HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/02/27
"at rle~lc~;3 U:1"f'f
enlr~;C
(.,':<.', :
'"'-"nl~'J c.f \'"\p."";l:ry th:,:,~ r ;-m
,"" . ::1
Tuesday, February 27, 1996
6:00 p.m.
\~~:; ';"'!:.>,':i",., ... '., ' " ~,.;; iJ,:' : ,~t, .
t._~.t U'#'~ ,"";;;r'''-' ~..~I., '. .~1_! Jt Ci'~'( j';.::1; C;l CouncIl Chambers
D:'.l C:;,:, W 'i..t:._ :;;'.:';~. ? ..(';;d~. ,. Public Services Building
/ ,/ ---
/ ( /
Rei.'ular Medini.' of the City of Chula Vista Cltv Council
CALL TO ORDER
Coum:ilmemhers Alevy _, Moot
Mayor Horton _'
Padilla _' Rindone _' and
I.
ROLL CALL:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES:
February 20, 1996 (City Council Meeting) and February 20, 1996
(Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency).
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DA V:
a. Oath of omce: Douglas G. Fuller - Otay Valley Project Area Committee.
b. Presentation by James Schmidt, Schmidt Consulting, on the impact of Wells Fargo/First Interstate
Bank merger and closing of Chula Vista hranches.
*****
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 II)
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 Foro," available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no reportahle actions taken in Closed
Session on 2/20/96. It is recommended that the letter he received and tiled.
b. Letter from Sue Pankhurst requesting financial assistance for the A YSO ReJ.::ion 290, Division
4B All Star Team to attend the Sectional Tournament in Los An~eIes County. It is
recommended that the request he denied.
c. Letter from 1\'lr. and Mrs. Ernesto Manglicmot requesting a palm tree he removed. It is
recommended that the letter he referred to staff for investigation.
Agenda
-2-
February 27, 1996
6. ORDINANCE 2652A AMENDING SECTIONS 5.02.040 AND 5.02.050 OF CHAPTER 5.02 AND
SECTION 5.07.020 OF CHAPTER 5.07 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES AND REGULATIONS (first
readin1!l - This ordinance operates to correct an unintended omission from a
prior version, retaining the requirement that transient merchants provide
substantial additional int(lfmation on the business liceose application. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney)
7. RESOLUTION 18218 ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT - The City will be conducting Expo
'96 on Saturday, 4/13/96 at Marina View Park. This community pride/cultural
arts annual event was approved by Council during the hudget process in 1995.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and
Recreation)
8. RESOLUTION 18219 ACCEPTING DONATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM GENERAL
DYNAMICS CONVAIR RECREATION ASSOCIATION - The City has
received a donation of weight equipment and fitness supplies for the Otay
Gymnasium from General Dynamics Convair Recreation Association. The
equipment has an estimated value of $9,300. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
9. RESOLUTION 18220 APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT AND A JOINT
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE JOINT USE OF AN EASEMENT IN
SALT CREEK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER LINE WITHIN
THE EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENTS - San Diego Gas and Electric Compaoy (SDG&E) is in the
process of constructing a new high pressure gas line known as Pipeline 2000 to
serve the south portion of the County. Part of the line is to be constructed
within the Salt Cret:k hasin on Otay Ranch. The portion of their gas line along
Salt Creek coincides with the proposed alignment of the City's Salt Creek
Sewer. Because of potential contlicts should the gas pipeline be constructed
first, It IS desirahle to construct a portion of the Salt Creek sewer line as part of
SDG&E's pipeline construction. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Puhlic Works)
10. RESOLUTION 18221 ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT IN OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 20 -
On 12/5/89, Council estahlished Open Space District Number 20 in the Rancho
del Rey development pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
A church and daycare, north of East "H" Street within SPA II, are proposed for
development and Rancho dd Rey Partnership has requested a modification to the
Engineer's Report affecting the parcels. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Puhlic Works)
Agenda
-3-
February 27, 1996
11. RESOLUTION 18222 APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONGESTION
MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) FUNDING - TRAFFIC
SIGNAL MODIFICATION PROJECT AT FIVE INTERSECTIONS - The
CMAQ was enacted as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991. Projects must be used for transportation improvements that
enhance air quality. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Board of Directors has approved CMAQ funds to be spent for traffic signal
projects within the San Diego area. The allocation of funds to individual
projects will he made by the SANDAG Board as part of the 1996/2003 Regional
TIP scheduled for approval in June 1996. Improvements are being
recommended at the following five intersections: Third Avenue/"]" Street;
Fourth Avenue/"G" Street; Fourth Avenue/"K" Street; Hilltop Drive/East "J"
Stred/"J" Street; and Fifth Avenue/"H" Street. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Ditector of Puhlic Wotks)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonll to speak in favor of the staff recommendation,. complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
12.
PUBLIC HEARING
DRC-94-24, APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
DENY THE INSTALLATION OF A 3 FOOT HIGH, 16 FOOT WIDE
GATE ACROSS LA COSTA AVENUE DIVIDING THE EASTLAKE
GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS KNOWN AS MASTERS COLLECTION
AND BRISTOLWOOD, BREHM INVESTMENTS INC, - The appeal
requests permission to install a 3 foot high gate across La Costa Avenue to
prevent continuous vehicular circulation between the EastLake Neighborhoods
known as Master Collection and Bristolwood, and reduce potential liability for
Bristolwood homeowners. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning) Continued from the meetin~ of 2/13/96.
RESOLUTION 18206 DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
TO DENY THE INSTALLATION OF A 3 FOOT HIGH GATE ACROSS
LA COST A A VENUE, A PRIVATE STREET WITHIN THE EASTLAKE
GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY
13.
PUBLIC HEARING
PMC-96-17; CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL/REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
CHECKLIST FOR TilE REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - The
Regional Growth Management Strategy which was prepared by the San Diego
Associations of Governments (SANDAG) in response to voter approval of
Proposition "C" in 1988 includes an annual "self certification" process for local
and regional agencies attained via compldion of a Local/Regional Consistency
Checklist to uetenmne their consistency with the standards, objectives and
recommended actions for nine Quality of Life factors contained therein. Chula
Vista is in substantial compliance with a majority of the checklist items. Staff
recommends the puhlic hearin2 he continued to 3/12/96. (Director of
Planning)
Agenda
-4-
February 27, 1996
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mailer within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Councilfrom taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes peT speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to themfor consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None suhmitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
None suhmitted.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agentkl items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
15. MA YOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of Appointment to the Economic Development Commission (Ex-Officio) - Mary
Wylie.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council member Rindone
a. Ratification of Appointment to the Economic Development Commission'(educational position)-
Tom Rodrigo.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on March 5, 1996
at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Agenda
-5-
February 27, 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 following items of business which are permitted by law 10 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/rom
closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
17. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
. Marina View Park, tlJ" Street and Bay Blvd., San Diego Unified Port District, Terms and Price.
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.
Employet organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Weslcrn 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
*****
J
I
~L
------------.
BRANCH LOCATIONS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY WHERE WELLS
FARGO AND FIRST INTERSTATE EITHER DEFINITELY
OVERLAP OR PROBABLY OVERLAP. THESE BRANCHES ARE IN
AREAS WHERE CLOSURES WOULD EITHER BE CERTAIN OR
HIGHL Y PROBABLE.
1. College area - one block apart.
2. 33rd and EI Cajon Blvd. - three blocks apart.
3. Lake Murray and Navajo - in same shopping center.
4. Bonita - about 100 yards apart.
5. Chula Vista - Wells in Chula Vista Shopping Center; First Interstate one
block away. '
6. Chula Vista, Castle Park area - one mile apart.
7. Grossmont Shopping Center, La Mesa - about 300 yards apart.
8. El Cajon, Fletcher Parkway, across the street from each other.
9. El Cajon, Second Street -less that 100 yards apart. Both could be closed
since Wells has an office in Ralph's Supermarket behind the two offices.
10. Lemon Grove - across the street from each other. Wells closed the former
Great American office (still vacant) and moved into a Lucky's market in
the same shopping center.
II. La Mesa, downtown area - one-half mile apart.
12. Coronado - both in dowi1town Coronado.
13. Del Mar, Via de 1a Valle shopping area - one-half block apart.
14. La Jolla, downtown - across the street and down one-half block.
IS. Pacific Beach - one mile apart.
16. Clairemont - First Interstate at 3939 Governor Drive is about one and one-
half miles from Wells in Clairemont.
17. La Jolla - First Interstate at 7708 Regents Road is about one mile from Wells
Fargo in University Towne Center.
18. Rancho Bernardo - across the street from each other.
19. Mission Valley - 7/lOths miles apart. Wells off Friars Road and First
Interstate just outside Mission Valley Shopping Center.
20. Mission Hills - 1/4 miles apart.
21. Point Lorna - one block apart.
22. Hillcrest - First Interstate at 6th and Laurel. Since Wells closed the Great
American office at 5th and Laurel it is logical that they would close the First
Interstate office one block away.
23. Downtown San Diego - First Interstate at 401 B Street. Since Wells closed
the former Great American office two blocks further away it is logical
that they will close this office.
24. Downtown San Diego - the old headquarters of San Diego Trust.
-1-
if A /
. /
25. Campo - remote area of San Diego County where First Interstate is the only
fmanciaI institution.
26. Pine Valley - fairly remote area of San Diego County where First Interstate
is the only fmandal institution and the nearest bank is in Alpine about 12
miles to the West.
27. Jamul - First Interstate is the only [mandaI institution and the nearest bank is
about 5 miles away.
28. Santee - one-half block apart.
29. Solana Beach - one block apart.
30. Encinitas - one block apart.
31. Oceanside - both are in the same shopping center on Oceanside Blvd.
32. San Marcos - 1.7 miles apart. '
33. Escondido - Wells office on Broadway is two blocks from First Interstate on
Grand and 1.2 miles from First Interstate on Mission. Two offices could be
closed.
34. Poway - 9/lOths miles apart.
35. Rancho Penasquitos - First Interstate in Von's on Black Mountain Road is 1.4
miles from Wells Fargo.
36. Mira Mesa - 6/l0ths miles apart.
37. Scripps Ranch - one mile apart.
38. Rancho San Diego - Spring Valley - 1.6 miles apart.
/'1
-2-
/
_J
~e: senriing 18ttnrs to requ~st a ~a'~ Diego County
hearing on ~,\Je '1.13 '!larGo )ro~osod :;>l~rC;'1ase of
Pirst Int8rst~!te 3ank.
'ialDh Sharps
0':??Ut::' CotnJtroller for H~;lti-National Banki-'1g Division
ComDt~oller of t ,8 Curr8DCY
2S0-~. St~e~t S.~.
Washington D.C. 20219-0001
Scm ~ CC to '1ichar.J 3rb
Sic8nsi~g Manager
C08Dtroller of Currency
2S2 l~. Street S,W.
'~shin~ton D.C. 20219-0001
.
February 22, 1996
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and city council (
John D. Goss, City Manager VL1 fl/\ b~\
City council Meeting of February ~7, 1996
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, February 27, 1996. Comments
regarding the written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that there
were no reportable actions taken by the City Council in Closed
Session on February 20, 1996.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. This is a letter from Sue Pankhurst requesting financial
assistance for the AYSO Region 290 Division 4B All Star Team
to attend the sectional Tournament in Los Angeles county.
This request does not meet the criteria for funding
organizations established in Council policy 159-02, and IT IS
THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE DENIED. In 1979, prior to
adoption of this policy, counci 1 did grant funding to the
Chula vista All Stars Softball Team to attend a tournament,
but a request by Miss Softball America to attend a national
tournament in 1983, and the Chula vista Girls Amateur Softball
Association's request to attend the State Championship
Tournament in Santa Clara in 1988 were both denied, as well as
a request in 1995 from the Sweet. Revenge Softball Team to
attend a national tournament in Stockton.
5c. This is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ernesto Manglicmot
requesting that a palm tree located on Medical Center Drive
behind their home be removed. Due to the possible long-term
ramifications of removing this tree, As a short-term
solution, the tree in question will be trimmed to avoid the
propagation of additional palm seedlings. Otherwise, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR FURTHER
STUDY AND LONG-TERM RESOLUTION.
JDG:mab
~~~
::~~
~--...:~~
~~~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
February 21, 1996
From:
The Honorable Mayor and city Council
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney~~~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 2/20/96
To:
Re:
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session of February 20,
1996, there were no actions taken which are required under the
Brown Act to be reported.
BMB:lgk
C:\lt\c!ossess.no
..5::.'1
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHUlJ>, VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
),/, P,"'u........,.."flocyaOOp_
~'L\::' \~ S'\~'\.o
~', ~.~ \~~~~~\\"~~~\--_~~
C>c"~ -\.~ ~~,\ ~~,",,-~~ ~ ~~~ ~\c~
. .~
; ~
~.' ~
-..- -
iiiJ~ 0
'-\'\~) \ ~Ou~ \C~ ~~~ V~""~~~.. '-"'\\~ 0)
~~"':l\::.~,~ \ ~6.0.. \\""~\,-,,,-'0~ \ \......~ 0\,-,,-- ~
~"&- ~~~\~~ <2.\ '\~ ~~ \~~ ~<::::, \ ~~~\~\<::c\'-...
.~ 'b C~ ~'- ~ La...",,'-.., \"-S--~ \.0"\"-. G~ ""',~ .
~"k. ~t-Q:,\"',-- \...c~ """~ \...c~ ~ \~'L\'-.. \\2) ~ \1.-
~C~"- ~ \cc'\~ - ~~ ~s:.C'>."'~~'-~~C'\"-. ~
~~ \2':j.N:::'L""~~<::?\''''',''~'>-\? ex,,6.. ~~~ '-'"\"-. C'o",-
~.~ ~"\,% ~~'-...6..'&.<;3..:,,~ . ~\.......~~'-.~'::, C'-.
'~6Q.. C>....~C'...,....~~'--~\"-.',\'...."""'~ ~'- ""~" 0--"" ,~C:;
..I\.\~ ~::'\""'- ~'-~'.... ~\~"~0- '\\3.'::,~ '\~ '-.';::_:<:?\'-..
. ~~ \...c~ cQ'C"-- ~,........... ,\:"c~"--~. ~\" \\\..C.'('o.......~'- \
.. -\\~\ ~~~ ~. ~~,"\ ~\"- ~~ ~c..~\,'S,~
~~,_.,'...:;":'-Q,,?\'.'0.:,'Y- 'v\;'... \~"'O:, ~,'...~~ 'C'::, C~ <:;:~4 .
. ~~, -\<c_~",- ~ ~~'-... ~~ <0-\'0
..~c:..-c:..-~"~ ~~~'-- ~\\;-...:s.:::, 6-,-="",-.. We \~~ Cc~
~~ \6s..-\\~'':~\:c::sQ:~~~'-, \c::.~~'\'~ ~\'-c\ \"~~~
~=~ ~~ ~~'L'L", ~~\' ~\6 ~~'0~ ~
.. <:' ~," "" ~ ~ . . ,>,,,,-"'..;y- \..Gcu..s...:"'.~ \
'-"\'\\ 0.::-0."-... 1'-. ~C::, d.;;- '""\'\ \ <X'~"'_ C'.:..\ -- \~. ~~"- "'\'-3~.\Q
. N). '\,' \' ",- 'C, \
{.C. ~ 7~ R-\~ ,~~ '\"'c.:, '\::N~___-":::'~'~ .~"""a. ;~L 0...C'--,,, ..
~~~ ~~ =,~\~ ~~ 6- ~~ ~ ~0"
0~ ':/;t:,~ S; -/ Alc?/7\41Ri'rrEN COIAMUNBCA T~O{;~:~~
~~-A. '-'\\\.~~"'<~\\\~~
\ {\ . "
C)...,,,,,,c:, \.,_<!;o.,,~""~~~~<::::'\"-.~,
=-
f'II
(')
f'II
<
f'II
g
''-\(~''''-2-L"",~ 6~ ""~ ~~L --\.~ ~~c:.c,~,-~
~~'2~'\0:s.'~~ ~ C'3>..~~'--~"~ \3\"- '\""''-'~ ~~~-;y-.
'-~~ ~~~ ~~'A \\.).....~ ~~~-~~""'''- ~~
~c3s- ~ ~~"-~ ~~ ~ ~~~"- "'~~~.
"" \ ", ~ '" . , C'. \ '\. "
,,,,-~ "\-~ ~'Q, \ "-"'--~~'L~ ~~ "-'~ ~~"-,
'--~~ ~ '<...es..o"-. ~ ~'--"\? ~~, '--~"- ~~~ ~~
~ "\~~'\ ~~'--~. "-~'L C~\~S'~,"-~Z- ~\~
'C...~~~~ l~~~~,,--~~~~, ,.\')' ~ ~\\W~
\ ~ "" \.J \,\',
( 'fu \\:::.-<::::, ~ ~"- ~~~"-- J _ \c'~~~ ~-;:)C """~
~~'- ~'0---~ ~,~-:':::,~ ~~~'~"-~\3'\"-. .
,~": ~,,,-- 0-~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~\~ ~:-~
\"'0~'\'-i'cS''C-.L''''\'Y CX'\-6. ~~~'0C ~~~~ ~;y-
~\~ ~2-<:';\?\s.-, Oc'~~'"'\~ ~ ~~'" G~
.~ ~\; ~\._~~ \$.)~" '-'=:l~'~ ~\~~~'~,
\c-~~'-- '--'\""'-- '-\~"'-0'i0\,:)'C""" \....~ ~ '-"N0...~'D:::,-\'0'-.&:;~\r
. "''''' ~ ~"---~'-'- "& .
'C:J~~ '-~'--"'- ~"""'-- '-~=----'--____ ~'-,,-.6.. ~~~,b,~,CC'\,-
~ '\-~ "'~'-'
~'-'"\'o~~~ '
~~. t\ .
'~'-J--'-.Sc...\~ c,-\~c~,--,-,-'~'y
.5b ".J..
~L\ -c::;'~(\~
\ , '. .
L.1:l.\ -C:::;',\"--\
\
.\\....\;\,'-~
'-
<"'\:c<::O\..'C.....
I;
~rvv-"^\ ; \\~~\o
ftECEIVEI
'96 FIB 14 P2:51
It ~AJ~1Jt
fD)~@~aw~fii)
1JJJ FBt - 8 9Ii ~!
I
I
COUNCIL OFFICES
CHULA VISTA, CA
1" ~ '(\
~,~~'J)VV'-JVJ5J
'd'\ 1&' L.\ ~ O-.Il~ .
~~J.. V~'" ,to\. - Q.\C\\\
~'-UA ~ ~
~L ~ I{,ll.t",,- Q M.M~\- ~ ~ \l.~ M N'-u-
\C\luo, ~1\-. ';).<6 61lh.Jv-..- \}J9--- ~\J"-J... ~ ~~~CC'- ~lJt-~ ~~a.C\
~ ~';:8~ ,';,.IJ-"~~ ~ ~'" .).. 'A'-Wv>-- ~WJv.- ~~ ~c>-v\L -'\-u
~~ I!~," ~ ~c<A-- \, ~"^- ~\ fd'\t. ~ 0-cl~ ~^-
(}ItN\",acK \0 'Jr.Afl- NJfuJ. ~"-.>> V0~ ~d ~ ~ ~o..\R.. ~.9..Q.,,^--
~~J4 R~c#- ~~ \NJ^M- ~'-'- qt<Ac,^^-~ ~c~ ~~ ~^-^--
0v pG~ ~ ~ol- v... ~:v.~ \J\-DQ c..~n-e-- ~ ~~&~~~
,~'\L ~_ _ '" O'<c '"" '1\"'" '\ we. ." ""'L \C-
~~ Cc- ~ ~"^~.~ ~~'- ~~ <i0^ QAJA ~[VJ.r'-J~ .
~ ~ A~~r- - ~ VCl~ CfN",N0Ci" ~ ~ -P~ t0J ~ ~{
~\\ ~ (~I\, ~~ ((~ ~ ~~ "\- ~~\-- o-.r.~ ~ r .
W's;:: ~~N- ~. ~~ ~ ~~ i~ 'fW\.. ~"- G ~
rMJ~ O-N"~.' ~ ~~~'1 ~ 'b~ ~ \'b~~ . ~ ~ ' \;Jo... L
~~ c.,,~~ J~ ""~ "'~ ~ n\oo ~~
~tv vA. Q ~~I\l\i',~ ~~~ C?Cc-h~ ~ ~G~~ ~~
<::.W"ML- ~ ~OJ'- ~,^-d-.. I'>M~~~ ~\:- \NIL ~~~~ ~
\Jo.,~\ ~Q~ ISh",,\- ~ ~~\-<h~ ''-\ ~ ~~~8'\>A- , ~
CW\,~ V\JI./ .~ \,c~ ,"'^^-~'''WL ~~ ~ ~ '^ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ IN\.- ~~ CO . ~~~~ \..w)-~U'Ak
~~ Wo-<- .0k .4 ~ ~ '!:" fu ~ ~.. !~
r;rv-.. .~ ~~\c . ~OIN-~ ~O~ ~ ~ ~~~~ -.vL ~-\:
_ ~ ~v1- ~ll~ ~ ~ "4-y ~. , olJi.O ~ Cl.-lbaJ....~<L&.
cc..: ~~(;') /' ,/ . } "=~~~,~ ~O. .11.., rl(. 07-~;;
fi5 -... 7,-,,} ..:;) C [it\U ~ ~!N,..,.. . .M. ;.. &..~ ~ 1l~r:l~"'A' ~.r." .,....,..;1;;,?' 7
~ friWA U I~ ~ ~ ';01'~'I. . I,~~ ..).'1 ",)~, -~.,~
~ ~:::.,~ja..';.?
'i~, "-\.- ~ l-& (', I.AA:, ,11- ,\tv\\:.. :~\i'vO """ Ii.. ~ u~ \~, ;', ~ ~ ","" ~Ion_ ~,Q., "j .
\ \ '\\ \: ,,,", \ A' - \ \. ~""\..l---- "'" CJ.Lc'V
~'lJ,,^C'~\ <ilC ~N\..\.l.' '\,,\ 'VVV<.NG""O\ O"'-"v'. .,C,"'-t
~~c\.cv,\,\~~ '~~C~' (\ S"~~~ wI \~'J ~ ",1.'-' \~;~.~ :: \~
r'("'lfJ' +,,1;,/::,,-- , rrJ)- 1- )j~ 'J-"". 'J ';'}IG 'Nj:_' , Q '",,\.
~ ~ ~~\. M,v~ 'b.:. ~f".0LJ:,\.i;w,L t0J\ t:JL- Q <'\"CV, ~ ~1"t
~L~~ -..'-\ \O~~w~ \ ~~'',. ~\U~\.l 1~~~~CA.t--~ JJlJlc\
~,\. !'W.,,(, \J \.~ ~ c,\ \..c e..C\4 eo, ~ 0-.\ \\.tJv'J' eliv\. 2 '\.t r ~(
Iv..,'\\\.. ~ "--, \G \'. ~ "''- '\(-1- ~ cl.u:, \ -, \- Ci0v w ""- ' I
~Cv~'\\\.L0\.:\-t,,\\\..\. . C'~'V"'C'-,,\C\,\: 6\~Cv. \''i) Cv'
\\,,- l.\, C"VL\tJ ~\\,~LL Cc"".;:- k C\.i.c.\J.. t-\.\. 4.\L
\ C' 'I..) ~, r ) ~o ,-.,..- 0 \ .
~.~ "'/ "',,') . ----) f-::f{>",~;)}j f))jf'-j..J/ - .1/tr: I})v__
-,tll ')).0- J~ j/fI.J, .. \ >
f:), y:f) )l) \, l ;J. ') \;,~,,-,,- ~'\J-> ~JJ.,J)t ' J t.U.1'Y ''\\..Ov\- v.!J1V
~~G\scC\ 6 ~ '~;\~CWvvC~ ~~~ G. \~0 .~~t'~ ~J.
~: C>>~~~ ~ ~f .\t\Lrl~ . ~~ c~ 'i-~~ ~qJ~,\
tvJ\I\.u.... ~v N... '-;--:> ., ~&sc~v'o.1/, 'V.) '-- \,}.9 \) uJ!.l ~~.-V \v ,J,L
.' . \ \ \' I '\. ,0 .
~\.lA ~J\.::: O\c~'~ L4~, ~~~8"J\ lct,~"'J~\ ~
r f":J \'V'-.~ ,";'f.:.. r 1-: rJ-.. :JJ_ ~~' r)'.J.., )::::~ .1 J \ ."",,,,Q,.\ ~(~'--'Q.:~u1t.
~L ')' \\
J "1 '}fv r~\{)), j''\.
\
\JI)'\~ vw"- ~W~~\:UA~
~~lv~ ~ \ "
J ~~, ~ J\vwq/<.\c .,,"'. t
/' ~/f ,Xl zt. /7- ll:!Jv0:J /.t<0Weli
~ ,,1..
\ ~~~ ~~'WC} ~\jGlC\
CWG\ \ ~ G.... C\ \C\ \) It\.. fJ0
(
0'~)- 0,\S'1
council Agenda statement
Item:
t
Meeting Date:
February 27, 1996
Item Title: Ordinance 2652A: Amending section 5.07.020 to enable
the city Council to abate the
Business License Tax rates in one-
year increments for up to three
calendar years, and amending
sections 5.02.040 and 5.02.050 to
make administrative changes to make
the CVMC consistent with existing
procedures for processing business
license applications
Submitted by: Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney ~
Agenda Classification: (X) Consent
( ) Action Item
( ) Public Hearing
( ) Other:
4j5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
This ordinance operates to correct an unintended omission from a
prior version, retaining the requirement that transient merchants
provide substantial additional information on the business license
application.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council place the Ordinance on first reading and schedule its
second reading at the next meeting.
DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting of November 21, 1995, the Council adopted
Ordinance 2652 which, in part, amended section 5.02.040 to require
greater information on a business license application than merely
the name of the owner of the business or enterprise.
A copy of Ordinance 2652 in the form as it was presented to the
Council for second reading on that date is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A".
section 5.02.040, prior to the amendment by Ordinance
with a Subparagraph E dealing with substantial
information required on a business license application
2652, read
additional
for a
t-I
Page 2,
Meeting Date:
Itemk
2/27/96
solicitor, peddler or transient merchant as shown on the attached
Exhibit "B".
staff did not intend to omit Subparagraph E when presenting it to
the Council for amendment. It was their desire and intention to
leave Subparagraph E intact thereby continuing the requirement that
door to door peddlers provide substantial additional information on
their business license application. Their only intent was
requiring additional information on a normal business license
application.
Normally, typographical and clerical errors can be corrected
administratively. However, we are not sure that the Council did
not see the way Subsection E read prior to Ordinance 2652 and
approved it relying on the fact that Subsection E was omitted and
in furtherance of a policy choice that door-to-door merchants
should not be required to provide additional information. Staff
can't be sure and the ambiguity removes the item from the arena of
a typographical or clerical mistake to something of greater
substance.
As such, staff does not have the power administratively to correct
the omission and the conservative course would be to have Council
readopt Ordinance 2652 in a revised fashion clearly expressing
their intent that door to door peddlers provide the same additional
information on their business license application that they have
had to provide all along.
Therefore, we are offering a new Ordinance 2652A which is marked
for revisions from the prior Ordinance 2652 and which essentially
adds back the pre-existing Subparagraph E relating to the
additional information required of a transient merchant.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In the absence of making this correction,
peddlers and other transient merchants would
not have to provide as much detail on their
business license application which could
concei vably reduce processing costs in the
Finance Department. However, since this is
for all intents and purposes, a clerical
correction, it is the author's opinion that
the Fiscal Impact is negligible.
t,,;J..
ORDINANCE NO. 2652A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTIONS 5.02.040 AND 5.02.050 OF
CHAPTER 5.02 AND SECTION 5.07.020 OF CHAPTER
5.07 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES AND
REGULATIONS
SECTION I: That sections 5.02.0450 and 5.02
Chapter 5.02 and section 5.07.020 of Chapter 5.07 of the
vista Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
050 of
Chula
5.02.040 Application-Contents required-Investigation Feels).
Before any license is issued to any person, such person shall
make written application therefore to the finance officer of the
city. Such application shall:
A. State the nature or kind of business or enterprise for which
the license is required;
B. State the place where such business or enterprise will be
transacted or carried on;
C. State the following:
1. The name and address of the owner of the business or
enterprise,
2.
The ownership classification: sole
partnership or coproration and the
identification number of the business,
proprietorship,
federal tax
3. The date business commenced in the City of Chula Vista,
4. The number of persons employed by the business,
5. State license number(s) and State of California resale
number of the business or person conducting the business.
D. Be signed by the applicant;
~ Shall contain, when intended as an application for a license
as a solicitor, peddler or transient merchant, the followinq
information:
~ Physical description of applicant.
~ Complete permanent home and local address of the
applicant,
/,-}
l."
If emploved, the name and address
toqether with crede_ntials therefrom
exact relationship,
of the emplover.
establishinq the
~ The source of supplv of the Goods or propertv or propertv
proposed to be sold, or orders taken for the sale
thereof, where such qoods or products are located at the
time such application is filed. and the proposed method
of deliverv.
~ Two copies of a recent photoqraph of the applicant. such
picture beinq approximate Iv two inches bv two inches and
showinq the head and shoulders of the applicant in a
clear and distinGuishinG manner.
~ A statement as to whether or not the applicant has ever
been convicted of anv felonv and if so the nature of the
offense,
~ The last cities. not to exceed three, where applicant
carried on business immediatelv precedinq the date of
application and the addresses from which such business
was conducted in those cities.
h At the time of filinG the application. the Required
Feers) shall be paid to the director of finance to cover
the cost of investiqation of the facts stated therein.
~ Where a written order or contract is used, the applicant
shall attach to the application one copv of the proposed
form of all such orders or contracts to be used or
submitted to purchasers or prospective purchasers within
the citv.
~ At the time such application is filed. the applicant
shall furnish his finqerprints to the police department
of this city.
5.02.050 Issuance-prerequisites and procedure generally.
Upon application therefor as provided in this chapter, it
shall be the duty of the finance officer to prepare and issue a
license pursuant to this chapter i provided however, that the
finance officer shall not issue any such license until it has been
noted on the application therefor that the location of the proposed
business has been reviewed by both the fire department and the
planning department and any other department deemed appropriate by
the finance director, and has been approved in accordance with the
provisions of the building code, the zoning ordinance and any other
applicable code.
5.07.020 Applicable tax rates - by year.
t,-'1
~ 1991 Calendar vear rates.
Effecti ve Januarv 1,
shall be those rates
section 5.07.030, in
1/1/91 - 12/31/91".
1991, the business license tax rates
detailed in the Master Tax Schedule.
the column thereof labeled "Tax Rate:
~ 1992 Calendar vear rates.
Effecti ve Januarv 1.
shall be those rates
section 5.07.030. in
1/1/92 - 12/31/92".
1992 , the business license tax rates
detailed in the Master Tax Schedule.
the column thereof labeled "Tax Rate:
~ 1993 Calendar year rates.
Effecti ve Januarv 1,
shall be those rates
section 5.07.030, In
1/1/93 - 12/31/93".
1993. the business license tax rates
detailed in the Master Tax Schedule.
the column thereof labeled "Tax Rate:
~ 1994 and Subsequent Calendar Year Rates.
Effective Januarv 1, 1994, and for each calendar year
thereafter, all tax rates for the cateqories of taxpayers
detailed in the Master Tax Schedule, includinq both base tax
rates and add-on tax rates (e.q., rates per person,
per-machine. etc.) shall be increased bv six (6%) percent per
year above the tax rates and add-on rates applicable in the
precedinq year.
E. Power to Abate in 1992 and thereafter to 1991 floor.
Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary in this section
contained, commencing for the 1992 calendar year and
continuing thereafter, the city Council is hereby authorized
for no more than one calendar year, but is not required, to
lower the tax imposed by this section but to no less than
taxes imposed in the 1991 calendar year.
~ Procedure to Abate.
To lower the tax authorized bv this section, the city council
shall conduct a public hearinq at which it publicly
deliberates on the advisabilitv of doinq so. notice which
public hearinq is published in a newspaper of qeneral
circulation at least twice not sooner than 20 days and not
later than 5 davs prior thereto, of its intent to deliberate
upon said matter. Failure to publish notice of the public
hearinq, as herein required, shall not affect the riqht of the
city Council to conduct the public hearinq and to reduce the
authorized annual rate of increase as herein imposed.
,,~.r
~ Nothinq contained in this section shall affect the effective
date of this ordinance.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and
adoption.
and {WY d a'
:v
Bru e M. Boogaard, Cit'V/ A torney
C:\or\502040
by
6."'''
~
EXHIBIT "B"
5.02.020 Required-Exemptions.
It is unlawful for any person, or for any person as agent. cletk or employee, either for himself or for
any other person, within the corporate limits of the city to transact, engage in, or carty on any business,
show, exhibition or game hereinafter specified without first having procured a license therefor, as in this title
and Sections 8.20.020 and 9.13.030 required; provided however, that insurance salesmen and brokers are
not required to obtain a business license by virtue oflawful exemption from such provisions and further they
shall not be required to obtain a solicitor's identification card as set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 2537 ~1
(part), 1992; Ord. 1801 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord. 1243 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~18.2).
5.02.030 Separate license for each place of business-Scope-Exceptions.
A separate license shall be obtained for each separate business, or each branch establishment or
separate place of business in which a business, show, exhibition or game is transacted, conducted or earned
on, and shall authorize the licensee to transact, conduct or carty on only that business, show, exhibition or
game described in such license. Any person conducting more than one business in the same storeroom shall
not be required to pay more than one license tax; provided further, that such additional business so
conducted by him shall be one that is ordinarily and customarily conducted in connection with such other
business. (Ord. 1801 ~1 (part), 1978; prior code ~18.3).
5.02.040 Application-Contents required-Investigation Fee(s).
Before any license is issued to any person, such person shall make written application therefore to the
fmance officer of the city. Such application shall:
A. State the nature or kind of business or enterprise for which the license is required;
B. State the place where such business or enterprise will be transacted or carried on;
C. State the name of the owner of the business or enterprise;
D. Be signed by the applicant;
E. Shall contain, when intended as an application for a license as a solicitor, peddler or transient
merchant. the following information:
1. Physical description of applicant,
2. Complete permanent home and local address of the applicant,
3. If employed, the name and address of the employer, together with credentials therefrom
establishing the exact relationship,
4. The source of supply of the goods or property or property proposed to be sold, or orders taken
for the sale thereof, where such goods or products are located at the time such application is
filed, and the proposed method of delivery,
S. Two copies of a recent photograph of the applicant, such picture being approximately two inches
by two inches and showing the head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing
manner,
279
~-?
(R 12/94)
6. A statement as to whether or not the applicant has ever been convicted of any felony and if so
the nature of the offense,
7. The last cities, not to exceed three, where applicant carried on business immediately preceding
the date of application and the addresses from which such business was conducted in those cities,
8. At the time of ming the application, the Required Fee(s) shall be paid to the director of fmance
to cover the cost of investigation of the facts stated therein,
9. Where a written order or contract is used, the applicant shall attach to the application one copy
of the proposed form of all such orders or contracts to be used or submitred to purchasers or
prospective purchasers within the city,
10. At the time such application is med, the applicant shall furnish his fmgerprints to the police
department of this city.
(Ord. 2537 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord. 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord. 2408 ~1 (part) 1990; Ord. 1801 ~1 (part),
1978; Ord. 970 !j1 (part), 1966; prior code !j18A).
5.02.050 Issuance-Prerequisites and procedure generally.
Upon application therefor as provided in this chapter, it shall be the duty of the fmance officer to
prepare and issue a license pursuant to this chapter; provided however, that the fmance officer shall not
issue any such license until it has been noted on the application therefor that the location of the proposed
business has been reviewed by both the department of building and housing inspection and the planning
department any other department deemed appropriate by the fmance director, and has been approved in
accordance with the provisions of the building code, the zoning ordinance and any other applicable code.
(Ord. 2537 !j1 (part), 1992; Ord. 2191 !j1 (part), 1987; Ord. 1293 !j1 (part), 1970; prior code !j18.5).
5.02.060 Issuance-Compliance with state and local regulations required.
No license shall be issued unless a full compliance is had with all the laws of the city and state, and
where laws of the state require a person to be licensed under and by virtue of its laws, the same shall be
a condition precedent to the granting of a license by the city, and if an applicant so required to be licensed
by the state has failed to comply with the laws of the state, no license shall be issued by the city. No license
issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the conduct or continuance of
any illegal or unlawful business operated in contravention of any of the laws of the city. (Ord. 2537 !j1
(part), 1992; Ord. 1293 !j1 (part), 1970; prior code !j18.6).
5.02.070 Issuance-Effect of prior licensing by state.
Wherever an applicant for a license to do business in the city is licensed to do business under the laws
of the state, a license to do business within the city shall not be denied. (Prior code ~18.7).
5.02.080 Issuance-Void when.
If any such license has been issued through error, tbe same shall be void and of no force and effect.
(Prior code !j18.8).
(R 12/94)
280
t,../tJ
Chapter 5.07
MASfER TAX SCHEDULE
Sections:
5.07.010
5.07.020
5.07.025
5.07.030
New business - Applicable tax rates_
Applicable tax rates by year.
Maximum annual tax.
Master tax schedule.
5.07.010 New businesses - Applicable tax rates.
The applicable tax rate for a new business with 5 or fewer employees is detailed in Section 5.04.140
(for general businesses with fIxed locations in the City); Section 5.34.020 (for manufacturers); or Section
5.42.010 (for Professionals), except as otherwise provided for and specifIcally enumerated in the Master Tax
Schedule, Section 5.07.030. Said rate shall only be applied in the fIrst license year of operation or part
thereof, provided that if the fIrst license year is less than three months, new business rates shall also be
applied in the following license year. (Ord. 2408 ~1 (part), 1990).
5.07.020 Applicable tax rates - by year.
A. 1991 Calendar year rates.
Effective January 1, 1991, the business license tax rates shall be those rates detailed in the Master Tax
Schedule, Section 5.07.030, in the column thereoflabeled "Tax Rate: 1/1/91 - 12/31/91".
B. 1992 Calendar year rates.
Effective January 1, 1992, the business license tax rates shall be those rates detailed in the Master Tax
Schedule, Section 5.07.030, in the column thereoflabeled "Tax Rate: 1/1/92 - 12/31/92".
C. 1993 Calendar year rates.
Effective January 1, 1993, the business license tax rates shall be those rates detailed in the Master Tax
Schedule, Section 5.07.030, in the column thereof labeled "Tax Rate: 1/1/93 - 12/31/93".
D. 1994 and Subsequent Calendar Year Rates.
Effective January 1, 1994, and for each calendar year thereafter, all tax rates for the categories of
taxpayers detailed in the Master Tax Schedule, including both base tax rates and add-on tax rates
(e.g., rates per person, per-machine, etc.) shall be increased by six (6%) percent per year above the
tax rates and add-on rates applicable in the preceding year.
E. Power to Abate in 1992 and thereafter to 1991 floor.
Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary in this section contained, commencing for the 1992
calendar year and continuing thereafter, the City Council is hereby authorized for no more than one
calendar year, but is not required, to lower the tax imposed by this section but to no less than taxes
imposed in the 1991 calendar year.
295
t'/I
(R 12/94)
F. Procedure to Abate.
To lower the tax authorized by this section, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which
it publicly deliberates on the advisability of doing so, notice which public hearing is published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least twice not sooner than 20 days and not later than 5 days prior
thereto, of its intent to deliberate upon said matter. Failure to publish notice of the public hearing,
as herein required, shall not affect the right of the City Council to conduct the public hearing and to
reduce the authorized annual rate of increase as herein imposed.
G. Nothing contained in this section shall affect the effective date of this ordinance.
(Ord. 2408 gl (part), 1990).
5.07.025 Maximum Annual Tax.
Effective January 1, 1991, the maximum annual business license tax paid for any single business
license shall not exceed $7,000.
Effective January 1,1992, the maximum annual business license tax paid for any single business license shall
not exceed $12,000.
Effective January 1, 1993, the maximum annual business license tax paid for any single business license shall
not exceed $16,000.
Effective January 1, 1994, the maximum annual business license tax paid for any single business license shall
not exceed $20,000.
Effective January 1, 1995, and each calendar year thereafter the maximum annual business license tax shall
be increased by five percent (5%) per year above the level set in January, 1994.
(Ord. 2408 gl (part), 1990).
(R 12/94)
296
t,/J.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 02/27/96
7
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution I ~ ~ Iii' entering into an Indemnification Agreement
with the San Diego Unified Port District.
/1
/.
Director of Parks and ReC(eat,it-r'::'"
City ManagerJ\ \, \e )\:1\\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No Xl
--
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The City will be conducting Chula Vista Expo '96 on Saturday, April 13, 1996 at Marina View Park.
This is the community pride/cultural arts annual event that the City Council approved in 1995 during the
budget process.
As the event is being conducted on Port District property, the City is required to complete the District's
standard Tidelands Activity Permit, which includes indemnification language.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute
the Port's Tidelands Activity Permit for the event.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The City will be conducting Chula Vista Expo '96 (formerly the Community Pride Fair
and Cultural Arts Festival) at Marina View Park on Saturday. April 13, 1995. As the event is being
conducted on Port District property, the City is required to complete the District's standard Tidelands
Activity Permit. which includes indemnification language.
It should be noted that the Port District permit gives the Port the right to a 24-hour cancellation notice,
which, if exercised, would terminate the activities and could result in the loss of contract and service fees.
Staff believes that such a cancellation is highly unlikely. The Attorney reviewed the Agreement and has
approved to Form.
FISCAL IMPACT: None for the action of approving the Tidelands Activity Permit.
Attachment:
"A" - Activity Permit - San Diego Unified Port District
[M:\home\parksrec\al13\expor~so.a13 - 02-13-~6]
7-1 /,-~
RESOLUTION NO. I Y.2./ r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City will be conducting Chula vista Expo '96
on Saturday, April 13, 1996 at Marina View Park; and
WHEREAS, this is the community pride/cultural arts annual
event that the City Council approved in 1995 during the budget
process; and
WHEREAS, as the event is being conducted on Port District
property, the city is required to complete the District's standard
Tidelands Activity Permit, which includes indemnification language.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the San
Diego Unified Port District for the Chula vista Expo '96 event to
be held on Saturday, April 13, 1996 at Marina iew Par
~
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
city
C:\rs\SDUP.ind
7~J
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
TIDELAND ACTIVllY PERMIT
PERMITTEE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
USE OR ACTIVITY: "CHULA VISTA EXPO . 96" - (A COMMUNITY FESTIVAL)
LOCATION FOR WHICH PERMIT ISSUED: MARINA VIEW PARK AND VACANT T.OTS
EFFECTIVE DATES: APRIL 12 - 11. 1996
SECURITY DEPOSIT: N/A
THIS PERMIT FOR TIDELAND USE IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Permitlee shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of
the District and other governmental entities.
2. Permitlee shall keep the property and all equipment used in connection
with this permit in a clean, safe and sanitary manner and in good repair at all
times. All or any portion of the security deposit shall be ava:lable
unconditionally to the District for the purpose of cleaning or repairing
damages to the property upon termination of this permit.
3. This permit may be cancelled by either party by the giving of twenty-four
(24) hours notice in writing to the other party. Such cancellation shall be
without liability of any nature.
4. This permit shall not be transferred or assigned.
5. Permitlee shall defend, indemnity, and hold harmless District, its officers
and employees against all causes of action, for judicial relie~ of any kind, for
damage to property of any kind whatsoever, and to WhOfm.l'.Jer belonging,
including Permitlee, or injury to or death of any person or PUSOIlS, including
employees of Permitlee, resulting directly or indirectly'" om activities in
connection with the issuance and performance of this pen., ;,}; arising from
the use of the property, facilities or services of Distri ,,)fi!(;MS or
employees.
7~5
6. Permittee shall maintain comprehensive public liability (covering
operations, products and cumpleted operations) and blanket contractual
coverage insurance throughout the term of this permit. The policies shall, as
a minimum, provide the following forms of coverage:
$1 MILLION COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
'tA}--- -Pel'8Onal-lflj ttry-ancl-BodHy-lnjtft)':'
-GfIe--PefsGR- $
-Gfle-OeStH'feAEle- $
-(8)----PFGperty--Oamage.- $
Certificates of such insurance, in a form satisfactory to the District, shall be
filed with District's Community Relations Department. Insurance certificates
filed pursuant to this permit shall contain a non-cancellation-without-notice
clause and shall provide that copies of cancellation notices shall be sent to
the District.
7. The rights and privileges extended by this permit are non-exclusive.
8. Permittee shall not engage in any activity on property of the District other
than the activity for which this permit is expressly issued.
9. Permittee shall be subject to and comply with any special conditions
attached hereto.
10. Permittee shall comply with all requirements and directives of the Port
Director of District.
11. In the event of failure of Permittee to comply with any provision of this
permit, this permit may, at the discretion of the Port Director, be terminated
immediately.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
Approved:
Permittee hereby accepts this permit and agrees to comply with all the terms and
conditions thereof.
Permittee's signature
Address:
f:rrv OF r.HTTT A VISTA - ?7f1 Lo-r-h A\il-:,.
CHUIA VISTA CA glgln
Telephone:
(619) 691-5031
(2)
7-~
Date request received
in CR Dept.:
CHECKLIST FOR THE USE OF TIDELAND PROPERTY
Please complete each item below.
1. Sponsoring individual or group:
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
2. Address and telephone number of contact person:
CONTACT: JOHN GATES - '91- 50'1
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4th AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
3. What type of event is planned?
COMMUNITY FESTIVAL FEATURING DANCE, MUSIC, VISUAL ARTS, FOOD & BEVERAGES
(NON-ALCOHOLIC), INFORMATIONAL BOOTHS AND DISPLAYS, TALL SHIPS
4. Where exactly on the bayfront? MARINA VIEW PARK
PUBLIC PIER
VARIOUS EMPTY LOTS (PARKING)
(SEE ATTACHED DIAGRAM)
5. Day and date of event: FRIDAY, APRIL 12 - SET-UP
SATURDAY, APRIL 13
6. Time: Start 6:00 A.M. Finish 9:00 P.M.
7. Will traffic be affected? YES - CHULA VISTA POLICE WILL MONITOR AND CONTROL THE TRAFFIC
8. How many persons expected to attend? 3,500 - 5,000
9. If large group, what security arrangements have been made?
CHULA VISTA POLICE WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AT THE EVENT
10. If commercial or catered event, do you hal''' liability insurance coverage?
N/A
Please return this checklist (within 10 working days) or yc." c.- ,;u0';, -",r an event on Port tidelands will be
canceled.
4/g3
7~7
"-
"'''\D
'.
.\....0 ODD
D\
\ .
o \
\
o \
....:<.... .... 'V'
, .. .. ..,.t
. ..'::: .;', '. .., ,::;:- '.
, '. t. ~.. . . -. .0.,
.'. .
a
D II
r:-::!'\
.0 t!:'"zl
: 0 0 lr.JJ
. ",.,.
~ W~.
..___..J';::.J,J
,. w D
~ ~-~
OoCU! Ql
I I
o
~~.
if
l'
NORtH
'.
F Sir..'
6rl\o'
Ow=-
a . I
\0 DC) 0
\
i
!
i
l?
.
!Q
".
~ . ., D
'7
~ --D; i 0
1:
I .
" ~h 0
l' i 0
(
: ~ . It]
.--
I
I
,
I
) ~lliilll
E St,..1 I
j
'"'
t
.:
:;-
;;'
ii1
c;
;;'
(II
I ~ .~,
I
H St,nt I
,
I
>0
'f1~
l' C
- r
r ,.
-
tJ c.
-
.,. fft
....
-;p
.uJ
-m
..D ')C
.D",
nO
-
~
G'\
..
"" '"
:> '"
'jl ,..,
f'" t
1: -l
'"
1f1
~
-I
..
III
VI
-I
..
V>
Item
Meeting Date 02/27/96
y
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution J 8'.21 j accepting donation of equipment from General
Dynamics Convair Recreation Association
Director of Parks and Recreati~/
City Manager ...J\ i \ ".h\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No ---XJ
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The City has received a donation of weight equipment and fitness supplies for the Otay Gymnasium
(Youth and Family Center) from General Dynamics Convair Recreation Association. As General
Dynamics' Convair Division is closing. the Convair Recreation Association's physical fitness equipment
is being donated to various organizations throughout San Diego County. The equipment donated to the
City has an estimated value of $9,300.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution to accept the donation of $9,300 in
weight equipment and fitness supplies for the Otay Gymnasium.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: Mr. David Samudio, an employee of General Dynamics, and a resident of Chula Vista,
contacted the Parks and Recreation Department about the possibility of donating weight equipment and
fitness supplies. The donations were made possible by Mr. Samudio, and Mr. Dexter Levy, Director
of Convair Recreation Association. At the Otay Gymnasium. the weight equipment will provide the City
of Chula Vista with its only public use weight room,
The weight equipment and supplies that are being donated included:
Olympic Bench Press
10 EZ Bar Curls
13 Barbells 20 lbs. to 120Ibs.
Computerized Stair Stepper
Computerized Exercycle
Universal Press Machine with 4 stations
Rubber Floor Mats
Two portable mirrors
Pending the gym's construction, the equipment will be used on an interim basis for youth in the
workout/training room of Lorna Verde Pool.
FISCAL IMPACT: Minor Fiscal Impact to maintain the equipment.
[NETWORK:\A13-BM . Olay,A13 - February 21. 1996]
'6'-/ /'i- ~
RESOLUTION NO.
I ~.2.I?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DONATION OF EQUIPMENT
FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS CONVAIR RECREATION
ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the city has received a donation
equipment and fitness supplies for the Otay Gymnasium
Family center) from General Dynamics Convair
Association; and
of weight
(Youth and
Recreation
WHEREAS, as General Dynamics' convair Division is
closing, the Convair Recreation Association's physical fitness
equipment is being donated to various organizations throughout San
Diego County; and
WHEREAS, the equipment donated to the city has an
estimated value of $9,300.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept the donation of equipment
from General Dynamics Convair Recreation Association for the Otay
Gymnasium.
fO:]
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Bruce M.
Attorney
c: \rs\equip.gYII
3'- :1 /i-'/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
ItemL
Meeting Date 02/27/96
R I. /ffj.2I1A . J' U A d J'
eso utIon pprovmg a omt se greement an a omt
Construction Agreement with San Diego Gas and Electric Company for
the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and construction of a sewer
line within the easement and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
agreements.
Director of Public Work~ r
City Manag~~i IA,\),J\\
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) is in the process of constructing a new high
pressure gas line known as Pipeline 2000 to serve the south portion of the County. A part of this
line is to be constructed within the Salt Creek basin on the Otay Ranch. The portion of their gas
line along Salt Creek coincides with the proposed alignment of the City's Salt Creek Sewer.
Because of the potential conflicts should the gas pipeline be constructed first, it is desireable to
construct a portion of the Salt Creek sewer line as part of SDG&E's pipeline construction. The
purpose of this item is to approve two agreements which will facilitate that construction. The first
is a Joint Use Agreement for the easement and right-of-way for the gas line and the sewer which
will be granted to both the City and SDG&E. The second is a Joint Construction Agreement
which sets out the terms under which SDG&E will act as the City's agent in having the sewer line
constructed.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Joint Use Agreement for an easement
and right-of-way to be dedicated to both the City and SDG&E, approve the Joint Construction
Agreement whereby SDG&E shall cause to have the sewer line constructed as part of the pipeline
2000 project and to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements in substantially the same form as
attached with such changes as the City Attorney and City Engineer may agree upon.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION: San Diego Gas and Electric Company has been working with City staff and the
Baldwin Company on the alignment of their Pipeline 2000 project through the Otay Ranch. A
portion of the alignment selected runs along Salt Creek which is the same alignment proposed for
the Salt Creek interceptor sewer. Staff has been working with the other parties to include the
sewer line in SDG&E's construction project to avoid future increased costs in the sewer
construction due to the presence of a high pressure gas line. In order to assure both the City's
and SDG&E's rights in the easement to be dedicated to both parties, a Joint Use Agreement is
required which spells out both parties rights. In addition, in order for SDG&E to include the
construction of the sewer in their project, a Joint Construction Agreement which spells out the
9"1
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 2/27/96
duties of both parties related to SDG&E including the sewer work in their contract. The City
Council appropriated the necessary City funds to finance the construction of this line at the
February 13, 1996 City Council meeting.
City staff has been negotiating both of the required agreements, however, all of the final wording
has not been fully worked out. The City Attorney and City Engineer are still working with
SDG&E, however, the attached agreements are close to the final documents. SDG&E proposes
to advertise the project on February 28, 1996 and award it April 19, 1996. Because this schedule
is extremely tight in order to stay within their environmental permits, the agreements need to be
approved now so that bid package can be put together to meet those dates. Therefore, it is being
requested that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreements in substantially the same form as
attached with such changes as the City Attorney and City Engineer may agree upon.
The Joint Use Agreement (Exhibit A) provides that each party shall have the right and privilege
to operate and maintain at their sole expense. their respective facilities within the joint easement.
This also gives each party the unrestricted right of ingress and egress by practical routes, but so
far as practicable, such access shall utilize the road constructed by SDG&E. The agreement
further specifies that neither party shall interrupt the use or operation of the other parties facilities
without the prior written consent of the other party.
The agreement also provides that neither party shall be deemed the "party first in place" or prior
in time which would give such party prior rights. Under this provision, both the City's and
SDG&E's rights to use the easement are equal. In the event future construction, operation or
maintenance of one party's facilities causes the need for relocation of the other party's facilities,
the party causing the need for relocation shall bear all the expense of the resulting relocation. If
one party were deemed to have "prior rights," they could require the second party to relocate their
facilities at the second parties expense. The remaining sections of the Joint Use Agreement make
provisions for damage caused by an act of God, war, or emergencies and include the usual
indemnifications and liability paragraphs.
The Joint Construction Agreement provides that SDG&E shall cause to have constructed and shall
administer the contract to construct the sewer in the joint use area in accordance with the plans
and specifications provided by the City and that the City shall pay all costs associated with the
construction of the sewer. The installation of the sewer shall be made in accordance with
SDG&E's project for installation of the gas pipeline in the joint use area and requires that they
request alternate bids for the sewer.
The agreement assures that the City gets the full benefit of the competitive bid process and pays
the lowest cost through the bidding method specified in the agreement. The agreement also
provides that if bids for the sewer work exceed 125 % of the engineers estimate, the City has the
right to review the bids to make a determination as to whether or not to proceed with construction
9, .2.
Page 3, Item-1-
Meeting Date 2/27/96
of the sewer line. If the bids are unreasonable, the City may notify SDG&E not to award the
sewer alternate work and the agreement becomes null and void. After bids are opened and prior
to award of the contract by SDG&E, the City agreement specifies that the City shall deposit into
an escrow account payable to SDG&E the total of the amount required for the work. As SDG&E
makes progress payments to the contractor, they would be paid for the sewer contract work from
the escrow account.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council previously appropriated $600,000 to cover the
construction and related costs from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund into new CIP project
number SW210 ~ Salt Creek Sewer/SDG&E pipeline. A very preliminary estimate of the actual
contract work is $400,000. Prior to award of the contract by SDG&E, the City will be required
to deposit into an escrow account payable to SDG&E the total amount required for work to be
performed for the construction of the sewer line plus 10% contingencies and the amount of any
escrow fees. SDG&E will be reimbursed from this account as they make progress payments. The
City will also deposit the amount of any estimated survey and inspection services. The City is
entitled to receive any interest derived from monies on deposit in the escrow account. The escrow
account will be set up through the City's banle
Exhibits:
A ~ Joint Use Agreement
B ~ Joint Construction Agreement
Ill: \home \engineer\agenda\scswr2. cis
File: 0735-10-SW210
9-3/f-i
RESOLUTION NO.
/'fJ).()
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT
AND A JOINT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE JOINT
USE OF AN EASEMENT IN SALT CREEK AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER LINE WITHIN THE
EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, San Diego Gas and Electric company (SDG&E) is in
the process of constructing a new high pressure gas line known as
pipeline 2000 to serve the south portion of the County; and
WHEREAS, a part of this line is to be constructed within
the Salt Creek basin on the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, the portion of their gas line along Salt Creek
coincides with the proposed alignment of the City's Salt Creek
Sewer; and
WHEREAS, because of the potential conflicts should the
gas pipeline be constructed first, it is desirable to construct a
portion of the Salt Creek sewer line as part of SDG&E's pipeline
construction; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, the Council appropriated the
funds necessary to pay for the construction of the sewer; and
WHEREAS, at that time it was indicated that two agree-
ments were needed as soon as possible in order to facilitate the
construction and it is now necessary to approve the following
agreements:
A Joint Use Agreement for the easement and right-of-way
for the gas line and the sewer which will be granted to
both the city and SDG&E
A Joint Construction Agreement which sets out the terms
under which SDG&E will act as the city's agent in having
the sewer line constructed
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve a Joint Use Agreement and
a Joint Construction Agreement with San Diego Gas and Electric
company for the joint use of an easement in Salt Creek and con-
struction of a sewer line within the easement, copies of which are
on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document Nos.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreements for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista in
substantially the same form as attached with such changes as the
City Attorney and City Engineer may agree upon.
(7-f!~_{. "")
Recording Requested by
San Diego Gas & Electric
When Recorded Mail to:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attention:
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
JOINT USE AGREEMENT
The undersigned declare consideration is less than
$100.00 and Transfer Tax is none.
THIS AGREEMENT, dated
by and
between SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (SDG&E), a
California corporation and the City of Chula vista (CITY), a
municipal corporation of the State of California, is made
with reference to the following facts:
A. SDG&E is engaged in the business of transmitting
and distributing natural gas within the county of San Diego,
State of California, and desires to construct, operate and
maintain facilities for such purposes located in, upon,
over, under and across the certain easement and right-of-way
-1-
0023291.02
~?
granted or to be granted jointly to SDG&E and the CITY as
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein (the Joint Use Area);
B. The configuration of SDG&E's natural gas facilities
within the Joint Use Area shall be in the configuration as
shown on Exhibit C, attached hereto and as incorporated
herein.
C. The CITY desires to construct, operate and maintain
a sewer line facilities located in, upon, over, under and
across the Joint Use Area.
D. The configuration of the CITY's sewer facilities
shall be as shown on Exhibit "D", attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
E. SDG&E and the CITY desire to set forth their
respective rights and obligations in the event of actual or
potential present or future conflicts in the construction,
operation or maintenance of their respective facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:
1. Each Party, its successors in interest and assigns,
shall have the right and privilege to construct, by
each Party at the cost allocated between each pursuant
to that certain Joint Construction Agreement for
Installation of Sewer Pipeline and Appurtenant
Facilities executed between the parties concurrently
herewith, and thereafter operate and maintain, at each
-2-
0023291.02
9"~
Party's sole cost and expense, its respective
facilities in, over, under and across the Joint Use
Area by the designated route(s), together with the
unrestricted right of ingress thereto and egress
therefrom by practical route(s). However, unless
absolutely necessary to do otherwise, the rights of
ingress and egress by each Party shall be exercised so
as to utilize the road constructed by SDG&E and
depicted on Exhibit E (the Access Road). In the event
ingress and egress cannot be by use of the Access Road,
the Party needing such alternate access agrees and
covenants that it shall acquire any and all necessary
rights to alternate access at its sole cost and expense
and that the exercise of alternate access shall not
interfere with the other Party's reasonable and
convenient construction, operation and maintenance of
its facilities.
2. Each Party agrees and covenants not to interrupt the
use or operation of the other Party's facilities. Any
temporary interference by one Party with the use or
operation of the other Party's facilities shall be made
only with the other Party's prior written consent.
Each Party agrees and covenants to work in good faith
with the other Party to permit such temporary
interference, and the Party whose facilities are being
interfered with shall not unreasonably withhold its
consent to such interference. Any and all costs,
-3-
0023291.02
9-~
expenses or losses incurred by the Party whose
facilities are interfered with shall be borne by the
Party causing the interference.
3. Neither Party shall be deemed the "Party first in
place" or prior in time and superior in title to the
other Party.
4. In the event that future construction (including
expansion), operation or maintenance of one Party's
facilities shall cause the need for relocation of some
or all of the other Party's facilities, the Party
causing the relocation shall bear all costs, expenses
and losses of or resulting from the relocation. Any
relocation shall not occur without the prior written
consent of the Party whose facilities are being
relocated, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
5. The covenants and terms contained in this agreement
shall run with the land, create equitable servitudes on
the properties described in Exhibits "A" and "B", and
be binding upon both parties, their representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns.
6. In the event that either Party permanently terminates
the use of the Joint Use Area for the purposes set
forth herein, the party so doing shall quitclaim its
interests, at no cost or value, to the other Party.
For purposes of interpreting this Agreement, the term
"permanently terminates" shall mean a willful
-4-
0023291. 02
9..JIJ
termination of the use as evidenced by written action
of the governing Board of the Party terminating.
7. Neither Party shall place or construct, or permit the
placement or construction of, any structure, temporary
or permanent, on the Joint Use Area, without the prior
written consent of the other Party.
8. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of paragraph 2
hereof, in the event of damage caused by an act of God,
War, or other casualty, or damage caused under
circumstances where it would be impractical or
impossible for one Party to notify the other Party of
the necessity for temporary interference with the other
Party's facilities, the Party creating the temporary
interference may, without notice, enter upon the Joint
Use Area and make emergency repairs to restore its
service. The Party creating the temporary interference
shall, however, take reasonable and prudent measures to
protect the installations of the other Party and
minimize such interference, as soon as practically
possible, notify the other Party of such emergency
repairs. If permanent repairs are required after such
emergency repairs have been made, reasonable notice
shall be given to the other party. The City
acknowledges that the operation and maintenance of the
natural gas pipeline requires the exercise of various
safety precautions. Said precautions, include having
an SDG&E crew standby and monitor any construction
-5-
0023291.02
f~
activities, particularly including but not limited to
excavations. In the event of any emergency situation,
each Party will make all reasonable efforts to notify
the other prior to such construction activities.
9. Each Party agrees that, except as provided in
paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 herein, any rights against the
other Party, to be indemnified or held harmless from
and against liability, loss, cost damage and expense
arising from (i) any negligent act or omission of the
other Party, its employees, agents, contractors,
successors and assigns or (ii) the location and
existence of the other Party's above-described
facilities, whether defective or otherwise, including,
but not limited to, any such loss, cost, damage,
liability and expense arising from damage to or
destruction of real and personal property or injury to
or death of any person, shall be determined by the law
in effect at the time of incident giving rise to such
liability, loss cost, damages or expense. Liability to
a third Party(ies) shall be divided between the parties
hereto in proportion to the measure of each Party's
liability. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Party
shall hold harmless the other Party against damage to
or destruction of the indemnitor's facilities caused by
an act(s) of a third Party(ies).
10. Nothing herein contained shall constitute a grant of
easement by one Party to other Party, it being
-6-
0023291.02
~/~
understood that any such grant may be obtained only
from the fee owner.
11. In the event either Party commences legal action
against the other by reason of an alleged breach of
this agreement or in connection with joint use of the
easements, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to
recover court costs and attorneys' fees as set by the
court. "Prevailing Party" means the Party in whose
name final judgment is rendered.
12. Each Party agrees to comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, governmental regulations or agreements,
regarding the habitat, protected species, water
quality, solid wastes, hazardous wastes, hazardous
materials, toxic substances, and any and all other
forms of pollution or nuisance control (herein
collectively referred to as "standards").
13. Each Party shall indemnify the other Party for all
costs (including, but not limited to consulting,
engineering, mitigation, clean-up, containment,
disposal, and legal costs) incurred by the other Party
as a result of abating a violations of Standards in any
proceeding before any authority or court, and paying
any fines or penalties imposed because of a violation
of any Standards, which result from a Party failing to
comply with the Standards.
14. Each Party hereby assumes liability for, and shall
indemnify and hold harmless the other from any suit,
-7-
0023291.02
9"'}.3
enforcement action, or claim resulting from or relating
to (1) any alleged violation of Standards, or (2) all
injuries to or death of any persons and loss of or
damages to property, including without limitation,
employees and property of the other party, and which
relate to any alleged violation of Standards which
would not have arisen but for the actions, or
inactions, of a Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed by duly authorized officer on the
day and year first above written.
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.,
A California corporation
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
A Municipal Corporation
By: By:
Keith L. Little
Land Rights and
Acquisition Manager
Real Estate Operations Department
Drawn by:
Date:
MOPAC:
RjW No.:
A.P. No.:
-8-
0023291. 02
9-JlI
E )tN'''''' '&'
JOINT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR
INSTALLATION OF SEWER PIPELINE
AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES
This Agreement, made and entered into this _ day of , 1996, by and
between SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (SDG&E), a California corporation
and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA (CITY), a municipal corporation.
RECITALS
A. SDG&E is engaged in the business of transmitting and distributing natural gas within the
County of San Diego, State of California, and desires to construct, operate and maintain facilities
for such purposes located in, upon, over, under and across the certain easements and rights of way
granted or to be granted to SDG&E and CITY as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein Goint use area).
B. The City desires to construct, operate and maintain sewer facilities located in, upon, over,
under and across the joint use area.
C. SDG&E and CITY recognize that a coordinated effort to construct their respective facilities
within the joint use area is beneficial.
D. Both SDG&E and CITY are authorized to let bids and award a contract to install a sewer
line and this agreement is entered into to allow SDG&E to advertise and award such a joint project
in consultation with the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
1
9.. If
I, Design and Construction of New 24 - inch Sewer Pipeline in Joint Easement
a) CITY desires that a new 24-inch sewer pipeline and appurtant structures (sewer)
be constructed within the joint use area shown as sewer on Exhibit A. CITY desires to have this
sewer installed in coordination with SDG&E's project for installation of a new 36-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline.
b) CITY has made separate arrangements to have the engineering design work for the
sewer completed. The sewer will be designed for location within the joint use area. CITY will
review and approve design plans and contract documents for the sewer prior to advertising for
bids by SDG&E. SDG&E shall have the right to review and approve the engineering design work
for the sewer as it may affect SDG&E's gas line prior to advertising for bids for the construction
of the 36-inch gas line.
c) SDG&E shall cause to have constructed and shall administer the contract to
construct the sewer in the joint use area in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
provided by CITY. The installation of the sewer shall be made in coordination with SDG&E' s
project for installation of the gas pipeline in the joint use area. In the solicitation for bids to
perform the construction work for the gas pipeline project, SDG&E shall, in accordance with
paragraph 2, request alternate bid proposals for construction of the sewer.
d) All costs incurred for design. construction, inspection and maintaining of the sewer
shall be borne by the CITY.
e) CITY shall pay SDG&E for all costs incurred for inspection. testing and
construction surveying performed by SDG&E for the installation of the sewer. The manner of
payment shall be set forth in paragraph 4 herein.
2
9../~
2. Alternate Base Bid Proposals for City Work and SDG&E work
a) SDG&E agrees that in the solicitation for bids for construction work for the gas
pipeline, SDG&E shall solicit alternate Base Bids for work to be funded by the CITY and
SDG&E. The specifications shall indicate that the award of a contract or contracts may be made
separately to the low bidder on each Base Bid.
The solicitation for bids shall also include a Deductive Alternate which shall be a lump
sum amount to be deducted from the total of both base bids submitted by one contractor which
shall determine the value of a bid based on one bidder receiving a single contract to do the work
included in both base bids.
In the event the sum of the lowest separate responsible bids for each base bid is lower than
any single bidders total proposal, including deductive alternate, SDG&E shall award separate
contracts to the low bidders. In the event a single responsible bidders total proposal, including
deductive alternate. is lower than the sum of the separate lowest bids for each base bid, SDG&E
shall award a single contract for all work. (e.g.: Case I. Exhibit B).
With the concurrence of the CITY, SDG&E shall determine the lowest responsible bid for
the base bid which includes work to be funded by the CITY. The CITY agrees to the award of
a contract by SDG&E under one of the above options for the work identified as the responsibility
of the CITY and shall not withdraw, nor seek alternative bids separately, to assure that proper
coordination of all of the work takes place, provided, however, that the bids do not exceed 125 %
of the engineers estimate, In the event the lowest responsible bid exceeds 125 % of the engineers
estimate, the CITY shall have the right to review the reasonableness of the bids and make a
determination as to whether or not to proceed with construction of the sewer line. If the CITY
determines that the bids are unreasonable, CITY shall notify that SDG&E shall not award the
sewer base bid alternate and this agreement shall be null and void.
b) In the event separate contracts are awarded for each base bid, SDG&E shall pay
all costs identified with the base bid of items to be funded by SDG&E and the CITY shall pay all
costs identified with the base bid of items to be funded by the CITY. (e.g.: Case II, Exhibit B).
3
~v/7
In the event a single contract is awarded, each agency shall pay the pro rata share of the
contract amount based on the ratio of that agency's lowest responsible base bid bears to the sum
of the two separate lowest responsible base bids. Each agency shall then receive credit for the
deductive alternate based on the difference of the agency's pro rata share of the total contract cost
subtracted from the successful bidders individual base bid for that agency's work. This credit
shall not be changed due to subsequent change orders and/or actual measured quantities. The
determination of each agency's cost shall be made in accordance with the example set forth in
Exhibit B.
3. Citv Inspection SDG&E shall cause all work performed pursuant to paragraph 1
in conformity with the approved plans and specifications therefor. The work shall be performed
in a good and workmanlike manner to the satisfaction of the CITY's City Engineer. CITY shall
inspect and test the sewer line and appurtenant facilities being constructed pursuant to paragraph
1 during all stages of construction. SDG&E shall notify CITY a minimum of forty-eight (48)
hours prior to the commencement of construction. CITY shall assign staff members who will be
able to respond to SDG&E in a timely manner in the event of field encountered problems.
4. Payments
a) Prior to award of the contract or contracts by SDG&E, CITY shall deposit into an
escrow account payable to SDG&E the total of the amount required for the work (as determined
in paragraph 2 above) to be performed under paragraph 1 above, together with the estimated cost
of escrow fees. CITY shall pay all escrow fees and shall be entitled to receive any interest
derived from monies on deposit in escrow account. The amount to be deposited shall be equal
to the total amount of the bid received by SDG&E for construction and accepted in writing by the
CITY for the work indicated plus 10% contingencies. CITY shall also deposit funds for
surveying and inspection services. Such amount shall he subject to increase or decrease for any
change of work agreed to by SDG&E and the CITY with the selected contractor.
4
,./y
h) SDG&E's contractor for work under Base Bid of work to be funded by CITY shall
submit monthly invoices to SDG&E for the work included in paragraph 1 for work performed
during the prior month which shall be approved by both SDG&E and CITY. CITY shall approve
or disapprove all submittals within ten working days. SDG&E shall withdraw approved amount
from escrow account and shall pay contractor upon approval.
c) SDG&E shall submit monthly invoices to CITY for survey, inspection or testing
work performed during the prior month in connection with work under paragraph 1. CITY shall
approve invoice for payment from escrow account within 30 days after receipt of invoice from
SDG&E. Upon request, SDG&E shall provide copies of inspection records and time sheets to
CITY.
5. Changes of Work. Unforeseen conditions may require modifications of plans and
specifications heretofore approved by City for the work in paragraph 1. No change in such work
shall become effective until approved in writing by the CITY. Costs for changes in work under
paragraph 1 shall be the responsibility of CITY.
6. Construction Drawings. Upon completion of the work under paragraph 1 SDG&E
shall have its contractor provide field as built information to the design engineering firm retained
on behalf of City for these purposes. The design engineering firm shall deliver to CITY one
complete set of mylars together with two prints of the plans for the work showing thereon "as-
huilt" conditions. Delivery of such field date by contractor shall be an additional prerequisite for
final acceptance of the work by CITY.
7. Responsibility for Work. Until such time as all of the sewer facilities under
paragraph 1 have been completed and accepted by CITY, SDG&E and/or its contractor shall be
responsible for the care. maintenance of, and damage to such items, except for damage resulting
from the negligent acts or omissions of the CITY, or the intentional misconduct of CITY elected
officials. officers, agents and employees.
5
9'/1
8. CITY AcceDtance of Work.
a) The acceptance of the work under paragraph 1 shall be made by the CITY. Such
acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by CITY of any defects in the work. Bid documents shall
require SDG&E's contractor to be responsible for any defects ascertained by CITY during the one
year guarantee period following CITY's acceptance of the work.
b) Upon acceptance by the CITY, all items of work under paragraph 1 shall become
the property of the CITY and thereafter the items shall be owned, operated and maintained by the
CITY.
9. Guaranty of Work. SDG&E shall require its contractor to guarantee all work
covered under paragraph 1 for a period of one year from acceptance of the work by CITY and the
contractor shall repair or replace, at no cost to CITY or SDG&E, all work that may prove
defective in workmanship and/or materials within said one-year period. The contractor's
guarantee shall provide that in the event of contractor's failure to make reasonable progress to
comply with the provisions of the guarantee within ten (10) days after written notice by CITY,
copy of written notice to be provided to SDG&E by CITY, the CITY may have the defects
repaired and made good and the contractor shall pay the full cost thereof on demand; provided,
however. in the event of an emergency, CITY may make the repairs without notice and the
contractor shall be liable for all expenses incurred. The contractor's guarantee shall also provide
that the contractor shall pay the costs of such repairs to CITY. upon demand. The contractor shall
not be held liable for the CITY and its employees which may result in the damage of the sewer
by their negligent operation of the system.
10. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a) Modification. This agreement may not be altered in whole or in part except by a
modification. in writing. executed by all the parties to this Agreement.
6
9'.11/
b) Entire A\!reement. This Agreement, together with all the exhibits attached to this
Agreement. contains all representations and the entire understanding between the parties with
respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Any prior correspondence, memoranda, or
agreements, whether or not such correspondence, memoranda, or agreements are in conflict with
this Agreement. are intended to be replaced in total by this Agreement and its exhibits.
c) Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
the parties and their parties and their respective purchasers, successors, heirs, and assigns.
d) Applicable Law. This Agreement and any disputes relating to this Agreement shall
be construed under the laws of the State of California.
e) Unenforceable Provisions. The terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement
shall be construed whenever possible as consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. To
the extent that any provisions of this Agreement, as so interpreted, is held to violate any
applicable law or regulations, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be carried into full force
and effect and remain enforceable.
t) Representation of Capacity to Contract. Each party to this Agreement represents
and warrants that it has the authority to execute this Agreement.
g) No Waiver. The failure of either party to enforce any term, covenant, or condition
of this Agreement on the date it is to he performed shall not be construed as a waiver of that
party's right to enforce this or any other, term covenant, or condition of the Agreement at any
later date or as a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.
7
t:j..2./
h) Notice. All letters. statements, or notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall
be deemed effective upon receipt when personally served or when sent certified mail, return
receipt requested to the following addresses:
To: "CITY"
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: City Engineer
To: "SDG&E"
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
8316 Century Park Court, Suite 5100
San Diego, CA 92123-1582
Attn: Michael Hall
1) Time of Essence. The parties agree that time is of the essence as to all matters
specified in this Agreement.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
BY:
BY:
Mayor
DATE:
DATE:
m: \home \engineer\admin\SDG Esewr. cis
CLS:dh
8
9-,2..)..
Exhibit 'B'
Cost sharing Calculation Examples
NOTE:
The values represented below do not bear, nor are intended to bear, a reasonable
resemblance to the cost estimate for the project. They are only intended to
represent the method used to determine each Agency's share of the costs as a
further clarification to the language contained in Section 2.
CASE I
Bidder
A
Bidder
B
Bidder
C
Bidder
D
San Diego Gas & Electric
Bid Items
Subtotal SDG&E
114.0
115.0
113.5
115.5
City of Chula Vista
Bid Items
Subtotal City
47.0
46.2
49.5
49.0
Total
161.0
161.2
163.0
164.5
Deduct Item
2.5
2.3
2.0
3.5
Net Project Total 158.5 158.9 161.0 161.0
***********************************************************************
Low Separate Bids subtotals:
SDG&E portion: Bidder C:
City portion: Bidder B:
$113.5
46.2
Total of Separate Bids
$159.7
AWARD COMBINED PROJECT TO BIDDER A at $158.5
Agency Cost Share:
SDG&E:
City:
$158.5 x (113.5/159.7) = $112.65
$158.5 x ( 46.2/159.7) = $ 45.85
Agency Share of Deduct Item
SDG&E:
City:
$114.0 - 112,65 = $1.35
$ 47.0 - 45.85 = $1.15
f-:J. :J
Exhibit 'B'
Page 2
CASE II Bidder Bidder Bidder Bidder
A B C D
San Diego Gas & Electric
Bid Items
Subtotal SDG&E 114.0 120.0 111.0 110.5
City of Chula Vista
Bid Items
Subtotal City 47.0 42.0 52.5 52.5
Total 161.0 162.0 163.5 163.0
Deduct Item 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0
Net Project Total 155.0 156.0 159.5 159.0
***********************************************************************
Low Separate Bids subtotals:
SDG&E portion: Bidder D:
City portion: Bidder B:
$110.5
42.0
Total of Separate Bids
$152.5
AWARD BIDS TO SEPARATE BIDDERS
m: home\engineer\admin \sdgeswr2. cis
'1'.1,/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I P
Meeting Date 2/27/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / g' ~.:ll Ordering changes and modifications to the
Engineer's Report in Open Space Maintenance District No. 20.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~r )(":1 Ii, 1):1\\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On December 5, 1989, by Resolution 15420, the City Council established Open Space District No.
20 in the Rancho del Rey development pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. A
church and daycare, north of East H Street within SPA II, are proposed for development and Rancho
Del Rey Partnership has requested a modification to the Engineer's Report affecting these parcels.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt the resolution ordering minor changes and
modifications to the Engineer's Report to change method of apportionment of costs for churches, and
daycares and like facilities within Open Space Maintenance District No. 20, Zones 1-9.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Rancho Del Rey is a phased development of three Sectional Planning Areas (SPA). The Open Space
District was established encompassing all three areas with the understanding that the open space
improvements would be constructed in phases. The areas maintained by OSD 20 consist of all open
space lots of natural or landscaped open space within Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II and III, including
maintenance of natural drainage facilities. At the time of district formation, a methodology was set
out for assessing church sites although no cosls were available at that time. No methodology was
set out for a daycare site because the usc was not anticipated at the time of district formation.
Neither the church or daycare site have been assessed yet as the use has, until recently, been
identified only as Community Purpose Facility and is vacant land.
Rancho Del Rey Partnership, [or disclosure purposes to potential buyers, requested staff to estimate
the church and daycare sites' annual assessments based on FY 95/96 figures. The amount for the
church would be $4591 (see Table 2) and the amount for the dayeare could not be determined
because no methodology was set out in the original Engineer's Report. In response, Rancho Del Rey
Partnership requested staff to review the method of apportionment for the church and develop a
methodology for the daycare site. Upon staffs review, a more equitable methodology is
recommended which would reduce the church's estimated assessment to $1346 (see Table 3). Staff
also recommends a methodology for the daycare site which would assess an amount of$269 per
year, based on FY 95/96 assessments.
It:l--/
Page 2, Item I P
Meeting Date 2/27/96
Because of the wide variation in the nature, location and extent of the improvements, the various
areas ofthe district receive different degrees of benefit from each of the improvements maintained
by the district. (An explanation ofthe existing benefit factors for each zone is outlined in attachment
A.)
Staff recommends changing the benefit [actor lar churches within Zones 3-7 from 4.0 to 1.0 EDU
per acre. This is consistent with existing bcnefit factors for churches within other open space
districts throughout the City. If approved, the methodology and assessment for the church within
OSD 20 will be comparable with other churches' methodology and assessments. Table 1 provides
the existing assessments tar churches within OSD I and OSD 14.
TABLE I
FY 95/96 ASSESSMENTS FOR OTHER CHURCHES
THROUGIIOUT THE CITY
Location Name of Church FY 95/96 EDU benefit No. of acres FY 95/96
of ASSMT/EDIJ factor per/acre ASSMT
Church
OSD 1 F[rst United Methodist $81.00 1.0 4.14 $335.34
OSDI4 Risen Savior $270.00 1.0 4.14 $1,117.80
OSD 14 Corpus Christi Catholic $270,00 1.0 5.32 $1,436.40
Church Site
The proposed church site is located on the western portion of Rancho del Rey Parkway in SPA II,
as shown on the attachment C. Table 2 outlines the church assessment if based on existing
methodology and FY 95/96 assessments per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU).
I'ABLE 2
EXAMPLE OF FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT BASED ON EXISTING BENEFIT FACTORS
FOR THE PROPOSED CHURCH tN OSD 20
OSD No. 20 FY 95/96 EDU benefit No, of ED Us FY 95/96
Rancho Del Rey ASSMT/EDLI factor per/acre church site ASSMT
(5 acres)
Zone 1 - Desilt Basin $45,28 1.17 5.85 $264.89
Zone 2., Rice Canyon $3.44 0,0 0 $0.00
Zone 3 - H St. $4,90 4.0 20 $98.00
Zone 6 - SPA II $211.41 4,0 20 $4.228.20
Total $265.03 $4,591.09
I//~ ...l
Page 3, Item / P
Meeting Date 2/27/96
Table 3 outlines the church assessment based on the proposed methodology and FY 95/96
assessments per EDU.
TABLE 3
EXAMPLE OF FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROPOSED BENEFIT FACTORS
FOR THE PROPOSED CHURCH IN OSD 20
OSD No. 20 FY 95/96 EDU benefit fac- No. of ED Us FY 95/96
Rancho Del Rey ASSMT/EDU tor per/acre church site ASSMT
(5 acres)
Zone 1 - Desilt Basin $45.28 1.17 5.85 $264.89
Zone 2 - Rice Canyon $3.44 0,0 0 $0.00
Zone 3 - H St. $4,90 1.0 5 $24.50
Zone 6 - SPA II $211.41 1.0 5 $1,057.05
Total $265.03 $] ,346.44
Daycare Sitc
Daycares are not specifically included in the original Engineer's Report but can be appropriately
addressed at this time. The proposed daycare site has not been previously assessed because the
parcel was identified only as Community Purpose Facility and was vacant. Although, the assessment
won't be levied until FY 96/97, an estimate, based on the methodology is needed for Rancho Del
Rcy's disclosure to potential buyers.
Staff's recommendation is lhat the day care's benefit factors for Zones 1-9 be the same as the
churches' benefit factors. Staffbclieves the daycare use is similar to that of the church site, that the
benefits derived are similar and consequently the costs should be apportioned in a like manner. This
is also consistenl with OSD 14's daycare site.
Provided in Table 4 below is a breakdown of costs (FY 95/96 assessments per EDU) if the proposed
benefit factors arc utilized. The proposed daycarc site consists of I acre and is located within Spa
II of the Rancho del Rey development, as shown on attachment C.
It) '3
Page 4, Item /~
Meeting Date 2/27/96
TABLE 4
EXAMPLE OF FY 95/96 ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROPOSED BENEFIT FACTORS
FOR THE PROPOSED DA YCARE IN OSD 20
OSD No. 20 FY 95/96 EDlJ benefit fac- No. of EDUs FY 95/96
Rancho Del Rey ASSMT/EDU tor per/acre daycare site ASSMT
(1 acre)
Zone 1 - Desilt Basin $45.28 1.17 1.17 $52.98
Zone 2 - Rice Canyon $3.44 0.0 0 $0.00
Zone 3 - H St. $4.90 1.0 I $4.90
Zone 6 - SPA II $211.41 1.0 I $211.41
Total $265.03 $269.29
As indicated, it is estimated thaI the assessment would bc $269 for the daycare.
Notice
As this action neither levies thc assessment nor increases the assessment for the other benefiting
properties, only Rancho Del Rey Partnership, the property owner, and the prospective buyer of the
church site were notified of tonight's action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this action has no fiscal impact to the City. Yearly maintenance costs for the entire
district will be recovered from the Open Space District collections. This action will not affect the
assessments for other participants in the Open Space district since income from the two properties
has not becn considered in previous years' assessments and future assessments will be based on
actual costs and revenues on an annual basis.
Attachments:
A Explanation of existing Zones 1-9
B Changes and Modifications to Engineer's Report
C Plat of church and daycare sites (OSD 20)
(M:\home\engineer\agenda\osd20-] ,bob)
It?, ~
RESOLUTION NO. 11'J..2J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 20
WHEREAS, on December 5, 1989, by Resolution 15420, the
City Council established Open Space District No. 20 in the Rancho
del Rey development pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972; and
WHEREAS, a church and daycare, north of East H Street
within SPA II, are proposed for development and Rancho Del Rey
Partnership has requested a modification to the Engineer's Report
affecting these parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby order the changes and modifications
to the Engineer's Report in Open Space Maintenance Dist ict No. 20
as set forth in Attachment B.
Od1
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\r's\osd20.chg
I~,f /11)-'
Attachment A
EXPLANATION OF EXISTING ZONES 1-9
Zone I Benefit Factor
This zone includes all land within the Rice Canyon drainage basin. A drainage runoff factor is used
for this zone in order to establish benefit to be received by each lot or parcel. For the land use for
churches, a runoff coefficient 01'.7 with a 1,17 equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factor per acre was
established.
Zone 2 Benefit Factor
This zone is designated as Rice Canyon Rccreation Area. It includes Rice Canyon Open Space area
including the access road, all the irrigated landscaping and parking area. A recreation factor is used
for this zone in order to establish benefit to be received by each lot or parcel. The recreation factor
is directly related to the people living in Rancho Del Rey community or working at the business
center who use thc recreation area during lunch time or after work hours.
Churches arc not included in the EDU benefic lactor because church members are more likely to
attcnd church and leave shortly aller the completion of service, therefore, not benefiting from the
recreation value of Rice Canyon.
Zones 3 through 7 Benefit Factor
The amount of the estimated assessment on each lot or parcel in the district is in proportion to the
estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel ofland from the use of the road network
in and around the Rancho dey Rey development as established at district formation. A standard
eSlablished within San Diego County is the average daily traffic (ADT) generation factors published
by SANDAG. An ADT factor has been assigned 10 each type and an estimate of the traffic
generated by that land use type is made,
Zone 3 is designated for lhe East "H" Streel Landscaping and irrigation. Zone 4 through 7 are
designated for open space areas within specific phases of the development as follows:
Zone 4 - SPA I, Phase T (Business Center)
Zone 5 - SPA 1, Phases 2-6
Zone 6 - SPA IT
Zone 7 - SPA III
The ADT factors used to calculate benefit units for churches within these zones was 4.0 EDUs per
acre. In this case, ADT is not the best method of apportioning the benefits, and costs. The proposed
method is 1.0 EDU per acre
II). 1
Zone 8 Benefit Factor
This zone includes all land within the Glen Abbey drainage basin within Rancho del Rey
development. Factors are as outlined above for Zone I.
Zone 9 Benefit Factor
This zone includes all land within the Telegraph Canyon drainage basin within Rancho del Rey
development. Factors are as outlined abovc for Zone 1.
II!) - X'
Attachmcnt B
CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO ENGINEER'S REPORT
I. Benefit Charge Formula. Zone I Rice Canyon DesiIting Drainage Basin
Runoff Coenicients and EDD's for Drainage
Land Use
Church/School
Daycare
Runoff
Density
Coefficient EDU
.7
.7
I.I 7/ac
I.I 7 lac
2. Benefit Charge Formula. Zones 3-5 SPA I Phases 1-6. Zones 6 & 7 SPA II & SPA III
Factors used to calculate benefit units are as follows:
Land Use
Church
Daycare
Density
Benefit
(EDD) Factor
l.O/ac
I.O/ac
3. Benefit Charlie Formula. Zone 8 Glen Abbey Drainage Basin
RunoffCoenicients and EDU's for Drainage
Land Use
ChurchlSchool
Daycare
Runoff
Density
Coenicient EDU
,7
.7
I.I 7 lac
I.I 7 lac
4. Benefit Charge Formula. Zone 9 Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin
Runoff Coefficients and EOD's for Drainage
Land Use
Church/School
Daycarc
RunotT
Density
Coefficient EDD
.7
.7
I.I 7 lac
I.I 7 lac
/~"1
-:;...
t
r
.--
;r
.
t , ~ ",",y
" , x- I 0'-\' '"
1-'\ \ ~ 1 I~
~.~"wu 'l"~
~~q:jU_ 81 "" so;, :c "
\"" I' - v , -~ , ~ ,/ ' _\ ;\:l ~
i'l - It '; ~~ . /' 0 , ,~
1\fG /' ffll'7; /{ \,h~l'j~ 'L1 ~ ~ r~", ~"t@j~
fI~t/~~~I~W~~\ i 1,1 t4\\~Y~o'1 ~ ,
~I' ''''@3dY,,,,., L~ (l
~ ~~I~M.?/ ~ I;( , '0;' "';;0: ~ i
" ~,' . , ., - ~ II " "" .
~ '110 , ' "":'~ ;?j l!-'
ii!l " "''''' '- ~\ , n I
' 'h ~ m 1f!fiii ~' !Ill;:
\- ' ~ ~~ L" Ii ..Nc" ~ ~
\ "'" 'M\~ 'j , , ~ 10, R< W y~
-" {~ \ I '!iiiffiffil · ~ = ~>F,
~ ."? -- \ j\ ~a1'\ ~ if!ffL1I ~';;;J:
~ "" I 'fUr {.1, <, , .1 L1~
' ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ",_ q
'~'.:.. ~ '1'Sj 1 ~=~Si,
~ \. , ~j I-<.,~~~~ v
d1 ~\ll.t'U '~ \'1)' "
i i lUJ, i\\llR(
~. ~ >rn
/~.../
" ~ ~
,'" ~
," c
, f:J :T
-' 11
; L
'. t
^ "
\ r J'l
-i () -r;tJ
\1\
'~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item 1/
Meeting Date 02/27/96
Resolution / ~ J:J."-. approving the filing of an application for
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding - Traffic Signal
Modification Project at five intersections.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public workf
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~fJ ~'! .'\0\ I, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x.J
The SANDAG (San Diego Association 'Of Governments) Board of Directors has approved
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to be spent for traffic signal projects within
the San Diego region. Funding will be available for traffic signal protected-permissive (1'&1')
signal projects and City staff is recommending to tile an application for Protected-Permissive
(1'&1') improvements at five intersections (area plats - Exhibit 1).
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve lhe resolution authorizing staff to file an
application for funding protective-pcrmissive signal moditications at five locations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program was enacted as part of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEA) of 1991. Projects funded under that program must
be used for transportation improvements that enhance air quality. The SANDAG Board of Directors
has approved CMAQ funds to be spent for traffic signal projects within the San Diego region. A
target of $3.4 million will be available in FY96-97. The allocation of these funds to individual
projects will be madc by the SANDAG Board as part of the 1996-2003 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) scheduled lor approval in June 1996. Funding for traffic signal
protected-permissive (P&P) signal projects have been made a priority.
The City ofChula Vista currently has 15 intersections (Exhibit 2) in which one or all approaches are
controlled by P&P signal phasing. Protected-permissive signals are recommended for locations
where a separate left-turn phase is not always needed due to drastic volume changes throughout the
day. During peak periods of the day, due to high volumes, there is a need for this additional left-turn
phase. Protected-permissive signals have the capability to provide a protected left turn (green arrow)
phase at the beginning ofa signal cycle if there is a high demand for left-turning vehicles, and to skip
that phase when there is a minimal demand for a separate left turn phase. This feature allows
vehicles to make left turns during a green arrow indication and when this phase is over, if there is
1/-/
Page 2, Item II
Meeting Date 2/27/96
still a demand to turn left, to allow motorists the opportunity to make a left turn during the circular
green indication phase, once they have yielded the right-of-way to opposing through traffic. Thus,
thcre are less vehicles waiting to turn left at the beginning of each left-turn phase whieh must wait
for the traffic signal to cyclc through all of the other phases before once again providing the left-turn
phase. The resulting reduction in delays reduce air pollution because there are less idling vehicles
at the traffic signal.
Protected-permissive signals combine the signal heads for the through traffic and the left-turning
traffic. Consequently, instead of two signal heads with three signal indications each, there is only
one signal head with five signal indications and a sign which informs the motorist that left turns must
yield on thc circular green (Exhibit 3- sketch). The unique 5-section signal indication head has a
circular red indication on top and four indications located in two rows and two columns, containing
the yellow arrow, circular yellow, green arrow, and circular green. Standard practice is to provide
a sign on the signal mast ann, which informs the motorist of the ability to make left-turns on the
circular green indication phase once they have yielded to opposing traffic.
City staflis recommending P&P improvements at the following five intersections:
(I)Third Avcnue/"J" Street (east/west only)
(2)Fourth Avenue/"G" Street
(3)Fourth A venuel"K" Street
(4)Hilltop Drive/"J" Street/East "J" Street
(5)Fifth Avenue/"H" Street (east/west only)
For this Fiscal Year funding cycle, FYI996-97, the San Diego Traffic Engineer's Council
(SANTEC), a standing committee of SANDAG, has recommended giving a high priority to the
funding of protected-permissive signal improvements. These systems can greatly improve air
quality by decreasing the green time needed for protected left turns. For the locations which staff
is recommending, there currently does not exist a separate left-turn phase but there is a demonstrated
need to provide a left-turn phase [or some o[the day. Two of these locations are adjacent to schools
where peak hour activity warrants the addition of a left-turn phase. The P&P phase will allow more
vehicles which are turning left to clcar during a single signal cycle, instead of the present situation
in which only two or three vehicles manage to complete their turns. The proposed improvements
will also separate out the len-turning vehicles from the pedestrians during the protected left-turn
phase.
The City ofChula Vista's five (5) locations will be combined with the approximately 12 City of San
Diego's candidate signal locations. For the work within the City of Chula Vista, a tentative cost
estimate of $403267.40 includes staff design, construction, inspection and administrative costs
(Exhibit 4). With the exception of the first location on the list, four of the five locations are two-
phase signals which are antiquated and in nccd of upgrading. The intersection of Third Avenue and
//-,}-
Page 3, Item J I
Meeting Date 2/27/96
".I" Street will be modified to provide the left-turn phasing for east and west "J" Street traffic since
the recent Lucky's store improvement project provided this modification for north and south Third
Avenue traffic. For the intersection of Fifth Avenue and "H" Street, the P&P phasing will be for
"H" Street only. This location is currently proposed to be included in the FY 1996-97 Fiscal Year
Capital Improvement Program budget at a cost 01'$105,000. Thus, ifCMAQ funds are approved
for this location, Traffic Signal Funds will not havc to bc utilized as identified in next year's CIP
program detail.
This resolution will authorize the City Engineer to tile an application with SANDAG to upgrade
five. signalized jntersections to provide for protected-permissive left-turn phases. The proposed
modifications will increase thc numbcr oflcft-turning vehicles which can turn on each signal cycle,
provide separate pedestrian phasing which does not contlict with the left-turning vehicles while
reducing overall pollution caused by idling vehicles.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will not have to provide any funding for this project. Although,
estimated annual increase in energy cost will be approximately $100.00 per intersection. If the
signal modifications at Fifth Avenue and "H" Street are approved for CMAQ funding, the Traffic
Signal Fund will save $105,000.
Attachments:
Exhibit I - Area Plats (5)
Exhibit 2 - Existing Protective - Permissive Traffic Signal List
Exhibit 3 - Traffic Signal Indication Sketch
Exhibit 4 - Cost Estimates (5)
Exhibit 5 - SANDAG letter dated 1/18/96
File 0760-95-CY022
0735-10- TF234
(M :\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA ICMAQ96. FXR)
//- J/!I-I(
RESOLUTION NO.
If' .). ~ .1.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION FOR CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR
QUALITY (CMAQ) FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFICATION PROJECT AT FIVE INTERSECTIONS
WHEREAS, the SANDAG (San Diego Association of
Governments) Board of Directors has approved Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to be spent for traffic signal
projects within the San Diego region; and
WHEREAS, funding will be available for traffic signal
protected-permissive (P&P) signal projects and city staff is
recommending to file an application for Protected-Permissive (P&P)
improvements at five intersections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the filing of an
application for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funding Traffic Signal Modification Pr ect at five
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\CMAQ
11./ /I/-?
_~~ ~ 0.0 :, - -,:> ".. .( .ll ,---\_ v .,.. -,,\\,~~~:;ol,;?-' ..--:,\';;j'::;: "'
r j)J-1 ~::,--'" \,;... -~ :. \.- ~'t~t~~~':"":'t-i;:..:::-.~~~~:--:;:;~.
r..-f n i. k \ . f" ~! - ___ ~ \ ..<~~'~,~~ ~~~~r~....~~,: ':.~-:-
"'C\ \ \ \ \ ~ ,', ' .':;'. . u .~ . (--l"t~i<'",~,',:t:- -:<"'-... ..
~ 11\ ,->> ..., ~':':"~~._':o-'~_t ~.,...-. ~
~." ~ .,.. __ ,," \ ---' \:::. ~{~. '\<',~ o<,'~,'~:~ ;\~
, .-' >~ ,;, \ ',L).-l~ :J...l"'~~ -:::.~',--',:.s:'~'i'~ ~\
. ';\\L-\;,....I. g::=:---- \'1.. \ \t:::l ,,-~;,;,~.,~t~'i~':::.i~,:
", ~.~ ~-yt-$ <' ..- -r.<fT\",\\ \ ~ ",'r' ~~~\t~~;.~y~~~~\~f.
_" . ~ \.-- ...--'\ \ .... :-',-: ~ -::::\'llY\\. \ 'i \ ~",':J ;".' >s ','. '-"'~
~,,~ ~.'\ .. \- - ~:\~ ~ I~ \\\D ~~~.~"t~S';.~r;.~\::::~~
" -\ ~l,- .. \\ -I-II\,~ ". . ::;;.~i;.. ".-'~,t,
,ty~ ~~:{ ~ ~~ ~_ ",\ \B~~I ,8t1@;~..~i~ '.:sV 'I- Q)
\.- \--\::1~~\j ..~?~%.'~\~';~~ ~~~\" \~~~~';:';+:j:::'~ c:C ~
lit \Ill \II ~ \..- ll-\~ \} \ ''l)X.\ ~..i,.: "?!'~4i ,. ..J ~
l ) J.l-'U--- J' ~ '\,'0 ~ '.~f:~( '~;;'~k. C. ~
~
Q)
~ . .,~: .':".: ~ ~ ;Ill 'r1tr\ \ \ '_ <C ~
~ \ -..' \0 \' ~" \~'~ ~;\" W ~
;v~ '. .... -' ~ I). \" 'C
:: ?; . .' . . ,\ \ .....\ I... , r \ ", ~~ a: :E
"1 ~ ' ,..-' \ "'-i . ..., -\. I-
~ ~ \\~ \ \ \ .....1____----1 'c ' --\.---
_ ~ -",,' \ "~\Y c ' . c..._ .A
..,., -__"~~~~ '\' u.D" ~ ~ / -'C :I -;.\ _ ~'CJ.-'_ --1 ......
: ;J;', \---\iI\ ", I 'c.D ,-r:: ~ >>>"\ \\8),. _\ ~ 'rn
.1,.,..- r .1 I \\.. ell _____~'____'.~. \\:3
-" ~. \ - \, :--).-
,1\.,'._ ~,\~1l-\\ ~\..\ ~ /.~~~tl ~ (:::::J
M 1\\,,-,\::-=\:.J.\.r:Jfr\ -;t: "')..- --'" A'
Q\ .c\ ,'-'c- :;.ci, _, \,-"1,,. ~ \ .1 --\ ~..o ~
~~\\ '''. ',l I'. ell f..- ~\..
ei ~ ~\ \ ~"':} .f\-, \~lY t
~ 00' \\<<S'D. -( \ 'r\'2 n \ r.-I';. :>"f\r;: ~'
I~ w\B':~W illt~ ~-~ -'C~~~ ~
I~~ '~P~~:~\B~' \ '1ii ... W~
~ "~\~0~~ w'-f ~I I
~ / ,~t\.-1 ~2t Y:\?"0-- \. \- ~
. ~ _ 0:\~~._:..,..> ...
~ '%" \ \\\~(~0 :'(', <? ~ V~< . T4 "0
. - \~~~~<' ~:s\; .,
m\ L- ~: \p'G.fJ ,-~....~~ \~~ f !
\m ~~~ .,yta\ ~~~ Q ~
\=. ,
11"'7
_. ._.="~
rD
OJ
.....
('?
~
.....
N
I- ...
Q)
<C Q)
~
...
C/)
..J ..
C!'
C. .
"0
c:
as
<C Q)
::l
c:
Q) "
w >
<(
a: .r;;
1::
::l
<C 0
u.
..
III
-
'0 <D
3: Ol
.....
'"
::E ~
....
('oJ
0
~ \- J:::-.r'
1'\\ ..... :<D'\-{ t"'\ :I \ '\ \ "~~.'ij;
I "l '5 \-' ~~-r\ '\, '\,,'.,j..{ ,\ ' ~,;::;l\:i'1-~;~Y',: '? , ""'-~ ,0 .-
.. ~ 5V'f~~'" ';'j,~'..w,_.:-_-:--~::;>~......,_.~..-: .-'....I~'"......~-
14 ,''C- '\ '" \ ".....,. .." 'Co,' > .. .' ". ,. _.-'
, ,'\ .--v'" 'v'" ,.,.,,- .v."
,.,,~ .." 'C- '.., ~" ",.,,' " ,', ,''''' ",,"
\) ~ \,y ~......l ,"_"':, .,.""l._' lrl1\' ".".,.~",. ~
\. '~\ \ 5~\:''; ~--.: ~.~c,):~>';t..-.~~,~.::;~~~. ~
," "..,,0" -~-,--.,--
I~"'" ,l "\ If' 8 \~~~~~:~~~~~\:,~ :i't\'f:1~' ':;.;~4 1(-..- \
,', ' \.,""" -;"~'"'. "::i'~:':['~" \' .".' ;.,"'" .'.~" 'J~ ~-\\B
"W -- .,~,,,,-- ,,-' ,.." ~"
I ~~ \'\ ~\i\)'r , ~~%;~g,~" ..:,." t:::--, t'~~
I ~\ ID, \' '\: \" v".' .", fIl' ' I..-.,-'
I ,\M\\~ . \\ ' >;). · W",,!l.ii1;,,~ ' ' , ,~~ \.
n"" ' ' .C" ." ,,~,' "W"
\ ,":\ ~\~\\l' ~\ l.L , ~.~". ;/,." ...~--.('\ - ,...\.
, '\ . .,' ...,,~ "." , -,-"
:\I>W 0~~" ~, ,\,'
~~ ~~~~, ,,\ "
, 'I. \ , \\'\ ,~\ ,00 I",'
I,~ ' ,," \\. ~w.,.oo. \'"&
I 'i: ~ c--''' n' ..",
1;0\\10' \ .~ ,--, ,,\ tJ,iU--r6'\iD \ "
. ,_:\ ~V' _" -' ,,'Ie-( NA' ·
(.' \\ \~ .,"."'~ ,," <0 <.x- ~,,-
"~,, ":, 1 ... ~ .." "" ~ ,,", C/','(';O'
I;@' ~'"'' "i"!G \!::i\-\-- ~ \ '. >V \-?'i'c ere ,~ '0' ~
-(\\T\..-\y~;': f \C':~.:w ~ \~ ~ ..- \.::;B::i\;....~
".' , f'<''; .~ " ~. 1 """ ,-",'" 'a'
1....i\\"\\f.1~ ~~"" A-,':'" f n \,
1.'('" J)' ",-,,, \' :- ,,\\:\ \ ,~"
:-M1 n IX'" ,1", '" ~ ·
1"C(i;;>)'~ '- lli" Q > U, ~ 11:'\J.Jil' \;(\ 7~
I ~L>' i\i\ y' -c-?''' v~' V -t\\\\ ~\y , .
\~<<r~:\rf"Occ/~W~~\ ,,~\,;p~~ g
_......:\,~:..-........j,' ,,' .0\' 1~\ "\ '3,\2\ \ ~
, -\'U ,0~~:'> ' "y:-- y ---'" '- i\r' '\
\K' IS ~ -(' )/"\ --------- -------- ,,,,,--J ~ "i, i\
~\) ~y ,.'" \.V~v--
'.' ".,." Y-'" ....... '\" ~'<. =C 0\0;'\\;' ,j :
,v ~ \1: .,'~' \?'Cry "" '-"....' ~
" \%" '* ~,,~ ~~ 1 ~
, · )\-vCJ.iW"" ,~'?"~~ \'
, , 'i>'\\I" ,,"0 3. '- ~ ~ --'
..
,..
1/-9 -" ~ 1,0: i ·
~~
.
I
I- -
Q)
<C ~
(/)
..J"
~
.
0.
"0
c:
as
Q)
~
c:
Q)
>
<C
.s::.
-
...
~
<C ~
<C
w
a:
<0
Ol
....
'"
~
....
C\I
.
...
Q)
Q)
I- ...
...
en
<( ~
""')
..
.J ...
en
tIS
C. W
......
<(
w
a:
<(
':..,
..
'0
c:
tIS
Q)
>
";:
o
0-
o
:t::
J:
Q)
- (t)
'0 Ol
;: ....
'"
~ ,...
....
C\J
0
!
..
Q
~\D~'
~
~-
~.
_v
.--
,
~,
.
\ -~
, ~
\ vl/l..J
-)\ ~\"~
, .
..
:>>-
r' III
~\~ -!J ~
Q
"
\
~~
11- ) ~
....
CI>
CI>
....
....
en
"'
"'
:I:
'"
'"
<C
w
~
<C
"
e:
co
CI>
::s
e:
CI>
>
<C
.s::.
....
\t-
.-
U.
c
~
E
.!
CD
:.l:
J:l
o
III
rD
01
.....
0-
N
.....
N
II
-
..
Q
,'I-\.! ~
,.>~w
EXISTING PROTECTED-PERMISSIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIST
AS OF 2/20/96
STREETS DIRECTION START-UP DATE
1 . BROADWAY & "I" ST NORTH/SOUTH 06/27/91
EAST/WEST 08/03/95
2. BROADWAY & "J" ST ALL AROUND 08/03/95
3 . BROADWAY & ilK" ST ALL AROUND 08/03/95
4. BROADWAY & MOSS ST NORTH/SOUTH 02/16/94
5. BROADWAY & NAPLES ST NORTH/SOUTH 12/23/93
6. PALOMAR ST & INDUSTRIAL BL EASTBOUND 10/30/92
WESTBOUND 11/17/94
7. THIRD AV & ANITA ST NORTHBOUND 09/23/93
8. FOURTH AV & MOSS ST NORTH/SOUTH 09/08/93
9 . E. ORANGE AV & LOMA LN EAST/WEST 09/26/89
10. E. !ILl! ST & MONSERATE AV EAST/WEST 09/26/89
11 . BONITA RD & FLOWER ST/"E" ST EASTBOUND 04/30/91
12. OLR & RIDGEBACK RD/CANYON DR NORTH/SOUTH 09/25/92
13. OLR & GOTHAM ST NORTH/SOUTH 01/30/95
14. FIFTH AV & "e" ST EAST/WEST 11/09/95
15. THIRD AV & "J" ST NORTH/SOUTH 11/13/95
C:\WP51\BETT\P&PLIST.DOC
IJ.. IJ
1,1-/'1
EXHIBILS__
@
8
@)
8 YA
8 GA
-
,
LEFT SIDE
INDICATION
8 RA
8 YA
8 GA
i-
I.
,
LEFT SiDE
INDICATION
R73-7 SIGN
(24-"X30")
frMAST ARM
, 0
o
@
-~
@
YA 8 G)
GA 8 (0
LEFT TURN
- YIELD
ON GREEN
.
OVERHEAD INDICATION
o CIRCULAR (SOLID) RED, YELLOW
OR GREEN INDICATION
8 LEFT TURN YELLOW OR GREEN
ARROW INDICATION
PROTECTIVE/PERMISSIVE
SIGNAL INDICATION
NO SCALE
RA 8 0
YA @ 0 ~~
GA 8 @
LMASTARM
OVERHEAD INDICATION
PROTECTED SIGNAL INDICATION
NO SCALE
TRA/)~J77) I ~I; ~CA T I ON SKETCH
o:.:X,-jiH(I~
1 .--
PREPARED BY: fl)<J
------------- 7
FIGURES CHECKED BY: ___~ (~
SHEET ____L_OF __1.___
PROJECT: CMAQ APPLICATION UNDER THE ISTEA PROGRAM FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
3RD AVENUE AND J STREET
1. F&I Type 17-3-70 (20') Signal Standard 2 EACH $3,200.00 $6,400.00
2. F&I 5-Lens Vehicular Indication 4 EACH $600.00 $2.400.00
3. Trenching/Conduit 60 FEET $14.00 $840.00
4. F&I 25Q-Watt Safety Light 2 EACH $320.00 $640.00
~. F&I 'Left Turn Yield" Sign 2 EACH $75.00 $150.00
6. F&l Mounting Hardware/Framework. Re- 1 LUMP SUM $500.00 $500.00
mount other Existing Equipment.
7. Protection. Restoration & Traffic Control 1 LUMP SUM $1.000.00 $1,000.00
and Dis posel
TOTAL $11,930.00
10% PRICE DIFFERENTIAL $1,193.00
SUB-TOTAL $13,123.00
TOTAL LOCATION 1 $13,123.00
CMAQ.wQ1
1/-'7
1 4
SHEET _,,:~___OF _______
PREPARED BY: ;::!."jJ
------------~, ~
FIGURES CHECKED BY: _r;!.1:. __
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
4TH AVENUE AND G STREET
1. F&I Type 332 Cabinet, detector Module.. 1 LUMP SUM $7,000.00 $7.000.00
Load Switches and other Equipment to
Operate Vehicular/Pedestrian Phases as
shown.
2. F&I Type 19-4-70 (30') Signal Standard 1 EACH $4.000.00 $4,000.00
3. F&I Type 17-3-70 (20') Signal Standard 2 EACH $3.300.00 $6,600.00
4. F&I #5 Pull Box 10 EACH $150.00 $1.500.00
5. F&I #6 Pull Box 4 EACH $175.00 $700.00
6. F&I 5-Lens Vehicular Indication 8 EACH $600.00 $4,800.00
7. F&I Pedestrian Indication and ADA PPB 8 EACH $575.00 $4.600.00
8. Trenching/Conduit 900 FEET $14.00 $12.600.00
9. Rewire Intersection 1 LUMP SUM $5,500.00 $5.500.00
10. F&t250-Watt Safety Light 3 EACH $320.00 $960.00
11. F&I Type '0" Detector 8 EACH $230.00 $1,840.00
12. F&I Type 'B' Detector 28 EACH $250.00 $7.000.00
13. F&I "Left Turn Yield" Sign 4 EACH $75.00 $300.00
14. F&I Mounting Hardware/Framework. Ae- 1 LUMP SUM $900.00 $900.00
mount other Existing Equipment.
15. Protection. Restoration & Traffic Control 1 LUMP SUM $1,500.00 $1,500.00
and Disposal
TOTAL $59,800.00
10% PRICE DIFFERENTIAL $5,980.00
SUB-TOTAL $65.780.00
TOTAL LOCATION 2 $65,780.00
J /, / r
SH EET ___~__ OF __~___
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
PREPARED BY: i:',JJ~
FIGURES CHECKEDBY~ -fY@.--
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
NO, ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
4TH AVENUE AND K STREET
1, F&I Type 332 Cabinet, detector Modules. 1 LUMP SUM $7.000.00 $7,000.00
Load Switches and other Equipment to
Operate Vehicular/Pedestrian Phases as
shown.
2. F&I Meter Pedestal 1 EACH $1,~00.00 $1,~00.00
3, F&l Type 19-4-70 (2~') Signal Standard 2 EACH $3,800.00 $7,600.00
4. F&l Type 19-4-70 (30') Signal Standard 2 EACH $4,000.00 $8,000.00
~. F&I #~ Pull Box 8 EACH $1 ~O.OO $1.200.00
6. F&I #6 Pull Box 4 EACH $17~.00 $700.00
7. F&I ~-Lens Vehicular Indication 8 EACH $600.00 $4.800.00
8. F&I ADA Pushbutton 7 EACH $12~.00 $87~.00
9. Trenching/Conduit 7~0 FEET $14.00 $1 0,~00.00
10. Rewire Intersection 1 LUMP SUM $MOO.OO $~,500.oo
11. F&I 2~0-Watt Safety Light 4 EACH $320.00 $1.280.00
12. F&I Type '0" Detector 8 EACH $230.00 $1.840.00
13. F&I Type "B" Deteclor 28 EACH $2~0.00 $7.000.00
14. F&I "Left Turn Yield" Sign 4 EACH $7~.00 $300.00
15. F&I Mounting Hardware/Framework. Re- 1 LUMP SUM $900.00 $900.00
mount other Existing Equipment.
16. Protection, Restoration & Traffic Control 1 LUMP SUM $1.~00.00 $1 ,~OO.OO
and Disposal
TOTAL $60.49~.00
10% PRICE DIFFERENTIAL $6.049.~0
SUB- TOTAL $66.~44.~0
TOTAL LOCATION 3 $66.~44.~0
1/., /9
SHEET -4 OF </
~--~--- --~----
J;1 !
PREPARED BY: ---,l~!!::l_- ">
FIGURES CHECKED BY: ___ill'-:::....
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
HILLTOP DRIVE AND J STREET
1. F&I Type 332 Cabinet, detector Modules, 1 LUMP SUM $7.000.00 $7,000.00
Load Switches and other Equipment to
Ooerate Vehicular/Pedestrian Phases as
shown.
2. F&I Meter Pedestal 1 EACH $1 ,~OO.OO $1 ,~OO.OO
3. F&I Type 19-4-70 (2~') Signal Standard 1 EACH $3.800.00 $3,800.00
4. F&I Type 19-4-70 (30') Signal Standard 1 EACH $4,000.00 $4,000.00
~. F&I Type 17-3-70 (20') Signal Standard 2 EACH $3.300.00 $6,600.00
6. F&I Tvoe lA Sional Standard 4 EACH $800.00 $3,200.00
~. F&I #~ Pull Box 10 EACH $1~0.00 $1.~0.00
6. F&I #6 Pull Box 4 EACH $17~.00 $700.00
7. Fal 3-Lens Vehicular Indication 8 EACH $450.00 $3,600.00
8. Fal 3-Lens Vehicular Indication 8 EACH $600.00 $4,800.00
9. F&I ADA Pushbutton 8 EACH $12~.00 $1,000.00
10. Trenchina/Conduit 800 FEET $14.00 $11,200.00
11. Rewire Intersection 1 LUMP SUM $~.~O.OO $~,~OO.OO
12. F&1250-Watt Safety Light 4 EACH $320.00 $1,280.00
13. F&I Type "D' Detector 8 EACH $230.00 $1,840.00
14. F&I Type '8' Detector 28 EACH $2~0.00 $7,000.00
1~, F&I "Left Turn Yield" Sign 4 EACH $7~.00 $300.00
16. FB.I Mountina Hardware/Framework. Re- 1 LUMP SUM $900.00 $900.00
mount other Existing Equipment.
17. Protection, Restoration & Traffic Control 1 LUMP SUM $1,500.00 $l,~OO.OO
and Disposal
TOTAL $67,220.00
10% PRICE DIFFERENTIAL $6.722.00
SUB-TOTAL $73,942.00
TOTAL LOCATION 4 $73.942.00
c---- $219,389.~0
TOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY $43.877.90
DESIGN $20,000.00
ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION $1 ~,OOO.OO
GRAND TOTAL $298,267.40
//.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..J
<(
Iii
Q
:;
c(
c(a:
f-Cl
(1)0
Sa:
:5~
::If-
J:Z
UW
u..:;
OW
>
~~
UQ.
~
..J
c(
f-
ii:
c(
u
I
I
I
I
~
~
I
I
I
~
I
I
'"
C
1:
I
'ij,
c
"i
'Or."
i! .
o ~
~o
-u~
:e=:D
_.0 ~
"' ~ 0
..o.N
'"
~ ~
O"Z
.....<(
%ffi~
lil~ti
;;/"'..
-<(..
t:0.0
i:~f
'liI
c
to>
(i;
c
$
...
c:
~
.
~
c
.
~
~
!:
LL
..
~:'liI
N=b
Ltcnfi
...X<J
~
~
~
0.
r:
" z
. '"
O":::E
z~:I
~t:0
<J...<J
;
~
it
II:
i
~
it
III
,:.
II:
~
it
i
~
it
i
~ ~ ~ ~
~ g '" i!i
;;;
o
!
II:
~
it
i
"'...
Zz
2..
..J~a:
<(-"''''
I-a:::lc(
00.<J~
"'0",
"''''
o.x
~...
ti..J
llJ<(
.....
00
"'...
0.
i
~ ~ ~ ~
N g '" i!i
;;;
o
Cl .~
.~ ii
~ ~ ~
","~'~ .~.a
W ii I [: ~ ~
!c ~ C) -E ~
~ ! ] ~ 8 ~
..
Iii
o
<J
~
i ->
i
i
i
~
~
i
i
~ ~
i!i i!i
~ *
~ i
,,;
o
;;;
i
i
i
i
i
~
~
o
...
el
z
U
z
<(
z
u:
III~. I ... I
-..t.:.!!~:,s )
FlFT , ~~I O~
\ '\:=:=; p : u ~ ;=.
AVE 1-1' r n.
I ' -, ,-
I I: -
'-~~~
. t -~.-:-~-
~ ~;;=
~ ~ ~ ~ In c:t:J
~ ~ ~ ~ 10 dl ~
c]~!
a: ~u
BRO.t,DWAY
CIl
ill
..
~
c.
c
.a
l
Gl
<:
11l
E
Q;
c.
i
~
o
5-
=
ii
~
0>
iij
al
1ii
"
1il
2-
:2
o
-
!
0>
'iij
o
~
-
g>
i
c:
~
~
.!!!
'ii
c
0>
'iij
CIl
~
.~
U
Gl
=
~
.E
CIl
c:
~
~
~
0>
'iij
E
i!
l
Gl
.c.
-
N
.....
.....
<0
$
0>
it
.2
jl
"
al
.c.
~
10
E
Gl
:;;
c
.12
-
"
2
10
c
o
o
'0
C
..
C
0>
.~
Q
~
~
.,;
c
o
Z
J
..
I
f
~
~
o
.
~
!
.
.
u
ffi
o
--....
EXHIBiT
5
~ San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
SUBJECT:
City Managers/County CAO
SANTEC Committee Members ;2
Lee Hultgren, Director of Transportation ~ ' ~$O'
/'/'7" /2'
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding - Traffic {t
Suite 800, e Plaza
401 B . irJIf: , 5~
San' , Ci!,if;>rnla 9~~....
(6). 5-530~ax (619)59i 05
( .. ~ \ ""
i ; ~\..\\ \~~\1' ~
,,\t~\~ Iv}
~G,
q,
January 18, 1996
TO:
FROM:
The SANDAG Board of Directors has approved CMAQ funds to be spent for traffic signal projects
within the San Diego region. The allocation of these funds to individual projects will be made by the
SANDAG Board as part of the 1996-03 Regional TIP scheduled for approval in June 1996. The San
Diego Traffic Engineer's Council (SANTEe), a standing committee of SANDAG, has been asked to
coordinate the funding process and review projects submitted for these funds. SANTEC has approved
the attached evaluation criteria and application forms to process requests for these funds. Funding will
be available for the following traffic signal project categories:
. Signal retiming
. Protected-permissive signal projects
. Equipment upgrade
. Central control and communication links
. Minor signal modifications
. Information and monitoring systems
For this FY96-97 funding cycle, SANTEC has recommended giving a high priority to the funding of
protected-permissive signal improvements. These systems can greatly improve air quality by
decreasing the green time needed for protected left turns. Please refer to the attached guidelines
developed by SANTEC if you plan to apply for projects in this category.
A target of $3.4 million will be available for traffic signal projects in FY96-97. Applications for
these funds wiII be due March 1, 1996. Please use the attached forms to apply for these funds.
Local government representati ves of SANTEC will review the applications and evaluate the projects
during the month of April. The first two sheets should be completed for all projects. The TSM
Project Information Report should be completed for all projects other than signal retiming.
Please send the completed applications to:
Dennis Thompson
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Contact Dennis Thompson at 595-5325 regarding questions or additional information.
LH/DT/ah
Attachments
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, ChuJa Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, lemon Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADV1SORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: Califomia Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, and TijuanalBaja Califomia.
I/~.). '}
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
February 21, 1996
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manager '-- ,\ 1 \'';~, l)~\
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning /!:&l
February 27 Council Agenda Item #12 - DRC-94-24 - Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to deny the installation of a gate across La Costa Avenue
between the EastLake Greens neighborhoods known as Masters Collection and
Bristolwood - Brelun Investment Inc.
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Attached are several letters from the area residents for and against the installation of the gate
and a homeowners petition in support of the gate, which were received after the packet had been
distributed. Please include these under the "Public Input" section of your packet.
(Ill: \home\p lanning\drc94 2 4, c i Ill)
1.2"'-} /;'- -,,-:(
February 5, 1996
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
2496 La Costa Ave,
Chula Vista, CA 91915
(619) 482-3131
The Masters Collection
Lot #118
City Council/Case No, DRC-94-24
On Monday September II. 1995, the advisory board for the Planning Commission, after careful review,
disallowed the proposed gate that would divide Brehm and Fieldstone developments on La Costa Avenue,
Brehm appealed to the Planning Commission, and on November 24. 1995. that body concurred with their
advisors and voted against the proposed gate. We were pleased with those decisions. Once again, Brehm
has decided to attempt a reversal of those decisions. The reasoning behind this move is unclear.
The advisory board and the planning Commission clearly stated that the 2.500 feet from each entrance is
an illegal length for a cui de sac on a private street as stated in the city subdivision manual. The possibility
of litigation for delays in emergency service, the undesirable impact of blocking a thoroughfare and
dividing a comunity, as well as aesthetically degrading the communities were major factors in the Planning
Commission's conclusion that this gate is a bad proposal..
It was determined that the gate in the middle of La Costa Ave. would have no effect on traffic flow and
that litigation from trespassing on private streets would be unchanged as long as the entrance to each
community remains ungated,
Thirty-two homeowners in the Fieldstone development and 69% of those directly affected by this gate on
La Costa Ave, signed a petition opposing the gate, (See attachment #1),
In April of 1994, the state Supreme Court ruled against gating communities on previously public streets.
(See attachment #2), In November of 1995, an article in the San Diego Union declared that the state takes a
dim view of gating communities on private streets as well. (See attachment #3).
Along with this letter, we are including copies of our other letters to the Advisory Board and the
Planning Commission (See attachment #4). These letters set forth many of the details of our concerns
regarding the deleterious effects of this gate on our community.
The temporary gate has been in place for a year and a half now, creating inconvenience and a threat to
those who Jive on La Costa Ave. in the masters Collection, Just how long is "temporary"?
We are asking that the City Council denounce this proposed pennenant gate and set a time for the
removal of the black blight known as the "temporary gate",
Ain~~
~ - "" 'C.)
"/;c2{ G~ ,z.;li-.uJrL-
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
,
/:J....d" 3 /;;-IJ- ~
"77"- / #,-::;4/
1/ a-V.....u-j /---t--?V
We. the undersigned. would like to express our opposition to
the proposal to install a gate on La Costa Avenue in order to close
the street between Fieldstone and Brehm developments.
We are concerned about possible delays in emergency service
and confusion for delivery services as well as for our guests.
Disfigurement of the existing landscape in order to achieve
this will result in depreciation of adjacent properties.
NAME
ADDRESS
LOT NUMBER
1 d' / J '/) '.' </1 /.~
. ,/"U/C .A-awa A./~4<"xr
/
r '/, . . / ""'1
2. 1~(LtC/ i-I! I/~ >.C:.c /~lIlh'
g
~o
3. I~i.o dl'lc'{{'
...-
f"J
:=;, C /ti "j
J .
4. jj;S;;C~/C Ad A YPP /'
//7
5. .~\_,__:,_ -\, ";~,-..i:L,
~~ 5c
'it.,
6. 1~~~~KaF
9r;
,. --.. . ...'-
'1 ' ~
~ .
7. ;do,)..\.-,
~b__ hi....
"\
::I
75
~s;b'I? !g~ S~
8. OdhtrL~
t<U::)MDP..b f{I- M0J
f'9o (,/t,;.--.
,
;"~1
9.
10.
62'19Cj L4; ~
,
11. k:. 1'1~
12.~!J
13..~~
14. ~ ~~~ 0J~~~
2.. ~- 2 2-
(
'i.j-:z/- f.!$
2.5i 0 L.
c
~
/.2 -t9... #/ ..
15. Jv Lt'1N J .../e--::,
16. J7tcn.n-t 4 :J~)(5o.v
17.
18.
19. (j.--f I- jJI~ ~
-
-
20. N&ri d C CdC.X l \Q.\ <.
21. ~ CJu.(~S
22.
23.
{
27. Dt?tlf L/N()GSS(X
I~ft ..
29. lA;"('-Y SI"\'V',,~~T
30. ~ ~-
31. f1-tr:: ~MtJ~
rJ~ 1..2-p.J
32. 1-'i)_,t2 ni.,~
33. 7)tt:rJNI:S 11. H"jBCe~~(G
34.
\tv1 ~v I:OL
~--
GUll CvLrLt"L
/LV~~~yLJ~'
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
,
1,2-1/. t,
,..-------
ci/~~<<!k~ --"
~rs!\i...
,tified aa the ""-
rban Schoener. a 1VIIlI,
(\Inner. on April 23.'
NtC' ," ,N~,s".;
No gates 011,....1
streets, courll'lllM '
",---',"",-
SAN P'ltANCISCO - The atate
Supreme Court refused yesterday to
let an exclusive Loa Angeles neiJb-
borhood seal itself off from OlItaiden
by putting up ptea 011 previoualJ
public streets. a plan (Il'opoeed in
more than 100 other areas of the
city.
The Loa Angeles City CoWlci1 bad .
approved the withdrawalofWhitley
Heights' streets from puIlIic lI8e in
1985. But a state appeala court ru1ed
this March that the action violated
state law. which preserva public
streets for public uae.
The state's high court UlIIIIIiIDouI-
Iy denied review of the ruIina. ..
ing it binding on trial COlII'ta llate-
wide.
The ruling does not affect private-
gated communities.
~p,.-
"". ~ _..L"_~A:"""--
..,....~H~~.".--.
----, - .....-
.
~.
/~-d" ')
'"
.~
l
.
~
:l..
~ .s
" --
',,- Ie '-l
" :n 'Q.()~
"
IV) ~
'..'\~
.~'~=~
" ~
~ '."\
'" r"
\, .....~
,~ Q)
~ ,,\: ~
f" ..~
e=
Q)
~
~
~
~
~
.@
~
o
o
I
~
Q)
~
o
.
J
)
I
,
.
J
.
.
>>
.!.: >.
c:.: c ~
x ::l..c:: (fJ .
<1,)i'SEf-v-;
(/JvE~~u
11)::0 0 v c (IJ
..e u:< 0 Q.l
.:: 25 >. ('I;l'- ><
O"'C ('1;1..... ~ ~
<1,): o..,~'O u
E C.s:C~:E
o U"'C 5. (/J ;:I
(fJ >. V C'tI c..
o~.!:::: ~,!::::,!:::
rJJ V :::l_ V Q.l
e..:: ff"V -5-5
vC'tl~~_......
"'0 CIl V (fJ C C
'rii,~.1-o C'tI ('I;l t"C
V-:::>'(fJ~~
1-o'CVV>'O
V:::l..c~:="'C
~5Eis~~
Q) If) S ;:1'_ Vl..c
.-:::='''= .0 ('C..... v-
c '~'2 "'0 u v,!S u ..
=~;::lQ.)"'CvuQ)"C
t"'EQ)<1.l.ooCQ)
:r: "'0 C en...... L.
8. 0 E.s c 1::c ~.c ~
Q.... 0 .!9.9 >. 0 ....
OO(lu 0..........."'0.9
Q-c
,- Q)
u_
v ~
..c'"
~o
"l",
v ~
~ v
"l ~
~5r
u v
,5..c:
~;:.
:l..c
0,
..c",
~ v
~.-::
-5.5
U
-
v 0 '"
~~g-d1J) >.:l rA
'5-5',,:; (1) Q..l cv..8'-<"g
....::.:: "'C 0.""::':: ;:I ,_ '- (fJ V..c
ccE~~~ii5.c::v
:.E:E ~ "2 C";l ~ l)O.!:: ~ E
..... ~ trJ::l t::.- c..c (/)
o t"I:I..... 0 'U:.s St ra ~
-ctlOCU-o.V;:I .=-
~ .5 ~ ~ Q):::: u ;; Q) 3
---C'tIrJJ1-ovc_:r:u
(/) ~- Q) IJ) ~, _ (fJ Q)
~..... C'tI E~ - _ ill CIl (/)
"'C (fJ 0'- c 5 -t'''''C ~ IV
:::l:caJ aJE E~"C$E
1-01-0'- E ('I;l C - 0
eOV'Jot::l:a(/)t':lu..c
-;tcr.n(l;lU~(1)I1.l-
~tlOQ)Q)frcno3-5~
';; .5] ~"'O"'8..c: U E ~
,S-5Q)EtlO-5..8I-o~ 1-0
>. v 1-0 0.5 v :.2 1:: ~
-E-ocE..cu
c :; -. c O(l 1-0 ~"'O
o 0 - _ l'l:l 1-0 ,- ("l;l .... C
..... 00...... ._ Q) Q) ::s ctl
o Q.l ::s >. o...c C13 0 tl(l
c...o.o:::v....v....uc
(fJ.....- '"'..c 0 (fJ c: c,-
~~~Bt-~~9dQ).:c
~E~~ -5ti5~~
,~ ~ v - ~ ......
vEcE"'OoU') "".."
"lEv vc ~I-<~~
V EV~9"=......V""'"
I-< 8 > be"" ...... _..:: bel ..,,~
... v ~ ~ 0"= ~ 0 0 ~ ,~
go~~';~] ~ S~ ~
- -d'~'': ~ 'E 'I:: E ~ ~ :i
· ill g'2 8.:'= I-< v- 0 .." ~
!,~ .." :::3 o.~~ ~ > E 11.1 ....
EE:;Eo:"v'B;::~ ~
E ~ 0 E 15 !l! C'- .. v -
t"CI.Qo -O~ ..c u
O i:t C'l:l u c...... ...... ...... >.'C
"""'01: ~ Q.l t"CI ......
gt::1l];~oOl-<~::;:
118.C...... encQ,j~,= 0.
C V ~ ~ 0 ~:a 5 E :>. 0
--.uQ,j-;;I:lQ......E>>-'"
C C fJ) ;;>>:::l"'C ...... C C'l:l
C ~ 0 Q,j ~ .." t"CI ""'2 ::::l ~
....... u..:: Q,j _.0 QJ :::l' 0._ .
-o~f-...c~C'l:lEEu.~~
.. ...... Q.l '= .......-...... 0 E v u "l
cC "o......~cu "::-.00
. 0 o:-g C'2 .." Q,j 0':::: Q,.l Q,j
.c '';:;'in ~ <I( :::l"-.o y 0 -5.c
I: 8>'0"'0"" 01:
....d-dEV~Q,.lC'l:l......=-
0- .... ""...... Q.l t"CI Q,j
...::88~O~;-5~
>>
dJ':" !F2 c Q)
ch Q,.l C C'l:l v.o .." .."
'0 be ui Q.l -. > >'.!! ......
v:i ~ [&~ 5'2 ~
rIJ"'C C 0 E -. :::3 E
5iLJ~"ilQ,j~SE~
.."SRl>~......~Ev
Q,jE~.s......g:-gORS
~ Rl_ Q,.l C'l:l"" U C
~ ~ '0..;: e .s ~ ~'E
<I( >. c - v C'l:l "'0 - .-
'= Rl 0 0 (,f.l Q,j c";j t;
.;..; E:€ beI~ -. C'I:l ~ >.
l-. Q) "'C.5 C Rl "c..c
O"CC-OQ,jE~
0.,_ 0 CiS >, C :::l ;;0. "'C I:
~~U~C'l:lo......~~.:
v l-. ~ Q) E E ~'Qj e.9
...c:::: o.._..c (,f.l 0 >'..t:; ...... ......
~ ~ ~E-"2":: C'l:l ...... g ~
............ c ~ 0 v E c u'-
be ~ 0 Q) 1: E Q):.E Q).5
.S ...... ~ ~..8'1:: E.~ E c
"'C C'l:l bel U'I::;;o. 0'-
a-5~.........c::::vu"'Cu...c::::
;j ~:: g.~.M.:S ~~ ~
< 'C en -5 c ~~ go ~ e
8 g'~ a ~ E ~ -5 ::
~
, rtI.." C'I:l , V v Q).32- ""0
,O&Q)C ..c.o......,........c:::::::la.;c
E:en>.! ....._Ol-.Q)......o~C'l:l~ v
ca.;l-."'O .t:-.~'l:lou:.::..,,_
8 Q) .." ~ C'l:l .~ C ~:.:: ':ICl..... Q,j , 'l:l 0 ~
vE::::"'O~ (,f.lo~ OCbel~(,f.lRl..o [jj
...c::::~-o~u ~u~~'~c>,~e~ c
:C'l:l OQ) Q,.l~~..,,~~~bCiS'~ 8
::l 0. & U...c:::: ~ > 5 c t:; ~ 7i: a.c C
"Ov:::l............ ~~EV,c_~E_-~-o _
~"'Ccoc-.8.- ~uEEfU,-O't:; i:l:
"'0 bel U ~ bel c 0. -. ,- ...... coc c . 0
~.5Q)v...... cvooQ)~5~>,,9'00
UC~""v .-vu_>C'I:l .-.0...... .
vc 'OOC "'Coo_vv_,u rc'~
'-' Rl 00._ 0 'S: Q) 0 > c'8 . "'0 >. N >, ::::l
~Q.,~:S ~ o...c:::: C Q) Rl . Q)"2'':.~ C
.." .- ...... l-.~.9"'OQ.l .:.~o~u~
~ ~ =.v_ i!!."l- vEe 0. Q) ...... "'C (".l..c 0 C "'0'- IV C
;;0.-::.....- >'-RliLlCI-<'-rcQ)l-...co
- ->.......~v..8~~cO'......(".l
c ~ - ::1::::1 CiS t) C '"""C 0.0"; ,_ V >,_
C'l:l""belo.obel -vv-..c O.co~
.Q C'l:l I-< C I-< c"::: E en ~ ~ ~..c -Of-. I-< iJ
...... "'0 Q.l t"CI t"CI V - bO~ >< Q.l tlO C'l:l ~ . t) V
~:s.:cbo":': ......VC'l:l" VCQ)..o> .Q)......
,-.."tlOc~~&=~d=_""~C'l:l ."'Ot"CI
I-< 1-<'- 0 <<IE ...... >,.,,'-'- 0 bO i:t V .....J:J
...... v...... -. 0 v._ - V ~ C C ,,'" - V
~c""""""..cc~-...ct) O'-~ ~~~
o 0"""" v ~~...... v._""v~~u~
~'~~~~.:c~~g~i:t~~~~i:t~~
.!!! go";.o.~ 0 ~ ~ Q)- lS t -:-2 t ~ E- g
E..,,'ORl5 E~0='C.5~~~~ ~
Ql
",I _
~v.i_cn
I- >- <tl ~
>- ttl ': X
="0('00
E"'EaJ
CU~ciJO
~ ~ >-0..
- 0> D
~>cOni
CUCv=
lllO_ctl
Q.C\J C\J E
ft<i: ~ (ij
cQ.lC\J"3
E 01..... 01
.2~~~
8 5 ~ E~
~."OEON
5;'~-oEO')
o ",Jg 0<(
,.J >'u t.?~
a.gttl.."o
.:5~ug>
C-Ql@-
zctl.Q>O
"U') C :::l C
ii6~.g~
, Q,j g ~';7i -6 !Xl rh ] ~ '0 ' U ,Q)
'" E'': ~ ~ Q.l ~ U l"'lI .." , ,S:.a en Q.l ,,' q; "C C:.= , ::::I ~ 5
~ ;;0. V ~~~Q)q;~~ ~> ~ ~~.o=er._
..,,~..~g~ ~~~~~ lSd~~8'~ ..ct~8v~~
o~ ~ vQ)~Rlc=uenu~>._ ~~o-..,,::~~
......c ~ Q)......_-~ou=s ~~ "" _
~'E--~Rl EO~Oe~~Rl' ~ 0 ~_vQ,j>Q,j"""~
i; '''vU oaovE...~-.::::J~5:3: c-...... u..,,-
.c~.o!Xl "">.E-13o.s:Jo~C)';:Q) ''@~~~.g~.~
~';'2~.5 ]~0eU..,,~:~~~~ oO..c~~I-<~
.: ~ E::I Rl E Rl ...... ::s .!!! 'O.~ ~ ~ 5 ~ !Xl ~ u -S'; Q.l en l"'lI ::::I
~~ ~~ ""~Rl>.!Xl~~~u~co'" .......-_......v=o.
... E ~...... l-...c'" ...... C C lLl U CEO ~..c g ~.~'.B-o
.'Qjog~_!""":'2~B>l"'lIQ.l u~ ......i:tu.->oo=
· ...... U 'C;; -:: >._o.~ Q) :3 ~ ... f S"S! 13 ~ lLl ""0 vi . a ... = Rl
- ~ Q.l rc - I-. V V e - 0 ....,.- - ~ 0 = v Q) ..". ~ lLl .."
~lLl>u.5o>~~E~0....6~C'l:leO ~~~~vQ).~
Cv'':u~t:iv',:"" =g.Rl:'=~Q,j u ~.a.>..".......,;:.:=
--.uO-. "'O._.."ORl ~en-~Q.l= l"'lI3j..,I-<Rl-.-
1'-' e = ~ t C 5 ~ u tlO].~:.a.e;; ~ 0 1:. 0 6 Q,j .!! .S: ::l ~
... ~ ~ 8.--; -5 1i E 8].5 Rl..c ~ t) 0 ~.g c:: ~ E .." -. li~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ bO 0 Rl e ~ =:;; tl ~.. lLl g. I,J 1; q) Rl 0 ~ 8..= d:.::
.C..c6~~~oO~~'5"C~~Q)~.:::e.5u~g.Q.lQ.l~
-~v~'-OO",uEC'l:llLl~CO~UE!Xl~~-o'I::~~~~
".~::i:to...v"'O ~~.cul"'lIo..."c ~.sen~o. .......='_
-0-"""'Rl~~8vf-.""C~Q.l~~~lLl>~~_~l"'lI..co
--Ou.......cO~-Q.l:: lLl~ QO.....CRl v-O-~-..c
'': g ...... = bel"" C . u'c Q,j C'l:l c lLl ~ ~ ... '0 >..~ ...... ~......
.... ~ u :; < v C '60~ .g i ~ 3 8. E C Q) '-' !Xl E t:].o ~
~se ~~~~~-oS8~g.tl~ .5;~~'2~
~
.
dJ~"'O,~ , , .."bo ~E
"'O~"Ov =>., u,>'iLlc .."Q,j...... <<I >,
imrccq)en:a='-=C'l:l V~Rl"C._Q,j vl-.Rl ~8.Q
_.....Q.l.;~c~ gQ.l~U tol-<~--;~oo6~ ~~~ ..,,"'Oc
'a =...::C V ...... U = E 1-<:'= e _ '-.0 V 0 . . 0 ...... 5 - Q,j iLl
.QJC'l:l'-":::bel::::l~.o rco. ~o .-.c.."c ... .~......::;j,,'
c.."......~~=]~~~~E vc~i~......uCRl~~~ ~Rl'c'-
. E .2 :3 '= . 'i:: I-< .8 ~::::I ~:= .s o..c "'0 "",.5] Q,j..c 0.0 (,f.l ::::I tlO ~ ~
u ~ ~ 8.:g ~ o.,~ ':::: tn 0 ~ ....Cij .~.~ ~..".- E.:E E vi t Q) o.:f _""
;;; ? E C ...... Q) en:::: ...... >,.;::: . C'I:l .." l-. V . l-...c 0. v e .." ~ _ ...... :::
e>.Q.l I-..Ul...c::::'-C'l:lM:lE::: ...::Co.'-Eu"'~QJOObOl'-c:o":::"""-'_
~ -.ooQ)......>.......c - VQ) ._=~.c~_'c ~Rlc......o8.v
... 00 U u:-:: -.:: "'" QJ t> 0 0 QJ "'0 E ~ ,- u -. ... v ...... (,f.l = _ e 0 8 I-<
..bO~",o~M:l~iLll-<~~O' i:l:bOO::::l~QJ~>.>6M:l~~QJ......o~0
.. c ~ I1J U Vl -0"::: v '= V ""0 ~ C U 0. q)..c..c ~ ~ ..::: E ~..c Q,j -. QJ "'0
..'~~~"E,,"l"',,~....;ooS ~'2 Q)Q)~-.u_;>.E::::......rJ'JC..c...
-~ ~ ~-~... Q)c~~woQ)~~ ~ ucc~~~
IC'l:lQ) l-.E~'-.c......~- ~s,5.3~..,,~.c~~u8~v&.oo~
_~E~~o.U~Ul~~.~ <<Io.cavRlo~c--;QJ"'Oo~"">'''''''_
.C'l:l::::l~"""OC-o~Rl.."o ~vcQ)......QJl-.o.vu..cQ,jZ~Q)VbO_
.0Uo::::l_ QJUl -.." ..c~I-<C'l:ll-.OUl~~"""...... ._1-<._=...
l. 0 0 Q Q.l '0. e rcI5:'(/1 ~ ...., c: >.,:: ~ (/1"'0 '(i.i u (fj ..ctI Q.) ......0 c ~;.a Q)
~ ~ "C - r.n > :s I:; 00 E OJ ~ .,~ ~ _ Q.l c 11) C"l:l -. (,f.l .- _ I-< c:
.~o~...... ~~~(".lo.Rl"""M:lI-..-'C'l:l"'Oo"""ooM:lOC
...... '.. coc......QJccM:l ~UlO'Q.lQ)O.......I-<CU~
..... ..:: in '5 "'0 "'C ~..c 0'- 0.0 00 00 . >. tlO- 00 iLl Q,.l U C.
~11J"'00 :i~~"""en~~~~~~~~~~'~~11J
~c.~~ 2 :=~~...... c c'~ u l-. V:::l C'a--.~~"tlO
0- --.....~c~OCctlOuooo>.~uooc
~ il)'-...::C ~ 00 E- C ~ 11) E _ ::::I -6 ~ 11.1 U C I-< > ..... ~ C'l:l
05 c...:s ~ -en ~ c ~ ~ E 0. ~ E V I-< I-< ~ 0 Q.l iLl 0 ~ ~
.~a.;vc~oco.a.;o=E=Q.lC~~>8-ctlO
Oo....co E.,g~"ilRloo..c-IC'I:lQ)~ ~::IC
bOc...=O~ OUl~>~U~~ ~~ a.;E~
...!.. .: ' - , ......0' '"
Q,j .,,, Q,j C'l:l; C"l:l ,.,a~ ~
~8 ;';::::Ca::-Su ~.8~~.."
~~~~~ ~~rc1 v] ';::~~ c~
. '-:..c ~'Cij = S ~ .-...... - Rl ~
. 00 ::s -'-'" E'" 3:;"0 Q.l tlO
-=vE>>.c ... E" us ~
"'~Q)Q)-..c-en~ -Q,jobel
i~::f~-~e-gg. ~1iE;~~
~""Q,je~~~~.~ v. ~~>.
E Eel-<.Q.S Vl en "it ""t:l C._ ::::l =
E ~.~ ~ ~ :; ~~..c ~ E'E -5 :;
O~S.c~"'O>"2~ ~Orcl
u.S 0 -:. ~'C'C :I ~ Q) ~ ~ I ii
. :t fJ) (/J i:t ~ = e.- ::I.." IV Q.l...c::::
~~-g~~~~ea ~cE3-;;;
. .." ~.;: <(.5 rj) 0 c '7' V'C rJ'J ......
~2:~Q)_~E(JO "E:-2Ul-.:a
A ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 co:! ""5 5 ~ ~ ~.2 ~
_~rn(/JrcI::S..9~>.~~~i:t~:::l'
. ~...... ~ e -. bel Rl..:!2 ...... 'qj v 0 ~
o~S::I..86~rcCOVl..c..c:CU
E~ca::lC'tlc~ ;'o""'~""'~~c
~; ulV (".l-.J3=~-5""" 0 ~v
C 0 ~"E V 'l:l C'a c... 'E- 0. 0 a3 iLl X :2
C'l:l...v..c" vo......oo.o>
_ :l OE =.~ g - .5 e ~ 0 ~
tlO tlO~......{t)= C.UCRl
~
"en
~i
-ca
)....,
.. fb
" 'Q)~ 'vv'..cOve
VU:iVlEv~...-I-<_........co
I-< v"";" _,." ttI <<I ::1.;;_.......-
::. C Rl tlCI'::; .." 0;;0. C'l:l_......
S;>::SC!Xl~..,,'"O"""......Q)of
I-< -0::1 Q,j ...... C C V o."C lLl
C ::I.;a C'l:l ~ Ck::.~ C'l:l ~ Rl 90 cu..c
C'l:l 0 .Q.." ........c _ ...... ... Q)'_
. ;:;'~ C'l:l E::g E =: ti g ~-': ~
""~.c(/J......oSC'l:l~Vu=...:ac...
~ ' ...... Rl..c~'2 fr~St 0 0:.=.-
::.<~Q.ltlOQJRl""VI-<Cc.:e
;> -OO:::lV_ ..c~ Rl~..c
_ 0 ~ ro 0"': Q)._ ...... 0 V U .."
::J - 0 t).E._ qJ.!:: ...... - ;; v.5 "'
"Rl ~.- 0 .!:: l'..:' e ~ -...c ~ ..,,::.::
-C'l:l:~..c""E.c..c~:::l ;;o.tt1
"8 ~]'"CI~..c~"" C'a 0 ~ O~]
Rl 2- R ~"C ~ 00 " "'9. ~ "".= Rl
ciJ-6 c V Rl V
~::SC'l:l ..c......~
-...... ......:::1......
v u '" 0 0
..c.S:.:ii ......"1:1 ~
- en Rl :t~'C
"1:1<<:~ ..8"'v
.s..;:;- -. !Xl
cfO 'o"'O~
"' to ;...... c~
eo.~~"1:I"'~
~ ~l;< ~~_.;
..,,] 6-;.2 eC 0 ~
<<1_ lLl ,Q.l ._
.c'- E ...... I-< ~ -
.$. C"l:l.." Q.l ro-.."
:;~ Q.l~ !!:-c~!::
i:' b
'0 C
Q" ~
:>_~
~.B ~
<r .. ~
. <r "l
:0.<:; ~
.!:e,...
ltu .
._ 0..,...
Cl ~
~- -.:
..0)0
ClCO~
- '"
o <.>
u~~
: ""', ~
~ ,... ,
8"~ CIt
I
I wa
).2. -V'"
August 24, 1995
Jack and Darlene
~'^r, r .
Chula Vista, CA.
'~'-, -.--
The Masters Collection
Lot #118
Dusseau It
.
91915
Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24M
We are adamantly opposed to the proposal that would entail blocking
off the originally approved vehicular cirulation system and segregate
the Fieldstone homes from the new series of homes by Brehm.
Our home is the very end unit and we did not purchase the property
with the notion that our home would be on a dead end street. The city
subdivision manual states that a cul de sac on a private street is
ordinarily not to exceed five hundred feet. Our street is aproximately
two thousand four hundred feet, or five times the legal limit.
This barrier, which is apparently planned for some far-fetched
purpose of discrimination. will only serve to delay emergency services,
confuse dellvery services and guests, as well as devalue property on
both the Fieldstone and Brehm sides of this three foot high gate.
During the construction process, Brehm has constructed a temporary
gate which has already resulted in numerous instances of confusion.
August 18th, a huge flat bed two trailer truck attempting to make a
delivery of sod to Brehm was stuck on the Fieldstone side outside
the gate. In desperation (and probably great frustration) the driver
had to back his enormous rig out of "our side" of La Costa Ave. -- all
2,400 feet. On two other occasions these huge flat-bed double trailer
trucks were forced to park in front of our residence at 6:30 A.M. and
walt for Brehm to open the gates. Another time, a delivery person for
our residence got stuck on the Brehm side of the fence. It took her
ten minutes to get from there back to our front door. If the Brehm
side of La Costa Avenue were renamed and a gate were installed, the
confusion and delays would continue since city maps would display
this as a through street.
If that temporary gate constructed by Brehm causes delays in
emergency service to the Fieldstone side of La Costa Ave., Brehm may
expect massive law suits. If a permenant gate is constructed and
there is ever a delay in emergency fire or medical service to either
the Brehm or Fieldstone developments because of the gate. the city of
Chula Vista. Eastlake II, Brehm, Fieldstone and the Masters Collection
would all be liable in a court of law.
),2"/1'" ?
Eastlake II is a planned community with extraordinarily beautiful
landscaping. We purchased our home at 2496 La Costa Ave. because we
would be adjacent to the watershed lot which is planted in front with
a lovely lawn and jacaranda trees which are now about fifteen feet tall.
This lawn and the trees were a major factor in our decision to purchase
this particular piece of property. By installing this gate. the lovely
through street wi 11 be turned into an unsightly dead-end. and the grass
and trees will be removed in order to provide turn around space for
fire equipment -- provided it gets to the correct side of the fence.
This loss of grass and trees and the extention of asphalt will result
in a devaluation of adjacent properties.
Included with this letter is the page from the Masters Collection
CC&R's which explains the voting standard which must be met before
the board can make a decision on any change in Community common areas.
This criterion was not met in the matter of this gate. (See inclusion #1).
Thirty-two homeowners in the Fieldstone development and 69% of those
directly affected by this gate on La Costa Ave. have signed a petition
opposing the gate. (See inclusion #2).
Inclusion #3 is a pictorial display of the four trees and grass that
would be removed if this abhorrent project materializes.
.~~
Darlene Dusseault
/.2'/J-/~
November 20. 1995
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
~ "J ~_
Chula Vista, CA 91915
1- , 11
The Masters Collection
Lot #118
Planning Department/Case No, DRC-94-14
On Monday September] 1. 1995, the advisory board for the Planning Commission, after careful
review. disallowed the proposed gate that would divide Brehm and Fieldstone developments on La Costa
Avenue. We were delighted with that decision. Once again, Brehm and some folks who live on Torrey
Pines Road,in the Fieldstone community have decided to attempt a reversal of that decision. The reasoning
behind this move is unclear.
The advisory board clearly stated that the 2,500 feet from each entrance is an illegal length for a
cui de sac on a private street as stated in the city subdivision manual. The possibility of litigation for delays
in emergency service, the undesirable impact of blocking a through fare and dividing a community. as well
as aesthetically degrading the communities were major factors in the advisory committtee's conclusion that
this gate is a bad proposal.
The advisory board detellTIined that the gate in the middle of La Costa Ave. would have no effect
on traffic flow. and that litigation from trespassing on private streets would be unchanged as long as the
entrance to each community remains ungated.
Those in the Fieldstone community who favor this gate live on the dogleg portion known as
Torrey Pines Road that is not visually impacted by this potentially unsightly blight on La Costa Ave.
The removal of 900 feet of grass and four fifteen foot jacaranda trees in order to add asphalt for the
required turnaround for fire engines. as well as the broad yellow" no parking lines" in the street next
to our house would devalue all of the homes within I ,500 feet of this abomination in both communities.
In April of 1994, the state Supreme Court ruled against gating communities on previously public
streets. (See attach ment # 1), Just this month it was noted in the San Diego Union that the state takes a
dim view of gating communities on private streets as well. (See attach ment #2).
Along with this letter. we are resubmitting our original letter which clearly delineates our concerns
about this proposed gate. (See attachment #3).
In August thirty,-two homeowners in the Fieldstone development and 68% of those directly
affected by this gate on La Costa A ve, signed a petition opposing this gate; a copy is attached.
(See attachment #4).
iSi~ce ~ y<-;u~
it' ~/b:Y;0<J4
~a<-u ~~:kCLd-<<-ff
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
/2 'P'I/
Feb 1, 1996
Mr. J. Luis Hernandez
Planning Department
Public Service Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
,-- ~
Case No: DRC-94-24
To Whom It May Concern,
I am presently a homeowner at the Masters Collection at Eastlake Greens in Chula
Vista, CA. I would hope that the Chula Vista City Council would reconsider their earlier
decision not to erect a partition between the Master's Collection and the adjacent Brehm
community on La Costa A venue. There are several reasons why I think that an aesthetic
gateway of some sort between the two communities is necessary..
First, a gate would reduce the amount of vehicular activity in the two neighborhoods.
Speed bumps have already been installed in the Masters Collection due to a number of
speeding vehicles in the area. A gate between the two communities also would have a
positive impact on property values in both communities and hopefully reduce the number of
non-residents driving through the area. In addition, a gate between the two communities
would suggest that there is real difference between the two communities and provide each
community with their own sense of identity.
There is also the issue of the community swimming pool located at the intersection of
La Costa and Torrey Pines Road which is for the exclusive use of the Masters Collection
residents. A gate between the two communities would protect the privacy of Masters
residents using the pool and again reduce the number of non-resident vehicular traffic.
Finally, let me say that I have nothing against our new neighbors in the Brehm
community, but 1 do believe that the homeowners in the Masters Collection bought into a
community with certain expectations of a specific quality of life and I believe that it would
be in the best interests of both communities for an aesthetic gate or other type of movable
barrier to be erected to protect each others investment and property values. Thank-you for
your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, ~
~1 ~hart.
Chula Vista, CA 91915
I";.~./,;J.
I :" ~,
~'O" "
Mr. J. Luis Hernandez
Planning Department -Public Services Bldg.
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. DRC-94-24
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
We support the Planning Commission's decision to deny the installation of a 3
ft high 16 ft wide gate across La Costa Avenue between the neighborhoods known
as Bristolwood and Masters Collection. We feel a reversal of this decision would
not be in the best interests of the Eastlake Greens Planned Community.
We have been residents of Eastlake Greens since July 1991 (4'h years) and are
anxious to see portions of the community finally completed. It will help our
image and our property values. Due to the economic downturn we have faced
during the last 3 years, our community has suffered and much building progress
was slowed. If this street is allowed to "cut" itself off, we do not feel it presents
a united view of our community and sales of properties in the Bristolwood area
could be hampered. These people would become "isolated" and prospective
purchasers could possibly view this as a detrimental aspect. And, the aesthetic
quality of the street would definitely suffer if such a gate were constructed.
Stick by your prior decision. Let's help the community - not thwart it!
Sincerely,
~~'fi_ ~~A'
Y . ,--j; f
c7J ,7:'<<--- //~,~/.A/
Gloria Raspa I
.:..ouis Raspa
/,,2 ~P-I;J
82-21-1995 07:38~M
BREHM COMMUNITIES
5192933055
P.01
21'5
CAMINO DEL RIO SOtJiH
SUITE 220
SAN DJEGO
CALfFORN1^ 92108.J882
619 29J.7090
FAX 619 29).)0$6
THE ffiEHM.COMPANIES
Feb. 20, 1996
LuisHemandcz
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
/C: Petition in support of gate at Bristolwoocl
Deal: Luis,
Please find the homeownelS petition in support of the gate at the private 1'Qlld between Bristolwood at
Eastlake Greens and the Masters Collection.
1baok you on,," again for your cooperation and if you have any question please feel f_ to call.
Sincerdy,
E ~
Eric Reynolds
Project Manager
}.,2-#' )'1
P.02
BRISTOLWOOO AT EASTLAKE GREENS
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD
On February 13, 1996. the BRISTOL WOOD HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
Board 01 Oirectors voted unanimously to approve .. molion to support the
application to Install e gate at the end of the project to restrict the normal vehicle
traffic on the I>RIVATE ROAD (La Costa Avenue) between the adjoining
Maslar's Collection Homeowner Association and Bristolwood Homeowner
Association,
~c;A~
Samuel Saltoun
Brlstotwood at EastLake Greens Board President
February 16. 1996
c:c: Board of Oirectors
Charie McColley - N. N. Jaeschke. Inc-Communlty Management
Creig Beam - Luce, Forwerd, Hamilton & Scripps
/~...tl.../5
02-21-1'3% 07:3'3Af1 BREHM COMMUNITIES .. ..._,
-----..--,..,...---................""........,~..'.'--,~~ ,;,r.~.:-':...-..,:n.~~4~~t~
5192933055
~-'"...~. T
P.03
...
B~'STOLWOOD HOMEOWNER PETITION
We, ~h. U"deralgn.d hom.own~r. of the Br!stolwood Com~unity ot
Eaetlake Greens (Unit 17) in the city of Chula Vista, ,uPPORr the
application for the installation of a 9ate at the end of OUr
projeot to .eparate auto traffic between our private roads and the
adjoininq Mdsterl. Collection Homeowners Association private roads.
r~~~rrrLfb
2.!4f1{(.- /( ~~
3.4 dJl'k7 / '4Jw:J.#' - 'YJ.ti/1
{/
A44uaa
Date
---, ---- - '-., '-------.-..,...,,'1':;"'"-..-.-
).2:,;/.. /t.,
.:':".'-_.---c.....'vl,:-.. -_'_,___ -:.__,~."...,'?"'~__
02-21-1?9b 07;39~M
BREHr1 COMMU~ IT: ES
aRlsrOL_OOP KOHSO_KSR tsrlrlOK
25.
26. ~
27,~ 'VoO
28'~,--
39.-& ( {t,.'j
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
--"--~~:::"""':""'::~.:,
",<~,~'~'lf~~..</"'''7''~'''''''~c-r-oo:~:;-.;y~:::-:t':i:r ,.~.\,.";".~.
.."'. . ),,2-('/'1'/
5192933055 P.04
---.. -....----.....,}.!'j:;O';'
"j' .'~~,-:'L~,::"f
TOTRl P. 04
THIS PACE BUNK
/~-p'/r
},
.
.
.
.-
COllNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
j/' 12-
2~~
~ .:J. 2??/ '
. /,'/?
Meeting Date
Public Hearing: DRC-94-24 - Appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to deny the installation of a gate across La Costa Avenue
between the EastLake Greens neighborhoods known as Masters
Collection and Bristolwood - Brehm Investment Inc.
Resolution 18'.2.""Denying an appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to deny the installation of a gate across La Costa A venue. a
private street within the EastLake Greens Planned Community.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~t
REVIEWED BY: City Manager_JCJ \)i.\~i~\\ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No-.X.)
I ( --;1
In 1989. the Design Review Committee appJved a development plan (Masters Collection) for
parcel R-17 of the EastLake Greens planned community (see Exhibit A), The project involved
the construction of 214 dwelling units (107 duplexes) along a single private street. The
developer built 118 of the 214 dwelling units (59 duplexes) on the eastern one half of the
parcel and sold the remaining land to Brehm Investments. Inc.
ITEM TITLE:
In 1994. the Zoning Administrator considered a development proposal known as Bristolwood
for the remaining portion of Parcel R-I7 (western one half of the parcel). The proposal
involved the construction of 96 single family detached homes with a gate across La Costa
Avenue to prevent through traffic between the two neighborhoods. The Zoning Administrator
approved the development proposal, but required that the above mentioned gate be deleted (no
appeal of this decision was filed).
On July 20, 1995, Brehm filed a DRC application requesting that the gate previously deleted
from the development plans by the Zoning Administrator be considered again. The applicant
stated that the gate was necessary to reduce potential conflicts and possible litigation between
Master Collection and Bristolwood residents.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project IS exempt from
environmental review as a Class 3(e) exemption.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council deny the appeal based on the findings listed in attached City Council
Resolution.
~ /.2-/
~
Page 2, Item I V
Meeting Date 2/6/95
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nON:
On September I I, 1995, the Design Review Committee considered the above mentioned
request and. after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, denied the request by
unanimous vote (see Attachment 3).
On November 29, 1995, the Planning Commission, after hearing staff presentation and public
testimony. denied the request by a 6-0 vote (Chair Tuchscher absen~) (see Attachment 4).
The applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision which is now being
presented for Council consideration.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The proposed gate is to be located across La Costa A venue/Torrey Pines between the
residential developments kno\'m as Bristolwood and Masters Collection. These two
EastLake Greens neighborhoods are located on the south side of Otay Lakes Road
between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway (see 10catorlExhibit B). La Costa
A venue is a private street serving both neighborhoods (Masters Collection and
Bristolwood) with access to and from North Greens View and Masters Ridge Road. The
street has no other connecting streets.
2. Proposal
The project consists of the installation of a 3 ft. high emergency access gate across La
Costa Avenue with a hammerhead ("T") turnaround area on each dead end side. The
gate is intended to eliminate continuous vehicular circulation. but allow pedestrian
access between the two neighborhoods. The turnaround on the east side of the gate
(within the "Masters Collection" subdivision) is proposed to be located \vithin the 30
ft. common open space/utility easement adjacent to 2496/2498 and 2497/2499 La Costa
A venue (see Exhibit C). Four mature Jacaranda trees and 684 sq. ft. of lawn area would
have to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed vehicle turnarounds.
The turnaround on the west side of the gate (within the "Bristolwood" subdivision)
would be located within the front yards of 2490. 2492. 2493 and 2495 La Costa
A venue (see Exhibit C). Both turnaround areas are proposed to be paved with
decorative paving.
~ I~"';J..
~-
Page 3, Item I~
Meeting Date 2/6/95
3. Analvsis
Parcel R-17 is an inverted "L" shaped parcel that limits the subdivision design to a
single street. The street. which is private, was designed to provide continuous
circulation to and from North Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The
continuous circulation system was also designed under the precept that the site would
be developed as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric,
rather than as a divided project.
It is important to note that several landscape islands along the street provide adequate
vehicular turn around at several points along the street. However, these turnarounds
occur some distance away from where the gate is proposed to be installed and
consequently a turn around area on each side of the gate is necessary to provide
emergency vehicles turnaround areas.
The applicant has indicated that allowing traffic from the easterly adjacent residential
neighborhood (Master Collection) through the Bristolwood segment of La Costa Avenue
would result in additional wear on the street as well as an increase in liability for
Bristolwood residents.
In support of the proposaL Thc Masters Collection Homeowners Association and certain
homeo\\ners from the Masters Collection neighborhood as well as home buyers from
the new Bristolwood residential development have expressed desire to have the
proposed gate installed (see Public Input Attachment 5).
In correspondence received by the Planning Department, several area residents and
public agencies that provide emergency and other services in this area expressed
concerns about the installation of a gate across La Costa A venue. According to them,
the gate would make it difficult to patrol and confusing for those delivering goods and
services for area residents.
Specifically, the Metropolitan Transit Developm~nt Board (MTDB), which typically
provides input on all circulation related issues, has indicated that the placement of the
gate at the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between the two
neighborhoods, restricting continuous vehicular circulation along La Costa Avenue, and
that such action would be contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to
create more interactive, livable communities. In addition, the proposed hammerhead
turnarounds have not been well integrated within the overall plan to reduce disturbance
to property owners and aesthetic impacts.
The Police Department has indicated that the proposed gate would create a barrier, and
would limit police patrol and increase emergency response time. The Fire Department
p?" J.:J.- J
Page 4, Item II'
Meeting Date 2/6/95
has indicated that although the time requircd to gain access through the gate would not
be significant. it may be critical in certain situatior1s.
In staff s review. it was determined that both residential developments have about the
same number of dwelling units and the dividing line is about half the length of the
street. Based on this, it is easily assumed that the number of vehicles crossing the
subdivision boundaries in either direction would be about the same from each side.
Consequently, the strcet wear on each side would be reciprocally caused by resident~
of both sides.
With regard to the liability issue, staff is of the opInIOn that any liability for the
residcnts of Bristolwood may cxist with or without the proposed gate because the street
on each of the neighborhoods is not restricted at the access points. Thus, Masters
Collection residents as well as the gencral public could have umestricted access to both
segments of the street.
Based on the concerns expressed by thc area residents and input received from the Fire
and Police Department. and other agencies, staff recommended that the proposed gate
not be allowed. and the Design Re\'iew Committee and the Planning Commission both
denied the request.
4. Conclusion
For the reasons listed above, staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that other
solutions such as the installation of multiple lines of speed bumps across the street to
discourage trips across neighborhood boundaries, or a reciprocal access and street
maintenance and liability agreement between the two neighborhoods associations. be
explored. Should Council decide to approve the request, the gate design, turn-around
areas, and landscaping should be installed in accordance with the design submitted to
the Design Review Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of this appeal.
Anachment.',
l CITY Council Resolution
2 Exhibns
3 DRe Mmutes and ResolutIOn
<4 Planning Commlsslon Mmutes and Resolution'
5 Puhllc Input
to Dlsrlmurc SW\cmcnt
(m home .plannmg LU1' DRC-9424 A 13)
~ /.2.-"
RESOLUTION
/8' .2.pv
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
C01\1J\lISSION DECISION TO DENY THE INSTALLATION
OF A 3 FT. HlGH GATE ACROSS LA COSTA AVENUE, A
PRIVATE STREET WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS
PLANNED COMMUNITY
I RECITALS
A Project Site
The gate is proposed to be located across La Costa Avenuel Torrey Pines
between the EastLake neighborhoods known as Bristolwood and Masters
Collection. These two neighborhoods and the approximate location of the
proposed gate is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference and identified as " Project Site, and,
B Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1995, Brehm Investments Inc("Developer") filed
an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the installation of a 3
ft. high gate across La Costa Avenue, a private street within the EastLa:-e
Greens Planned Community ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Actions
\VHEREAS on September I I, 1995, the Design Review Committee considered
the above mentioned request and after hearing staffs presentation and public
testimony denied the request by unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS On September 25, 1995, the applicant filed an appeal of the Design
Review Committee decision to deny the above mentioned request. Subsequently,
on November 29, 1995, the Planning Commission, after hearing staff
presentation and public testimony, denied the request by a 6-0 vote.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised hearing on said project
on November 29, 1995 and voted 7-0 to upheld the Design Review Committee's
decision to deny the installation of a gate across La Costa Avenue.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on this project held on November 29, 1995, and minutes
and Resolution therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceedings.
I {).- I
E City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal
application and notice of said hearing, together with it purpose was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to
property owners within 1000 ft from the exterior boundaries of the property at
least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting, at which this Resolution was
adopted, February 6, 1996, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista denied
the appeal
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
find, determine and resolve as follows
II PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this project held on November 29, 1995, and the
minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding.
1II CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Whereas the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project
is exempt from environmental review as class 3(e) exemption.
IV. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review coordinator to post a notice
of determination and file the same with the County Clerk
V FIl'iDINGS
A The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was
planned and designed under the precept that the site would be developed
as a single neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric.
rather than as a self-contained project. The private street within the site
was intended to tie the public street system providing continuous
circulation to and from North Greensview Drive and Masters Ridge
Road The proposed gate contradicts the original design and, in staff s
opinion, is not a good urban design solution
B La Costa Avenuel Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance
with public loop road standards and does not meet public cul-de-sac
design standards If the gate is installed, each segment of La Costa
Avenue woulC: exceed the 500 ft. maximum :ength allowed for Public
cul-de-sacs by virtue of each segment being ,wer 2,200 ft in length
);)- ~
C The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated
within the overall plan to reduce disturbance to property owners and
aesthetic impacts. The dead end streets and hammerhead turnarounds
reduce the front yards and existing landscapel open space areas of four
lots (two lots of each subdivision), and creates a less than attractive dead
end street condition.
D The Police Department has indicated that the proposed gate would create
a visual barrier and would limit police patrol which could increase
emergency response time.
E The Fire Department has indicated that although the time required to gain
access through the gate would not be significant, it may be critical on
certain situations and it would be preferable to provide uninhibited access
throughout the project.
F. Installation of the gate would be confusing for delivery services as well
as residents' guests
G The Design Review Committee and the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB) have indicated that the placement of the
gate at the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between
two halves of the same neighborhood restricting continuous vehicular
circulation along LA Costa Avenue, and that such action would be
contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to create more
interactive, livable communities The DRC and MTDB have
recommended against placing a gate across La Costa Avenue.
H Other solution such as the installation of multiple lines of speed bumps
across the street to discourage trips across neighborhood boundaries or
a reciprocal access and street maintenance and liability agreement
between the two neighborhoods associations have not been fully
explored
v
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
In light of the findings above and the public testimony presented at the hearing,
the City Council hereby denies the appeal.
by
Presented by
i
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Robert A Leiter
Director of Planning
\1: home planningJuis,l'C~t-9607_(,;cr
,/) -3
\
\
\
\
\
1/
THIS PAGE BLANK
~/,2-Y
'L /,1) _!y
/_ v
;&~/
1e2.
A'ITACHMENT 2
EXHIBITS
.
SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
Parcel No
BrlSlolwood
Site
MaIlers Collection
Site
, "
II'
~,1
EaSILake
High School
~E4STLAKE
GREENS
A ~..eeI CamV'IIY n
.. 0Iy Of QUa VIIlo
-:j-
EXHIBIT A
./
,
<;':'-':"~.J ,
rLAll1 :'I~"'''''''\
au. IT" ..:'
,.. ,.,.\.~t!
.:J-1R!1
i~:!,~~:~;..'
w
;
...
)
CITY
0."
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~. Eastlake Greens llfSCRJFT1ON,
C) . @ Brlstolwood DESIGN RMEW
~~. La Costa Avenue & Request: Modification of plans to aonslrud 16 f8et
. Masters !IIdse wide ......rgency gate.
sc:AI.f, FILE NUMBER, EXHIBIT B
NORTH No Scale DRC . 94 . 24
~,'l'7
- '-.=--
_ ...::: . _:-::--::~ BRISTOLWOOD - --_..: -=:=
1
l'
J
CD
~
: I
, :
i
i
:
MASTERS COLLECTION
NEIGHBO,HOOD
- ( l'
LANDSCAPED /
.....8'--1,/ ~ ./\-z491 \ \ 2.4 '19
, /V" ,-'= · ~
::/
1
-
.- --
._:-~ _" __u_"_'__ d
~'--:__.
J
-
1..-, .
~L-t
'!J l-
<.:;'" ...I
...p I\Z~~l r-
c-' ,Ir
@ ~lp-" ~
91" i- ok.-- '<S.J
'1,~ <; ...... ~
...L
2496
_c-
1-' e; -
.~
'" "
'(.- -
- 1-- 1
I -
~ ~. ~--
...,
_I-
/' .. ..
~
~;>,
~ I I I I I I
l\. I I
,
~,.e..
in .~ )-
iURf PAVERS ....
-24'-
MOW SiRIP,\ w 'I
\ \ -I r,
\ I ~ -l . -\~0~J~-G)~" I"
cr - 1 .
l ~J ........
~ -
V I-
~2 z4'1o
(~
-S IPEO TURN-
AR UNO
EXISTING OEVE
MASTER'S eOl
EASTLAKE GRE:
I I I I "
V I I I I I I
-
24q '2.
......... --;:j I '
r:::::: j
~~ i 1'249~~
~ '-;1 . ...,z.4<1~:---
~ ......'b ...1
~~
./
1-.
-
-
':;\
~
~
, '<:PJ
~ c
a>. t^ ~
~ ~""-~"@
,~'. ~
c 1.
:)0'
,
" r
-
J
~
T
.
.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR 'lOJfCT Eastlake Or..". 0fSCIlII'T1()N,
2) APl'UCANT' DESIGN ~MEW .
. @ Brlstolwc.od
'lOJECT. I:. Cosla A........ & R.q.-t: Modification 01 pla.. to _ '16 fMt
ADDRESS. asia.. IIdll_ wid. _rgMCy.....
SCALE: fIl! NUMlEI. EXHIBIT C
NORTH No Scale DRC J 94 - 24
~
I
nus PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
~~
ATTACHMENT 3
DRC MINUTES AND RESOLUTION
-+
/ ~, ~,
-; .-~
TIllS PAGE INTENTIONAlLY BLANK
~
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-24M
RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DENYING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION PROPOSAL TO
INCORPORATE A 16 FT WIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE wrmIN PARCEL
R-17 OF THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was f1led with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 20, 1995 by EastIake
Development Company and Brehm Communities; and
WHEREAS, the owners requested in said application a modification of the
development plan for Parcel-17 (lots 6-13) located within the Eastlake Greens Planned
Community and known as "Bristo1wood at Eastlake Greens" to incorporate a 16 ft wide
emergency access gate; and
WHEREAS, the PlalUling Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
design review application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its mailing to property owners within 1000 ft of the exterior boundaries of the
property at least ten days prior to hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:30
p.m., Sep~H1,-1995 in Conference Room 2 & 3, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth AVenue, before the Design Review Committee and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and
NOW TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TIlAT TIlE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE fmds as follows:
1. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was planned and
designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single
neighborhood, well integrated within the community fabric, rather than as a self-
contained project. The private streets within the site were intended to tie into and
extend the public street system providing continuous access to N. Greensview
Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate would prevent the
implementation of the anticipated land use plan concepts for this area of the
Eastlake Greens SPA Plan.
2. La Costa Avenue! Torrey Pines Road has been designed 111 accordance with
private loop road standards and does Dot meet private cul-de-sac street design
standards. La Costa Avenue exceeds the 500 ft maximum length permitted for
private cul-de-sacs and does Dot comply with the requirement for provision of a
40 ft radius turnaround for such streets.
4.:-
3. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated within the
overall plan so as to m;n;mi7.e disturbance to property owners and aesthetic
impacts. The turnarounds would be retro-fitted within front yard areas and an
existing landscaped open space area, resulting in potential safety, nuisance and
aesthetic impacts.
4. The proposed gate would create a visual barrier and would limit preventive police
patrol services throughout Parcel R-17. Police officers would access the project
site on a "call for service" basis only. The gate would not prevent pedestrian
access to criminals and could increase emergency call response time.
S. The design of the gate provides a 16 ft clearance and docs not meet the minimum
20 ft clearance sta..'ldard required for emergency vehicle access. Furthermore
although the time required to gain access through the gate would not be
significant, it may be critical on certain situations and it would be preferable to
provide uninhibited access throughout the project.
6. Installation of the gate would hinder pick-up and delivery of special education
students .
7. The proposed gate would contribute in creating a circuitous and confusing street
system inhibiting vehicular access through the site. The placement of the gate at
the proposed location would form an artificial barrier between two halves of the
same neighborhood and such action would be contrary to the efforts made at all
levels of government to create more interactive, livable communities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE denies the development plan modification based on the fmdings
contained herein.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 11th day of September, 1995 by the
following vote to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Spethman, Rodriquez, Dunr.ancon
None
Commissioners Way, Kelly
-~~
Michael Spethman, Chairman
~ -#--
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITfEE
DRAFT
Mondav September II. 1995
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Member Duncanson
Members Way and Kelly, with notification
STAFF PRESENT:
Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee
Associate Planner Luis Hernandez
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the
committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for
the tape when speaking.
C. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
1. DRC-95-26 YMCA of San Die\!o
851 Paseo Ma\!da
New Facilitv in Rancho del Rev
..
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to continue DRC-95-26 to the October 9, 1995 meeting.
2. DRC-94-24M Brehm Communities
Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens
Modification of oreviouslv aoproved develo,pment plan to incOI:porate a 16 ft.
emer\!encv access \!ate
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee presented the project, which is located within Bristo1wood at
EastLake Greens. Mr. Lee pointed out that the Bristolwood project, near the northeastern section
of the EastLake Greens planned community, was approved in 1989. This neighborhood was
originally part of a larger project that was developed with a duplex product (the Masters Collection),
and included a private street and a private homeowners association. Midway through the original
project, the developer sold the westerly portion of the project; that portion was subsequently
developed by Brehm communities with a detached single family home product.
Mr. Lee reviewed the project history, noting that at the time of approval for the single family home
project by the Design Review Committee, the committee discussed a gate to be located midpoint,
but approved the project without the gate, leaving the option open for later consideration. The
developer started construction in a west-to east manner and rea1izedl1at the issue of the gate was
still unresolved. They then f1led a request with the City proposing & 3' high and 16' wide gate and
turnaround area.
~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-2-
SEPTEMBER] 1. ]995
Mr. Lee pointed out the affected streets and surrounding land uses on an aerial photo. He stateL
that staff had identified circulation issues, both vehicular and pedestrian, and was recommending
denial of the request. He noted that EastLake Development does not oppose the project, and
resident response has been mixed. Mr. Lee reviewed comments by the Engineering Department,
which has expressed concern with the resulting cul-de-sac length, and the Police Department, which
has concerns about normal patrol activities. He further reviewed comments by other agencies such
as Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
Mr. Lee stated that the applicant had expressed concerns regarding liability issues involving private
streets. However, he noted that since there was no barrier to access of the neighborhood (and
therefore the private street) from the outside, staff does not believe that the proposal addresses this
issue.
Committee Ouest ions
Member Duncanson stated that the issue seemed to involve legal and public safety matters rather
than design, and asked if potential buyers had been advised of this proposal. Mr. Lee acknowledged
the issues referred to, stated that he did not know specifically what disclosures had been made to
buyers, and advised that the committee is charged with both design and site plan review. He stated
that there is a circulation issue to be decided, but noted that whether the committee approves or
denies the project, there still may be legal issues to be dealt with by the parties involved.
Member Rodriguez asked for clarification of the committee's responsibilities on this item. He noteG ...
that the normal cul-de-sac length is 500' maximum, and asked if, beyond this exception, he should
be looking at design; Mr. Lee responded that this was correct.
Aoolicant Discussion
Mr. Scott Sandstrom, Director of Communities for Brehm Development, stated that early purchasers
were advised of the possibility of the construction of this gate. He noted that the area has been
gated with a temporary construction gate for safety reasons during the last twelve months. Mr.
Sandstrom stated that turnaround areas and a "Not a through street" sign would be provided, and
added that the hammerhead design is not a retrofit design. He assured the committee that displaced
landscaping would be replaced within the vicinity, and stated that the gate can be widened to 20'
if the Fire Department so requires.
Mr. Sandstrom stated that he hacl not had time to address comments by outside agencies and was
unaware that they were involved. He added that there would be no interruption of pedestrian
linkages, and concluded that the gate had been referenced in the conditions of the original project
approval, making it clear that this was an option.
Ms. Nancy Scull of Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps addressed the committee. She reviewed
the legal issues, including the private ownership of the street (in the Master's Collection each owner
owns the street in an undivided interest; in Bristolwood, the Homeowner's Association owns the
street). Ms. Scull stated that the proposed gate eliminates potential conflir between the two
neighborhoods over the issues ofaxess and liability.
~-
/ .-:
DESIGN REVIE\... COMMITTEE
-3-
SEPTEMBER 11. 1995
Mr. Sandstrom stated that EastLake had made a presentation to the Masters Collection HOA, which
had voted 48-1 in favor of the installation of the gate. Chair Spethman stated that some 32 Masters
Collection owners had signed a petition opposing the gate and that figures had been provided stating
that 68 % of residents do not want the gate.
Member Rodriguez asked if there were plans to construct gates at the entry to either project; Mr.
Sandstrom stated that Brehm currently had no intention of providing entry gates in the future.
Public Comment
Darlene Dusseault of 2496 La Costa A venue stated that many of the neighbors do not want the gate.
She voiced concerns about emergency access, stating that the street will appeAr as a through street
on maps, which will create confusion. She further stated that she had purchased her home in large
part due to the adjacent landscaping, which she did not want to see removed.
Anita Lewis of 2498 La Costa Avenue stated that children play within the existing blocked area
which creates a safety issue. She noted that 4-5 times a week delivery trucks arrive at the wrong
side of the blocked area and find that they cannot reach their destinations. Ms. Lewis also stated
that her son is asthmatic which means that even 1-2 minute delays by emergency vehicles is of great
matter.
Jack Dusseault of 2496 La Costa Avenue stated that upon purchasing his home he had specifically
inquired about through access and did not buy to live on a cul-de-s..~. He stated that police cars will
not have the ability to pursue if necessary, noting that illegal aliens are a problem.
James Kell of the Masters Collection Homeowners Association stated that his HOA had asked for
the street closure before Brehm did based upon concerns about the legal implications upon the
dividing of the original project. He stated that the HOA felt that the closure was necessary from
a legal standpoint, and had held a noticed meeting at which time it was voted 48-1 not only to close
the street but also to deny pedestrian access. Upon questioning by Chair Spethman, Mr. Kell stated
that concerns involved liability issues with private streets.
Committee Discussion
Mr. Lee pointed out that with only three members present a unanimous vote is required for
approval. He stated that the applicant may ask for a continuance if it appears that this will be a
factor.
Chair Speth man stated that although this appears to be a land use issue rather than a design issue,
he had concerns about the loss of landscaping and security issues, and supported leaving the street
open. Member Rodriguez stated that from a design perspective, the gate design is fine but the street
and neighborhood atmosphere will be destroyed with the construction of a barrier in the middle;
therefore, he concluded that he would vote against approval of the gate. Member Duncanson
repeated concerns that this is a land use issue. However, he agreed that the dividing of the
neighborhood was not desirable, and from a site planning perspective stated that he would vote
against the project.
-4-~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-4-
SEPTEMBER II. 1995
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to adopt Resolution DRC-94-24M, denying the development
plan modification for Parcel R-17 (lots 6-13). based on the fmdings contained therein.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
, I
V
Patty evins, Recorder
'1vUU)
,,--
-~~
'/ .1
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
...,......')"'1_
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
~
/1 ~; /'1
-' /
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-94-24
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION TO INSTALL A 3 Fr.
HIGH GATE ACROSS LA COSTA AVENUE, A PRIVATE
STREET ~THIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED
COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal Form was fIled with the Planning Department of the
City of Chu1a Vista on September 25, 1995 by B-EDC 17, L.P., Brehm Co=unities; and,
WHEREAS, said appeal requested approval to install a 3 ft. high by 16 ft. wide gate across
La Costa Avenue within the EastLake Greens Planned Co=unity; and,
WHEREAS, The project is exempt from environmental review as a class 3(e) exemption;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners
within 1000 ft of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m.
November 29, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds
as follows:
a. The lot configuration and circulation system within Parcel R-17 was planned and
designed under the precept that the site would be developed as a single
neighborhood, well integrated within the co=unity fabric, rather than as a self-
contained project. The private street within the site was intended to tie the public
street system providing continuous circulation to and from North Greensview
Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The proposed gate would prevent the
implementation of the original development plan and would be contrary to the
urban design policies contained in the EastLake Greens SPA plan.
b. La Costa Avenue! Torrey Pines Road has been designed in accordance with
private loop road standards and does not meet cul-de-sac street design standards.
If the gate is installed, each segment of La Costa Avenue would exceed the SOO
ft. maximum length allowed for private cul-de-sacs by virtue of each segment
being over 2,200 ft in length.
c. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds have not been well integrated within the
overall plan 10 reduce disturbance to property owners and aesthetic impacts. The
dead end streets and hammerhead turnarounds reduce the front yards and
~
existing landscapel open space areas of four lots (two lots of each subdivision)
and creates a less than attractive dead end street condition.
d. The Police Department has indicated that the proposed gate would create a visual
barrier and would limit police patrol and could increase emergency response time.
The Police Department opposes mstallation of the gate.
e. The Fire Department has indicated that although the time required to gain access
through the gate would not be significant, it may be critical on certain situations
and it would be preferable to provide uninhibited access throughout the project.
f. Ins'tallation of the gate would be confusing for delivery services as well as
residents' guests.
g. The Design Review Committee and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) have indicated that the placement of the gate at the proposed location
would form an artificial barrier between two halves of the same neighborhood
restricting continuous vehicular circulation along LA Costa Avenue, and that such
action would be contrary to the efforts made at all levels of government to create
more interactive, livable communities. the DRC and MTDB have recommended
against placing a gate across La Costa Avenue.
h. Other solution such as the installation of multiple lines of speed bumps across the
street to discourage trips across neighborhood boundaries or a reciprocal access
and street maintenance and liability agreement between the two neighborhoods
associations have not been fully explored.'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies
the requested appeal this 29th day of November, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
"AYES:
Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Chair Tuchscher
John C. Ray, Vice Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m :\bcme\planniDg \pcm.9S 11. per)
~.
,/ ;
-.
PC Minutes
-2-
November 29, 1995
Excemt from Planning Commission Minutes of 11/29/95
ITEM 1:
PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-94-24; APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY THE INST ALLA TION OF A THREE FT.
HIGH 16 FT. WIDE GATE AT LACOSTA AVENUE BETWEEN THE
EASTLAKE GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS KNOWN AS MASTERS
COLLECTION AND BRISTOLWOOD - B-EDC17 L.P. c/o Brehm Investment
Inc.
Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission support the Design Review Commission in denial of the request. He noted that
Brehm contended that it was a private street and without the gate, there would be certain
maintenance and liability issues that could develop between the two associations. Staff had
received a petition from 34 homeowners in the Masters Collection subdivision who were within
a close proximity to the proposed gate area, who were citing concerns over emergency access
and delays with emergency vehicles getting through the area, removal of the landscaping to
provide for the turn-around, the creation of two long cul-de-sacs in excess of 2,000 feet, and the
awkwardness of the "T" turn-around. Mr. Lee explained traffic circulation which would be
affected by the gate installation. Regarding maintenance and liability issues, staff had not been
cOl'vinced there were any real arguments. Staff felt other solutions needed to be explored if
there was concern about traffic going through the area. Staff supported the Design Review
Committee in their recommendation to deny the request.
Commissioner Salas, referencing the required length of the cul-de-sac not being over 500 feet,
asked if the 1,200 feet would be a significant consideration in making their decision.
Mr. Lee stated the intent of the original project was that it be a through street. Having a cu1-de-
sac of that length was several times the normal cul-de-sac length of the City. He noted there
were opportunities within the project to physically turn around which may not be available in
a typical subdivision with cul-de-sacs only at the terminus of the design. Mr. Lee stated that
the reason for the 500 foot cul-de-sac was typically for fire and safety. In this case, the fire and
safety personnel could physically get through the area with the use of a Knox box.
Commissioner Willett had observed traffic from the south and from the west in the evening and
the very early morning. He did not see a great amount of traffic. He did not agree with the
cul-de-sac. He had looked at the lot configuration and what would happen to the open space,
and the hammerhead turnaround. Commissioner Willett supported staff's report,
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Scott Sandstrom representing the Brehm Communities, the applicant, gave the history of the
project. He said it was understood the gate was a feasible option and that the gate option was
open for later consideration. Mr. Sandstrom stater that conditions 10 and 11 of the original
approval stated there was an intent that the gale would be reconsidered. Brehm never filed an
~-
/\ /.
-'-
PC Minutes
-3-
November 29, 1995
appeal thinking they had an opportunity during the course of staff meetings to examine designs
for which to make the turnaround acceptable to the Fire Department and to other services. The
Fire Department had approved the design of the gate. The DRC and staff could not address the
legal implications. Nancy Scuil of Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps had clearly in written
form presented many arguments as to why there was clear litigation and legal implications on
having two open private roads abut without physical separation. Mr. Sandstrom said there was
an issue of invitation and not a matter of open access. The School District was not planning on
running buses through the subdivision with or without a gate. MTDB thought any subdivision
should be open. The Police Department has a Knox box which is used throughout the City in
subdivisions in gated communities.
Regarding the cul-de-sac, Mr. Sandstrom stated their subdivision was 1935 feet with four
opportunities to make V-turns within a 45 foot radius. The hammerheads proposed were for the
last ten homes. He felt the two communities had distinct personalities. The majority of the
opposing residents were the people who wanted to traverse through Bristo1wood unobstructed.
Mr. Sandstrom said this was a private road, and the people traveling through were trespassing.
He felt Bristolwood would take an unacceptable and higher ratio of the traffic flow. Because
of that the Bristolwood HOA would bear an undue burden of maintenance and liability of
Masters Collection coming onto their property. He believed there was not a reciprocal load or
maintenance or wear. Regarding open space and landscaping, they would be taking some of the
open space and landscaping, but had made commitments to relocate the mature trees.
Mr. Sandstrom said there were legal implications that had not been understood or considered;
there was positive feedback for the gate from the Board of Directors of the HOA from Masters
Collection. Legal opinion had been provided that the Board had the rights to grant the necessary
modifications to the open space. He said Brehm adamantly felt that the project needed the gate,
and in the absence of the gate there was litigation and possible legal implications that they would
have to consider, depending on the action of the Planning Commission.
Gina Henke, 2496 La Costa Ave., CV, representing her mother, Darlene Dusseault, read a
letter from Mrs. Dusseault. Mrs. Dusseault felt that even though the Fire Department would
have a key, the police, ambulance services, border patrol, and Westec Security would not.
School buses were not able to access the full length of the street; Laidlaw trash services were
required to drive around from one side of La Costa A venue to the other rather than go straight
through; City maps would not show that the street was gated, resulting in numerous instances
of confusion and inconvenience for delivery services. She was also concerned about removal
of trees and grass which provide the only park-like area on their street. She urged the Planning
Commission to deny the gate.
Ms. Henke did not understand how property could be taken from their side of the gate, if the
gate had to go in.
Anita Lewis, 2498 La Costa Ave., CV, who lived one unit from the proposf'd gate, felt it was
a matter of safety and the fact that the maps would not reflect that the gate was there. It would
~.J-
/ :'
,
~. (/./
PC Minutes
-4-
November 29, 1995
be wasted time for emergency vehicles. She has an asthmatic son, and there were a number of
heart patients in the area, and it could have an effect on the time the emergency vehicles took
to get to them. She felt if there was a liability, it would be on their side since residents of the
Masters Collection would be goir,g to their swimming pool. She would not have bought in that
neighborhood if she thought that would be a cul-de-sac. The gate stops no one but a car. The
border patrol would not likely come through there; the police would not routinely patrol it;
delivery people and other services already go there looking for people on the other side of the
gate. Even with a key to the Knox box, it still presented a matter of safety. She was opposed
to the gate. They didn't move there thinking they would lose their greenbelt nor the safety
factor.
Iva Butler, 2505 La Costa Ave., CV, lived five units from the proposed gate. She was in
opposition of the gate; felt it would cause a lot of confusion; she has asthma and a heart
condition and was also concerned about delays in obtaining medical service. There is a child
who lives across the street who has polio and is in a body cast. This child would need special
school bus pickup, so buses would have to get down there. Taking out the trees and installing
blacktop would be an eyesore and would decrease the property value of the people who live
within view of the gate. Her main concern was in loss of time in obtaining emergency help.
Commissioner farantino asked if Ms. Lewis or Ms. Butler had noticed which entrance the
delivery trucks use. Ms. Butler replied that they generally came down from Torrey Pines down
to La Costa, then have difficulty turning around at the temporary gate to get back out. She was
also concerned that even if the gates were painted and marked "no parking" there would be
parking in front of the gate. There was presently limited parking on the Masters side.
Emergency vehicles may have a key to unlock the Knox box, but then would not be able to get
through the parked cars.
Commissioner Davis addressing the applicant stated that the applicant had mentioned liability
as one of his concerns. She asked if in the future he was going to come back and look at a gate
at the other end of the community. Mr. Sandstrom replied that they were not considering that.
Commissioner Davis stated that the liability was in the middle and not at the both ends. Mr.
Sandstrom said their liability was from the cross-lot easement issue and the lack of maintenance
agreements between the two private communities that abut that have free flowing cross traffic
without proper easements, dedications, maintenance agreements, and rights of entry.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the legal opinion was in the Commission packet. Mr.
Sandstrom stated that it had been provided to City staff. Commissioner Tarantino stated the
DRC minutes cited the legal opinion.
Mr. Sandstrom also stated that cul-de-sac versus through streets garnered higher property value
appraisals.
,#_J
.,
PC Minutes
-5-
November 29, 1995
Commissioner Willett asked if the legal opinion pertained only to private streets. Mr. Sandstrom
answered affirmatively. He stated that gating a private community was commonly done in the
City.
Mrs. Lewis returned to the podium to state that neither the Brehm nor Masters communities
were gate guarded. If they were, she could understand the division. Anyone could gain public
access. The only thing the gate did was to put in a barrier to obstruct traffic. There could be
more legal implications if the border patrol, police, or fire could not come through. A Knox
box would take up valuable time.
Jack Dusseault, 2496 La Costa Ave., CV, lived directly next to the greenbelt. He said this
was not a cul-de-sac; it was a dead end. Sixty-eight percent of the residents on the street to the
cul-de-sac barrier were opposed to the gate.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Salas, regarding confusion by delivery trucks, etc., asked if the Thomas Guide
indicated barriers or small gates. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that he was not aware
of any indication. Signs could be placed at the beginning of a street indicating that it is not a
through street which might be helpful. With the temporary gate, it was extremely awkward; the
"I" turn-arounds being proposed would help a number of the vehicles in turning around, but it
was not staff's preference. He pointed out some of the future attractors both east and west.
Vice Chair Ray asked if there had been any comment from the Police Department relative to
what a 3' high gate would do in the event of a pursuit of some sort. Mr. Lee said they would
have to stop and physically open the gate in order to get through. It would be more of a
detriment through a normal patrol. From a police perspective, through streets would offer a
better method of patrol.
Commissioner Thomas said with maps he had from the City and knowing exactly where he was
going, he had a hard time finding the location. He could see how deliveries would be a
nightmare. He felt that with the long cul-de-sac, it would really cut down on the patrol by the
Police Department. He disagreed with the applicant regarding the aesthetic value. He felt a cu1-
de-sac made with gates would cut down on the aesthetic value. He would support staff's
proposal.
Commissioner Salas stated that if she was a homeowner either in Bristo1wood or Masters
Collection, she would want her options to remain open in terms of which way she would access
the major streets. The community had a legitimate argument in raising the safety issue. She
had visited the site and couldn't see where it made sense where they were proposing to put the
gate and where the liability would stop. There was open space and easements on both sides of
the gate where people, if they had the intent to go into either neighborhood, could very easily
do so. She said she did not believe in breaking up a community, and there did not seem to be
P..:""
"
p
-,
PC Minutes
-6-
November 29, 1995
any compelling reason to have the gate. She supported staff's recommendation to deny the
request for the gate.
MSC (Salas/Tarantino) 6-0 (Chair Tuchsch~r excused) to support staff's recommendation
to deny the appeal.
~../
.'
TIllS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
~ ~I
. - V. .--.,.,-
/ --,--'i
-~~,
~;"-
ATTACHMENT 5
PUBLIC INPUT
~, /
TIllS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
~-
~'- ;::'(:~
November 20. 1995
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
F
Chula Vista, CA 91915
('"~) .
The Masters Collection
Lot #118
Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24 1l\2L.
On Monday September I I, 1995, the advisory board for th{Planning Commission: after careful
review, disallowed the proposed gate that would divide Brehm and Fieldstone developments on La Costa
Avenue. We were delighted with that decision. Once again, Brehm and some folks who live on Torrey
Pines Road in the Fieldstone community have decided to attempt a reversal of that decision. The reasoning
behind this move is unclear.
The advisory board clearly stated that the 2,500 feet from each entrance is an illegal length for a
cuI de sac on a private street as stated in the city subdivision manual. The possibility oflitigation for delays
in emergency service, the undesirable impact of blocking a through fare and dividing a community, as well
as aesthetically degrading the communities were major factors in the advisory committtee's conclusion that
this gate is a bad proposal.
The advisory board detennined that the gate in the middle of La Costa A ve. would have no effect
on traffic flow, and that litigation from trespassing on private >treets would be unchanged as long as the
entrance to each community remains ungated.
Those in the Fieldstone community who favor this gate live on the dogleg portion known as
Turrey Pines Road that is not visually impacted by this potentially unsightly blight on La Costa Ave.
The removal of 900 feet of grass and four fifteen foot jacaranda trees in order to add asphalt for the
required turnaround for fire engines, as well as the broad yellow" no parking lines" in the street next
to our house would devalue all of the homes within 1,500 feet of this abomination in both communities.
In April of 1994, the state Supreme Court ruled against gating communities on previously public
streets. (See attach ment # I). Just this month it was noted in the San Diego Union that the state takes a
dim view of gating communities on private streets as well. (See attach men! #2).
Along with this lener, we are resubmining our originallener which clearly delineates our concerns
about this proposed gate. (See attachment #3).
In August thirty-two homeowners in the Fietdstone development and 68% of those directly
affected by this gate on La Costa Ave. signed a petition opposing this gate; a copy is attached.
(See attachment #4).
~.
d~~- 4:~~d
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
"a '1 .:.
" :..~ ;r)fi~ '..-:-~::;;;f "
~~,~:z~.:..
-:~~~~~:;~f~~ ~;-
..~~..~J:.i.:--!'~. .~.. -<"~ ~
.-"Ii"'lI:'
X. ;L .....
7~ ""/f~
"'" ."~'
;~,,,,.~,., .
~~~:1 .. 4'~~:'
dff-~~1
crsI\40.-,
,tified aa the....
rban Schoener, a MIlI"'-
runner, on April 23. .'
~cCt_: ~J ~~
No gates on ~l
streets, ~rt rultl
SAN P'ViNClSCO - The .tite
Supreme Court refused yesterday to
let an exclusive Los Angeles neiIb-
borhoocl seal itself off from OIluiden
by puttinl up ptes 011 previOullJ
public streets, a plan propoeed in
more than 100 othier areas of the
city.
The Los Angeles City Council bad .
approved the withdnwal.ofWbitley
Heights' streets from public: lIIe in
1985. But a state appeals court ru1ed
this March that the actiOll violated
state law, whicb preserveepub1ic
streets for public uee. .
The state's high court uft...m.....
ly denied review of the ruIinI. ..
ing it binding on tria1 courts 1Jllte-.
wide.
The ru1ing does not affect priva~
gated communities. .
~.~
.. .... , - .........;.~..:.- ....,-
~ -..r...~~......,.... ,
----
.
-~---
-,.,
.f /'''./
7'/~ -- -'lY-'
"'W~ ., ,;- t";-"'.
~_.".,(.~._........
"\
....
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
~
~~~
~~
~oo
~~~
'\ 6 ~
ce
e=
~
~
,,0
~
~
-0
.~
~
o
~
I
~
~
~
~
".. >.
","2 QJ
~"'C ><::::l..r:: f/') .
'v ~ Q.l ~ E f-o C1) 'E
O)~ f/')VEui..!:!u
..c: tIC CU::o 0 QJ = tI'J
__ ..c:::::J(,J>Cov
U'l 0 .::: 0 >. 1fl:J'- ><
CU"t:l o"Cl"ll....'"';!
~:1l "'E '", ~1!g 1!
cu '"' j..,......J:J C.fJ~
vo. oV"'O;:!CfI::J
I-ofI'J fI'J>.v-cuc.
~ v o~.~ ~.=.=
.-:5 en QJ ::J _ QJ V
:E >. ..... """ C"'i;.c..c
=,..0 ~c:a~:;t~::
.8!c ::2:~QJfI);C
~ ~ ~ '':: ..~;: ~ ;
~'e 1o.t'2 QJ aJ >-'0
_;.:: Q.l::J..c~:="'C
"'",.;EEic~'"
.~.o.~ 55 E ::I.g ell ~
.- =.... .. 0 tV ftI GJ ....
s'i'~~~ ~'Q~-t;
tcneQJQJ,.Q(1.jC4.l
g," E:E 2'd';; t
0.80 .!So eEl
o ~ u c.:';:: b"Q .2
......, ..,
. f/') ~ _ c..... , ~'VJ ' "'0:
6'~-QJ"Cota f/') 00) C l"ll QJ VQJ_ "t:l
'"S~EQJc~~,",QJ~ E....Q.~l"ll ..cAo~v..c6QJ; U
"'oSQJ~o'--QJ~ o~m'"'~ ~'~'"'~"t:l~Y~f/')~ ::J
.... >bC'U;--..c;:lrii UQJ Vta ;;J>-~:'=tlCl_O)""'i'''Co ....
. U tlCl rtI ::I ta 0 ""'0 '" c E.2 III C rn co'. 0... .=_ .. ~ ~ "'o.c"" '"
.. QJ ra QJ 0 _..c QJ 0 QJ '-"C cu ...... '" on
CC'"'--~-_E~~ ~to~U cU>'o,fl'Jc>.Q)""tlCl C
oO=~"'C~]O::::leu l"ll Ov QJ~~f/')~~~b~.~ 8
- "~~~-'-E~]~ ~o.~u..r:: ~>g~t~~~.cc
.] :3 '2 &:E t: .. 0 ell ~ .0 ~ = t: :: ~.$ e Q.l.5 -: e::: ~ '0 'i
.! .~ _Ul ::l 0.",.'" :; .!i_ E QJ.... -0 tIC ~ 8..c'" ... uc S e . ("l.- 0.... t
E E S .. ::.. OJ OJ CrO C. "" 'C ::: ns c . 0
:::I !: .... Q.l ti:;: ;;0. t .... .: a:l ~.... .= v 8.s2 ~.o =>.~ >..,8 : (/')
E VJ..8 E 0 ~ c'c ;t: ~ ti a1 c Q,l ~ ~ _ v v..::! . (,).0 ~ . 4.l
o ~ ctI 8 C .... 0 ~ ....'" >.'C .....; fIi.~ g .- v 0 > c: ."'C >'.~ >. ::l
.." ~ VJ "'C t QJ 1'1:I.... ~ -a ~ -5 '" ~..c: c Q.l ctI 1i! . ~ c .....~ 5
... ~ v"E nI ~ ~ "" t: ~ VJ VJ .- ...... "" -:'.9 ~ v ~ c.~ 0 ~ ("l'_
CI 8. c ~ ;t: VJ C QJ nI:: ,0. ; .s ~.-_cu ~ 5S ~ ~ ",13 g of.52 ~13'c ~ S
c v t ClO.,8 ~:.c 5 E >..g '.. - >.... ~ v.8 "' ~ cO...... (,)
i ~ g ~:t~'; E.~c: ;~ ~~~ ]~ 5 tIIJ't..c: ~:2:2.~ ~~
. C..c: 0 QJ ",," VJ C';I C/'J c::: ::J V ..c"'.... C "" c:-= e ~ o..~.. "" _ cr..E.... .::: :s:
....(,)..cQJ ..~QJ::lO._ ...."'t:IVnltU Q,l-ClO:"oIlCV '''V.VJQ,l
..-o"':f-o..c:~tUee~'o~-&~.:i:~~ ....8..!!~~.cuc~-5> .Q,l_
- CU::ll -.-... C s.c ctI '1"'" 0... .. Co tU Q,l tU - C = -0 ...;:.s . -C l!
.gg~gi~~o.....t:iv;""E~QJ.~V]'i C;;o.(,)~CQJ
.c '='en .~ < ::J'-.o y'O -:5..c: 0 S ti ti.g .:] 5:5 ~ Q,l.~'!Q 13 5 ~ G ~
t E >. O"'C C/'J 0 t c.- ~ >. c .c ~ QJ .s Q,l !:t ~ Q.l ~ t;; !:t ].' .c
.... co"'32 6] .",_ClO ~ ~ -::: ="," <:.~ ac= Q,l tIIJ!I "" Q,l" "" "" -.- Q,l i-< co'
o 0 ctI'" ::l ns ~ .;: C ~ "" ~ C ("l v'~ v
.; (,) u m Q l)I):; ::: ~ e ct)'0 ctI C S::I <-' tU.C.5.o 1j .:: ..c :.:
<I>
'" J: _
~ui_O)
I- >-[0-
>.m= x
:-::;"0<<10
E"'ElIl
ra Q.l, .
u..C:Q.lO
C ~ >-cL
Vi~~cti
~ CX)
ra'=v::
Q) 0 __ cu
Q.C\/ '" E
~<M Cii
C<I>/(l:;
E 0>_ CI
=' tV <<l Q.l
_a.. x ~
8 5.!!!~~
..."O~oC\i
~iii'OE'"
o(J)~oC)
.... ~(J ~ .
c"OtUeno
.~e~.Ol
C"<I>\9i<l>
zai.o>o
uCl)C::IC
-. C CD 0 CD
oo;:(/)
-
'" 0 '"
t~5..cCl) >."'5 ~
.c ..c._ '" '" ' _ 0 "" "'C
-.......... cu..cvo
..:II: "'C c...:II: Q'-"" CI) ... ..c:
c.5 ~ ~ "" b m..c tl tl
:E.c '" C '" "'> ...:1 "" S
... QJ CI) ::S-._ c..c 0
0.0 co... "".....~:t ctIb
.c..",-8.ij", .-'-
;t: .S ~.9:! ~:::: U Q l! E
';;;'t;,,!! ~ Ul QJ .S'U; ;;0. :rl
"" QJ t':l e" U .. 4.l Ul c1J
~ in 0'- 'C 5 b"'t:l ~ U
2.c'Ctl QJ 6 QJ"'C >'6
t:.- 6 E 'fU c.~ 0
cCOOo_cCI)ftlu..c
.- ~ C ill :; ~ 1i! ~ QJ c;;
~tl(lQJQJc.VJ~:::J=c
'S: .5:2 :; ~ "8..c: tJ >. i
c..c: ~ 00 tIIJ.c 5 v.o ""
';' tl "" ""8's tl.o:.E] ~
C E =; E E -Q ~ tl(l-c
C 0 - 0 "' "".- ctI ~ C
- U'l_ ._ V (l) :::J ctI
o '" " '" c,.c C 1l 0 ..
c:::.o.o.~ v- u_ ("l C
VJ _- I.o..c: C IJl c:: c::'-
~ ~ ~ B ~ "' ~.9:! QJ ~
"S~~ -=b~~~
>,
cbs:.. 21:c~
fIJ v C nI 4.l m m
'0 ~ gf Q,l .... > >..~ ...
:Ilc",S8.~e'-'=5
C~ci5'E"':Ullis
(l)~~"ii~~c6.!:!
mo"'>ooQJE4.l
"S""'-c"'o-
~ ftl:;: 0) ns'fii (j ~
.:! ~ '0 0 f: 0 ~ "'t:I 's
< >. c:::: QJ ..... ~.!:! ._
::II ftl 0 0 VJ ctI cC;; ""
.. e:.; ~~ ~ "' ;t: ("l
t: v "'0.5 C ftl C ~ E
8."'t:I c::= C V ....
.- 0 co >. C:::::l "'t:I ~
~~u;t:ftlO_~~c
V ~ ~ QJ 6 E ~'41 E.9
'5 ~'S c CI) e >...c: - ~
C QJ tllJl;"""""1i!- r:..... ="'0
- .. c:: . ~ QJ E c 8,-
tIIJ ~ 0 ~ of: 6 v:.c QJ.5
.S - ; -;s 0'1: E'~ 6 C
"'t:I ftl tl(l.o ("l.c ;;0. 0'-
s=;.......c::QJ("l"'C("l.c
(j >...c:: 6.!l ~ ~ ~~ ~
~.t::;..c ~Q.= 0.- C
~ :::J'~ "".~ ~ ~~.E
vo;t:o"'C_........_
. c ~ .f!; -0 ~ ~ -s:!..!. '0 I V 'v
_QJO~~ ~v ftla') C'_~4.l1 "'Cc._ :::J..c8
; 6'~ iI QJ .~ "" .~~ O).!! &l ~ ~ "" > IS ~ :a ~:s c S ~ ..:J
000._0> "'tJ ..c:_~0_~0)("l.- .o(l):::Jo",__
'" ~ Jii 0 'v '" _'s.c u';;; u"':l :::: 0, '" '" '"
S"'c... '" 4.l-.b-::J~(')c5-ai:'::I ""C",ocm:::.c""
C Ec",oe~nsftl. v-o Q,lQ,lQJ"'("l
!'s ~ tl ~ 0 ~i: ~ e .... tG'1' l:2 ~ ~~ 5:! .5 5 -",nI ~ g ~ ~
. c ..... ~ tlO ih >.l;""""" 0 0 C C~"""'';:; (I) - .::: u ""C ::I ("l
- .- .-c QJ C "'C QJ . S ("l - ~ - C'lII . m V C O.c"" c Q,l tlO:.:
-a') .- c.c(,) 0::1~~O)QJ"" C ~'''''.o
_r:::I>C ftl....~oo-.U00::l~tlO- ("l..c::"'-""ftl::l
:a.c 6 ~ ~ en -;s ";';' ~.E "" 0) 8.g S ~ -;s ~ ~ ~ :J.5 0.
..~~c~ t:::~=.s~i~5e(,)B ~~c~'~~i
.-("l.2.o~~VJtg~~",OO"'t:lS~~ "'O~~'c~!ftl
- VJ QJ CI) tIIJ t'-.- QJ . tIIJ 0 "".t:: C :::I C = V QJ en l5. ~ (I) en
-~>~.so~~.bc"'C~:s~tUeC ~:.:8~ O).!!
cU~(,)~~QJ;eneco.o_~c.O) u .....S.~0~~~
-""YO"" "'C.- Onl - .cOJ8"' ~""._=
l~ t 5';~:5 :::ISc g~",.~]~~,S~~ ("l~ ~ ~S ~~'i;Lg~
_en 0.00t':l...Ul """::; r-00""l.::C- vo- U
. <U >.::1 tIIJ 0 to e 2:! "' t; ~ ~. t.l go U "; 0) C'lII 0 _ 0. = cj
! ] ~ i ~ ;; ~ 8 0 :: ~ 'S "'C t:: ~ 0) ~ l:: ~:~ ~ = ~ ~ -8 ::I
- ....c::~:.:..en~_e ".ct.l~;8.i!l.cUEtlCog;JQJ'E(/')""'''''~
.;t:...;;o.o_ ~o"" - (/j ~_. ....._._j_
~s'O~~~1~~tl~~'~~~~c;~~~~'Oe~_~
''::: 0 ... c tIIJ ~ C tJ g c v C'lII 0) """'C "" '0 >..;: - !.:E
L..- ~ u :;..: '" li '!iO.c '" i -S !3 ~ E ;; '" t.:l .. ~ t:. -g.v ~
~"!!B5 ~"'Cf~~"'CS8~~~~ .5:;~B'a~
.
~;t:~ QJ I ,I 0~ ~E'
"'C~B~~=>.. ("l >.v. ~~- nlo~
= fa t'C.5 ~ Ul "" Q ~.- e ctI ~ ~ ;"'0.5 ~ I C .!:! QJ ~ ~ (,).0
~~~~.cvo~cc~~~ -5~-9'~_~iQJco~ .~:::~ "u"'1l_li .
.<Uco'- ~=~A ftl_ ;;0. .-..c: Cl)c r: _
~-~~c"'C~nlenQJe E ~~...u...~QJ~~ ~r:~.S
CEO c; .- C 0 tIIJ c..c._ ... S.c "'C e.S'''::: 5.0 S.&:l en ::I tIC ~ QJ
· ...:::1. t: !5.'" C ::I :::I - "".- tlO fii ~ ~ S _ E . "" . Q. tIIJ .. 'Z':i
U ~ ~ 6'2 ~ QJ.t::::i2 t) ~ ~ . ftl ~'C V .. ~..c: o...c: ~ ~ ~ u.5 ~ C
. ~ QJ 6 1.0 Ul.c.52 C;; ~ S'= ~ o..S- ("l '"' ~ QJ e 0 ~ I .= c 8.c - "'8. '"
~." "" 0 0 Q,l ... > "'..c ;: eLl Q) .- c,-'c 0.-.... .- ftl ... C QJ
.."'~ ("l (j ~ "" t "" O)::t: 0 8. U"'C e:o'- ("l "" v ..... CI) c _ c 0 E ""
..tllJt'-c-t'C~v""r"'t:l ;t:~o:::JUlO)ftl~>5ftl::lo.QJ"'0~~
oM .5 ctI QJ U en "'t:I..c ~ "i "'C nI.S U 0. tl '5 ~ C;; -8 e ~ E .e-..c ~ !5. 4.l "'f
i ~ ~ ~E ~ ~.Er.cu~ Et~ ] 2 ~.~ ~'O]s] =..~ g'o ~ 6 >.:::;
~~E~.cQJEu~~uo.! ~S'-::I~~-y....._(,)Y~~~~Oo
..~ '.. 0.'- c..c~ ctIo.Cr:J'QJC'lIIOvct;u-cO~CI)>,""_
.ctI:::1..:11:-0C~~ftlCl)~ :tQJ;;~-;S~~i~.~=~Z~~~~~
~~~j~l'i~.~_~e'_~..c_v ~~~~'E~~]'~~~~~~.5.~~~
~>.ctI("lo.tO"'ftl,",""ftl-C8""'~ftlOC
.cE5..... t'C... cct'C ..CI)Q.QJv .;-....Cyftl
.:: _'''::1 "C "'C t'C.c'" 0'- tIIJ VJ CI) .. >. tIIJ- Ul QJ Q,l ("l "0.
.... ..... 0 -=: rI.I.. en - Q.l QJ CI) ... ctI U ctI 0. N ctI
.- QJ "'Coo 0 "" "'C ... en .... 0 - ("l "'t:I C "" "" QJ 0'- t U
~Q.VC'lll .c.EQ)~-cc.~(j""4.l::lnl--.~"OIJ
UO~..:II: Ul~]~5~52g~~~0~~~~.~;;
65 ~:;j ~ tvi ~ C V . E 0. ~ 6 QJ .... '"' ~ C QJ <U'S.t:: ';'
''''''''''='''OSc,,,,o=S='''='''~>C~c..
o 0 60f/l-ct1 o..c::-I ctIQJ": ::Ie
~Q.,:: S'z 0 ~ ~ !: ril 8 t: -0 :; '5 ~ e.s
.
. -'"
"'ii~ 0) ~c' ,-:'ss
>QJ """' c.::~~ QJ~~'V
V("l f'C-c= -.;i ~.o~~en
~5.e-~B;jCLl-g 'Z~~c.!!
. -..t: "'c.;; _ ~ ~ .S ~ = ctI ctI
. VJ::I" .~.... E "'. :::I to 0 u ~
-=("lS"->'c "" ,.. l..lE-
-nlUU-~-U'J~ E-v tIIJ
i~:~~""'t:IE]8' ~'tS:;~~
:Sui'Vftl~~~8.u ("l. OtllJ>,
E E 5 t::.o.c ~ en ~ "'0 c._ :::I C
E ""'- eo en C >. ~..c Q,l ("l t; 0 ctI
ftlVQJ""ftlen_ ~6';-5:::
0.. s.c ","'-c >"c- _'" .. 0 -
c: ..... .- - ftl ... I <i
U'i ~ .. >. 5'C :::I > u ..::: ';j ...
. U'J"'t:I ~ ~G:~::l ES.~ ~ ~= "'s~-5
". ..ce~ =en
<<l ns._ < C 0 C .,.. QJ'C CI) 'tt:
)I .!! en tl_ .;. e U 0 "E ~ ("l "" QJ
't ctI Q 6 '.'!::", 13:; ftl ~ >.,S OIJ
A tIIJ._ 0 ~ C 4.l ... V "'C "" ~ en ~
_~enc1Jftl::l.octl>._~'"';;o.~~
. ::I ~- .... 6 ~ tIIJ", rn -'U QJ 0 0)
OE e'2~~ 8 ~ ~ gg :~~] g
~:; vi"ii (j~~:': ctI~- 0 >.<U
I: 0 "'" ",,,, '""-"-s- 0,,, ij ~1112
:;5B~c" ~Q-O=l)~
- &6 ~.i S;'S a~ go;
~
>> en
~tiJ
i!
, I I ut .VG,) I.cCQJC
~ t;~ E~ ~;1 ~.'!:: .....'5.9
B~3~~~en"CS~~'O!
... '" 2 '" - = c u 0,,,, ..
C :::J.~ to ......c::lI:::.fa ftl ~ ftl 0. ns.o
ftl 0 .0 en ....c CLl .... C'lII 0).-
....-.'!:: ~ ctI::: ';) 8 ~.c....J
.C'lIIO)enctlEo=eovu- .
~~..c _O-'V4.lt> C~""
= . - to.c -0'- o...c... co;:.-
~<~QJtllJQJ;~QJ....cc~e
... t;tlO::lQJ-.c;:l ftlol!:O..c
- C c5 eJ::~O).__ 0 4J> (,) c =
:::I - 0 elI.o "" - .... ._
'" ......- 0 'J:; 'E- 5 ....J!i 1: ",:0:
0.. co:s..c:: en's.c ~:s ;ro ::::
-g 8.C::32~.c.!-5i co 0 ~ i"'Ci
t'C Eo R ~ "'C ~ (/') ..5' ~ ~ .= ftI
il-o c
"".a 5
'" u Ul
-f!.5::i2
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
,
'" '" '"
.c_.c
...",~
00..
-- "
.
:;~lU~;~.!::~
.1
r~ I II!i.l ~
~"'1:
. '-
, 0
, ...
. " -
. '" 0
?;j,1i
. :$ =
"u >>
.!:E,...
"'u.
.!!a.. ,...
= --'
"-'0 ~-
~
~
i
") i"-
-
~+l3
August 24, 1995
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
2496 La Costa Ave.
Chula Vista. CA. 91915
(619) 482-3131
The Masters Collection
Lot #118
Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24M
We are adamantly opposed to the proposal that would entail blocking
off the originally approved vehicular cirulation system and segregate
the Fieldstone homes from the new series of homes by Brehm.
Our home is the very end unit and we did not purchase the property
with the notion that our home would be on a dead end street. The city
subdivision manual states that a cul de sac on a private street is
ordinarily not to exceed five hundred feet. Our street is aproximately
two thousand four hundred feet. or five times the legal limit.
This barrier, which is apparently planned for some far-fetched
purpose of discrimination, will only serve to delay emergen~y services,
confuse delivery services and guests. as well as devalue property on
both the Fieldstone and Brehm sides of this three foot high gate.
.
During the construction process, Brehm has constructed a temporary
gate which has already resulted in numerous instances of confusion.
August 18th, a huge flat bed two trailer truck attempting to make a
delivery of sod to Brehm was stuck on the Fieldstone side outside
the gate. In desperation (and probably great frustration) the driver
had to back his enormous ri g out of "our side" of La Costa Ave. -- all
2.400 feet. On two other occasions these huge flat-bed double trailer
trucks were forced to park in front of our residence at 6:30 A.M. and
wait for Brehm to open the gates. Another time, a delivery person for
our residence got stuck on the Brehm side of the fence. It took her
ten minutes to get from there back to our front door. If the Brehm
side of La Costa Avenue were renamed and a gate were installed, the
confusion and delays would continue since city maps would display
this as a through street.
If that temporary gate constructed by Brehm causes delays in
emergency service to the Fieldstone side of La Costa Ave., Brehm may
expect massive law suits. If a permenant gate is constructed and
there is ever a delay in emergency fire or medical service to either
the Brehm or Fieldstone developments because of the gate, the city of
Chula Vista, Eastlake II, Brehm, Fieldstone and the Masters Collection
would all be liable in a court of law.
"="~"
// . "", (:
Eastlake II is a planned community with extraordinarily beautiful
landscaping. We purchased our home at 2496 La Costa Ave. because we
would be adjacent to the watershed lot which is planted in front with
a lovely lawn and jacaranda trees which are now about fifteen feet tall.
This lawn and the trees were a major factor in our decision to purchase
this particular piece of property. By installing this gate. the lovely
through street will be turned into an unsightly dead-end. and the grass
and trees will be removed in order to provide turn around space for
fire equipment -- provided it gets to the corr~ct side of the fence.
This loss of grass and trees and the extention of asphalt will result
in a devaluation of adjacent properties.
Included with this letter is the page from the Masters Collection
CC&R's which explains the voting standard which must be met before
the board can make a decision on any change in Community common areas.
This criterion was not met in the matter of this gate. (See inclusion #1).
Thirty-two homeowners in the Fieldstone development and 69% of those
directly affected by this gate on La Costa Ave. have signed a petition
opposing the gate. (See inclusion #2).
Inclusion #3 is a pictorial display of the four trees and grass that
would be removed if this abhorrent project materializes.
rs.
.Q....'C<l' _uY
Darlene Dusseault
j'
-.
-,
'.
"', v..t-
,,'
( .
/o-j .'
~ *t
We. the undersigned. would like to express our opposition to
the proposal to install a gate on La Costa Avenue in order to close
the street between Fieldstone and Brehm developments.
We are concerned about possible delays in emergency service
and confusion for delivery services as well as for our guests.
Disfigurement of the existing landscape in order to achieve
this will result in depreciation of adjacent properties.
NAME
ADDRESS
LOT NUMBER
l/~ ,2Jad;.u '2J~,,"Jl--
2. ,Da(L/f-IlJ;J; LtL2Amt{
3. h 1= C3/tLi(5:(jei z.1 -
4.jj~/C-Ad A'Yj?y./.
5. .......\-'--''- -L. ...{~,-~,
d, 5o~
6. '~lLjr~iCv-F
,.-.., ,
7. ;:;?;J-\.-.,
v kL
-b..
"I.
::;I':..
8. Q~L~
~U;:) ~ D~b f{I.
9.
';;Q9ez '
10.
\
11. f.(. /'1 ~
12.~/;
~V~
~ QUlJ~~eJ~;
I '7_.~ f
/,_'" I.
2. 5~ 2
13.
2.:.
14.
...
~
.'
)
1/7
lc
7S
75
'~'!7Ig1' 8~
15. Jv Lu"Ai i.J .../t:'-:5
.;z ::r~o L~ ('0<3T>1- .,tfvr C.
16. Tltcn-m 4 ::J1Tv)(5t5'l\
as(J,~ 4~57Yt1/Yb (
17. ~,o..~0-. "'''''~'-\'
L ~\:)"'\ \....~ '-<;::'~'\ '0
18. Ca: C;Ra.rCfJ
$/ LII (]()~;i A A () L 91
19. fV f jJ!~ ~
d-' J-J t.jJ UJ oJ fJ /I ~ .
20. N&rid C Cdstl\Q\<\
~Sd.S If'\ Cas IA A vlt q
21. ~ CM(~s
'ZS33 LA Ccsr-A Av s en <-t I
22. SLflui~ LO prY( .( (YJe:, flue
J:y-n lei Co~ I [C;. C1,c;
23. ~C}i.k! '
24. C;; ,6:~) ~
/?J >Y -r;;~/t.E j" /? '1t',.)
25. f-/~.& ~ Hwz.,
r>lt'Pl Jr k c-~t Av-e-
26. Vt Y\ C ~ Y1 / /J1 11-11- 1111 (
/ 0 4 r:J To fl../tA'! 0)
27. O~tl9 kNIJGSSGf ~
.2;; I JI .(/1 (};s- Tt /?IJ
28.~~
), !7/ t/ 1(~ CE
29. LA"'''''Y Sf"('{',~T ~..Sl'l... /...
30. ~ ~-.:J.6;
31. ftp; ktMtJ~
(
rJ to;)
.0'1 ry
-1'1'1
7_~r
: ;'
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
fo r,-"W" ;it
7)trNN/$ 11. H'jB~eCi::(L,
fS
",,""3
\'V1 ~1v\J ~ Gv['l at,,(Lc '-- S
~-r;~,.yl....J~'
.\-7S'
- 2f-
, ///"
-{. "/~'
November 22, 1995
"'<1., .~'lIC' .,-~ ~ .;........,.
To: Board of Directors
Masters Home Owners Association
Eastlake II
Chula Vista, CA 91915
.',.."..........'~--.
From Michael and Cathy Miller
"-
~u1a ~a, CA 91915
Dear Sirs;
My wife and I would like to address the issue on the planned gate at the end of La Costa. We feel
that this would be a hindrance in many ways. One important way would be in the case of an
emergency. If any emergency vehicle arrived and found it was in the wrong place, it would have
to turn around which could have a tragic consequence. Also we feel it would be a real
inconvenience to us. We like having the option of arriving and departing in our vehicles from two
different directions. We also feel it would be a terrible thiP~ to tear out badly needed green space
and replace it with blacktop so emergency vehicles could turn around. In addition it is waste of
space and hard earned money.
Respectfully,
Mike and Cathy Miller
,rv(,e" ~/ J. ~ /~
(;~ J / ItL~
/
~/
November 22, 1995
Daniel Kelly
--,-
Chula Vista, CA 91915
1
The Masters Collection
Lot 111
Planning Department Case No. DRC-94-24
.. When I moved here two years ago I bought a hous~~
I could see that the trees would mature, and one day we !l:rci'urd
neithborhood. Now. Brehm wants to turn La Costa Avenue into a dead end street.
I didn't buy a house on a dead end street; I don't want La Costa Avenue to be"8'il~~'!~
end street.
What is the use of a three foot high gate? The present temporary gate keeps the
residents in the Masters Collection from exiting west. The permenant three foot high gate
would entail a loss of trees and grass as well as travel routes. This silly gate protects no
one, threatens public service access, and segregates our neighborhood.
I encourage the City Council to reject this project.
~'>-"
/'"
.'
y,' ,,.--,
, ,
" .--;
November 21, 1995
Daniel and Michelle Shima
.. -...l
Chula Vista, CA. 91915
The Master's Collection
Lot#100
'''~"",e$'''4",~'''''-''
II' .'~
Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24
.
We are writing to protest the proposed gate that would divide La
Costa A venue. We purchased our home on a thoroughfare surrounded by
beautiful grass and trees, not on a dead end street surrounded by asphalt
and giant yellow lines.
On November 8th, I (Dan) suffered a major heart attack. Fortunately,
my son was there to take me to a hospital. On November 10th, I had open
heart surgery. If I am ever in need of emergency care, my wife and I would
want and expect fast service without the hindrance of a gate -- either
temporary or permenant.
.&.,"'l_
/>
/
"'ll ...,,~, ,..., ..M't.'''''
November 22, ] 995
Ross and Tayah Cook
- - - A "0
Chula Vista, CA 9]9"]5
Masters Collection
~ Lot # 99
....' ..., '. ,""'!{,ftlI'
r...~'
Planning Department ICase No, DRC-94-24
On the Day, ayear and a half ago or so, when my day sleep was
interrupted by unusual sounds of construction, I stormed out to confront
the offenders. I was even more angry to see that my usual route out of the
Masters complex was being blocked by a huge ugly chain link gate.
The person in charge of the work assured me that this gate would be
temporary. In the meantime, I am forced to leave my house by the only exit
available which takes me over seven very high speed bumbs which are
having a damaging effect on my front end alignment of our two vehicles
and our nerves.
Even more upsetting is the fact that our two little girls ages five and
eight are forced to walk at least a mile to and from the bus stop at Augusta
Park each day. Without the gate, the school bus would pick up all of the
children on the full length of Torrey Pines Road and La Costa Avenue
at the door u or close to it.
We are now informed that Brehm Developing Co. intends to make
this gate a perm en ant fixture. We are registering our protest against such a
move. We want the closer and simpler exit route returned to us as soon as
possible, and we want our children to have the convenience of school bus
service on our street.
Sincerely yours,
&fff2-
-.3.j5J
" ~,~.L-/,~ j
T
MALBOUR L. WATSON, M.D.
General Practice. Geriatrics
2515 La Costa Ave 286 Euclid Avenue
. San Diego, California 92114
Chula ViSta, CA 91915 Telephone: (619) 262.9976
November :~:2", 19~'" . ....'.t~F(619).2629688
;...... :'"","""""'...
To: Chula Vista City Council
Re: Proposed gate to separate La Costa Ave from Brehm Community
Development
Dear Sirs:
As residents of the street that will be directly affected by the
proposed gate, we wish to protest the addition of such an outrageous blockage to
our street.
Not only is the gate a danger to the residents in the area in the case of an
emergency, but to summarily block access is a violation of our rights.
At no time were we consulted by Brehm Communities as to whether we
would consider such an imposition. They summarily decided to add the gate after
the residents of the Masters had already occupied their homes. We were not
informed by anybody involved that there would be a gate that would cause us to
be living on a dead end street!
The destruction to the ambience of our neighborhood because of the
removal of trees and grass is also unacceptable to us. If Brehm Communities
.insists on this course of action we will be forced to seek legal remedies for the
anticipated reduction in the value of our home.
Sincerely,
~.L~
Malbour L. Watson M.D.
A~ome~W~
A. Robyn Watson
...-~
/ ,
November 22, 1995
Larry and Cathy Sargent
----. -
Chula Vista CA 91915
.---. --
The Masters Collection
Lot # 110
Planning DepartmentlCase No. DRC-94-24
Two Vears ago we bought our lovely home on a pretty tree-lined street. Now. we
are told that Brehm Development Company, because of some far-fetched fear of trespassing
litigation, plans to turn our street into e dead end, destroying trees and landscaping along
with cutting off an alternate escape route in case of emergency.
No amount of n cut and paste. alternatives to the present landscaping will be
satisfactory. We bought our property in view of this greenbelt, and any disruption to the
original plan would. as far as we and our neighbors are concerned, be reason to litigate.
The very idea that an emergency exit should be truncated is at once foolish and
dangerous. In the event of a major earthquake or fire, we on La Costa Avenue deserve
a choice of departure routes. Though LaCosta Avenue has become two seperate private
streets. it remains one Eastlake community, and we in the middle deserve right-of-way
access.
We are asking the Chula Vista City Planning Department to denounce this gate
proposal.
Sincerely yours,
J:l-l",~J
Jf 9)-
,
r~
/f/'
I .-
. -,
C"-'Sc. ~~. - ~~,--~u..-L.~
~ . " _ ~~\I, '1.~ \~'\\
.\ 'lft'!l"'~...".."...~"....~
t,IU-'V20 . .
. ~ :' ,....-
:.01..,.;..,. . n ,_,;"",_
.~ ~~~~ \.:..,~~ ~~ ~~ '=-~~~~ ~\\~
,.;:. ~<<.... ""~~~.::::, ~"'\""<l..."-~\~N ~,~c..Sl.. ~~~.
e~ ,,~~~.. -s...~ ~~~, ""~~ ~~~ ~-..)\~
~'S::.~~ ~e\.:.'c..lt- ~~~~, ~"~<:...~~o. ~~ ~'\...<t...
a......~~~~"-.... ""oN\... ~~\~~ ~~ ~~ "'~~~
~~Le.....~,e~ ~~ ~,~~::.~\,,~ ~~'\l""'~
~""'':::. e~~~ ~\ ~""<L ~~",c..~ ~ ""'~""~ ~
_ ~ - "'--=:.-t-"'::" .....oN\... ~"'" \::,~~~ ~,V)~ L~ ~~~
~'W~ Q...-i:...~ ~"'<L ~,~c;..~"~N ~~. ~~~
,,-c-c:> ~... ':>~ ~ ~- ~,~ ,,~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~"- . ~~
-'s ~,",,- ~~"''\ ~".......~ ~....-:>~ <:;:)~ ~~ ~,~
~~~~~. ~ 'b..~ "'~-:>~"'\ ~\~~~~ ~~,~
~ ~ \ -,,~ ~~ ~~""'..... ~~ ~~~~ /<2."'....ryo.lC..s
~~Q... ~_ ~~ ~"",~ ~~"\ ~~<K~ ~~
~"-..Q..<,,~ ~~~~~.
~,..::.~"""-'\
~~
~"'"-,,~..\... ~~,
!'~..
September 5, 1995
.Anita Lewis
Chula Vista, Ca. 91915-1406
U 1) -~
The Masters Collection
Lot #117
. ,'"-
'..
Planning Department/Case No. DRC-94-24M
I am extremely concerned about having La Costa Avenue blocked off
by a gate, I feel very strongly about having it remain open to
vehicular circulation. I live in the last unit and did not buy thinking
I would be living on a dead end street. In my opinion there is the
matter of safety involved, if there was an emergency situation there
would be only one way for the people living at the end of the street
to get out. The fire and police department would also have only one
way to respond to an emergency situation. Our street is off the main
street to get to the club house, library or school the small amount of
traffic from the new development should not adversely affect out
de'V'elopment. If, "you are talkinll about making the masters
collection a gate guarded community where we can enter and leave
at will, that would be okay, but not to block the street to those of us
living at the end of it. It would cause confusion trying to get
throughout the street, as of now deliver trunks come to make
dtdivers and can not understand why they cannot go through, the
same thing can happen with emergency vehicles. Making it a dead
end street as it is now will help to make it an added play area which
is totally unfair, it has already turned into an added play area. We
have parks and each home has a back yard, it is unfair, for this to
become an added play area. Also it would distort the beautiful green
bett area the development has and replace it with hot ugly black top,
that would help to devalue the property. This is the second letter
_~".< .... cerning t~is I do no~ want our st~eet to
e'come a dead end. ,myself IS harmed In anyway I Will have no
choice but to take legal action.
~~/L~)
Anita Lewis
"
-*~
/' ,/,(
.....{-- /-r c')
....-
. .. Tllf ...-.
'\ALTERS
.\1 \.\11 iE.\lE.\l.(D,\lP.\.\')'
. n 1\1\11 'IT) AS~orl 'TIU'S "P'RTVIE'TS' CO\I\IERClAL' CO'Sl'L TI'G
August 28, 1995
..-,~
...._~._f'<' .....
'. "-./f.!.W-".-ilJ:Y" . r:'P
City of Chula Vista
276 Founh A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
PLANl\1NG DEPARTMENT
ATTN: AMY WOLF
RE: PROPOSED ACCESS BET"'EEN BRISTOLWOOD AND TIlE MASTERS
COLLECTION (EASTLAKE GREENS)
Dear Ms. Wolf:
This letter is written on behalf of the EastLake II Community Association Board of Directors.
On August 16, 1995, the EastLake II Community Association Board of Directors voted
unanimously to support the position of The Masters Collection and deny vehicular access
between the two community associations of Bristolwood and The Masters Collection. The Board
of Directors also chose to support denial of pedestrian access. .
Should you have any questions regarding this matter. please do not hesitate to contact our office
at (619) 296.6225. Thank you.
Sincerely.
4/1 &tCL~~ .~;
Michael Hardcastle- TaYlbr~~AM'"
Real Estate Manager for
'. EastLake II Community Association
MHT Ibb
cc: EastLake II CommJnity Association Board .?f Directors
'J'''''
::.../ S.$,' OIEGa ~\-f"l'E. StOlTE ".~~. S.,,~ DIECiO. CA 9~ Ilo.~70. Cr.l91l9t..6:~;\. FAX ,fIlV, ~~.9f)~7
//
August 24. 1995
Jeck end Derlene Dusseeult
1915
The Mesters Collection
Lot ",B
Plenning Depertment/Cese No. DRC-94-24M
We ere edemently opposed to the proposel thet would enteil blocking
off the originelly epproved vehiculer ciruletion system and segregete
the Fieldstone homes from the new series of homes by Brehm.
Our home is the very end unit and we did not purchese the property
with the notion thet our home would be on a deed end street. The city
subdivision menuel stetes thet e cul de sac on a private street is
ordinerily not to exceed five hundred feet. Our street is aproximetely
two thousand four hundred feet. or five times the legal limit.
This barrier. which is apparently planned for some far-fetched
purpose of discrimination. will only serve to delay emergency services.
confuse delivery services and guests. as well as devalue property on
both the Fieldstone and Brehm sides of this three foot high gate.
During the construction process. Brehm has constructed a temporary
gate which has already resulted in numerous instances of confusion.
August lBth. a huge flat bed two trailer truck attempting to make a
delivery of sod to Brehm was stuck on the Fieldstone side outside
the gete. In desperation (and probably great frustration) the driver
hed to back his enormous rig out of "our side" of La Costa Ave. - all
2,400 feet. On two other occesions these huge flat-bed double treiler
trucks were forced to park in front of our residence at 6:30 A.M. and
wait for Brehm to open the gates. Another time. a delivery person for
our residence got stuck on the Brehm side of the fence. It took her
ten minutes to get from there beck to our front door. If the Brehm
side of Le Costa Avenue were renamed and a gate were installed. the
confusion and deleys would continue since city maps would display
this as a through street.
If that temporary gate constructed by Brehm causes delays in
emergency service to the Fieldstone side of La Costa Ave., Brehm may
expect massive law suits. If a permenant gate is constructed and
there is ever a delay in emergenC1 fire or medical service to either
the Brehm or Fieldstone developments because of the gate, the city of
Chula Vista. Eastlake II. Brehm. Fieldstone and the Masters Collection
would all be liable in a,court of law.
" /
----1' i ~
Eastlake II is hnned community with e~traoro ..,arily beautiful
landscaping. We purchased our home at 2496 La Costa Ave. because we
would be adjacent to the watershed lot which is planted in front with
a lovely lawn and jacaranda trees which are now about fifteen feet tall.
This lawn and the trees were a major factor in our decision to purchase
this particular piece of property. By installing this gate. the lovely
through street will be turned into an unsightly dead-end. Ind the grlSS
Ind trees will be removed in order to provide turn around space for
fire equipment -- provided it gets to the correct side of the fence.
This loss of grass and trees and the e~tention of asphalt will result
in a devaluation of adjacent properties.
Included with this letter is the page 'from the Masters Collection
CC&R's which e~plains the voting standard which must be met before
~he board can make a decision on Iny chlnge in Community common areas.
This criterion WIS not met in the matter of this gate. (See inclusion Il).
Thirty-two homeowners ~n the Fieldstone development Ind 69% of those
directly affected by this gate on LI Costa Ave. have signed a petition
opposing the gate. (See inclusion 12).
Inclusion *3 is a pictorial display of the four trees Ind grass that
would be removed if this abhorrent project materializes.
S nce~~
. 'lJff'- Q- .-- --..H
Jack and Darlene Dusseault
--
'.
-~
~\-
.,,/ -~ .".,
."'" .......'.../L, fJ I
policies shall contain loss payable clauses acceptable to the
affected institutional First Mortgagees naming the Mortgagees, as
their interests may appear.
17.15 Non-Curable Breach. Any Mortgagee who acquires title
to a Lot by foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure or
assignment-in-lieu of foreclosure .hall not be obligated to cure
any brea~h of this Declaration t~at i. non-curable or of a type
that is not practical or feasible to cu~e.
. 17.16 Loan to Facilitate. Any Mortgage 9iven to secure a
loan to fac~l~tate the resale of a Lot after acquiSition by fore-
closure or by a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or by an assignment-
in-lieu of foreclosure shall be deemed to be a loan made in 900d
faith and for value and enti+-.led to all of the rights and
protections of this Article.
17.17 Appearance at MeetinQs. Because of its financial
interest in the development, any Mortg.gee may appear (but cannot
vote except under the circumstances set forth in Section 17.14)
at meetings of the Members and the Community Board to draw
attention to violations of this Declaration that have not been
corrected or made the subject of remedial proceedings or assess-
ments.
17.18 RiQht to Furnish Inform.tion. Any Mortgagee can fur-
nish information to the co~~un~ty Board concerning the .tatus of
any Mortgage.
17.19 Inaoolicabilit of of First Refusal to
MortQaoee. No r~ght 0 ~rst re usa or s~m~ ar restrJ.ct~on on
the rlght of an Owner to sell, transfer or otherwise convey the
Owner's Lot shall be granted to the Community Association without
the written consent "f any Mortgagee of the Lot. Any right of
first refusal or option to purchase a unit that lIlay be granted to
the Community Association (or other person, firm or entity) shall
not apply to any conveyance or transfer of title to .uch Lot,
whether voluntary or involuntary, to a Mortgagee which acquires
title to or Ownership of the unit pursuant to the remedies pro-
vided in its Mortgage or by reason of foreclosure of the Mortgage
or deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure.
ARTICLE XVIII
AMENDKENT AND TERM OF DECLARATION
18.1 Amendments. Prior fo the close of e.crow for the .ale
of the first Lot subject to a Public Report issued by the DRE,
Declarant may amend this Declaration with the consent of the
DRE. After the .ale of a Lot to an Owner, other than Declarant,
Merchant Builders or Apartment Owners, this Declaration may be
amended by an instrument in writing, signed and acknowledged by
the President or Vice-President and Secretary or Assistant
Secretary of the Community Board._fter approval of the amendment
.75
~-
d /
, " ~},/r
at a meeting of the Community Members duly called for such
purpose. The vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent
of: (al at least sixty-seven percent (67\) of the Cla.s A votes
and at least sixty-sevt=n percent. (67\) of Cla.s B votes and
(b) .ixty-.even percent (67\) of the Eligible Bolder. (based on
one vote for each Mortgage owned) shall be required to add to,
amend or modify, whether for final amen&!ment or otherwi.e, any
material provi.ion of this D2claration which e.tablishes,
provides for, governs or regulate. any of the following subject.:
. .
18.1.1 Voting;
18.1.2 A.sessments, asses.ment lien., or subordina-
tion of such liens;
18.1.3 Reserves for maintenance,
replacement of the community Common Area;
repair,
and
18.1.5
Insurance or Fidelity Bonds:
Rights to use of the community Common Area:
lB.1.4
18.1.6 Responsibility for maintenance and repair l,f
the EastLake Greens Neighborhood:
lB.1.B
lB.1. 9
Common Area:
Expansion or contraction of the EastLake
or the addition, annexation, or withdrawal of
the EastLake Greens Neighborhood:
Boundaries of any Lot:
Reallocation of interests in the Community
18.1. 7
Greens Neighborhood
property to or from
18.1.10 Conversion of Lots into Community Common Area
or the Community Common Area into Lots;
lB.l.ll Leasing
of
single
family
residential
Dwellings:
lB .1.12 Impoai tion of any right of fint refusal or
similar restriction on the right of a Owner to sell, transfer or
otherwise convey his or her LotJ
lB.l.13 Any provisions which are for the express
benefit of Mortgagees, Eligible Bolders, or eliglble insurers or
guarantors of First Mortgages on Lots;
lB .1.14 A decision by the Community Association to
establish self-management when professional management ha. been
required previously by an Eligible Bolde~:
76
--#t" -
/.
;
lnclusion 1/2
Planning Dep. 1ent/Case No. DRC-94-24M
/
We. the undersigned. would like to express our opposition to
the proposal to install a gate on la Costa Avenue in order to close
the street between Fieldstone and Brehm developments.
We are concerned about possible delays in emergency service
and confusion for delivery services as well as for our guests.
Disfigurement of the existing landscape in order to achieve
this will result in depreciation of adjacent properties.
NAME
ADDRESS
lOT NUMBER
l/~ 'ZJa~_7J~J-
2. ~1-fl1ch.M:. rJk.;~
3. hI ~'f!uuU.' B2~q ~
4.fl~</~ ~'/f?P A
[
5. .....\........,<.. i... ...{~...3:l,~ ~5C'=:
,_. .1.-
..,'
6. l?;t~ ~\- ~JL ,
~l,,- -kL
C1~L~
~)M~b tfI. Tv\@J!
7. '2>.:.J~,
, "
0("
s.
"
I~J~J) 9.
.plfq~ ~~:
10.
,
'1. I(. H~
12. ~ !J
~1~ ~2.. ("
(
~ ~ 014~ (;Ji14-;~.
.~"'1- ~~//
~..< __Jr
0"
(
1/7
L:-
75
,r;;b-("l It~ ~J
..Jb"-"',L..f:>
( 7'''' . 1 10.0"''''
. .
If~/-Ijt !"fJ
~
18.
. .
--
15. Jv L/~~ c..:;; ../e-*3
lll;'fh~~ .;f......5~1<5dv
.. , A',
. 17. ~Q..~~
...'
"""".
....
19. &.-( f jJI~ ~
20. Narid C Ca~t:l~\~
21. ~CM(~s
22. 5 luj~ LO pM. 4" (rJc, flVc,1 rlo
23.
(
27.
28.
31. fib: /v.<1f..1I1~
H-
, '" /-
... ) ..'
.....,-.!-4fJ--....-- d~"""
~.~,...'lf"" .~._""'^;;;:;;#Il..~.....t"',,'_ . ......_:
"
32.
.
I;,}.
'j{.
35.
Ir..~'l'!"- ','~'" ./. r
tv! ~v' ., '~~~r~
L, .,..f~,.t1-J~. ~
.""',.;'.'f ~
......';~:,t. .:'\U'l~~, . ':,'{~~,,:,..r.~~"<-!I._;"
":~.': . " '\'..
~ ...~;S ~'\~':''''~~~''_;~'~l:ii:~.'1':''~''_
..r!~.
36.
37.
&.. "'. '........'~.,.."........., .-.
~'"""_""""''''''''~''~_'''''':W'''''''>>' ".I.., ,-,_
... ,~.- ....... .........,.'..~~" ~(-",.,.. ""......-
-_.,- ~".-....~ ,....,;''" ".,,~"...,,",,:, ,'". -," ...."'~
3.~1. ".;....':II;;.~~,..~.~!tt:' :::.
",- >< o' .-; ,'......... ~
',""~ ,.,(,~',.s~_~
"'"-",,," ......... '...."'~....~
39.
~ ~ M';'~:; ~~'''.:\''kl~::''~:Jl1t;.;.Z'.;.''':~.,." ~~
_;;r:_ . .~l
'==' .. ..'
,- ......... """"~~""""~ .-,
_. >>". -'--.~"'"'
lv'" .....
,~ '.-.-
"-"';,,..
.-. .'~ ....f._tit
40.
",. ,'.
...
~r--,~;~~~............~ IU I"V .,,~~~".~1f~.~
~_~1.t.'4"~
..:'fi;!.~....,,~\(~
"'1IP:)T:'Jr:'..r"1l;~~';"':'."':':+'f,..t4.i'\ .~~~
. .... JIii!!IJl!t.. ,;,,,. ........
~"1ilo. ::,.,,,.. . ~ .~. ...._" -~. .':- . -.J#. .' _' .....~~w .'.
~..,.,...........,-.._.....
'-,~,.... .
....-' --. . "
/\' .. . F- _ . '''''''~''',r.'r_'' . ~..ft.{j~ ", " '. "'rf.'.':. ~.- '-"
1(a."&. ,~~.\~;-Mtt1~:t'l"~~~~ . ~~*~.
~ ~~:"'i!"1'~....~ .;t~",:_ 1 .74....f..:7Z"" 4AV._ ',_~~~ .~.'~ _
.. ....( 'h ,.:'! -'-. k'~'" . ,,' .,", .. ........ ~I
C...;.r 7 ~.r.A4"~""""~ , !f!' .... ' .: ...~.
;;. ~ --. ""'~_..~."-
;-
.~'14"~"" WSt'....~
~~~~._t..~.
.'
~"",,"1if! . "'~"'''''C'''' ,..&A '""..,n. ___.0,
"''tl>~ ~_.. "'..-:..........;,.~. <all' .~ .. ~-
//"~ /:/ /
'..-1 -'V..'
RECF'''C~
AU6 21199S
~n," "-'W'..-...,.........-:>
TO: AllY WOLFE
REGARDING BRISTOLWOOD AT EASTLAKE GREENS:
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE END OF LA COSTA AVENUE CLOSED OFF
TO THROUGH TRAFFIC.
BUYERS OF LOT 63 2431 LA COSTA AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91915
,,~:#l
().mt ~~.) uJft.~
.'
.-
~-j,-
"
.1
RECEIVED
AUG 211995
~I'"' __......-
TO: A"Y WOLFE
MY WIFE AND 1 ARE PURCHASING A HO"E AT 8RISTOLWOOD IN EASTLAKE
GREENS. WE WOULD PREFER A GATE 8ETWEEN 8RISTOLWOOD AND THE
MASTERS COLLECTION.
~~~~
~/I~ /1S-
,
~
S~?:.-
/~_7,-c?
A . ~
TO: '''IV
MV WIFE
CJlErNS.
"ASTERS
AUG 2 11995
Bt'\t.fN\ot .._............-w
WOLFE
AND I ARE PURCHASING A HO"E AT BRISTOLWOOD IN EASTLAKE
WE WOULD PREFER A GATE BETWEEN BRISTOLWOOD AND THE
COLLECTION.
(1
2: 0,- :"~/0lJ' 7"1 '; ~,
" .,.'.
(,.,/ . /'
7 ;.. /? ~Cl '1',"u)
-
.fi&'-
".1\.... ....c
1.,\",...:,,\
d..1.. \. ~, 'i
..
THE MASTERS' COLLECTION AT EASTLAKE
GREENS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
August IS, 1995
Planning Direc:tor
Cil)' ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Sir.
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the po5ition of the Masten' Collection Home Owr.:",
ASsoCIation regarding the closure of La Costa Avmue. separating our bomes from the o~.e! h:
l,~;1t by Brelun Communities
O.u membership has overwhelmingly approved the total closure of the street, allowint ne:ilh,.'
vehicle nor pedestrian ilCceSS
!: is requested that our pOSItion be given full consideration
5::\:erel)'.
/:Jr~
':!?:"e Allen
r:f \":dent
:.::s:ers' Collection HOA
.
.
"Inw.,laitrwL iailDhp.Ca. ~UI.~2 ('I'I550-7900
~ -~'1~
-.
I
/ '
'~ I
-'-'... -..-'
. . . -. -'
-.,..... .-,..
-.....,. '-~.:..;:...-~
. II:.. .;:>
r- . lPJ '-
---
..Y' . ~
^u~ust 14.1995
RECEIVEO
AUG 211995
8~,',
. .
Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner
Chula Vi~la City Pl&nnjn~ Dept
276 Founh Ave.
Chula Vista. CA 91910
RE: Case No. DRC.94.24 r",,\
Dear Ms. Wolfe:
In Jul)', 1994,1 sent you a letter expressing my opposition to a proposal to ~Iose
La COS\3 Ave The poniCln of the above reference plan to close La Costa Avenue and
inst.ll1 a s3tc with a Knox box was disapproved and I thou~ht the iSsue wa3 dead. It has
come 10 my atlention thal13relun Communities is asain requesting that azate be instliled
to divide La COSII A venue. As I have previously infonned your office. I am extremely
orpo~~d to this action for the following reasons.
First. closin; Ihe strcct in the lI\iddJe of the 2400 bloclc will be confusing for
emersenc)' vchieles. mail service and delivery vehicles. This confusioll could endanier
lives should emerseney vehieles enter from the wrong cross street, Tbc precious ~nds
lost while the sate islbeing opened eould.mea.c the difference between life and dealh. I
suITer from both asthma and heart problems. 1f a aale Is allowed to be installed and I
suffcr harm bee:lUse of delays in obtainins emercency help. I or my bein will SIIC the
City, Brehm Communities, Bristolwood HomeowneT5 Association. Eastlakc n'
Association and The Masters HomeowneT5 Association.
Second. when 1 purchased lilY home I was led to believe b)' FieldstOllC that the)'
would be developina .11 of La CoStl Avenue. I thought I wa3 bu)'i!I; on a throu;b street
and not. cui de 53C. In my opinion. La Costa A vellue Is too lon& a stroot to be a cut de
IIC. In addition, i1 is . hnlfmile lon;er to exit the area from Tom)' PiMS Ilead tbIIllt is
10 exil from Master'. Ridse. This adds I Minimum of one Dille a day WUl' and Ice OD
lilY vehicle not to mention the .dded air pollution. Had I bOWD that there was a
possibility of the Ilrtet beina c!wlaed.1 would IIDt have JllIl'chased Ill)' rcsicScnoe.
Third. there is not adeqU4te parkin; now for villton. The.1ICCt is 1IIn'0wand it is
.sainst the CC&Rs to p:u-k alon; side the ms. There is cumntly Insufficient pst
p1fkin~. In o~cler to accomplish the clOSlllC, parkina spaees and 1'l'CCn belt will haYlIO
be remo\'ed \0 create a turn around for emer;ency vehicles. Withollt adequate parkin,. it
.~-
--.. :;.
...0:>
.. ""'...
.1 , :; _...
.fo(~to"\~
-
-----
;
Case No. DRC.94.24
Aur,USI14.1995
~'-'rl"'--."'~
-
'''''' _
is inevit~bte lhat visitors will park in front oflhe Bates wilhout thinkin!: oflhe potential
risk for emer~ency vehicles. This collld cause fllrther delays in In cmerSenC)' situllion.
Fourth, I sate, in Ill)' form, is III eyesore Ihat will decrease Ihe property value of
the residents within site of Ihe cate. In Iddition, to IWlmplish Ihe closure. pat of \he
;rccn belt including several bealltiful uees will be remov~. The pen btlt arab why
some of the residents selected Iheir uniu. Ilemovin; all or part of it willlft1ke \heir
property less desirable to them. It is my understandin, that the peen belt is part of I
water company easement. lfthat is the ca.~e, bow can it be removed?
finally, how can I private street be closed without I vote oflhe assoclltions
invol\'ed~ 1 know The Master', Association', CC&:lts require I two thirds vote oflhe
a~sociation the authorize major chanses. This is definitely I major cblllie. N I D'Iembcr
or the association, 1 know that there has been no lesal vote to Illthorize this chance. As I
result, the association's re~llest to close the street is not Ic;al. 1 will be consultinC an
attorney to diseu5$ ponible lesal action 011 this isslle.
1 wOllld like to be nCltifiCd of any hC:lrinj;s thllt arc IChedllled in Ihis mallCf. 1
hope th~\ afler ea.refully considerins this proposal. the City will decide not tO;rant this
request.
c: Brehm Communities
Brislolwood Homeowners N~iltion
Etstlalce II Community Associltion
The Masters Homcowners Associatlon
.
.
r"'-
- -
/ '7 ( ..-;,
Sincerely,
-!.....,_ "'\... ~)..,'tl",
lvl L. Butler
11.. __..-.. Ll
ChlllaVlsll.CA 91915
691.5515 (day)
..-- . -..
August 14, 1995
t\'U"v' "
. , .... ';'
.,.' " J~-""'" ~
Luis Hernandez
Chula Vista City Planning Dept.
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Case No. DRC-94-24
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
On September 11, 1995, the Planning Commission denied a request by Brehm
Communities to install a gate on La Costa Ave. As that was the second time the gate
proposal had be denied, I thought that was the end of the matter. It seems, however, that
this proposal just won't die, but then again, neither will my opposition to this gate.
As I have previously stated, I am opposed to the gate for the following reasons.
First, closing the street in the middle ofthe 2400 block will be confusing for emergency
vehicles, mail service and delivery vehicles. This confusion could endanger lives should
emergency vehicles enter from the wrong cross street. The precious seconds lost while
the gate is being opened could mean the difference between life and death. I suffer from
both asthma and heart problems. Several of my neighbors have similar medical
conditions. One recently suffered a heart attack, another has epilepsy, and yet another
recently adopted a child from Ethiopia that requires a body brace and therefore will need
at home school bus pickup. If a gate is allowed to be installed and I suffer harm because
of delays in obtaining emergency help, I or my heirs will sue the City, Brehm
Communities, Bristolwood Homeowners Association, Eastlake II Association and The
Masters Homeov-mers Association.
Second, when I purchased my home I was led to believe by Fieldstone that they
would be developing all of La Costa Avenue. I thought I was buying on a through street
and not a cui de sac. In my opinion, La Costa Avenue is too long a street to be a cuI de
sac. In addition, it is a half mile longer to exit the area from Torrey Pines Road than it is
to exit fro~as~r:~~&i~c;:,.,J1:lis adds a minimum of one mile a day wear and tear on
my vehicle not to mentIon the added air pollution. Had I known that there was a
possibility of the street being changed, I would not have purchased my residence.
CC'!.?'1-_
-/
Case No. DRC-94-24
August 14, 1995
Third, there is not adequate parking now for visitors. The street is narrow and it is
against the CC&Rs to park along side the curbs. There is currently insufficient guest
parking. In order to accomplish the closure, parking spaces and a green belt will have to
be removed to create a turn around for emergency vehicles. Without adequate parking, it
is inevitable that visitors will park in front of the gates without thinking of the potential
risk for emergency vehicles. This could cause further delays in an emergency situation.
Fourth, a gate, in any form, is an eyesore that will decrease the property value of
the residents within site of the gate. In addition, to accomplish the closure, part of the
green belt including several beautiful trees will be removed. The green belt area is why
some of the residents selected their units. Removing all or part of it will make their
property less desirable to them. It is my understanding that the green belt is part of a
water company easement. If that is the case, how can it be removed?
Fifth, the proposed gate will only be three feet high. All it will stop is motor
vehicles. It will do nothing to stop pedestrian traffic. One of the reasons that several
members of the Masters Association originally supported the idea was that they were
concerned that children from the Brehm development would attempt to use our pool.
They were under the impression that the gate would be higher and would therefore be a
deterrent to children attempting to use our pool. Since the gate will only by three feet
high, the only thing it will deter is passenger vehic1"s, delivery vehicles, mail trucks,
border patrol vehicles, school buses, and most important of all m emergency vehicles.
What is the point of converting a through street to two dead end streets? All it
will do is divide a community. One of the reasons people buy a home in Eastlake is the
desire to regain that "old neighborhood feeling" of camaraderie, knowing your neighbors,
and feeling a part of the community. This gate will alienate two developments and create
a feeling of "us against them."
I plan to attend the meeting on November 29, 1995 to express my oposition to this
proposal. However, I would like to have this letter on file in the event I am unable to
attend.
Sincerely,
,..J_~,,-- -L -6 .. ~"
Iva L. Butler
~~o_ __ _w_..._.
Chula Vista, CA 91915
691-5515 (day)
~-~-
/7) --f..- _J-I
sJ<J~-
/"
;:;;' .
.-::'-~; ..~.
ATTACHMENT 6
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
nm CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA DJSC..OSURE srA~
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions. on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property wbich is the subject of the application or the
a>ntract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Brehm Investments, Inc.
Forrest W. Brehm
Eastlake Development Company
Brehm Communities
,
If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a a>rporation or partnership, list the IIImes of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the a>rporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership.
Forrest W. Breham
Eastlake Development Company (on file w/City)
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
5erving as director of the non-profit organiunion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you bad more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of thc City starr, Boards, Commissions,
Commillec:s, and Council within the past twelve months? Ycs_ No.1S.. If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents, employees, a>nsultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this maner.
Forrest W. Brehm - Brehm Communities
Scot Sandstrom - Brehm Communities
Jack Hepworth - Brehm Communities
Steve Wallet - Bowlus. Edinger & Starck Architects
Steve Estrada - Estrada Land Planning
John Janazewski - CJ and Associates Civil Enqineers
6. Have you andlor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, a>ntributed more tban $1,000 to I Councilmembcr in the
current or pr<<eding eleclion period? Yes_ No..ll If yes, stlte which Councilmember(s):
· · · (N01E: Attacll 8ddilioDaJ pap ·
ities b":
',iT". of npvp]o,t-.
Pri t or type name of co~traclor/applicant
Dale: 7/20/95
, f."""" u <<fl.",d 1M: 'Any iNIi,"",GI. {imI, "",.,.-;p. joiN......... IUIOCUJ/ioI!, _itII dub. fr-"".",.,1iMMinII. <.",."...,.. - ..... rrui_. ~"'~
t!ou iIIli "'Y 011o.. <ClI/III)', <iIy .,./ <""""y. <iIy :OUUIi<ip<>/iry. iIUIri<~ '" odu:t pirktJI 1IIbdMIi"", ",,,,, 011o., ,..., ", .-bioI.; .. -.,.. · .....'
. L_ f)~
- .b _j'T. .c- ..... /
,
"
.Tlcl) \
"
\ #-'-
February 20, 1996
Darlene Dusseault
-
Chula Vista, CA 91915
I I
The Masters Collection
Lot#118
lro) ~ (r
I ~ II
UG~
[
[
T:::;;-m-1
~' i , :1 ' , ! (~ 1
--- n:;
? h 10Qfi lW
-~
Chu1a Vista City Council Case DRC-94-24
On February 14, 1996, The proposal by Brehm to construct a gate in the middle of La Costa Ave.
somehow made the front page of the Chula Vista Star News. Since this project has become newsworthy
to all ofChula Vista, 1 responded with a letter to the editor which should provide the community with
details of our objections to this dangerous monstrosity. Attachment 1 is the Star News, article and
attachment 2 is a copy of my letter to the editor.
Once again I ask that you follow the advice of your planning commission and their advisors and deny
the construction of this gate.
Sincerely yours,
(. , , '( J+---
_ , . ,. '.. ..--j;"........ t____ -
~- \.... _l!--. .....'"/<-< t <....-
Darlene Dusseault
II~ ~ (r:; [~ n \,
Ii' I
l~UI F112 6 Rlh ~
C(:':~'N(ll (11! 1[: '
CH:,I, A vn,~ (
I. -.
c
v~_
JII~-fd d J-
EastLake to await
council on gate fate
By Yvette Urrea
BtaffWriter
The Chula VilIta City Council
will consider an appeal nut week
which would separate two Eat-
Lake Greens neighborhoods with
a gate.
The proposed gate would CI'OtI8
La Coste Avenue and divide the
Masters Collection and Bristol-
wood neighborhoods. La Co.ota
Avenue is a private street that
serves both neighborhoods.
The council will decide at its
Tuesday, Feb. 27, meeting
whether to overturn a decision by
the planning commission, which
denied the request for the gate.
Originally, Masters Collection
developers planned to make the
area one community but instead
sold half the parcel of land to
Bristolwood developers Brehm
Investments. At that time,
Brehm included the gate in its
plans to the city. The city,
however. deleted the rete.
In July, Brehm a ed the city
to _sider a pte. The project
Would install a 3 foot bilrh emer-
gency s""""s gate 8CI'OIIs La Costa
Avenue with a T turnaround
area on eaeh dead end side.
The Masters Colleetions
Homeowners Association voted to
support the proposal but since
that time residents, c10eest to
where the gate _uld be pllUled,
have said the gate could be an ob-
.truction in an emergency, ac-
cording to Chula Vista asistant
planning director Ken Lee.
Lee said Brehm contands that
the gate i. n.......ary to reduce
potential conllicts between the
two neighborhoods. The gate
would eliminate continuoUB vehi_
cular circulation and wear and
tear on Bristolwood streets from
easterly Master Collection neigh-
bors.
.
./
The Smr News, Wednesday, February 2t, 1996
./t/1/~ -:If d-
Gate will be unsafe
Your front page article regard-
ing the gate proposed by Brehm
dividing La Costa Avenue in
EastLake failed to mention that
the gate would create an WI-
aightly, dangerous dead end in
place of what ia now a pretty tree
lined grassy neighborhood. Fur-
ther, the 2,500 foot length on
either side of the proposed gate is
an illegal length. The city subdiv-
ision manual states that a cul de
sac on a private street should be
no more than 500 feet. This pre-
sumably provides alternate es-
cape routes in case of an emer-
gency.
. Sixty-eight percent of the resi-
dents living on La Costa Avenue
in the Masters Collection have
signed a petition opposing the
three foot high gate. The reasons
for this opposition are numerous.
A gate keeps school children from
being picked up by the school bus,
it creates confusion for emer-
gency and delivery services. it
will require the removal of rour
beautiful 15 to 20 foot high jacar-
anda trees and 900 square feet of
grass to be replaced by asphalt
and giant yellow lines in front of
some homes in order to provide
the "T" turnaroWld. This project
is caned an "emergency gate."
This is certainly a misnomer; if
there is an emergency, we don't
want a gate.
In September of 1995, the ad-
visory board to the Planning
Commission voted unanimously
against the gate. They de-
termined that the gate in the
middle or La Costa Avenue would
have no effect on traffic flow and
that litigation from trespassing
on private streets would be un-
changed a8 long as the entrance
to each community remains ung-
ated. In November of 1995, the
Planning Commission agreed
with the advisory committee and
unanimously voted against this
attempt to divide our street. Now,
Brehm is attempting to convince
the City Council to reverse the
decisions of the board and com-
mission who have carefuUy
researched the deleterious effects
of truncating a throughway.
In November of 1995, it was
noted in an article in The San
Diego Union-Tribune that the
state takes a dim view of gated
communities on private streets.
The state Supreme Court ruled
against gated communities on
previowly public atreets in April
of1994.
Darlene Dusseault
Chula Vista
~
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873
,.---.-
Ii
.1
r:
---, :',
! Iii
CRAIOK. BEAM. PARTNER
DIRECTDlAL NUMBER (619) 699-2482
OUR FILE No.: 21276-00002
FfR 7 ,i 199fi i '-' .
L------~ I
r ',: (I' ,;' I
February 23,1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Shirley Horton
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista., CA 91910
Honorable City Council Members
City of Chula
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista., CA 91910
Re: Avveal of the Design Review Committee Denial of Case No. DRC94-24M
The Application of The Brehm-EastLake Partnership to Install an Access Gate Between the
Bristolwood and EastLake Greens Projects
Dear Mayor Horton and City Council Members:
The Brehm-EastLake Partnership which is developing the Bristo1wood project, hereinafter "Brehm,"
has requested our firm's assistance in processing their request to place a three-foot high emergency
gate on the easterly property line between their project, "Bristo1wood at EastLake Greens,"
("Bristolwood") and the adjacent project known as "The Masters Collection at EastLake Greens"
("Masters Collection").
The Bristolwood project is currently under construction. Due to the construction activities a fence has
separated the two projects for approximately one and half years. Brehm is requesting the temporary
fence be replaced with a permanent gate due to the Bristo1wood Homeowners Association's
("Bristo1wood HOA") concern that they may be liable in the future for any injury caused by non-
Bristo1wood residents or guests utilizing La Costa Avenue, which is a private street. Brehm is also
concemed that the Bristolwood HOA and its homeowners may be responsible for higher maintenance
costs of La Costa A venue, should it become available for through traffic.
Brehm is proposing that each Homeowners Association take access from, maintain and be legally
responsible for their own private street. Bristolwood residents would relinquish access through the
Masters Collection area and vice versa, except as suggested below.
600 WEH BROADWAY, SUln 2600 . SAN DIEGO, CALlFoaNIA 92101 . TELEPHONE (619) 236-HU . fACSIMILE (619) 232-8311
SAN DIEGO . LA JOLLA . NEW Vou.: . Los ANGELES . SAN FI.ANCISCO
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW. FOUNDED 1873
Honorable Shirley Horton,
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
Honorable Members of the Chula Vista City Council
February 23, 1996
Page 2
The Staff Analysis provided in the Design Review Committee report of September 11,1995 notes a
number of reasons for the recommendation of denial. We believe that the basis for the
recommendation are not compelling.
We submit to the City Council the following considerations:
I. Gating La Costa A venue at the property line of the two projects will not prevent the
implementation of the land use plan concepts for the area Both projects are being constructed as
anticipated. As can be seen by Attachment "A" to this letter, the distance to be traversed by the
residents in The Masters Collection to the public street, North Greens View Drive, is less than the
distance that would have to be traversed by a Bristolwood resident to the same public street, jfno gate
were present. There is a greater chance of inconveniencing vehicular traffic from Bristo1wood with a
gate than The Masters Collection residents.
Similarly, the logical access to Otay Lakes Road from The Masters Collection is via Hunte Parkway,
not a circuitous route taking access to EastLake Parkway after first traveling through Bristolwood to
North Greens View Drive then to EastLake Parkway. A gate does not interrupt these natural travel
patterns.
2. There are several places at which Bristolwood residents can tum around on La Costa Avenue.
There are two areas with median strips in La Costa Avenue that are approximately 50 feet wide (in
excess of the City's 40-foot radius required for turnarounds) as well as the proposed "hammerhead"
turnaround area which would be adjacent to the gate. These design considerations substantially
address the City's street design standards.
3. The proposed hammerhead turnarounds can be easily integrated into the BristoIwood project
since units have not been built adjacent to the proposed location of a gate.
Brehm has offered to bear The Masters Collection's HOA's expense in any construction of a
turnaround on their side of the property line.
4. The Police Department's concern that the proposed gate would "limit preventative police patrol
services" is best answered by the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the Bristo1wood residents in
favor of the gate. Brehm would make any reasonable arrangement satisfactol)' to the Police
Department to assure they have access through the gate, which is the same offer they are willing to
make to The Masters Collection HOA
-,"',
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW' FOUNDED 1873
Honorable Shirley Horton,
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
Honorable Members of the Chula Vista City Council
February 23, 1996
Page 3
5. If there is an issue with respect to the width of the gate (currently proposed as 16 feet), Brehm
is willing to expand the entrance to the 20-foot width standard noted by City Staff. To our knowledge,
the Fire Department has no opposition to the concept of a gate.
As stated above, Brehm is willing to provide The Masters Collection HOA with access through the
gate as may be necessary in the future for emergency vehicles, unusual deliveries (tractors, semi-
trailers, etc.) or the like. Their goal is to address the potential liability which the Bristolwood HOA
may face by the unimpeded access through the neighboring project onto a private street they are
responsible to maintain.
We trust that the City Council will take into consideration the Bristolwood HOA and Brehm's concerns
and their willingness to address the concems of both the City and The Masters Collection HOA with
respect to the need for "other than routine" access through Bristolwood.
We believe that The Masters Collection residents will not be seriously inconvenienced as shown by the
travel distances involved and that their HOA board will continue to support the proposal, since
Bristolwood is merely requesting that each project utilize only its own private street.
I look forward to discussing this matter before the City Council. Until then, I remain,
Very truly yours,
-j
( ~~
~am
of
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
CKB:cg
Attachment
cc: Mr. Eric Reynolds
Mr. Scot Sandstrom
Mr. Bill Ostrem
Mr. Ken Lee, Planning Department
C:'\DMSICKB\I052710_01
.,
'-, --,
)
SITE
UTILIZATION PLAN
Parcel No
Brletolwood
Site
Masters Collection
Site
. .
po.,
----
.'
~fASTLAKE
GREENS
" I'lcnIed cam-o.nrv n
.. oty cfduo ~
.~
EXHIBIT A
''I /
"/
PROJECT
LOCATION
,
_v-~
I
,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) APPLICANT: Bristolwood @ Easllake PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Gr<<nl DESIGN REVIEW
ADDRnl: La costa Ave. . Muten JUdIe Modification of plans to construct
JCALE: FILE NUMIER: 16 ft wide emergency gate.
NORTH 1" .. 400' DRC . 94 - 24
//,
ISTOLWOOD PROJECr-- ,
(APPLICANT)
<~~:..::~\" ,
rLAIlI :~I~"~'.\
'U.IT' ,,'
,.. ,..',.."....~
:.~.:~9;.':::-:-
~. ..~' ")I'h
~~~!?
j
.n
)
e'"
u.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~. Eastlake Greens DfsaJP'llON,
C) . @ Brisfolwood DESIGN RMEW
PROJECT Request: Modification 01 pions to consfrvcl 16 feet
1.DORESS' La Costa Avenue &.
. Masten Ridge wiele emergency gate.
SCAlf, fILE NUMBE~ EXHIBIT B
NORTH No Scale DRe - 94 - 24
~
/~'. ::;..
I-i::....b- ""-, ':-it. ,L'c ,,-'1..::,_ 11'\ ..,.....i . ,.'..- ~
-' '-' -~ - '.:.
r-. >..',
l(()...t\~ \ -jt. c
Z 7 Fe'u r VC\ '\ 1 \ q (( b
u€O,;{ c~\)IC\ \l\c;,\-C', C, ~'I CCAJ\l1C\ 1/ \
~ ~ V\C\N"<:\'€ ."....,.,. So.VV\\,)e,;\ C;C\ \ro\l 1'\ OM U
I oN'f\ ~~~ ~\-Q.t\~o ~Y~';.\b~\ of- t\1~
t)f\';~O\lJ\Jooo c0 t::..(\'~')c\x' ~ C~I((;'\:,V\r... ~()YVl~()\)..)Y'~-\'.!.
(--\ S. SOC.\cJJ'"\ 0 VL l'J\~. o-s, So, 0 C '\ ()~"\ 0 r'~ \ ~ 'I) e'{ '/
o>"'f,Pt'Q(..\&\-w'e... d~--, "\", '-- 0 efO rl\J y1 \ \7 ~o .
GOOK's,s ~(;\J ()\M?~\ \'1 {)V\ c, ~()\oJe(l-- ()~..
c-J '(teA\- to V\QQ{ V\ \ 0 ~ \ 01..) ( \ Q. ~\ () m\ ~ .
\JV',fo' r' '0'{\ (0, €.. \1/ I. C>.NV\ 1.jV\(~) Q 1a
c..0.~ Vf\O -\--00 G "( l. ~ I..) 'u \ \ c v\'ec\'f" \'\ C) ~ OM 0
l \t'L\~ ~~~eO -\ v&. "'^~ co ~V\'lY\UJ'~ S. \o-e.
'N:o,O -\0 'fou. I t0o~e yot,j ~.\ \, ctJ\I1~\oe If,
-\ YlesQ. co VY\'{lleN\"\ <;. ~\J \"\ V\ ,\ \., 'e.. ~o.NY\'E'. ~11\'{\i-
0.(;> " \- I \Ne~ c001 €.- -\ 0 rve s.w\- -\ ~ ~W\
N\'I ~e,\~ .
I ~(,,~ Sr()r~ ~'f~()Y"(N\''y lJ-J\l\t\ Cl\V11l)~t-
CJ\\ of 6'-3'( 'tSV'\itQ\WOOQ Ii\OvYf{!()WV1~'(~/ (1)10
.U-)~ O,~ ~ v\(\M\MO\j~l)l. \Y\ O(p~~~l-- ~~
\ Y\b\c~~o I n -Yh~ p!6\\t\OY1.~. .~o (v\JQ"fc)~
-to ~O\JI ~('\s.~oh}JooO V'€.~\OvJ.:\r ~'t 0..
,*",^,(\e.. ~~~ '~\?t- ',V\ r'C\\€ +C) prt~
-\'V\'" l) - -\~\ ~ , c.. ~\\N~ c:.) \.) V r (' , 'J <<r~ (0 (\0/
OMO -\n~ ~r\v(\~~ fC\C\(j o~ 6\)>( Y\e\9~GD(iV\q
C oW\V'f\I.JV\'{'/ 0..J\ !v\c\S1f 1['( Co \ \-ec~iOv). J
, .
-I /'//;7'
// - / /
FEB-27-96 TUE 01 :33 PM BRISTOL~.JOOD
6569526
P.03
~{\ ~ 'L-
\"'~CJct~ ~\)b ~'\'N\\+ o0'Y p{>('p~\Y-\(W/)
OJ'<\O ~~,'\( )~V--t. ! G" p.:X\ CQ.. \j C ,^, c.\Q. s. -rO
-t-,ON\S It- .
We.. o..rprec\tUQ... -\'ne.. U~V\(Q,\v)~ 'f'ov\~.eO
b1c t\\~ ~~V\\ Y'\C} C.OVYWVA\s'S;O V) c~o some.
o ~ \~(? h()V'{\~ ~V\~fS, '\ V\ ., ~'€.. ~(\~ ~ers.
(0\ \ec\\ O,V\, Y'\e\q\'^\?o(~O. !\JJ(\}er~-~e.'e~s./
00 f ts(\S, \() \~O fe.s, ,<JiM.' So. s;~ra VVI ''j
'o~\\~~ ,-~\- O~N\\~() ~ ~o<;.\<\ r-\\J'QVI~
?'~ ~ ~'fovq~ _('002> l}:\\\\ s\q~\\\'~(GVc\\'Y
\V\(Ye~e -\\1€.. v<2.V'\C\Jlo...'C +rOv\-(:'c. OV'l
OJf c;1-~'<2.\ OMO ~\ \ \ J:~O~X\'fOI~€.. t~
U\~~\y OM'b SQC'0'f\~Y 6~ Vb\.)'( S.VYK\,\)
covtrr\I,JV\~-\'1' A \VV\OSl- 01\ ()~. o0'f V^'es.\ofN\t~
V\C\V€.. yo'VV\q c\\dor-0l\ t\MO we.. C\~ C(0;~e
coV\ten'\tlo 6~y "\\'\e\r ~oJ€.--\'f G'-<f'()\)V'U 00r
"'^-'{'f(NJ s~reE'..-\-.
O~{ '6 (\ s\J\ ~ (C::S ibeN\'s' c..~~CJ \QQj ,'elR
~"'~l ~\t,^out-- <A 9o.\~{. -tn~ \Yl(~se.
\ '^ ~rot+:'\ c 0 V\ L 0..- CO~ tG\, A \J'€Mw. \}j \ \)
R~ o'ISfrQfof\\oV\o,M'j 9'f€Ov\~v -\o-c- us. thG~
tbr -\'v\-e.. . tv\rA~\~f~ Co \1'eC1\oV\ res.\b~\--~.
13€(~0s.e.. c~ \~e C).'f'€0" Cjeo(\'f(\r~y 'D.MO t~~
S~~b0W\fs -\\\fO\X\00\)\ ~~ \~'{' (' Co\ 1~c.\\cr'.l
-\~..Q S~oite<:1- C:>AAO vY\()<:\- (c)~\J0A~(jV\'} (o\j\~
-\lJ,\ '('f)WJ'.."( Mc,~\-€"\( G\\-.Ql1-IOV'l ~~toev\\.s:
, :,"- ',/',
FEB-27-96 TUE 01" -
__ .3~ PM BRISTOLW00D
6569526
P.01
\
~(\~ ~
~\\\ ~ -+V\fU;L'~ O\j'f ~('\S~dWCDO Y'\e.\c(~lxda:O.
0'/\ \"'~ O.\-~~ '( "'M0) Y\OYlQ.. l)\- 00f \SridOlw~
~(\b~\J\'c \NC)()\D~:' YXJ OJ'fY'f o-O\JoM~'-CI~
\Mtt~.\:'() ON\O ~.:I,,"\-\V\q ,T\\royq"v\ \\')'2.. t0oS~~e<\
Co \\ec\\tJV\ 00Jf\E)O Qo(t\On O~ ln~ '(cob ·
'f-, dJ. \ 1. I ~ Clc) V\o ~ \'-<>-0. . ,T ',e; G. ,i (
~()'\ -\- 'A€.. c', ~'/ . ~\c'\N\'{\'€~S ~o 0\ ~ t\ ,1Js, +0 .
o ~eN\ O\J' ~ r, '-l~lL f()(\b '\' 0 ?o\?hc.' hfIJ-tiJif.c
~\\-,^O\JT- 0Sf\'1 C~\~,y0'f\~(~\OV\ -\(j'i O\\V'
'\Y\('{'\:~eo \~o.\J\h-\'1 J OMO G\('(WO
W\(:\\,,\\~\N,~'\j\(\2. ref\ '0\ ~\f{\~\<:;' .
\ V\ Ocb\l'l(\ "\ h~ ~('~~o Iwooo CC'M'('{I\JVI~11
rt<'IX'-c..'{0\\Y N?~ \jQslS \~O)' -\"'~ t,4,,{ o.\~w
uS -\-~ Mt\\f'\l\\'0 0- (1l~~ 0\(\ l()., tO~1-o. Awwt
-\-1) \\'~~ \?0\;1\L -1-\WO\l,\V, truHH_ {'fOy>!\
v~, '(\,l\ O\}{ ~(':\ ",d<L s l-~~\-, }J\os\,
V\~\~~\JO(v.ooo~ ~ 'E~~\-'(\'r-.€- G-'{e.M ~~
\ \'/Ii\i-\eo pLC:I:'<;~ I 6JoJ\O ~Q\fl<\[cl.(\'I'~ 90led
. COfff{'<\\.h\'\i'€..c~, we... 00 \1\0'\' - (~~ WG~
c;e~o.,~\cV\ cl::- ~y",s.\o\\()t>oo OMO +Yl-Q.
Mo--~\e~~ c..c \ \{)_(\\~ '^ \ ~ 0-- ~\ C\ V\ \ t-, ro.M'\--
o~\J ,~\(J V\ D~ -\~-Q ()V'\ C\' ~01 E6-\\IO-~€. ~~'tMj
o~v0o~ \Y\~~\'- lO"'(~ \~t~ .
/1. ~;:./l
,
FEB-27-96. TU~ 01 :36 Pt1 BRISTOLW~)OD
- .."~,-,,.!.>., .., ~,,:-~,', ,'- - <-,
6569526
P.02
f>O-CI~ 4-
\~OJV\~ '10~ ((J'f V\'\:C\'f\V\CI O\Jf ((jI'\(~W\~.
~:J(
s oM\ ve\ c;G\ \ tau V'\
?rQ~\~~/ .
&-\~1t)I~DO cis \=:osHa}-e
Gyt'GV\S HOYi1~() W YH2, >
AssoC\~\O~,
.t. .c
240-f 1.3 Cn~t:'I ^vr.
Chl\l~ Vi~r:l. C^ 91915
WCIDO
j
(619) 65(,-9R91
!'ox (6 J 9) 656.9526
...............
O^ T": Of t=D..../cis
TO: ER./(L
COMPANY: ~R~h1
FAll NUH9I;:R: r:J.4 3 - 30::;-C,
FROM: /)1,4-(Z..l
COHPANY:
PIlOJ"CT: JJII~ j.,/;ilf&cV
NUMBeR OF PAGES INCLUSIVE
n~ : ,,511')1 5" i.e:tklL
OF COVER SIIEET: ~
II you hsv8 any dlflieulty reeeivlng thia fax, please eall us at
1(19) 65(,-9891.
..j
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 2/27/96
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Local/Regional Consistency Checklist for the Regional
Growth Management Strategy and Congestion Management Program
Resolution Transmitting the Local/Regional Consistency Checklist for
the Regional Growth Management Strategy to SANDAG
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /1fl;!
\),'"
REVIEWED BY: City Manager \Ui)~" /1,)\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
I '.-1
RECOMMENDATION: That Council continue the public hearing until March 12, 1996.
(1lI:\.home\planning\RGMS2.113)
13"'/
PUBLIC HEARlNG o-lECK LIST
PUBLIC HEARJNG DATE:
-'"
71 -~
SUBJECT:
'-'-'-_~.:.:.-~.:-- 7'.:.c' " ~>;.>-_~ """-~-'_',-'
--:_~-~/_.::-~",'j/~~
~~-
-~-:~-<-,-"-~.- .'
22
,~
LOCATION'. ";(~.J j,
_ .' ~ .' ~.>"".:..' :.-..'___r......._jC
--;-::-r;i---:~_-'~__
~<-----
,,>;//
,_"/' _/'<, ->~
2-;<~ ""-~rd
-_/'~:~,/~j--, >-:.---:{',.-,-<>/.'.' ~,.~~-~-~;>~
r
,._r-
;::'Z_5~"~~'~/ / ;:~->
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION n BY FAX~,{BY HAND
; BY MAlL
PUBLICATION DATE
."'.
'2
MAJLED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
NO. MAJLED
PER GC g54992 Legislatlve Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGE""DA BOOK
--,.; ,.-
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
.55.
! ------
~.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE [S HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING W[LL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering and
transmitting by resolution the Local/Regional Consistency Checklist for the Regional Growth
Management Strategy and Congestion Management Program to SANDAG,
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the
City Clerk no later than noon on the date of the hearing, Please direct any questions or
comments to AMY WOLFE, in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula
Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Aveuue, Chu[a Vista California 91910, or by calling (619)
476-5331,
If you wish to challenge the City's action 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 written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing described in this
notice. Documentation pertaining to the Local/Regional Consistency Checklist for the Regional
Growth Management Strategy and Congestion Management Program is on file and available for
inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
February 27, 1996, at a meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Public
Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
Date:
February 15, 1996
Case No:
PCM-96-17
Lj
~"''l-*
~
~~~~
ClW Of
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LE1TER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
'0 /j/' /
0' /7/'/ {<
// /
TO: Star News Lel!:aI / Martha
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM:
/' ,/'.' ,/ , /)
~ ?c ' , / ~.
_ ,~:e-~'Y/ Y /A"
SUBJECT:
- .
/ :'::~c~/Iic ;/">~;~'~/1~-;F~r
/ /
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
7
,x...
PUBLICATION DATE:
c2~ .~/) c?
/
If all pages are not received, please calI Carla @ (619) 691-5041.
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 8'810 . (6.8) 681.5041
~ """""'"-...
i'i
_J
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:
Transmitting by resolution the Local/Regional Consistency Checklist for the Regional
Growth Management Strategy and Congestion Management Program to the San
Diego Association of Governments. For further information call Amy Wolfe in the
Planning Department at 476-5331.
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,
February 27, 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: February 14, 1996
~