HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1997/02/04
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
4:00 p.m.
"1 declare under pe':l3~t'! 0-1 perjury that I am
em,loved f)'} the '.~'; ': .::f C:,-;u' ,'." on in~',;:e
ornee cf.~t,~J C i :'!\ "- j
tllis ~;~!i ,;~-,'.' '_::-; " ,~ ": ,;i ;>",>"j :::t .
t."e "!j"'~~'__ "',_,-.,.'".--,<, ,..~1' !';~':'. "';.'-"'~ lr'!''''l H~1 nil CouncIl Chambers
.. ,".,.; j,..... ,;~..~ ,h.."",-, ;..~ . .' < _, ;..1 . ',., ..." ,. "..' . ...-, ,..
DIHED,_I::Iv :JZ- S:C"E"_lf~ .., Public Services Building
Rel!Ular Meetine of the Citv of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Moot _, Padi\1a _' Rindone _, Salas _' and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3.
APPROVAL OF MINlJ1:.ES:
January 28, 1997
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None.
***"''''
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 9)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items Usted 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. 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 knowledge from observance of
actions taken in Closed Session on 1/28/97, that there were no reportable actions which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported. It is recommended that the letter be received
and filed.
b. Resignation from the Economic Development Commission - Edward Martija. 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.
Agenda
-2-
February 4, 1997
6. ORDINANCE 2697 AMENDING SECTION 2.04.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO TIME AND PLACE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS {fu:S
readin"l - Cnuncil requested that the City Attorney bring back an ordinance
amending the Municipal Code to allnw for the spring Council break tn be moved
from the Tuesday before Easter to the Tuesday after Easter. In addition, last
year Council cancelled the meeting following Labor Day, and there has been a
request to do this again this year. Since the Labor Day holiday is always a
three-day weekend signalling the end of summer, it is probably appropriate to
include cancellation of this meeting in the ordinance as well. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney) .
7. RESOLUTION 18568 APPROVING THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS OF
THE CffiJLA VISTA INTERNATIONAL SISTER CITIES FOUNDATION,
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ASSIST WITH FILING OF THE
ARTICLES AND OBTAINING TAX-EXEMPT STATUS FOR THE
FOUNDATION - In accordance with Council Policy 110-12, the International
Friendship Commission enlisted staff assistance in forming such an organization,
the Chuta Vista International Sister Cities Foundation. The Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws for the Foundation have been drafted and are ready
for filing. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney and
Fire Chief)
8. RESOLUTION 18569 APPROVING THE PRIORITIES, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES FOR
THE 1997/98 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM - In order to facilitate the upcoming CDBG application process,
staff is recommending, based on Council direction, that: (1) Chula Vista based
organizations serving local residents receive priority funding; (2) Highest
priority should be given to organizations who do not become dependent upon
continued funding from the City; and, (3) Organizations are encouraged to form
collaboratives. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Community Development)
9. RESOLUTION 18561 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF THREE POLICE MOTORCYCLES - The fiscal year
1996/97 equipment replacement budget provides for the purchase of three
replacement motorcycles for the Police Department. On 11/6/96, bids were
opened and the lowest responsible bidder was Pomona Valley Kawasaki with a
unit price of $8,419. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 1/28/97.
ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR AND/OR JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
. . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · · ·
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
CouncU's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City CouncU from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the CouncU on such a subject, please complete a "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.
Agenda
-3-
February 4, 1997
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.
10.
PUBLIC HEARING
A.
ORDINANCE 2695
B.
ORDINANCE 2696
II.
PUBLIC HEARING
ADOPfING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND BALDWIN
BUILDERS _ On 6/25/96, the Planning Commission met jointly with Council
to consider and approve pre-annexation development agreements with the major
property owners of Olay Ranch. When the development agreements were
originally approved, it was anticipated that the Olay Ranch annexation would be
finalized by the end of 1996. The development agreements conlained 12/31/96
expiration dates if the annexation was not complete by that time. While the
reorganization was ordered by Council on 12/17/96, a Local Agency Formation
Commission annexation condition was not met, the annexation was not
completed, and the agreements have expired. Staff recommends Council place
the ordinances on first reading. (Deputy City Manager Krempl and Special
Planning Projects Manager, Olay Ranch) Continued from the meeting of
1/14/97.
ADOPfING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED PRE-
ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH OT A Y RANCH,
L.P., A CALIFORNIA LlMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT, A. CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (first
readinl!) .,' " .
ADOPfING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH PRE-
ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BALDWIN
BUILDERS (first readiRl!) /
PCS 96-04: CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINDER PORTION OF
PHASE 2A AND 5 OF VILLAGE FIVE OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA
ONE, TRACT 96-04, CONSISTING OF 262 SINGLE-F AMIL Y LOTS AND
265 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON 148.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN FUTURE LA
MEDIA ROAD AND THE FUTURE SR-125 ALIGNMENT - On 11/19/96,
Council approved Village One and Phase IA and a portion of Phase 2A of
Village Five of the Olay Ranch SPA One, Tract 96-04. The remaining 148.6
acres io Phase 2A and 5 of Village Five were continued to 117/97 because they
are located adjacent to land owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF). The
purpose of the continuance was to allow Village Development and WCLF the
opportunity to meet together with City slaff to resolve any issues that WCLF
might have with this portion of the SPA One Plan. Additional time is still
required to resolve outstanding issues with WCLF. Staff recommends the
public heariRl! be continued to the meetiRl! of 3/4/97. (Special Planning
Projects Manager, Olay Ranch) Continued from the meeting of 1/7/97.
Agenda
-4-
February 4, 1997
12.
PUBLIC HEARING
PCM-97-01: AMENDMENTS TO RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS TO ALLOW A 58 DWELLING UNIT DENSITY
TRANSFER FROM PARCEL R-7C TO PARCEL R-6 AND CHANGE THE
DENSITY RANGE AND PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
OF BOTH PARCELS ACCORDINGLY
PCS-97-01: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP KNOWN AS RANCHO
DEL REY SPA ill TRACT 97-01 FOR 25.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF EAST "J" STREET BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO
AND VAQUERO COURT WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill
PLANNED COMMUNITY
DRC-97-01: APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
DECISION TO DENY THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE OF A 256
DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT THE TENTATIVE
SUBDMSION MAP SITE - Consideration of applications filed by Rancho del
Rey Investors, L.P. for 28.8 acres located on the south side of East "J" Street
between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court within the Rancho del Rey SPA III
Planned Community. An appeal of the Design Review Conunittee's decision to
deny the site plan and architectural proposal of a 256 unit condominium complex
to be located on the Tentative Subdivision Map site has also been filed. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 18570 DENYING AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO ALLOW A 58 UNIT DENSITY TRANSFER
FROM PARCEL R-7C TO PARCEL R-6 (PCM-96-01); DENYING
TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR 25.8 ACRES AT RANCHO DEL
REY SPA ill, TRACT 97-01 (PCS-97-01); AND DENYING AN APPEAL
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY THE
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ON 15.2 ACRES OF THE SUBJECT SITE (DRC-97-01)
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 will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations 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.
13. RESOLUTION 18571 AMENDING CITY INVESTMENT POLICY ANDGUIDELINES-TheCity
has an existing Investment Policy and Guidelines to ensure the prudent
management of idle cash. It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution
amending the Policy and Guidelines to add clarity and to bring the City's Policy
more in line with recently adopted state legislation following the Orange County
bankruptcy. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Finance)
Agenda
-5-
February 4, 1997
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City CouncU will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Counci/members.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT IS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTIS)
a. Ratification of appointments: Child Care Commission - Sylvia Cunningham (to fill vacancy created
by resignation of Commissioner Gish, whose term expires 6/30/97); and, Housing Advisory
Commission - M. Theresa Ahamed (to fill vacancy created by resignation of Commissioner
Massey. whose term expires 6/30/97).
b. Reconsideration of all-way stop signs on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive
at Creekwood Way.
c. City Council committee assignments.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regnlar City Council meeting on February 11, 1997
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
"\ declare under penalty of perjury that I am
em:>loyed by the r,ity of Chuia \liata in the
Office of the City Clark amf t, ",t I""si,ed
this AgenJafNo-;Jce un ~he E:h.liHetln 80ard at .
Tuesday, February 4, 1997 the ?"hlte er Ices llu,I,'imi 8nd at Ci~ Hall on Councll Chambers
4:00 p.m. OA I EO, I .J I f2 SIGNED C ~ - -Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Council 1 g - E:Y- # --
Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
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 ndvised 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 reporls of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reporls of final action taken, and adjournment wiU not be videotaped. Neverlhekss, the reporl
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office.
\. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
. Claim of Amy Wolfe.
. Claim of Steve Griffin.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAPF. 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 (IAPF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
~u~
:Jth ~
~....-::~~
~....."'-......
"""-::...~.....
OlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
January 29, 1997
From:
The Honorable Mayor and city council /'
John M. Kaheny, city AttorneY~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 1/22/97
To:
Re:
The city council met in Closed Session to discuss the claims of Amy
Wolfe and Steve Griffin 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: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.no
.-/
.!;Ja-<j
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691,5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
'1':/r Pm~RliqdiIdP....
January 29, 1997
TO: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
FROM: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and Council j!l
SUBJECT: RESIGNATION FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
This is to inform you that Edward Martija has verbally resigned from the Economic
Development Commission. Please place this item on the next available agenda to
allow the City Council to formally accept his resignation.
ab
cc: Cheryl Dye
S/:;-j
council Agenda statement
Item:
?
Submitted by:
Meeting Date: February 4, 1997
Ordinance ~,~ Amending section 2.04.020 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code Relating to Time and
Place of Council Meetings
John M. Kaheny, City~~
4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
Referral No. 3002
Item Title:
In accordance with council Referral No. 3002, Councilman Rindone
requested that the city Attorney bring back an ordinance amending
the Municipal Code to allow for the spring council break to be
moved from the Tuesday before Easter to the Tuesday after Easter.
In addition, last year the Council cancelled the meeting
following Labor Day, and there has been a request to do this
again this year. since the Labor Day holiday is always a three-
day weekend signalling the end of summer, it is probably
appropriate to include cancellation of this meeting in the
ordinance as well.
The city Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance for council
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That council place the ordinance on first reading.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
c:\a113\204020
~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 7
Meeting Date: 2/4/97
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution ) g' ~ ~pprOVing the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
Chula Vista International Sister Cities Foundation, and Directing Staff to Assist
with Filing of the Articles and Obtaining Tax-Exempt Status for the Foundation.
City Attorney~~
Fire Chief 9''''''r r-
City Ma",ge~~6 ~ (415ths Vole, Vss_Nol[J
In accordance with Council Policy 110-12 (Use and SDonsorshiD of Non-Drom Oraanizations in
Re/ationshiD to the Boards and Commissions of the City), the International Friendship Commission
enlisted Staff assistance in forming the Chula Vista International Sister Cities Foundation. The
articles of incorporation and bylaws for the Foundation have been drafted and are ready for filing.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the Foundation's Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws and direct staff to assist with the filing of same to obtain tax-exempt status.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The International Friendship Commission recommends that
Council approve the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws as submitted and provide staff assistance
to complete the filing and obtain tax-exempt status for the Foundation.
DISCUSSION:
In October of 1995, the City Attorney responded to Council Referral No. 2967 which directed that
staff assist the International Friendship Commission (IFC) in forming a non-profit entity to support the
international goodwill efforts between the City and selected cities in other countries. In the City
Attorney's report (Attachment 'A'), there were enumerated various advantages for the formation of
such an entity, including fund raising facilitation, tax deductible status of donations, volunteer
attraction, corporate flexibility, and the entity's purity of purpose. While there were also identified a
number of potential concerns for the formation of a non-profit organization for these purposes, the
result was Council approval of Council Policy 110-12, Use and SDonsorshiD of Non-profit
Organizations in Re/ationshiD to the Boards and Commissions of the City (Attachment 'B') which
provides guidelines for considering the potential formation of non-profit organizations on a case-by-
case basis. Following the Council's direction, staff provided guidance in the drafting of the articles
of incorporation and bylaws for the new foundation for the IFC.
The finalized Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Attachments 'C' and 'D', respectively) for the Chula
Vista International Sister Cities Foundation were drafted directly from the "checklist" of items
contained in the Council Policy and comply with each of the conditions of formation required by the
Council. The Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws set forth the nature and purpose of the
organization, the mission statement, limitations of the powers of the corporation, membership, board
of directors composition, election of officers, amendment procedures, and dissolution procedures.
7/)
Item: 7
Meeting Date: 2/4/97
Page: 2
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this action involves the filing of specific forms with the IRS, the
Secretary of State, and the Franchise Tax Board, estimated at approximately $400 and to be paid by
one of the private organizing affiliates of the proposed foundation. There is no fiscal impact to the
City other than staff time required of the City Attorney's Office estimated at 15 to 20 hours to finalize
corporate and tax-exempt filings, and 5 to 10 hours thereafter on an annual basis to provide general
advice and assistance. The formation of the Foundation is intended to supplement the operational
and fund raising efforts of the International Friendship Commission, thereby creating the potential for
a positive fiscal impact on the General Fund support of the Commission's activities.
7~c2
RESOLUTION NO.
/%s?'6'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS OF THE CHULA VISTA
INTERNATIONAL SISTER CITIES FOUNDATION, AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO ASSIST WITH FILING OF THE
ARTICLES AND OBTAINING TAX-EXEMPT STATUS FOR
THE FOUNDATION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Council pOlicy 110-12 (Use
and SPonsorship of Non-profit oraanizations in Relationship to the
Boards and commissions of the city), the International Friendship
Commission enlisted Staff assistance in forming such an
organization, the Chula vista International sister cities
Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the articles of incorporation and bylaws for the
Foundation have been drafted and are ready for filing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws of the Chula vista International sister
cities Foundation, and directs Staff to assist with filing of the
Articles and obtaining tax-exempt status for the Foundation.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James B. Hardiman
Fire Chief
c: \ res\ sister. cty
7-3/7-2/
~
COUNCIL AGEfI.'DA STATEMENT
Item:~
SUBlVIITTED BY:
Meeting Date: Octobrr 24, 1995
Resolution: / U g-t? Approving Council policy regarding the use
and sponsorship of non-profit organizations in relationship to the
Boards & Commissions system of the City.
City Attorney ~ ~
Deputy City Manager Thomson J
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
Council Referral No. 2967
On June 6, 1995, in response to a request from the International Friendship Commission (IFC)
for staff assistance to form a non-profit corporation to supplement the activities of the IFC, the
Council directed staff to review the IFC's request as well as several concerns expressed by the
City Attorney and make a report bad: with staffs recommendation. This report is intended to
respond to that referral with analysis and recommendations. In addition, this report addresses
the related issue of making the Police Activities League (PAL) a non-profit corporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt the resolution approving a Council policy regarding the use of non-profit
organizations in relationship to the Boards and Commissions system of the City.
2. Direct staff and the City Attorney to work with the International Friendship Commission
in drafting Articles ofIncorporation and By-Laws, that include conditions similar to L"ose
described on page 11 of this report, and bring back a proposed structure for a non-profit
to supplement the IFC for Council review.
3. Conceptually approve the attached draft Articles of Incorporation and By Laws for the
Police Activities League and authorize the Chief of Police and City Attorney to fmalize
and submit them to the appropriate state agencies for processing the PAL incorporation
as a nQn-profit.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The recommended policy potentially affects the boards and commissions generally, but the IFC
and PAL are the- most immediately affected. An earlier draft report prepared by the City
Attorney was sent to the IFC as the proponents of a non-profit, and the City Attorney met with
the IFC on June 26, 1995 to discuss that draft report (see Attachment C for their minutes). The
IFC did not reach any formal conclusion on the potential limitations discussed by the City
Al..orney at that meeting for the formation of a non-profit, and instead appointed Larry
-'
;yr 7-1
ATTACHMENT "A"
/
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 2
Breitfelder as the Chair of a one-person IFC committee to discuss the issue further with staff and
present the IFC's views to the City Council. Staff reviewed a draft of this report with Mr.
Breitfelder, who is now the Chair of the IFC, and he has conceptually agreed to the
recommended conditions described on page 11 of this report.
The Police Activities League's Board of Directors approved in concept the attached draft Articles
of Incorporation and By-Laws at their August 9, 1995 meeting.
BACKGROUND:
There has been a recent expression of interest in supplementing some of our existing boards,
commissions and departments with non-profit corporations, in particular the International
Friendship Commission (IFC) and the Police Activities League (PAL). Prior to addressing the
IFC and PAL issues specifically, this report will discuss more general issues regarding non-
profit organizations.
Nature of a Non-Profit
California Corporation Law grants separate legal entity status to corporations, including those
called public benefit, non-profit corporations. They are therefore by definition independent legal
entities, separate from the City.
In the typical -for-profit" corporation, the capital is supplied to the venture, in part, by the
shareholders, and it is the fiduciary duty of the Board of Directors to use prudent business
judgment to protect the investment of the shareholders.
In a non-profit, unlike the typical corporation, there is no nrect for a shareholder group because
there is not supposed to be any privately owned capital. Any assets accrue to the mission or
purpose of the non-profit. A "Member group" can (but is not required to) take the place of the
shareholder group. if the incorporators wish and so specify in their Articles of Incorporation.
On the other hand, a public benefit corporation can, if desired, be entirely run by a Board of
Directors without a Member group.
If Members are established, their participation over the operation of the corporation is typically
limited by the' Articles of Incorporation to such major issues as: (1) major corporate decisions
that affect the continued existence of the corporate entity, such as dissolution; (2) election of the
Board of Directors; or (3) approving any changes to the Articles of Incorporation and/or the By-
Laws of the corporation.
If Members are not established, the Board of Directors controls all of these major-decisions,
including their own self-perpetuation, if desired, unless otherwise restrained. However,
limitations on the Board can be placed in the Articles and By-Laws, including limitations or
approvals requ;.ed to amend the Articles and/or By-Laws. Some potential limitations of this
type are discuSsed later in this report.
~ 7/3
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 3
Existing and Potential Non-Profits
The existing non-profit organizations with close ties to the City include the Friends of the
Library and the Bayfront Conservancy Trust. Potential new non-profit organizations that are
in varying stages of discussion include ones related to the International Friendship Commission,
Police Activities League, Library Foundation, Parks and Recreation Society and Border
Environmental Commerce Alliance (BECA). Each of these is discussed briefly below.
The Friends of the Library have been a non-profit corporation since 1974, and over the last 10
year period have given approximately $150,000 to the activities of the Library. A separate
Library Foundation to solicit larger donations and grants is also currently being considered.
In 1983, the Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Society was established as a non-profit to sponsor
and assist in the development of Chula Vista parks and recreation and to develop educational and
recreational programs. The Society has been inactive since 1986, but there have been
discussions in recent years about formally dissolving the old non-profit and establishing a new
revitalized one.
The Bayfront Conservancy Trust, which operates the Nature Center, is a non-profit which was
formed in 1986 as an element of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan's Bayfront Specific Plan
as partial mitigation for impacts that could result from bayfront development.
The Police Activities League is proposing to form a non-profit corporation to govern their
activities, and draft By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation have been prepared.
The International Friendship Commission also has expressed an interest in forming a non-profit
to supplement their own commission status.
The Border Environment Commerce Alliance ("BECA") white paper calls for the City to "spin
off' the project as a non-profit in the future once funding sources stabilize.
It should also be noted that there are numerous other non-profit corporations with which the City
cooperates or contracts for services, but this report focuses on non-profits which the City helps
incorporate or sponsor.
.
ADVANTAGES OF NON-PROFITS
There are a number of advantages or benefits that the proponents of various current or potential
non-profits have highlighted. These advantages include:
,
(1) Fund Raising and Grants. Motivated donors may be more willing to give money
to a non-profit because the donors are more assured that their contributions will
be spent on tt i.: mission of the non-profit and less concerned that their donations
might get dilnted by the City government or diverted for some other purpose.
p-r 7r?
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 4
Some foundations even have formal policies to not provide grants to tax supported
institutions such as cities.
(2) Tax Deductible Status of Donations. Individuals and corporations are typically
aware that financial donations to non-profits may be tax deductible. They are less
likely to be aware that the City also qualifies as a 501 (c)(3) corporate entity and
that contributions to the City are tax deductible to the same extent as to a non-
profit.
(3) Volunteers. An independent, autonomous non-profit corporation may be more
capable of attracting volunteer help from the community than is a board,
commission, or department of the City.
(4) Puritv ofPumose. An independent non-profit may be able to command greater
enthusiasm, including volunteer and fund raising participation, than is a board,
commission or department of the City. The members of the public that are
committed to the mission of the non-profit may want to be assured that their
generosity will not be diverted to other purposes, or that it might supplant rather
than supplement existing funding from the City. They may simply have more
enthusiasm for an organization whose sole purpose is one they are very
committed to and that they feel more comfortable with than a government entity.
(5) Flexibility. Performing administrative or operational activities, such as operating
a used book store or hosting dignitaries from a foreign country, requires more
frequent and informal means of communication and action than a board or
commission is designed to conduct, particularly in terms of Brown Act
requirements and prohibitions.
(6) Potential Involvement of Volunteer Fundraisers. Some people who might be very
effeCtive fund raisers as members of a non-profit Board of Directors may not be
interested in participating in a regular City board or commission, for such reasons
as the time commitment required or the need to disclose economic interests by
members of regular boards and commissions. The establishment of a non-profit
foundation primarily oriented toward fund-raising may allow such interested
'parties to contribute significantly to the community who otherwise might not do
so.
,
(7) Commissioner Liability. The City is required to indemnify a board or
commission member for actions conducted on behalf of the City. The City would
have no liability for the actions of a Director of a Board of a non-profit. While
this liability for commissioner's actions has not been a problem for the City, any
reduction in the City's liability exposure can be considered positive although
perhaps negligible in this r.ase.
;.
~?~/
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 5
(8) Liability for Actions of Volunteers. The City would likely be liable for the
actions of volunteers who provide their volunteer service to the City under the
auspices of a board, commission or department. The City would generally not
have direct liability for the actions of volunteers offering their service to a non-
profit. This is also considered to be a negligible factor since we have had a good
record of training and supervision over our volunteers.
CONCERNS ABOUT NON-PROFITS
Potential concerns about non-profits can be summarized as follows:
(1) Potential Loss of Control. A multi-faceted, multi-interest corporate entity like a
city government needs, on the one hand, a broad base of community involvement
in the decision making process, each competing for limited resources to advance
their special interest. On the other hand, it needs a system for channeling its
resources to meet an agreed set of goals and objectives, for resolving conflicts
among its membership, and for making final decisions without escalating
differences to personal levels.
The very nature of non-profit organizations tends to be different from a
centralized control appr0ach to city government. The Council can not legally
substitute its judgment and discretion for the judgment and discretion of the Board
of a non-profit. The day-to-day operations of a non-profit corporation are
controlled by the Board of Directors, who are required by law to exercise their
own independent and prudent business judgment. Personal liability can befall
them for their neglect in this regard. Unless the Council is willing to spend the
ti me to serve on each of the non-profit Boards they may help create, they will
lose the final implementing policy authority 'over activities conducted by a non-
profit that they now have over the operation and activity of the boards and
commissions.
If a particular concern can be articulated in advance, appropriate restrictions
could be placed in the Articles or By-Laws of the non-profit to avoid particular
areas of concern. Otherwise, the Council's remaining control would be either:
(1) to remove a Director (a) if the By-Laws so provide, (b) if they can muster a
. majority vote, and (c) if they can do it in time to avoid the course of action of
which they disapprove, or (2) to dissolve the non-profit if the Articles permit.
This could conceivably elevate what would otherwise be a difference of opinion
between the Board of Directors and the Council, that could simply be rejected by
the Council, to a personal attack on individuals to remove them from an office
they very much enjoy holding.
The current system, which depends on the Council to make final implementing
policy and budgetary decisions, forces :'J1 internal consensus on a course of action
that may create some internal strife in the process, but forces, from an external
~ c/
'}-o
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 6
appearance, a common and defined goal and objective. Activities conducted by
a non-profit would be more independent, depending on any restrictions placed in
their Articles or By-Laws.
(2) Potential for Divided Staff Loyalty and Confusion. Staffing a non-profit could
potentially raise issues about divided staff loyalty and confusion. For example,
the Police Chief is proposed to be the Chair of the Board of Directors of the
Police Activities League, as discussed later in this report. As a hypothetical
example of this issue, assume that the Board of the PAL wants to support a "free
graffiti wall" program which it can fund with its private donations on a privately
owned wall put in plain public view, but the Council disagrees with the program
for aesthetic or other reasons. The Chief could be forced to be disloyal to one
or the other of the organizations to which he owes a fiduciary duty, unless he
can find a way to resolve the issue or does not participate in the issue. (The
Chief of Police, based on his experience working with community groups, does
not anticipate this will be a problem, particularly given the proposed structure for
PAL described later in this report.)
(3)
The City's current board and commission system has a built in mechanism for
resolving this type of conflict. The recommendation of a board, commission or
committee is advisory to the Council; the Police Chief can advocate it to the
Council without being disloyal. If the Council rejects it, the Chief follows the
policy direction of the Council. Since a non-profit would be more independent,
such potential conflicts might be more difficult to resolve.
Potential for Abuses. Without ample control over the selection of the Board
members, there is a potential risk that a non-profit corporate entity could be
diverted in its mission to satisfying the personal agenda of its then-existing Board
members. With a vigorous denial that any member of a City board or
commission has such intentions, a hypothetical example would be a non-profit
corporation obtaining contributions by implying a sponsorship by the City, but
then using those funds for no grander purpose than to make the personal travel
plans of its Directors taX deductible.
(4)
'Institutionalized Ethics Standards May Not Aooly. Without public funding or
public officials appointed thereto, the Board of the privately-funded non-profit is
not necessarily required to disclose economic interests or refrain from
participating where there is a conflicting economic interest, or be precluded from
entering into a contract with one of its members.
(5)
Votin!! and Meetin~ Formalities May Not Apoly. The open meeting
requirements of the Brown Act may not apply to a non-profit unless it is publicly
funded or public officials are designated members... As art example, within the
last fOllf years, the Star News has complained lhat the Downtown Business
Association, a non-profit, was not conducting thei{ meetings in public.
~ 7-1
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 7
(6) Public Records Act May Not Apply. The public records act does not apply to a
non-profit. which could be a concern for a non-profit charged with a quasi-public
or quasi-community purpose. As an example, Regina Hickey has complained that
South Bay Community Services, a non-profit, allegedly refused to disclose
financial information to her about their non-profit entity despite the use of public
funds to support their activities.
RELATED FINANCIAL ISSUES
As separate legal entities, non-profit organizations typically have their own treasurer and
checking accounts. They would typically raise their own funds, determine how the funds will
be spent, and have their own mechanisms for overseeing the expenditure of funds. The City's
Finance Department would not be involved, nor is it adequately staffed to be involved, in
accounting for or overseeing the expenditures of a non-profit's funds.
The exception is the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, which is now subject to most of the City's
normal budgeting, accounting, and purchasing policies as part of the Lease, Loan and Operating
Agreement between the BCT, the City, and the Redevelopment Agency. These requirements
were placed on the BCT because of its current financial dependence on the City! Agency. Other
non-profits discussed in this report are not anticipated to be financially dependent on the City;
in fact, they are generally anticipated instead to provide financial support for City activities.
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY
The City Manager's Office and the department heads of several affected line departments have
concluded that non-profit organizations can be extremely beneficial to supplement the efforts of
City boards, commissions and departments. On the other hand, there are some legitimate
potential concerns regarding the use of non-profit organizations in relationship to the boards and
commissions system of the City.
Rather than proposing complete support for the virtually unlimited use of non-profit
organizations at one extreme, or recommending against any and all additional non-profits at the
other extreme, staff from the City Manager's Office and the City Attorney have worked together
to formulate a ,Proposed Council Policy that would provide guidelines for considering potential
non-profit organizations on a case-by-case basis.
,
The proposed policy indicates that the proponents of establishing a non-profit organization to
supplement the City's activities would submit an application to the City if they desired for the
City to assist them in establishing the non-profit or in some manner to sponsor the activities of
the non-profit. .
Such an application would be submitted to the City Council, after it has been reviewed by the
City Manager or the Ma."Iager's designee. That review would be to determir.e whether the
establi;hment of such a non-profit was likely to be an appropriate mechanism to help achieve
a community purpose related to the City's functions. Issues to be considered would include the
J-7 ?~/O
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 8
potential for improved fundraising, grant eligibility, volunteer participation, and needed
flexibility, compared to the City's regular mechanisms such as boards, commissions or City
department activities.
Checklist of Potential Conditions:
If the City Manager or his/her designee concludes that the proposed non-profit has substantial
merit, then the appropriate staff would review the fo11owing potential conditions to determine
which ones, if any, would be appropriate to propose as a condition of obtaining City staff
assistance in fonning a non-profit and the extent of ongoing assistance/sponsorship the City
should offer:
1. Council as Members. The Articles of Incorporation of the non-profit could establish
a "Membership" group consisting of the Council, with the Members having specified
authority such as to make major corporate decisions that affect the continued existence
of the non-profit, to elect some or all of the Board of Directors, or to approve any
modifications to the Articles of Incorporation and/or By-Laws.
2. Council to Select/Sit on Board. The Articles and By-Laws could specify that the
Council have the authority to appoint some or all of the Board of Directors, whose terms
could coincide YJith our existing two 4 year terms now applicable to boards and
commissions. The Articles/By-Laws could specify that at least one member of the
Council be a voting Board member. The Articles/By-Laws could specify that some or
even the entire Council are "ex-officio" Directors of the Board with the right to
participate in all Board discussions, if they wish. Alternatively, someone designated by
the Council could be specified to have such involvement.
. ,
3. Council to Approve Changes to Organization. Whether the Council is specified to
be Members or not, the Articles/By-Laws could specify that the Council have the
authority to approve all Articles and By-Laws, and any proposed amendments or
deletions. The Council could even be given the authority to initiate, on their own
volition, any By-Law amendments, which could not be modified by the Board.
4. Prohibition Against Inconsistent Positions With City. A non-modifiable provision of
the Articles and By-Laws could specify that the non-profit will not engage in a mission,
purpose, goal, plan, or activity that either is inconsistent with an approved policy of the
City or is directly disapproved by the City Council.
5. Conditions of Sponsorship. The City's continued sponsorship, including staff time,
coordination of activities, funding, use of City logo, use of City facilities, etc., could be
conditioned on compliance by the non-profit with its Articles and By-Laws or with
specified City policies.
6. ADDroval of Dissolution. The Articles and By-Laws could specify that only the
Council shall have the power to dissolve the Corporation, or that the Council would
~ ?---J/
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 9
approve such a dissolution. The Articles/By-Laws could require that, upon such dis-
solution, the assets of thc Corporation shall be liquidated and the proceeds spent on the
purpose for which they were originally acquired, as the Board or Council shall direct,
but if that purpose can not be achieved directly, shall be spent for a substantially
comparable purpose as the Board or Council shall determine.
7. Public Disclosure. The By-Laws could be written so as to make the institutionalized
disclosure/ethics laws now applicable to the City applicable to their Directors, such as
the public records act, the Brown Act, the disclosure statement of economic interests,
prohibition of participating in matters where a Director has a conflict, prohibited travel,
prohibited gifts, etc.
After staff has reviewed the above Checklist of Potential Conditions in terms of their
appropriateness for a specific proposed non-profit, the policy provides that a report will be
presented to Council indicating which, if any, of the potential conditions are recommended for
the proposed non-profit.
NON-PROFIT FOR POLlCE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
The Chula Vista Police Activities League (PAL) was organized in 1992 to create and provide
activities for all youth in our community. PAL especially targets less fortunate and "at risk
youth". The Police Activities League is a community based organization operated from the
Chula Vista Police Department that works with "at risk" youth within the South Bay
Community. The Board of Directors is made up of community leaders from various local
government agencies, as well as members of the South Bay Judicial District and other
community organizations. PAL has been involved in numerous activities within the South Bay
area.
PAL's highest priority is providing activities for "at risk" youth. Currently, PAL is sponsoring
a Midnight Basketball program, youth soccer, softball, T-ball and boxing for underprivileged
youth. PAL also provides safe drug and alcohol free social events such as dances and sporting
events. PAL is closely tied to the schools in the community. PAL has sponsored or assisted
with sixth grade camp, school safety patrol camp, and an academic achiever award in the
elementary school district. The largest project each year for PAL is the Holiday Toy and Food
Drive. This project benefits over 300 needy families in the Chula Vista area. Families are
provided with food, clothing and toys. PAL works closely with the business community and
depends on their support. The business community has been very generous in donations of time,
funds and resources.
PAL is already considered a separate entity from the City. Its Board of Directors have indicated
that they believe they will be more successful at fundraising if they are incorporated as a
non-profit. Attachments D and E are draft Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws for the
propnsed PAL non-profit. These Articles and By-Laws have been drafted by the City Attorney
in consultation with PAL's Board of Directors.
~ 7-/.2
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 10
The draft By-laws specify that the Police Chief, or his/her designee from among the
management of the Chula Vista Police Department, will serve as the Chairman of the PAL
Board. The existing PAL Board feels that this is important to help start the new PAL non-profit
and to encourage appropriate community members to participate in PAL.
In terms of the above Checklist of Potential Conditions for non-profits, the draft PAL Articles
and By-Laws incorporate the following conditions:
(1) The City Council will be the only Members of the PAL non-profit corporation.
(2) There will be 30 directors on PAL's Board of Directors and 21 of those directors
will be from, or appointed by, the City Council, the Police Chief, Fire Chief, or
the Director of Parks & Recreation. The remaining 9 director seats will be
appointed by representatives of the school districts, YMCA, Boys and Girls Club,
South Bay Community Services, Otay Committee and the South Bay Judicial
District.
(3) Any modifications to the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws will require the
City Council's approval.
(6) Upon the dissolution of the corporation, any remaining assets shall be distributed
to the City or to an agency selected by the City.
(7) Since the Board would include members of the City Council appointed by the
Council, its meetings would be subject to the Brown Act under State law if PAL
receives funding from the City, although this issue is not specifically addressed
in the draft Articles or By-Laws.
The PAL Board of Directors approved these documents in concept on August 9, 1995, and they
are recommended for Council's conceptual approval. It is recommended that the Chief of Police
and City Attorney be authorized to finalize the PAL Articles and By-Laws and submit them to
the appropriate state agencies for processing the PAL incorporation as a non-profit. The State's
processing fees will be paid by PAL.
NON-PROFIT TO SUPPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION
.
As discussed earlier in this report, the International Friendship Commission (!Fe) submitted a
report (Attachment A) to Council on June 6, 1995 requesting that the Council endorse the
formation of a non-profit to supplement the activities of the IFC and direct staff to assist the !FC
in preparing necessary legal documents and in determining the most appropriate division of
responsibility among the proposed non-profit, the existing IFC and the City Council. At the
June 6 Council meeting (see Attachment B for minutes) the City Attorney expressed concern
about the loss of control that could result from forming :st:parate non-profits. The Council
referred the issue to staff to review and provide recommendations to the Council.
~?-/3
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 11
The City Attorney then prepared a draft report and reviewed it with the IFC at their June 26
meeting (see Attachment C for minutes). The IFC did not reach any formal conclusions at that
meeting regarding the appropriateness of any of the potential limitations discussed by the City
Attorney for the formation of a non-profit (similar to the Checklist of Potential Conditions
discussed in this report). Instead, the IFC appointed Larry Breitfelder as the Chair of a
one-person IFC committee to discuss the issue further with staff and present the IFC's views to
the City Council.
Staff has reviewed the Checklist of Potential Conditions with Mr. Breitfelder, who is now the
Chair of the IFC. Staff and Mr. Breitfelder have conceptually agreed upon the following as
appropriate conditions for an IFC-re1ated non-profit:
(2) The Chair of the IFC, or an IFC member designated by its Chair, will be an "ex-officio"
Director of the Board. Council members will have the right to attend and address the
Board of Directors but will not be members of the Board or of the corporation.
(3) Any modifications to these specific conditions will require the City Council's approval.
(4) The non-profit cannot initiate, establish or terminate a sister city relationship without the
formal approval of the City Council.
(5) The non-profit cannot use the City's sponsorship (i.e. use of the City's name, funding,
staff time, logo, facilities, etc.) for any activity that either is inconsistent with an
approved policy of the City or is directly disapproved by the City Council.
(6) If its Board of Directors decides to dissolve the nORcprofi!, the City Council shall have
the authority to approve the Board's plan for distributing any remaining assets to the City
or to an agency selected by the Board consistent with the purpose for which they were
acquired.
(7) The financial records of the non-profit shall be open to the public.
.flaff therefore !ecommends that Council direct staff and the~i!)' Attorney 1Q. work with the !FC
:in drafting Articles-oITncorporation and By-Laws that include conditions similar to those
4:tescri\:te4.abave, anO om,~ backa~020S.e4 structure for a non-profit for Council review~ The
'l1on-profit would supplement the IFC, not replace It. -
-' ,
/
24 l~/i
Council Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: October 24, 1995
Page 12
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Council Policy is intended to help improve opportunities for fundraising Md
volunteer participation while minimizing potential risks that could be created by non-profits. It
should therefore help improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of City activities.
The services of the City staff, including the City Attorney, will usually be drawn upon to
prepare the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws for proposed non-profits. This impact is
likely to be negligible and varied depending on the use of non-profits.
Attachments:
A. Reports to Council from IFC and staff at 6/6/95 Council meeting
B. Minutes of 6/6/95 Council meeting
C. Minutes of 6/26/95 IFC meeting
D. Draft Articles of Incorporation for PAL
E. Draft By-Laws for PAL
M: \HOME\ADMlN\NONPRFT .\\75
.
,
~7-6
RESOLUTION NO.1 8080
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING THE USE
AND SPONSORSHIP OF NON-?ROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN
RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SYSTEM
OF THE CITY
WHEREAS. on June 6,1995, in response to a request from the International Friendship
Commission (IFC) for staff assistance to form a non-profit corporation to supplement the
activities of the IFC. the Council directed staff to review the lFC's request as well as several
concerns expressed by the City Attorney and report back with staff's recommendation; and
WHEREAS. the attached policy reflects staff's recommendations and affects the boards
and commissions generally but the IFC and Police Activities League are the most immediately
affected.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve Council Policy 110-12 regarding the use and sponsorship of non-profit
organizations in relationship to the Boards and Commissions system of the City.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
I~'~
i J- ,
. I
... . ..
1 / '., ;";1--..
:!James R. Thomson
Deputy City Manager
~~
ruce oog ard So\, I
City Attorney V
,
.
.
.
.
~
/_./t-
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution 18080
Page 2
,
COUNCIL POLICY
CIlY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT:
USE AND SPONSORSHIP OF
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
SYSJEM OF THE CITY
POLICY
NUMBER
11()"12
EFFECI1VE
DATE
10/24195
PAGE
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 18080
I DATED:
10/24/95
Backcround:
There has been a recent interest in establishing non-profit corporations to supplement the
business tbat has been assigned to, or is capable of assignment to, one or more of tbe boards,
commissions, or departments of tbe City.
There are a variety of pros and cons to tbe use of non-profits to do part of tbe business of tbe
City_ For a more detailed discussion of tbem and on tbis policy, please see tbe Council Agenda
Report on tbe Council Policy Regarding tbe Use and Sponsorship of Non-Profit Organizations,
presented to the City Council at tbeir meeting of October 24, 1995.
Pumose:
It is the purpose of this policy to establisb tbe criteria and a cbecklist of potential conditions
under whicb the City will lend tbe aid of its offices and staff in tbe formation of a non-profit, or lend
tbe City's continued sponsorsbip to sucb non-profits.
Policv:
Approval of tbe City Coun~il is required for tbe aid of any Officer or staff of tbe City in
belping, as part of tbeir official duties, in tbe formation of a new non-profit corporation, or for tbe
City's sponsorship of any new non-profit. - .
The Council reserves full discretion to grant or deny tbe extension of sucb aid and sponsorship
of any non-profit on a case-by-case basis,
In order to obtain tbe aid of City staff in tbe formation of a non-profit or tbe City's
sponsorship of a new non-profit, the person or persons proposing such non-profit ("Incorporators")
shall apply for such aid or sponsorship to the Council ("Application").
The Incorporator's application sball indicate tbe reasons why they believe a non-profit is an
appropriate mechanism to help achieve a community purpose related to tbe City's functions.
Examples of such ~ns could include the potential for improved fundraising, grant eligibility,
volunteer participation, or needed flexibility. The application should descn"be why tbe Incorporators
believe that a non-profit organization is beller able to acbieve a community purpose than a City
boarcl!commission/commillee or department and any eVideoce or indications to support their stated
reasons.
Said Application shall flTst be reviewed by the City Manager, or her/bis designee, who shall
provide the Council with a report ("Report") and recommendation with regard to such Application,'
"
};17
Resolution 18080
Page 3
COUNCIL POLICY
ClTI' OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: USE AND SPONSORSHIP OF POLICY EFFEcrIVE
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS NUMBER DATE PAGE
IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 110-12 10/24195
SYSTEM OF THE CITY
ADOYfED BY: Resolution 18080 I DATED: 10/24195
Among such other things as tbe City Manager deems appropriate to include in tbe Report, tbe
City Manager or designee shall indicate wbether be/sbe concurs witb tbe Incorporators tbat a non-
profit is a more proper business form for a given community purpose or mission as opposed to
assigning tbe purpose or mission to one or more of the City's boards/commissions/committees or
departments, and wby.
Cbecklist of Potential Conditions
The Report shall make recommendations as to wbicb, if any, of tbe following conditions
he/sbe deems appropriate to require of tbe Incorporators as a condition of obtaining City staff
assistance in tbe non-profit formation process and tbe extent of assistance/sponsorship the City sbould
offer.
1. Council as Members. The Articles of Incorporation of tbe non-profit could establish a
"Membersbip" group consisting of tbe Council, witb tbe Members baving specified authority sucb as to
make major corporate decisions tbat affect tbe continued existence of the non-profit, to elect some or
all of tbe Board of Directors, or to approve any modifications to the Articles of Incorporation and:,'"
By-Laws.
2. Coul.cilto SelectlSit on Board. The Articles and By-La~s could specify that the Council ba\'o ,
autbority to appoint some or all of tbc Board of Directors, wbose terms could coincide with ,'.,
existing two 4 year terms now applicable to boards and commissions. The Articles/By-Laws could
specify that at least one member of the Council be a voting Board member. The Articles!By-laws
could specify tbat some or even the entire Council are "a-officio" Directors of the Board with the
rigbt to participate in all Board discussions, if tbey wisb. Alternatively, someone designated by tbe
Council could be specified to have such involvement.
3. Council to APprove Cban2es to Or28nization. Wbetber tbe Council is specified to be Membe,. ,.;
not, tbe Articles!By-Laws could specify that the Council bave tbe autbority to approve all Articl", ' ' :!
Byuws, and any proposed amendments or deletions. The Council could even be given the autboriry
to initiate, on tbeir own volition, any By-Law amendments, wbicb could not be modified by tbe Boat d,
,
,
4. Prohibition A28inst Inconsistent Positions With City. A Don-modifiable provision 'of the Articles
and By-Laws could specify that the Don-profit will Dot engage in a mission, purpose, coal, plan, or
activity tbat either is inconsistent with an approved policy of tbe City or is directly, disapproved by tbe
City Council.
S. Conditions of Soonsorsbio. The City's continued sponsorship, including staff time, coordination of
activities, funding, use of City loCO, use of City facilities, etc., could be, conditioned on compliance by
tbe non-profit with its Articles and By-Laws or with specified City policies.
7~/Y
Resolution 18080
Page 4
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJECT:
USE AND SPONSORSHIP OF
NON-PROm ORGANIZATIONS
IN RELATIONSHIP TO mE
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
SYSllOM OF mE CfIT
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
1 W.l2
10/24/95
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 18080
1 DATED:
10/24/95
6. ADor""al of Dissolution. The Articles and By-Laws could specify tbat only tbe Council sball bave
tbe power to dissolve tbe Corporation, or tbat tbe Council would approve sucb a dissolution. The
ArticleslBy-Laws could require tbat, upon sucb dissolution, tbe assets of tbe Corporation sball be
liquidated and tbe proceeds spent on tbe purpose for wbicb tbey were originally acquired, as tbe
Board or Council shaH direct, but if tbat purpose can not be achieved directly, sball be spent for a
substantially comparable purpose as tbe Board or Council sbaH determine.
7. Public Disclosure. The By-Laws could be written so as to make tbe institutionalized
disclosure/etbics laws now applicable to tbe City applicable to tbeir Directors, sucb as tbe public
records act, tbe Brown Act, tbe disclosure statement of economic interests, prohibition of participating
in matters wbere a Director bas a conflict, prohibited travel, prohibited gifts, etc.
'.
,
.
.
,
,
7~JI
--
Resolution 18080
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
California, this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Council members:
Alevy, Moot, Padilla. Horton
NAYES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Council members:
Rindone
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
.,
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
'-IZMJ~ () (),tf.Pd
Beverly . Authelet. City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
"
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No.1 BOBO was duly passed. approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of October,
1995.
Execllted this 24th day of October, 1995.
.
,
,
'-/2)/, g () f),7JJ./u ..
Beverly A. Authelet. City Clerk
? -,;L..{/
Mmutes
October 24, 1995
Page 2
CONSENT CALE/',l)AR
(Items pulled: 8, 9, 11, IUld 12)
BALANCE OF THE CONSEf\tT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, mlding of the text was
waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Rindone absent.
5. WRITTEN COMMU1'o'lCATIONS:
a, Letter from the City Attorney stating that u.en, w.... no observed reportable actions taken in Closed
Session on 10/17/95, It i. recommended that the letter be received and filed.
b. Letter from Wes Braddock, Assistant Principal, Hilltop Middle School, expressing concerns regarding
traffic and ~ conditions adjacent to Hilltop Middle School. It i. recommended that sl.Ilff be directed to
wor\:: with Sweetwater Union High School District 6laff to discuss on-site parldng alt.ema1ives.
c. Letter of resignation from Liz Lebron - Economic Development Commission. It is recommended that the
resignation be accepted with regret IUld the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act
in the Clerk's Office IUld the Public Library.
6. ORDINANCE 2651 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.66 - PARK AND FACD...ITIES RULES (second mldin\!
and adontion) _ Chapter 2.66 of the Municipal COOe. which governs the rules and regulations for use of city pans
and facilities. bas not been subs!Jlntially changed since 1974. The Department bas undertaken the tas\:: of reviewing
this Chapter and proposing various amendments to the sections therein. The intent of the proposed amendments
is an administrati\e -house cleaning- procedure to create rules which are more applicable to situations encountered
in the parks. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Parks
and Recreation)
7. RESOLUTION 18080 APPROVING COUNCD... POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF NON-PROm
ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SYSTEM OF THE CITY
_ In response to a request from the International Friendship Commission (!FC) for staff assistance to form a non-
profit corporatioo Council directed staff to review the request and provide a report back. Staff recommends
Council: (1) approve the resolution; (2) direct staff and the City Attorney to worle with the IFC in drafting Articles
of Incorporation and By-Laws. that include conditions similar to those described 011 pag~ 1 I of the report, and brin~ \
bac\:: a proposed structure ora n - rofit to su lement the IFC for uncil review; (3) conceptually approve the
dra IC es 0 corporation and By-Laws for the Police Activities League and authorize the Chief of Police and
City Attorney to finalize and submit them to the appropriate state agencies for processing the PAL incorporation
as a non-profiL (Deputy City Manager Thomson and City Attorney)
*'
CounciJmember A1evy questioned if the proposed action released the City from any fiscal or legal liability.
Mr. Googins responded that it was his understanding that one of the goals of the policy was to creaIe the types of
organizatioos that would insulate the City from liability.
.
.
8. RESOLUTION 18081 APPROVING AGREEME~T WITH SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY TO
PROVIDE 566,960 TO THE CITY FOR THE SMARTCOMMUNITY PROJECT, APPROPRlA TING $57,995
FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL roND BALANCE, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR .
1995/96 BUDGET TO ADD A ll.60 ITE TEMPORARY EXPERT PROFESSIONAL POSITION TO THE
MIS BUDGET _ During the budget process for fiscal year 1995/96. Council approved staff to explore the
possibility of having the City work with Caltrans on the SmartCommunity project to develop the "Electhmic
Highway Alternative'. For the SmartCommunity project, Caltrans would cootract with San Diego State University.
who would be the primary contractor. San Diego State University would then contract with the proposed
....bcontractors. the City. the University of Californiut Davis. and the Center for the New West. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Management and Information Services) 4/5th's vou, required. Pulled
from the Consent Calendar.
7rc2/
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
Chula vista International Sister cities Foundation
Article I--Name
The name of this corporation is Chula vista International Sister
cities Foundation.
Article II--Nature and Purpose of Organization
A. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and
is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is
organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law of the
state of California for public and charitable purposes.
B. The specific purposes for which this corporation is organized
include, but is not limited to: promoting, maintaining, and
coordinating internatian.l relationships by publicly beneficial
economic, cultural, and educational cooperation and interchange
between the the City of Chula Vista and selected cities in othe~
countries, and the citizens and civic organizations of each of ~
those cities. ~
"Article III--Agent for Service of Process
The name and address in the state of California of this
corporation's initial agent for service of process is:
Name: Fran Larson
Address: 266 E. Millan strep.t, Chula Vista, CA 91910-6340
Article IV--Limitations of Powers of corporation
A, The corporation is organized a.nd operated exclusively for
public: and. cha.ri table purposes wi thin the meaning of section
501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
. '
B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these
corporation shall not carryon any other activities
Articles, the
not perlllitted
.:\ifcart3.wp
February 20, 1996
lEe, Articles
Page 1
7- c2;l
ATTACHMENT "c"
to pe carries on (1) Py a corporation exempt from federal income
tax under section 50l(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code or (2) Py
a corporation contributions to which are deductible under section
170(c) (2) of said Code, or the corresponding provisions of any
future statute of the United States.
C. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation
shall consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to
influence legislation; nor shall the corporation participate or
intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or
distribution of statements) on pehalf of any candidate for puplic
office.
D. The property of this Corporation is irrevocably dedicated to
the public and charitable purposes for which it is formed, and no
part of the net income or assets of the corporation shall ever
inure to the benefit of any director, trustee, member or officer of
this corporation, or to any private person.
E.' This corporation may not initiate, establish or terminate a
sister city relationship with or on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista without the formal approval of the city council of the City
of Chula vista. This limitation can not pe amended without
approval of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
F. This Corporation may not use the City of Chula Vista's
sponsorShip, including the use of its name, funding, staff time,
logo, facilities, etc, for any activity that either is inconsistent
with an approved policy of the city or directly disapproved Py the
City Council. This limitation can not be amended without approval
of the City Council of the City of Chula vista.
G. The Board of Directors may not dissolve this Corporation until
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista shall have approved the
Board's plan for distributing any remaining assets to the city or
to an agency selected Py the Board consistent with the purpose for
which they were acquired. Upon the dissolution of the corporation,
any assets remaining after payment of, or provision for payment of,
all debts and liabilities shall be distriputed to the City of Chula
Vista, a governmental entity described in Section 170(b) (1) (A) (v)
of the Internal Revenue Code, or to some other agency selected by
the Board which is consistent with the purpose for which the
contributions were acquired. This limitation can not be amended
without approval of the City council of the City of Chula Vista.
H. The fihancial records of the corporation shall be open to the
public to be examined upon request of any member of the public.
This limitation can not be amended without approval of the city
Council of the city of Chula Vista.
..\ifcart3.wp
February 20, 1996
lYe, Article.
l'age 2
7-..23
..
I. council members of the city of Chula vista will be notified of
all meetings of the Board of Directors of the corporation, and
shall have the right to attend such meetings and address the Board.
This limitation can not be amended without approval of the City
council of the City of Chula Vista.
J. In the e'.lent of a liquidation of this corporation, all
corporate assets shall be disposed of in such a manner as may be
directed by the court consistent with applicable provisions of the
Corporations Code.
Article V--Members
The Corporation shall have no members unless the Board of
Directors shall otherwise specify in the Bylaws, and then, such
members which shall be so designated shall have such rights as may
be specified by the Board in the Bylaws.
Article V--Board of Directors
The Chula vista International tion shall
be governe y a r of Dlre ne of WhlC shall be the Chair
of the City of Chula Vista International Friendship Commission, or
his or her designee who shall be a current member in good standing
of Chula Vista International FriendShip Commission, who shall serve
as an ex-officio member of the Board. The requirement that one
Board Member shall be the Chair of the IFC, or designee as
permitted herein, with ex-officio status can not be amended without
approval of the city Council of the City of Chula Vista.
Except for such ex-officio Board member, the Directors shall
be designated as to their numbers, representative capacities, vot-
ing rights, and such other rights by the By Laws of the Corpora-
tion, which may from time to time be established and amended at the
discretion and majority vote of the Board of Directors as herein
permitted.
In the absence of such alternative designation in the Bylaws,
the Board will consist of not less than 9 and not more than 15
persons, to the following seats, numbered according to the number
adjacent to said seat description. Each Director shall serve a
three (3) year term and hold office until their successors are
elected. They shall serve without compensation:
1. Mayoral Appointment. An appointee of the Mayor of
the city of Chula Vista.
.
2. Chamber Appointment. An appointee of the President
of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce.
~
e: \ifcart3.wp
February 20, 1996
IFC, Articles
Pall- 3
7-..21
3. Library Appointment. An. appointee of the Director
of the Library of the city of Chula vista.
4. president of the Chula Vista-Odawara sister cities
Association (Friends of Odawara).
5. Presiden~ of the Chula Vista-Irapuato sister Cities
Association (Friends of Irapuato).
6.
Appointee of the Board,
Incorporators.
ini tially
of
the
7.
Appointee of. the Board,
Incorporators.
initially
of
the
8.
Appointee of the Board,
Incorporators.
initially
of
the
9.
Appointee of the Board,
Incorporators.
ini tially
of
the
10 through 15. Appointee of the Board, initially of the
Incorporators, if filled.
16. Chair of the International Friendship Commission of
the city of Chula Vista, or the Chair's designee
who shall also be a member in good standing of the
International Friendship Commission, in an ex-
officio capacity.
special provisions apply to the following numbered seats:
seat Nos. 1 and 2 may be reappointed at the direction of the
seat designator, at their discretion, from time to time.
Article VII--Amendments to Articles and Bylaws
Any amendment to the Articles and Bylaws, except as
specif ically herein requiring the approva 1 of the City Council,
shall be effective upon approval by the Board of Directors. Any
amendment to the Articles and Bylaws that herein require the
approval of the city council shall be effective upon approval by
the city Council.
(End of page. Next page is signature Page.)
.
ei\ifcar~~.wp IFe, Article.
February 20, 1996 Page 4
7~,2/
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Incorporators of the
Chula vista International sister cities FoundatioD named in these
Articles of> Incorporation, have executed theSe Articles of
Incorporation on February ~, 1996.
INCORPORATORS
esa A. Thomas
Incorporator
~~,-A-,
Lawr
Brel.tfelder,
Incorporator
1A~sL(...-
Frances S. Larson,
Incorporator
DECLARATION
We are the persons whose names are subscribed below. We
collectively are all of the incorporators of Chula vista sister
cities Association named in the Articles of Incorporation, and we
have executed these Articles of Incorporation. The foregoing
Articles of Incorporation are our act and deed, joint and
severally.
Executed on February ~, 1996, at Chula Vista, california.
We, and each of us, declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Q&,^()G:Q~.z~~,pj/A.,
Teresa A. Thomas Lawr ~
Incorporator Breitfelder,
Incorporator
'1fi(}","~ S > ib.~
Frances S. Larson,
Incorporator
.
,
.:\1fcart3.wp
February 20, 1996
lYe, Articlea
PaQe 5
7~,2?
Adopted 05 June 1996
Bylaws of
Chula Vista International Sister Cities Foundation, Ioe
P.D.Box 3534
Chula Vista, CA 91909
-----------------------------------------
Article I
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF ORGANIZATION
Section I-I. The name of this corporation is Chula Vista International
Sister Cities Foundation. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit
corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is
organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law of the State
of California for public and charitable purposes.
Section }-2. The specific purposes for which this corporation is organized
include, but are not limited to: promoting, maintaining, and coordinating
international relationships b~' publicly beneficial economic, cultural, and
educational cooperation and interchange between the City of Chula Vista
and selected cities in other countries, and the citizens and civic
organizations of each of those cities.
Article II
MISSION STATEMENT
The foundation has been established to join together Chula Vista and its
sister cities as caring communities where the points of common culture and
of diversity can be both honored and celebrated. TQgether, we shall
promote and encourage private and public programs which will further
greater friendship and understanding between the people of Chula Vista and
the people of other nations. To achieve these purposes, the Foundation
shall sponsor directly, and indirectly through the affiliation committees,
cultural, educational, economic, and social activities which further
international community friendships, and stimulate and sustain participation
in, and community support of, sanctioned Foundation programs.
Article ill
MEMBERS
/
The Foundation shall have no members.
Page 1
?-cJ ?
ATTACHMENT "D"
Article IV
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section IV-I. Number
The powers, business and property of the corporation shall be
exercised, conducted and controlled by a Board of Directors consisting of
no less than nine (9) nor more than fifteen (15) elected members until
changed by amendment to these Bylaws as hereinafter provided. Three
additional members are authorized as follows:
1. Mayoral Appointment. An appointee of the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista.
2. Chamber Appointment. An appointee of the President of the
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce.
3. Library Appointment. An appointee of the Director of the Library
of the City of Chula Vista.
Seats Nos. 1 through 3 may be reappointed at the direction of the seat
designator, at their discretion from time to time.
In addition one seat each shall be filled by the President of each
Chula Vista Sister Cities Association.
Seat No. 16 shall be filled by the Chair of the International
Friendship Commission of the City of Chula Vista, or the Chair's designee
who shall also be a member in good standing of the International
Friendship Commission in an ex-officio capacit)' with full voting
privileges. This seat may not be amended without approval by the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista.
Section IV-2. Terms
Each Director shall serve for a term of three (3) years and ma)' be
reappointed by the Board for one additional three-year term.
Section IV-3. Meetinl!s
Meetings will be held semi-annually at a place and time designated by
the officers. Notice will be given by mail to all Directors ten (10) days
prior to' meetings.
Council members of the City of Chula Vista will be notified of all
meetings of the Board of Directors of the corporation and shall have the
right to attend such meetings and address the Board. This limitation can
not be amended without approval of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista. .
,
Page 2
/'i!S
Section IV-4.
Soecial Meetinl!s
Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called from time
to time by the officers of the Board. Written notice of such special
meetings will be sent to Directors and council members.
Section IV- 5. Removal and Resil!nation
(a) Any Director may resign, or may be removed with cause by the
Board of Directors at any time. Vacancies caused by death, resignation or
removal may be filled by appointment by tbe Board of Directors, or by the
President until such appointments are approved by the Board of Directors.
(b) Any Board member who misses two (2) consecutive meetings
without being duly excused by the President (or, if disputed, by the
majority of the board) for due cause shall, at the discretion of the Board of
Directors, be terminated from office at the next scheduled meeting.
Article V
OFFICERS AND DUTIES
Section V-I. Officers
The officers of the corporation shall consist of a President, Vice-
President, Secretary and Treasurer to serve for one year each.
Section V -2. Election
The officers shall be chosen annually by the Board of Directors, and
each shall hold hislher office until slhe shpll resign, be removed or
otherwise disqualified to serve, or his or her successor shall be elected and
qualified.
Section V-3. President.
The President shall be the executive officers of the Foundation and,
subject to the control of the Board of Directors, shall have general
supervision, direction and control of the affairs of the foundation. S/he
shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors.
Section V-4. Vice-President.
Tbe Vice-President shall, in the absence or disability of the
President, perform all duties of the President, and when so acting, shall
have the powers of, and be subject to the restrictions upon, the President.
S/he will perform any additional duties as assigned by the President. ..
Page 3
?-~I
Section V-5. Secretarv.
The Sec.retary shall keep correct records of the proceedings of all
meetings of the Board of Directors and will be responsible for mailing
notice of upcoming meetings and minutes of the immediate past meeting to
all Directors and council members. S/he will perform any additional duties
as assigned by the President, Vice-President, or Treasurer.
Section V-6. Treasurer.
(a) The Treasurer shall keep and maintain adequate and correct books of
account showing the receipts and disbursements of the Foundation, an an
account of its cash and other assets, if any. Such books of account shall,
at reasonable times, be open to inspection by any Director or member of the
public, and shall report status of accounts at the regular Board of Directors
meetings.
(b) The Treasurer shall deposit all moneys of the Foundation with such
depositories as are designated by the Board of Directors, and shall disburse
the funds of the Foundation as may be ordered by the Board of Directors.
Disbursements can be made by the Treasurer or any other designated
official when the Treasurer is not available. Two (2) authorized signatures
of officers shall be maintained at the banking institution.
(c) Establishment of a petty cash fund is authorized not to exceed fifty
dollars ($50.00). This fund will be placed in the custody of the Treasurer.
The Foundation is not authorized to incur indebtedness exceeding the
balance in the Treasury.
(d) All expenditures in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) will be
submitted to the Board of Directors for approval prior to disbursement.
The president, with due consideration and appropriate consultation with at
least two officers may spend under $100 in an .emergency situation
requiring expedient action.
Article VI
LIMITATIONS
Section VIol This Foundation may not initiate, establish or terminate a
sister city relationship with or on behalf of the City of Chula Vista without
the formal approval of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. This
limitation can not be amended without approval of the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista.
Section VI-2. This Foundation may not use the City of Chula Vista's
sponsorship, including the use of its name, funding, staff time, logo,
facilities, etc. for any activity that either is inconsistent with an approved
policy of the City or directly disapproved by the City Council. This .
limitation can not be amended without approval of the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista.
Page 4
,.
7-JO
Section VI-3. In the event of a liquidation of this Foundation, all
Foundation assets shall be disposed of in such a manner as may be directed
and consistent with applicable provision of the Corporations Code.
Article VII
ASSETS
The property of this Foundation is irrevocably dedicated to the public
and charitable purposes for which it is formed, and no part of the net
income or assets of the corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any
director, or officer of this foundation, or to any private person.
Article vrn
DISSOLUTION
The Board of Directors may not dissolve this Foundation until the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista shall have approved the Board's
plan for distributing any remaining assets to the City or to an agency
selected by the Board consistent with the purpose for which they were
acquired. Upon the dissolution of the Foundation, all debts and liabilities
shall be distributed to the City of Chula Vista, a governmental entity
described in Section 170 (b) (1) (A) (v) of the Internal Revenue Code, or to
some other agency selected by the Board which is consistent with the
purpose for which the contributions were acquired. This limitation can not
be amended without approval of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista.
Article vm
AMENDMENT to BYLAWS
Any amendment to the Bylaws, except as specifically herein
requiring the approval of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, shall
be effective upon approval by the Chula Vista International Sister Cities
Foundation Board of Directors. Any amendment to the Bylaws that herein
require the approval of the City Council shall be effective upon approval by
tbe City Council.
.
TTmac 6/96
Bylaws ISC FUN - 96
Page 5
7-5/
COUNCil AGENDA STATEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
Item ~
Meeting Date 02/04/97
RESOLUTION J ~ '1 APPROVING THE PRIORITIES, POLICIES, AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE 1997-98 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM
Community Development Director 05 '
City Manage'!)
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ Noll
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Chula Vista has participated in the federal CDBG program since its inception in 1974.
The primary objective of the program is the development of viable urban communities by providing
decent housing and a suitable living environment, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. The City has the discretion of allocating funds to specific activities, as long as those
activities meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the regulations.
Every year prior to the allocation of CDBG funds, staff goes through a public comment and review
period which presents a challenging task in determining funding recommendations. In order to
facilitate the upcoming application process, staff is recommending the following priorities, policies,
and procedures to expedite this process.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution and approve the proposed CDBG
funding priorities, policies, and procedures presented below.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The CDBG funding priorities, policies, and
procedures were developed with the assistance of last year's CDBG Ad Hoc Committee and have
been incorporated in staff's recommendations. The CDBG Ad Hoc Committee is made up of
members from the Commission on Aging, Human Relations Commission, Youth Commission, and
Child Care Commission.
DISCUSSION:
In order to be eligible for funding, a project or service must address at least one of the CDBG
national objectives, which are (1) benefit primarily low and moderate income families; (2)aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums or blight; (3) meet other community needs having a particular
emergency (disaster, etc.). Traditionally, the City has allocated its CDBG funds under the
following categories: (1) Administration and Planning; (2) Community Projects; (3) Capital
Improvement Projects; and (4) Public Services.
Public Services has historically been the most difficult category in which to allocate funds. To
focus the priorities, policies, and procedural guidelines will assist staff in facilitating the funding
demands of the social service agencies. However, the City is limited in the amount of funds that
can be expended for this category. Regulations allow a maximum of 15% of the annual
entitlement to be spent on public services. Every year the City receives increasing numbers of
%,/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 02/04/97
applications for service projects from nonprofit community service agencies and City departments.
Consequently, allocations for projects have become very diverse and somewhat diluted. The
amount of funding awarded to most agencies is substantially less than requested. For the majority
of agencies, the amount of funding provided by the City represents a small percentage of the
overall budget.
The City attempted to improve the program for the 1996-97 fiscal year by establishing priorities
for proposals and adopting changes in the evaluation criteria. The goal was to encourage nonprofit
agencies to form collaboratives in order to reduce the number of duplicative services being funded
by the City. This was expected to result in more concentrated efforts and more comprehensive
programs to address the needs of the community. The actual results were that 17 social service
programs were funded in 1996-97 for a total of $315,450. In 1995-96 the City funded 29 Social
Service programs for a total of $324,300.
Priorities
The following COBG Program priorities are recommended by staff and are based on prior Council
direction:
Priority # 1 :
In order to effectively serve the residents of the community, organizations
physically located in Chula Vista and who primarily serve local residents should
receive priority funding.
Priority #2:
In order to promote self dependence, priority should be given to organizations who
do not become dependent upon continued funding from the City.
Priority #3:
Encourage organizations to form collaboratives.
Policies and Procedures
With the anticipated increase in request for funding, staff recommends implementing the following
policies and procedures for the 1997-98 application process which have been partially developed
from recommendations made by last year's COBG Ad Hoc Committee:
. Attendance at an application meeting is mandatory. The meeting is mandatory for
outlining the priorities, policies, and procedures and will also provide a forum for
staff to address any questions or concerns of the organizations. The meeting is
tentatively scheduled for March 3, 1997.
. Application packages will only be available at the application meeting.
. Attendance certificates will be presented at the application meeting and will be
required as part of the application submittal.
. Agencies must already have non-profit status. Pending status will not be accepted.
. Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
cr~ .2
Page 3. Item _
Meeting Date 02/04/97
. Each proposal must state at least three specific, measurable objectives.
. Collaborative proposals must list the agencies participating in the collaborative.
Prior to funding the collaborative will need to submit an estimated breakdown of
funds to be allocated to each agency involved.
. The CDBG contract period will be from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. Any
unused funds from the contract will be reallocated for the 1998-99 CDBG program
year.
Evaluation Criteria for Fundinq Applications
The following recommended application evaluation criteria was developed with the assistance of
last year's CDBG Ad Hoc Committee: (Exhibit A identifies and explains the evaluation criteria)
. CDBG National Objective - 10 points possible
. Local Objective/Need - 20 points possible
. Benefit - 1 5 points possible
. Accomplishments - 10 points possible
. Finances - 10 points possible
. Agency Qualifications - 10 points possible
. Overall Evaluation - 25 points possible
. Collaboration - up to 25 Bonus Points.
Staff anticipates an increase in funding requests due to the increase in demand for local services
created in part by the recent federal welfare reform. These priorities, policies, and procedures will
assist staff and the City Council in making the difficult decisions in funding organizations that meet
the City's goals and objectives for assisting low income persons. Attached as Exhibit B of this
report is a proposed schedule for the CDBG funding process. The submittal of the Consolidated
Plan outlining the expenditure of funds is due to HUD on May 15, 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City by adopting these priorities, policies and
procedures. The City expects to receive a 1997-98 CDBG entitlement grant in the amount of
$2,073,000.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Evaluation Criteria for Funding Applications
Schedule for CDBG Funding Process
(JF) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF,REP\02-04-97\PROCEDUR.BG [January 30,1997 (12:20pml]
;r>3
RESOLUTION NO. , cg..s ~ cr
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE PRIORITIES, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
1997-98 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has participated in the federal CDBG program since
its inception in 1974; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is limited in the amount of funding to be expended in
the Public Service category; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends establishing priorities,
policies and procedures for allocating CDBG funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby find, order, determine, and resolve the following priorities, policies, and procedures for the 1 997-
98 CDBG program:
Priorities:
#1
Organizations physically located in Chula Vista and who primarily serve local
residents should receive priority funding.
In order to promote self dependence, priority should be given to organizations not
dependent upon continual funding from the City.
Continue to encourage organizations to form collaboratives.
#2
#3
PolicieslProcedures:
. Attendance at an application meeting is mandatory.
. Application packages available only at the application meeting.
. Attendance certificates will be presented at the application meeting and will be required
as part of the application submittal.
. Agencies must have non-profit status prior to application submittal.
. Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
. Each proposal must state at least three specific, measurable objectives.
. Collaborative agencies must list the agencies (including funding amounts) participating
in the collaborative.
. The CDBG contract period will be from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. Any unused
funds from the contract will be reallocated for the 1998-99 CDBG program year.
Evaluation Criteria:
. CDBG National Objective
. Local Objective/Need
. Benefit
. Accomplishments
. Finances
. Agency Qualifications
. Overall Evaluation
. Collaboration
1 0 points
20 points
15 points
10 points
10 points
10 points
25 points
25 bonus points
""(fc ~~~
Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
[(JF) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\PROCEDUR,BG (January 30,1997 (11:03amll
~~~ .
Jo . Kaheny' ~
City Attorney
9-7
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES
The following criteria are to be used in rating each proposal. The proposal evaluation is a preliminary rating system and will
not necessarily be used to determine final funding recommendations.
1. National Objectives - maximum 10 points
The degree to which this proposal will benefit low income persons. Will the proposal result
in a direct benefit to persons of low income? What percentage of the total population served
by the program are low income?
2. Local Objectives/Need for the Program - maximum 15 points
The degree to which this proposal addresses the objective(s) established by the City Council.
How great is the need for this activity? Has the need been clearly identified? How will this
proposal address the need? Has the applicant provided evidence that this need is not already
being addressed and that this proposal does not duplicate existing activities?
3. Benefit - maximum 10 points
Will enough Chula Vista residents benefit through this proposal? What percentage of the total
populations to be served live in Chula Vista? Will the program focus on Chula Vista residents
exclusively? Does the program benefit a deteriorated neighborhood? Are the beneficiaries an
appropriate target group (lower income residents, handicapped, the elderly, youth, etc.)?
4. Accomplishments - maximum of 10 points
The degree to which the program objectives for the preceding year have been accomplished;
Were the objectives met or surpassed? If not, has the program been redesigned to make the
objectives obtainable for the new funding year?
5. Finances - maximum 15 points
Are projected costs reasonable and appropriate? Is the proposal cost efficient? Have other
sources of revenue, grants and/or income been generated for the program? Have CDBG funds
been used to leverage other sources of funding? Is the agency exclusively dependent upon
City funding for this program? Has the agency received CDBG funding previously? Does the
agency anticipate requesting reduced funding in future years to become less dependent on
CDBG assistance?
6. Agency Qualifications - maximum 15 points
Is this proposal consistent with the mission of the agency(s)? Does the organization have the
required solvency, organizational and administrative structure and ability to accomplish the
goals and objectives of the program? Is the proposed staff qualified and adequate to
accomplish the proposed goals and objectives of the program?
7. Overall Evaluation - maximum 25 points
What is the overall ability of the program and the agency(s) to benefit the community and
target population, to meet national and local priorities, to produce the greatest benefit for the
least cost, and to efficiently implement and administer to program.
BONUS:
Collaboration - maximum 25 points
Does the proposal involve collaboration of one or more agencies? If so, are each agency's role
and contribution clearly specified? Are letters of intent from all participating agencies
included?
6~
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PROPOSED 1997-98 CDBG SCHEDULE
Policies/Priorities
City Council approval of policies/priorities/procedures
CDSG Ad Hoc Committee overview of process/schedule
Housing Advisory Commission overview of process/schedule
February 04, 1997
February 17, 1997
February 26, 1997
Solicitation
Letters to citizens/agencies/city departments (RFP)
Newspaper ad noticing application meeting
Application meeting
Deadline for application submittal
February 05, 1997
February 08, 1997
March 03, 1997
March 24, 1997
Review/Recommendation
Staff review & preparation of information for committee review
CDSG Ad Hoc Committee review/interviews
CDSG Ad Hoc Committee recommendation
Housing Advisory Commission review/interviews/recommendation
April 01, 1997
April 08, 1997
April 15, 1997
April 10, 1997
Allocation
Council Public Hearing
Council meeting - Funding recommendation/approval
April 29, 1997
May 06, 1997
Environmental Review
Program/Project description to Environmental Project Mgr.
Environmental review completed
April 15, 1997
June 01, 1997
Submittal
Application submitted to HUD
May 15,1997
~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item 1
Meeting Date 02/04/97
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution /<65J I Accepting bids and awarding
contract for the purchase of three pOlice
motorcycles
Director Of Public Works ~r ~
Director of Finance / l\
City Manage~~~~~ s Vote:
No X
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The FY 96-97 equipment replacement budget provides for the purchase
of replacement motorcycles for the Police Department. On November
6, 1996, the bids for the purchase of police motorcycles were
opened. The lowest responsible bidder was Pomona Valley Kawasaki
with a unit price of $8,419.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council award the contract to Pomona Valley
Kawasaki, the lowest responsible bidder.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: The City of San Diego acted as the lead agency for
this cooperative purchasing venture. The City of Chula vista
participated as authorized in Municipal Code section 2.56.270 and
Council Resolution 6132. Bids were sent to 21 potential bidders,
with three responses. One Chula vista vendor was sent a bid
package and chose not to bid. The bid tally is as follows:
$27,214.42
2 ,9 .94
29,409.93
29,910.97
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds were not provided in the FY 96-97
equipment replacement budget for the purchase of three police
motorcycles. Two motorcycles were originally budgeted for
replacement (at a total of $19,924). subsequent to the budget
process, a third motorcycle has been identified for replacement.
Funds are available from savings for other purchases for
acquisition of a third motorcycle. The total amount including
7.75% sales tax is $27,214.42, with $7,290.42 available from
purchase savings from the riding mowers ($20,353 savings) discussed
in an agenda statement at the 1/28/97 Council meeting.
9-/
RESOLUTION NO. /5f'..5J, I
RESOLUTION OF
CHULA VISTA
CONTRACT FOR
MOTORCYCLES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
THE PURCHASE OF THREE POLICE
WHEREAS, the FY
provides for the purchase of
Department; and
96-97 equipment replacement budget
replacement motorcycles for the Police
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the following four bids for
the purchase of police motorcycles were received via a City of San
Diego cooperative purchasing venture:
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the bid be awarded to the
low bidder, Pomona Valley Kawaski, for the purchase of three police
motorcycles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
ci ty of Chula vista does hereby accept the bids and award the
contract for the purchase of three police motorcycles to Pomona
Valley Kawasaki in the amount of $27,214.42 via the City of San
Diego bid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ty Attorney
C:\rs\.otorcyc.bid
9/,),
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. / ttl
Meeting date: Febrmuy 4. 1997
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Adopting Otay Ranch Pre-annexation Agreements
with Village Development and Baldwin Builders
,.-
Ordinance ;< &- 9~ Adopting a second amendment to the Restated
Pre-annexation Agreement with Otay Ranch L.P., a California limited
partnership, Village Development, a California general partnership
and the City of Chula Vista
Ordinance .,.< t 9? Adopting a first amendment to the Otay Ranch
Pre-annexation Agreement with Baldwin Builders and the City of
Chula Vista
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager aV
Planning Director
Sp"",l PLuming Proj". t\""" ""y ~ ~<',0 S
REVIEWED BY: City ManageuC{ ~ ~) (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No -XJ
This item was continued from the meeting of January 14, 1997 at the request of the
applicant. The only change in this staff report is in the Fiscal Impact section. On June 25,
1996, the City Council met jointly with the Planning Commission to consider and approve
pre-annaexation development agreements with the major property owners of the Otay
Ranch. When the development agreements were originally approved, it was anticipated that
the Otay Ranch annexation would be finalized by the end of 1996. The development
agreements contained December 31, 1996 expiration dates if the annexation was not
complete by that time. While the reorganization was ordered by the City Council on
December 17, 1996, a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) annexation
condition was not met and the annexation was not completed by December 31 st. The
agreements have technically expired on their face.
The agreements with Village Development and Baldwin Builders need to be reinstated to
provide the City with the bonding protection covered in the October, 1996 development
agreement amendments. The agreements provided Village Development commitment to the
GDP and SPA One approvals. The revised agreements remove that expiration provision and
make the development agreements effective upon completion of the annexation, if the
annexation occurs before July 1, 1997. State law requires specific expiration dates for
development agreements concerning annexations. If the annexation is extended by LAFCO,
the expiration date is also extended but becomes null and void at the end of the extension.
/?l-/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date: February 4. 1997
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the revised ordinances for
Village Development and Baldwin Builders Development Agreements.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Agreements at their January 8, 1997 meeting and
voted 4-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained, Ray absent, one seat vacant) to recommend approval of
the amendments.
DISCUSSION:
In July of 1996, LAFCO authorized the City Council to conduct the proceeding to annex
the Otay Ranch Reorganization No. I to the City. LAFCO required that, prior to the
completion of the proceedings, the County of San Diego notifY the City that it had received
acceptable landfill nuisance easements for the I,OOO-foot buffer around the Otay landfill.
SNMB has had internal difficulty providing the County with acceptable easements but seem
to be making progress toward resolving those difficulties. In anticipation of the County
receiving the easements and the City the notice, staff scheduled the required City Council
public hearing on the reorganization for December 17,1996.
At the December 17th meeting, the City Council held the hearing, did not receive any
property owner protest and adopted the resolution ordering the reorganization. The Council
ordered the reorganization with a condition that the County notice be received by the City
prior to staff filing the resolution with LAFCO. Once the notice is received, the City will file
the ordering resolution with LAFCO who will record it with the San Diego County
Recorder completing the annexation process.
The previous development agreements expired on December 31 st and need to be reinstated
in order for Village Development to proceed with the Final Maps in SPA One. The City
does not have authority to record Final Maps until the Reorganization proceedings are
completed and the property is annexed to the City. The expiration provisions have been
removed from the revised agreements. These agreements are proposed to become effective
upon completion of the annexation to the City. A termination date of July 1,1997 is
included, unless the annexation is extended by LAFCO, as a date by which the annexation
shall occur or the development agreements become null and void.
Note: The signatures required on the landfill nuisance easements by Mr. Alex Harper and
the Foundation have now been obtained. The County is in the process of obtaining
subordination agreements regarding the nuisance easement from Village Development and
SNMB Ltd. (as they pertain to property lienholders). Once this is completed, the annexation
can be finalized and recorded by LAFCO.
FISCAL IMPACT: The processing of the development agreements is covered under the
existing staffing agreement with Village Development. As of January 27, 1997, Village
Otaymch\fmalmap\Al13DADOC
/CJ ~;2-
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date: February 4. 1997
Development's account with the City was delinquent by $115,728.52. October's invoice for
$58,504.16 was due on November 11, 1996, November's invoice of$24,731.71 was due on
December 24, 1996 and December's invoice of $32,492.65 was due on January 24, 1997.
The addition of December's invoice is the only change to this section of the Agenda
Statement. Village Development has indicated they will fully pay all the outstanding
invoices prior to the February 4, 1997 Council hearing. An oral update will be provided at
the meeting.
Otaymch\finalmap\A113DADOC
/tJ3
ORDINANCE NO.
c2&8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED
PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH OTAY
RANCH, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
AND VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, on June 25, 1996, the City Council approved a
Pre-Annexation Agreement between the city of Chula vista and otay
Ranch, L.P., a california partnership, et al pursuant to ordinance
No. 2679; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, the city Council approved
an Amendment to the Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of
Chula vista and otay Ranch, L.P., a California partnership, et al
and restated said Agreement pursuant to Ordinance No. 2691 (herein
referred to as "Restated Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, there is now a mutual desire by the city and
otay Ranch to amend the Restated Agreement to extend the term of
the effective date ("Second Amendment") of said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1997, the Planning Commission
reviewed the Second Amendment to the Restated Pre-Annexation
Development Agreement and voted to approve the Second Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the city of Chula
vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: The Restated Agreement between otay Ranch,
I.. P " a California limited partnership, Village Development, a
California general partnership, and the city of Chula vista is
hereby amended as set forth in the Second Amendment to the Restated
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement on file in the office of the
City Clerk as Document No.
SECTION II: The Mayor of the City of Chula vista is
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Second Amendment for
and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be of
full force on the effective date of annexation as set forth in the
attached Second Amendment to the Restated pre-Annexation
Development Agreement.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ "ll/\ &<D^ ~
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
c~\or\vil1age.2nd
JiJ/J-)
--
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND THE OTAY RANCH AND VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
This Second Amendment is entered into this day of
- ,
199_, by and between the city of Chula Vista ("city"), a municipal
corporation and The Otay Ranch, L. P., a California limited
partnership, and Village Development, a California general
partnership (referred to herein collectively as "Developer").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on June 25, 1996, the City Council approved a
Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City and Developer, pursuant
to Ordinance No. 2679; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, the City Council approved
an amendment to the Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and Developer and restated said Agreement, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2691 (herein referred to as "Restated Agreement");
and
WHEREAS, there is now a mutual desire by the City and
Developer to amend the Restated Agreement to extend the term of the
effective date ("Second Amendment") of said Restated Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1997, the Planning commission
reviewed the Second Amendment to the Restated Agreement and voted
to approve the Second Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefit to
be derived therefrom, CITY and Developer agree to the following
amendment:
A. SECTION 3 of the Restated Agreement is amended to read as
follows:
3. TERM. This Agreement shall become effective as a
development agreement upon the effective date of the Annexation
(the "Effective Date"); provided, however, that if the Annexation
does not occur on or before July 1. 1997. this Agreement shall
become null and void unless the annexation proceedinqs have been
extended by LAFCO. If the annexation proceedinqs have been
extended. this Aqreement shall become effective upon the effective
date of such Annexation; provided. however. if the annexation does
not occur by the end of such extension(sl. this Aqreement shall
become null and void. Any of the foregoing to the contrary
notwithstanding, from the date of first reading of the ordinance
approving this Agreement, and unless or until this Agreement
becomes null and void, Owner shall be bound by the terms of
Paragraph 4. The Term of this Agreement for purposes other than
Paragraph 4 shall begin upon the Effective Date, and shall continue
for a period of twenty (20) years ("the Term").
!t:J/j'2
The term shall also be extended for any period of time during which
issuance of building permits to the Developer is suspended for any
reason other than the default of the Developer, and for a period of
time equal to the period of time during which any action by the
City or court action limits the processing of future discretionary
approvals, issuance of building permits or any other development of
the property consistent with this Agreement.
B. Except for the provision set forth herein, each and every
provision of the Restated Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
C. Each person signing this Second Amendment on behalf of the
parties represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to so
execute and enter into a binding agreement and deliver this Second
Amendment on their behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ilndersigned have executed this Second
Amendment on the date shown below.
CITY OF CHULA VIISTA, a municipal
corporation
DATE:
THE OTAY RANCH, L.P., a California
limited partnership
by Sky Communities, Inc., a
California corporation, its general
partner
DATE:
By:
James P. Baldwin, President
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, a California
general partnership
DATE;
By:
James P. Baldwin, President
I hereby approve the form and legality of the foregoing Second
Amendment to the Restated Pre-Annexation Development Agreement this
9th day of January, 1997
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
By: ~~Q_
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
U:\ho.e\attorney\a.end,vil
/tflh:]
ORDINANCE NO.
;;4>9?
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH
BALDWIN BUILDERS AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1996, the city Council adopted
the Pre-Annexation Agreement between the city of Chula vista and
Baldwin Builders pursuant to Ordinance No. 2690; and
WHEREAS, there is now a mutual desire by the City and
Baldwin Builders to amend the Agreement for the first time to
extend the term of the effective date ("First Amendment") of said
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1997, the Planning commission
reviewed the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and voted
to approve the First Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the city of Chula
vista ordains as follows:
SECTION I: The Otay Ranch Pre-Annexation Development
Agreement between Baldwin Builders and the City of Chula vista is
hereby amended as set forth in the First Amendment to the Pre-
Annexation Development Agreement on file in the office of the City
Clerk as Document No.
SECTION
hereby authorized
the Agreement for
II:
and
and
The Mayor of the City
directed to execute said
on behalf of the City of
of Chula vista
First Amendment
Chula vista.
is
to
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be of
full force on the effective date of annexation as set forth in the
attached First Amendment to the Pre-Annexation Development
Agreement.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
fA-- ~ ~
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
C:\or\baldwin.2nd
/pg~/
.?
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND BALDWIN BUILDERS
This First Amendment is entered into this day of ,
199 , by and between the city of Chula vista ("city"), a municipal
corporation and Baldwin Builders, a California corporation
("Developer") .
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1996, the city council adopted
the Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Chula vista and
Developer pursuant to Ordinance No. 2690; and
WHEREAS, there is now a mutual desire by the city and
Developer Ranch to amend the Agreement for the first time to extend
the term of -the effective date ("First Amendment") of said
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on January 8,
reviewed the First Amendment to the
to approve the First Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benef it to
be derived therefrom, CITY and Developer agree to the following
amendment:
1997, the Planning commission
Development Agreement and voted
A. SECTION 3 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
3. TERM. This Agreement shall become effective as a
development agreement upon the effective date of the Annexation
(the "Effective Date"); provided, however, that if the Annexation
does not occur on or before JulY 1. - 1997. this Agreement shall
become null and void unless the annexation proceedinqs have been
extended by LAFCO. If the annexation proceedinqs have been
extended. this Aqreement shall become effective upon the effective
date of such Annexation; provided. however. if the annexation does
not occur bY the end of such extensionlsl. this Aqreement shall
become null and void. Any of the foregoing to the contrary
notwithstanding, from the date of first reading of the ordinance
approving this Agreement, and unless or until this Agreement
becomes null and void, Owner shall be bound by the terms of
paragraph 4. The Term of this Agreement for purposes other than
Paragraph 4 shall begin upon the Effective Date, and shall continue
for a period of twenty (20) years ("the Term").
The term shall also be extended for any period of time during which
issuance of building permits to the Developer is suspended for any
reason other than the default of the Developer, and for a period of
time equal to the period of time during which any action by the
city or court action limits the processing of future discretionary
/fJjJ--;L
approvals, issuance of building permits or any other development of
the property consistent with this Agreement.
B. Except for the provision set forth herein, each and every
provision of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
C. Each person signing this First Amendment on behalf of the
parties represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to so
execute and enter into a binding agreement and deliver this Second
Amendment on their behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Second
Amendment on the date shown below.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
corporation
DATE:
By:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
BALDWIN BUILDERS, a California
corporation
DATE:
By:
Jimmy D. Johnson, Chief
Executive Officer
I hereby approved to form and legality of the foregoing First
Amendment to the Pre-Annexation Agreement this 9th day of January,
1997.
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney
By:
Ann Moore
Assistant city Attorney
0..- ~
C:\ag\baldwin.1st
/,tJf{-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
.'/~~
I
Meeting Date: February 4. 1997
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 96-04: Consideration of the remainder portion of
Phase 2A and 5 of Village Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Tract 96-04,
consisting of262 single-family lots and 265 multi-family units on 148.6 acres of
land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between future La Media Road
and the future SR -125 alignment
SUBMITIED BY: Special Planning Projects ~~:er, Otay RancQ.\? ~CW
REVIEWED BY: CityManage~ Y>V6~) 4/5thsVote: Yes_Nol)
On November 19, 1996, the City Council approved Village One and Phase lA and a portion of Phase
2A of Village Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 96-04. The remaining 148.6 acres
in Phase 2A and 5 of Village Five were continued to January 7, 1997 because they are located adjacent
to land owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF). The purpose of the continuance was to allow
Village Development and WCLF the opportunity to meet together with City staff to resolve any issues
that WCLF might have with this portion of the SPA One Plan. Additional time is still required to
resolve outstanding issues with WCLF.
DISCUSSION:
WCLF acquired, by foreclosure, 288 acres within SPA One on September 6, 1996. The majority of
this acreage is located in Village Five. After this portion of SPA One was acquired by WCLF, Village
Development revised their original tentative subdivision map submittal to delete the 288 acres in
question. The revised tentative subdivision map, excluding the southerly portion of Phase 2A and 5 in
Village Five, was approved by the City Council on November 19, 1996.
Since WCLF acquired the land on September 6, 1996, Village Development, WCLF and Pointe
Builders have met on two occasions. Additionally, another developer has expressed interest in
purchasing and building on the remaining 288 acres. Staff has met with them on several occasions, and
they have indicated that they intend to submit plans within the next month. Staff is anticipating that
these plans will be submitted for review prior to March 4. Staff is, therefore, recommending the
continuance to March 4, 1997.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the balance of Phase 2A of Village Five to the March 4,
1997 City Council meeting.
.,.0
70
13 ~ aaA) T"/AJ IJ 6/)
3/4-/97 I1I#~O~r;.
) j- CJ
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
)c:J...
Item
Meeting Date 2/4/97
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following
applications filed by Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P. for .28.8
acres located on the south side of East "J" Street between Paseo
Ranchero and Vaquero Court within the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III Planned Community:
a. PCM-97-0I: Amendments to Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and associated
documents to allow a 58 dwelling unit density transfer
from Parcel R-7c to Parcel R-6 and change the density
range and permitted number of dwelling units of both
parcels accordingly.
b. PCS-97-0I: Tentative Subdivision Map known as
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Chula Vista Tract 97-01 for
25.8 acres located on the south side of East "J" Street
between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct. within the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community.
DRC-97-01: Appeal of the Design Review Committee's
decision to deny the site plan and architecture of a 246
dwelling unit condominium complex at the Tentative
Subdivision Map site.
/~f?t::J
Resolution denying amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development
Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan to allow a 58
unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c to Parcel R-6; denying
Tentative Subdivision Map for 25.8 acres at Rancho Del Rey
SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 97-01 ;denying an Appeal of the
Design Review Committee's decision to deny the site plan and
architecture for a 246-unit development on 15.2 acres of the
subject site.
Director of Planning 1fIt.
Gty M,""ge~ ~@
c.
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No----X-)
J,) ~ /
_/
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
The applicant, Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has submitted applications to amend the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan,
Planned Community District Regulations, Water Conservation Plan and Air Quality
Improvement Plan to allow a 58 unit density transfer from Parcel R-7c to Parcel R-6 and
change the density range and permitted number of dwelling units of both parcels. The
Sections of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan document affected by the amendments,
as proposed to be revised, have been provided for your consideration. (see Attachment 7).
The applications also request approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map known as the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Parcel R-6, Chula Vista Tract 97-01 (PCS-97-01) for 25.8 acres
located on the south side of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct.
within the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community (see Exhibits Bl, B2 and B3). Please note
that the Tentative Subdivision Map involves only 15.2 of the 18.2 acres of Parcel R-6. The
remaining 3 acres have been designated for a forty unit affordable housing project which
is not a part of this Tentative Subdivision Map application (see Exhibits E). The proposed
SPA amendment however involves this three acre portion of Parcel R-6.
Along with the SPA amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map applications, the applicant
has filed an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision to deny the site plan and
architectural proposal of a 256 unit residential condominium complex to be located on the
Tentative Subdivision Map site.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new or supplemental EIR
is necessary and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA III,
which must be considered and certified by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on
the project (see Attachment 5).
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Resolution denying the Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 97-01
(PCS-97-01) and SPA amendment applications,and deny the appeal of the Design Review
Committee's decision to deny the site plan and architecture of the proposed project in
accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On November 18, 1996, the Design Review Committee considered the proposed project
and, after hearing staff's and applicant's presentations, endorsed the project architecture,
but concurred with staff's concerns regarding the site design deficiencies. The Committee
offered to continue the project to allow the applicant time to address the committee's
concerns (which most likely would have resulted in a reduction of dwelling units allowed to
be transferred to the site). The applicant indicated that the project economics required them
lJ;;L
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
to develop the site with 246 dwelling units and requested a final decision from the
Committee. Based on the applicant's request, the Committee voted 4-0 (Pat Kelly
abstaining) to deny the project (see Attachment 7).
On December 11, 1996 the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Design
Review Committee's decision to deny the site plan and architecture of the proposed project,
and after hearing staff's and applicant's presentation voted 2-2 with Commissioners Ray
absent and Davis abstaining, which represents no decision by the Planning Commission. The
applicant could have requested a rehearing but opted to appeal the decision to the City
Council.
The Planning Commission discussed two major issues. The project site design deficiencies
as they relate to the recently adopted City Design Manual and the Rancho Del Rey
Residential Design Guidelines, and the need and demand of this type of entry level housing
in the Rancho Del Rey area.
With regard to public input, on October 30, 1996, the Planning Department sponsored a
public forum at the Rancho Del Rey Information Center. The forum was attended by a
limited number of residents whom expressed concerns about shifting density to the site near
their homes. However, after the project architecture and overall site design was presented,
the residents in attendance indicated their general satisfaction with the overall development
proposal.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
1. Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is located at the east end of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III planned
community and involves parcels R-6 and OS-7. Parcel R-6 is irregular in shape and
contains a total of 18.2 acres. Parcel OS-7 is a 10.6 acre open space lot located
immediately adjacent to the south of Parcel R-6 (see Locator).
The site terrain slopes from north to south approximately 100 ft. to the south edge
of the open space parcel which abuts Otay Lakes Road. On this terrain three
building pads separated by 2:1 slopes and an elevation difference of approximately
20 to 27 ft. were created as part of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III mass grading
program (see Exhibits B-1, B-2 & B-3).
The site is limited to the south by Telegraph Canyon Road, to the west by a vacant
parcel (future community park), to the north by single family residential development
):2 --3
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
across East "J" Street and to the east by a condominium residential complex located
approximately 20 to 30 ft above the subject site (see locator).
2. SPA Land Use designations and land use.
CV Muni Code RDR SPA III Existing
Zoning Land Use Land Use
Designation
Site PC, Planned Community SFA, Single Faro Attached Vacant
OS, Open Space Open Space
North PC, Planned Community SFS, Single Fam Cottages Single Family Dwellings
West PC, Planned Community P, Park Vacant
East PC, Planned Community N/A Multifamily Residential
South N/A N/A Tel Canyon Road
3. Proposed Development/ Design Review Proposal
The development proposal consists of 82 two-story structures containing a total
of 246 condominium units. The eighty two (82) structures are arranged in large
residential clusters linked together by a loop road and a single access point
along East "J" Street. An emergency access has also been provided at the south
end of the parcel. The residential units are served by private streets and a
combination of open and enclosed parking strategically arranged to serve
tenants. On site amenities include an outdoor recreation area of approximately
5,500 sq. ft. and three 1,000 sq. ft. areas throughout the project for other
outdoor activities. Individual private patios/balconies have also been provided
for each individual unit.
Although not identical to the proposed project, the applicant has indicated that
there are two other developments in San Diego County using a similar design
concept. One project is located in Scripps Ranch and the other in Mission
Valley. Also, there is a very similar project in the City of Chula Vista known as
"Serena". This project is located at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and
Buena Vista Way.
According to the applicant, the proposed housing product, which offers many
benefits related to a single-family home at a relatively modest price, has been
popular in other areas of San Diego County. To demonstrate the need for this
product in the Rancho Del Rey, the applicant has prepared a marketing analysis
/..2 ~~
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
for the proposed development. The executive summary of this study has been
provided for your information (see Exhibit C).
It is important to note however that the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan area,
which encompasses three SPAs, provides a total of approximately 850 units (not
including the proposed density transfer) in five different locations throughout
the Planned Community. The units provided for entry level buyers represent
15% of the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Specific Plan. Based
on this it can be concluded that the planned community is not deficient of this
residential product.
Please note that in the Marketing Executive Summary an attached residential
project known as Sanibelle located on the north side of East "H" Street between
Terra Nova Drive and Hidden Vista Drive, is quoted to be at a density of twenty
(20) units per acre. This density calculation excludes the substantial area
absorbed by the slope banks within the project. The project's actual density is
approximately 14 dulac and utilizes large buildings containing six to eight units
each, which maximizes the site plan efficiency in terms of density.
4. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment
The adopted Rancho del Rey SPA III plan identifies the subject area for an
allowed density of 12.0 dulacre, or 228 dwelling units. The SPA amendment
application requests approval of a density transfer from Parcel R-7 to Parcel R-6
and reduction in the overall SPA number of permitted dwelling units.
Parcel R-7c was created as part of a recent amendment to the Rancho Del Rey
SPA III and received a land use designation of SFA, Single Family Attached,
target density of 12.6 dulac and a maximum number of 220 dwelling units.
However, a tentative map for this parcel was recently approved for 120 single
family attached dwelling units (duplexes) reducing the density from 12.6 to 6.9
dulac. Approval of the project with 120 units left one hundred (100) units of
unused density. Fifty eight (58) of these units are proposed to be transferred to
parcel R-6 which in the adopted GDP and Site Utilization plans has the same
land use designation (SFA) and approximately the same density range (12
dulac). The remaining forty two units (42) are not proposed to be utilized in the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III and therefore are proposed to be deleted.
More specifically, the proposed SPA amendments request the following:
. Reduce parcel R-7c permitted number of dwelling units from 220 to 120
(-100 du's) reducing the density from 12.6 to 6.9 du's/ac (-45% reduction).
//~
Page 6, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
. Increase parcel R-6 permitted number of dwelling units from 228 to 286
(+58 du's) increasing the density from 12.0 to 15.0 du/acre (+25%
increase).
. Reduce the overall SPA permitted number of dwelling units from 1,312
to 1,270 (-42 du's) reducing the overall density from 6.4 to 6.2 du/ac (3%
reduction).
The Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan allows the transfer of densities within any
SPA without amending the Specific Plan provided the transfer of units does not
exceed the total number of units authorized for the SPA and provided the
transfer result in a substantial improvement of the spatial arrangement and
functional relationship of the involved site plan.
5. Tentative Subdivision Map
As indicated above, Parcel R-6 contains a three acre lot designated to
accommodate an affordable housing project known as Cordoba, not part of this
project, and 15.2 acres for the proposed residential development. The tentative
map also includes an open space parcel located immediately adjacent to the
south and identified in the SPA plan as Parcel OS-7 (see Exhibit E).
The tentative subdivision map, which consists of three Residential lots
containing a total of 246 condominium units an open space lot, is solely for the
purpose of subdividing the property for sale. The individual dwelling units will
be sold as air space condominiums with the underlying land held in common by
a homeowners association.
Analvsis:
Typically a SPA amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map planning
applications do not require a detailed analysis of a specific project layout.
However, the criteria for approval of a density transfers, as prescribed in the
Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan requires that the spatial arrangement and
functional relationship of the site plan components be substantially improved
as a result of the density transfer.
Based on the above, staff conducted a detailed analysis of the site design and
has concluded that there are a number of design deficiencies directly linked to
the increase in density. For example, the two-story building separation, which
serves as the main access way for three dwelling units, is ten (10) feet. Typically
a 15-20 ft. separation is preferred to provide a wide access way for three
/;2~t
Page 7, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
dwelling units and accommodate more meaningful landscaping between two
story structures. The City Design Manual discourages the use of long narrow
access corridors and recommends the use of distinctive architectural elements,
materials and colors as well as recessed entries and porches to denote unit
entries and promote security and privacy.
The limited building separation and building front setback also limit the amount
of landscaping and relief that can be incorporated along the streets. Staff has
recommended, in addition to the 15-20 ft. between buildings, a minimum of
forty six (46) feet from front facade to front facade in order to allow for
additional landscaping and functional pedestrian walks. The Rancho Del Rey
SPA III Residential Guidelines suggest staggering the buildings to provide each
unit with its own identity and produce a more interesting street scene.
Another aspect that in our opinion was compromised as a result of the added
units is the pedestrian circulation system. Pedestrian walks are usually
incorporated along landscaped buffer areas and linked to all areas of the
development.
The proposed project features narrow and disjointed walkways adjacent to
portions of the private streets and parking bays. In order to resolve this
deficiency, staff has recommended a ten (10) foot landscape buffer along both
sides of the loop road not only to incorporate an inviting, curvilinear pedestrian
walk but also to be able to enhance the street scene as prescribed in the City
Design Manual. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant provided an
exhibit illustrating additional pedestrian walks. However this exhibit lacked
sufficient detail to show any significant improvement.
With regard to the proposed density, this parcel was established at
approximately twelve (12) units per acre and it was expected to be developed
with townhome residential product. In staff's experience, townhome residential
developments are usually less efficient, in terms of density, than traditional
stacked flat garden apartment projects with clustered parking.
One of the reasons for the loss of efficiency in townhome developments is
primarily due to the vehicular access that is provided to each individual unit.
This feature absorbs significant amount of land area yielding a lower density.
The density efficiency is further influenced by the site topography and units
contained within each building.
While staff is not opposed to a transfer of density, the number of dwelling units
being transferred, added to the topographical constraints and the residential
/j-)
Page 8, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
product type, have produced a compressed arrangement of buildings, a less than
desirable pedestrian circulation system, limited landscaping and inadequate
project amenities. Overall, the proposed site design fails to meet the intent and
many of the design guidelines outlined in both the City Design Manual and the
Rancho Del Rey SPA III Residential Design Guidelines.
In addition to the above mentioned concerns, staff is also responding to
comments received from members of the City's commissions, committees and
Council regarding higher density residential projects. Every year members of the
Planning Commission, Design Review and Town Centre I Committees, as well
as a member of the City Council get together to form the Annual Beautification
Awards Selection Committee.
During this program the members of this committee visit the different projects
completed in the previous year and select the award winners. During the field
trip, members of the Committee also offer comments and make suggestion to
staff about the good and bad features of the projects they visited. This input
helps staff in the formulation of future recommendations.
In the last field trip committee members expressed concerns about the tight
building arrangements in certain attached housing projects, such as the
Sanibelle residential project, citing the limited building setbacks, minimal
landscaping areas and congested street scenes. Although building architecture
is typically attractive in this type of project, the recently constructed higher
density projects all had site design deficiencies such as poorly linked pedestrian
walks, tight building arrangements, limited common usable open space and
congested street scenes.
Staff has also received input from residents of some of the high density
townhome type residential projects regarding the need of a cohesive internal
pedestrian circulation system and recreational amenities within this type of
development. It was also noted that safety issues arise when residents are
required to walk on the street.
Based on the above mentioned concerns and the input received from members
of the different commissions, committees and City Council, staff has concluded
that the transfer of fifty eight (58) units to the subject site have a significant
effect on the spatial arrangement and functional aspects of the site plan
components.
Staff is of the opinion that reducing the number of the proposed units to be
transferred by about one half (29) could allow the applicant the opportunity to
/:<-6
Page 9, Item _
Meeting Date 2/4/97
resolve the above mentioned concerns. However, if the City Council deems
appropriate to approve the density transfer (SPA amendment) and the Tentative
Subdivision Map and Appeal, staff is recommending that the conditions outlined
in Exhibit "D" (see Attachment 3) be considered.
Conclusion:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff has concluded that the project site is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of development and is therefore
inconsistent with the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan. Thus, pursuant to the criteria to allow density transfers prescribed
in the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan and Section 66474 of the California
Subdivision Map Act, staff recommends that the applications for a Tentative
Subdivision Map and SPA amendment and the appeal of the Design Review
decision to deny the site plan and architecture of the proposed project be denied
in accordance with the attached City Council Resolutions.
Fiscal Imvact:
The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the SPA
amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review Appeal.
Attachments
1. City Council Resolution
2. Exhibits:
3. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution PO r ~ AICJAJ~ ~
4. DRC Minutes and Resolution NO r S (IAN wE 0
5. FEIR-87-01 Addendum ,/
6. Public Input 1/
7. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amended Sections
8. Disclosure Statement IVIJT $t!ANI\I~'
(M:\HOME\PLANNING\LUIS/PCM-970 I.A 13
/.2-9
RESOLUTION NO.
/%3?C
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DENYING AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, WATER
CONSERVATION PLAN AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO
ALLOW A 58 UNIT DENSITY TRANSFER FROM PARCEL R-7c TO
PARCEL R-6 (PCM-96-01); DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR 25.8 ACRES AT RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, CHULA VISTA TRACT
97-01 (PCS-97-01); AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY THE SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES OF
THE SUBJECT SITE (DRC-97-01)
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and commonly known as Rancho Del Rey SPA III Parcel R-6 and OS-7; and
for the purpose of general description herein consists of 25.8 acres located on the south
side of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct. within the Rancho Del
Rey SPA III Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on September 30, 1996 Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P. ("Owner") filed
applications with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting approval
of amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan,
General Development, Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, Rancho Del
Rey SPA III Water Conservation Plan and Rancho Del Rey Air Quality Improvement
Plan. The applications also request approval of a tentative subdivision map represented
in Exhibit B-1, B-2 and B-3 in order to subdivide Parcel 15.2 acres of Parcel R-6 into
3 lots containing a total of 246 condominium dwelling units and a 10.6 acre open space
lot. ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of I) a
Specific Plan, El Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan previously approved by City Council;
2) the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 15993 ("SPA"); 3) a Master Tentative Subdivision Map,
),2r/v
previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16222 ("TSM"), Chula Vista Tract
90-02; 4) an Air Quality Improvement Plan, Rancho Del Rey SPA ITI Air Quality
Improvement Plan (AQIP); and 5) a Water Conservation Plan, Rancho Del Rey Water
Conservation Plan (WCP); both previously approved by City Council Resolution No.
16220 and 16219, respectively on July 9, 1991.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on December 11, 1996, and voted (2-2) not to forward a recommendation to the City
Council on a proposal to amend the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, a Tentative Subdivision Map application and an appeal of the decision of
the Design Review Committee to deny the site plan and architecture of the proposed
project. deny the Project; and,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 21, 1997 the Project and to receive
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
n. DESIGN REVIEW AND RECORD PLANNING COMMISSION
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Design Review Committee and
Planning Commission at their public hearings on the Project held on November 18, 1996
and December 11, 1996 respectively, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
m. PREVIOUS FEIR-89-10 AND ADDENDUM FEIR-89-10 REVIEWED AND
CONSIDERED FINDINGS; APPROVALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed,
considered, approved and certified FEIR-89-l0 and has considered Addendum FEIR-89-
10; and,
IV COMPLIANCE WITII CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that FEIR-89-1O and the addendum has been prepared
in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
EIR Guidelines, and Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and
hereby certifies the addendum to FEIR-89-l0 recertified the EIR / addendum.
/r1~/ I
V. SPA FINDINGS/ DENIAL
THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE P-C ZONE, ANY
ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND
ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS.
The proposed amendment to the SPA Plan is not in conformance with the Density
Transfer requirements of the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan because the Project
Sit is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS/ DENIAL
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66474.B & D OF THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DENIES THE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA III PARCEL R-6,
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 97-01 (PCS-97-0l) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A. The Tentative map is not in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan because
the transfer of fifty eight units (58) to the subject site have a significant effect on
the spatial arrangement and functional relationship of the site plan components
and therefore inconsistent with the density transfer criteria prescribed in the
Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan.
B. The site is not suitable for the proposed density because the proposed fifty eight
(58) unit transfer added to the topographical constraints have produce a tight
building arrangement with less than desirable amenities and deficient internal
pedestrian circulation system and landscaping program.
VII DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGSIDENIAL
BASED ON THE PLANS AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO DENY THE DESIGN REVIEW
APPEAL BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S PLANS WHICH FAILED TO MEET THE
CITY'S DESIGN MANUAL POLICIES AS IDENTIFIED A THROUGH D AS
FOLLOWS:
A. Pedestrian walkways be provided to link dwelling units with common open
space areas, recreational and support facilities, parking areas and the street.
The proposed pedestrian walkway is inconsistent with the above-referenced
guideline because the walkway is not continuous and links very few of the
dwelling units with the common open space or parking areas. In addition to its
not being very functional, the proposed pedestrian walkway is bordered by plain
wood fencing in some instances and rarely enhanced by adjacent landscaping.
/,;z~/;L
B. Landscape planting shall be used to frame, soften and embellish the quality
of the environment, and shall be in scale with a(ljacent structures and of
appropriate size and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
The proposed landscaping in direct association with the "street scene" is restricted
by proposed setbacks so as to preclude landscaping that would be consistent with
the Rancho Del Rey Design Guidelines and City's Design Manual. The planters
between the garage doors are too narrow to permit meaningful planting material
other than ground cover, and the building separation (10 ft.) is somewhat
congested with walkways leading to the individual dwelling entries, and limited
planting areas.
C. That building entrances identify and articulate individual units, providing
distinctive architectural elements, materials and colors to denote entries while
promoting security and privacy.
The floor plans require that all dwelling entries be on the sides of the building,
and on one side of the building there are always two adjacent entries. Thus, not
only is there little identity or individuality expressed architecturally by the
entrances, but individual privacy is non-existent, based upon the limited
separation between buildings and the common walkway serving three units.
D. That internal circulation promote safety, efficiency and convenience, avoiding
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The internal circulation pattern fails to promote safety, but is instead designed to
accommodate an inappropriate density for the product type proposed. The lack
of a continuous pedestrian system creates conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, resulting in an inconvenient and potentially hazardous situation for
guests and residents, who must walk along vehicular driveways from parking
space to residence or from a residence to the common recreation area.
/,2-/ J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in based upon the findings above, the City Council
does hereby deny the Tentative Subdivision Map, SPA amendments and the Design Review
Appeal.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Q_r~ ~~
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
m: lhome\planning\luis\pcs970 I.ccr
/c2 ~/r
-ff / d-
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATORS AND EXHIBITS
- (-
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ d-
(.0
Z'
<to::
ci-J
I-W
zU
we::
:lEa. <t LO
OQ..~
....I_~
W-o..
>-<1:
W<t~
ClQ..w
u
wCl)c:
<I:
1->-0..
cnW~
c?:le:::::;
a. . w
<tW~
:lEC~
W -
>0
~J:
I-U
ZZ
W<t
1-0::
"
;;
i
.
;
%
<
o
<
z '0
a: ,:.
lr '"
:J 0
II z
I-
i5u
en <
;;: e:
s ;:
'" en
U :;
.. S
0:::>
~ J:
U"
!
,
,:
g ~
l~
l~~
i!i
:lo
is!
"
~E
, ,,',','
~i
Hi
H lif
1. l:'
: ..c:
~€
I, :
10;,
, I ~ I;
"
'_'_ ~, i, . ! l
i ! ~
i ~ f t L. -.
lIL;!ii:
i
r Ii:
- i,'; ;
: ~ I . =
! i ; ! ! i ~
"
--<..
"
.,'
0"
-...:
"<-
...::E-
""'
0.'
~t
<,
"
I
"
r
J
~
>0
~
i:
. ~
,-
"
'i
~ ;
H~
,;;
, '
:ii
I~!
he
Hi
%
~
.
u'
~ ~~,
...-:.
; iH
: ~
.,0 i .J
~~
... r"t
! t~~~
! ~sH
,
"
~l
@)
1;-',.,1;
r. I
,~
:5>- _
~W9~i
~a:c:~~
~...J...J;~
~W()c.. ~
~OCl..~i
I ~o~_~
:;'11; :t::J:=jjc
t :Stll1,! w()<::u~
1 !jll:1 ~Za55
~~:~ U(I!II :!:<tcn~
~J-,I:::a:
" . " w
~
,....;
I
o:l
E-;
~
i=Q
~
::r::
:x:
~
.
g .
it
~ nH
: : f
!~ h 11 :'~"~
!~ rl ;~
~I 'r I'
ii if i~ !~
i! if H H
'! .~ J= P
h H:! ti
Ii i! ~~ f~
c u .'~ Ii ~:
~ H H Ii ~~
- 5; H ~! ~f
~HnnH
~
!: f.,,',= ~~: .:,:.~,; n~ - j.
_ 'n ..' ;_~.
~! Hi .~t,' ,.: H .E,:.'.! l::_~ .,_f ii
i; PI -" .i!. ;:
'_', ..", /"', i";:' 't
, ! a;l!!
i~ ;a t;~ I! t.. r' H.
!S ~r~ i;i ;ri f~,l n ~.:
~l :!t. ("s. t-r r "1 i~~
H hi i~~ t1if ih~ t. ~~i
;~ It I iiI,i ,Ii! i~Ji n IH
., .:f r I~ :!!! ~; Ii!'
i; i !~: i~;€,' t I r.l~! !i i I
~! r ~(' ~~ ;1- .J t.! - 1: -tf
;; .~!I in. :,:,',_i, iH.I ~~_ t.',!
I: ,. S.~f I f
-~ r, ~:I. n,t.!.. ,,-ii. B !~~
.. f lh! l,:t hi n~~ If !~l
_ 'E'> '2' ,~ -2 Il:t'
;;,.~
-,_~
~i~~
: L
~
= ~:t
, li
'" .~s
i ~ H~
\; u~ ~te
~ !
-!. 0:' '2 -2'
~,
,j
I
,
.I
i ~
<
,
%
, -
g ..
~ ;~ -iT
~ " , ,
!' ':~I~
> , 'iT
~
> ~ Ii, I ,
~ n:i
, ,
~ H~ , ,
~1111
, ,
" I I
.1 -~ .,.
I I
~f j~-
, ,
. ,-----,-----{
,~
:--;;;6 :,ql
~.... i i II ~
iJ b . 1- <
~l. ; u
,n . i I if " ~ ~ ~n ~
, E ~. i I =;'
, . t' 0 liD .
ij U ~~ I ~~ %
~I~ ~ii . , ~
R <- I ~
>I' . "'" z;;
II~ == g~ I' "
r3/1 -. -- ~i
:':: <I'
..
.
- 3___
/
~ ]~;
I .:
..
.. '~
,
, '
~
~..
/'
/~
;.-~
H H
~! t~
!~ t!
t: t:
,
'~/.
"-
"'~
l
-<
,
,
.
W
W
....-
\
~:
:;;: t
~
,
....0 i
5Q =
~
~
,
~E1~
,<-
..,Co,!,.,
e~cig
."
-~"~
~3
E~
<~
L'
~
~
Ii
.i
:f
:~.
'h
H!
..
..
"
1-
I~N'MH
C'l
I
P=l
~
1-1
P=l
1-1
~
:x:
~
<>- -
- ~W9~i
~ f:a:c::e~
. 0 _~
~ 1ll...J..J::E~
... .....WU.c..c
: :Cc..~i
::; A.O'-1
.... <:I:=-J~
~ ::iu-~~
~ ~zctc:::
~ ~<(U)~D
u;:o:: _
w
~
~ \ rHm:~
e 1 t ,~
L~~ ~j
flf:-J, I'
i.
i ~
'j
e~ ,
\
.'
n
"
-......_-
'-::"1
'- -
. .
f! !
"
'~--'-f-
---~
<
;
,
-!
4\
....,'\
~
i
;
i ~ci
I s:;:;
~
" \
~~
)~
\
.
.
.-
g@
~
'i
I I.
l:'i
-.-
",g;;
...,S!;?
~;:
~S~
:g~
~~...
~~
:"
-- .~
e--- ..~ ... ~
/
<1:
s--
[lM~Mli
I~
Ic::>-w~"'",
. -,
- ~c:c:~~
~ ~...l...J::E~
- .....wuc..
~ iiiOQ.~~
U :0 I ~~
g ;:I:=~~
-< wU<tU~
; ~Z~~5
>: I-c:(tr.lll..
~ go: ~
: w
u ,
'\ I;ml::
f:j fi U
L~11<:",~
~~J!,.
"
'-
~g
~
cY:l.
I
~
E-c
t---l
i=Q
t---l
~
~
~
HEEB
DEVELOPMENT
CO'"'JfS'UlTlrtG
< ~,..:. .: .....~;;... -:.(0).....,:..,.
Rancho Del Rey - Neighborhood 3340
Market Feasibility Analysis
Executive Summary
I.
Subiect Property & Proposed Product (Appendix Section I)
*
Neighborhood 3340 (also known as RDR6) is located in the SPA III portion of the
master planned community of Rancho Del Rey. The project is planned for a total of
246 units in 82 three unit (tri-plex) buildings, and includes a recreational area with
cabana, swimming pool and spa, and several "pocket parks." The site is also located
directly adjacent to the planned Voyager Park, which will have extensive recreational
amenities including such items as tennis courts and ball fields.
*
Three floor plans are proposed at the subject property ranging from 1,025 to 1,355 square
feet. The project is similar in design to two fast-selling projects now on the market in
other parts of San Diego County: Triana (Scripps Ranch Villages), and Union Square
(Mission Valley). However, in comparison to those two projects, the subject
property site is tiered (both Triana and Union Square are flat sites), which creates
view opportunities and breaks up the massing of buildings on the site, the subject
site will incorporate more extensive landscaping creating a more pleasing
streetscene, and the architecture of the subject unit buildings will be enhanced
beyond what is seen at Triana and Union Square. The target market for the homes is
primarily first time home buyers consisting mostly of young singles and couples.
*
Rancho Del Rey has established itself as one of the most desirable communities in all of
San Diego County. Rancho Del Rey is typically among the top three best selling master
plans in the county on a year-to-year basis. However, there are currently no attached
for-sale projects (condominiums or townhomes) on the market in Rancho Del Rey,
thus limiting the number of potential buyers who can afford to buy in the
community. Attached product is often the only way first-time buyers can afford to buy a
new home, and the subject property has been designed to fill a need for affordable entry-
level homes in the City of Chula Vista.
II.
Housing- Market Overview (Appendix Section II)
*
Attached product represents a viable opportunity in today's market as evidenced by the
fact that average sales rates are higher for attached product today than for single family
detached projects. A total of 1,599 attached unit sales are projected for San Diego
County in 1996, with 171 sales in the South County market area. Peak sales in the
1990s in the South County market occurred in 1993 when 362 units were sold.
EXHIBIT C
13601 Etude Raad. San Dieaa. California 92128. (619) 673-5930. fax (619) 676-0781 h 1 f 3
. _ /n _ S eet 0
>.:-::\:.:.::1 C0::-. ~:::;.'S
ReeD DC\-c]opmcr:~ C0:15U:t:::
Pooo
...,::'-
:\ 0\c:11ro, n. 996
The cU"ont de\'olopment em'ironment severely limits the number of builders who ca.'1
build aaached product, and the number of projects offered on the market has
correspondingly plummeted in the past four years. From a peak of 103 projects in 1993,
there are currently only 39 attached projects on the market today in San Diego County.
South County has experienced a similar trend, dropping from 12 projects in 1993 to
only six today, and all the South County projects are expected to be sold out by mid-
1997.
.
The lack of new attached for-sale projects on the market is severely impacting the ability
of first-time buyers to purchase a new home. Attached homes are typically S15,000 to
$40,000+ lower in price than the same size single family detached home. County-
wide, the median priced attached unit is almost S80,000 lower in price than the median
priced detached unit (not accounting for differences in unit sizes).
III.
Competitive Market Analvsis (Appendix Se~tion III)
.
There are currently only four actively selling attached for-sale projects in master planned
communities in the Chula Vista area. All combined, there are only 69 units left to sell
in those projects, and all are expected to be sold out by mid-1997. Prices range from
$104,900 to $169,900, averaging S135,948 for an average 1,333 square foot unit.
"
Sanibelle is the best selling and highest density attached project on the market,
averaging 1.19 sales per week (62 sales per year), with a density of about 20 units
per acre. Sanibelle's buyers are mostly first-time buyers from the local area, and are
mostly young singles and couples. The project offers two-story townhome units and
single Jewl flats, all with one-car garages.
.
Single family detached homes on "small lots" (lots under about 4,500 square feet) in
Rancho Del Rey average about S162,000 for an average 1,500 square foot home,
while homes in Eastlake average about S170,000 for the same size house. The lowest
priced detached homes are offered at the "cluster home" project, Aspire, with prices from
S129,990 to SI63,990. Aspire's lots range from about 1,350 to 1,925 square feet, and
homes range from 940 to 1,527 square feet.
.
There are only two planned and proposed attached projects in Chula Vista area
master plans that are likely in the next two years - a duplex project in Rancho Del
Rey, and a stacked flat project in Otay Ranch. The duplex site is now being graded and
home sales will begin next year. Homes will range from 1,588 to 1,849 square feet. The
Otay Ranch site is currently raw land, and home sales are not expected to begin until mid-
1998. The Otay Ranch site is expected to have product at 20 units per acre.
.
The demand potential for new attached for-sale units in the South County market
area has been estimated at about 150 to 250 units per year over the next year or two.
lt should be noted however that this level of demand is based on capture rates in the
1990s, which have been limited by the declining number of projects on the market.
Actual demand for affordably priced new homes is most likely much higher.
-7-
sheet 2 of 3
\ '~\'1;il1"1 CO'~'~':."l'~"'''
.\..... .., I .d:.... '-_
:\ o\elTI ber 21. ] 996
Reeb De\'eJopmer.: Co:-:sUJIir1g
Page 3
IY.
Triana and Vnion Square Re\'iew (Appendix Section IV)
.
The Triana and Union Square projects are both similar to the product proposed for
Neighborhood 3340 at Rancho Del Rey. Triana, located in a suburban planned
community and selling 2.37 units per week, is the best selling attached project in all
of San Diego County, and is the only project averaging over two sales per week. Union
Square, located in Mission Valley and averaging 1.48 sales per week, is the fifth best
selling attached project in the.county.
.
Both projects attract mostly first time buyers, consisting mainly of young singles and
couples, although both have some empty nester, retiree, and small family buyers as well.
Buyers like the attached garages, light/airy feeling of the plans (created by the tri-
plex configuration which limits the number of units attached to each particular
home), the community amenities, and the affordability of the homes.
.
Although both projects are among the best selling new home projects in San Diego
County, there is room for improvement. Based on il review of the projects, the subject
proper!}' incorporates more landscaping, has more open space in the way of slope
areas ,,'hich not only open up the project more, but also creates view opportunities,
and the building's exterior architectural elements have been enhanced,
v.
Conclusions and Recommendations
.
The subject proper!}' represents a viable development opportunity as proposed. The
development concept has proven to be highly successful in other parts of San Diego
County (including a similar suburban location), and Rancho Del Rey represents a highly
desirable residential address. The floor plans proposed are appropriate for the market,
and the building configurations minimize the sound issues sometimes found in attached
products, while still providing direct garage access, and light and airy plans.
.
As an affordable alternative to more expensive single family homes, units at the subject
properry could represent one of the few new home options available for first-time buyers
in the South County market area. Given the current development environment, it is
highly likely that there will be even fewer attached projects on the market in the
near future, further limiting first-time buyer new home options.
.
The "entry price" into Rancho Del Rey is currently $129,990, which buys a 940 square
foot cluster home on a 1,350 square foot lot at Aspire (the average price at Aspire is
$148,790). There are currently no new attached for-sale units on the market in Rancho
Del Rey, effectively pricing many would-be residents out of the community. The
offering of a product such as proposed for Neighborhood 3340 would gin more
people the opportunity to live in Rancho Del Rey.
.
We recommend proceeding with the development of the subject proper!}' as
proposed.
c:\msoffice\winword\96sd62ex.doc
- ~~
sheet 3 of 3
EXHIBIT D
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AMENDMENT AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. SPA Al\lENDMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the directors of Planning and Parks
and Recreation departments of all recreational trails associated with this
project.
2. Prepare and submit fifteen (15) copies of the final revised sections of the
Rancho De] Rey SPA III Sectional P]anningArea (SPA) Plan and associated
documents prior to approval of the first final map.
3. Prepare and include in the project's CC&R's a comprehensive fencing
program incorporating the following fencing standards:
a. Where privacy fences are installed directly over, or immediately
adjacent to retaining walls, the overall wall! fence height shall not
exceed 7 it. Where higher retaining wall! fence conditions occurs, a
four foot landscape transition strip between the wall and the fence
shall be provided.
b. Fences, retaining walls or a combination of both located within the
established front setback area shall be limited to forty two inches (42")
in height.
c. Provide a design and install five feet (5') high decorative fences along
the e),:terior side yard of all corner lots.
4. Provide a ten feet (10') wide landscape buffer along both sides of the loop
road, access driveway and the project's side along East "J" Street.
5. Prepare, submit and receive approval by the Director of Planning of a parking
plan illustrating the distribution of all required and guest parking spaces as
prescribed in Section VI.6-A of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District Regu]ations.
6. Provide the required parking within one hundred feet (100') and guest
parking within two hundred feet of the unit it is intended to serve. but in no
instance the required and guest parking shall not be located outside the
residential cluster area it is intended to serve.
-q
7. Design all internal pedestrian walks and street crossings in compliance with
the American Disabilities Act.
8. Comply and remain in compliance with items 1,4 and 6 of the Special
Standards for RC Districts prescribed in Section VIII.3-G of the Rancho Del
Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District
Regulations.
9. Comply and remain in compliance with Section XII.2-C, Handicap Parking
Requirements.
10. Provide a decorative wall (RDR theme wall) along the west property line,
East "J" Street, main access driveway and loop road.
11. Design the project landscape in accordance with the landscaping criteria and
check list contained in the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Residential Design
Guidelines (pages V-23 and 24).
12 Provide a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet with no dimension less
than ten (10) feet for all units with ground level private patio areas and an
seventy five square foot balcony or deck with no dimension less than six feet
(6') for all second story units.
13. Provide a fifteen (15) foot setback for all building facing the loop road.
14. provide a fifteen foot setback from the established fence line for all buildings
which backup on to the main access driveway.
15. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the director of Planning of
development standards for patio additions and other accessory structures
prior to approval of the final map. The development standards shall be
incorporated into the project's CC&R's.
16. Incorporate provisions in the CC&R's prohibitingRV parking within the
project.
17. If the project is proposed to be developed in phases, prepare, submit and
obtain approval by the Director of Planning of a construction phasing plan
prior to issuance of the first building permit.
C. DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
SITE PL<\N
1. Provide a set of design and construction guidelines for allowable accessory
structures outlining structure setbacks (sides and rear), maximum permitted
-(0 _
pri\'ate patio area cover area, permitted height etc.
2. Provide decorative type paving to delineate internal pedestrian road crossings.
3. Provide a 5 ft.minimum separation between parking bays and private patio
fences, retaining walls, structures slope banks and any other structure.
4. Prepare and submit to staff for review and approval a trash enclosure solution
for second story units.
5. Buildings shall observe a 10 ft. front setback
6. Reduce the number 90 degree turns along the pedestrian walks.
7. Access point to the westerly adjacent park shall be redesigned to create a
more inviting access way from the loop road to the park and provide a
connection to lot 2.
8. Provide continuous circulation between private Street "C" and "D"
9. Rotate 78 and 83 to face Street "M" and unit 80 to face Street "N"
B. PARKING
10. Parking standards shall be as follows:
. Two Car garage
. One Car Garage
. Std. parking stall
. Compact Parking Stall
. Handicap Parking Stall
. Parallel Parking stalls
20 x 20 (exterior dimension)
10 X 20 (interior dimension)
9 X 19*
71/2 X 15**
14 X 19*
10 X 23
Standard and handicap parking stall lengths shall be reduced to 17 to allow a 2 foot overhang onto
planters or walks. However, the planter and concrete walk shall be increase in width accordingly.
..
Compact size parking stalls shall be reduce in length to 13112 ft to allow 11/2 ft overhang onto planters
or concrete walks. However planters and concrete walks shall be increased in width accordingly.
11. The project should be divided into "parking Service Areas and each parking
Service Area shall have the required number of parking spaces (including
guest parking). Provide a Parking plan showing open parking stalls
distribution and distances from unit entrances (walking distance).
12. Delete or relocate parking stall located at the east end of private street "0"
-11-
13. single parking stalls 46-48 and 173, 174 & 175 shall be deleted or relocated.
14. Modify the back-up area provided for the single gar garages of units
15. All garage doors shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener.
C. LANDSCAPING
16. Provide a ten foot landscape strip along East "J" Street, both sides of the
main access driveway and both sides of the internal loop road.
17. Perimeter fence along East "J" Street shall be located behind a ten foot
landscaping strip.
18. Landscape nodes between parking bays shall be 8 ft. wide
19. Incorporate an 18" concrete "step-out strip along all planters adjacent to
parking stalls.
20. Landscape nodes at ends of parking bays shall be 6 ft wide with an 18"
concrete step-out strip on the side of the planter abutting parking stalls.
21. Provide a parking screening solution for the parking facility located on the
north side of Private Drive "J" ( landscaping strip is too narrow to support
meaningful landscape screening material).
D. FENCING
22. Submit a detail fencing program addressing perimeter, private patio, internally
exposed and perimeter fencing and the fencing standards outlined in SPA
condition No.3.
23. Emergency access gate shall be relocated to be behind the private patio fence
of unit 64.
E. ARCHITECTURE
24. Provide a plan site plan identifying the buildings with enhanced side
elevations.
25. Provide the required interior storage for all units.
26. All units shall be equipped with a trash compactor
-Id-. -
3. C\GI:\EERI:\G DEPARDIE:\T RECO\1:I1E:\DED CO'\DITIO'\S:
ihe Engineering Department has reviewed the subject revised tentative map dated
September 27, 1996 and recommends the following conditions of approval. Prior to
approval of the final map unless otherwise indicated, the developer shall:
G",NERAUPRElIMINARY
1. Comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval applicable to Parcel R-6 of the
Ri"ncho del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02, Tentative Map established by
Resolution No. 16222 approved by Council on July 30, 1991
2. Install public facilities in accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA's I, II, & III Public
Facilities Financing Pian as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet
threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and
Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
3. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, submit
and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and
dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as
determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the right
to conditional approval of each final map with the requirement to provide said
improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate
circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City
Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
STREETS. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC/PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
4. Design and construct all streets to meet the City standards for private streets, or as
approved by the City Engineer. Street grades steeper than 12% shall be paved with
portland cement concrete with cutorrwalls. Submit improvement plans for approval
by the City Engineer detailing the horizontal and vertical alignment of said streets.
- 13 -
CVI 97-01, RDR SP,"JII PCl R-5
File #: 0600-80-RR313
J. Repla:e existing ,AC curb, sidewalk and pedestrian ramp at the project entrance on
East J Street with monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalk and cross gutter in conformance
with City standards.
6. Provide decorative concrete pavement delineating the boundary between the public
and private streets.
7. Align project entrance with Camino Calabazo.
8. Street light locations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
9. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District that the
subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long tenm water storage
facilities.
10. Comply with the City of Chula Vista private streets design standards including
minimum horizontal curves radii of 150 ft or 100 ft depending on street length.
11. Provide paved access (minimum 12' width) to all public sewer manholes necessary
to serve the subdivision. Design access road to accommodate H-20 wheel loads
and maximum 15% grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintain a
minimum 5 foot horizontal clearance between sewer manholes and edge of paving.
Do not locate public sewer manholes in designated parking spaces.
12. Relocate the existing public water, sewer and storm drain facilities between sewer
manholes NO.7 and No. 11 (as shown on the Tentative Map dated 9/27/96) to align
with private street "8".
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
13. Submit a precise drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading penmit or other
development penmit. Design of the drainage facilities shall consider existing
drainage patterns. The drainage study shall show how downstream drainage
facilities are impacted. The extent of the study shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
14. Submit a detailed geotechnical report prepared and signed and stamped by both
a registered civil engineer and certified engineering geologist prior to approval of
grading plans and issuance of grading penmit.
15. Design all retaining walls to Chula Vista standards as detenmined by the City
Engineer. Show details for non-regional standard walls on the grading plans and
submit structural calculations for said walls for review and approval prior to issuance
- /~~
CVT 97-01, RDR SP,t;,111 PCl K-O
File #: 0600-60-RR313
of a grading permit. Include design recommendations for retaining walls in the soils
report for the project.
16. Provide improved access to all existing public storm drain c1eanouts or as approved
by the City Engineer.
17. The proposed onsite storm drain system shall be private. Designate storm drain
facilities as private on the improvement plans.
18. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erosion and sedimentation
control plan as part of grading plans. Comply with all the provisions of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program
19. Show the location of existing cut/fill lines on grading plans unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
20. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations
shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer
and Planning Director.
AGREEMENTS
21. Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any
one of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction
of the City. . The developer may propose changes in the timing and
sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected.
In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City Planning
Director and Public Works Director.
22. Agree to participate in the monitoring of existing and future sewage flows in the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the preparation of the Basin
Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in the financing
of improvements set forth therein, in an equitable manner. Execute said agreement
prior to final map approval.
- (r_
CVT 97-01, RD::\ SPAIII pel R-5
File #: OSOO-80-RR313
23.
24.
?~
_:l.
Agree to deiend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, irom any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 oi the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider oi
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense.
Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow
of drainage resulting from this project.
Agree to ensure that all iranchised cable television companies ("Cable Company")
are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service
to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those
franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of
the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all
other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation oi cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time
to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
26. Offer to grant in fee on each Final Map all open Space Lots within the subdivision.
Prepare and record a grant deed ior each open space lot. The minimum width of
each open space lot shall maintain a 10-ioofwide landscaping area behind the back
of sidewalk.
27. Submit a list of all facilities located on open space lots to be maintained by the
existing open space landscape maintenance district. This list shall include a
description, quantity and unit price per year for the perpetual maintenance of all
facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls, fences,
water fountains, lighting structures, paths, access roads, drainage structures and
landscaping. Only those items on an open space lot are eligible for open space
maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres
of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid the estimation of a maintenance
budget thereof.
28. Prior to final map approval or other grant of approval for any phase or unit thereof, the
developer shall pay all costs associated with: reapportioning assessments for Open
Space District 20 (Zones 3, 7 and 9); and apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary.
Complete and submit application for apportionment and provide a deposit to the City
estimated at $25 x (units + Open Space Lots) x assessment districts to cover costs.
- !."G _
CVT 27-01, RDR SP.';111 PCl R-6
File #-: DSOO-SD-RR3 -13
29. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer acknowledging that
additional fees have been paid into the Assessment District, and that these additional
fees are reflected in the purchase price of the home for those units which have a
density change from that indicated in the assessment district's Engineer's Report.
Submit disclosure forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
~SEMENTS
30. Grant to the City a general utility and access easement over all private streets and
secondary access road for public sewer maintenance and emergency access
purposes.
31. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along Telegraph
Canyon Road and Buena Vista Way frontage of the open space lots to be granted in
fee to the City.
32. Grant on the associated final map a minimum 15' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of all sewer facilities within Lot A.
33. Indicate on the final map a reservation of an easement to the future Homeowners'
Association for private storm drain facilities within open space Lot A
tJdSCElLANEOUS
34. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions
assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways and drainage systems which are
private. The City of Chula Vista shall be named party to said Declaration authorizing
the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner
as any owner within the subdivision.
35. Show on the final map, a table indicating the number of dwelling units per each lot
and the total number of dwelling units for the subdivision.
35. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (NAD '83).
37. Submit copies of each final map and improvement plan in a digital format such as
(DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided
Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry
calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for
Digital Submittal in duplicate on 3-1/2 HD floppy disk prior to the approval of each
Final Map.
- 1'7-
C\iT 97-01, RDR SP.t\111 PCl R-6
File #: 0600-80-RR313
Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval:
38. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation
of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
39. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and
Recreation of the formation of a Homeowner' Association (HOA) which includes all
the properties within the approved tentative map. The HOA shall be responsible for
the maintenance of the improvements listed in condition of approval number 26 of
this tentative map. The City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation
may approve that some of those improvements be maintained by the Open Space
District. The final determination of which improvements are to be included in the
Open Space District and those to be maintained by the HOA shall be made during
the open space district formation proceedings.
40. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
41. Pay Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance 2384.
42. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
d. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
e. Signal Participation Fees.
f. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
g. SR-125 impact fee.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
SE
(M:\HOMBENGIN:=..!:R\!..ANDDE\'\R.R31JTM.SL Y)
- / f-
PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
~
kJ
.E;f,
'-:> .,
.
.'>
~
<v" .
AFFORDABLE
HOUSI NG SITE
40 UNITS ON
3.0 ACRES
~::
l"
i;~
~r
PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION SITE
246 UNITS ON
15.2 ACRES
~.
~,
:::;;;-...:.
k
,.
"
~
"
~
'"
C
m
~
<
Vi
>'
~
?<.
~
,
OPEN
SPACE
LOT
;;
l.
t"-
/,- ..-"
~O ~/ ",/
O~ ~- /'.
. \ Ct'--~'\ . / /
~'0
,\~\.~G
;/
/>
/ ~;./O .
r
~!
"
f
,/\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Rancho Del Rey
C) APPliCANT, Investors, L.P. EXHIBIT E
PROJECT SO. side of 'J' St. between
ADDRESS, h
Paseo Rane era & Vaquero Ct
SCALE, FILE NUMBER,
NORTH No Scale PCM.97-Ql
-/9-
THIS PAGE BLANK
- Ch ~
- d 1-
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES AND RESOLUTION
THIS PAGE BLANK
-,),J-
Excemt from Unapproved 12/11/96 Planning Commission Minutes
ITEM 2:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following applications filed by Rancho
Del Rey Investors L.P. for 28.8 acres located on the south side of East 'J' Street
within Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Planned Community:
a. PCM-97-01: Consideration of amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan,
Planned Community District Regulations, Air Quality Improvement Plan
and Water Conservation Plan to allow a 58 unit density transfer from
Parcel R-7c to Parcel R-6.
b. PCS-97-01: Tentative Subdivision Map for 25.8 acres at Rancho Del Rey
SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 97-01.
ITEM 3:
PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-97-01: Consideration of an appeal filed by Rancho
Del Rey Investors L.P. of a Design Review Committee decision to deny approval
of the site plan and architecture for a proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres
on the south side of East ' J' Street within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned
Community
Assistant Planning Director Lee introduced the project manager, Luis Hernandez, who would
discuss the issues relating to the SPA and the tentative map, and Ann Pedder Pease who handled
design review through the Design Review Commission who would explain the Committee's
review and their action. There were some basic differences which were fairly significant, which
were umesolved. Staff felt there were problems with the setbacks relating to the buildings, the
ability to landscape, and inadequate pedestrian system. Mr. Lee noted that staff was not
opposed to some transfer of density. About 30 units as opposed to 58 being proposed onto this
site could be transferred and meet staffs concerns. The Design Review Committee had agreed
with staff's analysis and offered a continuance of the item for the applicant to try to work out
those details and come up with a modified plan that would address those issues. The applicant
indicated that that was not acceptable; they needed a decision and needed to get this moving
forward through the Planning Commission and City Council.
Associate Planner Hernandez pointed out some changes which had been made since the staff
report had been sent to the Planning Commission. He then made a presentation relating to the
SPA amendment comments, tentative map comments, and general remarks on the overall
development proposal. Mr. Hernandez noted that the SPA amendment and the tentative map
process might involve a detailed analysis of the site design. However, the Specific Plan criteria
for allowing density transfers required that as a result of the density transfer, the spatial
arrangement and functional relationship of the site plan components be substantially improved
as a result of the density transfer. Staff had not been able to make that rmding, primarily
because after reviewing the site design, they had encountered a number of deficiencies in terms
of the functionality and the amenities in design that are directly linked to the increase in density .
For these reasons and the issues that Ms. Pedder Pease would discuss regarding the design of
-c?3_
PC Minutes
-5-
December 11, 1996
the project and some of the aspects that staff had been unable to resolve with the applicant, staff
recommended that the SPA amendment and the tentative subdivision be denied. Conditions.had
been included, however, if the Planning Commission deemed it appropriate to approve the
project.
Ann Pedder Pease stated that the Design Review Committee on November 18 met to consider
the site plan and architecture, using the City's Design Manual and Design Guidelines of the
Rancho del Rey SPA Plan. The tentative map, SPA Plan, and density transfer were not
considered. The Committee agreed with staff that the architecture was in accordance with the
requirements of the Design Manual. She noted that the second floor in each instance overhung
the first or garage floor of the buildings. Regarding the site plan, the major concern on the part
of the Design Review Committee was a requirement of the Design Manual that a project such
as this have a coherent pedestrian walkway system. The system as first proposed to the
Committee lacked continuity and did not link dwelling units. The applicant had attempted to add
some additional pedestrian walkway to give more coherence to the system, but stilI did not
address the other issues pointed out by the Design Review Committee: the areas irmnediately
adjacent to the walkways were not conducive, often not landscaped, frequently bordering a
fence, and stilI did not provide for full linkage of all the features of the project. Ms. Pedder
Pease went on to explain other findings required in the Design Manual which had not been met.
Regarding transfer of units, the Design Review Committee was anxious to see what kind of
solution the applicant could reach which would transfer some units and stilI meet all of the
concerns that had been outlined by the Committee.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the applicant was planning for the walkway to be 4'
in width, which would only leave 3' of landscaping on either side.
Commissioner WilIett had visited Serena and had visited the houses being built across the street.
He shared the concerns of staff regarding security. There was no visibility from the street to
either of the entrances. He was concerned that the children would play in the driveways and
drivers would not be able to see them in time to stop. He questioned the turning radius of the
larger fire trucks on the streets and if the Fire Department had approved them.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Craig Fukuyama, McMillin Companies and Rancho del Rey Investors L.P., 2727 Hoover
Avenue, National City, representing the owner, said they were trying to bring to the area
another quality product, an entry-level product. The higher density and greater number of units
would allow the cost distribution to be done on a less-per-unit allocation and a more affordable
the product. There was a mandate in their plan not only for aesthetics, but to secure housing
affordabiIity, housing variety, and to have an absence of entry-level housing in Rancho del Rey
was as much a violation of their goals and objectives as aesthetics would be. Mr. Fukuyama
noted that they had an entry-level product and, therefore, did not have all the glitz and glamour
that would be in a more upscale-type product. They were trying to create an affordable product.
He discussed the sidewalk width, security, landscaping, recreation and activity areas, staff's
- ,;<4 -
PC Minutes
-6-
December 11, 1996
concern regarding the double-loaded street system, recreation areas, circulation system, and
pedestrian system. He compared the proposed project to pictures taken of the Serena project
which would be comparable to the landscaping proposed and building separation.
Russ Haley, 10721 Treena St., SD, representing Shea Homes, the guest builder for the project,
said they were building a triplex product and showed slides of the architecture, yard space, and
elevation.
Peter Reeb, Reeb Development Consulting, 13601 Etude Road, SD, had conducted a market
feasibility study for the project, analyzing the site, supply, and demand. Currently, there was
nO attached for-sale product in Rancho del Rey, which limited the overall size of the market they
had to appeal to. Not having an attached product in the community left a void in the
marketplace. During the past few years the ratio of attached sales to detached sales had been
declining because there had been fewer attached projects approved and fewer builders building
attached products primarily because of construction issues. Outside of Rancho del Rey, there
were only four condo and townhome projects that were actively selling in master planned
communities in the Chula Vista area. Within those four projects, there were only about 70 units
left. Those four projects should be sold out by mid-1997. Rancho del Rey currently had under
construction a duplex product which would be On the market at that time. Beyond that, there
would be nothing in the marketplace for entry-level buyers. He discussed the prices of the
homes and the demand. He felt that in South County, there was a current demand in the
marketplace from 150 to 250 attached unit sales per year. There would be a large unmet
demand in the marketplace for an affordably priced attached product. Mr. Reeb noted the key
issues which made other projects, which were more dense, successful. He felt it was a good
site and setting; there was a dwindling supply of affordable product; there was strong demand;
the product had been market tested; it filled a void in the marketplace; and it fit well within an
overall array of products being offered at Rancho del Rey.
Mr. Fukuyama returned to the podium and stated that if the Commission chose to move
forward with approval, they could come back before the Commission with revision to the
conditions. McMillin would meet with staff and possibly come to some consensus on their
differences. He requested approval of their project.
Commissioner Willett asked if, in the marketing analysis, they had estimated the number of
students who would be attending the elementary and high schools, and if they planned to attend
Chula Vista Hills. He had not seen anything in the staff report regarding the school's agreement
regarding the number of students they could handle.
Associate Planner Hernandez stated that the School District had sent a letter indicating that the
school needs had been satisfied by the school that would potentially be built across Paseo
Ranchero. Answering Commissioner Willett, Mr. Hernandez stated that the school had not said
it would be built, but it could be satisfied with that site.
- ;2 J/-
PC Minutes
-7-
December 11, 1996
Commissioner Willett said that took care of the high school, but not the elementary school. Mr.
Fukuyama stated that he believed there was an elementary school site that the School District
owned on the southwest corner of Paseo Ranchero and "J" Street.
Commissioner Willett asked if the Fire Department had taken a look at the area. It was a one-
entrance unit. Mr. Fukuyama replied that there were two entrances; there was an emergency
entrance from Buena Vista which would be gated and locked to provide emergency entrance only
to the site by the Fire Department. After meeting with the Fire Department, the emergency
entrance had been provided and Mr. Fukuyama did not think there were any other objections.
Mr. Hernandez stated that staff had also met with the Fire Department and specifically inquired
about the turning radius of the fire equipment and apparatus. They concluded that there was
sufficient room to maneuver in that specific configuration, and expressed no concern.
Chair Tarantino questioned the overhangs and the impact on the street scene. Mr. Fukuyama
stated that in the Serena Project, the streets were 24' wide. They were proposing 26' wide for
this project, so the streets themselves were 2' wider. They did overhang the streets, but he did
not think it created an objectional appearance.
Mr. Haley returned to the podium to say that there had not been a lot of attached product in the
County during the last few years because there was a liability issue now. Regarding this
product, all three units would be owned fee simple and the only thing that would be commonly
maintained would be the roof.
Commissioner Thomas commented that the school site would not be built and would probably
be used as a land swap.
Mr. Hernandez stated that he had located the letter from the School District which stated that
the need for a school in Rancho del Rey was mitigated through a Mello-Roos and for this
particular site, they were proposing to use the Discovery Elementary School at this time.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to compare Marbrisas and this project regarding the units
per acre. Mr. Hernandez stated that Marbrisas had 17.7 dulac and this project went up to 16.1
du/ac.
Regarding garages, Mr. Tuchscher asked if they had direct access into the units. Staff answered
positively.
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he saw only one access to the park from the site. Assistant
Planning Director Lee said that was at the direction of the Parks & Recreation Director. They
wanted to provide access, but wanted it at a controlled location. The applicant was willing to
provide more, but the Parks Department did not want additional access. They did not want
people entering it at several different points and wanted it at a controlled point. Mr. Fukuyama
- ;2~ .-
PC Minutes
-8-
December 11, 1996
stated that Parks & Recreation had had negative experiences where they had several access
points. The problem was with park users trespassing onto the private property.
Commissioner Tuchscher felt that with the gated community, park users could not just walk into
the neighborhood. He did not see the conflict from the homeowners' standpoint; rather, on this
particular plan, the residents of the southwest units could not access the park there, although
they lived next to the park. They would have to walk back and around. Mr. Tuchscher did not
agree with that. He wanted to make sure the homeowners next door got easy access to the park.
Mr. Fukuyama said the fence was 5' tall and would not be much of a deterrent for the older
children. If someone wanted to jump the fence, they would get in anyway. McMillin's
preference was for more entrances, but respected the wishes of the Parks & Recreation Director.
Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding roofing materials, Mr. Fukuyama stated they
would use concrete tile.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Reeb the historic percentage of multi-family for-sale product
in San Diego County. Mr. Reeb said in San Diego it was about 1/3 of the total market. Today
it was closer to 25 % . The decline had been the result of fewer projects on the market.
Countywide, four years ago, there were probably about 100 attached projects on the market;
today there was less than 40 Countywide. In South County, four years ago had 12 active
projects; throughout all of South County presently, there were only six. Mr. Reeb said he was
just referring to for-sale product; if apartments were included in the mix, in the 1980's about
1/2 of all the product built was attached product, including aparttnents. Today, there is virtually
no apartment construction going on.
Commissioner Tuchscher said it was clear to him that there was a market out there that needed
to be served.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Fukuyama if the landscaping would be similar to the
landscaping at Serena, if similar types of shrubbery would be used. Mr. Fukuyama stated that
it was. The concept plans submitted in the plant pallet would mature to the level of the
shrubbery at Serena.
Commissioner Willett, referring to the school, asked how the students would get to the Chula
Vista Hills Elementary School. Mr. Fukuyama said they would walk from the project, through
the park, to the back of the school. The remainder of the students going to the middle school
would walk the same route to the new middle school. There were two entrances, one for the
cars and one for the children to walk through. Mr. Fukuyama said the neighbors did not want
vehicular connection, which was the reason for terminating "J" Street, but they did want the
ability to go from their project to the schools.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked the radius of noticing. Mr. Hernandez stated it was 1,000 ft.
Mr. Tuchscher wanted to know the count and if there were any town meetings. While Mr.
-;)1-
PC Minutes
-9-
December 11, 1996
Hernandez researched the files, Mr. Lee stated that public forums had been held and a very
limited number of people attended. There was very little concern over the design; there were
some initial comments relating to the transfer, but more interest in the affordable housing project
on the adjacent site. No one was in attendance at the Design Review Committee meeting.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked approximately how many people attended the public forum on
this project. Mr. Lee answered that there were three or four separate homeowners.
Ms. Pedder Pease, answering Commissioner Tuchscher's previous question, said that an estimate
of the mailing labels in the file was that about 360 homeowners received notice.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked the City Attorney if it created a problem to leave the public
hearing open during deliberations so the Commissioners could ask the applicant additional
questions. Attorney Googins said it would not create a problem for the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked the Chairman to leave the public hearing open. Chair Tarantino
asked if anyone else wished to speak. Hearing no one, the Chair left the public hearing open
and asked the Commissioners to deliberate. .
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission did not have control over the
internal circulation of the site. However, on this project, they were dealing with internal
circulation, pedestrian versus vehicular interaction and circulation. He asked staff why.
Mr. Lee said it was the function of the Design Review Committee to review the site plan and
architecture as a package, including pedestrian flow and the arrangement of parking stalls. Staff
interfaced with Engineering to get comment on the traffic flow. In this particular case, it was
an appeal so it was coming to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Tuchscher said it was the general impression that the scale of the project, in light
of the issues addressed in the staff report and in the negative report, it did not seem that any of
the issues were insurmountable or unlivable. The pedestrian walkways had been addressed; Mr.
Tuchscher had stated his concern regarding landscaping; regarding entrances, the direct access
from the garages had solved a lot of his security concerns and he would like to hear what the
security issues were on where the entrances were located; regarding privacy, the close proximity
of the entrances was not unreasonable from a high density residential standpoint. He thought
that was livable and not a major negative from a buyer or a City planning design/land use
standpoint. He asked that staff address the two issues on the entrances.
Mr. Lee stated that one of the products had a two-car garage with a direct entrance into a larger
unit; the other two units out of the triplex had a single-car garage, so the second space was one
of the parking bay spaces which meant in some cases the driver of the car could park and use
the sidewalk or sometimes would have to use a partial sidewalk or no sidewalk and walk in the
street. Staff had now received some feedback from other condo projects in terms of safety
issues and the desirability to walk in those streets. Part of staff s job was to look at those
- r:J-f -
PC Minutes
-10-
December 11, 1996
designs and determine what they were doing that really worked well and what were problem
areas. This project had a lot of positive points; however, the issues staff pointed out were
significant enough, and if a number of units were being transferred, it could be addressed.
Regarding front door entrances, Mr. Lee did not think it was a major issue. It was a for-sale
product with three entrances clustered in one area. There were some slight recesses to identify
those, but it was not a very attractive entrance to those units, with relatively narrow walk
systems between the buildings. Staff wanted to open it up a little, obtain a little more light in
the area, and make it a more friendly entrance.
Chair Tarantino felt the project was an excellent project and had a lot of good things going for
it. His concern was that the Design Review Committee normally would try to work something
out with the applicant. That did not happen in this process. In addition, he was the Planning
Commission representative to the revision of the Design Manual. There was a lot of deliberation
during this process, and by being a part of the Committee, he felt the things that were in the
Design Manual were there for a reason. They had come up with a manual they thought was
good for the City, it was good for the quality of life, for the people that would be living in
projects. He could not support Rancho del Rey's request.
Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Ms. Pedder Pease stated that the [mdings that had been
made by the Design Review Committee were that the criteria of the Design Manual had not been
met.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the problem was specifically because of the transfer of the 58
units. Mr. Lee said the particular product type had some characteristics that staff felt were
workable, not necessarily the most desirable. The project was tested in terms of transferring
a limited number of units and felt the issues pointed out could be addressed adequately in staff's
opinion. Staff could support that type of density transfer. That was staff's analysis; however,
no further testing had been done.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the applicant was requesting a 58 unit transfer; the City was
at 30 units. Mr. Lee said the applicant had a density established at about 12 du/ac which was
typical in the past for a townhouse unit. Because of market conditions and economics,
developers had been looking at different kinds of solutions than in the past, and some increases
in density, some of which could be done successfully both in a marketing standpoint but not
necessarily something that would meet all of the planning criteria.
Commissioner Thomas asked if a possible compromise could be reached as to the number of
units. Mr. Lee stated that was possible; the applicant had indicated they were at a point where
they needed that particular number of units to make this work with this particular product and
applicant. Staff had not seen any movement on their part.
Commissioner Tuchscher saw the need in the market for more affordable housing product; Chula
Vista did not have the affordability that it needed and diversity of product; this site being next
to a park was appropriate for that kind of density; since there was no opposition from adjacent
-;J-tf-
PC Minutes
-11-
December 11, 1996
property owners, he was inclined to support the project. He did not care for the architecture.
He thought the product would probably sell; there was room in the market for it. He had been
satisfied as to what the landscaping would look like in five years. At the same time, the
applicant was looking at a negative staff recommendation and needed all four votes.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff what was the next step for the applicant, should they not
get a positive vote from the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission was
making a recommendation to the City Council, and their recommendation, whether positive or
negative, would move forward to the City Council, with the exception of Design Review. The
applicant would have to appeal that particular action.
Attorney Googins stated that on both the SPA-related approvals and the tentative map approvals,
the Planning Commission was acting as the recommending body. That matter would proceed
to the City Council automatically. He confirmed that the DRC issue could be appealed up to
the City Council by the applicant.
Regarding the conditions presented on the exhibits which had been placed on the dais,
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the item was defeated and the applicant appealed it to Council,
Mr. Fukuyama would have an opportunity to meet with staff. Mr. Lee stated that staff would
have time to meet with the applicant prior to the scheduled Council hearing on January 21. Staff
would have time also to go back to the Design Review Committee on January 13 and discuss
potential conditions with them, so that if Council chose on the 21st to proceed, staff would have
conditions for consideration in that regard as well.
Commissioner Thomas also felt it was a viable project and was much needed in the South Bay.
From what he understood, he would challenge the Parks & Recreation Director on the
accessibility of the park and the security issue. He did not feel comfortable overriding the staff
and DRC recommendation. He thought the project was good and would like to see it discussed
further to make it work.
Mr. Lee said that the Planning Commission, in forwarding any recommendation to the Council,
could ask that the access to the park be evaluated at the time it went before Council. It would
give the Parks Director a chance to look at that particular issue and perhaps address it before
the Parks Commission before it went to Council.
Commissioner Thomas stated that was his intent. Commissioner Tuchscher felt that made sense
regardless of what was planned for the site.
Chair Tarantino felt a precedent had already been set in terms of what was already in the area
off of Buena Vista and Calle Santiago. There was open space and multiple access. To have it
walled off made no sense. Commissioner Tuchscher said that he lived in an area next to Rohr
Park and had to drive down Sweetwater Road in order to get there. It made no sense at all to
him.
-36 -
PC Minutes
-12-
December 11, 1996
Commissioner Tuchscher informed the Chair that he appreciated his leaving the public hearing
open, and he was ready to make the motion if the Chair wished to close the public hearing.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
MS (Tuchscher/Willett) to deny staff recommendation and support the applicant's
recommendation, footnoting the park access issue, and with staff to get with the applicant
regarding the conditions listed in Exhibit D to be brought back before the Planning
Commission at their meeting on January 8, in advance of going to Council.
Chair Tarantino asked if this motion was acceptable, or if the City Attorney wished for the items
to be separated. The Attorney stated that the motion on the floor was fine.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the Planning Commission agreed with staff if it automatically
threw that back for renegotiation. Chair Tarantino understood it could be appealed to the
Council. If the motion on the table was accepted, he understood that it would go to the City
Council with a positive recommendation, with an endorsement of the Commission.
Commissioner Tuchscher noted that four votes were needed to either approve or deny. Council
would get the information as to the vote, but in order to execute on the motion, all four yotes
were needed. Mr. Lee confirmed.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tarantino and Thomas voted against the motion). MOTION FAILED.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked, in order to move the project to the next step, if anything else
needed to occur. Attorney Googins stated that it was the effect of the motion, or any motion
that was not carried forward with four yotes, of a non action on the part of the Planning
Commission on the item. The applicant had the option, with respect to each of the items, to
either resubmit it for the Planning Commission's reconsideration or to present it to the City
Council without a formal Planning Commission recommendation and/or an appeal with respect
to the Design Review issue.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that since the Planning Commission was one member
short and one member had to abstain, there would only be one additional member voting over
the next month or two, so he assumed the applicant would want to move this project on to
Council.
- 31-
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ 3 d -
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-97-0l/PCS-97-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION VOTING NOT TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA)
PLAN, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, AND A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION,CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-01 (PCS-
97-01) TO SUBDIVIDE 25.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF EAST "J" STREET WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
PLANNED COMMUNITY. RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP L.P.
WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a Tentative Subdivision Map and
amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General
Development Plan (GDP) Planned Community District Regulations, Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan ("Project") were filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on September 30, 1996 by Rancho Del Rey Investors,
L.P. (Developer); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed SPA Plan Amendments consist of reducing parcel R-7c
permitted number of dwelling units from 220 to 120 (-100 du's) and the density from 12.6
to 6.9 du's/ac (-45%); Increasing parcel R-6 permitted number of dwelling units from 228
to 286 (+58 du's) and the density from 12.0 to 16.2 du/acre (+25%); and Reducing the
overall SPA permitted number of dwelling units from 1,312 to 1,270 (-42 du's) and the
overall density from 6.4 to 6.2 du/ac (-3%); and,
WHEREAS, The Tentative Subdivision Map known as the Rancho Del Rey SPA
III Parcel R-6, Chula Vista Tract 97-01 (PCS-97-0l) consists of subdividing 25.8 acres (15.2
acres of Parcel R-6 and 10.6 acre Parcel OS-7) located on the south side of East "J" Street
between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Ct. within the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community
and P-C zone district into four residential lots containing a total of 246 dwelling units and
a 10. 6 acre open space lot; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within
1,000 ft. 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 advertised, namely
December 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
-33-
.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new or
supplemental EIR is necessary, and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del
Rey SPA III, which must be considered by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on
this project.
NOW, lHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED lHAT lHE PLANNING
COMMISSION DOES hereby find that the addendum FEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA
III, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City
of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURlHER RESOLVED lHAT lHE PLANNING COMMISSION voted
2-2 (two recommending approval and two recommending denial) with commissioner Davis
abstaining and commissioner Ray absent, thereby voting not to forward a recommendation
to the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council with the direction that the applicant has the option to either resubmit the
matter to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, or to forward the matter to the City
Council for its consideration with recommendation from the Planning Commission.
lHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, failed to approve
the project by a 2-2 vote with the effect of such vote being a decision not to forward a
recommendation to the City Council, this December 11, 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Willett, Tuchscher
NOES:
Thomas and Tarantino
ABSENT:
Ray
ABSTAINED:
Davis
Frank Tarantino
Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\luis\PCM-9701.PCR)
_ 34--
.
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-97-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION FAILING TO APPROVE AN
APPEAL OF TIlE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
DECISION TO DENY THE SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURE OF A 246-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES
LOCATED ON TIlE SOUTII SIDE OF EAST "J" STREET
BETWEEN PASEO RANCHERO AND VAQUERO COURT
WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III PLANNED
COMMUNITY WITH TIlE EFFECT OF SUCH DECISION
BEING A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal application was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on November 21, 1996 by Rancho Del Rey
Investors L.P.; and,
WHEREAS, said application is requesting approval of an appeal from the
decision of the Design Review Committee to deny the site plan and architecture for
a 246 unit residential condominium complex located on 15.2 acres on the south side
of East "J" Street between Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court within the Rancho
Del Rey SPA III Planned Community; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on
said Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to
property owners within 1,000 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least
10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no
new or supplemental EIR is necessary, and has prepared an addendum to FEIR-89-
10, Rancho Del Rey SPA III, which must be considered by the Planning Commission
prior to a decision on this project; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place advertised, namely
December 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DOES hereby find that the addendumFEIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey
SPA III, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
- :5 cf'tl -
~
"
Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
failed to approve the project on appeal by voting 2-2 (two voting to approve and two
voting to deny the project on appeal) with commissioner, Davis abstaining and
Commissioner Ray absent, with the effect of such vote being a denial of the appeal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION
BE TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT and applicant be offered the option
of resubmitting the matter for reconsideration by the Planning Commission or
appealing the matter to the City Council.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, failed to
approve the project appeal, with the effect of such vote being a denial of the appeal,
this December 11, 1996 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENT:
Willett, Tuchscher
Thomas and Tarantino
Ray
Davis
Frank Tarantino
Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\ann\drc9701p.res)
- 3<f b-
.
ATTACHMENT 4
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES AND RESOLUTION
~ 3~"-~
TillS PAGE BLANK.
- 36 ~
November 18, 1996
i f~ r"""'r-:",rp:[} /" r
~ t \.\ \. . _.' b - L '. .-' .'
ff f~'t,'c f=~f:"
. . ., .__.. '" r ~"3 "'...
~ ' . I "., ..'~' 1..1 ~~
EXCERPT
FROM NOVEMBER 18, 1996
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
4:30 p.m.
3.
DRC-97-01
Rancho del Rev Parcel 6
South side of East J Street between
Paseo Ranchero and Vaquero Court
246-unit development. in 82 buiJdine:s on 15.20 acres
Member Pat Kelly excused herself because of conflict of interest.
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee gave an overview of the existing Rancho del Rey area
which he explained is broken into actually three SPA's. He pointed out to the Committee
that 0(4100 units proposed in Rancho Del Rey, about 1/4 are an attached product. He
continued with a history on the adopted Rancho Del Rey SPA ill plan which identifies the
subject area for an allowed density of 12.0 du's/ac, or 188 dwelling units. Mr. Lee
indicated that the applicant has proposed an amendment to the SPA plan, whereby density on
another parcel (parcel R-7) located north of "H" Street is to be reduced. This would leave
the potential to transfer unused units, approved as part of the SPA plan to the subject
property. He explained that the density increase would result in 246 units on the 15.2 acre
site or a density of 16.2 du's/acre. Mr. Lee explained to the Committee that any
consideration for approval of this project would be subject to the applicant su=ssfully
completing the SPA amendment, which would be subject to public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Lee went on to show the layout of the
proposed project and pointed out concerns of staff which include the following: limited
building setbacks along the street which reduce the ability to properly provide for
landscaping areas or create sufficient room to accommodate a reasonable pedestrian
circulation system; minimal setbacks (10') between the 2-story buildings do not provide for
individual privacy or security, and adequate landscaping. Mr. Lee presented a sketch done
by staff which addressed many of the staff s concerns by providing at least 15' between
buildings which a=ss 3 entry points, and additional front setbacks to accommodate
landscaping and a pedestrian system. He indicated that with this proposal the applicant
would lose an estimated 6-10 buildings from their current proposal. Mr Lee also indicated
that with the reduction of units, required parking would be reduced, and thus some of the
setback and landscaping issues would be resolved.
- 37-
Design Review Committee
2
November 18, 1996
In closing, Mr. Lee indicated that in terms of the architectural package, while staff has some
issues, they are not of a significant nature.
Ouestions of Staff
Member John Stokes asked staff if there had ever been a plan done with the allowable
12du'sJac. Mr. Lee responded that he had no knowledge of any such plan; but indicated that
there had been a previous developer interested in the property, but he did not know what
density was proposed with that development. Mr. Craig Fuk.'uyama, with McMillin
Development Company, confmned that there was not a plan done at the 12 du's/ac.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Craig FU1.'uyama, with the McMillin Development Company, walked the Committee thru
the project. Mr. Fukuyama started the presentation by reviewing the project setting and site
characteristics. He went on to explain to the Committee the reasons for the proposed high
density. He also went over the grading exhibit which depicts 3 major pads, which step down
from East J Street towards the south which results in substantial topographic relief. Mr.
Fukuyama continued with the review of the tentative map and pointed out the gated entry,
the circular road system, public park and park a=ss.. He indicated that all parking spaces
are located within 100 ft. of walking distance to each individual units. He explained that
each building represents three units, with the smallest unit having a single car garage, the
second unit, a 2 bdrm unit, has a single garage, and . the largest unit, which is a 3 bdrm unit,
has a two car garage. All garages have direct a=ss to the units, and the two smaller units
will be assigned an open parking space within 100 ft. of the unit.
Mr. Fukuyama continued the presentation with an exhibit of an enlargement that showed
typical landscaping treatment between, in front, and to the rear of the individual buildings.
He stated that the amount of setbacks along the street frontage various between 6 and 9 ft.,
and the minimum space between the buildings is 10 ft., with some up to 15 ft. Mr.
Fuk."uyama reviewed the landscaping between the buildings and along the street frontage. He
went on to present schematics of the entry monument and gates, and the fencing proposal.
He mentioned that onsite amenities would include an outdoor recreation area and reviewed
the three areas labeled "barbecue areas".
Mr. Fukuyama stated to the Committee that he understands what Mr. Lee is talking about
relating to the setbacks, however, addressing staff concerns would result in the loss of 10
buildings, making this project financially infeasible at the proposed pricing.
- 3 r-
Design Review Committee
3
November 18, 1996
Mr. Russ Haley, project manager and representative of Shea Homes, went over the
elevations and floor plans for the triplex project. He explained that the ownership of the
units are fee simple. The project includes a carriage unit which is approximately 1, 025
s.f., 2 bdrms, and a balcony out front. He went on to review the floor plans of Plan 2 and
Plan 3, which are 2 and 3 bdrm, 1135 - 1355 s.f. townhome units with attached garages. He
indicated to the Committee that all rear elevations have enhanced detailing.
In closing Mr. FUh.'uyama wanted to add that he apologizes that they were unable to resolve
their differences with staff, but felt that they have a product that they can build, are ready to
build, but to accommodate what staff is asking for, would make it impossible to build this as
a cost effective project.
:Mr. Lee responded to Mr. FUh.'uyama concerns and indicated that the City has processed a
number of projects within Rancho Del Rey, and have in the past been able to reach mutually
acceptable solutions between the applicant and staff. He indicated that in this case staff has
gone out and looked at previously approved projects, and tried to determine what went right
and what went wrong, and what could be done better. He stated that in this instance where
there is an approved density of 12 du's/ac, and by viewing this site layout with this particular
product, it appears feasible to add up to 30 additional units and end up with a plan that
address staff s concerns. Mr. Lee mentioned to the Committee that this is not a case where
this applicant would be losing 10 buildings as an example, but it is a case where they would
likely be able to add 10 buildings to what is already the established density for this site. He
reminded the Committee that the applicant's proposal to increase the density from 12 diu to
16 du's/ac is not a matter of right, it is something that has to be determined by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Lee again stated that staff is in basic agreement with the floor plan and
the primary architectural theme.
Committee Ouestions/Concerns
Chairman John Rodriguez started off by making a comment that he would of liked to have
seen a 12 du's/ac design for comparison. He continued his comments addressing the
elevations. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that he does not ever like to say there's a back side to
architecture, and was pleased to see the extended elevation on the back side of the units.
One concern of Mr. Rodriguez was the applicant's comments about the play in lines. Mr.
Rodriguez indicated that he saw score lines in the stucco. He asked for some clarification on
the relief, he was not able to see any detail over the windows, or the entry ways.
Mr. Jamie Stark, architect, responded by indicating that they do have score lines, and do
have trim around the windows with dimensions at approximately 1-112'. Mr. Stark
continued to discuss in more detail the various elevations.
- 39-
Design Review Committee
4
November 18, 1996
Mr. Rodriguez questioned Mr. Fukuyama about the width of the walkway between units.
1fr. Ful:uyama stated that the sidewalks were about 4 ft. wide, with a minimum of 6 ft. left
for landscaping. Chair Rodriguez indicated that the architecture is fine, but stressed his
concerns with the site design. He stated that a big design factor for him is pedestrian
pathways. Chair Rodriguez indicated that he would not like to see this project developed at
16 du's/ac. Member Richard Duncanson asked staff to again clarify the process of the SPA
amendment. Mr. Ken Lee responded that said matter is a separate public hearing to be
considered by the Planning Commission and added that if the applicant does not have a
product that works from the stand point of design review, they would have to IDe an appeal
of that decision before Planning Commission. Member Duncanson indicated that he too has
concerns relating to the setbacks, distance between the buildings, and. the pedestrian
circulation. He stated that he would have to agree with staff's aforementioned preferences.
Mr. Duncanson also asked if all vehicle access was through the one gateway. }.fr. Lee
responded yes, and noted that there is an emergency access provided out to Buena Vista ,
and one access point to the park.
Member John Stokes asked the applicant if it was mainly affordability as to why there are so
many units placed in such a small area. The applicant's response was yes. The applicant
indicated that the going price for these units would be around $115,000 - $139,000. If they
were to reduce to the 12 du's/ac, the price would increase to around $160,000 - $170,000.
Member Stokes made a comment relating to the approval of such proposal and how it would
set precedence for future developments. He stated that he would strongly recommend that
this project not go forward at 16 du's/ac. He made note that the floor plan and architecture
looked fIne, but overall project is too tight. Member .Michael Spethman complimented the
applicant on the architecture and colors. He felt they worked well and are very attractive.
Member Spethman asked about fire truck access. Associate Planner Luis Hernandez stated
that going through the review of the tentative map it was noted that there are some curve
radiuses in the circulation system do not meet the minimum city standards and would require
adjustments however, the basic layout does work functionally. Member Spethman stated his
concerns about the lack of amenities and open space, and expressed frustration with
applicants that present projects as being affordable as a result of maximizing the density. He
stated that the project is beautiful, and has potential to be very livable with a nice street
scene, but having everything to close, the project loses that neighborhood ambiance.
Member Spethman indicated that he had no problems with the landscaping or architecture,
but his preference would be not to increase the density.-
In conclusion, all Committee members concurred with staffs concerns and recommendations.
Chairman Rodriguez stated to the applicant that they would consider to continue the project if
they were willing to revisit the project and reconsider some of staff s recommendations. }.fr.
Craig Fukuyama indicated to the Committee that he would prefer a denial, so that he may
appeal their decision to the Planning Commission and present the proposal as is. }.fr. Ken
Lee suggested to the Committee, that if they should deny the project, one committee member
if possible should be present at the Planning Commission hearing.
MSC (Rodriguez/Duncanson) (4-0) to deny DRC-97-01
- ~t7 ~
i\Esou'no:\ :\0. D:::'C-97-0l
RESOLUTIO:\' OF THE CITY OF C-;ULA. VISTA DESIG~
REVIEW COMMITTEE DEN'rlNG APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR A 246-UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON 15.2 ACRES IN RA,NCHO DEL REY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on September 27, 1996 by Craig T. FuJ.:uyama for Rancho de!
Rey Investors, L.P.; and
'WHEREAS, said application requests approval of the site plan and architecture for a
proposal to build 246 units on 15.2 acres on the south side of East J Street within the Rancho
del Rey SPA III PlallDed Community; and
'WHEREAS, Tne Environmental Review Coordil1c.!Or has prepared an addendum to EIR-
89-10, previously prepared for this site and has concluded that there would be no potemial
significam environmental effects not analyzed in the previous documentation associated with this
proposal; and
'IVHEREAS, the Plannin,g Department set the time and place for a hearing on said
c.pplicatioll for Design Review and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its mailing to property owners within all area of at least 1,000 ft. of the exterior boundaries
of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; 2...'1d
\VHEREAS, the hearing was not held at the time and place as advertised, namely
November 11, 1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue but was cancelled due to lack of quorum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Depa.c'1ment continued said application for Design Review and
set the time and place for a special hearing by posting such information on the doors of the
Conference Room and Public Services Building, and
WHEREAS, the special hearing was held at the time and place so announced, namely
November 18, 1996, at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 in the Public Services Building,
276 Fourth Avenue, before the Design Review Committee and said hearing was thereafter
closed, and
"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
1. DESIGN RE\7JEW FINDINGS
Based on the plans and testimony presented at the public hearing the Design Review
Committee voted to deny the project by a vote of 4-0 with one member abstaining based
- 41-
C':l :....:....e ::.~;;ljC2.:;L'S ;-;2.::5 \\"hic::; 72.ikd :0 :neet i.:le City's Des:;n ~\'12n:.;::.1 ~01jci=s 25
l'~,:o7"'1';'-:.:>-1 ... '''''O''::-~ D ", ~Oj']'l'"''
'-'....H..._...... L..... '-=:.1. "'_ J L"_.
A. Pedestrian walkways be provided to link dwelling units with common open
space areas, recreational and support facilities, parking areas and the street.
Tne proposed pedestrian wal1.-way is inconsistent with the above-referenced
guideline because the wall-way is not continuous and links very few of the
dwelling units with the common open space or parking areas. In addition to its
not being very functional, the proposed pedestrian wall__'ay is bordered by plain
wood fencing in some instances and rarely enhanced by adjacent landscaping.
B. Landscape planting shall be used to frame, soften and embellish the quality
of the emironment, and shall be in scale with adjacent structures and of
appropriate size and maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.
The proposed landscaping in direct association with the "street scene" is restricted
by proposed setbacks so as to preclude landscaping that would be consistent with
uie guidelines listed in "B" above, and the planters proposed for between ule
garage doors are too natTOW [0 permit the planting of any significant tree forms.
The separation between buildings must accomodate wall__.ays to dwelli.l1g entries,
end consequently only very limited planting areas remain.
C. That building entrances identify and articulate individual units, pro.iding
distinctive architectural elements, materials and colors to denote entries while
promoting security and privacy.
The floor plans require that all dwelling entries be on the sides of the building,
and on one side of the building there are always two adjacent entries. Thus, not
only is there li,Je identity or individuality expressed architecturally by the
entrances, but individual privacy is non-existent, based upon the limited
separation between buildings and the common walb'vay serving three units.
D. That internal circulation promote safety, efficiency and convenience, avoiding
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The internal circulation pattern fails to promote safety, but is instead designed to
accomodate an inappropriate density for the product type proposed. The lack of
; continuous pedestrian system creates conI1icts between vehicles and pedestrians,
resulting in an inconvenient and potentially hazardous situation for guests and
residents, who must walk along vehicular driveways from parking space to
residence or from a residence to the common recreation area.
III. A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE
APPUCANTS.
-t/;J-
?,-\SSED ,-\\D ,""PPRO\-ED 3Y THE DES,G\ RE\T:W CO\I\11TTE OF C~tU \'15T,"",
C 'i n=o" \1' ,,,;- I (C," ~'\' nT' '\o\'em~'- 1 096 ~\' ." :ollo\";~o \'"" '0-\";"
..""i.._.. ~ _."l.. ~jj,j .0.....;' 1..;.....- L. .J. ......J../ , L. ~...... \.J.= ,_"...., l \jL.
.""YES:
Members Rodriguez, DUDcanson, Stokes 2Dd Speth,ITl2D
\OES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
Member Kelly
/JeAU.~'
L-' (. // . ,
jY,r; . Road2Ue-z, Ir
,/ II {/ {/
/
, '. /' .-'
, c' I i;/
,- ..,' ""~
I //"/_ ?-.."/~.
.. - 7 I
Maureen Casper, Secretary
- Y3 ~
THIS PAGE BLANK
- ~41- _
_ L-(S-:
ATTACHMENT 5
ADDENDUM TO FEIR-89-10
TillS PAGE BLANK
- -'16 -
ADDE.1\;1)UM TO R.~"'CHO del REY SPA ill EIR (89-10)
PROJECT WI.ME: Rancho del Rey SPA ill Sectional Planning Area
Amendment/Parcel R-6 Tentative Map
PROJECT LOCATION: South of E. "J" Street, west of Buena Vista, north of Telegraph
Canyon Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillan Project Sernces, Inc. for Rancho del Rey Investors,
L.P.
PROJECT AGENT: Cinti Land Planning
CASE NO.:
1S-97-01
DATE:
October 21, 1996
1. Th'TRODUCTION
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent document shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of
the following conditions exist:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effeccts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted
has become known.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available
after adoption of a Negative Declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR
if required under subsection (a). Other wise the lead agency shall determine whether to
prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
- q1-
T;"lis addend:;w has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis
concerning iwpacts as a result of the appli=ts decision to change the project description. As
a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the FEIR-89-1O have not changed.
Environmen:al impacts are found to be equal or less significant for the proposed project as
compared to the original proposal.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared
the follo\\<'ing addendum to EIR-89-1O.
IT. PROJECT SETTING
The proposerl project is located in Rancho del Rey SPA ill specifically Parcel R-6. Parcel R-6
is located south of East "J" Street, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of the proposerl
Middle School & Park and west of Buena Vista Road.
The project site is currently graded (not final grading) and is vacant. Zoning on the property
on the site (and the surrounding properties) is PC (planned Community). Surrounding land uses,
existing and proposed, include a community park and middle school to the west, single family
vacant lots to north, condominiums and Buena Vista way to the east and Telegraph Road and
SPA I of the Otay Ranch to the south.
Because of the past grading of the property there are no biological, archeological or
paleontological resource currently present on the site. Any previous environmental mitigation
was completed in accordance with previous documentation.
Public Services are present or are planned to serve the project area.
ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The appli=t is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA ill Sectional Planning
Area Plan and General Development Plan for the transfer of 67 dwelling units from Parcel R-7c
to R-6. This proposed amendment will result in a decrease in the permitted dwellings units for
SPA ill of 33 dwelling units. The average density for attached housing in SPA ill will be
slightly reduced from 12.3 to 11.4 dulac.. No change is proposed to the proposed development
in Parcel R-7c from the approved 120 dwellings, 100 less than was allowed by the General
Devleopment Plan and SPA. The following table reflects the existing and proposed statistics.
Attached Housing Parcels R-6 & R-7c - Proposed Density Transfer Statistics
Parcel No.
Acres
Existing Plan
dulac du
Proposed Plan
dulac du
Net Change
in du's
R-6
R-7c
19.0
17.5
12.0
12.6
228
220
15.5
6.9
295
120
+67
-100
36.5
l2.3avg. 448
l1.4avg. 415
-33
- ~t-
Tne housing proposed for most of Parcel R-6 consiscs of 255 dwelling units in 85 tv.'o-slOry
buildings (three units/building) taking access from priv2t.e streets. Tne primary project ent!] is
from East "J" Street. Common open space, trails and recreation area are included and will be
maintained by a Homeowners Association. Two of the units in the tri-plex have private patios,
while the third unit has a private terrace.
The balance of Parcel R-6 consisting of 3.0 acres is not included in this Site Plan application and
is subject to separte application/review.
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with sec.15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines I hereby fInd that the proposed
project revisions will not require major revisions to the SPA ill EIR, that there are no changes
in project circumstances which would require major revisions to the SPA ill E1R nor is there
any new information of substantial importance which would result in a requirement for further
environmental analysis. Therefore, FEIR 89-10 is adequate for CEQA review of this project.
'l -~
r/...v....<~" &/7 ~7J - ,
Douglas T2J Reid -
Environmental Review Coordinator
References
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Final Rancho del Rey SPA ill TraffIc Analysis (BRW, Inc. January, 1996)
EIR-89-1O, Rancho del Rey SPA ill, and appendices
- ~C; -
THIS PAGE BLANK
- Sc :.-
ATTACHMENT 6
PUBLIC INPUT
- 5/-
TillS PAGE BLANK
- Sd-
YOU ..;RE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC FORUM
AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC FORUM HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT for the purpose of introducing to area residents
a private development proposal for the property located on the south side of East "J" Street
within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III planned co=unity (see locator). The applicant, Rancho Del
Rey Investors L.P., has submitted applications requesting the following:
L Amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III General Development Plan. Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan and associated documents to transfer density (67 dwelling units) from Parcel R-7c,
which is approved for 220 dwelling units, to Parcel R-B approved for 228 dwelling units. The
receiring parcel maximum number of dwelling units would increase from 228 to 295 (see Exhibit
A).
2. A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdh'ide 16 of the Parcel R-6 nineteen (19) acres into 255
condominium units.
3. Design Renew for the construction of a 225 condominium complex and all associated site
impro....ements.
The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the proposal and obtain input from residents of the
area and other interested parties prior to the formal public hearings which will be scheduled
before the City's Pl.""i"g Commission and City Council.
Chula Vista PJ.""i"g Department staff will be present to explain the review process and make
notes of co=ents or concerns of those in attendance. Graphics illustrating the site plan and
architectural design for the project, and the public hearing schedule will also be available at
the meeting. Copies of the Initial Study, amendments to the General Development Plan and
Sectional Pl.""i"g Area (SPA) Plan, Design Review and Tentative Subdivision Map are on file
in the office of the pl.""i"g Department.
THE PUBLIC FORUM WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 30, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Rancho Del Rey Information Center located at 820 Paseo Ranchero, Chula Vista, CA. Any
person desiring to receive information or provide input and ask questions regarding this
proposal is encouraged to appear at the meeting where City staff and the applicant's
representatives will be available to answer questions.
If you have any questions in regard to this matter prior to the meeting, please contact J. Luis
Hernandez at 691-5090. .
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chwa. Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require
special a.ccommodation to access, attend a.nd/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such
accommodation at least 48 hours in a.dvance for meetings a.nd :5" da.~'s for scheduled services and a.~~ivities. Please
contact Na.ncy Ripley for specific information a.t (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is avaUa.blefC?r the
hearing-impaired. ---~ -'.' \./-::v
,{3"
October 22, 1996 NO VOl
PCM-97-01, PCS-97-01, DRC-97-01, IS-97-01 _ 79%
:.J'
.,,, /1.4 (90" . <.!}, r '/_',
CJt6rT (J/~ / -.\ .1;",;,..
;l)LIJ( '1'!).... c:lPh(A..e!.'b:1 . ';t:J.L ~
I "t, ,1' '" tr'.,IJ a;tk. ~ ~-I') '. A ~~_: A~
v ~ I I ...J ~ AH- ~,~ "...-.... LA- -'"
~ c:4<.,,'-.A,~d..
~..,j Jut- ;d .L~ '.it!.. .Ix- ~ -tiJ ~ fJ""'f'<"~ .
k. h...un a...~' /070 ~$ ';',.~-- U (U) 9/9/6
Date:
Case No:
\
:;: L .~/A~~/~
d. $~~T(!-~~
/ C:7 /j 0 ~ ~44"<V fl---C-;-
?v <71"710
,4
//:t: .
~ 4~/ ~u~ A ~:~ ~~~ -7 -:-n--c~
~4AfL/- h-t, /?7A.~~ ~/,C2-C~~L cL-c~-cC:y
AA~ ?~ ..2 2<f L:2 f? .--#__-ul'/.~ ~-n-<U~
r~/ /7, D ~ /-5--: 7 d~~~/
/
~ ~<-t't'7fi
/~
- ~- /f>h~//
/'f!.1..e.a C-nt;-' ""_- q UV1-(:C/,
f' /
//4<;t-,~~/~~ /~~
~d~~ (,~ -C/f4<
(0,'& @ & n \':J ~-
I.V': I;:::' '''';
. J . :
. ,. : .1"hI I -
'. ~ I'.:J~(
.JU,-
--0
htk-t-/f!. h~-,k/
,
------
.
.
---_.__._-~_._-_._-_._-
!
!
- sif ~
~
.
'.
ATTACHMENT 7
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDED SECTION
- ::;-.:;--
THIS PAGE BLANK
- -.5(;-
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
Adopted by Chula Vista City Council, July 16, 1996
by: Resolution No. 18366
and
Planned Community District Regulations
by: Ordinance No. 2686
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Draft dated: November 26, 1996
sRKclgcl = Text Added
St,;h.cout Text Deleted
Prepared for:
Rancho del Rey Investors L.P.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 92050
(619) 477-4117
Prepared by:
Cinti Land Planning
2932 Poinsettia Drive
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 223-7408
-57-
FOREWORD
The amendment proposed is minor in scope and limited to a transfer of units from one parcel to
another in SPA III, resulting in an overall reduction of total units permitted. Due to this limited
scope, this amendment package contains only those pages from the adopted SPA III SPA Plan that
are being amended. The entire SPA III SPA Plan is available from the Planning Department or the
Project Sponsor if additional detail is desired. A Chapter Identification Page precedes the pages being
amended in that chapter for reference.
Ul~$196
-!:>"l?-
2
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
lll~$tii$
-sc;-
3
Densitv
2-4
4-6
6-8
TOTALS
Ini$!2$
Table I
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Specific Plan Versus General Development Plan Consistency
Adopted Specific Plan
Character
Description
Single Family
Detached
Small lot single
family, zero-lot
line patio homes,
duplexes, multi-
plexes, clustered
development.
Townhomes, patio
homes, duplexes,
multi-plexes, condo-
miniums, clustered
development
Units
Pennitted
162
975
243
1,380
- fP()-
General Development Plan
Product
Single Family
Conventional
Single Family
Duplexes,
Townhomes
Townhouses
Units
Proposed
314
550
220
120
z::.&
28Ci
t:-3+Z
,
1:270
...-..,...-..............,
Units
Transferred
+152
-205
cl00
~
*4~
=fjS
Emu
4
.--,--~
,'11~:--""""\,.'''':"'')~::,:::"
",,,,"""',',,.> ,-,~. ""-'/..<..././')..... .1""')\#,
~." ,r'nr-..."<'"",,,/,,A',,, ...... \
,,~\............y/~'.J -;:;-" "..../,,\ s.~..., ,
. r..~'::"~J..IMJ/I:::-"'r..;.\-:... ,:~........">":-../'//''\~':.r,;r;...;;... 2 \
1T' V-_-....,;' , ~ ..,..,x,.":,"'... ..... .../.)C....".... v .
\,,\"'.":2.~c-:,...,.,r-'~{ ""..\<.....'>(-"....'"}...'I..;.;;..~...~..r:;.,....~./ ./"\. .
'~":{(~-,,c-;:-!e~~/C_~.;;;;s.~v-'~\ .:-.-./ .."\.
\:~;,\~~?\"-\'<-.;I ,'-,':.:c'Y ....-~.::=:3~ ~
\:~:-1t~1- E(l ! r~..... : ..'..... Cf.l .~
-0>- l /""C. 0
, -- E- ,
\ .~:;\'~\-;~~~\ ) 1 '\\\
,~u,'-;lt~~t'--.,< ~ ',',
c.,,-..-;:;~~, '1- -r,' , ,
""~f~"j(~ji.:t3(.:: \ '\'
h:""'J.~ '''''1''' Cf.l 0(
'*r...jrr7-rr; 0, 0 -
\1lz\('";\ \, ~ \
\ 'i~~l\-~-rl.>-n-: 0\ (/) '\
\ \ \"'J1;\~:1{-'it;"'.tJ; \ .:--
\\J,~\:i~t..D'i:::::'\. · ~. '\
\ <.2,';]) =-(-~ '\
) .- ~ -.. .- ""\\ \
//\ ' 1\ ~,o \ '
\\ u.:'" 1:0-'~">~' \ \
\\ _...... ;;''j\.''-''i~''''
\ \ OJ ~af~~8~:~ \ '\
\ \ \,.;.;J\).~.-:r'C""'''''''''' \
< Cl) 0 :';-.l,C".\:\tl?..##./ .
o u.. -.I:J-.~l....-J-.\ \
" rJ) U) J'-.J,..-K::":.':;'.::..,-:,;->., \
~. Vi ._;'\ E_:;IEt~5.-'!,':-~~;"-' \~ _ \ \
" '\. C r:\~.:fN' '~-;\_~~_~~_~_~~,' \1\
'--:. ",~'3~-~ (/) ht~~:::::-.:;:;> -l~
(L"'.r-~".:J u.. ::.. -----~' 0\
~":'\~.-:J (/) -;t:;:J..::~~~:-_~' -' ~
o J~;:l- 0 III
jr'-'I(~ ~V; =F=~\~ tl5 (f) 1\-'1
: ....:::::.- 0
I-~'~-, J I
I ~"""'II
8) .~I . ~" ~
/ J n ~ -
/ _~II~~-
I ~ ~I ~ ~ on
, t:::o '" ~ :f,
, 0<
I I
J. ,
, '/.
------I l. ..1<-,-;;>
7r, r.:....~
II i: 7
I) 1/ I'
(.! /,
I' ,
// !
/,' ,
//8/
/ , ,
:.{/ I'
i,'
I( ,
II.J'
I ~.
1\
"DC
CD cu
(j)o..
o
0.. +-'
e ffi
0.. E
0.
o
~
o
~
Q)
c
Q)
CJ
CIJ
"-
CIJ
"
- tP/-
,
1
1
1
o
]
]
,
,
.
.
,
!
o
.
.
.
I
.j
u
~
o
~
~
N
~
.
~
o
n
o
N
I
~I;
,~
~
o
~
N
u
~
-w
U0
~~
00
OZ
w<
e~
Oz
0<
O~
<0
'0/
.
~
~
~
~
~
'"
.
u
.
.. 0
0
0 ~ ~ .
~ . . 0
0 0 ~ 0
.
.0
.
~ .
> u
" .
'0 0
! 0
0 ~ .
~ . .
0 0 0
0 0 u 0
-. c
.. GGGJ01 ..
-0 ,2 e
e ;; U
, ., .
D ~ '0
,
0 i3 ~
.
,
~
,
e
~
~
]
~
]
~
~
0;
.
~
E
~
~
0;
.
~
zw
<0
~~
00
<Z
~<
0~
;;
.
..
"
:
.
.
u
,
o
~
o
.
.
o
.
-0
u
,
o
~
o
!
~
t
c
000
1-9
N
..
G .0
.c
5 x
LU
EJ
'"
'"
-
'"
~
N
~J
~
~:::
~8
OJ
~
~f
[I
::
~ ..
~ ;.
... . :i: ~
.-'\ <0"
'll'f-r ::'~-----"~"
".,",...: ':"K,.,~" ,/...')\......... c:-
"'~~0""',..:.'''''':'''' ..-;:.........\:-:/ ')..\r'")'.... ~..::
..,"'~.............//;'1Jc:~~"/.')t."./.).\'"',.'>V. \ :~]
._";:..'~~,.-(7f;;- '.1. -::. .:1;........ ......,/,-:."\\......<>\... \. \ ".t:. "
\\,'\-;;:';"~'(:;~n;.,?:,(~~..~<~'\~:::?'}.~:::!}~.?J-;..J..J'-~ )A. " r ~ :
\~":\(~;~~!C::J-:"'~/,;"~:~'>;<:'-Y:-'(o..,~""'~'-":'~'" ....,., ; ~!
"'t'#~.'-~-..J .\....."".I-L~ ~"-,-,~.......,, ..
i..'~.{~'\:;;\~' I ,"" o~.v 9i~' ~' Hi
\::~."~~'t. r(~ ! 'j-jC.... .....-- ~.~, ' ". .. ~"
r'::- l/"",:. t I' .... CI)" ~ i !
,..._...r~~{-::;.~f~ 0 "" .. 0: E
t...'1''\~''l~~''')k' ) \' si.
'c-~~V~\<.;:::. \"'\ H ~
''-',<-':It,I<>'' " .n.
'~"",L~j~~-:Jr:: \ '\ '\.. : 1: l
V">fr'Jr;;l/i 0 0 \:!i;
\;~'(\('";\. \~ ~ :\ .
\ 1'"1....-;..1~r..r.I";1'- 0
\. \'l>.~-l\~.'~{:'u.. c/).
\ ,~\-\O C2t,,~:C/) . \
\ \ ~3li.~\.:g\:~~\."
\01;'~ .. '\
) ;.' ='" -..
~~\ \
\\ .
\\ \
\\ 0 \
~ . ~ \
,. II
~. ~
}\
~\
i
-I
I
I
I
r
Cd
D-
-+-'
C
Q)
E
0-
o
~
Q)
o
~
Q)
C
Q)
C)
(-tv '
~
Q
,
,
,
I
__J'. .
-lj .
J: 8: )
., I! C/) I
1:=-=1/ II
II ): I
II '
I: /
I I
/ : :
---.J l ..J.<..f>
I r, r::....,::
II /: 7
I) II I'
() I,
I' ,
/1 i
/,' ,
//'81'
/ "
:.~/ I
1 I I
II '
II.J'
I ~.
Ii
-0,;}.-
~
~ . 0 :
0 " ~
"
< '" .
3 "
.. ~ "
0
~
~
~
.
~
~
~~
~w
0",
"'"
0<
,
"
e
'"
~
~
~
..
.,
o
~
o
~
.-
e
'"
..
~
"
~
"W
,,~
~~
~o
oZ
w<
,~
~2
0<
o~
<~
'i' 'i'
. -
~ ~ ;:;
. ~
, ,
e ~ ~
~ ~ :!
~ ~ .
~ .
0; ~ ~
. .
'" '" '"
~
.
'0 0
0 ~ ~
" ~ e
. . .
~ ~ 0
~ 0
~
.2
~ ~
>
'0 ., II;
0 ~ !
< .
. .
~ ~ 0 g
u
;;
0 GG00~
,
,
~
,
~
Zw
<~
~"
~o
<2
~<
~
;;
e
~
E
:
e
o
"
,
o
~
~
.
.
o
~
o
u
,
o
~
~
j
~
~
~00
1,9
;; 0
. ..
: ~
~ ii:
, .
. .
~ ;
U 5
".
.=
. .
': ~
",
: ;
'"
..
S.e
. <
o.
.
~ : ~
~!l
c.<c .
. :
" ....
0; 2 .s:
! ~ ]
.ii:.
j ~ ~
0.0
5 . "
.0 .
l~]
~:; .i
i j l
:; ~ ~
. '30 U
. .. .
.... = ..
...
"
.
'-.
ci=:
'-<
U~
-
:9
.J::
X
IlJ
C\J
EJ
~
~
(f)
o
I
~I'"
~ ..
_ 0
~
~J
~ i:'
~ '" ~::
= ..
~ ai
f,/
~~
"e .. [I
.. ~
" "
., .
. ..
..
u ~
CHAPTER II - PLAN CONCEPT
n1i6J96
.........-.........
6
- &3-
-gz
(j)<
0-1
0.0..
o
"- Z "
0.... 0 \
~
~
F=
:J
W
~
" I
\
"
"'
\\
\\
\\
\
\,
,-
: l::! O'l
~ ~
- M
~ oj
N
C l.O <If" .... CO .... = C"! CO) 0)
~N~~c:it:igJ g;;
- ..
u
o
I.:.. Cl Q Cl) CI Q Q Cl Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ .
~: <<<<. B . B << B ~ ~
~! ~ ~ E ~ ~ i ~ 6 i ~ i 6 ~ 0
~!~ B ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~l I-' Dl:J- r:j ~11.i ~I r:l r:-I'~' -I-I 0 ~ ~
.:8 'ILllbll" !~I ~11~i'l~ ,~!!~,~! 81 "
~i.~2----l~' L---.!_--..:L.......::.-....:~LJ tI5
.2
~" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" .. 0 I 0
M ::: ~ '" ~ '" ~ ::: N l'-
'd N ~
I
I.- ~I
i~2 0 0 '" N ~ ,.;
i3~ .. .,; ~ .. .. .,; .. ..
I
:!~C")NoCOOO'l~~_'I'"
I i:i.... C'i ,...; .q M oi N \l') ,_ ci
l NN N Mr> ~
t CI) tfl '" en
:~ > ~ ~ F F F ~
;- .3 0 (l 8 8 ~ 8 8 ~
:; 6 a 6 a 0 < 6 0 Q:.
:;>i ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti\ ~ ~ <5 "
~!~ 1.11 ~ Ir;l~ 1.1r;!1 d~lr;lf0 ~
~!~LJ-"'-lL.,_,-[J[jLJ <J>
\1-5 - 6 ~/ -
~,
\]
5
.~
~
u
'"
01
;0
~
~J
!
Bi
@f
a~
(I
z .-
~
-
<( - \J '"
...J . . -
CL 5
z \.-
\
0 . ~ ,
~ \ ,..,
L....J
~ ., .
--. .
~
0
\\ \
f= \.
:J
W
~
~ '"
. ;?
'" -
,;
'"
I:") 0 to "lr ,... lD
oj s::i N r-.: oj aj
~ '"
to N
- '"
N'("'J C)
....:. c:i..t-
- '" 0
- ~
I
r g
r Ll... I>> Q I:) III III Cll Q III
! ~i ~~~~l~~~~ ~
, It ~ I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ~
jig nnnnGlI.lGlr:lGlIGlr:lD~ ~
~i:~2LJ~LJ~~ I ~ l~: a i~~~ ~ ~
~~
I_~~ g ~ ~ ~ i2 ~ ~ ; ~: ~
!~~; ~ ~ ;;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ;;;
8 _,
i-~ ~ 2 ~ ~.::l ~ ~ :ri ~' ~
INN N t":I CO) ~
~ ff) ff) III Ul
l~ ' , , ~ ~ ~ ~
i- 8 8 8 ;3 ;3 ;:: ;3 ;3 ~
i ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 ;;: 0 0 ~
]ilL lJ5 lJ5 lJ5 lJ5 lJ5 }J5 lJ5 lJ5 6 ..
j!~~[~rlGQI ~ir;l0GG ~
11-5 - &J--
~f
O~
~
gj
81
ai
[I
TABLE 3
Rancho del Rey SPA III
statistical summary
site utilization Plan
Land Use
h.cres
Averaae Density
m.r
Residential
SFD - Conventional
SFD - Cottage
SFA - Duplex/Townhouse
63.8
106.3
36.5
Residential Subtotal
206.6
4.9
5.2
~
1!1:;m!
~
~)rl
314
550
<<-e-
40S
tlti
tt7tl
Non-Residential
Junior High School
Public Park
Community Facility
26.1
10.8
L..2.
Non-Residential Subtotal
38.8
Open Space
Circulation
148.3
l..L....2.
TOTAL
404.9
T;-Z
tlti
ii279
IL3
DENSITY TRANSFER
As noted earlier, the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan is intended
to allow for a degree of flexibility for SPA (sub-area) Plans to
respond to changing conditions, markets or design issues. One
aspect of this flexibility is the Density Transfer provision which
permits the transfer of residential units from one density category
to another.
In the preparation of the SPA III Plan, a conscious effort was made
to create a predominately single family detached community which
could be well integrated into the existing residential area. This
effort resulted in the selection of single family. detached products
for most of those parcels designated by the Specific Plan as 4-6
du/ac and all of the parcels designated 6-8 dulac, instead of the
attached products which were included in the development character
descriptions.
In addition, the plan was designed for sensitivity to existing
adj acent residential uses. This required that single family
detached products be located along nearly all edges of the project
to be consistent with existing products. Also a larger lot size
Jrl~~t.Qt.
8
-td-
.as utilized in Parcel R-2, adjacent to canyon and park open space
areas. The inclusion of a new 10 acre park site converted an area
designated for 4-6 aulae to open space. These choices resulted in
a reduced yield from these parcels.
The displaced units were allocated to a single SFA parcel located
next to the neighborhood park site which was designated 4-6 du/ac
by the Specific Plan and into Parcel R-7 which was also designated
4-6 du/ac. The location of the SFA parcel was carefully selected
to adjoin an existing condominium project and buffer the large park
and junior high school sites. An increased number of units in
Parcel R-7 will permit a wide range of housing products (attached
and detached), increasing the viability of an independent
neighborhood.
The result of the transfers is a redistribution of units with
preservation of the character and pattern of development set by the
Specific Plan. The predominance of single family detached products
has been achieved with the creation of a single SFA parcel. A
semi-independent housing project has also been created within the
SPA to respond to the local need for housing.
The Density Transfer Map (Exhibit 6) depicts the residential units
.hich have been transferred in this SPA. The exhibit compares the
unit count from each density category of the Specific Plan to the
number of units provided by the SPA Plan in the same area. The
density transfer statistics are summarized in Table 4 below. The
actual nlliuber of units within each parcel, and accordingly in each
densi ty category, will be established with the approval of a
tentative map or site plan.
TABLE 4
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Density Transfer statistics
Density
Designation
units
SDecific Plan
units
SPA Plan
units
Transferred
2-4 du/ac
4-6 du/ac
6-8 du/ac
162
975
243
187
~~tq~
174
+25
-2-4-'S~$
-69
TOTALS
1,380
-H-H-
1::!7b
-u-e-
~110
U/2~j9~
-fi;/}-
9
u JJ)
Q.) Cf)
Cf)>,
0-
Q.C'U
o c
~<(
a...
l.-
J!2
Cf)
c
@
F
>,
..j..J
"05
c
ill
o
\ ,,:;~~-~~~r::~ ~
'-;!L\('.:" ,.!e.'..r :g
;/).')',~.\V~', ~'I
\\. .., .".. I',
I. . \ \ . ~ '\ . ,~ I
\\i'-~' \
,\ '.\..: I .
,'. en
i~
~I +
8.1:g1"1'"
~jN ~ :!
I~ ;; ~
"Ii - '" "
o
~) to
~gl
& .0
E
5 x
w
EJ
'"
'"
-
'"
~
-
N
to
.
, '.
",,'..
.---.. -.
o
<0
u
..!:
r-.:.":.;."
" '~:~:.
--
\\
\\
\\
Ol
N
,
'.'
::51 ~ ~
~ -
::I~ ~
"8 - -
~51~1~
'-- ,
~i
~ ~g
'u
~
c. oj
CIl
'"
"- .
0::-
CJ ~
~ -
~ c @i
c.~
~o:
~<(
~"-
cCll
0_
:::; 0
.!! c
~ .
u-
- ~
~ ~ a~
u 0
~~
'Uj c
c ~
~-
0"-
0;
"5
z
[I
LJ
~-
J.,.'
;/ ,;j.?
.,1:.
'" I
; 7
'/
(I.......
}I......"... ~
~.~.....,;(
:~llrl;f ' .
_ /ffr'!jJ'
~'l.",'I;;;;
I ", l.iJ(~~"'-",
. "\\""\"~
J {\ """"
~V'\L~
_11.'....'~k*::
""if";-'l.
'llY~7:'
I ['0 !,'i:J
t!~
" ~
<:)<vv
,
.(j)
(j)
~
Cd
c
<t
l...
~
(j)
c
Cd
F
>.
+-'
'-
(j)
c
Q)
o
~
N
'f
C Nj
_ 0
N "10
(0 2 to
"8
~
~O
lO
N
,
'"
" C
N
"8
~ ~I ~1C7.l
'- Q -.:- Ll'i
0.. -
~I<?IC
~ ::: ~ "
,I
(;.,J,-:
',j
._ IV
.,'lIH" . I
'1\;;,'~ I
)F '. ''-'1'' '>
vi ;;;~_~; .:'
)1; .' ~'l:;f .
~.,~ :,::~>..~~~}Ji;":
.~...;:!;,:jitf.I'':~
! ",-,-!t';,'-
. _;:11,1\'.~\.."""(
J .~\I\'~~,'l~
~I r&~~~~~~
'I L\;;Q-""
I r.:o'77'. - /. 9 -
I ",;:1 U?
g
'0;
~
"-
<IJ
""
a. '
0:::-
CJ~
~-
~ ~
"-m
~E
m<
~o..
~<IJ
o
=0
5! ~
~ '
u-
- ~
m ~
u 0
~o
.U)~
~!!!
00.
~
o
Z
11-8
; i~ to
i:gl~ -
o~ ~ 2
.r:
x
w
5
EJ
~
~
"
N
;;
~j
~~
~8
QJ
o~
o 'f
~J
14
iTJi6i96
...-..-...-........
CHAPTERI\' - PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
-?~ -
11
Table SB. A population of ::,77J 11,655 is expected at project
build-out. Using this populationesti~ate, the facility standard
yields a requirement of :;'".3 " :J.~/? acres for the Rancho del Rey
community (11,77J,ii;~:;:; X 1.39/1,000 = ':'C.3G:(~.2).
C. consistency Finding
The standard adopted in the CPF Ordinance requires that 16.36
,if;\i~ acres of net usable site area be provided within the
planned community for community purpose facilities. The sites
designated on Exhibit lOA total 19.7 acres of net usable area,
exceeding the adopted standard by ~$~l$'I'acres. Adoption of
the use regulations and development standards provided in the
following section of this text will assure that only
appropriate CPF uses will be allowed on these sites. Because
acreage exceeding the standard is designated and the land uses
on the designated sites are restricted to those meeting the CPF
criteria, the Rancho del Rey Planned Community is in full
compliance with the requirements of the Community Purpose
Facility Ordinance.
TABLE SB
Rancho del Rey
Community Purpose Facility Acreage Determination
Residential Jlxea
Units1
,
POD. IDU-
Pro-;ect POD.
SPA I Apts. (R-lS)
SPA I Condo. (R-14)
SPA I Condo. (R-13)
SPA I Condo. (R-12)
SPA III (R-7)
SPA III Condo. (R-6)
SFD (all SPAs)
500
147
138
180
5Z-e42()
z-z-B-286
2.268
2.192
2.794
2.794
2.794
2.794
2.794
3.213
1,096
411
386
503
1 C:)]):[7...... 3....
, .....1,.....,-;-.':-.;;-'.;..
-6-37.799
7.287
11 77 311".655
, ,....-.......-1.-;..-.-.,.............;
Totals
3,981$j~~~
'Count from most current approval (SPA Plan, TM or site plan).
'Population factors from Chula Vista Planning Department.
Note:
lating
not be
This population estimate is made for the purpose of
the community purpose facilities requirement only and
used to project other service needs.
calcu-
should
Ul~~{Q~
-1/-
12
Tl\!3LE 6
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Parkland Dedication standards
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
PARK
DEDICATION PER UNIT
DUjPARK
ACRE
Single-family
Condominiums
Duplexes
Multiple-family
Mobile Homes
423 sfjdu
366 sfjdu
325 sfjdu
288 sfjdu
215 sfjdu
103 dujac
119 dujac
134 dujac
151 dujac
203 dujac
Based upon the parkland dedication standards shown above, the
following requirements will apply to Rancho del Rey SPA III:
Number
of Units
Tv De of Un't
Park Area/DU
Total Park
Acres
864
4~:1b$
Single Family
Condominium
423 sf/du
366 sf/du
8.39
~ ~}4i
TOTAL
:::2 du
l~lq
TZ-:-i-5' a c
11;80
The total area of parkland proposed for Rancho del Rey SPA III:
Parcel P2~k Tvoe
~ Percent Credit
~
P-l Neighborhood Park
10.0 -. 100%
10.00
TOTAL CREDIT
10.00
Surplus (deficit):
Reau i rernent
Park Area Provided
SPA III
~
iliBD
10.00
Nil
(r.-n) IrQ?}
The deficit of r.-nJJtW'ij: acres shall be met by construction of
additional park improvements, payment of fees, or a combination of
both. Should the total unit count of the project be reduced during
site plan and/or precise plan approval, a corresponding reduction in
the net deficit shall be calculated and used to determine a reduced
fee/additional improvements requirement.
- 1~ -
lW.?$tQ4
13
CHAPTER V - PUBLIC FACILITIES
-13-
ni%~lQ~
14
Tl\3LE 7
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Domestic Water Demand
L2.""d Uc:::e
lJ.ni.t.s.
Demand Factor
Demand
Residential
Junior High school
(net irrigated)
Park
i2jO:~:2
1400
8.5
10.0
490 gjdu*
20 gjstudent
2700 gjac
2700 gjac
lr.-6-4-g;;~~
0.03
0.02
Q...21.
b;~4
IT.-% mgd
TOTAL
*Assumes 2.74 persons per unit
V.3 RECLAIMED WATER
Reclaimed water mains are proposed to be installed within the SPA
III development. .l;lthough reclaimed water is not currently
available in the vicinity of the project site, a reclaimed water
system is being constructed with new development projects so that
when reclaimed water does become available it can be distributed
with minimal additional improvements. Reclaimed water will be used
for irrigation of publicly owned landscaped areas in order to
conserve potable water for domestic use.
The proposed reclaimed water system is depicted in Exhibit 11A. A
12" line will be located in Pas eo Ranchero, between Telegraph
Canyon Road and East "H" Street. An 8" line will be extended in
East "J" Street, from Pas eo Ranchero to the park site to provide
irrigation water for the park and potentially, the athletic fields
of the junior high school.
Off-site facilities will deliver reclaimed water to reclaimed water
facilities in Telegraph Canyon Road. The SPA III system will
convey the water north where it an irrigation system in SPA II and
portions of SPA I which is being constructed to utilize reclaimed
water. These off-site facilities and future connections are not a
part of the SPA III development project.
V.4 SEWER SERVICE
The city of Chula Vista will provide sewer service to developed
uses in the SPA. The local sewage system is connected to the
regional San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System (METRO) which dis-
charges at the Point Loma Regional Treatment Plant.
A preliminary sewage service report has been prepared by Rick
Engineering to document the feasibility of providing sewer service
to
nn$tQ$
- ?t/-
15
";::Je project (see ."ppendix D). The report addressed the entire
project area (SPAs I, II, and III), rather than the SPA III area
separately. An update for SPA III has been prepared by Project
Design Consultants (also found in Appendix D). The information
included here, which focuses on the SPA III area, has been
extracted from these reports.
The Rancho del Rey project as a whole will contribute sewage flow
to three existing sewer drainage systems: the otay Lakes Road, the
Rice and Telegraph Canyon Systems. Approximately 439 dwelling
units will drain into the otay Lakes Road Sewer System, 2,533
dwelling units and one school site will drain into the north trunk
of Rice Canyon, and 956 dwelling units and the Employment Park will
drain into the south trunk of Rice Canyon. The Telegraph Canyon
System will serve 915 dwelling units and a school site. Two
pumping stations which currently operate in the Rice Canyon Sewer
System will be eliminated.
Previous analyses of the existing trunk sewers has projected that
during the final stages of basin development, certain offsite
segments may flow under pressure during peak flows. Subsequent
analysis has demonstrated that the otay Lakes and Rice Canyon sewer
basins will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development
of Rancho del Rey and other anticipated projects (see Addendum to
Sewer Study, Appendix D).
within SPA III, the South Trunk of the Rice Canyon System will
drain the northernmost portion of the project and the existing
Candlewood sUbdivision, the sewage from which is currently pumped
to the Telegraph Canyon basin. Sewage will be conveyed in
underground sewers constructed within proposed and existing streets
or easements to the trunk sewer which will be located at the
southern edge of Parcel R-7. This system is depicted in Exhibit
12. The southern portion of the project will drain by gravity to
the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
The generation rates listed in Table 8 have been used to estimate
waste water flows.
TABLE 8
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Waste Water Generation
Residential
Density
(du/ac)
Projected
Population
(nOD. /du)
projected*
Flow
loal./du/dav)
~
.Proj ect
Flow
fmo/dav)
4
6
12-20
School
3.38
2.66
2.30
1400
270
213
184
20/student
314
420
-&ro$4l'1
0.09
0.09
&:-nP;4$
0.03
~ mgd
P;;Jg
'Assumes 80 gallons/day/person
!!i2i5/Q6.
- ?I--
16
THIS PAGE BLANK
- '/&-
ATTACHMENT 8
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
- -'J/7-
THE
1\' OF Ci-iUL-\ ViSTA DISCLOSURE
,EM;:::>!
Yuu :.ire required w f'::::: J Slalc1711'::;; or DLl,closUiC of CLrtain ownCfS.:-t:? ur fin;JnCIJI Interests. payments, or carnpaigr.
conlri\"l~:i,)n.s, on all m~;lCrs, which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Cn;Jocil. Planning Commission, am:
all other official r,0uic.s. The folluwiilg Information must he disclosed:
I. LiS! lhe name.; uf all person' hJving a financial inlercst in lhe propeny which is thc suhjccl of lhe application or the
contracl, e.g., owner, applicant, COntraclOr, 'uhcontractor, malerial supplier.
~~CHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
A CALIFORKL~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2. Ifany person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporal!on or pannership,list the name5 of all individu2!s o'uning
more than 10% of the share, in the corporation or owning any pannership inlerCSt in Ihe partnership.
TRIDENT USA, INC
MCMILLIN-RDR, INC
:1. !f any person' identified puesuJnl 10 (I) ahove i, non.profit organiz.otion or a tru't, list the name5 of any person
s~l\.'jng as director of the non-profit organiz.ation or as lru.stc..e or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
'S/A
4. Have vou had more than S250 wonh of husines, tran,acled with any memher of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Com~ittee5, and Council wilhin the past twelve monlhs'? .,Ycs_ No~ If yes, plcase indicate person(s):
5, Please identify each and every persou, iucluding any agents, employees, cor.sultants, or independent contractors who
you have a..,signe.d \0 represent you before the CilY in this mailer.
CRAIG T. fUKUYAJ1A (RDR INV.)
STEVE WALLET (BOWLUS, EDINGER & STARK
THOM FULLER (RDR INV.)
JOHN PATTERSON (GILLESPIE DESIGN GROL
DAN REHM (HUNSAKER A1~ ASSOCIATES)
6. . Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the a&gregale, contributed more than SI,OOQ to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding ciccI ion reriod'? Ye5_ No~ If yes. state which Couneilmember(s):
, , , (NOTE: Attach additional pages as
Date: SEPTEMBER 27, 1996
y
~re of contraelOr/applicant
CRAIG T. FUKUYAMA, RANCHO DEL REY INVEST.
Print or type name of contraelOr/applicant
. PerSOf/ is defined as: "All)' illdil'idual. finn, co'parmcrship, joi/ll ~'e7UU'C. association.. Jocial cbt. frclcnwl orsalliuuim:., corpofmion.. alDlc, t:n.LS1., recdlla, syrtdica:e,
this and allY otha- COIJ.l1fy, dry a,:d coumrr. city m:.micipaliry, discn"cl., or culler roli:ica! SlJ.bdil'i.riof1. or any oUlC:r ~OlJp or combinatjoll Deling as D WUL"
- 'l,g" -
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
/3
2/4/97
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution / 'g"~ 7 / Amending City Investment Policy and
Guidelines
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance I/'fJ
REVIEWED BY:
City ManagetJ
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _No~)
The City has an existing Investment Policy and Guidelines to insure the prudent
management of idle cash. It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution
amending the Policy and Guidelines to add clarity and to bring the City's policy more
in line with recently adopted State legislation following the Orange County bankruptcy.
The existing policy with recommended amendments indicated is attached as Exhibit
A and a clean version of the amended policy being recommended is attached as
Exhibit B. In addition, the Quarterly Report of Cash and Investments for the quarter
ended December 31, 1996 is submitted for your acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution amending the Investment
Policy and Guidelines and accept the Quarterly Report of Cash and Investments for the
quarter ended December 31, 1996.
BOARDS & COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: The City's Investment Policy and Guidelines is intended to provide
direction for the prudent investment of temporarily idle cash, and for maximizing the
efficiency of the cash management process. The stated goal is to enhance the
economic condition of the City while insuring the safety of funds invested. The policy
includes a list of specific investment instruments available under the relevant California
Government Code provisions, 53600 et. seq. and 53635 et. seq. In addition to
specific instruments, investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). an
investment pool administered by the State Treasurer and the County Treasurer's
Investment Pool are also included. Each investment transaction is made in the context
of first insuring the "safety" of principal, second, investing only for that timeframe that
the cash is not needed for operational purposes ("liquidity"). and last seeking the
highest return possible ("yield") provided that the first two factors are met.
/3-/
Page 2. Item
Meeting Date 2/04/97
Much of the amendment is simply to add clarity or to be declarative of longstanding
practice. As examples, the definitions of "safety, liquidity, and yield" are restated in
more explicit terms (Exhibit B, Section 3.C.) and it is specifically reiterated that the
City's intent at the time of purchasing investments is to hold them until maturity to
ensure the return of principal (Exhibit B, Section 3.B.). In this same section, it is also
indicated that it is realistically anticipated that market prices of investments will vary
depending on interest rate fluctuations and at any specific point in time prior to
maturity this will give rise to measurable losses.
Other changes recommended are the result of fine tuning the City policy to more
closely conform to model policies published by the California Debt Advisory
Commission and the Municipal Treasurers' Association. Examples of such changes
are found in Exhibit B, Section 3.A. where the Finance Director and others assigned
to manage the investment portfolio are relieved of personal responsibility and liability
for an individual security's credit risk or price variation so long as they have exercised
due diligence in performing in accordance with the policy, and in Exhibit B, Section
3.C.1.b) where potential losses due to interest rate fluctuations (market risk) will be
mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the investment portfolio to less than 3
years.
Finally, the amended policy reflects modifications to bring the policy in line with the
Government Code which itself has been modified by several pieces of legislation
passed over the last several months in reaction to the Orange County bankruptcy.
The most significant of these amendments happens to be the reporting requirements
themselves. In accordance with Senate Bill 564 (Chapter 783, 1995). the Treasurer
(Finance Director) is required to submit to the legislative body a detailed report of
investments, including a statement of conformance with the policy and a statement
as to the adequacy of liquidity on a quarterly basis and a review of the investment
policy on an annual basis. Although the City policy currently requires a monthly
report, in the interest of conserving staff time while balancing the need for an
informed Council, quarterly reporting is being recommended as per the Government
Code. In addition, Medium Term Corporate Notes are recommended to be added as
an authorized investment instrument. These securities have always been in the
Government Code, but for some unknown reason have been omitted from the City
policy. There are no Medium Term Corporate Notes in the portfolio at the current
time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact by this action, but for informational purposes, the
investment portfolio totaled $89,999,999 as of December 31, 1996 and investment
interest revenue for all funds is projected at $3.6 million for fiscal year 1996-97.
):J~;Z
RESOLUTION NO. /8"'57/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
AND GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the city has an existing Investment Policy and
Guidelines to insure the prudent management of idle cash; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the council adopt a
resolution amending the Policy and Guidelines to add clarity and to
bring the city's policy more in line with recently adopted State
legislation fOllowing the Orange County bankruptcy; and
WHEREAS, the existing policy with recommended amendments
indicated is attached as Exhibit A and a clean version of the
amended policy being recommended is attached as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby amend the City Investment Policy
and Guidelines as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
^-
Kaheny, city
rney
C:\rs\invest.pol
/3-)
2/4/97
'-Cm-OI'-CHULAVISTA
INVESTMENT POLICY AND GUIDELINES
1. PURPOSE
Effective cash flow manaqement and cash investment practices
are recoqnized as essential to qood fiscal manaqement. This
Statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent
investment of the City's temporarily idle cash in all Funds,
and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of
the city's cash management system. The in~estment goal is
to cFla.anco tho economic condition of the City \IF.t.ilc inouring
tho cataty of fURalZi ilrv"cctcd.
2 . OBJECTIVE
The objective of the investment policy is to provide
guidelines for insuring the safety of funds invested while
maximizing investment interest income to the City. ~
City-/a EJ.:l.oh maBa~omoFlt lJyotcm io dcaigne6, te .:lccur:ltoly
monitor aRa feroc0..ot cJrpcnditurco .:lFla r070FlUCO, thue
enaaling the City te ifr~est funds to tHe fullest el[tent
possible. The City atte~ts te obtain tHe highest yield on
its investments consistent ~Jith the criteria estaalished fer
safety and liquidity.
3. INVESTMENT POLICY
~ The Finance Director is responsible for investing the
cash balances sar~lus funds in all city Funds the City
Treasury in accordance with the California Government
Code, Sections 53600 et seq. and 53635 et seq. This
policy does not include Lonq Term Debt Reserve Funds
and Deferred Compensation Funds. which are exceptions
covered bY other more specific Government Code sections
and the leqal documents unique to each debt
transaction. The Cit1" operates its Investment practices
shall conform to temporary idle eaSR investments under
the prudent man rule (Civil Code Sect. 2261, et seq.)
which states, in essence, that "in investing...
property for the benefit of another, a trustee shall
exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances
then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion and
intelligence exercise in the management of their own
affairs.. ."
- 1 -
EXHIBIT A
/3-1
The Finance Director and other individuals assiqned to
manaqe the investment portfolio. actinq within the
intent and scope of the investment policy and other
written procedures. and exercisinq due diliqence. shall
be relieved of personal responsibilitv and liability
for an individual investment's credit risk or market
price chanqes. provided material deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely manner and
appropriate action is taken to control any adverse
developments.
~ It is the city's full intent. at the time of purchase.
to hold all investments until maturity in order to
ensure the return of all invested principal. However,
it is realistically anticipated that market prices of
securities purchased as investments will vary dependinq
on economic conditions, interest rate fluctuations, or
individual security credit factors. In a well
diversified investment portfolio. such temporary
variations in market value will inevitablv result in
measurable losses at any specific point in time. From
time to time, chanqes in economic or market conditions
may dictate that it is in the city's best interest to
sell a security prior to maturity.
~ The three principle factors of ~safety, ~~iquidity and
Xyield are to be taken into consideration. in the
specific order listed. when making investment
decisions.
A}
h
Safety of principal is the foremost factor to be
considered durinq each investment transaction.
Safety in investinq refers to ana the P~~inimizing
~ ris]( ilDDociated ",lith inveDting referD to
atte~tD to redueiR~ the potential for loss of
principal, interest or a combination of the two
due to the two types of risk. Credit Risk and
Market Risk. The city invests enly in these
instrumentD that are eensiaerod very Dafe.
~ Credit Risk, defined as the risk of loss due
to failure of the issuer of a security. shall
be mitiqated by only investinq in very safe,
or "investment qrade" securities and
diversifyinq where feasible.
Ql Market Risk. defined as market value
fluctuations due to overall chanqes in
interest rates shall be mitiqated by limitinq
the averaqe maturity of the investment
- 2 -
EXHIBIT A
)3~S-
B-)-
~
G-)-
.L
portfolio to less than 3 Years, with a
maximum maturity of anyone security of 5
years without prior Council approval. Also.
the portfolio will be structured based on
liquidity needs so as to avoid the need to
sell securities prior to maturity.
Liauidity. Liquidity refers to the ability to
convert an investment to cash promptly with
minimum risk of losing some portion of principal
or interest. The investment portfolio will be
structured based on historic cash flow analysis in
order to provide the necessary liquidity as
investments routinely mature. A portion of the
portfolio sReuld will be maintained in liquid
short-term securities which can be converted to
cash if necessary to meet unforeseen disbursement
requirements.
Yiela. Yield is the average annual return on an
investment based on the interest rate, price, and
length of time to maturity. The City attempts to
obtain the highest yield possible, provided that
the basic criteria of safety and liquidity have
been met.
4. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
The City of CRula Vista may invest in the following
instruments under the guidelines as provided herein:
A. Certificates of Deposit. Time Certificates of Deposit
will be made only in FDIC or FSLIC insured accounts.
For deposits in excess of the insured maximum of
$100,000, approved collateral shall be required in
accordance with California Government Code Section
53652 and/or 53651 (m) (1). No more than 25% of the
investment portfolio may be invested in this investment
type.
B. Securities of the U.S. Government or its Aqencies.
Includes obligations issued by Federal Home Loan Banks,
Government National Mortgage Association, the Farm
Credit System, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Association, the Federal National
Mortgage Association, the Student Loan Marketinq
Association. or obligations or other instruments of or
issued by a federal agency or a United States
Government sponsored enterprise.
- 3 -
EXHIBIT A
/3~t
C. Treasurv Bills and Notes. U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes,
Bonds or certificates of Indebtedness, or those for
which the full faith and credit of the United States
are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
D. Local AqencV Investment Fund (LAIF). Investment of
funds in the California LAIF which allows the State
Treasurer to invest through the Pooled Money Investment
Account. Maximum investment is subject to state
regulation.
E. Countv of San Dieqo Treasurv Pool. Investment of funds
in the County of San Diego Treasury which allows the
County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest local funds
through a pooled concept.
F. Bankers Acceptance. Bills of Exchange or Time Drafts
drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, otherwise
known as Bankers Acceptances, both domestic and
foreign, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal
Reserve System. Purchases of Bankers Acceptances may
not exceed 270 days maturity or total more than 40% of
the cost value of the city'S investment portfolio
ourpluD mOFlEJY ~.1hich ffi.:J.Y ee iE:.Tcotcd.
G. Commercial Paper. Paper of the highest rating as
provided by Moody'S Investors Service, Inc. JRll, or
Standard and Poor's Corporation (A-II' P 1). Eligible
paper is further limited to issuing corporations that
are organized and operating within the united States
and having total assets in excess of five hundred
million dollars ($500,000,000). Purchases of eligible
commercial paper may not exceed 180 days maturity,
represent more than 10% of the outstandinq paper of the
issuer. or total more than 15% of the cost value of the
City's investment portfolio ourphlB mSRey \:aiea may bc
invcoteeL
H. Neqotiable Certificates of Deposit. Issued by a
nationally or state-chartered bank or a state or
federal savings and loan association or by a
state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Purchases of
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit may not total more
than CJesees. 30% of the cost value of the city's
investment portfolio slir]?luo mORcy \lhich met)" bc
iWJ"cotcd.
- 4 -
EXHIBIT A
/3-7
I. Repurchase Aqreements. A purchase of securities by the
city pursuant to a Master Repurchase Aqreement an
agreement by which the seller will repurchase such
securities on or before a specified date, or on demand
of either party, and for a specified amount.
Investments in re~S8 repurchase aqreements will be used
solely as short term investments not to exceed 90 days
and be collateralized bv securities havinq a market
value of at least 102% of the value of the repurchase
aqreement at all times durinq the term of the
investment.
J. Medium Term Corporate Notes. Corporate obliqations
shall be rated A or better bY Moody's and or Standard
and Poor's ratinq aqencies. Purchases of corporate
medium term notes shall not total more than 30% of the
cost value of the City's investment portfolio. nor for
anv one corporation. when combined with anv Commercial
Paper issued by the same corporation. total more than
15% of the cost value of the City's investment
portfolio.
J) Other. Other in~o~tmonts th~t ~rc, or may aoeemo, lo~al
i~~ectments tsrsugh the 8tate sf California Co~ernment
Coae and ~:its ~risr appro~al sf the city Council.
~ various dailv cash funds administered for or bv
Trustees, pavinq Aqents, or Custodian Banks contracted
by the city mav be purchased as allowed under California
Government Code. Only those funds holdinq U.S. Treasury
or Government Aqencv obliqations shall be purchased.
5. DIVERSIFICATION
Investments shall be diversified among institutions, types
of securities and maturities to maximize safety and yield
with changing market conditions. Local financial
institutions will be given preferential consideration for
investment of City funds consistent with the City's
objective of attaining market rates of return, and
consistent with constraints imposed by its safety
objectives, cash flow considerations and State laws.
- 5 -
EXHIBIT A
/3-~
6. SAFEKEEPING
All investments of the city shall have the City of Chula
Vista as registered owner and shall be held in safekeepinq
by a third party bank trust department. actinq as aqent for
the citv under the terms of a custodv aqreement. or shall be
It:oEJt in tho cUuteay ef tho City or by .:J. qU.:llifioa
c.:J.fc]tccl?in~ irHJtitl:ition.
7. INVESTMENT REPORTS
A) The Director of Finance shall submit a monthly quarterly
investment report to the city Manager and City Council
in accordance with Government Code section 16481.2
containing the following information for each individual
investment:
Financial institution
Type of investment
Purchase Price Amount of investment ae~oDit
Rate of interest
Purchase date
Maturity date
Current market value for securities ,;ith a mat~rity
of more than 12 mORths
- Other data as required by the City
In addition. the report shall include a statement of
compliance of the portfolio with the Council approved
Investment Policy and a statement indicatinq the ability
of the city to meet its expenditure requirements for the
next six months.
8. Policy Review
This investment policy and quidelines shall be adopted by
resolution of the City Council on an annual basis after
beinq reviewed to ensure its consistency with the overall
obiectives of preservation of principal. liquidity. and
yield. and its relevance to current law and financial and
economic trends.
- 6 -
EXHIBIT A
J3~9
2/4/97
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
INVESTMENT POLICY AND GUIDELINES
1. PURPOSE
Effective cash flow management and cash investment practices
are recognized as essential to good fiscal management. This
Statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent
investment of the City's temporarily idle cash in all Funds,
and outline the pOlicies for maximizing the efficiency of
the City's cash management system.
2 . OBJECTIVE
The objective of the investment policy is to provide
guidelines for insuring the safety of funds invested while
maximizing investment interest income to the City.
3. INVESTMENT POLICY
A. The Finance Director is responsible for investing the
cash balances in all City Funds in accordance with the
California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. and
53635 et seq. This policy does not include Long Term
Debt Reserve Funds and Deferred Compensation Funds,
which are exceptions covered by other more specific
Government Code sections and the legal documents unique
to each debt transaction. Investment practices shall
conform to the prudent man rule (Civil Code Sect. 2261,
et seq.) which states, in essence, that "in
investing. .. property for the benefit of another, a
trustee shall exercise the judgment and care, under the
circumstances then prevailing, which men of prudence,
discretion and intelligence exercise in the management
of their own affairs..."
The Finance Director and other individuals assigned to
manage the investment portfolio, acting within the
intent and scope of the investment policy and other
written procedures, and exercising due diligence, shall
be relieved of personal responsibility and liability
for an individual investment's credit risk or market
price changes, provided material deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely manner and
appropriate action is taken to control any adverse
developments.
- 1 -
EXHIBIT B
/J~/tJ
B. It is the City's full intent, at the time of purchase,
to hold all investments until maturity in order to
ensure the return of all invested principal. However,
it is realistically anticipated that market prices of
securities purchased as investments will vary depending
on economic conditions, interest rate fluctuations, or
individual security credit factors. In a well
diversified investment portfolio, such temporary
variations in market value will inevitably result in
measurable losses at any specific point in time. From
time to time, changes in economic or market conditions
may dictate that it is in the City's best interest to
sell a security prior to maturity.
C. The three principle factors of Safety, Liquidity and
Yield are to be taken into consideration, in the
specific order listed, when making investment
decisions.
1. Safety of principal is the foremost factor to be
considered during each investment transaction.
Safety in investing refers to minimizing the
potential for loss of principal, interest or a
combination of the two due to the two types of
risk, Credit Risk and Market Risk.
a) Credit Risk, defined as the risk of loss due
to failure of the issuer of a security, shall
be mitigated by only investing in very safe,
or "investment grade" securities and
diversifying where feasible.
b) Market Risk, defined as market value
fluctuations due to overall changes in
interest rates shall be mitigated by limiting
the average maturity of the investment
portfolio to less than 3 years, with a
maximum maturity of anyone security of 5
years without prior Council approval. Also,
the portfolio will be structured based on
liquidity needs so as to avoid the need to
sell securities prior to maturity.
- 2 -
EXHIBIT B
)3- II
2. Liquidity refers to the ability to convert an
investment to cash promptly with minimum risk of
losing some portion of principal or interest. The
investment portfolio will be structured based on
historic cash flow analysis in order to provide
the necessary liquidity as investments routinely
mature. A portion of the portfolio will be
maintained in liquid short-term securities which
can be converted to cash if necessary to meet
unforeseen disbursement requirements.
3. Yield is the average annual return on an
investment based on the interest rate, price, and
length of time to maturity. The city attempts to
obtain the highest yield possible, provided that
the basic criteria of safety and liquidity have
been met.
4. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
The city may invest in the following instruments under the
guidelines as provided herein:
A. Certificates of Deposit. Time Certificates of Deposit
will be made only in FDIC or FSLIC insured accounts.
For deposits in excess of the insured maximum of
$100,000, approved collateral shall be required in
accordance with California Government Code Section
53652 and/or 53651 (m) (1). No more than 25% of the
investment portfolio may be invested in this investment
type.
B. Securities of the U.S. Government or its Aqencies.
Includes obligations issued by Federal Home Loan Banks,
Government National Mortgage Association, the Farm
Credit System, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Association, the Federal National
Mortgage Association, the Student Loan Marketing
Association, or obligations or other instruments of or
issued by a federal agency or a United States
Government sponsored enterprise.
C. Treasurv Bills and Notes. U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes,
Bonds or certificates of Indebtedness, or those for
which the full faith and credit of the united States
are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
- 3 -
EXHIBIT B
))//2
D. Local Aqency Investment Fund (LAIF). Investment of
funds in the California LAIF which allows the State
Treasurer to invest through the Pooled Money Investment
Account. Maximum investment is subject to state
regulation.
E.
County of San Dieqo Treasury Pool. Investment of funds
in the County of San Diego Treasury which allows the
County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest local funds
through a pooled concept.
F. Bankers Acceptance. Bills of Exchange or Time Drafts
drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, otherwise
known as Bankers Acceptances, both domestic and
foreign, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal
Reserve System. Purchases of Bankers Acceptances may
not exceed 270 days maturity or total more than 40% of
the cost value of the city's investment portfolio.
G. Commercial Paper. Paper of the highest rating as
provided by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Pl), or
Standard and Poor's Corporation (A1+). Eligible paper
is further limited to issuing corporations that are
organized and operating within the united States and
having total assets in excess of five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000). Purchases of eligible
commercial paper may not exceed 180 days maturity,
represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of the
issuer, or total more than 15% of the cost value of the
city's investment portfolio.
H. Neqotiable Certificates of Deposit. Issued by a
nationally or state-chartered bank or a state or
federal savings and loan association or by a
state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Purchases of
Negotiable certificates of Deposit may not total more
than 30% of the cost value of the City's investment
portfolio.
I. Repurchase Aqreements. A purchase of securities by the
City pursuant to a Master Repurchase Agreement
agreement by which the seller will repurchase such
securities on or before a specified date, or on demand
of either party, and for a specified amount.
Investments in repurchase agreements will be used solely
as short term investments not to exceed 90 days and be
collateralized by securities having a market value of at
least 102% of the value of the repurchase agreement at
all times during the term of the investment.
- 4 -
EXHIBIT B
/3-/3
J. Medium Term Corporate Notes. Corporate obligations
shall be rated A or better by Moody's and or standard
and Poor's rating agencies. Purchases of corporate
medium term notes shall not total more than 30% of the
cost value of the City's investment portfolio, nor for
anyone corporation, when combined with any Commercial
Paper issued by the same corporation, total more than
15% of the cost value of the City's investment
portfolio.
K. Various daily cash funds administered for or by
Trustees, Paying Agents, or Custodian Banks contracted
by the City may be purchased as allowed under California
Government Code. Only those funds holding u.s. Treasury
or Government Agency obligations shall be purchased.
5. DIVERSIFICATION
Investments shall be diversified among institutions, types
of securities and maturities to maximize safety and yield
with changing market conditions. Local financial
institutions will be given preferential consideration for
investment of City funds consistent with the city's
objective of attaining market rates of return, and
consistent with constraints imposed by its safety
objectives, cash flow considerations and State laws.
6. SAFEKEEPING
All investments of the city shall have the City of Chula
vista as registered owner and shall be held in safekeeping
by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for
the City under the terms of a custody agreement.
7. INVESTMENT REPORTS
A) The Director of Finance shall submit a quarterly
investment report to the City Manager and city Council
in accordance with Government Code Section 16481.2
containing the following information for each individual
investment:
Financial institution
Type of investment
Purchase Price of investment
Rate of interest
Purchase date
Maturity date
Current market value for securities
Other data as required by the city
- 5 -
EXHIBIT B
n~
In addition, the report shall include a statement of
compliance of the portfolio with the Council approved
Investment Policy and a statement indicating the ability
of the City to meet its expenditure requirements for the
next six months.
8. POLICY REVIEW
This investment policy and guidelines shall be adopted by
resolution of the City Council on an annual basis after
being reviewed to ensure its consistency with the overall
objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and
yield, and its relevance to current law and financial and
economic trends.
- 6 -
EXHIBIT B
/'
J3-/~
}>
C.
0. c' OJ
(ii" CJ) CD
(") CD ..,
ga.~
::J () or
coO 0'"
a.!e.1D
00 OJ ::r
3 ~ 0
g 00" :E
(!)
2. (j)" di
ct::r:""1
~ (!) :E
:E 0 (!)
(')='- :E 0.
(!) 0
::r ~ ~
::r 0 0
([) 3~
Qm5i
-< ~ OJ
"0 (!) ~
c --
..., m Ctl
(') - (!)
::r -
~ ffi ~
C'D ::;-
c. 3" 00
s: CD C1
(!) 0 (')
--..... ~
~ -g ~
m c:; ':<
3"ffi
(!) '"
~ (!)
:--+"Q
z
o
-
!1l
~"U
00
3 ~
00 <
~ 00
At:
~(!)
03 (ii'
C:T
(!) (!)
"'"0
C':l ::!.
o ~
~ (')
Di "5'
S' Q!.
(!) 00
0.3
::ro
(!) c
co ~
S' ~
00 ~
~ -
~ ffi
CD s-
@ <
<' m
~3"
""(!)
o ~
3 0
'" ~
o 3
e 00
n c
~ ~
~~
(!)
0"
~
ro"
<
(!)
'" (J)
!iio;@
roro~
o.o~
S' .....
() 5'
~~a
~ a-' s:
s: :3 (ij"
o' m' CD
~Gl"O
zoo
< ;+
9 ctl ...,
~ 3 ~
3 (!)
(!) $1
~ '"
.....
0.
.....
0>
c..oS:
00 0 (!)
COn()
c. (!)
o~
~ :J 0
-<m-
e ()
Ng:::r
Ol 0 C
~ iil
CD ~" <
~ Q. 00"
S' 5i
() < 00
o (!) ~
"0 '" C.
'< 3" ..,
sa. ~ ~
::room
or m a.
CD 5. ~
~ :E ~
~ C1
~ s: co'
o' g: (f)
~ (!) "0
(ii' :J g
~. rn [
iil 3" S"
0" (!) <
(j) a. m
et-u3
s= Q. CD
CtI o' :a
o '< '"
3iQ,~
@g:Q.
o (tl en'
:=: () S'
;;r;:::;:
CD '< 8
oQ,:J
-<00'
n 2" ~.
mm-<
~ < ~.
00"
or g:
00 5'
'" (!)
()
tll
():5::J;;oc;
tll C < CD" ::::
~cCD"'OC/)::J
...J en c:. <
::E e?.3'0 G)(1)
;::::j:"m::TOfn
:::J"c:Jtll<3'
,,:J,.....cncoco
(ii" a. )> (1) 3 ::1
()"'co)>3~
OJ ...., (,Q en
(1) .., (1) <
(1) CD :J <
g~~S:
::1(1) "TI
-:::::s (ii'
~ ()
tll
)>
co
(1)
::1
~
-l
o
~
tll
'"
(f)
C
0-
~
o
~
tll
~
~
.....
:...
N
0.
'"
'"
N
'"
~ ~ co CXI ~
Co CJ1......,.'Co
en w en 0 .,!:l. -"
0') <Xl 0 ......,..co 0
N~W""+:."""(O
O')......O~-"CO
o I\Jm WCJ1'::"
~
~
.....
'" ~
_~....l. SJJ SJJ ~
....l.(o....l.CJ1-...!Co
O)wO>o.::.,.......
mcoo-.J<DO
N~W~""'<O
O>.......o~.....co
OJ\)O')Wc.n.;:..
~
N
CD
<0
~
.j>.
~
~
.....
Co
Ol
'"
'"
0.
CD
'" ~
!"" SJJ co _..(::l.
-"C:o.......c.n-..1CXl
O>wO>O.;:.........
O>C:OO-.JCDO
N~Wj:.......<o
CJ).....O.J:>........OO
ONO>UJCJ1~
o
o
~
o
CJl-.JO~
NCn~NCnO
c.o.:>--"N..(::l.CO
cficfi'#.cfi?fi?fl.
/3~)~
-u
o
r"TIO
OCDCD
()a.a.
~~
)>tll~
co (f) (1)
CD '"
::1 (1) ~
() () 3 ::1
--<cco<
:J ~ 3.. ~
< (ii" 3'
CD '" (1)
~ :J
3 ~
(1)
::1
~
)>
co
(1)
::1
~
"TI
C
:J
a.
(f)
C
0-
S
~
tll
0> ~ .....
'" ~ N
i:Jl.......):..
0.00.
;.0;.00
wwo
.......... 0
~ ~ 0
0> ~ .....
N ~ ~
<0 0>
moo.
w;.o..(::l.
Cnwr...,
0......0>
.j>.~",
0> ~ .....
"'~N
'"o>.......bt
CDOO>
......5"00
WWD
CD.....N
CD ~ .....
Ol
CD ~
-.....I~C:.n
~"'CD
cficf.cfi
-l
'<
-0
(1)
(f)
C
s:
:5:
)>
;;0
-<
e
"Tl
(")
)>
(f)
~(")
z-
<::;1
me
~"Tl
:5:(")
m:I:
zc
-lr
(f))>
)><
CJ)CJ)
O-l
"Tl)>
C
m
(")
m
:5:
OJ
m
;;0
c..>
....
-u
tll
~
<
tll
C
(1)
s::
tll
..,
'"
(1)
~
<
tll
C
(1)
)>
.2,
....
<C
<C
en
()
o
'"
~
OJ
tll
'"
(ii"
~
o
:;;:;;
'" '"
c.C'IO'
::r::r
COCO
c.c.
;>>;>>
< <
'" '"
iil iil
<0<0
'" '"
;::~
'" '"
~c:
q
WWWWWWWWW~NNNNNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~
~~m~~WN~Om~~~~~WN~Om~~m~~WN~O~~~m~~WN~
~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
mmmmmmmmmmmmcmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo
~a~~~~nnnnnnannannnnnunannnnnnnnnnnnnn
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD m m CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD m m CD CD CD m CD CD CD CD m CD CD CD CD 00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
ZZ~~ZZZZIIzzroIIZIIIZZZZZIIIIIIZZZIIZI~
m 00 ~ 0 w W W WOO W WOO woo 0 w W w W WOO 000 0 w W WOO W 0 ~
gg33gggg33gg~33g333ggggg333333ggg33g3n
:::l::S <tl::J:::I:J:J CD CD ::J::I CD CD ::J ell CD CD ::s ::J ::J :::l ::J CD CD CD (0 m (D ::J ::J ::J CD CD ::J CO '::..
wmgrwwwwrrwm~rrwrrrwwwwwrrrrrrwwwrrwr::s
-- '0----00--0000-000-----000000---00-0<
~~~w~~~~ww~~~ww~www~~~~~wwwwww~~~WW~WC1l
o 0 ~ ::s 0 0 0 0 ::s ::s 0 0 <D ::J ::J 0 ::s ::s ::s 0 0 0 0 0 ::s ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J 0 0 0 ::s ::s 0 ::J ~
~~O~~~~~~~~~g~~~;::;::;::~~~~~~~;::;::~~~~~;::;::~~3
~~o~~~OO~~O~~~~~OOO~~~O~~~OO~~~~~OO~~CD
~~::s~~~gg~~Q~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~5~~~~~gg~~~
~~~ ro~~~o ~ro0000roWWWro~ro~~00WWO ~~~ww~ ~
~~~ ~~~~ro ~~~roo~~~~~~~~~oo~~o ~~~~~~ 5
rororo 0Cl)Cl)Cl)0" Cl)0_0"~~roCl)ro~ro~ro<D~~Cl)Cl)~ Cl)<DCllCl)<DCl) a.
a. a. a. oa.a.a.~ a.~m~~onnnoa.oa.a.~~nn~ nnn0nn a
"'~~"'~ ~.~~~~ ~o~~ ~~~Q~.~~~~romQQm ~~~~~~ .~
~ _m ~~ ~mm~ _uu~_m_mmnn~~n mmmuum ~
~~3 ~~~3~ 3~~~ ~oQo~~~~~..oo. ~~~ZZ~ 0
~ ::::.. ::JCDtuCD~ ~ Cl)Cl) 00-
ZZoZ ZZZ Z tu O"~o.~ Zozz 0"0" zzzm-",z 0
00..... 000 0 CD 0 00 000 0
mmCD mmm m - ::J ~~~m ~~~ ~ ~
wwwwwwwwwwww~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
mmwwmmm~ww~m~wwm~~Am~~mmWWA~wwmmm~Amw
~~~~~~AA~~A~~~~~~~~~A~AA~~OO~~~A~OOA~
nnzw~~romNNwn~wNmooon~n~~~~oo~~~~~oo~~
mmN~~~X<~^^ro~w~~ocomm~m~~~cc^I~~~mm 0
~WN m~zn~~m~o~~ w~~~~~mmo~^~w~~~n~z W
~rnwow~rn~~~~~~~ ~W~No~WO~~N~~Ww~~o~Arnw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
Cl) Cl) Cl) m CD <D Cl) Cl) CD Cl) m m m CD Cl) CD Cl) Cl) Cl) ro m m Cl) Cl) m CD m m Cl) m Cl) Cl) m (tI (tI m Cl) Cl)
iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil iil ~
mwmwmoooowmmoooomwwmmwwoooooowoowwmmmoomwwwoowwm
Cl) m m m (tI m (tI Cl) m (tI m m m (tI m (tI Cl) Cl) m m (tI (tI m m m m m Cl) Cl) m Cl) Cl) m (tI m (tI Cl) ~
g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g ~
ggggggggg~g~~~gggggggggggggggg~gggggg~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0
~~~N"""~OONON~NON
f"'?cpo?NC{l9>?C;O??Cf~CP
OO(J)LS::i>S:ilOO(J)~~~z
~~~5~~~~~~~c5S~~
I , I , I , I I , , I I , I I
OOOOOOOOOOOOoo~
............~......~.............~OOOOoo~
~O......NN~ OO.......~NNO~~~......O
~9>C{l9>c;oc;o~~~gcpTc;oCf~~Tc;oTT?cp
L~~zOm~LLL~~s:s:~~~s:s:s:s:LO
~~~~U~~~~~SS~~~~~~~~~S~
, 1 I I I I I I I , , , , I , 1 I , 1 , "m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z
z~
? 3
en
'"
"
C
".
-<
o
'"
.
Q
-g:
,r
"
0
C
.
i'j.
.. f/l
('l
::T
CD
Co
s::
CD
~ 0
'< -
" "'C
'"
0
0
CD
Co
;::5"
0"'<
",_CD
_CUI
(tI :::!._
-<3
CD
'"
0 -
UI
~ llJ
0 UI
'" 0
CD -
C
"U CD
o!:i ('l
CD
'" " 3
_::r
'" '"
. C"
'" CD
.,
(,>
"U ~
~ ~
< '"
'" '"
c: en
'"
<;::
'" '"
c~
'" !P-
o;>>
g c.
-c'
~.
'" -
. '"
_. c.
.
~
'"
~
0>0>"" """" 0>0> ,"0>0> cncnmO'l m~mm 0>0>.. ~ (J'l(J'lO'lwmm '"'" ~ '"'" '"'" '" '" '" :>J~
-/7 :""':""'w wo ~o Cow:"'" :""'c.no,o, w~c.nc.n NNCo WNNNo,~N NN NW~ :""'N '" '" '" '" ~
/] 0>"''' ~o '"0 ",,0," ~(J'l~rn N(J'l~""" ..'"'" (J'l~A~A~W ""0> ,","0 "' "" '" .. "" ~~
000 00 00 00," 0000 woo 0 000 ooomAOO 00 000 0," 0 '" ..
N
"," 0> cn-..J-..J~mm CJ1O'lOlCJ1OlmO'lO'l<.TI 0> (J'lO'lO'lAO'ICJ1CJ1O'1 '" O101(J'l(]lO'lmO'lO'l('J1('J1 '"'" -<
"'''' '" :.....:.....wO~O cow:.....~~c.no,w~ '" OtWNCoWNNN '" ~NNNNW::":"""NW CoOt 0;.
"'i '" "' coco............mo ~WU1NCOCOU1NO '" ~~~COU1~A...... .. ~w~cnO'lO'lO~~('J1 ...... 0:
. '" 0> 000010'10 O-..JO'ICONOOW~ 0 OO~OOOOU1 .. oOOOOOOOUlO N"
"0
66
'" '"
" "
cOcO
"'<0
N
o
L
C
"
,
<D
""
......aONO
NC{l9>?c;o
:bm-noo
"C (tI m (tI m
~~cr()O
cOcOcOcOcb
~~-..Jm~
~O
0>'"
0"
" '"
-~
cOcO
""""
~NO
0",""
:i>L-n
C C '"
<O,,~
, , ,
<D<D<D
"'""""
NONNc;~
, I AO, 0
OO'L~'
m(tlOctu~
o 0 U::s,<~
, I , , , I
~~tO~~<O
m~mO)mm
OONO~N~ONN~O"""'NN~ .......O~~NNO~~
~9>?c;oCfCP~~CP?mC{l9>U'l~?~~gC{l~c;oCfO'lN~c;oT
s:~ooo~6~zo:b~zO(J)~LLLS:LS:S::i>:b:bs:s:
~~~~~~U~~~~~~U~~~~~~5~~~~~~~
, I I , I , , , I , , , I I I I I I , , , , , , I I I ,
<o<om<O<O~~~~tO~<o<om<om<om<o~m<o<o~<o~<o<o
mm~O'I~mU'lm~Ulmm~~wwwwWUlWWWWWWWW
~~N
~oo
~~L
'" '" C
77 =?
<0<0<0
"'''''"
'" ~
WN.......NN~NNWNNW~WNN~NN~NN~N~~U'lNNN~NNWNNNN.......
~ooooooooooooooooooooooooo~ooooooooooo~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU'lOOOOOOOOOOOO
<00000000000000000000000000000000000000<0
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
~ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~
'" ~
N~ NN~~~N""""""N~N~"""'~N~ O'I~"""'~ ~~N"""''''''''~N'''''''
~~<oooo~~~~~~o~~~oo~~~~~~~~~~~~tO~~~~~~o~
mmco~o~<omAco~coo<om~~o~~m-..Jmco~tOmcococo~-..J~mcocomoo
WW~W<OOOWAO<OAo<om"""'Am-..Jco~o~~~om~o"""wwmO"""'~Nom
m~~~mw~~m~oo~o~~~~~~~~~~~~oo~~~w~~~~~ww
~N-..JN~~AAco~m~oo~mmN~~~ocornA-..JoommACOOO~N<om~ON~
~ooooooooooooooooooooooooowooooooooooo~
'" ~
W............NN NW~NW~WNN~NN ~N"""N""""""O'INNN~NNWNNN~~
m~ooo<o~oo~ooooooooom~ooooo~oooooooooo~~
mCOONO<O<OOO<oo~o~oooooom~oooooO'lOOOOOOOOOOCOO
-..Joomo<ooooomomNOOO<OOO~~oooooooooooooooom~
woo~ow~ob~b~~wobmob~wbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbw
~00~0~U100~0~~~OOOOOONCOOOOOOooooooooooom~
~OONornooornornwwoocooOO'lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
..
~(]lg~rn
-<-< -<-<
(tI m ~ m (tI
tu tu ~[l) [l)
U; U; 3 U; U;
~O'l(]lO'lO'lAO'IAANWWWNWU1~O'IU1O'lWO'lO'lO'lO'lrnU1~rnU'lUlN
-<-<-<-<-<~-<~-<-<~-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<O
m (tI ro m (tI 0 ro 0 (tI m 0 (tI ro m m (tI m m m (tI (tI (tI (tI m ro (tI Cl) m m (tI (tI (tI ~
Wtutututu<OW<O[l)[l)~[l)tututututututu~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
U; U; @ U; U; 3 U; 3 U; @ 3 @ @ U; ~ ~ U; ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
co 0::2:0;00 co "0 co co co ~~~
Ol .... CO< .... .... .... co CO COCO
, ~oOOm CO co"''''
CO ~~[D)>::J 0 -1;0 -1 -1 -1
" w w""
CD ~ G) I~ < ~ "- '" ~ ~
-1 X 0 ;000
;0 Q.CIlIO-l -U :t>'" ;;" ;;" ;;" 0 m,OO
lD
)> oog~m :J =0 " " " -U c'lJ"UCD
OlD
Z 00 Ul -'(1) CIl 0-0 0 0 0 -U 5.OJ)>g
33 S"cE o. OJ~ ;0 ;0 ;0 '" S" a.
-c"Cf.C ~ :J ;<-
~~-o~I 00 lD lD !!l. co iii
0 :J , - - S.
en (/) ..... 0 ""U 2: "-'" OJ OJ OJ co 0 '"
mrooco "'.... "- "- "- 0 <=
o:::!':!:!':CC w: <C. -j '" '" '" -u '"
o 0 W 3 OJ '" 0 0 l>
:J :J 3 "- tT
;;;
0
"
G)oG)aooowwocccccccccccc~wwrow~ww-lwmcwwc~~
c~~~~~~~a~wwmmwmmmmmmm5aaaaroaa~;a2.~a2.55
~)>w~~~~f.Cf.C~-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1)>f.Cf.Cf.Cf.C~f.Cf.CG)::Jf.Cro<f.Cro)>)>
w -~ rom ~....................................................... rororoma.mm ooma.<ma.
::J~<_.I " nnlmmmmmmmmmmmm~noonrooo~~o 000 ~~
-m<::J~~~oommmwmwwwwmwwwwooOOc005'wOm~Omww
m~mf.Crororo~~~CIlcnCllCllCllCllCllcnCllCllCllCll~~~~~~~~wI~~5'W~~~
"-lD~lD)>...............~~.....rnOJwwrnrnrnWWOJrowm~~~~o~~::Jw~row~mrom
-3 ommen 0000000000000..... ~ Q.::J oo::J CIl..........
::J 30~~~-1-1~::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J::J~-1-1-1-1m-l-lwa.-1 0-1 ~~m
<m 0 ~~ a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.~..........~..... ..........- .....-1-......-1~~ro
m::J[Dcrororo )>(I)(I)CIlCllCllCllcn(l)CIlCllcncn~CIlCll CIlrCll(l)""U~CIl.....WCll.....~^O
~owammm~~ommmmmmmmmmmw_~~~~~~~a~~m~~m::~
3 ~ ~~~~~g------------~~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~~_~
roQ~ 5'5.5.~~caaaaaaaaaaaa-~~~~ro~~c~~co~c--~
a~ ~~~~~~rorororororororororororo~~~~~w~~S~~~~~~>>O
aQ ~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~g~~~~~rng~rngg~
oa 000 rrrrrrrrrrrr- ~ -- =00 =--0
~6' ggg~~ oooooooooooo<~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ <<~.
~~ ccc~~ ~~~~~~22~2~~~.~~~tt~tt=~ro= S= ~.~.~
w ~~~~~ ------------w~~~~ro~~~~~ ~ wwo
S ---~~ QQQQQQQQQQQQcr~~~~~~~<3~ ~~ crcr~
woo ooooooooooooroWWWoo~oooomrooo ~w roro
~~ 5555~555~~~~~~~~~~~~-a~ m~ ~~
00 wwwwwwwwwwwwaoooo:t>OO~:t>O 30 aa
rr rorororororororororororororrrr~rr~~r ror roro
~~ iiiiiiiiiiii ~~~~~~~3~~ a~
~~ ~~oo~w~~~~w~~ ~~~~a~~a~A A
mm mm~m ~m -~ m
~<<N~oo~roro~rooororororororororo~~rooororooorororooooororoOJOJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IDOOA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AIDIDOJOOOOOJoooo~~~mmmNNC
~CC&A~WWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNaooaoa~~~WWWAAW
~W~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
OJ ~6666666666666666666666b666666666g
ID maoaaaaoooaoooooooooooooaoooooooa_
00 WNaoooooaaoooaOOWNAWNAWNN~~N~~~O~
j;:....
en
o
::r
lD
"-
<=
i>
o
-
C)
'"
CIl
g
:;
<
lD
'"
3"
..
:J
or
"
'"
::r
."
;.
o
a
)>
'"
lD
a
~oQ::2: ::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2:::2: ~
~~~rornrnrnroromrorororororommrorororororororororororororororororororom>~o
w~rn~aaa~~~~oooooo~~~~~~~~oo~oooooooo~~oooooooooooooooooo~~~
:t>3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~ n
c:: 0 00000000000000000000000000000000 to
:;:;:::;::OOOO:;:::;::OCCCCCCCCCCCC~~~:;:::;::;o:;:::;:::;:;:;::C:;:;::C:;:::;:: ~
~~~fflfflfflffl~~ffloooooooowoooooooooooow~~~~~m~~~~~w~~w~~ ro
-CC~~~~CC~~~~~~~~~~~~~CCCCC~CC--C~-C~cc ~
3~~~~~~~~~oooooooooooooooooooooom~~~~~n~~33~ro3~oo~~~ w
a~~~'~.~.~.~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aa~~a~~~~~ ~
~CCOOOOCCOZZZZZZZZZZZZCCCCC_CC~~C ~CZCCtD ~
~~~wwww~~w ~~~~~6~~~~~z~~ ~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nnn~nn~~no~n~nn ~
3 ~ w yyyyW ~ Ym m tD ro m tD m ro m m m tD ~ ~ w w ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 3 0 - 3 ~ m ~ m m
- ~~~~ ~~www~~~~www~ _ __ ~_ W
'"
Ol
L
<=
:J
'"
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~:i>>:i>>:i>:i>:i>:i>:i>>>
W~~~"C"C"C"C~"C"C"C
77777 7 7 7 7 777
IDoaooooaa(O(O~
~~o>~~wN"""a(OOJ~
~NNNNNNNNNNI\J
,-....J'""-J'""-J'""-J'""-J'""-J~'""-J~'""-J'""-J
~:i>:i>:i>>:i>:i>:i>:i>:i>:i>:i>
V~~~~~~~~~~~
IDroooroOJro~~oororoOJ
O)(OIDCO(OID(OIDID(O(OCO
o
~
;\:
'"
'f
'"
....
'"
w
;\:
'"
'f
CO
'"
00
~~
WOO
lD lD
"9"9
"'~
....w
"'0
w",
~L
'" '"
'f :J
CO'"
"'....
",0
,,~
, ,
."W
lD lD
1'""9
co ~
"'"
"'0
tOw
>~
r.E ~
, ,
to to
Ol W
o
~
,
'-
<=
T
CO
Ol
W ~
J::a.(J\ ~ N
......ID-moo ~CO~
O>ID~NOJ~(O-....J
O>WO>~ID~IDA
N,J::a. u,~ -a 0, '"cn-CO
mmm,J::a.o~~~
oo~mwl\.)l\J'""-J
-u
mm,J::a.~~wwWNNNI\J ~ ~ ~N ID W ~
I\.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~<
co~w~~u,~~oowo~~o~o~o ,J::a.~N~~'"cn~Wi:oN~ oo~
~~o-....Jooooooooooo,J::a.oomm~""",J::a.IDooW~Nmmoo"",,~c<l>
mN~~oooooooooaaw~"""OJ~~mooowOJwwmo>o>,J::a.
w ~
,J::a.m~N
~IDo,i:o ~oo~ mmA,J::a.AwwwNNNN m
m(O~NOJ'""-JID~ O)~Noom~'""-JmN(O'""-J,J::a.W,J::a.
mwm~ID~IDA N IDWOOOJO......IDNOAW-....JW OJ
N~U,~Oo,'"cn~(O~w~~o,~~i:owo~~o~o......o
mO>O>Ao............~~'""-Jo~aoooooaoooa~OJ~
oo~mwNN~~N~mooooaoaoaoaw~~
~
~ NN co W
,J::a. ~m ~~ W
ID ~CO AN OJ
,J::a. ~ N ~-A -0> ~-w-oo N-N
~......~~ID~w~NmmOJ
oo,J::a.mmooowOJww~O>
/3~/6
w ~
,J::a.m,J::a.N
O>IDU,i:o '""-J~""" m~~AAAWWwNNNN m
O>ID~NOO~ID~ ~~N~~......~~N(O~~w ~
~WO>"""CO,J::a.ID,J::a. ~ ~~~~p~~~p~~~~ ~
......~o'~a~m~ID~W~~~ID~OJWO,J::a.~O,J::a.a~o
IDO>O>~O""""""~ ~oooaaoooaaaaa,J::a.OJm
mo......mWNN~~NOJaooaaoooaaaow~~
~
~ NN ID W
,J::a. ~O> ~~ W
(0 ~ID WI\.) m
A-......N~~m(J\-()l-OON~
(J\......~~IDcow(J\commN
oo,J::a.~O>OOOw~,J::a.wmo>
Ol
~<<<<<<<
OWWlllWWWW
~ ~ ~ ..... ..... ..... .....
~~~
<<~~->.
WW~~OO
..........000
COIDCOCOCOCO
NNNNNN
O~N,J::a.~~
000000
~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,
NWW<<<<<oo<<wm<AW<A<<~
~~,J::a.www~mO~wID->'wWOwWwm~
OOO.....~...............o..........oo.....oo~o..........
'"
"
-'n
lD
tT
'"
"
'"
CO
:l>
c
co
'"
Ol
:;::~
~:J
~<@
i:oQ!.S
~(J\cc
O>,J::a.CO~
."
OlD
",0"-
-OJ S!l. ~
~~ ~
OlA
:;::
0'"
ac
co~
-u
<=
00
",;::r
~'"
lD '"
lD
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /--56
Meeting Date 2/4/97
ITEM TITLE:
Reconsideration of a request for all-way stops on Lakeshore Drive at
Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way.
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Horton
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X)
At the January 28, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council requested that the City Council
reconsider previous action by the Council in denying a request for all way stops on Lakeshore
Drive. Previous action was taken by the City Council at the December 10, 1996 Council meeting
under Action Items to deny the request for all way stops at Lakeshore Drive with Hartford Street
and Creekwood Way. Council may set the item for a future date in order to give time for staff
to notify interested residents of the item.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council vote to reconsider their previous action of December 10,
1996 to deny the subject all-way stops, set the matter for February 18, 1997 and instruct staff to
notify interested parties that the item will be reconsidered on that date.
n::\shared\ lkshstop.cls.
January 30, 1m (4;38pm)
/5:6 -j
#- /
/r-
,/':: C
February 4, 1997
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and Council
SUBJECT: LISTING OF CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Task Force (ADAPT)
Meets every other month 12:00n at Rainwater's on 1202 Kettner Blvd.
San Diego.
Member- Deputy Mayor Padilla
Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS)
Meets one hour before SANDAG, at 401 B Street, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
Bayfront Conservancy Trust
Meets 4th Tuesday 1 :30 p.m. of every other month at Chula Vista Nature Center.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate - Councilman Moot
Bayfront Subcommittee
Also represents the city as the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. Both meet
as needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
Member - Councilman Moot
Border Environmental Commerce Alliance Advisory Board
Meets on the 2nd Friday of each month at 8:00 a.m. at 477 Marina Parkway.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate - Councilman Moot
Council Subcommittee on Citizen Board, Commission, and Committee
Attendance
Meets as needed.
Mayor - Mayor Horton
Mayor Tempore - Deputy Mayor Padilla
/Sa. -I
Subject: LISTING OF CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
High-tech/Biotech Subcommittee
As needed. Mayor retains membership. Rotates among council members each
year. 1996 Council representative - Councilman Moot.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate - Councilmember Salas
Inter-Agency Water Task Force
Meets 2nd Mondav at 8:30 a.m. of each month.
Member - Mayor Horton
Member - Deputy Mayor Padilla
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
Generally, as needed. GreenFleets meets twice per year. C02 Project meets
once per year. Locations vary.
Member - Councilman Moot
Alternate - Councilman Rindone
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
Meets 1st Mondav 9:00 a.m. at 1600 Pacific Highway, Third Floor, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
LAFCO Cities Advisory Board
Meets 3rd Fridav at 10:00 a.m., at 1600 Pacific Highway.
Member - Council member Salas
City Staff Alternate - Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Legislative Committee
Mayor Horton
City Manager
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
Meets on 2nd and 4th Thursdav each month at 9:00 a.m., at 255 Imperial
Avenue, San Diego, 10th Floor.
Member - Councilman Rindone
Alternate - Deputy Mayor Padilla
Metropolitan Wastewater Commission (Metro Commission)
Meets on the 3rd Fridav. 9:00 a.m.. at 600 B Street, Third floor, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
- 2 -
l.5e -"
C- x H/9/f n
COUNCIL POLlCY
cm OF CHUL~ VISTA
1f/
SUBJEcr:
Safety Commission Polic:y - Delegating
Additional Authority
POLICY
NUMBER
110-09
EFFECllVE
DAn::
3/14/95
PAGE
1 of 4
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 17833 - (Replaces Polity Number 110-09
adopted 03-06-73 by Resolution 6772)
DATED:
3/14/95
BACKGROUI'ID
On March 6, 1973, the City Council adopted a Safety Commission policy establishing a procedure to be
followed by the Safety Commission in evaluating maners of vehicular or pedestrian safety within the public
right-of-way within the City of Chula VlSta. The March 6, 1973 polic:y limits the Safety Commission
responsibility to an advisory role to the City Council. Presently, final authority to implement traffic control
measures rests with the City Council:
In recent years there has been a greater awareness and concern over traffic and safety related issues. Due to
population, vehicular ownership, and traffic growth in the City, this awareness and concern has resulted in an
increase in traffic items brought before the City Council. This situation coupled with other pressing demands
on the City Council has adversely impacted their ability to schedule public hearings and resolve the high
number of traffic and safety maners initiated by the public that warrant <:pecial consideration.
Due to the importance placed on traffic and safety maners and the need to deal with such maners
n-peditiously, the City Council has determined a need to create an administrative process in which delegation
of authority is empowered to the Safety Commission and staff to act upon traffic and safety maners.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this polic:y is to establish an administrative procedure for the Safety Commission to conduct
public hearings on maners related to traffic and safety issues. This polic:y prescribes guidelines and criteria
for determining appropriate actions inaccordance with City Council directions and delegation of authority.
1. GENERAl. POLICY
It shall be the polic:y of the Ciry, to be implemented by such ordinances and resolutions as lI!ay be required,
that, within, the budgetary constraints set by Council through the budget, the City Council hereby delegates
authority to establish and maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic control measures, standards, and
requirements in the public right of way ('Traffic Control Measures'), except as hereinbelow provided, to the I
City Engineer after review by the Safety Commission ("Commission"), unless, on affirmative vote of a majority
of the membership of the Safety Commission, the Commission objects to the proposed action by the City
Engineer. In such case, the maner shall be referred to the City Council and the authority as to such maners,
shall, on such referral, be vested in the City Council to be exercised on the affirmative vote of three members
of the City Council.
The Commission shall not have the power to initiate or order the implementation of a Traffic Control
Measure, but shall have the power to recommend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a proposed Traffic I
Control Measure. If the City Engineer shall consider and decline to implement a Traffic Control Measure
proposed by a majority of the Commission, the Commission shall by a vote of at least four (4) Commissioners
have the power to refer the maner to the City Council, and upon such referral, the authority to initiate and
order the Traffic Control Measure shall be thereupon revested in the City Council.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUL.o\ VISTA
-lBJECT:
Safety Commission Policy - Delegating
Additional Authority
POUCY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
110-09 3/14/9S 2 of 4
I DATED: 3/14/95
ADOPTED BY: Re~olution 17833
2. EXCEPTIONS:
A. Traffic Control Measures budgeted by the City as a Capital Improvement Project Budget.
The authority to establish a Traffic Control Measure for which the City has appropriated funds
in the City's OP budget shall be vested in the City Council, subject to recommendations of the
City Engineer and Safety Commission.
B. Special Event Regulations
(1) Public Community Events.
The authority to establish and maintain Traffic Control Measures for community
events using the public right-of-way.
(2) Road Construction Projects.
The authority to establish and maintain temporary Traffic Control Measures for road
construction projects shall be vested in the City Engineer, unless oveITUled by the
affirmative vote of three members of the Council. The City Engineer shall. under the
following circumstances, advise the Council seven days in advance in writing of the
following proposed Traffic Control Measures exercised under the authority of this
exception:
(a) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve complete road closures on
any road;
(b) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve significant interlerence
with traffic on high volume roads; ~_~
(c) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve long term partial road
closures on any road;
(d) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve interlerence with access to
any business;
(e) the proposed Traffic Control Measure may involve the rerouting of traffic
through residential areas.
c.
Emergency Traffic Regulations.
r
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUL4. VISTA
SUBJECf:
Safety Commission Policy. Delegating
Additional Authority
POUCY
NUMBER
EFFECI1VE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 17823
11 0-09 3/14/95 3 of 4
I DATED: 3/14/95
2. EXCEPTIONS (continued)
D. Traffic Control Measures Affecting Community Businesses.
The City Council reserves authority over all Traffic Control Measures designed to, or having
an impact on, the availability of parking for businesses, including but not limited to:
(1) Angle Parking
(2) Parking Meters
E. Traffic Control Measure associated with new developments and/or City projects.
3. INCLUSIONS
A.
Trial Traffic Regulations
Traffic Control Devices
Through Streets and Stop Intersections
Yield Right-of.Way Streets
Turning Movements
One-Way Streets and Alleys
Stopping, Standing and Parking
Loading Zones
Bicycle Parking Zones
Pedestrians
Permit Parking' in Residential Zones
Chapter 10.12
Chapter 10.24
Chapter 10.32
Chapter 10.36
Chapter lOAD
Chapter 10.44
Chapter 10.52 (Except Angle Parking)
Chapter 10.60
Chapter 10.72
Chapter 10.76
Chapter 10.86
Final actions on maners requiring an Ordinance from City Council regarding Speed RegulationuChapter
10.48); Angle Parking (Chapter 10.52); Parking Meter Zones (Chapter 10.56); Permit Parking '(Chapter
10.56) and Truck Routes (Chapter 10.64) shall be exempt from this policy. These items will be referred to
the City Council with recommendations from staff and the Safety Commission for final disposition.
PROCEDURES
A. PUBUC INQUlRIES
1. Citizen requests for traffic and safety related improvements are submined to the City
Engineer for evaluation.
2. The City Engineer performs traffic studies as necessary including the collection of pertinent
data and any other reference material.
3. The City Engineer analyzes the traffic data and makes a traffic engineering determination on
what, if any, traffic engineering improvements are needed.
.
;-
COUNOL POI1CY
CITY OF QfUlA VISTA
SUBJECf:
Safety Commission Policy - Delegating
Additional Authority
POUCY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DAn:
PAGE
AOOPn:D BY: Resolution 17832
110.09 3/14/95 4 of 4
I DATED: 3/14195
A. PUBUC INQUIRIES (continued)
4. The City Engineer prepares a report to the Safety Commission presenting his/her findings
accompanied with a recommendation to accept or deny the citizen's traffic safety
im provem ent requ est.
S. The City Engineer's report is placed on the Safety Commission's meeting agenda.
6. Citizen and other affected individuals are notified of the date when their item will appear
before the Safety Commission. Notices are sent out not later than six days before the Safety
Commission meeting.
7. The Safety Commission conducts a public hearing, where staff presents their recommendation
to deny or approve the citizen's traffic safety improvement request to the Safety Commission.
8. The Safety Commission, by a majority vote of the Safety Commission, makes a determination
based on established Council policies, the Municipal Code, the California Vehicle Code, and
standard traffic engineering practices to concur with or disagree with the City Engineer's
report to approve or reject the citizen's traffic safety improvement request.
a. If the Safety Commission vote affirms the City Engineer's recommendation to approve
the citizen's traffic safety improvement request, staff is authorized to implement the
traffic safety improvement.
b. If the Safety Commission, by a majority vote of the Safety Commission, affirms the
City Engineer's recommendation to deny the citizen's traffic safety improvement
request, the denial is final and will not be forwarded by staff to the City Council for
their consideration unless one member of the Council within 10 days desires to hear
the item. Staff will notify Council of the Safety Commission hearing results through
the forwarding of an information memo outlining the action taken. Appeals to the-
City Council from decisions of the Safety Commission or City Engineer are a priority
and will normally be scheduled for a hearing 3 to 4 weeks from the date the appeal is
filed. After conducting a Public hearing, during which time the applicant and
interested parties may speak, the Council may llpprOved, conditionalJy approve, or
deny the request. The City Council's decision is final.
I
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, October 10, 1996
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Liken, Vice Chair Miller, Commissioners: Acton, Bierd, Cochrane, and Smith
Absent:
Commissioner Hoke
Also present:
Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer; Mike Donnelly, Asst Engineer II; Sgt. Gene d'Ablaing; and
Diana Vargas, Recording Secretary
2. Pledge of Allegiance/Silent Praver
3. Ooening Statement - Read by Chair Liken
4. Aooroval of Minutes: August 8, 1996
MSC (Acton/Smith) to approve the minutes of August 8,1996 as presented. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner
Hoke absent.
MEETING AGENDA
5. Reoort on AII-Wav StoD Reouest at lakeshore Drive at Clearbrook Drive.
Background: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting, to prepare a follow-up report on this
item, and requested that an updated speed survey be conducted at this intersection. Staff requested that the speed
survey be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire a more accurate survey of the traffic
and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich presented staff's follow-up report and indicated there were no changes to the previous report. He
further indicated that the updated speed survey showed no difference in the 85th percentile speed of 40 MPH,
which exceeds the posted speed limit of 30 MPH.
In addition, the warrant evaluation conducted at this intersection assessed a total of 9 points out of a possible 54
points. According to Council's policy on the installation of an all-way stop, a minimum of 30 points are required
to justify the installation.
Staff Recommendation: Mr. Ullrich indicated that utilizing established guidelines, the outcome failed to
demonstrate the need for the installation of an all-way stop at this location and therefore, staff recommends denial
of the request.
Public Hearing: Chair Liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there were five request slips to speak.
Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 C1earbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, indicated he contested the sight
distances that were noted by staff during the slide presentation, and indicated the speed at which
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 2
offenders are driving, cuts down on the reaction time. He further stated that although he would like to
see the all-way stop installed at Clearbrook Drive, he supported staff's recommendation that perhaps the
better alternative site would be at Creekwood Way because of the proposed connection of Creekwood
Way to Chateau Court when the adjacent Telegraph Canyon Estates development is completed. He
encouraged the Commission to continue to look into creative ways that could slow down the speed of
cars traveling on the southwest side of the loop.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he lives on the corner lot of this
intersection and he personally witnesses speeding cars. He further stated that because he will not
jeopardize the safety of his family, he has had to place his home on the market to prevent a tragedy from
occurring and have a car end up in his front living room.
Ruben Padilla, 801 Woodspring Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that on June 14, 1995 at 7:35 p.m.
he had a car fly into his back yard and ended up approximately 5 feet from his kitchen. Fortunately, his
four children were inside the house, and a greater tragedy did not occur. Mr. Padilla stated that because
of the angle the photos were taken, he did not believe they represent a true picture of the sight distance.
Joseph Dombrowski, 1967 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he and his 6 and 8 year
old SDns frequently crDSS that intersediDn on their way tD visit a family member that lives inside the 10Dp.
There is nD pedestrian crosswalk and there is pDDr visibility on Lakeshore Drive when they are coming
back hDme. There have been times when his children will wait up tD 10 minutes trying tD cross
LakeshDre Drive, due to pODr visibility and speeding cars.
Ken Comardo, 1966 ClearbroDk Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that in his opiniDn there is a blind SpDt
created by the curve on the LakeshDre Drive where YDU don't see the car coming fDr the last 100 feet
before reaching C1earbroDk Drive. He felt that the photos were nDt a true representation Df the sight
distance motorists have when they are at the intersediDn.
Public Hearing Closed.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Adon questiDned whether the CDmmissiDn has discussed the feasibility of installing speed bumps
at the last hearing.
Chair Liken indicated that due tD the colledDr street and it pDsted Dver 25 MPH, it did nDt meet the criteria stated
in the speed bump policy.
CDmmissiDner Cochrane expressed his concern over the safety Df this area and indicated he has personally
witnessed the speeding cars because he and his wife regularly walk through this neighbDrhDDd. CDmmissiDner
Cochrane stated that if the 85th percentile is traveling 10 miles in excess Df the pDsted speed limit, that means
that the remaining 15 percent are traveling at speeds that far exceed the pDsted speed limit. He indicated that
he believes an all-way stop sign at this intersedion is warranted.
Commissioner Miller indicated that she empathized with the residents and felt that perhaps the Commission could
review this item with the next item Dn the agenda, and somehow CDme to a consensus on where to recDmmend
the installatiDn of an all-way StDp.
Bill Ullrich indicated that the phDtDs are taken from an angle that c1Dsest represents the mDtorists' view.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 3
Chair liken indicated that the Commission does make an effort to visit these sites prior to them being discussed
at the meetings, and they do drive in and out of the different approaches to get a well-rounded perspective. He
further indicated that speed in this area is a concern to the Commission as a whole, and asked staff what measures
could be implemented to control speed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that there could be strider enforcement of the speed limit.
Chair liken stated that, although he is concerned about the speeding cars, he would not support the all-way stop
at the C1earbrook Drive intersedion, but rather, at the next intersedion, which is Creekwood Way and lakeshore
Drive. He further indicated that it would be at this location that the all-way stop could be warranted at a future
date with the impad the adjacent development will have when it is completed.
Bill Ullrich indicated that staff could reevaluate the installation of an all-way stop at the Creekwood Way and
lakeshore Drive intersection at a later date, after the connedion to Chateau Court and the completion of the
development.
MSC(Miller/Bierd) to approve staff's recommendation to deny the installation of an all-way stop at lakeshore
Drive and Clearbrook Drive. Approved 4-2-1 with Commissioners Smith and Cochrane voting no,. and
Commissioner Hoke absent.
6. ReDor! on AII-Wav StOD reauest at Creekwood Wav and lakeshore Drive
Back2round: The Commission direded staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting to prepare a study on this item as an
alternative location to a request to install an all-way stop at the C1earbrook Drive and lakeshore Drive
intersedion. Staff requested that the study be delayed until after the schools were in session in order to acquire
a more accurate survey of the traffic and speed conditions at that intersection.
Bill Ullrich reported that staff conducted the study utilizing the same evaluation methodology as the other
intersedion and it did not receive enough points to warrant the installation of an all-way stop at this time.
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the request for the installation of an all-way stop at the
Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive intersedion, and that staff be direded to r€-evaluate it when the Telegraph
Canyon Estates are completed.
Public Hearin2: Chair liken open the Public Hearing and indicated that there were two request slips to speak.
Ken Comardo, 1966 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated that he did not support the stop sign
at this location. He urged the Commission to stop looking at a point system policy, and make their
determination on a case by case basis based on merit and safety.
Armando Montes Jr., 1975 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista 91913, stated he too did not support the stop
sign at this location and urged the Commission not to wait to reevaluate this item until the completion
of a future development that may not take place.
Public Hearin2 Closed.
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Bierd asked staff if there was a time frame of when to expect the
completion of this projed.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Salety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 4
Bill Ullrich indicated that Baldwin Builders was going through bankruptcy court, and they had received
authorization from the court to move forward and complete the existing homes that had been partially framed.
He further stated that it was his understanding that the work would commence as soon as possible, however, it
was uncertain if the courts were going to allow them enough funds to complete it. In addition, Mr. Ullrich
informed the Commission that it was uncertain if they were going to be able to complete the additional phases
of the project where construction of homes had not yet begun.
Commissioner Acton stated that she supported the Commission taking measures that would mitigate the existing
needs, addressing the residents' concerns, and not wait until the the conditions are exacerbated by possible future
development.
Commissioner Cochrane stated that he supported Commissioner Acton's previous comment and felt that the City
needed to be able to offer some kind of relief to these residents and alleviate the speeding problem at this
location.
Commissioner Acton questioned the appropriateness of discussing these two item together, rather than as two
unrelated items.
Commissioner Smith indicated that he remembered discussing this issue at a previous workshop, and that the
Commission had agreed that they needed to take the items as listed on the agenda, and that if it was their desire
to revisit or combine items, staff could be directed to do so and bring it back at a future meeting.
Commissioner Smith offered his reasoning for voting against staff's recommendation in the previous item. It is
his opinion that a stop sign is needed at both intersections, because by cutting down on the distance between stop
signs that are fairly separated, motorists tend to modify their behavior and slow down because they know that
another stop sign is coming up.
Chair Liken stated that he disagreed with the previous comment, and stated that in his opinion placing too many
stop signs that are too close together, tends to make the drivers roll through the stop sign, which gives the other
motorists a false sense of security. Similarly, putting crosswalks where you don't have an intersection, then
people feel that as soon as they step into the crosswalk they have the right-of-way, which is a false sense of
security for those pedestrian.
Commissioner Miller stated that she agreed with Chair Liken's comment, and felt that this is the intersection that
makes sense because of the future development, although it may not be in the immediate future, and did not
agree with staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign at this location.
MSC (Miller/Acton) that the Commission not approve staff's recommendation to deny the stop sign and that
the Commission request that an all-way stop sign be placed at Creekwood Way and lakeshore Drive. Approved
6-0-1 with Commissioner Hoke absent.
7. Reoort on AII-Wav Stoo Evaluation on lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street.
Back.round: The Commission directed staff at the August 8, 1996 meeting to study the installation of an all-way
stop at the intersection of lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street as part of the Commission's review of stop control
needs on lakeshore Drive.
Staff conducted the study and the intersection received a total of 7 points out of a possible 54 points. A minimum
of 30 points are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
October 10, 1996
Page 5
Staff Recommendation: That the Commission deny the installation of an all-way stop at Lakeshore Drive and
Hartford Street.
Public Hearing: Chair Liken indicated there were no request slips to speak on this item.
Commission Discussion: Chair Liken stated he had requested the review of an all-way stop at this location
because if an all-way stop was installed at one end of the loop, then it would be a matter of time before the
residents on the other side would be requesting the installation of a stop sign at their end of the loop. If a stop
were to be installed at the south end of the loop, the tendency would be for motorists to take the alternate loop
where there are no stops and would also encourage speeding at the north side of the loop.
Commissioner Cochrane supported Chair Liken's comments and recommended a all-way stop be installed at
Hartford Street and the other at Clearbrook Drive to balance out the loop.
Commissioner Miller asked staff if there were any "Children Playing" signs posted where there are parks. If not,
could the homeowners association place one?
Mr. Ullrich indicated that there were no "Children Playing" signs because they cannot be placed in the public
right-of-way, and would be a zoning violation to place them in private property.
MSC (Liken/Smith) that an all-way stop be installed at Hartford Street and lakeshore Drive. Approved 6-0-1
with Commission Hoke absent.
8. ReDor! on all-wav stoD reouest at Oxford and Second Avenue.
Background: In July 1996, staff received a petition to consider installation of an all-way stop at this intersection.
The request cited the need because of the high speed of vehicles traveling east-west on Oxford Street and the lack
of traffic control devices on Oxford Street between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive.
Staff conducted a study and this intersection received a total of 14 points out of a possible 54. A minimum of 30
points is required unless there are overriding considerations such as a high accident rate history of the type of
accident susceptible to correction by an all-way stop installation. During the period 4/1/94 to 3/31/95, there were
five accidents susceptible to correction by an all-way stop, and therefore, meets the Caltrans criteria contained
within Council policy to warrant the installation of the all-way stop.
Staff Recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept staff's report and recommend the installation of an
all-way stop at this location.
Public Hearing: Chair Liken opened up the Public Hearing and indicated there was one request slip to speak.
Donna Saar, 221 Oxford Street, Chula Vista, stated that ten years ago she spoke before the Safety
Commission on this same matter and the request was denied. She has personally witnessed many
accidents at this intersection, most recently involving one of her students in the Teen Mother Program
who was 4 months pregnant. The safety of this intersection is of great concern to the residents of that
area.
Public Hearing Closed:
Commission Discussion: Commissioner Miller thanked staff for their support and recommendation for approval
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Satety Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
" Page 2
EXII/8rr \Ie.'
exit trom the school parking lot and on East J Street south curb line as law permits into the school parking lot (Item
#11), and to create bus turnouts on East J Street (Item #13). The Commission supported the concept of a flashing
light on East J Street, (Item #6), but telt it would be too expensive to implement.
MS (Smith/Acton) set up four priorities in order as action should be taken. The priorities were:
1. To have the parking lot restriped immediately;
2. To install "No left Turn" signs on East J Street and parking lot exit to prohibit left turns into and out of the
school parking lot, as the law permits;
3. To move the school bus loading and unloading zone further west, adding footage from the parking lot as
permitted; and,
4. To entertain the addition of a new turnout area on the north side of the school, east of the existing parking
lot.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: (liken) to have staff report back on effects of Items 1, 2, and 3 in December and if
they do not work then look at Alternative 13. Agreed to by maker of motion.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Approved 6-0-0-1 with Vice Chair Miller abstaining due to contlict of
interest.
Chair liken asked Dr. Madison to send letters to the parents on the Safety Commission decision.
6. Reoort on Traffic Concerns at Bonita Vista Middle School and Bonita Vista Hil!h School
Frarik Rivera presented staff's report.
Tom Silva, Sweetwater Union High School District, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911, Director of
Planning, said the District was in favor of staff's recommendation with one exception. The District was not in
favor of flashing beacons in a future CIP. He did not recommend a split phasing to the traffic signal timing
because he felt it would cause additional delays.
Chair liken said he did not agree with the need for flashing beacons and that he wanted to see how the larger
speed limit signs worked out. He wanted to start out with the less expensive items. If the changes that were
made were not satisfactory, the District could come back to the Commission with other ideas. He wanted to see
pol ice enforcement of the signs.
Commissioner Cochrane was in favor of solar powered flashing beacons and suggested they be included in the
CIP .budget.
Commissioner Smith felt flashing beacons were not a good idea. He felt there were more pressing issues that
needed to be covered by the CIP.
MSOC (Miller/Hoke) to accept staff's report on T raffle Concerns at Bonita Vista Middle School and Bonita Vista
High School.
, .
7. Reoort on AII-Wav Stoo Reouest at C1earbrook Drive and lakeshore Drive
I
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
i
Geoffrey Clemmons, 1948 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said that motorists did not slow down on
lakeshore Drive. Vehicles on lakeshore Drive seemed to have less visibility. He agreed to the installation of
an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive rather than Clearbrook Drive. He believed there was community support
for the all-way stop at Creekwood Drive.
UNOFFiCIAL Mlt'{UTES
. C066LE~TON;::/~K
o. ..
::l1U."'''' IT
1-it==lN L ~,
T: n...c
. AREA-PLAT
:.l"rC
~.1~. 199~
. .
.,,:. ~LAKESHORE DRIVE / HARTFORD STRE:T
Safety Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
Page 3
David Villegas, 1936 Clearbrook Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91913, said that every new development had growing
pains. Eastlake I had speeding problems. He asked why there were only two crosswalks on Lakeshore Drive.
He had been involved in near misses because of vehicular speed. '
Chair Liken said there were only two crosswalks because there were two all-way stop locations. Crosswalks were
installed in conjunction with all-way stops. If crosswalks were installed at uncontrolled intersections, it could
give pedestrians an illusion of safety. . ,
Commissioner Smith asked if the streets were dedicated or private.
Frank Rivera answered that Eastlake Shore Terrace and the streets inside the Lakeshore Drive loop were private.
Lakeshore Drive and the streets outside the loop were dedicated. !
i\
Commissioner Smith asked if there was a Homeowners Association and asked if the CC&R's would allow fines
on speeders.
Mr. Clemmons said there was a Homeowners Association, but that it could not enforce speeding or get involved
in speed issues.
Frank Rivera commented that Eastlake I had an office at the clubhouse and it published a monthly newsletter with
general information. He felt an article about speeding could be put in the newsletter.
Mr. Clemmons commented that most of the residents in Eastlake I community are renters and putting something
in the newsletter was not a long term solution. An all-way stop would be a long term solution.
Mr. Villegas said the Homeowners Association was aware of the speeding issues. The Homeowners Association
wanted to install speed humps on Lakeshore Drive, but it did not meet standards for speed humps.
Commissioner Cochrane spoke in favor of the all-way stop. He had witnessed vehicular speeds and would like
the installation of an all-way stop at Creekwood Drive and Lakeshore Drive on a trial basis.
Chair Liken informed the public about all-way stop guidelines. He mentioned that the Commission looked at
special circumstances. Statistics showed that cars tended to speed up in between stop signs. He entered into the
record that he received 13 postcards in support of the all-way stop. Twelve postcards were received from area
residents, and one from a resident of Eastlake Hillside. He asked if the 'SMART' unit has been set up on
Lakeshore Drive.
Sgt. d' Ablaing said the machine was in for repairs.
Chair Liken said although the roadway did not meet the all-way stop criteria, the Commission looked at special
circumstances and said he would like staff to monitor the area. He asked staff to conduct a radar survey.
Commissioner Cochrane asked if an all-way stop was ultimately planned by the City, why it could not be
installed immediately.
Frank Rivera commented that if staff was given a choice for the location of an all-way stop, the preference would
be Creekwood Drive.
\
Chair Liken suggested tabling the item until September when it could be brought back with a study on Hartford
Street and a current radar study.
Commissioner Smith commented on the traffic counts and how the vast amount of speeding was done on or after
7pm and felt it was possible that Lakeshore Drive was being used as a race track. .
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
August 8, 1996
"
Page 4
Mr. Villegas commented that with the development of Eastlake Greens, motorists were filtering through the
community which created more traffic.
MSUC (Smith/Acton) to deny an all-way stop at Lakeshore Drive and Clearbrook Drive and that staff bring back
an all-way stop study and speed survey in September on Creekwood Drive and Hartford Drive.
Frank Rivera suggested holding off the report until October so that staff would have more time to conduct all the
nec~sary studies while school is in session.
The Commission by consensus agreed to postpone the report until October.
8. Oral Communications - None.
STAFF REPORTS
9. Action Summarv Uodate/Staff Comments
. . Request for all-way stop at Second Avenue & Oxford Street and East Paisley Street & Monserate Avenue.
,
Frank Rivera indicated that staff was working on a report and would present it at the October meeting.
Request for speed humps in vicinity of 600 block of Garrett Avenue.
,
Frank Rivera indicated that a letter was prepared and delivery attemped to the resident. The home was found
vacaht and with a 'For Sale" sign in the yard.
j
Chai~ Liken asked staff to contact Mayor Horton to see how to proceed on the request.
I
'.
10. Traffic Accident Summarv Mav & lune 1996 - Distributed for Commission information.
11. Informational Reoort - Proposed Rancho del Rey Middle School at East J Street and Paseo Ranchero.
I
.
. Presentation by Mr. Tom Silva, Director of Planning, Sweetwater Union High School District.
Tom Silva presented a r~port on the Rancho del Rey Middle School. The school is expected to open in July 1998.
He wanted to work closely with City staff and the Commission to avoid any traffic issues that could arise.
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Fv 1996-97 Elections
MSUC (BierdfHoke) to keep present officers of John liken as Chair and Cindy Miller as Vice Chair.
13. Commissioner Comments:
,
1
~
.; John Liken - Annual schedule of meetings.
i
Chair Liken asked why the July meeting was cancelled.
. t
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
COUNCIL AGEJIIl)A STATEMENT
Item if
Meeting Date 12/10/1996
ITEM TITLE:
Report Denying Request for All-Way Stops on Lakeshore Drive at Hartford
Street and Lakeshore Drive at;rree ood Way
Director of Public work?f
City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
On October 10, 1996, the Safety Commission voted, against staffs recommendation, to install all-way
stops at the intersections of Creekwood Way and Hartford Street with Lakeshore Drive. The Safety
Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995 as Council
Policy No. 110-09 (Exhibit "A"), provides that whenever the City Engineer declines to implement
a safety control measure recommended by the majority of the Safety Commission, the Safety
Commission has the power, by a vote of at least four commissioners, to refer the matter to the
City Council for [mal resolution. This report, denying the request for all-way stops at the
intersections of Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way,
represents the Safety Commission's referral of the matter to Council.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept staff's report, thereby denying the request
and recommendation of the Safety Commission to install all-way stops at the intersections of
Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way.
BOARDS/COMl\:lISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 10, 1966, the Safety Commission
voted 6-0-1 (Hoke absent), against staffs recommendation, to install all-way stops at the intersections
of Creekwood Way and Hartford Street with Lakeshore Drive.
DISCUSSION:
At the August 8, 1996 Safety Commission meeting, staff presented a report regarding a written request
from Geoffrey Clemmons who lives at 1948 Clearbrook Drive to install an all-way stop on Lakeshore
Drive at Clearbrook Drive. At that meeting the Safety Commission voted to deny an all-way stop at
Lakeshore Drive'and Clearbrook Drive. Since the Safety Commission and staff concurred that this
sign was not warranted, under the Council Policy this ends the issue. However, the Commission
requested that staff prepare and bring back at the October Safety Commission meeting all-way stop
studies for the Lakeshore Drive/Creekwood Way and Lakeshore Drive/Hartford Street intersections
and new speed surveys for Lakeshore Drive. On October 10, 1996 staff presented the all-way stop
studies to the Safety Commission with a recommendation that the all-way stops not be installed at said
locations. The Safety Commission disagreed with staff and recommended that the stops be installed.
The Safety Commission felt that something needed to be done now to control the speed of motorists
using the loop. They felt that installing all way stops at these two intersections was appropriate
because of they are located at equal distances between existing all-way stops. The Commission felt
Page 2, Item I?
Meeting Date 12/10/1996
that the low point totals assessed to the proposed all way stop locations under Council Policy No. 478-
03 was not indicative of the problem that exists. In accordance to Council Policy 110-09, the matter
was referred by the Safety Commission to the City Council for final resolution. Attached as Exhibit
"B" is a map showing the area.
Staff completed speed surveys on Lakeshore Drive and all-way stop evaluations for the intersections
of Lakeshore Drive at Creekwood Way and Lakeshore Drive at Hartford Street. When considering
all-way stop control at an intersection, several factors are looked at to determine the need for
installation. These factors include: pedestrians and vehicle volumes, accident history, and physical
factors such as sight distances, speed of vehicles, and roadway alignment, including curve radii and
topography. All-way stop evaluation per Council Policy No. 478-03 and accident histories for the two
locations are attached as Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "D".
1. Creekwood Way at Lakeshore Drive
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Creekwood Way, as shown on Exhibit "B," is a T-
intersection with an existing stop sign for northbound Creekwood Way. Lakeshore Drive, a loop
roadway around the lake at Eastlake I, is 42' wide curb to curb in this area with parking allowed along
the inside curb only and bike lanes on both sides. Lakeshore Drive at this intersection has an Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2,470.
Creekwood Way is a 36-foot wide curb to curb residential street which begins on the outside of the
curve on Lakeshore Drive which provides excellent visibility from Creekwood Way for traffic on
Lakeshore Drive. Creekwood Way is intersected by Crosscreek Road, and ends at a temporary
barricade at the northerly subdivision boundary of the Telegraph Canyon Estates (St. Claire)
development. It is a two lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) on Creekwood Way is 230 vehicles south of its intersection with Lakeshore
Drive. At the present time, vehicles from approximately 25 homes use the intersection of Creekwood
Way and Lakeshore Drive daily. Creekwood Way is proposed to be connected to Chateau Court
(formerly Gotham Street) at a future date when Phase III of Telegraph Canyon Estates is completed.
The intersection is well lit by a street light near the center of the intersection.
The statewide frequency of accident occurrence for this type of intersection is once every 4.5 years.
A review of the accident history for this intersection from January 1, 1987 to present (a period of over
nine years) shows no reported accidents. No pedestrian accidents have occurred in the past nine years.
A horizontal curve with a 550 foot radii is located just west of the intersection limits the design speed
on Lakeshore Dflve to less than 35 MPH. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. A speed study was
conducted on Lakeshore Drive in the vicinity of Creekwood Way. The eastbound 85th percentile
speed was 38 MPH; the westbound 85th percentile speed was 40 MPH while the average speed was
34 MPH and the median speed was 35 MPH. Sight distance at this intersection is clear for a distance
of over 450' to the west and over 500' to the east which exceeds the minimum stopping sight distance
of 200' needed for the speed limit of 30 MPH posted on Lakeshore Drive. A minimum stopping sight
distance of 280' is needed for 38 MPH and 300' is needed for 40 MPH.
Page 3, Item /5
Meeting Date 12/10/1996
Since Mr. Cle=ons indicated in his letter that it was difficult for pedestrians to cross Lakeshore
Drive, staff conducted a field survey of existing conditions and pedestrian count at the intersection
location. There are only two facilities in the immediate area that would be expected to attract
pedestrian traffic, Shorebird Park and the Eastlake Beach Club. Shorebird Park is located 600' east
of the intersection on the outside of the loop road (Lakeshore Drive), the sarne side of the loop as the
Creekwood Way housing. There are no homes fronting on the inside of the loop so Shorebird Park
would not be expected to attract pedestrians from across the street. The EastIake Beach Club is the
only recreation area inside the loop that could generate pedestrian traffic across Lakeshore Drive.
However, staff did not observe any pedestrians crossing Lakeshore Drive during several field trips at
different times of day; therefore, was unable to confirm that a pedestrian crossing problem exists.
Utilizing the all-way stop policy warrant evaluation which assesses points to various traffic factors, the
Lakeshore Drive/Creekwood Way intersection received a total of 3 points out of a possible 54 points
(Exhibit "C"). The breakdown of the points given are as follows: two points for the horizontal curve to the
west of the intersection, and one point for pedestrians crossing near the intersection. Thirty points minimum
are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop. Since the intersection has an excellent safety record,
excellent visibility, relatively low traffic volumes, and there is not a demonstrated congestion or a pedestrian
crossing problem, staff cannot support the request for installation of an all-way stop at this location. Staff
reco=ends that an all-way stop sign not be installed and that an evaluation be conducted after the
connection of Creekwood Way to Chateau Court is complete.
2. Hartford Street at Lakeshore Drive
The intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Hartford Street, as shown on Exhibit "B," is aT-intersection with
an existing stop sign for southbound Hartford Street. Lakeshore Drive, a loop roadway around the lake at
Eastlake I, is 42' wide curb to curb in this area with parking allowed along the inside curb only and bike
lanes on both sides. Lakeshore Drive has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3,765 at this intersection.
Hartford Street is a 36 foot wide residential street, which begins at Harnden Drive and ends at its intersection
with Lakeshore Drive. Since the intersection is located on the outside curve of Lakeshore Drive, there is
excellent visibility from Hartford Street of vehicles traveling on Lakeshore Drive. Hartford Street is a two
lane roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The ADT on Hartford Street, north of its
intersection with Lakeshore Drive, is 1400 vehicles. Vehicles from approximately 100 homes use the
intersection of Hartford Street and Lakeshore Drive daily. The intersection is well lit by a street light near
the center of the intersection.
The statewide frequency of accident occurrence for this type of intersection is once every 4.5 years. A
review of the acCident history for this intersection from January I, 1987 to present (a period of over nine
years) shows no reported accidents. No pedestrian accidents have occurred in the past nine years. Curves
with 550 foot radii located east and west of the intersection limit the design speed on Lakeshore Drive to
less than 35 mph and the posted speed limit is 30 MPH. A speed survey taken on Lakeshore Drive on
September 9 and September 10, 1996 shows the eastbound 85th percentile to be 38 MPH. The westbound
85th percentile is 41 MPH with both an average speed and median speed of 36 MPH. Sight distance at this
intersection is clear for a distance of over 400' to the west and over 450' to the east. A minimum of two
hundred feet of stopping sight distance is needed for a travel speed of 30 MPH posted on Lakeshore Drive.
A minimum stopping sight distance of 280' is needed for 38 MPH and 310' is needed for 41 MPH.
Page 4, Itemff
Meeting Date 12/10/1996
A field survey and pedestrian counts were also taken at this location. There are also two facilities in the
immediate area likely to attract pedestrian traffic. These are Ashbrook Park and the Eastlake Beach Club.
Ashbrook Park is located approximately 100' west of the Hartford Street intersection on the north side or
outside of the Lakeshore Drive loop. The Eastlake Beach Club is on the inside of the loop. However, staff
observed only two pedestrians crossing Lakeshore Drive during several field trips at different times of day;
therefore, was unable to confirm that a pedestrian crossing problem exists.
Utilizing the Council's all-way stop policy warrant evaluation which assesses points to various traffic factors,
the Lakeshore Drive/Hartford Street intersection received a total of 7 points out of a possible 54 points
(Exhibit "D"). The breakdown of the points given are as follows: two points for the horizontal curves near
the intersection; one point for pedestrians crossing near the intersection; two points for the volume of traffic
on Lakeshore Drive; and two points for the traffic volume percentage split of 18.6%. Thirty points
minimum are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop. Since the intersection has an excellent
safety record, excellent visibility, relatively low traffic volumes, and there is not a demonstrated congestion
or a pedestrian crossing problem, staff cannot support the request for installation of an all-way stop at this
location. Staff recommends that an all-way stop sign not be installed at Hartford Street.
It should be noted that unnecessary stop signs may increase the amount of rear-end accidents and increase the
amount of air pollution and expense to motorists. The approximate additional fuel costs to motorists at the
intersection of Lake shore Drive and Hartford Street is $13,742 and $9,015 per year at Lakeshore Drive and
Creekwood Way.
All area residents have been notified of tonight's meeting including those in the vicinity of Clearbrook Drive
and Riversview Drive.
FlSCAL IMPACT: Installation costs for two (2) all-way stops with advance warning signs and legends is
approximately $1,000.00. Funds for material, labor, and equipment for installation are available from the
street signs operating budget, Accounts 100-1432-5101, 5345, and 5269. The added fuel costs to citizens
is approximately $22,757 per year if both stops are installed on Lakeshore Drive.
Attachments: Exhibit" A"-Copy of Council Policy No. 110-09 ~tANH4b O~e. ID I CWCWc.
Exhibit "B"-Area Plat
Exhibit "C"-All-way stop smdy with accident history for Creekwood Way/Lakeshore Dr.
Exhibit "D"-AII-way stop smdy with accident history for Hartford Street/Lakeshore Dr.
Exhibit "E"-Minutes of the Safety Commission Meetings; August 8,1996 and October 10,
, 1996 (excerpt) ;4I"r Se.~NN~t;)
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \LKSH-Hn.mjd
-.
-
, ' ' $;#:0 /.. < ^' ,. '
, c--' No/Y'/#' I" ',G-. e N~
v'c-t:::: t:= , f3 p'//' }>l0 ^ ~ , I" ~ ,C:1,8
I ,_ t\::: f----', ! C ,~ ,W'f.( h, 'V>j,O->-' ~~~"" '" ;-.:. i-:;
_ <---'--- ~ ; / ''UJ.p. . ,"" Co
_ ,If:::=i\/ .II ". ~ .,'~ x. I;""'" ~'l"_
~ ti= i1rr\ tI4~/~ ~~'l;:~~~: 0'< /; '.,~.;\-, ." 1\\
II r1 '}00/' " .: <1' ~ y--t) . ,"
, I 1111 I i #' ,- 0 ",,--"J? I , .' ~
.~' ~. !", ," . ' ,,'$1
. '- ~ I . \l' ~ "?-t ...' ~l \.---
, '=1 f-!. ).H' ~ i ,. 'di)' 't 1'1",..'
//1 ' ,,..J H" < 'p!.ili:c ' 0"-1
/~ 11111 l,r '~1'''''' i. ~ 7/ ,!g/Mf!, " ", .0 y
:- " , "'" ~ - ,I" ,...,.~VJjJ;~,.. ~
" ,}-I=!iCIIT , ,h 'I " I ' --<::'.l"""':;'" " , ,
, ,:' II .tS"=" ,~ : '0' ,~I\..'U'
., ' ~~" . , ..-r ..~ ,,0.'
'- " 1'C1Jj ,0\' Co" 0'
, "", ,,,f-R ,,' L---=-' 0 '" ~
II 11T1=J~F=F1~' " . ==rr=,-- ~. ~ '
. .",y,!..L"...) L H~' ,,'< ..,' ~ 1\ :I'r-..
I TttB' :;~E '!'Ift.SHOR - i :s/,.._'-~ E~.., ~;\,"6;mfJ~
-i')' Inti "',;.'l-L /" ';i";;,~,,, "11 '(.: ~ r\ P ~ ~,' : ,
I Wi 111''''- ~II' ~ 'JifI[g, ~I;; ""' " " i~~'
~(llllll i7/E' 'w iiID~/ f! " ~: ) \);\;zW 1:7 ~
'TT iH I::. .Jaj)l!illJ'8.? I ;; .. , ~y ,/:I /~
::>c \; /.1 iT II1I1 [lllllllllllll' Lb ~ ::?
. II 0 - :' l '( ,\
f"~N :0
)> !! ~ i ~---- " ~ > e 0 10.
, "" 00';0. CJ
::0,- I g~~~ ::'ci~l"' Q~SO ::: ~ ~:;::
_ r ____ ..,\._o~ '" 0 ::r :I>
,__' 9" ' ' · ,
m " ,. mr
~ Gl ~ 0 m
,.-- > ' 0 C
)>~ ..0'.
r "'0 "'0 Z
~ )> )0. 0
"" '" '"
> ;::;: ^
-C "-n ~
r- \ ' :
>' -
~ /vof" se",,,"'il> I~
pee.. 10 ,q9~ Plltlt/,r
l>O 'tOll wlttJr rlJ ADO ~
m
x
::r
-.
0"
~
IJJ
.~
I
-
I
.
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF aruIA VISTA
SUBJEcr:
Safety Commission Policy - Delegating
Additional Authority
POIJCY
NUMBER
11 0-09
EFFECTIVE
DATE
3/14/95
3/14/95
PAGE
S of 5
c. If the Safety Commission's vote is contraIJ:: 0 the City Engineer's recommendation,
the traffic item will be referred to the ty Council and the authority as to such
maners shall, on such referral, be vest in the City Council to be exercised on the
affirmative vote of three members 0 the City Council. The Commission shall not
have the power to initiate or order e implementation of a Traffic Control Measure,
but shall have the power to re mend to the City Engineer that s/he consider a
proposed Traffic Control Meas . If the City Engineer shall consider and decline to
implement a Traffic Contr Measure proposed by a majority of the Safety
Commission, the m issio shall, b a vo e of at least four . . one ~
the ower to' refer the aner to the Ci Council ai...Ihg,
uthori to UllOate an rder ere Control e e..thereupoIUCesle.cL
.in the City Council. If ew information or evidence presented at the hearing discloses
that the original rec mendation is no longer valid, the City Engineer may take an
item off the CitY. Council Agenda and concur with the Safety Commission's
recommendation us waiving the appeal process.
ADOPTED BY: Resolution 17833
A. PUBIJC INQUlRIES (continued)
B. TRAFFIC PLANNING
1. Any precise plans 0 site plans for the construction of buildings or facilities that are proposed
to be built adjace to or having access to or impact on major streets which, in the opinion of
staff (i.e. Direct of Planning, Director of Public Works. or City Engineer) mav in light of the
plans submine create the potential for a hazardous condition which mav have a detrimental
effect on ve' ar or pedestrian traffic, will be forwarded, through the City Engineer, to the
Safety Com Ission for review, evaluation, and recommendations. .
2. The Safe Commission shall evaluate said precise plans and site plans in reference to their
effect on traffic problems, and shall submit their recommendations t.e:-:-the Planning
Comm' sion and City Council at the time such plans are considered by said bodies.
3. Traffic Regulation, Municipal Code 10.12.030 - In cases where authority has been
gated to the Safety Commission and City Engineer to approve traffic control devices, the
ety Commission will hereby be authorized to approve the installation with the concurrence
the City Engineer's recommendation.
4. The Safety Commission will adopt a recommendation embodying such regulation, or any part
thereof, after the 8-month trial period or which regulation shall cease to be effective. Where
an ordinance is required for final approval, the Safety Commission will forward their
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the ordinance embodying such
regulation.
x.ch~'-; :...~~!:R 5Tl..I~Y
CTI' OF C,",I.:U YlSTA. \"'EHJCU ~ "-"J.YEY
~,<",Go / ,/;p /,,.c...?.-,/";: r/S/' :6 C:;,//r/
/l )
'//,,// I
, '
- :."",:", ,':::<
D^j~ .;>:, ~
:!ME S- ""-- / <,>J
AMrP0
'I'lME Th"D ..:! ,~
~
AM/PM)
/
~J.~S?:=::E1""l :::.--.
.~~~
S-""VD' s:n
__../.e-: _
.,-.... c.. ",( "7.....,...~ /"-.,---",,,,, rt:'
j J ." . - . . n
,
DrRECTION C<.o .0 ('C<.O -/ an
Wrl NUMBER OF VEHlCU:S ' TOT At " "
. . . .
bO
5'1
;.0
07
56
55
>l
53
5:2
5J n I I I /01
so I I r, ,-, 99
(9 [) C> CC
48 ,-, r, GC
(] I . I r. T> vq
46 I I I (") '"' <'i
C> I I ro 0 '73-
~ I D [) C;
-
(3 0 " '19
42 n , I 'iq
(1 01 I I I "II<
40 r:; I / I 9::-
:f> nl I I / 90
35 ,/ n ''") -'2 9~
37 /' / /' ,/ <./ <,/ 9,
36 /' /' /' 0 .,,' ij R9
~ 35 /' / /' /' /' /' / In nil' ff /I '5<'C-
~ / ,/ ,/ /' n -- n n x- x ~"i
33 /' /' /' (" n' ,-, n ,n y i r;~
3:1 /'" / / / n ,--, (; ".-, n "J' n 1/ 1/ <:12
31 /'" /'" /' /' 0 ",. e- n n n '" /1 II </:?
Xl /' ,/ /'" /'" / -r: r n () () /0 In! ,0/-,
29 /' /'" ,/ /'" ,/ / ,/ ~ 0 /~ //J ;:J/r
2! /'" /'" /' / /'r r;, It:,
V ,/ ,/ 0 " .3 In
2i> /' /"') n () . ../ "'" ;?
25 /' r'/ 0 3 ~ ~
2' -
~
22
2J
2!l
l'.lCORDEF.: :/ ~/'MA"-/" I nr............-a. 01 Yau=.a //Y)
,,--
U
"'"'EA THER
r/'" ./
..~~-'~-
!1Y.I 57 MT /P'30 A.v.(7M) ~ DiD /. ' ;2:J .l{1Pi:Y W-~1HER r /p~~
D!iUi:nON (( u..) -0 C<-0 -I an
MPH NlJJ.l.BER 0; VEHlCU:S ' TOT At ... "
. . . .
60 I
59 I
50
57
56
55 I
Sol
53
52
51 I I I
50 I I I
(Y I
48 I
'" ./ I / / /rr
~ I n 0 1"10
~ I I 0 () 99
'" I "0 n 99
(3 ./ ./ ')1 .3 <, 99
c ./ I / / 'i'c?
'1 ./ 1/ ')IC I </ .<) 9,
40 .--: I I / Cf/
~ ./ IC d- "'- "',..
, 3S / / / ./ /' 10 () '<0 (') 9 9 F:;
.7 ./ / ./In rJ Ie: () '::f ~ :::'1
36 / / /V r In '" Co ";',-Q
35 ./ / Via C) 10 0 b x- x c.,",-
:Ie ./ ./ /J/ ./ r-, ,.-, In n n I~ /", I" <; 510
53 V / .nln n r. ( ~ :;I- ~S-
32 ./ / /1 ""- ""- ~Q
31 ./ / /1/ / 1/ n c-: Ie { ;-, , . /~ /.:2 :;S'
Xl ./ ./ /L , 'i? /5 ..::z3
~
29 ./ ./ Inl "3 '" /j
2.8 ./ / In Ir--, r: '5 "5 /.:l
~ ./ ./ () . ,'l '< .+
26 ./ Ire 0 . ."3 :; y'
... r n I
;i4 ./ I I (
23 I
3J.
%l
20 I ,
lllCORDU: ,--;z:; .<,.";/,, f/ nY..., / '7:'"...........CI'~ / ()(')
xGJ../.E~-; L"-='~ STI,..i"::Y
DATE .oI0~
. .~_\~
c::rrr OF c-n.:u. TIST A .. YEhj CU ~ "~7. \"EY
~~7''-' :;::~~'" TJr;J~ (~5-//"':-/-~
S"JRVD' s:rr.~dSj"/",, U~'?'
/)r~.~ z!c ~?r./~/~/->
Fu:, , w :..:-. .. " --i:::
u
~= T:: ~: :.:.:=:.K:
~;.?:~ :J.:::::
.....
:8~L:S:~~
r.~?CE~
C:~LI510K
~:::,
J.!.7~
~D ACS:D:~:5 r:::.IK ;:~ E:?2:::KG F~~10:
.' :1:-;'::),
.;:. ~ ..~..... _H..
r. . _ ~ . . ~ ~
:'\1 ";'"~:'
;Jr,
7'V:
=~ ~A
":,
H:_,
, . " ,~.
:~~?::: ::~::~:~~ ~;~~..
,.
~..- "' ~. ..
'..~ ?0:~: .:.
0;
~ v:! ,"0:-
","
~:';;,;
. "" J ..~ .''11'
;...J\.'~.;; .::.
~E;:~;:?:
-::-v :OL
~ACTJ:
VC EC ~?
""'j
'-':'1>
, "
.:.J;
?0.!.D
.m
Y.-v
Ilii:
i-'.
"
.\ .-..'
F';.
r~~ ~-~,:~~LL:---
.....1
~; ;.0
:'CT ~O T? ~V DI?
~::A:::~
DF.IV. /;:;~
A:;~ ~:.r S/I'
....'.:::<.
,'"^"
tl~ ~u"
Fl,C::?
,
COUNCIL POllCY
. aTY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJECT POUCY EFFECI1VE .
Al.l-WA Y STOP ""A""" I>Ar."
478-03 - 04-23-91 9 of 9
ADOP'IEDBY: Resolution No. 16147 DA'IED; 04-23-91
0
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALL-WAY STOP EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Intersection tQk5ttW~ Or-/lf€...,/!lQr/~,J 5+ree-l file. 20(,2-0
Date 9C{8/"lfp
. \/'IaJor). I ,nor) Invest'ga or m:r/)
Qualifies for All-Way Stop based on 30 or more points:
Yes NO. Points 7 )(
Qual1f1es for ~ ay Stop based on other criteria: Yes No
If yes, explain: I
S(etch Of ,ntersectlon w,tn V1Slbll,ty data
On back Attached)('
1. Acc1 dent H1story ? I 30 I 7(", P01nts Poss1D1e
From 7 I I I 95" to
Accidents/yr correctable by Stops X 2 pts/accident e
;./0 refo~d "'cc./cI~ff 14
I
2. Unusual Conditions
II.r/z.p,,-fQ I C-l{ r v-e-:5
Z 10
3. Pedestrian Volume I
Pedestri ans /-so 5
crossing the ~or street during 4 hour count
4. Traffic Volumes (Peak 4 Hours) 2-
Major approaches /tfo8 5
Minor approaches ~ II g 10 ,
5. Traffic Yolu.e Difference I t. to, g 2- 10 .
TOm o. 7 54
Mini.ul Points Required 30
.
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA
SUBJECI'
ALL-W,l.Y STOP
!'OUCY
NUMBER
EfFECI1YE
DATE PAGE
AOOPTEDBY: Resolution Ho." 16147
478-03 04-23-91
DA1ED:
of 9
04-23-91
ALL-W,l.Y STOP S\.W.ARY
1IlT!RSECTIOIl:Lqkesh,~ f)~r.fh.J5-I( ~ 0 ~ Z -00)
MTE 1I/VESTlG,l.TIOIl w.J.S COMPLmO: rj;sj7c,
lIinimum
ark/,"! j:lrf!;q 6
3"
MIVc /2'
io!~~/2.."""-
f{
..--
........STOP .
~
"'ll
J..
~
.....
J..
~
j,' ~" ~6~
~ t:L0- ,!:1t! /<.J';) - -/ V~';,.e ~
I~~ -1' ~t;$.h~
RttOMHEND,l.TIONS:
~jf V~jot1~
IM-ldld .d
fI~J ~<,~-t.
ROORKS:
liD re-ftJdd Qc-e--:de+vt..s
1/I/i7
-fo 7f1/9(;
SUBJECI'
ALL-WAY STOP
COUNCIL POllCY
an' OF anJlA VISTA
POlleY' EfFECIlVE
.--- -- Tu."T'C
478-03 _
04-23-91
7 of 9
DATED:
ADOP1E)BY: Resolution No. 16147
04-23-91
3. Minimum traffic volumes
a.
{So
b.
No
t~o
The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all
approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any
8 hours of an average d~, and
The combined vehicular ind pedestrian volume from the Ilinor
street or highw~ must average at least 200 units per hour for
the same 8 hours, with an average delay to IIi nor street
vehicular traffic of at lust 30 seconds per vehicle during
the maximum hour, but
c.
When the 8S-percentile approach speed of the llIjor street
traffic exceeds 40 Ililes per hour, the Ilinimum vehicular
volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requf.rements.
,
COUNCIL POllCY
CTY OF 0iUlA VISTA
SUBJECI' !'CUCY E1'FECI1VE
ALL-WAY STO? NUMBER DATE PAGE
478-03 04 -23-:91 6 of I
ADvr.u:.u!Y: Resolution No. 16147 . DA1En:
04-23-91 ,
-
.
5. TR.mIC YOLUME OIFf!RrNCE
All...ay, stops operate but when the Njor and IIfnor street approach
traffic yoll11!'1es are nearly tqual. Points shall be assigned in
aecordance with the following table:
24-Hour )Ilinor St. A~roach Yoltl1ll!s . 'ltJcJ .'
24-Hour /'\ajor st. ~ooroacn VolumeS X lO~ · 3765' =jg,tZPoints
95 - 100 10
85 - 94 g
75 - 84 8
65 - 74 7
55 - 64 6
45 - S4 5
, 35 - 44 4
q: ~ /g,t~ t)
1
0- 4 0
SCORr: ?-. Points
Maximlllll 10 Points
CAl. TRAilS CR.ITER.IA (Chapter 4 CalTrans Traffic Manual)'
J1rJ . of the following conditions say Wlrrlnt . alll ti ""11 STCf sign
installation: .
1. Where traffic signals art warranted, and VT'g!ntly ,,"dedi the .,1thtl1
. stop aay be an interill _uure that can be installed quiCkl~ to
control traffic while arrlnpetDents are being aide for the s gnal
installation. " "
2. . An acci6ent FOblm.ls indicated ,bY..five or ~re "ported '.ccf6ents
within I 12 IlOnth ~riod ,cf a .~ susceptible to tClr.rtCtfon by .
.,ltiway stop installation.' Suc accidents includt M;ht- and'
1eft-tl.lm collisions IS well as rfght-angle coll1sions. ,
... .-' .
:-;...::.. ."
.
. .
,
"
, .
,
COUNCIL POllCY -
aIY OF aruI.A VISTA
SUBJECT poucr EPrECI1VE
ALL-WAY STOP .--- TU "I"C
478-03 04-23-91 5 of 9
'. -
ADOP'reDBY: Resolution No. 16147 DAreD: 04-23-91
Traffic Counts (circle four highest hour yolumes):
.
Hour Ending At:
. -
Oir 0600 0700'0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 .130014001500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
liB - - - - - - - - - - - 1- -
- -
sa 2/ 57 82 19 /7 ;<(p 33 3D 32- i~ 3'-( ,-/2 38 ~7 37
EB // 80 2'11 /W 53 5g 71 /a5 77 /3l 11/3 /2'1 /S7 /53 /~/
il3 J,7 13 ;261 9~ si 7i 'if g8 /07 !J.B /71 /3r /6D /sz gV
T 51 1/5 5~~ 161 17~ /5B /7t 1~3 23& )of 35'(., 305 377 3iRl ZZ~
Traffic Volumes Warrant
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
Total of Major Total of Minor
Approach Legs Approach Legs
4-hour Volume Points 4-t1our Yol UlIIe Points
o - , 000 ~ '0- 400 :2/f 0)
1001 - 1~00 1 - 600 1
(1301 - 1600 f'( 0 f3 2) "601 - 800 2 ,
J6~ - ljUU 'oJ 801 - 1000 3
nOl - 2200 4 -, 1001 - 1200 4
2201 - 2600 5 1201 - 1400 5
. . 2601 - 2900 -4. . 1401 - 1600 6
2901 - 3200 3. .1601 - 1800 . 7
3201 - 3500 ! lB01 - 2000 8
3501 - 3800 1 2001 - !200 9
3801 - over 0 1201 - oyer 10
SCORE : :2 Points SCORE: tnts
-
Maximm 5 M1nilUll 10
--
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF 0illLA VISTA
SUBJECT
ALL-WAY STOP
!'OllCY
NUMBER
Ef'FEC'I1VE
DATE PAGE
ADOP'lEDBY: Resolution No. 16147
1478-03 - 04-23-91 ~ of 9 .
DA~ 04-23-91
2. UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist, such IS I school, fire station,
pl'Yground, horizontal or vertical curves, etc., points are assigned
on the basis of engineering judgment. Unusual conditions shall be
considered only if within 500. feet of .the subject intersection. In
residential neighborhoods where there is I concentration of school
age chil dren activi ti es separated from the resi dential nei ghborhood
by a collector street and coupled with other conditions, the C~ty
Traffic Engineer may applY traffic engineering judgment Ind wa ve
the ~U-polnt mlnimum point requirement to qualify the intersection
for an all-way stop control.
The 3D-point minimum requirement ~y be waived and an al1-way stop
~ay be installed only if less restrictive controls have not
corrected a documented problem.
All.....ay stops may be justified based on projected
accident frequency when traffic signals are warranted
installed within a specified period of time.
Maximum 10 points )p-ls }/er;"&{)~fQ/ Curve.... SCORE:
volumes and
and will be
:;2. Points
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Consideration is given to large nUlllbers of t>tdestrfans crossing the
~or street during the four busiest hours of an Iverage day.
Pedestrian Crossing Major Street, Total during 4 busiest traffic hours
YOlumeS:[j-SO 51-100 101-150 151-200 2Dl-OVER
Points: 1 2 3 -4 5
--
- "
Maxillllllll 5 points ~ SCORE: / Points
,
~. TRAFFIC YDLlJoIES
Points are dependent upon the aagnitucl! of vehicular volumes entering
the intersection during the four busiest hours of an Iverage day.
COUNCIL POllCY
crIY OF c:::HUlA VISTA
SUBJECT
ALL-WAY STO?
!?~CY
~
T'\I. ""' 'D un'
478-03
04-23-91
3 of 9
AOOP'IEDBY:. Resolution No. 16147
I>~~ 04-23-91
CIn OF CHUl~ VISTA
ALL-WAY SlOP CON1RDL WARRANTS
INTERSECTION Lqke-5 hort:.. Dri~/ !lo: rl-furd 51.
Major StreetfM\nor Street
Date:" 'IIIi' /9~
. '
"Total Points 7.
( ~ G Z :om----
GENERAL:
.
A fully justified, properly installed al1-way stop can effectively assign
right of lilY, reduce vehicle delay, and decrease accidents. Generally,
In all-way stop is reserved for the use at the intersection of two
through highways, and only as an interim trrffic control .easure prior to
signalization. Stop signs are not to be used for speed control.
The posting of In intersection for al1-way stop control should be based
. on factual data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Accident records
2. Unusual conditions
3. Traffic volumes
4. Traffic volume difference
5. Pedestrian vol ume
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total points possible
are 54. The installation of an al1-way stop control is justified with a
minimum of 3D points, unless any one of the telTrans criteria is _to
ALL-WAY STOP POINT SYSIDI CRITERIA:
1. ACCIDEIIT WARRANT:
,
Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction
by an al1-way stop control during one full )'tar prior t.o the
investigation date. .7/i/9S' -10 CI3ol'1~ .
Total ruzmber of accidents correctible byal1-wa"y stop:
MaxilWll 14 points
JL
(if Points
SCOU:
_ COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF arou.. VISTA
SUBJECT
ALL-VA Y STOP
POucr
NUMBER
EFFECm'E
DATE PAGE
ADOP'lEDBY: Resolution Woo 16147
478-03 _ 04-23-91 2 of 9
DA~ 04-23-91
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru - 21355, gives the
authority to local agencies to install all-way stop traffic controls
upon streets in their respective jurfsdictfon.
According to Federal and State trafff~ control guidelines, all-way
stop instal1ations should be reserved for the control of vehicular
traffic conflicts at intersections and should not be used as devices
to control speed. -
The City's policy for the installation of an all-way stop control is
based on a point system. Points are assigned to traffic - factors
bAsed on the severity of traffic conditions. Factors ~asured are:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5-.
ace i dent records
unusual conditions
pedestrian volumes
traffic volumes
traffic volume differentials
--
~
c)($81 r '':P'!
COUNCJL POllCY
CTY OF aruI..A VISTA
stJBJECI'
. ALL-W.l.Y STOP
POUCY
U~I~
~._-
478-03
04-23-91
1 of 9
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No: 16147
~~ 04-23-91
I.l.CKGROtJ)!!) .
The CalTrans Traffic Manual and the Manual on Unffol"ll Traffic Control
Devices list criteria in detel"llining the need for In 111-way stop.
Actual need for In Ill-way is determined bl In engineering stucl,y which
examines the special characteristics of the site. .
All-way stop si;ns Ire verl restrictive controls since they require III
Ilotorists entering the intersection to stop It III tillles. When stop
signs are installed for speed control Ind/or there is nO.lpparent traffic
reason for the stop (little or no cross traffic). eotorists. regard the
stop sign IS In unnecessary illpedilllent .Ind often tilles do f10t ..l:e a
compl ete stop. When this occurs the expectations of other drivers Ind
pedestrians are altered, thereby jeopardizing the safety perfonnance of
the intersection. Although speeds will be lower in the vicinity of the
stop, speeds will be higher midblocl: as motorists try to ..l:eup for the
time lost at the unwarranted stop sign. Another negative aspect of
unwarranted stop signs is the increase in noise Ind pollution IS vehicles
apply their brakes to slow down Ind Iccelerate out of the intersection.
It is impractical Ind impossible to install In Ill-way stop (or other
traffic control device such IS I traffic signal) whenever Ind wherever a
request is .lIIde; otherwise during peal: periods. extended delays to
Ilotorists Ilay result, thus forcing motorists to seek alternate routes
through parallels streets, often I residential .Irea. . A Traffic
Engineer's primary goal is to ..intain safety and reduce vehicle delay.
PURPOSE
The purpose of I fully justified. ~roperly installed Ill-way stop is to
effectivell Issign right-of-way. ..in~in safety Ind reduce vehicle
delay. Generalll. all-way stops Ire installed where traffic signals Ire
warranted and/or In Iccident history has been indicated by reported,
Iccidents of I type susceptible to correction bl an all-way stop.
. .
POLICY STATEMDlT
It shall be the pol-
of Public Works/En
All-liay Stops in ICI
S"MtG" kJlrlf
~>- "6"
'ough the Depart:lllent
:he installation of
Jtatements:
~~1a'1ot IY -r:T'"-c
\.<=:<".1." ~
AREA PLAT
::J..'rE:
C::::rri.1~. 199~
LAKESHORE DRfVE / CREEKWOOD W)...Y
~Gw.:::~J ,,~"::J~ S"TI)::Y
DAn: i:;;// jqt?
C7l Or CH.U Y!STA - YE-:iG.! ~ .~..y~
/ ~ .
//,-...(, Q~ /)r/;// I./':r~:-. ':~.~~! :;;.,1./ ~_
S"....~\TYs:7E 3:::>::" :.J~/; 7..,.,J-0-p/ (P..J~nY\:o
v
-=:::--<~-. -<~/: 9.;-,,~.~ "\
.......~ -'.-.--','
v
pu,. w SPEED y
~
.1M! 57 A.1\j /;.~ ~ T!}.lJ: D. 'D 3 :()('j QPMJ I't'I.A TdU r /~~-r-
DlREC!lON r.0 .0 r /f) -/ OJ!<
Y.?H N'JMEER OF VEHla.ES . TOT At " "
. . . .
fi!
59
58
S7
56
55
'"
53
52
51 I
.so
(9
48
V I
'" I I
~ I
~
43 7' I / I /rY.
C /' / / c;<;'
41 0 0 9;;
.0 7 7 ~ ~ 98
)Y / Ir) nl 3 :'> "ic,
3S -;;; /" .:2- 2 9.::
37 ? fr': ?5 fn Y' ..- 9/
36 i./ V /1 " " 9=;
-? 35 / 1/ / / / / 1/ ~J ~ n :;;::; 1r'J 12- ..:z 9'Y'
34 .? 7' '7 I~ I~ I"l I~ n Ir: 0 <;; ..;z~
33 1/ 7' V 7 / / / / / I"l rJ 1,......- n It:? 13 ,;."
3:2 /' -7 17 V / 1/ n (') 1,...-.. 9 9- ."YJ
31 / /' 1".- h (: !r- n ;;;;J = d/
XI 7 7 nn c-- 1".- 1".--.. ~l Ir 9 ."1Y
29 7 /' / /' rI 1,.- Ir: n i;- r N' It? ;u;.
2ll /' ,;:;::: rr:::-; r;;::='" ?; ~ .'5 /6
V / n 1,-, / 7' .,I //
26 7 0 It' I -, .."r 4 :;z.
25 / / / 3
24 ;/ 7 0 ..:z ,;;J.
23
22
-~
20
RlCORPu, . Te"".....~or~
'V'" VJ;;"_~
:-~~
E~.~C: Dr:S
CC,~~:5=~:~~
. . ....~
~i C: ,
c:r~A VIE:A
:~A~!IC C01LI5:0~ D~7iIL EE?0?7
:: ~ .:.
..-....'':'.r,\..
;';';v;",;;\"",
~t ~E:;:.OE Dr.
':."Il'
G l- Oi- Ei
:0 C'i. 31-:E
:.!:C
CF.EEHJOD
C}~~ISIDK
::~;
t.':
:E~.::
VIe- .~. ?:,IKT OF ~F.~~ COL.
~;.C?0:
I}.72
I!A ':':-V';'
.".";...
~D:~.:IC:l:
:\" ;,
;.' .::.
~;~" A:CI:::~;:.: ,::::.i1; :E ?::~:.Tn;J ?::~.:C'J
VC E~C- G?
,:AY
ROAD
~-v
I!:V ;.;1
~JK D17E: S-lB-S5
LOU:;: OJ: CODE:
n-VEEICL:---
'DEH. !?:D
2221-
>-
,
-...-......
V;~~!l.
,:::A ;.I;': 3 cc:~ ~iIT C7L A~7 ~J. T? !:V DI? AGE SEX SiD' ~AC:(;E
A5S0:
COUNCIL POllCY
. an' OF CHUlA VISTA
SU'BJECI' POUCY ~.
All-WAY STOP Ion - -- ".ii'll>
478-03 - 04-%3-91 9 of 9
AOOnEDBY: Resolution No. .16147 DATBD: 04-%3-91
.
CITY Cf' CHULA VISTA
All-WAY ST~ EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Intersection Ltlke.$/'orc fr;~/Crn/cw()oJ W4)" File' Z22.f - 0
Dat~sM8e
. Il'IAJor. (MInOr) , Inve ga or ~~~
Qualifies for ~~Stop based on 30 or aore ~olnts:
Yes No Points 23 X
QualIfies for ~ - ay Stop baseo on other criteria: Yes No
If yes, explain:
~etcn of lntersectlon wltn VISIbIlIty cata
On back Attached Y. .
1. Accident Hlstor~~ Polnts Possible
From 7 I / I - to ~ I 30 I 'I ~
Accioents/yr correctable by Stops X 2 pts/accident p' ,.4
/
2. Unusual Conditions
/lor; ~~"..f4 I C.Lol....v-e-
7.- 10
3. Pedestrian Volume /
Pedestrians 1-5""0 5
crossing the llajor street during 4 hour count .
4. Traffic Volumes (Plak 4 Hours) :~
Major approaches t; r;, f 5
10 ,
Minor approaches 4'" .
5. Traffic Yolu.e Difference tf,7-% .~ 10
,
TOnL .. 3 '54
I<<"i- Points bquired 30
.
CX>UNCIL POllCY
c:rrY OF aruI.A VISTA
SUBJECT
ALlA1A Y STOP
ADOP'mDBY; Resolution No. 16147
All-WAY STOP SUMMARY
!'OUCY
NUMBER
EF'F.eCI'IVE
DAlE PAGE
478-03 04-23-91 of 9
DA~ 04.23.91
IIlT!RSECTIOII:L",kefl'~~~t'.JllJ....J ( 1-22-/ -00)
7'- ""'ey
CATE: IIIVESTIsmOIl WAS t~l.rnD:
TOT.l.l. SCORE: .3 points out of . possible 54. The efnillMll
required to justify an all~ay stop control is 30 points.
.....
RrCOMHrIlD.l.TIOIIS:
~~a.\.\~~\
l.<.o\- 1." ~~ .,x-'
lA..~ -o",-r~' ~
C>;,~I,-..'Oc>~ ~ \.v.::
ROORKS:
Q
()
()
~
~
~
\J
3(,.'
......
Ltnk~.sJPr'fl,. Dr-,'v~
!J'
IZ' .
lof ,-
5~ --12
-- r'
II
[J/.
.:. -cJ'iz'
81.
.
-
C ....psscre.c..I::.. R"....{
,.
COUNCIL POUCY
Q'IY OF CHUlA Ym"A
SUBJECT
AU.-VJ, Y STOP
roucy
Ur- --
E:FFEC'It\'B
~...rn>
.~
C7S-03:- 0.4-%3-511 7 of 51
DA'IED: 0.4-%3-511
AOOPTEDBY: ResolutfonNo. 1610
3. Mfnf~ traffic volumes
b.
The total vehicular YOlume .ntering the intersection from all
approaches aust avera;. at llast SOO Ylhiclls per hour for a~
8 hours of In average cSa.r. and
The combined vehicular ind pedestrian volUl11t frcllll the II1nor
street or highw~ sust average It least. %00 units per hour for
the same 8 hours. with Oln Iverage delay to Ilinor street
vehicular traffic of It lust 30 slconds per vehicle during
the lUximn hour. but.. .
I.
tJo
~o
c. When the 8S-percentfle Ipproach S!>Hd of the lDljor street
traffic exeteds CO lines per hour. the lliniSllll vehicular
YO' ume warrant is 70 percent of the Ibove requirements.
,
:. .
COUNCILPOUCY .
arY OF CHUlA VlSfA
st.lBJECI' POUCY ~
NUMBER DATE PAGE
ALL-VAY STOP .
. -
478-03 04-%3.91 6 of t
AOOl'IEDBY: Resolution I/o. 16147 . I)AIED;
-04-%3-9' .
'.
.
5. tt.'JrIC YOLUME DIITmNCE
.'
All00WtY. stops operate best when the Njor Ind .inor street IPproach
traffic yolUl1lts Irt nearly equal. Points shall be luiglltd in
accordance vith the following table:
24.Hour ~fnor St. Accroach YolUl1lts ~1t7 .:r,7,fPofnts
~~-Hour Major St. Aoproach Volumes X lO~ · ,
~5 - 100 10
85 - '4 g
75 - 84 8
65 - 74 7
55 - 64 6
45 - 54 . 5
- 35 - '" 4
25 - 34 3
lS - 24 .Z
5 - 14 ,
[1)- 4 ~,7~ V
SCORE : : ~POi~~
Maximum 10 Points
CAl.TR.I.I/S CUTERIA (Chapter 4 Canrans Traffic Manua'"
~ . of 1tle followin; conditions 811 warrant a .ul tf-way 1TIP sign.
installation: ,
1. Iilhere traffic signals Irt ~rrlnted. and 1I1'Vfnt1y ItHded, 1tle azltiwr,y
.Ito~ ~ be In interfll .&sure that can .be installed QUiCk'" to
eon rol trafffc whl1e lrrln;tlltnts art Hin; ..de for t:ht s gnal
installation.
t. . M Iccfdent FObl., as "indfclted by..ffft or .,rt "ported 'amdtn"ts
within I 12 IlOnth ~rfod .of I ~ susceptible to cOlJmion by a
aJ1tiway stop installation." Suc accfdents include "gtlt- and'
ltft-tllrn colHsions IS well IS right-Angle coll1sions. .
#0 r-~forfed qc.-c.;;.~"f-f ;j; In io '7/1.119 C-
o . --:-- ..:.....
.
-
.
.' " .
. .
,
COUNCIL POllCY -
an' OF QiUIA VlSTA
. .
StJ]lJECT " POIJCY' ~~lVB
ALL-WAY STOP ~ 9.lM1:!
. (78.03 04.23-" 5 of'
- .
AOOPIEI>BY: Resolution lio. 16147 nAnD; 04.') .c\
.
Traffic Counts (circle four highest hour YOlumes):
-
Hour Ending At:
Dfr 0500 0700 oSOO gOO 1000 1100 1200 1300 140011500 1600 1700 ~ liOO 2000
-
/0 9 t> 1- i- 'I b 7 if /1 ../
lIB 3 /0 B /0 !?
sa - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -
EB r q~ 127 7(P fLf ~3 55 (,/ 55 //l. /05 97 l/iP 12~ B~
liB /'1 6t 12~ 81 f~ 12 5/ ~3 (,3 77 7/ 'ii 86 7.5' &7
T Z& llO Z&~ lb~ 9~ lhi /10 1M lzq J% IBD 181 t/3 iz? /57
Trafffc V01um!s Warrant
Points sha" be assigned in accoml)Ce with the following tables:
Toul of Major. Total of Minor
Approach Legs Approach leiS
..hour Yo'lIlllt Points .-hour Yol l/Illt Points
~e"l p ~:m fif F.
100 - 300
1301 - 1600 2 .&01 - aoo 2
1601 - noo , s -' " 101 - 1000 J
nOl - 2200 ~ . . - 1001 - 1200 4 .
2201 - %600 i 1%01 - 1400 S
2601 - 2900 .. . 1401 - 1600 ,
2;01 - 3200 S 1601 - 1800 . '7
3201 - 3500 2 "'801 - 2000 a
. .,:,,-,. ' ., '. 2001 - 2200 .
3501 - seoo
3801 - OVlr .- 0 2201 - OYer 10
StOR!: IiPofnts SCORE: ~,ts
IClxi aIIIl 5 ,"ftf.. 10
roUNQL POllCY
CITY OF 0iULA. VISTA
SUBJ'ECI'
AlL-WAY STOP
-
roUCY
NUMBER.
EFFEC'IIVB
DA'IE PAGE
f47S-03
04-23-91
~ of 9 .
.ADOrn::DBY: Reso'ution No. 16147
DA'rnD:
04-23-~1
2. lft./USUAl. COIlDITIOII WARRANT:
Mlere unusua' conditions exist, such IS I school. fire station.
pl~ground, horizontal or vertical curves, etc., points Ire Issigned
on the basis of engineering jUdgment. Unusual conditions shaH be
considered only if within SOO. feet of the subject intersection. 1n
residential neighborhoods where there is I concentration of school
age children activities separated from the residential neighborhOOd
by a collector street and coupled with other conditions, the ~
Traffic Engineer Ilay apply traffic engineering judgment Ind warve
tile JU.po1nt lI11nimum point requirelllent tl) quaHfy the intersection
for an all-way stop control. .
The 3D-point minimum requirement ~y be waived Ind In Ill-way stop
~ be installed only 1f less restrictive controls have not
corrected I docLIIIlented problem.
A11.....ay stops. Illay be justified based on projected
Icci dent frequency when traffi c si gnal s Ire warranted
installed within I specified period of tiJn!. .
volumes Ind
Ind wi.ll. be
KaXillLIII '0 points l..t.,ts I/or,'r-o...ra (C"rr't!-
SCORE: ::<....-. Points
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Consideration is given tl) large nlllllbers of pedestrians crossing the
aajor. Itr~et during the four busiest hours of In lverage d~. '.
Pedestrian Crossing Major Street, Tota' during 4 busiest traffic hours
YOlllllles:C0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 !Ol-DVER
Points: 1 2 3 -4 5
o.
Maxilllllll 5 points . '.
StORE:
/.
o
Points
~. TmFIC YOLt)!ES
Points are dfpendent upon the magnitude of vehicular volllllles entering
the intersection during the four busiest hours of an average day.
-
-
COUNCIL POllCY
OTY OF 0illI.A VISTA
SUBJECT
AlL-WAY STOP
~UCY
EFfECm'B
1>.1.,.,';
AOOP'IEDllY:. Resolution No. 16147
478-tl3 04-23-91 3 of 9
DA'IEI>: 04-23-91
CITY Of CHlILA VISTA
AlL-WAY STOP CONTROL.~ARRANTS
IIlTERSECTION LqJ.es/v;re. f),.i~(.,lcrul/J/OO' Way
f'laJ or Street//'l1 nor Street '
Date:' 9/18/1(,
, .
ToUl 'oints 3
( .zz~ I ~J
GENERAL:
.
A fully justified, properly installed .ll-way stop cln effectively aSSign
right of way, reduce vehicle delay, and decrease accidents. Generally,
an all-way stop is reserved for the Use at the intersection of two
through high~ays, and only IS an interim trrffic control ~asure prior to
signa1i:ation. Stop signs are not to be used for speed control.
The posting of an intersection for all-way stop control should be based
. on factual data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Accident records .
2. Unusual conditions
3. Traffic volumes ..
4. Traffic volume difference
5. Pedestrian volume
. . .
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The toUl points possible
Ire 54. The installation of an all-way stop control is justified with a
~inillllllll of 30 points. unless Iny one of the t&lTrans criteria 11 ~t.
All-WAY STOP POIIlT SYSTEM CRrnRIA:
1. ACCIDEI/T WA'RAANT:
,
Two points are. assigned for Ilch accident susceptible to correction
. by an all-way stop control during one full ~elr prior to the
investigation date. 'iflfJ5"" *' (plio/fiG. . '.. . .. .
ToUl number of accidents correctible by all-wa,y stop: .@'
. . ,
Mlxillllll 14 points . . StORE: d Points
,
" COUNCIL POUCY
CIT OF aruI.A VISTA
SUBJE.CI'
Al.l-'i.l. Y STOP
POUCY
NUMBER
~
DA'lE PAGE
.ADOP"l'EDBY: Resolution No. 16147
478.03 04-23.91 2 of 9
J)A~ 04-23-91
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru" 21355, Vives the
authority to 'ocal agencies to instal' al'-wlY stop traffic controls
upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
According to Federal and State traffi~ control guidelines, '''-wlY
stop installations should be reserved for the control ofvehicul.r
traffic conflicts at intersections and shoul d not be used IS devices
to control speed.
The City's policy for the installation of an al'-w~ stop control is
based on a point system. Points are ISsillned to traffic factors
based on the severity of traffic conditions. Factors ~asured are:
1. accident records
2. unusual conditions
3. pedestrian volumes
4. traffic volumes
&. traffic volume differentials
" ,"
i:NlI~r ~
COUNCIL POllCY
CTY OF CHUlA VlSTA
IUBJECf
. ALL.VA Y ST~
~~~
.-'
478-03 - 04-23." 1 of ,
DA!ED; 04.23-"
ADOPIEDBY: RuoluUon No. 16147
IM:KGROtMl .
.
'The CtlTrans Trafffc MAnual .nd the MAnual en Unffona Trafffc Cont~l
Devfces lfst crfterfa in cSetenllfnfng the IIttd for .n .11....11 stop.
Actual Med for .n ."....ay 11 detenafned by .n .ngfltHrfng stu~ whfch
lxamines the speefal characteristfcs of the sfta. . .'
Al1....a,y stop sfgns art very restrfctfve controls Ifnc. the,y I"tqufrt an
Ilotorfsts entering the intersectfon to stop at an tilles. When stop
signs art installed for speed cont~l .nd/or thert fl no'.pparent traffic
reason for the stop (lfttle or no cross traffic), .,torfsts I"tgard the
stop sign 1S..n &mneceuary iaptdflltnt .and often tilltl do not ..ke a
complete stop. When this occurl the Ixpectatfons of other drivers and
pedestrians are altered. thereby jeopardizing the lafe~ ~rforunce of
the intersecUon. Although speeds wfll be lower in the Yfcinf~ of the
stoP. speeds wfll be higher .fdblock .s eotorfsts try to ..keup for the
tfme lost at the unwarranted ltop Ifgn. Another negatfv, aspect of
unwarranted stop Signs is the fncrease in nofs, .nd pollutfon .s vehfcles
apply their brakes to slow down and accelerata out of the inttrstCtfon.
It is illjlractical and illpossible to instan .n all-way I~ (or other
traffic contra' device such as a trafffc lignal) ~enever .nd wherever a
request is ....de: othervfse durfng ~ak periods, Ixtencltd delays to
Ilotorfsts lIay result. thus forcing eotorfsts to seek alternate routes
through panl1els streets. often . residenUal . area. A Traffic
Engf~eer's pri....ry ,oat is to ..intafn lafe~ .nd I"tduc. vehfcle delay.
P'llRP OSE
'The purpose of . fully justified, Ilroperly install.d .11....ay stop is to
.ffectively .ssign rfght.of....a,y. ..intain Ilfe~ and I"tduct "hfc'e
delay. ;'nera"y. .,l....ay stops .rt installtd ~ert trafffc Ifgnall Ire
warranted and/or an accident Mstory has been indfcated by I"tported,
accidents of a ~ susceptfble to correctfon by .n .,1....ay .top.
. .
POl ICY STATMliT
.
It sha" be the )lOlfcy of tht tIt,)' of Chub Vista, through the Departllent
of Publfc VortslEngfneerfn, Dfvfsion. to warrant the installation of
All.Wa,y Stops in .ccordll\Ct with the fo".owfng )lOlfcy statements:
:
.
Subject: LISTING OF CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Multiple Species Conservation Program Policy Committee (MSCP)- Meets as
needed. Location and times vary.
Member - Mayor Horton
Alternate -Councilmember Salas
Otay Ranch Subcommittee
Meets as needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
Member - Councilman Moot
Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee
Meets 1st Friday every other month at 3:00 p.m., Montgomery-Waller Rec.
Center, 3020 Coronado Avenue, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
San Diego Association of Governments* (SANDAG)
Meets 4th Friday each month - 8:30 a.m., at 401 B Street, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
First Alternate - Councilman Rindone
Second Alternate - (Optional)
*The SANDAG delegate and alternate(s) also serve on the following subcommittees:
San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, Regional Planning and
Growth Management Review Board, Integrated Waste Management Task Force,
and Airport Land Use Commission. All of the subcommittees, if necessary, convene
during the regular SANDAG meetings.
SANDAG - Bayshore Bikeway Policy Committee
Meets as needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
SANDAG - Committee on Bi-National Regional Opportunities (COBRO)
Meets as needed.
Member -Mayor Horton
SANDAG - Executive Committee
Meets 1st Friday of each month at 9:00 a.m., at 401 B Street, San Diego.
Member - Mayor Horton
-3-
Subject: LISTING OF CURRENT CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SANDAG - Regional Housing Element Advisory Committee -Meets as needed.
Member - Mayor Horton
SANDAG - TRANSNET Subcommittee -
Meets as needed.
South Bay Alternate - Mayor Horton
San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality Panel -
Meets quarterlv, but can meet more often. Locations vary.
Member - Mayor Horton
San Diego County League of California Cities Executive Committee
Meets 2nd Mondav - 11:45 a.m.
Mayor - Mayor Horton
Alternate- Deputy Mayor Padilla
San Diego County Library Authority
(Currently inactive, but may be reconvened later this year at the call of the Board
of Supervisors).
Member - Mayor
Alternate - Councilmember Salas
South County Economic Development Council
Meets 1 st Tuesdav 7:30 a.m. of each month at 2727 Hoover Street, National
City.
Member - Councilmember Salas
Alternate - Councilman Moot
University of California - Chura Vista (UCCV)
Meets as needed. Council Conference Room.
Member - Mayor Horton
Member - Councilman Moot
ab
o~~/
January 29, 1997
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council /C\-..
John D. Goss, City Manager~G ~{).Y~ J
City Council Meeting of February 4, 1997
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of
Tuesday, February 4, 1997. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a, This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on January 28, 1997, 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.
5b, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT EDWARD MARTIJA'S RESIGNATION FROM THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 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.
JDG:mab