HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/04/23
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
6:00 p.m.
"I dec!are !:mder peM'ity 01 perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and th.,>t I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin B~aid at
the Public rvices Building and at City Hall on
DATED~ r; SIGNED 6f.~'"
Rel!Ular Meetinl.! of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _, and
Mayor Horton _.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 16, 1996 (City Council Meeting).
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclaiming the week of May 5 through May 11, 1996 as "Municipal Clerks Week." The
proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to Carla Griffin, Administrative Secretary, City
Clerk's Office.
*****
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 /0)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that Council met in Closed Session on 4/16/96 to
discuss anticipated litigation in the Tiger Development Two bankruptcy under Government
Code Section 54956.9 and authorized the City Attorney to institute a motion for Relief from
Stay in order to process SPA approvals unless Baldwin secures, on their own initiative, said
relief; Council discussed the purchase of property of R.E. Hazard Contracting Company at
1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California and no action was taken. Council discussed
existing litigation involving SNMB, L.P. vs. City of Chula Vista under Government Code
Section 54956.9 and no action was taken. It is recommended that the letter be received and
filed.
b. Letter of resignation from Ann McFarlin - Southwest Project Area Committee. 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-
April 23, 1996
c. Letter of resignation from Martin Altbawn - Town Centre Project Area Committee. It is
recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post
immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6.
RESOLUTION 18267
7.
RESOLUTION 18268
8.
RESOLUTION 18269
9.
RESOLUTION 18270
10.
RESOLUTION 18271
AMENDING THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH OTA YRANCH, L.P.,
AND REMY, THOMAS AND MOOSE TO AUTHORIZE $50,000 IN
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO CITY STAFF,
WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT - The
amendment is to retain the legal firm to review environmental documents for the
Sphere of Influence and Annexation Application, SPA Plans and supporting
studies required by the General Development Plan, to provide processing
guidance of all supporting documents to assure compliance with CEQA and
avoid litigation predicated upon alleged deficiencies in environmental documents
or improper processing of the documents for the Otay Ranch Project. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager,
Otay Ranch Project)
APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO TO
PROVIDE PARKING CITATION PROCESSING SERVICES AND
APPROPRIATING $700 FROM UNANTICIPATED CONTRACT
REVENUES - The Cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach currently contract
with Chula Vista for parking citation processing services. The City of
Escondido has requested the same services effective April, 1996. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) 4/5th's vote
required.
AMENDING THE CITYWIDE RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
TO PERMIT THE DESTRUCTION OF DISCIPLINARY RECORDS
AUTHORIZED FOR REMOVAL UNDER PREVIOUS LABOR
AGREEMENTS - The City's Records Management Program adopted on
8/2/94, provides that no records of employee discipline be destroyed. However,
that provision did not take into account MOUs that provided for destruction of
records. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel
and City Clerk)
AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES ON MAY 25, 1996,
FOR AN ORGANIZED MARCH SPONSORED BY A LOCAL
COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL MARCH FOR JESUS
ORGANIZATION - The South Bay Pastoral Steering Committee of the
National March for Jesus organization is requesting permission to conduct an
organized March for Jesus on Saturday, 5/25/96, from 9:00 a.m. to
approximately 12:00 noon and anticipate approximately 4,000 participants.
Marchers and vehicles would start on "K" Street, west of Fourth Avenue,
proceed north on Fourth A venue, then east on Park Way. The march would end
with an hour long celebration in Memorial Bowl. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Chief of Police and Director of Parks and Recreation)
ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF CERTAIN SEWER
EASEMENTS THROUGH LOT 55 AND LOT D OF MAP 9125, TRACT
NUMBER 77-09, CASA DEL REV - Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has
requested vacation of a sewer easement traversing two lots within the Casa Del
Rey Subdivision. The easements have a public sewer within them which are
being abandoned in place after realignment of the sewer main. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-3-
April 23, 1996
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendiltion; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendiltion.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
11.
PUBLIC HEARING
REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Staff
recommends the DubHc hearilU! be continued to the meetilU! of 5/7/96.
(Conservation Coordinator)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agendil for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agendil.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
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 agendil 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 staffrecommendiltions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
12.
ORDINANCE 2670
AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (VEmCLES AND
TRAFFIC) AS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT A RECENT CITY
COUNCIL POLICY FOR DELEGATING ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY IN
IMPLEMENTING TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO THE CITY
ENGINEER WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE SAFETY
COMMISSION (first readin!!) - On 3/14/95, Council approved a Council
Policy granting additional authority to the City Engineer and the Safety
Commission on implementing Traffic Regulations. Council direction was for
staff to revise the Municipal Code to accommodate implementation of the policy
and the procedures established in it. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-4-
April 23, 1996
13. RESOLUTION 18252 APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH
JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT ON CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY - On 11/15/94, Council directed staff to return with a
new exclusive negotiating agreement with Joelen Enterprises to develop the
proposed hotel located on the 4400 block of Bonita Road adjacent to the Chula
Vista Municipal Golf Course. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of
4/16/96.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council wiU discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendilr.
Agendil items puUed at the request of the public will be considered prior to those puUed by Councibnembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
a. Current City Council Committee assignments. Continued from the meeting of 4/16/96.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special Joint Meeting/Workshop of the City
Council/Planning Commission/Growth Management Oversight Commission on Thursday, April 25, 1996 at 6:30
p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building, thence to a Special Joint Meeting/Workshop of
the City Council/Otay Ranch Project on Tuesday, April 30, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3, Public
Services Building, and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 7, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers.
;f
Agenda
-5-
April 23, 1996
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the foUowing items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of JiI1gJ action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
17. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· City-owned property, "F" and Woodlawn, City Corporate Yard site, Parcel Number 56703127,
purchasers "E" Street Trolley Square, LLC.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
· Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
April 18, 1996
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City counc~,~,
John D. Goss, City ManagerJ~ ,t4Yj
City Council Meeting of April 23, 1996
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 23, 1996. Comments
regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that the City
Council met in Closed Session on April 16, 1996 to discuss
anticipated litigation in the Tiger Development Two bankruptcy
under Government Code Section 54956.9 and authorized the City
Attorney to institute a motion for Relief from Stay in order
to process SPA approvals unless Baldwin secures, on their own
initiative, said relief i the City Council discussed the
purchase of property of R.E. Hazard Contracting Company at
1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California and no action was
taken. The Council discussed existing litigation involving
SNMB, L.P. vs. City of Chula Vista under Government Code
54956.9 and no action was taken.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ANN McFARLIN'S RESIGNATION FROM THE
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND
THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO
THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
5c. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MARTIN ALTBAUM'S RESIGNATION FROM THE
TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND
THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO
THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 5 THROUGH MAY 11,1996 AS
MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the office of the Municipal Clerk, the oldest among public servants,
is a time honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, the office of the Municipal Clerk provides a professional link between
the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Clerk has pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality
and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of
local government and community; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Clerk continually strives to improve the administration
of the affairs of the office of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education
programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meeting of their state, province, county
and international professional organizations:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California, proclaim the week of May 5 through May 11, 1996, as MUNICIPAL CLERKS
WEEK and further extend appreciation to our Municipal Clerk, her staff, and to all
Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the
communities they represent.
LJ~ -- /
1-
~ ~ ft..
Z~~
~~~~
----
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
April 18, 1996
The Honorable Mayor and City cout1i~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney()~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 4/16/96
To:
From:
Re:
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss anticipated
litigation in the Tiger Development Two bankruptcy under Government
Code Section 54956.9 and authorized the City Attorney to institute
a motion for Relief from Stay in order to process SPA approvals
unless Baldwin secures, on their own initiative, said relief; the
City Council discussed the purchase of property of R.E. Hazard
Contracting Company at 1855 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California
and no action was taken. The Council discussed existing litigation
involving SNMB, L.P. vs. City of Chula Vista under Government Code
54956.9 and no action was taken.
BMB:cap
c: \1t\clossed. no
~-/
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
'f/-; Po5I~RoqdedP~
DATE:
April 15, 1996
TO:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Vicki Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Committee Resignation
When Dr. Ann Jennette McFarlin returned her Annual Statement of Economic Interest - Form
730 she requested that her resignation be submitted for the Southwest Project Area Committee.
A copy of her note is attached.
oK.
y
b
,-
WRITTEN
Lc'21 ~ (t/)
'j)Y ~a;j;
., ~ r' !'i') \...,..\0... i"- n'1lItollONS
,.~ ~.J:\..,. J:""i~ ~l fl'!;i;o"A i',,{ t1f~~;\ \. .
~l'=' !~;''6..'./~Q V II ~ Ii .~~
y<. 1/j.v/J f;
~b-/
'j
'. ..1
-,
~Jft,
~~
~~
-----
-\-~~[.:,
i
\
",'!
r-- NlR \ \ (16
\
\ ___,I
1_._--
~-
rJ #/J
tU (0' '\
, ~ \ ~'~
.pt \ n f\l. l~ U;{~ .,1 (i
TO: Ann MoF,din. Soo'ow", PAC \ J .I'v X)r f.tY \1
FROM: Bevedy A. Aothelot. C;'y CI,,' ~~ f\ \eo. ~CrfY/ \~ ~
SUBJECT: Filing nf Annual Slatoment of Eoonom;, Inte'"'' L \ 0 t\) ~\ a ~ ~ I
In compl.i~nce with Stat~ Government Code Sec~ion 87300 and ~he CI~ula Vistu Mun~cipal co~ sec~: 2.02.020, f,(J~
your posItion as a "DesIgnated Employee" requires thi:: compldlOn of u Statement (It Economic Interests (1995-96 , / '
Form 730 is enclosed). \
CITY OF
(HULA VISTA
\ , -.....---"'....---...,...
...... ..-....~..."..-
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE:
January 29, 1996
It has been determined that you make or participate in making decisions which foreseeably may have a material
effect on financial interests, therefore, you are ri::quired to till out the following categories: (Your Disclosure
Categories are 3 and 7)
CATEGORY 1: Investments (A, C-2) and sourCi::S of Ineonw (D.E,F.H-I.H-2,H-3).
CATEGORY 2: Interests in real property (B,C-l). (You need only disclose reul property which is located in
whole or in part within or not more than two mi les outside the boundaries of the City or within
two miles of any land owned or used by the City).
CATEGORY 3: Investments (A,C-2), interests in reHI nrorertv (B,C-l), and sources of income (D,E,F,H-l.H-
2,H-3) su~ject to the regulatory. p<;,rmit. or lil~<;,nsing authority of the d<;,partment. (You need only
disclose investments in husincss entitl'~S and sOl/rces of income which do husiness in the City of
Chula Vista, plans to do husiness in the City, or has done husiness in the City within the past two
years. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing husiness within the City if it owns
real property within the City).
CATEGORY 4: Investments (A,C-2) in husiness entitll~s and sourCi::S of income (D,E,F,H-I,H-2,H-3) which
engage in land development, construction, or the al~quisition or sali:: of real property.
CATEGORY 5: Investments (A.C-2) in husiness entities and sources of income (D,E,F,!-l-l ,H-2,H-3) of the type
which. within the past two Yi::ars, havi:: contract<;,d with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment
Agency) to provide services, stlppl ii::s, materials, machinery, or equipment.
CATEGORY 6: Investments (A,C-2) in husiness entitles and sources of income (D, E,F .H-I ,!-l-2, H-3) of the type
which, within the past tow Yi::ars. have <:ontractcd with the di::signated employee's department to
provide services, supplies, makrials, machin<;,ry, or .:qlllplllent.
CATEGORY 7: Busini::ss positions (G). (You need only diselo".: pO:iltions of dlri::l.:tor, oftlcer. partner, trustee,
employee, or any position of managem<;,nt in organization,., or enterprises operated for protit).
Your annual statement must he liIed in the Cit\ Cll'rk's OITil'c hv Monday, April I, 1996 hv 5:00 p.m.
Failure to file your Statement by the tiling deadline may result in penalties including hut not limited to $10.00 per
day or a maximum of $100.00. If you have a prol1l<;'111 l11t:ding thi:: dt:'adline, pl<;'ase let our office know.
Please contact my office if you have any lluestions.
Enclosure: Form 730 & Instructions Manual
~-~
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-50,1'
RECEIVED
"96 APR 16 P2 :38
IF LA VIST/~
It 'S 0rF'lfif
MEMORANDUM
April 16, 1996
TO:
Vicky Soderquiest, Deputy City Clerk
FROM:
Miguel Z. Tapia, Community Development Specialist H Z~
SUBJECT: Resignation from Mr. Martin Altbaum
The Community Development Department has received a letter of resignation from Mr. Martin
Altbaum, former member of the Town Centre Project Area Committee. He recently moved his
business (Coin Mart) from 255 Third Avenue to the building at the comer of Fourth Avenue and
E Street (which is located outside of the Town Centre I area). Consequently, he no longer
qualifies as a member of that committee.
I am hereby forwarding Mr. Altbaum's letter of resignation so that it can be forwarded to the
City Council and the seat can be declared vacant.
If you have any questions, please call me a Extension 5291.
L- c::- :
.1 . ?;1~('i)
. aiZf.
WRmEN CO^~~~U'N'ICA TIONS
r fn/7t:
5C-j
Coin Ma,JtECEIVED
Jewelry
396 E Stre~ APR 16 P2 :38
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone (619) ........ ....l-..~. ...... OW. LA. VIS i..
Fax (619) 422metMK'$ ~fFICf
April 1, 1996
Miguel Tapia,
City of Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Tapia,
I have moved my business to 4th & E Street and no longer qualify to be a board member
of the Town Center Planning Area Committee. Please consider this my letter of
resignation.
Yours Sincerely,
~lJJ~it/ ~ktn{
Martin Altbaum
Owner
Coin Man Jewelry
sG-;<
Fine Jewelry
Appraisals
Jewelry Repair
Gold Coins
Diamond Setting
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No: t
Meeting Date: April 23. 1996
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution /~;l. (,7 Amending the Existing Agreement
Between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin Builders & Village
Development, and Remy, Thomas & Moose to authorize $50,000
in additional services to review environmental documents and
provide legal advice to City staff, Waiving the Consultant
Selection Process and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said
Amendment.
SUBMITrED BY: Special Plann~g ~oject~age,
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ '1)~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes--.No.1l)
The City Council, on July 19, 1994 and May 16, 1995, approved a Three Party
Agreement to retain the legal firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose. This agreement
required their review of all environmental documents for the Sphere of Influence
and Annexation Application, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans and supporting
studies required by the General Development Plan. This review was necessary to
assure compliance with CEQA and to avoid litigation predicated upon alleged
deficiencies in environmental documents for the Otay Ranch Project. Each
Agreement contained a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000. To maintain continuity, it
is recommended that the firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose continue to be retained to
review environmental documents for the Sphere of Influence Study and application,
Annexation Study and LAFCO application and SPA Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution amending the Existing Agreement
between the City of Chula Vista, Baldwin Builders & Village Development, and
Remy, Thomas & Moose to authorize $50,000 in additional services to review
environmental documents and provide legal advice to City staff, Waiving the
Consultant Selection Process and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said
Amendment.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The City desires to continue to employ a law firm with expertise
and experience in reviewing environmental documents for compliance with the State
and City guidelines and procedures of CEQA in reference to the Otay Ranch Project
SPA One Plans and related reports, Sphere and Annexation Studies and the
preparation of additional Environmental Impact Reports for those studies. The First
Amendment contained a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000.00. Remy, Thomas &
R&T1l3A4.doc 4/18f.)6
b-!
Page 2, Item No: ?
Meeting Date: April 23. 1996
Moose has provided legal support on the Otay Ranch Project since its beginning in
November 1991 in such areas as Environment Impact Report and General
Development Plan preparation and review. In Fiscal Year 1993-94, the firm received
$95,198.44 to process environmental documents related to the General Development
Plan, and during Fiscal Year 1994-95 an amount of $15,783.30 for the Sphere of
Influence Environmental Impact Report. During Fiscal Year 1995-96 an amount of
$39,818.09 for the SPA Environmental Impact Report will have been spent. On
January 18, 1994, the City Council retained Remy, Thomas & Moose services to
represent the City in litigation filed against the City of Chula Vista and the Otay
Ranch Project. During Fiscal Years 1993-95 the firm received $472,351.53 for
litigation services. Remy, Thomas & Moose offers special CEQA and litigation
expertise that is not available in-house. All costs have been the responsibility of
Otay Ranch L.P.
The current Agreement with Remy, Thomas & Moose authorized by Council on May
16, 1995, specified a maximum limit of $25,000.00 to perform the legal
environmental services on an as-needed basis. The recommended amendment
requires similar legal services for a grand total not-to-exceed figure of $125,000.00
without further authorization of Council. Representatives of Baldwin Builders &
Village Development have agreed with this amount, and the Amendment is ready
for Council authorization. The current work program anticipates completion of the
SPA One and Annexation Study in the summer of 1996.
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the City of Chula Vista.
Baldwin Builders & Village Development will be funding the amended scope-of-work
($50,000) through their Agreement and monthly deposit to the Otay Ranch trust
account.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 18223 "'l'.~~
Three Party Agreement ~O~~
R&T1l3A4.doc 4jlf>/.J6
b--2
...-
RESOLUTION NO. /~e::<t?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE EXISTING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, BALDWIN
BUILDERS & VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, AND REMY,
THOMAS & MOOSE TO AUTHORIZE $50,000 IN
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO CITY
STAFF, WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION
PROCESS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council, on July 19, 1994 and May 16,
1995, approved a Three Party Agreement to retain the legal firm of
Remy, Thomas & Moose; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement required their review of all
environmental documents for the Sphere of Influence and Annexation
Application, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans and supporting
studies required by the General Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, this review was necessary to assure compliance
with CEQA and to avoid litigation predicted upon alleged
deficiencies in environmental documents for the Otay Ranch Project;
and
WHEREAS, each Agreement contained a not-to-exceed amount
of $25,000; and
WHEREAS, to maintain continuity, it is recommended that
the firm of Remy, Thomas & Moore continue to be retained to review
environmental documents for the Sphere of Influence Study and
application, Annexation Study and LAFCO application and SPA Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
ci ty of Chula Vista does hereby waive the Consultant Selection
Process and amend the Existing Agreement between the City of Chula
Vista, Baldwin Builders & Village Development, and Remy, Thomas &
Moose to authorize $50,000 in additional services to review
environmental documents and provide legal advice to City staff.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of C la Vi
Presented by
Gerald Jamriska, Special
Planning Projects Manager
Otay Ranch Project
c: \ rs\ ruy3
6~3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
7
Meeting Date 4/23/96
Resolution /S'":1...t>[F' Approving a Contract with
the City of Escondido to provide Parking
citation Processing Services and appropriating
$700 from unanticipated contract revenues.
:::;C:::a::~~a~~s vote: YeS-X-No___)
The City of Chula vista currently has a contract to provide parking
citation processing services to the cities of Coronado and Imperial
Beach. The ci ty of Escondido has requested that Chula vista
provide these services for Escondido effective April, 1996. This
contract will be beneficial to both Cities as it will provide
Escondido with reliable and high quality service and enable Chula
Vista to recover some of its fixed overhead costs for processing
parking citations. During the term of the contract, Chula vista
should receive a minimum of $725 per month in General Fund revenue
while incurring an additional $300 in expenditures. Escondido
staff have substantively agreed to the terms of this contract which
is to be signed by the Escondido City Manager.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the Resolution to enter into a contract
with Escondido to provide Escondido with parking processing
services and appropriate $700 from unanticipated contract revenues.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
None
DISCUSSION:
As the second largest city in the county, local cities and agencies
currently contract with us for a variety of services. This
arrangement is beneficial to all parties involved. By pooling our
resources together, everyone achieves higher or equivalent levels
of service at a lower cost than would be possible individually.
The City of Chula Vista currently provides parking citation
processing services to Coronado and Imperial Beach. Escondido has
expressed an interest in obtaining these services from Chula Vista,
as both Escondido and the City of Oceanside (with whom Escondido is
currently contracting with) wish to cancel their contract due to
service issues. Entering into this contract with Escondido would
?--J
Item 7 Page-L
Meeting Date 4/23/96
benefit the City of Chula Vista as it would bring in a minimum of
$8700 in additional general fund revenue per year while only
increasing general fund expenditures for supplies and services by
a maximum of $3600. This is possible because, after budgeting for
all direct expenditures associated with the contract, the City also
recovers all indirect costs for providing the services.
This contract provides that Chula Vista staff maintain the parking
ci tation data base, including data entry of issued and paid
citations, generating informational reports, communicating with DMV
via tape, processing payments and answering payment questions from
citizens. As Chula Vista currently does all these things for
ourselves plus two other cities, no additional training or start up
time is required to begin service. The contract stipulates that
Escondido pay Chula Vista $1.25 per citation issued. This price
was calculated based on the full cost of providing these services
(at full cost recovery) on a per citation basis.
Escondido currently issues approximately 500 citations monthly, so
monthly revenue will be $625. It is requested that $200 of this
monthly revenue be allocated to Data Processing to use for
obtaining temporary data entry staff, as needed, during peak
workload periods (e.g., business license renewal period) or for
vacation coverage. In the contract, Chula vista also agrees to
print and mail Escondido's notices of violation. The full cost for
printing and mailing each notice is $0.50. Based on the estimate
of 200 mailers needed monthly, revenues should be $1200 annually,
and expenditures should be budgeted at $1200 annually ($736.80 in
postage and $463.20 in printing). since the volume of mailers
needed is harder to estimate, this portion of the contract was
designed so revenue and expenditures will cancel out regardless of
volume. If this contract is approved both the revenues and
expenditures associated with this contract will be included in the
FY 97 budget proposal.
FISCAL IXPACT
If approved, this contract will generate between $1875-$3000 in
unanticipated general fund revenue for the remainder of FY 96.
Staff is requesting that $700 of this revenue be appropriated to
the following supply and service accounts for expenditures needed
to provide two months of data entry support and three months of
mailers which is necessary to meet these contract provisions: $400
in 100-0213-5201, $184.20 in 100-0480-5218, $115.80 in 100-0480-
5212.
On an annualized basis this contract should generate $5100 in
additional general fund revenue over budgeted expenditures. The
revenue generated from this contract is sufficient to recover all
direct costs as well as indirect costs for providing these
services.
7~.2
RESOLUTION NO. /8"'.2..lPlT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY
OF ESCONDIDO TO PROVIDE PARKING CITATION
PROCESSING SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING $700
FROM UNANTICIPATED CONTRACT REVENUES.
WHEREAS, the Finance Department has been providing the
City of Imperial Beach and City of Coronado with parking citation
processing services. The City of Escondido has requested that
Chula Vista provide these services for Escondido effective April,
1996; and
WHEREAS, this contract will be beneficial to both Cities
as it will provide Escondido with reliable and high quality service
and enable Chula vista to recover some of its fixed overhead costs
for processing parking citations; and
WHEREAS, this contract will generate between $1875-$3000
in unanticipated general fund revenue for the remainder of FY 96.
Staff is requesting that $700 of this revenue be appropriated to
the specific supply and service accounts for expenditures needed to
provide two months of data entry support and three months of
mailers which is necessary to meet these contract provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a Contract with the City of
Escondido to provide Parking citation Proce,ssing Services and
appropriate $700 from unanticipated contract revenues.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
C:\rs\parkcit.agr
7~3 /7-'1
AGREEMENT FOR PARKING CITATION PROCESSING
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of April 1996 for the purposes of reference only and
effective as of the date last executed by the parties, is made between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California ("CV"), and THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO,
a general law city of the State of California ("Escondido"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
WHEREAS, CV has a full service parking citation processing program in place which can
provide Escondido with all needed services and reports; and,
WHEREAS, Escondido does not have a parking citation processing program and desires that CV
now provide parking citation processing services as herein specified.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises the Parties agree as follows:
I. CV's DUTIES
CV shall provide parking citation processing services to Escondido as specifically provided
herein below:
A. Maintain and update citation data base which includes:
Input all information from issued citations within an average of two working days from
receipt and a maximum of four working days; recording citations as paid on the data base
within two working days of receipt; matching data base with DMV tapes electronically
a minimum of twice monthly; aging citations properly based on Escondido instruction
and changing citation amounts as instructed by Escondido; input information on dismissal
and hearing requests and dispositions within 24 hours of written notification
B. Process payments and other collection activities as needed which includes:
Receiving payments by mail and in person and ensuring that payment is correct amount;
reconciliation of citations to cash/checks received; placement of cash/checks in a deposit
bag and securing same in a vault while awaiting pick up by an Escondido designated
courier; notification to out-of-state violators who received citations while driving rental
cars; offering payment plans when necessary to avoid hearing or court costs; bi-monthly
mailing of notice of parking violation to those addresses obtained through DMV match
of license plate and vehicle make; instructing DMV to place a hold on registration for
unpaid violations.
I
f: \e8ccootl
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 1
7-S-
" '1
Ie J
C. Handle citizen inquiries and problem resolution which includes:
Having a dedicated phone line to provide Escondido parking violators with specific
information as needed to address their concerns regarding requests for dismissal,
registration holds, payment plans, citation status and provide abstracts for DMV
submission as needed.
D. Provide Escondido with reports including: monthly status reports showing the number
of citations issued, the number of citations paid and the amount of money collected,
providing a weekly printout of multiple offenders by license plate number.
E. Provide Escondido with staff support via telephone/fax for any inquiry/update needs.
ll. A V AILABILITY OF SERVICE
The foregoing services rendered by CV shall be provided Monday through Friday from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., holidays recognized by CV excluded.
ID. ESCONDIDO'S DUTIES
A. Payment for Services
Escondido agrees to pay $1.25 per each new citation issued by Escondido and entered
by CV. In addition, Escondido agrees to pay $0.50 per parking mailer sent by CV. A
reduced rate will be negotiated for citations already entered on an automated system that
are unpaid at the start of the contract and must be placed on the data base.
Escondido agrees to pay $40 per hour for computer programming for one time data base
conversion costs if needed and special requests.
If Escondido chooses to have on line access, Escondido agrees to reimburse Chula Vista
for the actual cost associated with installation and monthly communication charges. If
Escondido does not wish to contract for on line access, Escondido agrees to pay $50 per
month to cover posting of dismissal and hearing requests and dispositions as well as the
additional phone support for the increased number of inquiries on citations.
Payment for all services provided shall be billed monthly for the previous month's
activity. Payment is due 30 days from date of invoice.
B.
Agreement to Provide Information in a Ready to Enter Form (e.g., numbers and letters
should be legible and written in common form).
c.
ResJX,>nsible for maintaining hard copies of citations.
D.
Agreement to designate one staff person to answer basic questions or provide direction
on an as needed basis to CV.
f: \esccontl
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 2
')-~
E. Responsible for pick up, delivery and safekeeping of citations and cash/checks to and
from CV a minimum of two times weekly during working hours.
F. Remit surcharges to the County and pay for DMV services.
G. Inform CV of any changes in citation amounts, aging or other factors which would affect
service provided under this contract.
H. Make decisions on violators' requests for dismissal and provide CV with written
notification of dismissal and administrative hearing requests and dispositions a minimum
of twice weekly.
IV. TERM AND CANCELLATION RIGHTS
A. Term. The provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force and effect for an
indefinite term subject to cancellation or termination as herein provided.
B. Annual Review. The provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to an annual review
on or about the anniversary of this Agreement by the Parties and is subject to termination
thirty (30) days thereafter by either Party, for any reason, based upon this review.
C. Termination of Aereement
Termination of Agreement for Convenience
Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving
specific written notice of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least 60 days before the effective date of such termination. If the Agreement is
terminated by Escondido as provided for in this paragraph, CV shall be entitled to
receive just and equitable compensation for all services performed prior to the effective
date of such termination.
Termination of Aereement for Cause.
If, through any cause, either Party shall substantially fail to fulfill in a timely and proper
manner any obligation under this Agreement, or violate any its covenants, agreements
or conditions of their Agreement, the Parties shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement by giving written notification of such termination and specifying the effective
date thereof at least 5 days before the effective date of such termination. If the
Agreement is terminated by Escondido as provided for in the paragraph, CV shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for all services performed prior to the
effective date of such termination.
Termination or Renegotiation Due to Legislative Mandates
In the event of a mandate by state law or other unforeseeable event that would increase
CV's cost of providing the services set forth above, CV may terminate immediately or
f: \eaccootl
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 3
7-7
\
/,.,1. 1
request a renegotiation of the fees and/or duties established in this contract. If an
agreement cannot be reached, either party shall reserve the right to cancel this contract
as of the effective date of the state mandate, even if 60 days has not transpired.
Orderly Transfer of Data Upon Termination of Agreement
Upon termination of this agreement for any reason, CV shall not be responsible for the
retention and processing of Escondido' s data files for a period in excess of ninety (90)
days following notification of such termination. During that period of time CV agrees
to cooperate and assist Escondido with the orderly transmission of Escondido data to
whatever point of delivery designated by Escondido.
V. LIABll..ITY PROVISIONS
Hold Harmless. Escondido agrees to hold harmless and defend any legal action
commenced against CV caused directly or indirectly by wrongful or negligent acts of
Escondido's officers, employees, agents, or others engaged by Escondido and to
indemnify CV against any liability, loss, cost or damages, including attorney's fees
resulting therefrom.
CV agrees to hold harmless and defend any legal action commenced against Escondido
caused directly or indirectly by wrongful or negligent acts of CV's officers, employees,
agents, or others engaged by CV and to indemnify Escondido against any liability, loss,
cost or damages, including attorney's fees resulting therefrom.
VI. NOTICES AND DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
A. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by personal delivery or first-class mail,
postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed to the Administrator, or his/her designee,
designated below for the respective Party; provided that, if any Party gives notice of a
change of name or address, notices to the giver of that notice shall thereafter by given
as demanded in that notice. Notices shall be deemed received seventy-two (72) hours
after deposit in the United States mail.
B. The following, including their respective addresses, are hereby designated as
Administrators for the purposes of this Agreement only:
City of Chula Vista: Revenue Manager
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
City of Escondido: Director of Finance
201 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
f: \eaccOlltl
7 or' g/
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 4
.-)
VD. WAIVER
A. Waiver. The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant, condition or
promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considered a waiver by him
of any other covenant, condition or promise. The waiver by either or both Parties of the
time for performing any act shall not constitute a waiver of the time for performing any
other act or an identical act required to be performed at a later time. The exercise of any
remedy provided in the Agreement shall not be a waiver of any consistent remedy
provided by law, and any provision of this Agreement for any remedy shall not exclude
other consistent remedies unless they are expressly excluded.
vm. CONSTRUCTION
A. Entire A~reement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement and contains the
entire agreement of the Parties on the matters covered. No other agreement, statement
or promise made by any Party or by any employee, officer or agency of any Party that
is not in writing and signed by all Parties shall be binding.
B. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by the written consent of all of the
Parties at the time of such amendment.
C. Governin~ Law. This Agreement has been executed in and shall be governed by the
laws of the State of California.
D. Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by
a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of
the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated thereby.
E. Intet:pretation of A~reement. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole and in
accordance with its fair meaning. Captions and organizations are for convenience and
shall not be used in construing meaning.
F. No Strict Construction. This Agreement shall not be strictly construed against any party
hereto.
G. Authority. CV and Escondido represent that the individuals signing this Agreement have
full right and authority to bind their respective Parties to this Agreement.
H. Best Effort and Cooperation. These Parties promise to use their best efforts to satisfy
all conditions to this Agreement and to take all further steps and execute all further
documents reasonably necessary to put this Agreement into effect.
(end of page. next page is signature page.)
f: \eaceootl
7 ~7
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date
hereinabove set forth.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Mayor, City of Chula Vista Date
Chief of Police,
City of Escondido
Date
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Clerk
ORM BY:
J;
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
City Attorney
f:\esccontl
7~/O
Escondido - CV Parking Citation Agreement
Page 6
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/23/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / ?:<. (, 1 Amending the Citywide Records
Management Program to Permit the Destruction of Disciplinary
Records Authorized for Removal Under Previous Labor Agreements
/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of personnelLElr'
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~~\ (4/5Ihs Vole: Yes_NolO
The City's Records Management Program adopted by Resolution 17577 on August 2,
1994, provides that no records of employee discipline be destroyed. However, that
provision did not take into account MOUs that provided for destruction of records.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution amending the Citywide
Records Management Program to permit the destruction of disciplinary records
authorized for removal under previous labor agreements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 92-93 MOU for IAFF provided for the destruction of certain discipline records at
the end of three years. This MOU section was subsequently taken out of the agreement
without addressing the transition from that policy to the subsequent policy which
provided for no destruction of such documents. At issue have been several specific
documents of discipline that were administered under an MOU providing for destruction
and were not removed because that provision was subsequently deleted.
It has been argued convincingly that the discipline was administered with the
understanding by both parties that it would be removed and the same discipline may not
have been given if that provision for destruction did not exist.
To successfully deal with the existing issues, it is recommended (and supported by the
City Attorney) that the appropriate section be amended as follows:
Page 4-28, at Section 4.0 ("Filing System Guides"), Filing Category 0550
("Labor Relations"), Subcategory - 30 ("Disciplinary Records") is hereby
amended to add, after the words: "Disciplinary Actions.. .", the parenthetical
expression: "(see endnote No.1)", so that, in its entirety, it would read as
follows:
~-/
,. ,
//
Page 2, Item 0
Meeting Date 4/23/96
"
-30 Disciplinary Actions (see Endnote No.1) . . . . . . .Pers . . . . .P"
Section 2. The City's Citywide Records Management Program, on
file in the Office of the City Clerk, and adopted by Resolution No. 17577 on
August 2, 1994, is hereby amended, on page 4-589, at the end of Section
4.0 ("Filing System Guides:), the following Endnote No.1:
"1 . Records of Discipline contained in an employees personnel
file which were issued to an employee covered by a labor
agreement (e.g., MOU) at a time when said labor agreement
provided that records of discipline would be removed from
the personnel records of such covered employees, shall be
removed and destroyed pursuant to the provisions of said
MOU notwithstanding the records retention period herein
designated, and notwithstanding the subsequent amendment
of the MOU.
(Cross Reference Page 4-28, Section 4.0 ("Filing System Guides"), Filing
Category 0550 ("Labor Relations"), Subcategory -30 ("Disciplinary
Records")"
FISCAL IMPACT: This is not a fiscal issue, however, staff time at many levels may be
saved by not having to address employee issues in this area.
pars. 14
g' ;' ;(
I Y;2.t Cj
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE CITYWIDE
RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO PERMIT THE
DESTRUCTION OF DISCIPLINARY RECORDS AUTHORIZED
FOR REMOVAL UNDER PREVIOUS LABOR AGREEMENTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City's Citywide Records Management Program, on
file in the Office of the City Clerk, and adopted by Resolution No.
on , is hereby amended, on page 4-28, at Section
4"':()("Filing System Guides"), Filing Category 0550 ("Labor Rela-
tions"), Subcategory -30 ("Disciplinary Records") to add, after the
words: "Disciplinary Actions. . .", the parenthetical expression:
"(see Endnote No. I)", so that, in its entirety, it would read as
follows:
"
-30
Disciplinary Actions (see Endnote No.1). . . . . . . . .Pers . . . . . . .P"
Section 2. The City's Citywide Records Management Program, on
file in the Office of the City Clerk, and adopted by Resolution No.
on , is hereby amended, on page 4-58, at the end
of Section 4.0 ("Filing System Guides"), the following Endnote No.
1:
"1. Records of discipline contained in an employee's personnel file which were issued
to an employee covered by a labor agreement (e.g. ,MOD) at a time when said labor
agreement provided that records of discipline would be removed from the personnel
records of such covered employees, shall be removed and destroyed pursuant to the
provisions of said MOD notwithstanding the records retention period herein
designated, and notwithstanding the subsequent amendment of the MOD.
(Cross Reference Page 4-28, Section 4.0 ("Filing System Guides"), Filing Category 0550
("Labor Relations"), Subcategory -30 ("Disciplinary Records")"
Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and requested to keep
an official codified version of the Citywide Records Management
Program on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and to alter the
numbering of the Endnote from time to time in such codified version
to reflect its proper order.
Section 4. It shall be the policy of the Council that
henceforth, discipline or other records retention policies are
deemed a management prerogative, and should not be made a part of
labor negotiations and agreements without the express approval of
such a provision by the city Council.
1
~'3
1 r
I
Section 5. This resolution shall take and be in full force
and effect immediately upon the passage and adoption hereof.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of
original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the
passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which
the same is passed and adopted.
Presented by:
Candy Emerson
Personnel Director
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
2
vr
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
1~.2./~
Resolution Authorizing temporary street closures on May 25, 1996 for
an organized march sponsored by a local committee of the National March for
Jesus organization.
Chief of Police ~~ n
Director of Parks & Rec~r~
City ManageUG! ~ ~
Item
Meeting Date 04/23;/96
~
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No ~
The South Bay Pastoral Steering Committee of the National March for Jesus organization is requesting
permission to conduct an organized March for Jesus on May 25, 1996. The event is sponsored by March
for Jesus, U.S.A.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request subject to staff conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION: The South Bay Pastoral Steering Committee ofthe National March for Jesus organization
(March for Jesus, U.S.A.) is requesting permission to conduct an organized March for Jesus on Saturday,
May 25, 1996, from 9:00 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. The march would be one of several that are being
conducted around San Diego County, and one of more than 550 marches being conducted in cities around
the United States. The sponsor anticipates that approximately 4,000 people would participate in the local
march. The march would consist of participants on foot, and vehicles equipped with speakers to project
musical and spoken messages to the marchers. Groups of approximately 200 marchers would follow each
sound-equipped vehicle, and would participate in a prepared program of songs and proclamations that is
being used throughout the United States at similar events. The sponsor would provide professional
security to accompany each group of marchers, and each group would be marshalled by five group
leaders. All groups would be in constant two-way radio communication with the March organizers. The
sponsor successfully conducted a similar event in May of 1995, and envisions that this march will be an
annual event.
The proposed march route is along Fourth Avenue, beginning at "K" Street, and ending at Park Way.
Marchers and vehicles would stage on "K" Street, west of Fourth, and would then proceed north on
Fourth Avenue, then east on Park Way, and the march would end with an hour long celebration in
Memorial Bowl. The sponsor is requesting a waiver of ordinance 2.66.185, Park and Facilities Rules,
which prohibits amplified noise in the park: the sponsor is requesting permission to use a public address
system to amplify music and announcements at Memorial Bowl.
In order to safely and effectively conduct the event on City streets, and to minimize the potential for
accidents or injury, staff is recommending the complete closure of Fourth Avenue. The Police Department
would monitor the progress of the march, and would close and subsequently re-open cross streets and
intersections as quickly as possible. There would be a noticeable impact on traffic during the march,
NETWORK-AI 13-JESMARCH.96
1
tj-/
I
Item-L
Meeting Date 4~:}'96
since Fourth Avenue and all east-west cross streets between "K" and Park Way (including "H" Street)
would be closed periodically. A diagram of the proposed parade route is attached (Attachment A). It
is unknown at this time what the actual duration of the street closures would be, based on an inability to
accurately determine the number of marchers that may participate in the event; the sponsor is not
requiring any advance registration for the march. However, staff is recommending that closures would
be permitted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11 :00 a.m..
The sponsor was directed to hand-deliver notice of their intent to request City permission to conduct the
event to all businesses and residents along the march route, inviting interested parties to attend the City
Council meeting and voice their opinions if they so desired. A copy of the notice is attached (Attachment
B).
If the event is approved, staff is recommending that the approval be conditional, subject to the sponsor
providing the following:
1. Provision of evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the form of
a Certificate of Insurance and Policy Endorsement, naming the City of Chula Vista as additional
insured.
2. Execution of a Hold Harmless Agreement.
3. Provision of adequate traffic control equipment and devices as determined by the Police
Department and Traffic Engineering Division. The sponsor would be responsible for renting or
purchasing the equipment, and delivering and removing it from designated locations.
4. Provision of adequate Police Services, as determined by the Police Department. The sponsor
would be responsible for reimbursing the City for all required Police services.
5. Provision, posting, and removal of No-Parking signs along the march route.
6. Provision and removal of adequate portable toilets and trash receptacles at the march staging area,
and at Memorial Bowl.
7. Provision of normal facility rental fees at Memorial Bowl, and compliance with standard rules
and regulations governing the use of City Park facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT: All City expenses related to the event, including an estimated $3,300 in direct costs
for Police Department overtime and $60 in rental and staff support fees for use of Memorial Bowl,
would be paid by the sponsor.
Attachments A - Diagram of proposed parade route
B - Notice from sponsor
NETWORK-Al13-JESMARCH.96
2
9-'c2
RESOLUTION NO.
Ir)7t7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES ON MAY 25, 1996, FOR AN ORGANIZED
MARCH SPONSORED BY A LOCAL COMMITTEE OF THE
NATIONAL MARCH FOR JESUS ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the South Bay Pastoral Steering Committee of the
National March for Jesus organization (herein referred to as the
"Sponsor") is requesting permission to conduct an organized march
on May 25, 1996; and .
WHEREAS, the proposed march route is along Fourth Avenue,
beginning at "K" street, and ending at Park Way with an h01.lr long
celebration in Memorial Bowl; and
WHEREAS, in order to safely and effectively conduct the
event on City streets, and to minimize the potential for accidents
or injury, staff is recommending the complete closure of Fourth
Avenue from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize temporary street
closures on May 25, 1996 between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon (for an
organized march sponsored by a local committee of the National
March for Jesus organization subject to the sponsor providing the
following:
1. Provision of evidence of general liability insurance in the
amount of $1 million, in the form of a Certificate of
Insurance and Policy Endorsement, naming the City of Chula
vista as additional insured.
2. Execution of a Hold Harmless Agreement.
3. provision of adequate traffic control equipment and devices as
determined by the Police Department and Traffic Engineering
Division. The sponsor would be responsible for renting or
purchasing the equipment, and delivering and removing it from
designated locations.
4. provision of adequate Police Services, as determined by the
Police Department. The sponsor would be responsible for
reimbursing the City for all required Police services.
5. Provision, posting, and removal of No-Parking signs along the
march route.
6. Provision and removal of adequate portable toilets and trash
receptacles at the march staging area and at Memorial Bowl.
9'3
7. provision of normal facility rental fees at Memorial Bowl, and
compliance with standard rules and regulations governing the
use of City Park facilities.
C:\rs\.arch4.jes
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
9-i
Attachment A
JJ
-
ltlarcll For .Jesus
Satur-day
ltla,r Z,5tb
Tbe following Is a preposed
route lor tile Marcb
For 8esus.
Staging area would lie on K
Street I>>etween 5th A venue ad
4th A venu~ adJacent to ChuJa
Vista mgb Scbool.
--lie MardlwoaJd set off on to
4tb A veuue and prGceed Bortb
to Park Way and turn lato
tleDlorlaJ Park.
Find
EIIIIIII MIl'd
.nll R.,1y
lIuuada! Part & BftW
P8r1cWay
GS1n:d
H Strut
:1 ~ :J
In :r ".
r Street
JStreet
.
SII,lh,Am. Ie Street .
Chut. VlB'ta High
School
9-S
";,.'
MARCH FOR JESUS SOlffH EAyAttaCbmenCB
P.O. BOX 121415
.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91912
.
(619)420-0991 (619) 427-1761 FAX
ORGANIZER
Rich Talent
ASSISTANT ORGANIZER
EmestineT~
PASTORAL STEERING cow"lTTEE
FellpeAcuna
E1 Atc.t Communkad Cr/*"
WesAndelson
CaIvIry Chaf>>I of Chull ~
Dave Chamberlain
Com",""" ChMtiI/(J Conwnunity
Hector Esquer
E1 CImino Communldlld Cristiana
Dan HiD
SL nmothy Lutherln Church
David Montajes
/n"matiOlJ/l/ Chrld.n CMrlN
Ken Nichols ,
Southport Chrl8tJ.J ClnIw
Jel Ruthven '.
Hew LIff Chriltian Fellownp
Qlooly Matltlloi Jesus LIalIon
COUNCIL OF REFERENCE
Reverend Michael E. Carey
ComefttOM FourJquart ChcJrch
Pastor Robert'Carrazco
Centro CrlItiano AIont, H<<Iron
Pastor Hayden Cates
imperial 8Mch F1ftt AIUmbIy 01 God
Dr. Virginia Cruz
/n,.matlonat ChrI.tian CMrlN
Pastor Cart Draves
FltJt AaHmbIy of God, HIIIionaI CIty
Pastor Tony Guzman
~toty OuI18.JCh
Pastor Jerry Hanoool
BonIta Vallty ChriJIIan CIIIW
Asslstant Pastor Robert HokJ.*l
1n'-matl0llll ChriJ#an CIIIW
Pastor Russ Locke
Nmcr UnItH 1IefhotI" ~h
Pastor Larry Macasero
Bonita RC>>d Baptltt Church
Caplai1 Scdl Ramsey
Salvation Army. Chu/a VIAl
Rev8l9lld ~ S. Rauch
Chu/a M.ta PrNbyfwfan ~h
Pastor LOI8IIZli RodrIguez
c.ntro De ".',
Pastor John Sorrentino
~ COWIIInt T4I>>rrI<<It
Pastor louis SpaIks
Chapt/ of Good NIwI
Pastor Paul Veonsba
Chu/a M.ta Cmlmunity Church
April 12, 1996
Dear Community Member,
The South Bay Christian Community is planning a March for Jesus on Saturday,
May 25th. This March will begin at 9:00 a.m. at 4th Avenue and "K" Street and
proceed north to Parkway and turn east into the Chula Vista Memorial Bowl area.
Our March is open to anyone wishing to celebrate Jesus and is done in a very
enjoyable and positive manner. During the past two years, we have staged
Marches in the Downtown San Diego area with a great deal of success and
blessings to the community.
In order to have a safe environment for the marchers, it will be necessary to close
portions of Fourth Avenue between "J" Street and ilK" Street and "K" Street
between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenues beginning about 8:00 AM. for our staging
area. At 9:00 A.M., we would extend the closure to Ill" street and at 9:30 AM. close
from "I" street to Parkway until all of the marchers clear the march route. It is our
intention to open up the affected streets as the marchers exit each block. The
projected time to clear the entire length of 4th Avenue would be before 11 :00 AM.
The Chula Vista City Council will consider this matter on April 23rd in the Council
meeting which begins at 6:00 P.M.. in the Council Chambers.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at 420-0991
or attend the City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Rich Tallent
March Organizer
9-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / d
Meeting Date 4/23/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Joc2? I Ordering the Summary Vacation of certain sewer
easement through Lot 55 and Lot D of Map 9125, Chula Vista Tract No.
77 -09, Casa Del Rey
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public W or~A ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~Gt bw-(X}YlJ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
U~J
Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has requested vacation of a sewer easement traversing two lots
within the Casa Del Rey Subdivision. The easement has a public sewer within it which is being
abandoned in place after realignment of the sewer main.
Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code allows the City Council to summarily
vacate a public service easement when the circumstance stated above exists.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the subject resolution ordering the summary
vacation of the sewer easement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: No consideration is necessary by any of
the City's boards or commissions.
DISCUSSION: When Casa Del Rey Subdivision was developed (circa 1979), Paseo La Cresta was
constructed to the westerly subdivision boundary (see Exhibit "A"). In order to provide the homes
on that street with gravity sewer, the sewer main was installed on the center line of Pas eo La Cresta
to a point just east of the subdivision's westerly boundary. There the sewer main turned north 90
degrees to the north and traversed along the east side of two lots: One (Lot 55) was built upon and
the other (Lot D), being too small, was reserved for future development. A ten-foot-wide easement
parallel to the east property lines of the two lots was granted on the subdivision map of Casa Del Rey
(Map No. 9125) to provide access for the City's sewer maintenance crews.
Subdivision Map No. 13244 (Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Phase 2, Unit 4) was recorded in 1995
extending Paseo La Cresta approximately 350 feet to its terminus in a cuI de sac (see Exhibit "B").
The sewer main was also extended westerly from the angle point mentioned above, to the end of the
cuI de sac, through Lot 13 of the new development, through Open Space Lot A, to the existing main
in Paseo Ladera. By re-routing the sewer, it streamlined the waste water flows (by eliminating two
90-degree turns in the line) and avoided the need to traverse two residential properties. As the new
development occurred, Lot "D" of Casa Del Rey was enlarged and became a buildable lot in the new
subdivision (Lot 7 of Rancho Del Rey SPA III, Phase 2, Unit 4) as shown on Exhibit "B".
There is no public hearing needed for this vacation. Subsection 8333( c) states that the easement may
be summarily vacated if it has been superseded by relocation of the sewer and there are no other
facilities within the easement. There are no other facilities within the easement.
It/- /
Page 2, Item I bl
Meeting Date: 4/16/96
In compliance with Streets and Highways Code Subsection 8335(b), the resolution ordering the
vacation must state the following:
1. The vacation is made under Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways Code.
2. The name or other designation of the public service easement and a precise description of the
portion vacated are attached. (See Exhibit "e".)
3. The summary vacation is made under certain facts (That the easement has been superseded
by sewer relocation and will not be needed in the future).
4. From and after the resolution's recording date, the vacated sewer easement no longer
constitutes an easement.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost for the City to process the vacation is covered under a standard
deposit account associated with such requests. Monetary compensation to the City for the easement
is not recommended in this case, since the owners already possess the underlying fee title.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Plat showing old alignment of sewer and easement
Exhibit "B" - Plat showing new alignment and new easement
Exhibit "C" - Legal Description of easement
JWH [m:\home\engineer\agenda\al13 _067.jwh]
/IJ -~
""-.,t
RESOLUTION NO.
/8"~71
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF
CERTAIN SEWER EASEMENTS THROUGH LOT 55 AND LOT
D OF MAP 9125, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 77-09,
CASA DEL REY
WHEREAS, Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P., has requested
vacation by the City of a sewer easements traversing two lots
within the Casa Del Rey SUbdivision; and
WHEREAS, the easements have a public sewer within it
which is being abandoned in place after realignment of the sewer
main; and
WHEREAS, Section 8333 of the California Streets and
Highways Code allows the City Council to summarily vacate a public
service easement when the circumstance stated above exists; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby order the summary vacation of
the sewer easement through Lot 55 and Lot D of Map 9125, Chula
vista Tract No. 77-09, Casa Del Rey Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to record this resolution after the above conditions have
been met, and from and after the date the resolution is recorded,
the easement vacated no longer constitutes an easement.
L
for:y
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\vacate2.su.
1
/17 -;3 )IJ - 1/
~
ft' ;
",.,~ I :.... .
r': J.' \i 1~" :."
::.~.::;~::;\ ,tf.{
~..... :
....
., : to) i"
.....: ; 'T t./ ;"''\ ,..-
i" i..... (F? f) :~?
. ";,'
to; ('- ;.. I :
,." A It.' . '., t
....: i....; \'1 i..' I ., :: "'l"
t...., . ."; i If\!! !
~.,.:: t'::: S,,'
I-,"l'~
.
00: :
"':':/",.:
. su eJECT SEWE.~ EASEMENT
TO ae VACATED
eoR Y.
IvISION_-=--- -
.c:--~
---\ \ I
~
III
"\)
~
t/)
hi
C)
/ ....
., :.,
r..: ;..'
...., E.~:...
: .. I
,.'
f>.
,'-- .
: 00, I
. t"
'.'
(
r -
\/ \ ~
~~\/~
EXHIBIT
OWN BY: Jl~
DATE : ~ I Z 1/ ~ L.
:"~ r"~
.... ~ [.0": .
. t..... ;
. ; .. l
.... : .....i
. . .
..... : .: .
. : :...:. :.'
. . ...1
.... : : III
'. to: .....
oo'
(af'.
ll.
-t
-+
-t
+
()
""
hi
0\
~
:b.
CA
+
'^
~
:t:a.
tJ)
~
C)
'^
~
~
'"
~
}..
~
h.
CI)
FILE NO. PV-O~7
';4 II
Ic-5
,
I
,
I
i
,
I
.
I
,
I
,
!~
I):.
)~
\ \ ~
~\
y.'
:t-'-'
",.
M
".
\
'tl\
, ~
.
--\
11:\
.~
\~
\ ).
.
\
,
\
.
\
,
~
SEW~2. ~ STo2M
OICAI~ E~Se.fwfl!,.,aT
........ '"
0,0 /~
,-~t\' ,r
..... 0 ,. / 'IV
"'!"'~~).,,\-:> /',/ ~" S ..... C _
I . .r.:...
/ ~
L-
/ ____ ___ l' '"
---
F --- ___-------
\ \-
----+----
\ ~.!l~.~:t:. ..'
~ j)~OI\/I5~rd12 -
Q~O ~5~ ~\-.
5""'"
~ 'if '''"'
'" \
........ ..."
.....:::~. "
..."'.....
"
".
.,.....1
'.
.
~
,. ~
~ \ '1\1
.~\~
\\~
,
,
FILE NO. PV.067
OWN BY: .jJ.,'
DATE: 3/Z71~6.
, I /
EXH/8/T
"8 II
/t!J-/P
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
SEWER EASEMENT TO BE
VACATED IN RANCHO DEL REY,
SPA III, PHASE 2, UNIT NO.4
The land referred to herein is situated in the City of Chula Vista, County
of San Diego, State of California and further described as follows:
All of that ten-foot-wide sewer easement across Lot 55 and Lot "D" as
delineated on the map of Casa Del Rey Subdivision in accordance with
Map thereof No. 9125 recorded in the office of the Recorder of said San
Diego County February 22, 1979.
EXHIBIT "C"
Jtl-?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
1/
Date
4/23/96
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING THE
ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUBMITTED BY:
Michael Meacham \~
Conservation coo~~(1~^
City ManagerJ(~ ~ ~\
REVIEWED BY:
4/sth Vote: Yes
No --L
County Solid Waste staff has requested that we postpone our review
of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, consisting of the
Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element until early
May. The County Board of Supervisor's April 23, 1996 meeting will
consider this item and County staff will provide clarification
regarding the schedule for review following that meeting.
Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to the meeting of
May 7, 1996.
/1'" /
4~ //
PUBUC HEARING CHECK UST
PUBI1C HEARING DATE: iJk~/9~
SU~CT, ~ y~~
L000;" ,p '" i '(=) c ..... .... /' . ~ .
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBI,ICA:N n BY FAX:; '1ft, ;~ HANl7 ; BY MAlL -
PUBLICATION DATE :JM6ld ?-
/ / ..--ZJ--
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPER1Y OWNERS -Z;-/ NO. MAILED r~
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK ;~;A ~
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
/
Planning
Originating Department
/
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
/
J~~A~
./
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
-55-
) j.-.3
'!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the
adoption of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Plan consists of the
Countywide Summary Plan & Siting Element.
The City of Chula Vista has prepared and transmitted staff comments on the preliminary draft of the
County wide Plan to the County pursuant to Section 41750 of the Public Resources Code. The final
comments regarding the County Plan will be submitted to the County and subsequently the California
Integrated Waste Management Board for review and approval. Contact the City Conservation
Coordinator at 691-5122 if you have questions regarding the document.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk's office no later
than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action regarding the adoption of the County of San Diego Integrated
Waste Management Plan, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council
at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, April 23, 1996
at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any
person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED:
March 13, 1996
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48
hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific
information at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
//-1
.-~
t...
J
~"'~
~~
~<<~
......-.::.........~
(llY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LEITER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
3A~~
/ /
TO: Star News Legal / Martha
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: C-~/~.
SUBJEcr: tZ/,/~. c?t~
PUBUCATION DATE:
c2
3A&/;;&
/ /
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
H all pages are not received, please call Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 81810 . (618) 681.5041
~ "-""--.,..
//-5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Adoption of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan. The
Plan consists of the Countywide Summery Plan & Siting Element. For further
information call the Conservation Coordinator at 691-5122.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
April 23, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: March 15, 1996
//-?
7
\ '
. ~/),
r"":"
April 19, 1996
ATTN: Jim Thompson-Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
Building and Housing Department
Code Enforcement Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA. 91910
RE: Brad Remp-Assistant Director
Gregory Bottorff
Tina Lutz
and city employee assistants
Dear Sir:
Please refer to letters dated: March 27, 1996, AprilS,
1996, and April 12, 1996.
This letter is in compliance to try to resolve the
defamation of character the employees' above have caused me.
I requested assistance from the Mayor's office immediately
after miscommunications, misunderstandings, and uncooperativeness
began to exist,
My character has been defamed by the employees above. My
reputation has been injured by slander. A maliscious and false
statements have been made about me. For example, on Friday,
April 19, 1996, during the course of action I brought against my
landlord, one of the landlords testified under Oath, that the
City of Chula vista Department of Building and Housing Department
had advised them that I had made a threat to the staff above and
thus they should call police for protection to go do the repairs
on our dwelling at 171 Prospect St. Chula Vista, CA. 91911.
I strongly object to the allegations that the city employees
Tina Lutz, Gregory Bottorff, and Brad Remp's secretary have
malisciously accussed me, after I am the one whom have accused
them of misconduct and of incomplete inspection of my present
dwelling.
I have kept record of all conversations with these city
employees, orally and in writing; including the conversations
with the Mayor's office, the Chula vista Police Department, CAPT.
Zoll, LT. Becker, and SGT. Griffith.
I had initially contacted Brad Remp-assistant Director to
report that on AprilS, 1996, that Tina Lutz never called me to
arrange that appointment he specifically told me not to call her,
that she would be calling me to arrange an appointment to come to
the house to complete the inspection. However, that Ms. Lutz and
,.,
, {/" lu;.L. L! fl,?-j-t~ I
-//
-:./ ../
Mr. Bottorff had indeed shown up in my house, without making any
appointment with me at all as he had told me.
Mr. Remp's receptionist refused to pass me over to him,
until I related to her the reason for my call. At that time, I
told her the above message and I told her that at first, both my
daughter-in-law and I were extremely terrified not knowing who
was trying to get inside our home and that I would have used my
gun to protect myself and my family from getting hurt. We were
not expecting anyone. Especially we were not expecting them,
because Mr. Remp had told me specifically not to call Tina Lutz,
that she would be callIng me to arrange another appointment to
complete the inspection, and that he would find out if she should
give me the original report or a copy.
Mr. Remp's receptionist did not seem to rationalize the
message correctly. First, she accused me of having a gun without
a permit. I never mentioned to her that I did or did not have a
permit before she accused me. I corrected her that I did indeed
have a permit. Second, she accused me that I did not have to
threatened them. I corrected her immediately, that I did not
threatened them nor was I threatening anybody; I told her the
above statement ".. . extremely terrified not knowing who was
trying to get inside our home...that I would have used my gun to
protect myself and my family from getting hurt and injured."
I wrote a letter to Mr. Remp on the same day of the
incident. I also went to the C.V. Police Dept. I did want to
file harrassing charges against the two city employees. But, I
was advised to go through the proper procedure and report it to
Mr. Remp, to include in the investigation of my initial complaint
of March 27, 1996.
I suspected that Ms. Lutz had been contacting the landlords
that they were well aware that I was sueing in Small Claims
Court, since that was the reason for my initial visit with
Gregory Bottorff requesting a written report.
I suspected even furthermore, that Ms. Lutz and the
landlords were connecting to harrass me. On the same day of
April 5, 1996, both the landlords were harrassing my family by
chasing them following them all around the city streets, after
they waited for them to arrive home and after leaving a note in
our mailbox. The note demanded we were being notified that in 48
hours from April 5, 1996 at 7:45 p.m., that they were corning into
our home to do the repairs. I stayed home all day Easter Sunday
waiting for the repairs to be done and nobody showed up.
On
related
behalf) ,
repairs.
Monday, April 8, 1996, a handyman, (now we know he is
to the landlords because Sgt. Griffith inquired in our
called that morning that he wanted to corne to make the
We scheduled an appointment for Tuesday at 1:00 p.m.
The handyman showed up Tuesday, April 9, 1996, with two
/' /',/
.r i./ /)
/1~c#J ck-;;;;-4-p'L-- - ~
Police Officers. The officers refused to tell me what they were
doing there with the handyman. It did not make sense. We have
never met the handyman, and yet he shows up with the police? I
told the handymany to please wait until the Mayor's office would
return my call. But refused to wait and left. I contacted the
police to find out why two police officers were in my house with
the handyman after he was the one whom called to schedule the
appointment and we had never met this man before. Then, we
discovered by the Sgt.'s inquiry, that the handyman was related
to the landlord.
To confirm that city employees from Building and Housing
were supporting the landlords to pressure us was that on Friday,
April 19, 1996, they testified that your department advised them
that the handyman should take the police with them because that
they had been threatened.
Mr. Remp had the authority to investigate my complaint. He
concluded that there were no findings. He did not include in his
findings having any knowledge of my initial letter dated March
27, 1996. He and I agreed that he would be getting Tina Lutz
call me and schedule an appointment to return to complete the
inspection of 171 Prospect ST. Chula Vista, CA. He failed to be
objective in reprimanding the city employees for their behaviors.
He chose to handle it irresponsibly and incompetently in
professionalism. He instigated malisciously additional pressures
by leaving a note at the Mayor's office promoting criminal
actions against me without my knowledge when, comments and
letters were not substantiated that such allegations were true.
This is why I am giving this letter of complaint for a
thoroughly and objective investigation be corrected. And I
request that my character and my name be cleared as soon as
possible. Since this allegations have already incriminated my
Small Claims court case, and my character, this last time I
request that my name be cleared from the maliscious mischief the
above city employees have defamed my character, otherwise, I will
have to cleared my name in a legal way.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information is
true and correct.
DATED: APRIL 19, 1996
/ . ",-1--
.x:Jvrd t/---CL < J:u 7':- t(:~
SYLVIA SANTOS
~C~ fh~1 e-./J. ~
o /' /
d/-{L)JL- L':AP---H'1.7'r? -.3
I~ f
01
,
~{/?
--,.-
~~~
---~
~.......~.......
EXf. iBile( It r
C/lY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
April 17, 1996
Martha Romo
1568 Cavern Point Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Mrs. Romo:
At your request, the fOliowin~ is a 5u;n;"j';iii)' G~ ';:1y con'!ers9tia!"~ ~nd hanrjling of Ms. Sylvia Santos'
complaint to the Chula Vista Mayor and Council Office.
Thursdav.April28,1996
Ms. Santos came to the Mayor and Council Office on April 28, 1995, requesting assistance to correct
various problems with the home she "Leased" at 171 Prospect Street. She explained that a leaking garbage
disposal made it impossible to use the kitchen sink. She also said the toilets ran constantly, locks were
missing on certain windows, the smoke detector was inoperative, electric outlets did not work. She
complained of bugs, torn window screens, and perhaps a few other things.
Since the Mayor and Council Office occasionally receives similar complaints from apartment or condo
renters, I immediately recognized this is essentially a private matter between a landlord and the tenant. Still,
I am also aware that the city contracts with the San Diego Fair Housing Council which works to resolve such
issues.
My interest related to an additional complaint made by Ms. Santos made against our Building and Housing
Department. Specifically, she said Housing Inspector Tina Lutz had made an inspection of the home, and
that she was unhappy with the service she received. She claimed that the inspector showed up late, came
without the proper equipment to conduct the inspection, was hostile and defensive in dealing with her. After
the inspection, she had attempted to talk with Ms. Lutz' supervisor, but the supervisor also refused to meet
with her. While I listened to Ms. Santos descriptions of problems and efforts to have them corrected, my
primary concern was city staffs handling of this request for service.
A~:: ~e~~~~ ".';~~ tv1~. c;~.,tnc; I called the Buildin9 and Housing Department to get more information about
the inspection. and to share the complaint lodged against Ms. Lutz and the LJepartment. i abo aiiemplc~ tv
find out how staff planned to handle the complaint. I believe I spoke with Ms. Lutz.
I recall staff confirmed a site visit had been made. The condition of the house was found to be quite good,
and they told this to Ms. Santos. I cannot recall if staff said they would arrange another meeting with Ms.
Santos. However, I felt confident that staff would address Ms. Santos' concerns, including the complaint
about the initial inspection. Therefore, there was no reason for my following-up on this matter further.
Fridav. March 29. 1996
Before calling Ms. Santos, to confirm my understanding of city policy on landlordltenant disputes, I called
Ms. Sheri Schott, a Community Development Specialist in the Housing Division of the Community
Development Department. Ms. Schott gave me the name of Mary Knoll at the Fair Housing Council as a
contact for Ms. Santos. I called Ms. Santos and gave her Ms. Knoll's name and phone number.
The week of April 1-5, 1996, I was on vacation.
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5044
tZ>&<:zc ~'-r7'} - 7'(
/
iO
Letter to Mrs. Romo
April 17, 1996
Mondav.ApriI8.1996
Upon my return on the morning of April 8, I found a note taped to my telephone from Brad Remp, Assistant
Director of Building and Housing. Mr. Remp advised me that Ms. Santos' was not to have access to their
office and to call the Police Department immediately. I learned that two code enforcement officers went to
the home to do another inspection Friday, April 5. Ms. Santos had refused them access and threatened
them if they persisted.
Later that morning, you came to my office to express your frustration in trying to address Ms. Santos'
complaints. You showed me a letter that you had received from the Building and Housing Department
listing the three problems the inspector identified and directed be repaired. This letter confirmed what staff
had relayed more than one week earlier; that essentially the house was in very good condition. You also
noted that rather than being unwilling to address Ms. Santos' concerns, you have tried to contact her or
make appointments to correct any problems. Now you were concerned for your own safety or that of any
handyman or repairman sent to the home.
Within minutes of you leaving, Ms. Santos arrived. I allowed her into my office since I did not feel
threatened, and I wanted to hear from her what had occurred the previous Friday. She said that on the day
in question, Code Enforcement personnel had arrived at her home unexpectedly and attempted to make an
inspection. She said she initially did not know who they were, and ordered them to leave. Later she called
the Building and Housing Department to make a formal complaint, but said the receptionist misunderstood
her explanation of what happened as a threat against the inspectors.
Ms. Santos also gave me two letters, one for myself, and one addressed to Brad Remp. The letter is dated
April 5, 1996. Alii could do was tell her that I would have to call Building and Housing and find out what
was going on. She also expressed an interest in getting a copy of the inspection report, which I recall I
mentioned I would try to help her get from the Department.
Later that day, I spoke with Gregory Bottorff, Senior Building Inspector. He had accompanied Tina Lutz on
the second inspection and gave his version of what occurred. His description of the incident was very
different from Ms. Santos'. He emphatically denied they had done anything improper. He also advised me
that Ms. Santos had attempted to make a formal complaint with the Chula Vista Police Department.
I placed the letter Ms. Santos had given me addressed to Brad Remp in the interoffice mail. Sometime
later that afternoon, I spoke with Captain Jim Zoll of the Chula Vista Police Department since Ms. Santos
attempted to make a formal complaint with him. I also spoke with Veronica Lopez, the Office Assistant in
the Building and Housing Department, who took the caii irom iv'l:s. Santus ull Friday.
Tuesdav.ApriI9.1996
Tuesday morning, Mr. Remp came by my office and asked if I had the letter that Ms. Santos had addressed
to him. Since I had forwarded the letter the day before, and he apparently had not yet received it, I gave him
my copy. I felt it was more important that he have the letter since his Department would be responding to
the complaint about the Code Enforcement Officers' actions. At this point, I continued to be primarily
concerned about Ms. Santos' complaint about our Codes Enforcement Officers. The problems with the
house were minor and the city had essentially done all it could. In fact, after having talked with several
individuals, staff apparently had "bent over backward" in an attempt to help Ms. Santos, but nothing they did
seemed to satisfy her. In fact, the more we tried to help, the more upset, frustrated, and confused she
became.
-2-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
c~. ~7",,{ -!5-
~
.;:..j ....:'"
Letter to Mrs. Romo
April 17, 1996
I left for lunch at 12:30 p.m. that day. At 12:40 p.m., our office received a frantic phone call from Ms.
Santos. The receptionist took the message and gave it to me when I returned an hour later. Ms. Santos was
also waiting in the lobby to speak with me.
Before allowing her to come in, I placed another call to Gregory Bottorff to find out if staff had made
another attempt to inspect the house, just to be sure. His response was that they had not, and would not
since the last time they were out she chased them off and later made a threat. I believe it was during this
phone calli asked about the inspection report/letter she request. He recounted that one reason for the
Friday visit, was to give Ms. Santos a copy of the letter they had sent to you. They were unable to give her
the letter since she chased them of the property. They later mailed a copy of the letter to her.
I asked her the reason for visit. She said that an hour earlier your handyman had arrived at the house to
make repairs, escorted by two Chula Vista Pc;ice officers. She refused tl"' let theFT' in until she had some
assurance from the Mayor's office that the inspections had been completed and had obtained a copy of the
inspection report. She felt she needed this reportlletter to ensure that the handyman would correct all the
needed repairs. Upset over the presence of the police officers, she refused them access. Consequently,
the handyman and police officers left.
I told her the Building and Housing Department had completed their inspection and had no reason to go
back. Also the inspection found three minor problems, which she was already aware of. In fact, staff had
intended to give this information to her the previous Friday. I also explained that when Building and Housing
conducts such an inspection, they do not check every electric outlet, window, or drain. Such an inspection
is in fact rare, and staff felt they were already going out-of-their way to be of assistance. Correcting such
problems is between her and the landlord. She appeared to understand this. I recall I even offered to be of
assistance in contacting you, however, due to other obligations, I was not able to follow-up on this.
Since Ms. Santos wanted a copy of the Building and Housing letter, and since she felt she could not rely on
the Building and Housing Department to mail it to her, I told her I would personally get the letter and mail it. I
obtained a copy of the letter, and it went out the following morning with the mail.
My feeling was that any of the problems she experience were simply due to poor communications.
Therefore, I suggested to her in this last meeting she communicate with you or the city in writing, as she
could document problems, promises, or appointments. Similarly, she had expressed concern to me that
she "could not trust your handyman," since he is related to you. In response, I suggested that if this were
her concern, she needs to put it in writing. Let me make it clear, I did not direct her to make this request. I
was merely reminding her that in order avoid further problems, she needs to make her feelings known.
Since Tuesday, April 9, I have had no direct contact with Ms. Santos. However, I haVE: ieceived a letter:0
her from Brad Remp dated April 9, and her response dated April 12, 1996.
Sincerely,
~~L r: ~"v~
Armando F. Buelna
Assistant to the Mayor and Council
ab
cc: Ms. Sylvia Santos
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
&21:.d &~n -?
ex h t /3 /1 ~ B //
April 19, 1996
ATTN: Jim Thompson-Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
Building and Housing Department
Code Enforcement Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
RE: Brad Remp-Assistant Director
Gregory Bottorff
Tina Lutz
and city employee assistants
Dear Sir:
Please refer to letters dated: March 27, 1996, April 5,
1996, and April 12, 1996.
This letter is in compliance to try to resolve the
defamation of character the employees' above have caused me.
I requested assistance from the Mayor's office immediately
after miscommunications, misunderstandings, and uncooperativeness
began to exist.
My character has been defamed by the employees above. My
reputation has been injured by slander. A maliscious and false
statements have been made about me. For example, on Friday,
April 19, 1996, during the course of action I brought against my
landlord, one of the landlords testified under Oath, that the
City of Chula vista Department of Building and Housing Department
had advised them that I had made a threat to the staff above and
thus they should call police for protection to go do the repairs
on our dwelling at 171 Prospect St. Chula Vista, CA. 91911.
I strongly object to the allegations that the city employees
Tina Lutz, Gregory Bottorff, and Brad Remp's secretary have
malisciously accussed me, after I am the one whom have accused
them of misconduct and of incomplete inspection of my present
dwelling.
I have kept record of all conversations with these city
employees, orally and in writing; including the conversations
with the Mayor's office, the Chula vista Police Department, CAPT.
Zoll, LT. Becker, and SGT. Griffith.
I had initially contacted Brad Remp-assistant Director to
report that on April 5, 1996, that Tina Lutz never called me to
arrange that appointment he specifically told me not to call her,
that she would be calling me to arrange an appointment to come to
the house to complete the inspection. However, that Ms. Lutz and
/r _ f ./
(' l/~~. L./ti/ n-~'J
,-7
Mr. Bottorff had indeed shown up in my house, without making any
appointment with me at all as he had told me.
Mr. Remp's receptionist refused to pass me over to him,
until I related to her the reason for my call. At that time, I
told her the above message and I told her that at first, both my
daughter-in-law and I were extremely terrified not knowing who
was trying to get inside our home and that I would have used my
gun to protect myself and my family from getting hurt. We were
not expecting anyone. Especially we were not expecting them,
because Mr. Remp had told me specifically not to call Tina Lutz,
that she would be calling me to arrange another appointment to
complete the inspection, and that he would find out if she should
give me the original report or a copy.
Mr. Remp's receptionist did not seem to rationalize the
message correctly. First, she accused me of having a gun without
a permit. I never mentioned to her that I did or did not have a
permit before she accused me. I corrected her that I did indeed
have a permit. Second, she accused me that I did not have to
threatened them. I corrected her immediately, that I did not
threatened them nor was I threatening anybody; I told her the
above statement ". ..extremely terrified not knowing who was
trying to get inside our home...that I would have used my gun to
protect myself and my family from getting hurt and injured."
I wrote a letter to Mr. Remp on the same day of the
incident. I also went to the C.V. Police Dept. I did want to
file harrassing charges against the two city employees. But, I
was advised to go through the proper procedure and report it to
Mr. Remp, to include in the investigation of my initial complaint
of March 27, 1996.
I suspected that Ms. Lutz had been contacting the landlords
that they were well aware that I was sueing in Small Claims
Court, since that was the reason for my initial visit with
Gregory Bottorff requesting a written report.
I suspected even furthermore, that Ms. Lutz and the
landlords were connecting to harrass me. On the same day of
April 5, 1996, both the landlords were harrassing my family by
chasing them following them all around the city streets, after
they waited for them to arrive home and after leaving a note in
our mailbox. The note demanded we were being notified that in 48
hours from April 5, 1996 at 7:45 p.m., that they were coming into
our home to do the repairs. I stayed home all day Easter Sunday
waiting for the repairs to be done and nobody showed up.
On Monday, April 8, 1996, a handyman, (now we know he is
related to the landlords because Sgt. Griffith inquired in our
behalf), called that morning that he wanted to come to make the
repairs. We scheduled an appointment for Tuesday at 1:00 p.m.
The handyman showed up Tuesday, April 9, 1996, with two
/' _/'/J (/
{t./1:: ,(,(/L.. L-6V)4- rYJ - J
police Officers. The officers refused to tell me what they were
doing there with the handyman. It did not make sense. We have
never met the handyman, and yet he shows up with the police? I
told the handymany to please wait until the Mayor's office would
return my call. But refused to wait and left. I contacted the
police to find out why two police officers were in my house with
the handyman after he was the one whom called to schedule the
appointment and we had never met this man before. Then, we
discovered by the Sgt.'s inquiry, that the handyman was related
to the landlord.
To confirm that city employees from Building and Housing
were supporting the landlords to pressure us was that on Friday,
April 19, 1996, they testified that your department advised them
that the handyman should take the police with them because that
they had been threatened.
Mr. Remp had the authority to investigate my complaint. He
concluded that there were no findings. He did not include in his
findings having any knowledge of my initial letter dated March
27, 1996. He and I agreed that he would be getting Tina Lutz
call me and schedule an appointment to return to complete the
inspection of 171 Prospect ST. Chula Vista, CA. He failed to be
objective in reprimanding the city employees for their behaviors.
He chose to handle it irresponsibly and incompetently in
professionalism. He instigated malisciously additional pressures
by leaving a note at the Mayor's office promoting criminal
actions against me without my knowledge when, comments and
letters were not substantiated that such allegations were true.
This is why I am giving this letter of complaint for a
thoroughly and objective investigation be corrected. And I
request that my character and my name be cleared as soon as
possible. Since this allegations have already incriminated my
Small Claims court case, and my character, this last time I
request that my name be cleared from the maliscious mischief the
above city employees have defamed my character, otherwise, I will
have to cleared my name in a legal way.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information 1S
true and correct.
DATED: APRIL 19, 1996
/. j r-
1L UiL'N~/YL{, f'?-
IA SANTOS
/{-'J,.,d L~~/.-1
i"
r{ e... / I
April 12, 1996
Brad Remp-Assistant Director
city of Chula vista
Building and Housing Department
Code Enforcement Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA. 91910
RE: Complaint of Tina Lutz and Gregory Bottorff
I am responding to your letter dated April 9, 1996, In response
to the second complaint I submitted in writing.
As far as my first written complaint dated March 27, 1996,
regarding the same two city employees in reference above, is not
mentioned in your letter.
I spoke to you twice over the telephone regarding a follow up of
my initial complaint. On April 2, 1996, you confirmed that you
were still going to send Ms. Lutz back to complete the inspection
of 171 Prospect St., Chula Vista, CA. 91911, inspite I questioned
whether it was wise to send Ms. Lutz again, considering the anger
she was displaying against me.
You stated that Ms. Lutz was the only inspector that would be
able to complete the inspection. Although, when I asked if I
should call her to schedule an appointment, you stated not to
call her, but that she would be the one calling me to schedule
the appointment.
Ms. Lutz never called my home, either by speaking to me or by
leaving a message in my answering machine.
However, three days later, Friday, April 5, 1996, Ms. Lutz and
Gregory Bottorff, both city employees I had complained about to
you on my letter dated 3/27/96, without having made an
appointment with me, both were wondering all around the front,
the sides and the back of the residence looking inside the
windows, and after several minutes of scaring my daughter-in-law
and myself, Ms. Lutz had her face inside my bedroom window.
After being in shock, and my heart was pounding so rapidly, as
well as for my daughter-in-Iaw's shock, I finally recognized Ms.
Lutz and Mr. Bottorff.
I asked them why were they snooping around my windows. I told
them they did not have an appointemnt. Both were trying to take
control of privacy. I told them to leave a couple of times, but
were harrassing me after I had to repeatedly tell them to leave
and that I would call the police.
I called the C.V. Police. I also called you immediately, because
you had told me not to call Ms. Lutz, and she showed up with Mr.
Bottorff, without an appointment. (Page 1 of 4)
!~ &")1-04/ - I P
You state on your April 9th letter," that based on your document
and employee's statement, I do not believe that either employee
acted with malicious intent towards you, and that it appears they
came to your house at the time they believed they had an
appointment to meet with you and conduct the inspection you had
requested."
Let me reply to your comments on the paragraph above.
Under "based on your document and the employee's statement", you
are ommitting that I submitted an initial letter of complaint
dated March 27, 1996.
Moreover, you also state, " I do not believe that either employee
acted with malicious intent towards you", in order to receive a
fair investigation of the compliants, other factual evidence was
not mentioned on your letter.
In addition, you also state, "It appears they came to your house
at the time they believed they had an appointment to meet you and
conduct the inspection you had requested"; In your letter you do
not state name, date, or time to investigate why Ms. Lutz and Mr.
Bottorff believed they had an appointment, and neither did they
answer us when we questioned them.
Initially, I requested a report from Mr. Bottorff when the
inspection would have been completed.
After my complaints about both city employees, I began to suspect
why the city employees were communicating with the landlords
knowing that we were sueing them. I also did suspect that on
Friday April 5, 1996, after I called your office to report both
Ms. Lutz and Mr. Bottorff of harrassment, (and although, your
receptionist poorly interpreted the complaint I was reporting by
distorting information, which by the way, I corrected her
interpretation I never agreed with her poorly performance),
on the same day, April 5th, the landlords also harrassed us, and
furthermore, early Monday morning April 8th, as I was in my way
to the Mayor's office, the landlord also came out of the Mayor's
office.
It is more than a coinsidence, I requested help from Building and
Housing requesting an investigation and a report for a court
hearing, since the landlords were taking us for every penny they
could to do all their plumbing, repairs, etc. ...
Ms. Lutz and I scheduled only one appointment on March 26, 1996
for 9:30 a.m., after personally meeting Mr. Battorff on 3/22/96,
which he told me she would be giving me a report.
Since the day of our appointment 3/26/96, Ms. Lutz had not
arrived by 10:15 a.m., I called the office; but that call,
angered her and she refused to do the inspection, she was out of
the residence by a very short time in the house. (Page 2 of 4)
~ &,;-~-II
"
"
Building and Housing, Tina Lutz and Gregory Bottorff, were the
only two government employees that had confidential information
regarding the landlords property to be inspected, and just
because I went to the Mayor's Office to complain about both of
them, I told the Chula Vista Police, that I had suspicious
motives to believe that Tina Lutz had been malisciously
communicating with the landlords because I had complained ln
writing{March 27, 1996 letter}. Since, the landlords got served
on April 4, 1996, and I did mention to the landlords that
Building and Housing would be doing an inspection of the house.
It is a fact that either Building and Housing and the landlords
were in contact, because on AprilS, 1996 both parties were at
171 Prospect, C.V. CA. 91911 causing maliscious mischief; I was
forced to report both incidents to the C.V. Police on the same
day.
Finally on Monday morning April 8, 1996, following the Friday
incidents, the landlord is coming out of the Mayor's office, as I
was about to walk towards the Mayor's Offices.
A report was prepared with a partial home inspection and given to
the landlord; except, on April 5th, when all the harrassment I
complained about, the landlords put a note on our mailbox before
my family was being chased, harrassed and intimidated all around
the C.V. streets. The note was demanding to go inside the
dwelling on Easter Sunday at the night hours of 7:45 p.m., and
among other annoying threats, three day eviction notices.
We just pray and hope that all these maliscious mischiefs that
Ms. Tina Lutz has caused my family and I, do not incriminate us
when we present our facts in court.
I mainly reported these type of city employee government
inappropriate behaviors, not to start a war. The problems are
the "untenantable" conditions of a house that we have been taken
advantaged of, because we were told the problems would be
corrected before we would be moved in. We gave 30 day notices to
our previous landlords on Februay 15, 1996, and we were called to
move in by March 1, 1996. My family started moving in slowly
since they also still had until March 15, to move out from the
other apartment. I moved out on March 15, from my Coronado
apartment, and moved in at 171 Prospect. We have been given the
run-arounds and repeatedly been threatened orally and in writing
that they want to evict is in three days.
I recognize one thing that Gregory Bottorff meant well initially
to help me get the house inspected and ultimately get me a report
as he told me. I regret that Tina Lutz, after being late to our
appointment, had such extreme anger and displayed such an
arrogantly and inappropriately behavior just because I called at
10:15 a.m. to inquire if she was showing up since we had a 9:30
a.m. appointment. If Mr. Battorff had not gotten defensive
defending Ms. Lutz, to the extent that he was also behaving so
inappropriately rude with me, this mountain of problems would not
/"
L:f::,,7.d L ~hrz--;r-7 - / ~
'-I
until they saw me yell again to leave.
while they were still argueing.
I was calling the police
I believe that Ms. Lutz is malisciously orchestrating
trouble for me since I complained about her behavior and in-
completeness of the inspection of 3/26/96; I believe that she
may have been contacting the owners of this property, because,
it is a coincidence that after the landlord got served onThursday
April 4, 1996, Ms. Lutz has the gull to harrass me by using DPr
position as a city employee inspector, andI strongly feel that
she is malisciously having contact with them to support them.
I also believe that Mr. Gregory Bottorff is conspiring with
Ms. Lutz, since I also complained about his bad treatment and
I felt discriminated by his treatment, I saw the hatred in his
demeanor.
Therefore, both Ms. Lutz and Mr. Bottorff had maliscious
reasons for having shown up to 171 Prospect St. Chula Vista, CA.,
and I considered this a violation of my privacy, and my family's
privacy, since it has been very clear that she would call for an appt.
(but, she did not have an appt.)
Inspite that Mr. Bottorff laughed at me when I was asserting
myself that I was a citizen of this community and I resented the
bad mannered treatment, his response while laughing was that
"We are all citizens" and he left me unattended, shuffled me as
unimportant.
If a report was sent to the owners of this property, it would
have been done malisciously, because, it is incomplete, and there
are numerous complaints which would have made it~biased report
against me. Furthermore, if they sent this report, I have been
totally abused by the treatment, and I have not been treated fairly,
and equally if my requests for a report continued to be ignored.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information is true
and correct under the laws of the state of California.
DATED: APRIL 5, 1996
;6f~;f'Al~~/:;:;::'
cc:Mayor of City of Chula Vista
AMENDED
Additionally, I complained to the Chula Vista police Dept.
I spoke to CAPT. JIM ZOLL, regarding wanting to file a complaint
for harrassment, however, this complaint is addressed to the city
and Housing Dept.- Attn: Brad Remp. I sincerely hope this complaint
be resolved satisfactorily, and I trust that it will.
I also did call you immediately, although, your receptionist talked
to me with defensive paranoia; she accused me that I haG a gun with-
out a permit and she distorted what I told her I felt I would have
done not knowing if someone was breaking in to hurt us, and I would
do anything to defend our lives. I also explained to her that she
obviously was misinterpreting everything, and said good-bye, I then,
called the mayor's office leaving a message in answering machine. _
0,1 _, /' /,' - . / -? ' .'\' ~ T. 7
.. ~ ~/J7:V'T?- .-/ SANTOS ....-'-'-_~;,.;c.<-c,..~.,L~ '-~ I
SYLVIA. - . .l__._~.______
U lJ //
AprilS, 1996
city and Housing Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
(619)691-5007
Brad Remp-Assistant Director
Dear Mr. Remp:
I initially spoke to you on April 1, 1996. You said YOIl
would be calling me back later that day or Tuesday. I called
and I spoke to you on Tuesday April 2, 1996.
I had concerns about an incomplete inspection, Tina Lutz
made at 171 Prospect St. Chula Vista, CA. 91911, on March 26.
1996, scheduled for 9:30 a.m., which was instructed by Senio~
Building Inspector, Gregory Bottorff.
I felt pressured to complain about Ms. Lutz and Mr. Bottorff's
bad mannered and rudeness behaviors against me to the Mayor's
office, since I was rudely humiliated and ignored when I requested
to speak to you in order to resolve perpetuating abuses from
particularly these two city employees, not mentioning the im-
mediate back-up of other two employees I felt were being intimidated
by Mr. Bottorff because they were loyal to him when they had no
knowledge to disagree what I had witnessed with Ms. Lutz and later
also with Mr. Bottorff.
Nevertheless, on April 2, 1996, you informed me that Ms. Lutz
would be calling me to schedule an appointment to return to
complete the house inspection and thus would either be giving me
a copy of the report or the original report I have been requesting
for the court proceedings that now are official; Ifiled the claim
same day, April 2, 1996. I also asked you if I could call her
to schedule the appointment, even though, I questioned it it was
wise to send Ms. Lutz considering the circumstances, and you res-
ponded not to call her and she was the only inspector to do it, but
that she would be calling me.
Ms. Lutz never called me nor ever left any messages on my
answering machine. Infact, my daughter-in-law and I have always
been home at one point or another since numerous estimates for
many reasons we had to be home. Nothing is wrong with the machine.
Finally, I request an investigation be made as to both,
Ms. Lutz and Mr. Bottorff, because I am filing a written complaint
against both of them for harrassing me and my family when she never
arranged with me an appointment for them to be picking inside all
our windows, things as neighbors were watching, and for
having put her head inside my bedroom and demanding to ma~~ an
inspection right then; Both were argueing with me, af~er I ~Old t~em
that they cannot just demand to come inside our dwellln~ frlghtenlng
us, while this picking inside lasted approximately 10 mlnutes, not
knowing what to do or say. I saw her head inside my bedroom, and I
told them to leave or I was calling the police; They argued some more,
&hd-~H7-I4-' PAGE =l-.-(J~ -I
have gotten out of control.
Lastly, if when I called your office, and the receptionist being
aware that a complaint against Ms. Lutz and Mr. Battorff was
being reported, and if she had remained neutral, instead of
making up more problems by stating back comments I never said,
which is why I corrected and I said good-by and hunged up the
phone, there would not have been more problems as they have
surfaced. I would have expected that since the complaints were
addressed to you directly, you would have acknowledged the other
facts you did not mention in your conclusion of the
investigation.
I feel strongly that since I have all the facts of what I am
charging the landlords I will prevail. On the other hand, if Ms.
Lutz's actions incriminate me in court, as I strongly feel she 1S
partially responsible for the landlord's harrassing us on or
about AprilS, 1996, I will address all these issues in a City
Council Meeting. Such behaviors of city employees that have
cause me and my family additional trauma and incrimination to a
law suit, should at least be reprimanded, but, first, recognition
needs to acknowledged and an apology would have suficed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information 1S true
and correct under the laws of the state of California.
/'
t.. t/. /) 7 D.C~ {it~
l. J ~
tt.L~': Zl U~{
SYL IA SANTOS
1 " 23
1- 0 ' j'){-' >< ~~2...
GhUl1t Vl'S lA-I CA, c/'l III
DATED: APRIL 12, 1996
.,
<:.-~
(Page 4 of 4)
/ud &;nApl- g
i l ''/
a
e.z i {"kaI.1J,{JU4..,
~ 7'.7 Y=-~tL2-Zh C~U;/'J1.LLC
t:';'p4L-l~~ / Cd r 9 !-l/D
'-/?.t~ /7/ tV- I!w~.;I: $ /~. ~t}: ~0'~.t,,~
thit td (!utd / tq, 9/9// / In.~t-~~ (
-De~ /1)1, Ji~1 -is ~ ;
/r)cuuA\.. <-:2. 7/ / cI9(..,
~ CUI/ILJ/Jrt</-~ LVJ1c.r~?1kn:t wia,- U-i14. ~
~ 3/c2"!~c, I '1/joA/YJ( ~ ~A/2-~~Y-(
ruw:rr>.at"; /WlL~(!~ wJJ;.. ~ 1m JM..d~ "3 j.;l:J./'l~ .
_1~ 'j?)AC".~j;vJt4J~~,-t:G~~dL-
w;d;tl., /1~t.L- ~~ w~ w~~.~ ,vU-
~ CV1/t~~ ~ arr'1'tJ;YUi~,J: tb /1<J.I.,UL J1v.J,,~
JJv~UdL~ ~ or
Je-c~, ~ m:J. ~ GUlALLvF:: 11~ ~e.e~
~ q~ 3 OA-/vt r ~ ~-J- ~ .uJ(htL~ tb &..e ~
~~~.
fn,a, ;t.a; d.2iL.h~ ~~ ~ /l4' 'Y'r'~. ."J;;U,u:( C<-::L-
~~WL: ,~ ~M../~.#U~ v~~~~
~, d//:(06A/YJ; J~..J9:4/;.~JIO:ISA~
/;i:/~1 tN-. ~~~ ~~.~J~
J ~~ ~ ~~~I JA~ F ~-t'L-~'-~
wi11~C{. ~~~tI
~~)
!fl/ZaL'(!~/47?7_/~C~~ \ .....~ .~~
I
I
UJ /)1<). ,,-::t,. L1: .(,,uc.;'1- ~'Ct1.M~/~---C'rt-'t lFc..~ J1/~'-L
~ ..J-- 1 J / -. -4 .-- . 1.
~-<.),/U Wt.-~1J,u.:...U&/ t{ C~1-7'-'rc..~ ~ lVU.lu..:.~, ~ '"'-7..' /0,' /5; /lA'I/
,:.1 ",V o~ r-1-(.f'l-~1-L-I,4f "F / )e.~. / '1Yl-7 ta? t,V'~~ ,d-t ~r]/U k _
klkL ~>O ,/'V~) CM'-'-<>-"f;.-.J L...di J ch..~a ~ ~Ri'Xi. d-
Ii) cJZh.L--{/1.!.. [Z )Y1.<). ;fc~'C,
.?
tI}/,), :;Ia.t: ~C<-~ /J1_~Z: ft1-<y'l:...eJL (/Uf..~.TJ: ~r-1-
Cjt>-~LtD li'2-r 71y..e&?t:4:~"-t<-O&t; ~7? rv-o' r (-lee. ..
:tu..tf!v1f1)YYl4' .....lluz4:... ~C2~"..l-. 1~-i-L62~.u~/ V 4L~u-~u.::-ci./
~. ..l,~U -~';) klcMdlU'-e"L1D db 7N -~r_ ~'-'" 'zi",,-~
~t.t ",rw{ A.,UG/f...lL, ar f.A-(J,':c/L-Lu''1-1 (A..4iL71 ~/t..<! ~i.~J'Ud! -t:T71
~ -,uv;.t;z/~ J'YJa/)1./r~1" tJu(; ~~~-
/.L2at.-t-4.1 ,c~~.~ n.i! f/C20 d:i.d' -?t/LV?h..; aM 4UJ.U-j ;-'1'<-<-
~u_tJ:;k-;J cL&,rt;7':ut..'9zh." ~? kr /J'n0-'j U/~'- c'? .~.:C:
1ln,/:.ozZ:t.rr4~t!I) 7f7v1. ~z;- ~d;;1-~~~~ 7ltiL-
cyu".zQ7l-:J/ ~ ~ Ld/v-~ rJ~ ~ u./iLtL ~.
C'--v~.4i,",~' 4VU'.-~d ~"':;j .a"~.L4/ ~ ,rt;-
~ {JLtt-{ 4<..( U-/,~~ ,i~U/~ k ~.LI\.,(L UJ.-L-G~
()J~,- J M -'1t4T),~)a... e)~~ti; ~<.~, .kL.. W-u2~
~;)--( 0r>-cL<c.~ frr..e Z;i.-&f~l. ~~ -
! ~7i<< ~ ~ ~ ,u~u.;'C'7 /}?'f-h'>';~ I
~.'1';-~VA,~/J~~ U
/~~tL-fL- to }1t,:J. YJ;, to /u,~ ~ ~~-:
f1<<:t~ /10, ~"f; M&J;#.- &-fb>~~' . ~ ~
fN;t a. 7?L Ith- _'1.'-'LL~ ~f7U- eLI' 4/1 wjk.JiurJ ,'-2 Mu>/"'7!--<
Gj,1f'&)'U'Ii /ha:L-4k ~nr NuiC W~ ~ ~o/1d- .J.
J,~~~a~a:~A~~~;/V~-"7 · fjW:
4N t~~cK. ~1J LL#"4Jkf1'-.9. h'1 "eL-Iv. <-.z..e · J.k~ ~tf' ~,
rMZ/M/V.-t.-&rI:/u-I~ 4M U2..t:"ed~r$U' J k-tf!. "
'C;;, -:7f'-Nd'...lo I'!<{, J.Iiltf k-;,J WM~ ~<.J ~k tU~ t..e
,t(a'Udl tJ;'~J*e~iU.. -.d ~. .... 1hJ~W;~~~ w(;tt",/6U--(/
3J27/q~ _~'lf~#A 5'1lu/f}- .s 11/1.)105
/t.Ju;/ ~'7Q - /7' '
ITEM
ATTACHMENT IIAII.
Economic Development Commission
-4-
December 4, 1991
H. Special Events - Don Read - No report given.
4. LIAISON REPORTS
A. Bayfront Task Force - William Tuchscher
Mr. Tuchscher presented a handout showing the most recent land use diagram on the Bayfront, specifically showing
the Performing Arts Center. On the 11th the Subcommittee will hold their last meeting. Will have an economic
analysis based on changes to the plan. It was decided to limit the number of residential units to a total of 1,000.
The total square footage of the units was left the same to encourage the developer to present a larger, higher-end
product. .
Ms. Allen asked if a study had been done in terms of the community having to subsidize this Center. If there is
no public support, the City will have another .white elephant- on their hands. Mr. Tuchscher responded that these
issues have been addressed and referred to the Cultural Arts Commission. A study is currently underway.
B. Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force - Mike Maslak
Mr. Maslak reported that the task force will be presenting their final recommendations to the Planning Commission
this evening.
C. Chamber Economic Development Committee - Mike Maslak
Mr. Maslak reported that he is now Vice President of the Chamber's EConomic Development Committee.
D. So. Co. Economic Development Council - Penny Allen
Ms. Allen reported the Council has met to go over goals and objectives to focus in on where they are going. She
will present the final report next month.
E. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee - Patty Davis - No report given.
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Bonita Hotel
Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson updated the Commission on the report that will be given to
Council next week. The recommendation from staff was for Council to enter into an exclusive negotiation
agreement with the proposed developers of the hotel. Mr. Gustafson asked if the Commission was interested in
having anyone attend the meeting and speak to Council.
Mr. Tuchscher left the table at this time, citing a conflict of interest in that he represents Joolen Enterprises and
American Golf, applicants of the project.
In response to Ms. Allen's question, Mr. Gustafson clarified the wording of .fiscal impact- at the end of reports
presented to Council. He noted that the distinction is that the specific action Council would take, which would be
to approve the agreement, would not have any significant impacts on the fiscal situation at that point. If the project
developed along, then there would be income at a later date.
Vice Chair Compton asked Councilman Moore when the quarterly report was due. Councilman Moore responded
that as long as the report was on a quarterly basis, Council and staff would be kept up to date on the Commission~
,'1 d.-7
Co
-..0-C:J
}.-
~
~
~
~
~
~..J~
-~~
>_0
<(20
..Jzu.
::>::>..J
::J:~o
o C!)
.-.,. /~-..........
/~~
,-------
, .. D
f.,S "J~
\..~~
0
Cl- 0
C\I
<-
om
~~~
<><
I-W
-
zo. 0
l1J ou. Q
0::
I- ma:
Z
l1J 0
0 0
C\I
o~f>."<
~..J~
5Q<t::>
>0.0
<(00
..Jzu.
::>::>..J
::J:~O
o C!)
(/')
~
z
o
m
d-~
~-
o~
0::(1)-,
I-~<t
g;;QO::
owl-
0-
u.O
~~
0-
u..V
~~
~v 0:
...Jl1J :0:
> "
<(....z ~
I-~
Z
o
m
,,:
u
..
I-
......
') en
~?
~
~
....r
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR DEVELOPt.1ENT AND PURCHASE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY
ON 4400 BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD
S'
~3/
"
ilTT ACJI M ~NT '~ (J
{I
..
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista is seeking proposals for the
development of vacant city-owned parcel of land comprising 3+ acres adjacent
to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The proposed land uses should blend
with and complement the existing restaurant/lounge and .golf course uses.
The undeveloped property is bounded by the golf course on the north, Boni ta
Road to the south, the Bonita Vista Condominiums on the west and the South Bay
Golf Club Restaurant on the east. The adjacent facilities to the east include
a completely furnished restaurant, lounge, and banquet hall totalling
approximately 15,000 sq. ft. along with an improved parking lot. At present,
the restaurant is leased by the City to the gol f course operator (American
Golf Corporation) for a maximum term of 30 years. (The lease has
approximately twenty-six (26) years remaining.)
32 ~
.il?
I __
REQUEST
I. PURPOSE AND INSTRUCTIONS
A. The City of Chula Vista is seeking proposals for the long-term
lease or purchase and development of approximately 3.0 acre site
located on Bonita Road adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course. The parcel is bounded by the South Bay Golf Club.
Restaurant on the east, Boni ta Road on the south, Boni ta Vi sta
condominiums on the west and the golf course on the north.
Because of the location of the property, selection of the
successful bidder will not be based solely on financial
considerations, but also on the quality of the proposed development
and the abi 1 i ty of the proposal to bl end in with the surrounding
area.
B. All proposals must include completion of City forms D and E
attached hereto.
C. All proposal s for the purchase or 1 ease of the subject property
must be submitted no later than 5 p.m., August 3, 1990 (postmarks
are not accepted). The proposal shall be delivered in a sealed
envelope marked IIProposal for the lease/purchase of Real
Property. II Bid documents or questions should be submitted to:
Lance Abbott, Community Development Specialist
Community Development Department
276 FQurth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
(619) 691-5047
D. Proposers are requested to submit the original and three (3) copies
of the proposal. Successful bidder may be required to submit
additional copies on request.
II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION/INFORMATION
A. The subject property incl~des 3+ acres of land, is within the
incorporated boundaries of the City of Chula Vista, California,
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 958 of Chula Vista, Assessor's Parcel No.
593-240-24, and is located in the 4400 hundred block of Bonita Road
(see Attachments A and B)
B. The site is presently zoned C-V-P (visitor commercial). A copy of
the City of Chula Vista C-V-P zone requirements is attached (see
Attachment C).
.33 'T
. .1
I \ let
C. The City is not walvlng any fees (such as development impact fees)
or other permit fees normally required as part of its development
process.
O. Prospective proposers are urged to contact the appropriate Ci ty
department for information concerning proposed development of the
property. The 1 essee/purchaser must be assured that the property
meets anticipated development needs/requirements as the City
assumes no responsibility therefor.
E. The information contained in this document regarding property
description and location is believed to be accurate and correct.
However, the City of Chula Vista assumes no responsibility or
liability for its completeness or accuracy.
III. PROPOSAL
All proposals should include the following information:
A. The complete name and address of the individual, partnership and/or
corporation submitting the proposal.
B. Terms and conditions of lease payment/purchase price which the
successful proposer will provide to the City.
C. A written statement and supporting conceptual plans describing
proposed land use, number and type of units, square feet of
commercial space by type, approximate building heights, a
preliminary site plan indicating landscape areas, parking,
circulation and access.
D. A statement of qualifications and resume of developer, including a
summary of similar completed projects, which may include up to five
photographs or color slides.
E. Projection of financial benefits to the City including the number
and type of jobs that wi 11 be associ ated wi th the deveT opment and
any anticipated revenues to the City.
F. A proposed time table showing dates for negotiation, sale, plan
processing, and construction, along with evidence of financial
capability to complete the-project on time and according to plan.
G. A completed waiver indemnification agreement (Attachment 0).
H. A completed disclosure statement (Attachment E).
I. A completed statement of qualifications.
~~
II
'\ .~,~...
J. Three (3) copies of the complete proposal must be provided.
Successful proposer may be required to submit additional copies on
reques t.
The preceding items should be numbered and submitted in the order
set forth in the RFP.
IV. QUALIFICATIONS
Potential buyers or lessees must satisfactorily demonstrate thei~
financial ability to purchase the subject property and construct the
proposed development.
V. SITE PLANNING
It is the intent of this proposal to encourage a project which maintains
the integrity of the existing community and neighborhood. Evaluation
criteria will include, but not be limited to consideration of:
A. t.1aintaining the integrity of the adjacent developments and the
environmental quality of the Bonita area. This includes the
municipal golf course and the South Bay Golf Club Restaurant.
B. Providing a suitable easement for the relocation and continuation
of the exi sti ng jogging/equestrian path which currently traverses
the parcel, and accommodating existing sewer easement traversing
southwesterly corner of site.
C. Preferred land uses include the following:
1. High quality resort complex including restaurant/lounge and
limited related retail uses.
2.
Other uses which may, in the developers oplnlon,
better market opportunities including professional
residential apartments/condominiums or mixed uses.
provide
offices,
D. land uses which will not be considered:
1. Retail strip commercial.
2. Uses such as a minlature golf course, fun centers, water
s 1 ides, etc.
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. The successful proposer will be required to comply with all City of
Chula Vista and other local, state and federal requirements. It is
anticipated that the development process will include, but not be
1 imited to:
35 ,
()
1. Environmental and design review
2. Grading, building permits, etc.
B. The bidder should expect to have access only to public reports and
public files of the local government agency in preparing the
proposal. No compilation, tabulation, or analysis data, definition
or opinion, etc. should be anticipated from the City other than
those included in this document.
C. Thi s Request for Proposal s does not commit the Ci ty to accept any
proposal or to pay costs incurred in the preparation of the
proposal for this request. Further, the City reserves the right to:
Accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of
this request.
To negotiate with any qualified source.
To cancel in part or entirely this Request for Proposal.
To require the proposer to participate in negotiations to
submit such price, technical or other revisions of their
proposal as may result from negotiations.
D. The City, through this Request for Proposals, is not waiving any
fees or permits normally required as part of its development
process.
E. The City reserves the right to require a development agreement for
thi s property.
VII. BID OPENING/SELECTION PROCESS
A. Bi ds/proposal s are to be submi tted no 1 ater than 5 p.m., Fri day,
August 3, 1990. Proposals will be checked to insure they are
complete and meet the minimum requirements of the City.
B. All bids/proposals will be further reviewed by a "selection panel"
estab 1 i shed by the Ci ty. The pa-ne 1 will narrow acceptable bi ds
based on, but not limited !~, consideration of the following:
1. Lease or sale value
2. Proposed site plan
3. Compati bi 1 i ty of the proposed site plan with adjacent
developments
4. Compliance with the criteri a included in the Request for
Proposa 1
5. The overa 11 cost benefit of the proposal
3~ ..
il7
_.._,".._~._-~.~,~....~.,~~~
C. Finalists may be invited to participate in a more in-depth review
and discussion of their proposal.
D. The final selection will be made by the City Council. The
successful proposer will have the right to enter into an exclusive
negoti ati on agreement for a period of up to si x months for the
refinement, completion, and approval of plans and approval of
financial terms and conditions. It is anticipated that a
development agreement and/or escrow will follow successful
completion of negotiations.
For further information, please contact lance Abbott at (619) 691-5047.
WPC 4445H
,37 If
If)
I'U
: '
I'
"
.
,
"
I ..: _ .. I. I I
I I' - - ,- ........ " ~'" I
f------f f ~TT~~it~[~T
~ ~ . ' ~
\. I
'----1
A'.. ~o._...: ..' ,
. .' ",
t~.-:-,.
, .,
I I
I ,
,
.-
,
:!,~.r'.!..:.,.r.~".-;.:~:'.~~ ,,'l3;"';~~...:".-~-J~"'!SJ~i'~ r.... ......--:;j.:J.." ;." .;
":J:");;'~."~,,,'_~ ;':~~.-:":'::~'.~..,~i!;.)..j~~ lJ(;)-'i;' It. .:(,..""'... ., .;,:,-.J ..)J*~_-
I,J':"'J.......!"..J.}J....~::.. ~.:"":~..;..,_...~~~~.:f 1~J J.".JJ....:..1 ~-!J ,,'j'."j...,--: -r.J~.'~].,8 -: ~ ..
I ~ .' .:..k-J::,J;...d~:.!.j:i:./.~J~J'.1J~~..'!...-r'~~...'::' 1-' ,.,..-J ,J.. J-C~-'"",;.1
\:S~D~ . , R'E.O .t~.~~if,.f~_~'O_r.~:~_ ~O.H~ ..: .....p~~~. J~~~
. ~.VJJ-J. ~,....:-...,..-!...... ._.........:J,~JJ~.""'".J1.J..:rJ.J..J...,. 'J.,J-'..Jj.J
:,..' .r;...-:J.:..~..: J . SWEETWATER REGIONAL PARK ~':f3:J :;)'..1;... :.r;.~~~-.::~).. ,.,;.,;"...-:...i.l:-' ;"'.J.'1~.J...-.":.J ':, J'
r-j':J"rt;.J ;.':l.'.1 :'J.;." ..... . \>-':"~.J'-?-?~..~'i.".)~.~.:'.,;.j' '0:' ;'::'~~':J'.(fj;J':': .)J".~:; ::,;;~i' ':.~-' :~:
.~ ,....1' JJ J .,;J ..-!...;J..,....V...."".... . ,Jj.J:"; .:'.P':~.~. ;~~ #0, ti.... '..1 I.J.;"J,.,"_ J-..J '" 1-' JJ-. -: -"'J .. ~
. .Ii I 'J ~l.') "'....1:..- .I:l .'..!..-- .. IJ ...),..,.....I""'...."'-!~:..,. '" ..-...J....-.. I .....,...;,_..-:""#IIJ, .tJ~ ~ .J-I' :.J; J' ,"
. .-- - --.:'" -.... -1-.1 I .. J J -. ....,_'...~, : ..) J.j. :J J'~J,.JI..~ .. -I. . J .. _ ,-"OJ,
~J .1.....; ..I.) ~r"""! ) ".i..~:.; ~'o.I_.' .1..- ....t.i-^-").....,.I ... ~ .,0. J J ,- :sJJ a.:JJ: -':-;':' ,j.. ~....J ....1'# J'"J 1'."'" .-:'0"_ L .I~..'-'. ___ .: [.oJ .oJ .. ~.
. ~ ':"~"'...J-."""""""'''#I f:..- .. ,.....:J -::..J"j J"'''''',oJ<oJ.J .-.. J...J~....r. ". _.. _r-
-.; J U, .,....1 .. .. .,;..1 -:. -..., ....~ .. "~...i-' -J-'':'J~.''.-:. .:J . :.;.J ~-..J~ Ij....IJ ~_.J -'", ...c~~'.J... ,;-J :',#:J':'Jo"::-"' "-'., .- J. ~',JJ''';' J'
.L,-,""I..:~..I..''''f.'-'-:'I.i-I:'..l./'':''' :L..Iw4.-. ..-!'--..J':-!._/;I:.J~.. o. :'..;.',,~"".J j..~~;,..~.: :--~,..:)::t..~f,..... .:::"~~.;.., J-.. -'';,J !'I ../, 1'; ..
JI~I"."J.V/~IJJ..).'_'.J,)"";:.~:~JY'.~~'.'.J."!)'w(..J,J."..A...I....'..1 . _l~-.".J /./jJ ..1.,. ._....;...J fl..':.J._uoIJ J:;~'.JJI~J"'::'J..J'~.J ..., --::
~::"""".J~~:t ~.J~'1~'" J';'... ..-:.s,. J h'''',:'. .j,....JJ;.......:;;. "! .' .o,'. .':lJ "j J J'{JJ':'.i'" )/'f ,...).,)./...,;..;;"/... J .;.....1,.,). (o' ..1-,..., . ':"~::,,-
tI.(J.:" .":-;:::;..r-"J.':"':,:"J.-!t.JJ'.~ -t... :.;i:.. ....,y.I.L...' ~J.......,I-;~~;i.J)~', I~ ",. . ....,...J;.J:::....;.-..r..;; ;,..~'t,;~.JI.!~;.J!,-.., ...J.,: .1"'..1: .J:., .",...~~~~ J~'-
-:'-I:.~:.,~~~' i:;:'~,:,~.;'~'_"'+-.~:': ~ATO'}~~: '~""'~-:);' /'-;/Y-'.: -;..:. :.;.~.j",';-,::,i.;.:".,.::.~;,,!.~",j:::':'~.~jJ{jl.....L'-~"~:~J~.;lt.~f;~.-j ;~:.~ . '.~.J.' J.f.::-:,.s;..-.; .:;;:,.
.,:,.:;p.J ~'.'.J:;:. ....J....j..),J. J:", ":~-::" J -;: ..: 1 .~. j.:.;. :";...'-=" J,'~~-:-:'~'''; /....~ .:.; ::) -;', ~':1"4.\'),J.J. ~'.j"Jr,~ :J.=:'::' J) ~ "r ,l':.I::.J. ~"~~~7" .......1 :. f' . .J J J ~_:
...LJ J-I./-!, -'. ~-!. .~'::.;J. ..'j . '.. .,.. ..:, ;;',,:,~'::~;.: -. ..~;__;~ :,...;-: .11.6-;..' -! .:") . _'r-.J i..'~ j~.~ ~ .1./:Y ,~~"'i-';:; ~:t.t':':.~".'~. ;m'~~iJ:)J"~:"''' jJ::'.~.:. ... .'_ ""~J .11:1...1.1
.J.: .'-~.:I.-:"- ~".~~.,~",-,:"~jJ".,,-I..1.-~.J ..JJ.....~..f J.,~!..'~ ::,.~"..;I ~ Bcer"~s"'i)'''j.f~' JS' 'I' DR",,.......""...,,..; j..J.JJ.").)J .' -;:~
...,.."".I.4.1....-.J..JJ'. .,: -j"i-l..' "J..J,,-.J...,._ -.... ..'..' J-!J..A. . _ I J~. -;,..I 'I"'... ,., ..J../....;. ,J "'........1.; .J J'"
.._.:'..~."':!'.;;.~;-~.r.,1;'J '.'l.)JJ'.J..';..;';~j';_"'J,;,I..I';'".::/_:",:,,, .i.J '.'- .,t. t - --.'... :. _ (./.-",".:'-;J,j j ~"';.':f:.:"-"
_':,,;'i..J"."'),..1J',,',,:,, ...I.,......r .J:J... ...../-...;.'-J..... ','.- ,.J.; ;-';.~;),.,. n0~~ME-OOtA'.t"') -to ~""V:' ...~._,..~ "'''3.' "',;' -..... :J_
.1.1... "':'~J' .c..4I'J:'" J... ~~.;" J ~J J: " .....r-.)J J. .' J.', ....I..., . .I.,,.: ':jJ.. U J ,..., I. I. , ~.J" '~ ~). 1....J.. .', . -:":~'.J""JtJJ:. J ,
iJ ~:'."', J. 'I:'. ~.,1~..;.:.*. .:',_ ..:....':.~.....,.;._...;J.., :,...J:J.....) ,.,. .1). ...., _ _ ~ 4.\ '..: .--J _ ... ...~JJJ_::.-J .;,__" ...J-.I';'
I'. ".. __.J~ - J~_. i 'J' ...).,-j'" .JJ.. .) .rJ J..J '.J.' t" . .. .JJ 1..000\' . _. :.,. \. ..: -J.J .... J";_ ~. :./1 _ '., ~..' ,:.1 . .-., ~..../.); I....J . ....:,J ~v ....J ..I.....,.~.,.~,
..... ..I.......IJ.,;-:..;...;.,.J..I. ".J.....".J"' .:' ~..J .'J ."'-.J" ~I_' .-.-~, .'~.--': "" .\.: .:~~...JJ a.-.._..".-J.....-. . J~_'I. . ..._ ~._ .. __
./~'... ~. ~: . o' . 1 ...... ~ ~~_... ...... '"''t ..I'';' . ti. .1.1',' "0'" :., >...! i-.'~" '\.,;. ~ j -;,_';'..1 {J;',,).-:-:.;.-'.- ;. : :;:.
~>~), :7i:Pi:D' 1~~1;;J~...~:f-~:..):.r-v~;G=D:.~..'..,.'..;>; ,.:~..!-..y.'~~j:.::...fr;/;.~. CHULA VISTA ~.:;
'./..J-.,., ':":";>..'~';J.=: , .j..:_.~'.~.J,-:.J;!.;... :._...'5~~.,..,.,_'.,;,:.I.'J;~:- .::.~...I.,J....l)J.,.,.;J.~~.;..:...j~ p L ~_
,.~.:.'...:. J. ..~....... -. '....'r':.. ';;.-..""""..;..10'.1... . . .I. 1.:.', ~....:.J'''>''' . 'J,';j~ ".--!I-!-:'. "'JI._.,:. M UN I CI A ~...
r....-. "'.,'.. ... ..... ....J '..J4 .I~.I... . .._ ../). y .........\. ~,
;J;..)oI..~..~J..:.f..'J,:....- .J .J;;~.~-,.:,._.~~.:. J~J."'::..~-"".~~:.-:::.i;f'-l.; GOLF COURSE r
'J.i::....j;::~.J.:~.~~;~ ..,' .. ....::.r,.;'.~;--:".r', 'J._.,.JJ-:: ..... .. . _ . _ .... ., . j;"
: ".._j':'j~,)-.I '; JIMMY'S ;::.f..J.;:.:3j:';::,:~"::;..::';$]'''::...I;.)i.-/;.J;1:1...oI:J:.J~,-.
.:.:'" .' .. on the ~?':r.~:~'::.;, :1.t;/J'..:j-;.J..:;~.J:',_J .i.~:'~,-:oJ'/_: 7:~-"'~:~
. '.J.. r'~.:J -;.,J:"'.-...,).J...._.,..IJo'.tJ1J-.."J '.J,. J-.
GREEr} . "':!" ~...; ._-;J..j.~J.:':.J J')-! ;.J".:I..~.~J...J .;. -:' .....: ..'J:~
..IJ..' ~:,..v .'.)...J'-I-,J..JJ~"'" .,L....J... ~ ~J-..J.,I."
~ ,.,';;,.4J-!..,:;.,...). ,j~.~.) :;j.....)~I.J~j._.} ;-:".. ~.).... :~...)J.':
~. ...r. ~,: ..1-;..1...-.....-......1.. ....._',J.J...t;,. oJ._.,. .I',."
<( "I" '...",. ,.,.",...-:. -'.....-~.;; ':"......)~...,.... "';."..."j~-, " .I') . -v.. ...
o:......J.) )..;)"..,.-:-.J""j'_.,.:..I ..,.1..,)....1.1..\ .J:;.J.~_-." "'..' .
t- ,t...'::J-?.,j.j.'Ji~..).~.I-!_a~.:,;-":_'./fJ;;~:.i:Jd;. ;.,... # .... .
z . :r.-3-:.~.,t~" J~;:J. "~..I.:; J,". .
UJ ;.)...1 . " ....
LOMA
PASEO
.I"
,
,
.
O. 200'
400 ,.
lJ.J
...J
..J
~
qLil:3l..-______
,
.
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
- - -.. ~
C€E ~"
SONfT A
CENTRE
BONITA 1
!:E:.NTRE EAST
C'C.p I
I
,
CONDO'S
(39)
.J
o
o
"l:
U
V)
--~~)-o
'(d~
~;-~- -- --
" '.I--~~~.!!-~
, ,.. ~
, ,. AI
, . .
I " . lit
. -~r-----i----'-: iii
:: ,. i---------1-FccD
" I . ~BARN
" , · AD
- ~. I I -
__..ll , ·
..--.--.------..,... -- ---'I
a
:1
/
I
- - - - --I
, R.3.P'S
VAC. I'
I
I
1
ALL~N
GPA - 83 - 4/ PCZ -84-A
II Land Use and Zoning \I
From "Parks 8 Public Open Space"
" fII.... #,
and A-D 10 VISItor Commercial 8
oIC_ v- p" for approx. 3.5 acre 5
E;{HH8aT
B
o
.
,
.
,
3fJll.,
~I Q
III
~
'.
ATTACHMENT
B
P.M. 958
I,
I
~.
,..
~
~
'Gs.
.,....'1.;::_
,'" ._< 289.98'
'. - :,:~~"'?:-i:~~'r - .. /
...._:. __~A--'" ...~~..L I I
~ ;:~~~~>:'~s;~f1;'~:>. -., .
ASE..EH;:{'-;-:.=/?".:....:.:;....... :"" -
/:/;l ,:".,:-;;':~;;::;;i.~;;;': :'-, :.~,: . .
/ J . . '. . . . . . . ::. "":-',,,: ;:;"';:;:":;.
//1 '.
ll! '
. ,') ,
'-.;lj ,
i I
/' /
,/ II
;' /
/ !:i.
'6&
:--=~-
l
.'
E
.' ..... \ 0. \ cr"'~
"\ -;. \ 1-.-
. ,..~ ,.~:;::.'
\.... \....\.,...
}\.\;:..... ",'fi"'"
~ : \'GJ: ':. ,; :;i'---:~;";:'(.
o \ " ...,.~.,.,.M,.
.,. J" /.'....~: ;.;,;;'-;).~
'dO \' " . > ::,'.~'l~'
~ ' ' ,.,"~1"
. 0"':"';"
".. \
",'; \0
0'
O'
0- "'\ ..,0..
I .
I r- 0.
.:.-".,./ \ \ ,..~.(....)
. ~..v. .
., .......c..-
:.".. \__ ,.,.,.._ ...... -c;~-
~00
,
\
\\q~',
0", "
___ "....a
. - - ,)
,... .\ "',
10-
,: j
./: .
.-
..~
I
,
I
'!
I- u
,
,
0..... ..
" _:":-t-. oJ&
, ~.
II
~ll
. I ~
;1 l
;1 !
"!,ll I
:ll j
I
~ .......---.~l- -'j ~f
. !
"I I'
\\ ..--:{\ f
,..-., ,.. -?-'<- - .
- ' \\ \! ,,: :":' : ;--
, ." '..,.... .
S~~--~\.r'; ". -" - +~"
\ A ~ -~ ~- - ,- ~ -.... "
~_ .-' .. ., _."___ -f ." ",,'~ -."" -.. '- ''''' "..'" .:-' .
._ ..._' .:;.' .. . ..,,'" "p_ ~:5"'.- - '\.
_' _'~ ..... " ~. <J% ."rt ',-' - -, ' '
~--.-. .,-"~' /':<. ,,- ---- --. ..' .
-.-<"'_. ...' >-<. _ -:,.f .>~-" - - ~. ' ' · ,
\ -.'0 \ ,.; ,,/ " \, i ; -: ' \
\ ',CCesS _0 ~ ~ ;, -., ·
\ .~.." ..._' < , " " \
'\ \.~/;;~ '\ i, >~ t .-
\ / / ~ ~ ~ \
./1 r.' r '; r.
\ j-/ " , ,
\ I I t.
~
/
i
r
".. -~~
Sf. \A,T.
,
I
;:1
:. J
~-
-~
.;;,.:1)-
. ...--
...-- ----- -- - ' '
-- _.-:--:. ,:,,--:,,"
_.-~' -" ~
. ,;-, .: .C' .' _"'-4"09'-00'. ~~;"'"
...- ." .. ___ __ . t- - .- I.
___ ..0 ..' ,.' .I; ,~.
V<. ,_,' ,',0' . -~---:'. ...... .,' ,
I ,,' . ",,-" " . '. " \ ,.....-
~ . . .' ---- .. '. '. , .., . '. \
~~~'-"I " . ' .'., "
, ~ ;~:.~_:
~ ~ ~'-~\"
r t - ~ 'j. .~ ~
~ /~l~~~
'l. .. ~ \
". \IJ "
f. ~
\ 1
.
~
o
1.
~
t'
~
..
oj
.'
~
~
,,;\ \j \'-\ \ .::.. W-p-.\..
"
00~'(
co\jrl.S~
?Arl.\f,\\,-\0
\.,.0\
. ..
.. r,
:39 IB
.... .4'.
... ..~"..
'I ;t/)
[)
Sections:
19.38.010
19.38.020
19.38.030
19.38.040
19.38.050
19.38.060
19.38.070
19.38.080
19.38.090
19 .38. 1 00
19.38.110
19.38.120
19 .38. 130
19.38.140
19 . 38. 150
Chapter 19.38
C-V - VISITOR COMMERCIAL ZONE
Attach.
C
,'.
Purpose.
Pennitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Sign regulations.
Height regulations. .
Area. lot coverage and yard requirements.
Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities. .
landscaping.
Site plan and architectural approval.
Off-street parking and loading facilities.
Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
Outdoor storage.
Wall requirements.
Trash storage areas.
Performance standards.
19.38.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the C-V zone is to provide for areas in appropriate
locations where centers providing for the needs of tourists and travelers may
be established, maintained and protected. The regulations of this zone are
designed to encourage the provision of transient housing facilities,
restaurants, service stations and other acti vi ti es providing for the
convenience, welfare or entertainment of the traveler. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part),
1969: prior code ~ 33.510 (part).)
19.38.020 Permitted uses.
Principal permitted uses in the C-V zone are as follows:
A. Hotels, motels and motor hotels, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.210, with such incidental businesses to serve the customer or
patron, provided such ;incidenta1 uses and businesses not otherwise
permitted in this zone shall be operated in the same building and in
conjunction with this permitted use;
B. Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
C. Art ga 11 eri es;
O. Handicraft shops and workshops;
E. Bona fide antique shops, but not including secondhand stores or junk
stores;
F. Thea ters;
G. Any other establishment serving visitors determined by the commission to
be of the same general character as the above permitted uses;
H. Accessory use and building customarily appurtenant to a permitted use and
satellite dish antenna in accordance with the provisions in Section
19.22.030F.1-9 and 11 through 13;
I. Electrical substations and gas regulator stations, subject to the
provisions of Section 19.58.140;
J. Agricultural uses as provided in Section 19.16.030.
(Ord. 2160 ~ .1 (part), 1986: Ord. 2108 ~ 1 (part) 1985: Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part),
1969: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1971: prior code ~ 33.510(8).)
~1I
(R AIR(")
I;.)
()
19.38.030 Conditional uses.,
.--
The following Uses may be permitted in the C-V -Zone- suhject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit subject to the findings set forth in
Section 19.14.060:
A. Car washes, subject to the provisions of Section 19.~8.060;
B. Aut~obile service stations and towing service. SUbject to the provisions
of Section 19.58.280;
C. Bait and tackle shops. including ~arine sales, supplies and rentals;
O. Bars or nigh tel ubs (Dance fl Oors subject to the provi s ions of Sec ti on
1 g. 58. 115 and Chapter 5.26); _
E. Commercial parking lots and parking garages, sub5ect to the provisions of
Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.130;
F. Commercial recreation facil iti es, subject to the cnndi ti ons of Section
19.58.040, as follows:
1. BOwling alley,
2. Miniature golf course,
3. Bill iard hall,
4. Skating rink;
G. Public stables. subject to the prOVlslons of Secti9n 19.58.310;
H. Artists. supply and materials stores;
I. Clothing sales (new);
J. Unclassified uses, See Chapter 19.54.
K. Roof-lOOunted satellite dish subject to the stan"ards set forth in Section
19.30.040.
l. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.340.
lOrd. 2273 ~ 6, 198B: Ord. 2252 ~ 6 (1988); 2233 ~ 6 (]9871; 2160 ~ I (partl,
1986: Ord. 2108 ~ I (part). 1985: Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior Code ~ 33.S10(CJ.)
19.38.040 Sign regulations.
See Sec ti ons 19. 60.020 and 1 9. 60. 030 fo r permit requi rement and app rova 1
procedure.
A. Types of signs allowed: Business ("all an"/or marquee and a freestanding
sign) subject to the following:
1. Wall and/o r ma rquee : Each bus i ne ss sha 11 be a II owed a comb i ned sign
area of one square foo t per linea 1 foot of bui 1 di ng frontage f aci n 9 a
dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to
a maximum of three square feet per -I i nea 1 foot of buil di ng frontage
provided the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background area
on which the sign is applied,-as set forth in Section 19.60.250.
Each business shall also be allowed si9ns facin9 on-site parking
areas for five cars or more and walkways ten feet or more in width.
Such sign s may con ta i n an area 0 f one s qua re foot per 1i nea 1 foot 0 f
building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased
to two square feet per lineal foot of bUilding frontage provided the
sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background area on ",hi ch the
sign is applied, as set forth in Section 19.60.250. The maxi~um si9n
area shall not exceed one hundred square fept;
2. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allo>.'ed one freestan"ing sion
subject to the following:
a. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of
one hundred feet on a dedicated street. In the case of Corner
lots or through lots only one frontage shall he counteo,
-&" ,,-
(R 9/88)
Id
...
b. The sign may contain one square foot of ar~a for"each lineal foot
of street frontage but shall not exceed one hundred fi fty square
feet. In the case of corner lots or through lots, only the
frontage the sign. is oriented to shall ~be counted toward the
allowable sign area,
c. Maximum height, thirty-five feet,
d. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet,
e. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public
right-of-way,
f. The sign shall maintain a ten-foot setback from all interior
property lines,
g. Corner parcels containing five acres or more shall be allowed one
freestanding sign on each street frontage on a major or collector
street and shall be spaced at i nterva 1 s of not 1 ess than fi ve
hundred feet apart. Such signs shall not face the si de of any
adjoining lot in an R district,
h. Only the name of the commercial complex and four tenant signs, or
a total of fi ve tenant si gns, may be di spl ayed on the si gn. Where
the pole sign is used to identify the name of the complex or the
major tenant, the sign shall be designed to identify all proposed
tenants up to the maximum number allowed herein. The minimum area
allocated for each tenant shall be not less than ten square feet,
i. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are
restricted to a maximum sign area of fifteen square feet and shall
maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets;
3. Ground (monument): A low profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a
freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following:
a. Maximum height, eight feet,
b. Maximum sign area, fifty square feet,
c. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all
streets and ten feet from all interior property lines,
d. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or
similar materials.
B. Other signs: See.Chapter 19.60 for the following signs: Window (Section
19.60.270); canopy (Section 19.60.280); temporary construction (Section
19.60.290); temporary promotional (Section 19.60.300); public and
quasi-public (Section 19.60.310); sign boards and buildings (Section
19.60.330); directional (Section -19.60.340); warning and instructional
(Section 19.60.350); service station price signs. (Section 19.60.360);
directory (Section 19.68.370); real estate (Section 19.60.380);
unclassified uses (Section 19.60.400); signs on mansard roofs (Section
19.60.410); signs on pitched roofs (Section 19.60.420); business (Section
19.60.430); signs on architectural appendages (Section 19.60.440); and
theater marquee (Section 19.60.450);
1. Signs on screening walls or fences: In lieu of a freestanding sign, a
sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking
areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: .
a. The sign may only denote the name of the principal business or the
name of the commercial complex,
b. f~aximum 5i gn area, twenty-fi ve square feet.
r
-Jj~
~~
{ <:.::7-.j
Other regulations: All signs are subject to the regulations .of. s.ections
19.60.040 through :l9.'.:60:'130'~"'and. the. standards of ~ections. 19.60..140'
through 19.60.210. . -. ':'.: " . ,__ ... _"".' ,_. . _ .'
Nonconforming sig'ns: See Sections 19.60.090 through 19.60.120:" .........., '.. . .,~
The design revie~~;committee may"redlice'~"s'i'g'n' areas below those"c1i.Jtho'riz!ed" _
above based onthe-',sign' guidelines and criteria contained in the design
manual. COrd. 2309A!..~ 9'~1989: Ord. 1575 ~ 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1356 ~ 1
(part), 1971: 0~?1.~1..2~.i1 (pa~~),.1969:- prior code ~ 33.510(DLL
: i\j ...... .._... .
(
C.
D.
E.
..." ~ ."~. -.: -\".~
19.38.050 Height regulations. _ .
No building or~' structure shall exceed three and one-:half s.tories or.
forty-five feet ..in tfefght :exce'pt asi':provided .In Section 1.9.16.040;.provided
however, that said "'li i1J.fta tHin may.- be adjusted .by conditional use permit:
(Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (partti'1971: .Ord. 1212 ~"1 (part'), 1969:p.r.ior. code..~
33. 51 OC E L ) . . . . .
19.38.060 Area, lot coverage and yard requirements.
The foll owi ng minimum area, lot coverage and yard requi rements shall be
observed, except as provided in Sections 19.16.020 and 19.16.060 through
19.16.080 and where increased as determined by the issuance of a conditional
use penni t:
c
lot Area
(Sq. Ft.)
1 0, 000
lot
Coverage
(Max. %)
40
Side
None, except when
abutti ng an
R district, then
not 1 ess than
twenty-five feet
Yards
Exterior
Si de Yard
10* for
buildings
o for
signs
in Feet
Front
20* for
bull di ngs
o for
signs
Rear
Ten feet except
when abutting an
R district, then
not less than
twenty-five feet;
none when
abutting a side
yard wi th no
si de yard
requirement.
*or not less than that specified on the building line map shall be provided
and rna i nta i ned. The setback requi rernents shown on the adopted buil di ng 1 i ne
map for Chula Vista shall take precedence over the setbacks required in the
zoning district.
(Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior code ~
33.510(FL)
19.38.070 Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities.
In any C-V zone directly across a street or thoroughfare (excluding a
freeway) from any R zone, the parking and loading facil Hies shall be distant
at least ten feet from said street and the buildings and structures at least
twenty feet from said streets. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969; prior code
5 33.510(G}(1).}
1!113
I
r:~ (I
,-
\..
19.38.080 Landscaping. .'
The site shall be landscaped in conformance with the- landscaping manual of
the city, and approved by the director of planning. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part),
1971: Ord. 1212. ~..1 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510(G)(2}.}
19.38.090 Site plan and architectural approval.
Site plans and architectural approval are required for all uses in a C-V
zone, as provided in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510(G)(3}.}
19.38.100 Off-street parKing and loading facilities.
Off-street parking and loading facilities are required for all uses in a
C-V zone, as provided in Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.140. COrd. 1356 ~ 1
(part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510(G}(4}.}
19.38.110 Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
All uses in a C-V zone shall be conducted wholly wi thi n a compl etely
enclosed bui1 ding, except for outdoor restaurants, service stati ons,
off-street parking and loading facilities, and other open uses specified under
conditional use permits as determined by the planning commission. Permanent
and temporary outside sales and display shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 19.58.370. (Ord. 1436 ~ 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969:
prior code ~ 33.510(G)(5}.}
19.38.120 Outdoor storage.
Outdoor storage of merchandise, material or equipment shall be permitted
in a C-V zone only when incidental to a permitted or accessory use located on
the same premises, and provided that:
A. Storage area shall be completely enclosed by walls, fences or buildings,
and shall be part of an approved site plan;
B. No outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be permitted to exceed
a height greater than that of any enclosing wall, fence or building.
(Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.5l0(G)(6}.}
19.38.130 Wall requirements.
Zoning walls shall be provided in a C-V zone, subject to the conditions in
Sections 19.58.150 and 19.58.360. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510(G)(7).}
19.38.140 Trash storage areas.
Trash storage areas shall be provi ded
conditi ons of Secti on 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356
(part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510(G)(8).)
in a C-V zone, subject to the
~ 1 (p a rt), 1 971 : 0 rd. 1 21 2 ~ 1
'41
\ &-.~..,
(
19.38.150., Performance .standards.
All"uses"'.in-;'a~~-t:'v 'zone.shall be subject to initial" and continued.
comp1i..ance. .with_'_ the:--_performanc-e' staAdards 'set ..forth in. Chapter 19.66. ~:>_.
(Ord. .1:356' ~;.J ' (part L 197J~: Ord.~. .1212-.:~ ~1: ~ (part),: 1969: pri or code
~ 33.510 (H). )' -. -, " .. ..
..
-~~;,-. ."~~~piir 19.40
-."".........
-.. - '. .
-.-'."- ....- -._- -.. - '-
~~-I - THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE
Sections:
19.40.010
19.40'~020 __
19.40.030' .
19-.40.040'
19.40.050
19.40.060
19.40.070
19.40.080
19.40.090
19 Ao. 1 00
19 .40 . 11 0
19.40.120
19.40. 130
19 .40. 140
19.40.150
Purpose ..- - - .", "-_ Gi18' . .
Perm.itted:uses...... '- h. ,
Conditional use.,..
Sign regulations~
Height regulations.
Area, lot coverage and yard requirements.
Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities.
landscaping. . .
Site plan and architectural approval required.
Off-street parking and loading facilities.
Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
Outdoor storage.
Wall requirements.
Trash storage areas.
Performance standards.
19.40.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the C-T zone is to provide for areas in appropriate
locations adjacent to thoroughfares where activities dependent upon or
catering to thoroughfare traffic may be establ iShed, maintained and
protected. The regulations of this district are designed to encourage the
centers for retail commercial, entertainment, automotive and other appropriate
highway-related activities. . C-T zones are to be established in zones of one
acre or larger, and shall be located only in the immediate vicinity of
thoroughfares, or the service drives thereof. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969:
prior code ~ 33.5l1(A).)
19.40.020 Permitted uses.
Principal permitted uses in a C-T zone are as follows:
A. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services for
residents of the city as a whole or the surrounding community, such as
department stores, banks, business offices and other financial
institutions and personal service enterprises;
B. New car dealers and accessory sale of used cars (see Section 19.40.030 for
used car lots); boat and equipment sales and rental establishments,
subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.070;
C. r1otor Ilotels and motels, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.210;
Jf.5 .
(1\ 6/86)
d-b
ATTACHMENT 11011
WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
As parti a 1 consi derati on for the purchase/l ease of the real property
consisting of 3+ acres of real property located within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Chula Vista, California, located on the 4400 block.
of Bonita Road (portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 593-240-24), Rancho de la
Nacion, nap 166, and presently owned by the City of Chula Vista, the
undersigned and all heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns
of the undersigned hereby jointly and severally covenant and agree to waive
all existing or future causes of action against the City of Chula Vista which
arise out of or in any way relate to the design, construction, sale,
occupancy, or use of the above said real property, and, furthermore, agree to
at all times indemnify and hold and save the City of Chula Vista harmless from
and against any and all actions or causes of action, claims, demands,
liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind and nature,
specifically including all claims of negligence by the City of Chula Vista or
by any of its employees except those caused by the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of said City or any of its employees, which said City may at any
time sustain or incur by reason or in consequence of the design, construction,
sale, occupancy or use of the above said real property.
DATE
SIGNATURE
WPC 4445H
-46'
r-J
{ d- /
-.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA_
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ATTACHHENT "E"
Name of Contractor/Applicant:
Nature of Contract/Application:
location of Proposed Work:
p-'
Contractor's Statement of Di sc1 osure of Certain Ownershi p Interests on all contracts/
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council,
Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The fOllowing information must be disclosed:
1A. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract/
application (i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, owner).
lB. list the names of all persons having any ownership interest in any real property
involved in the contract or application.
2. If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 18 above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names of all individuals 0\'Inin9 more than 10% of the shares in the
corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 18 above is a non-profit organization or
a trust, 1 i st the names of any person servi ng as di rector of the non-profi t
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Has any person i denti fi ed above had more than $250 worth of pub 1 i c or private
business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes,
please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, distric:t or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(/JOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of contractor/applicant
/
date
~PC 3058A
11~
Prlnt or type ndlile ot contractor/appllcant
c
.~
.0
.J::
X
UJ
Vl
CIJ
~
c:
CIJ
>
CIJ
0::
.....,
U
CIJ
~
.....
ttl
>
.....,
v
CIJ
o
L.
0..
-0
ttl
o
0::
ttl
.....,
c:
o
l:C
...:
V
o
.....
l:C
o
o
~
~
.....,
c:
CIJ
E
0.
o
CIJ
>
CIJ
Cl
L.
o
u..
CIJ
Vl
ttl
CIJ
.....J
.......
CIJ
Vl
ttl
.J::
V
L.
~
0..
Vl
CIJ
.....,
c:
CIJ
E
c(
Vl
.....
ttl
Vl
o
0.
o
L.
0..
U
;;:
....
ttl
L.
I-
.......
c:
...:
L.
ttl
0..
x
.~
L.
...,
ttl
:e::
c:
o
Vl
.~
L.
ttl
0.
E
o
u
.....,
.J::
CIJ
::t:
.......
...,
Vl
c:
CIJ
Cl
...,
CIJ
Vl
:::>
-0
c:
ttl
.....J
I
co
~
'"
~
Lt"l
0'0
'"
CO
....
c:
o
.....
.....
's
r--
Lt"l
~
....
M
Lt"l
N
o CIJ ~
O+-J_r-4
0,_ "' IlIl:;t
.. '+- V') t""""t
00 ....
NL......,
r--o..ttlCIJ
_ .0
>,c:
L......,OO
o or- or- ~
u.. u .....,
ttl-o
CIJ~ 0. CIJ
I/)Lt')._~
ttlN V ttl
.J:: .~ E
U.J::.+.J._
L......,L......,
::::S'_", Lf)
o..~o..UJ
L.
CIJ
-0 >,
c: ttl
~ -0
.......
Vl Vl
ClJVlc..
u +-> .,...
ttl L. L.
0.0.....,
Vlc..
L.CO
"'ttl'"
O'oVr--
CIJ
L.
V
ttl>,
....... L.
~O
-0.....,
....... Vl
N I
MN
E E
Vl-o-o
L."""CIJCIJ
Oc:.o.o
.~ CIJ
c: E CIJ 0
CIJ.....,c:~
VlL.O.....,
ttl
'" c..N ~
O'oc(r--N
oI:l
...:c:
L. ttl
ttl.....
E CIJ
-O.J::
01-
Lt"l
r--
-<
Lt"l
-<
~
0'0
-<
-<
-<
....
c:
o
.....
.....
's
M
-<
'"
-
L.
.ec:
o
CIJ'~
Vl .....
ttl.....
.J:: ......
V E
L.
~-<
0.. _
V
V ~C'l
",,-'r- VI t:
..c _ Q)'r-
~.o u"':
c...::::sttS_
c..c..ttl
Vl Vl~
CIJ CO .......
L. N C'l C'l
U c:c:
"' ...,....,.......-
~ ~ 0'1'_
r-- s... s... C'l ttl
COttlttlOs...
.0... 0..,..., +.J
s...
CIJ >,
> ttl
o -0
.......
Vl Vl
CIJ c..
C'l'~
s... c: L.
0'- ....,
.....,...:
Vls...O
I ttl~
M c.. '"
ttl
c: CIJ
Os...
ttl
CIJ
s........
Vttl
ttl......
............,
~ c:
-oCIJ
....... -0
Lt"l.~
Vl
r--CIJ
ML.
V
.....,
ClJVlC:
Vl E Cll
ttl ~ s...
CIJ'~
_ C QJ L.t")
0,- c::nr-f
s...EttlO'o
OOS..._
....-oCIJ
c:>....
OOttlO
COUI
.....
.0
~
c..
Vl
CIJ
s...
U
ttl
...:
r-- s...
eettl
. c..
o
U
ttl
E
-0
c(
~
N
0'0
M
M
~
~
-<
o
M
....
c:
o
.....
.....
......
E
-<
'"
-<
-
Lt"l
C:-<
01
.~Lt"l
...,
c..Vl
Os...
ttl
-0 .J:: CIJ
CIJ CIJ.... ....., >,
V') Lf) 0'_
ttlttl ~CIJ
CIJ.o CIJ Vl
C'l ~ ttl
I/)",U')~
s...""""""ClJV
ttlc:c:~s...
CIJ~ClJC:~
>, UClJo.
Is...>
"'ttlCIJClJO
'" o.c..s........,
.J::
"""c:
'i 0
C'l-o Vl
c: CIJ CIJ
>.~
"':0.....,
..-. ~.-
ttl c.......
~ E'~
","",,0- U
C'l ttl
c: .....
...... .....
0').,... '+-
C'lttl.....
os... 0
~ ....., C'l
c:
~
o
c:
...:
c:
:::>
>,Vl
.....,CIJ~
-- ~O
VlU~
c: ttl
CIJ
Cl r--
CIJ
C'l
ttl
s...
CIJ
>
X 0
o V
.J::s...s...
C'lCIJ 0......,
.,... > 0. 0
:l:0c(.....
....
o
ClJO
~ c:
.....
ttlC'l
>c:
.~
CIJ E
Vl ~
ttlVl
ClJVl
..... ttl
CIJ
"""c:
~.~
...........
X..... .....,
0'- ::s
L. E 0
c.. >,
c..M ~
c(_.o
~ Vl
- E .. VI E
ClJO.....,.~ -00
.....,Oc:c:ttl....c:O
Os...ttlC:C:Vlttls...
E.J::.......s...CIJ~
o ....~.....,ttlOC'l.....,
O"""Vlttl VlOC:CIJ
~S- +oJ.. 0'_::1
100 \1')_ .. ..~ r::r
OVlOCIJOttl~ClJC:
o CIJ ~ s... 0 0.-< Cll ttl
Ns...IIc..VlIE.o
c:
CIJ
.....
CIJ
o
~
M/fg
C'l
c:
.~
~
o
.....
.....
.e~
o
c: U
o c:
Vl
.....
ttl -0
....., c: Vl
QJC ",_
ECIJ .....
Os... VlO
V CIJ"""
~.~~I/)';;;QJ
o ~ClJVlc:
-0 V CIJ 0"..... 0
Q),+-C::cnCttS_....c:
VI 0'- "' to 1/).,... 0.
ttl s....o ttl CIJ
.oCIJECIJ -0.....,.....
C'lo>-oOCIJCIJ
VlttlOCIJC:OL......,
...,.....,s...'Ottl....
c:c: ....
~CIJ"""" .... 0
UOO 0
s... ~
ttlCIJ~~ ~O
0.. c.. '" Lt"l M -<
UJ
+>
.-
.Jj
~
x
UJ
.....
<:>
<:>
.....
;;
<:>
.....
o
o
o
....
0-
0-
~
CD
0-
~
.-
0-
~
-0
0-
~
on
0-
~
..
0-
~
....
0-
~
....
0-
~
0-
~
-
....
..
..
... ...
<> ..
... ....
... ..
.
.. .-
... ....
.. ...
". ....
<>
'-' CO
:3
c; ..
.... ..
..
.... CO
.. ..
<> ....
'"
~
.-
CO
<>
CD
-
0-
0-
..-
".
CO -
.. .-
,.. ...
.. ...
"" c
..
.=:
CO
..
'"
....
c
T
-0
....
co
.:!
..
.I:
....
...
...
..
..
.
...
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
.....
'"
......
N
....
....
-
...
~
i
.
,...
..
...
...
CO
..
....
CD
....
~
-0
:::
~
on
-0
-0
-0
.-
.,;
-0
CD
...
on
.-
.-
0-
on
...,
.-
CD
...
CD
-0
,..;
....
c::.
.-
.....
CD
...
.-
0-
-0
...,
CD
o
ex;
...
~
CD
...,
0-
..
~
...
~
~
~
...
-0
.-
0-
-0
o
..
-0
.-
...
o
o
CD
CD
c::.
::
....
...
o
o
o
~
..
~
...
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
...
...
..
...
....
CO
:3
...
.:
...
:>-
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
c
0-
~
CD
CD
0-
-0
::;
~
o
CD
~
-0
o
-0
..
...
..
.....
...,
on
.....
~
....
..
...
0-
~
.-
0-
....
.-
.....
..~
..
...
..
....
:::
0-
~
.....
..
...
...,
....
o
-0
CD
....
....
.....
..
...
CD
.....
.....
~
..
...
.-
~
o
o
...,
o
0-
o
..
...
....
..
.....
0-
.....
;:
o
..
...
CD
.....
.-
~
-
.....
0-
.....
...
o
~
..
...,
...,
..
on
CD
.....
...
...
...
.~
...
'"
...
..
:3
...
'"
...
:>-
....
..
...
...
..
...
..
c
-0
<:>
~
o
0-
0-
.....
...
...,
o
.....
.-
o
0:
0-
.....
...
...,
o
~
o
0-
0-
~
...,
~
....
.-
c::.
0-
~
...
-0
C>
~
C>
0-
0-
~
-0
o
.....
.-
o
0-
~
...
-0
~
.....
....
<:>
0-
~
-0
C>
.....
.-
C>
0-
0-
.....
...
-0
o
~
o
0-
0-
.....
...
-0
<:>
~
o
0-
0-
.....
...
-0
o
~
o
0-
0-
.....
...
C>
.....
.....
.-
0-
....
~
....
...
.~
t
..
....
c
...
<>
....
...
'"
c
CO
c
o
~
C>
CD
.....
.-
....
~
c;
z
o
C>
o
C>
C>
.-
..
~
..
...
-
....
...:
..
...
....
....
..
..
.:
...
:>-
a:;
Q::
....
....
0-
.....
-
...
.-
".
...
W
CO
<>
E
~
..
""
~
.....
....
....
..
...
...
....
....
..!!:
..
'"
....
'"'
-
....
".
..
....
.....
.....
..
o-~
....
...
.-
CD
....
...,
...,
:i
...
....
CD
0-
~
....
~
...
~
:i
...
..
....
~
~
!:::
...
C>
C>
.-
.....
-0
!:::
...
:;
~
...,
!:::
...
CD
~
-0
~
.....
...
~
CD
0-
CD
0-
.....
....
-0
~
-
...
-0
~
-0
....
..
-
...
..
'"
..
...
,..
..
Q::
M
~
~
.-
~
....
or>
...
...
CD
.-
-0
-0
.....
...
...
CD
0-
0-
.....
~
...
....
.-
.....
~
...
..
on
0-
...
CD
!:::
...
o
C>
.-
.....
-0
.....
...
~
~
....
!:::
...
CD
-0
-0
.....
!:::
...
~
CD
0-
CD
...
0-
.....
.,.;
-0
~
-0
-0
-0
:;?
~
~
on
::
...
;:
..
...
..
,...
.
<>
...
...
~
CD
..
~
0-
-0
~
...
'"
CO
..
,..
Go
Q::
-
....
.....
z
:=
..
<>
...
..
<>
.....
..
:::
..
....
...
C
'"
I
C>
CD
.;
.....
...
.
...
C
o
~
o
C>
C>
.,;
o
<:>
;:
...
or>
-0
.-
...
~
...
...
CO
..
:..
...
CL
...
..
...
....
.....
..
..
0-
0-
~
.....
;:
....
or>
.....
0-
o
.,;
~
;:
CD
....
0-
....
-o~
'::;
;:
....
-0
or>
CD
-0
~
;:
.....
..
.....
~
-0
!:::
<:>
CD
<:>
CD
<:>
..
;:
;:
~
.....
:;?
.....
CD
C>
;:
<:>
o
CD
o
.....
-
-0
c::.
;:
o
C>
o
~
~
o
;:
o
C>
o
o
o
<:>
.....
C>
;:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
;:
<:>
o
o
<:>
0.
o
<:>
o
;:
...
..
...
....
CO
.=:
...
...
.:
..
:>-
...
..
..
...
..
...
...
C
.....
<:>
.....
.....
-0
::
.....
~
:;
<:>
CD
c::.
.-
!:::
-0
...
CD
or>
.-
0-
-0
o
c::.
~
CD
~
0-
CD
CD
or>
...
.....
...
..
CD
-0
:::
.,;
...
~
or>
...
..
o
-0
~
or>
...
o
or>
or>
~
::
....
.,;
...
-0
o
~
-0
;
....
...
~
.....
0-
0-
::::l
.....
....
...
..
~
0-
.....
.....
on
...
o
CD
-0
-0
CD
-0
.....
~
'"
...
.~
...
'"
CD
..
:3
..
'"
..
:>-
...
~
'"
~
'"
C
..
....
....
~
~
...
....
..
.,.;
C>
.....
~
...
C>
....
~
0-
'::;
...
-0
..
0-
or>
...
...
.....
....
~
..:
;:
0-
.....
0-
~
...
~
~
~
~
..
....
.....
~
...
CD
0-
....
.....
0-
....
;:
....
:::J
-0
on
'::;
....
.....
....
...
~
~
~
~
...
~
;:
..
g
..
>
..
""
:;;
..
,...
.
<>
...
...
:>-
CL
z
-
...
.....
z
:=
. 4<1
J3c~
N
<:>
<:>
N
(;
<:>
N
<:>
<:>
<:>
N
0-
0-
2:
CD
0-
~
.....
0-
2:
-0
0-
2:
...,
0-
2:
-
0-
2:
,...,
0-
0-
N
0-
2:
0-
2:
....
c:
..
.
Q.
~
..
>
...
CO
-
...
..
CL
..
c:
..
CL
-e
..
~
...
~
o
'"
.;
...
-
~
...
...
~
...
..
...
....
c:
...
5-
CL
...
c:
...
..J
o
<:>
.;
..
...
c:
..
...J
c:
~
..
..
..
:>
...
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
..
c.
c:;
~
".
""
=
...
..
""
c:
.~
..
:;0
..
~.
...
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
..
<>
<>
<:>
<>
<:>
05
o
o
o
-0
<:>
-0
..
::;:
o
o
o
<:>
o
o
o
o
o
c::.
...,
CD
...,
..
N
...
o
c::
'"
<:>
o
o
c::
o
<:>
c::.
-
-0
~
N
..
o
o
o
<:>
o
o
<:>
.;
~
:;?
...,
..
N
..
<:>
<:>
<:>
'"
<:>~
::;:
o
<:>
<:>
o
<:>~
N
N
...,
...
o
o
o
<:>
O~
::;:
<:>
o
.;
o
o
o
~
o
<:>
o
o
<:>~
~
<:>
<:>
o
o
c::.
o
~
..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c::.
~
..
::;:
o
<:>
o
o
o
o
o
.;
o
<:>
~
-
...
N
..
o
o
<:>
<:>
<:>
N
..
<:>
<:>
<:>
o
<:>
.....
-
..
o
o
o
o
<:>
o
o
o
o
c::.
-0
~
...
N
..
<:>
c::
o
<:>
c::.
...
.....
~
o
o
.;
g
~
~
..
...
~
c:
.2::
.:
...
lC
...
c:
..
....
c:
'"
.
co.
~
...
..
...
CO
...
..
c:
..
>
'"
""
...
....
U
z
::
.2::
o
::I:
.
o
~
'"
<:>
.....
...
.=
...
Q.
...
.2::
c:
...
~
&;
o
.,.
o
.....
N
<:>
-
.....
0-.
.....
...
...
.....
N
.....
...,
0-
.....
..
-
<>;
...
.,.,
CD
.,.,
~
....
...
.....
o
....
::
....
o
~
N
...
.,.,
.....
-
.,.,
~
N
..
0-
~
.....
-0
-o~
....
0-
..0
N
...
.....
CD
o
...,
~
~
~
::;:
~
0-
-0
o
.;
CD
...
::;:
~
....
o
,...,
CD
...
.,.,
N
...
;!:
~
...
CD
~
N
..
o
<:>
CD
~
0-
:;?
::;:
<:>
c::
""
,...,
.....
.;
....
...
'i
...
c:
..
...J
c:
.~
....
..
.::
..
:>
...
..
'"
'"
...
...
...
c:
.....
...
N
:Q
-0
~
..
,...,
N
...
....
...
-
::::
~
..
~
~
....
-
-
o
~
...
-
.....
.,.;
....
....
C>
<:>
.....
.,;
...
.,.,
<>;
.....
CD
,...,
N
0-
...
...
..
~
;!:
.,.,
.,;
0-
O.
.,.,
...
..0
.....
N
CD
-o~
...
0-
.....
-
..
-
<>;
C>
0-
...
-
<:>
.,.,
-
-
..
o
....
.....
~
C>
N
....
-
..
o
o
<:>
-0
...
-
0-
~
..
o
o
C>
o
O.
CD
..0
~
~
...
C>
C>
.;
'"
c::.
""
..0
~
....
...
...
...
.:
~
..
""
~
..
.::
..
:>
...
...
'"
...
...
...
...
c:
CD
CD
o
'i
..
~
.,.,
::::::
~
..
-0
<>;
~
:;:
..
....
CD
-0
.,.,
.....
:
....
CD
0-
...
,...,
.,.,
:;
~
C>
~
-
-
...
...
CD
CD
CD
.,.,
oj
...
-
....
.....
~
,...,
....
-0
0-
CD
-
..
~
-
.....
o
-
..
-
...
0-
..0
.....
i
..
~
0-
..0
.....
'"
...
..
'"
..
c:
~
'"
""
K
:!
...
....
...
...
Q.
o
...
CL
..
....
::
:0
o
<:>
N
-
0-
~
<:>
c::
C>
o
N
...
0-
....
...
<:>
o
o
<:>
N
...
0-
....
..
o
o
.;
C>
....
-
0-
...
...
o
<:>
o
<:>
.....
-
~
...
o
c::
<:>
:;::
-
~
o
<:>
<:>
<:>
....
-
~
...
o
c::
o
o
....
-
0-
...
...
...
CD
'"
E
...
...
c:
..
Q.
B
...
CI
....
c:
.~
...
~
.::
~
<:>
.,.,
-0
.,.,
0-
::;:
o
c::
<:>
.,.,
-0
...
0-
N
...
o
c::
o
.,.,
~
.,.,
0-
....
...
<:>
c::
s;:
-0
.,;
0-
N
...
<:>
<:>
.;
.,.,
~
.,.,
0-
.....
...
<:>
<:>
<:>
.,.,
-0
.,.,
~
...
o
o
o
.,.,
-0
.,.,
0-
::;:
o
o
.;
.,.,
-0
.,.,
0-
.....
...
...
-0
'"
..
c:
'"
>
'"
""
'"
.
o
o
""
:0
N
;!:
...
=:
<:>
o
N
;!:
...
=:
...
o
c::
N
;!:
...
=:
...
o
""
N
;!:
...
=:
...
<:>
o
N
~
...
=:
..
o
o
N
~
...
=:
""
c::
N
..0
.....
...
=:
o
c::
N
~
...
=:
...
...
,...,
'"
..
c:
..
>
'"
""
...
o
o
....
<5
.,.,
~
..0
..0
...
<:>
c::
.,.,
-0
....
..0
-0
...
o
<:>
.,.,
-0
....
-0
-0
..
o
o
.,.,
-0
....
-0
-0
...
o
<:>
.,.,
-0
....
-0
~
o
o
.,.,
~
..0
~
o
o
.,.,
-0
....
-0
-0
...
o
..
.,.,
-0
....
-0
-0
...
~
'"
..
c:
..
..
'"
a::
'"
...
~
'"
..
...
...
o
~
=:
""
<:>
-0
~
=:
<:>
c::
-0
,...,
=:
...
o
<:>
-0
....
=:
...
..
<:>
-0
....
=:
..
..
o
.0
....
o
;:
<:>
c::
-0
~
=:
...
..
""
...
....
=:
...
...
.,.,
...
'"
:::;
CI
~
c:
'"
'"
....
'"
..
...
:i
""
<5
~
o
"...
""
o
".
.,.,
o
"...
..
o
c::
0-
.,.,
o
"...
...
..
c::
0-
.,.,
o
~
..
o
o
,,:
.,.,
O.
"...
...
o
<:>
0-
"...
...
.,.,
...
o
..
~
o
"...
...
o
o
0-
.,.,
o
~
...
...
=:
~
o
.e
co.
'"
~
Co
~
CD
"...
N
...
~
..:;
-0
~
o
o
~
CD
.,.,
N
...
~
,...,
.....
o
-0
0-
...
o
o
~
CD.
.,.,
N
..
-0
0-
0-
N
N
0-
.,.,
0-
...
..
c::
~
~
"...
::;:
N
CD
...
o
,...,
CD
"...
~
o
<:>
...
.....
~
.,.,
....
...
N
""
.....
0-
,...,
.....
"...
0-
...
o
o
..0
.....
CD
.,.,
::;:
-
.,.,
N
:;e
-
..
o
..
;!:
CD
~
...
N
0-
o
0-
CD
:::l
...
....
.....
N
-
...
,...,
N
-0
0-
CD
-
...
,...,
.....
-
.....
o
-
...
...
,...,
0-
~
~
...
""
..
;!:
CD
.,.,
::;:
'O.
N
0-
....
....
-
o
,...,
...
::
:>
CL
""
'"
~
..
'"
'"
..
c:
~
'"
a::
"50
..
....
'"
'"
..
....
::
': 31
. .
--. .
, '
.'
.'
I
I
I
I .
r- - --_"'--1
. .
. .
.
.
,:'----(
.
.
.
Exhibit "F"
,
--1
:';' .;' I.
*~"<.r
.' .. I
I I
. .
.
.-
,.
I
.
,
,
, '
.
.-!';)f~~".'-':----""'" ..... .J .J"-~:-'J.'_"~-"'''" "...
~'; -." ~',:_,~-"....i.....,~..:~t--::~:,;~-.~":":. - _' .. ~~J"" ~-:J.J> :--:;;.".3. t.,. J"" ..;
J...))-'....-."'-,.;.JI:~.,~~..~u...t....JJ< .-j.... _..... ,',.J ""::0
1,.)~~~..;.J.l.~:"~ ~...:'"":~-;"''''~~....'1:.J~~:J~~.::'6~'':Z ':'"JJ 1'~'''-!-,'''J''~-':;1-' -c~-:
l , ':.i:J~J:-!d~':;:./~J~J"'1.J~'$t'!.~,J-:'..~"~1 J _:~J' '~::';';~I~~;';'
;FD'S . ~E 0 .j4~~?~r;- FRED H ROHR' PARK ~:.)-
:. .:.r,)..J ..."...1" '--1,..1.
:. '.1.;..' . . . J':':......;J:-:..::?.:,;..:;..t::..r..:..:,":'..:::.--.:fi:.I.;;:.J...(..;,,,;.r..l2,,~::i":":...,.I...1-1-,-:.:...1..-
~'J.::.)-;;:~ - . - SWEETWATER REGIONAL PARK ,,;'!:f3'.l-J::Ji.J.1_~"~I'~-f.tJ'.:f..J..?"_"":'.roJ:-';-i.l~;:.~';!~.J~-":'/'~~.I' .
'..1'.1 J" jJ-' -.-y.;.,-. . . . :., ...:..-'.,'5.....;-...:,...1..>""... -::'.~J '..~~ "...II.,},.".... .J""I r__,-
t'.IJ.I)J :'/~'.,..k''".:::'' X '."; v-"j--}JY"';; ,::--.:..,:::.:...;" .':.1.:., -:-'1-;...1..;:'::':":';_""'''':_:. -: -:-"':.... .1..1:' .=Z'
_'J..-t.l J ~-I.v:"'..J". .'.:!. J. '. - 'J~ .._-::.I....~..J-':.... -,._-'J.--', ',_'_'_'~.JU" ...... .:'""f" :,}';.I,J '.
..; :':~ ~r~..i ;_1'::":'~1-. ~~. ;T....'"1J-""^") ~J_' :J...~.J.lJ. -:-.. :-,~...-:-~;:' .-~ :-;tJ.,:~:j-J ~J4-.J,~ ;~~#..I...;.' _:._.., ...;.. ~ .. "'''". ~.' ",_,.,;
"'..~ ....J-.,..J)..'" I:... .. ,'_."" -""J- J-I....,. ....,I...J,) _#J...J...J~ .y-<thJ"-:-._J t'-
':,i. v-:":"i;;;:"-~ I~~'f.!....,<:r"""':'''::-;:!-:-':-;':''J'j. oJ :::J ~".1~ ?f'.J{.j-"' . .1.1., ~~~,,~'.-1_,>~.) - ;.:~:~..r :-.; :'-".1 .. .J.';"'-:..Jj ...;,-, J .
'J~~.:;..J'~ j -f.="/j... i':.'.J...~:r.j~.;::;.-! f:::.-;",J..:....;:.,. "'J . -l~.i..;J.fJ;. . J-::..V:~-';J.".:.':;~I.~:] ':;'-:':::/J -: /:".""; oJ t', ,}-'!./;J .
IJ.-..-:-.J"~;.~.._2;:;:..JI~'..J..:"!-. . . .}.-J,~:,.....;J;_...J:;;. :''';''';''' :':iJ./;' J~.IJ1.:t'"':_l.l'f..:.t.,;"J:.J.;. "~'/ -;-;J~'-'.J.'~J''''.I"J-,,::'I-!:,.:.,~.'
, :-,"'; " .r,'r . . :"j -!J'-'J' ..c~'~; ". . ,IJ.: 'J" ..1:'-. J -".."':J"=: '. . ...,."".J :". i,-:' .I. . . .!~"-I.oJ.-!i'''.:' .' .I.: ..I ~ .I, .... ......JI- ...: -r
..:....'./...,z':.J.;"J..=-:- ~.~:: wJA:~B'A":":..~'~ ;:/..!.-!J_:.:I~:-:'J.-;".'J ..~;' ~'J.:.~..J.,"~.r:~J...).'11J'" "~J.--:~"...,J..J)J;j'J_--;..:~" ;:,,,"';J"~..I.J:.:..: J-:"':.J".~-
. ~J...,. "J:""""'.:"_~J'.~' .' j .: -J~ J 7'-, .I. /. ..i'.-:., ,.....:..;". ~r-i..:.~-' :;..-.1-: ~_.. y...,J....... .J.~J~,'.J :.J J~J..J.~..I/..~ ..,....,,~ .,.... -; "...::,..... ....~ .I" ....~. .,,, J "J:'::-'; ..~
~J";JJ.""'~..JJ :.." :'~" '':':J'. Ij;.-..~.-:~.u:';:.r;~-:,,;.:':'.J'.):oo.I..J..I....\::,JJ."""'~~.J.),,j''.:.;:'::-.JJ,,:I:}..,.,~...j"J"':'.-:'__ J.lj':..;~~.-," .......
- ~ -", -.JJJ JJ" .. "~'..J. ""IJ'.J:.~ ".J'-J~' ..~. v 'oJ J "'J~.1 ..I..J..J~~-I",I .'j .)..., .... . ;:""-.J-:;". . _.J' J'
.J,.JJ~.::' .I .;....--1. -;:..:;.:; j.' . " ,~:.:, ~;'-:~"..i~" -'-:;"-'~ :....y: .11,,:".1," ,....1 -:;.J 1:",., .? .: ,....~. ;.~;.t; --~t. ;-;.._~...... )~.~;;?".iJ:J..,~:~.. :'J.J"'~ -:. _ ....; ""'..JJ.,J~ J..."
'J-".I-~'.).-:~ .~..1 ':'-!rJ":-~f'."i...J.J'-'J JJ./.,.. .J"~o..,: ::".~:.:. -= ;Oo~onC''''''ni\.i~S' "1' ~ri~..-;;..:~.~' "1....-'.1.:::;..,;..;::...
;"~.""J......5'.J...:.:.~~~'/.;r;~j~'~;,1 $;;""-; ~.~:~j:-:-!~-:~::,,~'=:~!j:~.:,:;;~.~ ~.-:: ~ ' ...,' }.t:i:lVr-:V~lC:U"'7J.;.1 ; -Vt:\/~.:':.~:::<--.~ ;J':J';;';;<~~,~.
,,J..J~IJJ"';'J./.J' ;"':;~-'J.J~:::':""'J'.N .....,J...:,.':.!;j.... 'f""t(r:'\~~ME"-"OJAL-' .....-.. ...~ ......:.,_."".-:,-'. "'-:'-'.1 J
"~.I.'^....'.J'! J.... "--;:'.J..:J.,J.J..,I ....:".~~J.J. _, j.; .~'..-...... .I~.";:.:jJ." -U~ ,....r'. . .'. !~...i..'.-1, '~~i. J.;..--t....J~ .........1""" ..1':1'-
.. ;1..)._. :":', .;.::. ..;.' .'_"~ ':; :'....-'.:_L.,.J.:. :,".1 J" ''':0 oJ" ,'j, . .... . _ ..,. ~,. ' . _: . -,V:~~ _':~".1 J JJ~ _~:"_' ~."".;:'
_.J.:..:. :-:S...J"'J;'--".)J.",~ ..-J.J.I'J'" .,. ." ........ '_. ",,':-..1.1 "..1'" "':"'_ ..._..' . .:.' . ._~../.l:,." ....,}~" .oJ. ,_ '_~'
-' ..1.1..1_. --.'.:-'J ... .."...., .~. ~ YJ.:. ...,. ..J ....J.. ... -~,,_. ... _._.11, ....1.'....1_; 0... .,.:. ':'6...J.) ,...._.~-J....... . J.._ ,..... ..., _.,. _,--'. ., __
)-:.. .':. '-e' ......-:_i'...:;;..J"j;~J''j. d'::;i:::",-",",".};..'-',J'-.;' ~:''''''J';'.J~J:..Jy-:<;.-'",,-;:: ~_:
' ?'i..-P:::.:O' '.J;f~;'~~:i;'~ '; J::R/ ~:&j) ~J~"-!:'~" I'}"~_" "'~"-!--!'" .~~..~-,:~-y;> C ~ \j i... A V 1ST A :.;:
. ".:...:?::.'-;?" '''''.~J:'".J--:''';~:'''' ':'-:';';:;-.1._...1 _-....;.:.-;,;..1.- ';'~-:".J~.--;ry~~.~;"Yj: U C P L ~-
;... .-: ,.,. - .,....'F.:. ._J....... :"".1.., , -' :.. - .,...J.J'.. --J"'j .:.1. "; ...l._~:. ~1 Nl I A 'J
J'. ..... . . '..J ~., ~J '..J ..'J.,.;. ...1 ..,.. .vJ.....:\ .
JIJ_J"::J"",-".I..;' -. . 'J' ,,~'J"':'_""'J" , j'~oJ""_" .J-:~~,,'J:-; GOLF COURSE ;J
:J;:/~~.:'j.~:-; ':,",. "-:':-;.>~ ;':"-'f' '..1.>:.>--:,:.':'- ....',...,J.-:~; . i:.-
"J~.)-.I ' .:' 1" r i-, JIMMY'S ;..!.:i-:.'.'.::3' :-:::;.:j7~:;,..'" ~)~ :-"');"~~.-:'J'.~.i:f-/;':r:::.-?:.-'.
..1 :.'.1 ,J .... ~.:;;:..~~-.....-:'..J:J=:'!.-:, .~-.~ ....;'.J...~.J,..1....:,~ J.r..J. J-'-._r....~...J
..t J',J .. on the. ,:.:.i~_..;~~_~JJ"~.:;;~':';j-:~::':'::".~;';..r7.1":1 ;~.s'''.-;Jc ~:-' :,-:-.
,,;' ..I' :..' .. w GREEt!. ~....~~,.; ~~.J..j.~J- -J -.,)~iJ../,,~.I...;,~:J...J ..;.-:' ../ -.'-':..1-
}..) I f." CJ J~:4J :"..V::3'J"""'I-~-:)J~~''\~.-r"::,.,J..",:_~~.J..JJ''
.! .~:' f. .<~ " ~ '.' f~J,,'.>-~"":_~"-3~~/i}t::.?::,,~~f~:'2:;:!!~.::;:'5;':::~~::;}!.: r,-;.!'-!
V4c. ..; :.. -'.. .~... ~j"". J...I:-,;j:~-':-t-'J';.:;~-~''::'~''j.tJ..''.;~r_-.~:;-!.....--:.1 -... .
. " '..-. t-.~.:J--JJ.Ij1J.~J~_I;y' '_')J~'. ."".'._' .
~J .. z~...'.:J"" .............. -....1..:.).... ..J..
UJ~:;,.-r.~..~...1.,.,.I... 0'
----,
ALL~N
BONIT;:' 1
!:ENTiTE EASt
C.C.p I
I
.
CONDOS
(39)
,
.
,
, ~~j~
........~.~-J .'~
---'"N~fr~_
~', f----1l
",........ ....
. . '.-;',
.' .': -
". . . I
..' ......
it'
lOMA
PASt:O
0-,
o
o
I
U
V)
~ BONITA I CENTRE
- - C'o~)-. I'
V/j;~
r~_ __ __
-' . ,,--~~~~7"-
, ." "
' . .
,
/ ':: tit
, " J(
-.., r - - - - -r-- - -,
:: .- r;-----------<;.FEED
j i i @-:eN
-------1------,--- ---11
a
:1
__.1
.
· R-3'P'8
,.
I
I
VAC.
I
I
O' 200'
400 '_
w
..-J
..J
<l:
q-r:..;::II ~ __ __ _ ..... _ _ _ ....
c€E])
r5
.
GPA - 8] - 4/ PCZ -84-A
II Land Use and Zoning II
h ~
From Parks a Public Open Space
., ....... . ,,,
and A-D to VISItor CommerCIal a
"
..
"C-V-P~ for opprox, 3,5 acres
..5/
I~~^'
'\
I !rr~""'"
.:i1,
I tf:':'.'~."_.....\
W\.! \
! \
o! \
I ,.) \~...~.. -
. ~
.'
CO .'
I
t
~' 'l
~.
.~~
I
. "611
F Exhiblt
o
z
w
C)
W
..J
.
i
.:. __ i
. !-
: Ctl .._
: ... i Ctl
i....., i ...
: i ...
! 0) i
Ec: !c:
E.m ! ~
:0)....
! 0 !-
: · en
:.~ i 11)
: i:::l
: ~ C"
: (1)
(l)
.....
....
III
(l)
~
U
to
("t')
-0
(l)
c::
~
o
I
~
U1J
35c2
. :
. .
. 0
.
.
0
i
~ ~
..
!>" >
~ c
~ ;;
'"
..
~ I)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
""
~
~
II
I ~
??
f ";"'J<"-''''''~
Monday CHULA "(Tl..-~TA GOLF COURSE PARKING - OT SURVEY E X H I B .
6 am ~ 10 am "H "
, uolfers Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 174 #~O #157 #3 ~
# People: 212 #62 #179 #3 Lor ASPl-1Alr sPk<Z.s ,- .;zl3 ..)
~ ------
*' Cars In parking lot at 6am 66 Lot K 1# = NlUItBa< of cN!.5 01<.. peoflE. EAJlC:RWy ~-;T
11 Dirt e:,-* == Nu.~ orCA.es /)J LdI A~ 17ME IJD/~.
8am 187 Lot AI&:> NoreO is Ide ~u.~ci< PMK€O IN .H
16 Dirt Yt DiRT MEA,
lOam 203 Lot
10 AV'A..- ~pM 14 Dirt a
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 79 #60 #40 #12 #3
# People: 102 #88 #55 #9
12 pm 166 Lot 4;'i J I
3 Dirt ," ,/I..~/ /'2//~
2pm 163 Lot : A,'jl().
J.f(l\ - bp~ 7 Dirt ;t:;',~' v~t -) .jl//; v/
Golf Rest Joggers . ; - Feed Ducks
# Cars: 116 #7 #103 '. -/5<.:)/' #6
# People: 149 #9 #141 #7
4 pm 152 Lot
2 Dirt
6pm 157 Lot
14 Dirt
Tuesday
6 am -10 am
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 128 #34 #129 #12 #4
# People: 141 #48 #162 #12 #4
*Cars In parking lot at 6 am 37 Lot
2 Dirt
8 am 123 Lot
9 Dirt
10 am 156 Lot
10 An( - ). ft4'\ 3 Dirt
Golf Rest .Joggers 'Sales & Vendors Feed Duds
# Cars: 85 #55 #25 #3 #6
# People: 97 #65 #36 #3 #12
12 pm JJJ5 Lot
;;... Dirt
J. pM - t:,pM 2 pm 131 Lot
I Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
'# Cars: 103 #20 #86 #0 #9
# People: 122 #29 #101 #0 #14
4 pm 140 Lot
2 Dirt
6pm 193 Lot
14 Dirt
Wednesday
6am-l0am
Golf Rest (' Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 193 #31 #139 #0 #0
# People: 209 #47 #151 #0 #0
~Cars in parking lot at 6 am 71 Lot
4 Dirt
,8am ;- 195 Lot
21 Dirt
10 am 21'OLot'
,OAJ'l- Jft^ 13 Dirt
Golf ~.:..;: Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars; 8B #53 #51 #1 #0
:I People: 10S #67 #63 #1 #0
12 pm 178 Lot - ~-
13 Dirt
2 pm 157 Lot
;) fr1t- Iv frl\ 3 Dirt
Gofl Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 73 #66 #81 ;:0 #10
;: People: 91 #77 #96 ;:0 #19
4 pm 163 Lot
9 Dirt . S3
6pm 175 Lot l~ II
11 O'r1 '1
f
.. ..' ---,_.~,.~'..._~,"."--~-"-
Thursday
6 am L 10 am
.\ Golf Rest Joggers Sales a. ....-oldors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 147 #31 #103 #2 #0
# People: 163 #40 #113 #2 #0
7(-Cars in parking lot at Gam 22 Lot
4 Dirt
8am 156 Lot
8 Dirt
lOam 202 Lot
Ie) At4t - J. f tlo\ 3 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 91 #42 #22 #3 #3
# People: 101 #61 #40 #3 #G
12pm 163 Lot
4 Dirt
J.rA - (; ftvl 2pm J~Lot
I Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: B6 #41 #41 #0 #9
# People: 100 #53 #201 #0 #14
4pm 157 Lot
3 Dirt
6pm 157 Lot
13 Dirt
Friday
6 am - 10 am
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 197 #52 #171 #0 #0
# People: 206 #60 #193 #0 #0
,*Cars in parking lot at 6am 42 Lot
10 Dirt
8am 196 Lot
13 Dirt
ID/tjll( - d.f/t'. lOam 201 Lot
5 Dirt
Gall Rest Joggers .,.- Sales.& Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 101 #91 #31 #4 #7
# People: 120 #102 #40 #4 #16
12pm 189 Lot
8 Dirt
2pm 152 Lot
;;""'-bfl'r\ 6 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 80 #63 #51 #0 #13
# People: 87 #71 #60 #0 #27
4 pm 160 Lot
1 Dirt
6pm 150 Lot
2 Dirt
Saturday
6 am - 10 am
Golf Rest ( Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 178 #74 #194 #0 #0
# People: 190 #98 #211 #0 #0
*Cars in parking lot at Gam 106 Lot
6 Dirt '-
, Bam .~ 160 Lot
14 Dm
lOam 205Lol
lOAM - J..fi"/l 7 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 121 #68 #87 #0 #14
# People.: 139 #81 #101 #0 #30
12 pm 189 Lot --~-~.,
4 Dirt
2pm 193 Lot
j).p/l'.. - !,ff,l, 1 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 75 #32 #30 #10 #10
1/ People: 89 #46 #41 #21 #21
4pm 157 Lot
7 Dirt J81 54
6pm 127 Lot 17 (,-,
1 Dirt ,,~,..,I ~y""
" .. ~--",~",~-~-"~".,-~"--",~,--"~"-'~'-" ,.'
(o'
"35-
/.."./
.':;>,.;J
This page blank.
... 60
Is?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
\ \ "
/)11 Ik-JlIi1EJJT 1> .
Item 2 {"
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Report: Proposal s for Development of City-owned Property at
4400 block of Bonita Road :,.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development DirectorC,
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No-X-)
In June 1990, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for development of
the City's 3-acre site adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course in
the 4400 block of Bonita Road. By the August 3, 1990 deadline for submission,
six proposals for development were received. Two of these proposals have been
withdrawn by proponents. The Council reviewed the proposals for development
on November 29, 1990, and directed staff to prepare additional financial and
development analysis of the proposals.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council direct staff to bring
exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen Enterprises for hotel
on the site. A list of initial negotiating points and
clarification are listed as Exhibit "A".
forward an
development
issues for
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSS ION:
Of the original six proposals received through the RFP process, two have
withdrawn voluntarily. The four remaining proposals are:
1. Mr. Richard Pena, park development
2. Joelen Enterprises, 200-room hotel
3. Odmark and Thelan, 96 senior apartments
4. ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominiums
These proposals are attached as Exhibit B and the original Request For
Proposals is attached as Exhibit C. The proponents have been asked to provide
brief presentations to the City Council (approximately 10 minutes) and be
'available to answer questions or to provide additional information to the
Council.
Also attached is Exhibit D, a matrix comparing significant details of the four
proposals. Attached as Exhibit E is a financial analysis estimating the
financial returns of each of the proposals to the City. An overview of this
analysis is provided under the fiscal impact section of this report.
SrJ
t_ ..
\ :?,.;
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property is an undeveloped 3 - acre parcel in the 4400 block of Bon ita
Road. It is bounded by the Chu 1 a Vista Mun i c i pa 1 Golf Course on the north,
Bonita Road on the south, the Bonita Vista condominiums on the west and the
South Bay Golf Cl ub restaurant on the east. The property is des i gnated as
Visitor Commercial on the General Plan and is zoned C-V-P for visitor service
commercial uses with a precise plan requirement. The property is currently
used at certain times as a parking area for joggers and walkers using the
trail that traces the circumference of the golf course. A map of the site is
attached as Exhibit F. A map of the golf course showing equestrian and
jogging trails and the golf course property is also attached as Exhibit G.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
1. Mr. Richard Pena, park proposal
Mr. Pena has described his park proposal as follows: liThe use of the
property should be a park for a park's sake. It would be a grassy area,
with a meandering sidewal k, and the space broken only by an occasional
tree or a park bench. There would be no picnic tables, no barbecue pits,
no children's playground, nothing of that nature. It would be a place
where one might walk to, perhaps, eat a snack lunch, sit on a bench for
conversation with someone, instead of sitting in a stuffy office or
merely sit by oneself in a peaceful and pleasant surrounding."
Mr. Pena has also indicated that the use of the property as a park could
allow the future construction of a building to be used as a 1 ibrary,
museum or cultural center.
It should be noted that Mr. Pena, in conjunction with Jeff Phair of the
Phair Development Company, requested that his proposal be amended to
allow the development of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of office space,
with the balance of the property to be used for parkland. This amendment
was determined to be an additional proposal received after the August 3,
1990 deadline, and ha~ not been i~cluqed for analysis.in this reportlObvidOUsly,
it could be analyzed If the Councll wlshes to have thlS proposal eva uate .
Financial Benefits: Development of the site as a park will generate no
revenues for the City of Chula Vista and will require a substantial
outlay of funds for initial development, estimated by the City Parks
Department at $375,000, with continuing outlays for maintenance estimated
at approximately $15,900 a year. Financing could be accomplished through
Park Acquisition and Development Fees since this area would be of benefit
to the general community.
Planninq Comments: The General Plan and zoning call for visitor-service
commercial uses on the site.
~I -6..
. .. /.....)'\
'-'" ~4
Page 3, Item 21.
Meeting Date 4/23/91
2. Odmark and Thelan, 96 unit senior apartment complex
Odmark and Thelan proposes to build 96 senior apartment units in
two-story, 16-pl ex buildings. Ni nety-six parking spaces woul d be
provided under carports. The project is not proposed for development
under the City's density bonus program. Instead Odmark and Thelan
propose that 20% of the units would be kept at low-income levels
(approximately $463 for a one-bedroom and $589 for a two-bedroom, based
on San Diego County median income for 1989) with the remaining units to
be priced according to the market, $550-600 for one-bedrooms and $675-725
for two-bedrooms. The unit sizes proposed are one-bedroom, 480 sq. ft.,
and two-bedroom, 625 sq. ft.
Odmark and Thelan have an excellent professional reputation and are the
developers of the Uptown District and Columbia Place in San Diego.
Odmark and Thelan have indicated a willingness to work with the City on
resolution of all design and planning issues.
Planninq Comments: Because the General Plan and zoning call for visitor
commercial use on the site, this project would require a General Plan
amendment and a zone change. The Pl ann i ng Department's major concern
with this proposal is the density. At 32 units per acre, the project is
proposed at the highest density the City will allow in any location under
its current zoning ordinance. The Planning Department's opinion is that
this project is not suitable for this location.
The Pl anning Department has not proposed development of thi s site for
res i dent i a 1 use. However, if a res i dent i a 1 use is approved, a
high-quality townhouse development with a density of 10-12 units is
considered to be most appropriate. Adjacent uses to the west are older
residential projects at 23 dwelling units to the acre and 16.8 dwelling
units to the acre. The Planning Department cites a lack of amenities
within the project as a problem, such as a swimming pool or community
center. The proposal does not include public parking for access to the
jogging and equestrian trail. Any residential development should be
screened and pulled back from Bonita Road and the generated traffic
noise, with significant internal open space and a well-landscaped setback.
Financial Benefits: The developer's proposal is to pay the City $720,000
cash upon issuance of bui 1 di ng permits for the project. The developer
also proposes that the City would participate at the rate of 25% upon
sale of the property. An analysis of the proposal, assuming the sale of
the property in year ten, estimates the total financial benefit to the
City is at $869,546.48.
3. Joelen Enterprises, 200-room hotel
Joelen Enterprises proposes to build a 3 1/2-story upper mid-level hotel
with 200 rooms. The hotel proposal would include amenities such as pool,
spa, tennis courts, 14,000 sq. ft. of meeting and banquet space and
restaurant facilities.
.
S1
') I,.,
l'1cJ
Page 4, Item '2 (.,
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The developer proposes that the hotel would include the City's 3 acres
and also the add i t i ona 1 4 acres currently occupi ed by the golf course
restaurant parking lot and pro shop. This proposed master planning was
suggested in the RFP, which called for "land uses (that) should blend
with and complement the existing restaurant/lounge and golf course uses."
The 4-acre area is owned by the City and leased to the American Golf
Corporation for operation of the golf course. American Golf has stated
its interest and support for the hotel development proposed by Joel en
Enterprises. To date, officials of American Golf have declined to state
the extent to which they would commit resources to the development or to.
the golf course. However, they have said that their participation in
such a project would include a substantial upgrading of the existing golf
facil i ty.
According to Joe1en Enterprises the target market for the hotel would be
a mix of upper and mid-level business and professional groups, and
individual and family travelers. Joelen states that 90,000 guests per
year are anticipated and that the hotel would employ 170-185 people.
Joe1en has indicated a willingness to work with the City on the design of
the project and to provide parking for public access and museum space for
a possible Bonita historical exhibit. Joelen is currently developing the
450-room Lowes Coronado resort adjacent to the Coronado Cays in the City
of Coronado. Joe1en has indicated that a potential exists for linking a
Chula Vista golf course resort to the Coronado resort.
Plannina Comments: The Planning Department favors a hotel development
over the other three propos a 1 s. A hotel shoul d be des i gned in a manner
consistent with the character of the area, coordinated with the
redevelopment of the adjoining four-acre site, and retain an appropriate
staging area, here or elsewhere, for the hiking/jogging trail. The
development would be in keeping with the existing General Plan
designation for the area and the visitor commercial zoning. The
development would have the advantage of master planning the City's 3 acre
parcel and the adjacent 4 acres. This could provide for a single
entrance to the property aligned at Dtay Lakes Road. In the Planning
Department's opinion this single access at Dtay Lakes Road is highly
desirable. The height and architecture of the proposed structure is a
concern to the Planning Department. At 3 1/2-stories and with a
contemporary design, the hotel as proposed is generally out of character
with the Bonita community. View corridors into the golf course could be
des igned, though the Pl ann i ng Department woul d st ill be concerned about
the overall height of the structures.
Financial Benefits: The financial benefits accruing to the City from the
Joe1en proposal are estimated by the developer to be substantial, being
in excess of $1 million per year at project stabilization. It should be
noted that this estimated benefit is predicated on market assumptions
which need further study. The developer assumes an average room rate of
jjf ; (PO
I L/ I
Page 5, Item ~t-
Meeting Date 4/23/91
approximately $135 per night with occupancy rates in the 80% range.
Whether or not this development can generate room rates at this level and
consistently high occupancy rates is a question that must be addressed by
a thorough marketing study. This is a point upon which staff, Joelen and
any potential lender would be in agreement.
The Joelen proposal would lease the City's property for 66 years and
i nc 1 ude an opt i on to purchase the property duri ng the fi fth through the
fifteenth years. Payments on the lease would be based on revenues
generated by the hotel. Development of the hotel would take two to three
years, with a two to three year period before stabilization. Joelen has
proposed a percentage lease comparable to the lease arrangements used by
the San Diego Port District for its hotels along San Diego Bay. Joelen
has proposed that the City would receive the following amounts on an
annual basis: 6% of room income, 5% of beverage sales, 5% of
banquet/meeting room rentals, 3% of food sales, 10% of retail sales, 10%
of telephone income.
Joelen's estimates of gross revenues and payments to the City appear to
be reasonable based upon comparable leases maintained by the Port
District with its tenants in hotel properties on San Diego Bay. For
example, revenues for the first half of 1990 to the Port District from
the 300-room Le Meridian hotel in Coronado were $868,508, not including
Transient Occupancy Taxes. Port revenues from the 136-room Half Moon Inn
for the same period were $493,164, again not including TOT.
Joelen's estimates of the lease value at $3 million also appears to be
reasonable, based upon comparable leases given by the Port District and
assuming that lease payments continue until at least 2002. Joelen claims
stabil i zed annual revenue to the City of $662,087 as a percentage of
gross income plus Trans i ent Occupancy Taxes at 8% of room sales for an
additional $586,531 for a total of $1,248,618. However this revenue
estimate is for the fourth year after development and stabilization,
which may be as late as 1997.
Assuming a positive marketing study and development of a successful
project, the lease proposed by Joelen would appear to be favorable to the
City for the generation of revenue at a high level for the next several
years. However, Joelen claims that a purchase option included in the
1 ease is necessary to obtain fi nanc i ng for the property. Joe 1 en has
indicated that other arrangements to satisfy lenders may be possible, and
it is staff's recommendation that the lease exclude a purchase option.
The purchase option presents two difficulties: 1) the sale of the 3 acre
parcel; and 2) the sale of fee title to the additional 4 acres now part
of the lease to American Golf. The purchase option presents the
possibility that the City would actually receive a very limited amount of
revenue from the project. A scenario can be imagined with development of
the project taking two to three years, stabilization taking an additional
three years, with the lessee exercising their option to purchase in the
..B/IT ~, I
(L( d
Page 6, Item 2/,
Meeting Date 4/23/91
fifth or sixth year before the City begins to receive the full value of
its percentage of gross income generated by the property. Such a
purchase would pay the City some determined fair market value for the
land. However, this would eliminate the possibility of receiving an
ongoing income stream from the project and al so el iminate the City's
interest in, and potential for, control of the entry and starting point
to its municipal golf course. This sale would also leave the golf course
pro shop, restaurant and golf servi ces fac il it i es in pri vate hands as
opposed to maintaining some public control through a continuing lease.
Other Issues:
Museum: Joelen Enterprises has committed to the use of part of the hotel
for a Bonita historic museum or display. Joelen has also indicated an
interest in working with the community on the design of the hotel and to
provide public access and parking for golf and the jogging and equestrian
trails.
Golf Starts: In order to function as a golf-based resort, the hotel will
have to reserve blocks of golf starting times. Joelen Enterprises has
stated that the impact of such reservation of golf times for hotel use
would be minimal. However, a clear determination of the level of impact
that the hotel would have on the golfing public must be made available.
Golf Course Imorovements: Development of the hotel could also provide an
enhancement for Chula Vista golfers, if done in conjunction with American
Gol f Corporation. As was stated earli er, Ameri can Gol f Corporation has
indicated an interest in upgrading the existing golf course and improving
the golf facilities in the event of the hotel development. The pro shop,
restaurant and associated facilities would also be upgraded by the hotel
development and the golfing public would benefit from these improvements.
4. ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominium units
The units will
parki ng garages.
Bonita Road for a
acres).
Adma Company is a Chula Vista-based firm, with substantial local
development experience. Adma has developed property on the south side of
Bonita Road and is familiar with the Bonita community and market.
be in 3-story buildings over partially-subterranean
Adma has also proposed provi di ng the area fronting on
public park and 28 public parking spaces (totalling .87
Plannina Comments: Because the property is zoned visitor/commercial, the
Adma proposal would require a General Plan amendment and a zone change.
At 37.6 units per net acre (excluding the park dedication) this proposal
is viewed by the Planning Department as being too dense for the site. It
should be noted that the proponent believes the density calculation
should be made using gross acreage, including the park area. This
calculation yields a density of 26.7 units/acre. A more suitable density
. 0~:l,
,i j:;;>
I y~,.,,;
Page 7, Item 2 ,
Meeting Date 4/23/91 .
would be 10 to 12 units. As proposed, the project calls for direct
access to Bonita Road. On this curve at Bonita Road such direct access
could be a traffic hazard. If possible the development should share the
existing golf course entrance and exit.
The 3-story height of the development is a concern to the Planning
Department and would not be in keeping with other developments in the
Bonita area. Virtually all other developments in Bonita are 2-stories
and under. The view corridors to the golf course through the development
are a pos it i ve des i gn feature, as is the small park proposed by ADMA.
However, the parking for the public does not appear to be directly
associated with the park. ADMA has committed to the maintenance of the
park and to its development. In the Planning Department's judgment, such
a park would most likely be used predominantly by residents of the
project and should not therefore be considered as a public amenity.
Financial Benefits: ADMA Company has proposed a cash payment of $1
million for the property. Including property tax revenues to be
generated by the land and building value, taken at a net present value
for 10 years, the total estimated value of the ADMA proposal to the City
of Chula Vista is $1,119,151.75. Adma has also indicated a willingness
to structure payment as a long-term lease if that is the City's
preference.
Other Issues:
Adma has stated that it would locate a Bonita historical museum within
its project.
Sweetwater Community GrouDs
A joint meeting of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater
Valley Civic Association was held on January 30, 1991, to review presentations
by each of the proponents for development of the Bon ita Road property. The
comments by citizens from these groups have been incorporated into this agenda
statement and into the staff recommendation. Specific issues raised by
members of the two groups were:
1. Concern about a possible loss of parking space on the site for joggers
and walkers using the jogging and equestrian trails.
2. Concern about adequate parking for any project being developed on the
site.
3. A request to include a Bonita historical museum in the development.
4. A request for appropriate landscape treatment of the project and project
entrance, and a request that the entrance to the project be aligned with
Otay lakes Road.
.. &3
{ 4L/
Page 8t Item 2 "
Meeting Date 4/23/91
5. Concern about impact of any development on the golf course.
6. Concern about traffic to be generated by the project.
7. A request that drought-tolerant landscaping be used.
8. A request that any development preserve and enhance the existing trail
system.
9. Concern about the possibility of having any kind of commercial use on the
property including a restaurant.
Parkina for Golfers and Trail Users
A major concern of the two community groups is the availability of parking for
golfers, joggers and users of the golf course restaurant. A survey of parking
use in this area was conducted by the City Parks and Recreation Department in
June of 1988. This survey and results are attached as Exhibit H.
The survey was conducted for one week, with all cars and people entering the
parking area asked about their use of the area. In addition, at two-hour
intervals a count was made of cars parked in the paved area around the golf
course restaurant and cars parked in the vacant three-acre parcel now under
consideration for development.
The survey reveals two important points. First, the available parking area is
used in significant numbers by people for access to the jogging trail. The
survey shows that the number of cars and people entering the parking area for
the purposes of golfing generally exceeds the number of cars and people
entering for use of the jogging trail, however, this difference is not great.
For example, on the Monday surveyed from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., the number of cars
entering the parking lot for golfing was 174. The number of cars entering for
use of the restaurant was 40, and the number of cars entering for the use of
jogging was 157. On the same day, from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., 116 cars
entered for golfing, 7 for the restaurant, and 103 for jogging. As can be
seen from Exhibit H, these results are fairly typical across the week long
survey.
The second important point to be gained from the survey information is that
while the existing paved parking lot is heavily used by all three groups,
golfers, restaurant users and joggers, the use of the unpaved area for parking
is relatively small and, according to the survey, cars parked in the unpaved
area often could have found parking spaces in the paved area. The total
number of spaces available in the paved area is 213.
The survey shows, for example, that on the Friday surveyed between 6:00 a.m.
and 8:00 a.mot 42 cars were parked in the parking lot while 10 cars were
parked in the dirt. Between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., 196 cars were parked in
the lot and 13 were parked in the dirt. Between 10:00 a.m. and noon, 201 cars
were parked in the parking lot and 5 were parked in the dirt. This pattern
- &)~
\! I "'~-
'-1~
Page 9, Item ~~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
continues throughout the survey. There are occasions when all 213 paved
spaces are taken and the dirt area must be used by cars for parking, however,
this need for overflow appears to be limited.
Observation of the parking area by City staff in recent weeks has shown that
even at peak hours of use, approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., generally
there are sufficient parking spaces in the paved area to accommodate cars now
using the dirt area. For example, at 9 a.m. on April 10, 1991, there were 48
cars parked on the dirt. There were also 61 spaces available in the paved
parking area.
Assessment of Service Costs
At the Council's last review of these development proposals, a specific
request was made to estimate the cost to the city of providing services to
each project.
Staff has attempted to invest i gate the costs assoc i ated wi th the projects.
However, as an "in-fill" project built in an area with a complete
infrastructure, any development on the City's property would result in
negligible marginal costs to the City. Costs that would be incurred, such as
sewer capacity, would be paid for by fees. These fees are based on dwelling
unit equivalents for various kinds of developments. Other kinds of services
provided by the City, such as fire and police protection, would be provided
with existing City assets and paid for by taxes generated by the development.
In an area such as Eastlake or Otay Ranch, it is possible to determine on a
large scale the costs associated with a variety of land uses. In these areas,
prior to development, consulting assessment engineers are employed to
determine as precisely as possible the appropriate fee levels and
infrastructure requirements for various kinds of developments.
Exclusive Neqotiation Process
If the Council selects one of the four proposals, the process for development
would begin with an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. This agreement would be
submitted to Council for approval and would give the proponent the exclusive
right to negotiate with the City for development of the property.
Normally such an agreement runs for 180 days. During that period, specific
development, purchase and/or lease points are agreed to and then submitted to
the Council for approval in the form of a Disposition and Development
agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of each proposal is described below.
Because some of the developments propose payments in the form of a percentage
of operating revenues or with City participation in profits at sale, these
revenue estimates will vary by performance of the projects and market
conditions.
~ '~i5
I(~h
Page 10, Item 2 ,
Meeting Date 4/23/91
1. Mr. Richard Pena. Dark orooosal
Development of park land is estimated by the City Parks and Recreation
Department at $125,000 per acre. Maintenance costs are estimated at
$15,900 per year.
Revenue loss to the City, therefore, for park development is $375,000,
not including ongoing maintenance costs.
2. Odmark & The1an. 96-unit senior aoartment como1ex
The developer proposes a payment of $720,000 for the City's 3-acres
($5.52/s.f.). The proposal also calls for the City to receive 25 percent
of profits at sale.
Based upon average rent rates of $500 for one-bedroom units and $650 for
two-bedroom units, and assuming a 10-year pay down of an 80 percent loan
for project development, estimated City revenues of $141,253.18 are
projected. However, the market value of the project at some future date
is speculative, and the profits to the City could be higher or lower.
Tax proceeds have been figured assuming a valuation of land based on
$5.52/s.f. and building valuation based on standard building valuation
rates used for permit assessment. Total revenue to the City is estimated
at $869,546.48.
3. Joelen Enterorises. 200-room hotel
Revenues from this proposal are quite speculative, and are based on a
percentage lease. The City would receive revenues from three sources:
1) a percentage of ope rat i ng revenues; 2) Trans i ent Occupancy Taxes of
eight percent on room sales; and 3) property and sales taxes.
Staff analysis has assumed that 1991-1994 will be required for planning
and construction, with the City receiving only property taxes from land
and building valuation during this period. Beginning in 1995, we have
assumed that the City will receive 25 percent of total estimated lease
proceeds. In 1996, we have assumed 50 percent of total estimated lease
proceeds, with full payments from project stabilization beginning in 1997.
Full lease value has been computed assuming 200-rooms, leased at an
average of $90 per room, with a 75 percent occupancy rate. This rate is
a conservative comparison with average room rates at resort-type hotels
on San Diego Bay. The Le Meridian in Coronado, for example, has average
room rates of approximately $165 per night. The Half Moon Inn on San
Diego Bay has room rates averaging $110 per night. Revenues in all other
categories have been taken from the Joelen proposal. Again, these
revenue rates appear to be reasonabl e based on comparabl e Port Di strict
1 eases and revenues from comparable hotels . Actual revenues will vary
depending on the success of the hotel at stabilization.
.
t:~ &;)
/47
Page 11 t Item 2./"
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Using these assumptions and discounting the revenues back to a Net
Present Value yields an estimated lease value of $3,014,339.24. As has
been previously discussed, the Joelen proposal includes a purchase option
for the 5 - 15th years. If the option was exercised, the City would be
paid for its three acres. The City and American Golf would be paid for
the additional four acres, with American Golf receiving the largest share
because of its long-term lease of the property.
Property taxes have again been assumed based on market valuation based on
standard permit valuation and construction standards.
4. Adma ComDanv. 80 for-lease condominiums
Adma Company has proposed a purchase of the three acres for $1,000,000
($7.65/s.f.), the highest cash outlay of any proposal. This would be
supplemented by property taxes to the City, payment of which has been
based on building permit assessment values of construction and on the per
square foot land price.
Adma Company has proposed a straight purchase of the property, but has
indicated a willingness to enter into a long-term lease of the property
if that is the City's preference. Including cash payment and revenue
from property taxes, the Adma proposal woul d resul tin revenue to the
City of an estimated $1,191,151.75.
WPC 4696H
.
&7'
I II r:
i '"'16
,
iJ t( ~
/177&f/fttc#J E'
Minutes
April 23, 1991
Page 11
of that, he would recom nd that the confidential reports not be released due to the fact that it would give
insight to the legal thinking to possible defepses to the moratorium that might be considered. He would
recommend that the confidenti eports not b! released at least until a full Council is seated (four months).
M (Moore) to approve staff'recommen .0 and not the confidential reports at this time. Motion
died for lack of second.
1 with Counc:ilman Rindone voting no.
MSC (Malcolm/Moore) to file the repo
Councilman Rindone stated the back 0 d info second
paragraph after trench access fees n a vote f 4-0 to no dopt a trench access fee based on the
recommendation of the City Attome . Third paragraph after A m .on was made Wat the request of Chula
Vista Cable during discussions of this itemW to.... He felt this better re esented action taken at that time.
Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. City Attomey Booga
City Attorney Rudolf was in attendance.
26. REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR DEVF.LOPMF.NT OF C1Y OWNFD PROPERlY AT 4400
BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD - This report is regarding proposals for de~lopment of a three-acre parcel
adjacent to the Municipal Golf Course. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to bring forward
an exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen Enterprises for hotel development on the site. (Director of
Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 04/16/91.
City Manager Goss stated the project began 2-3 years ago and a concern was that the City would be able
to maintain and continue levels of service within the City of Chula Vista. He had been directed by Council
to look at other sources to develop revenue streams for the City including vacant properties. The City is
currently facing a recession and possible cuts from the State Legislature. The construction of the new library
will also require operations and staffing which could be approximately three-quarter to one million dollars
a year.
Lance Abbott, Community Development Specialist, gave a brief review of the request for proposal process.
Presentations were made by Mr. Richard Pena, Joelen, Odmark & Thelan, and ADMA Co., Inc.
a. Mr. Richard Pena gave a presentation for park development.
Councilman Nader questioned the request from Mr. Pena to amend his proposal to include a 30,000 sq. ft.
office building in conjunction with Phair Development Company and whether he still requested that it be
reviewed.
Mr. Pena responded that he would agree to whatever the Council decided.
b. William Tucher representing Grubb & Ellis and Josef Citron representing Joelen gave a presentation
for Joelen Enterprises for a 200 room golf resort (hotel).
Councilman Rindone questioned: 1) what commitment they would make towards hiring local residents, 2)
the possible conflict of starting times on the golf course with local residents, 3) whether their company
would be interested in going forward with the project if the City did not want to sell the property, and 4)
design regarding view corridors.
809
Minutes
April 23, 1991
Page 12
.
Mr. Citron felt it would be to their benefit to hire local labor and would go as far as possible under federal
guidelines in hiring local residents. The plan includes integrating the golf course with their project.
American Golf has stated that their booking system works very well regarding other golf courses and hotels.
Prime start times for local guests are usually opposite those of the community with peak times during the
weekdays. They were interested in going forward with the project and would be flexible if the City would
understand the requirements of lenders so that the terms of the lease be such that they would be able to
finance the project and have the City work with them on the financing itself.
c. John Thelan and Christina Anderson representing Odrnark & Thelan gave a presentation for a 96
unit senior apartment project.
Councilman Rindone questioned: 1) the allocated parking, 2) whether transportation would be provided,
3) why the City would want to approve a project with the highest density allowed in the City, and 4) lack
of amenities.
Ms. Anderson responded that it was their experience that seniors typically had one or no cars per unit. They
were currently considering some type of shuttle service but noted that one of the main concerns of the
seniors was location to a supermarket, with this project there would be one directly across the street.
Managers and seniors stated the most important amenity was a garden setting where they could meet.
Resident activities were also provided in their projects.
Mr. Thelan stated that the units would be from 550 - 600 sq. ft. which would be approximately one-quarter
the size of a single family dwelling. They felt that senior citizen housing represented a fraction of what
single family dwellings would be. A swimming pool and sundeck are included in the project.
d. Dale Combs, CAPA Architects and Nathan Adler, President of Adma Co., Inc. gave a presentation for
80 for-lease condominium units with a one acre public park.
Councilman Rindone questioned: 1) number of employees, 2) would lease versus purchase be acceptable,
and 3) additional parking being associated with the park.
Mr. Adler responded the number of employees would be approximately ten and they would agree to a lease
if that was the City's desire. They would dedicate one acre for the park with twenty-eight parking spaces
being set aside for only the park.
Mr. Abbott stated that staff had recommended the Joelen project based on the economics of the project and
requested that the Council direct staff to bring forward an exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen
Enterprises for hotel development on the site.
Those speaking in opposition of the staff recommendation and in support of the park proposal were:
George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonnie Brae, Bonita, CA, representing Sweetwater Valley Civic Assoc.
Diane Cousino, 1660 Ithaca Street, Chula Vista, CA
Carol Hammond, 459 Camino Elvado, Bonita, CA
Janell Jones, 16666 Ithaca Street, Chula Vista, CA, Student at Bonita Country Day High School
Mike Reber, 159 Camino del Cerro Grande, Bonita, CA
Mary Anne Wilga, 5824 Whirly Bird Way, Bonita, CA
Sarah Foster, 1344 Rideview Way, Bonita, CA, Student at Bonita Vista High School
Suzanne Catanzaro, 372 Camino Elvado, Bonita, CA, Director of Bonita Country Day School
Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Lorna Drive, Bonita, CA
Bill Ulrich, 4664 Gaviom Court, Bonita, CA
Ronald G. Ferguson, 3558 Frisbie Street, Bonita, CA
If 70
IS-l
Minutes
April 23, 1991
Page 13
Tom Pocklington, 3210 Kenelworth Lane, Boni1;a, CA
Janay Kruger, 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 1080, San Diego, CA, submitted written opposition to the
staff recommendation and support for the park project.
Those speaking in support of the staff recommendation for Joelen were:
Jim Biddle, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, CA
MS (Moore/Ma1colm) to approve the staff recommendation.
Councilman Nader felt the staff presentation was premature and questioned why the staff had not studied
the proposal for the combination office and park.
Mr. Salomone responded that the amended proposal was submitted after the Council had already conducted
a workshop, the RFP process had already closed, and staff had evaluated the proposals. They felt that in
order to keep the RFP process legal and fair that the project had not responded to the original RFP in time.
Council had discretioh to request an analysis of the amended proposal.
Councilman Nader stated that if he were to agree with the Joelen proposal that a marketing srudy was
needed to determine if the positive fiscal impact projected would be realized. He felt the development of
the park and office building would satisfy the concerns of the residents in the area. He would like to have
staff evaluate the amended proposal.
SUBS1l11JTE MOTION: (Nader) to direct staff to do a fiscal analysis of the Pena project as amended. Motion
died for lack of second.
Councilman Malcolm stated that over 25% of the developed park land of the City was located in Bonita and
the City needed parks on the west side. A decision needed to be made and he could support the Joelen
proposal. The ADMA project including the park was also a good project. He was concerned over the ability
of Joelen to obtain fmancing. The agreement needed to be tightened up, i.e. guaranteed minimum rent,
minimum purchase price, mandatory operation agreement, bonding in quick period of time guaranteeing
they will build the project, how many stories, setbacks, view corridors, what type of art they are doing, what
are they doing for the museum, how much space will be allocated to the museum, and will they maintain
the space allocated. He was ready to move forward and make a decision on anyone of the three projects.
Mr. Salomone stated that a marketing agreement would take approximately ninety days. The negotiating
agreement is generally six months with an opportunity to extend.
Councilman Nader questioned whether the negotiating agreement could be limited to ninety days with an
option to extend. He felt that there should be a fall-back position in case the Joelen project was not found
to be feasible. He would prefer to go with the park/office project or the condo project. If the motion passed
he would not want to be tied into that project any longer than necessary if it was not fmancially feasible
to build. He questioned whether Council would support cutting back the time for the negotiation
agreement.
City Manager Goss recommended that the negotiating agreement be cut back to 100 days or 90 days plus
two weeks which would allow time for the study to be completed and reviewed by staff before returning to
Council.
III 7/
-
(;;,;,"
Minutes
April 23, 1991
Page 14
Councilman Rindone felt that it was a de::ision for quality of life. All proposals were outstanding and offered
a different approach. He was extremely impressed with the ADMA project with their view corridors, etc.
He was prepared to support the staffs recommendation as he felt it was one of the finest projects presented
as it not only addressed the 3 + acres but the entire seven acres.
Mr. Salomone recommended one hundred and sixty days with direction to staff that they corne back to
Council as soon as the marketing study is completed, trying to keep within a 90 day period.
MSUC (Malco1rn/Rindone) reduce the 180 day period of the negotiating agreement to 120 days with an
option to extend.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-1 with Councilman Nader voting no.
Councilman Rindone requested that staff work out a lease for the project in which the City retains ownership
of the property. He would not consider sale of the property at any time.
27.
OTI-IER. BUSINESS
28. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
29. OlY MANAGER'S REPORT{S)
a. There will be no City Council meeting 0 Tuesday, April 30th due to Charter provision regarding
the 5th Tuesday of the month. A regular City Counci eetingIWorksession will be held on Thursday, April
25th at 4:00 p.m.
30. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of Appointments to Bayfront Subcommittee
MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) to ratify the appointments of the following people to the yfront Subcommittee:
John S. Moot (Malcolm appt), William Virchis (Rindone appt), Russ Bullen (Moore a ), LarryV. Dumlao
(Nader appt), William Tuchscher (EDC appt) , Shirley Grasser-Horton (Planning Commissio
(RCC appt), and Pat Ables (Cultural Arts appt).
b. RESOLUTION 16148 REQUESTlNGCOMMISSIONERSOFSANDIEGOUNlFIEDPORTDI CT
APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR FY 1991-92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECfS AND ESTABUSH A STRATE
PLANNING COMMITIEE TO DEVELOP A FULL 5-YEAR CIP PROGRAM. 4/5'5 vote required.
Councilman Nader wanted to make it clear that the City of Chula Vista should get its "fair share".
RESOLUTION 16148 OFFERED BY MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved unanimously.
.7~
15"3.
r.Bonita (jrand (jgffLotfge 1??sort
A Project of Joelen Enterprises
Josef & Lenore Citron, Owners, General Partners
~.,
....~ I
.....-w -.a .4
!lrr~II/)1E'"7 '1="
ENA PROPOSAL. UPDATED
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter
Exhibits:
"A" - Updated RFP letter, original dated 8/28/'90
"B" - Land Purchase Offer worksheet
"C" - Architects drawings, - (separate submittal, to be shown at meeting)
"D" - Lease Percentages & Guide Projections of Average Daily Rates &
Occupancies for Years 1 through 1 0 of Operations.
"E" - Statement of Estimated Annual Operating Results, Years 1 through 1 0
"F" - Income Projections to City & Developer/Owner Wlder Proposed Lease
"G" - Payable to City, projecting income for 66 year lease term
486d1c4Ck::\winword\250\ena'c:ontnts.doc
!/Iv
1.51/
:~ ~onita grana (jQ[f Lorfge 9??Sort
A Joelen Enterprises Project
Josef & Lenore Citron, Owners, General Partners
February 23, 1996
The Honorable Mayor Horton and City Council
and Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
re: Development by Joelen of the Bonita Grand Golf Lodge Resort, a 250 room golf
resort/meetings hotel on a 7 ~ :t Acre parcel fronting on Bonita Road and the Chula Vista
City Municipal Golf Course.
Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council:
We hereby request that the above-addressed consider the enclosed updated proposal on
the above-referenced project. Basically, we propose to lease or purchase the property
from the City and to develop and operate the hotel. The purchase price offered on the
total of 7 acres is $2,212,146.00 or, ifneeded for required additional parking, the offered
price on 7 ~ acres is $2,310,812:00. The basis of the purchase option pricing is more
fully described in the attached "Exhibit B". The Developers envision closing escrow on
the land purchase as soon as the development details are worked out and agreed upon in
such a document as the DDA.
Alternatively, we would consider leasing the property. As before, the lease payments
would be based on percentages of gross departmental income of the 7 principal hotel
profit centers. The lease payment schedule would date from the opening date of the
hotel. (Outside dates would be set and -agreed upon for the time of constructing and
opening the hotel.) It is anticipated that if a lease is worked out from the City, substantial
lease revenue will begin only when the hotel reaches its Stabilized Occupancy Year, which
typically occurs in this type of development by the 5th year of operations. However, as
the schedule shows, there will be substantial TOT revenue to the City from the beginning.
Income & Expense projections with expected lease revenues are shown as "Exhibit D".
The Developers wish to point out that this proposal is based on their RFP submission in
1990 which was accepted at that time by the Council. The bases of the proposal remain
the same as in the original proposal. Modifications are occasioned by two main factors.
1.) In the 5 ~ intervening years there has been an almost revolutionary major
transformation in the hotel business. Many of the old taken-for-granted formats and
practices have seen major changes. 2.) The Developers have taken part in and been a part
of those changes, being personally on the cutting edge of many of the new procedures and
486d1c4(k::\winword\250\ena\EnaOfer1.doc
4000 Coronado Bay Road, f!J Coronado, CA 921.18 II (619) 424-4474' FAX 423-0884
filL!
Mayor Horton & Chula Vista City Council
Joelen Enterprises Proposal for Bonita Golf Lodge Resort
February 23, 1996
Page 2 of 3 Pages
technologies. Also they now have the benefit of not only their experience in the design
and construction of their $90 million 450 room luxury destination resort hotel and marina,
but also of the operation of this property through the critical business years 1991-1996.
A change which fundamentally effects the 1990 lease proposal is the drastic shift in hotel's
operating numbers today and in how they are achieved. To cite a principal factor in how
this has affected the Developer's Loews Coronado Bay Resort, -as it would also affect
the operations of the Bonita development-, consider the principal revolutionary practice in
business and commerce in this country today: "Downsizing". This is being practiced to
sharpen up profitability and to rescue many companies small and large from bankruptcy in
today's heightened competitive business climate. But using downsizing procedures on a
luxury resort hotel would make it no longer a luxury resort hotel. Such categories as
"Four Star" and "Five Diamond" are awarded on Service, (with a capital "S"), which
quickly disappears with elimination of a high employee-to-guest ratio. So owners and
operators have been finding that the old formulas for leases no longer work. Even the San
Diego Port District, on whose hotel leases this lease was based, has had to change their
percentages on existing, as well as new leases.
However, the Developers believe they have worked out a formula that can work, and that
should be found fair to both the owners and the City. The detailed breakdown of the lease
proposal and City Income projection therefrom is attached as "Exhibit C". The final
decision on whether the project can be developed on leased property or not will involve
the possibility of the project obtaining appropriate funding if the land is leased and not
owned fee simple.
Also supplied will be "Exhibit C", a plan of the hotel developed as Plan "Mark III". The
Mark I plan was that which was submitted in 1990 with our RFP response, and was
improved and changed to Mark II in 1991-94. Plan Mark III, a completely new.plan has
been tentatively accepted and 'frozen' by the developers to be refined into the plan to be
built. It consists of 3 double-loaded-corridor guest-room wings, all with golf views, plus a
generally circular main building with spokes for its various activities and functions.
Also enclosed as "Exhibit A" is an updated reprise of the. original RFP response from
1990. While out of date, this is included as a guide and reminder, to more fully describe
the proposed development. In the period immediately following the award of the original
RFP to Joelen, the hotel business went through one of its worst times in over half a
century. By well into 1991 it became apparent that financing for new hotels had dried up,
and it was thought that it would not reappear for at least 5-6 years. The Developers went
to the Director of Community Development and stated that, under the circumstances, they
could no longer in good conscience indefinitely tie up the property.
"75
ISG
Mayor Horton & Chula Vista City Council
Joelen Enterprises Proposal for Bonita Golf Lodge Resort
February 23, 1996
Page 3 of 3 Pages
They were encouraged however, to remain available for development of the property with
a hotel when funding would again be obtainable. After being approached for several years
by members of the Chula Vista business community with encouragement to revisit the idea
of doing the project, the Developers had a number of discussions with the City Manager
and City Staff members about the possibility of raising moneys to build the project with
City-backed Taxable Municipal Bonds. Contact was made with several large bond
underwriters, and a fair degree of interest was demonstrated. The idea evolved that a
combination of a bond issue and conventional funding would probably work. By 1995,
conventional funding sources began to appear again, sooner than most people had
expected, and the Developers began to be contacted by people with access to financing
who had heard of their success in Coronado, and expressed possible interest in providing
funds for our hew golf-resort project.
It has been found that while there is a good degree of interest in the idea of an upper-
middle-level new golf resort in the San Diego area, one of the principal challenges faced
by the Developers has been (and looks to continue to be) in selling Chula Vista as
the location for the project. The demographic circle of draw for a property such as this
will be in particular Southern California, and generally the entire country. Plus many
foreign countries. Relatively little of the growth and development of this city in recent
years is known outside of its borders.
The name of Chula Vista conjures up negative images in the minds of some, even many
local residents of San Diego city and county. Much is needed to be done in the way ofP.
R. for the City to attain its deserved place in the roster of desirable cities to visit, as well
as live and work in, of Southern California. The biggest step in this direction will be when
the City corrects one of its great deficiencies, -that of not having any hotel within the
city, let alone a resort-, by the building and opening of this first class resort hotel on the
municipal golf course on Bonita Road.
We enlist the support of the Mayor and Council of the City of Chula Vista in our efforts to
correct this egregious lack.
Sincerely,
Josef A. Citron, General Partner
JAC:ja
encls.
Lenore S. Citron, General Partner
#7&
1<:""7
i-.-,)
I............
....
.....................
...........-............
...............................................
.......................
........................
::::::::::::::::::;:;::::=::::::;:::;:::::::::;
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
............. . ......
. ...............
....................................
. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................................
................................... .
,"~"'W I
{~~jb. :t;tlPtt~#.t(;;:{:
:::tii~i.l:QX~px}
iBonita grana (j!!fj !R..esort
A Project of Joelen Enterprises
Josef & Lenore Citron, Owners, General Partners
February 23, 1996
(Original Document Dated August 28, 1990)
The Honorable Mayor Horton and City Council
and Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Mr. Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director, Community Development
re: Response to RFP for Development of Property on 4400 Block of Bonita Road
Dear Mayor Horton, Council Members and Mr. Gustafson:
The following are excerpts from the original RFP response made by the undersigned. It is
submitted simply as a quick aid and update on the history of this project. It is not so much
what has changed, as what hasn't, and it is submitted in the hope that it will save some
time.
This response to your RFP for the above-referenced prope~y is made by Proponents:
Josef A Citron and Lenore S. Citron, DBA Joelen Enterprises, a California Partnership
established in 1972, and whose business address is:
4000 Coronado Bay Road
Coronado, CA 92118.
Phone: 619/424-4474
FAX: 423-0884
Proponent, Joelen Enterprises, considers an essential element of proper improvement of
the property to be the master-planning of the subject vacant 3:!: acre property together
with the adjacent contiguous 4:!: acres to'the East; which presently is improved with a
486dx66-c:\mydocu-1 \250lrfp\8r28redo.doc
4000 Coronado Bay Road. Coronado, CA 92118. (619)424-4474. FAX 423-0884
'77
Hon. Mayor Horton and Council Members
Bonita Golf Lodge
Restatement of RFP Response
February 23, 1996
Page 2 of 4
parking lot and restaurant-cum-c1ubhouse. The completed new improvements would
consist of a low-rise upper-mid- level luxury resort hotel with approximately 200-250
rooms with an average each of approximately 400 square feet, plus circulation, public
areas, and back-of-house, (hotel operational areas).
The buildings will comply with the existing height restriction of 3 1/2 stories or 45 feet,
and ground coverage of 40% or less. In short, it is Proponents intent to follow all
regulations and requirements, as they understand them, presently in place in this city, for
the C- V - Visitor Commercial zoning of this property.
Included will be an upscale food and beverage facility, pool and sundeck, spa, sauna,
exercise room, sundry shop, about 17,500 square feet of meeting and banquet facilities,
two tennis courts, appropriately lush landscaping and the requisite loading and parking
facilities. Again, it is felt that an essential and proper use of the subject land will be a
combining of the property to the East, so that the total improvements will include the golf
clubhouse, pro shop and appropriate "19th tee" facilities in the new structures.
The plans will provide for suitable easements for the existing jogging and equestrian paths
-which proponent, Joelen Enterprises, feels is a necessity to maintain the charming rural
character of the site- plus a proposed bicycle path. A concern of Proponents was the
need for a means to handle local and other storm water from properties to which this
property (including the golf course) is servient, for the total site, and they are experiencing
a cooperative effort between the owners of the relevant land, County as well as City, who
have informed them that the work will be done before the end of this year.
The hotel will be designed to attract principally a mix of upper mid-level business and
professional groups, as well as individual and family travelers Market study has borne out
that a motel or lower-quality hotel would be a misplaced improvement on this property.
As the site adjoins the golf course, full advantage will be taken of the vista of this
attractive property from the hotel. The exterior architecture will be warm and woody in a
contemporary manner to blend well with the horsy/sporty/outdoorsy nature of the course
and parks to the North, while turning a neighborly face to the existing commercial uses to
the South. Proponents' adherence to a residential feel in their hotel development will also
make this hotel a good neighbor to the residential use to the West and other nearby
properties.
San Diego County area hotels average between 60 to 70% group business, and this hotel
will be no exception. Not being on a freeway makes the site ill-suited for a motel, as
stated above. Absence of an adjacent major business or industrial center also makes the
site inappropriate for a commercial hotel.
S-7S
rs-q
Hon. Mayor Horton and Council Members
Bonita Golf Lodge
Restatement of RFP Response
February 23, 1996
Page 3 of 4
Therefore, proponents have adjudged the site suitable for a property attractive in large
part to smaller groups of ten to 250 wishing to hold corporate and other business
meetings, seminars, incentive vacations, conferences, clinics, symposiums and other similar
assemblies during their stay at the hotel. The majority of these functions are held from fall
through spring of the year. A primary reason for these groups to assemble at this hotel is
the golf course, and arrangements are in the process of being worked out with American
Golf, the operator of the course, to accommodate this business.
The facilities will also attract the upper end of the local affairs, engagement parties,
weddings, Bar Mitzvahs and the like, as well as locals using the restaurant, bar, and other
facilities of the project.
Proponent, Joelen Enterprises, . and the City of Chula Vista had previous experience of
each other in 1979-80 when Proponents built the "Briarwoods", a 169-unit condominium
project at 54 and Briarwood Road. More recently, Joelen has spent the last two years
processing and preparing for development and sale a Redevelopment Project they have
named TIie tJ3roa4way tJ3usiness1f.otnes. (We're sure recipients of this package are all familiar
with that project, so we need spend no more time here describing it.)
The developers chose: C. W. Kim, noted local hotel designer, as architect for this project
as they did for their Coronado Resort Hotel. Most San Diegans recognize Kim as the
creator of much of the City's newer water-skyline buildlings, including Columbia Center,
the Emerald-Shapery Center now-Windham hotel, the Marriott Hotel, etc.
It is. felt that in the period since the original of this document was written, the Proponents
herein have demonstrated their abilities to successfully process, plan, arrange financing,
build and operate a four-star luxury resort more than double the size and scope of this
project, and in an exemplary manner. They are quite willing to have their qualifications,
capability and competency judged by their local achievements.
Financial benefits of the project to the City include:
1. Income from the lease payments and/or purchase price of the land; (See Exhibit "B".)
2. Transient occupancy tax on all rooms;
3. Sales and use taxes from retail and food and beverage sales.
4. Projected increase in business and sales taxes from nearby retail outlets as a result of
the projected average of over 100,000 guests per year, plus local business that will be
attracted to the site.
.71
I~O
Hon. Mayor Horton and Council Members
Bonita Golf Lodge
Restatement of RFP Response
February 23, 1996
Page 4 of 4
5.) Increased income to the City from the present golf operation as a result of the capacity
business that will be generated at the course by the hotel.
6.) It is expected that over 250 people will work on the construction and furnishing of
the hotel over about a two- year period. Then, approximately 200-250 people will
receive permanent employment when the hotel opens, in management, reservations
and reception, bookkeeping, bell staff, food and beverage preparation and service,
housekeeping, maintenance and groundskeeping, security, and other jobs.
Hotels, especially resort types, have proven to be excellent sources of training for young
people learning a lifetime trade or profession, where there has traditionally been good
opportunities for moving up as high in the worldwide hospitality industry as one's skills,
desire, and willingness to work can take them.
Let us assure you that we have been addressing the concerns of residents who believe their
status quo will be challenged by a resort hotel in the city, by the golfers who are afraid
their quiet enjoyment of play on the course will be taken away, and other similar upsets of
which the Mayor and Council Members are all too aware. We have visited the issues with
American Golf, who assured us they are familiar with the vocal minority who play the
many courses they own and/or manage. They have told us they have a number of very
similar situations at other courses with older, new and proposed hotels, and that they are
confident that we can work together to satisfy the concerns of the majority.
For instance, the hotel group guests principally book months or years in advance, and
primarily play in the afternoons after their morning meetings and seminars. The hotel
guests expect to pay more greens fees than residents, and often take a shorter time on the
greens than average. The larger affairs are almost all in the evenings, and 'we will work
with the adjacent shopping centers for some use of their parking lots for late-shift hotel
staff. There is much more, and we will continue to work with the City on all issues.
We wish to express our appreciation to the officials, staff members, as well as the many
residents of the City of Chula Vista who have kept their faith in this project, who have
supported us and worked on getting the project to the beginning point. We stand poised,
ready to work on with them, and all the members of our team, to see this project become a
successful reality, moving forward into the 21 It Century with the City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
JOELEN ENTERPRISES
Josef A. Citron, Lenore S. Citron, General Partner
General PartnereJAC:ja
.!JJfIt go ( ~ (
~
*
""""'
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 'V 'V cO 0 N 0 N
0 (>') (>') '<:t 0 T- O T-
~ 0 (>') (>') T- O <X) 0 <X)
~ 0 (>') (>') N 0 <X) 0 <X)
~ 0 (>') (>') T- O r--. 0 r--.
ti O. (>') (>'). N Lt) ('I) 0 ('I)
~ T- T- N N T- T- T- N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ -- + II II + II
~ II
~
t3 en en
~
.at> ~ c: ~
~ ~ () () C>
CO 0 CO
E c: CJ)
0 r--. c: CJ) 0 Lt) ~ W
0 ... 0::
0 E W E r-...: CO
0 0 0:: Q) c.. ()
0 () Cl "0 ~
0 E ~ Q) l() .0
ci Q) - "0 ..
r--. 0 r--. u..
0 Cl "0 !:'l
..... ~
0 - 0:: en 0::
T- O 0 0 ... 0
~ ..... lJ.. () J2 lJ..
en
0 0:: en en en Q) 0::
() en ()
W Q) ~ ~ c: W
en lJ.. -' () () CO lJ..
..... en lJ.. CO CO ~ lJ..
en Q)
8 -' 0 ~ (>') ..Q 0
"0 W '<:t + ~ W
en CJ) en C/)
..... "5 ..... en
en ~ en en ~
0 0 0 Q)
~ J: J:
() () () -' ()
en en en
~ ~ 0:: ~ 0::
() () :::> () :::>
co co c.. co c..
(>') 'V 1.0
'V
0::
~ 0 m
~I
~
~
'-SI
( '""\
(bcr-
-f~
.
.....,
(,)
(J)
.~
o
s-
a..
(J)
..c::
.....,
\t-
O
en
C>
s:::
.~
~
"0
s:::
C>
'-
en
(J)
"0
"0
s:::
CO
-
CO
s-
:::s
.....,
(,)
(J)
.....,
..c::
(,)
s-
<(
\t-
O
C/)
.....,
en
.-
en
c:
o
(,)
.....,
.-
..c
.-
..c::
><
(J)
en
.-
..c::
I-
;/ ~
16...;;.
o
.23
CJ)
0::
<(
w
~
Z
w
.-
~I
t~~~~~~~~~~
Zl.O t()mo,... "l::t,...,.....,.....,,.....
<l:.-'Oll'iai.-'NMNNN
Q.1n 101010 I-- I-- I-- I-- I-- I--
:J
U
U
o
000001D01n(')1n
OOOOl--I--OIn<l" 10
~ sim~ ~ ~ ~ r;; ~ ~
~tR-CIl,...,-,.....-,...,...,...
~UJ"'4A-UlUl~
~
..N
III
::E
o
o
0:
III
W
U
z
~
:J
U
U
o
all
0:
C
<l:
Ul
....
ID
01
01
T'"
Z
t::.
~818ol~H:l~:g~l::;
010)00000000
o:~~NNNNNNNN
C
<l:
u
Q.
W
::E
o
u
~
..J
~
Z
w
::E
I-
0:
<l:
Q.
W
C
III
III
o
0:
(!)
'0
III
W
(!)
1
~
~
';F.';1.';F.';F.';F.';/!.'#.
00001n00
'<iMlI'iWr...:r...:w
Ql Ql
E E
1ij 8
a..S
Ql ~
-0 Ql
al~
iii-o
Q)~ 8.~
fI) l?,g OJa
~"OQjg-_di~
o8a;"iio~QJ
O:U.COI-<::lOa::
~ I ~~~~~~~~ ~~~N~~~ ~~~~~~ g~~~~~i~a!~
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~ I !I~~~~~! ~i~~9!; ~i~~~; 1~~~I~~li~l!
! ; ~~.~.~~~~~. ~~~N~~~ !~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~ I ~.ggg~~.~~. g~.~.~.~;~ ~.g~.~I; g~~~~~~.~.~.~.~J
~~~~lii~~~ ~~~ltl~ 18~!!i~ ~~~~ ~m~~!ii~~
w-C"') ~ ",- ""'-f"f cr) Pl-" .... <r""-
... .... ...... e
~ ; ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~S~~~a!
~ ~::.- ~t1..,~ ~~ N__:4;:!~.... ;:J ~~~_ _
.. ....
8~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~:1~~~~~~
~ ~ 1ll1ll~"'o~;.:J~ ~g~g~~ltil lri~~~~~ MN;:J~~ri~~qdq
5 I ~!~~~~~~ ~~~!~;; ~~~~~; ~~~~I~~~~~ii
iM.lO.o.lll l'l~&i l'l.~.~ L1h.."'~ ",lif~~ ~N."'.~":;;'l'l.
LON..... 0 _C"') ('1')("') eN
.. ..... .... e
~ I
~ ;
~J~J~J~ ~
1!!~~ll!~1!! ~
o...,cn(;S ..... N
ltl.r-( ai
..
~
o
~:
~~i6
&~~
O~~
~~~
o ~ ~ CDCDCD~l'lCD~@
"i; !l ~ ~~~"'.~ t;i
=5 ~~ ~~~~~~~~
I: = ~ ~ ;XlliaiMd"':~ ~
~~~
~r.l!2
i~!
~~
1:=
~~
~
(/.l
~~~.~~~~ ~~5~~~ ~~~~~~~~!~~
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~2~~~~ltil ltl...."'~~~ MN~;;,j~;:;J~~u?du?
ii~S~;; ~~~.~~;
~. ~.~ ~; ~ ~~. ~~. ~ ~
lQ:: ~lQ!:llQlll~
"'l'l 113"'..........~
N-r')"~ !!!;.N-
........ ~
~~~~~~m~ ~~~~~~~ 5~*~~~ ~~~~9~~~!a!
~ ~- -
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~CD.ltl~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
9 l(j ~ iii F::i ~ ...: d ...: ;;J ~ N ~ Si ~ ~ ~ uij ., :;.1 ~ (:lj M N ri ~ ~ ::1 ~ ~ ~ d ~
~ I g~.g~.~.~.~~ ~.~J~~I; ~.g~.~I~ ~.~~~~~g~.gagg
~ 8i~~~~~~~ ~~~'" s~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~
ti~: "~N- ~g~ ~~
w
~
::E
o
o
a:
~
~
ci
w
~
<
...J
~
...J
>
o
~
::>
o
o
o
iil
-oilia
]~ ~
.. ~ J::l!
.. ~{ g..!l~
~l~-tl~~il-
a:LLlXll-~8a:
~!::
{! c: LL
~ 8. ~
[~I ~
.. .. 3';
a -0 l-
I!! al ~
j:!! 11 [~
o II! ~ 0
"oll-a, ~1O...J
~1J!~1!~~
a:LL~~5 ~
8
c:
~
e '~
~ -g
a ..
l .~
jj i
:~~ e>l
E.. :!! e
;'t::Ewa.
en en
w ~
~ ~ ~~
J: (I) ex: ~ w
o w w'" en
c ~ (!) ~ ~
~ e>~ OS2-1
u:: ~J: ~~w
oll 00 o.a:
en ]@l-tti~fZ
ltl ~ ~ ffi lXlll).~
LL ~~~5~5~ ~
i iIlUJOlXl lXlO 0
~ LL~:S~ ~~w~
::e '1:00.0: w ::e-
~ mil ~~~~~c~8til
fZ ;~ ~fZ~~~~~~~>
w .... c:w a:WLL>W_
lXl ESl'I:!l1lXlwwen<(<(zl-
W iIi..c w>l-l-wa. :s
::e g>w!!! ~ ::E ffi ~ lXl ::E w ::>
8 16~iilI-813ti~8~ ~ ~
3'; ~a:.5 3';0:3'; 3';~ 0 Z
~
. I
g ]
~ .~
J II
n !I
I! 1
~] If
BE ~ H,~
Ii p-,
!Ii 'Q,g I
,lhl ~]-
1!~ -' B I!'
np~
]2] i I
H ~{~
~ ~-.8
" llh
~~~!
~c :!.
i
gJj
.. v_ r-
f'P.../
~
ClJO
~:
CIJ...:!
~li!=
O~~
~~:
~f;ol~
~
h
~g
~~~
i~1
~~
I=l~
~I=l
E:5
r(l
';'.
~ ;
~~
~_~_~_m_~~~~_ ~_!J~~~! ~_fj_~_~~~ ~_~_f;1~;~~_~.~.~.~_
!i~r--...- -- ~ coN-- ~~ C")MN ~~ Nor- N~~:;~
~ ~~
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~ llllEigNciN~~ Fa~lDS!~~1til \{)""M~~~ (,,)N~~~:;;1~~::Ncxi
~ I l~i~~~~1 ii~~~;; ~~~~I; ~~I~I~illi!!
~
<J;
~ !
N ~
J
~; ~_~_~_~_~~_~~_ 2_~_8_~~~!:iI ~JB_SlffiJ~ ~~~~~~-~~~&l;;
lll~"'N -~m r--Fa- illij MMN~~~ N_- ~ ~l'i~~.;~
~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~~~a~~~ ~~@~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~S~~~~~~~
~ I II~~~~~! ~!~~~;; ii~~~; i~~;I~~I!mi~
~ ; ~Hi.~_~_~~_~~_ ~~_8_~~~~ ~~"~_~~~ g_~_S:j~~~~~.~_~_~
~~CD..- -- l2 ,....~... ~~ MN... ~iE) N__ ~~~:;~
~ ~~
g~ ~~~~~~~~ aIl~aIl~~~~ aIlall~~~~ ~~~i1~~~~~~~
f;I ~ 13 ~ S! M 0 .~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (") ~ ~ ~ M - ~ ~ ;1J :;;1 g Fa 5! - <Xl
~ I ~_~J~_~_~_~~_ ~_~J~_~;; ~_~J~I; ~-~-~;9~~-~-~.~-~-~-
~ a~~~U')~~~ ~~~\{)i3 fii~~~ !;i~~ W~~~~~lii
m.~ ~ ~. .M~~~N
.,.. ..... '-''-'M- .,....
~
~
~
~
~
.~.
..
!
~ I I~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~9
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
~ ~ 13~S!MO'~~~ Fa~~S!~~1til \()""M~~~
~ I ~~~i~~~~ ~I~!~;; ~~~~~;
~ -
~-~-~ ~~~~~-~-i ~
N..... ~ ~C:OMlt) V
...-.....~ ..
~~
all:Je~ ~~~aIl1F-aIl all all
lO(r) .-.....OvCD
(")-: ~~m~"":
!O!lD~~~~:e!O!"'~r--Ol;
i:Sr-- Mi:Sl:iMC!iM
fi!Q" i~~sjsil!l
l()(;I) ......M'VN__cn
-.:iM"':fh"':fh
tA- tA- tA- ..,
~ ; m_~_~J'~~_~ ~_ ~Jm~~ ~ R1 ~.~J~ ~~ 8"m_~ ~~ ~~.~. ~ ~~_
~~&n~ ~:lm (D~ iQ~ MNT- ~ N__ ~~~ ~
~ ~~
~~ ~ 5~5~5!~1 5~~5~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~g~~5m!!!
~
~ I mu~~! n~~~n ~mn mn~uun ,I
~ ~ ~ lJ '!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1llt
o 0 :z ffi";lJl y.~ .t
o Xl (!) :c ~ utl 1 If
~ l~ ~~ ~~-' ~ ~~~
< lL .c:C lrow 1.: ~IJ
C 9! oil 0 0 0 - gs .&g,~ ~
Ii i: CJ) ] 6:l ... tt ~ lL '"D Ii ~
w UI .!II!:: ~ 2'ltl ~~~al"'i~s.o{i-
~ _UI 'F c .. lL oil lL ::. ... ~ I- 1:: w i!~ .. .~ ~
ii _ 'iij E . UI lr w::l ::l - ::. ri! ~ 11.2
~ ~II~ j ~ i ~!~ ~~5~ e~w8 ~]H
-' t: ~ [ co - CJ 1l, co ]::. con. ~ ffi I- ::. ~ s~ .~ Ii ~
~ [.- ~ "- i z." C "'l w!(! !l1 W ~ !l! W C ~ 0 "'w G ~.~ ~
~ ~~l t ~€~ ~ ~~gs ~ ~gs;;:UJ~ffi~~z nf8
>- - l! II - [et:: .~s: 8..!/ltt c l!tt~~ffit;:::'...~ '0 'll~J
~ III ~~o8. jll [~~ ]i2' O~al ~ 9!~alWWCJ)<(~~F 1!iE'O]
<( f g.... I 0 UI._ ~ W .. i: w>......wn. ~ --c,M' ~
g; f! ~coii e ~!l!-' :!;;Qj~8.~::' ~Xll!~::'ffi~ffl::'~ ::l c ~ -
o f~ ~ 'l< :6 ~ ~ ; lii !I:: ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ e I- 8 .ll! 1;l ~ I- 8 :z u C 8 <( ~ ~ ~.....
g lrlLal...CiOlr lrlL...<30 ~ ~..:Wll. ~ ..:...- ~ lr ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ..
c.~"
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~g~~~~~~~~g~i~~~~~~~~g~~
K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~t~~
...................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~5~~~~~
~~~N~~~g~~*~~S~~~g~~~~~~g
110110110 mllOlIO~1I01IO . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . .
........ -..............................................................
... .. ...... ..... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ..
~~~~~!~~~~m~~mffi~~~m~~~~8~
~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~gt~~~
..........~~......~....................
o ~
~
N
..
CD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. C'l<'i ~ ~ ~ I'; T": ""': ""': ~ or: ~ ""': "": "": '"': ""': or: '"': "'": '-: or:
Ommm~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
m~llll8~~ 18181818181818181818181818181818
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ii
~
...
o ~mM~~~~O~W~~~WM~M~g~~gl8N~
w ~C:S1n iO ~~\6Mlii~ o;oasilS~~ N; ~ ~ LX &l ~ N * l8
~ I ~i~~~~~~~~~'~m'~~~m'~~g~~~~~
w ~NN~~~IIONMm~~ON~W~~~m~~M~~
~ ~t!. ~ ~!!!. .... ... .. ..:;; :;; M :;; ~ .. .. ~ ~ .. ~ .. ~
or!
>-
~
lQ'm ~!:::! ~ ~ ~ III ... ~ [D ~ 1<; ~ l:! J::: ::I: ::I: ~ !ll ~ ~ ~;
c:s In '" ldlO... ~...ll'j ~... ~ 0...... ~ ... ll'i N ~ N '" ~ N
~~~~mm~t~g~~g~~g~~~g~~gt
~~~"""~~~~~~~;~NNNNNNNNN
e ....................................
I~ ~ >! >! m ~ 0; S? gj \3 !Q ~ Sl! !ll ~:! ~ Sl Ii; III !ll :l: ~ M m 18
c:s c:s ~~ ~ a; M... Cl; In Cl; \6 m liS 1il ~ <Xl LX ~ LX '" ~ ... N
~~~gimg~Sg~g~~~~g~~g~~~~
1I01IOl41101IO~~NNMM~~mww~roromo~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
110 110
I~~. g ~.~!Ji ~.~. ~.~.~.~.m.~.~.~.~.~. ~~.~. ~ 8. ~
~~~E!~~~!~\32~~~~~~$~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
~ >! >! ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #-
~~...~l(l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
110 110
."'
x
f3" .. .. .. .. .. .. I .. I .. I .... I I I I ..
(!)
1
~~N M ~~ W~ <Xl (l) 0... NM ~~ W ~ <Xl C'I 0 ... N M ~ ~
~ ........-..-......................NNNNNN
Ii
..
~
~
.g
~
u
..
i5
i
:!
8
~
~
g
!
~
~
(f&
_0
117
! ID ,
PAYABLE TO CITY
LfAS.E. INCREASE TOT
YEAR # fA'lMEtfiS. AMOUNT fE&;.EML
1 Forgiveness Yr $0 $399,400
2 Minimum Yr $25,000 $25,000 $507,900
3 Departmenlallncome $35,000 $10,000 140.00% $595,300
4 %-AGES X's 10% $50,581 $15,581 144.52% $692,600
5 20% $111,162 $60,580 219.77% $763:300
6 25% $149,848 $38,687 134.80% $824,500
7 35% $222,329 $72,480 148.37% $874,400
8 45% $298,409 $76,081 134.22% $913,000
9 55% $382,856 $84,447 128.30% $958,700
10 62% $448,720 $65,864 117.20% $1,006,600
11 100% $466,669 $17,949 104.00% $1,046,864
12 100% $485,336 $18,667 104.00% $1,088,739
13 100% $504,749 $19,413 104.00% $1,132,288
14 100% $524,939 $20,190 104.00% $1,177,580
15 100% $545,936 $20,998 104.00% $1,224,683
16 100% $567,774 $21,837 104.00% $1,273,670
17 100% $590,485 $22,711 104.00% $1,324,617
18 100% $614,104 $23,619 104.00% $1,377,602
'19 100% $638,668 $24,564 104.00% $1,432,706
20 100% $664,215 $25,547 104.00% $1,490,014
21 100% $690,784 $26,569 104.00% $1,549,614
22 100% $718,415 $27,631 1()4.00% $1,611,599
23 100% $747,152 $28,737 104.00% $1,676,063
24 100% $777,038 $29,886 104.00% $1,743,106
25 100% $808,119 $31,082 104.00% $1,812,830
26 100% $841,285 $33,165 104.10% $1,885,343
27 100% $874,935 $33,651 104.00% $1,960,757
28 100% $909,022 $34,087 103.90% $2,039,187
29 100% $943,492 $34,470 103.79% $2,120,754
30 100% $978,290 $34,798 103.69% $2,205,585
31 100% $1,O~ 5,385 $37,096 103.79% $2,293,808
32 100% $1,054,942 $39,556 103.90% $2,385,560
33 100% $1,097,135 $42,193 104.00% $2,480,983
34 100% $1,142,157 $45,022 104.10% $2,580,222
35 100% $1,190,215 $48,058 104.21% $2,683,431
36 100% $1,241,536 $51,321 104.31% $2,790,768
37 100% $1,296,365 $54,829 104.42% $2,902,399
38 100% $1,354,968 $58,604 104.52% $3,018,495
39 100% $1,417,638 $62,669 104.63% $3,139,235
40 100% $1,484,689 $67,051 104.73% $3,264,804
41 100% $1,556,466 $71,777 104.83% $3,395,396
42 100% $1,631,550 $75,084 104.82% $3,531,212
43 100% $1,710,085 $78,535 104.81% $3,672,460
44 100% $1,792,222 $82,136 104.80% $3,819,359
45 100% $1,859,520 $67,298 103.76% $3,972,133
46 100% $1,910,052 $50,532 102.72% $4,131,019
47 100% $1,959,995 $49,943 102.61% $4,296,259
48 100% $2,009,233 $49,238 102.51% $4,468,110
49 100% $2,057,648 $48,415 102.41% $4,646,834
50 100% $2,105,122 $47,474 102.31% $4,832,707
51 100% $2,153,476 $48,354 102.30% $5,026,016
52 100% $2,202,942 $49,465 102.30% $5,227,056
53 100% $2,253,543 $50,601 102.30% $5,436,139
54 100% $2,305,306 $51,764 102.30% $5,653,584
55 100% $2,360,617 $55,311 102.40% $5,879,727
56 100% $2,419,672 $59,055 102.50% $6,114,917
57 100% $2,482,685 $63,013 102.60% $6,359,513
58 100% $2,549,886 $67,201 102.71% $6,613,894
59 100% $2,621,525 $71,639 102.81% $6,878,449
60 100% $2,697,872 $76,347 102.91% $7,153,587
61 100% $2,779,218 $81,347 103.02% $7,439,731
62 100% $2,865,881 $86,662 103.12% $7,737,320
63 100% $2,958,201 $92,320 103.22% $8,046,813
64 100% $3,056,548 $98,348 103.32% $8,368,686
65 100% $3,161,324 $104,775 103.43% $8,703,433
66 100% sa 272 960 $111,637 103.53% ~~
SBll.6~J.Bllll. TOTAL TOT lliR.lY.1.ill
TOTAL LEME 1D.a.~J!all
GRAND TOTAL tlli.lli.IU~
r~IlOX6G:C:\123R5WI25 CIINCEXP\35M L9~,55JWK4!Ml~~~~"~lil~.I~ (6 37
It.. 8
,
This page blank.
/il--gg
r
/1:-:;"/
t) RETAIL PROPERTIES GROUP, INC.
. Cornmercial Real Estate Services
March 6, 1996
), I
/}Tl;Jt!/lnlEJIT e:
Mr. Dave Gustafson
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: POTENTIAL BONITA ROAD SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT
Dear Dave:
In reference to our conversation last week regarding the upcoming Council meeting to
determine the status of the above captioned site, I would like to formally reiterate my
continuing interest in developing a high quality retail development on the parcel.
My proposed project is an approximate 40,000 square foot retail center to be located
on the western three acres of the property featuring an upscale tenant mix and
extreme upper end construction standard. Some of the retailers I have contacted
whom have indicated preliminary interest in this project include Boney's market, Trader
Joes, Starbucks Coffee, Brueger's Bagels, Boston Market, The Juice Club, Super
Crown Books and The Soup Plantation. My company could also easily, if preferable to
the Council, fit our retail development plan around the entire seven acre site and
include an area for the golf course pro shop, clubhouse, golf cart housing and create a
overall golf theme for the retail center.
As you are aware, I attended and addressed the City Council regarding this project at a
Council session in March of last year. At that meeting the Council decided to negotiate
an agreement with the Citron's for construction of a 35 Million dollar hotel development
based on a two year timetable. This timetable was to be negotiated with certain
benchmarks and, specifically, a built in benchmark for the financing of the project. A
year has now gone by and there is still no official City Council approved agreement
between the City and the Citrons and, as a result, no benchmarks have been officially
set or achieved. It's important to note that the Citrons have had a virtual exclusive lock
on this site since 1990 and first submitted a preliminary market report in 1991 prepared
by Pannell Kerr Forster.
My interest in this property throughout this process has not been to discourage or
undermine the Citron's proposed project but rather to facilitate the best use of the
parcel to enhance this city. Myself and my family have been residents in Bonita of over
twenty years and we take tremendous pride in our community. As we have stated
publicly at council meetings in the past, we would prefer to have the hotel built on this
site, however, we have recognized for some time that the realities of the marketplace
LA JOLLA CORPORATE CENTER
3252 Holiday Court, Suite 110 · La Jolla, California 92037
Telephone (619) 453-9990 Fax (619) 453-9965
Aft1
170
Mr. Dave Gustafson
March 7, 1996
Page Two
do not support a development of this nature. This assertion is backed up by the total
lack of financing for the past seven years for this project. In contrast, my project will
need no financing contingency as I already have complete money commitments to build
this project for cash from several prominent Chula Vista and Bonita citizens.
Dave, please review this proposal and accompanying documentation regarding the
proposed retail development and forward them to the council for review prior to the
meeting. I appreciate your help and look forward to seeing you Tuesday night.
Sincerely,
RETAIL PROPERTIES GROUP, INC.
~~j)~
Dan Malcolm
Vice President
Enclosures
(g11)
17/
~
......
p..,
~
H
H
en
......
H (I)
<: II
H ui
~
0::: 0
1'I
:>-<
0:::
<:
z
H
~
H
......
~
0:::
p..,
U)
w
i=
IT
w
n.
o
IT
n.
-.In.
-:J
~O
wIT
([(!)
~
UI
~
:J
2
o
~
~. Ii
10 .J I
o 0
Il ....
~ ~ ~ Il
Ill. :>
2_d u.
o > II
lid 0
q: Ul q: UI
O~: 2a1"
~ I GI +1 0 1'I
It. U 1'I 1'I N C"
I I I I I
w"Etla.
UJ l1J l1J CD
<{ :J U nY
weE "E
0: w l1J 0 l1J
<{<{-.J~u.c
wm
~~~~
o 0 'Y.
w>--.J~-.JO:
1::f--:Jr-.J5t
UJumii)<{ll
UJ
o
0:
m
w UJ
(!J <{
<{ ~
Z 0
(!J I
ii) I-
UJ
UJ
w
~
o
<{
-.----- ----------..
aa.e.6~ -IDejl .
I ,
., l ! I ' I 'I r ---~.. ..
I .: L-1,LJ_LJ __ r _
-.--.-"...-....~~-.-.,.-_...
. ,gal,.
+J
l.H
o
II
Ul
CIl .
o 0"'
....., Ul
1-<00
CIl0
""0
C1:l ..
1-<......
H......
I I ,
! I
o
....
~-__L__. _,
7,,'
o
L.
I! --'~~"'r~: /l~l':: : ~~'
, I J 0 ~ ~:, I.
1,/ J ' iI' 1) ~.~~ ; 1 :' ' :'" <c. s~~nq.IB:lS
I 'II II ~~f, 'lia! : spS.q q _
. iU;ld'tU L1Lhl.i.'ll
,QQq.
.-
UO:lsog
1'I
10
'-
, ,~
, ,""'.'
. 0..
...~ '-. '<J
I tt$.G$<it ......, ..........".'---/
.~'
! ,
.-......
. .. - ~'-~........
~)
.. -:~<h'~",
~ ' /".
\'-
~.
o
g
it
,5
~
9
1
(()f
z
./9/
17~
JI
. ~", ,
.~
· ~ I
. ; :. ~
H !
fIr; .~ :
i. i
;
I.~ Ei
. r:
- r
~
~
"
~.
~
~
~
~
~.
~
~:' ~
~: .~
. i . ~
; f
,
" i
:<I
W
..
..
: I
~ :.
~ ~
El
--
lln
~"
~
i
!CD ~
;:Q.
'c _ ~ .
!~ii -..:
U) i 0: r
:;- ! co: JIJ
. ii)! <<B.. ~ "
::J;::Ji m
ii co: Z
..... ! i 0
., ! ,....:
OJ! -':
;::; ~!
! -!
! :
. .
.. i
y-..........,..
lJQPlx3 .
..9..
!
If'' .
~.
I
o
~
::J
(J)
0.
LV
::. "'.:." .~.;.
III
rt
m
,
\.
\\
. <1,tL
175
,. _
.,._~~.c,~.~~.....!.~__._........:--
Retail Development
Space For Lease
Pepper Tree Plaza
3:!:: Acres
Signed Letter's of Iutent:
Boney's Market Place
Location:
Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road Bonita, California
Developer:
Malcolm Development Company
Site:
Approximately 3:!:: acres. Total gross leasable area is approximately
38,685 square feet. Boney's is approximately 22,850 square feet, with
approximalely 15,835 square feet available, divided inlo 11,050 square
feet non divisible and 4,985 square feet divisible.
1994 Average Household Income.
1994 Median Household Income.
62,425
54,692
3 Mile 5 Mile
Radius Radius
140,145 362,945
154,509 392,612
47,992 39,980
42,555 35,235
Demographics:
1 Mile
Radius
1994 Estimated Population.
1999 Projected Population.
6,418
7,174
SOURCE: Equifax National Decision Systems.
.Data is an estimate by Equifax.
Traffic:
Bonita Road
32,900 ADT's 1992
Otay Lakes Road
18,900
SOURCE: San Diego Association ofGovemments, May 1994 Traffic Volume Report.
ADT's is all abbreviation for Average Daily Traffic.
Contact:
For further information, contact Dan Malcolm
al (619) 453-9990.
RETAIL PROPERTIES GROUP, INC.
A Full Service Commercial Real Estate Company
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources we deem
reliable. While we have no reason to doubt its accuracy, we do not guarantee it.
"93
! 7(/
, I
This page blank.
139Lj
17>
J~~.~ 3
Sweetwater Community Planning Group
PO Box 460, Bonita, CA 91908-0460
John Hammond, Chairperson
Voice: (619) 479~0665
Fax: (619) 479-1596
e-mail: hammond@ctS.com
Mon.thly Meetings: 1st Tuesday at 7pm
Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Station
4900 Bon ita Road
. ....r~.,:.<.'~. -- ;:T~~r~
~...;~~:/~, :~~,..
..,./:!0~;}-': -
. . -
Sweetwater Design Guidelines
Sweetwater Community Planning Area
County of San Diego
93
/76
Sweetwater Design Guidelines
Sweetwater Community Planning Area
County of San Diego
Prepared by:
Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer
Urban Design and Architecture
with:
Kathryn Fulhorst, ASLA, Landscape Architect
Project Team: Gerald Gast, Daniel Hillmer,
Danno Glanz, Kathryn Fulhorst
Sweetwater Community Planning Group:
Maureen Hogan, Gretchen Burkey, Uwe Werner,
Sandra Henry-Choppin, Antoinene "Toni" Ingrassia,
Harriet Taylor, Georjean N. Jensen, John Hammond,
Martha McDonald, Pat Mounts, Carolyn McGraw,
John K. Riess, Muriel Watson, Robert R. Walters,
Sheri Todus
Brian P. Bilbray
First District
Department of Planning
& Land Use
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
George F. Bailey
Second District
Susan Golding
Third District
Prepared pursuant to Sections 5760 and 5799b
of the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance
by the Department of Planning and Land Use
Leon L. Williams
Fourth District
Reviewed by the Planning Commission
on March 15, 1991
John MacDonald
Fifth District
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on May 29, 1991
q&
//
I /
Sweetwater Design Guidelines
Table of Contents
I. The Design Review Process ...................................................................1
II. Sweetwater Community Design Objectives........................................4
Ill. Guidelines for Community Design Review......................................... 9
A. General Design Guidelines
Applicable to All Development Projects................................11
A 1. Site Design ...............................................................................11
A2. Preservation of Significant Trees ........................................13
A3. Relationship to Neighboring Development ........................ 14
A4. Archi tectural Character .........................................................16
AS. Hi storie Preserv ation ....................................... ................. ...... 20
A6. Landscape Character ..............................................................21
A 7. S i gnage ............... ............... ....... ............. ............................ ....... 23
A8. Site Li gh ti ng .... ................. ......... ............................ ............. .....27
A9. Building Equipment and Services ........................................ 28
B. Design Guidelines by Development Type..............................29
B 1. Commerci al Development ..................................................... 30
B2. Multi Family Residential Development .............................. 34
B 3. Mobile Home Parks ................................................................ 3 8
C. Design Guidelines for Special Areas ......................................39
C1. Development in Flood Plains and Riparian Areas ............39
C2. Scenic Roads and Trails ........................................................42
IV. Guidelines for Other Reviews ..............................................................45
A. Single Family Residential Development ................................46
A 1. Preservation of Existing Natural Features .........................46
A2. Street. Layout and Design .......................................................46
A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage .............................................4 7
A4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks ................................48
A5. Planting Design for Hillsides ...............................................48
B. Community Right-of-Way Standards......................................50
Appendix A. Design Review Application Requirements ..........................51
Appendix B. Plant Selection Guide .............................................................. 55
17
!78
l' "
~ ' >'
1. THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
This booklet presents Design Guidelines for
development in the Sweetwater Community
Planning Area. It is intended to be used in
two ways:
1. As standards for Community Design Re-
view in areas covered by the "B" Desig-
nator Special Area Regulations, and
2. As desirable standards for other types of
discretionary project reviews which are
not subject to the Community Design
Review program. Some of these stan-
dards are contained in other County regu-
lations. Where that is not the case, the
standards must be authorized through
appropriate devices before they can be
used in project reviews.
Community Design Review
Section III of this manual provides guide-
lines for Community Design Review in areas
covered by the "B" Designator Special Area
Regulations.
Community Design Review in Sweetwater is
administered by the San Diego County De-
partment of Planning and Land Use as part of
the development review process. Projects
are evaluated by the Sweetwater Design Re-
view Board, a panel of citizens appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors. Actions of
the Design Review Board are advisory to the
various County authorities (Director of the
Department of Planning and Land Use,
Planning and Environmental Review Board,
Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors) who issue decisions
on development proposals. .
Development Subject to Community Design
Review
Community Design Review is a required step
in the development approval process for the
following types of projects located within the
boundaries of the Sweetwater Community
Planning Area:
. All commercial development
. All multi-family and duplex residential
development. A "multi-family residen-
tial development" is defined as a project
containing three or more attached
dwelling units. A "duplex" is a building
containing two attached dwelling units.
. The following Major Use Permits where
they also require the issuance of building
permits for construction or alteration of
buildings: planned developments; mo-
bile home parks; churches; administra-
tive services; clinics; community recre-
ation facilities; cultural exhibit and li-
brary buildings; group residential and
group care facili ties; child care centers;
lodge, fraternal and civic assembly
buildings; emergency or utility service
facilities.
It is intended that the Community Planning
Group will work with the Design Review
Board and the applicant to encourage con-
sistency of Major Use Permits with appli-
cable Design Guidelines.
Pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance,
Major Use Permits for existing County parks
are exempt from the design review process.
However, the Department of Parks and Rec-
reation will give due consideration to the
appropriate guidelines in the future devel-
opment of County park facilities.
The Purpose of Community Design Review
Community Design Review is one of several
review procedures used by the County to
protect the public welfare and environment.
The process is a comprehensive evaluation of
those characteristics of a development which
have a visual impact on neighboring proper-
~ Cff
1-:4
ties and the community as a whole. Commu-
nity Design Review makes a careful exami-
nation of a project's quality of site planning,
architecture. landscape design and important
details such as signage and lighting. The
purpose is to insure that every new develop-
ment will carefully consider the community
context in which it takes place and make a
conscientious effort to develop a compatible
relationship to the natural setting, neighbor-
ing properties and community design goals.
Sweetwater citizens have strong feelings
about the quality of the community's natural
setting and rural residential character. The
Community Design Review process is in-
tended to protect and retain Sweetwater's
semi-rural character.
Community Design Review is a process based
on fair and reasonable standards. The Board
will work with the community and develop-
ers to weigh all considerations, be flexible
when necessary. and do its best to reach fair
decisions when there is a difference of
opinion.
How the Community Design Review Pro-
cess Works
The Sweetwater Design Review Board evalu-
ates development proposals using the Design
Guidelines described in this manual as cri-
teria.
The Board may recommend to:
. Approve or disapprove proposals.
. Approve proposals subject to conditions.
. Request the applicant to re-submit the
proposal with specific changes.
Decisions of the Design Review Board are
advisory to the various authoriti~s .that will
issue final decisions on development ap-
proval. Appeals of those decisions are
handled through normal County planning
appeals procedures.
Design Review Board members will be in-
structed by Department of Planning and Land
Use staff on the application of the Guide-
lines, the limits of the Board's review, and
the necessity for substantiating the Board's
recommendation by identifying those appli-
cable Guidelines that are satisfied or not
satisfied by the development proposal.
Steps in the Community Design Review
Process
1. Staff Conference
Before planning and design begins, the de-
veloper or designer is urged to meet with the
County planning staff relative to Sweetwater
Design Review. The nature ofthe project and
site should be described. The planning staff
member will clarify review procedures and
submittal requirements. Critical design issues
and Design Guidelines important to the
project may be discussed.
2. Preliminary Review (Optional)
This step is optional but highly recommended
for large or complex projects and projects
requiring extensive grading or alteration of
natural features.
Preliminary Review allows the developer to
meet with the Design Review Board to dis-
cuss basic intentions and plans before invest-
ing time in detailed design. At this stage, site
design. location of buildings, grading, basic
form of buildings and landscape concepts are
important. Building elevations and other
, information may be discussed but should be
kept in preliminary form.
Preliminary Review is an informal process
enabling the applicant to receive input from
the Design Review Board and get its opinion
on the basic concept of the development
proposal. The Board will not take official
action or vote on a project until Final Ap-
plication and Review.
3. Waiver Considerations
Occasionally, on minor projects, the Design
Review Board may recommend a waiver of
the final application and review requirements.
.. cJ9
Projects which may be considered for this
waiver include:
a. Projects which are minor in nature and
preliminary review satisfies the Design
Review Board's concern.
b. Projects which, if subjected to final ap-
plication and review requirements,
would not materially contribute to the
attainment of the community design ob-
jectives.
4. Final Application and Review
The one required step in the Community
Design Review process, unless a waiver has
been granted, is submittal of a Final Appli-
cation and appearance before the Design
Review Board. Submittal requirements for
Final Application and Review are given in
this booklet.
Applications are filed with the Department of
Planning and Land Use. Within S days of
receipt of a complete application, copies of
the application are transmitted to each
member of the Sweetwater Design Review
Board. The chairperson of the Design Re-
view Board then schedules the item for re-
view at the next available Design Review
Board meeting and infonns the applicant of
the time, date and place for the hearing.
Evaluation of the project by the Design Re-
view Board is limited to the topics contained
in this manual. The Review Board makes a
recommendation to the applicable County
approval authority, citing specific guidelines
to which the project conforms or does not
conform.
The applicable approval authority also
evaluates the project for confonnance to this
manual, considers the Design Review Board's
recommendation, and renders a decision. The
decision may be appealed in accordance with
the County's appeal procedures. In the event
the Review Board's recommendation is not
received within 20 days after transmittal of
the application, a decision may be made
without a recommendation of the Review
Board. Upon making a decision, the County
transmits a copy of the decision to the Re-
view Board.
Guidelines For Other Discretionary Project
Reviews
Section IV of this manual presents desirable
standards for other discretionary project re-
views which, where not already incorporated
into other County regulations, need to be
authorized through appropriate devices be-
fore they can be used in project review.
In addition, the guidelines presented in Sec-
tion III are not necessarily unique to the
Community Design Review (B Designator)
program. Any of these guidelines might also
be applicable to other discretionary project
reviews, provided they are authorized through
existing County regulations or through fu-
ture adoption into the Sweetwater Commu-
nity Plan.
~SI('l'Ilm'I~'"
NOT .~VIIOl!P
eE,",N PI'WJECT N'PM/N. I
{\?
.....---..
sr"H COH"f~fHU
~1tAN"T l
0'4<:_"
........T WIT>f
Perr.~~-
~ HlP VOlO'" ~
[ OE'SIGl'I lU....fW
tteQUI UP
~
_,CNrT
_..m-.
",LPlN.
_m
~"--'.....
" ", 1"'f"'L,(IrfrIT
, ,~
PlleLIMINM'f ,"! PeC"~ ~
( ~ew t "':.":---- ."~nrfol-
\ (_STV'y.",_._--~ 1'-.=0:"4"""
\ I ~
, ;/ w..,.u.
'... ---'
~-.,
~I
,'i1 ~
/.' u
,'/
~
~
oeN,EO
__IT
-
~
r~
:l'~:--. ~
... '''':-.
":-'.
.,~,
~
--~
-... -
_.
The Community Design Review Process
.'
.
j{)O
II. SWEETWATER COMMUNITY DESIGN OBJECTIVES
1 Sweetwater River Floodplain
. Improve and strengthen the Sweetwater River
Floodplain as the visual focus of the community.
2 Preservation of Natural Features and Open Space
. Preserve and integrate existing natural features
into new site development.
. Insure strict revegetation standards in new devel-
opment.
3 Scenic Roads
. Minimize road realignments and widenings, con-
sistent with public safety considerations, to
Sweetwater Road, undeveloped portions of Bonita
Road, San Miguel Road, Quarry Road and proctor
Valley Road.
. Encourage the careful design and maintenance of
scenic road edges. Emphasize Sweetwater's rural
residential character and preservation of natural
features.
4 Architectural Character
. Encourage a rural-rustic character in Sweetwater's
new commercial, public and multi-family buildings.
. Encourage the use of exterior spaces sucrh as court-
yards, verandas, arcades and balconies.
5 Site Planning Principles
. Integrate new development with the valley land-
scape.
. Create wide landscaped building setbacks along
public streets.
. Minimize the visual impact of parking lots by
dense edge plantings and internal tree canopies.
6 Subdivision Design
. Encourage subdivision design that is consistent
with Sweetwater's rural residential character.
M /o! I g ;).....
City of San Diego
'..;"'" .
Sweetwater Community Design Objectives
· /o~
f c"jl :,:.
! lS _"
. ~.'" '.' , ~.
",:-:,!'(-~>:,,:,~;-": ',-
. ..:~.: ~~.;~."":.' .". .'. . . .. .
. - - - - . .. ~ . ~ ...:_-: -,':~'.. ."~ :'-..': '.::;" .'::
Sweetwater Design Objectives
Sweetwater's natural setting and rural char-
acter are a strong source of identity and value
to the community. The purpose of the
Sweetwater Design Guidelines is to provide
clear direction for the Valley's future de-
velopment, architecture and landscape de-
sign, so that new development and public
improvements retain and strengthen the eJl-
isting rural-residential setting,
1. Improve and strengthen the Sweetwater
River floodplain as the visual focus of
the community.
. Strengthen the natural open space char-
acter ofthe floodplain by minimizing built
improvements that are visible from major
roads. Recreational facilities built in the
floodplain by the public or private sec-
tors should be carefully sited to maintain
a low profile and accompanied by suffi-
cient planting to retain the visual domi-
nance of the natural setting.
Improve the highly-visible edges of open
spaces in the floodplain.
. Complete the walking/biking path sys-
tem around the road edge, separating the
path from roads with a landscaped buffer.
. Where opportunities exist, open views
into the floodplain from surrounding
roads.
. Protect the existing riparian areas of
Sweetwater River and Central Creek by
limiting buildings to essential public fa-
cilities.
.. /03
2{
2. Preserve Sweetwater's unique natural
setting and landscape character
through strong design guidelines to
protect natural features.
. New development should incorporate ex-
isting mature vegetation, drainage courses
and topographical features into site de-
signs. Whenever possible, existing fea-
tures such as groves and open hillsides
which reflect the history ofthe valley and
community .should be preserved to form
special elements or incorporated into the
open spaces of new developments.
. Require replacement of existing vegeta-
tion that is removed for new development.
. Site designs should be sensitive to the
existing landscape, minimizing grading.
. New development should establish link-
ages to the existing and planned trail
system.
. Preserve prominent ridges by siting
buildings below ridgelines or setback with
sufficient distance to minimize visual
impacts.
3. ~aintain and improve the quality of
scenic roads throughout the Commu-
nity Planning Area.
Sweetwater's scenic roads are an important
element of the community's character and
image. The most important are Sweetwater
Road, undeveloped portions of Bonita Road,
San Miguel Road, Quarry Road and Proctor
Valley Road. Existing natur~l features such
as landforms, rock outcroppings and mature
trees should be protected along these routes,
with new grading and other interventions
minimized. Views from the road to the hill-
sides and the floodplain areas should also be
preserved when siting new buildings and trees.
New planting that continues the dominant
existing species on a road is encouraged, as
are other elements such as rustic fences, stone
walls or agricultural artifacts that preserve
historic character.
Sweetwater Road
4. Encourage a consistent architecture of
rural-rustic character.
The character of architecture in Sweetwater's
new development should emphasize the
community's rural atmosphere. Buildings
should be informal and inviting. Architec-
tural elements characteristic of rural build-
. ings, such as porches, verandas, Counyards,
pitched roofs, wood and stone walls, and
exposed timber beams and columns are en-
couraged.
~ 10,/
/ f( .c-
......>..".".1
s. Establish strong site planning prin-
ciples that integrate commercial, pub-
lic and multi-family development with
the valley landscape and rural residen-
tial character of the community.
. An important characteristic of the
Sweetwater Valley setting is the feeling
of spaciousness that wide landscaped
setbacks promote, allowing views through
the valley and into the foothills. Land-
scaped setbacks from public road prop-
erty lines should be established.
. Minimize the visual impact of parking
areas with dense edge plantings and in-
ternal tree canopies.
6. Adopt design luidelines to encouraee
subdivision desien consistent with
Sweetwater's rural residential charac-
ter.
Follow design principles that promote a strong
relationship to the natural landscape:
. Preservation of existing natural features.
. Street layout and design that retains the
natural landforms.
. Minimal hillside grading.
. Lot configuration influenced by existing
topography and natural features. Variety
in lot shapes.
. Special landscape design for hillside sites.
~-r-\jo.......
~..-' ....}c:~--^'
l.-./) ~ 'So ;l?
A.f- r ~"-' ,.....:J
~ ~1.I.J. ' ,t
:;.( , . . .-....J .....
"r\:),.:.cw. . ~f~::;,."'" -- .,,--.......
.~ \ ,'" ~ - -- - --
II _--' .... .. .......""'---
~ ~ ,.- -------
_----...;...~J:JI. . - ------
0..0 w':.w:' .-:-~ - .
- . . . .' 7--; , -' ~. . . -.
~. : 1 :i(~ -~.I{
, ., '4~~~ ~ ~ Q ~:1 Q
Road Edge Zone J : Public Right-of-Way : [Road Edge Zone
I I.
Property Line ~ ~ Property Line
Landscaped Setbacks
8
( E,~
III. GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW
Introduction
This section provides standards for Commu-
nity Design Review in areas covered by the
uB" Designator Special Area Regulations. It
is divided into two parts:
A. General Guidelines Applicable to All De-
velopment Projects.
B. Guidelines by Development Type and
Area.
This part applies to all projects subject to
Community Design Review.
This part applies to specific development
types. In most cases only one set of these
Guidelines will apply to a development
project. In the case' of mixed use devel-
opments. more than one may apply.
~ I/)5
IKt
,
A. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO ALL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
AI. SITE DESIGN PROCESS
The quality of site design will be given first
priority in the review of development
proposals. A project should display sen-
sitivity to the natural setting and compat-
ibility with its neighborhood context.
1. Site Analysis
. Each development proposal should in-
clude a thorough analysis of existing con-
ditions on and adjacent to the site. An
analysis shall include a careful examina-
tion of a site's physical properties, natural
features, special problems, visual charac-
ter and an examination of the neighboring
environment. The analysis will assist the
Design Review Board in evaluating a
development's relationship to existing
conditions, neighboring properties and
the Sweetwater Community.
. Appendix A of this booklet lists specific
Design Review Application Requirements
that include a Site Analysis.
2. General Site Design Criteria
A new development should:
. Contribute to the rural character of the
Sweetwater community.
. Reflect the Community Design Objec-
tives.
. Be compatible with the natural features,
building location and existing open spaces
of neighboring properties.
. .Respect the existing views, privacy, and
safety of neighboring properties.
Site Analysis Considerations
-/Oh
3. Preservation of Existing Natural Fea-
tures
. Significant existing natural features
should be integrated into new develop-
ment to retain the characteristics of the
Sweetwater Valley landscape. Existing
topography, land forms, drainage courses,
rock outcroppings, significant vegetation,
and important views should be recorded
in the Site Analysis and incorporated into
the design of development projects.
a. Mature trees
. Mature trees should be retained and inte-
grated into new developments. This will
require careful judgment to determine the
value, size and species of the trees rela-
tive to the other natural features of the
site and the developer's program. This
guideline is not meant to stop removal of
undesirable trees.
. Existing trees over 12 inches in trunk
diameter are considered significant re-
sources to be preserved. In the case of
oak trees, existing trees over 6 inches in
trunk diameter are to be preserved. See
Guideline A2. "Preservation of Signifi-
cant Trees" for definitions and descrip-
tions.
b. Topography
. Minimize grading and alteration of natu- .
rallandforms.
. Minimize building in areas of flood plain,
excessive slope, soil with poor bearing
capacity, slide potential and other haz-
ards.
. Building pads should disturb Ilatural con-
tours as little as possible. Balance cut
and fill areas.
c. Drainage
. Minimize surface drainage problems on
neighboring 'properties and provide ad-
equate drainage on-site.
. Natural drainage courses are to be pre-
served as close as possible to their natural
location and appearance. "Dry Stream"
effects which move water over the prop-
erty are preferred over channelling or
underground methods.
4. Circulation and Parking
. Provide a clearly organized circulation
plan for automobiles, pedestrians and
service vehicles.
. Minimize the number of driveway curb
cuts onto public roads. Access to parking
areas from secondary or side streets is
encouraged.
. Parking and service areas should be lo-
cated and landscaped to minimize views
from roads and neighboring properties.
. On hillside sites, roads and streets should
. be located to preserve the landform of the
hill.
5. Internal Site Design
. Buildings should be sited to form defined
outdoor spaces for activities. Counyards,
plazas and outdoor terraces are encour-
aged.
. Buildings should cluster to form compact
groupings around common site spaces and
economize in the use of the land.
.
10'1
$.''''1
t::.
A2. PRESERVATION OF
SIGNIFICANT TREES
Preserve significant trees as important
aesthetic and ecological resources of
Sweetwater's community landscape.
1. Definitions
. "Significant Tree" shall mean any tree
which is in good health and form and is
more than 12 inches in diameter as mea-
sured 4 feet-6 inches above the root crown.
2. Guidelines
. Site development plans should demon-
strate that a diligent effon has been made
to retain as many significant trees as
possible.
a. Criteria For Removal
. In assessing the number of trees and
specific trees that may be removed, the
applicant and Design Review Board
should consider the following criteria:
1) The condi tion of the tree with respect
to disease, danger of falling, and the
proximity to existing or proposed
structures. Should debate over the
health of the tree arise, a licensed
nursery,man should be consulted at
the expense of the applicant.
2) The necessity to remove a significant
tree in order to construct proposed
improvements to prevent extreme
economic hardship to the owner of
the propeny.
3) The topography of the land and the
effect of the significant tree removal
on erosion, soil retention, and the di-
version or increased flow of surface
waters.
4) Accepted professional forestry prac-
tices, such as the number of healthy
trees which a given parcel of land or
area can suppon.
b. When Significant Trees Must Be Removed
. When significant trees must be removed,
replanting with species listed in Appen-
dix B is recommended. Designers of each
site should take responsibility for the
correct site conditions required for each
type of tree.
;\ A-;/f/) .~
<'.-:::.~;... . ,lJ ti (, l ,~.
~'\2\ A ~/( ..{' ~.,t/t<.Il'''' -,.
_....! -.?)'I.\-;';'~/' . ~" J eN} \.tA
'or!;... r .\~),) ~ ,".....' ~C'~'
Ju' S.I .1: f.>....-J ~!Q} ~~ r-" j:J)'J' ...~!Y;.
.....0 - ~"'(: r.,-r, · }f". 1; , v ~
!. :t':').itf H.,':A ~ ,l ~7.! i;}/O,). ~
UJI':.:lo..< b 'J,r. I" \~,~ l.~~ t\~:'}' e ~I ..1:;: ~~"
_u>::' / tJ & ~ tP .,{ ",~ 10\ ,;.. \.( r. f!;l-~
'~T'" ,.;v,.. ."'i:I~ .. \~"
~ , j J" A ~ ' ' ,,~ :I q.. · ~~..\.' ~ ~~
~ br'" .,. ~ . ,p... '. t f ,." "'S
",~iH \" ,.".: ~'~t. f~lr:1 ......\ L;~~~fro .~
/k..'i;'.'~.' ./"~... ~~1f.. ~/ .:.......~
_,,) ~; ... ~;'" '~\ -" v-
. ,'. t"~ ~ .. ~ ' ~ ( . ',' ~Il ~ :l"'"
'. '~'.;fi L ~',' '. . "'\ ,l5t .b,~Q,\
-'V ~ .... ...... " i~' "'i '
.:'" ,j, ..t" \ i b:- ~/. /. l ..~~ ,rJ,j.~'; \
".C'\ 1 _ ~.) t ! r,. n t, ," \1) ~.r-.'-
" ~'i:'~'~~.~' .... . ~.. \ I, i,'.' ," -07." \) :t.~
"-:"~" ~ff~' i\ -j ~(\ \ t / \ \ tt..~; ~ ";J
-:t "6 ,,~'\:" +- "''',. }. It'; ~ '
\;,.. ,~'lr~oI ;~~ ..~\tll . ~t i~ ~.~~ f',<.
~r ~r" ~II 'lj~"'" I.~,!
"';rDi.w~~" )\'i.~V ~~r\~~~~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~~,
-
g
/pf
19D
A3. RELATIONSHIP TO
NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT
All development proposals should be de-
signed in harmony with the site plan, open
spaces and landscape design of neighbor-
ing properties.
. Every new development proposal should
demonstrate that it has orchestrated care-
ful relationships to existing neighboring
development. The value, architectural
quality and estimated life span of existing
improvements on neighboring properties
shall be considered in the design of new
projects.
. Drawings. models and/or other commu-
nications techniques presented to the De-
sign Review Board must show neighbor-
ing buildings and important features of
adjacent sites. Perspective views of pro-
posed projects and their immediate
neighbors. as viewed from the road. side-
walk or other public areas, are encour-
aged.
1. Site Planning
. The site arrangement should respect the
placement of buildings and open spaces
of adjacent sites. Open spaces defined by
buildings on neighboring properties are
an effective way of creating visual and
functional linkages between two or more
developments.
. When possible, new commercial projects
should have circulation linkages to adja-
cent commercial projects. This will re-
duce traffic on main roads by reducing
ingress and egress traffic. Connections
such as shared driveways. pedestrian
walkways and joint-use parking areas are
encouraged.
f!J
$
7::::1 ~ ~. . ',. .
PA KeEL, ^ : P A RCf.'-' 5
Circulation Linkages
4i
/bq
I~, j
I~'I
2. Visually Linking Neighboring Devel.
opments
Site design. building design and planting may
be used to define and give continuity to the
site spaces of neighboring developments.
. Protected courtyards. porches. arcades.
loggias. verandas and overhangs are tra-
ditional elements of Southern California
architecture and give a common theme to
many different buildings. old and new,
i~: t- .
.'J::.t,!. .
.. '" .. ..,--... ". ....... .---,
...., '--.. (1;; : : I ,
.... ._........a-....... I.................
t"'.:-.~t).~' .'
...r................C . ..~
.' '1,.J,..i'r" :..
. . -:. '; .;...... .)
, ;..,I..J.
"'. . t' -
. :'~'i.L}l
,'Wr
o000}6E\o Q()
~ ~ . '-}. ~ ~ ~ ~'f:..' ; . . : y ; :~
agg
Protected Courtyard
. Tree canopies are a valuable means of
defining outdoor spaces and visually
linking a development to the larger
Sweetwater landscape.
. .
. Trees planted in rows along road edges.
site boundaries and in open spaces are a
common pattern in the Sweetwater land-
scape and are encouraged where appro-
priate site conditions exist,
,~~>
rC:,,:':V ~
r":f" ~:'..:
~ ;~;;: {
~"~~" I
(.... ?0~ '/
... ' ' . . {$
.. ,., ...:-, .~
.. . ,
.. \. ,.... '.. '
.P~' :,:\,1'" '-:.. ~.,t#J~.. ~
: k ~ ' ~" " .. '
,'\.~ ~.f'~.". ," eo' "
~~ " '<f-r.~",,-,
t0~. " '.' ~ 7 r'
I " ..'. ,~..... ,.
," to \ ,. I fI
00 .... A
\..: .~ . ..' ..:.l...~ ..~
r ~;(~ "r;~f('"d;'" ,
\:' ~ . .t". ....'1.-(-t , -: .
Ill- .... .. ~'''''~' ~ , I,'
,~ l" ... .. ~.' , , "
'L", ~ ,", ........ \ .',' .;",r . ','
y ~ .. .0" ......':.' '-('w..'.'
t.~.. .. " f..' ,'",.
-.,:~ ' .."'" . , ..
.. "':\ . ,.' ' .'
.. ^"",.,.,
· . r.J..",. ./
~"..j/~J~ ....:...;/ ~
~;~"::<:,- /'--:)1'
'~ ,,:.'
, .
-;7' A~-9P
Tree masses as edge plantings
:'
II
liD
1.<'1'
r <
;-
A4. ARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTER
Sweetwater's rustic buildings develop a
rural vernacular with a strong relationship
to the valley setting. The following archi-
tectural elements are encouraged:
. Simple one and two story buildings in
earth tones with low-pitched roofs, ac-
cented with exposed timber beams, col-
umns and details.
. Extensive use of courtyards, terraces
and other defined outdoor spaces.
. Strong shade and shadow patterns cre-
ated by generous roof overhangs and
careful variation of planes in building
elevations.
. Architecture in Sweetwater should r.eflect
the character ofthe community's landscape
and climate. While no one architectural
"style" is desired, architectural elements
that are rustic and characteristic of rural
buildings are preferred.
. Standard commercial building prototypes.
often repeated by commercial "chains"
without regard to community context are
not desired. Projects of this type should
adapt their designs to the special character
of the community.
1. Building Form
. New buildings in Sweetwater should con-
tinue the dominant pattern of simple one
and two story buildings alternating with
tree-canopied spaces between them.
. The visual contrast between areas of light
and shadow gives buildings depth and
substance. All buildings should have re-
lief created by overhangs. projections.
recesses and plan offsets. Large unbro-
ken expanses of wall should be avoided.
Encouraged
Discouraged
. Rear facades. ifvisible from public streets
or neighboring properites. should be fin-
ished in a color and material similar to the
principal sides of the building(s)
.-
/1/ H3
2. Roof Forms and Plan Offsets
. Give careful attention to views of roof-
tops from adjacent roads and uphill prop-
erties.
. Gabled, hip and shed roof fonns at a low
to moderate pitch are encouraged. Gen-
erous overhangs to create strong shadow
lines are desirable. For sloped roofs,
long unbroken roof lines should be
avoided. Changes in roof pitch orienta-
tion should be accompanied by plan off-
sets on primary elevations.
. A large building's bulk may be reduced
by breaking the roof fonn into an ar-
rangement of smaller parts. There should
be a consistency of roof pitch and design
among separate roof components. Abrupt
changes in eave heights require plan
offsets to make transitions between
building components.
~
Encouraged
ft
-
"
1
.1//
Discouraged
. Flat roofs are discouraged except in small
and non-visible areas. Flat roof areas
visible from adjacent streets and proper-
ties should be screened with a parapet.
3. Multi-Building Projects
. Multi-building developments should
strive for consistency of design among
separate structures.
. Facades and rooflines should be compat-
ible throughout the development in de-
sign, color and materials.
. Rear facades, if visible from public streets
or neighboring properties, should be fin-
ished in a color and material similar to the
principal sides of the building(s).
4. Building Materials, Texture and Color
. Color selection should show evidence of
coordination with the predominant use of
.color on adjacent properties.
a) The following building materials are
encouraged:
. Exterior Walls
- Wood siding
- Exposed wood structural members
- Brick and stone masonry
_ Light colored cement plaster (stucco).
_ Split-face concrete masonry with in-
tegral color and texture.
.
//.J-,
qJ
· Roofs
- Wood shakes with thick butts, if
treated for fire resistance.
- Concrete shingles of eanh tone
color.
Clay tile of eanh tone color.
Metal ribbed roofing (weathered
metals and eanh tone colors pre-
ferred).
- Composition shingles (with thick
bults) in eanh tone colors.
· Building Base
Brick and native stone are encouraged to
provide a base for wood building walls, or
as low walls used to define exterior spaces
around the building.
b) The following materials are discouraged:
· Exterior Walls
- Large areas of glass, unless lo-
cated at pedestrian level for store
fronts.
- High contrast color glazed ma-
sonry.
- Glass cunain walls.
- Plastic materials madeto resemble
masonry .
· Roofs
- High contrast or bright colors
- Galvanized sheet metal
- Built up roofing, except in small
areas
- Highly-reflective or shiny mate-
rials
.-------
. .
_m_~
~
~~
Porches, Entrance Focus & Window Groupings
s. Entrances and Window Openings
· Entrances
- Primary building entrances should be
emphasized so that their locations are clear.
Porche~, loggias and arbors are helpful to
emphasize a building's entrance.
· Window Openings
- E'xcept at shopfront locations, the area of
solid building wall should be greater than
the area of window openings. Grouped
windows are preferred over single large
openings.
- Windows should be deeply-recessed to
produce shadow lines. .
- Two story buildings should avoid veni-
cal windows over a single story in height.
Window openings less than seven feet in
venical dimension are preferred.
.
//.:3
let
6. Exterior Spaces
Defined exterior spaces are encouraged.
Outdoor living spaces such as balconies, ve-
randas, counyards and loggias connect
buildings to their surroundings and invite the
movement of people between inside and out-
side.
PORGIES AND VERANDAS
7. Walls, Fences and Accessory Structures
. The following wall and fence materials
are encouraged:
- Wood and wood rail fences.
_ Stone and brick masonry walls.
_ Detailed wrought iron fences (for use in
gates and other small areas).
_ Walls with cement plaster finish.
- Wood
. The following wall and fence materials
are discouraged:
_ Chain link or open wire, except when
heavily screened by landscaping.
- Corrugated metal.
_ Bright colored plastic or plastic coated
materials.
- Reed materials.
. Fences, walls and accessory structures
should be designed to be compatible with
adjacent buildings. Patio covers, green-
houses, storage spaces and other ancillary
structures should be located and designed
to respect views and other special condi-
tions of adjacent properties.
. Solid fences and walls along public streets
can have a negative impact on the
streetscape and surrounding neighborhood.
These walls should be minimized. When
solid walls are used to buffer traffic noise
along major streets, the walls should pro-
vide a change of plane at a minim urn of 30
foot intervals.
8. Site Details and Furnishings
The design, selection and placement of all
site furnishings such as tables, benches,
bollards and trash receptacles should be
compatible -with the overall concept for the
site and architectural character of the build-
ings.
.
1/4
(qb
I
AS. HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Preserve existing significant natural and
built elements of Sweetwater's history.
The Historic Resources Inventory Sweetwater
Valley (September, 1990) is recommended
as a reference on historic buildings and sites
of the community. A copy is available at the
local County Library branch. The Inventory
lists potential historically or architecturally
significant local sites, but is not considered a
final determination of historic designation.
An historic site or building can substantially
contribute to the character of a neighborhood
and the community. An historic site will
normally fall into one of three categories:
1. Designated Historic Site
. In some cases an existing site or structure
may be a Designated Historic Site. In this
case there are procedures and laws for
pursuing renovation and new construc-
tion. The Planning staff of the San Diego
County Historic Site Board should be
contacted immediately for assistance. The
office is located in the San Diego County
Department of Planning and Land Use.
. The Secretary of the Interior's "Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Re-
habilitating Historic Buildings" published
by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, should be reviewed
and used.
2. Potential Designated Historic Site
.
If a site is not yet designated but is sus-
pected of being historically significant,
the following steps should be taken:
_ Contact County Planning staff or the
San Diego County Historical Site
Board staff for assistance.
_ Establish the validity of the site's
historic significance.
Nominate the site for Historic Des-
ignation if it so merits.
_ Incorporate the historic site and its
qualities into new improvements and
development as per San Diego County
Zoning Ordinance provisions.
3. Other Historic Sites
. If a site exhibits a character significant to
Sweetwater's history but does not nec-
essarily qualify as an historic site for
purposes of designation, the following
guidelines should be followed:
- All older buildings which possess
much of their original design character
should be retained, if appropriate, and
should have additions and alterations
completed with "compatible uses" and
"compatible designs" as described in
the San Diego County Zoning Ordi-
nance Division 5718.
New buildings which are built on the
same site as, or adjacent to, older
buildings of historic character should
be designed to be respectful of the
older buildings. New structures
should consider the compatibility of
details, materials, textures, colors and
landscape features.
.
1/5
(,':/-
, ,
A6. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Planting design should renect the rural
character or the Sweetwater River Valley
landscape.
Protect noodplain and open hillside areas.
Plant selection should recognize the im-
portance of water conservation and em-
phasize drought tolerant plant species.
1. Design Concepts
a. Reinforce the dominant planting patterns
that define the major open spaces of the
Sweetwater Valley:
. The floodplain is the open center of
the valley with major tree-lined roads
at the edges. Riparian plantings within
the floodplain areas should be native
California vegetation indigenous to
the area. Plantings in the floodplain
fringe areas may be introduced spe-
cies which can acclimate to the site
conditions. The goal is to strengthen
the natural, open character of the
floodplain.
.
Densely planted road edges wind
along the perimeter of the valley and
up into the foothills. Sweetwater's
scenic roads should be treated as op-
portunities to restore the road edge
condition of the rural valley land-
scape.
. The open hillsides that are seen from
the valley floor extend the rural val-
ley feeling up into the higher elevation
residential neighborhoods. The hill-
sides are naturally grassy, with trees
primarily in washes and gullies. Un-
developed hillsides that provide
open spaces between developments
should be protected.
b. New plantings in Sweetwater should be
drought tolerant.
.
All new plantings should be able to
withstand a summer with restricted
irrigation after an establishment pe-
riod of two years.
.
Turf grasses, shallow rooted
groundcovers and high water-using
trees and shrubs are discouraged.
2. Plant Selection
Appendix B. "Plant Selection Guide" at the
end of this booklet lists suggested plant
species and their recommended uses.
Plants have been chosen b'ased upon the fol-
lowing criteria:
.
Appropriateness for climate zones.
Drought resistance.
Form considerations: height,
branching patterns, density.
Maintenance.
Aesthetic considerations: flowering,
fruiting, leaf color.
.
.
.
.
II>
/I~'
I q fJ
3. General Planting Guidelines
. All planting plans shall conform to the
County of San Diego's "Landscape Wa-
ter Conservation Ordinance and Design
Manual".
. All landscaped areas should have under-
ground irrigation systems capable of sus-
taining good plant growth. Automatic
systems are encouraged.
. All planting beds should be mulched with
an organic mulch of at least 1.5 inches in
depth.
. Shrubs are preferred over ornamental
ground covers and lawns due to their low
water use characteristics. Shrubs are more
deeply rooted than ground covers and turf
grasses and will withstand drought con-
ditions better.
. Expanses of turf grasses are discouraged.
except in parks or other active recreation
areas.
. When existing trees are to be retained.
they may be counted toward tree planting
requirements. New planting requirements
may be further adjusted to reflect the size
and density of existing trees and shrubs.
4. Public Rights-Of-Way
All areas of the public right-of-way between
the property line and sidewalk (or street edge)
should be fully landscaped with shrubs or
ground covers. Trees should not be planted
in the right-of-way.
5. Planting for High Fire Hazard Areas
. High fire hazard areas include undevel-
oped canyons. hillsides. and grasslands
where native vegetation has become
overgrown. Development within or on
the fringes of. these areas is subject to
brush fires.
. A transition between ornamental land-
scaping and native vegetation may be
created by selective pruning and thinning
native plants and revegetation with low
fuel volume plants. Such a transition
reduces the readily flammable fuel which
spreads fire into developed areas.
. Transitional areas can be divided into
three distinct zones. The following di-
mensions are recommended. but subject
to Fire District approval:
Zone #1: Minimum 20' wide. Native
vegetation which should be selectively
pruned and thinned.
Zone #2: Minimum 30' wide. Native
vegetation which should be selectively
pruned and thinned. and introduced fire
retardant plantings.
Zone #3: Minimum 30' wide. Ornamen-
tal non-native species which are fire re-
tardant.
See Appendix "Btt for a list of fire retardant
plantings suitable for high fire hazard areas.
Q
//7
111
A 7. SIGN AGE
Signs in Sweetwater should reflect the ru-
ral-rustic character of the valley's archi.
tecture.
1. General Design Criteria
.
Signage design should be carefully inte-
grated with the site and building design
concepts to create a unified appearance
for the total development. Within a de-
velopment, signage should be consistent
in location and design.
.
If a proposed sign does not meet the lit-
eral provisions of these Guidelines but
does meet their intent, the applicant's
sign proposal will be considerd by the
Design Review Board on a case by case
basis. However, it is the responsibility of
the applicant to demonstrate the proposal
meets the intent of the Design Guidelines.
. All signs should be a minimum size and
height to adequately identify a business
and the products or services it sells.
. Signage should be carefully located for
safety so as not to block driveway views
of oncoming traffic.
. Illumination should be projected onto the
sign face. The light source should be
fully shielded from view. Internally il-
luminated plastic signs and neon signs
should not be used.
. The total number of colors used for in-
dividual signs and their sign components
should be limited to 3 in addition to black
and white.
. Typefaces should be chosen for their
simplicity and clarity. Signs on older
buildings are encouraged to use a type-
face which was used during the period in
which the building was built.
.
Sign posts and other structural elements
should be made of wood or metal with a
white. earth tone, black or natural stain
finish. Reflective or bright colors should
be avoided.
.
No sign. other than a sign installed by a
public agency, should be placed in the
public right-of-way.
Rooftop and roof-mounted signs are not
permitted. No signs should be located
above the eave height or parapet top of a
building.
at
liS
;Joe
2. Recommended Sign Types
The following types of signs are recom-
mended:
. Awning Valance: A sign or graphic at-
tached to or printed on an awning's val-
ance.
. Monument: A sign supported by one or
more uprights or braces on the ground.
. Projecting: Any sign which projects from
and is supported by a wall of a building
with the display surface of the sign per-
pendicular to the building wall.
. I
Awning Valence
Projecting
. Single Pole Hanging Sign: A sign which
is suspended from a horizontal arm which
is attached to a pole.
. Wall: A sign affixed directly to an exte-
rior wall or fence.
. W~~w: A~prlfiudroM~~~a
window.
Monument
Wall
Window
Single Pole Hanging
..
IIU
~'I I
--:-:.;i (J
3. Sign Guidelines By Use
a. Sign Measurement
. To calculate the area of a sign. measure:
1) The area of the box or outline which
contains the sign.
2) In the case of unboxed letters or sym-
bols. the area of the smallest rect-
angle which would enclose all of the
letters or symbols.
3) Only one face of a double-faced sign
with parallel opposing faces. and
bearing identical copy. shall be used
in calculating sign area. Signing and
illumination shall be on no more than
two opposing faces.
( Sweetwater Food Company J
~asur~ Th~ Sign Box
rs---------------- - -- - -- - -- - -- -----,
L_W_ce~ ~l!J~~ J~.9Q9__C.QJ!l_P1J,.I] y;
Musure The Imaginary Box
Sign Measurement
b. Sign Size Limits
. Commercial Development
Where frontage is defined as the length of
the property facing the principal street of
the development (each project can only
have one frontage):
1) For frontages up to 100 lineal feet. the
total sign area should be limited to 65
square feet.
2) For frontages over 100 lineal feet. the
total signage should be limited to 3/4
square foot of sign area per lineal foot
of property frontage.
. Letter and symbol height of all signs
should be limited to a maximum of 10
inches.
.
Multi-Family Residential Development
_ There should be no more than one sign
per multi-family residential develop-
ment entry from a public street or
road.
_ Sign area should be. limited to 10
square feet for projects of less than 25
dwelling units. and 15 square feet for
projects with 25 or more dwelling
units.
_ Sign types recommended: Wall.
Monument and Single Pole Hanging
Signs.
_ Letter and symbol height should be
limited to a maximum of 6 inches.
c. Guidelines by Sign Type
. Monument signs sbould be limited to 4
feet in height.
. Single Pole 'Hanging signs should be
limited to 6 feet in height.
. A Window sign should not exceed 25% of
the area of the window on, or behind
which, it is displayed.
~
&I' /,;20
:;)0 ~
4. Prohibited Signs
The following signs should not be used in
Sweetwater. Public safety signs are excepted.
. Pole signs.
. Roof signs and signs extended above roof
parapets.
. Internally illuminated plastic signs. Other
plastic signs are discouraged, except
where plastic is used only as raised let-
ters.
. Back lit signs which appear to be inter-
nally illuminated.
. Portable or mobile signs.
. Signs with changing or moving copy.
. Neon signs. Small neon window signs
under two square feet may be used. but
are limited to one per business estab-
lishment.
.
/::L/
~..(\ ~
~"".,.J...",
AS. SITE LIGHTING
Site lighting should be used efficiently to
aid safety, security and compliment archi-
tectural character. It should minimize in-
trusion into adjacent properties, roadways
and the night sky_
1_ General Requirements
. All lighting shall comply with San Diego
County Zoning Ordinance provisions.
. Lighting which interferes with the sur-
rounding character of the neighborhood
is not acceptable.
. Lighting which is visible from adjacent
properties or roads must be indirect or
incorporate full shield cut-offs.
2. Parking Area Lighting
. For commercial areas, overhead lighting
should be mounted at a maximum height
of 15 feet above the paved surface.
. For residential parking areas, overhead
lighting should be mounted at a maximum
height of 12 feet. The placement of light-
ing in residential parking areas should
avoid interference with bedroom win-
dows.
3. Walkway, Garden and Pedestrian Area
Lighting
. Overhead fixtures used for pedestrian
areas should be limited to heights below
8 feet. Lower mounting heights are en-
couraged.
. Along walkways, low-level lighting in
the form of bollards or fixtures mounted
on shon posts is encouraged. Shatter-
proof coverings are recommended. Posts
should be located to avoid hazards for
pedestrians or vehicles.
~
/~2
.
''''"' t'1 L /
....,,';() f
A9. BUILDING EQUIPMENT
AND SERVICES
Locate and design building equipment to
minimize visual impact on public streets
and neighboring properties.
. Trash containers and outdoor storage
areas should be screened from view from
public streets. pedestrian areas and
neighboring properties. The screen for
the trash containers should be designed to
be compatible with the architectural
character of the development and be of
durable materials.
. In larger commercial developments. ser-
vice and loading areas should be sepa-
rated from main circulation and parking
areas. The development of separate
buildings in larger commercial projects
does not exclude them from the require-
ments of screening trash, loading or ser-
vice areas.
. Locate utility meters in screened areas.
. Exterior surface-mounted conduit and
electrical boxes are discouraged. Where
they are necessary. they should be de-
signed, painted or screened to blend in
with the design of the building to which
they are attached.
. Mechanical equipment. solar collectors.
satellite dishes. communication devices
and other equipment should be concealed
from view of public streets, adjacent
properties and pedestrian areas. Dark
colored mesh satellite dishes are encour-
aged over light colored solid dish types.
. Roof mounted equipment should be
screened from view from adjacent roads,
properties and pedestrian areas. Special
attention should be given to buildings
whose roofs are viewed from higher el-
evations. The design of these buildings
should integrate the rooftop equipment
into the design of the roof. It is often
possible to create a "well" within the
structure so that the equipment is sur-
rounded by pitched roof forms.
. Where solar panels are attached to
buildings, they should be integrated into
the architectural design of the building.
Solar panels which are not attached to
buildings should be integrated into the
landscape design by using berms. natural
slopes or similar devices. Where solar
panels cannot be integrated into the
landscape design they should be screened
from view with fences and/or planting.
All plumbing and storage tanks associ-
ated with solar panels should be con-
'cealed from view.
. Screening devices (rooftop and ground
level) should consider the following ele-
ments:
Architectural screens should be an
extension of the development's ar-
chitectural character.
_ Screen walls should be constructed
for low maintenance and durable
materials which are consistent with
the building's materials.
Landscaping should be used to com-
pliment ground level screening de-
vices.
.
/~
""\ l''' ("
r:::;;;;\.. ) .;.
B. DESIGN GUIDELINES BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Illustrative commercial development with landscaped edge, tree canopies over parking lots,
linked pedetrian walkways and architecture compatible with Sweetwater's rural residential
character.
.
/d-~
..... r) I'
c:;t( ~"
Bl. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Unify commercial development and Inte-
grate it with the landscape, minimizing the
visual Impact of signs, parking lots and
traffic congestion.
This Guideline applies to all commercial and
institutional development in the Sweetwater
Planning Area.
1. Site Planning
. Provide a minimum 20 foot deep Land-
scaped Edge Zone along all public road
frontages. The purpose of this guideline
is to develop visual continuity between
adjacent developments and create a con-
sistent road edge design that reflects
Sweetwater's rural residential character.
The Landscaped Edge Zone should be
interrupted only by driveways, sidewalks
or pedestrian areas and trails (See Sec-
tion C2). Parking is not permitted in this
location.
. Give buildings and groups of buildings
pedestrian focus by encouraging the use
of defined outdoor spaces such as porches,
loggias, colonnades and courtyards.
These elements provide shade, a transition
between indoor and outdoor spaces, and
visual interest through shade and shadow
patterns.
2. Parking and Driveway Access
Refer to San Diego County Zoning Ordi-
nance Division 6750 and County of San Di-
ego Offstreet Park.ing Manual for require-
ments regarding driveway location.
. Minimize the number of curb cuts and
driveway openings on public streets.
. When access to a side street is available,
the side street should be used for park.ing
lot entrances.
. Adjacent commercial developments
should coordinate parking plans to allow
internal vehicular circulation to lessen
traffic flow onto major streets.
. Shared or joint-use driveways between
separate propenies are encouraged to re-
duce the number of curb cuts on public
streets.
. Locate driveways as far from intersec-
tions as possible.
~-""J'-;:"":''!'" "~" h.:-'~"::."Io;~." ..;....... ...:;~..-.: :~,. 'r:.:.:;-t ., ;:...-,. . :. ",,:~;.: r;;7j..::::.." ~:1 ~'
...# ....... .'. J"'_'~~ .... .... ,.. 1.........- ..' ..... ~.... '. ....... .
. :
20 Ft. Landscaped Edge Zone
(a t all public road edges)
· /~5
,
dO r,
3. Parking Lot Size
. Individual parking areas shall be limited
to a maximum of 24 spaces; where more
than 24 spaces are required for a devel-
opment, separate areas not exceeding 24
spaces shall be designed and buffered by
ten foot planted breaks between adjacent
areas.
4. Planting Guidelines
~~.2
. '.1
fl~~
'::-i
"
....]
~:~
.3
t.
:',1
1. Landscaped Edge Zone
2. Side Yard (if reg.)
3. Rear Yard
PLAN
. See Appendix B. "Plant Selection Guide"
for recommended plant species.
a. Landscaped Edge Zone
. General planting requirements for the
Landscaped Edge Zone:
Trees: Provide at least 1 tree per 300
square feet of total area of the Land-
scaped Edge Zone. Trees should be a
minimum of 15 gallons.
Shrubs, Groundcovers and Ornamen-
tal Grasses: Ornamental grasses and
shrub plantings are encouraged to create
spatial definition within planting areas.
Grasses and low, creeping shrubs may be
used in the foreground; larger, coarser
shrubs in the background. Blooming
shrubs are encouraged. Shrubs should be
spaced with "on center" spacing so that
branches intertwine after 2 years growth.
~arking Area Edges: Along the street-
facing side of parking areas, shrubs and!
orlow walls should provide a visual screen
a minimum of 30 inches in height. At
driveway entrances, shrubs and/or low
walls should not obstruct views of on-
coming traffic.
Trails: Trails should be provided in the
Landscaped Edge Zone if the location is
so designated in the Sweetwater Ridin~
and Hikin~ Trails Plan.
..0(
I I
. ~
Landscap-,' RIGHT-OF-WAY
ed Frlge
Zone ""t PROPERlY LINE
Section. Landscaped Road Edge.
b. Interior Property Line
. Side and rear yard areas should be fully
landscaped with a combination of trees
and shrubs.
Trees: Provide at least one tree per 300
square feet of total yard area. Trees should
be 15 gallon size, minimum.
. Parking Lot Setbacks
Shrubs: Shrubs should provide a visual
screen a minimum of 30 inches in height
after 2 years growth. For Shrubs in massed
plantings, use "on center" dimensioning
to space shrubs so that branches inter-
twine.
It /,;{ c::.'
""""". . (,
Q>i )
c. Interior Parking Lot Planting
. For parking lots greater than 6000 square
feet, in addition to all other guidelines, an
internal area equal to a minimum of 5
percent of the total parking area should
be planted with a combination of trees
and shrubs. Tree spacing should be lo-
cated so that every designated parking
space is within 30 feet of the trunk of a
tree.
. The parking lot perimeter should termi-
nate a minimum of 5 feet from the face of
a building or wall. This area should be
planted with trees or shrubs, unless used
as a pedestrian walkway.
"
"-
,
/' ---1- ""
;/ / "
..L---
I \
I
~
'.J y
- --
Parking Radius. Every parking space
should be within 30 ft. of the trunk
of a tree.
Parking with planted break
Parking with planter or grate
I1lustrative Methods of Providing Tree Canopies at Internal Parking Areas
· /~7
'1
s. Illustrations of Typical Corner Developments
a. Typical Corner Development
~.~
I ..
b. Corner Convenience Store or Service Station.
PARKING
---Jml
a m ~I
m m lfQ:
---- ---1 m l
MUIUAL A 5 EASEMENI'
~....:
;-.. "0 '.- ~.
. ..
e /~g
diD
B2. MULTI-FAMILY AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Multi-family and duplex developments
should contribute to the sense of a
"neiehborhood" by carefully-relating
building frontages and yards to public
streets and adjacent properties.
1. Site Planning
.
Provide a minimum 20 foot Planted Yard
setback along all front and side street
propeny lines. The setback area should
be fully landscaped. interrupted only by
driveways. sidewalks and pedestrian ar-
eas. Parking is not allowed in this area.
.
Public rights-of-way should be planted in
a similar manner as the Planted Yard
setback area, though the use of trees
should be avoided within the right-of-
way.
. Organize as many of the dwelling unit
entries as possible to front the street. The
use of front porches or entry patios and
terraces facing public streets is encour-
aged.
. Locate the first floor of living spaces not
more than one half story above ground
level.
2. Group Usable Open Space
. Definition:
Group Usable Open Space is space for
common use by occupants of a develop-
ment, normally including playgrounds.
recreation couns. patios. open landscaped
areas and swimming pools. Parking.
driveways and loading "areas are not
considered Group Usable Open Space.
. Provide all multi-family projects with at
le.ast 100 square feet of Group Usable
open space per dwelling unit.
. Provide at least one designated childrens
play area of a minimum 400 square feet
for the first 2S dwelling units. Add 10
square feet for each additional dwelling
unit. This Guideline does not apply to
senior citizen residential projects.
. /~j'
d.11
3. Private Usable Open Space
. All multi-family projects are encouraged
to provide at least 100 square feet of
Private Usable Open Space per dwelling
unit.
. The County Development Regulations
governing Private Usable Open Space
should apply, with the following addi-
tional recommendations:
Private open spaces on the ground
should be a minimum of 8 feet in each
plan dimension and should be
screened from public view by
plantings, walls. privacy fences and
other similar methods.
Decks used for upper floor private
space should have a minimum di-
mension of 4 feet.
To provide open space on sloped sites.
consider terracing to achieve level
spaces.
Locate private outdoor spaces to re-
ceive solar gain in the winter months.
Consider the use of deciduous trees to
provide a combination of summer
shade and winter sun.
4. Parking and Driveway Access
a. General Guidelines
. Residential parking lots should not be
located between the fronts of buildings
and public streets. Place parking lots to
the rear, side or internal locations on the
property.
. Garage doors of multi-family buildings
should open to the rear or side of the lot
and should not face a public street, except
in the case of a comer lot and lots with
less than 100 feet of frontage. In the case
of comer lots, open the garage doors to
the side street. On small lots, when it is
necessary for the garage to face the major
street, reduce the garage door frontage on
the street to a minimum.
. Buildings which contain a common en-
closed parking garage may orient one
garage door opening toward the street.
. Carports and garages should be compat-
ible with the architecture of the principal
building.
. Views to parking areas should be screened
from public streets, adjacent properties
and Group Usable Open Spaces.
b. Parking Drives
Parking Drives are used for internal vehicle
access to garages, carports, or open parking
areas. They incorporate parking spaces along
their length. whether in garages, carports or
open parking.
. Long lines of parked cars or blank garage
doors should be relieved by planting ar-
eas or other types of screening.
. Parking arranged in bays to give a street-
like char-acter is encouraged. Each eight
spaces of continuous perpendicular or
. /3'0
I;::;'
angled parking should be separated from
others by a planted area not less than one
park.ing space wide.
. The planted separation should contain at
least one tree, minimum 15 gallon size.
. In multi-family projects over 50 dwelling
units, the location of Parking Drives
around the periphery of the project is
discouraged. This kind of edge condition
isolates the development from the neigh-
borhood.
c. Parking Courts
Parking Couns are small, landscaped park-
ing areas with tree canopies, normally con-
taining less than 20 parking spaces. A Parking
Coun can take the character of an "outdoor
room" and contribute to the spatial organiza-
tion of the site.
. Parking Couns are encouraged as an al-
ternative to large parking lots or long
parking drives.
d. Covered Parking
. Covered parking within garages. carports
and trellised canopies is encouraged.
. For sloping sites. tuck under parking is
often an economical solution that econo-
mizes in the use of the land.
5. Planting Guidelines
a. Street Trees
. New public streets and private roads in
residential developments should have
street trees planted at regular intervals
throughout the development. Consult
Appendix B. "Plant Selection Guide".
b. Planted Front Yard
. Parking lots should be set back from pub-
lic streets by a Planted Yard of at least 20
feet in depth measured from the street
facing property line. Provide at least one
tree per 300 square feet of area between
the property line and the face of the curb
of the parking area. Trees should be 15
gallon size, minimum. See Appendix B.
"Plant Selection Guide".
~~2
tL~\
'.:i .
,',
,',J
<'1
\1
.. 3
"
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
)1
VlI
I
I
1. Planted Front Yard With Street Trees
2. Interior Property line. Side Yard
3. Interior Property Line. Rear Yard
Planted Yards
PLAN
. Parking Lots Adjacent to the Planted
Yard:
Shrubs and/or low walls should provide a
visual screen of a minimum of 30 inches
in height after 2 years growth. When
walls are used, a minimum 5 foot wide
planted edge should be provided along
the street facing side of the wall. For
shrubs in massed plantings, use "on cen-
ter" dimensioning to space shrubs so that
branches intenwine after two years aver-
age gro'?'/th. At driveway entrances,
shrubs and/or low walls should not ob-
struct views of oncoming traffic.
it /3/
-I:>
~->
c. Interior Property Line Planting
. Where side yard or rear yard setbacks are
required adjacent to parking areas, the
entire setback area should be planted with
a combination of trees and shrubs.
. Guideline for Interior Property Line
Planting:
Trees: Provide at least 1 tree per 300
square feet of total area of the required
side or rear yard. Trees should be 15
gallon size, minimum.
. Guideline for parking lot edges along in-
terior property lines:
Trees: Provide at least one tree per 200
square feet of total yard area. Trees should
be 15 gallon size, minimum.
Shrubs: Shrubs should provide a visual
screen a minimum of 30 inches in height
after 2 years growth. For shru bs in massed
plantings, use "on center" dimensioning
to space shrubs so that branches inter-
twine after two years average growth.
Parking with planted break
d. Internal Parking Lot Planting
. For all parking lots greater than 6000
square feet, in addition to all other guide-
lines, an internal area equal to a minimum
of 5 percent of the total parking area
should be planted with a combination of
trees and shrubs. Tree spacing should be
such that every designated parking space
is within 30 feet of the trunk of a tree.
Turf areas are discouraged. See Appen-
dix B. "Plant Selection Guide".
. The parking lot perimeter should termi-
nate a minimum of 5 feet from the face of
a building. This area should be planted
with shrubs, unless used as a pedestrian
walkway.
---
/-1-........
" / / "
...... I __ \
- --
Parking Radius. Every parking space should
be within 30 ft. of the trunk of a tree.
Parking with planter or grate
'.
Alternative Methods of Providing Tree Canopies at Internal Parking Areas
~~
.. /3.;2
~)4
B3. MOBILE HOME PARKS
1. Intent
Local regulation of mobile home parks is
limited by provisions of State Law. It is
recognized that it is impossible to anticipate
locations. It is hoped that applicants for
mobile home park developments will coop-
erate with the Community Planning Group
and the Design Review Board in their review
of the Major Use Permit application to con-
form the design as nearly as feasible to the
following guidelines.
Mobile home parks should be built in such a
way that they will be compatible with
neighboring buildings and developments.
Mobile home parks provide a unique challenge
because the majority of the individual homes
are prefabricated. However. it is possible for
the mobile home park to use elements of
landscaping. lighting. signage. and architec-
tural character to integrate the development
with the neighboring community.
. Mobile home parks shall comply with the
"Mobile Home On Private Lot Regula-
tions". Sections 6502 through 6506. of
the County Zoning Ordinance.
. Community buildings located within a
mobile home park should meet all stan-
dards of the Sweetwater Design Guide-
lines.
. Landscaping, lighting. signage and off-
street parking should follow the Design
Guidelines.
. Consideration will be given by the De-
sign Review Board to unique situations
which may preclude following Guidelines
which are inappropriate because of the
nature of mobile home development.
However. the applicant should do every-
thing possible to adapt the project to the
Sweetwater Design Guidelines.
2. Individual Mobile Homes
Although a specific architectural character is
not required for mobile homes. the following
general principles should be followed:
. Eanh tones and warm. light colors are
encouraged.
. Bright colored and highly reflective roof
surfaces are discouraged.
. When necessary to place utilities on the
roof, all visible surface equipment should
be the same color as the roof or be screened
from view.
. These guidelines apply to carpons and
other outbuildings.
. /.33
~
/
C. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL AREAS
Cl. DEVELOPMENT IN FLOOD PLAINS AND-RIPARIAN AREAS
~
~~
7;~
.. .
,
~
~
This Guideline lists Development Standards
and Design Guidelines that protect the scenic
and aesthetic values of Sweetwater's Flood
Plain and riparian areas. The Sweetwater
River Flood Plain is a key visual focus of the
community that should be preserved and
protected.
. Development, including recreational
projects such as golf couses, should cause
minimal change to water courses and
important areas of native vegetation.
. Buildings constructed in the Flood Plain
fringe areas should be sited with tree
clusters to visually tie them to t~e land-
scape and reduce their visual prominence.
"
The potential hazards created by develop-
ment, grading and stream bank alteration
within a Flood Plain are not only a concern of
the development itself, but may cause dam-
age to properties upstream and downstream
of the property. For this reason, the larger
.'..
A ~
.~
~
t"-~
. .
off-site implications of all proposed build-
ings, other built improvements such as roads
and - parking areas, land form grading and
stream bank alterations within a Flood Plain
should also be considered in all development
reviews.
While the following definitions and guide-
lines are compatible with current regulations,
they do not supercede adopted County ordi-
nances and policies pertaining to development
in Flood Plains. These currently include the
Resource Protection Ordinance and Board of
Supervisors Policy 1-68, "Proposed Devel-
opment in Flood Plains with defined Flood-
ways" .
1. Definitions
_ "IOO-YEAR FLOOD" means a flood
estimated to occur on an average of
once in 100 yeasr (1 % probability of
occurrence in each year).
,
/3Lj
.
1/
-t,:
_ "FLOOD PLAIN" means a land area
which is likely to be flooded, adjoining
a river, stream, watercourse, ocean, bay
or lake.
_ "FLOODW A Y" means the river chan-
nel and the adjacent land areas needed
to carry the IOO-year flood, without
increasing the water surface elevation
more than one foot at any point. Ad-
ditional criteria needed to provide good
flow conditions may apply.
_ "FLOOD FRINGE" means all land ly-
ing in the IOO-year Flood Plain that is
outside the Floodway.
2. The Floodway
The Floodway should be kept as close as
possible to its natural condition. Struc-
tures, parking araes and other major im-
provements are prohibited. Land form
and stream bank alterations within the
zone are strongly discouraged, except as
outlined below.
3. Development Within the Flood Plain
The general intent of this Guideline is to
discourage development within the entire
Flood Plain. Since this is sometimes not
possible without a complete loss of
propeny development potential, devel-
opment in the Flood Fringe area is per-
mitted subject to the following Guide-
lines:
a. properties Panially within a Flood
Plain
For developments on properties with
areas lying both within and outside of
the Flood Plain, buildings. shall be
clustered, to the maximum extent fea- .
sible, in the areas of the site lying
outside the Flood Plain. Use of the
Flood Plain as group open space for
recreation or other activities which
would leave it in a natural state is
strongly encouraged.
The intent of this paragraph should be
observed in all new lot splits and
Planned Developments. Required
open spaces should be applied to all
land which is not proposed to be de-
veloped.
b. Properties Entirely within a Flood
Plain
If a development is proposed in the
Flood Fringe area, the applicant must
demonstrate the building, filling and
other land form alterations will not
contribute to off-site property dam-
age by flooding, nor will it be subject
to erosion by future floods. Fill shall
be limited to that whiCh is necessary
to elevate the structure above the el-
evation ofthe flood way and to permit
minimal functional use of the struc-
ture.
c. Modification to the Floodway
Filling and/or develQpment of per-
manent structures is prohibited in the
floodway. Allowable land uses are
outlined in the Resource Protection
Ordinance and include agricultural,
recreational and other such low-in-
tensity uses, provided they do not
harm the environmental value of the
flood way area.
Construction of concrete or other
engineered channels, dikes and levees
within the Floodway zone is prohib-
ited, except when used to protect ex-
isting structures built prior to the
enactment of the Resource Protection
Ordinance.
4. Stream Bank Stabilization
Self-formed stream channels tend to be in
a state of equilibrium, nearly stable, and
usually do not require artificial bank
stabilization. Land use changes that cause
an increase in impervious surfaces or
sedimentation will result in channel en-
.. /35
c'?7 17
largement and stream bank erosion. This
may require measures to stabilize the
stream bank.
a. Stream reahbilitation is the preferred
method of stabilization, its objective
being to maintain the natural charac-
teristics of the watercourse. The
process may include enlarging the
channel at points of obstruction,
clearing obstructions at natural bends
and points of constriction, limitation
of use in areas of excessive erosion
and restoration of riparian vegetation.
b. Concrete channels and other me-
chanical measures of stabilization
should not be permitted unless no
other alternative exists.
c. If a stream bank stabilization other
than stream rehabilitation and veg-
etative methods is required, hand-
placed stone or rock riprap are the
preferred methods.
d. Planting in the Flood Plain
The Flood Plain should be kept as
close as possible to its natural state.
The large open spaces and indigenous
riparian vegetation such as live oaks,
sycamores and scrub should be pre-
served and emphasized in new
plantings. Ornamental plantings and
the introduction of non-native spe-
cies should be avoided.
8> /3iP
dl~
'-
C2. SCENIC ROADS AND TRAILS
. Preserve and improve the rural charac-
ter of Sweetwater's Scenic Roads.
. Consider expansion of Riding and Hik-
ing Trails where appropriate within the
community.
.,~ G
~"tt
.. \' r
""',7,.
; ;}/0 \.
- ~.
'I1"i.\ : .
""G.' I
/$
Sweetwater Road
1. Scenic Roads
Road (unbuilt), and Sweetwater
Road.
a. Application
. Development subject to Design Review
along Scenic Roads should follow the
Guidelines of this section. The Guidelines
are recommended design principles for
development not subject to Design Re-
view.
(2) Roads which may be considered for
future scenic designation include
Quarry Road and Proctor Valley
Road.
. Scenic Roads in Sweetwater fall into three
categories:
(3) Several other roads are visual re-
sources whose character should be
preserved: Acacia Avenue.
Lomacitas Lane. Lynwood Street.
Grevilla Way and Hill Road.
(1) The Scenic Highway Element of the
San Diego County General Plan des-
ignates the following roads as first
priority scenic roads in the
Sweetwater Planning Area: Bonita
Road. San Miguel Road. Guajolote
. New development along each of the three
categories of Scenic Roads should give
special design attention to road edge con-
ditions, strengthening the rural appear-
ance of buildings and open spaces as
viewed from the road.
o /37
\
dl4
b. Road Edge Zone
For all development subject to Design
Review, a 20-foot deep Road Edge Zone
should be observed along all Scenic
Roads.
The Road Edge Zone should be designed
in a rural character, by retaining existing
natural features and limiting site im-
provements to rural elements:
. Retain existing land forms, mature
trees, and important rock out-
croppings. The location of driveways
and underground utilities should avoid
destroying important natural features.
. Retain and strengthen the qualities
which are unique to the particular
section of each road. Preserve exist-
ing vistas. Where roads wind through
canyons, canopy trees can enhance
the experience of being "enclosed."
Planting native oaks or California
Peppers along the road edge will
provide an evergreen canopy over the
roads.
. Low walls of native stone, wooden
rail fences, boulders and native rocks
~re encouraged.
. Recommended plant species for Sce-
nic Roads are listed in Appendix B,
"Plant Selection Guide. For fire
protection, low fuel volume plants
are recommended along all roads.
. Structures and parking areas should
not be located in the Road Edge Zone.
c. Other Site Areas
. Views of other site areas visible from
Scenic Roads should be carefully consid-
ered. Design of these areas in a rural
character similar to the Road Edge Zone
is encouraged.
. Building setbacks in excess of minimum
requirements are encouraged.
. Equipment storage and service areas
should be located to the rear of properties
and screened from public view.
2. Trails
. Sweetwater's extensive trail system is a
unique element of the community. New
development should dedicate rights-of-
way for trails designated in the
Sweetwater Ridin~ and Hikin~ Trails
elm. Linkages between trails are en-
couraged to strengthen connections
throughout the system.
. Trails must be designed and constructed
to applicable County regulations.
. Views of yards, buildings and other site
areas, as seen from trails, should be
considered. Design of visible areas in a
rural character, using the principles out- .
lined in Paragraph (I b) "Road Edge
Zone", is encouraged.
1
... /3J
IV. GUIDELINES FOR OTHER REVIEWS
This section presents desirable standards for
other types of discretionary project reviews
not subject to the Community Design Review
program.
Section A deals with single family residen-
tial development. Some of the standards in
this section are contained in other County
regulations. Where that is not the case, the
standards must be adopted into the Sweetwater
Community Plan before they can be used in
project reviews.
Section B addresses the community's public
right-of-way standards. Before these im-
provements can be constructed, the standards
need to be authorized through Board of Su-
pervisors Policy 1-36 which allows devia-
tions from the County's normal road stan-
dards.
Where the guidelines are appropriately au-
thorized, they may be considered in the review
of all projects subject to discretionary re-
view. For this reason. the applicant should
confer with County planning staff to deter-
mine which of the guidelines apply. Discre-
tionary projects include but are not limited
to:
Specific Plans
_ Tentative Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps
Major Use Permits
- Site Plans
_ Grading permits which are subject to en-
vironmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In addition, the guidelines for Community
Design Review presented in the. previous
sections of this booklet might also be appli-
cable in these other types of discretionary
project reviews. provided they are authorized
through existing County regulations or
through future adoption into the Sweetwater
Community Plan.
.13~
'~~
A. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
At. Preservation of Open Spaces and Ex-
isting Natural Features
Residential development plans should dem- gentle horizontal and vertical curves in
onstrate an effort to preserve and protect road alignments.
significant natural features in the layout and
design of streets, lots and grading patterns. . On hillside sites where conditions per-
mit, streets and driveways should be laid
. The provisions of Guidelines A 1 "Site out parallel to existing topographic con-
Design" and A2 "Preservation of Sig- tours in order to minimize grading.
nificant Trees" in Section III of this
document should be followed as general . Bridges should be considered for streets
design criteria for the preservation of crossing natural drainage courses, can-
natural features in the planning of single yons and ravines of environmental or
family residential developments. scenic value.
. Sweetwater's designated open spaces are . Align streetsand lots to take advantage of
important community assets that should potential public views from streets.
be preserved from encroachments and
erosion damage. Provisions should be . Street widths of the minimum width per-
made to properly maintain these areas, mitted by County standards are encour-
providing for fire hazard control, removal aged if the reduced width will lessen the
of litter and protection of vegetation. need for hillside grading. It is often pos-
sible to omit a parallel parking lane, or to
A2. Street Layout and Design split the lanes of a roadway, to accom-
plish this objective.
. Street layout should be aligned to con-
form, as closely as possible, to existing . When streets are located on exposed
grades and minimize the need for the hillsides viewed from a distance, cut
grading of slopes. Natural land forms slopes should be rounded off to approxi-
may often be retained by introducing mate a natural appearance.
Integrate natural features with roadway alignments
.. /40
-......-.,
("~,~C
A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
Sweetwater's hillsides are an imponant pan
of the community's environment. The design
of single family developments should mini-
mize grading impacts in the layout of streets
and lots.
. Hillside grading should create slopes that
approximate the surrounding natural hills.
. The "engineered" appearance of manu-
factured slopes should be avoided by
creating smooth, flowing contours of
varying gradients, preferably with slopes
of 2:1 to 5:1. Avoid sharp cuts and fills,
and long linear slopes that have a uniform
grade.
. Slope banks can be softened by contoured
grading at the top and toe of the slope.
Contoured Grading
. Terracing should be designed with small
incremental steps, avoiding wide-step
terracing and large areas of flat pads.
. Building sites should be graded so that
they appear to emerge from the slope.
Pads should be of minimum size to ac-
commodate .the structure and a reason-
able amount of adjacent outdoor space.
Split level terraces are encouraged to re-
duce pad size. As much of the remaining
lot area as possible should be kept in the
gradient of the original slope.
Site Terracing
. Grading should be minimized within 10
feet of all perimeter propeny lines of the
development, unless the grading is simi-
lar to the existing adjacent slopes or to
the planned grading ofthe adjacent slopes.
. Retaining walls and pony walls visible
from off-site should be of minimum
height. Retaining walls faced with stone
or eanh-colored materials are encour-
aged.
. Drainage devices such as terrace drains,
benches and downdrains should be placed
in locations of least visibility on slopes.
The side of a drain may be bermed to
conceal it.
Natural swales leading downhill are a
good location for downdrains. Visible
drains should be as close as possible to
natural soil color. Visible concrete drains
should be color tinted and screened with
planting to improve concealment.
~, /J/I
.,;..-.;...;i
~
A4. Lot Configuration and Building Set-
backs
. The layout of lots in a residential devel-
opment should be imaginatively derived
from the natural form of the land. The
development plan should adapt to exist-
ing topography and natural features.
avoiding unnecessary alteration of land
forms.
. Lot patterns which offer a variety of lot
shapes influenced by topography and
natural features are encouraged.
. Build,ing Setbacks. Varied and staggered
front building setback patterns on adja-
cent lots are encouraged. This will pro-
duce a more rural feel to the development
and reduce the monotony of repetitive
setbacks.
The amount of setback vanatlon will
depend upon lot size. Residential devel-
opments at a density of 4 or more dwell-
ings per acre should vary adjacent set-
backs by at least 5 feet; lots at 2 dwellings
per acre should vary adjacent setbacks by
at least 10 feet; lots one acre or larger
should vary adjacent setbacks by at least
20 feet. Minimum building setbacks may
not be reduced to meet this guideline.
In order to review proposed setbacks.
building pad locations should be indi-
cated on grading plans submitted with
Tentative Maps. Tentative Parcel Maps.
Site Plans and Major Use Permits per-
taining to single family residential devel-
opment.
Buildings should not be sited on visually-
prominent ridgelines when a choice of
building pad location exists. Locate the
building roofline below the ridgeline. as
viewed from imponant off-site locations
such as major public roads.
AS. Planting Design for Hillsides
Common Areas.
Common open spaces and landscaped ar-
eas maintained by a Homeowners Asso-
ciation are subject to review under this
guideline. Provisions of the guideline are
recommended for planting on single
family lots not subject to Design Review.
Plant Selection.
Plant materials should be selected for
their effectiveness of erosion control. fire
resistance and drought tolerance.
Hillside plant selection should consider
neighbors' views and observe the follow-
ing principles:
Where views have been established.
follow downhill alignment of taller
trees.
Use less dense. open trees that pro-
vide shade but do not block views.
. Planting Techniques for Graded Slopes.
Irregular plant spacing is encouraged to
achieve a natural appearance on graded
slopes. Plant trees along contour lines in
undulating groups to create grove effects
which blur the distinctive line of the
graded slope. Shrubs of varying height
may be planted between tree stands.
When possible. locate trees in swale ar-
eas to more closely reflect natural condi-
tions and gather surface runoff for plant
irrigation.
· /46<
;;);;.\
. Transitional Slope Plantings in High Fire
Hazard Areas.
Transitional slopes may be used between
the domestic plantings of new develop-
ment and the native, flammable brush of
undisturbed areas. The goal is to slow
down the approaching fire within the
transitional zone by reducing the fire's
fuel supply. The following techniques
may be used to accomplish this goal:
(1.) Evaluate the plant materials exist-
ing within the transitional zone for
fuel volume and health. Remove
plants from this area which are of
particularly high fuel volume:
Common Buckwheat, California
Sagebrush, Chamise, and Sage.
Also remove any plants which are
in poor health.
(2.) Retain in thinned out groupings the
following low fuel volume native
plants: Manzanita, Ceanothus,
Buckthorn, Sumac, Oaks, Toyon
and Silk Tassel.
(3.) Clean out all dead leaves and
branches in this area annually. Bare
din is a good fire break. Thin na-
tive plants by pruning to reduce
their fuel volume.
(4.) If water supplies permit, irrigate
this zone monthly during the sum-
mer months to retain a high level of
moisture in the plant leaves.
(5.) Do not plant any trees other than
oaks in this zone. Trees spread fire
quickly.
. Internal Slope Plantings.
Internal slopes exist within a newly de-
veloped project. They do not blend into
native areas, as do transitional slopes,
and, therefore, may be planted with a
different type of plant palette. The fol-
lowing principles are suggested for in-
ternal slopes:
(1.) Establish gradient of new slope and
determine erosion control require-
ments.
(2.) Fulfill erosion control needs with
water-conserving plant material.
(3.) As a general rule, use water-con-
serving plant species.
(4.) Arrange plants in. naturalized pat-
terns, rather than regimented rows.
..
./~
~.~.S-
B. COMMUNITY RIGHT-Of-WAY STANDARDS
The County, through Supervisors Policy
J-36, has established a process to permit in-
dividual communities to adapt County right-
of-way design standards to local needs, pro-
vided the standards meet certain requirements
for funding, maintenance, liability and safety.
Community standards can affect all items in
the right-of-way except the travel lane widths,
which are fixed County-wide. The design
standards need to be developed with public
participation and incorporated into the
Community Plan.
The County's process for final adoption of
community right-of-way standards requires
cost estimates, public hearings, and notifi-
cation of affected property owners.
Modification of County Right-of-Way Stan-
dards are proposed for the following land use
categories of the Sweetwater Community
Planning Area. This is a preliminary proposal
that must follow the approval process outlined
in Supervisor's Policy J-36 before final
adoption.
Bl. Commercial, Multi-Family Residential
and Institutional Development.
. The County standard should be modified
to separate the curb from the sidewalk. by
a minimum 3 foot wide planting buffer.
The buffer area should be planted with
shrubs or ground covers with a mature
height of two feet or less.
B2. Scenic Roads
. Where public sidewalks and concrete
curbs are required in developments along
the Scenic Roads listed in Section
III.C2.1, the sidewalk should be sepa-
rated from the curb by a minimum 3 foot
wide planting buffer of shrubs, ground
covers, or decomposed granite.
B3. Public Parks and Open Spaces
. At road edges along public parks and
other public open spaces, avoid concrete
curbs where feasible.
. Separate sidewalks and trails from the
road edge with a planted buffer. The
buffer should be as wide as possible after
taking into consideration the size of the
site and site activity requirements. Un-
less site conditions are restricted, the
buffer area should have a minimum width
of 10 feet.
\
J
-~ r
/1.:.,......" \ ,
'? -J'i........ j
. -, ~~\j 4 \^"-(' ..J
\ 1\
\ ~ \
20 ft. Landscaped Edge Zone
Sidewalk
Planted buffer (between sidewalk and curb)
Section Through Landscaped Road Edge
.. J4L/
00,"2> ~
Appendix A
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
This section lists submittal requirements for all projects subject to Design Review. Eighteen
copies of all drawings must be submitted. All copies must be folded to fit an 8-1/2" x
I r' envelope. unless they are so thick they can only be rolled up.
Please make submittals as clear as possible and follow accepted conventions of drawings--all
drawings clearly labeled, scales shown, north arrow on plans. clear and readable line work.
Proposals should not be presented open-ended with expectations of the staff or Design Review
Board to make decisions.
Additional information. drawings or other materials necessary to describe the project may be
requested by Department of Planning and Land Use staff or the Design Review Board depending
on the nature of the project or site.
Also. depending on the project's nature. not all of the above requirements may be needed - the
applicant should discuss proposed modifications with the Planning staff member assigned to
Sweetwater Community Design Review.
The applicant may include additional information or materials such as sketches and models or
photos ifthey help explain the proposal. Photos of the site and surrounding properties are always
required. One set of photos should be provided to the County Department of Planning and Land
Use with the Design Review Application. A second set of photos should be mounted on an
illustration board and brought to the Design Review B9ard meeting.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Development proposals that elect the optional step of Preliminary Review or a request for waiver
may submit drawings or other materials appropriate to the nature of the project and extent of
planning studies completed. In most cases, site design,location of buildings. grading. basic form
and height of buildings and landscape concepts will be important. Building elevations. perspectives
and other information may be presented. but kept in preliminary form.
SUB MITT AL REQUIREMENTS:
A. SITE ANALYSIS (of existing site conditions).
To enable evaluation of development proposals in relationship to existing conditions on the site,
the following information must be presented on one or more drawings, accompanied by photo-
graphs and, if needed. written description.
1. Basic site information (locate on drawing): Site boundaries with dimensions; building setback
lines and easements; existing streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way; existing structures
and other significant built improvements.
8' /4-5
r"
"........~
&-
2. Existing natural features (locate on drawing):
. Trees 6 inches or more in diameter. Note trunk size and species.
. Topography. Existing contours at 2 foot intervals with areas of slope over 25% highlighted.
. Patterns of surface drainage. including location of dry and running streams. gullies. washes
and natural swales.
. Location of flood zone: locate floodway and 100-year flood plain.
. Rock outcroppings greater than 8 feet in diameter measured at the ground. Include spot
elevations to help visualize the mass of the rock outcropping.
. Locate other significant natural features which are either site amenities or potential hazards
in development.
3. Photographs of the site and neighboring environment: Provide photographs of the existing site
and site conditions on adjacent properties within 400 feet of all site boundaries (including
buildings on adjacent sites). Include photos of views to and outlooks from the site. Clearly
label each photograph.
4. Summary. A brief written synopsis should summarize:
. Existing site amenities and assets.
. Special problems and dangers. Site areas in need of special consideration or to be avoided
due to such problems as poor soil, drainage, steep slope, high water table, flood plain
location.
. This synopsis may be noted on the Site Analysis drawing.
B. SITE PLAN
1. Boundaries and public improvements.
. Site boundaries, building setback lines, public streets and sidewalks (as proposed-include
widths), other proposed public improvements (curbs, gutters. curb cuts).
. Include dimensions.
2. Streets, sidewalks and parking areas within the site:
. Include dimensions of parking areas and width of streets and sidewalks.
. Show location and label materials of areas of special paving such as walkways, courtyards,
patios, and arcades.
. For parking areas show layout of spaces, areas of landscaping, dimensions of spaces and
aisles, arrows indicating direction of flow. Number the parking spaces.
3. Structures.
. Location and dimensions with respect to lot lines.
. Include fences, walls and accessory buildings proposed. Give heights of fences and walls.
4. Show location of dumpsters and loading areas.
S. Grading and Drainage. This may be drawn on a separate plan at the option of the applicant.
It should include:
. Existing and proposed contours at 2 foot intervals.
....
..
I~&-
-, ':;:,. i Q
c7 t.", ()
. Finished floor elevations of proposed structures.
. Indication of all water courses, with spot elevations of high and low points.
. Area of depth of cuts. Location and height of fills.
. Show retaining walls and adjacent spot elevations.
c. LANDSCAPE PLAN.
Show at same scale as Site Plan. This may be combined with the Site Plan (B) in the case of small
projects.
1. Existing trees 6 inches or more in diameter with their proposed disposition (to be retained or
removed). Give species and trunk diameter of each.
2. Location, species (give common and Latin name) and size (at planting - gallon or box size)
of all new plant materials.
. Use symbols and a legend as necessary. Show all plant materials to scale.
. Ground cover may be indicated in mass.
3. Describe method of irrigation.
4. Describe means of erosion control, if applicable.
D. BUILDING FLOOR PLANS.
E. BUILDING ELEVATIONS. Show all elevations.
. Note all finish materials on drawings.
. Provide color samples (paint chips) or one color board at the Design Review session.
. Dimension building heights from finish grade. .
. Include exterior walls and fences with heights dimensioned.
. Show locations and sizes of building-mounted signs in building elevations.
. Show location of mechanical equipment, roof equipment, electrical transformers and solar
panels in building elevations. Show means of screening roof equipment.
F. SECTIONS.
One sectional drawing is suggested at a suitable scale to show relationship of buildings to the site,
public street and parking area. This item is optional.
G. SIGNS.
Provide a scaled drawing of each proposed sign with exterior dimensions and mounting height
called out. Give total area of eacp..
a. Draw or provide sample of letters and logos, and the full message to appear on the sign.
b. Describe materials and colors of background and letters.
I
c. Give means of illumination and magnitude of illumination.
_,CO 'it / -'-17
--...
r::;)
H. LIGHTING.
Provide a sign lighting plan with location, type, fixture height, power rating and shielding
methods indicated. Include security lighting. Show elevation drawing or manufacturer's photo
of each fixture, including its material and color.
I. STATISTICAL SUMMARY.
Provide a written summary:
a. Site areas. Total area of site, area-covered by buildings, area covered by parking lots and
driveways, net area of site landscaping. All in square feet.
b. Buildings. Total enclosed building area. If a residential project give number of units and
development density (units/acre).
c. Number of parking spaces required and proposed.
d. This information may be noted on the Site Plan drawing.
II!) /~f
b
APPENDIX B
PLANT SELECTION GUIDE
The shrubs and trees listed within this Appendix are a reflection of the design goals stated in A6.
"Landscape Character". They are listed by uses. Other shrubs and trees not listed here may also
accomplish the desired goal and may be used.
To use this Appendix detennine the use of the tree and find the appropriate heading. Please
consult the Sunset Western Garden Book for additional infonnation about each plant.
Presented first is a Shrub List. Nerium oleander has toxic foliage but is included in the Appendix
because of its other excellent qualities. Its use is encouraged where toxic foliage will not present
a hazard. Size considerations are important for shrubs; use low creeping varieties for ground
covers; medium shrubs and large sized shrubs can be used for screening. accents. and spatial
definition. All shrubs listed are considered low water user species. The Ribes and Rhus species
have deciduous habits; all others are evergreen.
Please note the Lows Fuel Volume Shrubs for use in high fire hazard areas. All of these shrubs
are low growing and can exist with little summer irrigation.
The second plant list is a Tree List which includes Low Fuel Volume Trees for use in high fire
hazard areas.
SJIR VB S
1. Shrubs for General Site Conditions
Calliandra species
Powderpuff Plant
Ceanothus species
California Lilac
Grevillea noelii
NCN
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Toyon
Lantana species
NCN
Juniperus species
Juniper
Mahonia species
Oregon Grape
Melaleuca species
Cajeput
Nerium oleander species
Oleander
Ornamental Grasses
Pittosporum species
Mock Orange
Photinia species
NCN
Pyracantha species
Firethorne
Raphiolepis species
Hawthorne
Ribes species
Currents
Rhus species
Lemonade Berry
'-../+9
~ """2 I
""",;-..:?
2. Shrubs for Parking Lot Setback Conditions
Shrubs in this area are to provide screening of 30 inches in height.
Ceanothus species
California Lilac
Grevillea noelii
NCN
Lantana species
NCN
Juniperus species
Juniper
Mahonia species
Oregon Grape
Nerium oleander. dwarfs
Oleander
Ornamental Grasses
Pittosporum dwarfs
Mock Orange
Pyracantha species
Firethorne
Raphiolepis species
Hawthorne
i
3. Shrubs for 6 foot Screening Conditions
Shrubs in this category may be used for service areas
Calliandra species
Powderpuff Plant
Ceanothus species
California Lilac
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Toyon
Juniperus species
Juniper
Melaleuca species
Cajeput
Nerium oleander species
Oleander
Pittosporum species
Mock Orange
Photinia species
NCN
Pyracantha species
Firethorne
Raphiolepis species
Hawthorne
Ribes species
. Currents
Rhus species
Lemonade Berry
4. Floodplain shrubs
Continuation of native floodplain vegetation is desirable.
Coastal sage scrub
Chamise chaparral
Native grasses
Coast barrel cactus
Marsh elder
Otay tar weed
· /..50
.,') --.0\
"'":,.,...~~':#
~..",. ,
5. Low Fuel Volume Shrubs for high fire hazard areas.
These shrubs may be used in other locations but are particularly suited to fire hazard areas.
Arctotheca calendula
Cape Weed
Baccharis pilularis
Prostrate Coyote Bush
Coprosma kirkii
Creeping Coprosma
Lippias canescens
Lippia
Myoporum parvifolium
Myoporum
Nerium oleander
Oleander
pyracantha species
Firethorne
Rhamnus alaternus
Buckhorn
Ribes species
Currents. Gooseberries
6. Shrubs for Road Edges
These shrubs are recommended for planting within road rights of way and along the edges of
scenic roads.
Calliandra species
Powderpuff Plant
Ceanothus species
California Lilac
Grevillea noelii
NCN
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Toyon
Lantana species
NCN
Juniperus species
Juniper
Mahonia species
Oregon Grape
Melaleuca species
Cajeput
Nerium oleander species
Oleander
Ornamental Grasses
Piuosporum species
Mock Orange
Photinia species
. NCN
Pyracantha species
Firethorne
Raphiolepis species
Hawthorne
Ribes species
Currents
Rhus species
Lemonade Berry
'.
-/5/
TREES
L General Site Locations
Trees in this section are appropriate for yards, setback areas and other site spaces.
Flowering Trees
Acacia decurrens
Green Wattle
Albizia julibrissin
Silk Tree
Arbutus unedo
Strawberry Tree
Bauhinia variegata
Orchid Tree
Brachychiton acerifolius
Flame Tree
Callistemon species
Bottlebrush
Calodendron capense
Cape Chestnut
Cassia leptophylla
Gold medallion Tree
Ceanothus "Ray Hartman"
California Lilac
Eucalyptus ficifolia
Red Flowering Gum
Jacaranda acutifolia
Jacaranda
Koelreuteria species
Rain Tree
Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'
Bradford Pear
Robinia pseudoacacia
Locust
Evergreen and Deciduous Trees
Agonis flexuosa
Peppermint Tree
Cinnam9mum camphora
Camphor Tree
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Red Gum
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Sugar Gum
Eucalyptus citriodora
Lemon Gum
Eucalyptus lehmanii
Bushy Yate
Geijera parviflora
Australian Willow
Ginko biloba
Maidenhair Tree
Olea europaea
Olive Tree
Pistache chinensis
Pistache Tree
Platanus acerifolia
Plane Tree
Quercus agrifolia
Coastal Live oak
Rhus lancea (males)
African Sumac
Schinus moUe
California Pepper
Schinus terebinthefolia
Brazillian Pepper
Ulmus parviflora
Evergreen Elm
.. /5.2
"" L)
~ '/
2. Constrained Planting Areas
The following trees can be used in courtyards and constrained spaces.
Eucalyptus citriodora
Lemon Gum
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Rosea
Pink Ironbark
Hymenosporum flavum
Sweetshade
Melaleuca leucadendron
Cajeput Tree
3. Parking Lot Trees
Podocarpus macrophylla
Yew Pine
Prunus caroliniana
Cherry Laurel
Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'
Bradford Pear
Robinia pseudoacacia 'Fastigiata'
Locust
These trees may be planted in the perimeter and interior locations of parking and service areas.
Pittosporum undulatum
Victorian Box
Platanus acerifolia.
Plane Tree
podocarpus elongata
4. Street Trees
Tipuana tipu
Tipu Tree
Tristania conferta
Brisbane Box
Trees which are planted close to the street-bordering property line and are characteristic of
existing trees bordering Sweetwater's roads.
Eucalyptus citriodora
Lemon-Scented Gum
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Red Gum
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Sugar Gum
Platanus acerifolia
Plane Tree
5. Floodplain Trees
Pinus halepensis
Allepo Pine
Pinus canariensis
Canary Island Pine
Schinus moUe
California Pepper
Ulmus parviflora
Evergreen Elm
Trees should be located along the b~nks of streams, rivers and creeks. The rest of the floodplain
is natively grasses and shrubs.
Platanus racemosa
California sycamore
Populus species
Cottonwood
Salix species
Willow
Quercus agrifolia
Coas~al Live Oak
- /.53
.c-
d- 3,:;
6. Fire Retardant Trees
These trees can be planted sparsely on hillsides in fire hazard areas.
Arbutus unedo
Strawberry Tree
Ceratonia siliqua
Carob Tree
Cercis occidentalis
Redbud Tree
Feijoa seUowiana
Pineapple Guava
Myroporum species
Myropoprum
Pittosporum species
Pittosporum
Prunus species
Evergreen Cherry
Schinus terebinthefolia
Brazillian Pepper
7. Scenic Roads
Trees planted along these roads reinforce the existing varieties.
Sweetwater Road
Eucalyptus citriodora
Lemon-Scented Gum
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Red Gum
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Sugar Gum
Platanus acerifolia
Plane Tree
Pinus halepensis
AUepo Pine
Pinus canariensis
Canary Island Pine
Schinus moUe
California Pepper
Ulmus parviflora
Evergreen Elm
Bonita Road
Eucalyptus citriodora
Lemon-Scented Gum
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Red Gum
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Sugar Gum
Platanus acerifolia
Plane Tree
Pinus halepensis
AUepo Pine
.Pinus canariensis
Canary Island Pine
Schinus moUe
California Pepper
Ulmus parviflora
Evergreen Elm
Washingtonia robusta
Mexican Fan Palm
., /S~
1"-., "::2 I'
c;::"'::::> It:I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J 2
Meeting Date 4/23/96
REVIEWED BY:
Ordinance 2" 70 Amending Title 10 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (Vehicles and Traffic) to delegate additional authority in
implementing Traffic Control Measures to the City Engineer and the Safety
Commission.
::C:::g:~;~ ~
(4/5 Vote: Yes_No.xJ
Council Referral No. 2557
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
At the March 14, 1995, meeting Council approved Resolution 17833 adopting a Council Policy
granting additional authority to the City Engineer and the Safety Commission on implementing
Traffic Regulations. Council direction at that point was for staff to revise the Municipal Code to
accommodate implementation of the policy and the procedures established in it. The purpose of
the policy was to streamline the City Council agenda by reducing the number of traffic related
items that come before the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council place the ordinance on first reading, amending
Title 10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as revised and submitted by staff and the City
Attorney, as the law of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to the regulation of "Vehicles and
Traffic", delegating additional authority in implementing Traffic Control Measures to the City
Engineer and the Safety Commission..
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their
meeting of January 11, 1996, received an oral report on the status of the proposed changes to the
Chula Vista Municipal Code and has approved the changes in concept. Staff does not believe
that there is a need for the Commission to review the final draft of the language.
DISCUSSION:
This item involves proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Municipal Code to implement a policy
adopted by Council on March 14, 1995. The language to be incorporated into the Code includes
delegation of authority for certain traffic regulations to the City Engineer with the concurrence
of the Safety Commission, as well as some streamlining of the code and language clarifications
to the existing code to enable City officials to implement these codes and to reduce ambiguity and
the need for interpretation. It also includes the removal of sections from the Code, which are now
redundant or no longer necessary as a result of this change in delegation of authority, or have been
superseded by the California Vehicle Code.
Many of the items brought the City Council before adoption of the policy were considered to be
routine in stature and operational in nature. The Council Policy now authorizes the City Engineer
to implement these types of traffic regulations, with the concurrence of the Safety Commission,
);2 ~ /
. ,._~.",__'".__.~_~M'~__~.~"~~~_""-'-~---
Page 2, Item /..2-
Meeting Date 4/23/96
without having to bring each individual case before the City Council. The policy also establishes
a procedure for the requesting parties involved to appeal the decision of the City Engineer and the
Safety Commission. The policy also reserves decision making authority with the City Council
on those items which the California Vehicle Code requires action by the City Council, including
but not limited to Speed Regulations, Angle Parking, Parking Meter Zones, Permit Parking, and
Truck Routes.
The primary changes in the Code, take place in the areas of the General Provisions, Chapter
10.04, and in Traffic Administration, Chapter 10.12. These sections were rewritten to establish
the authority with the City Engineer and the Safety Commission on items which formerly required
individual action of the City Council. Since the policy also reserved authority with the City
Council on certain matters, it was necessary to draft language within the Code which would
memorialize these reservations and appropriately delegate authority consistent with the policy.
The act of delegating this authority, once provided for by Ordinance of the City Council, creates
a change in the authority to place traffic control devices as well as the powers and duties to
enforce these regulations. These changes in the Code take place in Chapters 10.04, 10.12, and
10.24. Other changes contained in this ordinance, include the deletion of sections of the Code
which have been made obsolete by this change in authority or by subsequent revision of the
California Vehicle Code. There are also several definitions which have been revised or created
to clarify the meaning of certain terms used in creating this legal authority.
The remainder of the changes and deletions incorporated into the proposed language can be
classed as housekeeping in nature. There are many sections contained within Title 10 which are
addressed in the California Vehicle Code, and may be redundant or may be in possible conflict
with other sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The other changes in the Code are
intended to reduce some of the ambiguity in the language which previously existed in Title 10.
Additionally, the Ordinance calls for a change in how records are kept of these regulations. In
the past, all major regulations were required to be maintained as a list of locations where the
regulations apply. These Schedules were to be maintained by the office of the City Clerk. Since
most traffic regulations required action of the City Council to implement, this duty was considered
as a routine part of recording Council actions. Some regulations were implemented by staff as
operational changes, such as minor parking regulations. In this process, any operational change
which did not go before City Council for action was not kept as a record with the regulation
changes maintained by the City Clerk. The proposed ordinance provides that the office of the
City Engineer will be responsible for maintaining these Schedules in a Register in the office of
the City Engineer. Since all work orders for the placement of Traffic and Parking Control
Devices are written and installed under the authority of the City Engineer, even these minor
regulations will be included in these Schedules.
This feature of maintaining accurate records of all legally implemented traffic regulations
established is important in regard to the aspects of enforcement and liability. Currently, if a party
questions the authority of traffic regulations in the courts, the City may not have adequate records
J:2~2
) ~.
"...",.....<"~.'^--,-_.--'"~-----
Page 3, Item lei-
Meeting Date 4/23/96
of some of these regulations having been legally implemented. In the newly devised system there
would be a record of all traffic controls within the City of Chula Vista, along with the date they
were implemented, as well as under whose authority they were placed. This system will be of
benefit to the Police Department when appearing in court on contested traffic violations, as well
as a more complete record of the implementation of traffic regulations for the purposes of liability
defense.
To ensure continuity, during the interim period between adoption and implementing of the policy,
several individual ordinances have been brought forward to Council. Last year, the Finance
Department went forward with changes to Chapter 10.62 which revised the fees, fines, and
forfeitures assessed with Parking Violations and Enforcement. Building and Housing recently
brought forward an item dealing with abandoned vehicles. These sections will now be
incorporated into the remainder of the revisions presented in this ordinance.
Staff recommends that the City Council place this ordinance on first reading thereby implementing
the necessary revisions to Title 10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code which will effectively
delegate authority to the City Engineer with the concurrence of the Safety Commission as
incorporated within City Council Policy number 110-09, "Safety Commission Policy - Delegating
Additional Authority" as adopted by resolution 17833 on March 14, 1995. Attached to this report
are copies of the resolution and the newly adopted Safety Commission Policy, as well as the
changes to Title 10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as drafted by the City Attorney with
consultation from the City Engineer and the Chula Vista Police Department.
Approval of the Ordinance will implement the above described changes.
FISCAL IMPACT: This action implements policy previously adopted by the Council. As such,
the fiscal impact of this action is minimal.
Attach~.
Exhibit A: Resolution 17833 adopted March 14, 1995
. C; Exhibit B: Safety Commission Policy adopted by Resolution 17833
~ ~ Exhibit C: Strikeout version of proposed Title 10 revision
~O
File: 0100-55-KY-158
):2-3//:1. -I
ORDINANCE NO.
;lIP ? tJ
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC) TO DELEGATE ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY
IMPLEMENTING TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO
THE CITY ENGINEER AND SAFETY COMMISSION
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1995, the city Council approved
Resolution 17833, adopting the Council policy granting additional
authority to the City Engineer and Safety Commission in
implementing traffic regulations and traffic control measures; and
WHEREAS, the city Council directed staff to implement
such policy by revising the Municipal Code to accommodate the
implementation of said policy
NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the City of Chula vista
does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION I. Title 10, "Vehicles and Traffic", is hereby amended
to read as set forth on Exhibit A hereto.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force and effect on 30th day from and after its adoption.
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
Presented by
/-2 -5
y-'
" ~..,...,.....,.,-,~.,,~..__.,~~----'---''''~-'._.'_-~~-_.~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
. .'/
/-J
4/23/96
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION 18252 APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LOELEN
ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY:
city Manage#,
(4j5ths Vote: Yes
No
BACKGROUND:
This item will be provided by special packet delivery on Friday,
April 19, 1996.
/5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
I)
Item I ';J
Meeting Date 04-23-96
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND JOELEN
ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
/C;,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR G....
CITY MANAGER y{
v
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No.X.J
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND: In 1990, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for acquisition and
development of a 3.1-acre site in the 4400 block of Bonita Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course. The hotel developer selected in that process to develop the 3.1 acres
and the adjacent 4 acres, Joelen Enterprises, was not able to perform due to the condition
of the hotel financing market, and the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) entered into
after the RFP process expired. On March 7, 1995, the City Council revisited the issue and
directed staff to return with a new exclusive negotiating agreement with Joelen Enterprises
to develop the proposed hotel. Council directed that the agreement be for a term of 24
months and that it contain specific progress benchmarks. Negotiations on the Broadway
Business Homes have been completed with the developer, which has allowed for the creation
of the exclusive negotiating agreement for the hotel. The goal of the ENA is to accomplish
a disposition and development agreement (DDA), which will take substantial time and effort;
the developer is obligated by the performance milestones in the ENA to make regular,
appropriate progress toward the DDA and the development of the hotel.
The Developer has not agreed to certain technical provisions of the ENA at this point, but
requests the opportunity to formally discuss the ENA and it's disputed provisions on the April
23 agenda. The issue is discussed in detail in the section below regarding the City Attorney's
concerns over provisions in the ENA.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving a twelve-month
exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with Joelen Enterprises for lease or purchase of
approximately seven acres of City-owned property adjacent to the municipal golf course for
development of an approximately 250-room hotel, upon resolution of certain provisions in the
ENA.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On December 4, 1991, the Economic
Development Commission of the City authorized the Chairman to advise the Council that the
commission supported the concept of a resort golf hotel at the site (see Attachment A, EDC
Minutes) .
DISCUSSION:
This report will discuss the following: 1) the characteristics of the golf course site; 2) the
history of the City's efforts to accomplish its development; 3) modifications to the Joelen
proposal received on February 29; 4) issues related to the municipal golf course; 5) other
Interest expressed in the City-owned parcels; 5) the significant points of the exclusive
I_i .1
Page 2, Item ","7
Meeting Date 04/23/96
negotiating agreement, including the milestones required by the Council, and, 6) the City
Attorney's concerns regarding certain provisions of the ENA.
Characteristics of City-Owned Site:
The property that was the subject of the RFP is an undeveloped, relatively flat, 3.1-acre site
in the 4400 block of Bonita Road in Chula Vista. It is bounded by the Chula Vista Municipal
Golf Course on the north, Bonita Road on the south, the Bonita Vista condominiums on the
west, and the City-owned restaurant facility, pro shop, and parking lot that is leased to
American golf on the east. The vacant property is designated as Visitor Commercial in the
General Plan and is zoned C-V-P for visitor-serving commercial uses with a precise plan
requirement. The property is used at certain times as an informal parking area for joggers and
walkers on the trail that rings the golf course. The 4-acre parcel is designated as Park and
Recreation in the General Plan and is zoned Agricultural. A map of both parcels is attached as
Attachment B.
Historv of Development Efforts:
The City first issued an RFP for acquisition and development of the 3.1-acre site in 1984.
Two proposals were received: Pacific Scene proposed a 1 OO-unit senior residential retirement
complex; and Joelen Enterprises proposed a 1 20-room hotel/conference center with a 100-
seat restaurant. The Council did not accept either proposal and directed staff to do further
study of the parking needs in the area, the possibility of integrated development with the
existing City-owned restaurant facility, and the market feasibility of the hotel/conference
center concept.
In 1990, the City again issued an RFP for acquisition and development of the site
(Attachment C). Six proposals were received. Ultimately, two of the six were withdrawn,
and the City Council chose between four proposals at the Council meeting of April 23, 1991
(see Attachment D: Council agenda statement and Attachment E: Council meeting minutes).
In summary, the four proposals were as follows:
. A golf-oriented 200-room hotel/conference center/restaurant proposal from Joelen
Enterprises on both parcels
. A 96-unit senior apartment complex on the 3.1-acre parcel proposed by Odmark-
Thelan
. An 80-unit rental townhouse project with a public park, a link in the
jogging/walking trail, and public parking for users of the trail on the 3.1-acre parcel
proposed by the ADMA Company
. A public park on the 3. 1-acre parcel proposed by Richard Pena
The two proposals that were withdrawn were as follows:
. A mixed-use project with 30 luxury townhomes and a restaurant on the 3.1-acre
parcel proposed by Pacific Scene
/3 ,)..
Page 3, Item II;
Meeting Date 04/23/96
. A 53-unit condominium project on the 3.1-acre parcel proposed as an alternative
by Odmark-Thelan
The City ultimately selected the hotel project proposed by Joelen Enterprises and entered into
a semi-exclusive negotiation agreement in November of 1991. The agreement was extended
through amendment, but the developer ultimately withdrew from negotiations in September
of 1992, due to the developer's inability to obtain financing in a difficult hotel financing
market. At that time, the developer indicated that it still had a strong commitment to the
project, but that it would be some time until financing was available. The developer wished
to have first refusal rights on the property in anticipation of the financing becoming available.
Those rights were not granted by the Council.
At the November 1994 Council reconsideration of the disposition of the property, which was
generated by a request by the ADMA Company to resurrect its proposal to develop the site,
the Council considered the ADMA proposal and an additional proposal from RSG for a retail
commercial project on the site. Joelen Enterprises indicated that it was prepared to go
forward with negotiations with the City to lease the property and build a hotel which was
upsized to 250 rooms and 18,000 to 20,000 square feet of banquet and meeting space.
Joelen indicated that it would take some time for the recovering hotel financing market to
return sufficiently to provide financing for the project. The Council directed staff to return to
the Council with a 24-month exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen Enterprises to
develop the hotel. The agreement was to contain significant performance milestones for
project planning, environmental review, financing and development processing.
Modifications to Joelen Proposal
For some time during the negotiation of the ENA, Joelen has been indicating that it would be
necessary to modify the lease provisions of the original proposal to respond to changed
circumstances in hotel financing and hotel operations. In response, staff has been asking for
specifics of, and justification for, the needed changes. Staff has recently received those
modifications (Attachment F), and they are discussed in the narrative that follows.
The ENA period is where the full analysis and negotiation of the business points of the
proposal should properly occur. The reason that staff requested an elaboration of the
developer's intended modifications to the original proposal with supporting financial data was
so that Council could have a general sense of how different the benefits would be from the
modified, unnegotiated proposal. If the modifications caused the "deal" to fall outside a range
of reasonable negotiation, then it would not be appropriate to commit the City property to a
twenty-four month negotiating period.
Following is a comparison of the original proposal terms to the modified proposal terms:
Project scope:
. Original proposal was for approximately 200 rooms and 14,000 square feet
of banquet and meeting space
. Current proposal is for approximately 250 rooms and 17,500 square feet of
banquet and meeting space.
r~ ,- ,)
Page 4, Item /'3
Meeting Date 04/23/96
Performance Lease:Original proposal was a 66-year performance lease from which the
City derived lease payments based on percentages of revenue departments of the hotel;
Current proposal is for the same type and term of lease, but with different percentages:
REVENUE DEPARTMENT ORIGINAL MODIFIED
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
Room Sales 6% 4%
Beverage Sales 5% 5%
Rentals (Banquet/Meeting) 5% 6%
Food Sales 3% 3%
Other (Includes Retail) 10% 7%
Telephone 10% 6%
Golf 0% 7.5%
Lease Concessions during Stabilization Period (the assumption is that it will take the
hotel a number of years to achieve its market room rates and sustain a market
occupancy rate, and that in the meantime a hotel, in order to meet operating costs and
debt service, needs cost concessions, such as relief from full lease payments):
. Original proposal did not specify how the performance lease provisions
would have to be modified during the period prior to stabilization, nor did it
clearly identify the number of years it would likely take to reach stabilized
occupancy. In the staff report of April 1991 , which recommended the hotel
project, staff used the following assumptions in projecting revenues: zero
lease payments to the City until construction completion; payment of 25 %
of performance lease proceeds to the City in the first year of operation;
payment of 50% of performance lease proceeds to the City in the second
year of operation; payment of full performance lease proceeds to the City
from third year of operation forward. This issue was left to be negotiated
in the ENA.
. Current proposal specifies that the hotel would receive the following lease
payment concessions from the City: zero lease payments to the City until
construction completion and during first year of operation; flat payment of
$25,000to the City in second year of operation; flat payment of $35,000
to the City in third year of operation; payment of 10% of the lease proceeds
to the City in the fourth year; an incremental but irregular increase in the
percentage of the payment of the lease proceeds to the City over the next
six years of operation, until payment of 100% of the lease proceeds to the
City is achieved in the seventh year of operation; and payment of 100% of
the City's lease proceeds through the term of the lease. The developer has
projected lease payment revenues to the City based on this proposed
/3 ~ i
Page 5, Item /..3
Meeting Date 04/23/96
structure in Exhibit G of Attachment F of the developer's modified proposal.
In brief summary, those projected lease payment revenues to the City are
represented as follows:
Cumulative at end of Year 10:
Cumulative at end of Year 20:
Cumulative at end of Year 30:
Cumulative at end of Year 66:
$1.7 million
$7.3 million
$15.6 million
$88.6 million
Property Purchase:
. Original proposal requested a lease with an option to purchase the property
during the fifth through fifteenth years, due to the fact that such an option
might be necessary in order to secure lender financing. Staff recommended
against the purchase option, and it was not included in the original approved
ENA.
. Current proposal does not request a purchase option in the lease, but it does
request the right to negotiate an outright purchase of the properties as an
outcome of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), again based
on potential necessity in order to obtain lender financing. The developer has
suggested a purchase value for the properties in Exhibit B of Attachment F
of $2.2 to $2.3 million. Staff has included language in the draft ENA that
acknowledges the duty of the staff and the developer to negotiate as a DDA
issue the lease or purchase of the properties (ENA, Paragraph III, B, 2), in
order to be able to respond to the possibility that lender financing would
prove to be available only if the developer had fee title.
Staff's initial evaluation of the proposal modification was that it described a development that
was physically larger and a business deal that was significantly less favorable to the City,
especially in the initial years. Staff felt that it would be valuable to have the modified proposal
analyzed by a professional development financing consultant with expertise and experience
in analyzing hotel deals. As a result, Keyser-Marsten was hired for an amount not-to-exceed
$1 ,500.00to do an expedited initial evaluation of the modifications. Keyser-Marsten's report,
which is based on a review of the information in the Joelen modified proposal, and not on any
detailed review of development budget data, which is not yet available, raises significant
issues regarding the hotel's feasibility, the suitability of the lease structure, and the City's
investment return. The Keyser-Marsten conclusions are summarized below:
. The projected room rates will not likely cover the development costs, which reflect
a "superior" hotel
. The lease terms are unconventional in that there is no base lease payment, only
percentages, and that the percentage lease payments are phased in over ten years
. The hotel may not be financible, given that debt service coverage and return on
investment are significantly below prevailing standards
. The net present value of the lease revenues to the City are calculated at between
$2.7 and $3 million, which may undervalue the site
-
(/J-~
Page 6, Item ! j
Meeting Date 04/23/96
. Lease terms should include:
. No subordination of lease payments to debt service
. Any phase-in of percentage lease payments should be keyed to gross-
income break points, not to dates
. There should be a base lease payment at stabilization, with percentage lease
payments payable to the degree that they exceed the base
Staff concurs with the conclusions of the consultant, based on the level of information
currently available, and staff would not be able to recommend that the Council accept the
terms specified in the modified proposal. However, staff feels that the hotel project has the
potential to provide significant benefit to the City in the areas of civic resource, public
relations/image, income from real property assets, and transit occupancy tax. With the clear
understanding that both the City and the developer recognize that the ENA establishes a
period for neQotiatina a deal on the real estate and the project that will be beneficial to both
parties, staff recommends that the Council enter into the ENA that contains specific
milestones to be accomplished. As quickly as possible in the ENA period, both parties must
work together to address the feasibility issues raised by the City's financial consultant and to
structure a real estate transaction that is acceptable to the City and to the developer.
Municipal Golf Course Issues:
Staff has had a dialogue with the developer and the lessee and operator of the municipal golf
course, American Golf Corporation, regarding the coordination of the hotel and the golf course.
The golf-course related issues are all significant and will require much attention from the City,
the developer, and American Golf. The developer and American Golf are required by the ENA
to negotiate an memorandum of understanding (MOUl within 150 days of the execution of the
ENA (Note: The ENA allows a 60-day-period by right, and an additional 30-day period at the
sole discretion of the other party, to cure a default resulting from not performing obligations
under the agreement; so it would be possible that the developer could take 240 days to
accomplish the MOU without the ENA being terminated). Intertwined with that negotiation
will be the negotiation between the City and American Golf regarding possible lease revisions
for the golf course and the restaurant parcel. Many of the issues between the City and
American Golf promise to be problematical. The Director of Parks and Recreation has offered
initial positions regarding these issues.
The major issues that have been identified among the parties are the following:
1. Improvements to the Golf Course: The developer contends that the golf course
would need to be improved in order to be of the quality that would draw guests
to the golf-oriented hotel. American Golf has identified the improvements that it
feels would be necessary to make a hotel quality course as a new irrigation
system, rebuilt tees and bunkers, tee-to-green cart paths, replacement of bridges
across the channel, upgraded and lighted practice range, and major channel
renovation. American Golf estimates the cost of improvements at $2.5 to $3
million, which they would fund given the right return-on-investment scenario. The
Director of Parks and Recreation feels that these improvements constitute routine
/ <3 --0
Page 7, Item /3
Meeting Date 04/23/96
maintenance and capital improvement projects that are the obligation of American
Golf in order to keep the course in good playable condition.
2. Downstream DrainaQe improvements: American Golf indicates that no
improvements would be practical without eliminating the existing drainage
impediments at the Willow Street bridge, since resultant flooding would destroy
the improvements. The City and the County are working on removing those
impediments in the near time frame. They greatest single impediment removal
would be the clearance of the reeds in the channel downstream of the Willow
Street crossing. The County indicates that the it will undertake that clearance in
the near future Additionally, there are suspended water lines belonging to the City
of San Diego and the Sweetwater Authority downstream of the bridge that create
an impediment. Discussions are underway regarding the relocation of these lines.
The Director of Parks and Recreation feels that the entire river channel needs to
be restored to conditions before the 1991 rains and that American Golf is
obligated by prior agreement to improve the channel. He also feels that American
Golf is responsible for course improvements regardless of drainage problems.
3. Guaranteed Qolf start times for hotel Quests: The developer and American Golf
indicate that for a golf-oriented hotel to be successful, the hotel must have access
to a guaranteed minimum number of golf start times. Joelen is asking for
approximately 1500 start times per month. The developer indicates that the
impact on local golfers would be lessened by the fact that most of the hotel guest
golfers would be group-business conferees who typically attend meetings and
seminars in the morning and look for course start times in the afternoon, while
most local golfers tee off in the morning. American Golf indicates that, at several
of the golf courses that they manage that are proximate to a hotel, they have
agreements with the hotels that guaranteed start times for the hotel guests must
be scheduled several weeks in advance or they are not reserved and are made
available to local golfers. American Golf indicates that this system has worked out
well for both local golfers and hotel guests. The developer indicates that the
majority of the hotel's business would be group business which is booked far in
advance and that the bookings would include golf reservations. The Director of
Parks and Recreation feels that the principle of guaranteed start times is
controversial.
4. Fees: American Golf indicates that it would have to be allowed to raise greens
fees in order to pay for the intended improvements to the course. Joelen indicates
that it is typical for hotel guests to pay substantially more for greens fees than
local golfers. Both parties suggest a two-tiered fee schedule, with locals paying
significantly less that non-residents such as the hotel guests. No dollar amounts
have been suggested.
5. Restaurant Parcel Disposition: The 4-acre parcel which would be necessary for
the development of the hotel is currently leased to American Golf. American Golf
would have to revert the lease back to the City for the City to lease or sell the
parcel to the developer. American Golf is willing to consider doing so if all parties
can come to terms on all the issues and if the hotel can incorporate a pro shop,
office space, and cart storage (rent-free to American Golf). The developer is
("3 .- '7
Page 8, Item /3
Meeting Date 04/23/96
willing to design those components into the hotel, but is not prepared at this time
to agree to providing them at no cost.
6. City/American Golf lease: The golf course lease with American Golf has a term
of thirty years, which means that it will expire in 2016. American Golf's initial
position is that in order to consider funding the $2.5-$3 million in improvements,
the following would be required: golf course lease term concurrent with hotel
lease term, not to be less than 50 years; complete control over rates and policies
at the facility; lower percentage rents for the first ten years of the renegotiated
lease in order to obtain the necessary return on investment. The Director of Parks
and Recreation has the following reactions: a fifty-year lease is unrealistic and not
warranted; American Golf should not be in control of fee-setting, and it would
result in "skyrocketing" green fees; a re~uction in percentage rents to the City
from American golf would not be justified and would come at a difficult financial
time for the City.
These issues are substantial and will require much attention. However, staff feels that it is
appropriate for the parties to negotiate these issues during the period of the ENA. Further, the
negotiation of these issues will be given top priority from the inception of the ENA period. An
important component of the staff analysis will be a comparison of total anticipated revenues
to be derived from the hotel development and golf course lease reconfiguration to the revenues
to be derived from the existing golf course lease arrangements.
Other Interest in Parcels
Since the Council directed staff to return with the recommended ENA, several parties have
expressed interest in developing one or both of the City parcels. All of the other interest has
been in commercial retail development.
One of the interested parties, Retail Properties Group (RPG), made a presentation to the
Council at the March 1995 meeting at which the Council directed staff to return with the ENA.
RPG still expresses interest in buying the 3-acre parcel for $800,000and developing a 40,000
square foot shopping center that could include such tenants as Boney's Market, Trader Joe's,
Brueger's Bagels, Boston Market, The Juice Club, Super Crown Books, Starbuck's Coffee, and
the Soup Plantation. RSG also expresses willingness to plan its shopping center around both
parcels, include area for golf pro shop, clubhouse, golf cart housing, and create a golf theme
for the center. RSG's proposal is included as Attachment G for the Council's information.
The interested parties that are known to staff have been made aware of the Council's
consideration of this issue on tonight's agenda. Several have expressed interest in addressing
the Council.
Exclusive Neaotiatina Aareement
In March of 1995, the Council directed staff to return to the Council with a 24-month ENA,
in order to allow the developer the time necessary to secure financing in the recovering hotel
financing market. The presentation of that ENA has been substantially delayed due to the
developer's need to focus attention on the complicated business homes project and difficulty
in drafting the ENA. Fortuitously, during the period of delay, the developer has made
13 Y
Page 9, Item 1-)
Meeting Date 04/23/96
substantial progress in identifying potential financing opportunities in a market which is
recovering more rapidly than anticipated. As a result, and as evidenced by the attached letter
from Joelen Enterprises (Attachment I), the developer no longer feels that 24 months is
necessary and has requested a 1 2-month agreement, with an option to extend the agreement
by 180 days if the developer can document that they have made substantial progress but have
not been able to finalize due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, the
recommended ENA would provide the developer 1 2 months to enter into a disposition and
development agreement for the lease or purchase of the City-owned vacant parcel ("City
Parcel") and the City-owned parcel leased to American golf ("Restaurant Parcel") and for the
development of an approximately 250-room golf course resort hotel with golf shop,
restaurants, banquet and meeting facilities, and other amenities. During the 12-month
negotiating period, the developer would be required to complete the significant steps in project
design and land use and environmental approvals, demonstrate project financial feasibility, and
secure development financing. An option is provided for an extension of 180 days if the
developer demonstrates that substantial progress has been made and that the fact that a DDA
has not resulted is due to circumstances beyond the developer's control.
The following are key provisions of the agreement:
1. The project will encompass approximately 7 acres (3.1-acre parcel and 4-acre parcel)
and will include a 250-unit hotel with golf pro shop, restaurant, banquet and meeting
facilities, swimming pool, spa, tennis courts, and visitor commercial and retail floor area.
2. The developer will either negotiate a performance lease agreement for the 7-acre site
with the City which is based on City participation in operating revenues of the hotel or
will negotiate a purchase of the site from the City. The option of a sale rather than a
lease is included in the exclusive negotiation agreement at the developer's request to
respond to the developer-perceived possibility that the only way to secure financing for
the project may be to obtain conventional financing, rather than bond financing, and
that conventional financing would require the developer to have fee ownership of the
property.
3. The City will negotiate with American Golf to retrieve control of the 4-acre parcel
currently leased to American Golf ("restaurant parcel"), so that the City can lease or sell
that parcel to the developer. If the City is unsuccessful in negotiating with American
Golf, the developer will negotiate with American Golf to obtain site control of the
Restaurant Parcel currently leased by the City to American Golf.
4. The developer will design a project which will minimize negative traffic impacts and will
provide for sufficient parking for the hotel, the golf course, and the users of the jogging
trail around the golf course, at the developer's cost.
5. It will be a priority that a plan will be developed which will assure that the golf course
will not be significantly impacted and that start times for the public and the hotel guests
will be coordinated, with a guaranteed number of golf start times reserved for the hotel.
The number of reserved start times for hotel guests need to be negotiated with
American Golf by the developer.
/.31
Page 10, Item /3
Meeting Date 04/23/96
6. All costs and financial risks are the developer's, with the exception that the City will
entertain a proposal for financial assistance if the developer demonstrates the inability
of the project to realize a reasonable return.
7. The developer will complete the following sequential obligations within the following
time periods from the approval of the agreement. These are the milestones that the
Council directed be included to keep the developer on track. All milestones are identified
below; the most important ones are bolded:
a. Preliminary site plan
b. Deposit for Preliminary market feasibility analysis
c. Initial Study application and Environmental cost deposit
d. Written analysis of City financial benefit
e. Master Plan and EIR information
f. GPA Amendment application
g. Rezone application
h. MOU with American Golf
Preliminary design plans
j. Lender interest and equity investor interest letters
k. Public Bonita community forum on project
I. Design Review application
m. Deposit for Comprehensive feasibility study and pro forma
n. MOU with City on lease and DDA terms
o. Written conditional commitment of financing and equity
p. Oral and written progress reports to Council
60 days
60 days
90 days
1 50 days
1 50 days
1 50 days
1 50 days
150 days
1 80 days
1 80 days
180 days
240 days
240 days
300 days
365 days
Variable
8. City can terminate agreement if any of these benchmarks are missed. City will
contemplate not terminating agreement if the developer misses conditional financing and
equity commitment deadline (365 days), but only if developer deposits non-refundable
$100,000 with City. Deposit will be applicable to lease payments or purchase cost if
a transaction is consummated.
9. The City will contract with expert third-party consultants to provide the preliminary
market feasibility analysis and the comprehensive feasibility study, to be delivered
respectively at the 1 50th day and the 300th day from the execution of the ENA, and to
be funded by a deposit account provided by the developer.
10. City will assist developer with EIR and land use processing (with developer bearing all
customary processing costs), estimation of fees, and negotiation with American Golf.
11. Either party can terminate agreement after due process for impasse, and breach. There
is a provision for cure periods up to ninety days after a performance milestone deadline
is missed.
City Attorney Concerns Over Form of ENA.
Earlier drafts of the ENA included three provisions which were recommended by the City
Attorney's Office but are strongly objected to by the Developer. After much dialogue over
those provisions, it has not been possible to arrive at a consensus over any specific language,
and the Developer has requested that the issues be carried forward to the Council. The
{3 -Ie)
Page 11, Item 13
Meeting Date 04/23/96
Developer has indicated that it is necessary at this time to finalize the ENA in order to justify
continuing their efforts on the proposal. It is staff's estimation that additional negotiation on
the staff/City Attorney/developer level will not be fruitful in resolving the disputed language.
The following section discusses the City Attorney's concerns regarding the disputed
provisions, the Developer's objections, and the staff position.
1. City's Riqht to Receive Other Proposals.
The City Attorney's Office recommends that the ENA include a provision whereby the City
would expressly reserve the right during the exclusive negotiations period to receive and
submit, for informational purposes only, alternative proposals for the development and/or
purchase of the site. To address the Developer's initial concerns over this provision, wording
was added which clarified that the City would consider such alternative proposals only in open
session and would not negotiate with the alternative project proponents.
The Developer subsequently objected to this Section because they thought that it would cause
concerns to potential project lenders. The Developer feels that it is not appropriate during the
ENA for the Council to be receiving any information regarding alternative proposals
Staff feels that this provision is too limiting and is unnecessary since City staff should have
the right at any time to present alternative proposals to the Council for information whether
or not express language reserving this right were included in the ENA, and this presentation
of information should not be limited just to open session. Under existing language in the ENA,
the City agrees not to neqotiate with other potential developers; it does not agree to not
receive or evaluate alternative project proposals or terms.
The City Attorney's office has an additional concern about this issue that will be conveyed to
the Council in a separate memorandum.
For discussion purposes, the language recommended by the City Attorney has been included
in the ENA (Section IV). It is underlined for quick identification, and the reference within it to
open session discussion only has been bracketed.
2. City's "Walk-away" Riqht Due to Proiect Infeasibility.
The City Attorney's Office originally recommended that the ENA include a provision whereby
the City would reserve the right to terminate the ENA in the event that the City determined
that the proposed hotel project was not economically feasible. To address developers'
concerns regarding the broad nature of this termination right, the City Attorney's Office agreed
to add wording to this provision which clarified that the City must exercise such a right
reasonably and in good faith, and only based upon objective third party analysis of the project.
The developers subsequently objected to this Section because of continuing concerns over its
broad nature and the concerns they thought that it would cause to potential project lenders.
The City Attorney's Office would like to retain the City's express right to terminate the ENA
due to the City's determination of economic infeasibility. This is a standard provision in the
City's form ENA, and, in the City Attorney's opinion, one that is particularly applicable to
medium or long term ENA's regarding projects, like hotels, where the feasibility is not at all
/~ -1/ ,
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date 04/23/96
medium or long term ENA's regarding projects, like hotels, where the feasibility is not at all
certain. The circumstance to which such a provision would be most applicable is if the
economic consultant finds the project to be feasible or infeasible, but the City disagrees with
the <?onclusions. (A somewhat similar situation occurred, you may recall, in negotiations for
the Mid-Bayfront project.) If this were to happen, and the City did not have the right to
terminate the ENA, the City may be placed in th~ untenable position of having ~o exclusively
negotiate for up to six months (or longer) for the development of a project that the City has
determined cannot be successfully developed.
However, in an effort to reach a compromise on this issue, the City Attorney's Office has
proposed the following concept: After a determination of infeasibility, or otherwise, the City
would have a right to tender to the developers a last best and final good faith offer of terms
for the disposition and development of the project. If such terms were rejected or not
responded to by the developers within a specified period of time (e.g., 30 days) the City could
declare an impasse and legally terminate the ENA. This proposal would require that the
following provision be added to Section V.A. of the ENA regarding termination due to
impasse:
For purposes of this Section, a party shall irrefutably be deemed to have made a
Reasonable Impasse Determination if such party submits, in good faith, to the
other party, via registered mail, return receipt requested, its last. best and final
offer of basic business terms for the lease or other disposition of the Site and the
development of the Project, and the receiving party fails to completely accept or
fails to respond to such offer by the date falling 30 days after its receipt thereof.
As another alternative, or additional concept, the City Attorneys's office recommends that if
the third-party study of the project shows it to be feasible, but the City reasonably disagrees,
the developer be required to make a good faith deposit towards staff costs incurred
throughout the remainder of the exclusive negotiations period. If the project is approved, such
amount would be refunded.
Staff feels that the Attorney's proposed language to be added to the Impasse section is an
acceptable resolution of the issue. Staff also feels, however, that the City is sufficiently
protected without that language, since the agreement is only 12 months long and the
feasibility analysis by the third-party expert will not occur until after 10 months per the above
schedule; therefore, even if infeasibility is the conclusion of the City, the property would not
be tied up for more that 60 to 65 days.
The language recommended by the City Attorney is included in Section V. A for discussion
purposes. It is underlined for easy identification.
3.. CiN's "Walk-awav" Riqht Due to Adverse TOT Law Chanqe.
Earlier drafts of the ENA included a provision whereby the City reserved the right to terminate
the ENA in the event that there was a state law adopted which materiall){ changed the amount
of transit occupancy taxes that would be received by the City from the proposed project.
/:3../~
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date 04/23/96
The Developer also feels that this provision will raise concerns with their potential financing
sources. They feel that the City should not have the ability to reject the proposal over erosion
of benefit after the Developer has spent significant time and money in pursuit of a DDA.
Staff recommends that this provision not be included in the ENA because it is felt that such
a change in the law is unlikely to occur during the term of the ENA. In fact, there is no
legislation pending this session which would threaten Transit Occupancy Tax. Furthermore,
even if such a change did occur, which it will not, the loss of revenues could either be made
up in negotiations with the developers, or, if it were a substantial loss of revenues, be a
legitimate basis for declaration of an impasse.
The City Attorney agrees that this provision could be deleted with very little remaining risk
provided that the ENA is amended to include the language change proposed above which
clarifies the City's ability to declare an impasse in the negotiations.
The language recommended by the City Attorney has not been included in the ENA, but it is
proved below for discussion:
Termination Due to Material Change in Projected City Project Financial Benefit
Notwithstanding the nominal Negotiating Period herein above set forth, City may
terminate this agreement at any time if it reasonably determines that there has
been a materially negative change in the projected revenues to the City from the
project, provided that the materially negative change is not caused by any direct
affirmative action of the City.
Note: At the date of the delivery of the Council meeting agenda packet, the Developers are
still reviewing the language options presented in the ENA and have not made a final
determination on their position. They will convey their final position at or before the Council
meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:: The execution of the exclusive negotiating agreement will involve the
commitment of significant staff time in pursuit of development of the proposed hotel. As this
is a special project outside of the redevelopment project areas that is being managed by
Community Development staff, funds will be budgeted in a General.Fund project acc9unt. .
The budget for the proposed projectbeing submitted for FY 1997 is approximately $120,000,
with the most significant cost categories being staff costs for project analysis and legal
services for the drafting and negotiation of a disposition and development agreement.
If the ENA does not result in a hotel project, the City could lose revenues over the period of
the agreement that might have been realized by alternative development of the site that could
occur sooner, such as the proposal referenced above to buy the 3-acre site for $800,000 to
develop a commercial shopping center.
If the hotel is developed under a performance lease and meets the financial expectations of
the preliminary projections, the City would realize revenues from transit occupancy tax,
property tax, and performance lease payments. The developer estimates cumulative transit
occupancy tax revenues to the City by Year 25 at $28.5 million. The cumulative percentage
rent payments to the City by Year 25, using the developers projections, are calculated as
follows by the developer and the consultant:
/3 -/3
Page 14, Item
Meeting Date 04/23/96
Growth Rate
At 3 % Growth
At 4% Growth
At 5% Growth
Cum. Rent
$9.8 million
$11 million
$13 million
The financial consultant estimates the net present value of this range to be between $2.7 and
$3.0 million.
Combined with the transit occupancy tax projections, cumulative revenues at Year 25 would
be roughly in the range of $38 to $42 million.
The alternative to the performance lease is for the City to sell the property to the developer;
the developer has offered $2.2 to $2.3 million. The area needed to develop the hotel would
have to be refined and the property would have to be appraised to fix a value position for the
City.
Much additional financial analysis needs to be done during the ENA period to properly aS5e~s
the validity of the projections and estimated values and to define an appropriate transaction
for the City.
[dg\disk9\wpwin\a:joelenf:a13 ]
A TT ACHMENTS
NOT SCANNED
'.
/3 -/1
, RESOLUTION
I K'~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND JOELEN EN'TERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT ON
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City owns a 3.1-acre parcel (a portion of APN #593-31-32) adjacent
to the Chula Vista Golf Course that is vacant and available for development and a 4-acre
contiguous parcel (APN #593-31-31) that is developed with a restaurant, golf course
associated uses, and a parking lot that is leased to American Golf Corporation and could
become available for development; and,
WHEREAS, Joelen Enterprises has submitted a proposal to the City to lease or
purchase the subject City-owned parcels to develop an approximately 250-room luxury golf
resort hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to negotiate with Joelen Enterprises regarding the
proposal to lease or purchase the subject parcels to develop the hotel; and,
WHEREAS, an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk known as document , has been prepared which will govern the
negotiation between the City and Joelen Enterprises regarding the hotel proposal including (a)
the preparation of a projection definition for CEQA purposes, (b) the determination of project
feasibility, and (c) the preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement and/or related
documents to present to the City Council for its consideration.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
1 . The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Joelen
Enterprises for Hotel Development is hereby approved in the form presented.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute same.
hris Salomone
Community Develo
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
fi;{L -
[BB\C:\WP51 \COUNCIL\RESOS\HOTELENA.RESl
/3- /5
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
This agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this day of
1996, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the
parties, by and between the City of Chula Vista, California, a political subdivision of the
State of California, ("City"), and Joelen Enterprises, a California General Partnership,
whose general partners, and their addresses, are set forth in IB below and incorporated
herein by reference ("Developer").
This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, the City and Developer entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement")
entitled "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Joelen
Enterprises for Hotel Development", executed as of November 26, 1991 by City; and,
Whereas, on or about June 2, 1992, the parties extended the Initial Negotiating
Period, as therein defined, to November, 1992 by the first amendment to said Original
Agreement ("First Amendment") entitled "First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development";
and,
Whereas, the "Original Agreement" and the "First Amendment" have expired and no
longer have any force of effect; and,
Whereas, the parties now desire to renew negotiations regarding hotel development.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY AND DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS FOllOWS:
I. Parties
A. Nature and Offices of the Developer
Developer is Joelen Enterprises, a California General Partnership. The principal
office of the Developer for purposes of this Agreement is:
4000 Coronado Bay Road
Coronado, CA 92118
1. Developer's Representatives.
Developer has designated the following person or persons who will negotiate
the Disposition and Development Agreement with the City and who will
engage in the activities necessary to determine the feasibility of the
development of the Site:
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 1
1'3
10
Josef A. and Lenore S. Citron
P. Craige Citron
Brian Seltzer (or other counsel as designated)
B. City's Offices and Representatives.
The principal office of City for purposes of this Agreement is:
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
(619) 691-5047
1 . City's Representatives.
City has designated the following person or persons who will negotiate the
Disposition and Development Agreement with the Developer and who will
engage in the activities necessary to determine the feasibility of the
development of the Site:
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
David Gustafson, Assistant Community Development Director
II. Definitions and References
A. Site:
The site which is the subject matter of this Agreement is approximately seven
acres of land identified as follows ("Site"):
1. A portion of San Diego County Assessor Parcel No. 593-31-32, owned by the
City of Chula Vista, consisting of approximately three acres in a configuration
shown on the attached Exhibit A ("City Parcel")
2. Four acres of land owned by the City of Chula Vista and leased to American
Golf Corporation for purposes of operating the restaurant, banquet facility and
pro shop at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course ("Restaurant Parcel") in the
configuration shown on the attached Exhibit B.
B. Project:
The Project as referred to herein shall mean development of the Site with an
approximately 250-room hotel and associated golf shop, restaurant, banquet and
meeting facilities, swimming pool, spa, tennis courts, visitor commercial and retail
floor area ("Project").
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 2
13-/7
III. Negotiations
A. Negotiation Period
The term of this Agreement ("Term") shall commence as of the effective date
hereof, and shall conclude on the date falling one year after the date of City
Council approval hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the following terms
and conditions are satisfied, the City, by resolution of the City Council, may grant
a six month extension of the Term: (a) Developer shall submit to City a written
request for such extension at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the Term; (b)
during the 30 day period leading up to the end of the Term, the Developer shall
establish, to the City's reasonable satisfaction (i) that Developer's failure to
perform all of its obligations during the initial Term was due to circumstances
reasonably beyond Developer's control, and (ii) that Developer will be able to
complete its obligations under the Agreement within the proposed six month
extension period; and (c) the City determines, in its sole discretion, that the
Developer has substantially performed its obligations pursuant to Section III.D
hereof. Such one year term, as it may be extended as provided herein above, may
be subject to further extension in accordance with the provisions Section III.E
hereof, or early termination in accordance with the terms of Section V hereof.
B. Duty of Staff and Developer to Negotiate DDA
During the "Negotiation Period" as herein defined, Staff of the City ("Staff") and
Developer shall negotiate diligently and in good faith to prepare a "project
definition" for CEQA purposes, to determine project feasibility and to prepare an
implementation plan, including an agreement ("Disposition and Development
Agreement", or alternatively "DDA") implementing the "Project" to present to the
City for City Council consideration and approval, as they deem appropriate, after
appropriate CEOA review, which DDA shall, among other things, address the
basic issues and requirements listed below.
The items listed below shall be negotiated in good faith between Staff of the City
and Developer. Failure by the Developer or City staff to negotiate towards the
resolution of these items shall constitute breach of good faith negotiations.
1 . Restaurant Parcel Control.
Site control sufficient to permit the construction and occupancy of the Project
over and upon the Restaurant Parcel, which meets the development objectives
as delineated in Number B. 3 below; the City, as landlord of the Restaurant
Parcel, will negotiate in good faith with the lessee of the Restaurant Parcel,
American Golf, to regain site control of the Restaurant Parcel in order to be
able to negotiate the provision of site control of the Restaurant Parcel to the
Developer; if the negotiations between the City and American Golf are not
DG\Disk#8A\Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 3
13 -/~
successful, the Developer will negotiate in good faith with American Golf to
obtain site control of the Restaurant Parcel.
2. Restaurant Parcel and City Parcel Lease Agreement or
Purchase Agreement
A lease agreement which commits the Developer to lease Restaurant Parcel
and City Parcel from the City; and commits Developer to pay an amount
based on operating revenues of Project to the City, including a minimum rent
payment; or, in the City's sole discretion, a purchase agreement which
commits the Developer to purchase the Restaurant Parcel and the City Parcel
from the City.
3. Development of the Site.
A commitment from the Developer to improve the Site with the Project in a
form as approved by the City Council ("Approved Development") which
incorporates, at a minimum, the following:
a. An approved Master Plan for the seven (7) acres currently constituted of
City Parcel and Restaurant Parcel.
b. Compliance with design standards as determined by Staff, the City's
Design Review Board, and the City Council.
c. A design that minimizes, to the extent possible, the traffic circulation and
parking problems that the Approved Development can be expected to
produce.
d. Public parking sufficient for the Project, as well as for the golf course and
for continued use of the jogging trail that circumscribes the golf course.
4. A plan for clearly defining and addressing the impact of the Project on existing
use of the golf course; specifically, on the coordinated availability of golf
starting times for the public and for hotel guest. Both parties acknowledge
that it is essential for the success of the Project and for the continuing
successful operation of the municipal golf course that the Project be
guaranteed a minimum number of hotel guest golf start times by American
Golf and that reasonable access to start times be preserved for the general
public. It is further acknowledged by both parties that the plan for defining
golf course impact is a priority and should be accomplished at the earliest
possible time.
5. Schedule of Performance.
A schedule prepared jointly with the City Staff for the accomplishment of
identifiable developmental milestones relating to project implementation,
DG\Disk#8A\Joelen10.wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 4
1-3 - 19
including evidence of financing, environmental reviews or compliance and
other milestones.
C. Financial Feasibility and Economic Risk.
Both parties shall use the Negotiation Period to estimate total project costs in
order to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed project. It is
understood that the Developer absorbs all economic risks associated with the
completion of the Project. Thus, unless excepted expressly hereinbelow, it is the
intention of the Parties that Developer shall pay the full cost of all improvements
to be constructed on the seven (7) acre Site and the cost of all normal City fees
and permits applicable to completion of the proposed improvements. The parties
agree and acknowledge that it is the intent of the parties that, except as expressly
noted herein, all Project costs, including but not limited to the lease or acquisition
of the Site, relocation costs, design, construction and development of all on-Site
and off-Site public and private improvements, appraisal fees, environmental and
other consultant fees, customary processing fees, whether incurred by Developer
or City shall be the responsibility of the Developer.
Notwithstanding the above, at such time as Developer can demonstrate that they
are unable to generate a reasonable return based upon extraordinary public
improvement costs, the City may entertain a proposal for financial assistance for
such improvements, such assistance to be evaluated and addressed within the
content of the negotiated lease agreement and DDA. It is also understood that in
the event either party is unable to reach agreement on the DDA terms and
conditions, including a request for City assistance, and following good faith ne-
gotiations, either party may terminate this agreement.
D. Developer Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the Negotiation Period, Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, and
without right to reimbursement upon termination as herein provided, perform the
following obligations by the stated date. For the purposes of this section, time is
of the essence.
ObliQation
Completion
1 . Developer shall submit a preliminary site plan for the
project.
Within sixty (60) days
of effective date of this
agreement.
2. Developer shall submit to the City on deposit account
the full funds necessary to contract for an expert third
party consultant acceptable to both the City and the
Developer to conduct a preliminary market feasibility
Within sixty (60) days
of the effective date of
this agreement.
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 5
I~ -- 20
analysis of the proposed project. Developer shall
immediately, and subsequently as necessary, provide
to consultant all information necessary for consultant
to conduct analysis and provide to City conclusions
regarding the suitability of the site, current market
demand, supportable guest rooms and probable
occupancy and supportable average room rates.
3. Developer shall submit an Initial Study Application to
the City and post the required deposit to cause
Environmental Review of the Project, and bear the full
cost of the environmental review of the project.
4. Developer shall submit a written analysis of projected
City financial benefit from the Project to be derived
from the conclusions of the preliminary market
feasibility study, pro forma analysis, and conceptual
Site lease or Site purchase terms.
5. Developer shall submit Master Plan ("Master Plan") and
associated information to the City which is sufficient
for the preparation of a project EIR and acceptable to
(but not approved by) the applicable City department
directors.
6. Developer shall submit an application for an
amendment to the General Plan in a form that provides
for consistency of the Project to the General Plan by
the date adjacent hereto, and the City-required deposit
therefor, and shall thereafter diligently prosecute the
amendment.
7. Developer shall submit an application for the rezoning
of the Restaurant Parcel as Visitor Commercial, or such
other designation or land use permit required by the
City, and the City-required deposit therefor, by the date
adjacent hereto, and shall thereafter diligently
prosecute said application.
8. Developer shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with American Golf. This MOU
shall describe and determine the involvement, role,
monetary position and contribution of American Golf in
the Project.
9. Developer shall submit preliminary design plans for the
Project, acceptable to, but not approved by, the
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
13 ", ;L I
Within ninety (90) days
of effective date of this
agreement
Within one hundred-
fifty (150) days of
effective date of this
agreement.
Within one hundred-
fifty (1 50) days of
effective date of this
agreement
Within one hundred-
fifty (1 50) days of
effective date of this
agreement.
Within one hundred-
fifty (1 50) days of the
effective date of this
document
Within one hundred-
fifty (1 50) days of the
effective date of this
agreement
Within one hundred-
eighty (180) days of
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 6
Planning Director, to be used in association with the
processing of the General Plan Amendment and the
rezoning.
10. Developer shall submit from a lender or lenders
acceptable to the City written evidence of interest in
providing the debt financing necessary for the hotel
development and written evidence from equity
providers of interest in providing equity for the hotel
development. Lender written evidence shall include
lender's basic underwriting standards for hotel
financing.
11. Developer shall conduct a public forum on the Project
in the Bonita community which is publicly noticed in a
form acceptable to the City and which provides the
community with information on the design and
character of the Project.
12. Developer shall submit a complete application for
Design Review of the Project, acceptable to, but not
approved by, the Planning Director, and the City-
required deposit therefor, and shall thereafter diligently
prosecute said application.
13. Developer shall submit to the City on deposit account
the full funds necessary to contract for an expert third
party consultant acceptable to both the City and the
Developer to conduct a comprehensive project
feasibility study. Developer shall provide to consultant
all information necessary for consultant to conduct
analysis and provide to City expert opinion of
feasibility of project, a pro forma analysis of project
costs, revenues and cash flow, and an analysis of
projected revenues to the City from the hotel
development and the associated ground lease, if any.
14. If City so requires, Developer shall enter into
Memorandum of Understanding with City expressing in
concept the business terms of the proposed ground
lease and the Disposition and Development Agreement
1 5 Developer shall submit from a lender acceptable to the
City written conditional commitment to provide the
debt financing necessary for the hotel development,
and from an equity investor or investors acceptable to
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 1 O.wp
April 17, 1996
13 ~ ~J..,
effective date of this
agreement
Within one hundred-
eighty (180) days of
the effective date of
this agreement
Within one hundred-
eighty (180) days of
the effective date of
this agreement
Within two hundred-
forty (240) days of the
effective date of this
agreement
Within two hundred-
forty (240) days of the
effective date of this
agreement
Within three hundred
(300) days of the
effective date of this
agreement
Within three hundred
sixty-five (365) days of
the effective date of
this agreement.
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 7
,."","
the City written conditional commitment to provide
equity for the hotel development.
16. As requested by the City, from time to time, the
Developer agrees to make periodic oral progress reports
and periodic written reports advising the City on all
matters and all studies. All such matters shall be
deemed to be the joint property of City and Developer,
and may be used by either Party without
reimbursement to the other
Variable
E. Developer's failure to meet the above-referenced benchmarks shall constitute a
material breach of the agreement and shall subject the Agreement to termination by
the City in accordance with Section V. B hereof. Notwithstanding the above, if the
Developer fails to comply with the completion date for Obligation 111,0,15, the City
and the Developer may, but shall not be required to, mutually agree to not terminate
this agreement and to extend the completion date of Obligation III, 0, 15 to a specific
date if the Developer deposits with the City, on or before the completion date for
Obligation 111,0,15, the sum of $100,000, which deposit shall be non-refundable, but
shall be credited toward the Developer's lease payments in the event that a
disposition and development agreement results from negotiations which culminates in
the lease of the City Parcel and Restaurant Parcel.
Failure of the developer to meet the timeframes due to matters beyond their control
and/or to a determination of project infeasibility resulting in termination of this
agreement shall not constitute failure to negotiate in good faith.
F. City Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
1. During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, at its own cost and expense (and
without right to reimbursement upon termination as herein provided) perform the
following obligations:
a. Assist Developer in all discussions and negotiations with American Golf, the
subjects of discussion and negotiation being City site control of the
Restaurant Parcel, a minimum level of investment by American Golf in
upgrading the golf course, and a guaranteed minimum number of reserved golf
start times for hotel guests.
b. Explore and consider in good faith the issuance of taxable municipal revenue
bonds for the debt-financing of the Project.
c. Generally coordinate the EIR process.
d. Work with Developer to determine all non-traffic, on-Site and off-Site public
improvements and utilities and other fees, conditions, improvements or
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 8
\ j- 23
obligations required to accommodate the proposed Project and to insure the
compatibility of the Proposed Project with the City zoning and General Plan
requirements.
e. Assist Developer in establishing and periodically updating a schedule of all
discretionary and ministerial permits, review and approvals.
f. Assist Developer in establishing an estimate for all fees and exactions to be
paid by the Project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall be solely responsible for payment
of any and all customary City staff and consultant costs incurred by City in
connection with processing the EIR or development permits for the Project.
2. During the Term of this Agreement, subject to Developer's satisfaction of its
obligations pursuant to Sections III. D. 2 and III. D. 13 hereof, City shall, at the
sole cost of the Developer, perform the following functions:
a. Solicit, select, and contract with an expert third-party consultant, acceptable
to City and Developer, to provide a preliminary market feasibility analysis of
the proposed Project, said consultant to provide to City conclusions regarding
the suitability of the Site, current market demand, supportable guest rooms,
and probable occupancy and supportable average room rates, provided that
Developer has deposited with City full estimated cost of contract for
preliminary market feasibility analysis.
b. Solicit, select, and contract with an expert third-party consultant, acceptable
to City and Developer, to provide a comprehensive proiect feasibility study of
the proposed Project, said consultant to provide to City an expert opinion of
the feasibility of the Project, a pro forma analysis of the projected revenues to
the City from the hotel development and the associated lease, if any, provided
that Developer has deposited with City full estimated cost of contract for
comprehensive proiect feasibility study.
IV. Exclusive Nature of Agreement.
The City agrees, for the duration of this Agreement, not to negotiate with any other person
or entity regarding the acquisition and development of the Site. NotwithstandinQ the
foreaoina, it is understood that the City may receive from time to time unsoliciteq
alternative proposals for the development of the Site. To the extent that the City receives
any such offers, and to the extent that it is decided that any such alternate proposal is to
be presented to the Council.[then the Council shall only consider and discuss the same in
open sessionl and with the stated aualification that the City cannot and will not neaotiate
or contract with such party durina the term hereof. NotwithstandinQ the foreQoinQ, it is
further understood that the City shall have the riQht to evaluate and factor in alternative
proposals when considerina whether or not to approve, and/or the terms and conditions on
which to approve, formal aareements with the Developer for the actual development of the
DG\Disk#8A \Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 9
i3.;..tj
,. ..
/',- ~
Proiect. The City shall notify Developer upon the receipt of any such alternate
development proposal.
V. Conditions for Termination of ENA
A. Termination Due to Impasse
Notwithstanding the Negotiating Period herein above set forth, either party may
terminate this agreement without breach on written notification to the other party
of intent to terminate after a sixty (60)- day period, sent by registered mail, return
receipt requested, if it reasonably determines that it has, despite the exercise of
good faith, not been able to reach agreement on the terms and conditions for a
Disposition and Development Agreement ("Reasonable Impasse Determination").
If the City delivers such written notification, then Developer shall have the right to
require that both parties engage in additional, material good faith negotiations
during that 60-day period utilizing, if agreed upon by the parties, in their sole
discretion, a mutually agreed upon third party facilitator, who has no power to
issue orders or bind.
For purposes of this Section, a party shall irrefutably be deemed to have made a
Reasonable Impasse Determination if such party submits, in aood faith, to the
other party, via reaistered mail, return receipt reauested, its last, best and final
offer of basic business terms for the lease or other disposition of the Site and the
development of the Proiect, and the receivina party fails to completely accept or
fails to respond to such offer by the date fallina 30 days after its receipt thereof.
B. Termination Due to Breach
Notwithstanding the nominal Negotiating Period herein above set forth, either
party may terminate this agreement if the other Party has materially defaulted in
its obligations herein set forth, and the terminating Party has provided defaulting
Party with written notification of such determination, sent by registered mail,
return receipt requested, and the defaulting Party fails to cure such default as
provided below. The written notification shall set forth the nature of the actions
required to cure such default if curable. Defaulting Party shall have sixty (60)
days from the date of the written notification to cure such default. If such default
is not cured within the sixty (60)-day period, the termination shall be deemed
effective, unless the defaulting party requests, by written notice delivered in the
same manner as the default notice as described above, and the terminating party
grants at its reasonable discretion, a thirty (30)-day extension to the deadline for
curing the noticed default on the basis of extraordinary circumstances. If the
subject default is not reasonably susceptible of curing within such initial sixty (60)
day period and if, but only if, Developer has commenced and is continuing to
diligently pursue the curing of the same, then in addition to said optional addition
30-day period, Developer shall first have the right to an additional thirty (30) day
DG\Disk#8A\Joelen10.wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 10
l.3 - ~5
period to cure. For purposes of this paragraph, the parties hereby acknowledge
that time is of the essence.
VI. City Public Hearing.
If the negotiations culminate in an agreement between the Staff and Developer as to the
terms for a Disposition and Development Agreement, which is signed by Developer, such
an agreement shall be deemed to be an irrevocable offer to the City to contract on the
terms of the DDA for a period therein provided for, but at least 60 days, but shall not
become obligatory upon the City or become effective until after the agreement has been
considered and approved by the City after such public hearings and such procedures as are
prescribed by law. The City reserves the right to reject or approve, in its sole and
unfettered discretion, any proposed MOU or DDA; a City rejection of any proposed MOU or
DDA shall not be a violation of the City's good faith negotiation obligations hereunder.
VII. Real Estate Commissions
The City shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may
arise herefrom. The City represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in
connection with this transaction, and the Developer agrees to hold the City harmless from
any claim by any broker, agent or finder retained by Developer.
VIII. Execution of this Agreement.
By its execution of this Agreement, the City is not agreeing to undertake any activity
including but not limited to the approval and execution of a Disposition and Development
Agreement; the proposal, amendment, or approval of any land use regulation governing the
Site; the provision of financial assistance for the development of any public or private
improvement pertaining to the Site; the acquisition of any fee interest or leasehold interest
in real property; the authorization or obligation to use the City's eminent domain authority;
or, any other activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by the City, or any
agency or department thereof.
This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of control over
property by the City and does not require a public hearing. City execution of this
Agreement is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations
according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by the City as to any
Environmental Impact Report, proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and all
proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. This agreement conveys no property
right, and shall not be recorded.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Between City of Chula Vista and Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development)
DG\Disk#8A\Joelen 10. wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 11
13 -~b
,
!
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date set forth adjacent thereto, thereby indicating the consent of their principals.
Dated:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Shirley Horton, its Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form and content:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Dated:
JOELEN ENTERPRISES
a California General Partnership
By:
Josef Citron, General Partner
By:
Lenore Citron, General Partner
Endnotes:
[Joelen 10J
DG\Disk#8A\Joelen10.wp
April 17, 1996
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 1 2
13 -~'1
J
61
;It
. ...__.....~__~,_~"^"__....._"_.~__""___.~_..,-=-...~._'~~'~'...,.""'---~... __",,"..^~~..u,_~_~_"_'"~"'_'~'_ ..,. -.,.