Future SPA level traffic and transportation phasing analyses will
evaluate the ability of the South Bay transportation network to accommodate future growth
should SR-125 not be constructed as scheduled.
On a local level, projected traffic on San Miguel Road, a County two-lane collector, and a small
portion of Proctor Valley Road, a local street, are cause for concern, especially since San
Miguel Road was downgraded from a four-lane collector to a two-lane collector in 1988 because
.)./...:;.1
Page 21, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
of its narrow right-of-way. The Horseshoe Bend Plan would introduce traffic from the project
onto these two streets mostly from Mt. Miguel Road. A condition of the previously approved
plan required that the applicant receive an amendment to the Circulation Element of the County
General Plan or other action acceptable to the County which provides for off-site access to the
west of the project into the Sweetwater Valley. This access was to be in the form of a by-pass
road connecting Proctor Valley Road and the westerly end of San Miguel Road where its right-
of-way is widest. The SPA level traffic report will evaluate whether a by-pass road is still a
viable mitigation measure.
Two additional conditions have been suggested to respond to this topic. One requires that a SPA
plan traffic analysis be prepared which determines the ultimate capacity and levels of service for
existing and planned streets serving the project, formulates a phasing plan for additional on- and
off-site street facilities, determines the level of interim facilities required should construction of
SR-125 be delayed, determines requirements for off-site access to the Sweetwater Valley and
determines whether an amendment to the County Circulation Element is necessary to provide
this access. The second condition requires the formation of a technical committee composed of
staff from the County Departments of Public Works and Planning and Land Use and the City
Departments of Engineering and Planning to provide input into the study of area-wide
transportation planning concerns and foster better communication between the two jurisdictions
regarding mutual regional traffic concerns.
e. Southern Out-Parcels
There are approximately 38 acres divided into 52 vacant parcels ranging in area between 10,000
square feet and 3.25 acres. This area is identified as Map 1286-Haley's Addition and is bounded
on three sides by the South Parcel of San Miguel Ranch. These lots take access from 20-foot-
wide paper streets emanating from Proctor Valley Road in a grid pattern which does not take
into account the difficult topography of the area. The implementation of the Proctor Valley
alignment of SR-125 would result the loss of about 10 of these lots while the Horseshoe Bend
alignment would delete up to 25 of them.
Staff has prepared an issue discussion (Attachment 9) which concludes that this area would
neither impact nor be specifically impacted by the San Miguel Ranch project. It further
concludes that until an alignment of SR-125 is chosen and a development proposal is presented
by the owners of the adjacent Buie Bonita Meadows property, any action relative to these
parcels, such as annexation, would be premature. However, consideration of service and
infrastructure needs for the out -parcel area should be accomplished in conjunction with the
Public Facilities Financing Plan for the San Miguel Ranch SPA plan.
.lI'J(l
j
C'-l
Eo-
~
Page 22, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
7. Conclusion
As is evident from the foregoing discussion, associated with the project are several significant
issues, some just project-related and some having ramifications which transcend the project.
While some of these issues were resolved at the General Plan and General Development Plan
levels, others will require the fine analysis and environmental review associated with the SPA
plan and Tentative Map processes. Staff believes that both proposed GPA/GDP's, along with
recommended conditions, represent reasonable land use alternatives to the existing General
Plan/General Development Plan designations to regulate the development of this strategically
located property.
FISCAL IMPACT
Applicant has paid for all processing costs associated with this request. A fiscal impact analysis
of the project will be prepared at the SPA Plan level, in conjunction with the Public Facilities
Financing Plan.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes of 11120/96
San Miguel Ranch Citizens' Advisory Committee minutes
Resource Conservation Commission minutes
Proposed Modifications to the Eastern Territories Area Plan (Chapter 14 of the General
Plan)
Letter from County Department of Planning and Land Use
Estate Housing Report
Interface-Compatibility Issue Discussion
Southern Out-parcels Issue Discussion
6.
7.
8.
9.
(m:\home\planning\paul\gpa%-Ol \pcffi+96-05.rep)
~/'3/
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT IT
APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Emerald Properties Corporation, hereafter referred to as "applicant", has submitted
an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-01) to be approved on the 2590
acre San Miguel Ranch generally located north and east of Proctor Valley Road, south and east
of the community of Sunnyside and southwest of San Miguel Mountain; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has added certain recommended changes to the General Plan
Amendment application which amends the General Plan Text and Diagram for the entire
property, to which the applicant has agreed, said amendments being attached to and made a part
of this Resolution, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for an amendment to the San Miguel
Ranch General Development Plan (Case # PCM-96-05) for the entire San Miguel Ranch property
(North and South Parcels) which generally reflects the proposed amendments to the General Plan
for the South Parcel and other amendments for the North Parcel; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated
August, 1996, was prepared for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following
issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project:
Land Use
Landform/Visual Quality
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of
Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was
given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission viewed the property in the field on August 21, 1996; and
WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on
the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and
- 3 __ ..2/.,.;J;L.
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commis.sion held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan
Amendment and amendments to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan on November
20, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION certifies
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SEIR-95-04.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the
City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the General Plan
Amendment and the General Development Plan Amendment in accordance with the fmdings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA
,
CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Davis, Salas, Thomas, Tuchscher, Willett
NOES: Ray, Tarantino
ABSENT: None
ABSTENTIQNS: None
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\paul\gpa96-0 1 \pcm96-05 .pc)
- ~/ --;JJ
Excerpt From Preliminary 11120/96 Planning Commission Minutes
ITEM 2.
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04;
CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENPMENT, AN
AMENDMENT TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND A FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF SAN MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND
NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD - Emerald Properties, Inc.
(Commissioner Ray arrived at 8:20 p.m.)
Senior Planner Manganelli presented the staff report, noting that the subject property was
surrounded by the community of Sunnyside, the Buie Bonita Meadows property, the Salt Creek
I property, Salt Creek Ranch, and EastLake. In 1993, the City Council approved up to 1619
dwelling units, approved in principle, subject to further environmental analysis, SPA Plan, and
site plan analysis. Mr. Manganelli noted that the applicant was proposing a General Plan
Amendment for their projects. Because of the uncertainty of the SR-125 route, the applicant
chose to do two plans which reflected the two alignments, with the idea of getting the two plans
approved. The plan which reflected the ultimate alignment chosen by the State would be the
plan that went forward. Mr. Manganelli then described the two proposals.
Regarding the Horseshoe Bend plan, Mr. Manganelli stated that the applicant had a change in
his proposal as of that evening. The Horseshoe Bend plan showed land uses somewhat different
from the General Plan amendment as proposed. He proceeded to show the differences. He
noted that it was to allow for flexibility and density transfers and clustering. The applicant was
now reques~ing that the area designated as Low Medium on the General Development Plan be
the category on the General Plan as well. They also requested that the area designated as
Medium on the General Developinent Plan be the category they were requesting on the General
Plan amendment.
Mr. Manganelli stated that there were no changes on the original application on the Proctor
Valley Plan. The two above changes were to the Horseshoe Bend Plan.
He then discussed the requested changes to the General Development Plan, with the land use
designations of the different areas and the density, with no development on the north parcel.
The total number of dwellings being requested for the Horseshoe Bend Plan was 1498. The total
number of dwelling units for the Proctor Valley Plan was 1432.
Mr. Manganelli noted that the City Council had appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee to
oversee the planning of the project. This committee made a variety of recommendations, some
of which had been incorporated into the plan, and some of which could not. Staff held public
forums with the Bonita Sunnyside area and the Salt Creek I area. Those who attended the forum
from Sunnyside were most concerned about traffic, drainage, and the compatibility of the project
with their area. The Salt Creek I residents were concerned about a neighborhood park in their
area, which was planned but not yet constructed, and compatibility with their development.
- 7-
-2/- 3J/
Presentations were also made to the Sweetwater Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic
Association. Traffic, drainage, and neighborhood compatibility were the key issues raised.
He noted that staff and the applicant agreed on the Proctor Valley Plan density of 1432 units,
which represented mid-point of the density range. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the
proposal was 1498 units. Staff recommended 1394 units, based on a mid-point General Plan
density range and community character, among other considerations. Staff felt that in order to
obtain the density that the applicant required, there would be too many units placed in the
Medium area, which was actually smaller than the Medium density area of the Proctor Valley
Plan. This created a community character issue whereby this project was essentially a single-
family-dwelling type development, except for the M area which would permit small lots, patio
homes, duplexes, and perhaps a few townhomes. The applicant proposed about 498 units in the
M area. Considering General Plan conformance, both plans fell into the density range of the
General Plan. While the Proctor Valley Plan was a mid-point, the Horseshoe Bend Plan was
104 units above mid-point. Through the clustering policies of the General Plan, the Low and
Medium categories may permit higher density products, so long as the overall density is within
the range. Both plans did this, but to exceed mid-point of the range, fmdings of extraordinary
benefits to the City should be made. Although some of the benefits could be classified as
extraordinary benefits, there was some monetary conpensation on the horizon for the applicants.
Mr. Manganelli then discussed the north parcel and the issues associated with the north parcel.
The primary use would be open space. He noted that should the wildlife agencies not purchase
the 500 acres in accordance with the conservation agreement, as a secondary use of the project,
it is proposed that the applicant would have the opportunity to apply for up to 50 dwelling units
on 107 acres.
Mr. Manganelli stated that the transition between the semi-rural Sunnyside and the suburban San
Miguel Ranch would result in some degree of incompatibility. But the provision of larger and
deeper adjacent lots and elevatioh differential combined with contoured slopes, enhanced slope
landscaping, and other design elements adjacent to Sunnyside should assist in softening the
impact between the two community types.
Senior Planner Manganelli said that staff believed that both proposed plans, as amended through
recommended conditions, represented reasonable land use alternatives to the existing General
Plan and. General Development Plan to regulate the development of this property. There were
still several issues remaining that would be dealt with at the SPA level. He said there was a new
issue that the applicant would further describe.
Commissioner Willett, regarding traffic, said a Sandag Model Series 7 had been referenced.
With all the work that had been done on SR-125 using Sandag Model Series 8, shouldn't some
of those figures, which are more current, be used for this property?
Mr. Marum replied that the modeling work that was done for the traffic analysis conducted for
this proposed project did use Series 8. They modified the Series 8 Year 2015 model from
Sandag and rebuilt the old build-out model under the Series 7 forecast that had been used for the
Dtay Ranch General Development Plan work, and tried to reflect all of the approved projects
~<6- .21'.3'>
that had been approved by the Council over the past three to five years since they had done the
Otay Ranch model work. They had only done build-out modeling under the Series 8 condition.
Regarding the comparison of Salt Creek Ranch and San Miguel Ranch dwelling units per acre,
Mr. Willett said it was difficult to understand why one could have 3.3 dulac and the other 2.03
dulac, even though the terrain was different. He suggested that staff put together something that
could give them a better comparison. Mr. Manganelli replied that in addition to the terrain, it
was also close to the Bonita Sunnyside area and staff believed there should be a transition from
south to north with lower densities. Staff felt that was reason for a lower density project, and
the General Plan recognized that by designating that property Low residential. The applicant
was asking for an amendment to the General Plan.
Commissioner Willett was concerned about the number of children traversing from west to east
to school. He asked if there was going to be a special protected walkway for the school children
going across that bridge. Mr. Manganelli said the school children would not be going across
the bridge. The School District had asked that the school site be moved so the children going
to the facility would be from that neighborhood. The children on the other side would go to the
Sunnyside school. Mr. Manganelli stated Dr. Billings of the School District had informed staff
that they were in the process of planning upgrading and enlargement of that school.
Commissioner Willett asked if in the open space area, it would preserve the hiking and horse
trails through the area. He asked if there would be space for parks or greenbelts. Mr.
Manganelli said there was a preliminary trail system on-site. At the SPA level, it would be fme-
tuned.
Regarding drainage overflow, Commissioner Willett asked if there were any proVtslons to
capture any of the overflow from San Miguel property instead of going down Miller Creek. Mr.
Manganelli said that as part of ihe SPA plan, the applicant would be required to prepare a
drainage study. They had already done a preliminary drainage study, and as part of the SPA
plan process would have a drainage plan.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the densities listed were calculated on the entire development
envelope of the south parcel. Mr. Manganelli said it was the entire parcel. Regarding Salt
Creek I, Mr. Lee said it was calculated on the area north of "H" Street. Commissioner
Tuchscher stated that it could be confusing to calculate. He was not sure what the base data
was. Mr. Lee noted that with the traditional R-l development 7,000 square foot lot, the density
was about 4-1/2 dulac, which was reflected at the Salt Creek I area north of "H".
Commissioner Salas noted that the County of San Diego had been reluctant to conform to the
City of Chula Vista traffic circulation element. She asked if the community had the knowledge
that it would be a four-lane arterial with the Chula Vista plan. Was there a good and adequate
discussion in the community regarding that?
Mr. Manganelli said he had attended the meetings and there was discussion about that. The
residents of the Sunnyside area were not happy about that. The condition would not necessarily
be for the reclassification of San Miguel Road to a wider status, especially since some of the
-~ ~/'J t.
houses along the east end of the road were already very close to the street. The other alternative
was for a bypass road. The alternatives would have to studied at the SPA level.
Commissioner Salas said they did not propose any development in the northern parcel. She
asked if there was access. Mr. Manganelli answered affIrmatively and indicated the road on the
map.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to comment on their conversations with County staff to see
if there was any forward movement on planning for the eventuality of the need regarding the San
Miguel Road. Mr. Manganelli replied that that was the reason for the condition in the
recommending resolution to establish a technical committee composed of the County
Departments of Public Works and Planning and Land Use and the City Departments of
Engineering and Planning.
In reply to Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Manganelli said the limit of the City's participation
in discussing this issue was only at meetings with County Public Works and Planning
Commissioner Tuchscher understood that the City of Chula Vista had spent DlF money on
improving County roads in that area of Bonita, because the County had not stepped forward with
improvements that were on their circulation element. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich agreed that
DIF money had been spent on Central Avenue and toward the design of a portion of Bonita
Road. There was in the DlF program facilities in San Miguel Road and other County facilities.
The money had not been actually expended to date.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
(The following two speakers gave. an organized presentation.)
Mark Faulkner, Radnor WeSt, 9665 Chesapeake, San Diego, representing Emerald
Properties, said they were processing a General Plan amendment and two General Development
Plans to be weighed equally in the event of SR-125 either going to the Proctor Valley or the
Horseshoe Bend alignment. They wanted to build flexibility into the plan, and proposed two
changes in the General Plan designation of two portions of the property. They concurred with
staff's recommendation on the rest of the project. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend General Plan,
they were proposing 1498 units, 104 units over staff's recommendation, because of SR-125. SR-
125 was a 300' wide piece of concrete running through the property, which split the community
into two parts, and they felt they had adequately transitioned through land use in the west
Sunnyside area and were asking for an L-M designation on the portion of the property that was
previously the community park and school site. They would be retaining the full remnant
Horseshoe Bend not decimated by the freeway. In the east, the General Plan amendment would
consist of an M designation in the middle of the property, buffered by Mt. Miguel Road and the
out parcels. The school and park sites had been moved, based on staff's recommendation and
both Parks & Recreation and the School District's request because of community character
changes because of the freeway.
~ )/-:37
Steve Estrada, Estrada Land Planning, 85 Horton Plaza #300, San Diego, had done an
extensive land analysis. The basic goal was to build a project that respected the land while
providing a variety of housing types and associated uses that met the needs of. the Chula Vista
community. He explained the goals they had used for a land plan, leaving the.boundaries intact
and not encroaching upon existing approved areas. For the south portion, they had provided 53
more acres of open space than the existing approved plan called for. The entire north area
would revert back to open space. Mr. Estrada went into more detail regarding the plans for Mt.
Miguel Road, the grading, the landform and views, visual impact, easements treated as
amenities, and trails.
Mr. Faulkner returned to the podium to summarize their request of a General Plan amendment
to reflect the Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan. They were in agreement with the
Proctor Valley General Development Plan and General Plan amendment as it related to the
Proctor Valley Plan. They were requesting a change on the General Plan amendment on the
Horseshoe Bend Plan only. Mr. Faulkner noted that SDG&E, USF&G, California Department
of Fish & Wildlife, CalTrans, and Citizens Ad Hoc Committee concurred with their plan. The
freeway through the middle of the project would change the Horseshoe Bend project. The
original plan was 1619 units; neither proposal was in excess of those densities. There was
transition from the Bonita Sunnyside area. He thanked staff for their efforts. He requested the
Planning Commission to support their request for the General Plan amendment on Horseshoe
Bend and Proctor Valley, support the General Development Plan request on Horseshoe Bend at
1498 and their General Development Plan at 1432 on the Proctor Valley Plan.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Faulkner to repeat the changes to be made.
Mr. Faulkner stated that the General Development Plan was consistent with the application.
They were not changing. The areas being discussed were LM-1 and M areas in the General
Development Plans. They requested that the General Plan amendment be made consistent so
the applicant would have the flexibility to maintain the mid-point densities, which still had to be
justified at the SPA level, reflecting the areas as LM-1 and M in the General Plan amendment
as well as the General Development Plan, on Horseshoe Bend only.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the number of potential units increased as a result. Mr.
Faulkner stated they were requesting 1498, and that was not changing. Staff proposed a mid-
point density of 1394; the applicant was requesting 104 units over the mid-point.
Commissioner Tuchscher said that the applicant was in agreement with staff recommendation
previously, and now were requesting a higher mid-point. Mr. Faulkner replied that they felt that
conditions 5, 6, and 8 were not attainable under the General Development Plan. Thus it
rendered an inconsistency with the General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if staff had had time to analyze this. Mr. Manganelli said staff
understood what they were asking for; much of the request had been discussed at various times
during development of the plan; the big difference was that the Medium area had changed. The
request had not been fully analyzed.
~ol./';JR'
John Hammond, 3012 Anderson St., Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Community
Planning Group, distributed a letter to the Planning Commissioners which addressed the issues
of San Miguel Road and stormwater discharge into Central Creek which ultimately terminated
on the Chula Vista Golf Course. There had been a significant problem with recent uncontrolled
storm runoff from Salt Creek I. He stated that the San Miguel Road community was an old
community and deserved as much consideration to exist as any new development, if not more.
There was no path through that community that would allow a four-lane collector road. San
Miguel is a substandard two-lane road. If it were built to County standards and widened to two
lanes and sidewalks put in, those sidewalks would be in the front door of many residences. To
try to bring it in other ways would mean hostile condemnation of land. The Sweetwater
Community Planning Group recommended cul-de-sacing some of the road so there could be no
communication between the areas. He requested that because of the problems on San Miguel
Road, the construction traffic for this project be restricted from San Miguel Road.
Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he respected the Sweetwater Community Planning
Group, had read their letter, and wanted to invoke discussion about this issue. Consideration
was necessary as to how to solve the problem, the concern, and he did not see from County staff
standpoint any forward movement there. He hoped City staff, the Sweetwater Community
Planning Group, and County could start talking about what was going to happen there in the
future. If condemnation was necessary, it should be planned for.
Mr. Hammond felt Chula Vista continued to ignore the problem occurring with their massive
development. The bedroom communities had to be supported for people commuting somewhere
else. A real lack of regional planning was occurring. All of the development was occurring
without a rational regional transportation plan. It was not that the San Miguel Road community
was in the way or that the County could not respond.
Don Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, said he owns and operates a dog boarding
kennel. San Miguel Ranch wants to put large homes adjacent to the kennel. Mt. Miguel Road
ends on Proctor Valley Road, going nowhere. All of the traffic off LA and B and LM-l areas
would be dumped on Proctor Valley Road into San Miguel Road, which goes through the
community. Construction traffic from EastLake was causing a big problem. Traffic would go
north, not back to "H" Street. SR-125 was not a given. Even if SR-125 was built, there would
be a lot of traffic down Proctor Valley Road. Mr. Jensen did not feel the applicant had brought
a clear picture of the changes they wanted to make before the Commission. There were still a
lot of unanswered questions.
Commissioner Davis asked where his property was located in respect to either of the SR-125
alignments. She asked if either went through his property. Mr. Jensen replied that SR-125 was
on both sides.
Cindy Burrascano, 771 Lori Lane, CV, speaking as President of the California Native Plant
Society in San Diego, said that they found that the EIR was not in compliance with CEQA
requirements of disclosure of significant impacts. There were four plant species in the old
document which had required mitigation to less than significant. The current document no
longer included many of the mitigations to reduce impacts to those species that had been in the
~ &1"';1
previously certified GDP EIR. Impacts to Palmers Grappling hook and California adolphia were
not properly disclosed. While covered MSCP species may be adequately mitigated with the
proposed MSCP preserve design, there was no guarantee that non-covered species were
adequately mitigated by that program. The CEQA required disclosure of impacts to sensitive
species. Ms. Burrascano said that the northern parcel which the applicant had agreed to sell to
the wildlife agencies did not contain Palmers Grappling hook or California adolphia. The impact
had not been mitigated, and she requested that the mitigation originally proposed for those
species be adopted.
Commissioner Davis asked staff to comment on the remarks regarding the unmitigated species.
Betty Dehoney of Tetra Tech stated that the EIR addressed biological resources on a habitat
issue. The proposal has included extensive consultation with USF&WS and CDF&G along the
multi-species comprehensive planning process, which was to mitigate by provision of open space
habitat instead of what had been traditionally associated with mitigation on a species-by-species
basis. The provision of the open space, the provision of the Otay Tarplant Preserve Area, and
the mitigation banking options had reduced impacts to below a level of significance.
Commissioner Willett asked if the speaker's letter had been answered. Ms. Reid replied
affIrmatively and said the speaker had also received a copy of the Final EIR and a letter which
included the responses.
George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae Road, Bonita, commented that many of the people who
live on San Miguel Road were retired and had lived there for a long time. If their homes were
condemned, they would never be able to buy with that money the same kind of community as
they presently had. Regarding SR-125, the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association had been
involved for about nine years. The Citizens Advisory Commission had recommended the "CAC
alignment" (Horseshoe Bend aligpment) which had the least effect on housing, recreational
centers, schools, and the golf course. His priority was always for the health and general welfare
of the people. It would be a big mistake to try to make four lanes out of San Miguel Road. He
asked the Planning Commission to consider that.
Commissioner Salas said that the CAC had put a lot of thought into the Horseshoe Bend
alignment, and it made more sense with the development that was there now. The applicant's
proposal would be a more diffIcult community to plan with that particular alignment. She had
concerns about developing two separate communities.
Mr. Kost said they had been studying the area for nine years. The Planning Commission needed
to think of the community. He asked them to keep in mind that the health and general welfare
of the people was their prime responsibility.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how to make a decision before an alignment was chosen.
~ ~/, ~p
Mr. ManganelIi replied that the applicant was asking that the Plamring Commission approve both
plans so that when CalTrans decided the alignment of SR-125, the applicant would then go to
the next level of plamring with the plan reflecting the chosen alignment and discard the other
plan. Staff had been expecting a preferred alignment commitment from the State for some time.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if an alignment were chosen during the next few days, this item
could be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Manganelli said he believed the project would
have to be continued to a time certain, rather than just put off indefinitely.
Attorney Googins concurred with Mr. ManganelIi, but stated if the item was not acted on, an
additional public hearing could be held if it were not continued to a date certain; however, a new
notice would need to be sent out to all the adjacent residents.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked the applicant to respond. If the Commission approved both
resolutions, would the applicant start processing two SPAs concurrently or go on hold until the
alignment is selected to process the SPA.
Chair Tarantino said that because the public hearing was closed, the applicant could respond to
questions but not offer testimony.
Mark Dillon, 1921 Palomar Oaks, Carlsbad, on behalf of Emerald Properties, pointed out that
the City Council had expressed a preference for the Horseshoe Bend alignment. In addition, the
applicant had gone forward with the previously approved GDP without knowing what CalTrans
would do with respect to the alignment. During the plamring process, the CAC (Horseshoe
Bend) alignment had emerged, and rather than being placed in a situation where they were in
a moratorium waiting for the State to act, the applicant had elected to go forward with two
GDPs.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked it the resolutions were approved, what was the next step? Did
they wait for the alignment or start processing two SPAs? Mr. Dillon said they would wait until
CalTrans made their announcement about a preferred alternative, which was supposed to take
place in December or January.
Mr. Manganelli stated that there were a variety of studies that the applicant could conduct during
the interim. It would be expensive to process two SPAs.
Commissioner Salas noted that there was still a question as to whether the County would ever
approve a four-lane arterial for San Miguel Road. That was one of the things that would change
the character of the area. Because of the fact that CalTrans would be making a decision so
quickly, she thought it would afford the applicant the opportunity to work with the community
to see if they could come up with something that was more acceptable to the community. She
would not vote for approval of that alternative at this point, when in January the applicant would
know for certain what they would be dealing with, and the County would perhaps come to some
understanding with' the City.
-~ ;}/., 'II
Mr. Lee said this particular project contributed a relatively small portion of the ultimate overall
traffic projected for the area. The County needed to address the issue as much as the City. This
plan did not compromise that. It provided that there needed to be a solution, but both parties
needed to come to some agreement. Staff was comfortable with this plan at this level and
recognized that the hard issues would have to be solved at the SPA Plan level:
Chair Tarantino reiterated that the Planning Commission was being asked to certify the
Subsequent EIR and either recommend approval or denial of the General Plan amendment and
the General Development Plan amendment.
Mr. Lee noted that the question of the two alignments was that the Commission would have to
feel comfortable with both plans, keeping in mind that the applicant needs some decision points.
It was important for the applicant to keep the project moving. Once a decision is reached and
an alignment is set, they could move into the SPA.
Mr. Manganelli noted that the contribution of 1852 acres to the MSCP would in part be paid for
by the 500 acres which would be purchased by the wildlife agencies, perhaps monetary
compensation for mitigation banking and some SR-125 right-of-way, and some was for
mitigation for impacts on the south parcel. The new approach taken by the applicant on the
General Plan amendment was opposed by staff. It lowered the number of half-acre lots on the
west side and also introduced lots as small as 5,000 sq. ft. into the L-M area, which was also
on the west side. Staff believed that the recommendation of staff offered an opportunity for the
west side to have a development that was in conformance to the extent possible with the Bonita
Sunnyside Community.
Commissioner Ray asked why a vote was not taken on the certification of the EIR separate from
the other two actions.
Associate Planner Reid replied. that staff wanted the Planning Commission to hold off on
certification until items 2 and 3 had been considered in case there were any changes in the
project. The resolution attached to the packed included a recommendation for certification of
the Final EIR and the overriding considerations and findings.
Commissioner Ray clarified that in any event the adequacy of the EIR would have to be
approved prior to any vote on the project itself.
Attorney Googins concurred. That would be the first action taken formally, because they were
combined in one resolution as a concurrent action. He clarified that the resolutions called for
certification of the EIR. The formal CEQA certification was actually accomplished at the City
Council level. Processing through and input by the Planning Commission was important;
however, the certification was a recommendation to the Council.
Commissioner Ray was concerned that the resolution was constructed as if the Commission
would not vote on the certification individually. If the Planning Commission were to choose not
to certify the adequacy of the EIR, there would be no point in considering the GPA and GDP.
~ ,,1/' f ,,2.
Mr. Googins stated that if the Planning Commission had problems and issues relating to the EIR
certification, those could be brought out and be a basis for not wanting to take action for
approval of the EIR or the discretionary approvals. Commissioner Ray did not want to take
them as one action. .
Associate Planner Reid added that the Planning Commission could certify the EIR by minute
action, and then have a separate resolution for the project. Attorney Googins stated that was
workable. Someone would merely make a motion to recommend certification of the EIR for the
City Council's consideration. It was an oral resolution as opposed to a formal resolution.
Commissioner Ray said he would feel more comfortable taking these as separate items.
MS (Ray/Willett) to certify by minute action the EIR independent of any action ofthe GPA
or GDP changes.
Attorney Googins stated that Mr. Dillon, representing Emerald Properties, had indicated that
there was no objection to Mr. Tuchscher's participation in the project, assuming the nature of
the conflict was as Mr. Tuchscher described.
Commissioner Salas said there was a General Development Plan in place and whether or not this
General Plan Amendment was approved, that one still stayed in force. In terms of the San
Miguel Road improvements, she asked if that was part of the original General Development
Plan.
Associate Planner Reid answered that it was part of the original GDP.
Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the motion was to deal with the EIR separately.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION"
To vote to certify the Subsequent EIR by minute action.
VOTE: 7-0
MS (Salas) to approve Resolution GPA-96-01 as presented in consideration of the General
Plan amendment. There already was an existing General Development Plan in place. This one
is a vast improvement to the current one.
Commissioner Willett seconded.
Commissioner Davis asked if the motion addressed the density difference the applicant was
requesting; that is, 1432 on Proctor Valley and 1498 on Horseshoe Bend.
Mr. ManganelIi believed the motion was on the General Plan Amendment and did not include
the units. He asked if the motion included the original staff recommendation or the applicant's
amendment.
~ ~/ -f;
Commissioner Salas said it was for the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Ray clarified that Commissioner Salas wanted to go with the lower end of the
density, not with the applicant's figures.
Commissioner Salas confirmed that.
Conunissioner Willett pulled his second to the motion, since he concurred with going to the
1498 units. Conunissioner Tuchscher seconded instead.
Commissioner Ray asked why it could not be left at a general level with a range as opposed to
a specific number, until the consideration of the SPA? Commissioner Davis felt it would allow
more flexibility at the 1498 dwelling units.
Commissioner Ray stated that he was more comfortable with a range and then getting more
detail as opposed to limiting them to the low end or giving them the high end.
Commissioner Tuchscher commended the CAC for their work on SR-125 and pulling together
all the factions in producing the proposal for SR-125. He was hopeful that the final route would
go in the CAC alignment, because it gave some distance between existing neighborhoods. It
created a challenge for land planning, but also created some opportunity to buffer and plan for
the future freeway. Regarding the density issue, he was uncomfortable with changes that come
before the Commission and staff at the last minute. The Planning Commission had a positive
staff recommendation and a proposed change by the applicant. He had a challenge with the 104
density differential, and making that decision without benefit of staffs analysis. He was willing
to go with staff recommendation.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION
To concur staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Ray asked if that was inclusive of nailing down the number of dwelling units in
total? Chair Tarantino said that numbers should not be considered, only designations.
There was more discussion regarding the number of dwelling units and range. Mr. Manganelli
stated that there was a General Plan density test in which the highest General Plan densities
could not be exceeded. The General Plan establishes a cap. Mr. Manganelli clarified that the
motion on the floor dealt with the General Plan, not the General Development Plan. The issue
was the designation of Low or Low-Medium.
Commissioner Davis said that she was speaking against the motion on the floor because she felt,
at this level, the Commission needed to allow flexibility to come back at the SPA level, once
the SR-125 alignment had been determined.
Commissioner Ray understood that with land use designation, the applicant was still given the
range with a high and low end that was not specified. Mr. Lee noted that the next motion would
7~/~~t(
be affecting the General Development Plan and they would either support staff's recommendation
or the applicant's request, or some modification.
Commissioner Davis asked if this motion would limit them to the 1398 units. Mr. Lee answered
negatively as it relates to the General Plan.
CLARIFICATION OF MOTION
Chair Tarantino clarified that the motion was to accept staff's recommendation for land
designation as shown, Low west of SR-125, Low-Medium east of SR-125.
VOTE: 7-0
Chair Tarantino noted that the Planning Commission would now act on the General Development
Plan amendment.
Commissioner Ray asked if by this motion the Planning Commission was nailing down a specific
number of dwelling units which are not to be exceeded? If the motion was approved with a
range, would it undermine what staff was requesting?
Mr. Lee said it would be meaningless since a maximum number established is the critical point.
Motion by Commissioner Ray to approve the General Development Plan as presented with
dwelling tmits not to exceed 1498 to give the applicant the latitude for the high end. Mr.
Lee replied that in doing that, in terms of the General Plan, the applicant would have to find
extraordinary circumstances to justify going above the maximum. Mr. Manganelli said that,
based on this approval, the overall density on the west side would be 3 maximum. The overall
density on the east side would be 6. Low is 0-3, with the maximum density being 3. On the
east side the L-M would be 0-6,..with the maximum density being 6 dwelling units to the acre.
The Planning Commission could approve 3,000 units, but it would never meet the General Plan
test. Thirteen hundred ninety four (1394) met the General Plan test.
Commissioner Ray asked the range of units, in total, that would be approved with the last
motion. Mr. Manganelli said the range on the Low would be 0-3 and the High would be 723
units. The Low-Medium would be another 1,064. If the west side was kept Low density, and
the Planning Commission wanted to give the applicant 1498 dulac, one of the areas on the east
side must be made Medium.
Commissioner Salas explained that the Planning Commission had voted on a motion that
accepted staff's recommendation of this General Plan amendment. The applicant had brought
forward a different one, where they had different designations in the Low areas which they
designated Low-Medium. With the recommended General Plan Amendment, the maximum units
would be 1394. Had the Planning Commission gone with the applicant's change, the maximum
units would have been 1498.
~ ~/,tf5"
Commissioner Ray withdrew his motion and asked for reconsideration of the previous
action. Commissioner Davis seconded the reconsideration.
Commissioner Davis stated that she misunderstood what staff told her before .she voted on the
last motion. She was under the impression that the number of units could go where the applicant
wanted them. Mr. Lee said that if the Planning Commission wanted to maintain the rural
character of Bonita as described, retain the Low as recommended on the west side. They would
have to go to a Medium density to allow the cap of 1498.
VOTE to reconsider: 5-2 (Thomas and Salas voted against)
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the project was previously planned and an ErR certified.
What the Planning Commission had before them was an amendment to the General Plan, and
beyond that, it was a blank slate. He was not willing to off-the-cuff change the density, land
use designation, and bump the total number of dwelling units.
Commissioner Ray explained that it was his intent to give them the flexibility to start out at the
1498. He anticipated a number between 1394 and 1498 to come back at the SPA level, when
the Planning Commission had more specific detail.
Commissioner Tuchscher believed if the higher number of dwelling units were designated, the
higher number would be used if possible. He thought the Planning Commission should try to
honor the integrity of what has made Bonita a great place to live, and keep a uniform character
until SR-125 came in. At that point, it would clearly be of a different character and he thought
that was a great demarcation for it.
Commissioner Ray wanted to give the applicant the flexibility to work around the various
alignments of what it may be, and give him the highest range of 1498.
Mr. Lee clarified that the applicant's "last-minute pitch" was forthe amendment to the General
Plan in terms of the designation, not the numbers. The General Plan designation would give
them more flexibility in terms of lot sizes, etc. Staff was not in agreement with that.
MS (Ray/Davis) to approve the applicant's proposal going to the Low Medium designation
on the west and a Medium designation east of SR-125 as opposed to the Low and Low-
Medium previously approved.
Mr. Lee explained that Commissioner Tuchscher had suggested to retain the character of Bonita
was to keep the area designation west of SR-125 as Low, with the Medium area east of SR-125,
which the Planning Commission could allow a maximum of 1498 units as requested by the
applicant. The applicant could then accomplish that, if that was the Planning Commission's
goal.
More discussion followed regarding the dwelling units, density, lot SIZes, and what would
happen if various designations were changed.
~ol/"''1''
~.
Commissioner Davis stated that a big point had been made about the transitioning from Bonita,
but when she looked at what was proposed before on the General Development Plan, where
there were 357 units on the north parcel and now there would be no units on the north parcel.
She felt by taking 357 units off the north parcel, it made a nice gateway to Low. density into the
project. That was a real transition.
Chair Tarantino stated that it was his understanding that there was a potential for compensation
for the mitigation land. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the loss of development on the northern
parcel was a big loss for the City. It was a high-end estate housing area which was desperately
needed and was a unique opportunity. It was a loss for everyone, and he was not willing to
compensate them with higher density.
Chair Tarantino called for the vote. Mr. Lee clarified that the Planning Commission was voting
on the General Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Bend alignment.
VOTE: 3-4 - Motion failed. (Tarantino, Tuchscher, Thomas, Salas voted against)
MS (Salas/Thomas) to approve the General Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Bend Plan
as recommended by staff which was Low west of SR-125, Low-Medium east of SR-125.
Chair Tarantino suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to reach a compromise, the
designation could be Low west of SR-125, Medium east of SR-125, and that would give the
transition to Bonita and also provide the 1498 units.
Mr. Lee clarified that it was not staff's recommendation.
VOTE: 4-3. to approve (Willett, Ray, Tarantino voted against)
At the applicant's request, since Commissioner Davis had changed her vote, it was clarified that
she was not confused.
MSUC (Thomas/Salas) 7-0 to accept staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan
amendment for the Proctor Valley Plan.
Chair Tarantino noted that the property was not bisected by SR-125. Mr. Manganelli stated that
the dividing line was the Gas & Electric easement.
Chair Tarantino stated that the Planning Commission now needed to act on the General
Development Plan amendment.
Motion by Commissioner Ray to deny staff's recommendation for the General Development
Plan, setting the maximum dwelling units at 1394.
Commissioner Tuchscher felt uncomfortable in that not only was the Planning Commission
dealing with two master planned communities, depending on the routing of SR-125, but also with
contingencies and modifications.
~ .2/-'1?
-
Commissioner Tuchscher seconded the motion to deny.
After explanation of the motion, which did not coincide with the previous motion to approve the
General Plan amendment.
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
The second and the maker of the motion withdrew the motion.
MSUC (Tarantino/Willett) 7-0 to approve staffs recommendation on the General
Development Plan amendment for Proctor Valley as presented.
MSC (Salas/Thomas) 5-2 (Ray and Tarantino opposed) to accept staffs recommendation
on the General Development Plan amendments for the Horseshoe Bend alignment.
-~ ,;1./-'1' r
---
I
,
I
,I
/
,
,
TillS PAGE BL~K
- :J-;J- -
...
MThUfES
SAl'i MIGUEL RWCH CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AUGUST 15, 1996
MEETING NO.7
PRESENT: Barbara Gilman, Chairperson
Jim Algert
Steve Gilles
Ray Y=on
STAFF: Paul Manganelli
ABSENT: Craig Adams
Michael Beck
Michael Roark
The minutes of the July 18, 1996 meeting were approved as submitted.
Staff briefed the Committee on the recent occurrences affecting the proposed project. Items
discussed by the Committee were:
. SR-125 draft EIR is out for public review until September 16th. The City Council will hear
a report from staff on September 10th.
. The applicant has revised the project to exclude development on the north parcel from both
versions of the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan. The applicant has not,
however, requested deletion of the Low Residential from the north parcel in the General Plan
Amendment.
. The schedule for the processing of the General Plan Amendment and the GDP has been
modified slightly as follows:
Aug.--Sept. SEIR public review period
September 18 SEIR public hearing by Planning Commission
November 13 GPA and GDP hearing and SEIR certification by Planning
Commission
December 10 GPA and GDP hearing and SEIR certification by City Council.
. The Committee discussed the SEIR for the project, copies of which were provided at the
meeting. The Committee decided to meet on September 5, 1996, to give the Committee
time to read the document and provide imput into the public review process. Copies to
be mailed to the absent members. Since the staff member scheduled to make a presentation
on the SEIR was ill, the presentation will be made at the September 5th meeting.
CCmln.815
- P 02/-!/t
. After considerable discussion, the Comminee took the following actions relative to the land
uses indicated on both draft General Development Plans:
Proctor Valley Alignment Alternative GDP (Re: Figure 16)
L2 No change
LMl No change
CP No change
ES No change--LM if relocated
LM2 No change
LM3 No change
LM4 Minimum 40% Low, 60% LM (LM near Mt. Miguel Road)
Ml No change
NP No change
RC No change
H No change
CS No change
Horseshoe Bend Alignment Alternative GDP (Re: Figure 15)
La
Lb
CP
LMl
LM2
LM3
LM4
LM5
..M
ES
NP
RC
H
CS
No change
Change to LM
No change
Change to Low (permit clustering)
No change
No change
Minimum 40% Low, 60% LM (LM near Mt. Miguel Road)
No change
No change
Relocate to east side of SR-125 at appropriate location ill LM5; if
relocated, change to LM.
Relocate adjacent to ES
No change
No change
No change
These recommendations are to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The meeting was adjourned to the September 5, 1996, meeting at 8:28 PM.
Minutes prepared by Paul Manganelli (691-5256)
ccmin..815
- ;2/r - ,)./., 5CJ
45295S2
EX"IC5S SC:c:::R8i'RJR.-
531 m2 SCP 2S '95 12: 19
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR~lJ.NG
:Resouroc ~n CommitJion
Chu!a VISta, Califomia
6:30 P.M.
Monday. September 9, 1995
Council Confcr= Room
City HaIl Buildin~
CAll Mi:.blJ.NGTO ORDElVROIL CAlL: ~niWBJ caIled to order at 6:37 P.M. by Chair
. Bumscano. Present: Barbara:Reid, plAnnmi Department Jtafi; Com..muionerJ Burrueano,
Hall, 'IhomR~. Marquez, FISher, and Y,m~d. . .
Also prmnt: 10hn Roju, Chub. VISta Historical Soci~ 1efrHoward, Estrada Land plll1'ln~
and B~ DeHone, San Miguel project
~PROV IlL OF MINUTBS: It wu MSUC (MarquWHsll) to approve the minutes of the
meeting of August 26, 1996, with the following corrections:
. P~e 2, paragnph 7. "Commissioner HzlI questioned whether this project conformed to
the tn-none of CEQA DOt to carry out arowtMnducinz development."
. Page 3, add to paragraph I, "A cosi ~Jhm.t.. was requested and Ms. Glasgow said she
will provide the infonmtion to RCC."
. Pan.. S, correct the ~llmg to "Pond Turtle$" in the center cfparagnph.
. Under Commi,~oner'5 Col!"nenfs on p~ 5, dw1ge to "Commls.~onc:rHa!l WBJ
. concerned tMt Fuller Ford, IS the iespo1lsible party for the toxic material contzminating
the soil of their former business location on Broadway, shClUld be ~uired to clean it up,
rather than the City having to assume the additional eo5t of dUposing the material"
. Page 6, "Commissioner Marquez wanted to note her cliscooragement of the plB~ of
the Cbula VISta Marilla and 1ake', Itestaurant in I redevelopment area . . . "
Vote~. motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John ltoju, Chula V1Sta Historical Society, ~ his r005t
recently published book, Chura J1lsta's ITtes. This will be available for we to the public.
NEW BUSlNESS:
1. Rrn~ of San Miguel Ranch ElR .1c:ffHowarcl. Senior p1aimcr cf&ttad& Land
PWming. presented an overview of the project are&. B~ DeHone. IS author of the dOCllm~.
also WI$ present to answer detailed questions on the project. She ata.tod that the ~
CCII1crcd mostly around SRlZS &Oi1li throuP the arta, with the main analysis IIJI1'OUI1din& land
use around Bow and aloni the ii~..&} lXlllXleCtOrI. She stated the lower residential density
would be around Bcmita, with the gre&ter de:nsny through the S&h Creek Ire&. Ma.:Reid noted
thU the subarea pwi dnft Cl.II'mItly c:irt1,lWtnlg shawl no development within the north parcel
The hope is that the resource agencies "I'i'ill purclwe the land and use it u mitiption bw~n~
j
- ~ .;2.;;5'/
452'3582
E:>?i<Ess SECRET i'l'< 1 'l...
531 P23 5EP 2S '96 12:20
Resource CoruetVation Commission
PaJZe2
Ms. DeHolle mt~ the SRl25 aEgnment tbroughHo~ Bend wu not Pl~.'cd ~ it
splits the community Ol>>-third and two-tllird!, and most of the landform ~es cblitented.
An attempt was made to tie the project together via MoUllt Miguel Road, a key ~~ for
connectivity.
Commissioner BIlITUCllnO WU t:O~..ed about the Jignificant traffic and air pollution rmp..t:ts
They are already ~8 below l~ of JCI'Viec and no plans hIVe been made for a troney to
reIim these impacts. Ms. DeHooe pointed out that they'Z'C already Wlmitigable and rcf~ ~
page 3.4.8 for the studieJ. She point~ out some discretionary actions they looked at illc1uding
anl\iOUtion to Chula VISta for p~ca1 colllleCtivity,land use and development impactS, and
amcnclment from prezoning to planned ~1"1ity. They also Ioobd at the impaca of Proctor
Vaney GDPlHorseshoe Bend GDP, %IOrth andlOUthlno project GDP, ancI reduced cIensity OOP,
all bu~ on 50% of the land being mate lots. Page 2.]S, gives a summary orunits per &ae.
She CPWn~ that the land form aheration is less than ~cant It the OOP ~ and could not
be reduced to below LOS. Each of the alternatives are not tT1itiVhle.
.
Biology was not evaluned in the JaIDC furm as the ahematives. They loobd to the U.S. rub &
Wildlife for preservation of IIUIltispccies.
Commissioner HaIl asked whether development was required to keep ]66 aacs prese::v~ 011 the
north for COMectivity to the south. Ms. DcHone stated it was not., plus, in conju!lc:tion with the
MSCP, dedit:4ted land for grDi$ acreage ill 500 units on 500 acres or 3 units per &en in the
Proctor Valley &l'U. She also stated that the applicant requests %10 development to the north
pucel.
Ms. Reid pointed out that the m'~ &how I variety of difi'erem plans ~ OD the
proposed alignment ofSRl25.
Cnmmi.sioner Fuhcr reiterated that the:aCC had already recommended the No Project
A1temativc, as voted on at the A;1gust 26, 1996, meeting; ~, that if'tIle City Counal must
approve the SRl2S project, that Altemativd6 be the reco. "" >P11ded -T"'"'f He added that
biologista have found Silky Pocket Mice adjacent to the south lites, Baja California lW:ec found
in the CbuIa VISta fragment. adjaeem to the JOutb aitc, and the ~1-er--lpOttcd Buttcrfiy fOund
&rOWld Oay Mountain (c1ol1e enough to the pltlject site). He requestecl that these be addres3ed
and adequately ~ Ms. DeHone wiD refer this to her staff and iotwar~ report to ltCC.
[eom....i"'ioner Fubc:r left the meetin& at 7:52 P..M. ]
--
MJ. DeHone pve a traffic overview ~"8 that the existing conditions arc aJready iMpacted It
below level of aervice. The circulation el--ts that exist arc significant' and UllIIlitigable
~ She Jtat~ that the project ~ three criteria to base its findinp:
. L LOS threshold D or wom . to be aig1'HiMlnt .
b. LOS for roadvay must Icssen by one full LOS leimem
c. Significant tm5c volume by thi! project be over 5% to WIl1'Irlt IipifiC&llt c:riterla.
~ ~_ e::l.1 ~ '>.2
~
~ SC:CR8r:f<Ii'L
531 P2A SE? 25'90 12:21
Resource Comavation Commi,sion
P1.~ 3
She sated that most aegn=tJ were ahudy low md that this projca my or miy DOt be !mp$ctcd
further. The regional requirement ii set by CII1'rans and MmB, and 1hese ~ out of the scope
of this proj ect. However, practical mitigztion will be made to resolve si&:nffiew ;"'P1ctI
according to CEQA Mr. Howard stated that the intcn~ 1""""& to SltlZ5 It VJrioua points
are still below LOS and SRlZ5 dOC$ Dot bring any kind ofimprovement.
Commissioner 'I'honw had I major COl'Cml about the designer's rt$ponsibility to plan for multi-
modalities. 'Ik tranSportation dements should allow !or emcrgeocy prtTI'isiOllS (fire and police)
and public tranSportation to improve the levd of service from F in some places. She alto asked
why building I free;vay would not improve the tnffic flow to an acceptable level of service.
Ms..Dc:Hone stated that the GnP docs address public tI'IlxlspOrt&tion and will be part of tile
improvements for the project. Information on this issue Is lOCUcd in the Air Qu!lity section for
an improvement plan to reduce tnffic. No light nil iJ pl.!,n~ at this time, but I Park and Ride
f&cility will be IYailable.
.
A motion wu m:.de (Burnscl:noITho) to reiterate the RCC'J earlier motion to app~ the
No Project alwutive or the Pioctor Valley aIi~mt altc:m.tivc, if'~ary. Further
discussion followed.
Commi...joner Marquez que;tioned whether the slopes and tcmin w=-c developable land. Ms
DcHone mted it wu not, that it was steep temin. The area is level around Horxahoe Bend,
~ to a ridge point, then drops off steeply. Con'm"nione:r Marquez WI$ c:oncemed that the
Jll.llllber or Gnatcw:herJ Iml Cactus Wrens, locat~~ 110118 the north parcel, would be implct~
Ju the fQ;USed on habitat &erUge on pucds and didn't look It individual numben, she lUted
that the north option will ~uce Clctus WrCllS down from thirteen pain to aevcn. Arty other
alt~ could impact up to 36 pairJ or Ca..."tUJ Wren. ColtllIlUsioner Thomu noted that
different stUdies ~ inconsistent on the Cactus Wren and that the new data is DOt updat:d into
these tables. The RCC was assured that timing on png will be restricted during ~i
season, IS already mandated by the U.S. F1Sb &; Wildlife. It iJ noted that one pair ofCactns
Wren ~ located in the very nortbemmost part of the project and the rest ilDOt in the project area..
ComIrUmoner Hall que;tioned how Bonita VISt& Micldle School and BlirlT ..l-e High Scboo1 will
be impacted and bow the would handle the Clpacity. Mr. Howard cxp1aiDed that scbooI fees will
be assessed with the projl'Ct in lieu of a site, with additional building done by the dUc:rction of
the Planning Department. The project c:urrcntIy has planned only for ml eltr"..mo'Y IChool. The
clifi'acm fin.n,.;"g ~ ofthc district wiI1 be met by the project. .
('.mmm,,;one: Hall quC$tioned bow the ~ Would han4le possible water poll.rlion oftbe
SW,A....ll1er Reservoir.. Although this Is an SR125 problem and not in the aCope of tile project,
Ms. DeHonc stated that the north partd slopes will be cut 10 it drains to the south. Mr. Howard
confirmed 1hat the south parcel will not impact the Sweetwater R.ese:vcir. 'Ihc ioal ofthc GDP
iI to eliminate any flow to the river. This project will also use the water rec1om&non plant and
have I separate pipe 5j'Item for R:C1aimed water. This is already part of the projca ~
_~ ,1/-5:3
~::2
E>?RE5S xCRETi'R I R-
931 PeS SCP 25 '96 12:21
ReSO'.lTCe Conserwrion Commiuion
Pt;:e "
Also, the infmtIut:ture is already there at the %lCld level and thiJ iJ detliled at the. SPA 1rn:l.
The motion wu I'tSht~ (BuITucanotrhomas) to rtitmte its earlier motion (AuguJt 26, 1995)
for & No Project Altemative or the Ahem&tive tfO or SRl25. ~'~oner Marquez: misod
&nd a.dded to the motion (secxmded by Thomu): that the RCC wants City Council to ~gnize
thAt eve:llfthere is no dcvelopment on the north, the devrst.,;"g Imp&ets to biologicll resources
to the south still exist, and the RCC recommends DO development oa the DOrth parcel ofthc San
Miguel Ranch; in the event lh&t there ill an SRl25 and in the event that I re..v"~""""'ltionfor
alignment must be given, theRCC reoo''1".enrl.thePToctorValley alignment of'SR12S; wte
S-{I, motion carried.
. .
It is noted that the Specific Pbn ",ill address solutions and ways these impac:tI will be mitipted.
CornmissionerBurrascano requested that amall mIlmm.1 trapplngJ be required for the SPA1eveI
analysis.
.
A motion wu mAde (Burn.scanoIYamad&) thAt the Draft S\lb~ ~ Impact
Report for the Sm Miguel Ranch is adequate under the Califomi& Environmemal Quality ~
vote S-O, motion carried.
Commissioner B.urrascano mentioned that the resource dOCV""e!'tf for the MSCP program were
not available in the libmy as requested by resource &gencies. Stafi'to clIec:k on the lVIilahillty
of &aid documents.
2. Revi~ of Planning Com.m,.;on AgendJ. for September 11, 1996:
L VarlanceZAV-95-13: Request to exceed m...nmnm lot covcnge 1341 PIIkDrive;
Public bearing; no action by RCC.
b. PCM-97-02: Request to dmwlish and recotlsttuct project at 219 Madron& 51.; Public
hearing, no ~on by RCC. .
c. SUPS-96-06: Request for CUP at 2400 Faivre Street; Public hwin,s. ComrniF~oner
Hall commented that the company be responsible fr:sr c:1aD-up or on or toxic "'.t.....1
that escape! from the trucIa.
STAFFll.EPORT: None.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: eomm;~oner Bunucano ~ cauncil fill the vacancy on
the RCC.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: C'.nmm;~oner BurnlaDO rdayed C~";Of'eI' F'ubcr'a
comment: In I construction lite area off East B Street near T~ Nova, yrorma haw thrown a
ligcificant amount oftnsh into the open Jpace pr~ area.. He rcqueste4 they be made to
clean it up and Jay out of the pr=ervc.
.~_ eJ/-->'(
"""~'""2
~ x(RETA=<lR..
932 Pal XP 2S '% 12:23
~ource Comerntion ConlnlWion
P~e5
Commissioner Muquet". Coll1lIli&sioncn were CllCOwagcd to &ttend the councilmeetins to
speak on the SRl25 ahem&tives. She aho requeJted Barbm Bamburger come before the
COI%lllIiision to update them on bet- t:U1Tl:Ilt projecU. "
C-om:nissioner Y mwa requested I ~ from the Traffic Dep", tw.4 speak on traffic ""P"ctI
in the eastern tmitories, how TnmNet money is working towuds future upgrades and new
d..'"Ve1opment, llld update on SR-125.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting wu ldjourned by 0Wr Bumscano at 9: 17 P oM.
R=pectfuIly submitted,
ExPREss SEcRETARIAL SERY1CllS
~~
~
- ~ ..2/55'
I
\
/
/
/
/
/
S PAGE BLANK/
//'
,
\
\
\
"
\
It'
\,
\
\
,
"
, ,
"
-3ct~
I
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EASTERN TERRITORIES AREA PLAN
(CHAPTER 14 OF THE GENERAL PLAN)
Add the following text to Chapter 14, Section 5.10:
San Mil!Uel Ranch
The 2,590-acre San Miguel Ranch propertY is located on the south side of the Sweetwater
Reservoir. The site is comprised of two separate land areas: the 1.852-acre North Parcel and
the 738-acre South Parcel. These land areas are separated from one another by land owned by
San Die!!:o Gas and Electric (SDG&E), which operates a substation and transformer yard on the
intervenin!!:land and which contains associated transmission lines. The North Parcel. which is
adjacent to the Reservoir. is composed primarilY of yalleys and steeply slopin!!: hillsides,
includin!!: Mother Miguel Mountain. Howeyer. more !!:entle terrain is isolated in the westernmost
portion of the North Parcel oyerlooking the Reservoir. The South Parcel contains moderately
steep terrain.
Land use designations for the San Miguel Ranch haye been established throu!!:h the consideration
of a variety of factors, including compatibility with the adioining communities of
Sunnyside/Bonita and EastLake, landform and biolo!!:ical considerations, and the sitin!!: of future
SR-125. The North Parcel is planned to be included in the proposed Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan preserve and the proposed San Diego National Wildlife
Refuge (SDNWR). subiect to policies contained within the City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
As a result. Open Space has been identified as the primary land use desi!!:nation for the North
Parcel. which serves as a biological linkage between open space in the Sweerwater Valley to the
Miguel Mountains and into Proctor Valley and Jamul Mountain to the east. The conservation
of the entire North Parcel is considered a si!!:nificant benefit to the community and has been
considered in the establishment of appropriate residential densities on the South Parcel. The
densities on the South Parcel also provide for a transition of the Residential Low density
cate!!:ory adjacent to Sunnyside/Bonita. to Residential Low-Medium density desi!!:nations within
EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch.
Policies contained in the City's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan call for the conservation of the entire
North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch as an ecological preserve. However. pursuant to policies of
the Draft Subarea Plan, if conservation of the North Parcel does not occur within timeframe
specified therein. then development potential for UP to 50 lar!!:e lot residential estate homes under
a Residential Low density desi!!:nation will be considered as a secondary land use for
approximately 107 acres in the westerly portion of the North Parcel. Remaining portions of the
North Parcel would continue to be designated as Open Space. If the MSCP and the City's
Subarea Plan are not adOPted. then the City may reconsider land use desi!!:nations on the North
Parcel.
Annexation of the North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch mayor may not be deemed necessary or
desirable by the City. If annexation does not occur. the County of San Diego would continue
to assume jurisdictional control over the land uses on the North Parcel.
-y ,?/~
TIllS PAGE BLANK ;/
/
f
/
I
/
,/'
/
;
I
,
,
!
/
I
-3g-
/
//
/
,
e.
C!1~1Jf ~att ~iegn
GARY L. PRYOR
OlRECTOfl
le1iJ 6~.Z962
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
.20' RUFFI~ RO~O, $UITE B, S~N DIEGO, CALIFORNIA gz123.1656
INFORMATION (6'9) 094-2060
October 30, 1996
Robert A. Leiter. Director
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
RE: COMMENTS REGARDING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH ~ENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Staff of the Department of Planning and Land Use have completed their review
of the San Miguel Ranch Amended General Development Plan, dated June 28, 1995,
and Amended Horseshoe Send General Development Plan, dated August Z7, 1995.
San Miguel Ranch is divided inu), two 1arge tracts of land; a northerly tract
mainly devoted to open space'end a southerly tract proposed for the majority
of the development. The proj~tt area is located in the unincorporated area of
San Diego County, withi~ the Sweetwater Community plan area. The site is
located outside the County's Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional
Category, but loIithin the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence. The site has a
(21) Specific Plan Area County General plan Designation with a 0.28 Density
Designator.
Although we understand that the:project will be annexed to the City of Chula
Vista and subject to the city's' General Plan, we feel that the project's
proximity and interrelationshi~.~lth the communities of Bonita and Sunnyside
necessitate a discussion addres~lng the project's consistency with the
County's General Plan. We also'recomnend 1 discussion of the project's land
use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
1. General Plan Consistency
The San Miguel Ranch project and a portion of the surrounding area are
identified on the Sw&et~ater Community Plan as the Eastern Bonita
Specific Planning Area. SDth General Development Plans propose densities
of 0.57 dwelling unit per, acre, twice the density currently adopted by
the County of San Diego fer this area. The General Development Plans
should justify the increase in density in relationship to the County's
~,{/:>?
.:':~.
Kobert A. Leiter, Director
- 2 -
October 30, 1995
existing density of O;Z8 ~lling unit per acre. In addition, the
Community Plan for thi.$ arei"envisions i developlllent which maintains the
overall semi-rural chiractei of the Planning Arel with estate densities.
Furthermore, the Plan utllit:u slope criteria to rll9uhte densities and
limit grading while protecting steep slope IrelS. Criteria and "
conditions have been p~.c&d:within the SWeetwater Community Plan text to
ensure comprehensiv~ pl"~ni.nV. and dev~lo~t of this area (see
attachment). We rec~"fnit the General Development Plans include a
discussion on the project's ability to meet and conform to these criteria
and cond.i t ions.
2. Neiohborhood Comoatibfl1tv .
The San Miguel Ranch prOje6t;proposes Low-Kediu; {LH 1) and (LM 2)
density areas of 4.3 "~11{~ units per acre and 2 dwelling units per
acre with lot sizes of"~;~"square feet and 6,000 square feet,
respectively. These dtnsjti~s are located adjacent to the existing rural
neighborhoods of Sunnys"lde" ~nd Bonita, currently developed and pl anned at
one dwell ing unit per at:nl. "With the constrlints of the site, it is
assumed that some fO~"Qf clustering w111 be utilized. With this
assumption, we believ~ that attention should be given to neighborhood
compatibility and commUnity "character issues, The discussion should be
expanded to address hoW the-:"project's urbin lot sizes and land use
patterns will be compitible with the surrounding large estate lots to the
north and northeast,"
If you have any questions' reglrillJ\9 this matter, please contact Steve Wragg,
Associate Planner, at (61~} ~4~3013,
Sincerely,
r1\ ) ! l-:r II "
~-0~ rf/~"'/.."
DENNIS J. VERRILLI, Chief"
Advance Planning
DJV:SW:dld
Attachment
AUTHOR\APLTRSWl.105
~- :21,.s-r
0"
, .~
1'.-
.' ..:....
):'.~~,:
SPEC1FlC PL~NN1NG ~RE~S
E~STERN BON11A SPECIFlC PLANN1NG AREA
DESCRJPTION OF 1HE ~REA
1he Eastern Bonita SpecifiC planning Area comprises approximate1'y 3,282 acres
to the east of Proctor Valley Road, south of the Sweetwiter Reservoir and
north of Eastlake Development in Chula Vista. The site has varied terrain,
with some areas in excess of 5~ and includes ~other Miguel Mountain. The
area is currently undeveloped with no roads or services. Two existing
Resource Conservation Areas cover large portions of the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the Specific Plan Area. The Ire a is outside the
County's Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional Category, however, it
is partially within the Chula Vista sphere-of-influence.
SPA (0.261
,
The purpose of the SPA is to ensure comprehensive planning and development of
this large undeveloped trlct of llnd. If the land is lllo~ed to develop
piecemeal, opportunities for preserving and enhancing significant topographic
reatures and resource areas would be lost. Moreover, the cost of providing
roads. sewers and other services and facilities would be reduced through a
cooperative effort.
PROJECT DESCR1PT10N
The Eastern Bonita Specific Plan "Area allows an overall residential density or ,
0.28 dwelling units/acre with a maximum of 904 dwelling units for the entire
SPA. This density is based on the County's (17) Estate (1 dwelling unit/2, 4
acres) and (18) Hultiple Rural Use (1 dwelling unit/4, 8, ZD acres) land use
designations which were in eff~ct prior to the 1988 Update of the Sweetwater
Community Plan.
Due to,the steep slopes on some portions of the property it is anticipated
that dwelling units will be clustered. 1t is also &nticipated that
commercial, recreational'lnd civic uses will be a part of the SPA.
studies needed prior to deVElopment approvals should Include an analysis of
physiographic characteristics, visual resources, biological resources,
cultural resources and infrastructure needs. All property owners within the
general vicinity of the SPA should be informed about the evolving plan, and
review and comment shall also be solicited from the Sweetwater Planning Group.
Because there are multiple owners within this SPA It is anticipated that there
may be some disagreement on the scope lnd timing of the Specific Plan
development. The following options ire suggested to deal with these potential
problems:
The Specific Plan rnlY be prepared either by the property owners or the
County at the expense of the property owners.
4
~/~
i
,
,
.~
."
~-&;
t
If a portion of the Specific Plan area anne~es to. the City of Chula
Vista, the County will reco.nsider the validity o.f the remaining Specific
Plan Area.
Because cf the difficulties that may be encountered with multiple o.wners
reaching agreement, It is recommended that the pro.perty owners share the
ccst of the required planning studies and all participate in such
pl anni ng.
After five years have elapsed, the Co.unty Planning Ccmmisslcn shall
evaluate the SPA designaticn to. reccnrnend whether such designaticn should
remain o.r be remo.ved.
In the event that any cf the smaller contigucus property owners desire to.
co.o.perate in the SPA they may if the SPA owners agree to. it.
CONDITIONS
The Specific Plan shall be developed under the following Conditions:
Genera 1
1. The average overall density shall not exceed .28 dwelling units per acre
within the residential portion of the SpecifiC Plan Area with an overall
total of 904 dwellings.
2. Based on slope criteria, tbe dwelling units associated with individual
parcels and ownerships in the SPA are as fellows:
Owner/Parcel l1.J!.:.
585-160-05, 11, 12, 19
(Gene)"'al Telephone) 28
585-140-14, 21; 5B5-160-20, SgS-040-01, 03, 04, 05, 06
(Otay Water District) 117
585-030-03; 5B5-070-01; 585-080-01; 585-113-23, 24
585-111-03; 585-120-06; 585-130-02, 03, 17; 585-131-02;
585-140-20; 585-160-06, 07; 595-010-05, 07; 595-030-05,
06 (Unocal Investment) ~
904
? ,,)/~M
3. Clustering of structures on the flttter portion. of the SPA is
encouraged.
4. The project shall generally create a semi-rurll residential community
with an identity consistent with the community character of Sweetwater as
described in the Sweet~!ter Community Plan Text. However. this shall not
be done at the expense of the flexibility in project design which is
afforded by the Specific Plan Designation ",nd procedure.
S. The significant adverse visual impact of all hillside development shall
be minimized. -
.
6. The Specific Plan shall include B phasing section that describes the
timing, loc_tion and phasing of the proposed development.
7. The location and design of different ty~s of land uses shall be
sensitive to the proposed location of Route 125 ind Its interchanges.
8. The SPA design should complement but not duplicate existing and proposed
large scale development to the south which includes Eastlake and United
Enterprises.
9. The Specific Plan shall investigate the need for designation of a
telecom"unications overlay-zone.
10. Land uses which ",re compatible with the San Diego Gas and Electric
substation and other propo;ed utility uses need to be identified for ~
adjacent land within the SPA. "
11. Compatible secondary uses ~lY be identified for the transmission line
corridors in this SPA.
Residential
12. The following dens~ty fOnlala is a guideline established to limit grading
and destruction of steep slopes, It is intended as an upper limit.
Analysis of individual slopes may determine that a lesser density is
required.
-No lIlore than 1 dw!1l1ng unit/Z acres for acreage within the 15-ZS~
slope category.
No more than 1 dwelling unit/4 acres for acreage within the 25-5~
slope category,
No more than 1 dwelling unit/B acres for acreage over 5~ slope.
.
~-
7 ",2/,,1/
.....
:.:t,;.;,.
..':.'
.A
.\
!
{
_"_':_i_::::
::~-.::..:,
"'~ - '
-- .~,
{
;
1
l~ 13. For land with less than 15~ slope. clustering of units may occur ~ith
~ densities greater than those sited above.
14.
It should only be allowed
impact on adjacent
Ridgeline development should be discouraged.
if a viewshed analysis can show only minimal
properties and scenic features.
15. Any multi-family residential should be considered for its potential for
meeting some of the fair share, low-income housing goals of the
Sweetwater Community Plan.
Commercial
15. Commercial uses adequate to serve the needs of the SPA shall be
permitted. The residential density on land used for commercial purposes
may not be transferred to other land.
Recreation
$
17. The SPA shall include recreation facilities which utilize and preserve
the steep terrain and natural beauty of the area.
lB. A system of riding and hi~ing trails shall be provided for, which utilize
the natural beauty of the area wherever possible. These trails shall be
continuous and shall eonneet into existing and proposed adjacent trails
in the County and the City of Chula Vista.
19. The recreation potential of Mother Miguel Mountain and the land
adjacent to the Sweetwater Reservoir shall be studied.
Conservation
20. The watershed area for the Sweetwater Reservoir shall be protected from
pollution by the ~PA development. This shall be achieved either by
restricting development within the drainage basin, or by other pollution
control measures.
21. The SPA shall provide for protection of various habitats in the
Sweetwater River and Res~rVoir areas by ~an$ of open space easements as
buffers and/or any other appropriate technique.
Z ,2/,t.-2
Public Facilities
22. Design shall be such that implementation of public facilities including
roads, sewers, and water shall be provided as necessary with a minimum of
grading unless an adverse impact to public health and safety can be
demonstrated.
,
23. A phased development p"~n shall be prepared based on the ability to
provide adequate public facilities tnd services. The Specific Plan shall
include the means by ~hich all necessary public facilities shall be
financed and provided including:
a. Liquid and solid waste collection, treatment and disposal;
b. water;
c. transportation access, including ro!ds and their drainage
improvements;
d. fire protection;
e. parks; and
f. any other public facilities and services necessary to fulfill the
requirements of public agencies affected by the Specific Plan.
e
Implementation
24. Zoning Implementation shall be accomplished ~ith implementing
discretionary permits.
25. Clustering, lot size averaging and planned development design techniques
s.hall be encouraged.
26. Large open sp~ce areas e$t~blished for recreational purposes or
environmental protection shall b@ maintained and operated by a
Homeowners' Association or other pUblic/private entity that is
satisfactory to the. Department of Pl~nning and Land Use.
.
/ ,;l1,t;J
1
TIllS PAGE BLANK
\
\\
\
\
\
\
'\
\
\
"
i
i
I
;)
,
,
-'-Iq-
/
!
./
,
-/
"
,"
--'\
\j
X
/\-
; \',
)
"
\
,
"
\
<,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
"
ESTATE HOUSING ISSUE DISCUSSION
The following report has been prepared to address the question of whether the current General
Plan policies and Land Use Diagram will provide an adequate amount and variety of estate or
low density housing within the City of Chula Vista's planning area. This has become as issue
as a result of the consideration recently of various proposals that would reduce the available
planned low density acreage within master planned communities in the City's Eastern Territories
Area of the General Plan, essentially the only available land for this type of development. The
"Residential Low" General Plan land use category depicted on the City's Land Use Diagram
typically provides for two types of estate housing opportunities: Country Estate and Executive
Estate.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are intended to describe the range of housing types that commonly
characterize "estate housing." These definitions are not found in the City's General Plan;
however, they are consistent with the low density residential character described in the
"Residential Low" land use category contained in the Land Use Element.
Country Estate - Country Estate housing consists of homes that are typically built on lots well
in excess of one acre and are served by septic systems rather than sewer. These housing areas
may not have fully improved streets, lack sidewalks and often occur in rural back-country areas
or in enclaves separated from suburban areas.
Executive Estate - Executive Estate housing consists of homes that are typically built on one-
half acre or larger lots and are served by sewers. This housing is also served by fully improved
streets and is typically located on the fringe of suburban communities, and may be adjacent to
large open space areas. The City's Residential Estate (R-E) zone typically will permit up to
25 % of lots to be developed below one-half acre in size (15,000 sq. ft. minimum); however, for
purposes of defining Executive Estate housing, one-half acre minimum will be used.
EXISTING SETTING
The evolution of low density residential housing within the Chula Vista planning area over the
past 40 or more years has consisted primarily of Country Estate homes within the Sweetwater
Valley and Executive Estate homes constructed mostly within master planned communities east
of Interstate 805 as well as in the Sweetwater Valley. Presently there are approximately 27,675
single family homes constructed or final mapped for construction within the City's General Plan
area. Of these single family homes, a total of 2,003 are located on lots of one-half acre or more
in size (approximately 7% of the total single family homes). A total of 467 of these 2,003
homes/lots are one acre or larger in size. Given these facts, it is recognized that approximately
2 % of all single family homes/lots in the Chula Vista planning area are on lots of one acre or
larger in size. This amounts to almost one quarter of the existing estate size homes/lots.
-ye:J/...."r
FUTlJRE ESTATE HOUSING POTENTIAL IN THE CHlJLA VISTA PLAl\'NING AREA
Several master planned development projects have been approved in recent years in the Eastern
Territories Area which contain land use designations and/or zoning that could result in additional
estate housing. The net result of the approval of these projects would be approximately 3,490
homes of over one-half acre in size, of which 1,459 are anticipated to be over one acre in size.
If buildout of these areas occurs with no modification from the present General Plan
designations, approximately 11 % of the homes in the planning area will meet the definition of
estate homes (over one-half acre in size). This will increase the percentage of estate housing
within the entire planning area by 4 % over present levels. Table A identifies the approximate
number of undeveloped estate homes approved for projects within the Eastern Territories Area.
Several areas are envisioned for higher end estate housing in the City's General Plan and within
approved General Development Plans. These areas would include both Executive and Country
Estate housing opportunities. These areas include the North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch, south
of the Lower atay Reservoir, north Proctor Valley and eastern atay Ranch near Dulzura.
POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO PLANl\TED ESTATE HOUSING AREAS
Otav Ranch
As a result of a tentative agreements between the Wildlife Agencies and two property owners
of the atay Ranch property, and in conjunction with the proposed Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) planning, modifications are being proposed to the atay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) that would result in the loss of approximately 703 future estate homes
located within Proctor Valley and south/east of the Lower atay Reservoir in exchange for the
preservation of this land as open space preserve. This action would totally eliminate
development south and east of Lower atay Reservoir, a site envisioned as a higher-end estate
housing enclave. A total of 1,3.83 one-half acre (or larger) lots will remain within all three of
the major parcels of the atay Ranch.
San Mi2Uel Ranch
The property owner for the San Miguel Ranch, Emerald Propenies, is processing a proposal to
amend the City's General Plan and the previously approved GDP for the project site. This
General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposes the preservation of the North Parcel of San Miguel
Ranch as open space in conjunction with multiple species conservation planning effons, resulting
in a net loss of 330 one-half acre or larger lots from the original GDP approval.
Estate Housing Issue Paper
2
/ ;2/"t~
""
:!? eo:
:; OJ
=<
OJ OJ)
~
'"
~ -
'"
-<~-
.s
~13~
--" '" -
::::l 0 ..
-< 0. ~
E--<E>
~
...... '"
o::l=
OJ)':
.S U
~ -
.:!l
'"
~
....;
f::.a
u 0
-<:;s
-<~
tiO
>~
o ~
*
!U~
l-o~
U 0
-<:;s
~....
'0
"
>~
o ~
~
'"
00
~
,
~
t'-r:--OOD
o;~
~
N
o
r-
,
~
N~
0000
C')_~
~
E::~o
C')
~
U
-<
~
N
~~OOO
"
>
o
~
*
~
U
-<
*
*
'"
00
o
N
*
*
~O
C')
:S!
~r-
OO~
~
"
>
o
~
..3
~o\Or-oo
,,,", 0 00 N N
... ......-( .....-l 00 ......c
N-N......c-~.....:
~
-
U3
)
.: ......
~ ~::=
~~o::l
.....c::::__
U':':'::::lU--
::: l1) "'0 !U -
,;;i ~ 0':': ~
.....U-=jo
>.. +-01 ~ ........ .0
ro........ ..... lJ':l t::
...... ttl CV CV =:I
OVl":::P-lVl
DO O[
+
~
o
C')
C')
,
~
~:3 ~I
DO 01
*
*
* *
* *
~ C')
r- ~
"'~
C')\D
NN
":.N
~
*
*
*
;>,
-
0: R*
~ Q a::
@ 0 8 ~
.,:::"0"00
~> .....-0
, c; ro
5...J cu
~c:::;s
C"Io,:S
'" ~.a
0-, '"
::::.~s
0:;
;:>
.::!'
:;s
c::
'"
Vl
~I
gl
~
'"
00
~
,
~
..".
r-
0\
~
N
C')
o
~
,
~
00
on
..".
N
0\
on
..".
......
o
0\
..".
<'"l
......
N
00
<'"l
N
'"
o:J
~
o
-
-=
;:>
[JJ
~
'"
00
~
,
~
~I
......
..".
..".
......
'"
0:;
u
....
'" .
o..~
<l.l
"0 >
~ .~
'" '"
c:: c::
.::.0 ~
"'':=
~<
'''0
~ c::
o <l.l
-lP=<
<l.l
o
-
-;;;
<l.l
'"
5
'"
;;~
~-=
c:: E
<l.l ;:>
E :::
~"-;:l~
o C::<l.l
lr) $2
--..' p-
gtJp;';;:~
~ 0
~ ".:::= Q r:: .8
"0 '" 0 '"
c:: -"0
~ on blJP-< Q.)
N...... c...... "0
-- ~ ...... ::: =
"'0 b !U g
--"p......E....
; 0 0.. 0.. '"
0.. 0 c::
.::: c::. cv ~ 0
00\ ;> "Z
2f3 -.::tQ)CV
..s '2 "0 0 CI =
;::3 ~ s: u
~~~~"Ef3
goO,) c= g ......
~ l-o 0 !U 0,)
......cot"tj.'50~
cat.r'l~-o"O-;;;
en S r:r; OJ "'0
V'J !U en cv
~aB~8..~
;:j ='.- ~ 0 ~
en .- !U I-<
u~Sp..p..
.5"" =<
..;
~ .~
""",
.... <l.l
.::.:
..:::a-
..... cv .~
(, ;> "2
!U 8 0)
.... 0.."0
U c..'-
co l"d rs
:S!p..P:::
<l.l CI ;
-=0'0
:::: 0
~z
<'"l
0\
..".
on
'"
0\
..".
......
on
..:::a
'"
~
o
Eo-<
-
a
~
o:J
kl
-
OJ
"
'"
3
'"
<l.l
C
o
N
P-l
,
.,:::
2
~
U
<l.l
B
;:>
'"
<l.l
....
'"
11*';iE+
- Y' .,,2/~,t
~
N
C')
o
~
,
'-'
~
......
'"
..".
..".
~I
'"
N
0\
......
~
~
~
-
OJ
-
-
5.
o
Oi
>-
<l.l
Q
OJ)
.::
~
'"
'x
~
However, it should be noted that while the existing GDP for San Miguel Ranch allows for
consideration of up to 357 estate homes on the North Parcel, as a result of significant biological
impacts this number may have been difficult to attain, Nevertheless, a total of 241 one-half acre
(or larger) lots are now being proposed on the South Parcel. These proposed amendments would
amount to a reduction from 571 potential estate-size lots to approximately 241' future estate-size
lots, a reduction of 330 estate-size lots.
CONCLUSIONS
The net effect to the overall number and percentage of estate lots anticipated in the master
planned communities in the Eastern Territories Area would be an increase in the City-wide ratio
of estate homes from an existing 7 % to 11 % of the single family homes. There are two current
requests for the modification of approved master planned communities that, if approved, will
result in the reduction of estate housing opportunities, the Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch.
Each of these requests are the result of preserve planning efforts with the Multiple Species
Conservation Program. If proposed reductions in potential estate lots in these two projects are
approved, there will be a reduction from a potential of 3,490 estate-size lots down to 2,458
estate size lots. This would amount to a reduction of the anticipated percentage of estate lots
in the Chula Vista planning area down to 9%. Even with these potential reductions, there are
currently significant opportunities to provide estate housing throughout the General Plan area.
However, if there are additional requests to reduce estate housing lots where low density
designations exist, the City should evaluate the effect that each reduction would have on the
overall stock of estate housing and what affect this would have on the balance of housing types
in the City. Determining the appropriate amount of estate housing is a significant policy issue.
Staff will keep decision-makers appraised of this issue when and if additional requests to modify
the amount of estate housing are presented in the future.
(m: \home\planning\paul\estat.e2 .hsg)
Estate Housing Issue Paper
4
-~ cJ.I"t7
PROJECT INTERFACE/COMPATIBILITY ISSUE DISCUSSION
Community areas located adjacent to the proposed San Miguel Ranch development project and
that may be impacted by this project consist of Sunnyside, Salt Creek I, and Salt Creek Ranch.
The focus of this issue paper is to examine how the San Miguel Ranch (SMR) property may be
developed in a manner which is as compatible as possible with these adjacent existing and
proposed community areas.
Sunnvside
The community area that will be most significantly impacted by the San Miguel Ranch
development is Sunnyside, an unincorporated area of the County. The Sunnyside community
area most impacted by the proposed SMR development is bounded by San Miguel Road to the
north, the S. D. G. &E. Substation to the east, the eastern edge of the Bonita Highlands residential
subdivision to the west, and the SMR project boundaries to the east and south.
Land Use This portion of Sunnyside is divided into lots ranging in size from 1 acre to more
than 3 acres, except for one large abutting hillside parcel which contains about 20 acres. Most
of the subdivided lots are improved with single family dwellings, although a kennel, an
Immigration Service parking lot and an equestrian training and boarding facility are also located
within this enclave. Equestrian activity, including the boarding of horses, is prevalent
throughout Sunnyside.
General Plan and Zoning The County General Plan (Sweetwater Community Plan) designates
the property Residential 1 which limits lot sizes to a minimum of 1, 2 or 4 acres, depending
upon slope gradient. The County zoning is RRl, which permits minimum lot sizes of 1 acre.
The Chula Vista General Plan designates both Sunnyside and SMR Low Residential (0-3
dwelling units per acre). SMR was prezoned PC (planned Community) in 1993.
The draft Proctor Valley Alignment Alternative (pV A) of the GDP, does not propose a change
to the General Plan designation on property abutting Sunnyside. However, the draft Horseshoe
Bend Alignment Alternative (HBA) of the GDP proposes to amend the General Plan land use
designation on that portion of the property abutting the east end of Sunnyside from Low
Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac). The portion of the SMR
property abutting the south end of Sunnyside would remain in the Low Residential category.
Proposed SMR Lot Sizes The applicant has requested only a General Plan Amendment and a
General Development Plan amendment at this time; therefore, lot sizes would be required to be
consistent with the character defmed in Chapter 1 (Land Use Element) of the City's General
Plan. Since an amendment to the General Plan is not proposed for this area under the PV A, the
Low Residential category, which permits 0-3 dwelling units per acre, will continue to apply for
this alternative. Mid-range density for this category is 2 du/acre. The Zoning Ordinance
typically implements this designation through the application of the R-E (Residential Estate)
Zone standards which require a minimum average lot size of 20,000 square feet.
-~ -2/-t.Y
With the proposed HBA, the above discussion is also peninent for the area of the plan which
abuts the south side of Sunnyside but not at its common boundary with the project's northwest
side. This area is proposed for Low-Medium Residential which permits 3-6 dwelling units per
acre. The question of appropriate lot sizes in specific project areas will be studied when
applications for the next phase, the SPA Plan, are filed.
Access This part of Sunnyside is served by a system of private streets and easements (20 to 40
feet in width) with access from Proctor Valley Road (a public street), and Jonel Way (a private
street). No access to this area from the SMR project is planned.
Phvsical SeDaration In the immediate vicinity of SMR, the adjacent Sunnyside area slopes
upward toward the project area from northwest to southeast approximately 140 feet in elevation.
The preliminary grading plan, provided by the applicant, indicates the development area abutting
the southerly Sunnyside parcels would average approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than
these adjacent parcels. Houses would be separated horizontally from existing nearby dwellings
by 140-200 feet. However, at least two existing houses in Sunnyside would be located about
40 feet from the base of a proposed manufactured slope. On the east end, only a 20-acre hillside
parcel and one single family dwelling are directly impacted by the proposed development.
Development on the 20-acre parcel is concentrated on its west side while the area adjacent to
the dwelling is proposed for a detention basin.
Conclusions According to the limited project-level information available at this stage in the
development review process, it appears that some incompatibility between the proposed project
and the adjacent Sunnyside community area may occur. The differences between the two
adjacent development types, suburban vs semi-rural, primarily concern lot sizes and community
character. The degree to which this incompatibility may occur is arguably a subjective
assessment. Nonetheless, the proposed project densities would provide a transition from the 1
to 3 acre lots existing in the Sunnyside area to more suburban mid-size lots (ranging generally
from 5,000 to 8,000 sq. ft.) by providing a relatively narrow band of 1/z acre lots. This band
of 1/z acre lots will transition between the two areas using a combination of larger and deeper
lots and elevation differential to provide a land use buffer. However, whether this transition of
elevated estate-size lots will provide a sufficient transition from the semi-rural setting that exists
in the area now to the suburban residential character that is proposed is a matter of degree.
While the transition to higher densities may be softened by the proposed buffer and large lots
there will still be a significant change from the large lot character envisioned for the Sweetwater
Valley, as described for the Residential Low land use category in Chapter One of the General
Plan.
If the General Plan Amendment and GDP are approved with the proposed densities, subsequent
project design during the SPA plan/tentative map phase should consider the provision of wider
lots and contoured slopes with enhanced landscaping adjacent to Sunnyside to further improve
the project's interface with this community.
-7 :</-k7
Salt Creek I
This project contains 550 dwelling units, all of which have been constructed, composed of 169
detached single family dwellings, 237 townhomes and 144 condominiums. This development
abuts SMR on two sides. The north side of Salt Creek I contains single. family detached
dwellings on lot averaging 6,000 square feet; the proposed SMR plan indicates single family
dwellings on lots ranging in average size from about 4,700 square feet to 7,900 square feet in
this area. An improved portion of Proctor Valley Road separates the two projects at this point.
The houses along Proctor Valley Road, but within Salt Creek I, back up to this road as will any
dwellings in SMR. The south side of Salt Creek I is separated from SMR by Mt. Miguel Road
and contains single family dwellings and townhomes. The proposed SMR plan indicates a public
facilities site across Mt. Miguel Road from the single family dwellings and retail commercial
across from the townhomes.
Salt Creek I ranges from 5 feet to 35 feet in elevation below SMR along the north property line
and is at grade along the east boundary. The precise horizontal separation between structures
in each project cannot be determined at the GDP level but careful planning at the SPA, tentative
map and design review levels will be required to insure compatibility.
Salt Creek Ranch
A portion of the Salt Creek Ranch development project (approved for about 2,600 dwelling
units) abuts only a small portion of SMR at its southeast corner where commercial and high
density residential uses are proposed. The applicant proposes that this high density area
constitute a portion of the affordable housing required for SMR.
Adjacent to the south side of SMR's proposed commercial and high density residential sites, and
within Salt,Creek Ranch, are proposed: a fire station, a neighborhood park and an elementary
school. The remaining Salt Cre~\C Ranch area abutting the high density area contains nine single
family lots, each averaging about 5,500 square feet. The vertical separation between these two
disparate residential areas ranges between 15 feet and 45 feet, the high density site of SMR
being the higher of the two adjacent locations. Similar to the interface with Sunnyside and Salt
Creek I, the land uses approved for Salt Creek Ranch and proposed for SMR will require careful
site planning at the subsequent SPA, tentative map and design review stages.
(M:\HOME\PLANNING\PAUL\ISSPAPE2.l-C)
-r ~/" /~
~
~S PAGE BLANK
\.
"
,
\
\
\,
.'l,
\
.;
;
/
//
L
-!co -
Proctor Valley Out-Parcels Issue Discussion
1. Background
There are approximately 38 acres of undeveloped land adjacent on three sipes to the south-
central portion of San Miguel Ranch. The fourth (south) side abuts the Buie property,
approximately 231 acres located along the southwest side of Proctor Valley Road. The study area
is divided into approximately 52 lots ranging in size from about 10,000 square feet to 3.25
acres. The majority of the lots is just under an acre in size. The aforementioned area is known,
for reference purposes, as the Proctor Valley out-parcel area.
The adjacency of the out-parcel area to the San Miguel Ranch and Buie properties, as well as
the potential SR-125 tollway alignment impacts to the subject area, raise a number of planning
issues that necessitate analysis of land use data, development impacts and evaluation of options
for the long-range planning of the area.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The County General Plan designation for the subject parcels is (17) Estate which allows
residential development on 2 or 4 acre (minimum) lots depending upon slope gradient. The City
of Chula Vista General Plan designation for the same area is Open Space. Typical uses for the
Open Space category are open space, limited recreational uses, rural residential (10 acre
minimum lot sizes) and agricultural uses such as farms, orchards, pastures and livestock raising.
The out-parcel area is currently undeveloped, under County jurisdiction and zoned A70(2)
Limited Agriculture. The A70 Zone and applicable regulations are intended to create and
preserve areas for agricultural crop production, thus the primary permitted uses in the out-parcel
area are oCan agricultural nature even though the lot sizes and topography make agriculture
inappropriate. Residential uses within said zone are permitted on lots of two acres or more.
3. Access
Access to and through the general out-parcel area is currently provided via Proctor Valley Road,
a partially improved County thoroughfare which bisects the study area. Access to the majority
of the individual parcels within the area could potentially be attained by 20-foot-wide mapped
but nonexisting road easements. These easements run perpendicular to Proctor Valley Road in
a straight grid pattern with no regard for the topography over which they pass. If the out-parcel
area remains under County jurisdiction, these easements would not necessarily be required to
be paved unless so required by the serving fIre district; however, said easements would need to
be improved to comply with minimum City fIre protection accessibility requirements should the
subject area be annexed to the City and development permitted. The San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan provides continued access to the out-parcel area via a paved connection to an
unimproved portion of Proctor Valley Road which traverses this area.
-~ ,2/,7/
4. Available Services
The Otay Water District anticipates completing installation of a new water main along Proctor
Valley Road which could serve the out-parcels by the end of 1996. Regarding available sewer
service, a Chula Vista sewer line which generally follows the alignment of Proctor Valley Road
is already in place. Access to the sewer line at this time is predicated upon annexation of the
out-parcels to the City of Chula Vista. Electrical power to serve residential development in the
vicinity is available via a SDG&E substation just west of the out-parcels. Fire protection is
provided by the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District station located on Bonita Road
approximately four miles to the northwest. If the property were annexed to the City, the serving
fIre station would ultimately be the Salt Creek Ranch station to be located about a half mile to
the southeast. Police protection is presently provided by the San Diego County Sheriff from
patrols emanating from the Lemon Grove substation but would be provided by Chula Vista
Police patrols if the property were annexed to the City.
5. Development Potential/Constraints
An environmental assessment for the parcels has not been conducted, however, it appears the
rugged topography and potential sensitive biological habitat could inhibit development within the
subject area. In addition, depending on the selected alignment of SR-125, the tollway may
signifIcantly impact development of the site. The SR-125 Proctor Valley alignment would be the
less detrimental of the two alternative alignments under consideration by Caltrans, resulting in
a loss of all or portions of approximately 10 lots on about 4 acres U: 10% of the out-parcel
area). The Horseshoe Bend alignment could claim all or portions of up to 25 lots on
approximately 20 acres (:t55% of the out-parcel area). As discussed above, the access to most
of the parcels renders the properties extremely diffIcult to develop in their present state.. The
multiplicity of ownership of these 38 acres would inhibit the comprehensive planning of the area
required to.provide appropriate access to the parcels and justify any development of the area.
At the present time, only one 3.25 acre parcel conforms to the County minimum lot area
standard of two acres; all the others are considered legal non-conforming lots if it can be verifIed
that these lots were created legally. While the Chula Vista General Plan's Open Space
designation for this area only permits lots of 10 acres or more, as with the County, these
existing legal lots of record could potentially be developable in the City, if appropriate access
and services were available. To accomplish this, it is likely that a specifIc plan for the area
would need to be prepared to address and correct the problems identified above.
6. Annexation Options
The out-parcels are somewhat isolated by topography from the San Miguel Ranch project area.
Potential inclusion of the out-parcels in the San Miguel Ranch project area, or consideration of
annexing and prezoning the subject site as a separate planned development area for the purpose
of avoiding the creation of an unincorporated "island", does not appear to be an urgent planning
issue at this point given the fact no development of the adjacent Buie property is presently
proposed. The issue of creating an unincorporated "island" would only arise if and when the
~ ,;(/.. ?~
Buie property were proposed to be annexed to the City. Moreover, it appears that it would be
logical, due to the out-parcels' adjacency and geographicltopographic and potential sensitive
biological resource relationship with the Buie project, to further analyze, address and consider
any potential annexation action for the out-parcel area at the time development of the Buie
property were proposed.
7. Property Owners' Forum
On August 13, 1996, staff conducted a forum to give all the out-parcel area property owners the
opportunity to be informed about the development proposed for the San Miguel Ranch and the
manner in which this development might impact them. Of the 40 property owners invited, four
owners, representing 14 properties, attended the forum. Another owner contacted staff by
telephone. Staff presented both San Miguel Ranch alternative development proposals and
discussed the potential impacts of these proposals and the alternative alignments of SR-125 on
the out-parcels. Also discussed were annexation to the City, development possibilities and the
provision of City services. Those present were advised to attend the Caltrans forum regarding
SR-125 held on August 15, 1996.
8. Conclusion
Currently, the out-parcels neither impact nor would be specifically impacted by the San Miguel
Ranch project. Given the facts that the SR-125 alignment has not yet been chosen and that
development plans pertaining to the Buie property are not currently available and may not be
available for some time, it appears that considering annexation of the out -parcel area to the City
at this point would be premature. However, consideration of service and infrastructure needs for
the out-parcel area, should the area be considered for annexation at a future date, could be
accomplished in the near future in conjunction with the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the
Sectional Planning Area plan for the San Miguel Ranch project.
-Y ,2/"?J
THIS PAGE BLANK
- b 6-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;l ~
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Ordinance
the PC Zone
/ , .I
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning f.;ft/
REVIEWED BY: City ManageI\..JQ bu-~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
James Algert and Billy Scott, the owners U the 10.1 acres (Mother Miguel Estates), located
adjacent to the north side of the San Miguel Ranch property's south parcel, propose to amend
the General Plan to Low-Medium Residential, the same classification requested for the San
Miguel Ranch property. Also requested is the prezoning of the property to the PC Zone, the
same prezone as presently exists on the San Miguel Ranch.
Public Hearing: GPA-96-02, PCZ 96-C; Consideration of a General Plan
Amendment and PC Planned Community Pre-zone for approximately 10
acres located adjacent to the north side of the south parcel of the San
Miguel Ranch property--AlgertlScott (Mother Miguel Estates)
Resolution 1t.t.:Y~rtifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (FSEIR-95-04) for the San Miguel Ranch project, which includes
the Mother Miguel Estates property, and approving General Plan
Amendment GPA-96-02 from Low Residential to Low-Medium
Residential for the property
J'- ,1/
Approving the prezoning of approximately 10.1 acres to
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Certify that the final SEIR for the San Miguel Ranch, which also analyzes potential
impacts from the development of the subject property, has been prepared in compliance
with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the
City of Chula Vista, make CEQA Findings of Fact and adopt Statement of Overriding
Considerations and, based on the findings in Section C and D of the Draft City Council
Resolution, approve the General Plan Amendment from Low Residential to Low-Medium
Residential.
2. Adopt an Ordinance establishing the PC Planned Community Prezone with an underlying
R-I-7 Prezone for the property.
oU-- /
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 20, 1996 meeting, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of
an amendment to the General Plan from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential and the
prezoning of the property to PC with an underlying R-I-7 Zone. The minutes of the Commission
hearing are attached.
At its September 9, 1996 meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission, by a 5-0 vote,
recommended that the Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch
project, which includes the subject property, be found adequate under the California
Enviromnental Quality Act. The minutes of the RCC hearing is an attachment to the San Miguel
Ranch project report.
DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics
The project site consists of two 5-acre parcels on moderate to steeply sloping terrain located
between the north boundary of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property and the San
Diego Gas and Electric Company property.
Zoning and Land Use
The parcels are vacant, County zoned S87 (Limited Control) and designated Estate (1 dwelling
units12 or 4 acres depending upon slope) on the Sweetwater Community Plan. The Chula Vista
General Plan designates the parcels as Low Residential (0-3 du/ac).
Prooosal
The applicants request a General Plan Amendment from existing Low Residential (0-3 du/ac)
to Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) in conformance with the requested designation for the
adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch property. The applicants also request prezoning to PC
(Planned Community) to conform to the existing prezoning on the San Miguel Ranch.
Analvsis
For their properties, the applicants have requested whichever General Plan category and zone
is proposed for the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch, in this case, Low-Medium
Residential and the PC Zone respectively. Since the development of these 10 acres is dependent
upon the development of San Miguel Ranch for access, the applicants believe it appropriate to
request the same land use designation and zone assigned to the Ranch. Under normal
.:; ..2-c2.,
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
circumstances, the PC Zone would require that a SPA plan be submitted before the property
could be subdivided. Since the property contains only 10 acres, this requirement would be
impractical. However, staff believes that, for uniformity and compatibility, the future San
Miguel Ranch SPA, with its PC Regulations and design guidelines, would be the more
appropriate document by which the development of subject property should be regulated. Section
19.48.160 of the Zoning Ordinance permits such an exception in the circumstance previously
described.
In lieu of an individual SPA plan, the applicant may submit a Precise Plan for the development
of the property in accordance with Title 19 of the Municipal Code, subject to the approval of
the City Council. In establishing the PC Zone on a property where a General Development Plan
is not concurrently approved, the Municipal Code requires that underlying land use regulations
be established for the property. The provisions of a zoning classification, consistent with the
General Plan designation on the property, shall govern any Precise Plan submittal for
development of the property. Consistent with the Low-Medium Residential General Plan
designation proposed for the property and the adjacent San Miguel Ranch property, it is
reccommended that the provisions of the R-I-7 Zone, including applicable Municipal Code
requirements, govern the development of the property under a Precise Plan submittal. However,
it is anticipated that the SPA plan proposed for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch project will be
written to apply to the subject property as well.
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Land Use
designation and the existing PC prezoning on the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch
property would be most appropriate for the subject 10 acres. Since Staff is recommending the
Low-Medium General Plan designation on the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch and the
Ranch has been previously been prezoned PC, the subject parcels should also bear the same
categories.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The entire cost of the processing of these applications has been borne by the applicants. The
fiscal impact of the project itself will be evaluated in conjunction with the San Miguel Ranch
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Attachments
1.
2.
Planning Commission Resolution . __~1>
Planning Commission Minutes %C~"...-
",o't
(m: \home\planning\paul\alg-sct. rep)
;J;J-;J
'i.1
""
)
~
'8
:!-..." ," .....
r-- />L:. J.....',.' :,"'
'.""-'j",~......-...,", f'
~l(~i'-'j.,., j" '. . .' :; r--rzU/ ~
~'.~,<:; ,,' ""~',"
_../ .,:1': : ......
,,' .-:-:." Gvm Tru "_
) /:-")'''';;oC...
fl0~
\~
4Q
<;}
~"
~
~?-
I><t
,,11
Sll~~
.~ILL"'''''~'
','
", \ "
r\ '-
.;.....
,);2- f
A TT ACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-96-02/PCZ-96-C
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT IT
APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A PREZONE FOR MOTHER MIGUEL
ESTATES
WHEREAS, James H. Algert and Billy R. Scott, hereafter referred to as "applicants", have
submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-02) from Low
Residential to Low-Medium Residential on approximately 10 acres located adjacent to the north
side of the South Parcel of the San Miguel Ranch and the south side of the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company transmission facility southwest of Mother Miguel Mountain; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for prezoning of the property to PC
Planned Community (Case # PCZ-96-C) in accordance with the prezoning previously established
for the adjacent Miguel Ranch property; and
WHEREAS, because of the property's small size, its development will be regulated by the PC
Planned Community regulations to be established for the San Miguel Ranch project, and
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated
August, 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch which also included the proposed project;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following
issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed San Miguel Ranch project which
included the proposed project:
Land Use
Landform/Visual Quality
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of
Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was
given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission viewed the property in the field on August 21, 1996; and
WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on
the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and
..1.2 -.>
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Prezone on November 20, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION certifies
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SEIR-95-Q4 which includes the subject property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the
City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the General Plan
Amendment to Low-Medium Residential and the Prezone to PC Planned Community in
accordance with the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Tarantino, Davis, Ray, Salas, Thomas, Tuchscher, Willett
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\paul\gpa%-02\pcm%-05.pc)
.2.2-"
Excerot From Preliminary 11/20/96 Plannim! Commission Minutes
3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-96-02, PCZ-96-C; CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND PC PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR
APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE SOUTH PARCEL OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY - Algert/Scott
(Mother Miguel Estates)
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this was an extension of a small parcel adjacent to
the San Miguel Ranch property. The Planning Commission dispensed with the staff report and
moved to the public hearing.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Billy Scott, 1522 Travelo Way, Encinitas, CA 92024, had owned this land 20 years. He felt
this applicant had a good plan, and he supported the project.
James Algert, 428 Broadway, CV, stated that he was both an applicant and the project engineer
for this development. He concurred with staff's recommendations, and felt that the density
given to Emerald Properties for the adjacent property would be appropriate for their property.
Don Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita 91908, had left the meeting, but had registered a speaker's
slip in opposition of the project.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Salas/Willett) 7-0 to recertify SEIR-95-04 and approve the GPA and Prezone.
.l2.-?
ORDINANCE NO. .2 to'f'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO APPROVE THE PREZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES TO THE PC ZONE (PCZ-96-C)
WHEREAS, an application for prezoning of two parcels containing approximately 10.1
acres of presently unincorporated land were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department on June 12, 1996 by James H. Algert and Billy R. Scott ("Applicant"), and;
WHEREAS, LAFCO policy requires that prior to a city annexing property, said property
must be prezoned. Thus, the proposed prezoning has been requested in order to bring said
parcels, which are to be annexed to the City, into conformance with LAFCO policy ("Project"),
and;
WHEREAS, those parcels to be prezoned PC are identified by their Assessor Parcel
Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18, as shown on Exhibit I, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project
and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
and;
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on November 20,
1996, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and;
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04),
dated August 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch, which also included the Mother
Miguel Estates project, and;
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the
following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project:
Land Use
Landform/Visual Quality
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the
City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment, and;
..2.2 - f'/.;..l -?'
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report was given as required by law, and;
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing and
accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9,
1996, and;
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on
the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezoning
on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December
17, 1996, regarding the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment
and the Prewne;
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors
in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or
advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City
adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Draft SEIR held on October 9, 1996, their public hearing held on
this Project on November 20, 1996, and minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the
proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
.21.-<}
Ordinance No.
Page 3
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the prezoning of 10.1 acres to the PC Zone, identified
by their Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18 finding that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice supports the prezoning
of said parcels.
III. PREZONING
That the property identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 585-130-16 and 585-130-18,
consisting of approximately 10.1 acres, generally located between the north boundary of
the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property and the San Diego Gas and Electric
Company property, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as
Exhibit I, be prezoned Planned Community and that future development of the property
shall be governed by either: a) a Precise Plan, to be approved by the City Council, which
shall be in conformance with the R-1-7 standards contained in Title 19 of the Municipal
Code, or b) a SPA Plan submittal which is consistent with and/or incorporated into the
SPA Plan for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch SPA.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FSEIR-96-02, the Findings of Fact, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. The zoning of those parcels to PC shall become effective at the same time that the
annexation of said parcels to the City of Chula Vista becomes effective.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
N: \shared\attorney\A-I.ord
-2.2. ~ / c;
Ordinance No.
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California this December 17, 1996, by the following vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
AITEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a City Council meeting held on the 17th day of December, 1996.
Executed this 17th day of December, 1996.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
~ ..2..2';1
RESOLUTION NO.
1f'5J3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FSEIR 94-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THE
MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY
(GPA-96-02); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, James H. Algert and Billy R. Scott, hereafter referred to as "applicants", have
submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment for approximately 10 acres of land,
referred to as Mother Miguel Estates (Case # GPA-96-02), generally located adjacent to the
north side of the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch and the south side of the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company transmission facility, southwest of Mother Miguel Mountain; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for prezoning of the property to the
PC Planned Community Zone (Case # PCM-96-05) in accordance with the prezoning previously
established for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch property; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated
August, 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch, which also included the Mother Miguel
Estates project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following
issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project:
Land Use
Landform/Visual Quality
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of
Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was
given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing and
accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9,
1996; and
.2.2-/ .2.
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezoning on
November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December 17,
1996, regarding the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and
the Prezone;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
A. FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch General
Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996,
which also includes the Mother Miguel Estates project, consists of:
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR-95-04, SCH #96051038)
dated August, 1996, which contains 1) the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and
2) Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR.
2. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed and
considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (and addendum thereto)
reflects the independent judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
4. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (and Addendum thereto) is
hereby certified by the City Council to have been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS
Land Use
The amendment to the General Plan provides the land use category which is the same as
that proposed for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch.
Circulation
The property would take access from a local street emanating from the Mt. Miguel Road,
a proposed four-land collector street with access to future SR-125.
.).2 -I;?
Public Facilities
The General Development Plan for the San Miguel Ranch project and implementing
future Sectional Planning Area plan will provide the framework for the provision of
master plans for water, wastewater, drainage/flood control, sewer and other systems as
appropriate. The amendment to the General Plan and companion prezoning for Mother
Miguel Estates will benefit from the implementation of these plans.
Housing
Because of its relatively small size, the provision of low- and moderate- income housing
is not a requirement for the project.
Growth Management
The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan relative
to the provision of public facilities and the phasing of development subject to their
availability implement the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Before any
construction may occur on the Mother Miguel Estates property as a result of this General
Plan Amendment, a Public Facilities Financing Plan for the San Miguel Ranch must first
be prepared to insure that all public facilities are available to serve the Mother Miguel
Estates project concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
Parks and Recreation
The owners of the Mother Miguel Estates property will be will be required to pay Park
Acquisition and Development fees to assist in the financing of park and recreation
facilities in the area before development may occur.
Safety Element
No geologic hazards have been identified for the subject property although all
development resulting from this General Plan Amendment and Prezone must conform
with recommendations of a qualified engineering geologist. Brush management and fuel
modification requirements will be required as a condition of approval of any tentative
subdivision map resulting from this General Plan Amendment and Prezone for fire safety.
Noise Element
The Noise Element of the General Plan requires that the City enforce regulations related
to noise from traffic and conflicting land uses. No noise sources have been identified
relative to this project.
C. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
';').-I(
1. Adoption of Findings.
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
"Candidate Findings of Fact" (Document Number ).
2. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR-95-04 and in the Candidate
Findings of Fact, the Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures
described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will
become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent, the City, or the
School district) assigned thereby to implement same.
3. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in
the above subparagraph 2, each of the alternatives to the project which were
identified as potentially feasible in SEIR-95-04 are found not to be feasible since
they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified
significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation
measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program")
incorporated in the SEIR Section 6.0. The Council hereby finds that the Program
is designed to ensure that during project implementation the permittee/project
applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings
if Fact and the Program.
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Document No. ),
identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the
unavoidable significant adverse effects acceptable.
,2.:;. ./>
D. Notice of Determination
The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed, after City
Council approval of this project, to insure that a Notice of Determination is filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego.
E. Invalidity: Automatic Revocation
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect
ab initio.
F. One General Plan Amendment
It is the intention of the City Council that its action on the Mother Miguel Estates project
by this Resolution and its action on the companion item, San Miguel Ranch, be and is
one General Plan Amendment for the purposes of the State Law limitation on the number
of allowable General Plan Amendments in one year.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
ohn M. Kaheny
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
).) -/ ?
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA
RE: SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-95-04)
State Clearinghouse Number 96051038
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for this project addressed
the potential environmental effects of approving a general development plan (GDP) amendment
and the general plan amendment (GPA) for San Miguel Ranch. The GDP amendment and GPA
submitted by the applicant, Emerald Properties, contains a land use plan and project goals to guide
the development of a new community. The GDP amendment proposes a mix of land uses
including residential, commerciallretail, school, community and neighborhood parks, circulation,
a trail system and open space.
The SElR also evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project. These include the No
Project/No Development Alternative; No Project/Adopted General Development Plan; Reduced
Density General Development Plan Alternative; and Annexation Alternatives.
San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP AmendmenJ
SubsequenJ EIR - Firwl
Findings of Fact-l
City of Chula Vista
November 27,1996
).).-j?
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The San Miguel Ranch property is situated in the study area for the proposed southerly extension
of SR 125 from SR 54 to Interstate 905. Currently, CALTRANS is considering several route
alignments for the freeway in a Draft EIRJEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). (The Draft
EIR/EIS for SR 125 was circulated for public review and comment in July 1996 [SCH No.
89011118]). Two of the SR 125 alignments considered by CAL TRANS are: Proctor Valley
Alignment and Horseshoe Bend Alignment (referred to as the Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation
Alignment by CALTRANS). The Proctor Valley Alignment is located along the western
boundary of San Miguel Ranch while the Horseshoe Bend Alternative is generally aligned through
the middle of San Miguel Ranch. Therefore, the project applicant (Emerald Properties) has
presented two alternative land use plans for consideration based on these two potential freeway
alignments. A description of the alignments and associated land use plans is presented below.
No development would be proposed on the north parcel. The GDP includes the full preservation
of the entire north parcel under the two separate Amended GDPs for San Miguel Ranch. The
City's Draft Subarea Plan (August 1996) recommends preservation of the north parcel to meet the
conservation goals of the MSCP/NCCP Program. The North parcel would be designated as open
space in the applicant's proposed Amended GDPs, and the entire north parcel would be acquired,
protected and included in the City's Subarea Plan (August 1996) in accordance with the
assurances, acknowledgments and agreements set forth in the plan.
A GPA and prewning approval is also proposed for a 10-acre parcel, Mother Miguel Estates,
located contiguous to the San Miguel Ranch south parcel. Mother Miguel Estates is not part of
the San Miguel Ranch; however, CEQA mandates that projects should not be piece-mea1ed.
Because the parcel is proposing a GPA, at the same time that the San Miguel Ranch is being
evaluated, the direct and cumulative impacts of modifying the General Plan for those additional
10 acres are discussed within the SEIR.
State Ronte 125 _ Proctor Valley Alifllrnent General Development Plan (GDP)
The proposed project consists of a new land use plan for the master planned community of San
Miguel Ranch. The proposed land use plan would amend the approved GDP for the site adopted
in 1993 and incorporates the SR 125 alignment contained in the City's General Plan. For the
purposes of the SElR, this land use proposal is referred to as the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP.
Overall, the proposed Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would reduce the total dwelling units
approved on site by 124 homes.
The GDP proposes a wider variety of residential categories than is currently provided on the south
parcel: Low (0-3 dulacre), Low Medium (3-6 dulacre), Medium (6-11 du/acre), and High (18-27
du/acre). Nonresidential land uses are proposed on the south parcel, including a 13.6-acre
elementary school, 29.5-acre community park, 5.6-acre neighborhood park, 7.5-acre community
San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendmem
Subsequem EIR - Final
Findings of Faet-2
City of Chuw Vista
November 27, 1996
~~~/r
service site, and 13.9 acres of retail commercial. Utility easements, open space, and roadways
comprise the balance of the site acreage. The conference center/retreat development previously
approved on the north parcel would be removed from the GDP under this alternative.
The balance of the north and south parcels, approximately 1,745 and 217 acres, respectively,
would be retained as natural open space (totaling 1,961.9 acres of the 2,590 acres). Buildout of
San Miguel Ranch would add up to 4,440 new residents in eastern Chula Vista (assuming
SANDAG's population generation rate of 2.97 persons per du). In contrast to the adopted GDP,
the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would decrease the total permitted unit count on San Miguel
Ranch by 124 homes.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
The Chula Vista General Plan presently designates nearly the entire residential portion of the
property as Low (0-3 du/ac). Approximately 20 acres located at the southeast corner of the
residential south parcel are designated Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac). Non-residential land uses
include a conference center site in the north parcel, and designated an elementary school, park,
and neighborhood shopping center on the south parcel. The remaining area, approximately 70
percent of the site, is designated Open Space.
In addition to the proposed GDP amendment, the applicant (Emerald Properties) is seeking a
General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The proposed GPA
would apply to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan. This GPA
would provide the new residential land use classifications with which to implement the required
amendments to the GDP discussed above. The proposed GDP amendment does not reflect any
development on the north parcel; however, the GPA for the north parcel would be limited to a
maximum of 50 residential units on 107 acres if not retained as open space, and a wider variety
of General Plan residential categories for the south parcel.
Proposed Circulation Network
Development of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would also entail the extension of several
roads within the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan: East H Street (six-lane prime
arterial) and Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane Class I collector with raised median). The project's
circulation system also includes the provision of right-of-way for the SR 125 freeway, which
would parallel the western edge of the south parcel and intersect with Mt. Miguel Road. The
proposed alignment for SR 125 is referred to as the Proctor Valley Alignment and is consistent
with the City's General Plan. All circulation elements (roads, transit routes, and bikeways) within
San Miguel Ranch have been assigned classifications consistent with or greater than the General
Plan's Circulation Element. In addition, an amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation
Element may be required to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I collector road prior
to SPA approval.
San Miguel Ranch GP A/GDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Fi1uzl
Findings of Fat:t-3
City of ChuJo. Vista
November 27, 1996
..2.2 '11
State Ronte 125 - Horseshoe Bpnd Alirnmpnt GDP
As part of the alignment selection process for SR 125, CALTRANS formed a committee of
property owners and interested parties to assist in defining alternative routes through the study
area. The committee, referred to as the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), proposed several
route alignments, including the routes evaluated in the SEIR. The Horseshoe Bend alignment (or
Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation Alignment) traverses across the San Miguel Ranch property and
bisects the south parcel in a north-south direction. This alignment is named for its proposed
grading of the Horseshoe Bend Landform on the south parcel. The variation in the alignment
recommended by the CAC occurs north of San Miguel Ranch. Should CALTRANS adopt this
alignment, the newly constructed freeway would physically separate the south parcel into two
distinct parts, each with separate land use planning issues.
In response to the alternative route, the applicant prepared an alternative land use plan in the event
that CALTRANS ultimately adopts the Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125. The Horseshoe
Bend Alignment GDP changes the residential land use densities adjacent to the freeway and
incorporates the SR 125 Horseshoe Bend alignment. As noted earlier, the Horseshoe Bend
alignment is currently under study in the Draft EIRIEIS for the SR 125 project. Adoption of the
Horseshoe Bend Alignment and proposed GDP would require amendment of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan.
Proposed Land Use Categories
The acreage and types of land uses in the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would be similar to
those proposed in the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP. However, residential densities and unit
yields would increase near the freeway under this alternative. Uses near the interchange would
consist of Low (0 to 3 du/ac), Medium (6-11 du/ac) and Open Space land use categories. The
locations of the school, community park, neighborhood park and community service sites are
essentially the same as the Proctor Valley Alignment. Acreages for the elementary school site
(12.7 acres) and community park (28.2 acres) are slightly smaller than the Proctor Valley
Alignment GDP. The entire 1,852-acre north parcel would be designated as an ecological reserve
under the Amended GDPs for San Miguel Ranch in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the City's Subarea Plan (August 1996).
Adoption of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would allow for up to 1 ;498 du for an average
gross density of 0.58 dulacre (i.e., 1,498 units across 2,590 acres). The alternative could produce
approximately 4,449 new residents (assuming 2.97 persons per unit). The Horseshoe Bend
Alignment GDP would decrease the maximum permitted unit count (under the approved GDP)
on San Miguel Ranch by 121 duo This alternative would allow about the same number of units
as the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Foct-4
City of ChuiJl Vista
November 27, 1996
~.2.x;
Proposed General Plan Amendment
Similar to the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP, the applicant (Emerald Properties) is seeking a
GP A for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch as part of the approvals for the Horseshoe Bend
Alignment GDP. Amendment of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General
Plan would incorporate the proposed land use categories described above on the south parcel, and
be limited to a maximum of 50 residential units on 107 acres, if not retained as open space, on
the north parcel. In addition, a new alignment for SR 125 will be selected.
Proposed Circulation Network
Similar to the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP, development of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment
GDP would also require the extension of several roads: East H Street (six-lane prime arterial) and
Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane collector road with a raised median). The SR 125 interchange with
Mt. Miguel Road would shift east under this alternative, requiring a GPA of the City's Circulation
Element. In addition, an amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element may be
required to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I collector road prior to SPA approval.
Mother Miruel K<;tates Crl'neral Plan Amenrlment
Mother Miguel Estates (consists of two parcels totaling 10.14 acres) are located adjacent to the
south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. This area is presently located within the City of Chula Vista
Sphere of Influence and is designated as Low Residential. The parcel would change land use
designation from Low to Low-Medium residential, increasing the maximum development yield
from 30 units under the low classification to 60 units under the low-medium classification
potential.
San Miguel Raru:h GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent E1R - Final
Findings of Fad-S
City of ChuiJl Vista
November 27, 1996
.2), -~/
m. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions taken by the decision makers in approving this Project are:
· Amendment (GPA) of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan
to adopt the following proposed changes;
Redesignation for low, low-medium, medium, and high residential, retail commercial,
institutional and open space/park uses,
Relocation of retail commercial, community park and elementary school sites to
proposed locations,
Reconfiguration of the Circulation Element map to reflect the GDP circulation plan,
Realignment eastward of SR 125 right-of-way (Horseshoe Bend Alignment for
SR 125).
· Amendment and adoption of General Development Plan.
· Prezoning Mother Miguel Estates to .Planned Community".
· Annexation to the City of Chula Vista will be considered after all of the other above
actions have occurred.
Other actions that are the responsibility of another public agency are:
· Amendment to the County of San Diego Circulation Element to designate San Miguel
Road a Class I collector road with a raised median.
· Annexation of all, or portions of San Miguel Ranch and Mother Miguel Estates into the
City of Chula Vista as approved by the San Diego County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO).
Subsequent environmental review of the project will consist of review and approval of the San
Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Pian and future Tentative Maps. A Public Facilities
Financing Plan will be prepared and processed concurrently with the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan.
Air quality improvement and water conservation plans, in addition to water and sewer master
plans and conceptual drainage plans will be prepared in conjunction with the SPA Plan. The
future San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan will establish development standards, site utilization plan and
urban design guidelines and provide specific community facility development plans.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings 01 Fact-6
City 01 Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
~...) ;J-
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, and pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the
environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following:
· The Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Project,
including appendices and technical reports;
· The Draft, Final, and Supplemental San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan EIR 90-
02, including appendices and technical reports;
· The Sphere of Influence Update Study and Final Program EIR for the proposed City of
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update;
· The Draft EIR/EIS for the Route Location, Adoption, and Construction of State Route 125
between State Route 905 on Otay Mesa to State Route 54 in Spring Valley, prepared by
CALTRANS, including appendices and technical reports;
· All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents
prepared by the Applicant, the planning and environmental consultants, and the City that
are before the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk;
· All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies to the decision
makers in connection with the SEIR on the Project;
· Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings
held by the City of Chula Vista, or video tapes where transcripts are not available or
adequate;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and
· Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider, including
but not limited to, the following:
. Chula Vista General Plan (Update) - 2010
. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
. Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy
For purposes of the City's environmental analysis of the Project, the record of proceedings shall
be limited to the documents considered by the City of Chula Vista at the time of its decision on
the Project (Western States Petrolenm Association v. Snperior Conrt, (1995) 9 CalAth 559, 565
[38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139].)
San Miguel RllMh GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings 01 FOL;t-7
City 01 ChuJa VISta
November 27, 1996
..l :;. r .).::J
V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect
identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one
or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which llYQid or substantiallv lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential
finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible
conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR. "
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference
between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such
an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from other contexts in which
they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines,
therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the
statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the
Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects
where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially
lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-si~nificant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures to substantially
reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular effect is "avoid[ed] ill substantially lessen[ed], " these findings, for purposes of clarity,
will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of
insignificance) or has been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Project on
the environment identified in the Final SEIR, and determine the feasibility of mitigation measures
and Project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR which would avoid or substantially lessen
those significant effects. These Findings also assure that performance standards adopted in
connection with the San Miguel Ranch GDP are achieved. Once the City has adopted sufficient
measures to avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt every mitigation measure
brought to its attention or identified in the Final SEIR.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista to not approve a Project if
there is available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which would substantially
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-8
City of Chuw Vista
November 27, 1996
.2,)-:J. ,
lessen that Project's significant environmental effects. Only when such mitigation measures or
Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other
conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Project in spite of its significant
effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to focus on Project alternatives in the ultimate decision
maker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application of all feasible
mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Project alternatives identified in
the FPEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible or infeasible. The findings set forth
the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the decision makers conclude any
such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives
Section) .
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final
SEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
("City" or "decision makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the
Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those
measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely information or suggestions, but
constitute a binding set of obligations or conditions that will come into effect when the City adopts
the resolution(s) approving the Project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and
will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
VD. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is
designed to ensure that, during Project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible
parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures. The program is described in the SEIR,
Section 6.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-9
City of ChuJa Vista
November 27, 1996
,,2~-~.r
VIII. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS TIlAN SIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes effects determined to be less than significant in the
preparation of the EIR.
Transportation
No significant impacts to transportation are anticipated. [SEIR, Section 3.4]
Finding: Both Alignment GDPs would require the extension of several roads: East H
Street (six-lane prime arterial) and Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane collector road with a raised
median). With the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP, the SR 125 interchange with Mt.
Miguel Road would shift east under this alternative, requiring a GPA of the City's
Circulation Element. Both Alignment GDPs would require an amendment to the County
of San Diego's Circulation Element to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I
collector road prior to SPA approval.
Puhlic Services and Utilities
No significant impacts to emergency medical service protection [SEIR, Section 3.7.5].
No significant impacts to gas and electric services [SEIR, Section 3.7.7].
No significant impacts to solid waste disposal services [SEIR, Section 3.7.8].
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Fi1UJl
Findings of Fad-l0
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
~:;.. -,,2 j,
IX. DIRECT SIGJI.'IFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
COMPLIANCE WITH THE GDP FINDINGS
The San Miguel Ranch GDP/GPA SEIR and attendant Findings of Fact impose numerous
requirements which must be addressed at the SPA level of planning. The previous Final EIR and
Supplemental EIR prepared for San Miguel Ranch imposed planning requirements. To ensure
compliance with requirements set forth in the previous Final EIR, and Supplemental EIR, this
section sets forth the applicable requirements from the GDP Findings for each resource area.
In addition, the SEIR identified those issues which require complete analysis at the SPA level of
planning. To ensure compliance with requirements set forth in the GDP/GPA SEIR, this section
sets forth the applicable requirements for each resource area to be addressed at the SPA level.
The SEIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the
Project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures, while others cannot be avoided.
A. LAND USE
Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993
Signifi("~nt Effect: The location of residential units adjacent to the SDG&E Miguel substation is
considered a significant impact with respect to land use compatibility. The utility may expand the
facility in the future and potential conflicts could arise with residents adjacent to the expanded
facility.
Findinf: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that
implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects on land use. As
regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and
required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP.
Pursuant to Section 1509l(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Mf'Jlsures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. These
measures are required at the GDP program level and the SPA level:
· Provide potential buyers considering lots north of the proposed alignment of San
Miguel Road with a white paper and exhibits describing future SDG&E expansion
plans, to the extent feasible. Provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed containing
a provision describing and exhibiting future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent
feasible. This requirement will ensure that information regarding SDG&E's future
San Miguel RfUUh GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent E/R - FirwI
Findings 01 Faet-II
City 01 Chukl Vista
November 27, /996
,);2.,.))
expansion plans are disclosed to all subsequent home buyers. The San Miguel Ranch
CC&Rs shall also contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E
substation to provide disclosure to subsequent home buyers.
. Achieve general visual separation through a comprehensive buffer plan at the SPA plan
level of analysis which includes measures such as landscaping, significant topography
variation (including use of natural topography as well as berming), and homesite
orientation for houses near the SDG&E property. Specific measures proposed by
SDG&E are as follows:
a. Establishment of separation of development setback incorporating
landscaped greenbelt or residential collector street;
b. Achievement of visual separation through landscaping, topographic
variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot setback restrictions for
houses near the substation property;
c. Utilization of graded materials to construct view screening landscaped
mounds;
d. Provision for SDG&E to view the final plans so that visual impacts can be
better determined and, at that time, additional landscaping and screening
may be necessary to mitigate visual impacts.
. Provide grading site plans and other information to SDG&E to assist them in their
efforts to develop future improvement on their site and corresponding landscape or
other screening programs that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential
development to below a level of significance.
. Continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout the processing of SPA Plans for this
project.
. Obtain the applicant's commitment to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its
expansion plans through the City provided that: (1) this project's processing time is not
delayed as a result of SDG&E's processing; (2) the City treats the two projects as
separate processes, with separate hearing schedules, and (3) SDG&E's processing is
not conducted at the applicant's expense.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E
substation facility to a level below significance at the GDP level; however, this issue will be
analyzed anew at the SPA plan level of analysis, which is the next regulatory planning level
required by the City of Chula Vista, to determine the significance of this impact after the applicant
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Filll11
Findings of Fact-12
CiJy of ChulJl Vista
November 27, 1996
.2.) ..,;.. 8'
b''''''
9661 'J.< J.qw."oN
01'711. I1f1ll{J 10 lrIJ
fl-PO.f 10 S3u1PUH
fl>UH - lll:I fU:mb.sqnS
fUawp"awy Ja91YJ9 l{:nn1111:m31W uos
l~JP l11lU;:lUluOI!AU;:lltre::lY!IIll!s ;:ll[l p~OAl! illM q::l!tlM l~[Old ;:ll[l 'OlU~ p;:ll1!lOOlOO~ lO '~ ~nlxll
U;:l;:lq ;:lAl!q SUO!l1!l;:llflllO S;:lllUllq::l 'S;:lU!1;:lp!nD yi)3::> ;:ll[l JO (!)(l!)!60~! UO!l~S Ol lUllnslOd
"dOD ;:ll[llOJ fllAOlddl! JO SUO!l~PUOO S1! ltre::l!1ddy ;:ll[l Aq p;:llU;:lUl;:l!dUl~ ;:lq A;:ll[lll!l[l p;:lI!n!r.ll
pUll ;:lrq~SWJ ~ Ol MOpq S;:llnSWUl uO!ll!ll!l~ ;:ll[l punoJ sll~pU~d dOD ;:ll[l 'SpOO~ =l[l Spll!ll;ll
sy ";:lSn PUll! uo Sl~JJ;:l l11lU;:lUlUOI!AU;:lltre::ly!ull!S ~ llnS;:ll p[nOM daD ;:ll[l JO UO!llllU;:lUl;:l[dUl~
ll!l[l punoJ '[661 'L! q::lll!W uo lllS~A l![nq:> JO Al~:> ;:ll[l Aq p;:lldopl! sllUW~d dOD;:ll!.L :Jlu!pU!.f
"l:)1!dUl~ ltre::lY!IIll!s Alfll!lu;:llod l! s~ S!l!.L "SlU;:lUl= ;:lS;:ll[l1I! S[!1!ll JO lU;:lUl;:l::ll![d ;:ll[l s;:lll1!lnoos!p
lU;:lUlll1!d;:lO UOp1l;:ll~~ pUll qll!d S ,Al!:>;:ll!.L OSlU;:lUl;:lSW UO!SS!IIlSUlllll;:lMod 3./S'DOS lI!lfl!^" ;:ll1!
ll!l[l sl!1!ll S;:lpnplI! q::l!tlM Ul;:llSAS l!1!lll! S;:lSodOld dOD q::l~ [;:lnll!W UllS ;:ll!.L ::p;l.J.r.!llUIfJ!.I!~!S
****
OllUlSS;:l::lOld
Ull[d YdS ;:ll[l JO ;:lUlp ;:ll[lll! l~JJ;:l U! ;:lq Al!Ul ll!l[lllu!snoq ;:l[ql!plOJJ1! lllI!lli;:l::luOO s;:l!:J!1od
Al!:> ;:ll[l Ol ;:lA!suods;:ll aq lfllqs {llSodOld S!l!.L 0 Al!:> al[l JO fllAOlddl! Ol :p;l[qns 'll~ld
UllTd YdS al[l JO lEd S1! {llSOdOld l! JO Uo!ss~qns al[l qilnoll[l p;:llI!Ull;:llap S1! S;:l;:lJ
Al!d lO 'uopl!ilmUl ;:ll!sJJo lUafllA!nba ap!AOld 'llu!snoq aUlOOU! al1!lapoUl pUll MOT Ol Sl!lln
illI!TIaMp al[l JO lU;:l::llad 01 ;:llOAap Ol spol[laUl '=llOld illI!snoq aTql!ploJJ1! Ull II! 'alOTdxa
ltre::l!1ddl! l~[Old al[lll!l[l aI[nbal illM UllTd l1!lauaD S,Al!:> al[l JO lUawag llu!snOH aql
l[l!M A:JU;:llS!SUO::l illI!lnsug: "pAa[ UllTd YdS al[lll! 1!!l;:ll!l:J ;:l::lUllUllOJlad S,AlD al[l iltiWs!l1!S
uodn p;:lAa!tl::ll! aq lfllqs SUO!S!AOld llu~snoq arql!plOJJ1! s, U1!!d {lllaU;:lD al[ll[l!^" A:JU;:llS)SUO:> ·
:TaAaT l~rOld YdS al[l pUll TaAaT =ilOld dOD al[lll! p;:lI!nlxll all! salnsww
;:lSal!.L osillI!pU~d ;:lSal[l qilnOll[lltre::l!1ddy al[l UO ilu!plI!q apl!w all! pUll fllAOlddl! JO UOP!PUO::l
l! Sl! p;:lI!nbal all! pUll a[q!S1l;:lJ all! salnsww Uopl!llp!w illI!^"OTIoJ al!.L :~~.IIIS1!;)W UO!ll!Jl!l!}\[
"ZO-06 m3: flllI!d II! p;:lY!luap! S1!
l~JJa l11luawUOI!Aua ltre::lY!IIll!s al[l P!OAl! TI!M q:J!tIM pa[Old al[l 'Ol~ p;:ll1!lOOlOOII! lO 'II! pal!n!xll
U;:l;:lq aAl!q SUO!l1!l;:llflllO sallUllq:J 'salI!pp!nD yi)3::> al[l JO (I)(l!)!60~! UO!l~S Ol lUllnslnd
"dOD al[llOJ !1!AOlddl! JO SUO!l!PUO:J S1! ltre::l!Tddy al[l Aq p;:lluawaTdw! aq Aal[lll!l[l p;:lI[nbal
pUll a[q!swJ aq Ol MO[aq salnSWUl Uopl!llp~ al[l punoJ slllI!PlI!d dOD al[l 'Sl::>OO~ =l[l spll!ilal
sy "asn PUllT UO Sl~J];J l11luawUOI!Aua ltre::ly!uil!s U! l[nSal PTnoM daD al[l JO uopllluaWaTdw!
ll!l[l punoJ '[661 'L! q:Jll!W uo lllS!A l![nq:> JO An:> al[l Aq p;:lldopl! sllUWlI!d daD al!.L :;'lU!I'U!.f
oawp S!tIlll! p;:llI!llil;:llap U;:l;:lq lOU S1!q lllI!snolj
a[ql!ploJJ1! Ol p;:lll!pl suo!s!^old s,Al!:> al[ll[l!A\ ;:l::lUll!Idwoo aAa!tl:)1! Ol UllllilOld p;:lT!Elap l! 'laAaMOlj
~lUaWa[a ilu!snolj a[ql!ploJJ1! Ull sasodold daD qJUll~ Tanil!w UllS al!.L :paJJ:i lURJ!]!U21!S
****
"~I3: daD S!l[l U!l[lIM pau!1!lUOJ salOSWW uO!lEil!l!W al[ll[ll.'<\ palTdwoo S1!lj
as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. These
measures are required at the GDP program level and will be implemented at the SPA level. Upon
implementation, the following measures will reduce the significant land use-related impact to
below a level of significance:
. To mitigate the impacts associated with the provision of trails on SDG&E easements, more
specific development plans will be reviewed at the SPA Plan level to ensure that the
proposed locations are consistent with City policies to minimize use of trails within
SDG&E easements.
General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment/General Plan Amendment
Significant Effect: Implementation of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP or Horseshoe Bend
Alignment GDP would result in the conversion of the south parcel from a non-urban use to an
intensive residential development. ' Both' Alignment GDPs would result in an increase in the
density on the south parcel from the Adopted GDP. I( CALTRANS selects the Horseshoe Bend
Alignment for SR 125, this freeway/tollway would bisect the south parcel and would develop
residences on the west and east sides of SR 125 with San Miguel Ranch Road providing the major
transportation crossing over SR 125.
Findings: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l) changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified
in the Final EIR, including adherence to land use policies of the City of Chula Vista including the
,General Plan. Adherence to these policies, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level
of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a)(3), and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate
the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY
Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993
Significant Effect: Two topographic features in the south parcel would be extensively graded
(Horseshoe Bend would be significantly changed and Gobbler's Knob would be entirely removed).
This impact has a significant visual component as well, because these features are highly visible
from adjacent public areas and neighborhoods.
San Miguel Ram:h GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Filllll
Findings of Fact-14
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
,;;;.. :Jp
Finding: A major project redesign would be required to avoid the identified significant
landform/visual quality effects associated with the grading of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's
Knob. A project redesign is not feasible because if these features are preserved, it would create
a barrier to the cohesion and continuity of the south parcel. Pursuant to Section l509l(a)(3), there
are no feasible measures that would mitigate the landform/visual quality impacts to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
****
Sienifkant Effect: A limited number of lots on the south parcel will be orientated toward the
existing and proposed future SDG&E facilities with potential adverse visual impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR 90-02.
Miti~ation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment/General Plan Amendment
Sirnificant Effect: Implementation of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP or Horseshoe Bend
Alignment GDP would result in extensive grading in the south parcel. Both Alignment GDPs
would result in a significant impact to landform on the south parcel with the elimination of
Gobbler's Knob (with both Alignment GDPs) and Horseshoe Bend (Horseshoe Bend Alignment
GDP only). To reduce general grading impacts, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with
hillside development guidelines and City landform grading policies during the SPA Plan review
to the satisfaction of city planning staff. In the event that CAL TRANS selects the Horseshoe Bend
Alignment, SR 125 would bisect the south parcel which would result in the landform features
identified as Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend to be graded and removed for the development
of SR 125. Landform impacts would be a significant, unmitigated impact which would require
a major redesign of the proposed project to avoid.
Findings: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l) changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified
in the Final EIR, including adherence to policies of the City of Chula Vista including the General
Plan. Adherence to these policies, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level of
significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a) (3) , and CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate
the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fad-IS
City of Chui4 Vi.lla
November 27, 1996
.2.1- J I
Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Visual impacts to the portion of East H Street that passes through the
projXlsed site would be result in a significant impact to visual quality. Visual impacts associated
with locating residences along the north border of the south parcel close to the SDG&E Miguel
substation are not significant because of existing landscaping planted and maintained by SDG&E
which is expected to effectively' screen the existing electrical substation. It is anticipated that
likely future visual impacts to lots placed near the planned expansion areas for the SDG&E
substation are mitigable with a commitment to the mitigation measures incorporated by reference
from the Final EIR-90-02. However, the significance of this issue would be further reviewed
after implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this document at the SPA Plan level.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or inCOfjXlrated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Mea..mres: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. The projXlsed grading and development in the south parcel of the site would impact views
to Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains from a short portion of East H Street that
extends through the project site. These impacts can be mitigated to below a level of
significance by the implementation of landscaping and development planning consistent
with General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways.
Mitigation measures to reduce potential visual impacts associated with residential lots located
adjacent to the SDG&E property to below a level of significance at the General Development Plan
level of review, the applicant shall implement the mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR-
9O-D2. It is anticipated that implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the visual
impacts of the SDG&E facility on this project to a level below significant.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in significant environmental effects to
multiple biological resources, including habitats and species on the south parcel. Both Alignment
GDPs would result in significant effects to three sensitive vegetation communities: Diegan coastal
sage scrub, dry marsh/wetland, and annual grassland. In addition, significant effects to seven
sensitive plant species, such as the Otay tarplant, and two sensitive wildlife species would occur
under this proposed alternative. Impacts of this project alternative ujXln overall biodiversity for
San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of FaJ:/-16
City of Chu/a Vista
November 27, 1996
.2)," J:l.
the San Miguel Ranch Property are significant. These significant effects would be mitigated to a
level below significant with the preservation of the north parcel and the adoption of the north
parcel in the City's Subarea Plan.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation MI'.Jl';ures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
At the GDP level of development, the Proctor Valley GDP and Horseshoe Bend Alternative would
eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts to sensitive speCies
in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The SEIR is a .program" level document and
the location of a 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve has been identified consistent with the previous
environmental documentation (Final and Supplement EIR 90-02). The 21-acre Otay tarplant
preserve will be confirmed in the south parcel at the SPA level of processing. The USFWS, the
CDFG, and Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates that the dedication
of 146 acres of open space on the south parcel, including a 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve, and
166 acres of the north parcel, is sufficient mitigation for total biological impacts as long as the
north parcel is not developed, but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City
completes its Subarea Plan. In the event that the MSCP Subarea Plan is not approved and adopted
by the City of Chula Vista, subsequent impact analysis and mitigation measures, as well as
coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG, would be required prior to approval of the SPA for
San Miguel Ranch. The Points of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the
establishment of a conservation bank on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres
of mitigation land. The fee title to the 166 acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the
CDFG or the USFWS (or to an organization approved by them) following the City's authorization
of the project based upon an approved MSCP Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of
development in the north parcel will permanently preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual
grassland (see following table). Dedication of the north parcel as a permanent ecological reserve
will also protect important wildlife corridors in the area.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP AmendmenJ
SubsequenJ EIR - Final
Findings of Foct-l7
City of ChuIa Vista
November 27, 1996
.)~ "YJ
Acres of Sensitive Plant Communities Preserved by Elimination of
Development in the North Parcel
.. Diegan Coastal .
S e Scrub
1298 acres
North Parcel - No
Develo ment
93 acres
15 acres
90 acres
In addition, the degradation of wetland habitat in the southern parcel will still require permits from
several regulatory agencies. Any filling of wetlands would require a 1603 Agreement between
the project applicant and the CDFG. A pre-discharge Notification would have to be submitted
to the USACOE if statutory thresholds are exceeded, and a 404 permit may be required.
A no net loss of wetland habitat is required by CDFG and ACOE. Impacts must be avoided to
the extent practicable. Impacts within the southern portion of the project will be mitigated for by
preservation of the north parcel. However, impacts to wetlands within the southern parcel should
still be avoided as much as practicable. Impacts can be reduced by placement of wetlands
occurring within proposed residential lots in open space easements and providing adequate buffers.
Where impacts cannot be avoided, every effort should be made to minimize these impacts. If
necessary, minimization of impacts could be accomplished with a comprehensive program to
replace and enhance wetland habitat under a wetland revegetation plan created by a wetland
revegetation specialist and approved by CDFG, ACOE, and the City of Chula Vista. Total
created wetland would have to be at a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1 (and may be 2: lor 3: 1),
depending upon the habitat quality. The fmal mitigation required for project impacts to wetlands
will be determined during the CDFG's Streambed Alteration Agreement and USACOE 404
permitting process. In addition, the mitigation plan at the SPA level shall incorporate the
following general mitigation measures to further reduce impacts to the identified biological
resources.
Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with
surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as
improve the area aesthetically by making it visually compatible with adjacent natural areas. As
part of this effort, a revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist
with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The revegetation plan shall be prepared
by the applicant and a qualified biologist.
The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required for all
areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be encouraged to use non-
invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space. Iceplant shall not be used in lieu of
fire-resistant native revegetation due to associated slope failures and the invasive nature of the
San Miguel Ranch GP AIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-IS
Cily of Chu/a Vista
November 27, 1996
,2.2":J(
species.
Grading activities within 200 feet of areas of identified coastal California gnatcalcher pairs, or
their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or nesting
season (February 15 through August 15). This will also help in avoiding the breeding season of
many other species of birds. Grading activities shall be supervised by a qualified biologist.
Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy
machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open space. Areas adjacent to open
space shall be fenced. A debris fence shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where grading
is upslope of sensitive biological habitats.
D. AIR QUALITY
Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993
Signifi.."nt Effect: Short-term pollutant emissions will occur during the construction phase of San
Miguel Ranch. The air quality impacts are considered significant short-term impacts.
Finilinf': The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that
implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality. As
regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and
required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP.
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Mf'llSllres' To reduce short-term pollutant emissions to below a level of significance,
the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions
of approval, shall be incorporated into the analysis at the SPA level to be implemented during the
construction phase of the project:
1. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems
for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction.
2. . Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and
as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
3. Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
4. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces.
San Mig~l Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subseq~nt E/R - FiIUll
Findings 01 Fact-/9
City of ChuIa Vista
November 27, /996
.;.~... .J5
5. To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a
day, unless the County's current state of limited water supplies still exists at the time
of construction. In this case, other mitigation measures shall be considered and
implemented upon City approval. Such measures may include minimizing grading by
designing development to follow natural topography, phasing grading so relatively
smaller areas are exposed, and re-vegetating graded areas as rapidly as possible.
****
SiV1ifi('~nt Effect: Stationary sources, such as residential frreplaces, water heaters, and furnaces,
would contribute to San Diego's inability to meet orone and PM-lO standards, which is considered
a significant impact to air quality.
Finrl;n~: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that
implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality. San
Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a number of criteria air
pollutants. Emissions from stationary sources within the project will exacerbate the violation of
these standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce emissions to the point
where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the mitigation
measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would remain
significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible
measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact is
a=ptable because of specific overriding considerations.
MItigation M!'lIsnres: To reduce pollutant emissions from stationary operations, but not to below
a level of significance, the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be incorporated into development design at the SPA level
to reduce ROG, NOx, and PM-10 emissions during the implementation and construction phase
of the project:
6. All swimming pools shall use solar energy with back-up 10w-NOx water heaters.
7. Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all the larger on-site
facilities.
8. Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be outfitted with heat transfer
modules providing a 70 percent reduction in No. emissions.
9. Incorporate in the landscape design low natural hydrocarbon (NHC) producing plant
species (also requiring little water).
San Miguel Raru:h GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of F~t-20
City of Chuw Vista
November 27. 1996
J).... J"
* * * *
Sirnifkant Effect: Vehicular emission associated with the Project will result in a significant
impact to the total vehicular air pollutant emissions burden in the San Diego Air Basin. The
proposed project will result in increased vehicle emissions in the region which include carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and reactive hydrocarbons, which is considered a significant impact
to air quality.
Finilin1': The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that
implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality. San
Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a number of criteria air
pollutants. Vehicular emissions generated by the project will exacerbate the violation of these
standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce vehicular emissions to the
point where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the
mitigation measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would
remain significant. Pursuant to Section 1509l(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible
measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding considerations, however, the city has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
MitiGation Mf'.Jl.<mres: To mitigate potential impacts associated with vehicular emissions, but not
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible, are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
10. The project applicant shall prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan
(AQIP) that:
a. Provides an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result from the
project,
b. Demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain or
improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles traveled,
c. Includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures and other
direct or indirect means of reducing emissions, and
d. Establishes a monitoring program.
11. The AQIP shall be subject to:
a. Review and comment by the Resource Conservation Commission,
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent E1R - Fmal
Findings of FOJ:t-21
City of Chula Vista
November 27,1996
:2'; ....3 /
b. Review and comment by the Planning Commission,
c. Approval by the City Engineer, and
d. Approval and adoption by the City Council.
The applicant shall obtain these approvals prior to approval of the SPA Plan.
12.
A park and ride facility shall be implemented within the project m
proximity to SR 125.
13.
The applicant shall provide facilities such as turnouts, shelters and other
amenities to support increased bus service in the vicinity of the project.
14.
The project shall incorporate bicycle lanes along designated roads within
the project.
15.
The project shall incorporate all feasible, relevant and appropriate
mitigation measures developed in the RAQS.
16.
Garages shall be wired for 220 volts to accommodate charging of electric
vehicles when such vehicles become commercially available in the next
decade.
E. NOISE
SiVlifir~nt Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in significant impacts to noise in the south
parcel. Traffic noise levels would exceed 65 dBA (decibel A-weighted sound level) Ldn (day-
night level) standards due to traffic noise along proposed SR 125 and several major roads proposed
within the Alignment GDPs.
Finrlinf~: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Mpllsllres: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measure will reduce the noise-
related impacts to below a level of significance:
I. Noise walls shall be of solid masonry construction with a material weight of at least
3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not allow any air space along their entire
length.
San MiglUll Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment
SubseqlUlnt EIR - Finol
Findings of Fact-22
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
,) .2 ".3 tf'
2. Each noise wall or wall/berm combination shall be placed on the building pad at the
top of the slope between the residences and the adjacent impacting roadway, which
reduces noise levels to 65 dBA levels. The required wall or wall/berm combination
height may range from 8 to 10 feet for residences adjacent to SR-125 or East H
Street; and from 5 to 6 feet for residences adjacent to San Miguel Road. Because
City regulations do not permit walls over 6 feet in height, only the wall !berm
combination along SR-125 and East H Street would be a=ptable.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES AA'D UTILITIES - WATER
Signifir,mt Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in water consumption within the project
which will require implementation of water conservation strategies. Additional impacts to water
demand will need to be analyzed at the SPA level when the project applicant's Water Master Plan
and Water Conservation Plan is reviewed and approved by the Otay Water District (OWD) prior
to City approval.
Finding: Pursuant to Section l509l(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within San Miguel Ranch, a Water Master Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and OWD. This plan shall delineate the
plans for San Miguel Ranch and identify the location and sizing of specific facilities and
implementation/phasing of the plan.
. To reduce water consumption within the development, the project applicant will prepare a
Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan application, for approval by
the City. This plan must provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed
proj ect, a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed
water, and other means of reducing per capita water consumption for the proposed project,
as well as defining a program to monitor compliance. This plan shall be reviewed by the
Resource Conservation Commission and Planning Commission, prior to final review and
adoption by the City Council (Growth Management Program) City of Chula Vista, April 23,
1991, Resolution No. 16101. The plan must include the following:
. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever possible, as planned. The project applicant
shall begin negotiations with the OWD and Sweetwater Authority to ensure
distribution of reclaimed water to the site.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Filllll
Findings of FlUt-23
City of Chulll Vista
November 27, 1996
,)~ ~:J'I
. Water conservation measures for onsite landscaping and roadside maintenance shall
include, but not be limited to planting of drought tolerant vegetation and the use of
irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation loss.
. Installation of low flush toilets.
. Installation of low flow showers and faucets.
. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems.
G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - SEW AGE
Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would generate sewage which be accommodated by
existing sewage treatment facilities and existing infrastructure as identified in the Final SEIR.
However, the GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 identified significant impacts
associated with offsite transport of San Miguel Ranch wastewater which would be considered
significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. Prior to approval of the SPA Plan within San Miguel Ranch, a Wastewater Master Plan
shall be prepared subject to approval by the City Engineer. The Wastewater Master Plan
shall identify the location and sizing of onsite and offsite sewage facilities,
implementation/phasing, and funding. This report shall include a discussion of potential
impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir in the event of a break in the sewer line or sewage spill
in the portion of the project within the Sweetwater drainage basin. The Sweetwater
Authority will require that 18 hours of emergency storage and full redundancy be designed
into the sewage pump stations. In addition, the Sweetwater Authority will require that all
gravity sewer mains be upstream of the proposed urban runoff diversion system.
. The project shall be subject to payment of wastewater development fees (to fund trunk sewer
and other upgrades) or equivalent proportionate facility financing mechanism necessary to
provide service to this project as identified by the City, when adopted. Payment shall occur
prior to issuance of building permits or earlier.
San Miguel Rand GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Finlll
Findings of Fact-24
City of Chu14 Vista
November 27, 1996
,).2 - 'if)
H. PUBLIC SERVICES AA'D UTILITIES - POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
SiVlitkant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in an increased permanent population in
an area that is presently undeveloped which would place new demands on the Chula Vista Police
Department. The proposed San Miguel Ranch project would require additional patrol officers
and support staff to provide the City's threshold/standards policy objectives. The funding of these
new personnel would result in a significant impact to police protection services.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation MpJlsures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. The City has adopted supplemental development impact fees to ensure funding for police
protection facilities. Under any new development scenarios, the project will be required to
pay their proportionate share of the funding requirements. The City's Police Department
will determine when facilities are needed to ensure that the response times are met. This
determination shall be made during approval process of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan.
1. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in response times which are in
conformance with the City's threshold/standards policy objectives. Impacts to dwelling units
located near hillsides and open spaces from brush fires represent potentially significant impacts
due to fire hazard. The financial impact of constructing a new fire station and the increase in
personnel will result in a significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation MpJlsures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. Partial funding shall be required in the form of a development fee, but this will not
be adequate to cover the entire cost. Another means of funding must be developed
at the SPA level.
. Implement an acceptable brush management plan, as proposed by the applicant. This
will be dealt with in further detail at the SPA level of analysis.
StJIl Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Al1Undl1Um
Subsequem EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-25
City of ChuUz Vista
November 27,1996
.;1..2 -tf/
J. PUBLIC SERVICES Al\'D UTILITIES - SCHOOLS
SiV1itk>mt Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in an increase in 467 students for Chula
Vista Elementary School District and 452 students for the Sweetwater Union High School District.
At the time of completion for San Miguel Ranch, the Eastlake High School and the Bonita Vista
Middle School are projected to exceed their capacities which would result in a significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Miti~ation M!'~<;ures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
. As required by state law, the developer must pay school fees of $1. 84 per square-foot of
habitable space for residential development and $0.30 per square-foot of commercial
development.
. Funding for the school shall be in compliance with Chula Vista Elementary School District
procedures and shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
financing method or other means acceptable to the District.
. Prior to SPA approval, the project proponent shall provide documentation to the City
confirming satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High School District facility funding requirements
to offset student generation impacts. Funding shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos
Community facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to the District.
. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Ranch San Miguel, the project proponent shall
obtain written verification from Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union
High School District that adequate school facilities and associated financing will be provided
for students generated from the project.
K. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
SiV1ifiC'>mt Effect: Both Alignment GDPs include a trail system with portions of the trails which
traverse and follow the SDG&E easements, which are not consistent with the policies of the City's
Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result
in SR 125 bisecting the south parcel and creating a barrier to the San Miguel Ranch trail system
which would interrupt hiking/equestrian trails. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result
in SR 125 creating a barrier which would result in a significant impact to the trail system.
San Miguel Ram;h GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Ftu:t-26
CiJy of Chuill Vista
November 27, 1996
,).,2-'1:1...
Findinf: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings:
Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend Alignment GOPs
In the event that portions of the trail systems traverse SDG&E easements, the impacts of
the trails in the easements can be mitigated by the movement of the proposed trails so that
they are outside the SDG&E easements. This will need to be analyzed at the SPA level.
Horseshoe Bend Alifnment GDP Only
This alignment will bisect the trail system in numerous places. These impacts can be
mitigated by creating trails that intersect with the greenbelt in other areas or by creating or
utilizing planned structures (such as Mt. Miguel Road which would cross SR 125) that allow
trail users to cross over SR 125. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP will include a trail
crossing on the same bridge structure as Mt. Miguel Road to cross SR 125. This will need
to be analyzed at the SPA level.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of FQI;t-27
City of Chukz Vista
November 27, 1996
,2.2-1/3
X. SIG1'\'IFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connections with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."
(Public Resources Code Section 21082.2b). Several development proposal have been submitted
for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista in proximity to San
Miguel Ranch. These current or probable future development proposal would affect many of the
same natural resources and public infrastructure as San Miguel Ranch. Several potentially
significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of San Miguel Ranch in
conjunction with these surrounding development projects.
The proposed project along with other related project will result in the following cumulative
environmental effects: Land Use (Conversion of Undeveloped Land), Landform/Visual Quality,
Biological Resources, Transportation and Air Quality. These cumulative impacts are discussed
in the Final SEIR, Section 5.5.
The cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these cumulative
impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against specific overriding
considerations. The sections below, define each of the cumulative impact issues, and proved the
reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially
lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to
specific, economic, social, or other considerations.
A. LAND USE/CONVERSION OF OPEN SPACE
SiVlifil"J'lnt Effect: Development of the both Alignment GDPs would contribute to an incremental
increase in the area's conversion of open space to urban land uses. The City's General Plan
designates the proposed project as a developable area. Preservation of the entire north parcel and
a portion of the south parcel as permanent natural open space into the project design would offset
t some of the impacts related to conversion of undeveloped, open space to urban uses. Despite
these general mitigation measures, the project would contribute to a significant, unmitigated
cumulative land use impact.
Finilinf: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this
cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the State of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, in combination with the projected development
San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fru:/-28
City of Chuhl Vista
November 27, 1996
>>-~~
projects in the area, would contribute unavoidably to a significant cumulative effect on the existing
natural landforms due to extensive grading and the area's visual quality.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures below would minimize cumulative impacts to
landforms, these impacts would remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below
a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Meac;ures: General mitigation measures being incorporated into both Alignment GDPs
and other projected development projects in the area would serve to offset some of the identified
landform/visual quality impacts. These mitigation measures include a review of grading plans by
licensed civil engineers, adherence to city grading ordinances, and hillside development
guidelines, contour grading, slope revegetation, and restrictive grading to building pads.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, in combination with the projected development
projects in the area, would result in an incremental cumulative loss of quality biological habitat
in the region.
Finding: The north parcel of San Miguel Ranch would be preserved according to the City's
Subarea Preserve Plan and the MSCP. However, the incremental loss of biological resources with
this project and in other development projects would impact sensitive species and habitat and is
cumulative and significant. Pursuant to Section l509l(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are
no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Preservation of the north parcel and other areas as natural open space,
habitat restoration and revegetation, onsite and offsite habitat recreation and offsite habitat
preservation programs would partially mitigate the identified cumulative impact to biological
resources.
D. TRANSPORTATION
Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will result in an overall increase in traffic volumes in the City. Certain elements of the
circulation system are projected to operate below acceptable levels due to the cumulative increase
in traffic.
Findine: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
San Miguel RlUUh GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of FOJ:t-29
..2.) -Q
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final SEIR.
J\frtigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with transportation
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project shall be implemented, together with the measures relating to transportation for
other approved or probable projects.
. The issue of transportation will be considered further at the SPA plan level, when more
specific development plans are available for review.
E. AIR QUALITY
SiVlificant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would contribute to an unmitigated cumulative air
quality impact on regional air quality because the proposed development will result in emissions
of NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG) and PMlO from vehicle and stationary sources which will
add to the San Diego Air Basin which presently exceeds state and federal ambient air quality
standards. Because the San Diego Air Basin presently exceeds air quality standards for several
pollutants, any additional emissions will contribute to San Diego's inability to meet these
standards. Therefore, these air quality impacts are considered to be cumulatively significant.
FiDcling: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Impacts to air quality will, however, remain
cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible
measures that would mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are
a=ptable because of specific overriding considerations.
J\frtigation Mea'illres: To mitigate cumulative impacts to air quality, but not to below a level of
significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions
of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to air quality shall be implemented, together
with the measures relating to air quality for other approved or probable projects.
. The air quality impacts will be considered further at the SPA Plan level, when more specific
development plans are available for review.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-30
City of ChuJa Vista
November 27, 1996
.,1.2-~1,
XII. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined
above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the
Project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether on or more of these alternatives
could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for
Quality Growth v. City of Mount Sha~ta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243 Cal.Rptr.727]; see also
Public Resources Code, Section 21002.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the
feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when
contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts
can be mitigated to a less than significant level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the
agency, in drafting its findings has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally
superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the Project as
mitigated. I.aurel Heights Improvement Association v. Rel'ents of the University of California
(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v City Council
(19768) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842] see also Kings County Farm Bureau v City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]. Accordingly, for this Project, in
adopting the findings concerning Project alternatives, the City Council considers only those
environmental impacts, that for the finally approved Project, are significant and cannot be avoided
or substantially lessened through mitigation.
Significant environmental effects would remain with both Alignment GDPs even after application
of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR. Therefore, the decision makers
must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR. Under these circumstances,
CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. "Feasible" means capable of
being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking economic,
environmental, legal, social and technological factors into account (Guidelines Section 15364).
If no project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers will have to determine whether to adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible project
alternative, the decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project.
(All project alternatives considered must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objective
of the project" [Guidelines Section 15126(d)]).
These fmdings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the project as revised, while still resulting in significant environmental
impacts, has superior environmental and other benefits.
In rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the project objectives and
San Miguel ROIUh GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - FinoJ.
Findings of Foct-3!
City of ChUUl Vista
November 27, 1996
..2;2~'1?
weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project as revised best meets the project objectives with the least environmental impact.
The objectives considered by the decision makers are:
1. Creation of a high-quality master-planned residential development consistent with the
policies of the Chula Vista General Plan to provide a variety of Low, Low-Medium,
Medium, and High residential densities.
2. Provision of a commercial/retail center, community and neighborhood parks,
elementary school to serve the needs of San Miguel Ranch.
3. Preserve the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch as permanent undeveloped, natural
open space.
4. Implementation of significant elements of the City's General Plan as follows:
a. Preservation of open space corridors and extension of the greenbelt system
proposed for the periphery of the city through the provision of approximately
permanent open space as depicted in the General Plan;
b. Preservation of Mother Miguel Mountain which is designated as a significant
landform by the City's General Plan;
c. Implement regional and local circulation facilities by providing for the extension
of SR 125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-lane collector,
and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road;
d. Provide necessary public utilities and services to the are including water,
sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space;
e. Provide connecting links to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use
of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the automobile;
f. Provide affordable housing opportunities to be integrated into the residential
community.
A. ALTERNATIVES
The decision makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the SEIR
could substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As explained below, the
decision makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both meet the objectives of
the project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects.
1. No Project/No Development Alternative
The No Project/No Development alternative assumes that no development would occur on the
project site. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition. Because the
project site would remain undeveloped under the No Project/No Development alternative, all of
San Miguel R/l1l{;h GPAIGDP AIMndIMnt
Subsequent E/R - Fintd
Findings of Fact-32
City of ChUUl Vista
November 27, /996
tJJ-ttr-
the unmitigated impacts of the project as revised would be avoided. However, the no project
alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons:
a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan
The Chula Vista General Plan designates the project site primarily as Low Residential (0-3
dwelling units/acre) which includes commercial school, park, and open space uses. Both
Alignment GDPs would provide for such development and uses. In addition, a GPA would
reassign the land uses on the south parcel to provide for a variety of Low, Low-Medium,
Medium, and High Residential land uses. The No Project/No Development alternative
contemplates no development at the project site, and is not consistent with the City's
General Plan designation for the project site.
In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives
which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial,
and open space uses. Both Alignment GDPs would provide for a balanced community. The
No Project/No Development alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, as it does
not contemplate development of the project site for urban development, including residential
school, park, commercial and open space uses.
b. Eliminates Fiscal Benefits to City
As vacant, undeveloped land, the project site generates no revenue for the City of Chula
Vista; however, the city incurs very few costs from the site in its undeveloped condition.
This fiscal situation would continue under the no project alternative. However, both
Alignment GDPs would provide a potential source of revenue once buildout is completed.
The fiscal benefits would not be realized under the no project alternative.
c. Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives
The No Project/No Development alternative would not achieve the objectives of either
Alignment GDP. For example, the objectives considered by the City, which would not be
realized under the No Project/No Development alternative include: 1) creation of a high-
quality master-planned residential development consistent with the General Plan Amendment
designation; 2) provision of a commercial/retail center, community park, and elementary
school to serve the needs of the project site; 3) implementation of regional and local
circulation facilities by providing for the extension of SR 125, the designation of San Miguel
Road as a major four-lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; 4)
the implementation of necessary public utilities and services to the area including water,
sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and 5) a
linkage to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian
trails as an alternative to the automobile.
San Miguel Raru;h GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent E/R - Final , Findings of Fad-33
City of ChulJl Vista
November 27, /996
>>~1(9
1
No Project! Adopted General Development Plan
The No Project! Adopted General Development Plan would propose development on both the north
and south parcels with low residential land uses. This alternative would result in greater impacts
to landfonn/visual quality and biological resources and is considered infeasible for the following
reasons:
a. Greater Significant Impacts
The Adopted General Development Plan would result in greater significant impacts as the
Adopted GDP had a greater number of residential units and a greater number of acres
disturbed. This would result in greater significant impacts, as identified in Final EIR 90-02
and the Supplemental EIR, to land use, landform/visual quality, biological resources,
transportation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities.
b. Eliminates the Preservation of the North Parcel
The Adopted General Development Plan would result in development of Low density
residential dwelling units, roads and utility infrastructure, and a conference/visitor facility
on portions of the north parcel. This would result in greater impacts to biological resources
on the north parcel and would not allow the preservation of the entire north parcel within
the City's Draft Subarea Plan.
3. Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel
The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel alternative would
propose development of 107 acres on the north parcel with 50 dwelling units designated as
Low Residential (0.5 du/acre). The alternative would result in impacts to transportation and
public services and utilities (police, fire, emergency medical access to north parcel).
a. Greater Significant Impacts Remain
The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel alternative would
result in greater significant impacts as this alternative had a greater number of residential
units and a greater number of acres disturbed. This would result in greater significant
impacts, as identified in the Final SEIR, to land use, landform/visual quality, biological
resources, transportation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities.
b. Eliminates the Preservation of the North Parcel
The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel would result in"
development of Low density residential dwelling units, roads and utility infrastructure. This
Sml Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - FirwI
Findings of FlJt:t-34
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
eJ.2-:J"/:)
would result in greater impacts to biological resources on the north parcel and would not
allow the preservation of the entire north parcel within the City's Draft Subarea Plan.
4. Reduced Density GDP (Environmentally Preferred)
The Reduced Density GDP reduces residential density resulting in the condition that 50 percent
of the units on the south parcel would be estate residential with a minimum of 555 units on the
south parcel.
a. Significant Impacts Lessened
The Reduced Density GDP would result in some significant impacts, but would lessen the
impacts on land use, landform/visual quality, public services and utilities.
b. Inconsistent with Project Objectives
The Reduced Density GDP would not adhere with the project objectives to provide a variety
of high-quality housing and a range of affordable housing.
5. Annexation Alternatives
The annexation alternatives include four annexation scenarios to address the orderly annexation
of connecting land uses. The four alternative annexation scenarios as 1) SDG&E Parcel; 2)
limited SDG&E corridor; 3) Otay Water District; and 4) No North Parcel. The annexation
alternatives relate to requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to
approve annexation to the City of Chula Vista and are not directly related to the feasibility of
selecting a particular alternative as all of the previously discussed alternatives may be combined
with the aforementioned annexation alternatives. For example, the No Project/No Development
Alternative may be annexed in the same manner as the Existing Adopted GDP which would have
differing impacts under the same annexation alternative.
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent ErR - Final
Findings 01 Fact-35
CIJy 01 Chuw Vista
November 27, 1996
-2;;"''-;
ill. PLAl\l\'ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On November 20, 1996, at a properly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista recommended certification of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and General Plan
Amendment, Resolution FSEIR-95-04, to the City Council [See City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission Resolution FSEIR-95-04 (November 20, 1996)].
XIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide:
(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable.
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary
if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c ) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice
of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. Section 15093).
THE STATEMENT
The Proj ect would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures):
. Land Use (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts)
. Landform/Visual Quality (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts)
. Biological Resources (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts)
. Transportation (Cumulative Impacts)
. Air Quality (Cumulative Impacts)
San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-36
City of Chuw Vista
November 27, 1996
~.2 -:f.,).
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts.
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this
examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both 1) meets Project
objectives; and 2) is environmentally preferable to the fInally approved Project.
As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations'
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency
to cit a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow
the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The
statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoided
significant effects.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts' in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are
to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse" (public
Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse"
impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be
addressed. (See Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [Cal.Rptr.377].)
Decision makers benefit from information about Project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if
necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093).
The City finds that the mitigation measures found in the CEQA findings, when implemented,
avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in the Final SEIR. Certain
significant effects of the San Miguel Ranch project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures. In approving the project, the City has balanced the benefits of the
San Miguel Ranch project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard the City
finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will be
implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable
due to the following substantial social, environmental and economic or other considerations, all
of which are based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final SEIR and the record of
the proceedings for this project.
Environmental Protection and Preservation
The Project would eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts
to sensitive species in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The USFWS, the CDFG,
and Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates the dedication of 146 acres
of open space on the south parcel (including a 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve) and 166 acres of
the north parcel, as mitigation for total biological impacts as long as the north parcel is not
developed, but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City completes its Subarea
San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment
Subsequent EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-37
City of Chuw Vista
November 27, 1996
,u?)
Plan. The Points of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the establishment of a
conservation bank on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres of mitigation
land. The fee title to the 166 acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the CDFG or the
USFWS (or to an organization approved by them) following the City's authorization of the project
based upon an approved MSCP Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of development in the
north parcel will permanently preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of
mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual grassland. Dedication
of the north parcel as a permanent ecological reserve will also protect important wildlife corridors.
Rifh Quality Residential Development
· Master planned community with Low, Low Medium, Medium and High residential and
retail! commercial land uses.
· Community facilities including an elementary school, community facility, neighborhood and
community parks, and trail system.
· Transportation and circulation facilities including SR 125, connection of H Street to Bonita
Road, and the construction of San Miguel Road as a four-lane collector.
· Regional housing needs with a variety of residential densities and housing types.
Rei'ional HO\lsin~ Needs
The San Miguel Ranch GDP Project would help meet a projected long-term regional need for
housing by providing a variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity
studies indicate a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next 20
years. For example, the SANDAG Series VII population growth forecast, published in January
1987, estimates that within the South Suburban MSA, in which the Project site lies, employment
will grow more substantially than housing or population (South County Land Use Analysis, Alfred
Gobar & Associates, 1990, Exhibit E). In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other
uses has residential disproportionate to the cost of other uses in the Project area (e.g., commercial,
industrial), reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The Project will help reduce the cost
of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development.
The San Miguel Ranch GDP provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another,
responding to needs of singles, families, students, and seniors. With a variety of single-family
and multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs are anticipated. The
classification of a portion of the San Miguel Ranch housing product type as attached will assist
in providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized that the key contributing element of
the cost of housing is the price of land. This range of housing types and prices will promote
socio-economic diversity, which the City [mds both important and desirable.
For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental
impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.
San MiglU!/ RtlMh GPAIGDP Al1rendl1renJ
SubseqlU!nJ EIR - Final
Findings of Fact-38
City of Chula Vista
November 27, 1996
.2.2-/r
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item ,).3
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Resolution /[;'5.:1 'I Approving the concept of the proposed
Workforce and Employer's Service Center (WESCI/San Diego County office
facility, and directing staff to: 1) assist the WESC/County to seCure a
facility in Chula Vista, and to identify financing options and related Council
recommendations, if any; and 2) to prepare an MOU for Council
consideration for cooperative economic development/employer assistance
efforts
REVIEWED BY:
Community Development Director
City) Manageg
c~.
SUBMITTED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoXI
BACKGROUND:
In August 1996 staff submitted an Information Memorandum to Council regarding a proposed
"Career Center Collaborative" which was considering co-locating with BECA at the 80,000 square
foot former Rohr headquarters. After further analysis, this scenario did not prove feasible. BECA
is now planning to expand its existing facility as originally planned. The job training entities have
continued to form a broad-based collaborative now called the "Workforce and Employers' Service
Center" (WESCl, and are looking for a facility. The County is also considering co-locating offices
with the WESC. City staff (and Rohr) have assisted in the site search. To date, two potential
sites have been identified, including existing buildings at the Bayview Commerce Center and a
proposed build-to-suit on the parcel behind the Broadway Price Club (see Attachment A). The
proposed center would be an asset to the City's labor force and economic development efforts.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the concept of the proposed Workforce and
Employers' Service Center (WESC)/County offices and direct staff to: 1) assist the WESC/County
to secure a facility in Chula Vista and to identify public and private facility financing options,
including City, County, and/or WESC member participation, and report back with recommended
actions by Council, if any; and, 2) prepare an MOU for cooperative economic
development/employer assistance efforts for Council consideration.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: This item is scheduled for the January Chula Vista
Economic Development Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION:
A. PROPOSED WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYERS' SERVICE CENTER (WESC)
The Workforce and Employers' Service Center (WESC) is being proposed to consolidate South Bay
employment service providers in an integrated "One Stop Career Center" serving both employees
and employers. WESC includes members of the existing South County Career Center (SCCC) plus
the Sweetwater Union High School District Career Awareness Center (CACl, National University,
potentially County social services, and others (see Attachment B). The SCCC's lease has expired
and they are considering relocating. Additionally, and most importantly, federal funding for job
~:J -/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
training services is expected to end, with funding shifting to the states in the form of block grants.
The new funding will emphasize the multi-agency "One-Stop Career Center" approach. The
proposed WESC coalition will position these job training agencies to be competitive in seeking
grant funds to ensure their continued operation. California has already received a $24 million U.S.
Department of Labor grant and has issued an RFP to fund 10 "One Stop Centers", throughout the
State.
WESC is being fashioned after the Waukesha County, Wisconsin Workforce Development Center,
a national model (see Attachment C). WESC's Executive Summary is provided as Attachment D.
In addition to the "traditional" job training agencies, WESC is pursuing co-locating with County
Social Service agencies in light of the increasing emphasis on "Welfare to Work" initiatives. WESC
will also emphasize a partnership with the City's economic development efforts, in terms of linking
employers with workforce related resources. The South County Economic Development Council
(SCEDC) is considering co-locating with WESC and acting as the agency's non-profit administrator.
The consolidation of these economic development services within the City would be an asset to
the City's business retention and recruitment efforts.
B. PROPOSED MOU WITH WESC
It is anticipated that the City will enter into an MOU with WESC to coordinate economic
development efforts relating to employers' labor force needs. The MOU is envisioned as a
strengthening of the existing Chula Vista Workforce Development Team partnership. The MOU
could provide for coordinated efforts in the following areas: 1) marketing WESC services to local
employers - as part of our business retention/expansion efforts - and to businesses considering
locating in Chula Vista - as a recruitment incentive; 2) identifying employers' training needs and
promoting programs to address these needs; and 3) cross-referrals of employers needing general
economic development assistance (to the Community Development Department) and of those
needing specific job training assistance (to WESC).
C. AUGUST COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM/ROHR BUILDING 1 g
When the August Information Memorandum was submitted to Council discussing the proposed
Career Collaborative, BECA was considering relocating (at no rental cost) to Building 19, the
former Rohr headquarters, in order to expand and to obtain laboratory and manufacturing space.
Because Building 19 included over 80,000 s.f., staff was considering "recruiting" other tenants
to provide business support services and to help finance tenant improvements. Discussions were
initiated with the "Career Center Collaborative" in this regard. After further analysis Building 19
did not prove feasible for the following reasons: 1) Rohr could not make the lab or manufacturing
space available; 2) capital improvements were estimated to be up to $1 million; 3) Rohr could not
guarantee longer than a three year lease. (BECA is now expanding into Phase II of its existing
building and pursuing two other small Rohr buildings for lab and manufacturing space.) As
discussed in the memo, a possible funding scenario for Building 19 had the Career Collaborative
tenants paying rent to finance amortized capital improvements over three years and cover annual
operating costs. To keep rents low, the Collaborative had discussed making a request for the
City's Redevelopment Agency to loan $300,000 and for the City to grant $300,000 in Port
District CIP monies to finance a portion of the up-front capital costs.
r2 J .. .I..
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
D. CURRENT WESC/COUNTY FACILITY NEEDS
WESC is continuing to evaluate space needs. Estimates range from 40,500 s.f. for job training
agencies alone to as much as 100,000 or more s. f. including County offices (see Attachment A).
Staff have assisted WESC to identify two potential sites:
Bavview Commerce Center
This 214,000 s.f. business park is located at the northwest corner of 1-5 and Palomar Street. It
is the current home ofthe South County Career Center (10,080 s. f.). The owner is proposing that
WESC expand into Phase III. He has indicated 63,617 s.f. in Buildings B, D and E could be
delivered within 90 days, and Buildings D, E & F (47,500 s.f.) in 120 days (see Attachment E) at
a preliminary base rental figure of $.55 s.f. gross. Using a rough tenant improvement estimate
of $666,000 ($15 s.f.) and based upon a three year amortization, the estimated rent would be
$.90 s.f.
The advantages of this site are:
1) Ability to phase in individual tenants; growth potential up to 214,000 sq. ft.
2) Could be short-term solution, allowing time to plan and finance long term, permanent
facility
3) South County Career Center already there
4) Close to Palomar Trolley station and on bus route
5) Freeway visibility
6) Property management company in place
Issues are:
1) Buildings are clustered but are not a single facility, potentially limiting effectiveness of a
One Stop Center.
2) Concerns regarding parking space availability and location (owner indicates could deliver
a minimum 4.6:1000 parking to office space ratio).
Bennet Greenwald Build-to-Suit
WESC is favoring the construction of a build to suit. Bennet Greenwald has control of the 12.28
acre parcel located west of the Broadway Price Club and east of Industrial Blvd. and of the
adjacent.64 acre strip (see Attachment F). Mr. Greenwald has proposed a customized, build-to-
suit facility using a development team of Sillman/Wyman, Inc. (architects). Cooper Roberts and
Co. (space planners). Algert Engineering, and G.A. Rogers and Co. (contractor). Mr. Greenwald
could obtain private financing based upon long term lease commitments. Public agency bond
financing is also being considered. He is prepared to fast-track the project's construction. Initial
discussions indicate a roughly estimated rent of $1.00 s.f. gross based upon a 10 to 20 year lease
guarantee.
Advantages include:
1) A modern, custom designed facility meeting the unique needs of an integrated, multi-
agency center
2) Very close proximity to Palomar Trolley Station
3) Can potentially accommodate high parking to square footage ratios
4) Can potentially accommodate an adjacent child care center
~J~3
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 12/17/96
Issues include:
1) Time needed for planning, permits (est. 18 weeks) and construction (est. 8 months)
2) Need for 10 to 20 year lease guarantee from one or more WESC partners
3) Cost of facility and rental rates yet to be determined
4) Need to obtain usage of MTDB property along Industrial Boulevard between Palomar and
Oxford for pedestrian traffic from trolley stop
E. CENTRALIZED COUNTY OFFICES WITH WESC
As the project evolves, there is the potential for a South County Center that houses both WESC
and consolidated County offices, such as the Departments of Social Services (DSS) and Health
Services. DSS offices are currently located at 1261 Third Avenue (GAIN) and 1355 Third Avenue
(Welfare). County Health is located at Third Avenue and H Street in the parking lot behind the
courts. Co-locating County offices with WESC will not only enhance public service, but could also
result in the County providing the needed guarantees for bond financing issued by either the
Redevelopment Agency, City, County or a Joint Powers Authority for the new facility.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In order for any landlord to determine building costs and tenant lease rates a breakdown of space
commitments is required. Attachment A shows the estimated space needs that have been
identified to-date. County space needs are under negotiation. As noted, it is anticipated that the
Bennet Greenwald proposal will require a 10 to 20 year lease guarantee in order to back private
or public financing. Bond financing could be issued by the Agency, City, County or a JPA and
could potentially be guaranteed by the County or the City or a WESC member agency. The total
cost of the facility is undetermined but could be up to $20 million for the build to suit option. The
Bayview Commerce Center may offer a scenario in which capital costs could be paid off within
three years, thus requiring only a three year lease guarantee by the WESC job training partners
themselves.
The WESC group has indicated that they may request the City's Redevelopment Agency to provide
approximately a $300,000 loan and the City to provide approximately a $300,000 grant from the
Port District CIP in order to help write down capital costs and thus reduce lease rates. As noted,
if WESC pursues the build-to-suit option, WESC may also seek a 10 to 20 year lease guarantee
from the City or request the City/Agency to serve as the master leaseholder. Such a request
would require a cost/benefit (and "risk") analysis.
In terms of revenues to the City, WESC as a non-profit use would not pay personal property taxes
or sales taxes. The property owner is responsible for payment of real property taxes. In the event
that the City were to participate in financing via loans, grants and/or lease guarantees, the City
could potentially negotiate a share of lease revenue proceeds and/or an equity position in the new
building.
It may be of interest to note some highlights of the Wisconsin model's financing:
. Community College provided free land
. College Foundation leased the land, built and owned the facility
. College and County each gave $500,000 to reduce construction loan
~;J'i
Page 5. Item_
Meeting Date 12/17/96
. College. County and State credit ratings provided financial security for loan (risk of breach
of lease)
. College. County and State are master leaseholders; provided all leases are for 10 years
ATTACHMENTS
AJk
B - ace Needs
C orkforce Development Center Case Study of Waukesha County
j(; WESC Issue Paper/Executive Summary
A~-- Map
~f:YF - Map
(CD) M:\HQME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\12-17.96\WESC.113 [December 12, 1996 {9:33am)J
.1:1">
RESOLUTION NO.
/~>j'l
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE CONCEPT OF THE PROPOSED
WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYER'S SERVICE CENTER (WESCI/SAN
DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE FACILITY, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO
1) ASSIST THE WESC/COUNTY IN SECURING A FACILITY IN
CHULA VISTA AND TO IDENTIFY RELATED FINANCING OPTIONS;
AND 2) TO PREPARE AN MOU FOR COOPERATIVE EMPLOYER
ASSISTANCE EFFORTS
WHEREAS, a proposed "Career Center Collaborative" was considering co-locating
with BECA at the 80,000 sq. ft. former Rohr headquarters; and
WHEREAS, after further analysis, this scenario did not prove feasible; and
WHEREAS, BECA is expanding its existing facility as planned; and
WHEREAS, the job training entities have continued to form a broad-based
collaborative now called the "Workforce and Employers' Service Center (WESC) and are looking
for a facility; and
WHEREAS, the County is also considering co-locating offices with the WESC; and
WHEREAS. City staff have identified two potential sites including the Bayview
Commerce Center, and a proposed build-to-suit on the parcel behind the Broadway Price Club; and
WHEREAS. the proposed WESC would be an asset to the City's labor force
development and economic development efforts.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve the concept of the proposed Workforce and Employers' Service Center
(WESCI/County office, and directs staff to: 1 I assist the WESC/County in securing a facility in
Chula Vista and to identify public and private facility financing options, including City, County,
and/or WESC member participation, and report back with recommended actions by Council, if any;
and, 2) prepare an MOU for cooperative economic development/employer assistance efforts for
Council consideration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the WESC project remains subject to further analysis
and consideration by City staff and the City Council and any final City Councilor Redevelopment
Agency action with respect to the project shall be subject to any and all required environmental
analysis, public hearings and other related discretionary approvals in the City's sole discretion.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
~
IICDlmdl M,\HOMElCOMMDEV\RESOS\w",.'" ID",mb" 1 t. 1996 14,14) ::3 ... ~
,
!! .,:::.~ '-.'
, ;':~..
i ,#"
~~
\
,
\
)
~
I
j z
~
'"
"
..,
. .'
,.'
~
~'.
~
,
.
~
2
U
~
~'" r2?
ATTACHMENT A
,
. ,
;:,
~
......-)
\
\
\,
'----..'
~
..0
>
~
~
Bayview Commerce
Center
"
"'-
~~,
~
("'I,...~~~ -l
CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JCATOR PROJECT
e) APPlICANT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: /J~ ,.?::l~?
NORTH -
WESC AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS
ATTACHMENT B
TENANT
*1. Southwestern College
2. Sweetwater Union High School District
3. Regional Occupation Program
4. Sweetwater Union High School District
In-School
5. Califomia State Economic
Development Department
*6. San Diego Consortium and Private
Industry Council
7. Literacy Program
8. MAAC
*g. Comprehensive Training Programs
10. National University
11. South County Economic Development
Council
*12. San Diego Enterprise Zone
13. City of Chula Vista Literacy Program
14. County - GAIN
15. County - Department of Social
Services
16. County - Health Services
17. County - Department of Rehabilitation
TOTAL
*Currently members of existing South County Career Center
{(md) c:\wp51\documenl\812.96 (December 5, 1996)1
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
2,000
8,500
1,500
1,500
6,000
6,000
400
400
TBD
est. 1,000
est. 1,200
TBD
TBD
est. 12,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
40,500
~ ,)J"?'
ATTACHMENT C
THE
WORKFORCE
DEVELOPM ENT CENTER
OF
WAUKESHA COUNTY
WHERE PEOPLE AND Joes CONNECT
,1 ~ ""
,
Workforce Development Center
Case Study
.----
.~
(~
/
(C
'. / c' (..--
(
~~"'~
- - -- -------
~ '-~.:~
, -~=
...-' .--=
_._~
y-s-.,,23-1
PUBLIC - PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
Partners For Education
WIsconsin Job Service
W-o-W Private Industry Council. Inc.
Waukesha County Technical College
Waukesha County Economic Development Corporation
c. Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services
Kaiser Group, Inc.
La Casa de Esperanza
AFL -CIO
.
-
ON ll-iE COVER
~ eJJ'/1J
Tnis dra\Wing of The Wort.force De-.reopmem Center was rendered cy Joan htette. whO is Itle Senior Marketing Coordinator for tt1e Private Indunry Council.
She is also re~pons.ible for ttle Workforce De'le!opment Center's Marke!lng Campaign.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction (including Mission Statement & Objectives
Chronology
Site Selection
Constraints
Capital & Operational Financing
Technology
Construction
Workgroups
Economic Assistance
Agency Roles
Operations
Employer Services
Customer and Center Outcomes
~
Attachments
Vision/Mission Statement
Guiding Principles
1995 t\ctivity Report
Floor Plan
News Articles
~ -2J'I/
1-3
4
4
5
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-11
11
12-13
14-15
INTRODUCTION
Waukesha County is located in southeastem Wisconsin, immediately west of Milwaukee County. With
a population growth rate of 7.3% and laborforce growth of 19.1% in the 1980's, Waukesha County has
been one of the fastest growing counties in Wisconsin. The number of jobs increased by more than
50% in the 1980's to 153,129, reflecting the rapid expansion of employers moving into the county. The
number of businesses in the county has increased to 9,247. Because of this rapid growth, employers
are projected to have a continuing problem with an inadequate supply of entry-level and skilled workers
available to them. The county has several population centers including suburban, urban, and rural.
More than 50 industrial parks are located throughout the county, including the largest one in the state.
In the 1990's economic development and low levels of unemployment in Waukesha County were
causing labor shortages for area employers. At the same time there were unemployed and
underemployed in the County contributing to high welfare costs and Wisconsin was focusing efforts to
reform its welfare program and reduce state funding. Also, high school and college students needed
assistance to develop needed job skills and to find work.
Origins of the Initiative
Waukesha County Executive Daniel M. Finley is credited for his vision and determination in making the
Workforce Development Center a reality. Under his leadership, in the fall of 1992, the involved
agencies worked past issues of turfism, distrust, and self-focus. A renewed focus on a common
mission and on the customer began an exciting process of site and facility planning and the
establishment of service delivery goals. With the assistance of a $70,000 planning grant proposed by
the County Executive and approved by the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors, the planning
process continued with the help of a consultant and architects. By-weekly meetings of the agency
heads kept the process moving. Regular input/feedback from customers and employers was critical
in keeping communication lines open and minimizing fear of change.
In December 1992, under the leadership of the Waukesha County Executive with support from
Waukesha County Technical College (WCTC) , local, state, and federal agencies responsible for
employment, training, economic assistance, and economic development services signed a joint
Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to better serve their mutual customers, both job seekers and
employers, through co-location and integration of service delivery and funding. With a $500,000
program grant unanimously approved by the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors and a similar
$500,000 grant made by the WCTC Board of Directors, the Center moved from the planning stage to
reality. In order to enhance the pre-move planning, the agencies agreed to naming the County's JOBS
(Job Opportunity/Basic Skills) Coordinator as the Operations Manager of the Center and the facilitator
of the management team's ongoing efforts. This manager's increased-responsibilities are paid for by
all the agencies through their lease arrangements.
In January 1995, a team of individuals opened the doors to a new building that is quickly becoming
known as a national model for workforce development. The Waukesha County Workforce Development
Center (Center) has put into action what many at the state and federal levels are still talking about.
With its common-sense approach and provision of a full line of services, the Center is ready to serve
any individual in need of career information and services that lead to ultimate placement.
~ ~:!-I:L
As stated in the Memorandum of Understanding developed by the agencies, the following Mission
Statement and Objectives of the Center were written:
Mission Statement
'TTu purpose of tlie U'oriforce <Devefopment Center is to culvana tlie economic we{['6eine of tlie region 6y
aevefapi1lfJ anti maintainine a quality woriforce anti 6y servine as tlie focal point for Cocal anti regicna!
worifora tfevefopment initiatives. 'Iliis is to 6e ac/iievea throUfJh tlie co-Cocaticn anti integraticn of
mrpCoyment. training, eaucatian, anti economic tlzveCopment servias for j06 see~r.;, wori.!r.;, anti employers.
Objectives
The objectives of the Workforce Development Center are:
"" 'To empower j06 see~r.; to actively acniztJe Cone-tenn economic self-sufficieru:y.
"" 'To assist empCoyer.; in meetine tlieir present anti future woriforce neeas.
"" 'To meet participants' temporary economic anti support service neeas anti strenetlien tlie connection
6et"ween economic assistana anti prepari1lfJ for wor{;reliztea self-sufficieru:y.
"" 'To tfetiver necessary services in tfie most cost-effictitJe anti efficient manner possiMe.
"" 'To strrnet!ien tfie 60ntf 6etween U'au{esfza County's econmnic tfevefopment anti employment anti trainine
proerams 6y continua! communicaticn anti coordination 6etween tlie pu6!ic anti private sector.;.
"" 'To p1T1'rli4e woriforce tfeveCopment tin{age to tlie 1(-12 scfwoCs.
Participating agencies include the Kaiser Group, Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington ryvOW) Private
Industry Council, Inc.; Wisconsin Job Service; Waukesha County Technical College ryvCTC); Partners
for Education; Waukesha County Economic Development Corporation; La Casa de Esperanza; AFL-
CIO; and the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services. The Center provides
career counseling, a full line of assessment tools, economic assistance for able-bodied recipients, on-
site child care, labor market information, economic development and employer services, interview
rooms and a single database for job openings and applicants. The Center is different from other job
centers throughout the nation. Agencies perform their responsibilities and functions in an integrated
manner thereby creating an environment where all people, regardless of where they are on the
employment continuum, can receive friendly, high quality services. Whether a citizen has never been
employed, is unemployed, is underemployed, or has been laid off, the Center is the one place they need
to go to in order to achieve self-sufficiency and a=mplish their dreams.
--
Each of the agencies agreed to take a lead role in the Center. The lead roles were:
A The Wisconsin Job Service staff would staff the reception area and the self-service job
information area.
A The WOW Private Industry Council would provide a variety of administrative services including
the development of a common computer information system and coordination of a unified
marketing approach to area businesses.
Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services would coordinate services to
able-bodied public assistance recipients and employ the Operations Manager for the Center.
A WCTC would be the lead agency for career assessment, classroom training activities, and facility's
management.
~ ,23-0
2
... The Waukesha County Economic Development Corporation would contact businesses regarding
a broad array of business development services focused on retaining and attracting companies
in Waukesha County.
... Partners in Education would coordinate Center interaction with area secondary schools and
businesses.
... The Kaiser Group, La Casa de Esperanza, and the AFL-CIO would contract to provide
specialized services to targeted populations.
The agencies then identified the following issues that would insure an excellent workforce for the 21st
century:
... Upgrading incumbent worker skills
... Essential skills for new workforce entrants
... Cultural diversity training
... Work ethic
... Child care
... Regional cooperation
... Housing
... Transportation
... Temporary support services
... Career counseling/testing/assessment
... Job search assistance-job/applicant matching
The Workforce Deve!opment Center would provide "one-stop" services in the following areas:
... Unified registration process
... Career counseling
... Group job search activities
... Financial assistance for unmet needs
... Unified marketing to area businesses
... Assistance to new or growing businesses
... Temporary child care
... Skill assessment
... On-line list of available jobs
... Job referrals
... Referrals to training opportunities
... Analysis of skills used in specific jobs
... Incentives to employers for training
... Technical assistance to area employers
... School-to-work linkages
... Labor market infonnation
-
~ ..2:I'ltf
7
CHRONOLOGY
The project timetable is shown below:
-
December 1991 Initial discussions conceming a job center-Job Service, JTPA, and
WCTC.
Spring 1992 More agencies become involved, most importantly Waukesha
County.
Workforce Development Summit sponsored by Waukesha County
August 1992 Economic Development Corporation, Partners for Education, Inc.,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, and IBM Corporation.
December 1992 Memorandum of Understanding for a Workforce Development Center
was signed by eight agencies and orcanizations.
Spring 1993 Agreement on the scope of services to be provided was agreed
upon.
Fall 1993 Aareement on the location of the facilitv was acreed upon.
Winter 1993-94 Agreements were finalized conceming facility ownership, leasing,
financing, and building specifications.
May 1994 Construction of facilitv.
Spring/Summer 1994 Formalization and documentation of operating policies and
procedures occur.
December 1994 Occupation of the facilitv.
January 1995 Begin full operations.
SITE SELECTION
The Workforce Development Center Management Team considered many factors during the site
selection process. A consultant was hired to identify a site with an existing facility to be adopted for new
construction if a suitable facility could not be found. The major criteria developed for the location
selection process included the following:
~ Near Interstate 94 corridors on existing or logical extension of public transportation.
~ Proximity to Waukesha and Milwaukee's (population center) labortorce.
~ "Neutral" site outside major city locations.
~ A site providing visibility and positive image.
The evaluative criteria considered in the site selection process was:
~ Size of parcel
~ Surrounding useslimage
~ Visibility
~ Architectural controls
~ Land/topography
~ Access
~ .2:1-6
d
Jt. Soil conditions
Jt. Public transportation
Jt. Existing improvements
Jt. Parking
Jt. Utility availability
Jt. Cost
Jt. Existing vegetation
Three sites were selected for detailed analysis by the finm of Plunkett Raysich Architects:
Jt. Wisconsin Park Site -1-94 and Wisconsin State Highway 164 - Town of Pewaukee
Jt. Northview Nursing Home Site - County Trunk Highway T and Northview Road - Waukesha
Jt. WCTC Campus Site - Highway 16 - Village of Pewaukee
WCTC offered a proposal to make new construction a viable altemative. Land adjacent to the WeTC
campus meeting the location criteria was proposed at no cost to the project. Also, to help make the
final lease cost affordable to all parties involved in the Center's programming, the County and WeTC
each made a $500,000 programmatic investment in the project. Additionally, WCTC offered to maintain
the roads and grounds at the campus site. Based on the data supplied by the consultant, the
Management Team selected the WCTC site as the site that best met the needs of the composite
organization.
CONSTRAINTS
Many constraints and obstacles existed in bringing the Center to fruition. Lack of orecedence was the
most frequently recognized constraint. As a "first time" and original project, the fact that such
agreements had never before been entered into by the involved agencies contributed to a sense of
caution. In some cases, the agencies had never dealt with each other and, in others, the dealings
between them had been se!f-focused or at odds. In addition, various financial and operational risks of
the project were not clearly defined until they were uncovered during negotiations.
The lack of precedence was an underlying reason for the shortaoe of trust encountered during the early
phases of the project. The cross purposes of past programs or individual agency goals complicated
negotiations. The shortage of trust was overcome by making the basic agreement that the project
parameters worked for everyone or they worked for no one. At each major stage of negotiations the
agencies involved were infonmed and given the opportunity for feedback, which was then taken into
consideration for negotiations at the next phase.
In the early phases of lease negotiations, the differences in oolicies and orocedures of the major tenants
was compounded by the need for approval from oversight bodies. Waukesha County negotiations were
shaped by the need to obtain County Board of Supervisor's approval: Job Service of Wisconsin's
position was dictated by the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration. WCTC was required to
get approval from the Wisconsin Technical College System Board of Directors. The WCTC Foundation
position had to be approved by its Board of Directors. In addition, each of the agencies subletting space
needed to have their negotiations approved by a Board of Directors. In all, six agencies are subleases
formed after the master leases were signed between the WCTC Foundation and the three major
tenants: Waukesha County, WCTC, and the State of Wisconsin.
After the site for the Center was selected, the issue of building ownershio and construction came to the
forefront. WCTC was precluded from owning or capitalizing more than $500,000 in value without a
referendum. The County and State's interest was to participate in programming, not in ownership of
a facility. Tax-exempt financing was explored as well as other avenues. Industrial revenue bonds did
~~ ~J'-;J
<
not meet statutory criteria to qualify. Discussions regarding a tax-exempt loan with representatives from
Sallie Mae (Student Loan Marketing Association) did not generate interest. The use of tax-exempt
financing would also have limited potential lease options due to private activity restrictions.
CAPITAL & OPERATIONAL FINANCING
The WCTC Foundation was the appropriate organization to lease the land from WCTC because its
mission is to help the College achieve its goals. The Board of Directors of the Foundation responded
positively to a request from WCTC to lease the land, construct the building, and provide ownership of
the building on behalf of the agencies involved. A major benefit of the WCTC Foundation (a private
foundation) owning the building was the ability to cause construction in the most direct and cost efficient
manner without the legal constraints of a public entity.
In order to make the project work for all agencies, the Foundation Board accepted the principle of
ownershio without risk and without retum. Thus, leases were ultimately structured such that risk of
breach was minimized and passed on .to the College and the County. The County, WCTC, and the
State would serve as master leaseholders with the County and WCTC subleasing to the other partners
in the project. The high credit standing of the County (Aaa bond rating), WCTC (Aa1 upgraded to Aaa
before project completion), and the State (Aa) provided the necessary financial security for the lender.
AsSignable master leases were written for ten years with one ten-year option to renew. An initial annual
per square foot lease rate of $11 was approved. The lease rate included $6 for capital costs and $4
for facility operating costs. The capital cost's rate would be eliminated after ten years. It would be
replaced by a new negotiated rate amount to provide for a capital improvement reserve to be
determined by an independent property investment management consultant. In addition, the rate
amount would also be adjusted to pay back any debt incurred by the Foundation for major capital
improvements of the building during the first ten years. Operating costs of $4 per square foot would
consist of heat and air conditioning, sewer, water, electricity, fire alarms, security systems, janitorial
services, consumable materials, mechanical, electrical, structural, plumbing, painting, trash disposal,
and exterior maintenance. After the initial ten years, these costs would all be adjusted annually based
upon a consumer price index escalator clause. An additional $1 per square foot would fund staff
providing day-to-day building operational services, shared reception activities, and management
information support.
The plan was for the three major leaseholders to provide funding for the use of their fumiture and
equipment up front rather than having the WCTC Foundation fund the cost of the fumiture and
equipment. WCTC and Waukesha County did this. The State of Wisconsin, however, was prohibited
from funding their fumiture and equipment usage up front; thus, they pay an additional $2 per square
foot for the annual usage of their fumiture and equipment. In the event one of the major tenants
vacates the building prior to the ending of the lease agreements, the fumittJre and equipment will remain
with the building.
After consideration of various ways to finance costs of construction (conduit debt, local govemment,
federally-assisted, etc.) a conventional mortgage-type loan supported by a lease rate affordable to the
agency tenants was pursued. Waukesha County and WCTC each approved a $500,000 programmatic
grant to reduce the construction loan.
On March 23, 1994, the WCTC Foundation signed a ten-year lease with the State of Wisconsin to lease
5,334 square feet to them with lease payments to begin on January 1, 1995, for $13 per square foot
annually. This lease was renewable for two additional five-year terms.
~ I r 2.3 'I ?
On March 25,1'994, the WCTC Foundation signed a ten-year lease with WCTC for 15,361 square feet
of space with lease payments beginning on January 1, 1995, for $11 per square foot annually. This
lease is renewable for two additional five-year tenms. At the end of the twenty-year period a verbal
agreement was reached whereby WCTC will buy the building from the WCTC Foundation for $1.
Annually the WCTC Foundation will pay WCTC $1 for the lease of the land.
On March 28,1994, the WCTC Foundation signed a ten-year lease with Waukesha County for 10,097
square feet of space with lease payments beginning on January 1, 1995, for $11 per square foot
annually. This lease was renewable for one additional ten-year period.
On April 11, 1994, the WCTC Foundation obtained a construction loan from Firstar Bank whereby it was
able to obtain advances up to $1,400,000 for the construction of the Center. These advances were
available until March 1, 1995, at which point the construction loan would be switched to a tenm note
upon the completion of the project to the bank's satisfaction.
On February 1,1995, Firstar converted the construction loan into a term note payable for $1,355,000
with the first payment starting March 1, 1995. This note was for ten years at 7% interest using the
building as collateral and including the assignment of the lessor's interest in the leases as a guarantee
of payment. Monthly payments would be $15,732.70. The building allocations to the primary lessors
and the related annual costs are summarized as follows:
Square Rental Operational Management Total
Agency Footage Costs Costs Costs Costs
Waukesha County
Department of Health
and Human Services 10,097 $ 60,582 $ 40.388 $ 10,097 $111,067
Waukesha County
Technical Colleae 15,361 $ 92,166 $ 61,444 $ 15,361 $168,971
State of Wisconsin 5,334 $ 42,672 $ 21,336 $ 5,334 $ 69,342
Total 30.792 $195,420 $123,168 $ 30,792 $349,380
These costs are annual costs for the three major tenants. Each of these agencies sends a check for
one-twelfth of the total cost for their agency to the WCTC Foundation monthly. On a quarterly basis
(March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15), the WCTC Foundation issues a check for one-
fourth of the total operationai costs of $123,168 to WCTC to reimburse them for the costs of facility
operations for the Center. On a quarterly basis the WCTC Foundation also issues a check payable to
the Private Industry Council (agent for the Management Team) for one-Kiurth of the management costs
of $30,792.
All master leases were approved by the appropriate oversight bodies, including the State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration, the Waukesha County Technical College Board of Directors, and the
Waukesha County Board of Supervisors.
TECHNOLOGY
Those doing the initial planning for the Center realized that the overall effectiveness of the staff of all
agencies moving into the Center would be greatly increased if the staff could share common computer
systems and technology. Therefore, the Center was set up with shared computer and
P- ,'~ e2J-/~
telecommunications systems. The participating agencies have used this opportunity to obtain
microcomputers for most of the staff at the Center in order to provide the easiest possible access to
multiple systems and the software needed to do their jobs in the most effective, modem way. Many of
these staff only used mainframe terminal units or had no computer access at their previous site.
Besides equipping all staff with microcomputer units, several other technology innovations were
included in the design of the Center. They were:
A A single local area network serves all microcomputer users. This network, in turn, resides on
the WCTC "backbone."
A All staff share access to common network functions such as word processing, spreadsheets,
electronic mail, calendaring, etc. The calendaring ability should prove especially useful as
clients are scheduled for appointments across multiple agencies.
A A State of Wisconsin system allows for direct entry of intake information by clients.
A A custom microcomputer-based data system provides tracking of Center customers.
A Access to various State of Wisconsin mainframe systems (I.e., CARES system used by County
staff for AFDC processing, statewide Job Service systems, etc.) used by several agencies is
made available through a gateway running on the network. This allows staff to access
mainframe functions without a need for a separate mainframe terminal.
A In order to provide high speed access for County staff at the Center to the County's computer
systems, the WCTC network is linked to the Waukesha County network using a spread
spectrum radio technology link which spans the roughly three-mile distance between WCTC and
the County Courthouse.
A All agencies share a single phone and voice mail system.
The agencies cooperatively worked together to set up the Center's information systems and related
technologies. Their participation was:
A WCTC sponsored the computer network infrastructure for the Center and, as part of this service,
provided a single Nove!l file server for use by all staff.
A Waukesha County worked with the Wisconsin Job Service Office to install the gateway to the
State's mainframe systems which are used by several agencies.
A The Private Industry Council developed the customized client tracking system.
A Wisconsin Job Service made their experimental client intake system available for use at the
Center.
A WCTC sponsored construction of the Center facility which includes a common cabling plant for
computer and telephone communication.
A The Private Industry Council and other agencies worked in cooperation to provide ongoing
support of technology use.
CONSTRUCTION '-
It was determined the most appropriate construction delivery method would be a modified design-build
contract. To accomplish that, the WCTC Foundation, with the guidance of WCTC's Facilities
Department, developed conceptual plans and outline specifications with performance criteria. A
Request for Proposal was forwarded to five prequalified design-build teams located in the metropolitan
area. Responses were evaluated and a final contract was negotiated with the Berghammer Corporation
of Butler, Wisconsin. WCTC's Director of Facilities served as the WCTC Foundation's Project Manager
and provided on-site management of the construction contract and other related contracts, including
the fumiture and equipment.
~ .-2:!'n
8
;7 1'1!-r;:;; a).t.:;C~
The Center was designed to house 110 full-time equivalent employees from nine agencies. At any paint
in time there may be more than 110 employees at the Center since some of the employees are part
time. A copy of the floor plan can be found in the Appendix. Construction began in May 1994, and
proceeded according to schedule with occupancy taking place in December 1994, and full operations
en~uing in January 1995. The building includes a common reception area, a career assessment area,
classroom space for training and group activities, a job information area, a child drop-off facility for
temporary use by parents in need of services, space for employer interviews and seminars, common
staff meeting rooms, and space jointly used for mailing, copying, and other administrative functions.
Individual work stations are arranged on a functional basis so that staff from various agencies can work
together on similar tasks.
Following is a budget-to-actual comparison of the financing for the Center.
Description 8udget Actual
Waukesha County's contribution $ 500,000 $ 500,000
WCTC's contribution $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Fumiture and eauipment reimbursement $ 287,000 $ 259,318
Firstar loan $1,355,000 $1,355,000
Interest on loan proceeds $ - $ 16,839
Waukesha County's funding of draa-in day care center $ - $ 25,000
Total funds available $2.642,000 $2,656,157
Following is a budget-to-actual comparison of the related costs for the construction of the Center.
Description 8udget Actual
Construction costs $2,156.000 $2,058,998
Interest on the loan durinq construction phase $ - $ 18,019
Start-up costs $ 130,000 $ 130,000
Continaency funds $ 69,000 $ -
Fumiture and equipment cost $ 356,000 $ 422,572
Total funds needed $2,642,000 $2,559,989
WORKGROUPS
As part of the Management Team's commitment to making the Center's design, operation, and service
delivery system responsive to both the internal and extemal customer, multi-agency workgroups were
formed to address the following issues:
... Intearated Services to Job Seekers: Prior to building occupancy, this group focused on system
design and customer flow issues. Some of the activities included profiling customer service
needs and expectations, collecting data on Clie?I~Signing the reception area to handle
- ;;.;r....~
client flow, developing a client flow and referral process, and considering appropriate customer
service measurement tools.
After locating at the Center, this group turned its focus to developing and implementing customer
feedback surveys, monitoring service provision to assess strengths and weaknesses, developing and
implementing customer service training for receptionists, and identifying other training needs.
... Intearated Services to Emolovers: Much of this team's work was done prior to co-Iocation and
focused on the use of a common automated job order sys~em and the design and uses of an
employer informational database, development of policies and procedures for standardizing the
processing of job orders, development of an employer relations team which would function in
a united fashion using an ~ccount representative system for contacting emplo~rs, and design
and distribution of an employer-focused newsletter.
A subcommittee of this team was established to deal with the marketing of the Center to employers and
the general public.
... Customer Service: This group focused on developing a customer service philosophy for the Center.
They worked closely with the Integrated Services to Job Seekers team to develop customer service
standards.
... Buildino Environment: The primary objective of this team was to select colors and furnishings for
the Center. In addition, they presented recommendations on the following items: dress code; office
space decor and maintenance; purchase of common items, such as clocks, pictures, consumable
supplies, picnic tables, coat racks, etc.; name badges; and rules goveming food and beverage
consumption and other environmental-related issues.
This team eventually evolved into a building operations committee which was empowered to handle
staff concems related to the work environment.
... Shared Services: Prior to co-location, this team identified areas where cost savings could be
realized through bulk purchasing, joint purchasing, or leasing of common office supplies and
equipment; the design/layout of the copier and mail rooms; and establishing a joint contract for
vending services.
... Community-Based Oraanizations: This team met with community-based organizations (CSO's) to
address the following issues: how CBO's could be involved in the Center, how CSO information
would be disseminated at the Center, how Center information would be disseminated among CBO's,
what level of coordination on employment and training-related issues would be best, and how
customer referrals could be expedited between community and Center-based agencies.
... Move Coordination: Team members were responsible for making sure their respective agencies
had adequately prepared for the move to the Center. A checklist covering ten different moving-
related item was developed and used to ensure a smooth transition.
... Manaoement Information Svstems: Computer-literate people from most of the member agencies
worked to identify a common network for the Center, compatible software and hardware, and key
data elements for the creation of an employee and job seeker database.
... Future Technoloaies: The mission of this team was to facilitate tlie integration of future technology
in the Center based upon staff and customer needs. Their main goals were to identify standards
~ -L:7 t ;2J ':2/
'"
for the acquisition and integration of developing technology within the Center, explore new
technologies, applications, and benefits; identify and recommend training and ongoing support; and
explore the latest audio-video technology for use in communicating information to customers in the
reception area.
J;. EmoJovee Skills Bank: This team surveyed all staff members to assess what special skills people
might have, i.e., bilingual, signing for the deaf, CPR, musical, etc. The intent was to compile the
infonmation into a resource directory for the Center. This group also put together staff skits for the
all-staff meetings.
J;. Newsletter: A staff newsletter was created prior to co-location as a means of sharing information
on the progress being made. It also served as a vehicle to communicate infonmation about each
partner agency. The newsletter is now used to cover events happening at the Center.
Each workgroup included a member of the Management Planning Team who provided assistance in
the fonmulation of the mission statement, the development of effective meeting skills, and the
acquisition of resources to help the group complete its tasks. The workgroups kept minutes of their
meetings, which were used to keep everyone informed of the progress being made. Recommendations
were forwarded to the Management Team for appropriate action.
Multi-agency workgroups provided a very effective means for dealing with Center issues and served
to become the foundation for the development of strong working relationships amongst Center staff.
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
The Management Team targeted the County's current recipients of Er..onomic support programs in order
to achieve local success and enhance the image of the Center as a place that welcomes all citizens-
the able-bodied as well as the employment-seeking recipients of economic support programs. All
economic support programs from intake through benefit issuances for able-bodied recipients are
administered at the Center. Disabled and elderly citizens continue to receive economic support
services by the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services.
Because of the integration of functions at the Center, customers are aware of only one thing when they
walk through the front door-all job seekers with whom they come in contact with at the Center are, like
them, somewhere on the road to employment and carry no predetermined labels. The management
team's purposeful integration and de-emphasis of which customers might also be recipients of
economic support benefits support a new view of the temporary nature of economic support programs.
The recipient now views economic support as a short-term condition on that person's quest for self-
sufficiency. The Center's environment welcomes a wide diversity of people who are respected and
empowered to dream and accomplish their goals.
~
A person applying for economic support programs at the Center is expected to participate in the
Center's services. A Center-wide management information system developed with a local Community
Development Block Grant allows all Center staff, regardless of agency affiliation, to share non-privileged
customer information which allows for seamless, user-friendly program delivery between agencies.
Computer linkage to the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services facilitates
communication between Health and Human Services staff at several sites.
A private agency that is jointly contracted and funded by the Waukesha County Department of Health
and Human Services and the WOW Private Industry Council has located staff in the Center to provide
case management and placement services for JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act), JOBS (Job
Opportunity/Basic Skills), and General Relief participants. Co-location of services is extremely
~ .2:l~,2.:2-
important to low-income customers in reducing transportation costs. The length of time recipients
receive economic support benefits has been shorted as a result.
AGENCY ROLES
The partner agencies located at the Center provide distinct services for their customers. In the past
the customer would have had to go to several different locations to receive these services.
Partners for Education
The mission of Partners for Education is to identify, create, promote, and support partnerships between
the K-12 schools and employers through such avenues as teacher extemship, job shadowing, speakers,
tours, mentors, etc.
Partners for Education is staff by two individuals at the Center. A benefit of the integration is that the
Center serves as a link between employers and schools to ensure a quality workforce for the future.
This connection provides an influence earlier in the workforce cycle.
Wisconsin Job Service
The mission of Wisconsin Job Service is labor exchange, matching job seekers with jobs, to provide
labor market information, and to provide for the veteran's employment and training needs.
A new feature in Job Service is JobNet interactive touch-screen computer system which allows the
general public to directly access jobs. This technology gives people a menu of Center services and
allows them to register on line. Job Service has the main responsibility for ensuring coverage of the
reception area with a team of partner staff. They staff the self-service job information area and also
administer the GA TB (General Aptitude Test Battery) test. There are 31 Job Service employees located
at the Center. A benefit of the integration for Job Services is that they have direct access to all the
other support and training services. In the past their clients had to be sent across town to access these
services.
WOW Private Industry Council (PIC)
The mission of the PIC is to be an administrative agency for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
funds in a three-county area; to oversee funds for economically-disadvantaged persons, dislocated
workers, summer youth programs, older workers, and other disadvantaged groups; and to subcontract
delivery of these services to Kaiser Employment Services, La Casa de Esperanza, and the AFL-CIO.
The PIC employs 13 staff at the Center. Since the PIC coordinates a lot of its planning and services
with other agencies, being in one place is a big asset and allows them to communicate and resolve
problems quickly. The PIC took the leadership in providing staff to-develop a common computer
information system and to coordinate a unified marketing approach to area businesses.
Waukesha County Technical College
The mission of WCTC is to provide the services of the Career Center which includes career guidance
activities, career planning workshops, resume and interviewing skills help and labor market information;
to serve as a testing site for ASSET, high school equivalency diploma and GED exams, and for
apprenticeship testing and contracted fire fighter and police testing; to offer graduates and students help
in securing intemships and permanent employment through the Employment Opportunities and
Cooperative Education Departments; and to provide customized training for area companies through
the Center for Business and Industry Services.
~ I 7 .).:J -;23
,~
WCTC employs 27 staff at the Center. A benefit of the integration is that the Center concept
decentralizes services so customers are not steered to a particular agency but to wherever specific
needs can be met. There is a more unified flow of information which benefits customers.
Waukesha County Economic Development Corporation (WCEDC)
The mission of WCEDC is to promote Waukesha County for business development, to market to
businesses outside of the area, and to work with existing companies to expand locally; to offer a
comprehensive inventory of commercial and industrial land and buildings, long-term fIXed rate gap
financing through revolving loans and information on labor force demographics, employment, and
training; and to work with a nonprofit corporation with a 27-member board consisting of business,
education, and govemmental representatives.
The WCEDC is staffed by four employees at the Center. A benefit of the integration is that WCEDC
is housed where information about the availability of the workforce is readily accessible. In this location
WCEOC can ensure the focus of the Center is on helping companies find qualified people. The
Operations Manager and administrative assistant for the Center are now employed through this entity.
Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
The mission of DHHS is to determine eligibility for the AFOC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children),
Medical Assistance, and Food Stamps programs for those in need and to deal with all able-bodied
persons who may, now or in the future, be required to participate in a work program through Kaiser
Employment or other agency.
There are 27 DHHS employees located at the Center. The benefit of integration for the DHHS is that
customers can see their economic support specialist and their work program specialist at the same
time. Before they were in two different locations. This means the customers can register for work
programs and go through the evaluation and assessment processes sooner. Ultimately, they will get
back in the workforce sooner. Customers can get access to the job service computer and other
amenities at the Center. Staff now see themselves as part of the solution by being at the Center. They
are aiso viewing their clientele as customers rather than as "clients."
Kaiser Group
The mission of the Kaiser Group is to provide employment and training services to the JTP A population
(I.e., dislocated workers, economically-disadvantaged, and at-risk youth); to provide employment and
training programming under the JOBS (Job Opportunity/Basic Skills) program to AFDC recipients; to
offer employment and training programs for general assistance and food stamps clients; and to provide
workshops which cover motivational development issues, job search skills, resume development,
interviewing, eta.
The Kaiser Group is staffed by 18 employees at the Center. The integration benefit for Kaiser is the
physical co-Iocation where they can "walk" a person to an area like the vvtTC Career Center and show
them the available options.
La Casa de Esperanza
The mission of La Casa is to provide the Hispanic community with social and economic opportunities;
to offer employment and training functions; to offer other services such as English as a Second
Language, the home buyer program, and early childhood intervention.
La Casa is staff by three employees at the Center. A benefit of the integration is that they are able to
work closely with all the agencies and can promote the Center as a whole.
~:I";2r(
AFL-CIO
The mission of the AFL-CIO is to work with dislocated workers from union-represented shops which are
affected by mass layoffs or plant shutdowns to find job training opportunities.
The AFL-CIO is staffed by three employees at the Center. A benefit of the integration is that is provides
a full one-stop center so people are no longer running all over town to secure services.
OPERATIONS
The size and cost of the project were reduced through operational efficiencies and through use of state
or federal grants. The Private Industry Council received $50,000 in federal block grant funds to develop
a centralized information system that would integrate workforce development activities and labor market
information of agencies and of applicants. Waukesha County provided the "operations manager" by
using pooled money from the participating Center agencies to increase an existing position's salary to
provide operations management duties. The existing position continues to provide management of the
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) employment and training program for welfare recipients.
Employer Services
The Center provides employer services in the following areas: employer relations, training services,
consulting services, economic development/revolving loan fund, employment, and support services.
The employer relations component includes the Employer Services Team for Coordination and Delivery
of Services as well as a customer services feedback. system.
The traininQ services component includes needs assessment, customized training, job analysis, and
financial incentives.
The consulting services component includes needs analysis, planning, personnel systems, and
labor/management initiatives.
The economic development/revolvingJ.oan fund comp2D.ent includes the Community Preparedness
Program, marketing, technical assistance, and business location assistance.
The employment component includes job order servicing, assessment/testing, applicant referrals and
placement, and job fairs.
The support services component includes labor market information, transportation, and English as a
Second Language class.
Customer and Center Outcomes _
More important than any other factor or outcome of the Center operations has been the satisfied
customers that the Center has served. Data collection systems are still being enhanced to provide
important feedback to further evolve services. The attached Activity Report shows actual data for 1995.
Another factor contributing to our current and future success is that numerous tours are being made
of the Center by community groups, students, and businesspeople who are complimentary of the
positive way the Center is cooperatively and collaborative!y fulfilling an important Waukesha County
need. These visitors are important future employer, employee, and student customers of the Center
and WCTC's services.
The first year of activity has contributed to an outstanding synergy for those working at the Center. This
has also had a positive effect on operational financing. The u~lanned costs and activities that occur
fl / 1 ~ ,2.7 ---;1. S-
"
in new activities such as the Center have been manageable and the federal govemment, through the
Department of Labor, provided $130,000 of one-stop funds, These funds are to be used to purchase
computers and to develop a broad mar1leting plan for the Center. An equivalent amount is being given
to the Center for the 1996-97 fiscal year. Wisconsin was one of nine implementation states to receive
this funding with the Center being one of the sites to receive part of Wisconsin's share of the funding.
The Center also received a $100,000 learning lab grant from the Department of Labor based upon its
view of the Center being a valuable model in order for the Center to offer technical assistance around
the country to see what other states and municipalities are doing and to develop a mar1leting document
to give to visitors.
Opportunities for further significant cost savings and for providing improved wor1lforce development
services from this collaborative effort seem reasonably obtainable.
The Center's Operations Manager and Management Team are developing strategies to maintain and
build on the Center's excellent beginnings. The Center has brought improved services to the people
and businesses of Waukesha County.
With a future that may bring reduced federal and state funding for education, wor1lforce development,
and other domestic programs, the shared infrastructure and operating strategies currently working at
the Center have positioned Waukesha County and WCTC to better deal with uncertainty and possible
chaos. In the current national environment, collaborative partnerships similar to the Center's initiative
with synergistic outcomes are important to everyone.
.
-
-?1 ~ u ~,2J'-2.t
"'"'
cfl
lU
~ 0
Q
Q..
E
ill
II: ~
W ...
I- cfl
Z lU
W U
t:
t) lU
m
I- '<l:
<fl
Z <.....
W Q
~ cfl
lU
a.. u
).
0 L..
lU
..J If)
W Q)
> .c
.....
W cfl
Q)
C .....
'I:l
L..
W m
Q)
t) .....
t:
II: ::n
0 'I:l
LL t:
Q
~ .....
u
II: t:
:J
0 lL
'--
S
(\
~
<lOa
~
~ ~ ffi
~ ~ ~ d' ~ a~ c t ~
W Q] ~ 8 ~
1 ~ J
---,.----
----------------,----
t------------.,
; IE [E!
I .... .,___ ___-'
I ~
I U
I :;
I
I
I
"~
i='"
0.. ""
"'.Z W ~
"'{ ~ lk:
r.. lk: <l
".
a ~
~ ~ lk:
W ;na~
Il. ., Z
<lu ., W
<l U
a
J
a
"
o ~
~ ~
U 0
U
~
U
Ulk:
---
....
.... ji;
lk: m
...
~
r
- W
n
r--.'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lL
W L__
~
.... III
it ~
W
<l
U
~
lk:
!
~---T-------~
. .....,
. it W
. 1: ~
. IQ U
. Q <l
. .......1
~____ _____.J
W ~
.,
r-~-----
U
it
lk:
~~
o
.,
.,
....
<l
..1
U
.,
'J:~
Q]~~~
QWW
......,z
1
~g
iLlk:
..--
~
J en
W
U
~ ffi
.,
o
..-:--; H
.
n
/l ." r ,,2:1'-,2 7
--
U
Z
~
W
~
U
~
THE
WORKFORCE
.
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Where People and Jobs Connect
1995 ACTIVITY REPORT
32.030 Units of service were aiven to individuals
10.628 Emclover contacts
Number of individuals involved in Center activities:
10,768 People registered with Job Net
4,896 People received Assessment Services
1,186 People attended Job Readiness Workshops
193 People participated in the Work Experience program
1,176 Students visited the Center
10,012 People received Training and Technical Assistance
821 People had CO-OP agreements
475 People attended Job Club
218 People received Skill Training
Number of Tarceted individuals receivina service:
1,071 People enrolled in JOBS
Placements Averace Waae
337 6.70
260 9.74
129 6.44
3 6.50.
-
69 6.45
136 10.42
592 N1A
1,110 6.75
188 7.95
139 7.08
~ 8.41
~:J..~r,959
479 People enrolled in JTPA
418 People enrolled in FS
3 People enrolled in OW (Older Worker)
146 People enrolled in Youth JTPA
164 People enrolled in Dislocated Worker
2,317 People enrolled as Veterans
1,110 People were Student placements
272 People enrolled in Children First
139 People enrolled with DVR
10,768 People registered with Job Net
;enniter Sharp
unStltf
,:,.v At:KEE - II you look
~!y you on se~ thousands
:'1 threads winding through
,\iorktorce Development
-ne of the thre3ds connec:
e (rom the nine differe."t
::es housed in the center,
.. of the threads .."<tend be.
: the walls or the center to
:~ job seekers. employe~.
eols. =e workers and oth.
..:.~e!' about one vear in busi.
.!, offic::als at the center are
:luraged by the partnerships
'g forged through the cen.
which is on the campus of
,kesha County Technical
~.
.::::~.
:'s a wonde:tulsynergy:
loan Arlette, senior pro-
--: cO('l.-dinator ror the Wau-
....a. ukee-Washington
:J.te h....UStI'y Council
"-.e center houses nine agen-
that have 110 employees,
cugh their services differ,
i the agencies hope to get
:e connec:ed with jobs at
skills and services they'U
~o g~tjobs in the future.
-,ic'5 available at the cen.
~ct,;:.:!.e career counseling,
:lng job seekers with jobs.
.::yment training, CUstom-
:raining for businesses. la-
"arket informatiun and
:l seC'.mng internships.
, center is intended pri.
.' Cor Waukesha' County
'.nes, but is open to the
:. Most se!'V'ic~ are free.
....is plac~ is customer fo-
and market driven." said
Hicks. operations man-
or the cent!:r.
:!er worke!'S have to be re-
.tve to the needs of busi-
" whether the firms need
with work force assess-
recruitment 0 r training.
. said. .
,d/Graphics has made use
- ~ c~nter in several ways,
:":nr Koenigs. c:1re~~ as-
-:ce nag~r at Quad in
i'nE FRE:;..A.~~
BUSINESS
S.aNn:ll...
..Ia" 11. ,,,.
Common
threads:
The company pOstS job open- !
ings on the Job Net computer'
system. has recruiting infonna-
tion available at the cemer and
has set up shadowing programs
and field trips for local teachers
and students. Koenigs said.
. We'll also be doing on-site
interviewi.ng there on Jan. 27,
which is something new we're
just starting to try.' she said.
. What I find absolutely fab-
ulous is each person within the
different agencies acts like
you're their only custome~,"
Koenigs said. .. They tre3t the
appliC:lnts the same way, It's
re:lIlv nic~. ..
Arin Ruska. personnel admin-
istrator at Elec:romotive Svs-
tems (nc. in ~(e:'!omonee Fails,
also uses the Job :-fet computer
system to list production open-
ings for her company, whic.'\
manufactures controls for over-
head cranes,
.We put several of our jobs
on the Job Net and we've had
quite a few applicants through
that and a few hires through
that," Ruska said.
Getting jobs on the computer
network is easier now because
all of the player; involved are In
one place. she said.
. I've found it to be vety suc-
~ssful ror getting the word out
about our company,' Ruska
said.
With the job market as tight
as it is in Waukesha County, it's
impOrtant to find people with
the-right skills, she added.
Making sure the futtlre work
force has needed work skills is
one of the places where BUI
Baumgart comes in. Baumgart
is e.."Cec.ltive director of Partner.$
for Education (nc., a non-profit
agenC'J contracted by eight area
school distriC"..s to help the dis-
tricts meet employability stan-
dards for their students.
Baumgart's job includes coor.
dinating requests far tours.
speakers. job shadowing. ca-
reer counseling and more. He
works out of the center".
. We Want to get teacher.) and
counsalors to. recognize that the
center is a ~ourc~ where they
can begin CD show kids ~ to
e."tplore =ee.."3.' )Ie said. ,
Sandra ZincS iiim'ed to Part-
ner.! for Education !a.rt summer
when w viaS ~oping'a new
technical writing course for
Waukesha's tmee ~ scl:1ools.
Zincs is me:. EnglisManguage
arts chairw"o-man for grades
seven to 12 in the Waukesha
School Distric:.
-We wamed to make sure it
(the course} re:illy' ree.-nd to
. what stUdents .were being a:sked
to do _ in the real world in
busine,-" and manufacturing
kinds of settings," Zinos said.
, To do that. parmer.s'iciEdu. '
co.tion contac:ed a 'nuinber ot__
area businesses and tmi!d' 'lip
job shadowing sessicll.3 ror four
tl!3chers, Zincs said. ..;. ,
Since the summer project.
people from some of the busi-
nesses have even offered to do
presentations at the schools
and allow stUdents to come in
Cor field trips, Zinos added. .
o At A Glance
. What: Workforce Devel-
opme!It Center
. Where: 892 Main St, Pe-'
waukee; on the campus of
Waukesha County Technical
College .
. When: The cente~ is ba-
sically ope:'! (rom 8 a.m, to
4:30 p,m. Monday through
Friday. although the job in-
formation center (which
houses the Job Net compute~
system) is open from 8 a.m.
to 6:30 p.rn. Tuesdays.
. -Jalho: The cente~
houses nine agencies that
provide a variety of services.
including matching job seek.
ers with jobs. emplOY":e:'!t
training. c:u-eer counseh,ng,
labor market information
and help with job seeking
skills. ,
. Phone: CaU 695.7800 for
g!neral information.
~,2j -.2'
WALJKE~i-iACaUNfi E':CNG,i'1
\.ge isn't harrier to getting- job
De\'elopmeIll (euler' boa.sLs
7,')00 SlLccess stories ill ~~j
By LUJJl:F.L W.\llC.F.lt
01 rhlll' JO\lm011 5~nti"..1 ,12U
Nc:rly 3. y"'ar after it upent"d
J c.oon. the W..IJkl!,h~ County
lorkiarc:e Dey~loFme!1t Cente',
:n bO:l5t m"'nv ,ucc:es!le:s:
'cout . ~J.COO peopie have re;i~-
:~ r.. ." 5er/ice:l since the een-
1:' ope~ed. I.;,t J:nu~ry. ~nd ~t
!:st 7..1t'Q found job,.
In W:uke~h:z County', l!!<en-
.omic c!im:zte. in which de-
:l:lnd (or wod:.e::'::I is high. th~t .
:light nut 'C~l1l entirely une.'t-
'e'C~ed. But pe':Jplc Crom both
:16 of the: 'pedrum - the jub
:~ke:'" and the job pn,viden' _
...y tilt.' new, unc.:llup '~rviC'e by
1uHirte _gende:!! i:"l stre:1m-
ned. rro{e~5ion;J1 :nd custom..
:-..(riendlv.
. lne ~l!";ter attr::l.ct3 young .:md.
"d. p.~pl. ...king thoi. first
. s. ethers trying to rerl::c!
ir lost job! and !till others
.,ho are ~h.an~ing c:m~~:'3. Ir JI...
o help' F~of'le tryins to get off
;~!1l::-::1 .:2ssist.:2nce, firms with
JO openings ;:Ind fir;n~ lh;:It art':
!ownsizing.
-This is tr':.1lv iI community
:'=:1te!'." said Ot!th Hkk.s, ore:-3:
ions m;tnage:- for the Work4
;jr:~ De"~!opment Ce:l.te:'.
Tne c:nte:- W3S spawned in
992 when. with a written J.gree...
::.en!:. a group a/locaL st3te and
.:de:-al aK=n.ce, re~ponsible for
:nfloyment. tr::inins. et'onomic
"tsenee .lnd economic deve!-
pme~t deeded to work. tcgeth...
Thev .1greed to toc::Jte at a
ing!e'site and intez-r:te their
e!""tice, and funds: in order to
leth: se.:""l'e the:r mutu:l c~s-
om!::..
By .111 .1c:::ounts. the e:ufy
t-..:rnbiing blocb oi turi b::td~.
:i:str.Jst and se!I.(ocus were
....ereome.
A 570.000 pl.1nning gr::Jnt
'=m W.1uxe:sn:t ClJun~! got the
:~ort off the ground. and. !.iIter.
- - OCQ &"nt:l from both W.u-
.1 COlJnt"f and \V.1ukesh.J.
'.:nty Toechnic.ll Colleg'!
','!d fin~ncl! con.struction of
, f.:c:iih'. A ~=O.OOO (ede!'::d
:-:::.:: ~:tt .....::~ ~e''': to h~!-= de-
TocUv, the c~nter houses 110
emp{oyee~ from nine agencie~
and ccst3 about 53 million a
year. ilcccrding: to P.idc:s.
W~ccnsin was one of nine
st.:1te:s to get feder:J.I gr:J.nts
aimed' at promoting one-5top
101> centor,_ and Wauk.,h.
Count'/ wa~' one at Wisconsin'.s
sit.. to get . S130.cro sh.re of
thatg:-an~
l..1,t month. re!e~rc:;,e!'s un~
der c::ontrJ.c~'with the U.S. D~-
partment of L.J.bor m.:1de the
WOluke~hOl Count".. ce:1ter their
tint stop in trying' to establish J,
system for eVOlIuating how th~
one-stop concl!?t tS woricing.
Debor3n Kos:an. direc~or or
the C..Ufornia~based 5oci:JI Poli...
cof Rc:se:uch Association .1nd
leader or the e.talu.J.tion te.J.m.
, said. "'My cle.J.r impre::sion .1tte:'
visiting the center W.1S that
something is re:llly h.Jppening
that is different."
.Although it will t;:ke se"/er:ll
dte::-:a to e"/;].Iuate such ..:ente:s,
c!e:lrly one i:s: custome:- s.atisfac-
tion.
At tho W.uk..h. County
center. Kogan said. .custome:3
said they were tre3ted with re-
spect,. that they We!'e given in-
(ormation about all the service,.
Individu.l, (,t,m ,..lIy cor.
.bout wh.1t happens to them.
and th.Jt really mak~ a tremen-
dous diUerence to them."
Evalu.Jtors Wl:Tl: also im-
pres!:e~ with how (Olr the WalJ'"
ke:sh.J County agencies h.Jd
come in overcuming b<Jrnen 10
efficiently .no co!l.Jborative!y
usin~ mone', from v~rinu!l pro-
gnm sources. e:ch with its OW'Tl
reporting and use require::'l.e:lt3.
Some of the best accolades.
howe'/e!', come (rom the CU:l-
tome~.
S.ndra Cl"Cf.", .nd John
Cue~:z:ke found e;ch other .1:5
employe-e and employe:- ,at the
c~nter.
C1~ffe: left a job with. tocl
(ood m~nufac:'urer when it
didn'~ turn ou.t to be wh.1t she
h;1d e:xpectl!d. she S=lid- She J.Iso
f~!.~ the n~~d to updJ.te ,h,er
<.."T~ "~.J.~,... _ .J,~ ,l.. _ ._._~
One-stop sen1ce brin~ together
v '-
IIKa!. state. LS. QOyerIllIlents
. . '-
The W.1ukesa.1 County
Workiorce Deve!opment Cente'r
is m.1de up 0/ loc:Jl. .sete and
(eue~l .Jg'!'ncie!: re.:sporuible ror
cmploym1l!nt. tr.Jtning. economic
usi.!t:nce md fC::lnomic devel.
opment It offer: help to people
looking (or empiuyment J.nd to
bu:sinesses looking (or work-en.
Tne p.1r~c:p.1ting agendes
are
. Wi.sconsin Job Service.
whic.~ pro...;des ~:le!I45er"nce job
lnform.J.non.
. W.1uxe,h.1:0z.:J'Jkee-
W.;shing~on P:ivatl! Indu.5trf
Co unci. which provid~ J.drt;in4
istr~tive se::-/ic:~s, including il
common C'Cr:'::cute::, information
.sy,tem J.nd a unified :2Urketing
ilpOro~C.i. to cusi::esse!.
.. W.;uke,ha County De-
pilr't:nent of He:1It., ,md Human
~o;orvicu. whic."t ccordin::tes !er.
vice, to able~bodied ?ublic .1.:5'
:sist:nc: recipients.
. W.1ukesha Countv T!'!:h.
nic:l ColIege. which is the lc.1c
ilgo:nc:; (or c.-:Jt1!er issessment.
c!.2ssroom tr:Jining activitie:s .Jnc
f:cilitie:! m3n::sement.
. The WJ.ukes:h3 Count.,
E::onomic: De"/4!10pment Corr::
which is the lead agenc-: or
bwinc! devo:!ooment se:-:-ice:!
lncluding ~=;ining and .1t=:Ic:
ing companies to the CCU:1t:..
. p;rtner, in Educ:l~icr.
whic:t coordinJ.te, the 'ioes ~~:-:
te!", intl!!':c:Hcn with ace.:J hi;:
.schools J.nd bWiine~ses.
. rn. I<.:i..,. C,oup. L1C~"
d. EsF.~= .nd tho AF....CJC
whic~ provide 'ped.lli=ed ,e:
vic:~ to ta.qeted ?oFulation~
Cen.te:' 'taf! ar.'".ng~d com...
puter tr:Iining. g:Jve her access
to .1dvice .lnd .:cmpute:-s in pre...
paring resumes. provided chitd
c:Jre while she .tte:'l.ded se!f~
im'prove:nent work.shops and
o(fe!''ed l:Jsy ac:~:!s to job Ibt4
ing, through Y\'..uke:iha Count'/
Technic,l CoUe.. IS w.U ..
Wisconsin Job S~:""-lice-
Guetzxe owns a sm~1I firm
with 11 o:e:nploye~s. rne firm de-
!igns, sells J.nd inst::l1s sound
systems. ilmong ethe::, things.
E:nploye~ tumove:' in a key o1C4
counting position due to a n-
tirement, then an iI1ne" and
then .1 firing. (allowed bv a se-
rie, or tempor_ry worke'rs. left
his books J mess, hI: saicr.--
The lir. t turned to the Work~
(oree Oe\"~lorment Center's job
listings. Arr1ic.Jnts were welI
screened. Cuetzkt: s=lid. The
center', ,;bilily to pro\'ide
Guetzke with a subsidy for CIa!.
(ey', initi.11 nn~the-jub tr.:2ining
was the dincher.
E'/en the county', 1.1r~~st em.
player. QU:ld/Ct'ilphio tnc... J.P'"
predates the si!.:""rk:..
Unnel Koenigs, C:::lreer a.ssis...
bncl! m~nager at Qu.:adJCt':lph~
ic3, said tht! c:ente:- provided not
only centr:Jl job pO:lnnss. but .11.
so ,; good sourel! ror scheol con-
t~c:t3. rnrough th~ c~:1ter, ,~h.e
~....:_..;_~ ;::_ :_ ~:""", '''' .......~t...,,~_
bette: re!.4tion,hip! with edUQ4
tOr3 ilnd studenu about the
nel!ds .1nd.benl!fiu of emptoy-
men.t in the indust:r'/, she SOlid.
Ernie Ale;'\:~nder.' pre~ident of
V"15U Sew-e::' Cle3n and Se31 Ine.
in llibon. found the work fore:
cent!:, .st:lff cre::1tive in solving
his reo:::ruitrnent ne~~. The sew...
er bwine'5 might not 5e~m J.t.
trOlc:ive to prospet'tivl! J.ppli...
ants. but the firm uses cme:"3.S
and robots in identifying and re-
pairing le.1k.s in sc:wer line.:s.
Workforc:!! center statf video.
bped some 0/ the crew ~t work
and showed the tape to pro-
5?e~i.,e applic3nts.
-It re.:Jlly impres:sed me. - AJ4
e:'t.:Jnder said of the ide3. whic~
has proved a useiul re-c:ruiting
leoL
Sometime!. employers use
thl:! center .as J.nothl:r type of re-
sourCI!. A humJ.n resources
worker (rom onl! sm~U company
said beins abl~ (0 refer a worker
they were laying eff 10 the cen~
fer was 3 plus.
"It he!p.d h., C..I guod
about us, that we could give her
some resource,. even tholJgh
the compan)" h.1d let h~r go. the
~,2:J"'J(/
P:1c;e ..tAl 7"ne =#2~:':,j":
Merle-f. '.i4":"~ 2;. :5=-:
LOCAL NE"W'S
Wanted: apprentices
. Prqgrarn matches employers, candidates
By Jennifer Shar;l
-.....
P:;M'AL<e::=; - Ie a tice
- wl:e..., job se<:::rit'1 is said:o be"
t!l.ing of the past. J I!..-:"J H.:<e!
l:s 100lC:g for a long-te..",=, =_
pl~
. He<:!te! and his wif.. Lori.
. own and ope""re H.:<e! Tool 0-
. Manu!ac:Uring COr? in tbe
,. town ofVe...~cn. 3. coc;:aI:.ythar
makes dies. teoling. !::oleis and
protct"lPes ~or inc~".
He<""....kai said It'S tcug:: to n.':.c
. job =didares who = ....u!ir.g
to ma.1.<.e a long-te:::. c::=-=.ir.
JI"..e:::.r to le:!.!"':'1.i:lg t!:.e tool a.r:d
die inc:.:s::."_
. f::n looking for an tr.:::--nc:la
. a1 _ who is willL':.g to gr.l! a
!eve! of co=i=.::: so I would
have the tice to be atl. tnin
hie. .. E ec!~ s:uc..
Ee's hoping to fi..r:c! an ap..
.pre:::::ic~ c::lI1didare tt::ccz: 3. ~i_
lot program coordinated
throUgtl the Worr:r:: Deye!-
optt:e::.r Ce::.te:- in Pe'.vat.:.k.e~
The p rog:-am ai..~ to bring
tege:..":.!!" apprentice ea.::d!6res;
and e:::ploye~ who are looking
tor aC'CI"entic=. said J em Do..
novan: direc:or of c:oce~le
eduClcon and the e:::.pioV't:le::.t
oppor:u:lity c.nte: aI ,",'aul<e-
sha tour:] TeC:r.icl College.
.Waukesba Count'1 ne=ed a
single appliotion point for ap-
prentice appli=c and ."'ploy-
en zeeking appt"e=:ic-~." Do-
navan said..
Begi..nr.ing ne.'tt mont..1.. an....-
oue who is inter~ed in le~..
Ing about appre...~tic:ships en
. atte::::.d an orient:uicn se.:sio~
T"lU'Qug!> the pilot progr:t:n.
appre::cc~ are be:...':.g ce=uited
to work in four job are:>::: ma-
chinists. tool and dIe .....a!<e",.
. mi!lwr:g=ts and .se!:'..up people
tor pl.utic injedcn mclcing.
Donovan said.
. Vt e wanted to $t=u-t with
o At A Glance
. Wbac Or-enetion for
""'lone inre.......ed in appren.
tic~r.ip Oppor':'".::::.it:i=-
. 'W"bell: 1 p.::!.. to 2:30 p.:n.
April 17, 8 a.::!.. to 9:.30 ~
Apr'l 20. 6 p.::!.. to 7:.30 p.:n.
~v 15, 8 a.=. to 9-.30 ~
May 18. 6 p.::!.. to 7:30 p.::!..
May 29 and 8 a.=.. to 9:20
a.:n. June 1.
. W"b.e:oe: t1t.or:~o~ D~~.
cot::e:::: C.e::.t~:. ~"'a~ila
C'ou::~! Tecilr:ic:ll ColIeg~
c::u:;:::.:s. P':'.vac..k~~
. For more inIOr::::ltioa:
Clll Je=.n Do~o'= at 695-
7801.
these (our ar::~ to mcnircr
prog:= and tt:ake sur. we
We:': C':.~~!"_':.g e=;::lo)"e: nee--l-s
and Qr..didat~ t1e~ds." she saic..
.y.;e fullv ~,"=ec::b.is tc e.,",=ar..c.
to ome: ioo ~:lcc~b.io areis.. ..
. Dave E~..s is hoping tl"..3.r
being part of the appr-..:::ice
pool wili help his cc!::pany find
peap{e who ar~ will.i.cg to l~
mac~i..-:.ing ane r::~ it tile!: C:l-
re=:,# H~.s i:s a.r:. e::::.::love~ re-
latioas re~r~e::~rr.re :it WlS-
conSta Centrifugal io.
Waukesha.
. It's ver"'I di.ffi.c..llt to fine pe::J-
pIe who are truly ccc:mitte::! to
ma.ki.""g mac.'1i.."1ing a c:J.ree as
oppose::! to , job.. Ear:'.s said.
Wisconsin Ce:urifugal has
about 70 e::nploye~ in its ttla-
c.'tine shop_
. At a.r..y give:: tice we ve gOt
two or thre= ope:o..inp'" in the
shop. he said.
Hopefully, the pilot prog:=
on he!? convinc~ young pe~ple
that jobs suc.~ as :na.c."tir.ing re~
quir~ a g:-e::.t 3l:':.ount of skill
and a lor of br'J.L"l powe!". salci
Mar'", Scre!-low, vic. preside,,:
and g~:le:Jl lr.3n:lge:- at F...:z.ne!
COr? in New B.:1ir~ Han.!
Corp. m:1kes hydr::1uli~ flow
control p~ uso!d in eqt.:lpt::.e::r
sue!> :1S bulldo:.....
. VIh~n the... (:In apcr:nric~}
beco~e a q~:ui:led cUc..":ini.:s:
they would hJ.ve the S;J.:::le
~ow[t!:dge: :Lnc! ~:t?t!:::i:se abau:
T"~."',_..I_.~.-:__ .\.,~#., ,.1-.---
0{ .:;;
.j~{-
,~.
~t ~.
.~.
~-23-;r/
'l:
:
.
z
~ ~
- ;;;
~. >
~ 75
. c:
J ~
- -
~
.5
o
~
.<;
~
c:
'"
:::;
od
o
o
I-
~
13
.,
:;:
-.;
.,
..
C.
E
~
o
.5
;;;
'5
e
'"
.,
.,
:;
.,
'"
.,
E
a;
.x
u.
.,
:I:
2-
;;;
..,
22Jt6Um
@k ~~S8~~~o/(j(Jadce6k ~~
wiIIktk~~
r~~~and~.
:Mission
<JJie purpose of<JJie Woriforce CDe'fJe!Opment Center is to aa7Jance tfze economic we[['5ei11f]
of tfze region 5y cfe7Jewl'i11f] ana mazntai1UTzg a quality woriforce ana 5y servi11f] as tfze foca{
point for Coca{ ana regWnaC worlforce cCevefopment zmtiati7Jes. 1Jiis is to 5e acfr.ieiJea tfr.rougfr.
tfze co-Cocation ana integration of empCoyment, training, eaucation ana economic
tfe'fJefopment services for io5 seek,grs, worf.;rs ana empfoyers.
06jectives
"" 'To empowerio5 seek,grs to actz7leCy acfr.ieiJe fong-tenn economic se(fsufficiency.
~
"" 'To assist empfoyers in meeting tfr.eir present ana future worliforce needS.
"" <To meet io5 seek,grs' temporary economic ana support service needS ana
strengtfzen tfze connection 5etween economic assistance ana preparing for
wor{refatea se(fsufficiency.
"" <To tfeli'fJer services in tfze most cost-effecti7Je ana efficient manner possi5fe.
"" 'To strengtlien tlie 501Uf 5etween Wauk,gsfr.a County's economic cCeveCopment
ana empfoyment ana traini11f] programs 5y continua{ communication ana
coordination 5etween tfze pu5lic ana pri7Jate sectors. /J _ l~
"" 'To proWfe a woriforce ae'fJeCopment linK.izge to tlie 'J(-12 scfioolS.' ~. ;,.?..1-:::.zJ-
C}uitfing Principfes
.. Customer Cf" ocusecf Service
We wi[[ consid'er e-veryone w/io contacts <Jlie Woriforce (])e-veCopment Center a
customer ana aesertring of a quality response ana/or service. Our primary
customers are empCoyers anaj06 see~rs. :M.eeting tlieir neeas wi[[ continue to. 6e
tfie focus of e-very transaction.
.. Integration of Service C])eEivery
We wi[[ pran, coordinate ana proWfe services to ma:(jmize tfie uti{zzation of
resources. 'To assure <JJie Woriforce !l)e-veCopment Center wi[[ 6e competitive for
future initiatives, we wi[[ continuousfy enfia7Ue our integrated" tfefzvery system.
.. S~mu~q)e(zverySytiem
'Ta acfiieve a seamfess tfefzvery, we wi[[ 6e creative, responsive ana j!e:xj6fe in
providing customer services ana in jaciEtating connections to neeaed" services.
.. :M.arf.!t q)nven System
. We wif[ tfeveCop new initiatives ana improve our aefzvery system 6asea on
cfianges in tfie marRgt affecting our customers.
.. Consensus :M.anagement
We wif[ continue to maR! aeci.sions 6y consensus at a[[ revelS of tfie organization
to promote trust, ownersfiip, ana teamwor{among tfie EErtners.
.. Commitment to PaTtnersfiip
We 6elieve tfie strengtfis of tfie indivU[ua[ partners contri6ute to tfie greater
strengtfi of tfie partnersfiip. rf'ostering tfie partnersfiip is vita[ to tfie d"ynamic
e-vofution of<JJie Woriforce !l)e-vefapment Center.
.. Continuous Qy.afity Improvement ~ -2;J - .:1;1
Our worRgroups wi[[ use 'Tata[ Quafzty :Management ('TQ'M) met/ioas to
continuou.sE'I imvr01Je services for C1.utomen
ATTACHMENT D
:E
o
-
'&
-
s
CJ
0...... €I
O~. ~,<i
~ ~~
~l1}p, oyer. e,e
.
,
~
POTENTIAL PARTNERS:
Border Environmental Commerce Alliance
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Chula Vista Public Library
City of Chula Vista
Consumer Credit Counseling
Comprehensive Training Services
Department of Rehabilitation
Department of Social Services
Employment Development Department
Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce
MAAC Project
National City Chamber of Commerce
National University
ROP
San Diego Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Consortium and Private Industry Council
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County Office of Education
San Diego County Labor Council
San Diego Port Authority
SDSU
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
South County Economic Development Council
Southwestern Community College
Sweetwater Union High School District
UCSD
Veterans Rehabilitation Center
.
-,
,
~
.~
;
.'
<
,
~
~;:
'i
;,'
;
'":;
~ -2J'Jf
WESC
Workforce & Employer Service Center
Executive Summary
California and the nation face a critical challenge for the 21st century: how best to
prepare the workforce, including thousands of welfare recipients who must now enter or
re-enter the market place in the coming months, and how to accelerate the creation of new
tirms and create new economic opportunities. which are needed to replace many
traditional sources of employment.
As resources diminish and government seeks to promote the development of more
efficient. cost effective services, California is preparing to integrate its vast array of
employment and training programs into a statewide One-Stop System.
On November 13, 1996, California was awarded a $24,000.000 U.S. Department of
Labor One-StoD Career Center Svstem ImDlementation Grant. This grant foreshadows
the much larger state block grants for employment and training which are currently under
consideration in the United States Congress. It is widely held that only those entities
which have well developed. functioning partnerships will be the recipients of these funds
in the very near future.
VISION
The WESC (Workforce & Employer Service Center) will be the local hub of the
regional network for the statewide California One-Stop Career Center system linking the
economic and career development initiatives and resources of the South County.
MISSION
The WESC will be recognized as a leader and expert in workforce development; both a
catalyst and resource for our customers, meeting all employment, training, and placement
needs.
Defining the Business
The WESC will serve as a connector making several types of linkages on behalf of two
customer sets. employers and job seekers. to help them meet their employment, training,
and placement needs. [t will significantly expand the multi-partner alliance already in
place at both the South County Career Center and Sweetwater School District's Career
Awareness Center. Through the WESC, South County area employers will have a focal
point of contact. and individuals will have access to integrated on-site services. as well as
neighborhood-based electronic access.
~ -2.1 ~ J5
F or employers. the WESe will serve as the single point of contact for services. The
partnership will be entrepreneurial and business oriented. The WESe will work in
cooperation with local chambers of commerce. the Employment Development
Depanment. the Economic Development Council. the Private Industrv Council.
government and education agencies.
For employers the WEse will:
. respond to changing needs of employers;
. work aggressively to expand the number of employers being provided workforce
development services;
. develop a comprehensive menu of employer services:
. encourage participation in the partnership through networking with established
industry groups:
For job seekers. the WESe will provide:
. comprehensive career planning, education, and training opportunities;
. extensive listings of jobs that are available locally, statewide, and nationally;
. professional career counseling, job search assistance, and job placement services:
. neighborhood-based electronic access;
Among the innovative features of the WEse is a set of universal services available to
anyone who comes through the door, regardless of what special services they may be
entitled to. These universal services include labor market information, resume writing,
access to job listings. and information about program eligibility for available services. In
addition. the application process for all panicipating programs will be consolidated into a
single, standard application form.
Governance, management and staffing will be integrated, team-oriented, and site-based.
All panicipating agencies are committed to the goal of continuous improvement. Quality
assurance standards will support a system of customer-based outcomes and enhanced
customer services for high levels of success.
The WEse will provide a seamless delivery system of services that is customer-focused
rather than agency goal driven. By identifying common goals within the system and
jointly addressing objectives through coordinated. integrated activities both quality and
quantity of services will increase. As a result. the actual cost of service delivery will
decrease as duplication of effort is eliminated.
~ .,13'36
WESC Customer Services - Employers
. Recruitment assistance - we will help employers identify well-matched candidates
for job openings, drawing upon a community-wide database we will maintain of
available workers:
. Education and training for workers -- we will help employers identify the best
available sources to meet their requirements for providing education and training,
whether for new or incumbent workers;
. Assessment and testing services - our staff will provide employers with a range of
tools to help them with screening candidates, as well as analyzing worker skills,
aptitudes, and interests in order to develop a customized training strategy.
. Identifying funding options - we will help employers identify, and, where possible,
obtain potential sources of fmancial support; incentive programs, such as enterprise
zones, tax credits, redevelopment agency, tax increment financing and industrial
development bonds;
. Outplacement assistance - we will help employers manage transitions when they
must reorganize or downsize their operations;
. Labor market information - we will provide employers with information about a
range of labor market issues, including comparative wage data, labor force
availability, and other factors;
. Information on trade and technology;
. Permit processing assistance; and business incubation programs.
~ ..2:.1-37
WESC Customer Services - Job Seekers
. Career Resource Center -- a resource room in which customers will be able to use
personal computers, databases (both local and internet-based), and reference materials
on a self-service basis to obtain comprehensive information about employment,
education and the labor market;
. Assessment of skills and interests - WESC will offer customers help in defIning
career goals by providing a wide range of career assessment measures;
. Career planning information and assistance - customers will be able to obtain
information about career options, preparation or transition assistance required to
pursue them; as well as assistance in evaluating those options and making decisions;
· Career Development plan - staff will assist interested customers in building a
customized plan of action that defmes education and employment goals and specifIc
steps to achieve them:
· Education and training programs - WESC customers will be able to obtain
comprehensive information about their options, including directory information as to
what is available as well as consumer report card information about the outcomes and
customer satisfaction with those programs.;
. Information on financial aid - customers will able to learn at our centers about
various types of fmancial support that they may be able to access to support their
education and career development, including public programs, scholarships and loans;
· Enrollment for unemployment insurance - customers will be able to enroll for
unemployment assistance on site;
. Customized services to selected groups - WESC will provide high quality,
customized services to meet the unique needs of special population segments,
including veterans, persons with disabilities, older workers, dislocated workers and
welfare recipients.
~ .2.:r....:?;
'"
" co
c
;;
co
~
;;
>-
~ <:
'"
" -
~
i " -
,f' ~
\,J....--- _
,\j "
-
-
-i I '
~ r~
~
=1
=1 co
-, >
~ ;; <:
>- "
~ <: C
~
~Cl
c
1\ .
4' =
c
1'- >
\rI C
"'" ~
-"
l'-~
. 1
~J
-,
-,
-,
-,
=:
...
" ;;
~
(::; ~
-,
-,
-,
-,
=:
=:
=:
-,
=-
~
...,' :
'.
\j :
::IJ
-i
~
-,
~
-,
=:
.::' ~
00
ATTACHMENT E
n
CJ
c:
<
>
W
..J a::
~
0 LW
a:l r-
>-
< Z
a:l IJ.J
U
IJ.J
U
~ a::
LW
~
~
~ 0
U
<=
~ S
LW
>
>-
<
CO
~ ...2y- J1
I
15.2! AC
ATTACHMENT F
EQENiWOOO
T.;;,o.,ILER F.~RK
(SE::: SHE.=T 2)
QoO)
lICD
CD
11.35
1100
AC. QSEe.
FOP 0
E RENiWCOD >
T;;.A.JLER PARK -1
CD
..JI
~I
~
'.. 0'
1- . -..",:,
,SUBJECT: '.:
is ITE . .' :::>J
i. ...~
~:.
~
I:"~
/.
c
t
f;'
r
>
(
f. .
"' ..
F ..
'''':
~~"n
'co
"-,
<I w
::fit LW
,II "'.
wI;:!
,dC']
'11'"
-2
<;""-
ljCR::S7ECJ BUTTE
5"7.
o
o
s ~
8 I J OAKL~J. ~l, AADIs:>N
~u ..L:J~LJSUXVE~~
NAPLES - ST.""'-
".. 7j-.3r..'/:-r l
~D-I PM 120S3Gf ~~
11,)(,."': :>
Q . ;.>
In :Q
~: 4(
o
a:
:1Il
l
~p
~
N
-
/1/7. 52.
_~ i ~ 7/';.;j rl~J
c..::..,:.t-....,.
I
~
.
..
.
.,
l
.:
(:L:-,;;
/V 71.-'~..s.-E;
;.
@
FAR. r
11+4-
'.';:::
"'",
a::.
2:c ~
,,-N~
-~
..p.
~" '"",
~2. 3 ''''Y''=!:
OXFORD STREET .. _ _ i,.J.
\~ w'M":' ~.'.":;;.;. .tl..'..~; n~;, 1..~':~;"'I,~);.~~~~ ,I:r
t - , 0.,' '~" -=-:P:::J' ,.....in. ""~:'~<-l';"i''''C71~~~'ij(1
.' @)' ",' ~ , "- -\ ~- ":::9 '..~. ~ j :i--:.';:::1.]..!:,',,:,';:'jf~)~~,:r
.....ue. ~ ~~,.J'-~.I ~ .J ..'P;",~-~!h 4,.,' .~..i\~~I'';:~~'~.~l;., ';11:,'
... ~ - .L:..d.....:d :;..' -... '1 'I" .~ - ~'~'!'0>'" ....~},t~.......=I....;..~ F....
- , f, \:.' ')"'-,;..; I"'.":-'~" ..._:21 - 3_~-,j.~_";:'':r:-t'.1--.-1i.1
I ,~~~'~...l:. ~" ~ - . . ..... ~~ Pr.i':")~ ~
1 ~.... , . ...., '''",,;:~.i!' ., ': ....150'...:._ .'_~'i.AC ~_.'::'~""""f:'" ~.,~~ Ii,
'. . 4;~ L-......4,..,. .".,. ~rn '., '. ~.. '. ";t.~.,.. '''~~'.'~" ~.; fh'~
~ S7~",'n~,. I - ~ .~.. ~ "'". . 10..- ~ 4 ~ . '..,~o ...." .. ~~ _ ..~:'
.' ,. ~..:'"' . JfC.\...' l"e7C.. . - ~,.. ",', ~,"Z.!').'~~~,-4~~1~1r~~../.~'_; - t
~., I ...'",.. ~ ""f'';:,'''' .,;. .'.~..,~..x"..,.....!!0':f~,.,' .~,
.. p.... '" '. -T ~II ....t.' " . . ..', ".- 'j'" -," -='~.
",.- '-, ~'.-o _' -~ '-.~.':!:.',~' :~~, ':'I:~~_~/_~_~.,,'. ".'~.s;=.., __.'.
...:oft ~'~:.'. .. r.:::. " ~....\ _,~ j,;....'~
.. -- J. I:!.Z"'C ., r. u ' - "-':' ~' .~. ~'_'~';~'" l~~~W'>':t"'" -;:::.::.:....;. _. ~
'" '~".< ! - .. :..- 'OJ'J '~.""~... ';_'C~"-"'igt'''''''''- j:jLo
:'):~"9-"~.-i;/ =. ~':- -:~,;.:~~-;~~-~ ~-. :' .~".~:~~~:-:;."r.~~~{~l-t1t:.;;- l~~ 1:;;
~- f'.. " "', 'O.lV- - ..'... ',_~ .,.n ~e.l,.(~~ ;(1,.
~: ~ -"'~~- '..~ .~~-;;~...;:-I_~.. ~: '-':~\:~"~(-S::'~'~i:;}~..- _.I ==~e
, -.....~ . .j:)~,'_.{ ;"'~" 1'''';''~'- ~..,'~......,__t..of\..
. . '. - '. .....~.. ..: ....~- ~; j' '" ....":.;,: ~ - ~~_: i '''';;~'~:;-'srp.:,,-;;, ~II .
{" j-~' -! -,.......!<.',...--... ,.-... .-' "';J":'";:!~i. t=t)lt;:.i_';"_"'J1S"-.J"a::~..
.. _..:.. _, A.t~., '-.;-./. ~ _'-_ .. ,1 ;:..~ ;>::';.~,',._~l,.:S.:..Yi!~*rl ~~_~ COl~'
UNt\lAMEJ 51 . '~-:.'" ~ _ ..,..,:- -;=,(:,.: -. '",Y:r;X:;.,l-~'l':'tr~i'!:~~~ii';-<::~T :...~.
. - ',,- '~"r:~,:"';'",-..........l ';'~~->:_:-'i:.\'''''''~;:q.-''':,.r~~~.~,;L::~,....
. .' .:..~:'.,;' ~ - _..~:~~. ' .";', . ~.;: $~<~!ir~~~.t(.; :'"1"
.' -, .-f '('\'-'~.= ''!-.-''(-7'., ~-~'-:;$~...~:;f,'""j~~~Jrf;::!.'f".,..t.,r
" '~~" ". ~'. .~,,"'~ ~;"'~l"":"":"'~"'.~~ "';'!:f.~.~"7I~..:..:s:.':""':_~_' ...!...1,.
9.07 A,C.
r-
, .'
';'.
CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
, l( \TOR PROJECT
I (!) APPUCANT:
PROJECT /l~ ,2j,'1~
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
, NORTH
WESC COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #23
December 17, 1997
Presenters
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony
I. Steve Olsen, State Employment Development Department
2. County Supervisor Greg Cox
3. Michael Fowlkes, San Diego Consortium & Private Industry Council
4. Sally Hazard Diaz, Assistant Deputy Director, County Department of Social Services
5. Doug Perkins, Executive Director, South County Economic Development Council
6. Dean Mary Wylie, Southwestern College
7. Dr. Libia (Libby) Gil, Superintendent, Chula Vista Elementary School District
8. Andy Campbell, Assistance Superintendent, Planning and Facilities, Sweetwater
Union High School District
9. Linda Blair, Comprehensive Training Systems
10. Chris Lewis, President, Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
II. Bennet Greenwald, President, The Greenwald Company
[(MD) c:\wp51\document\814.95 (December 17,1996)]
,2J -0/ I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
18'5Jf
Resolution Waiving the Sewer Connection Charge for San Diego
Gas and Electric Co., MCA, Inc. and Whitewater Water Park Inc. based
on purchase of Metro Sewage Capacity from City of National City and
approving purchase of Sewage Capacity from City of National City.
Director of Public Works ~
City Manager JG- b-o ~
Item ~ t(
Meeting Date 12/17/96
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5 Vote: Yes~ No_)
San Diego Gas and Electric Co. has been ordered by the Regional Water Quality Board (RWQB)
to desist in depositing certain waste waters from operation of the Power Plant into the San Diego
Bay and instead deposit it into the Sewer. Other projects in Chula Vista also have special
circumstances whereby they want sewage capacity, but want relief in the City's Sewer Connection
Charge of $2200 per EDU. Staff has proposed that for special circumstances, if additional
capacity can be purchased in the Metro System from another system by those projects, the City
should consider waiving the connection charge.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council agree to enter into an agreement to purchase up to
140,000 gallons per day of Metro Sewage capacity from the City of National City for $4.25 per
gallon, and approve the resolution waiving certain sewer connection fees for SDG&E, Whitewater
Park, Inc. and MCA subject to completion of the purchase of capacity rights from National City.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
San Diego Gas and Electric Company has been working with the Regional Water Quality Board
on a project which will help clean up the San Diego Bay by eliminating certain waste waters that
are currently being deposited into the Bay. About 70,000 gallons per day of water that is used
to wash the boilers is proposed to be deposited into the Sewer System. Company representatives
approached staff about the benefits of the project but they could not justify the City's high cost
of sewer connection charges at around $8.80 per gallon or $616,000. Staff indicated that since
SDG&E was complying with an RWQB directive which merely changed a process, and since they
weren't using very much of the City's sewer system to transport sewage, staff would be willing
to recommend waiving our connection fee if they could acquire additional capacity for the Metro
Sewer System from another Agency to transfer to Chula Vista. This process would allow us to
help clean up the bay and not cost us valuable sewage capacity rights that could be used for our
developers. SDG&E has chosen to purchase 100,000 gallons of capacity as a safety factor since
they are only averaging 20,000 gallons per day now. Their cost will be $425,000.
In addition, two projects in the Otay Rio Industrial Park are being proposed that will benefit Chula
cl f., (
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
Vista but economically cannot pay the high sewer fees for Chula Vista. These projects are the
MCA Amphitheater and the Whitewater Water Park. Each project will need about 18,000 gallons
per day of sewage capacity. These two projects will deposit their sewage in the City of San Diego
Otay Industrial Park line built in the mid 1980's and, therefore, will not use the Chula Vista
Sewage system for transportation. In addition, they must pay additional costs to San Diego that
other Chula Vista developers don't have to pay in order to use that line. Subject to the purchase
of capacity from another agency, staff recommends waiver of the sewer connection fee. This
position is supported on the basis that staff believes that these projects will bring jobs to the City,
will not use our sewer system and, will not use our capacity rights in the Metro System that could
be used for other developers.
Purchase of National City Capacity Rights.
These entities can't directly purchase capacity rights from National City since they aren't Members
of the Metro System. Therefore, Staff has been negotiating with National City on behalf of the
interested parties to purchase Metro Capacity. The process will involve an amendment to our
1960 Sewage Agreement that will require approval from the City of San Diego. San Diego's
approval is only needed to assure that their pipeline system is not unbalanced. They do not need
to approve the price arrangements between both parties, and not any economic considerations
between the parties.
The Economic consideration is between National City and Chula Vista and will include a charge
to Chula Vista of $4.25 per gallon. We will purchase 100,000 gallons per day of capacity
immediately for SDG&E and have the option to purchase up to an additional 40,000 gallons per
day for MCA and Whitewater Water Park before June 30, 1997.
Future purchase of Capacity rights for Port District (IDEC)
The Unified Port District is working on a proposal to provide a site for a manufacturing facility
by the name of IDEC. This company could be sited in the Chula Vista Bayfront on Port District
Property behind Rohr. They will need between 70,000 to 200,000 gallons per day capacity. We
will need a new agreement with National City for this amount, but if done before June 30, 1997,
they have indicated that , their purchase price will hold.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no Fiscal Impact to the Sewer System capacity fund. However, all projects will pay
monthly sewerage costs which will contribute to the Sewerage Service Fund and cover all normal
future operating costs. SDG&E has deposited $425,000 in a trust account. The payment to
National City for the additional capacity will be charged directly to the trust account and,
therefore, no City or Sewer funds need to be either appropriated or spent.
Attachment: Purchase Agreement with National City
M:\HOME\ENOINEER\AGENDA \PURCHCAP,JPL
c2 tf.. .,L
REVISED
RESOLUTION No.IKf:J5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE SEWER CONNECTION
CHARGE FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.,
MCA, INC. AND WHITEWATER WATER PARK INC. BASED
ON PURCHASE OF METRO SEWAGE CAPACITY FROM CITY
OF NATIONAL CITY AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF
SEWAGE CAPACITY FROM CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
WHEREAS, San Diego Gas and Electric Co. has been ordered
by the Regional Water Quality Board to desist in depositing certain
waste waters from operation of the Power Plant into the San Diego
Bay and instead deposit it into the Sewer; and
WHEREAS, other projects in Chula vista also have special
circumstances whereby they want sewage capacity, but want relief in
the City'S Sewer Connection Charge of $2200 per EDU; and
WHEREAS, staff has proposed that for special circum-
stances, if additional capacity can be purchased in the Metro
System from another system, the City should consider waiving the
connection charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the sewer connection charge
for San Diego Gas and Electric Co., MCA, Inc. and Whitewater Water
Park Inc. based on purchase of Metro Sewage Capacity from city of
National city.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista does
hereby agree to enter into an agreement to purchase up to 140,000
gallons of Metro Sewage capacity from the City of National City for
$4.25 per gallon.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Director of
Kahen ,
C:\re\8ewer.nc
-" 1-3
'---..,
City of National City, California
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE December 17,1996 AGENDA ITEM NO.
ITIMR~~~EuTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF UP T~
140,000 GALLONS SEWER CAPACITY RIGHTS TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PREPARED BY C.R. Williams, Jr. p DEPARTMENT Public Worns
EXPLANATION.
See attached explanation.
I
to rn ~
en: :z ~
'-'. -<.
~ ::;':c,
n 1;1"T1;
n:'J (
'N :'t):r:r
~: ~~ ~
.;! ~,) J... ,I _~
L} . t.,
iTl ~:
"tJ :~"
(WI) -l-
l'Nl :)0
'-
Environmental Review
~N/A
~ale of capacity will be up to $595,000 which will go into the Sewer Fund to be
used for rate stabilization. .
125-3563-22222
Account No.
it the sale of up to 140,000 gailons sewer capacity in METRO to City of
Chula Vista at $4.25 per gallon.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION .
NfA
ATTACHMENTS lListed Belowl
1. Sewer Sale Agreement
2. Value of Capacity Calculation
rie.olutlon No.
A.200 Ph.... '/tOl
;l y,,/
.
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE UP TO 140,000 GALLONS PER DAY
OF METROPOLITAN SEWER SYSTEM (METRO) CAPACITY RIGHTS FROM
THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY BY THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THIS AGREEMENT is hereby dated and effective this 1st day of August, 1991, and is
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(hereinafter referred to as "Chula Vista")
AND
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
(hereinafter referred to as "National City")
1. Chula Vista hereby purchases 100,000 gallons per day sewage capacity rights in the
METRO system from the City of National City, and the City of National City hereby
sells 100,000 gallons per day of its sewage capacity rights to the METRO system to
Chula Vista in accord with the "Disposal Agreement of 1960: Chula Vista also has the
right to purchase an additional 40,000 gallons capacity in the Metro system, provided
this right is exercised not later than 30 June 1997.
2. The purchase price for the 100,000 gallons hereby purchased is $425,000. The priCEj
for the additional 40,000 gallons capacity is $170,000. Cash payment to be made to
National City by 1 February 1997 for the 100,000 gallon capacity, and within 30
calendar days of Chula Vista purchase of the additional 40,000 gallons capacity.
3. In addition City of National City will pay the annual capacity charge to City of San
Diego for the FISCAL YEAR 96-97. Effective 1 August 1997, Chula Vista being the
owner of the aforesaid capacity rights shall pay to the City of San Diego the annual
capacity charge for the FY 97-98, due in February 1998,and shall pay this annual
capacity charge thereafter, each February.
4. In accordance with Section 22 of the "Disposal Agreement of 1960" the City of San
Diego must consent to the transfer of capacity between participating agencies. In the
event the capacity transfer is denied by the City of San Diego, this agreement shall be
null and void.
~i5
5. Mutual Cooperation. National City and Chula Vista mutually agree to cooperate and
assist in obtaining any and all approvals, or other documents which may be necessary
to accomplish the above capacity purchase and transfer.
6. Time of the Essence. Both parties understand that time is of the essence in the
completion of all matters contemplated by this agreement. Both parties agree to use
all due diligence to complete all phase of the work contemplated by this agreement at
the earliest possible and convenient time.
7. Modification. This agreement may not be altered in whole or in part except by
modification in writing, executed by both parties to this agreement.
8. Successors in Interest. Unless otherwise provided in this agreement, the terms,
covenants and conditions contained herein shall apply to, inure to the benefit of, and
bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto.
9. Terms of Aareement. This agreement shall expire:
.
1. When final payment is made to National City for this purchase of capacity rights; or
2. If the proposed transfer of capacity is denied by the City of San Diego; or
3. When replaced by mutual agreement by both parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this agreement as of the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
By:
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
By:
Mayor of the City of National City
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
.).~,?
/
/
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF UP TO 140,000 GALLONS
SEWER CAPACITY RIGHTS TO CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that the Mayor is authorized to
sign an agreement for sale of up to 140,000 gallons sewer capacity rights to City of Chula Vista. Said
agreement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17 day of December 1996.
George H. Waters, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mike Dalla, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George H. Eiser, III
City Attorney
.,2 '1- ?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
--
Item: .2..>
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
ITEM TITLE:
Report: Proposed Development of a Specific Arts Project on the Bayfront for
Funding by the San Diego Unified Port District's Art Fund
Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space /lw..k-C).I
Director of Community DevelOpmen[S .U J
City Mana~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The San Diego Unified Port District approved a Public Art Master Plan in 1992. One purpose of the
plan is to enable the provision of artwork on the tidelands around San Diego Bay for the enjoyment of
residents and visitors. The Port's intention is to have member cities assist with the selection of the art
to be placed within each community, and the Port has set aside in excess of $4,500,000 to fund various
art projects proposed by member cities. The Port has hired a full-time Public Art Coordinator to oversee
the proposal process and selection of artwork, and the disbursement of funds.
At the City Council meeting of December 5, 1995, the Council referred the Port of San Diego's Master
Plan for Public Art along the Chula Vista Bayfront to the Cultural Arts, Planning, Parks and Recreation
Commissions and the Community Development Department to develop a specific project that could be
funded in the 1996-97 Port's Art Fund. A copy of the City Council meeting minutes relating to this is
attached as Attachment "A". In cooperation with staff, a subcommittee from the Cultural Arts
Commission has identified three (3) potential art installation sites, and has also identified two specific art
pieces that may be suitable for funding and installation by the San Diego Unified Port District.
This report outlines the Port District's criteria for formulating an art project and staff's analysis and
recommendation of a plan to participate in the placement of art along the Bayfront.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Direct staff to proceed with submitting the proposed art project to the San Diego Unified Port
District for consideration of funding and installation; and
2. Support staff's recommendation for the choice of art pieces; and
3. Support staff's preferred installation site recommendations (Option #1 - "F" Street - Lagoon
Drive); however, three site options would be submitted to the Port District; and
4. Provide direction on pursuing other arts-related ideas that were generated by the community, staff
and the Council for inclusion in future projects on the bayfront.
[M:\home\parksrec\AII3 - portart.2nd - 10/02196]
1
-'.> .../
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Cultural Arts Commission reviewed and
approved the subcommittee's proposal for optional sites and one sculpture piece on Tuesday, August 13,
1996: the Commission voted 6-0-2 to support staffs recommendation (Minutes are Attachment "B"). The
subcommittee also made an additional recommendation for a second sculpture piece after reconvening in
November. The Cultural Arts Commission has not formally reviewed and approved the second piece
since the Commission did not have a quorum at their scheduled meeting on December 10, 1996. Since
several of the potential art installation sites are located in parks in Chula Vista, staff also presented this
project to the Parks and Recreation Commission. On Thursday, August 16, 1996, at the regular meeting
of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission voted 5-0-2 to support staffs recommendation
(Minutes are Attachment "C").
DISCUSSION:
Backl!round:
In 1992, a Public Art Master Plan was approved by the San Diego Unified Port District. The plan was
developed to clarify the Port's Policy for Public Art, and to establish working relationships with the five
member communities for planning and implementing the inclusion of artwork on public tidelands. The
Port plan was to be process oriented; developing policies, strategies and methodologies, and was designed
to be community oriented and driven by public input. The Port utilized the services of a local consultant
in developing the plan, specifically to gather information on community interest and desires for public
art. The Port Plan identified specific potential sites for the placement of public art pieces on tidelands
areas in each of the five member communities. The Plan also identified sample methodologies for the
selection of specific art, all of which included a budget, number of artists involved, program timeline,
and implementation. The Port went on to identify three methods of acquiring permanent art, which were
competition, invitation, and direct commission. The Public Art Master Plan included several specific
recommendations:
that the definition of public art should be left open, inclusive and defined on a programmatic basis
that a Public Art Coordinator should be hired by the Port, who would initiate the management
of their public arts program, and would work with other agencies to establish on-going working
relationships
that the Board of Port Commissioners should review and discuss projected expenditures and
program priorities
that the Port District should continue to explore and support innovative ways to cooperate and
collaborate with other organizations andlor agencies in placing public art on the tidelands
A copy of the 1992 Public Art Master Plan is attached (Attachment "D").
[M:\home\parksrec\Al13 - portart.2nd - 10/02/96]
2
,;2 S- ' ,.,)
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
The Port District has hired a Public Art Coordinator, and has approved a formal Port Public Art Program
Policy, that identifies funding sources and delineates the Port's selection, acquisition, and placement
procedures for new public art. A copy of the policy is attached (Attachment "E").
Several other member cities have submitted proposals for public art projects that have been accepted by
the Port, and, as discussed below, projects have been completed and installed. Several of the member
cities are also preparing proposals for additional pieces, and a proposal from the City that includes two
separate pieces is reasonable at this point.
What Other Bavfront Cities Have Received:
A bronze sculpture created by the renowned artist Wyland was installed at a waterfront
park (Dune's Park) in Imperial Beach at a cost of $85,000.
Another bronze sculpture designed by artist Christopher Slatoff was installed in a newly
created park called Grand Caribe Park off the Silver Strand in the Coronado Cays. The
purchase and installation cost of the sculpture was approximately $27,000, although the
total project cost, which included the design and development of the surrounding park
was approximately $100,000. The park development costs were apparently not funded
through the arts funding, but were provided through other Port District resources.
A clock-shaped reflecting pool was installed in the Martin Luther King Children's Park
near the Convention Center in San Diego. The initial cost of this project was $450,000.
The City of National City is currently in the process of developing a proposal for an art project along
their bayfront. The specifics of the project, and the projected proposal costs are unknown at this time.
Citv of Chula Vista Process:
Per Council direction, staff has been working with the Port (through their Public Art Coordinator), a sub-
committee of the City's Cultural Arts Commission, the Chula Vista Planning and Community
Development Departments, and the Mayor's Office, to discuss an art project proposal which would
ultimately be submitted to the Port District. The Port District would consider the City's recommendation,
and, if approved, the Port District would select an artist (or artists) and the art piece(s), select the
installation site, and work with the artist(s) to develop a project budget. The Port District would contract
directly with the artist(s) and would be responsible for all costs associated with acquisition, placement,
installation, and maintenance of the art piece(s).
The discussions of the City's Port Art Project Committee have centered around plans, site selection, the
Port District's funding requirements, and recommendations for a chosen form of art to be placed along
the Bayfront. The art form chosen was sculpture, based on the constraints of the tidelands area, and on
the success of other cities in attaining Port funding for outdoor sculpture pieces. The City of Chula
Vista's Cultural Arts Coordinator facilitated the committee work and proposed an art selection process
(the "Seattle Plan") which encompassed a fitting image, site options, authenticity, maintenance, design
[M:\home\parksrec\AIl3 - portart.2nd - 10/02/96]
3
rJ5''';>
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
concept, community relationship, budget and materials. The Chula Vista Cultural Arts Commission
subcommittee approved this process, and initiated a specific selection plan which was based on the
"Seattle Plan." This plan has been successfully used to select fine arts pieces in Seattle, Kalamazoo,
Columbus, Chicago, Portland, and more locally, Carlsbad and Escondido.
Art Project Selection Process:
After establishing some basic guidelines, the selection plan involved the solicitation of proposals from
artists known to have experience in large outdoor sculpture. City staff contacted a number of galleries
both locally and nationally that handle artists who create large outdoor public artwork, and requests for
proposals were solicited through a number of sources including several trade publications. Notice was
also placed on the Internet, and through an international notification and posting organization, "Sculpture
Service." The response to the request for proposals was good, with a total of 69 submittals, including
proposals from five local artists. A slide registry of all proposals was established, and is available for
review if desired.
The Port Art Project Committee reviewed and rated all submittals using the following criteria, while
being sensitive to the desirability of selecting a safe and understandable image that would be acceptable
to the community and to the Port: Site Relations, Theme/Progranunatic, Design/Form,
Materials/Technique, Elements/Principles, Style, Artist's Background/Qualifications, Maintenance,
Quality, Public Liability, and Diversity. Each piece was rated 1-10 in each category (1 low, 10 high),
and the total score determined overall ranking. The five proposals that scored the highest were again
reviewed and re-ranked to determine the subcommittees's final choice. A sample of the scoring sheets
used by the subcommittee members is attached as Attachment "F". The five proposals that ranked highest
were evaluated again to determine the selected piece. In accordance with this procedure, all scores and
information are destroyed following the process, to assure fairness in the process.
The sub-committee reconvened recently to consider an additional piece, based in part on the fact that
other member cities are in the process of preparing proposals for additional pieces. An additional piece
was selected to be included with the proposal as an optional piece, or as a second piece to be considered
at the same time.
Additional Port Area Cultural Uses Proposed:
Other concepts for funding proposals for art and culture at the Bayfront were discussed and considered
by the City of Chula Vista Cultural Arts Commission subcommittee, and City staff, early in the planning
process. These concepts included:
1. The conversion/renovation of the empty Rohr Industries buildings for use by artists as working
spaces, studios, and exhibitions.
2. The development of a "Kinetic Art Race" or similar concept; a City in northern California has
developed an extremely popular and successful event that features moving art pieces or "vehicles"
[M:\home\parksrec\AI13 - portart.2nd - 10/02196]
4
.If,J(
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
that are designed, built, and "raced" in the water as well as on land, powered by human strength
exclusively.
3. The development of an "Art Walk," a display of permanent and/or temporary sculpture combined
with an appropriately landscaped linear park, where people could move about and interact with
various forms of outdoor art and sculpture in a passive setting. This was envisioned on the east
side of Marina View Parkway.
4. The creative enhancement of the existing infrastructure of the SDG&E power plant, either with
the intent to soften and "hide" the facility, or to use it as a basis for a visually stimulating
"sculpture. "
5. The commission of a massive mural project utilizing the north and/or west walls of the Rohr
Industries production/assembly facility.
6. Permanently basing a historic ocean-going vessel in a bayfront area that could be converted for
museum use and tours.
7. The development of specific art projects on Port property near the major entry points to the
bayfront ("F" Street and Bay Boulevard and "J" Street and Bay Boulevard).
Although all these concepts have merit, and could be pursued at some point in the future, it was
determined that an initial proposal for a single, large, outdoor art piece would be relatively simple to
forward to the Port District for consideration.
The Recommended Art Pieces:
The Port Art Project Committee and City staff are recommending a proposal to the Port for the
installation of two separate pieces: a piece by artist Ron Jermyn, entitled "The Wave", and a piece by
artist Scott Hanson entitled "Wind and Sea". Both pieces would be substantial, and would be cast bronze
over a stainless steel frame. "The Wave" would be approximately 18 feet tall, 38 feet wide, and 15 feet
deep, and would be finished in layers of patinas colored in percentages of grays, several blues, several
green tones and a dark mixture of blues. This effect would be representative of ocean/bay water. "Wind
and Sea" would be approximately 21 feet tall, 9 feet wide, and 9 feet deep, and would be finished in
layers of patinas and polished bronze.
Mr. Jermyn is a native San Diegan, and has a number of pieces in private and corporate collections in
the San Diego area as well as in Washington DC and Maryland. He has participated in exhibitions
locally as well as in Virginia, New Mexico, and Arkansas. A list of private and corporate collections
that include Mr. Jermyn's work is attached (Attachment "G").
Mr. Hanson was also born and raised in the San Diego area before moving to Hawaii, where he currently
resides. Mr. Hanson is a well known artist throughout the country, and has sculptures on display in
Wyland galleries across the nation.
[M:\home\parksrec\AI13 - portart.2nd - 10/02l96J
5
,25',5"
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
Models of both pieces will be on display at the Council meeting.
Staff Prooosal for Sites (Three Ootions):
Site Selection Process:
Methodology: The Port Art Project Committee and staff reviewed proposed sites, including on-site visits
to the tidelands area. Research was performed on land forms, the land's relationship to selected art work,
and a review of other cities and agencies art pieces and their placement.
Criteria: The Port Art Project Committee proposed that the art pieces would be on tideland property
only, as it is a condition of Port District consideration of funding. Other criteria included visibility,
accessibility, relationship to the bay and the tideland venue, and land size.
While the three sites indicated on Attachment "H", and described below, are offered for consideration,
other sites were reviewed. However, due to the nature of the tidelands, existing business, and public
accessibility, other sites were rejected as unsuitable. Other sites considered were Marina View Park, the
southeast walkway of Bayside Park, the southwest end of Bayside Park facing the boat marina, and the
right -of-way strip adjacent to Rohr Industries along Marina View Parkway. The reasons for rejection
are based on Port criteria, which includes:
I. All pieces must be on Port land; and
2. The installation must preserve and enhance the Bay view; and
3. The installation must preserve and enhance open space for leisure recreation; and
4. The art piece must be an aesthetic integration to the site.
The rejected sites did not meet this criteria; mainly due to lack of enhancement of the Bay view or lack
of preservation of open space for leisure recreation.
A passive park area surrounding the pieces would be part of the project proposal to the Port, regardless
of the site selected, and normal improvements in designing and constructing passive park areas would be
required. This park development, and all associated costs, would be included in the proposal for Port
funding.
Option #1: (Staff's Recommendation) A site at the terminus of "F" Street (Lagoon Drive), currently
owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency pending escrow and sale to the Port District. The Port
Art Project Committee has reviewed this site and considers it a prime location. The Committee envisions
a pastoral park setting for the selected art work. This setting would be in compliance with the land usage
designation established by the Coastal Commission. The sale of one or more lots in this area are
currently being negotiated with the Port District, and should a change in ownership take place, there is
a possibility that the Port may apply to the Coastal Commission for re-zoning to designate a
[M:\home\parksrec\AI13 - por1art.2nd - 10102I96J
6
~t
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
visitor/commercial land use. The site would then need to be re-considered for the installation of the art
pieces.
Advantages: The placement of the pieces at this site would utilize the existing land designation for a
pastoral park setting, and would add additional park usage for Chula Vista residents (the Port would be
the owner of the land). This site meets the site selection process criteria of utilizing the enviromnent and
its relationship to the art piece, and would provide for excellent visibility from a number of prime
locations. Public accessibility would also be good in this area, although there is no established pedestrian
flow in the area at the current time. There is also ample room in this area for an appropriate spacial
separation of the pieces, while maintaining a overall continuity and similarity.
Constraints: Ownership of the site is somewhat uncertain at this point, and the site needs to be
extensively cleaned and developed before the art pieces and a park could be installed and developed.
Option # 2: The mid-point of Bayside Park. This site has the San Diego Bay as a backdrop, but would
require the removal or relocation of 10 trees in the park, as well as the removal of a small traffic circle
island and a triangular shaped island immediately south. The entrance road would also need to be
realigned and re-striped within the park, and a substantial area of the park near the water would need to
be dedicated to the installation of the second sculpture.
Advantages: The placement of the pieces at this site would utilize land currently designated and used as
a park. This site would also have fairly good visibility, and would take advantage of an established
vehicle and pedestrian flow. This particular area of Bayside park is already essentially a passive use area,
and the pieces would only serve to enhance the area.
Constraints: Existing park hardscape, vegetation, and lrngation systems would be disrupted with
installations in this area. The street aligmnent would need to be adjusted, and a portion of curbing and
asphalt would have to be removed and re-established. This would include the elimination of two traffic
islands, and the loss of a portion of useable turf area in the park near the high tide line.
Option #3: The south-west end of the parking lot of the "J" Street Marina. This site has the San Diego
Bay as a back drop as well. There is a row of fully grown trees in this area that would have to be
removed or relocated, and a significant change in the existing area would be required.
Advantages: This site has a great deal of public access, both vehicular and pedestrian. It would provide
fairly good visibility, although both pieces would be oriented differently at this site due to space
constraints.
Constraints: This particular area currently serves as a parking area, and a great deal of site demolition
(removal of asphalt, concrete, and some vegetation) would be required to convert it to a passive park
setting. A substantial amount of additional soil would have to be imported to correct the surface
conditions at the site, and there is concern about providing adequate and appropriate spacing between the
pieces in this area. The presence (and obtrusive nature of) the SDG&E power plant is also a concern in
[M:\home\parksrec\AI13 - portart.2nd - 10102/96]
7
eJ.y 7
Item:
Meeting Date: 12/17/96
this area, as is the occasional collection of debris that is flushed out of a drainage culvert adjacent to the
site.
Effect of Proiect on City of Chula Vista:
The Port District's Public Art Coordinator has reviewed and updated the Port District Arts Master Plan,
and further development of art projects on the tidelands will be an ongoing process. The Port has also
established a seven member Public Art Committee that will review proposals for public art, and make
recommendations to the Port's Board of Commissioners. All of the five bayfront cities may be
participating in additional art projects on tidelands properties in the future. Enhancement of the bayfront
will create opportunities in cultural tourism, cultural destination, and a marketing tool that uses the arts
to enhance the economic vitality of Chula Vista.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Port District would contract directly with the artists if the City's proposal is
accepted by the Port. All costs of site preparation, installation of the pieces, maintenance of the pieces
and surrounding park, and insurance of the pieces would the Port District's responsibility. The artists
have developed tentative budgets for their respective projects: "The Wave" carries a price estimate of
$425,000-430,000, and "Wind and Sea" is estimated to cost approximately $138,000. These budgets
were based on the installation of the pieces at the "F" Street location (Option #1). There could be
additional costs, paid by the Port District, involved with the development of surrounding park areas at
all three sites. Staff estimate of these costs at this time is very preliminary, but may be between
$400,000 and $500,000 for development of the park site (grading, installation of irrigation equipment,
landscaping, etc).
With the possible exception of unknown costs that could be incurred by the City in further clean-up
(pending environmental analysis as to level of toxicity, if any) of the "F" Street site, as it relates to the
potential sale of the property, the City would incur no direct expenses related to this project other than
the administrative staff costs incurred in preparing and presenting the proposal to the Port District.
Attachments: "A" - Excerpt from Minutes of City Council Meeting of December 7, 1995
"B" - Minutes of Cultural Arts Commission of August 13, 1996
"C" - Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission of August 15, 1996
"D" - Port District Public Art Master Plan
"E" - Port District Public Art Program Policy
"F" - Port Art Project Artist Evaluation Form
"G" - List of collections and exhibitions
"H" - Map of optional installation sites
[M:\home\parksrec\A1l3 - JXlrtart.2nd - 10/02/96]
8
~>'r
ATTACHMENT Al
Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 10
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND REAPPROPRIATING $11,000 THEREFOR - Due to a difference in
understanding of the terms of the existing agreement with IMS, it is necessary to clarify the extent of work and to
modify the payment to the contractor by increasing it from $115,500 to $125,667.50. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
RESOLUTION 18149 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
20. REPORT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC ARTS PROJECT ON THE BA YFRONT FOR FUNDING
BY THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT'S ART FUND - In 1992, the Port of San Diego adopted
a Master Plan for Public Art. The purpose of the plan is to provide artwork on the tidelands around San Diego Bay
for the enjoyment of residents and visitors. Staff recommends Council refer the Port of San Diego Master Plan for
Public Art to the Cultural Arts Commission and to any other interest parties for input, as well as development of
a specific project that could be funded next fiscal year by the Port's Arts Fund. (City Manager)
Mr. Goss stated the Port had a $4 million arts fund and they were in the process of hiring a full time arts
coordinator. A master plan was done in 1992 which identified.a favored and potential site on the Bayfront in the
Tidelands area. He felt the master plan was out of date. He was concerned that if the City did not develop a
specific project they would get lost in the shuffle. He recommended that a project be developed for the next budget
cycle. The Port was developing a subcommittee to review art pieces Port-wide and the City's Port Commissioner
had invited Colleen Scott, member of the Cultural Arts Commission, to be on the subcommittee. He felt it would
have been more appropriate if the request had been channeled through the Council for selection. Colleen Scott had
gone back to the Cultural Arts Commission and they were forming a subcommittee and that item would be brought
to Council next week.
Mayor Horton stated the Southbay mayors had previously discussed going forward with a recommendation to the
Port to aBocate a certain sum for each of tbe member cities from the arts fund. She supported tbat concept and felt
the City needed Ie "Olove forward with that. She did not want to see the City rush to develop a project. She wanted
the best possible project.
Mr. Goss suggested that it be done for the next budget cycle which would give the City six months to develop a
project.
Mayor Horton stated it could take longer than six months and if the money was set aside the City would have it
available for use and would not have to rush into something.
Mr. Goss stated there was a letter signed by the four Southbay mayors to the Port which recommended a formula
of 15 % to each of the five cities with the remaining 25 % being discretionary. It was his understanding that the
letter was not received well although to his knowledge it was not considered at a public meeting.
Councilmember Rindone stated he supported Mayor Horton.
MSUC (RindonelHorton) to accept the stafT report and recommendation.
21. REPORT PROGRESS IN THE DESIGN OF FINAL PLANS FOR THE "IMPROVEMENT OF
BROADWAY FROM NAPLES STREET TO ANITA STREET PROJECT (ST-143)" - The fiscal year 1994/95
Capital Improvement Program budget includes funding for design of the reconstruction of Broadway from Naples
Street to Anita Street. The project includes the renovation of the existing medians where necessary and the widening
of Broadway at Palomar Street to accommodate dual left turn lanes. On 4/25/95, Council approved the retention
of the medians and the installation of landscaping within those medians. Staff recommends Council approve the
report and direct staff to complete the design and final plans and bid the project including the reconstruction of
medians. (Director of Public Works)
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated it was the last project to finish Broadway from "F" Street to the south
city limits.
Councilmember Rindone stated staffr, efforts to work with the businesses during the last segment was outstanding.
He requested staffs assurance that ",ey would take the same approach for the last segment.
25 - ~
ATTACHMENT ,in
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR KEETXNG OF TEE
CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION
Tuesday, 5:00 p.m.
August 13, 1996
Conference Room #1
civic Center Library
**********************
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McAllister, commissioners cernitz,
Pelayo, Salgado, Scott, and Wheeland
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Commissioners Souval and Virchis
STAFF PRESENT:
Staff Liaisons Gates, McMartin and Todd
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MSC (Wheeland/cernitz) 6-0 to approve
minutes of May 14, 1996.
2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Action -
a. Election of New Chair and vice Chair
The term of Chair and vice Chair expired June 30.
(Scott//Wheeland) 6-0 to appoint Carlos Pelayo to
office of Chair. Bill Virchis will serve as Vice
for the Fiscal Year 1996-97.
MSC
the
Chair
At this time, commissioner Pelayo began serving as the
1996-97 cultural Arts Commission Chair.
b. Port Art Project
The proposed Development of a specific Arts project on
the Bayfront for Funding by the San Diego Unified Port
District's Art Fund agenda statement report was
distributed to the commissioners. This report outlines
the Port District's criteria for formulating an art
project and the staff's analysis and recommendation of
a plan to participate in the receipt of funds for
placement of art along the Bayfront.
-z s - 10
ATTACHMENT B2:
cultural Arts Commission
Meeting Minutes
2
August 13, 1996
MSC (Cernitz/Scott) 6-0 to support staff's
recommendation to:
1. Proceed with applying for Public Art Funding from
the Port;
2. Choice of art piece;
3. Offer two options to the City Council for site
selection;
4. Support the inclusion of public art as part of the
Master Plan for the Bayfront; and
5. Consider the viability of the comments collected
during the staff and community review process.
This report will also be presented to the Parks &
Recreation Commission. The report is scheduled for the
September 17, 1996 City Council meeting. The
Commissioners were encouraged to attend.
Ron Jermy, artist, was introduced. The Port Art
Project Committee and City staff are recommending an
art piece by Mr. Jermy, entitled "The Wave." Mr. Jermy
presented the art piece and described the process used
to assembly the piece.
c. MOSAIC
The MOSAIC calendar is a bi-monthly calendar of events.
The Sub-Committee members brought to the attention the
number of hours needed to produce each issue. MSC
(Scott/Cernitz) 6-0 to refer this item back to the Sub-
Committee to determine ways to utilize interns or
volunteers to assist in the process. The members are
Carlos Pelayo, Sofia salgado and Ric Todd.
Non-Action -
a. Goals/Objectives/Work Plan - This item is continued to
the next meeting scheduled for September 10, 1996.
b. commission Budget/Finances - This item is also
continued to the next meeting scheduled for September
10, 1996.
3. NEW BUSINESS
ACTION - None
--
'2.5"-\\
ATTACHMENT CI
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS A-1\'D RECREATION COMMISSION
August 15, 1996
PAGE 3
Commissioner Vaccaro abstained on the vote of the request of the Memorial Plaque
for Hector Delgado.
New Business
A. Chula Vista Community Center Joint Use Agreement Amendment
Commissioner Dennison asked if the Chula Vista Community Center has complied
with the rules. Director Valenzuela replied that the Center has complied with the
rules.
MSUC (HeIton/RadclifTe) to accept the stall's recommendation for the Chula Vista
Community Center Joint Use Agreement Amendment.
B. Port Art Proiect
Sunny Shy, Deputy Director of Recreation, presented to the Commissioners the Port
Art Project entitled "The Wave". The actual piece will be 18 feet tall in size, 38 feet
wide, and 15 feet deep.
Vice Chair Helton was concerned that the children will be climbing to the lOp of
the sculpture and would hurt themselves.
MSUC (Helton!Dennison) to accept the stall's recommendation of the Proposed
Development of a Specific Arts Project on the Bayfront for Funding by the San
Diego Unified Port District's Art Fund.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Written Correspondence - None
B. Commissioners' Comments
Vice Chair Helton said if there are changes to the agenda, second notices should not
be sent out.
Commissioner Radcliffe said that packets should not be sent twice if there are
changes made. We should receive them at the meeting.
Commissioner Vaccaro changed his vote to no, from abstain, on the Memorial
Plaque for Hector Delgado.
Respecfully Submitted
Carol Ree, Acting Recording Secretary
fa: \PRMTS96 . AUG)
'2S'-I-z..
I
,-
,
"
ATTACHMENT en
,
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN
Approved by BPC November 17, 1992
'25-\3
'JT.
"
,
r
f/
ATTACHMENT D2~
FORWARD
WHY A MASTER ART PLAN?
Since the establishment of public art policies and programs in
the early to mid-1970's, the field of public art has continued to
evol ve and expand. Annually, funded programs created by local
governments have grown exponentially over the past 20 years. Many
more single projects have been undertaken by specific communities.
This growth, although impressive, has presented formidable
challenges for both agencies and arts professionals. Across the
nation these groups are working together to review existing
policies and programs within the context of dynamic change. New
models are being developed while new methods are being tested. In
general, two areas impact the review process: the maturity and
success of the program to date, and the agency's public art vision
for the future.
The advantage of developing a Master Art Plan is that it can
address the overall goals and objectives of a public art program,
and through the planning process gain needed support from the
community. As an essential end product of the review, the plan
serves to clarify the policies that guide programs throughout their
implementation, and, with the community now engaged, it ensures
that public art programs are not conceived in bureaucratic
isolation.
The impact of public art programming should positively affect
all aspects of development at the San Diego Unified Port District.
Current and future activities can be enhanced through the
integration of public artworks in the Port's overall vision. To
effectively accomplish this, the plan would address:
clarifying the Port's Policy for public art;
. identifying recommendations which will guide the program
over the next 3-5 years;
establishing specific working relationships with
communi ties and their committees, agencies and other
appropriate groups for planning and successfully
implementing the inclusion of artworks on public
tidelands.
Artistically, the plan lays the groundwork for programming which
will enhance public areas, create public places, and reflect the
cultural diversity of the Port District's constituents.
Administratively, it serves as the cornerstone for defining
methodologies and determining management requirements.
1
"LS-- l+
r
"
ATTACHMENT 1153
WHY A PUBLIC PROCESS?
:Jsing a public process to develop a master plan can bring
together a broad array of information, statistics and community
desires. Ideally, it serves to deliver a comprehensive assessment
of potentials and possibilities. At the same time it begins to
identify "stakeholders" who become contributors during the
implementation of future programs.
A community-oriented approach was supported by the Port
District's Board of Port Commissioners in recognition of the public
dt large. This "public," comprised of artists, arts
administrators, community activists, professionals, and other
interested parties, contributed a wide range of viewpoints during
the process. As participants and ultimately benefactors of future
programs, their collective voice will be heard throughout the
program recommendations.
The ~ltimate goal in this planning effort was to be inclusive
rather than exclusive, forthcoming rather than vague. There was
much talk along the way and there will be more talk in the weeks
and months ahead. The focus, however, has always been on process.
The contents of this document continues to be ~rocess oriented -
policies, strategies, methodologies. There are no discussions
regarding specif ic artists, artworks, or artistic styles . Arriving
~t that ultimace content can only occur when the plan unfolds into
implementation. The true commitment can only be realized when all
those concerned come together in the spirit of meaningful action.
If the word "consensus" is too highly charged to use in this
context, then let us instead use the word "community." For only in
community can we honor our individual preferences while at the same
time accepting a common and inclusive means for successfully
bringing public art to the public tidelands.
2
"1..S--(S-
f
ATTACHMENT m;..4!
",CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements and thanks to the public agencies, community
groups and individual contributors who participated in the master
plan process:
the Cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista,
Imperial Beach and Coronado whose representatives gave
enthusiastic support to the master plan process;
the public at large who diligently participated in the
public meetings;
the regional arts community for their support throughout
the public meetings and their participation via written
input;
the Port staff for providing information and advice in
response to program ideas and methodology; and
Special acknowledgement to the members of the Port District's
Public Art Ad Hoc Committee and members of the Board of Port
Commissioners for their dedicated vision and their sincere interest
in revitalizing the program.
3
7.S"-lG
,
ATTACHMENT D5-'
INTRODUCTION
THE PORT AND HOW IT WORKS
The San Diego Unified. Port District is now beginning its
fourth decade. It was created by an act of the state legislature
in 1962 and approved by voters in the cities that comprise the
District. Its purpose is to promote commerce, navigation,
fisheries and recreation on San Diego Bay tidelands.
Responsibility for these activities is entrusted to the Board of
Port Commissioners - a group of seven men and women who serve the
public and represent their interests.
The commissioners are appointed by the elected city councils
of the five cities bordering San Diego Bay - Chula Vista, Coronado,
Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego. As appointees, the
Commissioners are directly responsive to the needs of their city
councils and, ultimately, to individual members of the voting
public. Commissioners meet at regular, public board meetings,
where they share information and discuss public needs. The Board
then works together to try to meet those needs.
The jurisdiction of the District to exercise its powers
extends only over the "Tidelands" and "Submerged Tidelands" granted
to the district from the State of California in 1962. The
jurisdictional map illustrated in Figure 1 graphically illustrates
the extent of the tidelands. These land and water areas are
bounded on the land side by an irregular line designated the "Mean
High Tide Line" and on the water side by the "U.S. Pierhead Line."
The Port District is one of several governmental agencies that have
proprietary interest in the land and water of San Diego Bay. Other
agencies controlling tideland areas include the Federal Government
(oveI 50% of bayfront), the State of California, the County of San
Diego, and the cities of San Diego and Coronado.
4
?. $ - \,
,
ATTACHMENT DtiS
BACKGROUND OF THE DISTRICT'S ART PROGRAM
The Eoard of Port commissioners is committed to the aesthetic
enhancement of the tidelands within its administrative
jurisdiction. This commitment in the past has taken the form of
architectural screening of certain industrial activities, extensive
landscaping and arrangements of buildings and other improvements in
order to maximize the visual quality of the shoreline. These
efforts have been made by the Port as an organization and also by
Port tenants who have undertaken major tideland improvements.
Memorials and artworks, to. a limited extent, have existed or
been placed by the District or by donors in years past. These
works include the Freedom Bellon Shelter Island, "Charles A.
Lindbergh - The Boy and The Man" at Lindbergh Field, "Konoids" at
the Chula Vista Marina Park, and "Morning" at Seaport Village.
Recognizing the need for a policy regarding public art, the
Board of Port Commissioners on December 14, 1982 adopted Board
Policy *609 - "Inclusion of Major Art in Waterfront Development."
That policy set forth a funding mechanism and established an Art
Advisory Committee which eventually made selections and
recommendations regarding artworks, competitions and acquisitions
to the full Board of Port Commissioners.
To the disappointment of many, the District's art program
encountered numerous obstacles. The debate centered on the
responsibility of a government agency to honor the desires of the
general populOUS regarding placement of contemporary art on public
tidelands. Unfortunately the on-going debate stalled the program
in 1988. However, the funding mechanism as originally established
has remained in place.
In the summer of 1990, the Board of Port Commissioners elected
to again move forward on the subject of public art. An Art Ad Hoc
Committee comprised of three Commissioners selected a. local
consulting firm to gather information on community desires for
public art; to conduct research on other public art programs; and
to prepare a Public Art Master Plan (PAMP). The consultant team
has been supported by a dedicated Port staff member as a liaison
and facilitator throughout the development of the art plan.
5
L5""-\8'
ATTACHMENT rm
This 1ncument has been designed to thoroughly cover two areas
of concern to the future of the Public Art Program: Port tideland
sites and their potential for public art projects, and appropriate
methodologies for .implementing program recommendations. The PAMP
specifically focuses on three categories of visual art programs:
temporary installations of art, exhibition programs in public
facilities. and permanent acquisition of artworks or art
treatments. However, the Board of Port Commissioners feels that
permanent artworks are the priority for this Plan.
It is not an easy task to separate these types of art for
planning purposes. Each of the three categories listed above have
some level of overlap - the exhibition of art may be temporary or
permanent in nature; the purchase or direct acquisition of two or
three-dimensional art may be sited permanently or rotated for
temporary placement at various sites throughout the public
tidelands. In addition, the programmatic recommendations included
in this plan address the continued role of the general public and
arts professionals in the future development of Port tidelands.
The public art recommendations are presented as the necessary
approach for the Board of Port Commissioners to implement their
public art program. Prioritizing of sites and methodologies for a
specific selection prc=ess will require continued dialogue within
the Port District and among arts professionals and community
representatives. This continuation of "planning process" does not
preclude the initiation of art programs. Program recommendations
can be implemented while the Port District continues to evolve and
refine its approach to public art.
F.
"IS- - \~
I
I
ATTACHMENT 1M3
'! ,....\
..........
"=71
I\~\\ij\\
z
o
-
Eo-
U
-
Q
r.r..
-
='
;:J
~
- .
,'-
Jill. 80 ~"""'I~ ~1 ,-...".""",
I tile! ,~p !
./-,,.,J u
~~
.-
'Ii . ,. J
.~"'" //JJ
I ./
ill,illllllliliU' .11', 1 /
. u
Jl It ! I-
;}/_-.I..-., J
~ ~ '-1 ...
· \!I HI
\ I)
"'~~ 11\111\
~
H
I BJ
J
U/--
..,// qllllllllllll,....".'"",,"',"11111
I
~
,
I
II
'25-"20
e"
Z
-
Z
Z
-<
~
=-
r.r..
~
E0-
='
o
=-
-
~
::
CL
ii:
ATTACHMENT 09-9
I. SITES
POTENTIAL OF PUBLIC TIDELANDS
San Diego Bay is'visually rich and encompasses a broad range
of activities - commercial, military and leisure. As one of the
world's great natural harbors, it provides a setting unparalleled
j nits aesthetic potential for siting artwork. There are vast
possibilities for the inclusion of a broad range of artworks and
a.t treatments in and around the bay. The bay can be viewed and
enjoyed from air, land and sea and is readily accessible by
pedestrian traffic. Public tidelands are regularly used by
visitors, businesses and families. When considering sites, the
range of current and projected use of the area must guide selection
criteria.
Port District facilities which can be considered for public
art include the San Diego International Airport, the Cruise Ship
Terminal at B Street, and the Convention Center. The Port's
Administration Building on Pacific Highway and other ancillary
facilities would benefit from enhancement through art placement.
rhe Port District represents five incorporated areas with
distinct personalities and ethnic di versi ty. Public tidelands
extend from major, inner city areas to communities adjacent to the
international border with Mexico. The flavor of each city and/or
area surrounding public tidelands should guide the selection of
site and subsequent art treatments. The public art program should
strive to reflect the cultural make-up and diversity of the region
and its proximity to Mexico.
From the perspective of an arts professional, the majority of
public tidelands are under utilized and would benefit from art
placement. The current approach to tideland development reflects
an effort by the Port District to beautify public areas and enhance
open spaces adj acent to commercial properties. In more recent
years, there has been an emphasis on park development, the majority
of which are crafted green belts, weaving walkways and improved
shorelines.
7
7.5"-?-\
ATTACHMENT DIoo
The public tidelands addressed in this section focus on those
areas considered appropriate for public art in any of its forms.
The basic premise supporting these areas and sites is that art or
art treatments serve to enhance a place, create an enriched
environment, and, in certain instances, address environmental or
functional issues.
For the Port District to consider a location as a public "artsite,"
several questions must be addressed:
Is the site on Port public tidelands?
What are the environs surrounding the site?
Who utilizes the site or its environs?
What future planning might impact the site?
Is this a priority site?
What is the expected effect of an art placement at the
site?
Does the site offer an artistic challenge or creative
opportunity?
How might art at this site enhance the location?
What type (s) of artistic treatment are appropriate or
more desirable for the site?
8
2s--"2"2-
ATTACHMENT OUi
SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following site recommendations are grouped by member city
and outlined by (2) parameters: favored sites and potential sites.
Favored sites have been identified through discussions with
community representatives, pUblic dialogue and Port staff.
potential sites represent other locations identified by the
consultants.
NATIONAL CITY - At present, Pepper Park represents the only public
tideland area adjacent to the bay and available for art treatments.
More than half of the designated public area is currently
undeveloped which allows potential for future growth.
(1) favored site - The National City Bayfront Committee
requests public art be placed on Port tidelands that is
integral to their proposed marina park development. A
specific site has yet to be identified.
(2) favored site - Coordinate artworks and/or exhibits at
bayfront commercial area (if made publicly accessible).
(3) potential site - Place an interactive art treatment in
the existing Pepper Park.
CHULA VISTA - Chula Vista Marina Park is well developed and highly
utilized. The artwork, "Konoids" by Kenneth Capps, draws people
to the area. Various grassy spaces are suitable for permanent
and/or temporary installations of artwork.
(1) favored site - The Port District and the City of Chula
vista are jointly planning improvements to the J Street
park entry. The City is receptive to art treatments in
conjunction with the park renovation.
(2) potential site - A site enhancement at the grassy area
adjacent to the South Bay Boatyard could include
sculptural forms; interactive, play areas; or a large,
two dimensional treatment.
IMPERIAL BEACH - Public tidelands in Imperial Beach are limited to
primarily submerged areas and the Imperial Beach Pier. Future
expansion of Port holdings could open new site opportunities and
the Port could work with the City to develop collaborative
projects.
9
"2.5'"-'"2>
,,,J1S
J' 1
I'
i'
/.'
/ ~
I
I
I
r ...
'"
lUSt -5
~
/
..
..
,MHS PUtt
::,
\"
.-...'.-.\ J
'\
,
i
\ J
....
A
\"
INlIS "'tt
I
/
J
I...,..,
'" z
. '" 0 '"
~ - r.l
- i-
.. c:: i~ 1 -
- < i-
.. 0
~ r.l -
:; " ... c:: .. ...l
:s ::E ! c -
... u ...
! ! ! .l! J.. u ..
c:: ... -< r.l <:
< 5" c:: t 5 I.r]i (;;, .~ ~
u . :is U U
~l -..
- - :i~:""lr..t - II .
...l .... ...l ...l ....
= ~"i = <.<<...~i.l! = !J
? "" " :l ...B:~..l!
. "5 :. ... s ~ , 0 .:1 :l !:!
\pI - Ill... =- .;.."",,,,>c.... = =-
icO ;-c'. @[EI
~1g)J,.Eil@BJ8
.-
~I'
"25-2.4-
I!
I
II ..
I "
J
~
~
..
I, 0..
'I ..
II c
.;:
I"JIS H i
>IS
:1
II
i
\.
I
III
.
-
"
i!
.
-
.5
I:
~ I~\ ~
'I'!IIIIIIIIIIII'II
~I
<.
Q.i
!
<I
Z!
--I
11 === t
Iii < !
'" ~ I
-<
Eo-
.r;J).
. ..
i>
ii-<
!i~
Ii ;:J
Ii::
!U
IIIlINIlII
"'UQ ,
z
~ 0 tIl
~ - '=l
=: l~ I- ; -
< I-
0 r::l .. -
:t =: ... -l
~ ! U .. .. -
l- I · ! !.= - u ..1
=: li r::l < .
< =: t II -i]i '=- .1 -=
u u u -...
- - .ig:~ir.~ - ~.
..l Ii -l ~c<<~ljJt ..l -'"
= = 5'" ...-' .Ii = ..!!j
? ~! ;::l ... :;--.. ? g .
=- I.:: J: i 0 ~ .:!
- '- ,->c.= = - "'=
itO :-C,I 51 @tE]
~1g)J,.fJl]Je
.-
~II
.,
IlH II! H IIIIIIII!! I!! I!! I'I! H HI H IHIIIHH IIIIIIIHHII HHIII,~!
?,s-"2.s-
I
~
J-rn'
Ud
lllfi
!J II ill
ju1J
11----" ".
, I'
. I
~ IU1
~lJ !
~-
il ill
,I 'U
ii Ii I
, "
0....-.-' .
~'.
, ,
'. t.
. .
.," ." ,'" ....
,,':"",' ',' ,. .
'-',',
. ~:: "':'.':.:", ..' ..... . .
'.
. ,:'
"
. ,.
..' .
:: ~ :,'.":: ':::.
. ~ - . . ..' ,
." ....".......
'. " ... I.... . t'., I . . :':~.:~: ,t,: :",
. ''1 ...... "
'/ :\:.";...;....:::;./
.,'.' .
dt-t
~,I~
lr
!G:::J
~
~,.
\ ~.
17
,..
....
...
"
III
"
'.
I
.
~
-.
"IS- -"2..b
tIl
::::
Cl: ...
Op
~ "...
!- ~ a
== s!
< ... <
! .W
.!:!
U < i'
:s =
= .J'i
~ ~ w
'- ~!
1rO
\..
I
I
!
,
\
z
o
_ tIl
!- ~
< ~ ~
~ .io ~
=: -. -
u X. ... -l
~" .!i.. U g
Cl:j ..",.5 < '=>
""_.u'-c:~
t.J = r.!;2 .S!u
:3 ~l~;~jf.J! u a~
::::l< <....:\.w:3-..
:l ... .W 1I .W ~'- ::::l .!.
. . ~_:!"1!!! :l .'"
_ :..&tQ..>~j<~ .. u'-_"
-, I . - -
~ I g) J. Q]@Eli3 @tEl
I.>. ~
~
'.
ATTACHMENT (i}lBi
(1) favored sites - City representatives have identified Pier
Plaza, Dunes Park and the street-end at Palm and Seacoast
(by the lifeguard tower). Proposed art treatments could
link the sand' and the sea and include an interactive
element for the general public.
(2) favored site - Address the exterior, beach shower wall at
Ci~y facilities in the Pier Plaza.
( 3) potential site - Consider temporary placement of artworks
on the Imperial Beach Pier.
CORONADO - Coronado Tidelands Park presents multiple potential
si tes throughout open spaces and adj acent to corranercial areas.
View corridors to the bay provide unique perspectives to the land
and its setting.
(1 )
favored site -
meeting that a
piece of art"
tidelands.
It was suggested at the Coronado public
commission of a "significant, landmark
was desired for the Coronado public
(2) favored sites - Several locations in and around the
Tidelands Park and the Ferry Landing should be considered
for moderate to large sculptural pieces, low-profile
interactive treatments of "human scale," landscape-
related treatments, or permanent placements.
(3) potential site Consider surface and functional
treatments to the proposed, extended bike path.
(4) potential site - Treatments for Grand Caribe Isle in the
Coronado Cays could entail sitework in conjunction with
development decisions, and in consideration of the
environmental habitat.
SAN DIEGO - San Diego represents the largest amount of tideland
area and site potential for art placement. This section is further
divided by subarea for ease of presentation.
(A) SHELTER ISLAND:
(1) favored site - Local community groups suggested that an
artwork be corranissioned as a gateway to the Island. This
follows an art proposal presented to the Port District
during the "beautification project" of the Island and
Shelter Island Drive. The local groups should be
proactively involved in any site identification and
subsequent process.
10
25 -"2{
~ E
""
'" -
[ go u
o ::.! r <
~ _ r:.:1 ~ .~.
: ;: -i:OS....; U
.-!:::::-;:=~- ~
~~<~~;......J
<;u"IoI...l1 = ~
"'i:3~3';~~
;_~-sCl=... S
=- c;., =- > '- a:l < - ;,,;
:;;.1
~1g].J,.OJ@8 l!J.
.-
~" I
ATTACHMENT (J).]Ji;
z
o
~
:'3 u r-
i;li ~
- ~
;i Ci c::
_' u
c- t:J
~< -
a~ -
!:E U
<~
..-:; :l
'3 i =
.. ~
~~ -
1'0
2S--28
<Il
::l
i1lHlill ~
Q
Zl
<I
=z=l
E-
00
~
.~
.~
~
....
00
-
00
>
<
U
o
Q
<
Z
o
=:
o
u
"2S--2't
tI:l Z
.... 0
- -
== 1.1 E-
~ j::: r:i i
E-~5=="
... d u l ...
_ .... ~ 0
<-;.lI==t v5..
U l:S z:",.s
_ ~ l U : ...1'1;
..l ..'lI :3 .i~ -1':.:1-
5'P = ~.:o!i~~r..E
;:.;n~:::I "'1!.lI:.~~j.~
:.. l.l:. >-=i;~!
;.. IIlI .-
+:0 ~ I < =
~1g).l.ElI@~
~I'
tI:l
r.l
1=
-
..l
-
U .
< -&
'=- ~
u .1 ':
_ ~.1Ii;
., '" 'a
- -..
= j!
? fi;;
_ u =
r:lEJ
. I 1
J--
I
QI
zr
< II
.J II
~l
I
'I
~\
~.
~ II
~I
~
=
~
""
r.l
-
...
::3
Co -
= U
~o
@8)
2 S- - 30
ATTACHMENT (1H9
(2) potential site - The traffic circle at the waterfront is
well situated to accommodate temporary or permanent
placements. If this traffic circle is reconfigured in
favor of a T-type intersection, artists could be
integrated into the redesign process and reconstruction.
(3) potential site - The majority of open space on Shelter
Island is suitable for "human scale" temporary or
permanent pieces. Surface treatments on walkways or
piers could enhance their aesthetic presence.
(4) potential site - The beach walk in La Playa (where San
Diego Bay meets Point Lorna) was identified as a possible
but more difficult area to address.
(B) HARBOR ISLAND:
(1) potential sites - This area of the tidelands is most
suitable for permanent pieces and moderately-scaled
artworks for interaction with pedestrians or for larger
works that could also be enjoyed from car or boat.
(2) potential site The completed redesign of the
intersection upon entering the Island provides new
opportunities for a gateway to the bay.
(3) potential site - The traffic circle at the south end of
the Island could be enhanced through a creative redesign
of the landscaping integrating sculptural forms.
11
-z.s--S(
Q
:z
<
~
00
..
~:
o
==
~
<
=
=
<.:l
..
'"
.,
Q
Z
:i
!l
!1
2
Z
tI:l 0
~ - '"
=: 1! I- C::l
-< i. -
] 0 C::l I-
:= i8 =: .. ::3
. ..
r l- I ! U ~ Mi. -
=: ..< (;;:l U .g
-< =: I ~...I <
~ p ~ .
J u ~1 u ' :: t.i!i u .! ~
-
...l - _iu--'iu: ~ JC
M 17 oJ v ... u":: -;.:.. - "'.
2 = = <1<<..... oJ -...
~ ~l .W .ll.:l ~ .W = Jj
i:-. ~ -; :Z;:;'I-! ~ ~ .
i:-. c..~~>;..&~:S
i:-. <.>=
~ ~o i;.t.1
:: I GH Ei]@851 @~
.<
~, I
/. S- - >"2-
ATTACHMENT Vll:
(C) SP1\NISH LANDING:
(1) favored site - During the community meeting process,
spanish Landing was viewed as an ideal location for the
long-range development of a permanent Port District
Sculpture Garden.
(2) favored'sites - If commitment for a Sculpture Garden is
not forthcoming, then individual pieces could be located
throughout Spanish Landing.
(3) potential sites - The area visible travelling eastbound
North Harbor Drive prior to the airport exit is a
potential site for large installations.
D) S1\N DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: The airport provides
possibilities for artworks, treatments and exhibitions. The
District is currently developing a plan for renovation of the
existing facility which will be discussed by the Board of Port
Commissioners in the near future. Potential sites listed below
reflect the current state of the facility.
(1) Large grassy areas exist at the exit ramps to the airport
and from Harbor Island. Permanent artworks could be
considered.
(2) On the exterior of the East and West Terminal buildings,
surface treatments or two-dimensional pieces could be
placed above the entry doors.
(3) Within both terminals, several suspended pieces could be
considered if renovation designs serve to open these
"ireas.
(4) Interior walls to consider for two-dimensional
exhibitions are limited; the most favored area is in the
East Terminal by baggage claim (where the bust of Charles
Lindbergh currently is located).
(5) Additionally, in the East Terminal, the City of San Diego
Commission for Arts , Culture has presented a proposal
for a video kiosk in the baggage claim area promoting
region41 art and cultural events, plus providing support
literature. This will be, influenced by approval of
Airport refurbishment plans.
(6) In the West Terminal, the pedestrian bridge linking the
gates to baggage claim could be considered for permanent
installation of display cases (beneath existing windows)
to allow small scale artworks and moderately sized
paintings, prints or books to be displayed.
12
2S--:,.;,
ATTACHMENT 022'
(7) Also in the West Terminal, ceiling mounted pieces could
be considered above the escalators to the second level.
(8 )
The bronze statue of Charles Lindbergh as a
could be relocated to a more visible site.
a priority recommendation.
boy and a man
This is not
(E) CENTRE CITY EMBARCADERO:
(1) favored site - Redevelopment of the Cruise Ship Terminal
should include both internal spaces dedicated to art
placement and exterior sites at the entry to the pier and
at the public plaza areas.
(2) favored site - The renovated gallery space inside the
Cruise Ship Terminal. As expanded cruise ship terminal
planning progresses, the Board of Port Commissioners will
address the need and efficiency of having gallery space
and/or public art on display in the new terminal.
(3) favored site - Lane Field's future development should
address and include public art.
(4) potential sites - the area of Harbor Drive as it enters
the "crescent" to downtown offers several possibilities:
The intersection of Laurel and Harbor Drive
currently is home to a large white anchor. This
traffic island could be utilized for moderate to
large-scale or permanent art placement.
Looking southeast at that intersection, the
prominent "view" of the Solar site could be
enhanced by placing art treatments above the
fencing. The additional possibility of an 80 I
setback at this corner would broaden the art
potential.
On the waterfront side of Harbor Drive, surface
treatments could be considered to enhance the
pedestrian and bicycle paths.
(5) potential site - Artistic treatments or artwork placement
should be considered at the Broadway Pier in light of its
refurbishment and future siting for the Maritime Museum.
Additional possibilities could be a gateway or entry
treatment at the foot of the Pier.
( 6 ) potential sites - Grass and boardwalk areas, park benches
and walkways provide numerous possibilities for placement
of permanent artworks along the Embarcadero.
13
2c,--~'"
ATTACHMENT 023~
(F) EMBARCADERO MARINA PARKS:
(1) favored site - Several suggestions have been made for
interior exhibits of artworks at the Convention Center.
Local artists have already demonstrated, through
independent installations, that this has a high
probability for success.
(2) potential sites - The grassy areas at the. furthest
extensions of Marina Park are highly visible from the
water, the marina, the Convention Center and high rise
towers across Harbor Drive. Permanent works should be
considered.
(3) potential sites - On the southern peninsula where the
symphony Pop Concerts take place and at the public
gazebo, art treatments should be incorporated to make the
site more visually appealing.
(G) 10th AVE MARINE TERMINAL:
potential site An industrial area that poses an
artistic challenge to render the buildings more appealing
from the bay and Coronado perspectives.
(H) CROSBY STREET PARK:
potential site - Crosby Street Park may be viewed as the
natural extension of Chicano Park. Surface treatments
and permanent artworks could reflect this ethnic heritage
and become a prominent theme for the park's development.
14
2 S- - "?, <:;,-
IV
i ~
I '
I '
Z5""-~b
ATTACHMENT D24
o
Cl::
~
Q
<
U
Cl::
<
==
~
~
~
~
....
U
~
='
~
Z
~
U
-
TACHMENT D25 ~
"
"
CIl
Z '=.:
S E
~ i-. ...l
-.,,~<~ -.
:::::.~';;t;:l5; 0. U.g
o .~ ::: . . <<<
>.#~Ul.I ...3~ '-_0::;
~"'. 0. .",._ _~.
f-;:;~~ ;:l!'~~U.3~
::::: ~ < ::::: '" . ~;..... _ '" 0
<.... ... ~ .,".~ ',:'-
.:;; U .. ""..-;;-- _ Olli
;> << ~.u . .- , <<u _ _..
U ~- :3 : ~<<:':1.i5 :3 ~.3
:3 w] - .(.~=3~~.;; :.. '-'_
== .3 ~ :3 ~ ~ -; ~ t:. " < ::; -=-=<l.
::l .;; 15 :.. '-'-'- _,....., !:.;:!S.
.. gJ "'" -. I :::"11.-I1:7,\;..
- ..... rTI I ,. II. _
.....~ t=J... ~--
iCO "" I
~I
->!
'2,5"
.-
ATTACHMENT 026_
II. METHODS
The challenge for implementing public art projects is in the
selection of an appropriate methodology. Past agency models for
art administration relied heavily on competitions structured
according to building development requests for proposals (RFPs).
An individual artist was asked to fill an oversized mold where
bonding, insurance and contract licensing issues became hurdles in
the art process. Gradually, project managers and public artists
shattered the mold in favor of an integrated approach; one which
involved the artist at the various stages of conceptual design.
Public art programs throughout the country have docwnented the
success - on all levels including efficiency, economy and aesthetic
impact _ of a more proactive approach. Agencies now have a broader
"menu" of program methodologies from which to choose. This can
increase the success of implementation since process selection now
reflects the issues set forth by the project criteria. The primary
goal is to match a project to the best process or methodology.
Consideration must be given to the following questions:
1) How do you identify the "right" process?
2) Who should be involved in this process?
3) How will the identification of site be defined?
4) What type of artwork(s) or treatment(s) are to be
considered?
These are not easy questions to answer, particularly for a
public agency which exists to implement a broad mandate and serve
a diverse constituency. In an attempt to answer question number
(1), it is imperative that a Public Art Coordinator be engaged to
contribute expertise and guide the necessary internal and external
dialogue. The form of that requisite dialogue is shaped by the
styles of those involved: the order of business usually conducted
by the agency; the management approach by the art manager; and, in
the case of the Port District constituency, the "barometric
pressure" of the community.
15
'2S-- :,~
ATTACHMENT am:
The level of communication between the Public Art Coordinator,
other Port staff and the Board" is vital td developing a list of
program possibilities. Ideally, any program list should be
proactive in nature. various approaches can lead the Port District
on the way to answering questions numbered (2) and (3) above:
"Who's involved?" and "What is the site?"
This leaves the discussion regarding type of art yet to be
addressed. As stated in previous sections, the goal of the Public
Art Master Plan is to guide the development of the program leading
to the selection of art. Keeping in mind the great potential of
the District's public tidelands, the Port has the favorable
position of being able to pursue and ac~uire various types of art
works.
SAMPLE METHODOLOGIES
The key to art selection is in methodology. Several
programmatic approaches have been outlined below presenting the
following general information: II) Budget Range - reflecting an
average program budget including artists' fees, curatorial or jury
honorariums, transportation, shipping, insurance (where
appropriate), printing and promotion, and administrative support;
(2) Number of Artists - refe~s to the number of artists directly
funded by the program (should not be viewed as a fixed figure); (3)
Program Timeline - reflects the ideal minimum and maximum amount of
time to implement the program, from its initiation to final
completion; and (4) Implementation - lists the types of staff or
consultant support necessary to implement the proposed program.
This takes into consideration that several programs could be in
process at anyone time.
All final decisions regarding hiring consultants and approving
art selections shall be made by the Board of Port Commissioners.
This position reflects the legal mandate of the agency.
A. Permanent Acquisition: acqu~r~ng art as part of an agency's
"collection" can range from purChasing a painting or a major piece
of sculpture, to commissioning a new work. outlined below are
three ways to acquire public art:
I
(1) competition: may be a one stage or a multi-step process.
Administrative support and project timeline will be
impacted by the nature of the geographic area considered
in the proposal process.
(2) Invitation: use of arts professionals is key in
identifying artists to participate. The theme and/or
budget will direct artist selection. Generally will use
a multi-step process to accommodate the artists' design
phase.
16
2S--51
ATTACHMENT D28
(3) Direct commission: The acquisition is prompted by a
desire to have a specific artist's work in the District's
collection. The budget may be small to large which would
impact the support of local and emerging artists, as well
as those of international reputation.
Suggested Budget Range:
budget set according to
scope of process.and site
criteria
Number of Artists Involved:
as desired
Frojected Timeline:
1 - 3 years
Project support Required:
administrative support
for program coordination,
may utilize consultants
and/or curators in
conjunction with the
Board of Port
Commissioners
B. Exhibitions of Art at Public Facilities: Support can range
from exhibiting existing collections of art to curating new
exhibits. Artist's fees are usually overshadowed by the
combination of other costs including: curatorial fees,
transportation and shipping of artwork, in~tallation fees,
insurance and promotion. If a large-scale exhibition is curated by
the agency, documentation in the form of a gallery guide and/or
catalogue should be generated. However, the Board feels that if
any exhibitions are arranged in Port facilities,. they will be
modest, low cost grouping designs to give exposure to a special
group of artists or artisans with some direct connection to the
District's trust purposes.
Suggested Budget Range:
modest
Number of Artist Involved:
one to many
Projected Timeline:
short term
Project support Required::
administrative support
for coordination and
expertise
17
? 'J - +0
ATTACHMENT (029
III_
ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS
This section has been formatted to discuss key issues
identified in the master plan process and to make recommendations
in support of the port's public art program. Two basic tenets are
presented to contextualize the analysis of each issue:
l) There is no consensus on what is art or wha~ is its
ultimate purpose.
2) There is no consensus on what types of art are embraced
by all segments of a community.
ISSUE *1: What is Public Art? For the purpose of this document,
public art is considered in its most inclusive definition. This
encompasses, but is not limited to: two-dimensional art,
sculptural, functional, environmental, temporary installation,
placemaker, and design arts. Over the years public agencies have
expanded their definition from "art in public places" to embrace
art evolving from the collaboration or cooperation between an
artist and a defined community. Time has shown the varying levels
of success for each approach, with "success" being defined by a
personal or subjective opinion. Relative to the San Diego Port
Tidelands, the potential for types of public art are as broad as
one I s creative vision. The challenge for the agency and the region
is to be open to new and progressive 1efinitions of what public art
can be or accomplish.
RECOMMENDATION: The definitioh of public art should be left open,
inclusive and defined on a programmatic basis. This will allow
maximum responsiveness to the use of a site as identified by the
Port District, the tideland communities, and participating artists.
ISSUE 12: What is the first step the Port should take to initiate
public art programming? The Port District must hire or designate
a professional public art coordinator to initiate public art
programming. The immediate goal of the Public Art coordinator will
be to establish internal operating systems and operative community
relationships in support of acquisition methods. The coordinator
should be assisted by Port staff in planning, engineering, property
and community re1ations to facilitate public relations, project
development and financial management. The public art program's
staff resources should be established in accordance with a
facilitative organizational model.
18
""Z5"'-+/
ATTACHMENT D30
ISSUE *3: When and how should a program be developed? The initial
goals will be to confirm internal processes and procedures, to
develop a time line of evolving activities which will define the
public art program, and to identify project/program priorities.
Based on these priorities, program plans may then be developed to
discuss potential sites within the context of the project's
objectives. The Public Art Coordinator should facilitate an
implementation process which defines the readiness of tideland
areas and their respective communities, reflects the reQainessof
the Port to integrate the program into tidelands development, and
identifies professional and community resources in support of the
proposed program schedule. In-depth discussion with community
contacts should lead to a projected list of programs for approval
and funding by the Board of Port Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: The Public Art Coordinator should facilitate a
prioritization and internal review process which reflects current
possibilities. An accompanying budget and time line should also be
developed. Annually, this project list and accompanying budget
should then be integrated into the financial review process
conducted by the Port prior to the next fiscal year.
ISSUE 14: What guidelines should be considered 'for determining
expenditures for publiC art? The Port District is in a unique
position of having an established art fund to support its public
art program. Projected program budgets may easily range from
several thousand to several hundred thousand dollars. The program
or project budget could reflect payment of fees to artists and arts
professionals, artwork production and installation costs, and
insurance and lease fees for temporary installations or
exhibitions. However, the Board of Port Commissioners has
established the priority to be acquisition of existing artworks for
installation on appropriate sites identified in this Plan. The
program should also cover maintenance and refurbishment of existing
and future public artworks.
A fiscal strategy should be developed to project and guide the
expenditure of funds. This can be reflective of all programmatic
opportunities including proposed development projects and major
tourist events celebrated on the tidelands. There should be a
gradual progression and building of programs during the first 2 to
3 years. During this time, pilot projects can be funded with the
intention of their becoming annual, biennial or one-time programs.
Multi-phase, multi-year acquisition processes, which have a
substantial budget attached, should be staggered and could utilize
contract staff at ,various phases of their development.
Periodically the public art programming should be reviewed to
determine the progress of the public art program and to update the
Public Art Master Plan.
19
<.<:;--4"'L...
ATTACHMENT D31
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Port Commissioners should review and
discuss projected expenditures and program priorities.
ISSUE *5: What is the involvement of the Public? Generally, public
art agencies utilize community representatives, including arts
professionals, on advisory committees, site review committees,
proposal review processes, and art selection processes. If adopted
by the Port District, this proactive involvement wou;Ld allow
tidelands community representatives to play an active and
responsible role in selecting the art .nd reviewing its ultimate
impact on the site. In response to the master arts plan process,
the Port should further cultivate its relationships with key arts
and community groups. Appendix B illustrates the types and scope
of key contacts identified in the planning process. These
representatives have demonstrated their interest and commitment to
supporting public art programs in their area of the Port District.
Continued dialogue will clarify the appropriate roles and
relationships that will support successful implementation of public
art programs.
RECOMMENDATION: Through the Public Art Coordinator, the Port should
work with identified key contacts to establish ongoing working
relationships. Involvement by all participants should be proactive
wherever possible.
ISSUE *6: How should artists and arts professionals be utilized?
Beyond the expected involvement of artists to create public
art/artworks, they should also serve in other support capacities.
This may include acting as a ~onsultant to the Port District on
major development projects, as members of review and selection
panels, and as project curators and managers for temporary programs
such as installations or exhibitions in public buildings. Other
arts professionals representing the visual arts, art history,
design arts or cultural arts programs ~ay also be used in any of
the above roles.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Port District initiate
the management of their public art program under the guidance of a
Public Art Coordinator.
ISSUE 17: What is the level of involvement for local versus non-
local artists in the proqram? During the community meetings the
issue of focused support for local artists was emphasized. The
urgency of this issue reflects the historic lack of public art
opportunities available to regional artists.
20
1. S- -tl >
ATTACHMENT 032
RECOMMENDATION: The recommended approach is to develop program
opportunities open to a broad cross-section of visual artists. The
Port's public art program should be considered expansive and
inclusive, representing the best locally, nationally and
internationally. This approach could cross-over to all types of
programs including exhibi tions, installations, competitions, direct
acquisi tions and consulting roles. However, the Board of Port
Commissioners has identified the acquisition of existing artworks
as the first priority for the District to undertake.
ISSUE *8: How should the Port support cooperative and
collaborative proqramminq? By utilizing existing organizations and
committees as resources for the Port's program process, the
District opens the door to cooperative and collaborative
opportunities. The public art fund should be viewed as an enabling
resource - one which can initiate and/or stimulate larger public
art proj ects. Additionally, the Port should consider program
proposals from member cities and their agents as being reflective
of the constituent communi ties. These types of proposals or
program requests should assist the prioritization process for
project funding.
RECOMMENDATION: Through the course of working with key contacts in
the five member cities, and those representing interests in the
public tidelands, the Port District should continue to explore and
support innovative ways to cooperate and collaborate with other
organizations and/or agencies in placing public art on the
tidelands. This may include identifying matching funds or pooling
resources in support of a program.
21
"2. ')- - "" +-
ATTACHMENT !1).3ffi
IV_ SUMMARY
It is believed that good working plans are time. resource and
product specific. since the entire Public Art Program at the Port
is essentially restarting, much of the material in this document is
presented in the form of recommendations. However, recommendations
are not plans. By their very nature they can be individually
dismissed or categorically ignored.
The following pages present a 6-year survey of annual program
goals. This is one possible approach for translating the preceding
recommendations into something that can truly be called a Public
Art Master Plan. At this time, it can be used to project "musts"
and "shoulds" into real results. Detailed expense line items are
not presented in thi3 list, nor are multi-phased, multi-year
projects identified.
22
'2."--~~
ATTACHMENT :1l3.4
YEAR #:1.:
GOAL:
To revitalize the. Port District's Public Art Program thr'Jugh
the generation of appropriate Administrative Guidelines, and
development of an overall program implementation strategy.
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Develop specific program and acquisition str~tegy
including project priorities, timelines and budgets.
STAFF & COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
Utilize Public Art coordinator to manage the program and
establish program prioritization process.
Involve key community groups in strategy process through
meetings with Port representatives including Art Ad Hoc
committee members.
Make available other
engin~ering, financial,
support. {ONGOING}
Port staff as required for
community relations and clerical
23
""2 ,,- - +.b
ATTACHMENT ros
YEAR. *2:
GOAL:
Implement art acquisition programs and pilot projects in line
with approved program strategy.
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Begin time-phased art competitions for art placement
throughout the Port District.
Establish a biennial art purchase program to collect two-
dimensional art for public exhibition in Port-related
facilities. {ONGOING}
Facilitate dialogue with other public facilities on Port
tidelands (including: the Port Administration Building,
San Diego International Airport and/or the San Diego
Convention Center) in support of expanded exhibition
opportunities.
STAFF & COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
Public Art Coordinator continues program development.
work with representatives of key community groups to
serve on Art Project Committees for specific program
processes.
. Continue involvement of the Board of Port commissioners
for oversight and for participation in annual review and
budget recommendation process.
24
?c;-- 41
ATTACHMENT 'D36
YEAR #3:
GOAL:
To carryon multi-phase acquisition processes and an~lual
program schedule.
..
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Continue existing and initiate new art competitions and
acquisition processes throughout Port tidelands {ONGOING}
STAFF & COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
Continue work with community groups on Art Project
Committees, establishing new committees in response to
program implementation schedule.
25
?~- 4t
ATTACHMENT 037
YEAR #4:
GOAL:
Conduct review and analysis of impact of the public art
program, and update Public Art Master Plan.
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Initiate, facilitate and complete
processes for placement of permanent
treatments at public sites throughout
art competition
artworks and art
the tidelands.
Annual temporary installation program.
Facilitate art purchase strategy for expansion of Port
art collection.
Exhibitions in Port-related public facilities.
STAFF & COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
Secure the services of an outside arts consultant to
conduct a review of the public ~rt program to date, and
to update the Public Art Master Plan.
26
<..') -+1
ATTACHMENT D38
YEAR #5:
GOAL:
Continue established public art
consultant recommendations into the
Decrease art fund expenditures in
design competition in FY 97-98.
programs and integrate
Public Art Master Plan.
preparation for a major
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Complete final stages of art competition processes begun
in previous years.
Continue annual and biennial programs.
Review the role of the Port in facilitating art
exhibitions at port-related public facilities and
continue appropriate support.
STAFF & COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
Implement revised or new administrative recommendations
based on master plan update.
27
2S-S0
ATTACHMENT \D39'"
YEAR #6:
GOAL:
To continue es.tablisned programs, initiate a major,
international design competition to redesign a suitable area
of the public tidelands for renovation into a permanent Port
sculpture Garden. ...
PROGRAM POSSIBILITIES:
Develop guidelines and promotional stracegy for
initiating a design competition in support of
establishing a Port Sculpture Garden on public tidelands.
Begin Phase I of Design Competition for Port Sculpture
Garden.
continue implementation of established annual and
biennial public art programs.
Create a prioritized program list for future program
possibilities.
STAFF. &. COMMITTEE. SUPPORT:
Continue and/or revise the administrative support for
program implementation.
28
ZS--S-\
ATTACHMENT D40
v. APPENDICES
..
1.9
2.s--sz.
ATTACHMENT J)41
APPENDIX A.
ACTIVITIES OF PROGRAM STAFF
To assist the initiation of the recommendations contained
herein, the following scope of responsibilities are provided as
administrative input to the Port District.
PUBLIC ART COORDINATOR
Responsibilities and Duties:
Coordinate a series of meetings with community contacts
to create and prioritize a list of specific art projects,
and to develop a program implementation strategy.
Establish working
community groups
implementation.
relationships with appropriate key
for involvement in program
Develop appropriate methodologies, budgets and project
timelines to guide public art placement and acquisition.
Monitor progress of project implementation.
Prepare periodic reports to Board of Port Commissioners
not~ng progress of project development, identifying
issues and concerns for successful implementation, and
documenting program development.
Participate in a community relations effort to keep
interested ci tizens informed of t~e program's activities.
Assist in preparation of FY 93-94 budget projections.
Identify an internal mechanism for implementing .public
art programs.
Serve as a technical and legislative liaison to inter-
agency departments.
Prepare applications for pther government approvals as
required for specific programs or projects.
30
1S--53>
ATTACHMENT 042
APPENDIX B.
KEY CONTACTS
Below is a sample list of community groups identified through
the course of the public process. This list is not meant to be
exhaustive, but serves at this time to illustrate the types of
gLOUPS referred to in the Public Art Master Plan.
Greater Shelter Island Tenants Association
,
ci ty of San Diego Commission for Arts & Culture, and
their Art in Public Places committee
Centro Cultural de la Raza
Chicano Park Steering Committee
National City Bayfront Committee
Chula Vista Arts Commission
coronado Cays Homeowners Association
Coronado Performing Arts Foundation
Coronado Mainstreet
Combined Organization for the Visual Arts (COVA)
San Diego Sculptor's Guide
Port Tenants Association
.n
"2,S;-.s-4-
ATTACHMENT 043
APPENDIX C.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
At the beginning of the Public Art Master Plan process, the
Art Ad Hoc committee acknowledged the need to review and revise the
Board of Port Commissioner (BPC) Policy #609 - "InclusirJn of Major
Art in Waterfront Development."
12
?. ~ - f>"" S-
ATTACHMENT D44
APPENDIX D.
DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC INPUT
The following list represents the topics of discussion and
issue areas brought forward during the public meeting process.
A~ditionally, they reflect letters and unsolicited proposals
received by the Port District during the master plan process.
There must be continued involvement of representative
communities, including the public at large.
Any art selection process should identify a role for the
communities and arts professionals.
The Port District should pursue cormnunity and inter-
agency partnerships.
The approach to guide the expenditure of public art funds
should be broad and inclusive.
The public art program should include temporary art
installations.
The public art program should encourage and support
cultural events and festivals.
The Port should cultivate international and multicultural
programs.
. The 'public art program should make available a range of
opportunities for local artists.
The public art program should include support of artistic
treatments of "eyesores" and involvement in
beautification projects.
. The public art program should acknowledge the, unique
geography of the Port District and include water and
environmental treatments.
. The public art program should also attract works by
artists with international reputations.
I
33
"2.s--~b
ATTACHMENT 045
APPENDIX E.
DOCUMENTATION OF RESEARCH BY CONSULTANTS
The compilation of information representing the field of
public art was critical to review and analysis of the input
received during the master plan process. Listed below are programs
representing public agencies and private public ar~ programs
researched.
Arts Festival of Atlanta, Inc., Georgia
Carlsbad Arts office
City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs
City of Oakland Cultural Arts Division
City of San Diego Commission for Arts & Culture
Escondido Public Arts Committee
Laguna Beach Arts Commission
Long Beach Public corporation for the Arts
Los Angeles Arts Council
Los Angeles community Redevelopment Agency
Public Art Visions for Environment (PAVE), Los Angeles
Public Art Works, Marin County
. Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission
San Diego Office of the Architect
Santa Barbara County Arts Commission
. Santa Monica Arts Commission
Stuart Collection, University of California, San Diego
. The North Shore Arts Commission, North Vancouver, BC,
Canada
34
2:)-S;(
ATTACHMENT D46
>.PPENDIX F.
SELECTED BIBIOGRAPHY
ART OF CALIFORNIA. "Art in Public Places: Whaling Wall
XXXI." (September 1991)
. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. Washington, D.C.; Partners for
Livable Places, 1981.
ARTnews. "The Ecological Art Explosion." (summer 1991)
Berman, Avis. "Public Sculpture's New Look." ARTnews
(September 1991)
. Christensen, Judith. "The Stuart Collection." ART OF
CALIFORNIA (September 1991)
Cruikshank, Jeffry L., and Pam Korza, GOING PUBLIC: A
field Guide to Developments in Art in Public Places, Arts
Extension Service, 1988.
. CULTURAL PLANNING PROCESS, 1987 - 90. City of Oakland,
CA: cultural Arts Division.
Davies, Hugh M., Ronald J. Onorato and Sally Yard.
SITINGS. La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, 1986.
Fuller, Patricia. NEW WORKS: A Public Art Project
Planning Guide. North Carolina: Durham Arts Council,
1988.
GRANVILLE ISLAND - April 1986 Plan Update. Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada: Granville Island Office, 1986.
Hirschfield, Jim and Larry Rouch. ARTWORK/NEWWORK: A
Planning Study for Seattle: Art in the Civic Context.
Washington: Seat Arts Commission, 1984.
Holt Hinshaw Pfau Jones. "Case Study: The Astronauts
Memorial." Progressive Architecture (July 1991)
Keens Company. PUBLIC ART DIALOGUE = SOUTHEAST. North
Carolina: Durham Arts Council, 1989.
I
. Lineberry, Heather Sealy. "Christo: Returns to
California with The Umbrellas, Joint Project for Japan
and USA "ART OF CALIFORNIA (September 1991)
,,"
'"2'7-s-S"
..
ATTACHMENT D47
Lynch, Kevin and Donald Appleyard. TEMPORARY PARADISE? A
Look at the special Landscape of the San Diego Region.
San Diego, CA: City of San Diego Planning Departmeuc,
1974.
Preliminary Centre City San Diego Community Plan. San
Diego, CA: City of San Diego Planning Department, 1990.
SChwendenwien, Jude. "Breaking Ground: Art in the
Environment." SCULPTURE (September-October 1991)
Suter, Paul. "The Artist in the Development Process."
URBAN LAND (September 1991)
Sutton, Stan, Precontract Checklists for Use in the
Negotiation of corporate and Governmental Commissions of
Public Art. Arizona: School of Art at Arizona State
University, 1987, 1988.
VISUAL DALLAS: A Public Art Plan for the City. Dallas,
TX: Division of Cultural Affairs, 1987.
36
? ~ - s-1
1.';;( 1.1)( lIO J.L1b.LO ~ V..J r.ll-A. O.Ltl 0'00 1,)'*1,) I
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPC Policy No. 609
Page 1 of 9
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICf
ATTACHMENT El
SUllJECT;
PORT PUllLlC ART PROGRAM
PURPOSE:
To promote aesthetic enhancement of tideland development prqiec:ts.
ANALYSIS:
1. The vi5Ulll setting of the tidelands under the control of the Pon District is impOttalIt to both
viSitors and clllzens otthe San DleiO repoll who may depend upon the special and unique
characteristics of the Pan Di&trict tor their livelihood. eJ\ioyment and financial SIlCCCSS.
2!! . Tbe FoifDistrlctbas devoted a;\!1/lMSiiiif aniOimt of its fin.nr.isll resrnutES to the visual
and aesthetic betterment of the tidelands area.
3. The ;",1",""" of an in public ~ ~ tl1roullhoul the country has proven .........';.1
to the general citizewy, as well as to businesses and employees in the vicinity of such art
worlts.
,.;,
4. ESlllbUs"--nt of this Public Art Propam will p'oll1Ote the general welfare through
holAnm,g the Pan'. physical ~ and revitaliza'liOD and its cu1tumlallllarti!llic resources.
POlley STATEMENT:
ThIs policy shall become dIectlve upon adoption by the Board
1. TIle BoaI\1 of Pan C'omml.donerseach year shall set aside .37j (3/8) pell:eIU of the
District'. In'jecIed gross revenues for lbat year. For the JlU1POSC of this calc:ulatIoD. ptlS5
revenue 5ball1lOl includo anticipated grants from any SCIIIn:e. Such anIOUlll set astde 5ba1I
not be les.that $160,000.00 ammally. Such Dloney set aside shaIJ be expcIIlled for spec:Ific
'2.S--c.o
.1.~(.1.V(UO .LU..t:. .J..O;V':l: ['J~ l>.J..V r..>or..> v""'v.
>:7J./ ..'''.L~ ............. ~ '-"H.... ......',
Attachment to Agenda Item No_ 19
BPC Policy No. 609
P8El'20f9 ATTACHMENT E2
works of art or allocated to an art fund for the acquisition of art l\x' public areas within the
Pan District. Money so set aside may be ,,=ulaled for more than one (1) year.
2. Manies pJaced in the art fund shall be kepi separate from other ?on ImtriCl funds and any
earnings thereon shall accrue to the art fund Monies at::CIJThn1!l1ted iIt this fund shaJl1 at the
discretion ofth< Board. be made all8ilable for the acquisition , design, fabrication,
inslal1ation, improvement and lllllilltenance of artWorI< dUplayed on pan I.an<k.
ARTWO!lK;
10\' Arl-wor!q; 1lle dofined ilIlerms gf,t1t~~,ltts as disting";""'" from the performing 1U'ts,
media arts, llierary or cultural ans. The artwork 6houId be permanent ill nature and i"~al1e<l
ill public view. The selection of caoh wolk of an will be site specific and be selected based on
the cbaractcr and aestbctics of the landscape and aTchitecture of that site,
2. The materillllo be used!or fabdcalion oftbe wotksbal1 be ofa type .Ww{1l....te 10 the
theme or concept of the proposed artwolk and should respect the SUIIOIIIIdi.ng natural and
bUilding envtronments. The marerlal shaI1 be permanent ill nawre and require low
malntenanc::e. Accessories to !be anworl< (I.e. 1lgJulng). shaI1 not distract fiIlm the artwolk
or create glare for pusilIg drivers or~. All accessortes sball be durable and
require low mailltenance.
3 _ The Board recognize. that there may be occasion to have Ientporaty art, tempOrary exhibits,
or coDtrolled limited editions and !hi, section does not preclude consideration of such
proposals on an individual ba.Iis.
PUBLIC ART COMMrITEE;
An an advisory committee shall be established called the Public An Committee (PAC). The
collllllillee's task will be to JeView and =omm('fttl which projects fit within the mission of the Port's
<..S--(.\
L~/LU/~~ LU~ L~;UO ~ftA OL~ oeo O~Ol
~.l) LII'ILt"J.LlI rVL\.J. LJ'l'
~vv';&
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPe Policy No. 609
Pose 3 of9 ATTACHMENT E3
Public An Program and which projects will best achieve the projects own objective. The Board =gnizes
thaI this polley cannol contemplate aU the creative possibilities for an projects and il is the intent that this
committee provides for wide latitu<k in review of propooc<l artworks.
(a) The Committee shall be composed of _ell (7) membets consistiJIg of one IIle11lIXr
from each of the fIve member cities and two mentben at large.
(b) The coromittee serve. in an advisory capacity providing =mmelldatioll5 for art
placement and aesthetic opiniOIl to the District
(c) Memllersl1ip shall be made up of am; professionals and members or the community .
'T~ . '.'ArifjjrofeSSiOnals for these:jIuIilDses-;,re defined..: cwators: visual anisrs: an crIIIcs:
art historians; art collectors; art liIbricators, architects; Jandscape architects; an
educators: and other persons with vioua1 arts backgroundS, xesp!Cled in tbeir field and
willing loeng;age effectively in a panel proces'~
(d) It i, the Port', goal to allow as many qu:a1ified and willing individuals as possible an
oppommity to serve their COIIIDIIIDity.
(e) It is the desire tbat tenDS be limited so 11$ (1) to promote equal apporttmity to the
member$hip to serve in a leadership role; (2) to brinl a diver.le aesthetic; (3) to bring
diverse ethnic and cul1Ural perspectives to the program; (4) and to most precisely match
the project's program 10 the cxpcrtisc afthc pandists.
(f) The Public An Committee i$ cbargcd with the =ponsibility to:
1. Review anist proposals for pla=nent in lite Port', Public Art Collection, making
recommendations Ibr Iltbrication and aajUisition
2. S..... as a jury for anwOlI< competitions, ma!d.rll: recommendations of1lnali5ls to
the Board.
3~ Provide teclmical advisement to stalfthroughOut the CC)fI'm....on process
L..~-b7-
L~(LU(~biUb LO~VQ ~fi4 OiU 000 O~UI
OJ) L'niS;- ....L:o.LJ ~ v.n.'" .......n l
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPC Poliey No. 609
Page4af9 ATTACHMENT E4
TERMS:
1. Committee member$ shall serve for lhroe ycancmu. Said thrce-yau: terms sbalI COllUI1cncc:
October 1 oflhe year in which the a\lllOinlmentlrcappointmcnl is made. No member sba1l
serve for more than two, tlm:e-ycar lerms.
a. Sbould a committ~ vacancy oocur pri01IO the end of its scheduled tbree -year
teon. the Board sbaIl appoint a replaCement for the unexpiIed lero1.
.Appo\mmenl ~ to tbIs Sectlon shall DOt plllClude reappoiDtment for
twO run three-year r= sped1Ied In Section (1) above.
.. "If 'For.the illitia1 foriiilltJ01\"bf"ifie c<lmi:ninee. l!IllIlO JmVide for OlljlOiDg staggeIed
~. \ ,.
lerm!:, the oriEiMl seven-member committee at its fust meeting in 1996 shall
chaw lots to detennine two 110\$ 10 be :t<Iltilable for appoilllmt:ntlreappoinlmen1
in October 1997, two slots for 1998, allot tiu'ee slots for 1999. lberealler all
terms shaI1 be for tiu'ee years. The District Clerk sballltlllintain a r=mI of the
cumnt committee I)lembers ;mot their term expinuiollS.
c. The BoanI shall be promptly acM!ed of lIIIY vacanc;y llCClIIring so that the
apPo;"\l"o:nrIrca~tmcm can be timely madl:. Should tIw
appointment/reappointment not be made prior to October 1, 1l1e C1QSIillg
~ shall. hold over until such appoin1mcnlln:appoiDtment is made.
,
2. Additional, ad hoc, ex~ members may be appoimecl by 1hc Public An Coordinator,
should the situation !
3. The ClllDlinttee's pIlpose ~ to review proposals 10 detennine the feasibility, practicality
and the aesthetic valoe Of anworl< to be lnOluded In Port projects, and to prepare a
recom.....nd"'" art acquisiti~ and p1acemetl1 program l!IllI otberwise 10 advise the Board
as maybe reqUired..
4. Committee members shall teteive DO compensation fur their services.
"2.S--b~
~~r~Ur~O ~u~ LO;UO rna VLV VOV u~u,
~J.I l'I.l.l"".l.J:o.LI L V.,l\..L ........,
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPC Polley No. 609
Page5of9 ATTACHMENT E5
... a result of their puticipati in a i:ommittee project. Committee members mtI5t
, J
: . ~ projects where such C01l1Iict exists.
,
6. Committee members shall be required to file StatemenlS ofEo>nomic bItateSl J'IIISII'UIt
to the Boanl's adopted Co1llIict ofJ$rest Code.
a coDllict of interest when monetary pin cculd occur
5. Committee membet$ must
7. Meelings of the Public Art Committee shall be noticed and held in pJaces reasonably
convenient to the public. Minutes oftbc mcctiJq;J shall be jl>c:pa..td.
8. The Commillee is advisoty in tIlItUrC and shall have no lltIlhotity to IICgotia1c for or
commit the Port gf Baa o;e,in any~'.
-',\:: 9:' 'lbr='BlRnccs in any twcltel\:oom!rperiod.constiIute auwmatic tesignati<>n from the
commlllee.
10. A cItaUpenOll and vicc-cbalrpersoo will be eIcc::ted at the IIrst m=t1lIg by the
,
lllCtnbership of the eatlllDitte:",for 8 one-year letm.
J.~:.1
ARTIST SELECTION:
.~.~. .
Anist chosen by the Committee shall be active ~ wb<> are =guizecI in lIIeir field, eit:ller locally,
regiot>all.y, nationally, or intetnatioll8lly. He/sit!' may be required to plOVide the committee with
refinnces relative to their work. CgllUlliEsio~llllwotk shall be lItIbject to the attist entering a eantrad:
with the Port.
11:
Axtists can be ...,...."''Id tbtough the lbIlowing .ll>(;Ilo<Jdo:
1. Mailing List: To teceive notifu;atjon of new public art projects, artists may send their name,
mailing addxess, and an indicalion o(the ~...t;nm in ",bk:h they wotk to the PIIblic Art
Coordinator. Notillc!; of new proj~ and application requimDelItS will be 1II8i1ed as
appropriate.
2. ~ -6 4-
J.kfJ.Vfl'Q .l.U.l:J J..V,VU rl:u'>. \1.1.'" \10U V,*Uj
~lJ L'n...~. ............. ,L VH.L ........,
"t:;J VV.
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPC Policy No. 609
Page 6 of9 ATTACHMENT E6
2. Prel;s Announcements: Open c:ompetitioos for public art ptojec<< may be advertised in local
arts media, and may be annOWK>ld to local. regionaI, and natiODal arts organizatio.... college
and univemty art departnlellts, galleries, ll!ld museums
3. Advertisements in Art Mapzines
4. Art AgenU
S. Referrals from the local professional community
ARTWORK LOCATION:
Anwort: shall be located in an area specifically designated for SlId pIIIpOSC. 1"_nAtinn of the artwork
sIlaJl be PJaDlle4.and'lil!plemeiited to ""h.n....1\lii1WOlk.and allow for UIll)bstructed ""bIic viewiDg from ..
many pointS of view as posSIble. Poremlal obstrucIIon of crowiD; tn:es, sbru\:tJeIy, or funm: oonslnll;tion
shall be taken into account. The artwork shall be a permanem, fixed IlSl<:l: to 1he properly.
ARTWORK IDENTIFICATION;
Each artwork shall be icleDIified by . plaque staling Ibe artiot's name, artwotlc ti1Ie, the names of Port
Commissioner$, and Ibe <late the artwork was dedicated. The plaque will be placed in an appropriate
location near the artwork that can be easily ~sed by pedestrians.
ARTWORK SELECTION:
The poblic an commi11cc recommends works of art to!: the Port based on artistic merit and !be
appropriateness of the artwork to tbe site where it is ~ be 10<i\ted. The selection of ar1istJI and artwork is
Z
based 011 the following cliteria: II
1. Artistic "",.,,11....= and innovation;
"
. 2.' Appropriateness at the artwolk to the ~sitc in llmD& of r;cale, form, conteIIt, and
matetlal!;;
,
1
"
3. Safety of tlle artwork
:Iv
,Ie
~
t "Z '5> - b S-
~~(~V(~V ~u~ ~v.V'
Attachment to Agenda Item No. 19
BPI: Policy No. 609
Plige7of9 ATTACHMENT E7
4. Dunbility of the anwOIk relative to theft, vandalism. and the euvironment;
S. Demonsllated. community ~
6. Publicly visible
7. Publicly """"...ble
8. Accurate budget
9. Shalt and long term ~tenan<:C a.ad CODSClVation n:quircmI:nIs are dcliDed
10. Maintains a variety of style, medium. size, and type for Port collcctioo
11. Ability of the artist to work closely and compatibly with the prqject arcl1ltects(s), engi=rs.
.' ,I .._....
c' , ,. cominiSSionS; coJiJlllitlees. Polt'llaff)_comrn;,h;ty mcmbcrs;
12. Selection of the artwork is subject 10 the aniSl(s) c:ompleting a contract as set furth by the
Port Anomey.
ARTWORK. ACQUISmON,
~e1.::, .
Artwork may be aa:jlIired in the following !IllIIIIIer.
1. Open Competition
2. Limited Competition
3. Invitation
4. Direcl PuJohase
,o.:~
,'ii:;~': ,
dc;
PROJECT 1NITlATION,
II'J:',
There are two 1OlI}'S that projects can be initiatct %tpe Port through it's staff or the Public Art
Commiuec, aid through a lequest!tom a lDember City. Community initiata1 proposals JDDSt first sed<: .
recommendation of approval from the City ofjnri&diclion.
2s--c'b
12/10/96 TUE 16:0~ ~AA ijl~ ij~ij 0401
~u UNl~lbU ~UKl bNY
~vvu
Attachment to Agenda Item
BPC PoIlcy No. 609
Page6of9
No. 19
ATTACHMENT E8
PllOCEDURE:
I. The following procedures shall bo followed for ~Iusion of an in new exmstnlClion projects
undertaken by the District:
a. Aller selection by the Board of the ArchileCt lbr !be project. the Project Arcbitect shall early
in the design program. prepare a report suggesting appropriate localion(s), if "'y, within the
project fbr inolusion of art. The report shall be submitted to !be Publio An Coordinator as
early as possible in the design oftbc project.
. b: "The Pu1:lIlc Art Cdmmiuee slWl1jlrQftijll1y. considCr till: report and recom""",d approval,
rejectioo or amenclmen1 to the an;hItccl's IeCOII1Il1cudauoDS.
c. Upon receipt oftbe Committee's reoommena&llons. till: Board shall ~ ~ or IJIDCIId
the rect\mmPnrt.tions. The Architect and Port SIaff sbaJl tben proceed to c:any out Ibe
Board', directiOD during the """'"" of till: Port project developments.
2. The Board """'gnizes that in a<idition to incltl!i.~ of art in new District CQl1IlrUCtion proj<x:ts, there are
public pla= within the District', jurisdiction appropriate for the location of sigoifical1t wom of art. The
follOlYing procedure, shsll be followed in the designation of Biles for public art and for the acquisition of
AW'Upo.iate art works.
a. ElIch year as -part ..tbe budget process, the Public Art CollllIlittee will present the
Bow wilb an AnouaI Acquisitinn Plan fbr its consideflltion for inclusion in till: allDual
ballget. The progIlllll shall include reoomm-~.rions JCgar<!ing me., costs, selection
processes, ~ priorities, ami ether pertinent informalion.
b. 1be PublIc Art Camminee will r=ivc City initiatec1 proposals each Fcbrwuy for review for
inclusion in the 'Annual AcquIsition Plan.
2.l)-(;7
.1.'::;,.LlJ,UQ ~L'.r.:. l.U.lJO r~ VJ..<> vvv ""0<'"
Attachment to Agenda Item
BPC Policy No. 609
Page 9 <lf9
No. 19
ATTACHMENT E9
c. PrlO1' to making its rec:ommetI<lllliom to the Boord. the PAC. early in its site se1ection
process, shall confe.r with the Executive Director to insute that the silC$ under consiclcnUion
are compatible with soils. opcr.IIiom :md logistical requiretlIenlS, redevelopmellt plans,
utility line5, and supervening ~glll~riO"., and future pl.nn;'1g for the lIIC8.
RBSOLtmON NUMBER AND DATE:
24 Seplem.ber 1996 (S\oj)cucdc:s BPC Policy 609. Resolution N....
82-343 and 86';;3 and 86-234 )
':." In ,-... r ~Q.~
SIl U!,.!P1]:~. r".,.t
2.~-~'i1
=
l.L.
....
Z
r.:I
~
U
<
....
....
<: .
\C
""
....
'"
'f
<:
It)
""
....
'"
z 'E
0 <
.....
....
<:
;J
...l
< ..,.
~ ""
....
'"
.... 'f
'"
..... <
i:;;
<
....
u '"
r.:I
a ""
....
'"
rt: .~
~ 1::
.... <
rt:
<
....
rt: ~
0
~ ....
'"
'E
<
.....
""
....
'"
'E
<
..
'C
'"
....
'C
U
'"
0::
.S
'" 'iij
.~ "i)
Vlrt:
,S!
'iij
- ~
'" '"
a b'o
~ 8
....'"
l:i
,~ a
'" ....
'" 0
o~
- "
'" "
0; c-
.- .-
.... 0::
" -
cau
::E~
- '"
'" "
c"E..
" ,~
a g
" ,~
- ....
w'"
'"
- 0::
'0 0
0:: .-
" ~
o ~
....<;::
.... 00._
.~ ~ "';
~ u "
<iBO'
"
g
'"
0::
"
~
0::
';
::E
.E-
0;
"
0'
Co
u:.=
:'=:.0
.D '"
::l .~
"'...l
>.
.,.
'"
....
"
>
is
"
>-
c;:;
'"2.5 - 6 ~
ATTACHMENT G
1UWD lE1f4fN
1051 J.CNn:CI70 W'.Y
RMUiA, C'A 92065
(619) 788-0934
BlCUW'HY
Born:
San Diego. California
Educat ion:
The unique style of Ronald Jenmyn is the result-of 20
years of independent study that has taken him as a
yoW1g child. fran creating sculpture in his father's
garage to the great nuselll1S and studios of Italy,
Spain, Greece, Switzerland. Genmny, Mexico. Canada
and the United States.
EXHIBITICWS
_ The Paladion, International Art Erhibition San Diego, C'A 1994
_ Perry House Galleries. Old Alexandria, VA 1993-current
_ Shidoni lA.Ltdoor Sculpture Garden and Contenporary Gallery, Santa Fe,
NM 1992-current.
_ Sho-en lA.Ltdoor Sculpture Garden. Ramona, C'A 1991-1994
_ Glez-Harkens Gallery, Palm Dessert, C'A 1993-current
_ Herr- Olanblis Fine Arts, Hot Springs, AK 1992-O..Lrrent
- Riggs Gallery, La Jolla. C'A 1993
- "B" Street Gallery, San Diego, C'A 1992
~TE ayrFfTICWS
_ West Valley Financial Managerrent, La Jolla. C'A
_ Ei1p layers Fi rs t Insurance Coop any . San Di ego, C'A
PRIVATE ay r FfTICWS
- P.N. Vardinoyannis, Washington, IX
- Dorothy Kidder, Washinton, DC
- Walter Haynes, Bethesda, MD
_ Dr. George Boone, San Marino, C'A MenDer of L.A County Art t.tLseum Board
of Trustees
- John McGinnis, Del Mar, C'A
- Harry Olakins, La Mesa, C'A
- Yvette Farris, Bonita. C'A
- Marlyn Olase, Tarzana, C'A
- Ting Shoo Kuang, San Francisco, . C'A
.- Dr. Dense Enri, Bakersfield. C'A
- Paul Kelly, San Diego, C'A
- Peter & Judy Corrente, La Jolla, C'A
- Nata lie SIli th, Rarona, C'A
- Gail Mi ller, Spring Valley, C'A
- Robin Webster, San Diego, C'A
- Robert Mortin. San Diego, C'A
- Mr. & Mrs. Phillion, La Jolla, C'A
- Rrobert Martin, La Jolla, C'A
- Roberto Schroder, Coronado, C'A
-z. S- - 10
~
. IS r
"'JI$ H
I
~ I
II
'",
.
..
-;
-
.5
!
i
,
,
I
i
!
j
i
i
!
;
:
i
i
j
i
\
".
....
",
i
i
\
\
\
\
i
\,
\\
11111111111
, i
~I
~I
<
=-
-<,
;Z
l-li
~
-<
~
<
E-
~
'"'"'"
>
<
~
~
::
u
\1111~llll
...
;
'"
Ii
~
.
c:
'C
2
"
z
l2 0 !3
5
!5 1 a I f=
Iir;l ::3
t .1 c=: ! ilf -
t.l t.l 'i
I:l ::
....., , ~ 11 c=: t I II i .1 ~
t.l t.l :; ...
1# uopdO ::3 II!!' Ii - "'Z
;; II ..l
= = 1 J
1::l;.QS ...:I.. JO 100.:1 i: .!l :l ! .lil1 i! :l A:!
'" '"
~ i'O ~;QlJ.B)@ES ~~
..
"':;!
1!11I111I11H1I1H!1I111111111H III IIIHIH!HHIHlHIII!HII
.
"2..5 - ((
1,frd~
December 12, 1996
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council ~; \){\
John D. Goss, City Manager0G IY-O ~\ \
City Council Meeting of December 17, 1996
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, December 17, 1996. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
Sa. 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 December 10, 1996, there were no
reportable actions which are required to be reported under the Brown Act.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
Sb. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT JOHN STOKES' RESIGNATION FROM THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY
CLERK 1\1: DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY
ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
JDG:mab
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIsr
PUBLIC HEARl~pATE: , , /~/; ~/7 tf, ,,) 1
SUBJECT: ~&?' <? /p-;0/~.i-4T ~>J~A~
LOCATION: ?~~?} Y /M---'T: fPc /,-27 &~~ a:~<_-z- 4: ~~
f5" z:; l<<~~V-';J ,(f(?v-c:/ C/ V
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION u BY FAX J:P/1ItB~ HAND_; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE / -2/ 7/7'~
/ /
.-
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
~
NO. MAILED
PER GC !i54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
/2/:kh~.
/ /
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
Administration (4)
/
COPIES TO:
-----
Planning
-
Originating Department
v
Engineering
Others
------
/
/ do,) 11 J'~
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
.55.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Consideration of establishing Underground Utility District No. 127 along Palomar
Street from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard. For further information call Mario
Ingrasci, Assistant Civil Engineer, at 691-5021.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
December 17, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: December 4,1996