HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/03/21
\
,
,
"
,
,
III declare ,der penalty of perju~ t~at 1 am
mployed by the City of Chu!a VIsta In the
~ffica of the City Clerk and that I p03~"d
this Agenda/Notice on the Bullet;n B~ard at
tha Public erv'ces Building a;;,~..
DATED, SIGNED
Rel!Ular Meetin~ of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
I
'" I
Tues~March 21, 1995
6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Fox _, Moot _. Padilla _' Rindone _' and Mayor
Horton _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 7, 1995 (Joint CouncillRDA) and March 14, 1995
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclamation commending the ChuIa Vista South Pony League upon the occasion of their
30th Anniversary. Mayor Horton will present the proclamation to Carlos Sosa, President of the
Chula Vista South Pony League.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994. there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved. there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 9)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calentlar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember. a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items. please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
Ihe green form to speak in favor of the staff recommentlation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommentlation.) 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 as a result of deliberations that occurred in Closed
Session on 3/14/95, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the acceptance of an offer to settle
a disputed claim with Cypress Creek by increasing the "walkaway limits" for the Palomar
Agenda
-2-
March 21, 1995
Trolley Center to $21/square foot. Except for the foregoing, there was no other ohserved
reportable action taken by the City Council in Closed Session. It is recommended that the
letter be received and filed.
b. Letter of resignation from the Child Care Commission - Elizabetb Stillwagon, 73 North Second
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that tbe resignation be accepted with regret
and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's
Office and the Public Library.
c. Letter requesting a financial contribution from the City to help sponsor trip to Australia and
New Zealand with "People to People" - Robin Reader, 285 Sea Vale Street, Chula Vista, CA
91910. It is recommended that the request be denied.
6. ORDINANCE 2629 AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE CODE OFETIDCS TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT
OF A FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR AFTER LEAVING OFFICE (first readiDl!) - On 1/10/95, Council
directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the provision of the
Ethics Code prohibiting a former elected official from appearing before a City
body or City officer or employee as an agent for someone else soliciting a
benefit or entitlement in front of the City. The Council's interest was evaluating
an expansion of that provision to preclude a former elected official from being
employed for the same one year period of time after leaving office. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney)
7.A. RESOLUTION 17835 AMENDING CONDITION NUMBER 38 OF RESOLUTION 17618
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT 88-
3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS - On 12120/94, Council approved the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 95-03, Parcel R-20 of EastLake South
Greens, known as Ventana. Council also approved on 7/18/89, the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Tract 88-3, EastLake Greens and on 8/16/94, approved an
amendment to the southerly portion of said EastLake Greens Tentative Map.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works,
Director of Planning and Director of Community Development)
B. RESOLUTION 17814 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 95-03, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT
20 (VENTANA)
C. RESOLUTION 17815 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVlSJON IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH
CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NUMBERS
17774 AND 15200 APPROVING A TENTATlVESUBDIV1SION MAP FOR
PARCEL R-20, KNOWN AS VENTANA, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
Agenda
-3-
March 21, 1995
8.A. RESOLUTION 17836 REJECTING LOW BID FOR ALTERNATE A (SIDEWALK RAMPS) FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MINORITY AND WOMEN OWNED
BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR "CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK
RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE
CENTER (ST-513, STL-213)" - On 2/1195, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets
and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive
Center." The City bid three alternates (A, B, and C). Alternate A provides for
construction of only sidewalk ramps. Alternate B provides for paving of only
the entrance road to the Nature Interpretive Center. Alternate C provides for
the construction of both under one contract, thus, allowing interested contractors
the opportunity to bid both Alternates A and B. Staff recommends approval of
the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17837 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ALTERNATE A (SIDEWALK RAMPS)
PORTION OF "CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEW ALKRAMPS ON VARIOUS
STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT CONCRETE ON ACCESS
ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER (ST-513, STL-213)" AND
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL
A V AlLABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT
C. RESOLUTION 17838 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ALTERNATE B (PAVING ACCESS
ROAD TO NIC) PORTION OF "CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK
RAMPS ON VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE
CENTER (ST -513, STL-213)
9.A. RESOLUTION 17839 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
FOUR CHEVROLET CORSICA SEDANS TO SOUTHBA Y CHEVROLET
The fiscal year 1994/95 equipment replacement budget provides for the
replacement of four sedans, three pick-ups, one utility vehicle, and one crew
cab. For each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be sold. Monies from the
auction will be placed in the Equipment Replacement Fund. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and Director of Finance)
B. RESOLUTION 17840 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
THREE SONOMA PICK-UP TRUCKS TO GMC TRUCK DIVISION
C. RESOLUTION 17841 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
FORD CREW CAB F350 PICK-UP TO FULLER FORD
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-4-
March 21, 1995
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 fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
· · · Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting · · ·
10.
ROLL CALL:
Scheduled for 6:30 p.m. - Time Certain
Councilmembers Fox _, Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _, and Mayor
Horton _
Commissioners Fuller _, Martin _, Ray _' Salas _' Tarantino _,
Willett _, and Chair Tuchscher _'
11. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: February 22,1995
12.
PUBLIC HEARING
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 17831
AND PLANNING
COMMISSION
RESOLUTION EIR
94-03
GPA 95-01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING 20-ACRE
SATTERLA PARCEL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; GPA 95-02
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING 21.84-ACRE LOWER
OTAY RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE; GPA 95-03 GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT DESIGNATING SAN DIEGO CITY WATER
RESERVOIR, OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY AND OTAY
LANDFILL AS PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC - In January of 1994, Council
directed staff to prepare a Sphere of Influence Update Study (Planning Case
Number PCM -93-05) for the City, That Study, along with several associated
General Plan Amendments and a Second Tier Program EIR, are up for Planning
Commission and Council consideration. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
Continued from the meeting of 3/14/95.
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND TIER) ENVIRONMEN-
TAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR 94-03) FOR THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
STUDY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPT-
ING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AMEND-
ING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, ACCEPTING THE
DRAFT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY AS AMENDED AND
DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR ADOPTION
Agenda
-5-
March 21, 1995
* * * Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting will ndjourn. * * *
The Regular City Council Meeting will reconvene
13. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS THAN EIGHT
PERCENT - Late last year Council considered reports regarding whether to
abate the scheduled rate increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or
allow the rate to increase from 8% to 10%. Following discussion with the
Chamber of Commerce and Chula Vista Motel Association, staff recommends
approval of the following Resolutions A, B and C. (Deputy City Manager
Thomson and Senior Management Assistant Young)
A. RESOLUTION 17842 TAKING NO ACTION TO ABATE THE SCHEDULED INCREASE IN
THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO
RISE FROM 8% TO 10% EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1995
B. RESOLUTION 17843 ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR
VISITOR PROMOTION, SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A
BUDGET AND RELATED CONTRACT
C. RESOLUTION 17844 APPROPRIATING $22,782 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL
FUND BALANCE FOR INTERIM FINANCING OF A VISITOR DISPLAY
AT THE SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER AND MAJOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER - 4/5th's
vote required.
14. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-94-05: CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO ADOPT A CHILD CARE
ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN - On 3/1194, Council approved a
work program which called for staff from the Parks & Recreation Department
and Planning Department to coordinate with the Child Care Commission to
review current City policies and regulations relating to streamlining the
permitting of child care facilities and to develop a comprehensive Child Care
Element to the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17845 ADOPTING A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) lfyou wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
Agenda
-6-
March 21, 1995
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
15. Recommendation by the International Friendship Commission to bave the City Council formally
request Sister Cities International to designate Ussuriysk Russia as Chula Vista's Fourth Sister City.
Recommendation is based on: 1) that there are a significant number of people in the community who are
interested in a successful relationship with Ussuriysk: 2) the existence of a group that has demonstrated
organizational strength in matters such as accumulating a paid membership; and 3) that the "Friends of
Ussuriysk" appear to be moving toward a program of self supported activities that would henefit the
community. (Larry Breitfelder, Vice Chair, International Friendship Commission)
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
16. RESOLUTION 17846 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR 260
PLAZA BONITA ROAD - On 11/24/92, Council approved the Pier I Import
project at 3001 Bonita Road. As part of that approval, Council directed staff to
complete street improvements from Plaza Bonita Road to the 1-805 northbound
on-ramp. The ROW must be obtained to properly construct the improvements.
The plans are complete and waiting on final permits from the Corps of
Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Board. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
Agenda
-7-
March 21, 1995
19. MAYOR'S REPORTtS)
a. Ratification of appointments:
Arnira Walker - International Friendship Commission;
Jon C. Thornburg - Resource Conservation Commission.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on March 28, 1995
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council
meeting.
*****
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 to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best Rrotect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of nal action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego regarding approval of a major use
permit for Daley Rock Quarry.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
. Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA
lawsuit.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
22. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
'-'
March 16, 1995
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City cou~t"
John D. Goss, City Manager& ~ ~
City Council Meeting of March 2~ 1995
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, March 21, 1995. Comments
regarding the written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that, as a
result of deliberations that occurred in Closed Session on
March 14, 1995, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the
acceptance of an offer to settle a disputed claim with cypress
Creek by increasing the "walkway limits" for the Palomar
Trolley Center to $21/square foot. Except for the foregoing,
there were no other observed reportable actions taken by the
city Council in Closed Session.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MS. STILLWAGON'S RESIGNATION FROM THE
CHILD CARE COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY
CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY
ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
5c. This is a letter from Robin Reader requesting a financial
contribution from the city to help sponsor a trip to Australia
and New Zealand with "People to People". This request does
not meet the criteria for funding organizations or individuals
as stated in Council Policy 159-02 and IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
THIS REQUEST BE DENIED.
JDG:mab
~
March 14, 1995
MEMO TO:
Carla Griffin, Administrative Secretary
FROM:
Patricia Salvacion, Mayor/Council Receptionist
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM .SPECIAL ORDERS OF tHE DAY" MARCH 21,
1995 - PROCLAMATION TO THE CHULA VISTA SOUTH PONY
LEAGUE
Councilman Jerry Rindone has requested that a proclamation be presented to Mr. Carlos
Sosa, President of the Chula Vista South Pony League, in celebration of the League's
30th Anniversary.
The date chosen for the presentation of the proclamation is Tuesday, March 21.
Mr. Sosa is aware that he will need to be at the Council Chamber on that date at
6:00 p.m.
*sample proclamation attached
tfa~J
'I.
COMMENDING THE CHULA VISTA SOUTH PONY LEAGUE
UPON THE OCCASION OF THEIR 30TH ANNIVERSARY
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista South Pony League began as the Chula Vista Pony
League in 1965 and is now celebrating its 30th year of continuous service to the
community; and
WHEREAS, the popularity of this league grew to such an extent that the league
divided in two, changing their name to Chula Vista South Pony League; and
WHEREAS, the CVS Pony League won the World Series in 1967 and the National
Championship for 13 year olds in 1984, making them the only Pony League in the region
to win a national championship in their age group; and
WHEREAS, thousands of children throughout our community have been given
recreational, leadership, and teamwork opportunities as a result of this exemplary
institution:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby recognize the outstanding contributions of the Chula Vista South
Pony League to the quality of life for our youth, the meritorious service to our community
and to our most precious resource, our children.
7"a..-~
~Vt..
~
.............~......
~......~-
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
March 15, 1995
From:
The Honorable Mayor and city council
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 3/14/95
To:
Re:
The purpose of this letter is to announce that as a result of
deliberations that occurred in Closed Session on March 14, 1995,
the Redevelopment Agency authorized the acceptance of an offer to
settle a disputed claim with cypress Creek by increasing the
"walkaway limits" for the Palomar Trolley Center to $21/square
foot.
Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable
action taken by the City Council in Closed Session.
BMB: 19k
C:\lt\closses8.rep
5'a..--/
27a FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5037
.~..
,.,~"'.ti~~'"
R!CEIVEO
MARCH 8,1995
~~('~\\1~~
"
" \~\'i~\
<,'1\
v"
\\J\~
"<<~",\~\l \,.>,i\\""
..~\,'Y.
\""
ELIZABETH STILLWAGON
THE CHULA VISTA CONNECSProlfl -9 P 1 :38
DAYCARE FACILITY .V OF CHULA VISTA
73 NORTH SECOND A VENUJQW.~'S OFFIOE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I, Elizabeth Stillwagon, resign from the childcare com-
mittee commission for reasons of conflick of interests and other
reasons which are apparent to myself. I wish the childcare com-
mission much success with the planning department in the child-
care implement.
SINCERELY
~~dff ~~aJ
EL ZABETH STILLW GON
~~('\)
~~~
WRITTEN COMMUN1CA nONS
5b~1 ~ 3~\q{'"
r.':;
March 6, 1995
Dear Mayor Horton,
My name is Robin Reader, and I'm 12-and-a-half years old. I'm in
the 7th grade at Chula vista Junior High School.
I've been selected to go to Australia and New Zealand with a
program called People to People. We'll be student ambassadors and
will be role models of American kids. There'll be about 40 kids
going from San Diego County, and I'm real proud I was chosen.
We'll be doing many things on this trip, like swimming and diving
at the Great Barrier Reef, meeting the inhabitants and learning
about the cultures of Australia and New Zealand, spending a night
with the Maori tribe in New Zealand and living in the home of an
Australian host family.
I was chosen for the program because I've gotten many academic
awards and because I'm active in Boy Scouts and other extra-
curricular activities. I was also chosen because I get along well
with other people and have a good personality.
I have to raise about $4,000 to pay for my tuition. I will be
earning about one-quarter of the amount by recycling, selling at
the swap meet or yard sales, doing chores and working around the
house and neighborhood. I need sponsors to contribute money to add
to my earnings so I can raise the money I need. I hope you'll
become a sponsor and contribute some money for my tuition.
Thank you very much.
~~
ROBIN READER
285 Sea Vale st.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~'~~l~)
~~U-
~~~.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
-5C .-- / --")(cA ?:>)d.)(qS'
I'
e!
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
ITEM t
MEETING DATE: 3/21/95
ordinance~~~ing section 2.28.050 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code relating to the Code
of Ethics to Prohibit Employment of a
Former city councilmember for a Period of
One Year after Leaving Office
City Attorney~
SUBMITTED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-K-)
Referral No. 2948
At its meeting of January 10, 1995, the city Council made a motion
that the City Attorney prepare an amendment to the provision of the
Ethics Code prohibiting a former elected official from appearing
before a city body or city officer or employee as an agent for
someone else soliciting a benefit or entitlement in front of the
city. The Council's interest was evaluating an expansion of that
provision to preclude a former elected official from being employed
for the same one year period of time after leaving office. A copy
of a proposed amendment to section 2.28.050 is attached for your
review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council place the ordinance on first
reading
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
At its meeting of February 27, 1995, the Board of Ethics voted 7-0
to approve the amendment to the ordinance. The Board of Ethics
wants to advise that it sees ambiguities and clarifications that
need to be made to section 2.28.050 and it is currently working on
corrections therefor. By sending it to you with this amendment, it
is not intended to convey satisfaction with the remainder of the
section.
The Board also advises the City Council that they considered
expanding the "after-office prohibition on city employment" to
Board/Commission/Committee ("B/C/C") members and to the City
Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk without a 4/5ths vote of the
Council but rejected said expansion for a variety of reasons as
follows:
1. The most likely "evil" that an "after-office" prohibition of
employment is designed to correct is use of an official's
influence to get a job. At the B/C/C level such influence is
weak and modulated by Manager and Council review. .
2. The prohibition would operate to preclude persons from
employability, which is something we would prefer not to do
unless needed to satisfy a strong government interest not
otherwise controllable.
?-/
Item~
Meeting Date: 3/21/95
Page Two
3. The group of people excluded from employability have a
demonstrated interest in Chula vista and an enhanced knowledge
of Chula vista's operations.
4. The rule doesn't make much sense in application to the City
Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk because they serve at the
will of the Council in an existing employment relationship.
If three members of the council want them gone, they are gone.
If three members want them to work, with the consent of the
person, they can work. Furthermore, the "evil" of using their
influence to create a job for themselves is not a concern
because they already have a job position for themselves.
Therefore, the Board declined to recommend an expansion of the
referral to others than on the City Council, but does recommend the
application of the rule to Councilmembers, which is consistent with
the Council referral.
DISCUSSION:
The city Attorney concurs with the recommendation of the Board of
Ethics.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
C:\ethics\228050.lel
.
6,-,;;.,
ORDINANCE NO.
.2t.2 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CODE OF ETHICS
TO PROHBIT EMPLOYMENT OF A FORMER CITY
COUNCILMEMBER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER
LEAVING OFFICE
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That section 2.28.050 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.28.050 Unethical Conduct.
A. General policy. One of the highest callings is that of public
serv~ce. with that service comes a requirement to conduct
oneself in a manner above reproach, since the citizens of the
community expect and deserve a high standard of conduct and
performance. This Code of Ethics provides the following
general guidelines and specific prohibitions to which City
officials must conform in the pursuit of their assigned duties
and responsibilities.
1. All City officials should endeavor to fulfill their
obligations to the citizens of Chula Vista, city
management and fellow employees through respect and
cooperation. They should strive to protect and enhance
the image and reputation of the city, its elected and
appointed officials, and its employees. All citizens
conducting business with the City shall be treated with
courtesy, efficiency and impartiality and none shall
receive special advantage beyond that available to any
others. Officials shall always be mindful of the public
trust and confidence in the daily exercise of their
assigned duties, striving to conserve public funds
through diligent and judicious management.
B. Specific Prohibitions. city officials (including non-paid
commission, board and committee members) shall be considered
to have committed unethical conduct if any of the following
occur:
1. Used one's position or title for personal gain but not
found to be an act of illegality or conflict of interest
by the District Attorney, Grand Jury or Fair Political
Practices commission.
1
f.,-:J
2. Knowingly divulge confidential information for personal
gain or for the gain of associates in a manner disloyal
to the city.
3. Knowingly make falSe statements about members of the City
Councilor other City employees that tend to discredit or
embarrass, those persons.
4 . Used or permitted the use of City time, personnel,
supplies, equipment, identification cards/badges or
facilities for unapproved non-City activities, except
when available to the general public or provided for by
administrative regulations.
5. No ex-city officer for a period of one year after leaving
office or employment, shall, for compensation, act as
agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, any other
person by making any oral or written communication,
before any ci ty administrative off ice or agency, or
officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or
communication is made for the purpose of influencing
administrative action, or influencing any action or
proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding,
or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract,
or the sale or purchase of goods or property.
6. Endorsed or recommended for compensation any commercial
product or service in the name of the city or in the
employee's official capacity within the city without
prior approval by a City Council policy.
~ No member of the City Council shall be eliqible. for a
oeriod of one year after leavinq office. for emolovment
bY. or be on the oavroll of. or be a oaid consultant or
oaid contractor to the city. or to any entity controlled
bv the city or the City Council ("Controlled Entities") .
or to any entity which receives a maioritv of its fundinq
from the city or of its Controlled Entities. exceot bv
the oermission of the Council findinq on 4/5ths vote that
soecial identified and articulated circumstances exist.
cast at a reqular oublic meetinq taken after the involved
member of the city Council has left office.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
oved as to form by
pr:z:. ~,e d and
/ J
, /t'l
Attorney
2
t-Jj
Board of Ethics
2-27-95 Minutes
Page 2
Aqenda Item No. 4 citv Council Aqenda
Prohibitinq Emplovment of a Former Elected Citv
Period of One Year after Leavinq Office.
Item relatinq to
Officeholder for a
Member Herney questioned
the Board of Ethics or
responded it was sent to
whether the Council
the City Attorney.
the City Attorney.
referral was sent to
Attorney Boogaard
Mr. Boogaard informed the Board that the item was removed from the
2/28/95 Council meeting due to some questions raised by
Administration during the tentative agenda meeting. various
scenarios of employment and contract work were discussed regarding
board/commission members, Councilmembers, City Attorney, City
Manager and/or City Clerk, with the conclusion being reached that
board and commission members should be excepted from the provision.
MSUC (Herney/McNutt) to change the words "Covered, Official" in
Paragraph 7 of section 2.28.050 to "member of the City Council" and
to eliminate any reference to "Covered Official" in section
2.28.020.
MSUC (Villegas/Carson) to allow Susan Herney to leave the meeting
at 4:40 p.m.
Aqenda Item No. 5 - Ethics Traininq Update.
It was reported that Toni McKean, the city's Training Coordinator,
would be attending the Josephson Institute's Train-the-Trainer
session in Washington during March. She was also coordinating a
Saturday date when the Council and Attorney were available for the
ethics training session with a June date being a possible
selection.
Aqenda Item No. 6 - Ethics Ordinance Amendment.
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was decided to hold this item
over to the next agenda, with said item being placed first on the
agenda in order for the Board to devote an hour's time to working
on it.
MSUC (Schulman/Carson) to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. to the next meeting
scheduled for March 6, 1995 at 3:30 p.m.
cf~~
Lorraine Kraker
t-3
March 17, 1995
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council ~A
sid W. Morris, Assistant city Manage~!J
~
Council Agenda Item 7, March 21, 1995 Agenda
EastLake Vent ana Subdivision
TO:
FROM:
This item was previously recommended to be continued because staff
had some concerns that no language/agreement existed for compliance
with the city's affordable housing requirements. However, staff is
now convinced that sufficient protection exists in future EastLake
projects and this particular project should not be postponed.
Action should, however, be taken in the not too distant future to
guarantee EastLake's compliance with affordable housing
requirements are met.
Staff is in the process of developing an Affordable Housing
Agreement which will further protect the city's interest and should
be back to the city council by May 1995.
SWM:mab
7-LJ
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemL
Meeting Date 3/21/95
8.
Resolution / 7r..JS Amending Condition No. 38 of Resolution
17618 Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Chula Vista Tract 88-3A, Eastlake South Greens.
Resolution /78'/'1 Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 95-03, Eastlake South
Greens, Unit 20 (Ventana)
Resolution / Je'J5 Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement Requiring Developer to Comply with Certain
Unfulfilled Conditions of Resolutions No. 17774 and 15200 Approving
a Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel R-20, known as Ventana, and
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Same.
ITEM TITLE: A.
0.
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public Wo s 11.6 [.t!ftfr
Director of Planning 00 S
Director of Comm ty DevelopmentL..- .
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On December 20, 1994, by Resolution 17774 (Exhibit A) the City Council approved the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 95-03, Parcel R-20 of Eastlake South Greens,
known as Ventana. Council also approved on July 18, 1989, by Resolution 15200 (Exhibit B),
the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 88-3, Eastlake Greens and on August 16,
1994, approved an amendment to the southerly portion of said Eastlake Greens Tentative Map
(designated as Eastlake South Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-3A) by Resolution 17618 (Exhibit
C). Said resolutions contain conditions of approval applicable to Ventana. The final map for
Ventana, Unit 20, is now before Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions amending Condition No. 38 of
Resolution No. 17618, approving the final map and subdivision improvement agreement, and
approving the supplemental subdivision improvement agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the west side of South Greensview Drive south of
Clubhouse Drive and consists of 93 lots for single family residential units, three (3) lettered
lots for open space and three (3) remainder lots. The developer intends to subdivide and
7-1
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 3/21/95
develop the remainder lots as additional residential units once annexation to the City of the
southern portion of Ventana is completed.
The final map for Ventana (Unit 20) of Chula Vista Tract 95-03, has been reviewed by the
Public Works Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map. Approval of the fmal map constitutes acceptance by the City, on behalf of the
public, of Boca Raton Drive, Boca Raton Street, Turtle Cay Place, Turtle Cay Way, Brooks
Trail Court and Waterwood Court; acceptance of tree planting and maintenance easements and
sewer and drainage easements and rejecting open space Lots A and C, all as shown on the fmal
map. However, the City reserves the right to accept the rejected open space lots in the future
per Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Condition of Approval No. 38 of Resolution No. 17618 requires the developer to update the
Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) as required by Chapter V of the PFFP
prior to approval of the first final map for the South Greens. Resolution No. 17765
subsequently amended Condition 38 to require approval of the update to the PFFP prior to
approval of the first fmal map creating residential lots. However, the developer has obtained
approval for improvement plans and guaranteed construction of all public improvements
required for the units within Phase I of the South Greens. Therefore any changes to the
improvements required by the PFFP due to changes in development phasing will not affect
requirements for Phase 1. Therefore, Staff recommends that Condition No. 38 be amended to
read as follows:
"Update the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan as required by
Chapter V of said approved document to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the Director of Planning prior to approval of the first fmal map for Phase
2 of Eastlake South Greens." If, in the course of the update, it is determined
that additional work is required as a result of the construction of Phase I, the
developer will insure that the work is completed according to the updated PFFP
schedule.
This amendment will allow time for review and approval of the PFFP update prior to approval
of any map creating the need for additional improvements.
The developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement to satisfy the
following conditions:
1) Tentative Map Condition of Approval "D" which requires the developer
to comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Eastlake
Greens Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by Resolution
No. 15200, and amended by Resolution 17618, and to remain in
compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of
1- c:I
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area, Eastlake Greens Planned
Community District Regulations, the Eastlake Greens Development
Agreement, the Water Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan,
Design Guidelines and the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
2) Condition 12 which requires the developer to enter into an agreement
whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building
permits for any units in the subject subdivision if regional development
and traffic threshold limits have been reached, and if the required public
facilities, as identified in the PFFP have not been completed to the
satisfaction of the City.
3) Condition 13 which requires the developer to agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the City from arty claims, actions or proceedings against
the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City with
regard to the subject subdivision.
4) Condition 14 which requires the developer to agree to hold the City
harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow of
drainage resulting from the subject subdivision.
5) Condition 15 which requires the developer to agree to insure that all
franchised cable television companies are permitted equal opportunity to
place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the
subject subdivision.
6) Condition 31(c) from Resolution 15200 which requires developer to enter
into an agreement not to protest formation of an assessment district for
the construction of street improvements to connect Orange Avenue and
Palomar Street to existing improvements to the west.
The developer is required to conform to Condition 44 from Resolution 15200, which requires
a low and moderate income housing program with a goal of 5% low and 5% moderate income
housing. Condition 44 included a deferral of the affordable housing requirement, however,
subsequent adoption of Resolution 17309 reinstated the affordable housing requirement and
additionally required that all subsequent fmal maps adhere to the affordable housing program
condition.
Resolution 17309 also directed the creation of an Ad Hoc Eastlake Affordable Housing Task
Force for the express purpose of creating an affordable housing implementation program for
the entire Planned Community of Eastlake I, II & III and the Land Swap Parcels. The
Planning and Community Development Departments are scheduled bring this back for review
r3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 3/21/95
by the City Council within the next two months. Approval of the final map for Ventana, Unit
20, will leave a total of 1,556 units (55%) remaining to be final mapped within the Eastlake
Greens Master Tentative Map. Draft fmdings of the affordable housing program indicate that
the units covered by the final map for Ventana are not slated as proposed low income housing
unit sites and that moderate-income units can be provided by market-rate housing units. To
assure that the affordable housing requirement for the Eastlake Greens is adhered to, and until
the affordable housing program is adopted, fmal maps will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Approval of Ventana, Unit 20 fmal map will not impact the City's ability to obtain compliance
with the affordable housing requirement for Eastlake Greens, and it is anticipated that only one
additional final map, totaling 64 units, will be processed before adoption of the Eastlake
Affordable Housing Program.
It should be noted that the possibility of a tax credit affordable apartment project of
approximately 120 units has been pursued with EastLake. This project is larger but otherwise
similar to the Cordova project recently approved for funding in Rancho del Rey. The project
would be a joint venture by Bridge Housing Corporation and South Bay Community Services,
and it would involve a subsidy from the City and a land write-down by EastLake. The project
is targeted for Parcel R-26, which is one of the primary affordable housing sites identified by
the Task Force.
The Task Force has been fully advised of the potential project on R-26, and it is felt that the
Task Force has been optimistic about achieving the affordable housing goals in part in
" anticipation of that project. However, it appears that the project is not progressing as
anticipated. Negotiations between EastLake and the joint venture are on hold, and we are
informed that EastLake is researching other alternatives to satisfying the affordable housing
obligation. Discussions between EastLake and City staff on this issue are pending, and the
Council will be kept informed. Without the near-term delivery of a project like the tax-credit
apartment project on R-26, it will be important to assure that the performance guarantees in
the Affordable Housing Agreement that results from the Task Force process are clear and fully
secured, most likely with performance bonding or collateralization through land encumbrance.
In the meantime, while this issue is being worked out and the Task Force report is being
processed and brought forward to the Council, staff feels that the City's interests are
sufficiently protected by the number of units that can be conditioned that will remain after the
potential approval of the subject final map and the subsequent final map for 64 units.
The developer has also executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for this map and
provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required public improvements (CV drawings
94-470 through 94-476), has paid all applicable fees and has provided a bond to guarantee the
monumentation for said subdivision. The agreements are now before Council for approval.
With the submittal of bonds and approval of the agreements, the developer has satisfied all
remaining conditions of approval for the fmal map. Staff recommends approval of the map.
1-1
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 3/21/95
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMP ACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans
and fmal map will be reimbursed from developer deposits.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Resolution 17774 & Minutes of 12/20/94 (excerpt)
Exhibit B - Resolution 15200
Exhibit C - Resolution 17618
Exhibit D - Plat - Eastlake South Greens Unit 20 (Ventana)
Exhibit E - Disclosure Statement
EY-406
SE
f:\home\enginecr\agenda\unit20
030895
1-5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ..., Af:L
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Resolution '''i <:l3.S Amending Condition No. 38 of Resolution
17618 Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for
Chula Vista Tract 88-3A, Eastlake South Greens.
Resolution I 7 g- / i Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 95-03, Eastlake South
Greens, Unit 20 (Ventana)
Resolution /721..5 Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement Requiring Developer to Comply with Certain
Unfulfilled Conditions of Resolutions No. 17774 and 15200 Approving
a Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel R-20, known as Ventana, and
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Same.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~
Director of Planning4- ? .
Director of Community Development t .
REVIEWED BY: City Manager-.k1 'CJ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On December 20, 1994, by Resolution 17774 the City Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 95-03, Parcel R-20 of Eastlake South Greens, known
as Ventana. Council also approved on July 18, 1989, by Resolution 15200, the tentative
subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 88-3, Eastlake Greens and on August 16, 1994,
approved an amendment to the southerly portion of said Eastlake Greens Tentative Map
(designated as Eastlake South Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-3A) by Resolution 17618. Staff
is finalizing the report.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council continue this item.
EY-406
SE
f:\home\engineer\agenda\unit20.con
031695
7~J
.
~~d
CXH/tJlr A
RESOLUTION NO.1 7774
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R.20, KNOWN AS
VENTANA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-03, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR IS.94-19
I. RECITALS
A.
.
.
Project Site
WHEREAS. the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. and commonly known as Unit 20 of EastLake Greens
Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 88-3; and for the purpose of
general description herein consists of 13.7 acra.locsted on the west side of
South Greensview Drive. south of Clubhouse Drive within the EastLeke Greens
Sectional Planning Area of the EastLake Planned Community C"Project Site");
and,
B.
Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS. on August 25. 1994, Brehm Communities C"Developer") and
EastLake Development Company ("Owner") filed a tentativa subdivision map
application with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista and
requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for Ventana. Chula Vista
Tract 95-03 in order to subdivide the Project Site into 109 residential lots and
three open space lots ("Project"); and,
C.
Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
1) a Genaral Development Plan, EastLake II CEastLeke I Expansion) General
Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
C"GDP"); 2) the EestLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199 ("SPA"); and 3) a Tentative
Subdivision Map. previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15200
C"TSM"I, Chula Vista Tract 88-3, aU approved on July 18, 1989; 4) an Air
Quality Improvement Plan. EestLake Greens Air Quality Improvemant Plan
CAQIP); and 51 a Water Conservation Plan, EastLake Greens Water Conservation
Plan (WCP); both previously approved by City Council Resolution No.1 6898 on
November 24.1992; and 61 a GDP, SPA, T5M, AQIP and WCP amandment
previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 17618 on August 16,
1994; and,
-
frY 7-7
Resolution No. 17774
Page 2
D.
Planning Commission Record on Application
~
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on December 7. 1994. and voted 6-0 to racommend that the City
Council approve the Project based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions listed below; and.
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS. a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on December 20. 1994. on the Project and
to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission. and to haar publiC
testimony with regard to same; and.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED thatthe 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 December 7. 1994. and the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefrom. are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
~
III. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviawed. analyzed and
considered the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-94-19
(known as Document No. C094-180 on file in the office of the City Clerk) and
comments thereon. the "environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (-Program-) (known as
Document No. C094-181 on file in the office of the City Clerk) thereon prior
to approving the Project. Based on the Initial Study and comments thereon. the
Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a
aignificant effect on the environment and thereby readopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City Council of the Ciiy of Chula Vista finds that the significant
environmental effect(s) identified in the Mitigated Negative Decleration will be
reduced to below a level of significance if the mitigation measures in the
MitigatKm Monitoring and Reporting Program are implemented. The Mitigation
"""'\
flrlK' 7- ~
Resolution No. 17774
Page 3
.
Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby readopted to ensure that its
provisions are complied with.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-94- 19
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Ouality Act, the State EIR
Guidelines. and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94.1 9 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project is in
conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the
following:
1. Land Use
.
The proposed density of 7.95 du/ac is in compliance with the approved
EastLake Greens SPA density renge of 5-15 du/ac for the Project a1te.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site publiC streets required to serve the Project
will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developar in accordance with
the EastLake Greens Public Financing Plan and Development Agreement.
The public streets within the Project will be designed In accordance with
the City design standards and/or requirements. The edjoining street
system was designed to handle the anticipated flow of traffic from this
and other area projects.
3.
Housing
.
The EastLake Greens SPA Plan area has been conditioned to provide a
minimum of 10% affordable housing including a mix of housing types
and lot sizes for single.family, townhouses. condominium and,
eventually, apartment densities that will provide a wide spectrum of
JY'3
7-1
Resolution No. 17774
Page 4
housing prices for persons of various incomes. The single.family
detached residential housing type proposed within the Project is
consistent with the EastLake Greens SPA Plan.
"""\
4. Conservation
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Ind
Reporting Program for IS.94.19 addressed the goals Ind policies of the
Conservation Element of the Gel'\eral Plan and found the development
of the Project Site to be consistent with these goals Ind policies.
5. Parks Ind Recreation, Open Space
The Project Site is located within the EastLake Greens SPA Plan Irea.
The EastLake Greens SPA Plan provides public parks. trails Ind open
space consistent with City policies.
6. Seismic Safety
The Project is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic
Element of the General Plan for this site.
7. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service Igencies have
reviewed the Project for conformance with City safety policies and have
determined that it meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency
services.
""'"
8. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
SEIR.86.04 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15.94.19 adequately
address the noise policy of the General Plan. All dwelling units within
the project will be required to be designed so IS to not exceed the
Interior noise level of 45 dBA. Additionally, III exterior privlte open
apace will be shielded by I combination of .Irth. berm. will, Indlor
buildings to Ichieve I 65 dBA noise level for outside privlte Ir.ls.
II. Scenic Highway
The Project Site is not loclted Ilong I designated scenic highwlY, but
will provide I 10ft. wide Ilndsclpe buffer Ind decorltive will Ilong
Greensview Drive in order to enhance the Ippearance of the Project
from the street.
.
The project, IS conditioned. will be required to provide I landsclpe
"'"
~ 7-/tJ
Resolution No. 17774
Page 5
. buffer in conformance with landform grading and acenic highway
principles of the General Plan.
10. Bicycle Routes
Bicycle lanes have been incorporated within the EastLake Greens
Planned Community area design end ere presently in use. The public
streets within the project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle
travel within the interior of the subdivision.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project lite. The project is
subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. the Council certifies
that it has considered the effect of this approval on the hOUling needs of the
region end has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C.
The configuration. orientation and topography of the lite partially allows for the
optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities
as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
.
D.
The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards established by the City for auch projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement
herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the
impact created by the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VEO that the City Council does hereby approve the Project
lubject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
VIII. VALIDITY OF EXACTIONS..
The City hereby finds that the exactions herein required of the Developer are related
to the proposed development and are in an amount or degree that il proportional to the
impact of the development.
IX. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Project which is stated to be conditioned 6n -General Conditions-
II hereby conditioned as follows:
.
p 7';/
Resolution No. 17774
Page 6
A.
Project Site is Improved with Project
"'""
Developer. or their successors in interest. shall improve the Project Site with
the Project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 95-03
Ind the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94-19 except IS modified by this
Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures
Developer shall diligently implement. or cause the implementation of. III
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final
Supplemental Impact Report for Eastlake Greens FEIR-86-04 and Mitigated
Negative Declaration IS-94-19.
C. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Developer shall implement. or cause the implementation of III portions of
15.94.19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pertaining to the Project.
D. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project.
Unless otherwise conditioned, developer shall comply with an unfulfilled
conditions of Ipproval of the EastLake Greens Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract
88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on July 18.
1989. Ind amended by Resolution 17618 approved by Council on August 16,
1994. and shan remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions
end provisions of Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area. Eastlake Greens
Planned Community District Regulations, the Eastlake Greens Development
Agreement, the Water Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan. Design
Guidelines and the Public Facilitias Financing Plan.
"'""
E. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake Greens
Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer
to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City
Engineer Ind Planning Director may. at their discretion. modify the sequence of
Improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such I revision.
F. Project Phasing
If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps.
aubmit Ind obtain approvll for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer
and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map. Improvements.
facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development
ahan be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planing. The City
reserves the right to condition approval of each final map with the requirlment
'""'\
.
~ 7---/.:2
Resolution No. 17774
Page 7
.
to provide said improvements. facilitias and/or dedications as necessary to
provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire
departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may. at their discretion.
modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to
warrant such a revision.
G. Annexation
Annex all property within the proposed subdivision boundary of each final map
to the City of Chula Vista from the County of San Diego prior to approval of
each map.
H. Design Review Approval
The final map shall comply with all applicable plans and conditions epproved
with DRC.95.16.
X. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to approval of the final map unless otherwise indicated. the developer shall:
.
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
1. Design. construct and dedicate right of way for all streets to meet the City
standards for residential streets. or as approved by the City Engineer. Submit
improvement plans for approval by the City Engineer detailing the horizontal and
vertical alignment of said streets.
2. Guarantee the construction of all improvements (streets. sewers. drainage
facilities. utilities. etcl deemed necessary to provide service to the subject
subdivision in accordance with City standards.
3. Design streets to meet 250' minimum distance between centerline intersections
or as approved by the City Engineer.
4. The waivers requested on the tentativa map for the following are hereby
granted:
al cui de sacs .
bl tangant length between Station 28 and Station 30
cl knuckles
dl driveway leparation from PCR to be 4 feet miAimum
.
6.
Present written verification to the City Engineer from Dtay Water District thet
the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water
ItoraQ,e facilities.
~ 7;/3
Resolution No. '7774
Page 8
6.
Design all residential streets with 200 ft. minimum curve radii.
~
7. Obtain and grant to the City easements for the maintenance of the proposed
sewer and storm drain between the northerly subdivision boundary and the
point of connection to the existing facilities. Said easements shall be , 0' wide
minimum.
GRADING
8. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for final grading plans.
9. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original document
prepared by a registered engineer. as required by the City Engineer.
'0. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erosion and
sedimentation control plan together with grading plans.
1 ,. Submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located
on fill, cut. or a transition between the two situations.
AGREEMENTS
12. Enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
a.
The developer agrees the City may withhold building permits for any
units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur:
""'"
(') Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
(2) Traffic volumes. levels of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the adopted City threshold standards.
b. The developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for
any of the proposed development if the required public facilities, as
identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise conditioned have not
been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the City. The
developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of
development and the construction of improvements affected. In such
case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the Planning Director
and City Engineer.
13. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers
and amployees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or Its
agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval
by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any
approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision
~
~7-J'I
-
Resolution No. 17774
Page 9
.
15.
pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the Map Act provided the City promptly
notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion. siltation or
Increase flow of drainage resulting from this project.
Agree to insure that all franchised cable television companies (.Cable
Compeny.) are permittad equel opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to eech lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the
conduit to only those frenchised ceble television companies who are. and
remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and
which are In further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and
procedures regulating and affecting the operation of ceble television companies
as same mey heve been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of
Chula Vista.
14.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
16. Pay additional fees on a fair-share basis Into Assessment District Numbers 90-
3. 91-1 end other applicable assessment districts due to a change in units
approved subsequent to District formation as determined by the City Engineer.
.
17. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary.
Request apportionment and provide a deposit to the City estimated at
.40/unitJdistrict to cover costs.
18. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer acknowledging that
additionsl fees have been paid Into the Assessment District or the
Transportation DIF Fund, and that these additionsl fees are reflected in the
purchase price of the horne for those units which have a density change from
that indicated in the assessment district's Engineer's Raport. Submit disclosure
form for the approval of the City Engineer.
19. Request annexation into EastLake Maintenance District '1 of all areas within
the tentative map boundary not currently Included In the district prior to
approval of the first final map which includes Slid areas. Deposit .3,000 to
initiate annexation proceedings. Pay all costs of proceedings.
MIS~l;llAN~OUS
.
20. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the Califomia System -Zone VI (1983).
21. Submit copies of Final Maps In a digital format such is (DXF) graphic file prior
to approval of .ach Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of
the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations end submit
jb5'Y7-/5
Resolution No. 17774
Page 10
the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digitel Submittal in
duplicate on 5-1/2 HD floppy disk prior to the epproval of each Final Map.
"""'
XI. CODE REQUIREMENT REMINDERS
1. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
2. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal
Code requirements.
3. Satisfy the requirement to pay the Trensportetion Development Impact Fees
(TOIFI prior to final map approval if the fee is financed through an assessment
district or pay the TDIF prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c.
All applicable sewer fees. including but not limited to sewer connection
fees.
I
""'\
d. Interim Pre-SR-125 Impact fee (effective January 1,19951.
e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows Devalopmant Impact Fees
5. Pay the amount of applicable fees In effect at the time of issuance of building
permits. The developer is advised that fe.. periodically change. and that it Is
the developer's rasponsibility to contact the appropriate City department or
government agency to ascartain the amount of a given fee due at the time of
collection.
6. Required fire hydrants must be installed and operable prior to dalivery of eny
combustible construction materials.
7. If eny part of the development will be edjacent to en open spac. ar.a,
perticularly canyon rims, e plan for brush management and fire. resistive
lendscaping must be submitted.
"'"
~ 7-/1-
Resolution No. 17774
Pege 11
.
XII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fall to be 10
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City Ihall have the right to
revoke or modify allapprovels herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or leek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City's approval of this Resolution.
XIII. 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.
XIII.
INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
.
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisionl or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable.
this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and
effect ab initio.
/1// If L/~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaar
City Attorney
Presented by
,
.
~?~J?
-
Resolution No. 17774
Page 12
)
"""
..'
"'"
EXHIBIT A
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L<<Aftla _. Br'AJllA. I.AJ'I'I,AKI ~.
(!) ENS . ~A"
~ IOVIII ............ ...... -= .... ..., .'
" .. .." .. r. j ....,
-NONE l-rcs.".u 4_ -'.1. -...,-
..,.
.""
~ 7-/('
Resolution No. 17774
Pege 13
.
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 20th day of December. 1994. by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers:
Fox. Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NOES: Council members:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
None
~
Shirley orton, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA I
t. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California. do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17774 was duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of December
1994.
Executed this 20th day of December, 1994.
Beverly
;
.
~7~)1
Minules
December 20, 1994
Page 6
RESOLtrrlON 17773 APPROVING ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY I, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
This bein, the lime and place as advertised, Ihe public h""rinll was doclar".) llJl"n. The.... heing no puhlic lestimony.
the public bearin, was decla...... closed.
RESOLtrrlON 17773 OFFERED BY COUNCILJ\fEMBER FOX, reuding of Ihe text was waived, passed and
approved Wl8llimously.
19. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-95.oJ: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
A PROJECT KNOWN AS VENTANA, TRACT 95-03, INVOLVING 109 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
ON 13.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE, SOtrrH OF
CLUBHOUSE DRIVE, AND SUBMITTED BY BREHM COMMUNITIES -Brehm Communities h.. submitted
a Teotative Subdivision Map known as Ventana, TraCt 95'()3, in order 10 subdivide 13.7 acres into 109 .ingle family
101S aDd three opeo space 101S. The property is designal".) as Parcel R-20 within the EaslLake Oreens Planned
Communily, aDd is localed on Ihe wesl side of Soulh O....ensview Drive. south of Cluhhouse Drive. Staff
recommends approval of the resolulion. (Director of Planning)
RESOLtrrlON 17774 APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R-20. KNOWN AS VENTANA, TRACT 95-03, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING TilE MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR 1S-94-19
This beiD, the time aDd place as advertised. the puhlic hearing was docla""" clo""'.
· Scot SalIdsIrom, 2835 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego. CA, representing Brehm Communilies. SIal".)
they wae in support of the staff recommendalion. The projoct was their tifth in Ea.'tLake.
1'bete beiD, DO further public lesIimony, the public hearing was decl....... closed.
C'OlIDCilmember RiDdoae SIaIed a palltll'll bad developed early in Ea.,tLake which promoted the developmenl of cuI-
..... aDd hindered a Jood flow of lraffic. He question".) whelher Ih.1 WlS . posilion llIken by . pnwious Council.
Robert Leiter, Direclor of Plannin" respond",) lhal part of the 101 layout tilr Ihe pr<!iecl hefo.... Council was because
it was a ,olf course communily. In looking al new prqiecls stall' was promoling Ihe use of. grid pallem.
CounciImember RiDdooe stal".) if staff was concern".) with p.......ure from d.welopers Ihey should brinllthe issue
back In Council for a policy decision.
""""
RESOLUTION 17774 OFFERED BY COUNCILJ\IEI\IBER FOX, mading of the text was waived, JIIL'lWd and
approved WIlIIIimollSly.
20. PUBLIC HEARING ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN RIGHT -oF-W A V FOR EAST" J" STREET
On 7/18191, Council approved the lentalive subdivision map "If Rancho del Rey SPA III. Tracl 90-02. In order
10 comply with the lealalive map condilions, Rancho del Rey Partnership is ......ui...... In conNlrucl an nff...ile portion
of East OJ" Street. It RllIui.. stlllet ri&hl-of-way &Cross property own".) hy SIL,ie M.ry Bennen. The property is
IocaIed betw_ Paseo Ladera and River Ash Drive and conNisls nf about 1.07 acres. The ~f1i>l1s of Rancho del
Rey Partnership 10 obtain the property by negolialion have fail".). Due 10 lime ~'Onslraints, Rancho del Rey
Partnership CaDDOI wail aDY longer and emineol domain proceedinllN mUNI hejlin. Slaff recommends approval of
the I1IlIOlulion. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLtrrlON 17775 DETERJ\flNING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO
ACQUJRE CERTAIN RIGHT-oF-WAV FOR EAST "J" STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEJ\fNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE
SAm RIGHT-OF-WAY
""'"
~ 7-.:lCl
.
.
.
eXII/l!Jlr l:>
Revised 7/25/1
RESOwrION 00. 15 200
RESOWTION OF THE CITY CDUlCIL OF TRE CITY OF 0IUL0'. VISTA
APPROVING '1ml'ATIVE KM> FCR EASTLAKE GREENS, 0IUL0'. VISTA
'lRAcr 88-3
-
..
-
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
~, the proposed subdivision for the EastLake Greens area
er......,~s 830 acres of land located in the eastern portion of the City of
Chula Vista east of I-80S and south of Otay Lakes IlDad, and
WHEREAS, the subdivision includes streets, open space, church sites,
commercial lots, park sites, school sites, condominium lots and single-family
lots, and
WIlEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report EIR-86-4 was considered
previously, and
WIlEREAS, on June 21, 1989, the Planning Carmission, by a vote of
6-0, feoolll1lended that the COltlcil approve the EastLake Greens Tentative Map
subject to the fOllowing:
On an interim basis, Parcels R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27, and R-28 shall
be zoned at the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acres. A maxinum of
4,034 units will be approved for EastLake II until such time as the
guidelines for exceeding the target density for the General Plan Update are
resolved. The following procedure will occur to determine additional
density, if any, for the EastLake project.
a. Specific guidelines for exceeding the target General Pllln
density will be adopted1
b. The adopted General Plan policies will be applied to determine
the incremental units to be added to EastLake II.
c. The units from the new calculation will be distributed to these
five parcelS or other unsubdivided. portion of EastLake Greens
Tentative Map.
d. The SPA Plan and Tentative Map will be returned to the planning
Carmission and City COuncil for adoption of the increased
density, if any.
tOf, 'ftIEREPCIlE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby approve the tentative map for EastLake Greens, Chula
Vista Tract 88-3, based on the findings eet forth herein and subject to the
following conditions:
BncJineerif19 Departlllent COnditions:
1. Public bprov_nts required in this resolution shall include, but not
be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and
,
~ 7-;1 /
. :...-
sidewalk, traffic signals, street lights, traffic signs, street trees,
fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities.
All i~rovements shall be designed and constructed in aa:ordance with
~tystan&r~. ---
...
"""
-
... ,
2. The developer shall be responsible for:
a. '1'he construction of p.lblic street improvements of all streets shown
on the tentative map within the subdivision.
b. The construction of public street improvements for all off-site
portions of Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway, Palanar Street and
orange Avenue along the full length of the subject property. Full
width inprovements shall be required unless the developer can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that partial
inprovements will meet the Cit@ standar~ for traffic, bicycles,
pedestrians and parking. Transitions to existing improvements shall
be provided as required by the City Engineer.
3. a. The developer shall guarantee the construction of the following
i~rovements prilfr to the approval of the final map for any of the
phases of development identified in the EastLake Greens phasing
plan. 'ftle developer may submit an alternate proposal to provide
access to any individual or group of phases identified herein. Said
proposal shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
Phase Facilities Needed * (see table I for description of
each fac1li ty . ) """
11. 1, 2
18 1, 3, 4, 8, 15
lC 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15
10 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15
2 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15
3 1, 2, 2a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
* Facilities that shall be guaranteed prior to approval of final
map for the corresponding phase and conq:>leted prior to permits
being issued for the subsequent phase (1.e., facilities for 1"
through D conpleted before permits for Phase 2 are issued).
b. '1'he developer shall guarantee the construction of all interior p.lblic
inprovements required for development of any unit of development
prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map for said unit.
4. Right turn lanes and dual left turn lanes shall be provided at the
intersection of any of the following street classifications: major-major,
wajor-pr1me arterial, prime arterial-prime arterial.
5. Palomar Street from the westerly subdivision boundary to EastL6ke Parkway
shall be constructed as a 4-lane collector (74 feet from curb-to-curb).
"'"
~ 7-.2;2.
.
..
.
6. No 151rect acx:ess for residential driveways will be allowd to Street "A",
EastLake ParleVay, Blnte ParkWay, Street "E", "0" Street, Street "1'", Otay
Lakes Road, oranqe Avenue and Palomar street. 'nle location of streel
entries and major entries for IIUlti-family projects to the above streets
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
..
7. IDt frontage on cul-de-sacs oCld knuckles shall not be less than 35 feet-
unless approved by the City Engineer.
8. a. A transition to existing inprovements is required on Otay Lakes Road
east of Hunte ParkWay. said transition shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. 'nle intersection of Hunte ParkWay and Orange Avenue shall require
special treatment to transition to the prime arterial status of Hunte
parkWay southerly of said intersection.
TABLE I
OESCRIPl'I~ OF ONSITE 'BlANSPORTATI~ FACILITIES
-
Facility No.
1
2
Street
Portion
EastLake Parkway
EastLake ParkWay
Otay Lakes Road to Street "0"
Street "0" to the Interim
Terminus SOUth of the SDG&E
Easement
2a
EastLake Parkway
Palomar Street to the Interim
Terminus South of the SDG&E
Easement
EastLake Parkway to North
Street "A"
3
Street 0
4
5
North Street "A"
Street "0" to Hunte Parkway
North Street "A"
Street "0" to Street "E"
6*
South Street "A"
Street "0" to Hunte Parkwsy
EastLake parkwsy to Street "A"
7
8
street "E"
Hunte Parkway
Otay Lakes Road to SOUth
Boundary of Phase ~8
street "E" to North Boundary
of Phase lC
9
Hunte Parkway
10
Hunte Parkway
Street "E" to SOUth Street "A"
,
- ~-
~7-0l3
11 Hunte Parkway South Street "A" to Orange
Avenue """
-
12 Orange 6venue Hunte Parkway to West
Boundary of SUbdivision .
-
13 Street "E" Street "A" to Hunte Parkway
14 Palomar Street EastLake Parkway to West
Boundary of the Subdivision
15 Otay Lakes Road Lane Avenue to Hunte Parkway
.
Iii conjunction with developnent at Phase 10, developer may CXlnstruct
eidler that portion of South Street A to connect Street QO to Street "D.
or that portion to Bunte Parkway.
9. underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards shall be
installed at the foll~ing intersections:
EastLake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road
Ea8t.Lake Parkway and "0" Street
EastLake Parkway and "E" Street
EastLake Parkway and Palomar Street
Hunte parkway and Otay Lakes Road
Hunte Parkway and north Street "A"
Hunte Parkway and "E" Street """
Hunte Parkway and south Street "A" ,
Bunte parkway and Orange Avenue
"E" Street and Street "A"
"0" Street and north Street "A".
Mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment shall not be installed
unless approved by the City Engineer.
10. Interconnect conduit, pull boxes and pullrope shall be installed to
connect following intersection signal systems.
Cltay Lake. Road/Route 125 to Otay Lakes Road/EastLake parkway
Otay Lake. Road/EaStLake Parkway to Otay Lakes Roadlllunte Parkway
Otay Lakes Road/EaStLake Parkway to EastLake Parkway/eo" Street
!astLake Parkway/"O" Street to North Street "A" /"0" Street
EastLake Parkway/"O" Street to EastLake ParkwaY/"E" Street
EastLake Parkway/"E" Street to EastLake Parkway/Palomar Street
Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road to Bunte ParkwaylNorth Street "A"
Hunte Parkway/Street "A" to Bunte Parkway/"E" Street
EastLake Parkway/"E" Street to Street "A /"E" Street
Street "A"/"r Street to Hunte ParkwaY/"E" Street
Bunte Parkway/"E" Street to Bunte Parkway/North Street "A"
Bunte Parkway/South Street "A" to Bunte Parkway/Orange Avenue
Orange AYeI'lue east of Rlnte Parkway to subdivision boundary.
"""
~ 7-..2f
11. a.
.
A conditional use permit shall be filed with the City for the golf
ClOUr.., clubhouse, and related swillll\ill9 and teMis facility prior to
issuance of building permits for purposes of regulating operations,
uses, and site design. -
b. Locations where ~lf ClOUrse crOSSings of streets are provided shan
be clearly signed and marked. "Where streets being crossed are
classified to carry traffic at a speed greater than 25 1IP1, such
crossings shall only be at intersections or through the use of "grade
separation structures.
c. 'n1e developer or other subsequent owner of the golf course shall
agree to be responsible for the payment to the City of oo9Oing repair
and maintenance costs of any grade separation structures which may be
required for the benefit of the golf course.
d. Golf ClOUrse IISfety features shall be reviewed by the City Engineer in
conjunction with CalStructioo of the golf ('Ourse.
12. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or
vertical curves III1st meet intersectioo design sight distance requirements
in accordance with Ci~ standards.
Ells stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both sides of
Street "A. adjacent to the intersections with the following streets:
street "E., street "G", street "D", street "QQ" and Street "PFP".
Bus turnouts shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Ells stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both aides of
Hunte Parkway adjacent to the intersections with Street "E" and south
Street .A". Ells shelters as approved by the City EIl9ineer shall be
provided alCll19 both sides of EastLake Parkway adjacent to the
intersection with street "E" or appropriate alternative locations.
14. Right turn lane. shall be provided 00 Street "A" at the internet ions of
street "A" with street "D" and south street "A" with Hunte Parkway. A
right turn lane shall be provided 00 EastLake Parkway at its intersection
with street "E".
13. a.
.
b.
15. a. All .treets within the 1IU1ti-family developnents and the access road
to unit 29 shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical
alignment of the centerline of lISid .treets .hall be reflected on the
bprovement plana for lISid developments. Design of lISid streets
shall ...t the City standards for private streets.
b. Private streets in units 1 and 2 (single family detached ~its) shall
...t City standards for public streets or atandards acceptable to the
City Engineer.
c. All llUbdivi.iOl'l8 proposing private streets with controlled access
devices, such as 9Stes, shall cor.tain the following feature':
.
~ 7-.JS
(1) Gates shall be approved by the City Engineer. Gates shall be
located to provide sufficient room to queue up without
interrupting traffic on public streets.
........,
-
(2) A turn around lhall be provided at the location of the gate.
'!'he size and lcx:ation of said turn around shall be approved by .
the City Engineer.
(3) '!'he border between public street and private street shall be
delineated through the use of distinctive pavement.
(4) Provi~ions shall be llBde for emergency vehicle access.
16. All the streets shown on the subject tentative llBp within the subdivision
boundary, except as described above, shall be dedicated for public use.
Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment for said streets shall be
reflected Oil the lnprovements plans for the Subject subdivision or any
unit thereof. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for
public streets.
17. The owner shall qrant to the City street tree planting and maintenance
easements along all publtc streets within the subdivision as shown on the
tentative map. Said easement shall extend 10 feet fran the back of the
sidewalk except on Hunte Parkway and portions of EastLake Parkway as
provided below. Along Hunte Parkway, said easement shall extend 10 feet
fran the property line and shall contain no slope steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical ratio). The entire area of said tree planting
easement along Bunte Parkway shall be offered for dedication on the
subdivision maps for future street purposes. The tree planting easement """""',
along those portions of EastLake Parkway containing meandering sidewalks
shall coincide with the proposed sidewalk easement as shown on the
'1'entatiY'" flap.
18. The owner shall qrant to the City a 10 foot sidewalk easement adjacent to
the property line for the installation of a meandering sidewalk at the
following locations:
a. Otay Lakes JlDad along the full length of the frontage of Unit 17.
b. BastLake parkway - along the frontage of \)ni ts 29, 34 and 32 (north
of the intersection of "E" Street).
c. Street E
Between EaatLake parkway and Street - along the frontaqe of Unit
25.
Betwen Street A and Bunte parkway - along the frontage of Units
28, 29, 37 and 39.
19. Prlor to the approval of any final lIIlp for subject subdivision or any unit
thereof, the 8Ubdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary
for the ~lation of required inprovements for that unit.
........,
~
7--- ..2~
.
If the developer requests the City to use its powers to acquire said
off-site right-of-way, the developer shall pay all costs, both direct and
indirect incurred in said acquisition.
-
20. 'DIe developer shall gcant to the City l' control lots adjacent to the
following streets: _ -. ,
a. south end of EaatLake Parkway.
b. SOUth end end east side of Hunte Parkway.
c. Both ends of Street A.
d. Both ends of Orange Avenue.
e. Nest end and 80Utherly side of Palomar Street.
f. Both sidea of Orange Avenue.
21. Striping plana shall be provided for the following streets: Street "A",
Street eO", street "E", EastLake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Orange Avenue,
Otay Lakes Road arK! Palomar Street. Striping plans shall be approved in
conjunction with iq>rovement plans for said streets.
22. Prior to the approval of any final subdivision map which includes a
portion of the streets listed below, the developer shall submit plans
demonstrating the feastbility of the extension of the said streets:
a. !astLake Parkway - from Palomar Street to Orange Avenue.
b. HUnte Parkway - from Otay Lakes Road to East "H" Street.
c. Palomar street - from the subject subdivision a mininum distance of
1,000 ft. vesterly.
. d. Orange Avenue - a minillUlll distance of 1,000 ft. vesterly.
23. a. 'DIe developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance
with all drainage requirements of the SUbdivision Manual to include,
but not be limited to, dry lane requirements. calculations shall
also be provided to denDnstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
b. specific _thode of hendling storm drainage are subject to detailed
approval by the City Engineer at the time of aubmiuion of
inprovement and grading plana. Design shall be aecomplished on the
basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading
Ordinance (11797 as amended).
c. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures
including inlet end outlet structures as required by the City
!ngineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures
located in the rear yard of any residential lot.
24. a. 'DIe deVeloper shall abtain notarized letters of permi.sion for all
off-aite grading work prior to iuuance of grading permit for work
requiring ..id off-aite grading.
b. Lote ahaU be so graded as to drain to the street or to ,an approved
drainage ayatem. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes.
.
~ 7-17
25. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade.
Sewers serving 10 or less equiValent dwelling units shall have a IllinilllJJll
grade of 1\.
""'"
--
26. 'nle developer shall ~ly with all relevant Federal, state and local
regulations, including.. the Clean Water Act. 'nle developer shall.'.~
responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to
denonstrate said ClI:lI1plianc:e as required by the City Engineer.
27. A paved lICOltSS road with a IlIiniJn.lm width of 12 feet shall be provided to
all sanitary sewer manholes. 'nle roadway shall be designed for an &-20
wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
28. '!'he developer shall grant easements for all off-site public storm drains
and sewer facilities prior to approval of any final map requiring those
fat:ilities. lasements shall be a IllinillUlft width of six feet greater than
pipe size, but in no case, less than 10 feet.
29. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the
grading plans.
30. '!'he developer shall ~er into an agreement whereby the developer agrees
that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject
subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake
Parkway, or East -8- Street exceed the levels of service identified i/l the
City's adopted thresholds.
31. a. 'nle property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district
for the maintenance of the drainage channel in Telegraph Canyon.
b. 'nle property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district
for the maintenance of landscaped _dians and parkways along streets
within and adjacent to the subject property.
c. '!'he property owner shall enter into an agreenent wherein he agrees to
not protest formation of an assessment district for the construction
of street inprovements to c:onnect Or~ Avenue and palanar Street to
existing inprovements to the west of the subject property and to not
protest inclusion of the subject inprovements as projects in the
Eastern Territories Developoent Inpact Fee system.
32. a. All sanitary sewer facilities required for developnent of any lot,
unit or phase lIhall be guaranteed prior to recordation of a
aubdivision IIIlP for said lot, unit or phase.
b. '!'he developer lIhall provide for the costs associated with maintenance
of the sewer pilip stations prior to approval of any subdivision _ps
which shall require said punp stations to provide sanitary sewer
..rvioe.
"""'
c. 'DIe developer shall obtain permiasion frOlll the City to deposit sewage
in . foreign buin prior to approval of any subcUvision IIIlP which
shall require any sewage to be transferred frOlll an existing basin
-...
.
~ 7/~ Y
.
.
.
33.
into another basin. The permission shall be in the form of an
agreement whereby the City shall agree to such transfer, and the
developer shall agree to the construction of certain improvements in
the system that will accept said sewage and to the cir~5
under which said ~rmission may be revoked.
-
Prior to the approval of any final map for any lot or unit, the owner
shall guarantee the construction of all improvement (streets, sewers,
drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to such lot
or unit in accordance with City standards.
... ,
34. Prior to approval of any subdivision map for single family residential
use. The developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating
whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition
between the two situations.
35. SOuth Street .A. and Street .E. (between Street .A. and Hunte parkway)
shall be 52 feet wide (cur~to-curb) within 72 feet of right-of-way to
provide for on-street parking on one side of each street.
36. Off-site cumulative transportation impacts shall be mitigated to
insignificant levels"' by participating in the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan on a fair share basis with other area
developers.
37. EastLllke Greens will be subject to any new City resolution or ordinance
regarding cable television.
planning Department OOnditlons
38. a. Applicant shall request the formation of an open space district.
Maintenance of specific areas may be required to be performed by the
master homeoWner's association. Open space slopes shown adjacent to
public and private neighborhood parks shall be included in thl'
established maintenance program.
b. Park dedication and improvement cret'Jit for private parks (up to 50\)
!lilY be considered subject to approval of improvements, park acreagl'
and activity areas provided. .
c. Development of all public and private park areas receiving park
credit designated on the subdivision map shall be subject to th"
approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation. Sairl
approval shall ClOIllPly with the standards listed in Section 17.10.050
of the "-lnicipal COde.
d. Maintenance and credit for the proposed open space trail system shall
be subject to approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Th<'
trail shall consist of an approved D.G. base.
.. Park dedication credit for the COIlIIII1nity park shall not. include th('
slope area adjacent to proposed '125, however, credit shall be given
when park improvements in excess of the Municipal. Code requirement"
are provided.
~ 7-.21
f. Any PAD fees to be waived shall be done 80 upon completion of parks
or boraded 9Uarantees of park mmpletion. Bonds provided to the
Department of Real Estate may be sufficient quarantee for private ~
park illProvements. -
g. No waiver of Re~dential COnstruction Tax is made or inpliedo, ~y
awroval of this map.
39. Park acreage of 24 acres shall be provided subject to the awroval of park
illProvement plans by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
40. The open lJpIlce corridor ellClClllPllssing the SDG&E easement and the San Diego
water line shall be incorporated into adjacent land use plans lIS usable
open lJpIlce and/or parking. The adjacent land use lots shall be graded to
accomplish an acceptable interface.
41. The 5:1 grading shown on EastLllke parkway (reference sheet .2) shall be
eliminated and shown as 3:1.
42. A mininum 15 ft. wide landscaped area shall be provided between the
sidewalk and wall areas created along single-family areas on Street -A-.
N:)TE: Down slopes sha'!l COII'IIlence at a mininum distance of 10 ft. fran the
public sidewalk. Alternate tree plantings in awroved concrete cone root
containers will be considered for limited are',s.
43. COpies of proposed CC&R's shall be filed with the City.
44. A low and IIKlderate incane housing program with an established goal of 5'
low and 5' IIKlderate shall be implemented subject to the approval of the ~
City's housing coordinator. N:)TE: A 1\ change resUlting in 4' low and 6\
IIKlderate is dK...ed an acceptable tolerance. This condition shall be
deferred and further evaluated as a factor in the analysis of the General
Plan denaity policies as they relate to parcels R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27,
and R-28.
45. All paved access to sewer and drainage outlets shall be subject to
awroval by the Director of Planning.
46. A mininum of three church sites totaling 7 acres shall be designated prior
to recordation of the final map.
47. Qlen 8plIC8 eu...nts shown at the rear of various lots backing onto the
golf cour.. 8hall be included in the golf course maintenance program.
48. All lots adjacent to intersections subject to road widening requirements
shall require further review by the Planning Director to determine
acceptability.
49. SChool developnent shall be phased to provide facilities with adequate
capacities to serve residential occupancy. Mello-Roos COnm.Inity
racilities District has been formed by the respective school districts.
~
~ 7~JtJ
.
.
.
50. Provide street IllUIIe8 al the tentative nap.
51. " conceptual landseape plan, together with a water management plan, shall
be provided prior to City Council approval of the tentative map-1llld
subject to the approval of City's Landscape Architect.
,
-
52. Development of all parcels shall be in accordance with !astLake Greelll SP"
Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Design Manual.
~. ,
53. The developer shall annex all areas within the subdivision boundaries
prior to recordation of any final IIlllp.
54. The phasing plan shall be designed to COMect interior subdivisions within
Phase r to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
55. PJl lota without approved private or public access shall be shown as a
Single lot.
56. The open lIpace shown adjacent to easterly side of Route 125 corridor shall
be dedicated to the City across ita .ntirety for future transfer to the
State of california as plrt of future freeway right-of-way. School
District has optial 0~puttin9 in retaining wall across the high school
site.
57. Lotting approval for Unit 14 shall be continued until a precise plan
detailing the design of the project 1s revi~ by the Design Review
COlIIIIittee. Thereafter, the lotting of Unit 14 will be considered by the
City COuncil for tentative subdivision map approval.
58. orange "venue corridor design shall be subject to approval of the Director
of Planning regarding ~rading, slope grading, landacaping and fencing.
59. PJl lota in Onita 4, 7, and 8 shall be a mininum of 50 feet wide and 20'
of lota in Unita 11 and 13 shall be a mininum of 50 feet wide.
"mininum of twenty (20) petcent of .11 lota with1n Units 4, 7, and 8, 11,
and 13 are intended to .............:>dat. one-story unita or units with a
one-story pl.t.line .long the street frontage. Said one-story un1ts shall
be placed on lota with a miniJIIIIII width of 50 feet.
Any unita 'displaced .s . r.sult of revision to the subdivision IIlllY be
COMic!ered for transfer to another unit witnin BastLake Greens.
60. Major entry pointa to the !astLake Greens development shall require
.pproval of the Director of Planning with respect to IIIrading, slope
9I:adient and landseaping.
61. All of the open apace lots shall be dimensioned (see Loop Street -,,-
adjacent to Onita 14, 39 and 13).
62. Q:len .pace Iota adj.cent to priv.te parks shall be included in the priv.te
parks to tie ..intained by the R.......owne.s' Association. ,
~7-' 3 J
63. A water agreement with Otay Municipal water District regarding terminal
storage and water supply shall be required prior to approval of the final ~
IIIlp.
-
64. A pedestrian bridge or ~ alternative acceptable to the City Engineer
shall be constructed over ~y Lakes Road to connect the COIIIll1nity trail. .
from EastLake I to EastLake II.
EIR Mitigation Measures - Planning
65. Residential land uses planned adjacent to or near commercial and
industrial uses shall be adequately buffered. Necessary measures will
include a wall or fence to decrease noise and increase privacy, a
physical, vertical or horizontal separation between land uses, i.e., a
road, slopes or a landscaped open space buffer, or some type of vegetative
ecreen. Impacts occurring as a result of site-specific designs will be
mitigated on a site-specific basis. (pg. 4-15)
66. In order to mitigate the site specific impacts, the following must be
~leted in accordance with the thresholds policy and the East Chula
Vista Transportation Phasi~ Plan:
. ~
a. Inprove Telegraph Canyon llOad between State Route 125 and the
EastLake Greenstrrails boundary to six-lane prime arterial standards.
b. Construct Hunte Parkway and EastLake parkway as major roads between
Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue.
c. Construction of a southbound State Route 125 to eastbound Telegraph
Canyon Road loop rup at the State Route l25/l'elegraph Canyon Road
intersection or extend State Route 125 SOuth to East Palomar Street
(which would connect to the EastLake II street
system). (pg. 4-37)
67. The on-site water storage tank shall receive additional landscaping. This
shall include the use of additional vegetation within the site compound to
obscUre the tank itself, as well as exterior landscaping of the perimeter
fence to provide a more aesthetic screen.
68. Residential .units in the vicinity of the SDG'c; transmission lin~ shall be
8Pllced and oriented to IIlinimize views of those facilities. The 50-fool
blUer along both sides of the roadway traversing the northern site
boundary shall receive sufficient landscaping to effectively screen
developnent associated with EastLake I. Additionally, residential units
in the northern project site shall be spaced and oriented to minimize
views to the north where appropriate.
69. A preliminary 980tec:hnical report has been prepared for the EastLake
Greenll property by San Diego SOils Engineering, Inc. (1986). This reporl
containa various t.............ndations to provide adequate surface and
8Ubsurfaoe drainage and eroeion control that shall be incorporated into
the project design. .............nded IlIl!dUreS include, but are not limited to,
the following:
~
7-J;2..
"""
~
.
.
.
Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Surface runoff into downslope
natural areas and graded areas should be minimized. Where possible,
drainage should be directed to suitable. disposal areas via nonerosive
devices (i.e., paved swales and storm drains). -
Pad drainage shou1s5 be designed to colleet and direct surface WIltel.'!;
away from proposed structures to approved drainage facilities. For
earth areas, a minimum gradient of two percent should be maintained
and drainage should be direeted toward approved swales or drainage
facilities. Drainage patterna approved at the time of fine grading
should be maintained throughout the life of proposed structures.
70. Subdrains shall be placed under all fill located 1n existing drainage
courses at identified or potential seepage areas. Specific locations
shall be evaluated in the field during grading with general subdrain
locations indicated on the approved grading plan. The subdrain
installation shall be reviewed by the engineering geologist prior to fill
placement.
.
71. Drainage devices are required behind stabilization fills to minimize the
build-up of hydrostatic and/or seepage forces. (See Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigations, san Diego SOils Engineering, Inc. (1986) for
details and r.M>.",....5ed locations of these backdrains.l Depending on
slope height, at least one tier of drains would be required for
approximately every 30 feat of slOpe height. Drains may a180 be needed aL
contacts bet_n permeable and non-permeable forlNltiolls.
72. Slopes shall be planted with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as
l...........nded by a landscape architect illl1lldiately following grading.
BrOlion control and drainage devices shall be installed in campliance with
the requirements of the City of Chula Vista.
73. water shall not be allowed to run over the top of or flow down graded or
natural slopes.
74. Devices constructed to drain and protect slopes, inCluding brow ditches.
ber.., retention basins, tsrrace drains (if utilized) and down drains
shall be Ileintsined regularly, and in perticular, should not be allowed to
clog 80 that water can flC70l unchecked over elope faces. Subdrain outletR
shall be ..intsined to prevent burial or other blockage.
75. To ensure that significant and potentially unique fossils and
peleontologicel resources are not destroyed without examination an~
analysis, it shall be required that a qualified paleontOlogist nonitor the
initial 9rading I "ivities during developnent of the BastLake Greens site.
76. a. walls and/or be[llll ahall be inatalled to the saUsfaction of the
Director of planning to r~ee noise expoeure to acceptable levelR
onsite.
'1'he applicant has proposed an optional 5-foot fence ,nelO/Jing thl'
peri_ter of the residenUal boundary (Pigure 2-10), and the 5-fOOL
wall height was factored into the nodel to analyze the effeetivenes!;
yr3 7-J3
of such a wall on the siCJll1ficant noise impacts projected onsite. In _.
sane eases, a 5-foot wall height was determined not to be required 'I
and a lower wall height was evaluated.
It was determ1~ that a 5-foot barrier along the top of Slope on
portions of the..eutem side of EastLake ParkWlilY and portions <<?J ,the
internal loop road, and contiguous to the northern and southern entry
roads, would rec1lc:e projected OIl8ite noise levels below 65dB(A) QIEL
(Figure 4-17). A 3-foot barrier would also be required along the
central golf oourse road to further attenuate onsite noise levels.
Noille levels at the park could be reduced through the incorporation
of barriers of mnimal height (1.e., 1 to 2 feet). Walls are not
r.............ilded because of aesthetic considerations and because the
attenustion required is only two decibels. Attenuation at the park
oould be achieved by raising the pad elevations near the contributing
roadways by 2 feet instead of incorporating a barrier. 'ft1e barrier8
along residential portions of the aite should consist of walls, earth
berms, or a combination of walls and berma. Noille levela above 65
dB(A) and below 75 dB(A) OfEL sre considered ClOIIplItible with the
propoeed COIIInercial area in the northwHt corner of the project area
and no barriers are required to attenuate the noi.. leve18 in thiB
area of the aite.
Baaed on the current grading plan, the identified noiae walla would .
lllitivate the projected exterior noi.. levela below the required 65
am. atandard and to a level of Inaivnificance with the exception of
the park Where aUght exClledaneea would ocx:ur. If the pad elevation
11 rabed, aa r~.....nded, no adverae nol.. Inpacta would ocx:ur """\
onalte.
b. For t~e portiona of the alte expoaed to 60 OfEL or greater
(identified in Figure 4-17), an Interior aClOU8tical analyala will be
required once building plane and alte plana are ..de available to
eneure the UH of appropriate oonatructlon _teriale to attenuate the
interior noi.. levela below a level of aignific:anC8.
77. On lIIl interi. baaia, Pareela R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27, ancl R-28 allall be
80Iled at the tar98t d8n8ity of 4.5 dwelhnv unite per acr... A _xi_ of
4,034 unite will be approwd for ButLake II until auch tiN U the
guidellnee for exceeding the ter98t dtnslt.f for the General Plan updat.e
are re801wd. 'l'h8 fOllowing prooedure will ocx:ur t.o dtt.eralne additional
dtnaity, if any, for the IuUAke project.
a. IIpec1fic 9UidtU,* for exCMCSlng the terqet General Plan
denaity will be adopted,
b. 'l'h8 adopted General Plan poUelea will be applied to dtterllline
the incremental unite to be added to lut.Lake U.
c. 'l'h8 unita from the new calculation will be dbtrlbuted to theee
fift ..reela or other unaubdivlded portion of Iut.Lake CrMns
'l'entaUw ....p.
"'""
~ 7-J'/
.
CI. 'l'be SPA Plan and Tentative MaP w111 be returned to the Planning
o.ni88ion anCl City QlUnC11 for adoption of the increased
dIMity, if any.
-
7B. Prior to the recor~ion of the final ..p, the EaBtLake I private park
aqr....t all be approveCI by the City COuncil. _0 ,
79. The IaatLake Greens l)eve1opnent Aqreement shall contain a provision
..king the IaatLake Greens project subject to the Transportation
PtlUing Plan anCl the Growth ..naqement Element of the General Plan.
eo. Prior to ncorClltion of the final ..p, the applicant shall sulxn1t an
agr.....t to the City regarCling public u.e of the 90lf cour... This
MY be ~r.ueCI in the conClitional \1M permit required for the 90lf
cour.. .
B1. The planning Oi:IIIn1l1ion r..........nClltion regarCling the reduction of
_lUng unite contained in conClition 13 of the IaatLake II General
orve1~t Plan i. incorporateCI into thi. re.o1ution (Ea.tLake Greens
redu~ from 3609 _lling unite to 2774 dwelling unitel.
PINDINClh
-
.
PurlUant to Section 66473.5 of the 9Jbdivision Map Act, Tentative
Subdiv1.ion Map for EaltLake Greens Tract BB-3 1. found to be consistent
with the 0II11a Vi.ta General ,lan II adopleCI by the Chu1a Vista C1ty
councU baseCI on the follow11'19 findill9.1
1. Land OM E1_nt
". GlMra1 .lan de.ilJllAte. the EaltLak. Greens ar... for Lot: neCliUlll
Ile.idllntial AI well .. CIOIIIIIIrcia1, publiC, quui-public (1Ctloo1',
paru, churcheel anCl 8CIIII open apace. The 1...........ndeCI 2,774
r..idllntial unite ia within the denlity (between tarlJltt and ..11_1
rAnlJll of the General ,lan r.aidentia1 deaiption of low/.-diUlll
r_idllntial <<3-6 4lIfilr. Be. I , incluCIinfil density transfera from the
I18rk, ac:hool, and 90lf cour.. to the r.aidentia1 area (327 Clul.
2. Circulation 11~t
All of t.he on-ait. and off-aite public atreet. required to ..rva the
aubdlviaion w111 be conatructed or DIP f... paid by the developer in
accacdanaa wit.h the EaltLake Green. Public Faciliti.s Financ11l9 ,lan
ard Dav.~ A/lr.-nt.
3. ~11l9 l1_nt
'l'he pr _. aaCI project. wUl provide a ainhum of 10\ afforClab1e
~11l9 incluClill9 a aSx of hoUIiIlIJ t.ype. anCl lot ailM for
11ngle-faUy, ~, condom1niUlll anCl various aparblllnt
dIMlU. t.hat w1ll provide a wide apectrUlll of hoUIing ,,,riCll8 for
..r8Ol\8 of varioua illCl:lNa.
.
~7-]5'
4. Parks anCI Recreation Element
The subdivision will provide approximately 40 acres of iq>roved
COIIIII.IIlity and neighborhood parks in accordance with locatio..6 ..nd
standards of the General Plan. The required park acreage for
EastLake Greens Is 29.2 acres. ... ·
""'"
5. Public Facilities Element
The project is obligated in the conditions of approval to
participate in providing the water facilities, wastewater facilities
and drainage facilities required by the policies of the General
Plan. These include emergency water storage reservoir, construction
of a 50 lIIillion qallon facility by OIWD, provisions for additional
wastewater facilities by parallel sewer pipelines and constructing
on-site detention basins to reduce peak storm flows.
6. Open SpIles and Conservation Element
The proposed subdivision is in conformance wi th the goals and
policies of the element. There are no land resources, water
resources, plant."" or animal resources or open SplIce areas identified
for preservation in the General Plan for this site.
7. Saf.ty Element
The project site is considered a seismically activ. area, .lthough
th.r. .r. no known .ctive faults on or adjacent to the property.
The fir. protection faciliti.s and s.rvices needed to s.rve the
project h.v. been r.viMMd by the Pire Department. other emergency
service .g.ncies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for
conformance with eafety policy. The project will increase the need
for additional police and fire ,personnel, however, the City is
planning to net the Med with additional revenu.s provided by the
project.
Pursuant to section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the effects of
the tentative IMP for EastLake Greens Tract 88-3 on the hou.ing needs of
the region has been considered in that the .ubdivi.ion will provide .
variety of hou.ing types that will serve .11 ..peet. of the COIIIII.IIlity.
The Council has further balanced the need for hou.ing again.t public
..rvice needs of its r..idents and av.ilable fiscal and .nvironmental
reeouress in that the City has weighed the fiscal effect. of the project
anCI finds that it will not depl.te current r.source. and has further
balanced the envirClllllllntal effects by incorporating lIIitiqation ....ur.s.
Pursuant to section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the' EastLak.
Greens Tract 88-3 has provided to the extent feasible for future passive
or natur.l heating or cooling opportunities in that the propoeed design
has a predominant north-south orientation of long, narrow paresIs
'"'"'\
""'"
~ 7--.3;;
.
.
.
encouragill9 east-west orientation of buildings and creating IOUthern
exposure for pitched longitudinal roofs to facilitate solar energy.
-
Presented by
-. .
..
-
~~~f
Plannll9
5930a
.
,
~7-J?
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
"""'"
CHl.l.A VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18 day of July -
19 89 , by the following tlte, to-.it: .-. ~
AVES' Couneill11l!nters Cox, Malcolm, Moore
NAVES; Counei 1111l!nters McCandI1.., Nader
ABSTAIN: Counef 1111l!nters None
ABSENT: Coune illlll!nters None
,.,,,,,,!:1J~ :: v~~
.TTESTfi....h:." ~ ~ ,{7
City Clerk
STATE (7 CALIf'QRNA )
COUNTY (7 SAN DIEGO ) II,
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA )
"""'"
I, ..f:NNE M. FULASZ, CMC. Cry CLERK of the City of ChuIo Vista, Callfornl
)0 HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and toregoing is 0 full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUT ION NO. 15200 ,and thaI the IOme has not been amended or repeal.
ATED
~~:hl~
~,,-. ~ :::'~1
~'t'.
~-'--- -- -J>-
~~?_'.;~~,,_'. ::',;.. ;~
- ~-..y.~--~..-;.....-,.
<""-...:;.;.-y-~'~---,,_.- -'
"'--.. ". ~--:' I .....- ,.".;'
-, .-'-.-....:.~, ~ - ~ ,,:r
._~r. '_._ _ . ~,.. '.. '".. ,c;.
. . .-.- ,,-,,- - -..~
,......-"..'1.. .... ..~.
""./!e't'" ...'1..
~
~-.~l"-d"'-- i
. c:>__~____ ..
City Clerk
"""'\
~7-3r
t)(hibiJ ~
~
eN. GREENSVlEW DR.
"
,
....
oS: GREENSVlEW DR.
NOT TO SCALE
41
40
,
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 95-0.1
VENTANA AT EASTLAKE
SOUTH. GREENS UNIT 20
7~31
- This Page Blank -
~ 7/-;10
[~hLb;f- 1)
THE CITY OF CHUU VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
.Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments. or campaign contributions, on all matters
yhich will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
3.
~.
5.
I. List the names of all persons having a finllncial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor.
subcontractor, material supplier.
Eastlake DeveloPment Conpany, A California General Partnership
Ventanas - Chula Vista, L.P.
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
Boswell Properties, Inc. Hearthstone Mvisors, Inc.
The Tulaqo Cornoany
Ventanas - Chula Vista General Partner, L.P.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organiZc1tion or as trustee or beneficiary or
. trustor of the trust.
Have you had more than $250 wtmh of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -lL If yes, please indicate person(s):
Please identitY each and every person, including any agents, employee$, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
SB&O, Inc.: Peter "Randy" Safino Hearthstone Mvisors: Richard Werner
SB&O. Inc.: Susan K. Lav
Brehm Comnunities: Jack Younq, Scot 8andstran and Jack Hepworth
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate. contributed more than $],000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period'! Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s): .
.
llr:i:!mIls defined as: "An,\' indMdllill,fiml. ("o-pnrtn="ip,joint .mtll,.... tusod.lliOlI, locinl.:lllb.fmtt!mnIOtJ:flnizntion, ct1l'pOTntion,
~stnrt, tnnl, _~il'rr, 1)1.dicnre. Ihis (/lid nn,\' otltrr COUIII); ("il)' /Inti CO/llIII)', tit); municipnlil); distrit:t III' Dlhrr politicnl subdMsion,
or IIn)' Diller grOllp or ("OlllhilllltiOl. lI':Iin1: III n ullit."
1^.IIMDISCl.OSE.TX11
')~ 1//
(NOTE: Anath additional pages .~ ncccssury)
~ate: Il~1 /fj'K
., I' /
SUsan K. lay
Print or type n8me of contrllctor/applicant
.IK......'Il: IIl3Oi'lOl
- This Page Blank -
~ 7/V.2
,
RESOLUTION NO. 17618
Ey-~cg{
~ :;6L 1
.
tf~ "CII
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING AMENDMENTS AND
CONDITIONS ON THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION)
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. EASTLAKE GREENS
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN. EASTLAKE GREENS
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN. EASTLAKE GREENS
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND EASTLAKE GREENS
MASTER TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (PCS-88-3) AND
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-94-19
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the properties which are the subject matter of this resolution are
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit 1 and 2 attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference. identified as the EastLake General Development
Plan Area and EastLake Greens SPA Plan Area, and located in part in the City
of Chula Vista ("Project Site") and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS. on March "21, 1994. the EastLake Development Company
("Developer") filed applications for an amendment to: 1) the EastLake II
(EastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan. known as document number
C094-183, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, 2) the
EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, known as document number
C094-184. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, 3) the
EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan. known as document number
C094-185, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, 4) the
EastLeke Greens Water Conservation Plan. known as document number C094-
186. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and 5) the
EastLake Greens Master Tentative Map, known as document number C094-
187. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS. the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
1) a General Development Plan. EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) General
Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
("GDP"); 2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199; (SPA) and 3) a Tentative
Subdivision Map previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15200
lTSM) Chuta Vista Tract 88-3, all approved on July 18. 1989; and, 4) an Air
o 7-1/3
Resolution No. 17618
Page 2
"'
,
.,
Quality Improvement Plan (Eastlake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan) and
5) a Water Conservation Plan (EastLake Greens and Water Conservation Plan),
both previously approved by the City Council on November 24, 1992, by
Resolution No. 16898; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on July 27. 1994. and voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the Project. based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
listed below.
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS. a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 16. 1994, on the Discretionary
Approval Applications, and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and.
F. Discretionary Approvals Ordinances
WHEREAS. at the same City Council meeting at which this Resolution was
approved (August 16, 1994). the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved for first reading Ordinance No. 2600 prezoning 22.7 acres of
unincorporated land to P-C (Planned Community) and Ordinance No. 2601
amending the Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion) Planned Community District
Regulations land Use District Map.
)
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 July 27. 1994. and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom. are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed. enalyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-94-19. known as document
number C094-180, a copy of which is on file ifl.the office of the City Clerk,
~ 7-'11
'.
Resolution No. 17618
Page 3
and comments thereon. the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program").
known as document number C094-18 1. a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk. thereon prior to approving the Project. Based on the Initial
Study and comments thereon. the Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and
thereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that the significant
environmental effectls) identified in the Mitigation Negative Declaration will be
reduced to below a level of significance if the mitigation measures in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are implemented. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby approved to ensure that its
provisions are complied with.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS.94.19
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. the State EIR
Guidelines. and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration IS.94.19 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. GDP FINDINGS
A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The amended EastLake II lEastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan
reflects land use densities and circulation system design that are consistent
with the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
B. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED
COMMUNITY ZONE.
~
./
7/J/p
Resolution No. 17618
Page 4
A SPA Plan has already been approved for the development of the planned
community and amendments thereto conforming to 'the amended GDP are
included in the Project.
C. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF
SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN
HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER
OFTHE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC
FACILITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE
ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR
ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION
THEREOF.
The residential densities and transfers reflected on the amended GDP are
compatible with the pattern and character of development approved with the
original GDP, and can be adequately served by the publiC facilities incorporated
therein.
D.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION. AND OVER-ALL
DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY;
AND. THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
)
The amendments do not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL. AND OTHER SIMILAR
NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE
IN AREA. LOCATION AND OVER.ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE
PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY
ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The amendments to the trails program will contribute to a less hazardous and
thus improved recreational amenity which will have less potential to conflict
with surrounding development.
F. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND
ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The revised alignment of E. Orange Avenue reflected on the amended GDP is
consistent with the alignment approved with the recent General Plan
Amendment for the area.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
~ 7-1j~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 5
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(SI PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH
PROPOSED LOCATION(SI.
The amendments do not involve areas planned for commercial uses.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND
ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID
DEVELOPMENT.
The amendments are consistent with the previously approvad plans and
regulations applicable to surrounding areas.
VII. SPA FINDINGS
A.
THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
(
The amended EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan reflects land use,
circulation system, and public facilities that are consistent with the EastLake
II (EastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General
Plan.
B.
THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED
WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA Plan, as amended allows, in the context of market demand a more
logical transition of construction within the EastLake Greens Planned
Community, consistent with the phasing of internal and external infrastructure,
and the amendmants have been found to be consistent with the EastLake II
(EastLake I Expansion) Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement
Plan, and Water Conservation Plan.
C. THE OTC SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within the EastLake Greens SPA area reprasent tha same uses
approved by the EastLake II (East Lake I Expansion) General Development Plan.
VIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act.
7-1/? ~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 6
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein
for EastLake Greens. Chula Vista Tract No. PCS-88-3 is in conformance with
'the elements of the City's General Plan. based on the following:
a. land Use Element
The General Plan designates the EastLake Greens residential areas for
low-Medium (3-6 du/ac) density development. The proposed addition
of 22.7 acres at the mid-point of the low-Medium density range (4.5
du/ac) is consistent with the previously approved land use intensity.
The project. as conditioned, provides a wide landscape buffer along the
north side of E. Orange Avenue, in conformance with landform grading
and scenic highway principles of the General Plan.
b. Circulation Element
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the
subdivision will ba constructed or DIF faes paid by the developer in
accordance with the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and
Development Agreement.
Bicycle paths have been incorporated within the EastLake Greens
community area and will be constructed as part of the project.
)
c. Housing Element
The proposed project will provide a minimum of 10% affordable housing
including a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family,
townhouses, condominium and various apartment densities that will
provide a wide spactrum of housing prices for persons of various
incomes.
d. Parks and Recreation Element
The subdivision will provide approximately 37.4 acres of improved
community and neighborhood parks in accordance with locations and
standards of the General Plan. The required park acreage for EastLake
Greens is 26.6 acres.
e. Public Facilities Element
The project is obligated in the conditions of approval to participate in
providing the water facilities, wastewater facilities and drainage facilities
required by the pOlicies of the General Plan.
Public building sites are included within the subdivision; however. these
~
7-'/7'
Resolution No. 17618
Page 7
sites will not be affected by the proposed amendment.
f. Open Space and Conservation Element
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies
of the General Plan element for this site.
g. Safety Element
The project site is considered a seismically active area, although there
are no known active faults on or adjacent to the property. The fire
protection facilities and services needed to serve the project have been
reviewed by the Fire Department. Other emergency service agencies
have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with safety
policy. The Project, as amended, will not increase the need for
additional police and fire personnel.
h.
Noise Element
l
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
SEIR.86.04 and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS.94.19 adequately
address the noise policy in the General Plan. All dwelling units within
the project will be required to be designed so as to not exceed the
interior noise level of 45 dBA. Additionally, all exterior private open
space will be shielded by a combination of earth, berm, wall, and/or
buildings to achieve a 65 dBA noise level for outside private areas.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies
that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the
region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. The configuration. orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the
optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities
as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects.
X. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Discretionary Approvals Amendments which are stated
to be conditioned on "General Conditions" are hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project.
~
7--Yr
Resolution No. 17618
Page 8
Developer. or their successors in interest. shall improve the Project Site with
the Project as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. except as
modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
C. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of. all portions of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pertaining to the Project and
Mitigated Negative Declaration 15-94-19 .
D. Update Documents
Twenty-five (25) copies of replacement pages. exhibits, maps and plans
reflecting the amendments approved herein shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within two weeks of approval of this resolution.
XI.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
)
1. Final assessment and determination of parkland requirements for single
family detached condominium developments shall be conducted during
the Design Review and/or Tentative Map processing stage of each
individual project. Updated cumulative parkland data shall be submitted
with each development proposal tothe Director of Parks and Recreation
for review and approval.
2. Final Golf Course Trail and Golf Course Vista Point design shall be
subject to review and approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation
and the Director of Planning. Detailed design information for the .Vista
Points. shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the associated
parcels within which they are located. Said .Vista Points. shall be
improved prior to or concurrently with each development proposal.
B. Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
Prior to approval of the associated/applicable final map. unless otherwise
indicated, the developer shall:
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
~ 7~S-?J
Resolution No. 17618
Page 9
1. Comply with all unfulfilled condition of approval of the Eastlake Greens
Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No.
15200 approved by Council on July 18, 1989.
2. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final
maps, submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the
City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map
which includes phasing. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be
provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined
by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the
right to conditionally approve each final map with the requirement to
provide improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to
provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and
fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their
discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such revision.
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
3. Dedicate on-site and off-site street right-of-way for the construction of
East Orange Avenue from its intersection with Hunte Parkway to the
westerly subdivision boundary.
4. Design southerly knuckle on Street PP to conform to City design
standards.
5. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating
that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated to
the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcells).
6. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District
that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long
term water storage facilities.
7. Grant to the City a 10-foot wide utility easement adjacent to the street
right-of-way within the open space lots in Units 4, 10,12, 15, 18,21-
23,26,27,30,31, or as approved by the City Engineer.
8. Construct an 8' wide sidewalk for the Golf Course Neighborhood Trail
as shown on the EastLake Greens Trails Plan along the following streets:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Hunte
Parkway.
b. Hunte Parkway - from So. Greensview Drive to the southerly
boundary of Unit 27.
~ 7-51
Resolution No. 17618
Page 1 0
c. Clubhouse Drive - along the northerly boundary of Clubhouse
Drive.
Provide additional right-of-way and/or easements as required by the City
Engineer for installation of utilities, street lights, and fire hydrants.
9. Provide for the maintenance of the proposed sewer pump station on
East Orange Avenue in accordance with Council Policy # 570-03
adopted by Resolution 17491, and tha Agreement to Provide Sewer
Pump Station Maintenance for the Eastlake Greens and amendments
thereto.
10. Construct South Greensview Drive from the southeasterly limits of Unit
20 to the easterly limits of Unit 38 as shown on the approved revised
tentative map when the Average Daily Trips measured on Silverado
immediately south of Clubhouse Drive exceeds 1200.
11. Prior to the approval of each final map for the subject development
acquire all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of the
required improvements for that subdivision. Notify the City at least 60
days prior to consideration of a Final Map by City if off-site right-of-way
cannot be obtained for the improvements. (Only off-site right-of-way or
easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are
covered by this condition).
)
After said notification the developer shall:
a. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats
prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to
commence condemnation proceedings.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-
of-way or easements, said estimate to be approved by the City
Engineer.
c. Pay the full cost, both direct and indirect, of acquiring off-site
right-of-way or easements required.
The requirements of a,b and c above shall be satisfied prior to approval
of the final map for which the off-site right-of-way or easements are
required.
All off-site requirements which fall under the purview of Section
66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City
does not comply with the 120 day time limitation specified in the
section of the Act.
~ /~.5.:2
Resolution No. 17618
Page 11
(This condition supersedes Condition of Approval No. 19 for the
Eastlake Greens Tentative Map approved by City Council Resolution No.
15200).
12. Street sections shall be revised to reflect current street design
standards. Street design standards shall be applicable to future streets.
GRADINGIDRAINAGE
13. Obtain easements in favor of City for off-site detention basin and storm
basin near East OrangelHunte Parkway intersection as required by City
Engineer.
14. Grade 20 foot wide landscape buffer along East Orange Avenue at 5:1
ratio.
15. Relocate detention basin storm drain outlet beyond toe of southerly
slope of East Orange Avenue grading.
16. Provide energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the
City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities.
(
17. Design and line de silting basins with concrete to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
18. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original document
prepared by a registered engineer. as required by the City Engineer.
OPEN SPACEIASSESSMENTS
19. Agree to grant in fee to the City public access easements over paved
walkways to Golf Course Trail vista points as approved by the City
Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation Department.
20. Request annexation into Eastlake Maintenance District 11 of all areas
within the tentative map boundary not currently included in the district
prior to approval of the first final map which includes said areas.
Deposit $3.000 to initiate annexation proceedings. Pay all costs of
proceedings.
21. Grant in fee to the City all open space lots shown on the approved
tentative map to be granted to the City and execute and record a deed
for each lot.
22. Submit a list of all facilities located on open space lots proposed to be
7-.5'3 ~.
Resolution No. 17618
Page 12
maintained by the existing Eastlake Maintenance District No.1. This list
shall include a description, quantity and unit price per year for the
perpetual maintenance of all facilities located on open space lots to
include but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains. lighting
structures, paths, access roads. drainage structures and landscaping.
Only those items on an open space lot are eligible for open space
maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the
number of acres of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid
the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
23. Design landscape buffer for erosion control adjacent to the right-of-way
of East Orange Avenue with plant species requiring no permanent
irrigation and maintain/replace plantings as necessary for an
establishment period of one year or as extended by the City Landscape
Architect, City Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation. Prior to
approval of the preliminary landscaping plans, which include portions of
or the entire landscape buffer, provide to the City a bond in an amount
approved by the City Landscape Architect to guarantee installation
maintenance of said landscaping.
24. Pay additional fees on a fair-share basis into the Assessment District
Numbers 90-3. 91-1 or other applicable assessment districts due to
additional units approved subsequent to District formation.
25. Make payment to reduce the debt on any parcels whose density is lower
than assumed for the assessment districts at the time of District
formation.
)
26. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the project
boundary. Request apportionment and provide a deposit to the City
estimated at $40/unit/district to cover costs prior to approval of a final
map for the unit being finaled.
27. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer
acknowledging that additional fees have been paid into the Assessment
District or the Transportation DIF Fund. and that these additional fees
are reflected in the purchase price of the home for those units which
have a density change from that indicated in the assessment district's
Engineer's Report.
28. Submit all disclosure forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
29. The configuration of open space lot "DDD" shall be maintained as
originally approved.
30. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be revised to incorporate a 75'
7-~~ ~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 13
wide (average) landscape buffer along the north side of East Orange
Avenue.
31. The 75' wide landscape buffer along East Orange Avenue shall be
graded in accordance with City landform grading principles and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. A
landscape plan(s) for the subject scenic highway buffer shall be
submitted to the City Landscape Architect prior to or concurrently with
the first Tentative Subdivision Map or other site plan review application
submitted for Parcel R-10 or R-12.
AGREEMENTS
Enter into an agreement with the City whereby the developer agrees to:
( .
32. Defend. indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents. officers
and employees. from any claim, action or proceeding against the City,
or its agents. officers or employees to attack. set aside. void or annul
any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission.
City Council or any approval by its agents. officers. or employees with
regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the
subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
33. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion. siltation or increase
flow of drainage resulting from this project.
34. Insure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company")
are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to
the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are,
and remain in compliance with. all of the terms and conditions of the
franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules,
regulations. ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may
from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
35. Comply with the terms and conditions of the AcquisitionlFinancing
Agreement for Assessment district 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by
Council Resolution R17483 as said terms and conditions may be
applicable to this development.
MISCELLANEOUS
36. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI
(1983),
~ 7--/~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 14
37. Submit copies of Final Maps in a digital format such as (OX F) graphic file
prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided Design
(CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate c'oordinate geometry
calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City
Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/2 HD floppy disk prior
to the approval of each Final Map.
. .
38. Update the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities financing Plan as required
by Chapter V of said approved document.
39. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable and fire access roads shall
be usable prior to delivery of any combustible construction materials.
40. A wildland fuel modification program may be required on interface areas
between residences and open space.
XII. CODE REQUIREMENT REMINDERS
1. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista current
standards, Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
2.
Fire flow of 1,000 gpm shall be maintained within the Project area.
J
3. Fire Department access roads shall be a minimum of 20' wide and constructed
with an all-weather driving surface.
XIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City's approval of this Resolution.
XIV. 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. .
~7-~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 1 5
XV. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms. provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid. illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and
effect ab initio.
Presented by
tJd..tof~m V (
/ ,:\,,,_1\ i..c.<.<.
~ Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
/' . , / ~
/:%~II ~~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
L
(
~
7~~?
Resolution No. 17618
Page 16
;! ('
o~~ ~ J
'" ;"":l
'0"
IlESEENT....
-- - ..'"
m- -. ...
...- .... ...
w _ III , .... ....
...- .... ....,. ....
" .... ... ..". Ill>
_.- "1" ....
NJ'<-I'IESlEN'T1Al.
-... -
..... ".
==::: u
=~......
0...... ,..;.
~~tI'l'.
-.- ....
-- II..'
-.- -.
~-- n.
_.- .t,..ac -..
. .......-
General
Development
Plan
(PROPOSED)
...
...-...-. ..._._....---~--
..-----........
EI Areas being amended
~FASTLAKE
A I\A/IHD ccr.M..NITY II' EASll.NCI ClEVEIOPMNI co
~!.lltirf'
~.-'!"'.J
-.-.
91t''''
Exhblt 1
~
7-~Y
Resolution No. 17618
Page 17
~
Project
Components
(neighborhoods)
.
~
Eastlake
Business
Center
---
.
Eastlake IV-r-
'--
c
r.:J
EASTLAKE IIIOlNlARY
~
\
\
'~
~:"
IEAS'll.AKE .
--.-
....: ....., to .. ........ De. . .__d IIIIn .... .. .wrenI
4".~A Of Or-.. ....... .... ........,..
~ fASTLAKE
A PLANNED COMMUNITY IN THE CITY Of CHULA VISTA
~
~...c..._,"
(!)~ ..::
Exhibit 2
7-51
J2::-t/
Resolution No. 17618
Page 18
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
California. this 16th day of August. 1994. by the following vote:
YES:
Councilmembers:
Fox. Horton. Moore. Rindone. Nader
NOES:
Councilmembers:
None
A8SENT:
Councilmembers:
None
A8STAIN:
!=ouncilmembers:
None
.7" -/7 ~/
~ /~~--,-
Tim Nader. Mayor
ATTEST:
~JI~t (}~~:f
Beverly . Authelet. City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I. Beverly A. Authelet. City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California. do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17618 was duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 16th day of August.
1994.
Executed this 16th day of August. 1994.
~J/.;r2 (2f//!/Z{
Beverly A Authelet. City Clerk
7 - tf,t9
c-ff
MAR, -21' 95ITUE) 16:29 EASTLAKE
TEL:6!9 421 1830
March 21.1995
Mr. Cliff Swanson
ENGINEERlNG DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: Condition No. 38 of Resolution 17618
Dear ClifF:
This letter is EastLake Development Company's acceptance of the Amending
Condition No. 38 of Resolution 17618 approving the tentative subdivision map for
TTlIct 88-3A, EastLake South Greens.
lfyou have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
a
Bruce N. Sloan
Project Director
Igmo
r:\orc\m\winword\IJDIUI\l~18.4oc
7~~/
p, 001
~1
~
..
fASTLAKE
DEVElOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avtlnl.l9
3.JIIEl '00
Chulo Vista, CA 91Q1~
(619) '~1-0127
FAX (619) ~21.1830
RESOLUTION NO. /?f?" 35"
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CONDITION NO. 38 OF
RESOLUTION 17618 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-3A,
EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval No. 38 of Resolution No.
17618 requires the developer to update the Eastlake Greens Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) as required by Chapter V of the
PFFP prior to approval of the first final map for the South Greens;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 17765 subsequently amended
Condition 38 to require approval of the update to the PFFP prior to
approval of the first final map creating residential lots; and
WHEREAS, however, the developer has obtained approval for
improvement plans and guaranteed construction of all public
improvements required for the units within Phase 1 of the South
Greens; and
WHEREAS, therefore, any changes to the improvements
required by the PFFP due to changes in development phasing will not
affect requirements for Phase 1; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Condition No. 38 be
amended to read as follows:
"Update the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities
Financing Plan as required by Chapter V of said
approved document to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the Director of Planning prior to
approval of the first final map for Phase 2 of
Eastlake South Greens. If, in the course of the
update, it is determined that additional work is
required as a result of the construction of Phase
1, the developer will insure that the work is
completed according to the updated PFFP schedule.
WHEREAS, this amendment will allow time for review and
approval of the PFFP update prior to approval of any map creating
the need for additional improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend Condition No. 38 of
Resolution 17618 approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula
vista Tract 88-3A, Eastlake South Greens as set forth h einabove.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
c.\rs\ventana.sia
;~lJJ
Bruce M. Booga d, city
Attorney
Presented by
7A-/
RESOLUTION NO.
J7~J/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 95-03, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 20
(VENTANA), ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP,
REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP,
ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP
WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-03, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 20
(VENTANA), and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Chula vista
Tract No. 88-3A, Eastlake South Greens Phase 1 in the
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the Map thereof No. 13180 filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County January 17, 1995, as F/P.95-0019312.
Area: 12.058 acres
Numbered Lots: 93
Remainder Lots: 3
No. of Lots: 99
Lettered Lots: 3
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: Boca Raton
Street, Turtle Cay Place, Turtle Cay Way, Brooks Trail Court and
Waterwood Court, and said streets are hereby declared to be public
streets and dedicated to the public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lot A is hereby rejected for
Open Space.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the City of Chula vista the easements with the right
of ingress and egress for street tree planting and maintenance,
1
713-/
sewer and drainage, general utility easement within Open Space Lots
A, Band C, all as granted and shown on said map within said
subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the pUblic as heretofore stated and that said
lots are dedicated for Open Space and other pUblic uses and are
rejected on behalf of the City of Chula vista and that those
certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for the
construction and maintenance of street tree planting, sewer and
drainage, as granted thereon and shown on said map within said
subdivision is accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista as
hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1995, for
the completion of improvements in said subdivision; a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula
vista.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\ventana
2
78-..<
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
270 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a
public agency of less than a fee interest for which no
cash consideration has been paid or received.
Declarant
For Recorder', Use On
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
VENTANA AT EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 20
THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (" Agreement") is made and entered
into this _ day of ,1995, by and between VENTANAS-CHULA VISTA, L.P.,
a California limited partnership, 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 352, Encino, California 91436
("Subdivider"), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation ("City")
with reference to the following facts:
A. The City Council of the City, on December 20, 1994, approved Resolution
No. 17774 (the "Resolution"), approving a tentative map of Chula Vista Tract 95-03, a proposed
subdivision known as Ventana at Eastlake South Greens Unit 20 (the "Subdivision"), subject to
certain requirements and conditions.
B. The Code provides that before a fmal subdivision map is finally approved by the
City Council of the City, a subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public
improvements and land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions
before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the City Council for the purpose of recording
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative, the subdivider
shall enter into an agreement with the City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure
the performance of the work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public
improvements and land development work required in the subdivision within a definite period of
time prescribed by the City Council.
W:\CIVILIBRBHMIBASTLAKE\FORMS\5084200.RBV
MaIclo 6, 1995 -
-1-
'/8-3
C. Complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion
of the Improvement Work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer. The
Improvement Work consists of the following public improvement project:
City File No. EY406 (Ventana at Eastlake South Greens Unit 20) as shown on
Drawing Nos. 94-470 through 94-476 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer.
D. An estimate of the cost of constructing the Project according to the plans and
specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of $974,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and its successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which
encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and
requirements of the tentative map resolution, and to do and perform or cause to be done and
performed, at its own expense, without cost to the City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under
the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the Improvement
Work required to be done in connection with the Final Map in and adjoining the Subdivision, and
will furnish the necessary materials for the Improvement Work, all in strict conformity and in
accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have been filed in the office of the
City Engineer and are incorporated by this reference in this Agreement.
2. All monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the
completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will
install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement
Work required under the provisions of this Agreement to be done on or before the third
anniversary date of City Council approval of this Agreement.
4. Subdivider will perform the Improvement Work as set forth above, or that portion
of the Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in the
Subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for the
buildings or structures in the Subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City
Engineer has certified in writing the completion of the Improvement Work or the portion thereof
serving the buildings or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement
security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph.
5. In the performance of the Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide
by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City and the laws of the State of California
applicable to such work.
W:\CIVD..\BREHM\EASTlAKElFORMSI5084200.REV
_ 6.1995
-2-
70 -y
6. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the
execution of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose
sufficiency has been approved by the City, in the sum of Four Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand
Dollars ($487,000) to secure the faithful performance of the respective Project and is attached as
Exhibit" A".
7. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the
execution of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose
sufficiency has been approved by the City, in the sum of Four Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand
Dollars ($487,000) to secure the payment of material and labor in cOnnection with the installation
of the respective Project by Subdivider and is attached as Exhibit "B".
8. Subdivider agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, simultaneously with the
execution of this Agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose
sufficiency has been approved by the City, in the sum of Twenty-One Thousand Dollars ($21,000)
to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached as Exhibit "C".
9. Upon certification of completion of the Project by the City Engineer and acceptance
of the work by the City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs of the work
are fully paid, the whole amount of the improvement security for the Project, or any part thereof
not required for payment of the costs of the work, shall be released to Subdivider or its successors
in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security.
10. If the work on the Project is not completed within the time specified, the sums
provided by the improvement securities for the Project may be used by the City for completion of
the Project in accordance with such specifications contained or referred to in this Agreement.
Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any shortfall between the total costs incurred to perform the
work, including design and administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation for
overhead) and any proceeds from the improvement security.
11. In no case will the City, or any department, board of officer thereof, be liable for
any portion of the costs and expenses of the Improvement Work, not shall any officer, his/her
sureties or bondspersons, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for such work or any
materials furnished for the work, except to the limits established by the approved improvement
security in accordance with the requirements of the state Subdivision Map Act and the provisions
of Title 18 of the Code.
12. Any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and
other incidental expenses) incurred by the City in connection with the approval of the Improvement
Work, plans and installation of the Improvement Work, and the costs of any street signs and street
trees as required by the City and approved by the City Engineer, shall be paid by Subdivider, and
that Subdivider shall deposit with the City, prior to recordation of the Final Map, a sum of money
sufficient to cover such costs.
W:\CIVll.IBRBHMIBASTLAKEIFORMSI5084200.REV
Match 6.1995
-3-
?E0
13. Until such time as all work on a Project is fully completed and accepted by the City,
Subdivider will be responsible for the care and maintenance of, and any damage to, the Project
improvements. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public
improvements for a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance and correct any and
all defects or deficiencies arising during such period as a result of the act or omission of
Subdivider, its agents or employees, in the performance of this Agreement, and that upon
acceptance of the work by the City, Subdivider shall grant to the City, by appropriate conveyance,
the public improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that
acceptance by City shall not constitute a waiver of defects.
14. City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any
injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the act or omission of Subdivider, its agents
or employees, related to this Agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City,
its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability
or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or
employees, related to this Agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security
shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and
agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the
taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the
construction of the Subdivision and the public improvements as provided in this Agreement. It
shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow,
modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of
discharge as the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of
plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any
responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall the City, by such approval, be an insurer or
surety for the construction of the Subdivision pursuant to approved improvement plans. The
provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement and shall
remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following acceptance by the City of the
improvements.
15. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City, advisory agency,
appeals board or legislative body concerning a subdivider, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in ~66499.37 of the California GOVERNMENT CODE.
W:\CIVILIBREHM\EASTLAKEIFORMS\5084200.RBV
MaJ.b 6. 1995
-4-
73~j"
16. Ae-reement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this
Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property. The Burden touches and concerns the
property. It is the intent of the parties and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding
upon, and run with, the ownership of the land which it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement
shall be released from title, of any individual lot within the Project upon sale of such lot improved
with a residence. However, as to any lots which have not been released, the Burden of this
Agreement shall continue to encumber such lots and shall be binding upon, and run with, the
ownership of such lots until such lots are released. The City may refuse to issue Building Permits
for any such unreleased lots while Developer is in breach of any terms or conditions of this
Agreement or the Tentative Map. If requested by Subdivider, the City shall execute a quitclaim
releasing the Burden of this Agreement, from the title to any such lots.
a. Subdivider Release on Guest Builder Assilfnments. If subdivider assigns any
portion of the Project, Subdivider shall have the right to obtain a release of any of
Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement, provided Subdivider obtains the prior
written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment shall, however, be subject to
this Agreement and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the
land. The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as
the assignee acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes
the obligations of the Subdivider under the Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the City, its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it
relates to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by the Assignee.
b. Partial Release of Subdivider's Assi~nees. If Subdivider assigns any portion
of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon request by the Subdivider or
its assignee, the City shall release the assignee of the Burden of this Agreement as to such
assigned portion if such portion has complied with the requirements of this Agreement and
such partial release will not jeopardize, in the opinion of the City, the likelihood that the
remainder of the Burden will not be completed.
W:\CIVILIBREHMlEASTLAKI!IFORMSIS084200.RBV
MaId> 6, 1995
-5-
7!?-')
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of
the date set forth above.
VENTANAS-CHULA VISTA, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
By: Ventanas-Chula Vista General Partner, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
General Partner
By: Hearthstone Advisors, Inc.,
a California corporation
General Partner
ByQ:._~o..J) D. ~~
Richard O. Werner
Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a California municipal corporation
City Clerk
A~! :Y
By
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
W,ICIVD..\BRBIIMIBASTLAKEIFORMSI5084200.RBV
March 6. 1995
-6-
7E~~
~ -:-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
F/f!AI'IC.,St:"(!J ) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN Bffi60 )
On f?'1ALc,.H$, 19Y5', before me, ja3DJeAM 11f)L.STEOr
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ~, Ci-IA-I€D O. Wl!:;;;e~m
,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)
on the instrument. the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
Signature
/P;k~1 4&tdf-
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On .19_. before me,
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)
on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Seal)
W:ICIVlLIBREIlM\I!ASTJ.AXE\FORMSIS084200.REV
_ 6.1995
-7-
78-t
LIST OF EXHmITS
Exhibit "Coo:
Improvement Security: Faithful Performance
Form: Bond
Amount: $487,000
Improvement Security: Material and Labor
Form: Bond
Amount: $487,000
Improvement Security: Monuments
Form: Bond
Amount: $21,000
Exhibit "A":
Exhibit "B":
as to form and amount by:
Improvement Completion Date: Three (3) years from date of City Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
W:\ClVlLIBRBIIMIEASTLAKl!\FORMSIS084200.REV
March 6. 1995 -8-
7.8-/?!J
RESOLUTION NO. / 7~/~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTION NOS. 17774 AND 15200 APPROVING A
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL R-20,
KNOWN AS VENTANA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994, by Resolution 17774, the
City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula vista
Tract 95-03, Parcel R-20 of Eastlake South Greens, known as
ventana; and
WHEREAS, Council also approved on July 18, 1989, by
Resolution 15200, the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula vista
Tract 88-3, Eastlake Greens which contains an unfulfilled condition
of approval relevant to Ventana; and
WHEREAS, the developer has
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to
conditions:
executed
satisfy
a Supplemental
the following
1. Tentative Map Condition of Approval "D"
which requires the developer to comply
with all unfulfilled conditions of
approval of the Eastlake Greens Tentative
Map, Chula vista Tract 88-3 established
by Resolution No. 15200, and amended by
Resolution 17618, and to remain in
compliance with and implement the terms,
conditions and provisions of Eastlake
Greens sectional Planning Area, Eastlake
Greens Planned Community District
Regulations, the Eastlake Greens
Development Agreement, the Water
Conservation Plan and the Air Quality
Plan, Design Guidelines and the Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
2 . Condi tion 12 which requires the developer
to enter into an agreement whereby the
developer agrees that the City may
withhold building permits for any units
in the subject subdivision if regional
development and traffic threshold limits
have been reached, and if the required
public facilities, as identified in the
PFFP have not been completed to the
satisfaction of the City.
7c-j
3. Condition 13 which requires the developer
to agree to indemnify and hold harmless
the city from any claims, actions or
proceedings against the City to attack,
set aside, void or annul any approval by
the City with regard to the subject
subdivision.
4. Condition 14 which requires the developer
to agree to hold the City harmless from
any liability for erosion, siltation, or
increased flow of drainage resulting from
the subject subdivision.
5. Condition 15 which requires the developer
to agree to insure that all franchised
cable television companies are permitted
equal opportunity to place conduit and
provide cable television service to each
lot within the subject subdivision.
6. Condition 31(c) ,from Resolution 15200
which requires developer to enter into an
agreement not to protest formation of an
assessment district for the construction
of street improvements to connect Orange
Avenue and Palomar street to existing
improvements to the west.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council oflthe
City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Suppleme tal
Subdivision Improvement Agreement requiring Developer to comply
with certain unfilled conditions of Resolution Nos. 17774 and 15200
approving a tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel R-20, known as
Ventana, a copy of which is on file in the office of the city Clerk
as Document No.____ (to be completed by the City Clerk in the final
document) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
4-. ih.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaar , City
Attorne~
C:\rs\ventana.sia
7C--<.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a
public agency of less than a fee interest for which no
cash consideration has been paid or received.
Declarant
For Recorder', UIe Only
SUPPLEMENfAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
VENTANA AT EASTLAKE SOlITH GREENS UNIT 20
THIS SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (" Agreement")
is made and entered into this day of , 1995, by and between
VENTANAS-CHULA VISTA, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Subdivider" or
"Developer"), and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California municipal corporation ("City") with
reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this Agreement:
A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in Chula Vista,
California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
("Property"). The Property is part of a project commonly known as Eastlake Greens ("Project").
B. The City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as
Ventana at Eastlake South Greens Unit 20, Chula Vista Tract No. 95-03 ("Tentative Subdivision
Map") for the subdivision of the Project.
C. The City has adopted Resolution No. 17774 ("Resolution") pursuant to which it has
approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly
described in the Resolution. The City has also previously adopted Resolution No. 15200
approving Tentative Map 88-3, Eastlake Greens, which contains an unfulfilled condition of
approval relevant to this project. The description of the conditions in this recital section of this
Agreement is intended only to summarize and paraphrase such conditions in the Resolution, and
is not intended to modify or explain them, and is not intended as a basis for interpreting them.
D. Subdivider is ready to file a final map for the Property (the "Final Map") and by
this Agreement will satisfy a number of conditions of the Resolution required to be satisfied prior
to the filing of the Final Map.
W:\ClVlLIBREHMlEASTLAKEIFORMSI5084200A.RBV
Muoh 6. 1995 -1-
7c-3
E. Item "D" of Resolution No. 17774 requires Developer to " implement previously
adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project.
Unless otherwise conditioned, developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of
approval of the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by
Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on July 18, 1989, and amended by
Resolution 17618 approved by Council on August 16,1994, and shall remain in compliance
with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of Eastlake Greens Sectional
Planning Area, Eastlake Greens Planned Community District Regulations, the Eastlake
Greens Development Agreement, the Water Conservation plan and the Air Quality Plan,
Design Guidelines and the Public Facilities Financing Plan."
F. Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. 17774 requires Subdivider, prior to the
approval of the first Final Map, to "enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
a. The Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any
units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs:
(1) Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
(2) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the adopted City threshold standards.
b. The Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any
of the proposed development if the required public facilities, as identified in the
Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) or as amended or otherwise conditioned,
have not been completed or constructed to the satisfaction of the City. The
Developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and
the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be
amended as approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. "
G. Condition No. 13 of Resolution No. 17774 requires the Subdivider, prior to
approval of the first Final Map, to "Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and
its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its
agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents,
officers or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the Map Act,
provided the City promptly notifies the Subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the
further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. "
H. Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 17774 requires the Subdivider, prior to
approval of the first Final Map, to "Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion,
siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from the Project. "
W:\CJVJLIBRBIIM\EASTI.AXB\FORMS\6084200A.REV
-~~ ~
'l c-'I
I. Condition No. 15 of Resolution No. 17774 requires the Subdivider to "Agree to
insure that all franchised cable television companies ("cable company") are permitted equal
opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the
subdivision", and to "Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television
companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all the terms and conditions of the franchise
and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as the same may have been,
or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista."
J. Condition No. l3(c) of Resolution No. 15200 requires Developer to" enter into an
agreement wherein he agrees to not protest formation of an assessment district for the construction
of street improvements to connect Orange Avenue and Palomar Street to existing improvements
to the west of the subject property and to not protest inclusion of the subject improvements as
projects in the Eastern Territories Development Impact Fee system. "
K. There are certain other unperformed and unfulfilled conditions of said Tentative
Subdivision Map.
L. The City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and conditions herein
contained, to approve the Final Maps as being in substantial conformance with the Tentative
Subdivision Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties agree as set forth below.
1. Al!reement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained
in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property. The Burden
touches and concerns the property. It is the intent of the parties and the parties
agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership of the
land which it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title,
of any individual lot within the Project upon sale of such lot improved with a
residence. However, as to any lots which have not been released, the Burden of
this Agreement shall continue to encumber such lots and shall be binding upon, and
run with, the ownership of such lots until such lots are released. The City may
refuse to issue Building Permits for any such unreleased lots while Developer is in
breach of any terms or conditions of this Agreement or the Tentative Map. If
requested by Subdivider, the City shall execute a quitclaim releasing the Burden of
this Agreement, from the title to any such lots.
W:\CMLIBREHM\F.ASTLAKElFORMS\5084200A .REV
MardI 6.1995
-3-
7C-S
a. Subdivider ReleA~e on Guest Builder Assilmments. If subdivider
assigns any portion of the Project, Subdivider shall have the right to obtain
a release of any of Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement, provided
Subdivider obtains the prior written consent of the City to such release.
Such assignment shall, however, be subject to this Agreement and the
Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land.
The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so
long as the assignee aclmowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs
with the land, assumes the obligations of the Subdivider under the
Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, its
ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the
portion of the Project which is being acquired by the Assignee.
b. Partial Release of Subdivider's Assilmees. If Subdivider assigns
any portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon
request by the Subdivider or its assignee, the City shall release the assignee
of the Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion if such portion
has complied with the requirements of this Agreement and such partial
release will not jeopardize, in the opinion of the City, the likelihood that the
remainder of the Burden will not be completed.
2. Al1reement Aoolicable to Subseauent Owners.
a. Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests
of the parties as to any or all of the Property until released by the mutual
consent of the parties.
b. Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants
contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property.
The Burden touches and concerns the property. It is the intent of the
parties, and the parties agree, that this covenant shall be binding upon, and
run with, the ownership of the land which it burdens.
3. Imolement Previouslv Adopted Conditions of Aporoval Pertinent to
Proiect. Unless otherwise conditioned, developer shall comply with all unfulfilled
conditions of approval of the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map, Chula Vista
Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on
July 18, 1989, and amended by Resolution 17618 approved by Council on
August 16, 1994, and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms,
conditions and provisions of Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area, Eastlake
Greens Planned Community District Regulations, the Eastlake Greens Development
Agreement, the Water Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan, Design
Guidelines and the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
W:\CIVILIBREHMlBASTLAKEIFORMS\5084200A.REV
.w.h 6, 1995 -4-
7C-?
4. Aereement Not To Protest Formation of Assessment District. Developer
shall "enter into an agreement wherein he agrees to not protest formation of an
assessment district for the construction of street improvements to connect Orange
Avenue and Palomar Street to existing improvements to the west of the subject
property and to not protest inclusion of the subject improvements as projects in the
Eastern Territories Development Impact Fee system.
s. Condition No. 12 of Resolution 17774 - Permits Not to Issue While
Threshold Deficient or PFFP Facilities Not Completed. In satisfaction of
Condition No. 12, Subdivider agrees as follows:
a. The City has the right to withhold building permits for any dwelling
units on the Property at such time as anyone of the following occur:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula
Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached; or,
2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the threshold standards in the adopted City threshold
standards.
b. The City has the right to withhold building permits if the required
public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise
conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the satisfaction of the
City. The Subdivider may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of
development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case,
the PFFP may be amended as approved by the Planning Director and City
Engineer.
6. Condition No. 13 of Resolution 17774 - Subdivision Annroval Indemnitv.
In satisfaction of Condition No. 13 of the Resolution, Subdivider agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from
any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including
approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents,
officers or employees with regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly
notifies the Subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
7. Condition No. 14 of Resolution 17774 - Erosion. Siltation and Drainal!e
Indemnitv. In satisfaction of Condition No. 14 of the Resolution, Subdivider
agrees that, on the condition that the City shall promptly notify the Subdivider of
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense, the Subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City, or its agents, officers or employees, related to erosion, siltation or
increase flow of drainage resulting from the Project.
W:\C1VILIBREHMlEASTLAKI!\PORMSI50842OOA.REV
_ 6.1995 -5-
7C-7
8. Condition No. 15 of Resolution 17774 - Cable Television Easements. In
satisfaction of Condition No. 15 of the Resolution, Subdivider agrees to permit all
cable television companies franchised by the City equal opportunity to place conduit
to and provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the Project.
Subdivider further agrees to grant, by license or easement, and for the benefit of,
and to be enforceable by, the City, conditional access to cable television conduit
within the properties situated within the Project only to those cable television
companies franchised by the City and condition of such grant being that (a) such
access is coordinated with Subdivider's construction schedule so that it does not
delay or impede Subdivider's construction schedule and does not require the
trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of such conduits; and (b)
any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to remain
in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the franchise and with all other
rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation
of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be,
issued by the City. Subdivider hereby conveys to the City the authority to enforce
said grant upon a determination by the City that they have violated the conditions
of the grant.
9. Comnliance with Unfulfilled Conditions. Subdivider agrees to comply
with all the conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map applicable to the Property
which remain unperformed or unfulfilled at the time of the filing of the Final Maps.
10. Satisfaction of Conditions. The City agrees that the execution of this
Agreement constitutes satisfaction of Developer's obligation of
Conditions 12 (a and b), 13, 14 and 15 of Resolution 17774 and Condition l3(c) of
Resolution No. 15200.
11. Recordim!. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either or
both parties, may be recorded at the option of either party.
12. Miscellaneous.
a. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law,
any and all notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be
served on or delivered to either party shall be in writing and shall be
deemed duly served, delivered and received when personally delivered to the
party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business days
have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. Mail, certified or registered mail,
return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address
indicated in this Agreement. A party may change such address for the
purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the
other party. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
W:\ClVlLIBREHMlEASTLAKI!\FORMS\5084200A.RBV
MardI 6. 1995 -6-
7C-P:
City: THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Attn: Director of Public Works
Subdivider: VENTANAS-CHULA VISTA, L.P.
a California limited partnership
16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 352
Encino, California 91436
Attn: Richard O. Werner, Chief Executive Officer
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph
by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this
paragraph. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
b. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience
of reference and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this
Agreement or any of its terms.
c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or
written representations, agreements, understandings and statements shall be
of no force and effect. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or
amend any other agreement between the parties unless expressly noted.
d. Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or
presumption shall be drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney
prepared or drafted this Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that
both parties participated equally in the preparation and drafting of this
Agreement.
e. Recitals; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above are incorporated by
reference into this Agreement.
f. Attorney's Fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of this
Agreement, the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees in addition to any other costs, damages or remedies.
W:ICIVn.\BRl!llM\BASTLAKEIFORMSIS084200A.REV
~~~ ~
7C-9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
VENTANAS-CHULA VISTA, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
Shirley A. Horton, Mayor
By: Ventanas-Chula Vista General Partner, L.P.,
a California limited partnership
General Partner
By:
Attest:
7E~t7
o
By: Hearthstone Advisors, Inc.,
a California corporation
GeR Partner
ByL, ~ ~J) O. ....Q~
Richard O. Werner
Chief Executive Officer
lerk
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
W:ICJVILIBRl!llM\EASTLAKElFORMSl.'i084200A.REV
_ 6. 1995 -8-
7C -/tJ
EXHIBIT" A"
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 88-3A, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS
PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 13180, FILED IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JANUARY 17, 1995 AS
FIP 95-0019312.
W:\CIVIT.IBREHMlBASTLAKElPORMSI5C84200A.REV
_6, 199~
-9-
7c..-//
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On 1'1.~tw../~ , 19P5: before me, l'H7rY:;RA# IIog'rFYJr
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
~((;{.4~O (). W mNoe...
,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)
on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
~~ ~tdr
Deborah Holstedt ,
Comm. '1007882 :.
TAAY PUBLIC. CALtFORNIAC)
MARIN COUNTY 0
Comm. ElCpires Oct 27, '991 ...
(Seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 5S.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On , 19_, before me,
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)
on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
(Seal)
W:\CIVlLIBREHM\EASTLAKEIFORMSI5084200A.REV
Marcll6. 1995
/c-/a2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
ITEM TITLE: a) Resolution /73'.:1 t? Rejecting low bid for Alternate A (Sidewalk
Ramps) for non-compliance with Minority and Women Owned Business
requirements for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets
and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive
Center in the City of Chula Vista (ST-513, STL-213)
b) Resolution / '? 8'3 ? Waiving immaterial defects, Accepting bids
and awarding contract for Alternate A (Sidewalk Ramps) portion of
"Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and Placement of
Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive Center in the
City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-513, STL-213)" and authorizing staff to
increase quantities to expend all available funds for this project
c) Resolution / 7 g':J<{' Waiving immaterial defects, Accepting bids
and awarding contract for Alternate B (Paving access road to NIC)
portion of "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and
Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive
Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-513, STL-213)"
rr/
)
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public Work
At 2:00 p.m. on February I, 1995 in Confe ence Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on
Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to Nature Interpretive
Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST -513, STL-213)." The City bid three alternates (A,
B, and C). Alternate A provides for construction of only sidewalk ramps. Alternative B
provides for paving of only the entrance road to the Nature Interpretive Center (NIC).
Alternate C provides for the construction of both under one contract. Thus, allowing interested
contractors the opportunity to bid both Alternates A and B which potentially could have
reduced costs to the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Declare the apparent low bidder for Alternate A as non-responsive (lack of meeting
Minority and Women Owned Business requirements); and reject the bid;
2) Waive minor irregularities in second low bid for Alternate A (lack of submittal of
Exhibits C & D with bid and incomplete disclosure statement);
3) Waive minor irregularities in the low bid for Alternative B (Lack of submittal of
Exhibits C & D with bid);
4) Accept bids and award contract to A.H. Builders in the amount of $17,561 for
construction of Alternate A (sidewalk ramps) and authorize staff to increase quantities
to expend all available funds for this project; and
5) Accept bids and award contract to Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. for Alternate B (paving road
to NIC) in the amount of $26,240.
~-/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
This is the second time staff has bid construction of the sidewalk ramps and asphalt paving of
the access road to the Nature Interpretive Center (NIC). The Council on December 6, 1994
by Resolution 17748 rejected bids for this same project. A copy of the resolution and agenda
statement are attached as Attachment A. Funds for construction of curb ramps (ST-513) and
placement of asphalt concrete pavement on the existing dirt road to the NIC (STL-213) were
included in FY 1994-95 CIP program. Both of these projects are funded with Community
Development Block Grant Funds. This source of funding requires strict labor and minority
business compliance regulations which tend to increase the project's contract administrative
cost. Because of this, staff believed that by bidding both projects under one contract, we
would encourage contractors to reflect their administrative cost savings on the bid amounts.
This did not occur the first time we bid the project. In fact, the cost for the number of curb
ramps included in the bid was in excess of the amount available for that work by nearly
$11,000, likewise a portion of the low bid for asphalt surfacing to the NIC road was above the
amount of funds available in a project account by approximately $3,500.
It was staff's recommendation, therefore, that Council reject the bids and direct staff to
readvertise the work with the specifications prepared in a manner that would give the City the
ability to award both projects to one bidder or individually to separate bidders, whichever
proved to be more cost advantageous. The preparation of the specillcations in that manner was
done, and the City re-bid the project. The specifications allowed for a bid on either, or both,
alternatives A and B, plus a "deduct" to the total of the bids for both alternatives if the
contractor were awarded the work for both alternatives.
Bid Results
As a result of rebidding the project, the City received bids as follows:
Alternate A (Sidewalk Ramps)
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Doug Kost Konstruction - Poway $16,331.00
2. A. H. Builders - Chula Vista $17,561.00
3. Hammer Construction - Chula Vista $18,980.00
4. Carolyn E. Schiedel - Contractor - La Mesa $19,670.00
5. Fox Construction - San Diego $21,580.00
6. R. C. Construction - Chula Vista $22,360.00
7. Interwest-Paciflc, Ltd. - San Diego $24,200.00
8. ABC Construction, Co. Inc. - San Diego $24,480.00
9. Basile Construction Inc. - San Diego $25,540.00
10. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $31,634.00
11. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $36,850.00
12. Harvest Construction - La Mesa $54,770.00
f(~ ;L
Page 3, Item r
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Alternate B (Placement of asphalt concrete on access road to NIC)
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego $26,240.00
2. Sim J. Harris Co. - San Diego $26,650.00
3. ABC Construction Co. Inc. - San Diego $27,060.00
4. Hammer Construction - Chula Vista $28,085.00
5. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $28,700.00
6. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $29,110.00
7. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $29,479.00
8. Fox Construction - San Diego $30,340.00
9. Harvest Construction - La Mesa $32,800.00
10. Doug Kost Konstruction - Poway $33,029.60
Alternate C (Combined Cost for Alternates A + B - deduct to the City)
Contractor Deduct Bid Amount
(A+B-Deduct)
1. Hammer Construction - Chula Vista $500.00 $46,565.00
2. Doug Kost Konstruction - Poway $2,468.00 $46,892.60
3. Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego $0.00 $50,440.00
4. ABC Construction, Co. Inc. - San Diego $540.00 $51,000.00
5. Fox Construction - San Diego $0.00 $51,920.00
6. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $0.00 $55,019.00
7. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $0.00 $60,744.00
8. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $4,000.00 $61,550.00
9. Harvest Construction - La Mesa $0.00 $87,577.00
Our review of the bids received, indicates that the cumulative total of the lowest responsible
bid for Alternate A plus the lowest responsible bid for Alternate B ($17,561 + $26,240 =
$43,801) is less than the lowest bid received from contractors bidding Alternate C ($46,565).
Therefore, it is to the City's advantage to award two separate contracts, one for Alternate A
for the sidewalk ramps, and one for Alternate B, paving of the access road.
Alternate A - Sidewalk Ramos
Although, the low bid by Doug Kost Konstruction - Poway is below the Engineer's Estimate
of $22,620 by $6,289 or 27.8%, the contractor did not meet the City's DBE participation
requirements (see letters - Attachment B). Doug Kost Konstruction failed to provide
documentation of meeting the City's program goals of 15% of the contract amount for
participation by minority businesses, and I % of the contract amount for participation of women
businesses. They also did not provide documentation to demonstrate a good faith effort to
comply. However, the second low bidder (A. H. Builders - Chula Vista), meets the City's
requirements, and is $5,059 or 22.4% below the Engineer's Estimate.
'ir'~ J
Page 4, Item <;r'
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Both, the first and second low bids for Alternate A, were excellent. However, based on the
recommendation of Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, we recommend that the contract be
awarded to A H. Builders because the low bidder did not meet the DBE participation
requirements. Staff has completed a reference check for both Doug Kost Konstruction and A
H. Builders. Both contractors were found to do satisfactory work. A H. Builders in submittal
of their bid had a few irregularities, these included not submitting with the bid contract
Exhibits C and D and a complete submittal of the disclosure statement. Subsequent to opening
the bids, A H. Builders has provided the City all necessary bid documents. Attached are
copies of the documents missing (Exhibits C-Contractor Questionaire and D-Bidder's Minority
and Women Business Enterprise Information from the bid proposal) from the original bid and
a letter explaining why they were missing (Attachment C-l). AH. Builders also submitted
their complete disclosure statement. Because the lack of these documents did not provide an
advantage to the low bidder, staff recommends waiving these minor irregularities.
Because of the excellent bid, staff is recommending that Council authorize staff to expend all
available funds for this project. This will result in the construction of about 8-10 additional
ramps. . Locations of the ramps to be constructed are shown on Attachment E.
Alternate B - Paving of Access Road to NIC
The low bid by Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego was below the Engineer's Estimate of
$27,470 by $1,230, or 4.5%. Their DBE qualifications were also reviewed by Juan Arroyo,
Housing Coordinator, and he recommends awarding the contract to Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. (see
memo, Attachment B). Staff has also completed a reference check of the work by Interwest-
Pacific, Ltd. and it was found to be satisfactory. A sketch showing the location of the
proposed work is included as Attachment F.
Interwest-Pacific Ltd. also did not complete contract Exhibits C & D. Subsequent to the bid
opening, they provided the City with contract exhibits C-Contractor Questionaire, and D-
Bidder's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Information, with a letter of explanation
(Attachment C-2). Because the lack of these documents did not provide an advantage to the
low bidder, staff recommends waiving this minor irregularity.
Disadvantaged Business Entemrise Goal
The bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal regulations for meeting the
Disadvantaged and Women owned business goals. Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, has
reviewed the bid documents submitted by the three lowest bidders for both Alternates A & B.
His conclusion in regards to Alternate A is that Doug Kost Konstruction does not meet the
City's DBE participation requirements and that the second low bidder A H. Builders does.
Therefore, he recommends awarding the contract for Alternate A to A H. Builders, the second
low bidder. In regards to Alternate B, the low bidder, Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. does meet the
City's requirement for DBE participation.
Staff also reviewed A H. Builders and Interwest-Pacific Ltd. eligibility status with regard to
Federal procurement programs and the status of the State Contractor licenses for both
contractors. Neither A H. Builder, Interwest Pacific, Ltd. nor any listed subcontractors are
excluded from Federal procurement programs (list of parties excluded from Federal
procurement or non-procurement programs as of January 6, 1995). Contractor's licenses for
A H. Builders and Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. are current and are in good standing.
g,,/
Page 5, Item r'
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Disclosure Statement
Attached are copies of the disclosure statements (Attachment D) for both A. H. Builders and
Interwest-Pacific, Ltd.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in the project
for the ADA curb cuts and has determined them exempt under Section 15301(c), Class I, of
the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, he has determined that the work
involved in the paving of the access road to the Nature Interpretive Center is also exempt under
Section 15301(c) Class I, of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for both projects is Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Federal Department of Labor.
Financial Statement
Alternate A (Sidewalk Ramps)
Funds Required For Construction
I. Contract Amount $17,561.00
2. Staff (Design and Construction) $9,000.00
3. Contingencies and additional work $8,112.90
TOTAL $34,673.90
Funds Available For Construction
1. ADA Curb Cuts Annual Program (ST-513) $34,673.90
TOTAL $34,673.90
Alternate B (Placement of Asphalt Concrete Paving on Access Road to NIC)
I Funds Required For Construction I
1. Contract Amount $26,240.00
2. Staff (Design and Construction) $2,000.00
3. Laboratory Testing $500.00
4. Contingencies (approx. 4.4%) $1,160.00
TOTAL $29,900.00
8"~ .>
Page 6, Item ?r
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Funds Available For Construction
I. Nature Interpretive Center Road Resurfacing (STL-213) $29,900.00
TOTAL $29,900.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
The above action awarding both contracts will authorize the total expenditure of $64,573.90
($34,673.90 plus $29,900) from budgeted CIP projects. After construction, only routine City
maintenance amounting to mainly sweeping will be required.
Attachment A - Resolution 17748 and Council Agenda Statement 12/6/94
Attachment B - Memo from Housing Coordinator
Attachment C - Minor irregularities submitted by low bidders
Attachment D - Disclosure statements
Attachment E - Ramp locations to be installed
Attachment F - Sketch for paving of access road
SUI:sb
File No:ST-513, S'JL.213
m:\home\cngincer\sidcwalk.nic
~,t
)
~\
(:,
--
---
1
L 1N1"AettJl/lt=HI
It
-
. ~TL-.;l13
RESOLUTION NO. 17748
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REJECTING BIDS FOR 'CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK
RAMPS ON VARIOUS SiREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE
CENTER IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (ST-513, STL-
~131' AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
RE-ADVERTISE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on October 12, 1994, in Confarence 2 in the Public Services
Building, the Director of Public Works raceived the following eight sealed bids for
'Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Strllets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on
Access Road to Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA. (ST -513, STL-2131:
Ccm1nldor Total Bid AspbaIt 0Irb Ramps
AmOUDt Plneiaeat
Superior Ready Mix Concrete, LP. . San $76,250.00 $33,200.00 $43,050.00
Diego
Basile CollSttUction, Inc. . San Diego $76,553.50 $27,888.~ $48,665.50
Sim J. Harris, Company. San Diego $78,000.00 $29.465.00 $48,53S.oo
Carolyn E. Scheidel - Contractor - La Mesa $78,575.00 $31,125.00 $47,450.00
A.H. Builden . CluJa VISta $83,653.00 $29.050.00 $54.603.00
ABC CollSttUction. Co., Inc. - San Diego $84,550.00 $37.350.00 $47,200.00
Marquez CollSttUcton Inc. . Spring Valley $91,375.00 $33,200.00 $58,175.00
GIM General Engineering . Enc:initas $96,060.00 $26,560.00 $69,500.00
WHEREAS, the projects are funded with Community Development Block Grant funds
which contain strict labor and minority business compliance regulations that tend to increase
the contractor's administrative cost of the project; and,
WHEREAS, because of this, staff believed that by bidding both projects under one
contract, we would encourage contractors to reflect their administrativa costs savings on the
bid amounts; and,
WHEREAS, the bid results, unfortunately, did not reflect this as the lowest bid
($76,2501 was above the Engineer's estimate of $72,475 by $3.775 or 5.2% and in excess
of the funds available; and,
f5;-?
~,
-c:
-
o
:':
'ii
u
Resolution No. 17748
Page 2
.
.
WHEREAS. the cost for the number of curb ramps included in the bid was in excess
of the amount evailable for that work and the portion of the low bid for the asphalt surfacing
- of the NIC Road was above the amount of funds available in that project account; and.
WHEREAS. it i$ staff's recommendation that Council reject the bids and direct staff to
re-advertise the work with the specifications prepared in a manner that would give the City
the ability to award the overall project to one bidder or to two separate bidders. whichever
is more cost advantages.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby reject the bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and Placement
of Asphalt Concrete on Accass Road to Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby directed to re-
advertise the work with the opportunity for the City to award the project either as one project
or as two separate projects depending on the bids received.
Presented by
Approved as to for
ffItf~Mf'J
~Q . Lippitt
Director of Public Works
J
,
Bruce M. Boogaar
City Attorney
.....
)
}
I
J
l?~~
Qj
...
...
...
o
...... ii' )(
""
S'CD
101:
'-,~
,
IL
#~ <
.
Resolution No. 17148
Page 3
.
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
California. this 6th day of December. 1994. by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers:
Fox. Padilla. Rindone. Horton
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
None
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I. Beverly A. Authelet. City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California. do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17148 was duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 6th day of December
1994.
Executed this 6th day of December. 1994.
8'> 1
. .
COUNCn.. AGENDA STATEMENT
Item , l.
Meeting Date 12/6194
ITEM TITLE: Resolution ,.,., ~ ~ Rejecting Bids for . Construction of Sidewalk.
Ramps on Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on Access
Road to Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA. (ST-
513, STL-213)" and directing the Director of Public Works to re-advertise
the project
SUBMITl'ED BY: Director of Public wor~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes.-,No,.XJ
At 2:00 p.m. on October 12, 1994, in Conference 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director
of Public Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk. Ramps on Various Streets
and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on Access Road to NatUre Interpretive Center in the City
of Chula Vista, CA. (ST-513, STL-213)." The work to be done consists of removal of curb,
gutter and sidewalk. and the construction of pedestrian ramps on various intersections. It also
includes the placement of 3 inches of asphalt concrete pavement on the existing dirt road to the
Nature Interpretive Center located at the west end of E Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council reject bids and direct the Director of Public Works to
re-advertise the work with the opportunity for the City to award the project either as one project
or as two separate projects depending on the bids received.
,~,
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for the construction of curb ramps (ST-513) and placement of asphalt concrete pavement
on the existing dirt road to the Nature Interpretive Center (STL-213) were included in the FY
94-95 CIP program. Both of these projects were funded with Community Development Block
Grant funds. This funding source contains strict labor and minority business compliance
regulations that tend to increase the contractor's administrative cost of the project. Because of
this, staff believed that by bidding both projects under one contract, we would ellCOurage
contractorS to reflect their l't1ministrative costs savings on the bid amounts. The cost for the
number of curb ramps included in the bid was in excess of the amount available for that work
by nearly $11,000. Likewise, the portion of the low bid for the asphalt surfacing of the NlC
Road was above the amount of funds available in that project account by approximately $3,500.
A closer evaluation of the results also shows that for the paving of the Nature Interpretive Center
Road, Superior Ready Mix, the overa111ow bidder, was in fact $5,312 above the lowest bid
received for this portion of the contract work. This represents an apparent overpayment of about
19% of the cost to install the asphalt concrete pavement ($5,312/$27,885). The major reason
Superior Ready Mix was the overa11low bidder was that they underbid the next lowest bidders
(Basile Construction Inc) in bid item #9, Traffic Control ($500 vs $2,832). Traffic control is
mostly required for construction of the curb ramp portion of the contract. Basile Construction,
Inc. submitted the next overa11lowest bid totaling $76,553.50, or $303.50 higher than Superior's
bid of $75,250.00. The 8I1!ount of funds available for the NlC road is approximately $30,000.
t(.r/{l
. -
.
.
Page 1, Item lIP
MeetiDg Date 11/6/94
The asphalt pavement portion of the work as bid by the second low bidder is within that cost.
The table below shows the results of the bid received for the combined project.
Contrador Total Bid AspMIt . CUI'b RampI
Amount NIC Road
Superior Ready Mix CoDcme, L.P.. San $76,2S0.00 $33,200.00 $43,050.00
Diego
Basile Coustrw:tion. IDe. . San Diego $76,553.50 $27,888.00 $48,665.50
Sim J. Harris, COII1p8IIy . San Diego $78,000.00 $29,465.00 $48,535.00
Carolyn B. Scheidel . CODttlCtor - La Mesa $78,575.00 $31,125.00 $47,450.00
A.H. Builders - Chula Vista $83,653.00 $29,050.00 $54,603.00
ABC CoDSttUCtion. Co., IDe. - San Diego $84,550.00 $37,350.00 $47,200.00
Marquez CoDStruCtors IDe. - SpriDa Valley $91,375.00 $33,200.00 $58,175.00
GIM GeDeraI RIlii-Ting - BDciDitas $96,060.00 $26,560.00 $69,500.00
Relative to the fact that our bid for ADA curb ramps was overly optimistic and included more
ramps than we have funds available to construct, staff will be eliminating some of the work to
stay within the amount of funding available for that project. Staff looked at awarding the two
parts of the work separately, however, the bid was not structured to allow that option and,
therefore, the project must be rebid.
It is staff's recommendation, therefore, that Council reject the bids and direct staff to re-
advertise the work with the specifications prepared in a mlln""r that would give the City the
ability to award the overall project to one bidder or to two separate bidders, whichever is more
cost advantages. The preparation of the specifications in this mlln""f will only require a minimal
amount of additional staff work to rebid the projects. Receipt of bids with the ability to award
each part separately or jointly will enable us to obtain the lowest cost for each of the projects
and potentially provide the opportunity for a lower combined bid.
mCAL IMPACT: The potential separation of the projects will only require a minimlll amount
of additional staff work to rebid the project. That is estimated to be less than $300. The
rebidding in the mlln"",r described will give staff the opportunity to obtain the lowest cost for
each part of the work and will facilitate the proper accounting of staff and construction costs
associated with each.
SLH:rb (STS13\STU31)
(Y:\BOWI!\I!N<lIIIIlIAGIlIIIlAInllill.SLBl
8'--//
A 1tAC.N Me 7\Yr B-l
MEMORANDUM
March 15, 1995
TO: Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Juan P. Arroyo, Housing coordinato~
SUBJECT: Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program -
Alternate n An Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and
Placement of Asphalt Concrete on Access Road to Nature Interpretive
Center - Douo Kost Construction Bid Prooosal
I have reviewed the Doug Kost Konstruction Company bid proposal for compliance
with the City's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program, and
have determined that the contractor does not comply with the program for the
following reasons:
-Failure of contractor to provide documentation to meet the City program
goal of 15% of the contract amount for the participation of minority business
enterprises.
-Failure of contractor to provide documentation to meet the City program
goal of 1 % of the contract amount for the participation of women business
enterprises.
-Failure of contractor to provide documentation to demonstrate good faith
effort to achieve the goals of the City program.
Therefore, it is recommended that this bid be rejected for non compliance with the
City's program.
JA:ag
cc: Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer
Shale Hanson, Civil Engineer
IAG\C:\WPWIN\JUAN\MEMOS\KOST .MEM]
8''' /3
ATlA~H M.c NT 13 - 2
MEMORANDUM
March 6, 1995
TO: Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Juan P. Arroyo. Housing coordinato~
SUBJECT: Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program -
Alternate "A" Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and
Placement of Asphalt Concrete on Access Road to Nature Interpretive
Center - A.H. Builders and Develooers Bid Prooosal
I have reviewed the A.H. Builders and Developers bid proposal for compliance with
the City's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program, and
have determined that the contractor has provided the necessary documentation to
indicate that the company complies with the City's goals for minority and women
business enterprise participation.
JA:ag
cc: Roberto Saucedo. Senior Civil Engineer
Shale Hanson, Civil Engineer
IAG\C:\WPWINIJUAN\MEMS\BUILDERS.MEMJ
~~I'I
A/TA:.C-RM.E'NL "0-~
MEMORANDUM
March 6, 1995
TO:
FROM:
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of p~rks/City Engineer
Juan P. Arroyo, Housing coordinato~
Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program -
Alternate "B" Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on Various Streets and
Placement of Asphalt Concrete on Access Road to Nature Interpretive
Center - Interwest Pacific Ltd. Bid Prooosal
SUBJECT:
I have reviewed the Interwest Pacific Ltd. bid proposal for compliance with the
City's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Construction Program, and have
determined that the contractor has provided the necessary documentation to
indicate that the company complies with the City's goals for minority and women
business enterprise participation.
JA:ag
cc: Roberto Saucedo. Senior Civil Engineer
Shale Hanson, Civil Engineer
IAGIC:IWPWINlJUANIMEMOSIINTERWES.MEMJ
?'/~/ r~t(P
~
A 'TACH M,:N T C-l
A. H. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
FEBRUARY 2, 1995
SHALE HANSEN
"
>""'"
l'J.'
,. ./'~
ON THE BID # ST513-STL213. OUR ESTIMATOR MADE
AN HONEST MISTAKE IN NOT SENDING EXHIBIT C & D
ALONG WITH OUR PROPOSAL.
~ >,
WE'RE SENDEING THEM NOW & WE APOLOGIZE
FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE.
> i
; ; ~
THAN-YOU
i'}'
~ i J
: ~
~..
- OWNE "
"
,
.~~
. .'
','
<;'.
?5~/
2645 PIKAKE ST, SAN D1EGO CA. 921 S4
(619) 575-4608
C.-I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE
EXHIBIT C
Date: ;Z -I ~ 95
Phone: 575- f'C:o.f
-~
-A ~ 1-\. B V t cO f Q S
FIRM NAME
89'S PAc...OMAIt S7. sn B-3
STREET ADDRESS CITY
89.S'PACJ>JWlA!t Sf. ~n 8-3
MAILING ADDRESS CITY
C/./I./LA UISf'1.l. c/l .
STATE ZIP .
C'1-/(./t..A VI S m, {"". q / ., r 1
STATE ZIP
<1/9/1
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
Check
'I.... Individual
Name of Owner A 11 TO/} / 0 /-f-E.1lI1 An 0 E z..
Corporation State of Incorporation
Partnership (Indicate [G] General, [L] Limrted)
Name of Partners
Joint Venture Joint Venture Participants
Local Address B1SP;u.,OmA/tSr. JT(., ;3-3 C,uI..l~AV/~m.J.4. 91'9'/1'
OWNERSHIP INTEREST
Black Hispanic
Native American
Asian or
Pacific Islander
Caucasian
Women
Number
{
% Assets
Owned
100
Minorrtv
Non-Mlnoritv
Women
Number
Percentage
Black Hispanic
COMPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES
Asian or
Native American Pacific Islander
Caucasian
Women
Number
% of Total
Employment
at Bidders'
Address
s
IDO
Explain whether current work force is racially proportionate to the area from which the work force is drawn (National.
State, or Local).
M:\ENOIN EER\A1)Ml N\CONTRA01\N ATll RG1'R.201tBoih.d I uctl
60 <;f-/~
.
Cl
.
to-
.....
co
-
:I:
X
W
c-{
!
i~
{ju..
..~
1:\lC
ii
-...
"'-
..ill
i=
;j
-
'" 0 Q "
, C.
". 0 0 ~ ..
~ \
tl. ::..:.
'!!l 8
...... ~ I
a~ rn
f(\
.. ..
-
~: . , !
..... ;:
~:: ; ; :
~ a i:i
i
~ ~ ..
,
"" , e 15
'o! ..
~ ~ e.
~ III ~
to ('.1 n ~ ~. 0
0'" -s
:!i I- t. ~ ~.
!~=5! ~ ~ I
;:>1" ~
.... ... ~
-Ill .. ~ "
!leI ;;; Vl
.. ... 100;)
... .. --;
co II! ~ ~..
!l ~ -~. ~
~ ::-
Ie] I~
~~
1
It'" ~t
. sl)- 1-,.<)-
I ~~ VI . If)
~: ~3 ~
<;)- :lo
.... I:~ '( ,
.. 0 \
.. ~~
... -to( ......
.. ~ I!'. ~ \
~ .... ' i~ , ~
'-($ ~
.\1\ " .....
:)-d 1/'\;) V\
<-l . ~~
cr-~
~ ~
! ~ C. .........l
.. ~
\l; ~ .J
- ~
I <l ~
"" ~ ~.....
Cl.j ;i l'-..
ci ~
CI\ "t
....
\0
0,,1
..
f,
"
~~
...
..
-
...
~
... f
,. .
.. ..
" r:
e:
~
~
~
;; I
\l;
~ p
~
~
;;;
g-/7
F~!~03-95 FRI 03:24 PM
THE F'oeT"'L --
,;., . "_,..... .1_ut'~HEC.TIOt-l
61 '~.
2.-P-,-' 3013
P.01
A.7TAc:.RM~NT c..- Z.
nterwest Pacific Ltd.
~=--~____.. .__ .. . __!e"'- Nlg~Q\"i,e,nJ'r.,id~
-
02-03-95
City of Chula Vista
AM: Shale BlUlSOn, Engineering
Fa;' #619-691-5111
Dear M.r. Hanson,
In response to your correspondence to us Oil this date, we are submitting completed fomls Exhibit C and
D, together with certificates of certification for bolh Baker's Concrete Cutting and Interwest Pacific. Ltd.
We regret that these forms were not completed \\ith the bid subnlitt,,1 It \\"<IS atl inter..offke error that we
will certainly not repeat.
If we call be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
~.,..,~
Office Manager
3'- ..2t?
3010 5th Avenue . San Diego . California . 92103
~')34 P03
e
...
FES-03-'95 FPl H:25 lD:CiTY OF CHULA 1)1".TA TEl. NO:
c-z
~ '"
IU
"!!l --
wloo ~ ..
'" .. <1-
" ~ a-
.. g \ .I. <>
~~ ~ .. ~ " .,..
-l ~ ~
g~ ". ~ ~
N .. .. ..
Ii . . !
~ I I ~
<q: .
<:t: ~ ~ i
...
= i
..
.. I
..! i
~~u~ l<) ".
~i f-
lU 01 ~~
!l ~flCIll
n ~ <'/,~
!!;!h .
till S~;; ~ \ ,
H _ .,..- ...
U "W 10
;5 me ~
,
.. . . - ~i
n l!! .J.
..
~ ..J
..~ oJ
en <:t
l). ..
l- I!:
"
'> "
,.. '"
,. ...
.. " N
I ... .. .;. I
~ " ~
.. ~
~ ..j~", .~
~ ~ . ~ ~ A ~ ::;
~J~~ ~
~ to.
! ~ J
'J ~A I
() Qvi
' ""'
0
...
.,\
~ ~' ~
iii
;;: -
. l!I J ~
"'"
. I ~
t- -'"
.... ~ ~
coO e 2"-
....
:I:; ts3 ~
...
W --
~04d Li0Z; L6Z 6 1 ':" NOI~83NNOO"~~sod..3H~ Wd v<:::z:0 I~.::I -
FEJil'-e3-9:5 FRI
133:26 PM
THE. POSTAL. CONNECTION
,!S19 297 '301~
P.04
,
CCCCCCCCC TTlT
CCCCCCCCC TTTT
Ccce IlTTTIIIIITT1T
cecc TTTT1TTTTTTTTT
cccccccce TTTT
cecccccce ITTT TTIT
TTTTTTTTT
eALTRANS
Certification Number. CTrOlZ174
Certifvinp Agenoy' CALTRANS
Expiretion Date' 11-01-1995
Contact Person' JACK NtCKOLAISEN
OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Divi$ion of Civil Riphts
11~0 N Straet, Room 2500
Sacrenlento, CA 95814
, (916) 654-4576
HIsrANIC
MALE
CORPORA TI ON
(619) 299-2500
___ ~ CERTIFIED PROGRAMS ---
SMaE DB! '
Attention' JACK NICKOLAISEN
INTERHEST PACIFIC, LTD.
3010 FIFTH AVE.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
-----Post in Public
~c{ 1fpvi
Chief, Division of Civil Ri~hti
It is your responsibility to'
_ Apply for Recertification on a Timely Basis.
~ Review this notification for acCuracy end notif
changes.
_____Preferred WORK
SH STATE HIDE
_____Preferred WORK CATEGORIES and BUSINESS Tvpes-----
C160l CLEARING & GRUBBING SE C190l ROADWAY EXCAVATION
C1920 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION SE C1925 SHAPED BEDDING s~
C1930 STRUCTURE aACKFlLL SE C1940 DITCHES EXCAVATION SE
C1970 EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION SE C1960 II1PORTED BORROW SE
C2201 FINISHING ROADWAY SE C2401 LIME TRHTMENT Sf.
C2501 AGGREGATE SUBBASE SE C2602 AGGREGATE BASE SE
C2700 CEMENT TREATED BASE SE C2800 CONCRETE BASE Sf
C3600 PENETRATION TREATMENT & P SE C390l ASPHALT CONCRETE Sf
C39l0 PAVING ASPHALT (ASPHALT C SE C3940 PLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE DI Sf
C4040 CLEAN & SEAL PAVEMENT JOI SE C4101 PAVEMENT SUBSEALlNG & JAC SE
C4901 FURNISH & DRIVE PILING SE C5000 PRESTRESSING CONCRETE CAS SE
C5105 MINOR CONCRETE STRUCTURE Sf C5124 ERECT PRECAST CONCRETE SE
C5136 REINFORCED CONCRETE CRIB SE C5501 AIR-BLOWN MORTAR SE
C5570 STEEL CRIB WALL SE C6200 ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERT Sf
~ OnlY certified DBE'g mav be utilized to meet Federallv fyndad contract goalS.
Only oertified 5MBE or SWBE's may be utilized to meet State funded contract goals.
OnlY certified CFMBE or CFWBE'. may be utilized to meet Centyrv Freeway oontract goalS.
2{/2)
_FEB-03-95 FRI 03:26 PM THE. POSTAL. CONNECTION
619 2'37 :312113
P.05
"
CCCCCCCCC TTTT
ccececeec THT
ccCcCgCC TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
C CO TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
ccgcc g88CT~JJTTTTT
ltTTTTTTT
CALTRflNS
C.rtif~~atlon Numbart CT~Ol0123
Certifying Aganoy. CAlTRANS
E~pir.tion Datal 09-01~1995
Contact Paraona MARY DAKER
DEPARTMENT OP TRAHSPORl"T10N
Ilivi&ion of Civil Right.
1120 N Str.et/ Room ~500
Slcramento, ell 95Blq
(916) 6S4-45H
CAUC
FEMALE
SOLE PROPRIETOR
(19) 744-1479
.-- K CERTIFlED PROGRAMS
SHeE ODE
"ttantion. MARY 'AKER
!AKERtS CONCRETE CUTTINO
59 CALLE DE CRISTO
AN MARCOS, CII 92069
~a ftlrvi
tnrir;-DIvi&ion of tivil Righta
.----po.t In Public View--...
CERTlFICATlUH I1U$T BE RENt:I~ED fltlNUAll Y
It L. your responlibil1tv tOI
_ ApplY for Recertificltion on e Timely Da.ie.
_ Review thi. notification for accuracy and notify Caltrana in writing of any necessary
chtlnllell.
30 ORANGE
_____Preferrad HORK LOCATiONS-----
33 RIVERSIDE 56 SAN BERNARDINO
:s7 SAil D 1 EOO
-----r~af.rred HORK CATEGORIeS .nd BUSINESS Typos-----
C390l A5PHAlT CONCRETE se C5150 CORE CONCRETE - REPAIR BR Sf
C1301 COHCRE1E CURB & SIDEWALK Sf C9904 CORINO Sf
C9905 CUTTINO SE C9907 COllSTRUCTlOII E'lUIPMEtH RE Sf
)nly certifiad D>>E'. may be utllited to meot Federelly funded contract guals.
)t\lv certified 5MBE or SI~BE'. may b. ut.ilhed to meet Steta funded c\lntrlct goala.
lnly oertified CFM81! or CFWBE'. mev b. utilized t.o l'1ut Cel\tury FI'l!lwllY oontract. ;oals,
'ir --,2. {
..
ATiflC!.t1I-f1):NT D
'IHE CITY OF CHt.JU. VISTA DISC10SURE STA'IEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
All rth1 ( 0 f./SIUi M 0 z- 2-
2. If any pel:SOn' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, fist the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
~~.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust
~/
IA
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any mem~f the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ NoLIf-yes, please indicate person(s):
S. Please Identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggre~te, contributed more than $1,000 to a CouncUmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No If yes, state which CouncUmember(s):
. . · (NO'IE: A1tach additional.pa&a as ,.e.
~ t!f!iJ.
Signature of cont ctorlapplicant
Date:
. fm!!!!iI tI<jInd Ill: "Any individwll,jimI, _,.,-nhip, joinI_ - i.,u.." -u.l dub,tr-/~,p. ..'""-, ""f'O'1JIion, -..... rocaWr, .,...".-,..
thiI and .., "., CClIIIlIy, dIy and C'*""'Y, dIy rnM1IidpGIky, diIIricr, or "., polidcflllllbdMllm, or .., "., ,oup or combinIJI/DIIlJCIinr III · tmiL"
t--~
AmO(110 !-1E(UJAr101c
Print or type name of oontractorlapplicant
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disdosun: of I.;ertain ownership or tinandal inten:sts. payments, or <.:alllpaiglll.'nntrihutioIlS,
011 all malters whil.:h will relluirc: disI.:Tt'tioll;try iU.:lioll on lilt' pari of lhe: City ('oum:il. Planning C\lllIlIlissioll, alld all tllhL'T (IHi~i;ll
hollies. The Ibllowing int'mllaliollllluSI hI;' disdoseu:
I, List the munes of all ~rsolls having a tinancial iJlten:st ill the propc::rry which is the suhjet.:t of the applit.:ation or tht COlltral.:t,
e.g., owllt:r.' applicant. Contractor. sutx.:olltral.:tOf, mah::rial supplier.
An-rom n W~JU74rJOl z...
~E-R- )
2. If any person" identified pursuant 10 (I) above is a corporalion or pannership. lisl the names of aJllDdividuals oWIung Illore
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owrung any parlllership interesl in lhe pannership.
3. If any person'" idelUitkd pursuant 10 tl) ahove is lion-profit organizatioll or a trust, lisllhe IliUlles of allY pt:rsoll se::rvillg as
din:,-=lUr uf lhe: nun-profit organization or as trustee or hc:ndkiary or trustor of the: trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 wonh of business lransacted with any member of the City staff. Boards. Commissions.
Committees. and Council wilhinlhe pasllwelve mOlllh'! Yes _ No _ If yes. please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents. employees. cOIlSultants. or independem Comraclors who you
have assigned to repreStIll you before lhe City in this mailer.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, ,-=ontributed more than $1,000 to a Coundl mtmhcr in the ,-=urreIH
or preL:tding e:h::l.:tion ptriod? YtS _ No _ If yes, state whkh Coundlmcmhers(s):
. . . (NOTE: Allathed additional pages as necessary) . " .
Date:
Signature of Colllracturl Applicant
Print or type name of COlllrdctor/Applicant
" Per""n is defined as: "Any individual. firm, co-parmership. joil/l venture, u.\Sociutie"" social club, fraternal orxaniwtion.
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county. city or fountry, city municipality, di.wrirt. or other {'oliticol
suIHlivi.\'iofl, or llflY other J.(rou{' or comhif/miofl (I('tiuX us (l W/If ~". ,Z?
47
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCWSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain 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:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e,g" owner:applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
N 0 ~o(;
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more
than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership.
N6n~
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
1'<6 n(.
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any m9Dber of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you
have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Mono(..
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~If yes, state which Council members(s):
Date:
pa:as"""2'"
Signature of Contractorl Applicant
.::f~" 'D. "'~c.l(,oLIlI$e',J
Print or type name of Contractorl Applicant
, fmJm. is defined as: 'Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city rrumicipality, district, or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination aering as a unit.
~/,2 7
47
.,
F~B-a3-95 FRI 103:25 PM THE. POSTAL. CONNECTION
61'3 297 !:013
P.03
3
~-~
FEB-03-'95 F"RI 11:24 ID:CITY OF (HULA UISTA TEL NO:
.---..
.1:1034 P02
CITY O~ CHULA VISTA
CONTI'\ACTOFl OU!;STIONNAI~E;
EXHIBIT C
Date: '/'/'ll
Phone: t/'1,;n;rl4
-:r;:;Te-ItW~" fJ&II"IC,
FIRM NAME
3 () 10 FI FrlJ ,.4, d
STREET ADDRESS
po. i3D'I' I-lIq
MAII.INCl AOClF\ESS
t...r f.> .
54,.) D/GlYO
CITY
Det- (l1,4JC-
CITY '
CA
STATE
~4-
STATE
q 1-1 rj 3
ZIP
q 1-(}1 L}
ZIP
"rVPE OF ORGAt'lI?AT10N
~
_ Individual
CCo:porati~
Partnership
Name of Owner
Stlte olln~orporollon
(Indlcete lO) General, ll.jl.lmned)
Name or Plrtne,.
.:Me. K 1>.
C' A- .
NI ,,/<. (1LA./~ (>',J
~-,-.-_..-
~ Joint venture Joint Venture PartiCipant,
LOC~I AddrlSl
~
-
Black Hispanic
Native American
Aalan or
paolfic Islander
e.ucasl~11
Wom.n
Number
% Anets
Ownld
I b 4'70
Mlnornv
Non.Mln\ll'tlv
Women
Number
Percentage
..
BlaCk Hispanic
COMPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES
Aelan or
Native American Pacific Islender
Caucasian
Women
Number
'I. or Total
Employment
al Elldders'
Addreas
0$1.1'1'
;;,07
''111
~. ,!~plaln whelher culten' wor\( for~. Is raQlllly prClPorllonlte 10 the are
~?':::?'...__ ~.-',2.1
~~~:~~_..
- ~
from which the wor\( roree Is drawn (National,
0-23
-1-1
--'
OJ
<(
I--
Ll)
OJ
I
...:::t
OJ
OJ
...--
>-
L.L-
U)
D-
2
<(
0::::
0::::
<(
:r
u
--l
LJ,J
L..a..J
:r
3=
>-
f-
0::::
o
0::::
0-
<(:z:
0::::
:Z::::J
If-
f-W
- 0::::
3:
CO
f- 0::::
o :::J
:z: U
u
3:
U1
u
3:
:z:
u
W
U1
u
W
:z:
:z:
o
f-
<(
U
o
-.J
A,TFlC.H-Nl~NT E
@! \ @
8G88c;~I@I@@
8BB8~.~@)@~~
I I O"l ~
,
i
I
....,
....,
....,
I
C)
OJ
O"l
N
co
N
I
C)
I
C)
I
C)
I
C)
- ~
...., ....,
I I
C) C)
~
....,
OJ
O"l
N
I
C)
<{
O"l
N
~
....,
I
C)
I
C)
co
N
....,
I
C)
I
C)
I
C)
OJ
O"l
N
co
N
I
C)
I
C)
....,
I
C)
OJ
O"l
N
<{
O"l
N
~
....,
co
N
I
C)
I
C)
I
C)
I
C)
---.- .---
>
~ ~ ~ >- : :z: ~ ~
~ ~ ~ t::: ~ ...J <{ 23
> > > Ci 0 :z: :z:
<{ <{ <{ v ~ :3 :;: a..
o C 0 ...J ~ :3 :::
a::: 0::: Q::: :_ W O--.J
III:: Oa;oO.-.J
t- I- I- 0 ::r:
_u-NI...I....t-r)I...I...."'o:::t~ ~6~ ~ D:d
0':= a.;::::(/) 0
~ ~'-~ ~I..I- I-u .::::: I-
L...J -2: ~2:: c V1wCt:: w
>-0>- >- >-:-:: V1- w w
~Vi~V~(/)~1.vi >-~5d ,..:>-~
Wt--Wt-Wt-W <t:;::EI-I->-V1<C(/)
>(/):>if>(/)> :;:L...J~:z::::J :;:
o:::Wa:::L....a::::wCi:: I a::: I O--.JL I::.....,
0:;: 0:;: 0:;: 0 ..... >->- ~ <{, .....,
._-l---
f-
<(
-.J "'!:too
0-
._____n__ _ ____
::e ::e ::e ::e
u u u u
<{ <{ <{ <{
l.&J W W W
oo::t N ...... 0
~
CO
N
I
C)
-
a..
~
<{
0::
~
<{
O"l
N
I
C)
-
a..
~
<{
0::
:z:
~
0:: :z: :z:
>- <{ <{
(/) 0:: 0::
L...J >- >-
o (/) (/)
L...J L...J L...J
a.. 0 0
L...J L...J
a.. a..
I
<{ .u .u .0
w W l..&.J W
a.. a.. a... a...
>- >- >- >-
I- I- I-- I-
...- "'-1"'-
___,__ ___. L___
N
~._~J~_,_ _ 3"--~1
...-
~
OJ
O"l
N
I
C)
-
a..
~
<{
0::
::e
u
<{
L...J
o
N
~
....,
I
C)
-
a..
~
<{
0::
:z:
~
0::
>-
(/)
L...J
o
L...J
a..
:z:
<{L...J
- C)
o::<{
>-""
(/)u
L...J<{
8 a..
a.. 0
u.. OJ
o
(/)
0::-
L...J::e
OJ>-
~:z:
:::>0
:z:
...J(/)
<{a..
>-~
O<{
>- 0::
l
...-
f-
W
W
I
(f)
0::5
L...J:z:
:Z:o::
0::0
au
u
>->-
(/)(/)
<{L...J
L...J3:
::eX
>->-
:::>:::>
00
(/)(/)
I I
UU
L...J3:
(/) (/)
0::5
L...J:z:
Zo::
0::0
au
u
>->-
(/)(/)
<{L...J
L...J3:
xX
>->-
0::0::
00
ZZ
I I I
UU
L...J3:
Z Z
z z
::;:'"
00
I I
ZZ
00
::0::0
-<-<
II
::;:'"
"')>
UlUl
.-<-<
00
00
:;0:;0
ZZ
",'"
::0::0
Ul Ul
::;:'"
00
I I
UlUl
00
CC
-<-<
II
::;:'"
"')>
UlUl
-<-<
00
00
::0::0
ZZ
",'"
::0::0
"_. ._" __.___ __'0
~ -.lo. ~ __-..Iio.
~ ~
OOlOlOCO-.....J-.....JOJOJ
(.N N -- -- --
_._. ___..__._ ___.__ __u_________.__ ____
::::!-lZ--tZ-lZ-lZ-l ':--1 =.;:.....,,>........:-10l> ::~-r'l-l-l--l..,.,-i
~~>~>~l>~l>~~~~I~~~~~~I~ O~~~OI
~Z~Z~Z~Z~Z Z ~-1~ ZZM ICZ~ZCZ
-1-1m-l~-1~-lM-l~-1~l>I~~~~~~ ~-10--l~-1
l>m~m~m~m~m~m~~l> ~~~ -1~Im mIm
<;::0 ;:0 :::0 ;:0 :::0;:0 < ;:0 .)> ;:0)>;:0 ;:c
",UlUlUlUlUlUlUlUlUl~Ul~ '" ~~Ul ~~)>Ul<Ul)>Ul
. 8:-18:-l8;-i~:-t8 8 . .nR-l <8!'"'"lri<ri
~-I = ~ -I --l~=~ ~ r~ ~ ~= =~-1
0~0~0~0~0800: d ~0C' ~ o~o 0
~Z<Z~ZOZ~ZOZ-< ~ZIO I ~Z",Z~Z
::0 ~ '" Z I ~
o Ul 0 ~ ~ 0 )> 0 _ ~ )> ^ '" Z
< -101"", < -I ~ 0 < -I ::::0 n
'" )> 0 )> '" )> '" Ul ~ C '" ~ Ul ^
~ ::;: ~ ::;: 0: < ::0::;: 0 ~
'" )> ::;: Z 0 '" ~ -< )> Z )>
~ Z Z I ^ Z
n)> m V>
-I < l> -I V>
)> m )> < r --l
< < '" Z
'"
-- --
C>
I
N
<D
)>
------
C> C>
I I
N N
<D <D
)> )>
C>
I
N
<D
)>
-- ----. -~- - -..---
C>
I
N
<D
)>
l/)
::r: __u -- -
~ (;l ~\
I:: ~)~@
L~(~
C>
I
N
<D
)>
C>
I
N
<D
)>
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
N
<D
)>
N
CO
N
<D
)>
N
CO
""'
C>
I
C>
I
N
<D
)>
N
<D
)>
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
N
CO
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
C>
I
""'
~
N
<D
)>
N
<D
)>
""'
N
CO
N
CO
C>
I
C>
I
N
<D
)>
N
CO
C>
I
C> C>
I I
N
CO
N N
<D <D
CD CD
M I ~
(Q\ ~ : ~
~ ~\~ ~ N N IN N
@@'@@@@l@@@i~ NI
@@I@~ N ~\@@\cn\@(~
~ ,. JV
-0
"'1t::'
)>
-l
,
o
()
)>
-l
o
:z:
:z:
r,-,
()
(../)
r,-,
()
C>
I
:z:
~
()
N
CO
C>
I
(../)
~
()
N
CO
C>
I
()
c:
:::::0
CD
N
<D
CD
:::::0
r,-,
-l
c:
:::::0
:z:
-0
:::::0
o
:::::0
-l
-<
--rJ
)>
::;0 --rJ
rrl C
--lZ
O~
co)>
rrl:;::o
Orrl
0)>
Z<
V))>
--l -
::::0 r-
C)>
OCO
--lr-
rrll"
o
)>
- 0
Zo
--l --l
::c -
rrlO
Z
)>
r-
:z:
o
-l
--rJ
o
r-I:J
r-rrl
00
:::Errl
zV)
GJ--l
:;::0
)>
Z
~
-l
::r:
:z:
)>
-0
::::0
0:;::0
::::0)>
--l :s:::
:-<I:J
V)
--1
)>
CD
r-
rr-
\
A T-r ~c.l'hn t:N T F
'1
5
.
I--
(/)
1..w
~
BAY
BLVD,
~<:
~
SCALE 1'= 200'
DRIVE
LU
>
I--
LU
0:::
a...
0:::0:::
LULU
1--1--
Zz
W-J
LU U
0:::
::::>
I--
<(
Z
0:::
LU
a
3:
o
a...
z
=>
c...:>
LENGTH = 2180'
WIDTH = 20'
THICKNESS = 3"
~ AREA TO BE PAVED
VOLUME = 820 + TONS
rlAl II H
1,./,11, II \ I :) i:I
~~:~1i~~R-;~fl~~~~'~~1' In, . ~: tu~[M[ ~:[RPR[ 11::V [~i:l;p-- m
It (, H [II I~ ~HIS.
.."---..,.-- .--.-----
. h.._._.._...____._ __.__.__._._.__~y/ _.__.___m
p~I.I)^~1.11 IIY
r:r S^~ V. MMdlllll^ I
. ---~ + - -,,++
^lip~1W1.1I fiY; .-
. _.51:01 r J .II{.N..~[ l~ __.
RESOLUTION NO. 17 tr.3 t,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REJECTING LOW BID FOR ALTERNATE A
(SIDEWALK RAMPS) FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
MINORITY AND WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS
FOR "CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS
STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT CONCRETE ON
ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (ST-513, ST-213)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on February 1, 1995 in Conference
Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on
Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to
Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-513,
STL-213)."; and
WHEREAS, the City bid three alternates (A, B, and C) and
received the following twelve bids for Alternate A which provides
for construction of only sidewalk ramps:
Alternate A (Sidewalk Ramps)
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Doug Kost Konstruction - poway $16,331.00
2. A. H. Builders - Chula vista $17,561.00
3. Hammer Construction - Chula vista $18,980.00
4. Carolyn E. Schiedel - Contractor - La Mesa $19,670.00
5. Fox construction - San Diego $21,580.00
6. R. C. Construction - Chula vista $22,360.00
7. Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego $24,200.00
8. ABC Construction, Co. Inc. - San Diego $24,480.00
9. Basile Construction Inc. - San Diego $25,540.00
10. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $31,634.00
11. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $36,850.00
12. Harvest construction - La Mesa $54,770.00
WHEREAS, although, the low bid by Doug Kost Konstruction
- poway is below the Engineer'S Estimate of $22,620 by $6,289 or
27.8%, the contractor did not meet the City'S DBE participation
requirements and based on the recommendation of Juan Arroyo,
Housing Coordinator, it is recommended that the contract be awarded
to the second low bidder, A. H. Builders - Chula Vista, who meets
the City'S requirements, and is $5,059 or 22.4% below the
Engineer'S Estimate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby reject the low bid for Alternate A
(Sidewalk Ramps) for non-compliance with Minority and Women Owned
~II~/
Business requirements for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on
Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to
Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula vista (ST-513, STL-
213)".
Approved as tj..o/form by
J
/ 1 (
. .
/, .:.
.-fi C-'L J I /')+10'" ,~..,)
Bruce M. Boog~ ' City
Attorney I
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
3"A ..,.2..
RESOLUTION NO. 178'..:3?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS,
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
ALTERNATE A (SIDEWALK RAMPS) PORTION OF
"CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS RAMPS ON. VARIOUS
STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT CONCRETE ON
ACCESS ROAD TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (ST-513, STL-
213)" AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE
QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR
THIS PROJECT
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on February 1, 1995 in Conference
Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on
Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to
Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-513,
STL-213) ."; and
WHEREAS, the City bid three alternates (A, B, and C) and
received the following twelve bids for Alternate A which provides
for construction of only sidewalk ramps:
Alternate A (Sidewalk Ramps)
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Doug Kost Konstruction - poway $16,331.00
2. A. H. Builders - Chula vista $17,561.00
3. Hammer Construction - Chula vista $18,980.00
4. Carolyn E. Schiedel - Contractor - La Mesa $19,670.00
5. Fox Construction - San Diego $21,580.00
6. R. C. Construction - Chula vista $22,360.00
7. Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego $24,200.00
8. ABC Construction, Co. Inc. - San Diego $24,480.00
9. Basile. Construction Inc. - San Diego $25,540.00
10. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $31,634.00
11. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $36,850.00
12. Harvest Construction - La Mesa $54,770.00
WHEREAS, although, the low bid by Doug Kost Konstruction
- poway is below the Engineer'S Estimate of $22,620 by $6,289 or
27.8%, the contractor did not meet the City'S DBE participation
requirements and based on the recommendation of Juan Arroyo,
Housing Coordinator, it is recommended that the contract be awarded
to the second low bidder, A. H. Builders - Chula vista, who meets
the city's requirements, and is $5,059 or 22.4% below the
Engineer'S Estimate; and
?r/J---/
WHEREAS, A. H. Builders in submittal of their bid had a
few irregularities which included not submitting with the bid
contract Exhibits C and D and a complete submittal of the
disclosure statement, however, subsequent to opening the bids, A.
H. Builders has provided the City all necessary bid documents and
staff recommends waiving these minor irregularities; and
WHEREAS, because of the excellent bid, staff is
recommending that Council authorize staff to expend all available
funds for this project; and
WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in the project for the ADA curb cuts and
has determined them exempt under section 15301(c), Class I, of the
California Environmental Quality Act and in addition has determined
that the work involved in the paving of the access road to the
Nature Interpretive Center is also exempt under section 15301(c)
Class I, of the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby accept the bid of A. H. Builders in
the amount of $17,561 as responsive and waives minor irregularities
in the bid for lack of submittal of Exhibits C & D with bid and
incomplete disclosure statement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized to
increase quantities to expend all available funds for this project.
71:: Z
(j Bruce M. Boo
Attorney
form by
J)
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ffj]--,2
RESOLUTION NO.
/7g'$ r
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECTS,
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
ALTERNATE B (PAVING ACCESS ROAD TO NIC)
PORTION OF "CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON
VARIOUS STREETS AND PLACEMENT OF ASPHALT
CONCRETE ON ACCESS TO NATURE INTERPRETIVE
CENTER IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (ST-
513, STL-213)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on February 1, 1995 in Conference
Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Sidewalk Ramps on
Various Streets and Placement of Asphalt Concrete on access road to
Nature Interpretive Center in the City of Chula Vista, CA (ST-513,
STL-213) ."; and
WHEREAS, the City bid three alternates (A, B, and C)-
Alternate A provides for construction of only sidewalk ramps;
Alternative B provides for paving of only the entrance road to the
Nature Interpretive Center (NIC) and Alternate C provides for the
construction of both under one contract thus allowing interested
contractors the opportunity to bid both Alternates A and B which
potentially could have reduced costs to the City; and
WHEREAS, the following ten bids were received for
Alternate B:
Alternate B (Placement of asphalt concrete on access road to NIC)
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San Diego $26,240.00
2. Sim J. Harris Co. - San Diego $26,650.00
3. ABC Construction Co. Inc. - San Diego $27,060.00
4. Hammer Construction - Chula vista $28,085.00
5. GIM General Engineering - Encinitas $28,700.00
6. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $29,110.00
7. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $29,479.00
8. Fox construction - San Diego $30,340.00
9. Harvest Construction - La Mesa $32,800.00
10. Doug Kost Konstruction - poway $33,029.60
WHEREAS, the low bid by Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. - San
Diego was below the Engineer'S Estimate by $27,470 by $1,230, or
4.5% and their DBE qualifications were reviewed by Juan Arroyo,
Housing Coordinator who recommends awarding the contract to
Interwest-Pacific, Ltd.; and
WHEREAS, Interwest-Pacific Ltd. also did not complete
contract Exhibits C & D, however, subsequent to the bid opening,
?C-j
they provided the
of explanation
irregularity; and
WHEREAS, the bid documents set forth participation
reqUirements per Federal regulations for meeting the Disadvantaged
and Women owned business goals and the Housing Coordinator has
determined Interwest-Pacific, Ltd. does meet the city's requirement
for DBE participation; and
city with contract exhibits C & D with a letter
and staff recommends waiving this minor
WHEREAS, staff also reviewed Interwest-Pacific Ltd.
eligibility status with regard to Federal procurement programs and
the status of its State Contractor licenses and neither Interwest
Pacific, Ltd. nor any listed subcontractors are excluded from
Federal procurement programs; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in the project for the ADA curb cuts and
has determined them exempt under section 15301(c), Class I, of the
California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the
work involved in the paving of the access road to the Nature
Interpretive Center is also exempt under section 15301(c) Class I,
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept the bid of Interwest-Pacific
Ltd. as responsive and awards the contract to Interwest-Pacific,
Ltd. for Alternate B (paving road to NIC) in the amount of $26,240.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
waive minor irregularities in the low bid for Alternate B (lack of
submittal of Exhibits C & D with bid).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
, city
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boog
Attorney
C:\rs\sldewalk.nic
~C-,2.,
...
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1..
Meeting Date 3/21/95
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution I 78".3 f Accepting bids and awarding contract for
purchase of four Chevrolet Corsica sedans to South Bay Chevrolet.
Resolution / 71f'Jj'tJ Accepting bids and awarding contract for
purchase of three Sonoma pick-up trucks to GMC Truck Division.
C) Resolution /7?f If I Accepting bids and awarding contract for
purchase of one Ford Crew Cab F350 Pick-up to Fuller Ford.
A)
B)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: City Managerj6 ~ Co (4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No----X-)
Bids were received by Purchasing and Pubht W:s Operations for the following equipment:
Item Q!y
Descriotion Deoartment
1 4
Intermediate Sedans (I) Community Development, (2) Police and
(1) Engineering
2 3
Pick-up Trucks (1) Traffic Engineering and (2) Park Maintenance
3 1
Utility Vehicle Public Works Operations
4 I
Crew Cab Park Maintenance
RECOMMENDATION: That Council award the bid for Item 1 to South Bay Chevrolet, Item 2
to GMC Truck Division, postpone purchase of Item 3 and award Item 4 bid to Fuller Ford.
BOARDS & COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget provides for the replacement of four sedans, three pick-
ups, one utility vehicle, and one crew cab. For each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be sold.
Monies from the sales will be placed in the Equipment Replacement Fund. Historically,
the City has purchased vehicles from the State of California bid. At the City Council's direction
staff has compared the state bid prices with local dealers: South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford.
The results are as follows:
9-/
Page 2, ltem2
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Item 1 - Four Intermediate Sedans
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Bid Pur..hllse Purchase Price
Tax Price (Net of 1 % Sales Tax)
South Bay Chevrolet
Corsica $12,433.95 $870.35 $13,304.30 $13,179.96
State Bid
Corsica $12,561.22 $895.04 $13,456.26 $13,456.26
The State Bid unit price includes 1 % state service charge, freight, and invoice payment
discount.
Fuller Ford NO BID
The net low bid of South Bay Chevrolet meets specifications and is acceptable. The following sedans
will be sold upon purchase:
'85 Ford Tempo, Property Tag #14144
'88 Dodge Aries, Property Tag #15776
'87 Ford Tempo, Property Tag #15137
'86 Ford Tempo, Sold early at 5/94 County Auction due to bad transmission
Item 2 - Three Pick-UD Trucks. 2-wheel drive
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Bid Purchase Purchase Price
Tax Price (Net of 1 % Sales Tax)
State Bid - GMC Truck
Division - GMC Sonoma $13,148.33 $911.64 $14,059.97 $14,059.97
The State Bid unit price includes 1 % state service charge, freight, and invoice payment
discount.
Fuller Ford Ford Ranger $13,739.00 $961.73 $14,700.73 $14,563.34
South Bay Chevrolet NO BID
The net low bid of GMC Truck meets specifications and is acceptable. The following items will be
sold upon purchase:
'86 Dodge Gold Ram 50, Property Tag #14443
'86 Ford Ranger, Property Tag #14799
'88 Dodge Dakota, Property Tag $16262
Item 3 - Utility Vehicle
Purchase of a utility vehicle to replace the vehicle .currently used by the Public Works Maintenance
Superintendent was included in the FY 94-95 Equipment Replacement Budget. The utility vehicle
is needed for field inspection of PWO crews and inspection of the silt basins in canyon areas (ie:
Rice Canyon, Bonita Long Canyon, etc.). A total of $19,840 was budgeted for the purchase of the
9-.;2..
Page 3, Iteml
Meeting Date 3/21/95
utility vehicle. Mter evaluating the the State's bid specifications, and talking to local dealers about
the price of the utility vehicle, staff recommends postponing purchase of the utility vehicle until
September/October when the new 1996 models have been introduced. At that point staff can look
around for a 1995 utility vehicle closer to the budgeted amount of $19,840. The cost of a new utility
vehicle currently, exceeds the budgeted amount by $2,900. This vehicle will be included in the FY
95-96 Equipment Replacement Budget forwarded to Council.
Item 4 - Crew Cab Truck
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Bid Purchase Purchase Price
Tax Price (Net of 1 % Sales Tax)
State Bid - Ford F350 $20,897.20 $1,380.40 $22,277.60 $22,277.60
The State Bid unit price includes I % state service charge, freight, and invoice payment
discount.
Fuller Ford - Ford F350 $20,147.00 $1,410.29 $21,557.29 $21,355.82
South Bay Chevrolet NO BID
The net low bid of Fuller Ford meets specifications and is acceptable. The following truck will be
sold upon purchase: '88 Dodge Dakota, Property Tag #15881.
ALTERNATE FUEL:
None of the vehicles were available from manufacturers configured with compressed natural gas
(CNG). Staff does not recommend conversion to CNG until additional information is available from
previously converted vehicles. Methanol fuel flexible Dodge Intrepids were available from the
manufacturer however, they were approximately $5,000 more than the Chevrolet Corsica and as
previously indicated to Council, staff recommends against methanol fuel vehicles. This is because
there are no local methanol fueling stations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Item 1 - was budgeted in the equipment replacement budget. Four sedans for $12,522 per vehicle.
The net low bid of South Bay Chevrolet is $13,304.30 per vehicle which exceeds the budgeted
amount by $782.30 for each vehicle. Staff recommends Council authorize use of $3,129.20 from
savings from the purchase of the pick-up trucks, Bid Item 2 and the aerial lift truck discussed in Bid
Item 4.
Item 2 - Sufficient funds are provided for in the FY 94-95 Equipment Replacement budget for
purchase of the three GMC Sonoma pick-ups. The budgeted amount is $14,977 each and the net low
bid of GMC Truck Division is $14,059.97 resulting in a savings of $917.03 each for a total of
$2,751.09.
Item 3 - A total of $19,840 is budgeted in the FY 94-95 Equipment Replacement budget for vehicle
#3. Staff recommends the appropriated funds be returned to the Equipment Replacement fund and
re-appropriated in the FY 95-96 Equipment Replacement budget for purchase in the first quarter.
This budget will be forwarded to Council for approval during the FY 95-96 budget review process.
~~)
Page 4, ItemL
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Item 4 - $17,347 is budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund for purchase of the crew cab pick-
up. The net low bid of Fuller Ford ($21,557.29) exceeds the budgeted amount by $4,210.29. Staff
recommends Council authorize use of savings from the recent purchase of the aerial lift truck. The
cost of the aerial lift truck purchase approved by Council on 2/21/95 was $81,975.23 resulting in
a savings of $10,754.77.
m: \home\engineer\agenda\cars.iq
tt~f
RESOLUTION NO. I '?3'::S?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR CHEVROLET
CORSICA SEDANS TO SOUTH BAY CHEVROLET
WHEREAS, the FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget
provides for the replacement of four sedans--l for Community
Development, 1 for Engineering and 2 for the Police Department; and
WHEREAS, for each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be
sold at auction and monies from the auction will be placed in the
Equipment Replacement Fund; and
WHEREAS, historically, the City has purchased vehicles
from the State of California bid, however, at the City Council's
direction staff has compared the state bid prices with local
dealers: South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford and the results are
as follows:
Item 1 - Four Intermediate Sedans
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Bid Purchase
Tax Purchase Price
Price (Net of 1%
Sales Tax)
South Bay
Chevrolet $12,433.95 $870.35 $13,304.30 $13,179.96
Corsica
State Bid
Corsica $12,561. 22 $895.04 $13,456.26 $13,456.26
The State Bid unit price includes 1% state service charge,
freight, and invoice payment discount.
Fuller Ford NO BID
WHEREAS, the net low bid of South Bay Chevrolet meets
specifications and is acceptable with the following sedans being
sold upon purchase:
'85 Ford Tempo, Property Tag #14144
'88 Dodge Aries, Property Tag #15776
'87 Ford Tempo, Property Tag #15137
'86 Ford Tempo, Sold early at 5/94 County Auction due to
bad transmission
9/1-/
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept said bids for purchase of
four Chevrolet Corsica sedans for a purchase price of $13,304.30
per vehicle.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract with South
Bay Chevrolet for the purchase of said vehicles.
APp1ed as to
/i~J
~. Bruce M. Boo
Attorney
orm bt
~
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
9A .....<
RESOLUTION NO. /7Y'/tJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF THREE
TRUCKS TO GMC TRUCK DIVISION
OF THE CITY OF
AND AWARDING
SONOMA PICK-UP
WHEREAS, the FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget
provides for the replacement of three pick-ups--1 for Traffic
Engineering and 2 for Park Maintenance; and
WHEREAS, for each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be
sold at auction and monies from the auction will be placed in the
Equipment Replacement Fund; and
WHEREAS, historically, the city has purchased vehicles
from the State of California bid, however, at the City Council's
direction staff has compared the state bid prices with local
dealers: South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford and the results are
as follows:
Item 2 - Three pick-up Trucks. 2-wheel drive
Bidder Unit Price II Bid Purchase
Sales Purchase Price
Tax Price (Net of 1%
Sales Tax)
State Bid - GMC Truck
Division - GMC Sonoma $13,148.33 $911. 64 $14,059.97 $14,059.97
The State Bid unit price includes 1% state service charge,
freight, and invoice payment discount.
Fuller Ford Ford $13,739.00 $961. 73 $14,700.73 $14,563.34
Ranger
South Bay Chevrolet NO BID
WHEREAS,
specifications and
sold upon purchase:
'86 Dodge Gold Ram 50, Property Tag #14443
'86 Ford Ranger, property Tag #14799
'88 Dodge Dakota, Property Tag $16262
the net low bid of GMC Truck meets
is acceptable with the following items being
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept said bids for purchase of
three Sonoma piCk-Up trucks to GMC Truck Division through the State
Bid at a cost of $14,059.97 per vehicle.
98-/
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract with the
State of California for the purchase of said vehicles.
Presented by
At: ;[ r fay
C;;ruce M. Boo or, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
.
98~..L
RESOLUTION NO. / /11'1/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF ONE
F350 PICK-UP TO FULLER FORD
OF THE CITY OF
AND AWARDING
FORD CREW CAB
WHEREAS, the FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget
provides for the replacement of one crew cab for Park Maintenance;
and
WHEREAS, for each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be
sold at auction and monies from the auction will be placed in the
Equipment Replacement Fund; and
WHEREAS, historically, the city has purchased vehicles
from the State of California bid, however, at the City Council's
direction staff has compared the state bid prices with local
dealers: south Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford and the results are
as follows:
Item 4 - Crew Cab Truck
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Bid Purchase
Tax Purchase Price
Price (Net of 1%
Sales Tax)
State Bid - Ford $20,897.20 $1,380.40 $22,277.60 $22,277.60
F350
The State Bid unit price includes 1% state service charge,
freight, and invoice payment discount.
Fuller Ford - $20,147.00 $1,410.29 $21,557.29 $21,355.82
Ford F350
South Bay NO BID
Chevrolet
WHEREAS,
specifications and
sold upon purchase:
the net low bid of Fuller Ford
is acceptable with the following truck
'88 Dodge Dakota, Property Tag #15881.
meets
being
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby accept said bids for purchase of
one Ford Crew Cab F350 pick-up and awards t~e contract to Fuller
Ford in the amount of $21,557.29.
9C-/
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract with the
Fuller Ford for the purchase of said vehicle.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~t:lT
{Bruce M. Boogaa
Attorney
Presented by
C:\rs\vehicle.bid
9c-..2.
CflY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -.!l.
Jfyr{,
Meeting Date: Ma
Public Hearing: GPA 95-01 DESIGNATING O-ACRE SATTERLA
PARCEL LOW DENSTIY RESIDENTIAL; GPA 95-02 DESIGNATING
21.84-ACRE LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR PARCELS OPEN SPACE;
GPA 95-03 DESIGNATING SAN DIEGO CITY WATER RESERVOIR,
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY AND OTAY LANDFILL AS
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
1') r..J J
Resolution E'1A'9'1-6'3RTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND
TIER) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR 94-03) FOR THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT,
ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY
AS AMENDED AND DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
SUBMTITED BY, Sp<ci&p""""",p,,j~_, ""'" lW<h ~,Q - -- /-'
REVIEWED BY: CityManage~\lJ~\ (4/5Vote:Yes_No~
In January of 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Sphere of Influence Update Study for
the City. This public hearing is being held jointly between the City Council and the Planning
Commission to consider certifYing the Final Program (Second Tier) Environmental hnpact Report for
the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study making certain Findings of Fact pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, amending the General Plan Land Use Element to
comply with LAFCO policy, accepting the Draft Sphere of Influence Update Study as amended and
directing that the Study be submitted to LAFCO for adoption.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
Conduct the Public Hearing on the General Plan Amendments and Sphere ofInfluence Update Study,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. EIR 94-03 certifYing Final Program (Second Tier)
9-/
Page 2
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
EIR 94-03 making certain Findings of Fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and recommend the City Council amend the General Plan, accept the Sphere of
Influence Update Study as amended and direct staff to submit the Sphere ofInfluence Update Study to
the Local Agency Formation Commission for adoption.
It is recommended that the City Council:
Conduct the Public Hearing on the General Plan Amendments, and Sphere of Influence Update Study,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No._ amending the General Plan, certifYing Final
Program (Second Tier) EIR 94-03 making certain Findings of Fact pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and accepting the Sphere of Influence Update Study as
amended and directing staff to submit the Sphere of Influence Update Study to the Local Agency
Formation Commission for adoption.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Resource Conservation Commission: The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) unanimously
recommended that the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR 94-03) for the City of
Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update Study be certified as being complete. The RCC minutes from
their February 16, 1995 meeting are attached for your information.
Planning Commission: Since this is a joint hearing with the Planning Commission, their
recommendation will be presented at the meeting. The Commission held a public hearing on February
22, 1995 to take testimony on the Draft Program EIR. They unanimously voted to close that hearing
and direct staff to prepare the Final Program EIR that is before the Council and Commission for
certification.
DISCUSSION
L BACKGROUND
The City of Chula Vista's initial Sphere of Influence was adopted by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) in 1985. At that time, the Otay Valley Parcel was designated a Special Study
Area pending the joint planning effort between City ofChula Vista and County. In July 1993, LAFCO
authorized the Executive Officer to conduct an update study of the City of Chula Vista's Sphere of
Influence in anticipation of completion of the joint planning effort on the Otay Ranch General Plan.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was adopted in October
1993. A Study Area for the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update was approved by the Chula Vista
City Council in January 1994. It encompasses the existing City ofChula Vista Sphere of Influence and
approximately 13,616 additional acres. The Sphere of Influence Study Area as indicated in Exhibit 1 is
generally bounded by Heritage Road and the existing City limits on the west, Brown Field on the
south, the Jamul Mountains on the east and San Miguel Mountain on the north.
'i'~.2
Page 3
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
The Sphere of Influence Update Study has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista to identify the area
within which urban levels of development could commence within the next IS years. The focus of the
Sphere Update Study has largely been the Otay Ranch and adjacent parcels.
Three General Plan Amendments (GPAs) are proposed on five different property ownerships
concurrently with the Sphere of Influence Update. The GPAs are proposed for two reasons.
Presently, some smaller non-Otay Ranch parcels are not included in the current City General Plan area.
These parcels must be included in the Chula Vista General Plan in order to comply with the LAFCO
policy requiring a Sphere area to be within a city's general plan. The second purpose is to adjust the
existing City of Chula Vista land use designations to reflect the current use or future land uses of the
sites.
The Notice of Preparation for the Sphere of Influence EIR was issued on April 19, 1994. The draft
EIR was circulated for public comment on January 6, 1995. The EIR addresses the environment
impact of the recommended sphere boundary amendment and the attendant Chula Vista General Plan
amendments. This EIR is a second tier document utilizing the Otay Ranch Program EIR.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a City of Chula Vista-initiated proposal to amend the City's Sphere of
Influence boundary to include an additional 12, 718 acres and to amend the Chula Vista General Plan to
permit processing of the sphere document.
A. Sphere of Influence Update
The majority (87%) of the land within the proposed sphere amendment area is property within the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP. Other parcels within, or adjacent to, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP are proposed for
inclusion in the City's Sphere of Influence to avoid creating "county islands" and allow for the efficient
provision of services.
In October 1993, the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista amended their respective General
Plans to incorporate the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. With limited exceptions, the sphere amendment area
may be developed to the same land use intensity under either the City of Chula Vista or County of San
Diego's General Plan. Similarly, the City of Chula Vista and City of Sari Diego General Plans provide
for similar industrial uses where their jurisdictions overlap in Planning Area 4 (industrial area on Otay
Mesa adjacent to Brown Field).
For study purposes, the land within the Sphere of Influence amendment area is divided into five
planning areas (see Exhibit I). The planning areas and associated acreage are presented below.
Planning Area 1 - Otay VaDey Planning Area: This Planning Area permits 18,942 homes on 9,298
acres. The Otay Valley Planning Area is surrounded on the west, north and east by the City of Chula
Vista. This area is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north, Heritage Road and Brown Field
on the south and Lower Otay Lake on the east. The Planning Area includes Otay Ranch Villages One-
9-3
Page 4
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
Eleven, Planning Area 12 (Eastern Urban Center [EUC]), Planning Area 18b and other properties
within, or adjacent to, the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch including the parcels proposed for
amendment to the General Plan.
Planning Area 2 - Resort Planning Area: The Resort Planning Area is comprised of mostl of Otay
Ranch Village Thirteen, the Satterla Parcel (proposed for General Plan amendment) and Lower Otay
Reservoir. This Planning Area would pennit 2,340 homes in 2,093 acres. Comments, pertaining to the
SOI-EIR, from the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use, requested that this area
not be added to the City's Sphere. City staff has begun discussions with County staff on the financial
and planning impacts of this parcel and the Otay Landfill site. Resolution of the issues are not expected
to be concluded for several months. Therefore, staff is recommending that this area be added to the
City's Sphere. An alternative is to recommend to LAFCO that this area be designated a Special Study
Area, to pennit negotiations to be concluded with the County prior to LAFCO action.
Planning Area 3 - Inverted "L" Planning Area: The Inverted "L" Planning Area is comprised of
the Otay Ranch Inverted "L" Property and the Watson Property. This Planning Area permits 389
homes on 457 acres.
Planning Area 4 - Otay Mesa Industrial Planning Area: For analytical purposes, the Otay Mesa
Industrial Planning area is divided into two subareas: 1) West Mesa Industrial; and 2) North-East
Mesa Industrial. The West Mesa Industrial subarea is located south of the Otay River Valley in the
Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. This area is under the City of San Diego's jurisdiction and is
designated Manufacturing Industrial Park (MIP). Under the County of San Diego and City of Chula
Vista General Plan (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP), this 378.25-acre area includes 185.8 acres of industrial
and 192.45 acres of open space. The North-East Mesa Industrial subarea is located south of the Otay
River Valley, east of the proposed SR-125 alignment in the Otay Valley Parcel ofOtay Ranch. Under
the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista General Plans (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP), this 492.07
area includes 30 acres of industrial and 462.07 acres of open space.
Detachment of this planning area from the City of San Diego has been reviewed by the Land Use and
Housing Subcommittee of the San Diego City Council. They have recommended that the area not be
detached from their City. Due to this recommendation and the potential for solving other common
boundary issues with the City of San Diego, staff recommends Planning Area 4 be designated as a
Special Study Area. This designation allows Chula Vista to return to LAFCO for a Sphere boundary
amendment with the City of San Diego whenever the boundary issues are resolved.
Planning Area 5 - Special Study Areas: As an ancillary task, the Sphere ofInfluence Update Study
reviews "Special Study Areas" previously designated by LAFCO in 1985 (see Exhibit 2). They are not
included in the EIR analysis and are not considered part of the proceedings to amend the Sphere
boundary. These properties will remain Special Study Areas under this Sphere Update Study. In
addition, the Sweetwater Parcel has been added to this Planning Area. The following properties are
included in this planning area:
'The Mary Patrick Estate property is already within the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence and; therefore, is not part
of the Resort Planning Area.
1~t(
Page 5
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
. The Otay River Valley Special Study Area is a 369.12-acre property located east ofI-80S,
south of the Otay River, north of Palm Avenue and west of the Otay Rio Business Park.
. The SR-S4 Study Special Area designation is the boundary between National City and
Chula Vista which jogs back and forth across SR-S4 and the Sweetwater River between 1-5
and I-80S.
. The South San Diego Bay Special Study Area is primarily tidelands owned by Western Salt
Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company which uses the area for an underwater
outlet. A portion of National City extends down the middle of San Diego Bay and
culminates in a large 3S0-acre site designated as public and open space under Chula Vista's
General Plan.
. The Sweetwater Special Study Area is a B0.48-acre parcel located along the northerly
Sphere boundary, south of the Sweetwater Reservoir and within the City's 1989 General
Plan area but not in the City's sphere. The property is designated Open Space on the City's
plan.
B. General Plan Amendments
A summary of General Plan Amendments being processed with the Sphere of Influence Update is
depicted in Exhibit 3. GPAs 95-01 and -02 propose Land Use Element designations for property
within the Study Area that are not included in the General Plan. These amendments are proposed to
comply with LAFCO policies on sphere boundaries. LAFCO requires property proposed for inclusion
within a sphere be included within the General Plan in order to assess the need for urban services.
GP A 95-03 proposes to amend the land use designation in three locations for existing or future public
utility sites.
1. GPA 95-01 Satterla Parcel
This 20-acre site is surrounded by Village Thirteen of the Otay Ranch (see Exhibit 3-A) and does not
have a Chula Vista land use designation. When the General Plan was amended for the Otay Ranch,
only The Baldwin Company holdings were considered, thereby leaving a "hole" in the City's Plan.
This GP A will place a designation on the property filling that hole. Staff is recommending Low
Density Residential (0-3 DUslac) designation for the parcel to be compatible with adjacent Otay Ranch
designations. The mid-point density of the site would allow up to 30 units on the parcel which would
be subject to all of the City's rules and regulations when annexed to the City. Otherwise, the site is
limited to one unit in the County.
2. GPA 95-02 Lower Otay Reservoir
Similar to the Satterla Parcel, the Lower Otay Reservoir properties, (see Exhibit 3-B) are not within
the City's General Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Otay Ranch GPA, the City's General Plan
boundary ran along the north side of Otay Lakes Road. With the approval of the Otay Ranch GP A,
several parcels that are part of the City of San Diego holdings for the Lower Otay Reservoir north of
9~S
Page 6
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
Otay Lakes Road were surrounded by the City's General Plan. These parcels contain small drainage
valleys and arroyos and total 28.66 acres in size. Since these parcels are surrounded by Open Space on
the Otay Ranch GDP Village Thirteen and part of the Lower Otay Reservoir which is designated Open
Space, staff is recommending they be designated Open Space as well.
3. GP A 95-03
This General Plan Amendment addresses publicly owned land within the Otay Valley Parcel of the
Otay Ranch as indicated on Exhibit 3-C. These properties are all within the City's General Plan area
and are proposed for amendment to ensure that land uses will remain compatible with adjacent
proposed land uses.
Otay Water District Property: The Baldwin Company has conveyed approximately 61 acres in the
northeast corner of the Otay Valley Parce~ adjacent to the future SR-125, to the Otay Water District.
The property is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 DUs/ac) on the General Plan. The
District plans to locate water tanks or reservoirs on this property at some time in the future. Therefore,
staffbelieves the most appropriate land use designation for the property is Public/Quasi-Public.
Water Reservoir: The Water Reservoir Parcel is located in the southern portion of the Otay Valley
Parcel in Village Eight. The parcel is owned by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department and
contains an existing water storage facility. Presently, within the General PIan, the 19.59-acre parcel is
designated Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 DUs/ac) however, as a water storage facility no
development is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, a GPA to Public/Quasi-Public is
proposed.
Otay Landfill: The San Diego County Otay Landfi]J is located along the western edge of the Otay
Valley Parcel. This 250.59-acre site is designated Open Space on the City's General Plan and is called
out as the Otay County Disposal Area on the Land Use Map. The landfi]J is estimated to have
approximately 14 years of capacity remaining. As a public landfi]J, staff recommends that appropriate
land use designation for the landfi]J is Public/Quasi-Public.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Program Environmental Impact Report
On July 21, 1994, the City of Chula Vista entered into a three party contract with Lettieri-McIntyre
and Associates and The Baldwin Company to prepare a (Second Tier) Program Environmental Impact
Report on the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study. The Baldwin Company was
responsible for reimbursing the City for the PEIR preparation. The PEIR analyzes four major issues:
land use, agriculture, public services and fiscal. Although no significant impacts of the proposed
Sphere of Influence or GP As were found to be associated with these four issues, they are discussed in
detail to supply and assist in LAFCO's evaluation of the City's Sphere of Influence amendment request.
With respect to the four major issues, the PEIR concludes that the proposed Sphere of Influence
amendment and associated GP As would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Consequently, no project-specific mitigation measures are required.
9'1,.
Page 7
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
Direct impacts related to the following environmental issues were also determined to be not significant:
. Biology
. Traffic
. Water Quality
. Light/Glare
. Geology
. Air Quality
. Landform/Visual Quality
. Natural Resources
. Cultural Resources
. Noise
. Energy
. Population
. Housing
. Paleontology
. Risk of Upset
. Health
This conclusion is based on the fact that the Sphere of Influence amendment, in and of itself, would not
result in a physical change because development potential will not change substantially by placing the
area under the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista As noted earlier, the County of San Diego and
the City of Chula Vista Land Use Plans are essentially identical for the Gtay Ranch GDP/SRP area.
The analysis in the EIR does not change the determinations that were made in the prior Program EIR
for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The GDP/SRP PEIR concludes significant unmitigated impacts for the
issues of land use, landform alteration, biological resources, agriculture, mineral resources,
transportation/circulation access, air quality and noise. While the proposed Sphere Update would not
result in direct impacts, combined with the cumulative impacts identified in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
EIR, the impacts would still be cumulatively significant. This conservative approach is considered
warranted as any increase to an already significant unmitigated cumulative impact would still be
significant. Recirculation of the Draft PEIR is not required because changes in the conclusion can be
made without recirculating a Draft PEIR if it does not provide new information indicating that the
impact is more severe than previously considered.
The Sphere of Influence Update PEIR and Findings conclude that no sphere-specific mitigation
measures are available to reduce the cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. While no
sphere-specific mitigation measures exist, implementation of the goals and policies of the Chula Vista
General Plan as well as subsequent CEQA review offuture development proposals within the Sphere
Update area would reduce potential impacts. In addition, implementation of the mitigation measures
set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Otay Ranch GDP/SRP would reduce impacts
resulting from development of the portions of this project which would be included in the Sphere of
Influence. As no determination can be made as to the ability of these processes to reduce cumulative
impacts to below a level of significance, the cumu1ative impacts are considered significant and not
mitigable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore part of the proceedings.
B. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were analyzed in the EIR based upon the ability to: 1) meet the basic objectives of the
project provided; and 2) eliminate significant environmental impacts.
No Project Alternative: The No Project Alternative assumes that the Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence
would remain in its existing configuration as adopted in 1985 and amended by subsequent amendments
and annexations. The non-Otay Ranch parcels would develop under the current County land use
designations and intensities. The No Project Alternative would avoid the net increase of 162 residential
units that would result from the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment. The draft EIR states that
9-7
Page 8
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
the No Project Alternative would not substantially change the conclusions associated with the
proposed amendment. For the majority of Otay Ranch, the same development intensity would occur
since the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego adopted identical land use plans.
Elimination of Planning Area 2: This alternative would exclude all of Planning Area 2 (Otay Ranch
Resort area) from the City's proposed Sphere of Influence and allow for Otay Ranch Village Thirteen,
the Satterla Parcel and the Lower Otay Reservoir parcels to be developed under the County's land use
designations. The Draft EIR concludes that this alternative would not offer a significant change in the
conclusions of the enviromnental analysis because land use intensity would be essentially identical
under County jurisdiction.
Rejected Alternatives: Several alternatives identified in response to the Notice of Preparation were
considered but rejected from further analysis. These alternatives are briefly discussed in Section IX of
the EIR and include: "Exclusion of the County Landfill"; "Exclusion of Planning Area 4"; "Exclusion of
the County Landfil~ Village Three and Planning Area 4"; "Exclusion of the City of San Diego
property"; "Off site Alternative"; and "Exclusion of the County Landfill, Vlllage Three, Planning Area 4
and the Otay River Valley".
C. FISCAL ANALYSIS
A fiscal analysis of the impacts of jurisdictional changes to public services is part of the Sphere of
Influence Update Study. The FIND (Fiscal Impact of New Development) Model used in the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP was updated to reflect 1993-1994 City and County budgets. The fiscal analysis, while
not required by law, is summarized in the Study and reviewed as part of the PEIR. The analysis
assesses the impacts of development of the four planning areas on both the City and the County. In
addition, the analysis reflects or1ly the current property tax transfer agreement between the City and
County for sharing revenues when property annexes to the City. Preparation of a new agreement
would be required after the Sphere adoption and prior to annexation.
1. Combined Total Fiscal Impact on the City and County
A comparison of the fiscal projections for the General Funds of the City and the County is shown in
Exhibit 4. This exhibit presents the summary of the net fiscal impact analysis assuming that all
development within the four planning areas of the Sphere Study occurs within the City of Chula
Vista. Currently, the analysis assumes that of the 19.9 % the County receives of the 1 % property tax,
6.5 percentage points will shift to the City upon annexation. The analysis uses an estimate of 9.3% of
the I % property tax for the City. The analysis illustrates that the City will incur a negative fiscal impact
under the existing assumptions during the first half of the development years. However, when the
property tax transfer agreement between the County and the City is adjusted to reflect the cost and
level of municipal services, there would be sufficient revenues to make both General Funds positive
over the entire development period. This tax agreement is negotiated with the County of San Diego as
part of the master tax agreement prior to annexation of the Planning Areas. The City Manager and the
County Deputy Chief Administrative Officer have already begun discussions to resolve this issue.
7'-1"
Page 9
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
2. Fiscal Impact by Planning Area
The following summarizes the fiscal impacts by Planning Area for the buildout Year 2024 for the
City and County General Funds assuming that, within the Sphere area, development proceeds
within the City of Chula Vista under the current transfer tax agreement.
Planning Area 1 - Otay Valley Planning Area: This Planning Area represents most of the
proposed residential development within the Sphere Update area. In addition, commercial uses
are assumed to be developed. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $16.8
million and costs at $16.7 million for a net surplus of less than $100,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of 1.004. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at $12.5
million and costs at $6.2 million for a net surplus of approximately $6.3 million. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of 2.02. Thus, the City breaks even for this Planning Area while the County is
projected to have a relatively large surplus.
Planning Area 2 - Resort Planning Area: This Planning Area would result in residential and
resort commercial uses. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $3.5 million and
costs at $2.3 million for a net surplus of approximately $1.2 million. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of 1.54. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about
$171,000 and cost at $203,000 for net deficit of approximately $32,000. This represents a
revenue/cost of ratio of 0.84. Thus, the City is projected to yield a relatively large surplus from
this Planning Area while the County is projected to have a small deficit due to the small tax base
of the Planning Area and the City receiving transient occupancy and sales taxes.
Planning Area 3 - Inverted "L" Planning Area: This Planning Area is planned for only
residential development. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $236,000 and
costs at $255,000 for a relatively small net deficit of approximately $19,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of about 0.93. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about
$52,000 and costs at $65,000 for a relatively small net deficit of about $13,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of approximately 0.79.
Planning Area 4 - Otay Mesa Industrial Planning Area: Only industrial development is
planned for Planning Area 4. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $1.2 million
and costs at $0.5 million for a net surplus of about $700,000. This represents a revenue/cost ratio
of about 2.47. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about $266,000 and
costs at $68,000 for a net surplus of about $198,000. This represents a revenue/cost ratio of
about 3.93.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Notice of Preparation
The Notice of Preparation for the Sphere of Influence EIR was issued on April 19, 1994. The
following agencies and individuals responded to the Notice of Preparation: State of Califomia
Department of Water Conservation; State of Califomia Department ofFish and Game; City of Chula
9-9
Page 10
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
Vista Fire Department; City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works; City of Chula Vista, City
Traffic Engineer; Local Agency Formation Commission; Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; City of San Diego Planning Department; County of San Diego Planning Department; San
Diego County Water Authority; Sweetwater Authority; Sweetwater Union High School District and
United States Department ofInterior Fish and Wildlife Services.
2. Comments on Draft EIR
Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies and individuals
Local Agency Formation Commission
California Department ofFish and Game
Metropolitan Water District
Sweetwater Authority
San Diego County Water Authority
Otay Water District
City of San Diego
Jeanne Evans
San Diego County
The Baldwin Company
Responses to these comments are provided in the Final Program EIR.
Written comments were received from John D. Dauz, one of the owners of the DeGraaf Parcel,
concerning the spelling of the owners name, size and General Plan designation. The name change has
been noted and appropriate changes made. The 1989 General Plan designated this property as Open
Space. No changes are proposed as part of this Study. Planning staff is working on alternatives to
address the issues raised in his letter.
3. Sphere ofIntluence Public Forum
On February 9, 1995, the City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch Project Team and the staff of the Local
Agency Formation Commission conducted a noticed joint public forum at EastLake High School
regarding the Sphere of Influence Update Study and attendant EIR. The Workshop was attended by
approximately 30 members of the public. The vast majority of the discussion focused on the
Bonita/Sweetwater Area. Virtually all the speakers expressed strong opposition to the current Sphere
of Influence governing this area, suggesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission modifY the
City ofChula Vista Sphere of Influence area to exclude the Bonita/Sweetwater Valley area.
4. Planning Commission EIR Hearing
On February 22, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on the
information contained within the Draft PEIR. The Commission voted unanimously to close the hearing
and public review period for the Draft PElR and direct staff to prepare the Final Program ElR with
responses to the comments made in correspondence and at the hearing.
9"'/CJ
Page 11
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
5. Planning Commissioners Comments
During the February 22, 1995 EIR hearing, several of the Planning Commissioners inquired about
various issues in the Sphere Study and the Program EIR. Responses to the Commissioners comments
are provided here for City Council information.
Planning Commissioner Salas questioned whether EastLake development caused or exacerbated
the flooding drainage problems in Central Avenue. Staff has researched the concerns and have
the following response: The EastLake and Salt Creek projects contain 304 acres within the
Sunnyside Drainage Basin which contribute to Central Creek. The entire basin contains 4,073
acres. The 304 acres represent 7.5% of the basin. When the portion of EastLake I west of the
SR-125 corridor was developed, the City required the developer to construct a detentionldesilting
basin to reduce the ultimate 100-year runoff from the development and to trap silt from the
development. The combination of the desilting/detention facility, erosion control measures and a
small area contributing to the Central Creek, results in little to no runoff impact to the Central
Basin area. Additional information on the drainage issues in the Bonita area is provided in the
attached memorandum (Exhibit 5).
In regard to comments made by Bonita residents concerning being within Chula Vista's Sphere,
Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on the purposes of a sphere as a planning tool to avoid
duplication of urban services. Staff indicated that Commissioner Martin was correct; a sphere for a city
or special district enabled the agency to adequately plan for the extension of public or urban services
and to avoid duplication by other agencies.
Commissioner Fuller inquired about the status of the DeGraaf Parcel and the Open Space corridor
along Telegraph Canyon Road. Staff responded that the City's 1989 General Plan Land Use Element
planned for the north facing slopes on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road to remain as open
space to provide a corridor along the road. The Otay Ranch GDP retains that open space and expands
it due to habitat. No changes in land use designation are proposed as part of the Sphere Study,
however, City staff members are aware of the property owners concern regarding the Open Space
designation and are studying alternatives with the first Otay Ranch SPA to address this concern.
Commissioner Ray inquired about the County of San Diego letter addressing annexation phasing. The
County of San Diego believes that annexations should occur on a SP A-by-SP A basis. City staff has
recommended in the Sphere Study that all four Planning Areas be annexed to the City at one time. It is
especially important to annex all of the Otay Valley Parcel, Planning Area 1, because public facilities
need to be planned and extended up the Otay Valley to serve the Otay Valley Parcel.
Commissioner Ray asked why the EIR found the development of the Watson parcel as insignificant.
Staff responded that while change from the County plan allowing 24 units to the City's allowing 244
might seem significant on a project basis when compared to the total Otay Ranch development of
23,000, the change was not seen as significant. Future projects on the Watson Parcel will still under go
environmental review at the development project level for determination of impacts and appropriate
mitigation.
9-/1
Page 12
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
Commissioner Ray then asked if the issue before the Commission was not a comparison of the impacts
of moving the Sphere boundary and the net increase between the County and City Plans. Staff
responded that was correct and because both the County and the City had adopted the same land use
plan, there would be little increase in impacts by moving the Sphere boundary under this program level
of review. Additional environmental review will be accomplished on future discretionary actions.
Commissioner Ray asked if the Final EIR would respond to comments in the LAFCO letter. Staff
indicated that LAFCO's letter and responses would be in the Final EIR. Commissioner Ray asked for
additional details on Planning Area 4. Staff responded that the City's analyses indicated the industrial
area Planning Area 4 would not develop until the end of the 15-year time frame of the Sphere, and
services would come from the extension of La Media across the Otay Valley to the mesa. Given this
time frame, utility requirements, staff now believes it would be appropriate to designate Planning Area
4 as a Special Study Area until the other boundary issues with the City of San Diego can be resolved.
As a Special Study Area, the City can return to LAFCO at any time when an acceptable solution has
been reached with the City of San Diego.
Commissioner Ray then inquired about the 15-year time frame of the Sphere and the timing of SR-125.
The current projections for SR-125 indicate that it will be constructed within the 15-year time frame of
the proposed Sphere boundary, and if it is not, then the Interim SR-125 solution would allow a certain
amount of development until the City's threshold limits were reached. All future development would be
subject to all the growth management ordinances of the City. Additional transportation models are
being prepared, as required, for the review of the first SPA. Those studies will be part of future
discretionary actions for SPA One.
Commissioner Fuller inquired about the City and County of San Diego and Department of Fish and
Game concerns about the MSCP program somehow not being implemented if the Otay River Valley
was within Chula Vista's Sphere. She asked if the Otay River Valley would be subject to the MSCP
Program because the City and the County had adopted the same land use plan for the valley. Staff
responded that the Otay River Valley was Open Space on the Otay Ranch GDP and that Plan had
been submitted to the MSCP Program as an alternative. There are, however, portions of the Plan that
the Department of Fish and Game do not agree with and that disagreement would also occur if the
valley remained in the County.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Sphere oflntluence: None.
LAFCO filing fees will be paid by The Baldwin Company. LAFCO fees for Sphere ofIntluence will
be based on the area decided upon by the City Council for the Sphere application. LAFCO charges
$3,500 plus $250 per 100 acres outside the City's existing Sphere. There are no additional fees
for reviewing the EIR.
The fiscal implications of adding the Otay Ranch to the City are discussed in the Fiscal Analysis,
Section E, of this Agenda Statement.
9-/-2.
Page 13
Meeting Date: March 14. 1995
General Plan Amendments: None.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3-A
Exhibit 3-B
Exhibit 3-C
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Sphere of Influence Study Area
Special Study Area
Genera\ Plan Amendments
GPA 95-01
GP A 95-02
GP A 95-03
Net Fiscal Impact Summary
Memomndmn to Jerry Jamriska, from William Ullrich, dated March 2,1995
Attac1unents: Resolution No._
Resolution EIR 94-03
RCC Minutes from February 6, 1995 meeting
Planning Conunission Minutes from February 22, 1995 meeting
9-13/f-11
.
.
~Io.v.."""
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. Februarv 22. 1995
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
'"
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Martin,
Ray, Salas, Tarantino, and Willett
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Special Planning
Projects Manager Jamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler,
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid,
Environmental Consultant Mcintire, Senior Civil
Engineer Ullrich, Contract Attorney Basil
MOTION TO EXCUSE - None
PLEDGE OF AT.T .F.GIANCE
Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of December 21, 1994 and January 11, 1995
MSC (Fuller/Salas) (M) to approve the minutes of December 21, 1994 and January 11, 1995.
Commissioners Fuller and Martin had read the minutes of December 21 and believed them to
be accurate. Commiasioner Willett abstained from voting since he was not a member of the
Commission at the time of these meetings.
. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Ij"/
PC Minutes
-2-
February 22, 1995
~
ITEM 1:
PUBUC HEARING: CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DRAFT
EIR-94-03
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid began the presentation, noting that the environmental
review report covered an area which had been involved in much of the Otay Ranch consideration
of a General Development Plan, which bad been jointly adopted by the City of Chula Vista and
the County of San Diego. The land use assumptions for the bulk of the project area is the same
for both the City and the County. A change in the Sphere boundary would in most instances
not result in a change in the land use assumptions and the impacts that would result would be
primarily insignificant. Mr. Reid stated that the EIR was primarily prepared for LAFCO and
focused on such issues as the delivery of public services. The Resource Conservation
Commission had voted to recommend certification of the EIR. Correspondence received since
the staff report had been given to the Planning Commissioners at this meeting and would be
responded to in the final EIR, along with any comments received during the public hearing.
He then introduced Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Project Manager for the Otay Ranch project
and the Sphere study. Mr. Jamriska stated that a Sphere of Influence information sheet had been
given to the Commissioners, which tried to identify certain key questions that were asked at a
public forum presentation to the community several weeks before. Mr. Jamriska noted the initial
Sphere of the City of Chula Vista was adopted by LAFCO in 1985, and pointed out the Sphere
of Influence area, which is still current. In July 1993, LAFCO authorized the Executive Oficer
upon request of the City to conduct an initial update study of the potential addition to the Otay
Ranch study area. Mr. Jamriska then gave an overview of the proposal, noting that the four
planning areas would add 12,718 acres to the City of Chula Vista, if approved, and pointed out
the five General Plan amendments which were proposed to be processed concurrently with the
Sphere update.
"""
I
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler detailed the four plannil\g areas, noting that General Plan
designations had been applied to the Satterla property. The wedges drained into the Lower Otay
Reservoir which are owned by the City of San Diego. Mr. Rosaler, referring to Table 3-C in
the EIR, stated that for the most part, because the City and the County bad agreed on the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan Subregional Plan, there were no changes in land use intensity..
The additional properties which were not part of the Ranch would intensify and, in some cases,
deintensify based on the General Plan designation.
Mr. Rosaler introduced Bruce McIntire, a principal of the firm of Lettieri-McIntire and
Associates, who prepared the environmental impact report. Mr. McIntire discussed the
environmental impact report, noting that the change in the Sphere boundaries did not have much
effect on the ultimate land use. The environmental impacts, which were clearly identified on
the Otay Ranch EIR, would happen whether or not the boundary changed. They could develop
to the same degree under the County. He noted a process allowed by CEQA called
"incorporation by reference" had been used. They bad drawn upon the information used in the
Otay Ranch EIR, as well as the City's General Plan Program EIR. Mr. Mcintire then
summarized the conclusions of the environmental impact report. ""'\
//~ ;2..
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-3-
February 22, 1995
Mr. lamriska stated that staff recommended that the public hearing be conducted and closed,
with direction to staff to prepare a final environmental impact report that would be presented at
a joint meeting before the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 14.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Chair Tuchscher called the first speaker, Stan Waid, representing the Bonita Highlands
Homeowners Association and Sweetwater Valley Civic Association.
Stan Waid, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, asked if staff would show a certain slide showing
the area in which he lives.
Chair Tuchscher asked if Mr. Waid represented the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, and
if they had taken any kind of formal action. Mr. Waid stated that they had asked him to
represent them at this meeting and the one the week before.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the same was true of the Bonita Homeowners Association. Mr. Waid
stated that he might be called the resident manager of the homeowners association since he had
lived there 20 years.
Chair Tuchscher asked if either group had taken any formal action. Mr. Waid replied that they
had not.
Mr. Waid said that in addition to the Sphere of Influence, the Bonita residents are impacted
tremendously by decisions by the Planning Cc:unmiRllion and the City Council in Chula Vista and
the County. Two years ago, CentraJ Avenue beeame a river flooding about 20 homes
downstream by the Bonita Post Office, primarily beeP"", of lack of plllnning by the County, and
by the City of Chula Vista in approving the EastLake Development without taking into account
what was going to happen to the runoff from that development. . CentraJ Creek was a smaJl area
which became a river. As a result, the homeowners downstream filed suit against the County
to dredge out Central Creek. The County required the Bonita Highlands property owners to
dredge it out at a cost of $20,000. Mr. Waid stated that at the 1985 LAFCO meeting, they were
given basically two alternatives. They were given the choice of being put in the National City
Sphere of Influence and a co-possibility of maybe the San Diego Sphere of Influence or the
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence. Mr. Waid had chosen the City of Chula Vista, but said it was
probably a mistake on his part. He was concerned about infrastructure not being in place, traffic
flow, the flow of the water. At the public forum held a week or so hefore, they wanted to de-
sphere but were told that there is nothing in LAFCO's charter to allow a de-sphere. Mr. Waid
said they would like to de-sphere, because they don't feel they are getting their fair shake in the
community .
Jeanne Evans, 3350 Watercrest, Bonita 91902, read two letters regarding the Chula Vista
Sphere of Influence Draft EIR, Lot No. 74, Block B, Bonita Hills. Francisco and Luisa Nieto,
4348 Acacia, Bonita 91902, said they were having problems with their septic tank, which was
an inconvenience as well as a health hazard. They did not want to lose their zoning privileges
/1- 3
PC Minutes
-4-
February 22, 1995
""'"
by annexing to Chula Vista. It would be a detriment to the value of their property; therefore,
they disputed the Sphere of Influence Study and did not approve it. They asked for a copy of
the EIR and requested more time to respond to the EIR.
The second letter was from Martha and Pedro Prado, 4358 Acacia, Bonita 92902, regarding
Block 75, Block B, Bonita Hills, stating they had not received copies of the EIR although its text
may negatively influence their property value in the years to come. They and their neighbors
were being forced to spend over $7,000 each to have decent utilities in their homes. This was
not an issue when the property was originally built, because the County had adequate drainage
in past years. They were told no other option to build another septic tank was available. They
disputed text or any reference to the text of the Sphere of Influence study by future planning
zoning agencies that in any way impeded the current zoning rights of their property. They
wished their property to remain in Bonita, not Chula Vista.
Ms. Evans had the names of 28 people that attended the public forum that was held previously,
and noted items in dispute of the Sphere of Influence study, as follows. The legend does not
indicate any measurement of miles or kilometers. The legend is practically illegible, too small;
. legend does not include a train corridor; proposed toll way SR-125 not labeled properly as a
proposed SR-125; Sphere map has Proctor Valley Road labeled as San Miguel Road; Sphere city
border is ambiguous; only the San Diego city border is labeled; nowhere on the map is the
Chula Vista city border labeled; Bonita is not labeled on the map; City border actually goes
outside the Sphere of Influence line--how can the City not have influence over its own territory? ........
This is seen in the National City area around Fourth Street.
Georjean Jensen, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, said she is a member of the Sweetwater
Community Planning Group, and the group could not support the expansion of the Chula Vista
Sphere of Influence for the following reasons. Chula Vista had demonstrated a lack of
responsibility in the current developments of EastLake traffic management and Salt Lake
drainage mitigation in Central Creek. The Otay Ranch plan as approved by Chula Vista had
little regard for the regional impacts associated with its circulation plans and total dependence
OD the automobile. Ms. Jensen stated that Chula Vista historically had resented the Sweetwater's
area reluctance to annex en masse and demonstrated it whenever Sweetwater residents and
groups commented negatively on projects which have negative influence. The Sweetwater
Community Planning Group requested that ChuIa Vista e,yamine past annexations and
developments with respect to the significant impacts on neighboring communities. When these
conflicts have been resolved and mitigated, then perhaps it would be appropriate to consider
some limited expansion of the Sphere of Influence.
Chair Thchscher noted that the Planning Commission had a copy of John Hammond's letter to
that effect.
Muriel Watson, 3120 Anderson Street, Bonita, showed the Commissioners some pictures
which she had taken the morning after the big rain the previous week. She said she was also
a member of the Sweetwater Planning Board. Their Chairman was at another meeting trying
to protect what they felt was a legitimate community plan. She said she was a member of that
-....
J j/1
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-5-
February 22, 1995
board when the plan was updated and submitted to the County Board of Supervisors, which they
had accepted and then proceeded to implement and use the priorities that had been instilled into
that plan. She asked if one planning group was more important than another. Since the
Sweetwater Planning Board had submitted its plan, and it was accepted by the County, she did
not understand why another group should come aboard, dismiss their plan, and not recognize
their plan. In the handout they had been given, it sounded like in 1985 they were delighted to
be included in the Sphere of Influence. She stated that they were not. They protested then.
LAFCO held an election, and they elected in the Bonita Sunnyside area not to annex to the City
of Chula Vista. Ms. Watson said that the feeling remains, and they would hope that their
community plan would be respected j\lst as highly as any other community plan. She said that
it was her impression that although they may be a smaller unit, in the democratic society, that
same smaller unit's priorities and provisions should be respected as much as a bigger and .
broader group. She thought the City of Chula Vista should be in the Bonita community sphere
of influence.
Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, spoke on behalf of the Sweetwater
Community Planning Group as a member and in support of the letter that the committee had
submitted through the Chairman, Mr. Hammond. He said the study was a hybrid. It excluded
Bonita from consideration. Bonita had voted down annexation three times. It was not going to
be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Roark said the Sphere of Influence took on an
unusual meaning. Chula Vista had made a commitment that there would be no more
development outside of the flISt phase of EastLake until there was a north/south corridor from
the second border crossing to the eastern part of the County, so there would be access to
development of what was hoped would be the enhancement of the region. Mr. Roark stated that
it hadn't happened. None of that was addressed in the report. It was extremely short in its
foresight in not addressing those issues. An annexation of these properties at this time without
proper environmental, access, and roads and movement for the population in a way that would
enhance the environment. The shortcomings were valid, and in this particular report, Bonita
should be excluded. It should be considered that Bonita not be any longer in the "Sphere of
Influence" of Chula Vista because it would never be a part of the City of Chula Vista-oat least
by the current population. He suggested that the EIR be oPened up for further public comment,
and the report be referred back to further study before taking any further action. Mr. Roark
said a north/south corridor was needed in the area that would benefit the truck traffic. The
valley between San Miguel and Mother Miguel was an obvious location that did not take any
homes, that would have the most economic impact to the community and the least environmental
impact to the community. CalTrans was not pftV'..Ming at this point with any schedules that
they promised with that EIR report. Many of the projects that were on the books no longer had
the applicants in business or the landowners there. Emphasis needed to be put on connecting
the second border crossing north in an easterly route that will provide what was needed for that
region and opening up the truck traffic north, east, and not in downtown San Diego or through
the City of Chula Vista except where there is reasonable open space, and not back into the City.
These factors were not considered anywhere in this report.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
JJr5'
PC Minutes
-6-
February 22, 1995
~
Commissioner Salas stated that she realized that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss
whether or not to recommend the inclusion of Planning Area I, 2, 3, and 4 into the Sphere of
Influence and not so much of a discussion of whether Bonita should be removed from the Sphere
of Influence; however, she thought some of the concerns of the residents should be answered.
In reference to Mr. Stan Waid's concern in EastLake development causing or exacerbating
flooding in the Bonita Valley, Commissioner Salas asked if there was any back-up documentation
that supports the fact that had indeed occurred. She had been a lifelong resident of this area and
could recall that anytime there were heavy rains, there was flooding in that area.
Chair Tuchscher asked staff if EastLake is in the same drainage basin as the Central Creek, or
how that worked from a drainage standpoint.
Mr. Jamriska explained that staff was not prepared to answer the question regarding the flooding
situation.
Chair Tuchscher asked, in reference to the Sphere, if the flooding issue was pertinent to the
study and to the planning areas on which they were being asked to make a decision.
Mr.'Jamriska replied that it was a valid question; however, proper staff was not in attendance
to answer the question.
Commissioner Salas stated that she understood no studies had been done, but asked if by ""'"
common observation, staff had noticed an increase in the flooding. She recalled flooding in the
area in 1982 when she worked in the area. EastLake was not there at the time. .
Chair Tuchscher stated that staff had indicated they did not have that type of data. He stated
that from a Sphere of Influence and General Plan standpoint, this was an Engineering issue that
involved hydrology and other issues associated with ongoing development and perhaps it could
be better dealt with during a workshop meeting whereby Growth Management Oversight and the
appropriate staff people would be available to deal with some of the issues. Chair Tuchscher
concurred that the issues that were mentioned should be noted and dealt with at the appropriate
time. He asked if there were other comments.
Commissioner Martin stated there were good people who felt Chula Vista had treated them
poorly and had not done things that were implied. That seemed to be their justification for not
having anything to do with ChuIa Vista or being within the Sphere of Influence, yet the Sphere
of Influence really is just a planning tool. He felt more direct input from the residents would
be more important. The Sphere of Influence would be a tool used to prevent two or three
agencies from making the same decision over the same piece of property.
Mr. Jamriska concurred with Commissioner Martin, adding that the City could adequately plan
for the future development and extension of public services without any duplication of that effort
by other agencies.
""'"
J//'t,
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-7-
. February 22, 1995
Commissioner Martin stated that a letter bad been received from Mr. John Hammond. He did
not agree with some of his statements, and asked how their concerns could be addressed.
Chair Tuchscher stated that it was within the abilities of the Sweetwater and Bonita Communities
to lobby and apply with LAFCO to be excluded from Chula Vista's Sphere should they decide
to do that. It was not within the scope of the Planning Commission during this meeting to make
that decision or that recommendation to City Council. If they desired to be excluded from Chula
Vista's Sphere, he encouraged those groups to have that discussion with LAFCO and ascertain
whether they think it is possible or feasible or economically within reason for them to pursue
that. The task in front of the PlanniT1g Commission, within the scope of this study, was to look
at the areas mentioned and analyzed within the study and make a decision as to what the
Commission should recommend and then follow with the meeting on March 14 with the City
Council.
Commissioner Fuller, regarding the DeGraaf parcel in Planning Area I, the designation of which
was proposed to be open space, asked if the corridor between the villages was all indicated as
open space and if that was the purpose of designating the DeGraaf property open space.
Mr. Jamriska noted that this was the adopted General Development Plan for the City of Chula
Vista, as well as for the County of San Diego. The properties to the east, west, and south were
open space and potentially part of the open space reserve as part of the Otay Ranch Project.
Mr. Jamriska said it was currently planned by the City's Genera1 Plan as opeD space, which
would allow one dwelling unit. The Sphere Study was not proposing to change the General Plan
designation. The only addition was that the DeGraaf property would be incorporated into the
City's Sphere of Influence.
Commissioner Ray, regarding Plannittg Area 4, asked about a comment in one of the letters
which had been left on the dias--the issue of phasing of annexation. Is there a reason that some
of the respondents were still concerned.
Mr. Jamriska replied that he believed the comment bad been made by the County of San Diego,
Department of Plannittg and Land Use (DPLU). Prior to the environmental impact report being
prepared, they received the first study draft of the Sphere of Influence document. The DPLU
bad taken the draft report to the Board of Supervisors for general direction to a Board of
Supervisors subcommittee. The Board of Supervisors determined, pursuant to staff's
recommendation, that the Otay Ranch Sphere of Influence and correspondingly the annexation,
should occur by SPA by SPA process instead of the entire planniT1g Area I, 2, 3, and 4. Mr.
Jamriska stated that they made that determination without looking at any of the environmental
effects of the provision of services as contained within the environmental impact report. That
same position remained. Mr. Jamriska stated that Chula Vista staff did not agree with that. The
purpose behind recommending the entire Otay Valley parcel to be incorporated into the ChuJa
Vista Sphere was that staff could properly plan for the provision of utilities. If it is known that
an area is within ChuJa Vista's Sphere and wilI eventually be annexed to the City of ChuJa
Vista, adequate provisions could be made for the extension of utilities to serve that parcel. He
felt there were other reasons the County of San Diego wanted to do that on a SPA by SPA basis.
1/- 7
PC Minutes
-8-
February 22, 1995
-..
Commissioner Ray asked staff to indicate the location of the Watson parcel, and questioned
whether the increase in the use was insignificant. He believed the additional 200 units was the
cumulative impact over the entire impact of the entire Sphere.
Environmental Consultant McIntire concurred, reiterating that it was on a Sphere-wide basis and
there was no major change.
Commissioner Ray repeated that the issue before the Commission was the entire Sphere and the
increase to the entire Sphere of Chula Vista's boundaries and the impacts Chula Vista had on
the General Development Plan versus the County's General Development Plan and the net
increases between those two documents.
Again, Mr. McIntire concurred and noted that there would be subsequent environmental review
of tentative maps. There were discretionary actions that would allow development to occur.
Staff was looking at the programmatic level.
Commissioner Ray stated that specifics would be addressed at a point in time when staff came
forward with a General Development Plan or a planned tentative map.
Mr. Mcintire answered affmnatively.
Commissioner Ray, referring to the LAFCO document, stated that there were some specific ""'"
issues they addressed with specific language and typographical errors, or comments to those
effects. He asked if those were going to be specifJCally addressed in the final environmental
review report.
Mr. Jamriska stated that staff would respond to all comments that were made at the meeting, as
well as the comments made by Commissioner Salas, and written comments received.
Commissioner Ray, referring to Planning Area 4, asked about the dispute on Planning Area 4.
Mr. Jamriska answered that the dispute basically centered around the area that is within the City
of San Diego. The City of San Diego staff and City Council subcommittee on land use and
housing took an action that the parcel would best be served from the City of San Diego. The
City of Chula Vista felt that when LaMedia is constructed, the prime access to the property and
the service of utilities would all be from the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Jamriska stated that the
parcel is not planned to be developed in the very foreseeable future, but probably at the end of
the 15-year timespan. Staff felt that it could still be part of the City of Chula Vista's Sphere.
There were several other parcels which could be resolved in the future, if staff went ahead with
this proposal. Mr. Jamriska believed the City Manager was desirous of beginning discussions
and negotiations on those boundary conflicts.
Commissioner Ray then asked for a clarification on the 15-year analysis of what the Sphere is.
He said the influence of the 15-year buildout was where the Sphere ended its analysis. """"
JJ/ r
PC Minutes
-9-
February 22, 1995
.
Mr. Jamriska stated that was a general policy direction that LAFCO and staff followed.
Commissioner Ray noted that the traffic analysis or specifically the SR-125 issue as a non-toll
road, Phase 1 of the SR-125 was only assumed to be adequate based on those same plans for 15
years .
Chair Tuchscher replied that was the Interim 125 solution.
Commissioner Ray was concerned with the timing between the interim and the permanent SR-
125 between that 12th, 15th and 18th year, because of crossing over the threshold. There could
be a major disaster in the economy which would cause almost no development for the Otay
Ranch and the need for 125 might dissipate altogether, or there could be a more rapid increase
with facilities being put in and an accelerated need for 125 coming in. He was uncomfortable
that that issue was being addressed on a worst case basis of needing that highway to be built on
a more rapid pace.
.
Mr. Jamriska responded that staff was in the process of doing transportation model runs as a
result of the specific plan submittal for SPA I for the Otay Ranch project. That would look at
various scenarios and the construction of interim 125 or permanent 125 would be one of the
factors taken into consideration. He stated if there was any delay or impact, certain other
improvements would have to occur to resolve any traffic impacts that may be caused by the
development of the SPA I. In addition, the City is looking at some type of phasing for the
transportation buildout of 125. Traffic model information as it relates to SPA I and the effect
on 125 would be available when the SPA comes before the pllInning Commission sometime in
June.
Commissioner Ray asked if, based on a Sphere study, that needed to be considered in the
Plllnning Commission's decision for the Sphere of lDfluence study based on the fact that that
modeling has not yet concluded.
Mr. Jamriska explained that the Sphere was nothing more than a plll/Uling tool. It did not
change any of the impacts associated with the land use. The same impacts associated with the
Otay Ranch were going to exist, whether it was in the County or in the City. Mr. Jamriska
believed the pllInning Commission could proceed without the modeling being done, because the
modeling was done already for the General Plan as part of the General Plan Development Plan
EIR, and all of that was taken into consideration. Staff would be revisiting those model runs
as part of the SPA, as required by the GDP. At the present time, staff was only looking at
extending that plllnniT1g tool beyond the current sphere to the proposed sphere.
Commissioner Ray asked if SR-125 was not in a position to be built, anything beyond the
interim facility, and there was a stop to construction or subsequent phases of the Baldwin Ranch,
would that impact the proposed influence boundary.
. Mr. Jamriska replied negatively.
))-'1
PC Minutes
-10-
FebIUary 22, 1995
~
Chair Tuchscher stated that any future development would be subject to all the growth
ordinances currently in place, and the threshold standards, so as this developed out, those
standards would apply to each phase, specific plan, tentative map, and at the point where the
City's threshold standards could not be met, development would be stopped. He asked if staff
concurred.
Mr. Jamriska stated that was correct, whether it be EastLake, Otay Ranch, or San Miguel.
Commissioner Tarantino understood the Commission's charge was to approve the inclusion of
certain areas for planning purposes, not to make decisions. He felt they were getting into
specifics. He questioned how the approval of the Sphere of Influence study could impact
somebody's septic tank on two different properties.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the Planning Commission was looking at a long-term horizon for
a future development, and making sure that proper plans were in place as that development
proceeds to accommodate that development.
Mr. Jamriska stated that with the addition of those areas into the Sphere, it did not change any
jurisdictional issues or any legislative representation. Residents of the County prior to this
meeting would still be in the County. They would still be represented by the County and
receiving their services from the same providers. The change of the Sphere line did not change ""'"
any of that. Mr. Jamriska again stated that the Sphere was only a planning tool that staff would
be using in the future to provide urban level of services.
Commissioner Tarantino stated it was an opportunity to look at, not an opportunity to make
decisions, not an opportunity to affect immediate change.
Mr. Jamriska concurred.
Commissioner Fuller remarked that the documents from other agencies commenting on the draft
environmental impact report would have to be responded to in the final draft. The City of San
Diego, the County of San Diego, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and their concern for
the multi-species conservation planning area felt that San Diego was the lead agency, and if the
City ofChula Vista included the Otay River Valley portion, things would not be the same if this
fell within Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence. Commissioner Fuller concluded that those
agencies involved in the planning of that program have been established and would continue to
be the same.
Mr. Jamriska agreed and stated that the draft MSCP program, a study done by professional staff,
would be released for public review probably within the next two weeks. The City of Chula
Vista, as well as the County of San Diego, had submitted to the MSCP planning staff the
boundaries of their General Plan, which is the Otay Ranch plan for the City, as well as the Otay
Ranch plan for the County. The City is basically in agreement with the County. California Fish '""""
and Game and Fish and Wildlife still took issue during the public hearings on the General
/1-10
.
.
e
PC Minutes
-11-
February 22, 1995
Development Plan to certain items of Chula Vista's plan. Mr. Jamriska stated that in the
correspondence received, they still take issue with the General Plan.
Commissioner Fuller questioned whether they would take issue with it if it were in the County,
also.
Mr. Jamriska affmned.
Commissioner Willett stated he could see how the County had made some of their
recommendations on the update study that was published. He had compared the draft EIR and
the update study to fmd where some of the differences were and had also talked with staff. It
is a planning tool. From the planning tool comes all of the logistic elements of a plan. He
commended staff and the people who had worked on the draft EIR. He stated it was very
thorough, covered some of the loop holes that were in the update study, and he believed the fmal
would correct it. He had done research through the LAFCO documents regarding the time
period, and he believed with the fmal EIR the questions and fears regarding the Sphere of
Influence would be corrected. Commissioner Willett disagreed as an individual with the San
Bernardino meridian line dividing the lake in half which is on lane 6 of the Olympic Training
Center. Regarding the Munson property which was in the County corridor, he had questioned
who the landfill supported. Staff had stated that 85% of that is the South County. A
memorandum agreement could be worked out. Regarding the DeGraaf property, Commissioner
Willett stated he had questioned where the light rail would come from, and it would probably
go through that canyon as part of the DeGraaf property, and then tie into what would be the
south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, which would be the rail line. He did not think that had
ever been discussed. He offered as a recommendation that the Commission adopt the study, the
conceptional portions of the study itself, and that staff be directed to incoIporate some of the
items in the LAFCO study.
At Chair Tuchscher's suggestion, Commissioner Willett moved that the Commission give staff
direction to prepare a final EIR on the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence, EIR-94-Q3.
Commissioner Ray seconded and asked for discussion relative to the San Diego City property
on planning Area 4.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the phrase "closing the public hearing" should be included as part of
the motion.
Commissioner Willett concurred.
Commissioner Ray, regarding Planning Area 4, the San Diego City property, asked staff to give
him pros and cons if it were included in a special study area as opposed to approving it as part
of planning Area 4.
Mr. Jamriska said that one of the advantages of recommending to Council that it be a special
study area was that it would permit staff to begin some boundary negotiations with the City of
/ /- / /
PC Minutes
-12-
February 22, 1995
""'"
San Diego not only on this parcel but several other parcels. If a resolution of those issues could
occur to the satisfaction of both jurisdictions, then as a special designated area, staff could go
back to LAFCO in the future without going through this lengthy process, and request that they
take action if there is no opposition from the City of San Diego.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff was recommending that as a better avenue for the Planning
Commission to take at this time.
Commissioner Ray questioned including it in Planning Area 4 without a recommendation that
on the final EIR it be submitted as a special planning area, if at the time this would go to
LAFCO it became a hotly disputed issue, they could deny or amend the Sphere of Influence
study based on that specific parcel.
Mr. Jamriska replied affirmatively. He stated that in light of the City of San Diego City Council
Land Use and Housing Committee's action, he thought that would probably be a very
appropriate action for the Commission to recommend that LAFCO designate this as a special
study area so that several of the boundary disputes could be resolved.
Chair Tuchscher stated that it is likely that the City of Chula Vista could get a special study area
and resolve some of the other boundary disputes for the west, as well as for this particular issue,
but there was not a high degree of confidence that the Sphere could be expanded-that LAFCO
would look favorably on an expansion of Chula Vista's Sphere to include Planning Area 4. In ""'"
fact, Planning Area 4 was designated because that might be the case, and it was split off from
the others for that purpose.
Mr. Jamriska said that was correct. During the discussions of the General Development Plan
hearings, there was one issue with the County of San Diego where the City of Chula Vista
wanted Planning Area 3 to be industrial, and the County of San Diego wanted that to be
residential. Those were the only two differences in Chula Vista's General Plan. Statements
were made by the City Council during that time that if the City of San Diego de-annexed this
property and the City of Chula Vista annexed it, the City of Chula Vista would change their
General Plan back to residential on this portion. Based upon that action and the discussion at
the City Council, staff included the Otay Mesa industrial not as an alternative but as a Planning
Area 4 so that in the likelihood of a negative recommendation from the City of San Diego, it
would not jeopardize action on the other three planning areas.
Commissioner Ray asked if the property owner, the City of San Diego, bad indicated hesitance
to inclusion in a special study area, as well, or bad that specific issue been addressed.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the property owner is the Baldwin Company within the jurisdiction of
the City of San Diego. He noted that when staff spoke before the subcommittee, City Manager
Gass suggested that it be made as a special study area. The Council members in attendance did
not respond to that and just took an action to recommend to their City Council that it not be
deleted from their corporate limits. It was not discussed, but it was brought up. ""'"
//----);(
.
--
.
PC Minutes
-13-
February 22, 1995
In response to Chair Tuchscher, Mr. Jamriska stated that the Baldwin Company had remained
neutral.
Chair Tuchscher asked, in light of that, did the motion stand or was there potential for making
Planning Area 4 a special study area.
Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see the motion amended to include only the
highlighted area which fell within the city limits of the City of San Diego.
Chair Tuchscher asked if that was to be designated as a special study area.
Commissioner Willett, as the maker of the initial motion, concurred with that recommendation.
Commissioner Ray concurred. In addition, he stated that Mr. Jamriska had pointed out that it
be included along with some other special study areas. Commissioner Ray asked if that would
be a separate action that would have to happen here?
Mr. Jamriska replied negatively, and noted there were other properties in boundary disputes.
Chair Tuchscher asked for the vote.
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid asked that before the planning Commission took action
on that, a fmal EIR needed to be before the Commission before making recommendations on
the project itself and planning areas and their categories.
Attorney Basil concurred with staff.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the Commission should close the public hearing on the draft EIR,
ask staff to prepare a fmal draft EIR, and then save the rest of the recommendations and
discussion for March 14th.
Commissioner Ray asked if in preparation of the fmal EIR, staff would include that as part of
all the studies.
Mr. Jamriska said staff would actually respond to CommiRsion's discussion on the issue, and
would focus the response on Planning Area 4 City of San Diego, SO that would give the
Commissioners some additional facts and information.
Commissioner Ray asked what the difference was in the recommendation as it stands vice
waiting for the final EIR.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive public testimony on the draft
environmental impact report, close the public hearing, and give staff direction to prepare the
environmental impact report.
II - / J
PC Minutes
-14-
February 22, 1995
'""'"
Chair Tuchscher stated that staff would take into account those comments and all the discussion
from both public and from the Commission and respond to those in both the staff report and the
final document.
Mr. Jamriska said that when that report is presented to the Commission on March 14, that would
be the proper time to make that motion, basically certifying the final environmental impact
report and then taking action on the Sphere of Influence report itself. That would be where the
Commission could modify the boundaries.
Commissioner Ray concluded that this piece was to be included on the final EIR as it was
currently presented, and then wait to make recommendation only at the point of the 'final EIR,
after the public hearing is closed on the final EIR, rather than come forward with an EIR that
states that the Planning Commission wanted that in a special study area.
Chair Tuchscher clarifIed that staff would respond to the discussion by the Planning Commission
in the staff report and in the final document.
Commissioner Ray stated that staff would make a determination as to whether it would make
sense to make it a special study area and come forward with that recommendation at that time.
Mr. Jamriska answered affnmatively.
"""
Attorney Basil asked that the motion be restated.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION
Motion that the Planning Commi!l.'lion close the public hearing, and direct staff'to prepare
the final environmental impact report answering all of the comments from both the public
and the Planning Commi"-"ion.
VOTE: 7-0 to approve
ITEM 2:
PUBUC HEARING: GPA-94-05: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION
OF A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
Principal Planner Bazzel presented the staff report, noting that the Element was intended to
provide a policy framework for adequate childcare facilities within the City. A public workshop
had been held in January where the Child Care Commission and staff received comments. The
Parks & Recreation Commission had fully endorsed the Element. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend to the City Council the
adoption of the proposed Child Care Element. Mr. Bazzel noted that the Planning Commission
had received a letter from Mr. Bruce Sloan of the EastLake Company, who was in attendance,
and he stated also that members of the Child Care Commission who were actively involved in """
the preparation of the Element were present.
j)--J1
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-15-
February 22, 1995
Commissioner Ray, referring to a table in the staff report regltrding current supply and demand
for licensed child care in Chula Vista, asked if the table represented the total number of children
within the City or only the number that needed child care, and also the deftnition of child care
need.
Mr. Bazzel pointed out the total number and the number of children needing child care. At
Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Bazzel explained that it was done on a statistical analysis
rather than a survey. The 1990 Census was prorated to 1994, factors were applied through
documentation of other child care reports to determine the average number of children, and then
applied to the estimated number of children.
Commissioner Ray asked if that formula would be used until a new formula was deemed
necessary. Mr. Bazzel answered affmnatively. He also noted that the figures would give a
general indication of what staff has found to be the estimated need. Some of the policies in the
Element dealt with annual updating of the demand for child care facilities.
Chair Tuchscher asked who developed the formula-the percentage of children needing child
care.
Mr. Bazzel replied that it was drawn out of the Child Care and Development In San Diego
County by the San Diego County Commission on Children and Youth Report, dated February
1994.
Chair Tuchscher asked how the County got their formula. Mr. Bazzel did not have that
information.
Commissioner Ray asked the deftnition of "need. "
Mr. Bazzel replied that the range of need not only included those that were not being dealt with
at all, but also those being dealt with in a substandard condition-perhaps left with a teenaged
sister or brother or in an unlicensed daycare situation.
Commissioner Ray asked if the children reflected on the chart would be those being taken care
of by someone who was not an adult and DOt in a facility that was currently licensed in the City
of Chula Vista, of the total population.
Mr. Bazzel answered affmnatively. He said staff considered the actual number of licensed
spaces in the City in all three categories, determined the number of spaces, and compared that
to the estimated number of children, applying a factor based on the experience of others to
determine the actual number of children mlllm1g up that need.
Commissioner Fuller reiterated that the question of need was also determined on some studies
done on the number of licensed day care facilities or small family day care facilities who were
providing good service and have waiting lists. That was definitely a need. The families who
would like to get into a known sma1l family day care facility, and there is not enough room,
//---/>
PC Minutes
-16-
February 22, 1995
~
cannot go without. Someone had to take care of the child, but there was still that need to find
good licensed day care.
Commissioner Salas added that possibly need could also mean that a parent took the option of
not working because there was not affordable day care. While the need was still there, it was
not economical.
Chair Tuchscher stated he could see a difference between need and demand. He felt the fact that
there are waiting lists at certain day care facilities which do exceptionally good jobs or have
exceptionally reasonable costs because they are non-profit or church-oriented, or are convenient
was not a good measure of need.
Commissioner Willett commented that he had sub-chaired during the "CV 21" Committee. One
of the elements was child care. He stated that several means were used to determine the number
of children needing child care. As a result of discussions with several agencies, including the
School District and the Parks & Recreation Department, as well as with staff during the past
week, he had concluded that the figures were quite accurate, considering single parents, both
male and female, and the needs within the 2-5 range.
Commissioner Tarantino asked the difference between policy direction and policy. If something
was listed in the General Plan, did it not become policy? Mr. Bazzel could see no difference
between policy direction and policy. The policies in the Element were crafted to demand ~
additional evaluation; they were not mandates.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether being in the General Plan made something
mandatory. If that were the case, there was no money or staff to implement it.
Mr. Bazzel replied that policies in the General Plan were typically mandates, but in some cases
required further implementation. The language in the proposed Child Care Element stated that
it would require further evaluation, that they were guiding policies, and if the language did in
fact mandate it, they would be specifically required.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the streamlining of the permit process had an impact on the
screening process done by the State to check out the character references of the people who
would be doing the child care.
Mr. Bazzel stated that it did not impact the State licensing program or the County licensing
requirements. What the policy advocated was better coordination of the local permitting
. agencies of el<am;nation of facilities in order to cut down on time and staffmg costs.
Commissioner Salas questioned the location of the small family day care providers, and asked
if any thought had been given to whether small family day care providers could be provided in
the newer developments with smaller lots; or if staff was going to work with the State to see if
they would regulate a smaller area for those kinds of neighborhoods. """
II-it
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-17-
February 22, 1995
Mr. Bazzel said they had not talked to the State about any reduced requirements. Staff had
discussed with the Child Care Commission the need in the new communities to provide child
care-ready houses and what difficulties that might cause. As part of the planning process on the
Otay Ranch, staff was requiring a child care master plan, and intended to do so on any future
master plans. It did, however, raise an issue with regard to State requirements and size
requirements with the downsizing of the future single-family lots, and the ability to provide child
care.
Commissioner Salas asked if facilities with recreation rooms had been explored as to the
possibility of their being used as day care areas during the day when people are typically at
work.
Mr. Bazzel stated that in the Policy, staff had encouraged further evaluation of new development
to provide facilities in the appropriate locations. These types of issues would be dealt with the
Child Care Master Plans of communities.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the Community Purpose Facility zoning allowed non-profit child care,
but not for-profit child care. Mr. Bazzel concurred, stating that it was not-for-profit child care
as an accessory use to a primary community purpose facility.
Chair Tuchscher asked how the CPF zoning could be broadened to allow child care without the
restriction.
Mr. Bazzel replied that the CPF is a policy in the Municipal Code that dealt with providing an
amount of acreage for social service-type land uses in master plllnnt'lt communities, based on
a formula created through an interactive process with church groups, social service providers,
etc. to provide acreage for those types of uses. The formula established dealt with uses which
involved non-profit child care. The for-profit had the resources to acquire facilities, and there
was concern by the non-profit providers that they would not be able to compete for that
property. At that time, the for-profit child care was not included in the formula. To include
for-profit child care, the prior discussion that establishCd the CPF factor would have to be
reopened and the for-profit would have to be integrated into it.
Chair Tuchscher thought it was interesting that a land use was allowed in CPF for a non-profit,
but the same land use would have to get a conditional use permit if it was for profit and would
have to go onto a commercial or residential lot. He felt it was something that should be
pursued.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (MartinlFuUer) to adopt Negative Declaration 18-95-19, and recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached Child Care Element in accordance with the draft City Council
resolution.
/I~ /7
PC Minutes
-18-
February 22, 1995
"""
Commissioner Ray was concerned about how the need was determined; he would like for the
Element to logistically state the requirements in terms of acreage for facilities; how the formula
used equated to square footage per child along with play area, which would equate to an acreage
requirement; and the ratio required for child care for the portion of the CPF parcel required to
be approved.
Mr. Bazzel stated that the Element had not gotten into the division of for-profit versus not-for-
profit in terms of actual provisions. There is an umbrella of "need" over both. The Element
did not discuss what was actually provided in the field between for-profit and not-for-profit. The
CPF was the result of an evaluation process to implement an acreage total based on population.
The Child Care Element was envisioned to come up with a formula for determining the adequate
amount of land area that might be required for new development for child care facilities. Mr.
Bazzel noted there was a policy in the Element which dealt with that.
In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Bazzel said the policy generally stated that there would
be an evaluation to determine a factor for child care needs. It did not stipulate whether it would
be for profit or not for profit. As part of the interactive process for the development community
and providers to come up with an equitable formula, both would be considered, including the
CPF.
Commissioner Ray noted that the not-for-profit area, which was not yet determined, would have
a ratio that would be applied to a CPF. He thought ~ would be the proper time to have those ""'"
ratios defined.
Mr. Bazzel felt that before a ratio could be applied, the CPF aspect of that formula needed to
be included. If a percentage of the CPF acreage was to be targeted for child care and it was not
established that a certain part of that formula was just for child care, that would have to be
extracted from the remaining acreage which was to be provided for for-profit or additional child
care.
Chair Tuchscher said staff should take into account the CPF zoning to make sure there was not
double zoning, or zoning properties for the same uses.
Mr. Bazzel questioned whether the best approach would be to determine a fixed acreage formula
for child care because child care covered a wide range of private homes in the form of sma11 and
large-family day care as well as centers. He felt they were probably focusing more on centers
when they were talking about acreage in master planned communities.
Commissioner Tarantino commended the members of the Child Care Commission, the Resource
Conservation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their hard work. He
said the first step to problem-solving was to recognize there is a problem, and that by placing
this in the General Plan ot would legitimize the concerns of many parents in the area. He hoped
that the Council would allocate the dollars and the staffing to see that it was implemented.
""'"
Jl-/7
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-19-
February 22, 1995
Chair Tuchscher had reservations about the ratios and the establishment of need. He said he did
not understand how a policy could be drafted or proper planning action could be taken when it
was unsure whether the ratios were valid or how to extrapolate the numbers. He did not know
how the County Commission on Child Care established their numbers, whether it was by survey
or by a consultant. He supported putting a Child Care Element into the General Plan, but
questioned the source. He could not vote for the motion as it stood.
Commissioner Fuller stated she saw part of the source as the State of California Department of
Social Services Community Care Licensing, which she felt was a legitimate source.
Chair Tuchscher was not comfortable with how the County arrived at their information and how
it related to the City's jurisdiction. Relative to CPF zoning, he was of the opinion that the plans
currently coming through the system were very much out of scale relative to the need for
acreage associated with those particular land uses in Chula Vista. It was creating planning
problems. He did not want to accept someone else's ratio.
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there was no urgency to take action. If the Commission
desired more information, the item could be continued and the Commission could be provided
with more data.
Chair Tuchscher stated that he did not like to delay things; he personally felt uncomfortable with
it, but it would be up to the Commission.
Commissioner Salas commented that whether or not the ratios were pinpoint accurate, there was
a great need for child care in the community and in the nation. She would vote for the motion.
Commissioner Ray stated he would abstain because the Element did not adequately cover the
equation of the amount of acreage to the number of children, and what that meant to the General
Plan or the impact of the facilities. .
Commissioner Fuller commented that that was only one p8rt of child care provisions. The vast
majority of child care was done in smaller, unlicensed or in licensed homes. The portion
dealing with the current zoning regulations and the locational criteria defined that. She saw
defining the number of dwelling units too specific in this General Plan for overall child care.
Those areas could be worked out within the confines of the issues defined in the proposed
Element.
Commissioner Ray still believed this was more of a policy than a General Plan issue and should
be addressed as a policy and not part of the General Plan.
Commissioner Tarantino again questioned the difference between policy direction and a policy.
If it is in the document, does it have to be followed; and if so, how could it be put in without
a funding mechanism.
//---/'1
PC Minutes
-20-
February 22, 1995
......",
Commissioner Fuller stated that the issues dermed in the Element were already areas that were
dermed as policy within the City. The for-profit facilities within the City had not been
addressed, so it could not be dermed in the Element since it did not exist.
Commissioner Ray felt it was global, and wanted to know what it equated to in real impact in
terms of acreage or units. Even though there is a need, he did not feel this was the proper
vehicle to be placed in the General Plan at the present time.
Chair Tuchscher echoed Commissioner Tarantino's earlier comments relative to the hard work
of the Commissions and staff. It was clearly a need, but he did not feel comfortable voting for
it.
VOTE: 5-2 (Commi~~\oners Ray and Tuchscber against)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the actions which had been taken by Council since the last
Commission meeting.
Mr. Lee noted that two Commissioners were planning to attend the Planning Commissioners
Conference which had a potential conflict with their second meeting in March. He asked the """'"
Commissioners if they wished to proceed with the meeting or reschedule it. The Commissioners
indicated they would stay on schedule.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 8, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
yt,~";t g'~
Nancy Ri ey, Secletary
Planning Commission
(2-22.9S.min)
........
//-~
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
March 21,1995
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission
John Goss, City Manager-1{j tcf
Gerald J. Jamriska, Special Planning Proje roject
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Sphere ofInfluence Update Study Final Program (Second Tier)
Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR)
At the request of the Otay Ranch Special Planning Projects Manager, the public hearing
on the Sphere ofInfluence Update Study and the associated General Plan amendments and
the FPEIR were continued for one week to March 21, 1995 in order to resolve issues with
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
1. Addendum No.2
The City released the FPEIR for the Sphere Update Study on March 14, 1995. In
accordance with State law, copies of the FPEIR were provided to all public agencies that
commented on the Draft PEIR. LAFCO staff expressed several concerns regarding the
content of the response to their public service comments prepared by the City and
contained in the FPEIR. As a result of the concern expressed by LAFCO, City staff met
with LAFCO representatives over the last ten days to resolve concerns raised by LAFCO.
The attached Addendum No.2 to the FPEIR represents the responses to LAFCO staff's
comments as agreed upon by both the City and LAFCO. LAFCO staff has agreed that the
content of the response to public service comments are adequate.
2. Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
Also attached is the revised Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation
Measures of the Findings of Fact for the FPEIR to reflect the cumulative impacts of the
non-Otay Ranch parcels. This document is an insert into the proposed Findings for the
Sphere Update Study distributed last week. The document will replace the version of
Section XI that appeared in the original version of the Findings that staff distributed to the
Council and Commission last week. A complete copy of the revised proposed Findings of
Fact are also attached.
The reason staff has revised Section XI of the proposed Findings is to ensure that the City
fulfills its duty to mitigate, to the extent feasible, the Project's significant environmental
effects. Staff adapted the mitigation measures listed in the new version of Section XI from
the mitigation measures adopted by the Council when it approved the Otay Ranch project.
The thinking behind this approach is that mitigation measures addressing the significant
cumulative impacts of the Otay Ranch should likewise apply to the non-Otay Ranch
properties within the Sphere Update Study area.
/,).. - jJ-!
Council Information Memo
March 21, 1995
Page 2
The Program EIR concludes that the SOl Update will contribute to cumulatively
significant impacts to land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, biological resources,
agricultural resources, mineral resources, transportation/circulation/access, air quality and
noise. As a result of this conclusion, the City must incorporate into the SOl Update all
feasible mitigation measures available to substantially lessen or avoid those impacts.
When the Council approved the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, it incorporated into the project a
number of mitigation measures intended to address these same impacts. As a general
matter, these same mitigation measures can be incorporated into the SOl Update. In some
respects, however, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
should not be applied to the SOl Update. This memorandum explains the reasoning behind
deleting or revising certain of the Otay Ranch mitigation measures from the SOl Update.
A. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure concerning
potential land use incompatibility with alternate County landfill sites. (Otay Ranch
Findings, p. 143.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are not
located near any of the County's alternate landfill sites, the SOl Update will not cause this
potential land use incompatibility. Accordingly, this measure should not be incorporated
into the SOl Update.
B. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure concerning
compliance with the County's Dark Sky Ordinance. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145.) The
Ross and Gerhardt parcels are not located near any of the sensitive light receptors for
which the County Ordinance is designed. Accordingly, this measure should be revised to
apply only to parcels within the SOl Update area that may impact sensitive light receptors.
C. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure referring to the
RMP for the Otay Ranch. The RMP was developed and adopted to manage biological
resources on the Otay Ranch. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145-146.) The RMP does not
encompass non-Otay Ranch parcels. Accordingly, this measure should not apply to the
non-Otay Ranch parcels. Instead, the non-Otay Ranch parcels within the SOl Update area
should be required to comply with regional conservation plans (specifically the
MSCP/NCCP), if and when such plans are adopted.
D. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requmng
restoration of disturbed portions of the Otay River Valley. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145-
146.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are not located in the Otay
River Valley, this measure should not be incorporated into the SOl Update.
E. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requmng
preparation of an Agricultural Plan prior to approval of any project affecting on-site
agricultural resources. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 148.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels are small parcels that do not contain prime agricultural soils,
Ie:< -- ~ c)..
Council Information Memo
March 21, 1995
Page 3
this measure should be revised to make clear that it applies only if agricultural activities
exist at the time the development plan is submitted.
F. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requiring the
incorporation into development plans a series ofland use, siting, design and transportation
measures aimed at limiting air quality impacts. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 150-151.)
Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are small parcels that carmot
feasibly incorporate all of these measures, this measure should be revised to make clear
that it applies only to the extent feasible in light of the size, location and proposed uses for
the parcel.
3. Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The last attachment is the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which
has been modified to reflect the non-Otay Ranch parcels. The revised program establishes
a program and process to ensure future implementation of the mitigation measures
adopted by the City Council. The program will be incorporated into the Resolution
certifying the FPEIR.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission:
Accept Addendum No. 2 and include it in the Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the
City ofChula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study.
Accept Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures and include it
in the Findings of Fact for the Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the City of Chula
Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update Study.
Accept the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and include it in the
Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
Study.
Attachments:
Addendum NO.2 to the Final Program EIR
Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
Revised Findings ofFact--Attachment A
Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
) ;2 ~?J -- J
.
ITEM TI1LE:
.
CflY COUNcn..AGENDA STATEMENT
Item.r /2-
MeetiDgDate: MO"llh 14.19\1& 3/1,.." ,\S
Public Hearing: GPA 95-01 DESIGNATING 20-ACRE SAITERLA
PARCEL UJW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; GPA 95-02 DESIGNATING
21.84-ACRE UJWER OTAY RESERVOIR PARCELS OPEN SPACE;
GPA 95-03 DESIGNATING SAN DIEGO CITY WATER RESERVOIR,
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY AND OTAY LANDFill.. AS
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
1'T:.3J
Resolution ~TIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND
TIER) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR 94-03) FOR THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT,
ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY
AS AMENDED AND DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
/
SUBMITfED BY: Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch
REVIEWED BY: City~~~ (4/SVote:Yes_No.K}
In January of 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Sphere of Influence Update Study for
the City. This public hearing is being held jointly between the City Council and the Planning
Cormnission to consider certifying the Fmal Program (Second Tier) Enviromnental Impact Report for
the City ofChula VISta Sphere of Influence Update Study making certain Findings of'Fact pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, amending the General Plan Land Use Element to
comply with LAFCO policy, accepting the Draft Sphere of Influence Update Study as amended and
directing that the Study be submitted to LAFCO for adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended tbat tbe I'Ianning Commission:
.
Conduct the Public Hearing on the General Plan Amendments and Sphere of Influence Update Study,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. EIR 94-03 certifying Final Program (Second Tier)
..J}-! -/)..-1
EIR 94-03 making certain Findings of Fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding -"""'\
Considerations and recommend the City Council amend the General Plan, accept the Sphere of
Influence Update Study as amended and direct staff to submit the Sphere of Influence Update Study to
the Local Agency Formation Conunission for adoption.
It is recommended that the City CouDcD:
Conduct the Public Hearing on the Gfnera1 Plan Amendments, and Sphere of Influence Update Study,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No._ amending the General Plan, certifYing Final
Program (Second Tier) EIR 94-03 making certain Findings of Fact pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and accepting the Sphere of Influence Update Study as
amended and directing staff to submit the Sphere of Influence Update Study to the Local Agency
Formation Commission for adoption.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Resource CooservatioD CommissioD: The Resource Conservation Conunission (RCC) unanimously
recommended that the Draft Program Environmenta1lmpact Report (DPEIR 94-03) for the City of
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study be certified as being complete. The RCC minutes from
their February 16, 1995 meeting are attached for your information.
PIaoDiDg CommissioD: Since this is a joint hearing with the Planning Commission, their -"""'\
recommendation will be presented at the meeting. The Conunission held a public hearing on February
22, 1995 to take testimony on the Draft Program EIR. They unanimously voted to close that hearing
and direct staff to prepare the Final Program EIR that is before the Council and Conunission for
certification.
DISCUSSION
L BACKGROUND
The City of Chu1a Vista's initial Sphere of Influence was adopted by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) in 1985. Ai that time, the Otay Valley Parcel was designated a Special Study
Area pending the joint planning effort between City of Cbula Vista and County. In July 1993, LAFCO
authorized the Executive Officer to conduct an update study of the City ofChu1a Vista'S Sphere of
Inftuence in anticipation of completion of the joint planning effort on the Otay Ranch Genera1 Plan.
The Otay Ranch Gfnera1 Development PlanlSubregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was adopted in October
1993. A Study Area for the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update was approved by the Chu1a Vista
City Council in January 1994. It encompasses the existing City of Chu1a Vista Sphere ofInftuence and
approximately 13,616 additional acres. The Sphere of Influence Study Area as indicated in Exhibit I is
generally bounded by Heritage Road and the existing City limits on the west, Brown Field on the
south, the Jamul Mountains on the east and San Miguel Mountain on the north. .
.........
...$. I
, '--2-
~3
Meeting Date: ~
.
The Sphere of Influence Update Study has been prepared by the City ofChula VISta to identifY the area
within which urban levels of development could commence within the next 15 years. The focus of the
Sphere Update Study has largely been the Otay Ranch and adjacent parcels.
Three General Plan Amendments (GP As) are proposed on five different property ownerships
concurrently with the Sphere of Influence Update. The GP As are proposed for two reasons.
Presently, some smaller IIOn-Otay Ranch parce1s are not included in the current City Genera1 Plan area.
These parcels must be included in the Chu1a Vista General Plan in order to comply with the LAFCO
policy requiring a Sphere area to be within a city's general plan. The second purpose is to adjust the
existing City of CbuIa VISta land use designations to relIect the current use or future land uses of the
sites.
The Notice of Preparation for the Sphere of Influence EIR was issued on April 19, 1994. The draft
EIR was cir".11ll1t<:ld for public comment on January 6, 1995. The EIR addresses the environment
impact of the recommended sphere boundary antendment and the attendant Chula VISta General Plan
antendments. This EIR is a second tier document utilizing the Otay Ranch Progrant EIR.
n. PROJECf DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a City of Chula VISta-initiated proposal to antend the City's Sphere of
Influence boundary to include an additional 12, 718 acres and to antend the Chula VISta General Plan to
. permit processing of the sphere document.
A. Sphere oflntluence Update
The majority (87"A.) of the land within the proposed sphere antendment area is property within the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP. Other parcels within, or adjacent to, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP are proposed for
inclusion in the Oty's Sphere of Influence to avoid creating "county islands" and allow for the efficient
provision of services.
In October 1993. the County of San Diego and City ofChula VISta antended their respective General
Plans to incorporate the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. With limited exceptions, the sphere antendment area
may be developed to the same land use intensity under either the City of Chu1a VISta or County of San
Diego's General Plan. Similarly, the City of Chu1a VISta and City of San Diego Genera1 Plans provide
for similar industrial uses where ttm' jurisdictions overlap in Planning Area 4 (industrial area on Otay
Mesa adjacent to Brown Field).
For study purposes, the land within the Sphere of Influence antendment area is divided into five
planning areas (see Exhibit 1). The planning areas and associated acreage are presented below.
Planning Area I - Otay VaHey Planning Area: This Planning Area permits 18,942 homes on 9,298
aaes. The Otay Valley Planning Area is surrounded on the west, north and east by the City of Chu1a
VISta. This area is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north, Heritage Road and Brown Field
on the south and Lower Otay Lake on the east. The Planning Area includes Otay Ranch Villages One-
.
-1J. J -
12..-~
Meeting Date: Man:
Eleven, Planning Area 12 (Eastern Urban Center [EVC]), Planning Area 18b and other properties
within, or adjacent to, the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch including the parcels proposed for
amendment to the General Plan. ~.
Planning Area 2 - Resort Planning Area: The Resort Planning Area is comprised of most I ofOlay
Ranch Village Thirteen, the Satterla Parcel (proposed for General Plan amendment) and Lower Otay
Reservoir. This Planning Area would pennit 2,340 homes in 2,093 acres. Comments, pertaining to the
SOI-EIR, from the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use, requested that this area
not be added to the City's Sphere. City staff has begun discussions with County staff on the financial
and planning impacts of this parcel and the Otay Landfill site. Resolution of the issues are not expected
to be concluded for several months. Therefore, staff is recommending that this area be added to the
City's Sphere. An alternative is to recommend to LAFCO that this area be designated a Special Study
Area, to permit negotiations to be concluded with the County prior to LAFCO action.
Planning Area 3 -Inverted "L" Planning Area: The Inverted "L" Planning Area is comprised of
the Otay Ranch Inverted "L" Property and the Watson Property. This Planning Area permits 389
homes on 457 acres.
Planning Area 4 - Otay Mesa Industrial Planning Area: For analytical purposes, the Otay Mesa
Industrial Planning area is divided into two subareas: 1) West Mesa Industrial; and 2) North-East
Mesa Industrial. The West Mesa Industrial subarea is located south of the Otay River Valley in the
Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. This area is under the City of San Diego's jurisdiction and is
designated Manufilcturing Industrial Park (MIP). Under the County of San Diego and City of Chula
Vista General Plan (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP), this 378.25-acre area includes 185.8 acres of industrial .........
and 192.45 acres of open space. The North-East Mesa Industrial subarea is located south of the Otay
River Valley, east of the proposed SR-125 alignment in the Otay Valley Parcel ofOtay Ranch. Under
the County of San Diego and City ofChula Vista General Plans (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP), this 492.07
area includes 30 acres of industrial and 462.07 acres of open space.
Detachment of this planning area from the City of San Diego has been reviewed by the Land Use and
Housing Subcommittee of the San Diego City Council. They have recommended that the area not be
detached from their City. Due to this recommendation and the potential for solving other common
boundary issues with the City of San Diego, staff recommends Planning Area 4 be designated as a
Special Study Area. This designation allows Chula VISta to return to LAFCO for a Sphere boundary
amendment with the City of San Diego whenever the boundary issues are resolved.
Planning Area 5 - Special Study Areas: As an ancillary task, the Sphere of Influence Update Study
reviews "Special Study Areas" previously designated by LAFCO in 1985 (see Exhibit 2). They are not
included in the EIR analysis and are not considered part of the proceedings to amend the Sphere
boundary. These properties will remain Special Study Areas under this Sphere Update Study. In
addition, the Sweetwater Parcel has been added to this Planning Area. The fonowing properties are
included in this planning area:
'The Mary Patrick Estate property is already within the ChuJa Vista Sphere of Influence and; thcmorc. is not part
of the Resort Planning Area. .........
..!'). ~t..
Il.-'I
e
e
.
Meeting Date: Ma h
. The Otay River Valley Special Study Area is a 369.12-acre property located east ofI-805,
south of the Otay River, north ofPa1rn Avenue and west of the Otay Rio Business Park.
. The SR-54 Study Special Area designation is the boundary between National City and
ChuIa Vista which jogs back and forth across SR-54 and the Sweetwater River between 1-5
and I-80S.
. The South San Diego Bay Special Study Area is primarily tidelands owned by Western Salt
Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company which uses the area for an underwater
outlet. A portion of National City extends down the middle of San Diego Bay and
cuhninates in a large 35O-acre site designated as public and open space under Chula Vista'S
General Plan.
. The Sweetwater Special Study Area is a 130.48-acre parce1located along the northerly
Sphere boundary, south of the Sweetwater Reservoir and within the City's 1989 General
Plan area but not in the City's sphere. The property is designated Open Space on the City's
plan.
B. General Plan Amendments
A SUIIIIII8Iy of General Plan Amendments being processed with the Sphere of Influence Update is
depicted in Exhibit 3. GPAs 95-01 and -02 propose Land Use Element designations for property
within the Study Area that are not included in the Genera1 Plan. These amendments are proposed to
comply with LAFCO policies on sphere boundaries. LAFCO requires property proposed for inclusion
within a sphere be included within the General Plan in order to assess the need for urban services.
OP A 95-03 proposes to amend the land use designation in three locations for existing or future public
utility sites.
1. GPA 95-01 Satterla Parcel
This 20-acre site is surrounded by Village Thirteen of the Otay Ranch (see Exhibit 3-A) and does not
have a ChuIa Vista land use designation. When the Genera1 Plan was amended for the Otay Ranch,
only The Baldwin Company holdings were considered, thereby leaving a "hole" in the City's Plan.
This OP A will place a designation on the property filling that hole. Staff is recommending Low
Density Residential (0-3 DUslac) designation for the parcel to be compatible with adjacent Otay Ranch
designations. The mid-point density of the site would allow up to 30 units on the parce1 which would
be subject to all of the City's rules and regulations when annexed to the City. Otherwise, the site is
limited to one unit in the County.
2. GPA 95-02 Lower Otay ReseJVoir
Similar to the Satterla Parcel, the Lower Otay Reservoir properties, (see Exhibit 3-B) are not within
the City's Genera1 Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Otay Ranch OPA, the City's General Plan
boundary ran along the north side of Otay Lakes Road. With the approval of the Otay Ranch OP A,
severa1 parcels that are part of the City of San Diego holdings for the Lower Otay Reservoir north of .
,.!i ./~-
\ 2.-5
Pa
Meeting Date: M rcb 1 995
Otay Lakes Road were surrounded by the City's General Plan. These parcels contain sma1I drainage
valleys and arroyos anVid I~~~ 2Thirt8.~ acresdin size. fSthince these parcelsOtay Rare ~whiun~edh .byd~n Space on """'"
the Otay Ranch GDP e een an part 0 e Lower eseIVOIf c IS eSlgnated Open
Space, staff is recommending they be designated Open Space as well.
3. GPA 95-03
This General Plan Amendment addresses publicly owned land within the Otay Valley Parcel of the
Otay Ranch as indicaled on Exlubit 3-C. These properties are all within the City's General Plan area
and are proposed for amendment to ensure that land uses will remain compatible with adjacent
proposed land uses.
Otay Water District Property: The Baldwin Company has conveyed approximately 61 acres in the
northeast comer of the Otay Valley Parce~ adjacent to the future SR-125, to the Otay Water District.
The property is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 DUs/ac) on the General Plan. The
District plans to locate water tanks or reservoirs on this property at some time in the future. Therefore,
staffbelieves the most appropriate land use designation for the property is Public/Quasi-Public.
Water ReselVoir: The Water Reservoir Parcel is located in the southern portion of the Otay Valley
Parcel in Village Eight. The parcel is owned by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department and
contains an existing water storage facility. Presently, within the General Plan, the 19.59-acre parcel is
designated Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 DUs/ac) however, as a water storage facility no
development is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, a GP A to Public/Quasi-Public is
proposed. """'"
Otay Landfill: The San Diego County Otay Landfill is located along the western edge of the Otay
Valley Parcel. This 250.59-acre site is designated Open Space on the City's General Plan and is called
out as the Otay County Disposal Area on the Land Use Map. The landfill is estimated to have
approximately 14 years of capacity remaining. As a public landfill, staff recommends that appropriate
land use designation for the landfill is Public/Quasi-Public.
m ANALYSIS
A. Program Environmental Impact Report
On July 21, 1994, the City of Chu1a VISla entered into a three party contract with Lettieri-McIntyre
and Associates and The Baldwin Company to prepare a (Second Tier) Program Environmenta1lmpact
Report on the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study. The Baldwin Company was
respoIlSlble for reimbursing the City for the PEIR preparation. The PEIR analyzes four major issues:
land use, agriculture, public services and fiscal. Although no significant impacts of the proposed
Sphere of Influence or GPAs were found to be associated with these four issues, they are discussed in
detail to supply and assist in LAFCO's evaluation of the City's Sphere of Influence amendment request.
With respect to the four major issues, the PEIR concludes that the proposed Sphere of Influence
amendment and associated GP As would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Consequently, no project-specific mitigation measures are required.
-..
.J'f-t;
I 2..-b
..,;:
Meeting Date: ~
. Direct impacts related to the following environmental issues were also determined to be not significant:
.
.
. Biology
. Traffic
. Water Quality
. light/Glare
. Geology
. Air Quality
. Landform/VJSUal Quality
. Natural Resources
. Cu1tural Resources
. Noise
. Energy
. Population
. Housing
. Paleontology
. Risk of Upset
. Hea1th
This conclusion is based on the filet that the Sphere of Influence amendment, in and of itseit: would not
resuh in a physical change because development potential will not change substantially by placing the
area under the jurisdiction of the City ofChula VISta. As noted earlier, the County of San Diego and
the City ofChula VISta Land Use Plans are essentially identical for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP area.
The analysis in the EIR does not change the determinations that were made in the prior Program EIR.
for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The GDP/SRP PEIR concludes significant wunitigated impacts for the
issues of land use, landform alteration, biological resolD'Ce5, agriculture, mineral resolD'Ce5,
transportation/circulation access, air quality and noise. While the proposed Sphere Update would not
resuh in direct impacts, combined with the cumulative impacts identified in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
EIR, the impacts would still be cwnu1atively significant. This conservative approach is considered
warranted as any increase to an a1ready significant unmitigated cumulative impact would still be
significant. Recirculation of the Draft PEIR. is not required because changes in the conclusion can be
made without recirculating a Draft PEIR if it does not provide new information indicating that the
impact is more severe than previously considered.
The Sphere of Influence Update PEIR and Findings conclude that no sphere-specific mitigation
measures are available to reduce the cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. While no
sphere-specific mitigation measures eldst, implementation of the goals and policies of the Chula VISta
Genera1 Plan as well as subsequent CEQA review offuture development proposals within the Sphere
Update area would reduce potential impacts. In addition, implementation of the mitigation measures
set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Otay Ranch GDP/SRP would reduce impacts
resulting from development of the portions of this project which would be included in the Sphere of
Influence. As no determination can be made as to the ability of these processes to reduce cumulative
impacts to below a level of significance, the cumulative impacts are considered significant and not
mitigable. A Statement ofOveniding Considerations is therefore part of the proceedings.
B. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were analyzed in the EIR based upon the ability to: 1) meet the basic objectives of the
project provided; and 2) e1iminate significant environmental impacts.
No Project Alternative: The No Project A1ternative assumes that the Chula VISta Sphere of Influence
would remain in its existing configuration as adopted in 1985 and amended by subsequent amendments
and annelaltions. The non-Otay Ranch parcels would develop under the current County land use
designations and intensities. The No Project Alternative would avoid the net increase of 162 residential
units that would resuh from the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment. The draft EIR states that
~
Pa
Meeting Date: March 14
the No Project Alternative would not substantially change the conclusions associated with the
proposed amendment. For the majority of Otay Ranch, the same development intensity would ocror
since the City of Chu1a Vista and the County of San Diego adopted identical land use plans. """
Elimination of Planning Area 2: This alternative would exclude all of Planning Area 2 (Otay Ranch
Resort area) from the City's proposed Sphere of Influence and allow for Otay Ranch Village Thirteen,
the Satterla Parcel and the Lower Otay Reservoir parcels to be developed under the County's land use
designations. The Draft EIR concludes that this alternative would not offer a significant change in the
conclusions of the environmental analysis because land use intensity would be essentially identical
under County jurisdiction
Rejected Alternatives: Several alternatives identified in response to the Notice of Preparation were
considered but rejected from further analysis. These alternatives are briefly discussed in Section IX of
the EIR and include: "Exclusion of the County Landfill"; "Exclusion of Planning Area 4"; "Exclusion of
the County Landfill, Village Three and Planning Area 4"; ''Exclusion of the City of San Diego
property"; "Offsite Alternative"; and ''Exclusion of the County Landfill, Village Three, Planning Area 4
and the Otay River Valley". .
C. FISCAL ANALYSIS
A fiscal analysis of the impacts of jurisdictional changes to public services is part of the Sphere of
Influence Update Study. The FIND (Fiscal Impact of New Development) Model used in the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP was updated to reflect 1993-1994 City and County budgets. The fisca1 analysis, while
not required by law, is summarized in the Study and reviewed as part of the PEIR. The analysis """
assesses the impacts of development of the four planning areas on both the City and the County. In
addition, the analysis reflects only the current property tax transfer agreement between the City and
County for sharing revenues when property annexes to the City. Preparation of a new agreement
would be required after the Sphere adoption and prior to annexation.
1. Combined Total Fiscal Impact on the City and County
A comparison of the fisca1 projections for the General Funds of the City and the County is shown in
Exhibit 4. This exhibit presents the summary of the net fiscal impact analysis assuming that all
development within the four planning areas of the Sphere Study occurs within the City of Chula
Vista. Currently, the ana1ysis assumes that of the 19.9 % the County receives of the 1 % property tax,
6.S percentage points will shift to the City upon annexation The analysis uses an estimate of9.3% of
the 1% property tax for the City. The analysis illustrates that the City will incur a negative fiscal impact
under the existing assumptions during the first half of the development years. However, when the
property tax transfer agreement between the County and the City is adjusted to reflect the cost and
level of municipal services, there would be sufficient revenues to make both General Funds positive
over the entire development period. This tax agreement is negotiated with the County of San Diego as
part of the master tax agreement prior to annexation of the Planning Areas. The City Manager and the
County Deputy Chief Administrative Officer have already begun discussions to resolve this issue.
~
~
I 2..- 'tt
~
Meeting Date: March 1995
r
.
2. Fiscal Impact by Planning Area
The following summarizes the fiscal impacts by Planning Area for the buildout Year 2024 for the
City and County General Funds assuming that, within the Sphere area, development proceeds
within the City of Chula Vista under the current transfer tax agreement.
Planning Area 1 - Otay Valley Planning Area: This Planning Area represents most of the
proposed residential development within the Sphere Update area. In addition, commercial uses
are assumed to be developed. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $16.8
million and costs at $16.7 million for a net surplus of less than $100,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of 1.004. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at $12.5
million and costs at $6.2 million for a net surplus of approximately $6.3 million. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of2.02. Thus, the City breaks even for this Planning Area while the County is
projected to have a relatively large surplus.
Planning Area 2 - Resort Planning Area: This Planning Area would result in residential and
resort commercial uses. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $3.5 million and
costs at $2.3 million for a net surplus of approximately $1.2 million. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of 1.54. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about
$171,000 and cost at $203,000 for net deficit of approximately $32,000. This represents a
revenue/cost of ratio of 0.84. Thus, the City is projected to yield a relatively large surplus from
this Planning Area while the County is projected to have a sma1l deficit due to the small tax base
. of the Planning Area and the City receiving transient occupancy and sales taxes.
Planning Area 3 - Inverted "L" Planning Area: This Planning Area is planned for only
residential development. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $236,000 and
costs at $255,000 for a relatively sma1l net deficit of approximately $19,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of about 0.93. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about
$52,000 and costs at $65,000 for a relatively small net deficit of about $13,000. This represents a
revenue/cost ratio of approximately 0.79.
Planning Area 4 - Otay Mesa Industrial Planning Area: Only industrial development is
planned for Planning Area 4. For the City's General Fund, revenues are projected at $1.2 million
and costs at $0.5 million for a net surplus of about $700,000. This represents a revenue/cost ratio
of about 2.47. For the County's General Fund, revenues are projected at about $266,000 and
costs at $68,000 for a net surplus' of about $198,000. This represents a revenue/cost ratio of
about 3.93.
D. PUBUC COMMENTS
.
1. Notice of Preparation
The Notice of Preparation for the Sphere of Influence EIR was issued on April 19, 1994. The
following agencies and individuals responded to the Notice of Preparation: State of California
Department of Water Conservation; State ofCalifomia Department ofFish and Game; City ofChula.
__9 1-
12.-9
Vista Fire Department; City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works; City of C Ista, City
Traffic Engineer; Local Agency Fonnation Commission; Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; City of San Diego Planning Department; County of San Diego Planning Department; San .........,
Diego County Water Authority; Sweetwater Authority; Sweetwater Union High School District and
United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services.
2. CODllDeuts on Draft EIR
Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies and individuals
Loca1 Agency Fonnation Commission
California Department ofFish and Game
Metropolitan Water District
Sweetwater Authority
San Diego County Water Authority
Otay Water District
City of San Diego
Jeanne Evans
San Diego County
The Baldwin Company
Responses to these comments are provided in the Final Program EIR.
Written comments were received from John D. Dauz, one of the owners of the DeGraaf Parcel,
concerning the spelling of the owners name, size and General Plan designation. The name change has
been noted and appropriate changes made. The 1989 General Plan designated this property as Open
Space. No changes are proposed as part of this Study. Planning staif'is working on alternatives to
address the issues raised in his letter.
3.
Sphere oflnOueuce Public FOnJm
.........,
On February 9, 1995, the City of ChuIa Vista Otay Ranch Project Team and the staff of the Loca1
Agency Formation Commission conducted a noticed joint public forun1 at FastT ~1ce High School
regarding the Sphere of Influence Update Study and attendant EIR. The Workshop was attended by
approximately 30 members of the public. The vast majority of the discussion focused on the
Bonita/Sweetwater Area. Virtually all the speakers expressed strong oppositiOn to the current Sphere
of Influence governing this area, suggesting that the Loca1 Agency Formation Commission modifY the
City ofChuIa Vista Sphere of Influence area to exclude the Bonita/Sweetwater Valley area.
4. Planning Commission EIR Hearing
On February 22, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on the
information contained within the Draft PEIR. The Commission voted unanimously to close the hearing
and public review period for the Draft PEIR and direct staff to prepare the FmaI Program EIR with
responses to the comments made in correspondence and at the hearing.
""'"
~
12.-10
Meeting Date: M
.
5.
Planning Commissionen Comments
During the February 22, 1995 EIR hearing, several of the Planning Commissioners inquired about
various issues in the Sphere Study and the Program EIR. Responses to the Commissioners comments
are provided here for City Council information.
Planning Commissioner SalaS questioned whether EastLake development caused or exacerbated
the flooding drainage problems in Central Avenue. Staff has researched the concerns and have
the following response: The EastLake and Salt Creek projects contain 304 acres within the
Sunnyside Drainage Basin which contribute to Central Creek. The entire basin contains 4,073
acres. The 304 acres represent 7.5% of the basin. When the portion ofEastLake I west of the
SR-125 corridor was developed, the City required the developer to construct a detentionldesilting
basin to reduce the ultimate 100-year runoff from the development and to trap silt from the
development. The combination of the desiltingldetention facility, erosion control measures and a
small area contributing to the Central Creek, results in little to no runoff impact to the Central
Basin area. Additional information on the drainage issues in the Bonita area is provided in the
attached memorandum (Exhibit 5).
.
In regard to comments made by Bonita residents concerning being within Clwla Vista'S Sphere,
Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on the purposes of a sphere as a planning tool to avoid
duplication of UIban services. Staff indicated that Commissioner Martin was correct; a sphere for a city
or special district enabled the agency to adequately plan for the elCtension of public or urban services
and to avoid duplication by other agencies.
.
Commissioner Fuller inquired about the status of the DeGraaf Parcel and the Open Space corridor
along Telegraph Canyon Road. Staffresponded that the City's 1989 General Plan Land Use Element
planned for the north filcing slopes on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road to remain as open
space to provide a corridor along the road. The Otay Ranch GDP retains that open space and expands
it due to habitat. No cl1anges in land use designation are proposed as part of the Sphere Study,
however, City staff members are aware of the property owners concern regarding the Open Space
designation and are studying alternatives with the first Otay Ranch SPA to address this concern.
Commissioner Ray inquired about the County Or San Diego letter addressing lIIlIlelC8tion phasing. The
County of San Diego believes that lIIlIlelC8tions should occur on a SP A-by-SP A basis. City staff has
recommended in the Sphere Study that aD four Planning Areas be 8IU1exed to the City at one time. It is
especially important to annex: aD of the Otay VaDey Parcel, Planning Area I, because public fiIcilities
need to be planned and extended up the Otay Valley to serve the Otay VaDey Parcel.
Commissioner Ray asked why the EIR found the development of the Watson parce1 as insignificant.
Staff responded that wbile cl1ange from the County plan aDowing 24 units to the City's aDowing 244
might seem significant on a project basis when compared to the total Otay Ranch development of
23,000, the cl1ange was not seen as significant. Future projects on the Watson Parcel will still under go
environmental review at the development project 1eve1 for determination of impacts and appropriate
mitigation.
~ //r,Z._I\
MeetiDg Date:
Conunissioner Ray then asked if the issue before the Commission was not a compaiison of the impacts
of moving the Sphere boundary and the net increase between the County and City Plans. Staff
responded that was correct and because both the County and the City had adopted the same land use ""'"
plan, there would be little incrtl8Se in impacts by moving the Sphere boundary under this program level
of review. Additional environmental review will be accomplishe(l on future discretionary actions.
Conunissioner Ray asked if the Final EIR would respond to comments in the LAFCO letter. Staff
indicated that LAFCO's letter and responses would be in the Final EIR. Commissioner Ray asked for
additional details on Planning Area 4. Staff responded that the City's analyses indicated the industrial
area Planning Area 4 would not develop until the end of the IS-year time frame of the Sphere, and
services would come from the extension of La Media across the Otay Valley to the mesa. Given this
time frame, utility requirements, staff now believes it would be appropriate to designate Planning Area
4 as a Special Study Area until the other boundllIY issues with the City of San Diego can be resolved.
As a Special Study Area, the City can return to LAFCO at any time when an acceptable solution has
been reached with the City of San Diego.
Commissioner Ray then inquired about the IS-year time frame of the Sphere and the timing of SR-12S.
The current projections for SR-12S indicate that it will be constructed within the IS-year time frame of
the proposed Sphere boundary, and ifit is not, then the Interim SR-125 solution would allow a certain
amount of development until the City's threshold limits were reached. All future development would be
subject to all the growth management ordinances of the City. Additional transportation models are
being prepared, as required, for the review of the first SPA Those studies will be part of future
discretiOnllJY actions for SPA One.
Commissioner Fuller inquired about the City and County of San Diego and Department of Fish and
Game concerns about the MSCP program somehow not being implemented if the Otay River Valley
was within Chula VISta's Sphere. She asked if the Otay River Valley would be subject to the MSCP
Program because the City and the County had adopted the same land use plan for the valley. Staff
responded that the Otay River Valley was Open Space on the Otay Ranch GDP and that Plan had
been submitted to the MSCP Program as an alternative. There are, however, portions of the Plan that
the Department of Fish and Game do not agree with and that disagreement would also occur if the
valley remained in the County.
""'"
FISCAL IMPACI'S
Sphere ofInftueoce: None.
LAFCO tiling fees will be paid by The Baldwin Company. LAFCO fees for Sphere ofIntluence will
be based on the area decided upon by the City Council for the Sphere application. LAFCO charges
53,500 plus 5250 per 100 acres outside the City's existing Sphere. There are no additional fees
for reviewing the EIR.
The fisca1 implications of adding the Otay Ranch to the City are discussed in the Fiscal Analysis,
Section E, of this Agenda Statement.
"""
JH;x
12-'2-
.
.
.
Meeting Date: a
General Plan Amendments: None.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3-A
Exhibit ~
Exhibit 3.{:
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Sphen: of Inf\uoooe SlIIdy Area
Special SlIIdy Area
Genera1 Plan ,A"""""""'ts
GPA 9~1
GPA9S-m
GPA 9~3
Net FisaI1 Impoct SIIIIIIIIIIrY
Mmlanmdum to 1eny Jamriska, fr1m William Ullrich, daU:d March 2,1995
"',,",-Is: Re001uticm No,_
Reso1ulicoEIR 9W3
RCC Min1lI5 fr1m Felwary 6, 1995 moeling
PIanDing Cnnm;".;m Min1lI5 fr1m Fobuaty 22, 1995 moeling
~
, 1~-13
THIS PAGE BLANK
~
.12..-I-t
.
.. ",1
.
RESOLUTION NO. 17'8'3 /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND TIER) ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT(FPEIR 94-03) FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY AND DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR ADOPTION
WHEREAS, California State law mandates that each Local Agency Fonnation
Conunission (LAFCO) adopt a Sphere of Influence plan for each city and special district
within its jurisdiction; and,
WHEREAS, in 1985, LAFCO adopted a Sphere of Influence for the City of
COOla Vista and, in 1990, adopted procedures for updating spheres of influence; and,
.
WHEREAS, in November of 1992, the City of Chula Vista, in compliance with
those procedures, completed and filed with San Diego LAFCO a sphere of influence
questionnaire; and,
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1993, the LAFCO Conunission approved commencement
of a comprehensive sphere of influence update study for the City of Chula Vista based on
their Executive Director's recommendation; and,
WHEREAS, in December of 1994, the Otay Ranch Project Team completed the
draft Sphere of Intluence Update Study on four planning areas to add 12,718 acres to the
City's Sphere. This proposal includes land owned by The Baldwin Company referred to
as the Otay Ranch in addition to other land not owned by The Baldwin Company; and,
WHEREAS, in order to comply with LAFCO procedures, and to make the Land
Use Element of the City ofChula Vista General Plan consistent with existing and future
public uses, the City has concurrently initiated several amendments to the General Plan as
defined in Exhibit A; and,
.
WHEREAS, the City of Chu1a Vista circulated a request for proposals to prepare
an environmental impact report on the Sphere of Influence Update Study, selected the firm
of Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates out of seven candidate firms to prepare the EIR and,
on July 21,1994, entered into a three party contract between the City, Lettieri-McIntyre
and Associates and The Baldwin Company where the City managed the preparation of the
EIR, Lettieri-McIntyre prepared the EIR and the Baldwin Company reimbursed the City
for the cost ofEIR preparation; and
JJ-~-
/. '
12-IS~
City Council
Sphere of Influence Resolution
Page 2
-..
WHEREAS, the firm of Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates has prepared a Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR 94-03) on the Draft Sphere Study and
General Plan Amendments; and,
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission, on February 22, 1995, held a
duly noticed public hearing to take public testimony on the adequacy of the information in
the DPEIR 94-03, closed the hearing and public review period and directed the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report be prepared including the responses to the
comments received on the DPEIR; and,
WHEREAS, comments received by the City, including those from LAFCO, caused
the City to conclude in the Final EIR that certain project impacts identified as less than
significant in the Draft EIR are, in fact, cumulatively significant and unmitigatable. This
change in conclusions does not constitute a disclosure that a new significant environmental
impact would result in the project, that a significant increase in the severity of an already
considered environmental impact would result from the project, that of feasible project
alternative or mitigation measure would clearing lessen the significant environmental
effects of that project, or that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate
and the conclusory in nature as to preclude meaningful public review and comment
(CEQA Guidelines, Paragraph 15088.5, Subparagraph (a)). Therefore, recirculation ofthe
Draft EIR is neither necessary or appropriate, because the change in conclusions involves
only a revision of the City's ultimate characterization of cumulative impacts and not new
information regarding the impacts themselves; and
""""
-
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission, on March 14, 1995, held a
duly noticed public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendments and Sphere of
Influence Update Study, and reviewed the contents of the Study and recommended that
the City Council amend the General Plan as indicated in Exhibit A, accept the subject
study and direct its submittal to LAFCO for adoption as indicated in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution No. EIR 94-03; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on March 14, 1995, held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendments and Sphere of Influence Update
Study, and reviewed the contents of the Study and agreed with its conclusions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report (DPEIR 94-03); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the Draft Sphere of Influence Update
Study is consistent with the City's General Plan, including the Growth Management
Element, and that the territory covered by the Study could ultimately receive urban
services; and,
""""
.......doc
~
12.-1<-
.
.
.
City Council
Sphere of Influence Resolution
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
That the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan be amended as
indicated in Exhibit 3-A,B and C.
n. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on the Draft PEIR held on February 22, 1995, and their public
hearing on this Project held on March 14, 1995, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall
comprises the entire record of the proceedings for any CEQA claims
m. FPEIR CONTENTS.
That the FPEIR consists of the following:
A.
Final Program ( Second Tier) Environmental Impact Report 94-03
B. Appendices (A through F) to Final Program Environmental Impact
Report.
C. Technical studies and information incorporated in the responses to
comments.
IV. FPEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED.
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and
considered FPEIR 94-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
Project; the Candidate <;EQA Findings, AtlaJ..11di11 '1 r", JJ1~ Il"slt'1)~ a copy ------
of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the proposed mitigation measures
contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, A1~eRt
W .u dil~ }b,Nfblio,l, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, /l4t&ebment 'e" tv th:~ ~ y\..
.... ',' t.., prior to approving the Project. ~9 ~Q'\
\JJ
.......doc
-1f / /' h.r-,_I
12..-II~
City Council
Sphere of Infiuence Resolution
Page 4
V.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA.
"""""I
That the City Council does hereby find that FPEIR 94-03, the Candidate CEQA
Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
VI. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL.
That the City Council finds that the FPEIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VII. FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
That the City Council hereby finds that the Project, including but not limited to the
adoption of the General Plan Amendment, is and will be consistent with the
General Plan.
VIII. CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
A.
Adoption of Findings.
""'"
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if
set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" to this Resolution.
B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in the program EIR for the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan and in the CEQA
Findings for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution, the
Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures
described in the above referenced documents are feasible.
C. Unfeasibility of Alternatives.
As is also noted in the above-referenced environmental documents,
alternatives to the project which were identified as potentially feasible in
the EIR were found not be feasible.
........
.......cIoc
~
12..-l)S
=
e
e
.
-
City Council
Sphere of Influence Resolution
Page S
D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
('Program') set forth in Attachment '8" of this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Council hereby finds
that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation
the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement
the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified in the Findings and the Program.
E.
Statement of Overriding Consideration
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentia1ly significant environmental
effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the
form set forth in Attachment C, identifYing the specific economic, social,
and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed
after City Council approval of this project to ensure that a Notice of
Determination, together with a copy of this resolution, its exhibits, and all
resolutions passed by the City Council in coMection with this project, is filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents along with any
documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of
proceedings for any CEQA claims.
X. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby orders that the Sphere of
Intluence Update Study accepted on March 14, 1995, as shown on Exhibit B- be-
submitted to the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission for
official adoption.
.......doe
\ 2...-\~
-f-L~-
.......,
----
THIS PAGE BLANK
~
",
'"
.......
~
. (l--~
.
.- ".,
.
...
I"
e....
II
E
.
I
I
I
.
/~ .
\ :&
\__~f---
-.I
rL"w~./1?
_-.L .. ?
g!!-
... = .1I:l:
<'].~
~::J&l
.a ~
en u
..=
U'"
c =
.-
~'O
~ 2:!
- u
'Oi.
.tIl
..
!
a-
, ~
~ ~I:l!~>
. ""'~llll=<
! ",~.$
J i5
Special Study Area
1994 Sphere of Influence Update Study
EXHIBIT 2
...
.!
c
I
I
,
;
!
i
/
,
,
/
I
.";; ~ ,.
~ . :"
~. ,
s.:--
~ '~~
,
...
~
Cll:>-
>-CD
215
0::>
'L-
I
I
Ji>
-
~~>-
~'CI) ci .g
-
-
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
/.;). ,,;>. Y //2 - 3 'L
"18
s:;
=-
~
to
~
i
~
'll
.:-
1.1
J
.
.
.
OTAY RANCH SPHERE
3/2195
2
The combination of the desiJting/detention facility, erosion control measures and a small area
from the City contributing to Central Creek, results in little to no impact to the SUMyside Basin
problems.
2. Drainage problems oCQJrred in this area before Eastlake I/Salt Creek I developments were
constructed. A local Civil Engineer (Mr. lames A1gert), who has been in the area for many
years, has studied the situation and indicated that the main problem in the area can be
attnbuted to the channel being too flat to carry flows of larger storms (over a 5-10 year
storm). All of the improvements which exist today along Central Avenue were constructed by
developments within the jurisdiction of the County.
DRAINAGE ISSUES AT BONITA ROADIWllLOW ROAD
During recent years, the drainage system flowing from the east toward the Sweetwater River has
deposited silt on the east side ofBonita Road near the Good Shepherd Church and Bonita Store.
Some of the silt was generated by Rancho Del Rey SPA IT development. McMillin Development has
constructed a desilting/detention filciIity to eliminate any inaease in silt as a result of their project.
That fiIciIity was completed in 1993. The facility was designed to retain the silt from the project and
reduce the l00-year runoff to that which occurred prior to development.
The City now removes the silt at the outlet of the drainage culvert that crosses Bonita Road near the
Bonita Store after almost ever storm. There have been no drainage problems this year in this location.
DRAINAGE IMPACTS ATWTT.T OW !i:TRFFT AND SWEETWATER RIVER
Two years ago, when the heavy rains fell, this area was inundated due to vegetation growing down
.m ..a.n of the bridge which ",,"V!tl the water to back up and silt to be deposited each time heavier rains
ocaured. The City, through a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), will
be removing some of the vegetation and most of the silt as allowed by the Fish and Game.
Some of the buildingslhouses on both sides of the golf course have periodically been inundated by the
1aIger storms such as those which occurred in 1980, 1983 and 1993. The Central Avenue crossing of
the Sweetwater River often floods with smaller frequency storms. Pictures submitted by Mr. Watson
show portions of the Chula VISta Golf Course under water. Since the golf course is in the Sweetwater
River floodway, it is not unexpected to see the area inundated.
ANNEXATION ISSUES RELATED TO SEWER SERVICE
Two letters were read into the Planning Commission record from Francisco and Luisa Nieto and
Martha and Pedro Prado who reside fespectively at 4348 and 4358 Acacia Averwe in Bonita. Both
letters refer to the City ofChula Vista requiring annexation prior to connection to a City sewer line. In
addition, the Prado letter indicates that they are required to pay over $7,000 for that connection.
When Bonita Long Canyon subdivision was developed, the developer was required to install a sewer
line in ~ Avenue to serve the development. The existing properties along Acacia, which were
, - :r5' /.2 ...:3S-
OT AY RANCH SPHERE
3
3/2/95
,
· J ~.
developed in the County, were on septic syStems. Some bfthose systems have subsequently failed and
the owners were required to connect to a seWer by the Health Department. .
The sewer to which these properties can connect is a city owned and maintained sewer system. Under
current City Policy 570-02 adopted on June~, 1992, the owner is required to do one of the following:
i
IF CAPABLE TO ANNEX TO THE CITY ( Contiguous to City boundarv)
The connectee must first annex to the City ofChula VISta or execute an annexation agreement.
If an annexation agreement is utilized, the connectee is required to deposit with the City an
amount equal to three times the current sewer capacity charge to be used to purchase the right
to use City services in the event that annexation should fail. The owner is also required to pay
the capacity charge in addition to the charge to purchase the right to connect. The current
charge is $2,220; therefore, the connectee is required to pay $8,880 plus any other costs
associated with the connection such as lateral installation costs. Upon annexation, $6,660 is
returned to connectee. If annexation fails, the City may claim the deposit as payment for the .
right to connect to utilize City services. Total up front cost of this situation would exceed
$10,000.
IF UNABLE TO ANNEX TO THE CITY ( Non-contiwous to City boundaJy)
The owner shall enter into an "Annexation and Disconnection Agreement" with the City. In
addition, the owner shall pay the current City ofChula VISta sewer capacity charge and a fee of
twice the current sewer capacity charge which is deposited into the City General Fund. Other
costs associated with connection to the City sewer must be paid by the owner such as the
sewer lateral installation costs. The owner is also required to deposit with the City one-half the
estimated annexation fees. This deposit will be returned when annexation is complete. The
total up front cost for this procedure would be more than $7,000.
~
In addition to obtaining a permit from the City, the owners must receive approval from LAFCO before
the City can allow connection.
Both the Nietos and the Prados are contiguous to the City boundary. Another owner (Sarris), who
has a need to connect to the City sewer, is located at 4375 Acacia Avenue, which is on the north side
of Acacia Avenue. That property is not contiguous to the City bounda1y and could not annex at this
. time.
A proposed policy change is currently being studied as a result of the Acacia Avenue situation. Staff
has been working with LAFCO and the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) on the proposed
policy change. Once LAFCO and SVSD have approved the proposed change, stalfwill bring the
item to the City Council for approval.
"""'"
~
10)., 3.f.:,
n
,
OTAY RANCH SPHERE
4
3/2/95
.
\It
INFRASTRUCTURE ISS~.~
Mr. Stan Waid and Mr. Michael 1. Roark made comments relating to infrastructure at the February
22,1995 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Waid's comment related to approval ofOlay Ranch
without pl()pd infrastructure and Mr. Roark's concern was related to restricting development in
Eastlake until there was a north/south corridor (SR-125 or equivalent). FoUowing is a response to
each statemenl:
INFRASTRUCTURE REOUIREMENTS
Improvement and grading plans are reviewed and approved at the final map stage. Those plans are
prepared to meet City standards and to comply with applicable conditions of approval and
environmental concerns. In addition, some impact fees are paid at that time. Other impact fees are
paid at issuance ofbuilding permits such as schoo~ Residential Construction Tax, Transportation and
Public Facility Development Impact and sewer capacity fees.
Adequate infiastructure is required to be provided with aU development within the City ofChuIa Vista
prior to ocwpancy of structures through the construction of the infrastructure or payment offees. If
adequate infiastructure is not available as required by the City's growth management thresholds, the
City can stop development unti1 the inadequacies are remedied.
. NOR1H/SOUlH TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
There has been no specific City Council Policy which restricted development in EastLake beyond the
first phase until a north/south roadway was in place. The City did have the Growth Management
Threshold Standards which were in place at the time that EastLake I was proc:essed. Those standards
would have nstricted development if thresholds had been ex:ceeded.
The Council has adopted a SR-125 Development Impact fee to address the need for a &cility within
the SR-125 corridor. The fee was established as a safeguard to provide a facility if the tollroad was
not constructed.
.
~ /-2...57
\.
~
-..
-..
~;JY
)~..3i
FEEl-24-1995 09:53 FROM
TO
691'5171 P.01
.
.TO WHOEVER SEES THIS FPJ< FIRST b,;i. CA,;nN YOU PLEASE MAKE COPIES AND DISl'RIEl'JTE TO PEOPLE
_ ELOW? I DO NeT DO THIS FOR A;qi=' THANKS. .
\\ 1/
E)(HlBl'T B . .
J.K. EVANS
3350 WATERCREST COURT
BONITA, CA 81802
1S15-5078
FEBRUARY 24. 18115
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
275 4TH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 81810
I
VIA FACSIMILJ..E .78-53711
i
MAYOft 8HlftLeY HORTON .
DEPUTY MAYOR. COUNCILMAN JERRY RINDONE
COUNCILMAN BOB FOX
COUNCILMAN STEVE PADILLA
COUNCILMAN JOHN MOOT
CHUJ,A VISTA CITY PlANNING COMMISSION
. SUSAN FULLER
'nolOMAS MARTIN
JOHN RAY
. MARY SAL4S
PRANK TARANTINO
WIlLIAM TUCHSCHER
VIA FACSIMILJ..E 691-5171
I
I
RE: CITY PLANNING COMMISION MEETING DATED 2.22-85
DEAR REPRESENTATIVES:
REGARDING THE WATER DRAINAGE FROM CHULA VISTA INTO BONITA PER GROUND SATURATION.
THOUGH IT IS CLEAR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IS AQUIRING PROPERTY IN BONITA PER THIS ISSUE (VIA
UTILITY HOOK-UP ANNEXATION), IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED WITH ANY STATEMENT BY LAFCO OR THE CITY
MANAGER BECAUSE: I . .
i
1. WATER EXPERTS WERE NOT PRESENT.
I
2. IT ONLY PERTAINED TO THE SPHERE OF LAFCO'S INFWENCE ST\JDY INDIRECTLY.
I
JUST so YOU ALL KNOW, THE CHURCH OF THE CiOOD SHEPHERD. EPI$COPAL PARISH AT WILLOW AND
BONITA ROAD HAS TWO lAW SUITES PENDINCi AGAINST CONTRACTORS. THEse CONTRACTORS WERE
peRMITTED BY THE CHIJlA VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO IUII.D WITHOUT ADEQUATE
DRAINAGE. I
. I
I
,
I
alNOeRl9..Y.
~~~7
-.Y.i( EVANS
CITIZENS TO PRESERVE BONITA VALLf!Y, INO.
I
I
9'" Jtj-/o"),,~7'
Resource Conservation Commission
-2-
Februarv 16. 1995
3. Review of EIR-94-03, Sphere of Influence I
..""'"
Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid introducea the project, advising the commission '
that the Otay Ranch project was a joint planning project between the City of Chula Vista and
the County of San Diego, and that both jurisdictions had adopted the same plan. He advised that
the EIR for the Sphere of Influence study had been prepared for LAFCO, and introduced Special
Projects Planning Manager Jerry Jamriska and Bruce McIntyre of Lettieri-McIntyre.
Mr. Jamriska noted that the EIR for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan still exists and
is referred to in the Sphere report; He stated that the project's environmental impacts were
basically the same, but that the Sphere EIR looks just at the impacts of moving the Sphere
boundary. Mr. Jamriska noted that the Sphere of Influence simply defines an area that will
require urban levels of services in the future, and that the last Sphere study had been done in
1985. He presented exhibits depicting the current sphere boundaries as well as those proposed
in this report, which focuses primarily on the Otay Ranch property.
Mr. Bruce McIntyre of Lettieri-McIntyre stated that there are four issues analyzed: land use,
agriculture, public services, and fiscal impact. Mr. McIntyre noted that since the City and
County regulations for the Otay Rancho project are the same, there is very little change in
impacts. He reviewed the EIR response to the above-referenced issues, slating that the overall
density affected by this EIR would decrease by approximately 250 units.
With respect to agriculture, it was stated that the Otay Ranch land is not considered prime I
agricultural. Mr. McIntyre stated that on the issue of public services the Otay Ranch project ~
is very specific and it requires public facilities plans, thus ensuring that facilities be in place
when they are needed. He advised that there is an obstacle with one of the planning areas
related to water service; however, he added that this issue would exist whether the property is
in the County or the City. Mr. McIntyre stated that in the area of fJScal impact, agreementshaf:!
been reached which balan,.~ out the long-term fJScal impacts on both the City and County.
Committee OuestionslDiscussion
Commissioner Marquez commented that the issues reviewed seemed not to involve specific
resources and land uses. She added that information in the EIR (page S-3) called for an increase
in residential density of 162 units, which conflicted with the density reduction that Mr. McIntyre
had mentioned. Mr. McIntyre stated that be might have been wrong and would look into the
inconsistency .
Commissioner Fisher asked how a condition of split jurisdictions would affect programs like the
Preserve plan; Mr. Jamriska responded that the Preserve owner/manager was required to be
selected prior to adoption of the first specific plan, and that a fnnding plan must be in place prior
to the SPA plan to ensure the fmancial success of the Preserve. He added that the Preserve
lands would be conveyed as entitlements were granted for development. Mr. Fisher also
questioned certain land uses depicted in various maps within the EIR, stating that the University
site, for example, seemed to move around. Mr. Jamriska stated that the Otay Ranch General~
Development Plan actually amended the City's General Plan, although it was not reflected in the
map within the EIR. Mr. Fisher stated that he found the maps in the EIR difficult to read and
compare, and suggested that they be clarified.
~
h' -
,GI
/0< if/)
(e
Ie
<e
Resource Conservation Commission
-3-
.
Febrnarv 16. 1995
In respoDSe to further questions regarding the University site, Mr. Jamriska explained the issues
involved with the University site and further explained the environmental review porcedures for
ensuing development applications, stating that these will include the specific resource studies.
Commissioner Marquez asked about the County Resource Protection Ordinance; Mr. Jamriska
explained the ordinance, indicating that the Otay Ranch plans surpass the intent of this
ordinance. The Multiple Species Conservation Plan was discussed.
Commissioner Hall asked .if the smaller parcels might be treated as inflll projects; Mr. Reid
pointed out that these parcels are small relative to the Otay Ranch project, but are all multiple-
acre parcels. He confJrnled that with respect to any development proposals they would still be
governed by CEQA. Ms. Hall questioned the placement of the industrial parcel, pointing out
that once the landfill was full, it was supposed to be used as parks and open space. She also
questioned school facilities in the Otay Ranch; Mr. Jamriska reviewed the schools planned
throughout the project.
Commissioner Marquez stated that she was not completely comfortable with the City's incurring
a fiscal deficit for such a long period of time and counting on future tax revenues to recoup the
loss. Mr. Kim Kilkinney of Baldwin spoke to the fIScal issue, stating that be wished to dispel
the impression that the Otay Ranch project was a fiscal loser in the fU'St years. He stated that
any defICit would be a function of the tax agreements worked out between the City and the
County only, and that according to ftlcal impact studies, neither jurisdiction needed to
experience a fIScal deficit because of this project.
MSUC (HaIllMarquez) (4-0) to recommend that the plAnning Commission certify EIR-94-03.
4. Review of Historical Site Sign Schedule
Members agreed that the sequence/schedule of signs as proposed was acceptable.
PlAIR'S COMMENTS
Chair Burrascano stated that she still bad not beard from Michael Guerrero. Mr. Reid noted that
Guerrero's atte"""........ record now inade it impossible for him to meet the required 75% meeting
attenitAn~ requirement. Commi!L~ioner Marquez stated that having only four members was constraining
and affected votes. since a unAnimous vote is thus required for a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONERS COMMF.NTS
Commissioner Marquez stated that she would like to respond as a commi.,ion to Joe Gbougassian's
letter of recommendation. Mr. Reid advised that for commiqion action, the item would have to be
agendized. Commissioners chose to respond individually to the letter in order to have their comments
on the record immediately.
Commissioner Hall felt that Mr. Ghougassian bad found the commission valuable when he needed
support to Oppose development in the Sweetwater Valley near his home, and pointed out that although
. ~JJ/l-, /..2..~1
PC Minutes
-2-
Febnwy 22, 1995
ITEM 1:
PUBUC HEARING: CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DRAFT
EIR-94-03
)
""'"
Environmental Review Coordinator Reid began the presentation, DOting that the environmental
review report covered an area which had been involved in much of the Olay Ranch consideration
of a General Development Plan, which had been jointly adopted by the City of ChuIa Vista and
the County of San Diego. The land use assumptions for the bulk of the project area is the same
for both the City aDd the County. A c:hange in the Sphere boundary would in most instances
DOt result in a c:IIange in the land use assumptions and the impacts that would result would be
primarily insignifit...."'. Mr. Reid stated that the EIR was primarily prepared for LAFCO and
focused on IUCb issues as the delivery of public 1eI'Vices. The Raource Conservation
Commission bad voted to recommend certification of the EIR. CorrespcmdeJIce received since
the staff report bad been given to the Planning CommicsiODerS at this meeting and would be
responded to in die fiDa] EIR. along with any l'nm1n~ received during the public bearing.
He then introduced Jerry Jamriska, Special planning Project Manager for the Olay Ranch project
aDd the Sphere study. Mr. Jamriska stated that a Sphere of Inf1ueDce information &beet had been
given to the C.nmmiclioDerS, which tried to id~fy certain key questions that were asked at a
public forum I" SfJltlltion to the community leveral weeks before. Mr. Jamriska DOted the initial
Sphere of the City of ChuIa Vista was adopted by LAFCO in 1985, and pointed out the Sphere
of lnflueDCe IRI, which is stiI1 current. In July 1993, LAFCO authorized the Executive Oficer
upon request of die City to conduct an initial update study of the poteDtial addition to the Olay )
Ranch study IRI. Mr. Jamriska then gave an overview of the ".up()6al, IIOtiDg that the four ""'"
planning areas would add 12,718 acres to the City ofChula Vista, ifapproved, and pointed out
tbe five General Plan ~- which were plOpOSed to be processed concuneD1Iy with the
Sphere updl'~ ,
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler detailed the four planning areas, IIOtiq 1bat GeIIeraI Plan
designations bad been applied to the Satterla Plopeny. The wedges drained into the Lower Olay
Reservoir which 1ft oWDed by the City of San Diego. Mr. Rosaler, referring to Table 3-C in
the EIR, stated that for the most pan, w.n,.. the City and the County bad aped on the Olay
Ranch GeDeral Development Plan Subregional Plan, there were DO c:hanges in land use lDtensity.,
The additional pi...-ties which were DOt pan of the Ranch would lDtensify and, in IOIIIe cases,
dri'1'Pftcify based on the GeDeral Plan \Jef1rtion.
Mr. Rosaler ".-dll~ Bruce Mc:IDdre, . principal of tbe firm of Letderi.Mc:IDdre and
Associates, who pepared the ~hOl\n-.l impact report. Mr. Mc:IDdre "i""'J...... the
CDViI,,'''.......'.1 ~report, DOting that the c:hange in the Sphere ....""'.rjes did DOt have much
effect on tbe vJtitnate 1and use. The mr.h(\I...~"I.l lrr1paets, which were c:IearIy id-'ntified on
tbe Olay Ranch EIR, would happen whether or DOt the ....,nd.')' dJanaed. Tbey could develop
10 the lame ~~ UDder tbe County. He DOted . process allowed by CEQA called
"incorporation by refefence" bad been used. Tbey had drawn upon the iDformation used in the
Olay Ranch EIR. as well as the City'. GeDeral Plan Program EIR. Mr. Mc:IDdre then
IUII1mIrized die COJIClusions of the eDvironmental impact report.
-
~I
~
J~ .. tf;;-
~'.
PC Minutes
-3-
February 22. 1995
Mr. Jamriska stated that staff 1'eC(\ftI.....N4... that the public hearing be ccmducted IDd closed,
with direction to staff to prepare, a final enviromnenW impact report that would be presented at
. joint meeting before the City Council IIDd the pl.""i", Commi.sion on March 14.
'Ibis being the time IDd the place u advertised. the public hearing wu opeued.
Clair Tuchscher caned the first Ipt'JlIr_. Stan Waid, f~vntil'lg the Bonita Hilhl.""~
Homeowners Association IDd Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. '
Stan Wald, 5617 GaDopml Way. BoDlta, asked if staff would show a certain slide showing
die area in which be lives. '
{.
Chair Tuchscher asked if Mr. Waid represented the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, IDd
if they had taken any kind of formal action. Mr. Waid stated that they had asked him to
zepresenl them at this meeting IDd the one the week before.
Clair Tuchscb/'!r asked if the same wu 1JUe of the Bonita Homeowners Association. Mr. Waid
IIated that be might be called the resic:le1'f manager of the homeowDen usoc:iation since be had
Uved there 20 years.
Clair TucbSl'ber asked if either JIOIlP bid taken any formallCtion. Mr. Waid nplied that they
IIad DOt.
Mr. Waid said that in Iddition to the Sphere of Influence, the Bonita ~ are impacted
~ously by decisions by the pl.""i'll C.........inion IIDd the City COOIftl!U in Cbula Vista IIDd
die County. Two JCUS 1.10, CenIral Avenue Woo..... a river fIoodi"i about 20 IIomes
downstream by the BoroitA Post Oftice, primarily w.,,- of lick of pl.....if1J by the County, IDd
by the City of Cbula Vista in approvin& the R..ft' ...... DeveIopmeDl widaout 1IIdna into accolmt
what wu lOing to bappen to the runoff from that devdopmeDt. 'CenIral Creek wu a IIIIIall area
which bec~ a river. As a result, the bomeowDm cIowDsIream filed IUit 9md the County
110 dredge out Cenual Creek. The County required the BoroitA llia"I.""o pI~ll owners to
dredge it out at a cost of $20,000. Mr. WaJd stated that at the 1985 LAFCO ~"I. they were
liven basically two abaDatives. They were given the cboice of beiDi put in the NadODPI City
Sphere of Inf1uencc IDd a co-possibllity of maybe the San Diego Sphere of JDflueDce or the
Cbu1a Vista Sphere oflnf1uencc. Mr. WaJd bid clIoIM the City of Cbula Vista. but aid it wu
probably a mi_.... on his part. He wu ClOIICerDed about iDfrasInIcIure DOt beiDi in pu, traffIC
flow, the flow of the water. At the public forum beld a week or 10 before, they wanted to de-
Iphere but were told that there Is IIOthiDI in LAFCO'. charter to allow a de-Ipbere. Mr. Waid
8aid they would like to de-lphere, br'.... they don't feel they are aeuiD& their fair IbIke in the
.
~.d.Amtty.
.
It II~ ~aDS, 3350 Waktwtlt, Boalta 'JJ02, nId two IeUm rqardiDa the Cbu1a Vista
Sphere of Influence Draft EIR, Lot No. 74, Block B, Bonita Hills. FnncIsco IDd Luisa Nieto.
4348 Acacia, Bonita 91902, said they were baviDa problems with their tepdc cant, which wu
an inconvenience u weD u a beIkh bazard. They did DOt WIDt to lose their IftIIl'lI privUeges
r- 9&/f:I - /~ .,'1.s
PC Minutes
-4-
February 22, 1995
by mmexing to Chula Vista. It would be 1 detriment to the value of their property; therefore,
they disputed the Sphere of IDf1ueDce Study and did not Ipprove it. They asked for 1 copy of
the EIR and requested more time to mpoDd to the Em. .
The second letter was from Martha and Pedro Prado, 4358 Acacia, Bonita 92902, regarding
Block 75, Block B, Bonita Hills,ltating they had DOt received copies of the EIR although its text
may negatively influence their property value in the yean to come. They and their neighbors
were being forced to speDd over $7,000 each to have decent utilities in their homes. This was
not an issue when the P10perty was originally built, because the County had adequate drainage
in past yean. They were told no other option to build another aeptic tank was Ivailable. They
disputed text or any reference to the text of the Sphere of Influence ltUdy by future plAnni'lg
zoning ageucies that in any way impeded the current zoning rights of their 9foperty. They
wished their property to remain in Bonita, DOt Chula Vista.
Ms. Evans bad the names of 28 people that attended the public fOl1lDl that was held previously,
and noted items in dispute of the Sphere of Influence study, as fonows. The legend does not
indicate any measurement of miles or kilometers. The legend is practical1y illegible, too lIIIII11;
. legend does DOt include 1 train corridor; Ploposed ton way SR-I25 DOt labeled pl~ly as a
proposed SR-I25; Sphere map has Proctor Valley Road labeled as San Miguel Road; Sphere city
border is ambiguous; only the San Diego city border is labeled; DOwhcre on the map is the
Chula Vista city border labeled; Bonita is DOt labeled on the map; City border 1""'.11y soes
outside the Sphere of Influence line-how can the City DOt have influence over its own territory?
This is seen in the National City area around Fourth Street.
Georjean JellIeD, 3655 Proctor Valley Road, BonIta, said Ihe is 1 JIleI'I1...... of the Sweetwater
Community PIA""i'll Group, and the poup could DOt IIJPPOrt the u:pans~on of the Chula Vista
Sphere of Influence for the fonowing reasons. Chula Vista had demonstrated a Jack of
esponsibility in the current deve1UpJ4Cnts of EastLake traffic manaJCJDeDl and Salt. Lake
drainage mitigation in CeDtral Creek. The Otay Ranch plan as approved by Chula Vista had
little regard for the regional ~ets associ.t"" with its circulation plans and total .~........
on the automObile. Ms. Jensen lilted that Chula Vista bistorically had reseDIed the Sweetwater',
area reluWo- to annex en masse and demonstrated it whenever Sweetwater resideDb' and
JfOUPI commented IIeSltively on projects which have neptive influence. The Sweetwater
Community PI.nni'll Group requested that Chula Vista ......mmo. put ._'uti... and
developments with respect to the significant impacts on neiahborina COI\.ndl1'l~. When IbeIe
c:onflicts have been resolved and mitiSlted, then perbaps it would be 1JIPI.....iate to consider
IOJIle limited "I"'''.ion of the Sphere of 1nfJucDc:e.
Chair TllCblll'''- DOted that the p1._i'Ig """"'mlaiOD had 1 copy of John JIammoDd's Jetter to
that effect.
Muriel Watson, 3120 ADdenoD Street, BonIta. showed the Cnmmiuloners IOJIle pictures
which she bad taken the momina after the big nin the previous week. She said she was also
a member of the Sweetwater pl._I'll Board. Their Chairman was at another meeting trying
to protect what they felt was 1 leJitimate co...,mJ"!ty plan. She said Ihe was 1 .,.....,...... of that
#=W'
/cJ,t,ltf
)
"""\
i
"""\
~
~.
I.
te
PC Minutes
-5-
February 22, 1995
board when the plan was updated and submitted to tbe County Board of Supervisors. which they
had accepted and then proceeded to implement and use the priorities that had been instilled into
that plan. She asked if one pl.nniTlg IfOUP was more important than another. SiDcc the
Sweetwater pl.nniTlg Board had submitted its plan. and it was accepted by tbe County. she did
DOt understand why mother group mould come aboard. dismiss their plan, and DOt recognize
their plan. In the handout they had been given. it sounded like in 1985 they were delighted to
be included in the Sphere of Influeuce. She stated that they were DOt. They protested then.
LAFCO held an election. and they elected in the BoDita Sunnyside area DOt to annex to the City
of Chula Vista. Ms. Watson said that the feeling ,....,.ins. and they would hope that their
commuDity plan would be respected just as highly as any other commuDity plan. She said that
it was her impression that although they may be a smaller uDit. in the democratic 1OCiety. that
same smaller uDit's priorities and provisions Ihould be ftspected as much as a bigger and .
broader group. She thought the City of Chula Vista Ihould be in the Bonilll commuDity sphere
of influeuce.
Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, BoDlta. spoke on behalf of the Sweetwater
CommuDity pl.nning Group as a member and in support of tbe letter that the committee had
IUbmitted through the Chairman. Mr. Hammond. He said the llUdy was a hybrid. It excluded
Bonita from consideration. BoDita had voted down ."-YaUon three times. It was DOt going to
be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Roark said tbe Sphere of InflueDl:e took on an
unusual me-nil\g. Chula Vista had made a commitment that there would be DO more
development outside of the first phase of EastLake UDtil there was a DOrtbIsouth corridor from
the second border crossing to the eastern part of the County, 10 there would be 1CCeI. to
development of what was hoped would be the _h............... of the sqlon. Mr. Rout stated thai
it hadn't happened. None of dlat was Iddressed in the report. It was ~emely abort in its
foresight in DOt addressing thole issues. An ...""'ution of these lH.,.-1ies at this time without
lnope1' envbolllllenf1l1. .ceeI~. and roads and movement for die popuJation in. way 1bat would
_M~ die ~. The aboncomiDp were valid. and in this pIrticular JqXlrt, BonitA
Ihould be excluded. It Ihould be considered dlat BoDita DOt be any loD&er in die -Sphere of
lDflueuce- of Chula Vista becaI'", it would aever be a part of die City of Cbula Vista-at least
by die current population. He lUUested that the EIR be oPened up for further public ~.
and the report be referred back to further llUdy before taking any further 1CtioD. Mr. Roark
said a DOrtbIsouth corridor was Deeded in the area that would benefit die uuclt traffic. The
valley between San Miguel and 140ther Miguel was an obvious .......-tVm 1bat did DOt 1akc any
bomes, dlat would have the most ec:oDOJDic ~I't to the C()..Il...111it:y and die least eu.h....lm..nbl
~I't to die um.nl.mity. CalTrans was DOt procw"" at this point with any It'tw'uJes dlat
dIey promised with dlat EIR report. Many of the projects that were on the books DO loD&er had
die appliClJlf$ in business or'dIe landowDers there. J:.ft1Ph..is IIl:C~~ to be put on .......-lb4
die second border c:rwdna DOrth in an easterly IOUte that wU1 provide what was Ill: C tied for that
region and opeDiDa up die uuclt traff'1C DOrth. east, and DOt in downtown San Diego or throuah
the City of Chula Vista except where there is reasonable apeD 1pICC. and DOt back into die City.
These factors were DOt considered anywhere in this report.
No one else wishing to speak. the public hearing was closed.
1-(>'- /-2..'Is-
PC Minutes
-6-
February 22, 1995
Commissioner Sa1as lItated that she rea1i7~-<:I that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss
whether or not to lCCODUDend the inclusion of plAnning Area I, 2, 3, and 4 into the Sphere of
Intluence and not SO much of a discussion of whether Bonita should be removed from the Sphere
of Intluence; however, she thought some of the concerns of the residents should be lDSwered.
In reference to Mr. Stan Waid's coucern in EastLake development causing or exacerbating
flooding in the Bonita Valley, Commissioner Salas asked if there was any back-up d0Cl1mentation
that supports the fact that had indeed occurred. She had been a lifelong resident of this area and
could recall that anytime there were heavy rains, there was floodl11g in that area.
Chair TucblOt'h"1' asked lItaff if EastLake is in the same drainage basin as the Central Creek, or
how that worked from a drainage standpoint.
Mr. Jamriska explained that lItaff was not prepared to answer the question regarding the f1nMi11g
situation.
Chair Tuchscher asked, in reference to the Sphere, if the floodi11g issue was pertinent to the
stUdy and to the p)Annl11g areas on which they were being asked to make a decision.
Mr.' Jamriska Iq)lied that it was a valid question; however, p.upe. Itaff was DOt in .-MA.....e
to answer the question.
Qwnmluioner Salas lItated that she UDderstood no studies had been done, but asked if by
common observation,ltaffhad noticed an increase in the fJonrIl11g. She teeA1IM flooding in the
area in 1982 when she worked in the area. SlACt' J01r.. was not there at the time. .
Chair Tut-)Cl'1v>r Itated that Itaff had iP'ir.tltf'Jd they did DOt bave that type of data. Be Itated
tbat from a Sphere of Intluence and General Plan dAMpnint, this was an EDgineering issue that
involved hydrology and other issues associA.... with OIIIoin& develc.pmeDt and perbIps it could
be better dealt with during a workshop meeting wbereby Growth Management Oversight and the
apIJlopriate staff people would be available to deal with IOIDC of the issues. Chair Tuc1I....ber
COIICIIlJed that the issues tbat were mentioned abould be noted and dealt with at the ",,,"UYliate
lime. He asked if there were other ~.......M!ltlt.
Commissioner Martin _ted there were &ood people who felt Qm1a Vista had treated them
poorly and had not done things that were implied. That W""-' to be their justification for not
baYing anything to do with Qm1a Vista or being within the Sphere of Intluence, Jet the Sphere
of Intluence tea1ly is just a plAnnl11g tool. Be feh more direct input from the residefds would
be more ~. Tbe Sphere of Jnf1ueDCC would be a tool1J8ed to prevenl two or three
agencies from ....1rl11g the same decision over the same piece of "l~ti.
Mr. Jamriska COIICUITed with CmnmlBiQner Martin, ,....I11g that the City could adequately plan
for the future development and exteDSion ofpublic IerVices without any duplication of that effort
by other agencies.
.-f ~/c-
/c:2 ... 1/6
)
""'"
)
""'"
1
~.
PC Minutes
-,-
. February 22, 1995
Commissioner Martin stated that a letter had been received from Mr. John Hammond. He did
DOt agree with some of his statements, and asked bow their concerns could be addressed.
Chair Tuchscber stated that it was within the abilities of the Sweetwater and Bonita Communities
to lobby and apply with LAFCO to be excluded from Chu1a Vista's Sphere abould they decide
to do that. It was DOt within the scope of the pI"nni.,! C'nmmiHion during this meeting to make
that decision or that recommendation to City QJu~U. If they desired to be excluded from Chula
Vista's Sphere, be encouraged those poups to hive that discussion with LAFCO and ascertain
wbether they think it is possible or feasible or economically within reason for them to pursue
that. The task in front of the pI,,""i,,! Cc>mmi.."ion, within the scope of this study, was to look
at the areas mentioned and lDIIlyzed within the study and make a decision IS to what the
Commission should recommend and then follow with the meeting OIl March 14 with the City
Council.
Commissioner Fuller, regarding the DeGraaf parcel in pl,,""i,,! Area 1, the destption ofwhicb
was proposed to be open space, asked if the corridor between the villages was all indicated as
open space and if that was the purpose of designatina the DeGraaf Pl~ opeD space.
Mr. Jamriska DOted that this was the adopted General Development Plan for the City of Chula
Vista, as well as for the County of San Diego. The ploperties to the east, west, and south were
. opeD space and pot_ti"lIy part of the opeD space reserve as part of the Otay Rm:h Project.
:i. Mr. Jamriska IIid it was c:unently rlDnnM by the City's General Plan IS opeD 1pICC, w)Jicb
would allow one dwellin& unit. The Sphere S1udy was DOt proposing to cbaD&e the General Plan
designation. The only addition was that the DeGraaf pl~ty would be h..coJporated into the
City's Sphere of lDf1uence.
Commissioner Ray, regarding pt,,""~ Area 4, asked about a ~ In one of the Ieltcrs
which had been left OIl the dias-tbe issue of p""~ of _nrion. Is there a reason dlat some
of the respondents were ItiIl c:oncemed.
Mr. Jamriska replied that be believed the ",...on_ had been made by the County of San Diego,
Department OfPI,,""i,,! and Land Uae (DPLU). Prior to the CDVirconn~nt'" ~c:t report beiDa
prepared, they received the first llUdy draft of the Sphere of lDf1uence d""''-. Tbe DPLU
had 1Iken the draft report to the Board of Supervisors for ~ dilectiOll to a Board of
Supervisors IUboo'.....~, Tbe Board of Supervisors detcnDined, purIUIIIl to ItIff's
Jel,.o ......"'IIdation, that the Otay Rm:h Sphere of IDf1uence and couespon"i"llY the _ntion,
Ibould occur by SPA by SPA fI'oc:ess Instead of the emire pI""", Area 1,2,3, and 4. Mr.
Jamriska lilted that they made that dcramiDation witbout JnnIrI"I at Illy of die emh.".n_'"
effects of die provision of aervices IS C(.WItA1nNI within die emh._,.-m..' ~l't report. 1bat
IIIDe position ......,,1nNI. Mr. Jamriska lilted dlat Chu1a Vista iliff did DOt epee with dlat. The
purpose beltind rernm....""Ii"l die eutire Otay Valley parcel to be incorporated into die Cbula
Vista Sphere was that iliff could ~l...,erly plan for die provision of utilities. If it is known .that
an area is within Chula Vista's Sphere and will eveJOt'l1"'1y be .-..... to the City of Chu1a.
Vista, adequate provisions could be made for die extension of utilities to aerve dlat parcel. He
felt there were other reasons the County of San Diego wanted to do that on a SPA by SPA basis.
.
-. f ~J /'
/":;'~7
PC Minutes
-8-
February 22, 1995
C.nmmi$sioner Ray asked staff to indicate the location of the Watson 'parCel, and questioned
whether the increase in the use was insignificant. He believed the additioual 200 units was the
cumulative impact over the entire impact of the entire Sphere.
Enviromnental Consultant McIntire concurred, reiterating that it was on a Sphere-wide basis and
there was DO major change.
.---\
;
QnnmiL~ioner Ray repeated that the issue before the Commi~sion was the entire Sphere and the
incIease to the entire Sphere of Chula Vista's boundaries and the impacts Chula Vista bad on
the General Development PIan versus the County's General Development PIan and the Det
increases between those two documents.
Again, Mr. McIntire concurred and noted that there would be subsequent enviromN'!fttJllleView
of tentative maps. There were discretionary actiODS that would 1110w development to occur.
Staff was looking at the programmatic level.
Commissioner Ray stated that specifics would be addressed at a point in time when staff came
forward with a GeDeral Development PIan or a plJlnnM tentative map.
Mr. McIntire answered affirmatively.
C.nmmiuioner Ray, ~&iog to the LAFCO document, stated that there ftl'C IOJDe specific """J
issues they addressed with specific language and typographical errors, or C(of\.l......t~ to those J
effects. He asked if those were going to be specifica1ly addressed in the fiDal cmh.:lnn.....tlll
review report.
Mr. Jamriska stated that staff would respond to 111 ~&nments that were made at the m-ri"l, as
well as the r.nm_~ made by Cmnmi~sioncr Salas, and written C(WIlmf!ftk received.
Cnrnmim.:mer Ray, referring to plllnniTlg Area 4, asked about the dispute on ptllnni,,! Area 4.
Mr. Jamriska answered that the dispute basicl11y centered Il'OIInd the am that is withiD the City
of San Diego. The City of San Diego staff and City CO''''''U IUbcommittee on land use and
houci", took an action that the parcel would best be lCI'Ved from the City of San Diego. The
City of Chula Vista fch that when LaMedia is COIIStnICted, the prime access to the l'&~li and
the ICI'Vic:e of utilities would 111 be from the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Januiska stated that the
parcel is DOt plumed to be developed in the w:ry fOlmnble future, but probably at the end of
the IS-year timespan. Staff felt that it could Iti1I be part of the City of Chula Vista', Spbere.
There were several other parcels which could be resolved in the future, if staff went ahead with
dUs J1&()puNl. Mr. Januiska believed the City MaDqer was da.ilous of beginning dilcussions
and DegotiadODS on those boundary conflicts.
Commicsioner Ray then asked for a clarificadon on tbe 15-year lDIlysis of what the Spbere is.
He laid the influence of the 15-year buUdout was where the Sphere ended its lDIlysis.
"""'\
~/~..l/Y
,e
(e
-
PC Minutes
-9-
Febnwy 22, 1995
Mr. JIJDl'iska stated that was a leneral policy direction that LAFCO aDd Itaff followed.
Commissioner Ray noted that the traffic analysis or specifJCa11y die SR-I25 issue as a DOD-toll
road, Phase 1 of the SR-I25 was only assumed to be adequate'based on those same plaDs for 15
years.
Chair Tul''''''~ replied that was tbe IDterim 125 solution.
Commissioner Ray was c:oncemed with tbe timi'll between tbe bderim aDd tbe permanent SR-
125 between that 12th, 15th aDd 18th year, 1lec:ause of crossing over the threshold. Tbere could
be a major disaster in tbe economy which would cause almost 110 ~opment for die Otay
Ranch aDd the oeed for 125 might dissipate altogether, or there could be a more rapid increase
with facilities being put in aDd an accelerated oeed for 125 coming in. He was UDCOIDfortable
that that issue was being addressed on a worst cue basis of ....4;'" that highway to be built on
. more rapid pace.
Mr. JIJDl'iska respoDded that Itaff was in tbe process of doing transportation model runs as a
result of the specifIC plan submittal for SPA 1 for tbe Otay Ranch project. That would look at
wrious scenarios aDd the CODStI'11CtiOD of interim 125 or perm.- 125 wauld be ODe of tbe
fIctors t8km into consideration. He stated if there was any delay or ~ct, certain otber
improvements would have to occur to resolve any traffIC ~1'tC that may be c&1,-, by tbe
development of tbe SPA I. In addition, tbe City is 1001.1", at IOIDe ~ of phasing for tbe
transportation buUdout of 125. Traffic model information as it relates to SPA 1 aDd tbe effect
on 125 wauld be available when tbe SPA comes before tbe pl.....I'" ('.ftlllmluil)D ~me in
JuDe.
Commiuioner Ray asked if, based on a Sphere 1tUCly, that ........ to be consideRd in tbe
pt.....ifli Commluion's decision for tbe Sphere of IDfluence ItUCly based on tbe fact that that
modeliDg bas not yet concluded.
Mr. Jamriska explained that die Sphere was nothing more than a pl.....i." tool. h did DOt
dJaD&e any of tbe impacts associated with die land use. Tbe same ~1'tC usoei...... with tbe
Otay Ranch were aoiDa to exist, whether. it was in die County or in die City. Mr. JIJDl'iska
believed tbe pl.nni." Cmmniulon could ~oceed without die IDC)&>lhli beiDa done, Ileean... tbe
mode1i", was done already for tbe GeDeral Plan as pan of die GcDml Plan Devel~ Plan
Em. aDd all of that was t8km into consideration. Staff wau1d be revIsitiDi diose model runs
as pan of die SPA, as required by die GDP. At die 91ucnt time, staff was only JoNri", at
en......iD& that pl.....hli tool beyond tbe current sphere to die 1".,..0.04 sphere.
Commiuioner Ray asked If SR-I25 was DOt in a position to be Iluilt. anytbiJlI beyond die
interim facility, aDd there was a atop to ~ or subIequeDt P"--' ofdle Baldwin Ranch,
wauld that ~l't tbe pIoposed influm;:e boi""'.~.
Mr. Jamriska replied ueptively.
1-Yf - /c1J -'If
PC Minutes
-10-
February 22, 1995
~
Chair Tucbscher stated that any future development would be IUbject to all the lI'owth
ordinances currently in place, and the threshold poNIArds, 10 as this developed out, those
"''''''"'ds would apply to each phase, specific plan, tentative map, and at the point where the
City's threshold ..o""orels could DOt be met, development would be stopped. He asked if staff
Concurred.
Mr. Jamriska stated that was correct, whether it be EastLake, Otay Ranch, or San Miguel.
('nmmiC$ioner Tarantino understood the Cnmmic$ion's charge was to approve the inclusion of
certain areas for plonniT1g purposes, DOt to make decisions. He felt they were aeuing into
specifics. He questioned bow the approval of the Sphere of Influence study could impact
somebody's septic tank on two different Pl()pClties.
Chair Tuchsch~ stated that the plonn"" Commic$ion was 1ookin& at a long-term horizon for
a future development, and mo1riT1g lUre that plc.pel plans were in place as that development
proceeds to .rl"nmmodate that development.
Mr. Jamriska stated that with the addition of those areas into the Sphere. it did DOt c:bange any
jurisdictional issues or any legislative representation. Residents of the County prior to this
. meeting would still be in the County. 'Ibey would still be I~l....ented by the County and
receiving their services from the same providers. The c:bange of the Sphere line did DOt c:bange
any of that. Mr. Jamriska again stated that the Sphere was only a plonniT1g tool that staff would ~
be using in the futme to provide urban level of Im'ices.
('nmmiL$ioner Tarantino stated it was an opportunity to look at, DOt' an opportunity to make
decisions, DOt an upyortunity to affect immediate c:bange.
Mr. Jamriska c:oncurred.
Commissioner FuDer remarked that the (l()l"'....-ts from other agencies co-....-...iT1g on the draft
enviJ'cmm""'ol impact report would have to be ~ed to in the final draft. The City of San
Diego, the County of San Diego, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and their concem for
the multi-species conservation plonniT1g area felt that San Diego was the lead qency. and if the
City of Chula Vista included the Otay River Valley portion, things woulcI DOt be the same if this
fell within Cbula Vista', Sphere of Influence. ()wnmiuVmcr Fuller ClODCl1...... that those
qencies involved iD the plonninl of dIat plOJ1'llD have been established and woulcI oo...i...... to
be the same.
Mr. Jamriska apeed and stated dIat the draft MSCP plOJllDl, allUdy done by professional staff,
would be released for public review probably within the next two weeks. The City of CbuIa
Vista, as well as the County of San Diego. bad IUbmitted to the MSCP pl"""ina staff the
boundaries of their General Plan, which is the Otay Ranch plan for the City, as well as the Otay
Ranch plan for the County. The City is basically iD agreement with the County. California Fish .
and Game and Fish and Wildlife stil1 took issue during the public bearings on the General
-..
,
~ /dl..SO
l.
"\.
t.
PC Minutes
-11-
February 22, 1995
Develupment Plan to c:ertain items of Cbula Vista's plan. Mr. Jamriska stated that in the
comspondence received, they still take issue with the General Plan.
CommissioDer FuDer questioDed whether they would take issue with it if it were in the County,
also.
Mr. Jamriska aff'umed.
Commissiouer Willen stated be could see how the County bad made some of their
RCOIIIIDeudations on the update study that was published. He bad compared the draft EIR and
the update study to fmd where some of the differences were and bad also l81ked with staff. It
is a plAnning tool. From the planning tool comes aU of the logistic elements of a plan. He
commeDded staff and the people who bad worked on the draft E1R. He stated it was very
1borough, covered some of the loop holes that were in the update study, and be believed the fmal
would corr= it. He bad doue research through the !.AFCO ~1ItS regarding the time
period, and be believed with the final Em the questiODS and fears regarding the Sphere of
lDfluence would be corrected. Comm;Esiouer Willett disagreed as an individual with the San
J3emardino meridian line dividing the Jake in half which is on Jaue 6 of the Olympic Training
Center. Regarding the MUDSOn ploperty which was in the County corridor, be bad questioDed
who the landfill aupported. Staff bad ltated that 8S~ of that is the South County. A
merDapndt1rn apeement could be worked out. .garding the DeGraaf p.loperty, (:nmmlaiouer
Willett staled be bad questioDed where the light rail would come from, and it would probably
10 through that canyon as pan of the DeGraaf pioperty, and then tie into what would be the
IOUth side of Telegraph Canyon Road, which would be the rail line. He did DOt think that bad
ever been diV"!,"". He offered as a RC()ftImendation that the ~laion adopt the study, the
conceptional ponions of the study itself, and that SIIff be direaed to iDcorporate some of the
items in the LAFCO study.
At Chair "I"""('''''r', suggestion, ('mmn;aiouer Willett moved that the Comm1a1on live staff
direction to prepare a final EIR on the Cbu1s Vista Sphere of Inftuence, E1R.94-03.
Oomm;uinQer Ray -=onded and asked for diV'lssion relative to the San Diego City Plopeny
OIl plAn""'a Area 4.
Mr. Jamrisb staled that the phrase -c1osiD& the public beariDg- IbouJd be iDcJuded u pan of
Ibe motion.
Cmmn;u.loaer Willett COIlhl,Jed.
~lm.-r Ray, reprdina ptannh1J Area 4, the San Dielo City pr...,e.i'ty, asked SIIff to live
Idm pros and CODS if it were include<' in . special study area u opposed to approviDa it u pan
of pIAnni", Area 4.
Mr. Jamriska said !bat oue. of the advantages of recommending to Council !bat it be a special
study area was that it woukl permit staff to begin some bo\JDdllry negotiatioDS with the City of
",C'I
- - /~-S-I
PC Minutes
-12-
February 22, 1995
San Diego not only on this parcel but several other parcels. If a resolution of those issues could ~
occur to the satisfaction of both jurisdictions, then as a special designated area, staff could go
back to LAFCO in the future without going through this lengthy process, and request that they
take action if there is no opposition from the City of San Diego.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff was recommending that as a better avenue for the ptanni'lg
Commission to take at this time.
Commissioner Ray questioDed including it in planni'lg Ala 4 without a ,...-nmm....dation that
on the final EIR it be submitted as a special planni'lg area, if at the time this would go to
LAFCO it became a body disputed issue, they could deny or all'f"'ll the Sphere of Influence
study based on that specifIC parcel.
Mr. Jamriska replied affirmatively. He stated that in light of the City of San Diego City Council
Land Use aDd Housing Committee's action, be thought that would probably be a very
appropriate action for the Cnmmi~~ion to RC""'m....d that LAFCO designate this as a special
study area so that several of the bouDdary disputes could be resolved.
Chair Tue"""""r stated that it is likely that the City of Cbula Vista could get a special study area
aDd resolve some of the other bouDdary disputes for the west, as well as for this ~ issue,
but there was not a high degree of confidence that the Sphere could be upa""~--that LAFCO
would look favorably on an upan~ion of Cbula Vista's Sphere to iDclude planni", Ala 4. In _\
fact, planni", Ala 4 was "-lptf!4 becl1.lM' that mi&ht be the cue, aDd it was IpUt off from l
the others for that JRDPOSC.
Mr. Jamriska said that was ",Irect. During the discussions of the GeDeral Devel....tueJ1t Plan
bearings, there was one issue with the County of San Diego wbero the City of Cbula Vista
wanted planni.,g Area 3 to be iJv't'W'ial, and the County of San Diego WIDIed that to be
mid_tial. Those were the only two diffuences in Cbula Vista's GeDeral Plan. Stat_s
were made by the. City Council durin& that time that if the City of San Diego de-....-ec1 this
property aDd the City of Cbula Vista ._~ed it, the City of Cbula Vista would change their
General Plan back to residential on this portion. Based upon that action and the discussion at
the City Colmeil, staff included the Olay Mesa industrial DOt as an altemative but as a pl.nnl",
Area 4 so that in the likelihood of a IICgative 1eC(IIIIm....d.tion from the City of San Diego, it
would DOt jeopardize action on the OCher 1bree pl.nn~ areas.
CnmmiuioDer Ray asked if the 1..~.I'J 0WDCr, the City of San Diego, bad iMito.at~ rm.......
to inclusion in a special study area, as well, or bad that specific iasue been addressed.
Mr. Jamriska ItIted that the i>l~.I'J 0WDCr is the Ba1cIwin Company within the juriadiction of
the City of San Diego. He noted that when staff spoke before the 1Ubcommiuee, City Manager
Goss suggested that it be made as a specialltUdy area. The Council members in attendance did
DOt respond to that aDd just took an action to RC""''''''1Id to their City C........U that it DOt be
deleted from their corporate limits. It was DOt diseussed, but it was brouJbt up.
"""\
.~/c;)"'~~
--
le
(e
I.
PC Minutes
-13-
February 22. 1995
In respcmse to Chair Tuchsr~. Mr. Jamriska stated that the Baldwin Company bad remained
neutral.
Chair Tuchscher asked. in light of that. did the motion stand or was there poteD1ia1 for mAlri"'g
pIAnn;11g Area 4 a special study area.
Cnmm;ssioner Ray stated that he would like to see the motion ameDded to iDclude only the
highlighted area which feU within the city limits of the City of San Diego.
Chair Tuch$l''''''' asked if that was to be desipstM as a special study area.
Comm;qio~ Willett. as the maker of the initial motion, c:oncurred with that IeC;Om..""""lItion.
Comm;qioner Ray concurred. In addition. be stated that Mr. Jamriska bad pointed out that it
be included along with some other special study areas. Cnmm;R-cioner Ray asked if that would
be a separate action that would have to happen bere?
Mr. Jamriska replied IICgatively. aDd DOted there were other pluperties ill bno'''''A~ disputes.
Chair TucbCl!her asked for the vote.
En'whuuwental Review Coordinator Reid asked that before the pa.nn;", ('........;nlon took action
on that. a fiDal ElR Deeded to be before the Comm;~sion before m.ln", ~._n,,""""atiODS on
the project itself aDd I'IAnn;11g areas aDd their categories.
Attu1tWtY Basil c:oncurred with staff.
Chair Tucbse""" stated that 1he ('nmtn;llC;on Ihould close 1he public heariDi on 1he draft ElR.
uk staff to prepare a fiDal draft ElR. aDd 1hen save 1he rat of 1he let'~tiODS aDd
discussion for March 14th.
Cnmm;.moner Ray asked if ill preparation of the fiDal EDl, staff would iDcJude that as part of
. all the Iludies.
Mr. Jamriska said staff would ,......ny respond to ('nmtnl.mon's discv.sion on 1he issue. aDd
would focus 1he respcmse on plannl11g Area 4 City of San Diego, 10 that would Jive 1he
('.lIIftm;nioners IOIIlC additional facti aDd information.
Commissioner Ray asked what 1he diff~~ was ill 1he recoonn-'.tiftn as It staDds vice
waltiDa for 1he fiDal ElR.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the purpose of1he meetin& was to receive public IeItimony on the draft
CDVUO........"'tal impact report. close the public heariD&, aDd Jive staff direction to prepare the
. 1 .
CD\' dO. ..\\Illlt. impaCt JePO!!-.
-
-f - ~.y
;Q'S-~
PC Minutes
-14-
February 22, 1995
Chair Tuchscher stated that staff would take into ICCOUJIt those comments IJId all the discussion
from both public IJId from the Commission IJId respond to those in both the staff repon and the
(mal document.
'"""\'
Mr. Jamriska said that when that repon is presented to the r.nmmiRSion on March 14, that would
be the proper time to make that motion, basically c:enifying the fiDaI environm....tal impact
tepOn and then taking action on the Sphere of Influence repon itself. Tbat would be where the
Commic$ion could modify the boundaries.
Commissioner Ray concluded that this piece was to be included on the fiDaI EIR as it was
currently presented, IJId then wait to make recom""""'ation only at the point of the 'fiDaI EIR,
after the public bearing is closed on the fiDaI EIR, rather than come forward with an EIR that
states that the planni'1g CommiE$ion wanted that in a special study area.
Chair Tuc:hlCbn' clarif"Jed that staff would respond to the discussion by the planning Commic~ion
in the staff repon and in the (mal docmr.eJ)t.
Commissioner Ray stated that staff would make a determination as to whether it would make
ICJISC to make it a special study area IJId come forward with that recommt""ation at that time.
Mr. Jamriska answered affirmatively.
Attomey Basil asked that the motion be restated,
,)
'P.!iIT A TEMENT OF MOTION
Motion that the pI..nnll'l1 Commlulon dose the pubUc beIrin&. and direct ltafl'to prepare
the IInaI enl'lroDJDeDtaI impact repol1uswrrin& all of the e-nnftltl fram both the pubUc
and the pI..nnln. C......mlcdou.
VOTE: 7.0 to .ppnm
ITEM 2:
PUBUC HBARlNG: GPA-94-0S: CONSIDERAnON OF 11IE ADOPTION
OF A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO 11IE GENERAL PLAN
Principal Plumer Bazzel pllJIDted the staff Iep01t, DOIiD& that the E.1~ was ...."""''''' to
provide a policy framework for adequate childcare facilities within the City. A public workshop
bad been held in January where the Child Care Cnmmluion IJId staff received MWnments. Tbe
Parks &; Recreation Commlu\on bad fully endorsed the FJement. Staff JeC;().....JoJl'1e<l that the
PI.nnl", Commlcsion adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend to the City Colt""i1 the
8doptiOD of the proposed Child Care FJement. Mr. Bazzel DOted that the pl.nnl." C-lc$ion
bad received a Jetter from Mr. Bruce Sloan of the Ea.stI.ab Company, who was in attendance,
and he stated also that members of the Child Care Cnmmlcsion who were actively involved in
the preparation of the FJement were p.escn1.
-.....
~
/01' ~If
,
.
COUNCIL INFORMA nON MEMO
March 21, 1995
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Cit: Councr? Planning Commission
John Goss, City Manager-._){( ?t{~y"A
Gerald 1. Jamriska, Special Planning Proje roject
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Sphere ofInfluence Update Study Final Program (Second Tier)
Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR)
At the request of the Otay Ranch Special Planning Projects Manager. the public hearing
on the Sphere of Influence Update Study and the associated General Plan amendments and
the FPEIR were continued for one week to March 21, 1995 in order to resolve issues with
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
.
1. Addendum No.2
The City released the FPEIR for the Sphere Update Study on March 14, 1995. In
accordance with State law, copies of the FPEIR were provided to all public agencies that
commented on the Draft PEIR. LAFCO staff expressed several concerns regarding the
content of the response to their public service comments prepared by the City and
contained in the FPEIR. As a result of the concern expressed by LAFCO, City staff met
with LAFCO representatives over the last ten days to resolve concerns raised by LAFCO.
The attached Addendum No.2 to the FPEIR represents the responses to LAFCO staff's
comments as agreed upon by both the City and LAFCO. LAFCO staff has agreed that the
content of the response to public service comments are adequate.
2. Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
Also attached is the revised Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitiijation
Measures of the Findings of Fact for the FPEIR to reflect the cumulative impacts of the
non-Otay Ranch parcels. This document is an insert into the proposed Findings for the
Sphere Update Study distributed last week. The document will replace the version of
Section XI that appeared in the original version of the Findings that staff distributed to the
Council and Commission last week. A complete copy of the revised proposed Findings of
Fact are also attached.
.
The reason staff has revised Section XI of the proposed Findings is to ensure that the City
fulfills its duty to mitigate, to the extent feasible, the Project's significant environmental
effects. Staff adapted the mitigation measures listed in the new version of Section XI from
the mitigation measures adopted by the Council when it approved the Otay Ranch project.
The thinking behind this approach is that mitigation measures addressing the significant
cumulative impacts of the Otay Ranch should likewise apply to the non-Otay Ranch
properties within the Sphere Update Study area.
,/
/c2'- 537
.
.
.
Council Information Memo
March 21, 1995
Page 2
The Program EIR concludes that the SOl Update will contribute to cumulatively
significant impacts to land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, biological resources,
agricultural resources, mineral resources, transportation/circulation/access, air quality and
noise. As a result of this conclusion, the City must incorporate into the SOl Update all
feasible mitigation measures available to substantially lessen or avoid those impacts.
When the Council approved the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, it incorporated into the project a
number of mitigation measures intended to address these same impacts. As a general
matter, these same mitigation measures can be incorporated into the SOl Update. In some
respects, however, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
should not be applied to the SOl Update. This memorandum explains the reasoning behind
deleting or revising certain of the Otay Ranch mitigation measures from the SOl Update.
A. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure concerning
potential land use incompatibility with alternate County landfill sites. (Otay Ranch
Findings, p. 143.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are not
located near any of the County's alternate landfill sites, the SOl Update will not cause this
potential land use incompatibility. Accordingly, this measure should not be incorporated
into the SOl Update.
B. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure concerning
compliance with the County's Dark Sky Ordinance. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145.) The
Ross and Gerhardt parcels are not located near any of the sensitive light receptors for
which the County Ordinance is designed. Accordingly, this measure should be revised to
apply only to parcels within the SOl Update area that may impact sensitive light receptors.
C. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure referring to the
RMP for the Otay Ranch. The RMP was developed and adopted to manage biological
resources on the Otay Ranch. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145-146.) The RMP does not
encompass non-Otay Ranch parcels. Accordingly, this measure should not apply to the
non-Otay Ranch parcels. Instead, the non-Otay Ranch parcels within the SOl Update area
should be required to comply with regional conservation plans (specifically the
MSCP/NCCP), if and when such plans are adopted.
D. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requmng
restoration of disturbed portions of the Otay River Valley. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145-
146.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are not located in the Otay
River Valley, this measure should not be incorporated into the SOl Update.
E. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requiring
preparation of an Agricultural Plan prior to approval of any project affecting on-site
agricultural resources. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 148.) Because the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels are small parcels that do not contain prime agricultural soils,
1.;2 - .5'~
Council Information Memo
March 21, 1995
Page 3
""""
this measure should be revised to make clear that it applies only if agricultural activities
exist at the time the development plan is submitted.
F. The Otay Ranch Findings incorporate a mitigation measure requiring the
incorporation into development plans a series ofland use, siting, design and transportation
measures aimed at limiting air quality impacts. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 150-151.)
Because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are small parcels that cannot
feasibly incorporate all of these measures, this measure should be revised to make clear
that it applies only to the extent feasible in light of the size, location and proposed uses for
the parcel.
3. Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The last attachment is the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which
has been modified to reflect the non-Otay Ranch parcels. The revised program establishes
a program and process to ensure future implementation of the mitigation measures
adopted by the City Council. The program will be incorporated into the Resolution
certifying the FPEIR.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission:
""""
Accept Addendum No. 2 and include it in the Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the
City ofChula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update Study.
Accept Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures and include it
in the Findings of Fact for the Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the City of Chula
Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update Study.
Accept the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and include it in the
Final Program (Second Tier) EIR for the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
Study.
Attachments:
Addendum NO.2 to the Final Program EIR
Section XI. Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
Revised Findings of Fact-Attachment A
Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
~
):2-S?
--
.
.
.
Exha,it 4
Net Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary for Selected Yean
All Development Within the City
T 1995 I 1999 I 2004 'I 2009 I 2014 T 2019 I 2024
CITY
General Fund .
Revenue 380 801 3 024 88S 8528608,1 II 804613 17628 S09 21881031 22 6S8 889
Less Exnenses (484 282) (4 164 062 (9861406) (13 4S8 S87' 11I6 948 466) 1I8 301 247 I (20 084 323
Net IllInact 1I0348n 0139177 1I 332 798) o 6S3 974) 680 043 2 578 784 2 S74 S66
Gas Tu i
Revenue 2S 324 208 204 447.924 S87214 674 646 719281 7SO,79S
Net IllIoact 2S 324 208 204 447924 S87214 674 646 719281 7S0 79S
Combined (78,1S7) (930,973) (884,874) (1,066,760) 1,3S4,689 3,299,06S 3,32S,361
Imnact II
COUNTY ,
,
General Fund
Revenue 348 207 2.608 870 S 44S 491 7479 S97 9 274 7980 10482822 13 114472
Less E 1I40 83S) 0.19796S (2801 991 , (3783418 (4741018) (S 400 991 (6 492 81S
Netlmnact 207 372 I 410 90S 2 643 SOO 3 696 179 4 S33 772 S 081831 6621 6S7
Road Fund
Revenue 27 076 222611 478918.1 627 846 721 328 769 OS I 978 29S
Less E s 0 0 Oil 0 0 0 0
Net Imnaet 27 076 222 611 47891811 627 846 721 328 769 OS! 978 29S
Combined 234,448 1,633,SI6 3,122,418, 4,324,02S S,2SS,loo S,8S0,882 7,S99,9S2
Imnact ,I
~ /..2'33/1Z-~'7
EXlllBIT 5
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 1995
, ~eOR~m
TO: Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay
FROM: A. Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer /AlIIAA
SUBJECT: Respo to Public Comments and Planning . ssioners Regarding the Otay
Ranch Sph of Influence
. d Basin
DRAINAGE ISSUES
Three Bonita residents, Stan Waid,
drainage within the Bonita area ( see
that the Good Shepherd Church at Willo
concerns (see Exlubit "8").
Murial Watson, raised issues relating to
After the hearing a letter from l.K Evans indicated
onita Road had law suits pending relating to drainage
unn
"
and S ~ projects had aeated their drainage problems
. . oner Salas q ;ti~ whether PJlc:tT .alee devdopment caused
. Staffhas re hedtn,e concerns and have the following
,
" ",
.~~'"
The EastLake Salt Creek projects contain 304 acres .thin ~~~ide Drainage
ntribute to Central Creek. The entire basin . 4,~,acres. The 304 acres
7.5% of the basin. When the portion ofEastl I west ~ SR-125 corridor
was devd the City req1!ired the devdoper to construct a . onldesit . basin to
reduce e ultimate 100-year peakflow runotrfrom the devdopmen to trap t
Su ent to the construction of the desilting f8ci1ity, the area east a -125 was evdoped
and ut one-ha1fofthat area drains into the desiltingldetention basin. develo ain
required to reduce the 100-year peakflaw runotrto that which existed . or to
opment.
The residents indicated that the
on Central Avenue. Planning Co
or exacerbated the flooding in the
response:
1.
,
,
In addition to the drainage f8ci1ity mentioned above, the City requires all external opes and
other areas, which will not be devdoped, to be landscaped or hydroseeded to redu erosion.
The EastLake I EIR (which included the Salt Creek I area) contained the following statement
"An additional effect of the project would be to decrease sediment loads in drainages. Due to
development of streets, yards, landscaped areas and drainage system, the amount of silt and
debris produced by the site will be significantly less than with the auTent agricultural use of the
property."
~~~
........
........
........
.
.
.
ADDENDUM NO.2
to the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed
City ofChula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
Case No. 94-03
SCHNo.94041056
Introduction
During the public review period of the Sphere of Influence Update program Environmental
Impact Report (pEIR), the following new information related to the Sphere of Influence Update
Study was identified. While this new information is minor and technical in nature and has no
significant effect on the analysis or conclusions of the PEIR, it is presented here for the reader's
information. Recirculation of the PEIR is, therefore, not required.
Water Service. The City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study (SOl) and Draft EIR
analyzed the potential for providing water service to the Sphere of Influence area. This analysis
focuses on the potential provision of water to the territory by the following entities:
. The Otay Water District
. The City of Chula Vista
. The City of San Diego
. Sweetwater Authority
. A new water agency
The City has determined that, at this point in time, the Otay Water District would be best able to
provide water to the SOl territory. The City makes this determination based on current conditions
and reserves its right to select a different water provider if circumstances change and another
water provider is found to be both capable of providing water services to the territory in a more
efficient and effective manner. The determination whether the City will designate Otay Water
District or another agency as the water supplier shall be made at or about the time a "plan for
providing services within the affected territory" is submitted to LAFCO along with the City's
request for annexation of territory within the SOl. (Government Code ~ 56653)
The reasons why the City finds that Otay Water District is currently best able to provide services
are as follows:
.
Planning Areas I and 3 are currently within the Otay Water District.
/.;2-5~
B-1
. The Otay Water District currently provides service to Chula Vista's Eastern ""'"
Territories immediately north of Planning Area 1 and west of Planning Areas 2 and 3.
. The Otay Water District is a current member of the County Water Authority
Metropolitan Water District and has agreements with the County Water Authority and
Metropolitan Water District to receive water through the state-wide water distribution
system.
. The Otay Water District has an existing water distribution system which provides
water to land adjacent to Planning Areas I, 2 and 3.
. The Otay Water District is in the process of preparing a Water Master Plan to
serve all theOtay Water District including the area within the District's central area which
includes Planning Areas 1 and 3.
. The Otay Water District has an existing reclamation facility and reclaimed water
distribution system in the vicinity of the Sphere Update Area.
For these reasons, the Otay Water District is at this time deemed to be the preferred water
provider for Planning Areas 1, 3, and Planning Area 2, contingent upon annexation of this
Planning Area to the Otay Water District, County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water
District.
""'"'\
Sewer Service. The City of Chula Vista is deemed to be the preferred provider for sewer services
in Planning Areas 1,2 and 3 for the following reasons:
. The City of Chula vista has existing contractual capacity rights within the
Metropolitan Sewer System (Metro) as well as downstream infrastructure to serve the
three Planning Areas. Conversely, the Otay Water District is not well situated to provide
sewer service to the Sphere Update Area because the Otay Water District does not now
possess treatment plant capacity or sufficient contractual rights within the Metro System.
To serve the area, the Otay Water District would need to either purchase capacity rights
or construct a reclamation plant.
. A new sanitation district or other special district is not proposed to be the service
provider for the Update Study Area because it would also need to purchase Metro
capacity or construct a reclamation facility.
. Finally, reliance on Otay Water District or a new district to provide sewer service
to the Sphere Area, if the Sphere Area were eventually annexed into Chula Vista, would
create public policy concerns since LAFCO policy discourages the creation to new special
districts within the boundaries of a municipality.
""""
IIb\water.doc
/;2-:51
B-2
.
XI.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects." (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21083, subd. (b).)
The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR and Findings identified the following cumulative
significant impacts and adopted mitigation measures to address these impacts:
. Land Use (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 143.)
. Landform Alteration (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 143-145.)
. Biological Resources (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 145-146.)
. Agriculture (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 148.)
. Mineral Resources (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 148-149.)
. Transportation/Circulation/Access (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 149-150.)
.
.
Air Quality (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 150-151.)
. Noise (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 151.)
The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR and Findings concluded that, despite the incorporation of
mitigation measures, these impacts are cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. As set forth in the PEffi and in these Findings, on a project-
specific level, this increase in the potential intensity of development of these parcels will not
result in significant environmental impacts. This increase in the intensity of development will,
however, result in incremental contributions to impacts on the environmental resources listed
above. Because the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP will already result in cumulatively significant impacts
to these resources, even a small incremental contribution to those impacts may itself be
cumulatively significant. Accordingly, consistent with its conservative approach towards
analyzing the Project's impacts, the City finds that the Project will contribute to cumulatively
significant impacts to these resources. (Addendum to Final PEIR, Responses to Comments,
response to comment no. 22 to letter from Joseph F. Convery, LAFCO, to Jerry Jamriska
(February 22, 1995).)
A. LAND USE
. Facts:
)e2 -dlJ
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, """'"
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on the regional loss of open space and agricultural land. (Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-9.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant regional loss of open
space and agricultural land. There are no feasible measures that would mitigate this impact
below a level of significance. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 143.) As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development will not,
however, result in potential land-use incompatibilities with the alternate County landfill sites
because these four parcels are not located in the vicinity of these sites.
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will not incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant potential for
land-use incompatibilities with the alternate County landfill sites. This impact is not
cumulatively significant. No mitigation is required.
"""'"
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on the regional change in character from rural to urban development.
(Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-9.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant regional change in
character from rural to urban development. There are no feasible measures that would mitigate
this impact below a level of significance. (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 143-144.) As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. .........
/c2-~ /
.
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on regional landform alteration, creation of manufactured slopes, and
grading of steep slopes. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-13; PEIR, pp. VIII-IS to
VIII-16.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant potential for impacts
to regionailandform alteration, creation of manufactured slopes, and grading of steep slopes.
Changes are required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will substantially lessen, but not
avoid, these cumulatively significant environmental effects. Despite these measures, cumulative
impacts to landform alteration and aesthetics are considered significant and only partially
mitigatable. These impacts, therefore, are considered significant and unavoidable. There are
no other feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate these impacts to below a level of
significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
. Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approving
the Project:
. Development plans for parcels within the City's Sphere Update area shall
implement applicable measures adopted in the Otay Ranch Findings (for example,
the use of contour grading, the implementation of design guidelines, and the
incorporation of planned open space). (See Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 18-24,
144.)
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross
and Gerhardt parcels will not have an incremental impact on impacts from night lighting and
glare because these parcels are relatively small and are not located near any sensitive light
receptors. The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Satterla and Watson
parcels, however, will have an incremental impact on impacts from night lighting and glare.
(Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-13; PEIR, p. VIII-19.)
.
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Satterla and Watson parcels
/2 -.?;Z
will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant potential for impacts from night
lighting and glare. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 144.) Changes or alterations are required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that will avoid this impact.
~
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approving
the Project:
. Development proposals for parcels within the Sphere Update area that may impact
sensitive light receptors shall be required to comply with the County Dark Sky
Ordinance. (San Diego County Code, ~~ 59.101-115.) This requirement shall
apply even if the development proposal is submitted to the City. (Otay Ranch
Findings, p. 145.)
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on key biological resources in southwestern San Diego County. (Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-17; PEIR, pp. VIII-2 to VIII-4.) ~
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant impact on key
biological resources in southwestern San Diego County. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 145.)
Changes are required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will substantially lessen this
cumulatively significant environmental effect. Despite these measures, the cumulative impact
to key biological resources is considered significant and only partially mitigatable. This impact,
therefore, is considered significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation
measures that would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of
approving the Project (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PElR, Volume 2, p. 6-18; Otay Ranch Findings,
pp. 145-146):
.
If and when the MSCP/NCCP is adopted for the area, development plans for
parcels within the Sphere Update area shall comply with the MSCP/NCCP.
""""'"
/J- -?Y
.
.
.
.
Sensitive habitats within the Sphere Update area shall be restored or preserved to
provide mitigation for both the loss of habitat and sensitive species due to
development of the property. Restoration of disturbed habitats will increase the
resource value of the habitat, as well as potentially provide links to key resource
areas on both local and regional levels . Habitat restoration in areas that connect
two or more otherwise isolated key resource areas will allow migration between
sub-populations resulting in more viable populations. Until site-specific
development plans are available, however, precise mitigation plans cannot be
developed. Such mitigation plans shall be developed when applications for
parcels within the Sphere Update area are submitted.
The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP also identified the following mitigation measure:
. Restoration of habitat in higWy biodiverse areas can play an important role in
effectively increasing the population size of sensitive species. Disturbed portions
of the Otay River Valley will be restored back to an intact riparian habitat, which
will allow for an increase in the number of least Bell's vireo breeding pairs that
will utilize the expanded habitat. Restoration of Diegan coastal sage scrub
habitats will potentially contribute to the maintenance of the California
Gnatcatcher population on Otay Ranch, and disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat
adjacent to areas currently utilized by cactus wren could be restored with
maritime succulent scrub in order for the cactus wren population to expand.
The City finds that this mitigation measure would not address impacts associated with the Project
because the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and Watson parcels are not located within the Otay River
Valley and do not contain least Bell's vireo habitat.
D. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. Although none of these parcels contain prime soils, they either can
or could support agricultural activities, including cattle grazing and small grain production. This
increase in the potential intensity of development may have an incremental impact on the
regional loss of agricultural land. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-35; PEIR, pp.
IV.B-ll to IV.B-13.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant regional loss of
agricultural land. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 148.) Changes are required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that will substantially lessen this cumulatively significant environmental effect.
Despite these measures, the cumulative impa<;t to agricultural resources is considered significant
and only partially mitigatable. This impact, therefore, is considered significant and unavoidable.
);2 orb if
There are no other feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate this impact to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
~
Mitigation Measures:
The mitigation measures outlined in Section VIII of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR are
feasible and are required as a condition of approval of the Project. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
PEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-35.) These measures are:
. Prior to the approval of any project involving parcels within the Sphere Update
area affecting existing, on-site agricultural activities, an Agricultural Plan shall
be prepared by the project applicant. The Agricultural Plan shall: (i) identify all
existing agricultural uses on the site; (ii) indicate the type of agricultural activity
(if any) allowed as an interim use; (iii) provide specifications to include buffering
guidelines designed to prevent potential land use interface impacts related to
noise, odors, dust, insects, rodents, and chemicals that may accompany
agricultural activities and operations; and (iv) provide adequate buffering between
the proposed development area and the interim agricultural use. Buffering
measures shall include: (i) a 200-foot distance between property boundaries and
agricultural operations; (ii) if permitted interim agricultural uses require the use
of pesticide, then limits shall be set as to the time of day and the type of pesticide """'\
application that may occur; (iii) use of vegetation along the field edges adjacent
to development that can be used for shielding (Le., com); (iv) notification of
adjacent property owners of potential pesticide applications; and (v) use of
fencing. The City Planning Department shall review the Agricultural Plan to
verify that the proposed plan is adequate to prevent significant interface impacts
from occurring.
· Prior to the approval of any project involving parcels within the Sphere Update
area adjacent to existing agricultural uses, landscaping and buffering guidelines
shall be incorporated into development plans.
E. MINERAL RESOURCES
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on the loss of aggregate mineral resources. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR,
Vol. 2, p. 6-36.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
""""
,
/02~t.S-
.
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant loss of aggregate
mineral resources. (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 148-149.) Changes are required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that would avoid this cumulatively significant environmental effect.
These measures may prove to be infeasible. Because these measures may prove to be infeasible,
the cumulative impact to mineral resources is considered significant and unavoidable. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures:
The mitigation measures adopted in the Otay Ranch Findings and the GDP/SRP PEIR
are required as a condition of approval of the Project. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Volume
2, p. 6-37; Otay Ranch Findings, p. 149.) These measures are:
. To the extent feasible, compatible land uses shall be developed in areas where
mineral extraction would likely occur.
. To the extent feasible, project phasing shall allow for mineral extraction before
conflicting development occurs.
F. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION/ACCESS
. Facts:
.
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on transportation/circulation/access. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol.
2, p. 6-41.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant impacts to
transportation/circulation/access. (Otay Ranch Findings, pp. 149-150.) Changes are required
in, or incorporated into, the Project that would substantially lessen these impacts. Because these
measures would not fully avoid these impacts, however, cumulative impacts to
transportation/circulation/access are considered significant and unavoidable. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures:
The mitigation measures adopted in the Ot/ly Ranch Findings are required as a condition
of approval of the Project. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-41; Otay Ranch
Findings, p. 150.) These measures are:
/:2-~~
· Any project within the Sphere Update area shall meet or exceed the traf~
standards set forth by the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code sectiL_
19.09.040(1).
· Any project within the Sphere Update area shall construct appropriate
improvements and contribute its proportionate share towards construction of
regional facilities.
G. AIR QUALITY
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact on air quality. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, pp. 6-41 to 6-42.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satterla and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant impacts to air
quality. (Otay Ranch Findings, p. 150.) Changes are required in, or incorporated into, the
Project that would substantially lessen these impacts. Because these measures would not fully
avoid these impacts, however, cumulative impacts to air quality are considered significant and '""""
unavoidable. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures:
The mitigation measures adopted in the Otay Ranch Findings are required as a condition
of approval of the Project. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43; Otay Ranch
Findings, pp. 150-151.) These measures are:
· The City shall implement public transit and trip reduction programs, and shall
require that housing and building plans are designed to minimize air pollutant
emissions. It is a policy of the City to require applicants to participate in these
strategies.
· The City shall require project applicants within the Sphere Update area to:
contribute their fair share to LRT, and
incorporate into their development plans all feasible measures developed
by the County of San Diego in the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)
in response to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA).
~
,
/,)-"'7
.
.
.
.
The City shall require applicants within the Sphere Update area to incorporate
into their development plans the following measures, to the extent feasible in light
of the size, location and proposed uses for the parcel:
Land Use
Neighborhood shopping and personal services adjacent to residential areas
to minimize auto trips and reduce mileage traveled to service areas.
Open space and recreational facilities within or adjacent to the residential
areas.
Employee services within walking distance (i.e., banking, child care,
restaurants, etc.).
A balanced mix of housing and employment possibilities to reduce trips
and vehicle miles traveled.
Sitinl!/Desil?n
The avoidance of potentially incompatible projects (for example, a
residential development near one of the quarries or the landfill).
Dedicated bike lanes to encourage use of bicycles.
Bicycle storage facilities at employment and retail centers.
Shower and locker facilities at offices to encourage bicycle use.
Sidewalks and curbs to ensure safe pedestrian travel within residential
areas and to commercial centers.
Street designs that promote pedestrian safety (L e., safe islands in center
of major arterials, "Walk" signals, night lighting, etc.).
Shopping centers oriented to promote use by mass transit (Le., provide
bus turnouts, pedestrians, and bicyclists).
Parking lots designed to promote use of mass transit and car pools.
The installation of heat transfer modules on gas-fired furnaces to control
emissions of NOx.
Solar heating to heat water for domestic use and for swinuning pools.
Advances in solar technology in the future may make other applications
appropriate.
j.2-tf g/
Low-NOx residential and commercial water heaters.
~
Enhanced energy efficiency in building designs and landscaping plans.
Identify an environmental coordinator to be responsible for education and
disseminating information on ride-sharing and/or mass transit
opportunities, recycling, energy conservation programs, etc.
TransDortation-related Manaeement Actions
Land for transit support facilities such as bus stops, park-and-ride lots,
etc. shall be provided. A determination to dedicate land shall be made in
consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Development Board
(MTDB).
Amenities to increase convenience and attractiveness of transit stops (Le.,
passenger staging areas, waiting shelters, etc.) shall be provided.
Demand-responsive traffic signals shall be negotiated.
An agreement with the transit agency to institute new routes or express
bus service, or to expand existing service, related to the demand caused
by the Project shall be negotiated. ~
Fair share participation for transit facilities and operation shall be
required.
Compliance with Air Pollution Control District Indirect Source Control
Program, if adopted, shall be required.
Major employers shall provide ride-sharing or mass transit incentives.
H. NOISE
Facts:
The Project will increase the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt,
Satterla and Watson parcels. This increase in the potential intensity of development may have
an incremental impact the exposure of residential and other noise-sensitive land uses to vehicular
noise levels exceeding local noise standards. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Vol. 2, p. 6-43.)
Finding:
The increase in the potential intensity of development on the Ross, Gerhardt, Satteria and
Watson parcels will incrementally contribute to the cumulatively significant noise impacts. (Otay """'\
Ranch Findings, p. 151.) Changes are required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would
102 ~& 1
.
.
.
substantially lessen these impacts. Because these measures would not fully avoid these impacts,
however, cumulative noise impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures:
The mitigation measures adopted in the Otay Ranch Findings are required as a condition
of approval of the Project. (Otay Ranch GDP/SRP PEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43; Otay Ranch
Findings, p. 151.) These measures are:
. Future acoustical studies shall be required for residences and other noise sensitive
land uses exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater for all projects
within the jurisdiction of the agency.
. Future acoustical studies shall be required for Least Bell's Vireo habitat and
California Gnatcatcher habitat exposed to noise levels of 60 DBA Leq or greater
for all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency.
.
Noise attenuation techniques, such as construction of walls and/or earthen berms
between sensitive uses and significant noise sources shall be required to achieve
standards. Site planning techniques shall include, to the extent feasible and
applicable, the following:
Place commercial uses adjacent to the high noise roadways such as
Heritage Road, Orange Avenue, Otay Valley Road, Paseo Ranchero, and
State Route 125.
Place less noise-sensitive land uses on parcels closest to significant noise
generators such as the Nelson and Sloan Mining Operation, the Daley
Quarry, the Otay Landfill, and adjacent to the various industrial activities
and other quarry operations.
Increase the distance from the noise source to sensitive receptors by
creation of setbacks.
Place noise-sensitive land uses outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour of
roadways.
Place non-noise senslUve uses such as parking lots and utility areas
between the noise source and receiver.
Orient usable outdoor living space such as balconies, patios, and children
play areas away from roadways.
.
Noise barriers such as walls and earthen berms shall be used to mitigate noise
j;2-7tJ
from ground transportation sources when setbacks are not feasible. To be
effective, a barrier shall block the line-of-sight from the source to the receiver.
A barrier shall also be of solid construction (e.g., masonry) without holes or gaps
and be long enough to prevent sound from passing around the ends. A
site-specific acoustical analysis shall be required to determine the proper height
and placement of a barrier.
""""".
. An interior acoustical analysis shall be required for all residential buildings
located within the 60 CNEL noise contour to ensure that the building's design
limits the interior noise level to 45 CNEL or below. The analysis shall be
conducted by a qualified acoustician upon submittal of building plans. Careful
consideration shall be given to the placement of doors and windows.
Construction techniques such as heavy-pane or double-pane windows shall be
required to increase the sound insulation within a room. If it is necessary to close
windows to control interior noise, an alternative means of ventilation such as heat
pumps or a forced air unit is required to meet the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
5020865.009
""'""'\
"""""
);2 -?/
~/CY-..
Basis of Analysis
IDDDDDDDDom
. The Project
- Sphere of Influence Update
- General Plan Amendments
. Change of Sphere Boundary has minimal effect on
ultimate land use
- County and City land use plans essentially the same
- Environmental impacts of ultimate development
generally independent of land use jurisdiction
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/2 ~ ?.J--
Basis of Analysis (continued)
IDDDDDDDDom
. Incorporation by Reference
- Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR
. - General Plan Program EIR
. Focal Point of Analysis
- Planning areas of the Sphere ofInfluence Update
- Parcels not included in Otay Ranch GDP/SRP that
could be developed with a higher land use intensity
under City jurisdiction (Gerhardt, Ross, and Watson)
- Parcels that are outside current General Plan
boundary and would have increased development
intensity under City jurisdiction (Satterla)
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
J..2 .-- 7 :J
Major Issues
IDDDDDDDDom
. Land Use
Minimal change in land use intensity
>> Increase of 162 dwelling units
>> Increase of 47 acres of commercial
>> Increase of 157 acres of industrial
>> Increase of 229 acres of open space
Compatible with LAFCO criteria
>> Demonstrated need for urban services in next 15
years
>> Sufficient public services capacity to meet future
demand
No significant change in MSCP implication
No significant land use compatibility issues
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/;2.- ?t(
Major Issues (continued)
IDDDDDDDDom
. Agriculture
- No change in impacts within Otay Ranch with
Sphere update
- Non-Otay Ranch parcels do not possess prime
agricultural soils and do not support substantial
agricultural operations
. Public Services
- No significant change in demand for service with
Sphere update
- Extensive public facilities financing and
implementation plans incorporated into Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP
- Conformance with General Plan Quality of Life
Standards
- Exclusion of Planning Area 2 from the MWD and
SDCW A service areas not a significant impact
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/02-7~
Major Issues (continued)
IDDDDDDDDom
. Fiscal
- Not technically an environmental issue since no
significant physical changes in the environment
would occur
- Fiscal analysis concludes that there would be no
long-term financial hardship placed on either the
County or City
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
J;2 -7?
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
IDDDDDDDDDm
. Land Use
- Impact
>> Loss of Open Space/Agriculture
Mitigation
>> None
. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
Impact
>> Alteration of rural character
>> Landform modification
>> Night lighting
- Mitigation
>> Conformance with Otay Ranch Design Guidelines
>> Implementation of Otay Ranch open space
. Biological Resources
Impact
>> Loss of sensitive resources
- Mitigation
>> Conformance to MSCP/NCCP
>> Restoration of Otay River Valley
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/02 - /7
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
IDDDDDDDDom
. Agriculture
- Impact
>> Loss of potential agricultural land
Mitigation
>> Preparation of agricultural plan
. Mineral Resources
- Impact
>> Removal of land from potential extraction
Mitigation
>> Early extraction of resources
. Transportation! Access
Impact
>> Traffic volumes
Mitigation
>> Concurrent road improvements
>> Fee contributions
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/.J. ~?r
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
IDDDDDDDDom
. Air Quality
- Impact
>> Regional air emissions
- Mitigation
>> Implementation of RAQS tactics
. Noise
- Impact
>> Traffic noise
- Mitigation
>> Project design
>> Noise attenuation barriers
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/:2-77
ALTERNATIVES
IDDDDDDDDom
. No Project
- Retains 1985 Sphere boundary
.. - No substantial change in environmental effects
. Exclusion of Planning Area 2
- Identified due to the areas exclusion from regional
water service areas
- No change in land use potential, therefore no change in
environmental impacts
- No environmental benefit
. Exclusion of Planning Area 4 (considered but rejected)
- No environmental benefit
. Exclusion of County Landfill (considered but rejected)
- Create county island
- No environmental benefit
. Exclusion of landfill, Village 3 and P A 4 (considered but
rejected)
- No environmental benefit
. Offsite (considered but rejected)
- Fails to meet basic project goals
LMA
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
/.:< ----'151J
CEQA Findings ----- see C095-030
Mitigation Monitoring ----- see C095-031
statement of Overriding Conditions ----- see C095-032
a-H
Bonita Highlands
Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 458
Bonita, CA 91908-0458
March 13, 1995
Mayor and Council
city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
Study
The Bonita Highlands Homeowners' Association, a planned
unit development of 667 individual homes located to the
north and west of the proposed expanded sphere of
influence, is unable to support this concept, without some
compensation and or correction of the impact these
additional annexations will have on our community.
The surrounding developments of Long Canyon, Eastlake, and
most recently Salt Creek have impacted our community with
increased vehicular traffic and speeding, which has
significantly lowered property values in our community,
and more importantly the flow of silt loaded rainwater
from Eastlake and Salt Creek north and west of H Street.
This silt, primarily from runoff from newly graded lots,
has run down Central Creek, into and through a lot owned
by our association, has accumulated on this and adjoining
lots as well as a box culvert (county property) under
Central Avenue.
As a result of this silt buildup, on February 18, 1993,
during a rainstorm similar to ones we've had recently, the
normally dry creek overflowed causing considerable damage
to the homes along Central Avenue and surrounding streets.
We, as owners of this lot, were cited by the county for
"Violation of the Watercourse Ordinance", since in their
eyes the silt buildup caused the overflow to occur. The
county cleaned out the box culvert, we, and the adjoining
homeowners' association cleared our respective
watercourses at considerable expense. Our costs were
approximately $20,000 and our neighbors approximately
$10,000.
The recent rains have again added approximately one foot
of silt to our basin and more importantly, central Creek
has again overflowed upstream, due to an oversight on the
part of the planners and developers to mitigate the
increased flow of rainwater from newly developed areas
through Central Creek to the Sweetwater River running
through the Chula Vista Golf Course.
/02 -JY.;L
;J~
- 2 -
We, along with the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and
the Sweetwater Valley civic Association, request that the
Chula Vista examine past annexations and developments with
respect to the significant negative impacts on neighboring
communities.
The annexation and approval of the Otay Ranch development,
while it may not impact the flow of rainwater through
Bonita Highlands, will most definitely have a negative
impact on our lifestyle and property values. Without the
proper infrastructure for north-south traffic flow being
in place prior to development, we will be severely
impacted by this and the other areas suggested for
annexation.
It is therefore requested that already approved
developments be reviewed and that the conditions cited
above be corrected before any further developments be
annexed or approved.
/cJ.-8";J
:til"
Seuedev4&/t, "1/atklf elute ~~~(;at((ue
'P.t). &4: 232. ~"c't'.. (!J'I 919()r:-()232
March 13, 1995
Mayor and Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update
Study
The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, in existence
since 1949, whose goal has been to work toward a safe and
agreeable community environment, is unable to support the
concept of an expanded sphere of influence, without some
compensation and or correction of the impact these
additional annexations will have on our community.
The surrounding developments of Long Canyon, Eastlake, and
"most recently Salt Creek have impacted our community with
increased vehicular traffic through our community.
The flow of silt loaded rainwater from Eastlake and Salt
Creek north and west of H Street, primarily from runoff
from newly graded lots, has run down Central Creek, into
and through the valley and has accumulated on lots in the
unincorporated area as well as under a box culvert (county
property) under Central Avenue.
As a result of this silt buildup, on February 18, 1993,
during a rainstorm similar to ones we've had recently, the
normally dry creek overflowed causing considerable damage
to the homes along Central Avenue and surrounding streets.
Owners of these lots, were cited by the county for
'Violation of the Watercourse Ordinance', since in their
eyes the silt buildup caused the overflow to occur. The
county cleaned out the box culvert, and the adjoining
property owners cleared their respective watercourses at
considerable expense.
The recent rains have again added approximately one foot
of silt to our basin and more importantly, central Creek
has again overflowed upstream, due to an oversight on the
part of the planners and developers to mitigate the
increased flow of rainwater from newly developed areas
through Central Creek to the Sweetwater River running
through the Chula Vista Golf Course.
We, along with the Sweetwater Community Planning Group
request that Chula Vista examine past annexations and
developments with respect to the significant negative
impacts on neighboring communities.
J2-ff'1
- 2 -
The annexation and approval of the Otay Ranch development,
while it may not impact the flow of rainwater through our
valley, will most definitely have a negative impact on our
lifestyle and property values. Without the proper
infrastructure for north-south traffic flow being in place
prior to development, we will be severely impacted by this
and the other areas suggested for annexation.
It is therefore requested that already approved
developments be reviewed and that the conditions cited
above be corrected before any further developments be
annexed or approved.
Sincerely Yours:~
c..~..;...~
Ernie Schnepf
President
J.,2~ff~
jJ/~
lA[F~~
Chairwoman
Or. linen Fromm
PublIc Member
Members
Dianne Jacob
County Board of
Supervisors
BID Horn
County Board of
SUpeMsors
Shirley Horton
Mayor, City of
Chula VIsta
Joan Shoemaker
Mayor, City of
EI Cajon
Harry Mathis
Coun_r. City of
San Diego
Dr. uman M. Childs
Hellx Water District
John Sasso
PTeslden~ Borrego
Water District
Alternate Members
Pam Slaler
county Board of
Supervisonl
Julianne Nygaard
Councllmember. City of
Carlsbad
Juan Vargas
Deputy Mayor, City of
San Diego
Ronald W. Wootton
Vista FIl8 Protecllon District
David A. Perkins
Public Member
executive Officer
MIchael D. OIl
Counsel
Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr.
1600 Pacific Highway. Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 . (619) 531-5400
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
March 21, 1995
Mayor Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Chairman William Tuchscher
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT: City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Final EIR
Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council and Planning
Commission:
This letter is intended to provide information on the San Diego Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) sphere of influence update
process and expand on some of the issues raised in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City's sphere of
influence update.
Over the past several months, LAFCO staff have worked closely with
City staff and the Otay Ranch Project Team to ensure that the EIR for
the sphere of influence update will be adequate for LAFCO's use as a
responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Our major concerns in the EIR regarding public services appear
to be resolved in the Addendum to the Final EIR (Addendum No.2).
Chula Vista staff have shown diligence and good faith in adequately
responding to the public services issues that we have consistently raised
during preparation of the environmental document.
Following finalization of the sphere EIR and submission of the City's
sphere update study, LAFCO staff will conduct its review of the
proposal. As part of our review process, we will solicit comments and
meet with affected agencies, community groups, and intere.sted citizens.
/,;2~YJ
Mayor Shirley Horton
Chairman William Tuchscher
March 21, 1995
Page Two
We will also schedule the City's proposal for review by our Cities and Special Districts
Advisory Committees. After our staff review is completed, we will prepare a report
and recommendation for our Commission and schedule the item for a public hearing.
As you already know, LAFCO has the authority to approve, deny, or modify the City's
sphere proposal. This decision will be based on both the conclusions set forth in the
EIR and the justification provided in the City's sphere proposal. It is anticipated that
a LAFCO hearing can be scheduled approximately six months after the proposal is
submitted. We understand the critical need to process the sphere update in a timely
manner and we will expedite our review as much as possible.
We look forward to continuing our close working relationship with City staff as we
conduct our staff review of the City's proposal. If you have any questions regarding
this letter or other matters related to LAFCO, please feel free to contact me, or Joe
Convery at 531-5400.
Respectfully,
4JIU
MICHAEL D. OTT
Executive Officer
MDO:JFC:hm
H:\JOElCV-SOll.L TR
/;2-Y?
-;J J;(
',;....:...
~J, ,,; I 3 1995
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
March 9, 1995
John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President Dear John:
Jim Weaver
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
President Elect
Greg CJX
Vice Presidents:
Renee Bute
Steve Coil ins
Chns LewIs
Dave Warn
Members:
Patricia Barnes
JoAnne Clayton
Mike Green
Susan H erney
"'7"eresa HiCKok
Tom :\1cAndrews
Scott Mosh8r
Gar/ ~Jorastrom
ROber:: r-::lenner. MD
Ben hi,:~,,;ardson
FranK Scott
Mary Anne Slro
BOD Thomas
Brad Wilson
Past President
Diane :=l~nt
Executive Director
Rod DavIs
The Chula Vista Chamber has reviewed the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report, City ofChula Vista Sphere of Influence
Update and the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study.
The Chamber is concerned about the County Staffs interpretation of
the study, which removes three quarters ofOtay Lake and certain key
parcels in the approach and adjacent to the landfill. Care, we feel, must
be taken to ensure that we do not lose these key sections in the heart of
the territory we may, at some future date, wish to annex.
The area adjacent to Otay Lake - where Baldwin Company is
intending to build a world class 800 room resort - must remain within
the City's sphere of influence, and it is the revenue producer, which
compensates for the cost in taking on additional residential property in
the annexation process. The resort will be a major income producer,
and it must come with the residential segments, which are income
drains.
It is important for the City to control the type of development that
occurs adjacent to our industrial areas and that is developed over the
land-fill site. Please feel free to contact the Chamber if we can be of
additional service.
Sincerely,
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
>40'!tJ'tfL}(-,\
(f ~es L. Weaver
....-ftesident
JLW:ce
cc:
Mayor
City Council
Supervisor Greg Cox
);2 -817'
,\ is;A.':ALIF,::,RNI'\'~1-,, .~f
I '" , ~}, .t? r: - (: 6 r I
/t
__/ .rr_ "--,
ACCREDITED
CI1.A"U.O'COOI"!""'t
... nUlif'oild I" (1""lIllIIlli/lJ (~miN
I' 6
i"U-\r\
10595 JAMACHA BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 91977
TELEPHONE: 670-2222. AREA CODe 619
March 16, 1995
Mr. Gerald J. Jamriska
Special Planning Project Manager
Otay Ranch Project Office
City of Chula Vista
315 Fourth Avenue, suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: FPEIR 94-03: Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Study
(FN 3903)
Dear Mr. Jamriska:
Although otay Water District (OWD) has received private informal
assurances from the city of Chula vista that it would be the
water provider for the otay Ranch, the EIR is ambiguous in this
regard and designates the City of Chula vista as an alternative
provider. There are severe adverse environmental impacts which
must be considered as part of the EIR if this alternative for
water service is to be included at this time.
Chula vista does not have to list itself as an alternative water
provider in order to preserve its rights in the future. Desig-
nating Otay as water provider does not constitute a waiver of any
rights. If, in the future, the City wished to take over water
services, it could do so but it would presumably consider the
environmental consequences of such an action at that time. If
the City wants to list itself as an alternative provider now, it
should include the environmental impacts of that alternative now
in its current EIR.
If Chula vista exercises the option to provide water service, it
would split the otay Water District into two noncontiguous areas
with an area in between served by Chula vista. Instead of an
integrated district with the ability to shift water from one area
to another during times of shortage, there would be two separate
districts: a splintered Otay Water District and a district
served by the City. This would require more connections to the
aqueduct, more pipelines and more storage. Inevitably, the con-
struction and maintenance of these pipelines and other facilities
will result in impacts on and potential loss of habitat for gnat
catchers and other endangered species.
);2 - J(
Mr. Gerald J. Jamriska
Page Two
March 16, 1995
In listing the City of Chula vista as an alternative water pro-
vider, the EIR has failed to take into consideration any of the
environmental consequences of this alternative. CEQA requires
that all potential adverse impacts of a project be considered
prior to approval of a project. In this regard, the FPEIR 94-03
is inadequate.
Very truly yours,
~ d~"
Keith Lewinger ~
General Manager
KL/nes
):2 - 70
"LpUIICU. ",, '-'Of If, I~~:J I/;U9
To: Gerald .Jarnrisl<a
I
Pages (including this olle): 3 Sent at: Mon, Mflr 20, 1 995 OB:~O
Page:
"
~
From: Chul3 Vi:::ta Ch3rntler af Comrnerce
Prepar 81j;
Fri. Mar 17.199517:09
n Simplified look at Pruperty Tall, Urban IIlanning and Rnnellation
By Rod Oauis
On 16 March I had the opporluni!,j to attend an update session un
the Olay Ranch Project presented by I 1m Kilkenny of the Baldwin Company
and his staff. One of the items discus!,ed was the Sphere of Influence
Study Update, which is the first step in tile annellation process.
There are not many points of cJntention in this stUdY, but there are
two which merit careful reuiew. One is the recommended ellclusion 0 f the
Otay Ranch Ilesort area as proposed by County Staff. I made the comment
that residential property does not pay its way, and it is critical that
cummercial/retail deuelopment aHompany any residential annell<ltion.
Some uery smart peuple who I respect told me that I was wrong. So I set
out tUday to find out the real story, and thanks to George Krempl, Bob
Powell and Gerald Jamriska - all of the City staff - and especiallfl1en
Moore this is what I haue learned, By thl! way, lhis is not meanl to be a
complete Dr technical effort bllt instead a plain language, simplified
approilch. Rt a minimum, I hope this approar:h will cause you to ask the
ellperts Questions. I haue also included a resuurce telephone list at the
conclusion.
T11ere is a computer prugram called F I NO (Fiscal I mpact of New
Oeuelopment), which is used by the city to determine what new
deuelopment will consume in terms of city seruices and what t,le pruperty
taK reuenue will be. I n the first years when the trees are sm...I and the
streets are new there is a small surplus of property tall oller .:ost. After
ten years, when the roads, curbs and gutters need repair, th/! sewers need
cleaning and the trees need pruning, your cost far eKceeds ',he pruperty
taK reuenue. I t is this mudel, which the city uses to detf~rm,ne how much
industrial/commercialdeuelopment is needed to offsl!t the cost of
residential property seruices. In the case of [astlake, thr estimated cost
of seruices was determined and based on that estimate I/~ss the projected
property taK. The amount of reuenue needed frorindustr/dl/r.ommerial
was computed, and this figure defined how muchindustr'al/commercial
deuelopment was needed. There is a formula for the co"tribution between
industrial/commercial but that Is beyond my understal/ding.
So in conclusion, the city receiues only 14.6'r. of "roperty Tall and
the county about twice that amount. One Question, w'lich perhaps should
be asked, Is why is the county's share so high? The .,Ilswer is, if I recall
correctly, the county prouides jail, mental health aLd other regional
seruices. Then ask yourself why - giuen the reduc1,AOn In County Mental
Health Seruices and the institution of bookinfJ fee~ - the percentage of
distribution remains so high?
/2-1/
Page: 3
From>: Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Prepare,j: F. I, Mar i 7, 1995 17:09
The second issue is Bonita. There is n'J model for financial impact of
Olll Oeuelollment; but in the case of Bonito!, which has a few, uery uocal
folks who are preoccupied with staying oLlt of the control of the City, it
appears to me that there would neuer br d reasun to anneH the 50% or so
of Bunita homes not already in Chula Uistil. These older homes tlaue a high
cost of seruice and come with no offsettmyindustriallcommerciill
properties. I hope this information willl!e useful and that if you need
more data you will contact one of the frlllowing:
George Krempl Deputy City Manager 69! -5031.
Bob Powell Finance Director 691-5051
Gerald J. Jamriska Otay Ranch Projec t \Hfice 422-7153
Len Moore, [Hpert, 420-6603
For eHample from theSphere of Update study "The Planning Area
represents most of the proposed residential d,~uelopment within the
sphere update area. I n addition, commercial uses are assumed tu be
deueloped. For the City'S General Fund, reuenues are prOjected at $16.3
million and costs at $16.7 mIllion." page I U.N8.
The bottom line is tllat we anneH in order to control grOLuth and demand
for seruices; it is not a profit for the city.
);1- ;1;2-
t., H R - :2 1:3 - :::. 5 t., () 1'--1 1 E. : 4 6 BAR t--I ~I B A :;:; F D '.-1
F' _ 0 1
-_.
EXECUTIVE OlREC7CR
David Vander PlceQ
ESTATE PLANNING SE1'.';:':~<
Jock e. Brothers -
OannlS Ho"k,VI
Jack Sytsma
D!RECTOR OF OPE",; T:':~.s
Kenneth O. Mol.
Christian Stewardship. . . in Ih~ mannsr of 8arnabas.
Acts 4:31-37
F
N
15127 S. 73rd Avenue' Suite G' Orlar!d Palk, illinois 60462-4398
Phone: 708-532-3444' FAX: 70d-532-1217
March 20, 1995
Gerald J. 1amriska, AICP
Special Planning Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Gentlemen:
We are the successors in interest to the late Peter De Graaf who owned several properties in
Chula Vista. Among them is a parcel adjacent to the Otay Ranch which has generally been
described as the De Graff Property, of which there are several co-owners.
During Mr. De Graaf's life time, development of this parcel was held up pending approval
of an overall development plan for the Otay Ranch. However, it was always the
understanding of Mr. De Graaf and his co-owners that this property would be developed as
Urban Residential. It was a great shock to learn that it is now proposed that this property be
designated as Open Space - one dwelling unit per 10 acres.
We strenuously object to such a low density zoning and respectfully request that this be
reconsidered so that the De Graaf parcel is given the same density as other similar parcels in
that area. Designation as Open Space - one dwelling per 10 acres would amount to a
confiscation of our property since it would be renderl~d practically worthless.
I understand that the time for comment may have formally passed but r wish to add this
comment to those which have been expressed earlier by Mr. 10hn Dauz, one of the co-
owners of the parcel. Thank you for your consideration.
Very sincerely,
t~ U~~~3. ~ .0.
Da.vid Vander Ploeg
Executive Director
DVPlld
/~-~/
11HR 21' ''35 04:S4PM fHLSON ErlGHIEEPING
P.2
WIL.SON ENGINEERING
OE:XTE:R ;;, WILSON. E,
ANORE:W M, OvEN, P,E
STEPHEN M. NIELSEN. g :;..
March 21,1995
605-114
Otay Ranch Project Team
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention:
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning Project Manager
Subject:
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study EIR
Recent correspondence by the Dtay Water District to the City of Chula Vista
suggested that the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study ErR did not
adequately analyze the environmental impacts of Chula Vista becoming the water
purveyor within all or portions of the Sphere of influence Update Study Area.
After review of the Otay Water District planned water system, it is apparent that
the EIR has sufficiently analyzed the environmental impacts of alternative water
purveyors to the extent that it is practical at this time. Any additional analysis
would be purely speculative.
As noted in the ErR and the Sphere of Influence Update Study, the Otay Water
District prepared a Water Master Plan in 1991 (Water Resource Plan for Otav
Water District, Black and Veatch, 1991), For a variety of reasons, the plan never
underwent environmental review and was subsequently discarded by the atay Water
District.
Thereafter, the District prepared another water master plan (Water Resources
Master Plan, Montgomery Watson, 1994). Public review of this preliminary draft
just started. The document has not undergone any environmental analysis. If the
City became the water purveyor for the areas within the Sphere of Influence Study
)~~7f
_ ___7C3 FALOrJlAR AIRPORi RO~O. SUlTE__~OO
CARLSBAD. c.\ 9:f::C09 . (619' 438.4422 . FAX (61~) ,",38.vI7~
MAF,' 21" '35 0..1: 5..1P!'1 lHL:=.OI1 Ei IGHIEEPI!/G
P.3
Gerald Jamriska
March 21, 1995.
Page 2
Area, there are a variety of means by which the City could provide water. The
City could implement the provisions of the Montgomery Watson plan or thcir own
City prepared watcr master plan. Alternately, the City could implem~nt any
combination of the components of the Black and Veatch Plan, the M()ntgomery Plan
and a City prepared plan.
Any decision by the City to become a water purveyor would be a discrctionary
action requiring compliance with CEQA. That is, the City would have to conduct
environmental review of a proposal to enact a franchise ordinance and to grant a
franchise agreement to itself or to some other party, Additionally, the City would
have to conduct environmental analysis of any water service plan it chose to
implement itself, or implement through the exercise of its franchise authority.
It seems clear that the level of environmental analysis now sought by the Otal'
Water District can only be performed at the later junctures, when more concrete
information such as a City adopted Water Master Plan, is available. To perform
the level of analyses currently sought by the Otay Water District or to conclude
that the potential impact to gnatcatcher habitat is significant is purely speculative.
Your consideration of this letter is appreciated.
ngineering
. ~,
I '
Dexter S. Wilson
DSW:klb
A; 11.01605, 114
j;2-'iS
RESOLUTION NO. 17i''1.)..
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TAKING NO ACTION TO ABATE THE
SCHEDULED INCREASE IN THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO RISE FROM 8% TO
10% EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1995
WHEREAS, Section 3.40.030 of the Municipal Code
establishes the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate at 10% and
authorizes the City Council to lower the TOT rate to no less than
8% for no more than one calendar year; and
WHEREAS, in November and December of 1994, the City
Council considered reports regarding whether to abate the scheduled
rate increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or to allow the
rate to increase from 8% to 10%; and
WHEREAS, at its December 20, 1994 meeting, Council abated
the TOT rate to 8% through March 31, 1995 and directed staff to
continue discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and Chula vista
Motel Association and to schedule another public hearing prior to
April 1, 1995 regarding the TOT rate after April 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS, following discussions with the Chamber of
Commerce and Chula vista Motel Association, staff is recommending
that Council allow the TOT to increase to 10% effective April 1,
1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby take no action to abate the
scheduled increase in the transient occupancy tax, thereby allowing
it to rise from 8% to 10% effective April 1, 1995.
ed
It
rm by
+
Presented by
James R. Thomson, Deputy
city Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
, City
/'3/J-)
RESOLUTION NO. 17l{L./J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City desires to promote tourism and the
city's visitor-oriented attractions and facilities, particularly
given the imminent opening of the Olympic Training Center in Chula
Vista; and
WHEREAS, a Council policy would be helpful to provide
guidelines for the amount and use of visitor promotion funds,
subject to the Councils' annual budget deliberations and subject to
the annual approval of a contract with the Chamber or Commerce for
specified visitor promotion services to be performed by the Chamber
of Commerce.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby adopt a Council Policy, attached
hereto, to provide support for Visitor Promotion, subject to annual
approval of a budget and related contract.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
IL /Jt.
James R. Thomson, Deputy City
Manager
Bruce M. Boogaa , City
Attorney
/3/J';-j
./
II
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACT
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
PAGE
10F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
BACKGROUND
Particularly given the imminent opening of the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, the City desires to
promote tourism and the City's visitor-oriented attractions and facilities. Visitor promotion and funding has
also been discussed in the context of considering whether to abate the Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) on
April 1, 1995 from 10% to an amount not less than 8%.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the amount and use of visitor promotion funds.
POLICY
1. During the annual budget process, the City Council will consider the adoption of a Visitor Promotion
Budget for the following fiscal year. It shall be the policy of the City that the Visitor Promotion
Budget should be funded from General Fund sources other than the T.O.T., in an amount addressed
in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. In implementing this policy, the T.O.T. revenues collected may be a
measure of the amount of the appropriation, but not the source of funds used for the appropriation.
2. It is the policy of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a proposed FY 1995-96 Visitor
Promotion Budget, for Council's consideration during its FY 95-96 budget deliberations, in an
amount of $150,000.
3. For FY 1996-97 and the three consecutive fiscal years thereafter, it shall be the policy of the City
Council to direct staff to prepare proposed Visitor Promotion Budgets, for Council's consideration in
its annual budget deliberations, in amounts measured by the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected in
the most recent I-year period for which data is then available (typically April through March) based
on the following guidelines:
If the annual T.O.T. revenue is $1.5 million or less, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be an amount equivalent to 10% of the T.O.T. revenue collected.
If the annual T.O.T. revenue is more than $1.5 million and less than $2.5 million, the
proposed Visitor Promotion Budget would be $150,000 plus an amount equivalent to 5% of
the T.O.T. revenue in excess of $1.5 million. This guideline would thus result in a maximum
proposed annual Visitor Promotion Budget of $200,000.
If the annual T.O.T. revenue exceeds $2.5 million, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be $200,000. The City would then review this Council Policy, including discussing it
with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chula Vista Motel Association, to determine whether
the policy should be revised to provide any additional guidelines for proposed Visitor
Promotion funding beyond the $200,000 maximum proposed annual amount provided in this
policy.
F?ll-3
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECf TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACf
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
PAGE
20F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
4. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and the Chula Vista Motel Association are forming a Chula
Vista Visitor Coalition, and representatives of those agencies and the City will be involved in
formulating a proposed Visitor Promotion Budget to be considered by the City Council each fiscal
year. It is anticipated that some projects included in the Visitor Promotion Budget will continue to
be administered by the City or be for services for which the City has previously contracted with the
Chamber of Commerce. It is also anticipated that a significant portion (probably the majority) of the
Visitor Promotion Budget will be for specified services for which the City will execute an annual one-
year contract with the Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of the Visitor Coalition. The Chamber will
provide quarterly reports to the City to be specified in the annual contract, including appropriate
accounting data.
5. This policy shall be set for review approximately five years after its adoption date. That review
should include, but not be limited to, the appropriateness of continuing to establish Visitor Promotion
budgets in relationship to the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected, the guidelines for such
relationships, and the appropriateness of the Chamber of Commerce continuing to act as the
contracting arm of the Visitor Coalition compared to other organizational arrangements such as the
establishment of a stand-alone Visitors Bureau.
J:J[J~~
RESOLUTION NO. l'lIl~7'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $22,782 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE FOR
INTERIM FINANCING OF A VISITOR DISPLAY AT THE
SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER AND MAJOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CHULA VISTA VISITOR
INFORMATION CENTER
WHEREAS, the City Council will be considering a proposed
Visitor Promotion Budget of $150,000 during Council's budget
deliberations for FY 95-96; and
WHEREAS, both staff and the Chamber of Commerce have
recommended that two of the items being proposed for the FY 95--96
Visitor Promotion Budget are particularly time sensitive, namely a
visitor display at the San Diego Convention Center and major
improvements at the Chula vista Visitor Information Center, with an
estimated cost of $22,782.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula vista that the amount of $22,782 is hereby
appropriated to a Visitor Promotion account to be established
within the Community Promotions budget from the unappropriated
General Fund balance for interim financing of a visitor display at
the San Diego Convention Center and major improvements at the Chula
vista Visitor Information Center.
Presented by
APyved as
( Bruce M.
Attorney
to
':J
James R. Thomson, Deputy City
Manager
d, City
C:\rs\tot.10%
/3 C -I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
/3
3/21/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: To Consider Abatement of the
Transient occupancy Tax Rate from Ten Percent
to a Rate Not Less Than Eight Percent
A) Resolution / '/&"'1':<. Taking no action to
abate the scheduled increase in the Transient
Occupancy Tax, thereby allowing it to rise
from 8% to 10% effective April 1, 1995.
B) Resolution /'/8""/3 Adopting a Council
Policy to provide support for visitor
Promotion, subject to annual approval of a
budget and related contract.
C) Resolution / ?8"~y Appropriating $22,782
from the unappropriated General Fund balance
for interim financing of a visitor display at
the San Diego Convention Center and major
improvements at the Chula vista visitor
Information Center.
SUBMITTED BY:
Deputy City Manager Thomson
Senior Manag~nt A~6stant Youn~
City Manager ';)1 J+,. (4/5ths Vote: Yes-1L
No_)
REVIEWED BY:
Late last year, the city Council considered reports regarding
whether to abate the scheduled rate increase in the Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) or to allow the rate to increase from 8% to
10%. At that time, the Chula vista Chamber of Commerce and Chula
vista Motel Association expressed some interest in expanding the
city's involvement in visitor promotional activities, but requested
more time to put together a formal proposal.
On December 20, 1994, Council abated the TOT rate to 8% through
March 31, 1995, and directed staff to continue discussions with the
Chamber and Motel Association. Council also directed that another
public hearing be scheduled prior to April 1, 1995 regarding the
TOT rate to be effective after April 1, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing
2) Approve Resolutions A, B, and C.
BOARD/COMMISSION/BUSINESS COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS:
The leadership of the Chamber of Commerce and the Motel Association
have reviewed a draft of this staff proposal and have given their
conceptual approval. Their respective board and membership will be
13-/
Item
Meeting Date
/3
, Page 2
3/21/95
meeting to review the final staff proposal on Friday, March 17.
Any additional input will be provided in writing by those
organizations at the Council meeting on March 21. It should be
noted that the Motel Association represents 10 of Chula vista's 31
motels, recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds.
During the initial discussions of this proposal last December, the
Economic Development Commission (EDC) passed a motion to support
that any increase in the TOT be earmarked for promotion of the
city. There was also some discussion at that time of the EDC's
marketing plan and a suggestion to include a copy of that plan with
the Council agenda item considering the TOT rate increase. (See
minutes and marketing plan; Attachments 7 and 8).
The timing of negotiations with the Chamber of Commerce and Motel
Association did not allow for this item to be brought back to the
EDC before tonight's meeting. However, if Council concurs in the
recommendation concerning a visitor Promotion Budget, staff will
present this revised proposal to the EDC at their April meeting,
which will be prior to consideration of the recommended formal
contract.
BACKGROUND
The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is assessed to short-term
residents of hotels, motels, recreational vehicle parks and
campsites. Its purpose is to spread some of the costs of city
services (e.g. police and fire protection, street maintenance) to
those who place a demand on those services without otherwise paying
their fair share.
Those paying the tax are generally tourists or business people, and
only those who are staying in Chula vista for less than 31
consecutive days. In any cases where a person stays 31 consecutive
days or longer, they are not considered "transient" and are thus
fully exempt from the tax.
Chula vista's current TOT rate is 8% of the room rate. According
to the Municipal Code, the basic TOT rate has been 10% since 1991,
but this is subject to annual city council discretion to abate the
tax to as low as 8% (See Attachment 9). Council opted by
resolution to abate the tax to the 8% level in 1991, 1992, 1993 and
1994.
Annual TOT revenues currently total approximately $1.2 million.
All of these revenues are deposited in the General Fund, with no
portion being specifically earmarked. with an increase to 10%,
annual revenues would total approximately $1.5 million. Over the
years, TOT revenues have been flat and their level of support for
/:J~':<
Item
Meeting Date
/J
, Page 3
3/21/95
public services has eroded. In FY 1989-90 TOT revenues supported
2.9% of general City services. By FY 1993-94 TOT revenues
supported only 1.8% of general services.
On November 22 and December 20, 1994, the city Council considered
reports regarding whether to abate the scheduled rate increase in
the Transient Occupancy Tax or to allow the rate to increase from
8% to 10% (See minutes; Attachment 6). Following a request from
the Chamber of Commerce and Motel Association, council took action
in December to abate that increase temporarily through April 1,
1995 to allow for formulation of a proposal by the Chamber and
Motel Association on the establishment of a visitors Coalition.
At the same time, the City entered into a contract with the Chamber
to operate the Bayfront Trolley station visitor Information Center.
since the city's pre-existing contract with the Chamber for General
Information services shared many duties and provisions with the
visitor Information Center contract, the two were combined into a
single agreement. Although the TOT discussion was postponed in
December, 1994 until early 1995, there was some discussion at that
time about financing these visitor information services through the
TOT.
On February 7, 1995, staff received a proposal from the Chamber and
Motel Association (Attachment 3). Their proposal generally calls
for the establishment of a Chula vista visitors Coalition, composed
of the Chamber and the Motel Association, with funding to be
provided based on a percentage of TOT revenue, initially identified
as 10% of the increased level of the tax (or 1/2 the increase from
8% to 10%). Following further discussions with the Chamber and
Motel Association, staff is recommending the establishment of a
Chula vista visitor Promotion program, with funding and structure
as described in this report.
DISCUSSION
Tax Rates and Effects
TOT charges are typical within the hotel/motel industry and are an
incidental cost not typically considered by the consumer. For a
motel patron paying a nightly room rent of $40, Chula vista's
current 8% tax amounts to $3.20. The increase to a 10% TOT rate
would amount to $0.80 additional.
As shown below, most area jurisdictions already have a TOT rate of
10%. Among these, Chula vista's neighbors---San Diego, National
city and Imperial Beach---have all raised their TOT rates to 10% or
more in the past four years.
J'J-J
/3
Item
Meeting Date
, Page 4
3/21/95
While there are some differences from city to city, it is highly
unlikely that any of these differences would affect travel and
lodging choices. Furthermore, a review of the impact that rate
increases have had in other cities (based on discussions with their
staff and review of revenue data) shows no evidence of a
correlation between marginal increases in TOT rates and decreases
in motel occupancy rates.
OTHER JURISDICTIONS - TOT RATES
Chula vista - Current
Chula vista - Proposed
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
National City
Oceanside
San Diego
San Diego County
Santee
vista
8%
10%
Carlsbad
Coronado
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
10%
7%1
10%
8%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10.5%
9%
6%
10%
Comparative Approaches to TOT and visitor Promotion
In considering and discussing the Chamber and Motel Association's
proposal, staff has expressed some concerns about the advisability
of earmarking General Fund revenues. Especially in light of
potential state budget take-aways, City and Redevelopment Agency
budget issues, and new expenditures such as the operation of the
South Chula vista Library and payment of county booking fees, it
makes little sense to start a new entitlement program at this time.
Staff is particularly reluctant to recommend any promise of an
absolute and onooino percentaoe of a city revenue. with future
projects like the Bonita Golf Lodge, the Midbayfront, and the
resort area next to the Lower Otay Lakes, any percentage allocation
could quickly escalate a visitor promotion program's funding level
far beyond Council's original funding intention.
Nevertheless, staff agrees with the Chamber and Motel Association
that this is an opportune time to increase the city's visitor
promotion efforts. In the next few months, Chula vista will see
the long-awaited opening of the U.S. Olympic Training Center (OTC)
and a summer trial period of Chula vista-based harbor excursions.
1 An increase is currently under discussion in Coronado.
/:J~f
Item
Meeting Date
/;J
, Page 5
3/21/95
The metropolitan area will also face a significant increase in
hotel bookings in connection with the 1996 Republican Convention.
By stepping up promotional efforts now, the City can more
effectively position itself for OTC visitors, increased attendance
at the Nature center, and increased patronage of local motels,
restaurants and other businesses.
In a number of other jurisdictions, the vehicle for promoting such
attractions and businesses is a visitors Bureau. San Diego,
Escondido, Carlsbad and Coronado each provide promotion funds to a
Convention and/or visitors Bureau. These groups typically conduct
advertising campaigns, produce brochures, attend trade shows, and
operate tourist-oriented facilities. The annual TOT revenue and
visitor promotion/general promotion budgets for local jurisdictions
are summarized in the following chart:
/.7-5
Item
Meeting Date
/3
, Page 6
3/21/95
Chula vista -
Current
TOT $$
FY 94
$1. 2
million
VISITOR PROMOTION
EXPENDITURES
Chula vista -
Proposed
$1.5
million2
(full yr)
various events/
expenditures: See
Attachment 4
Proposed Visitor Promotion
Budget: $150,000
Carlsbad $3.1 $205,000 to Visitors Bureau
million
Coronado $3.7 $395,000 to Visitors Bureau
million
El cajon $480,000 No earmarked funding
Encinitas $354,000 No data available
Escondido $480,000 $95,000 to Visitors Bureau
Imperial Beach $46,000 No earmarked funding
La Mesa $369,000 No earmarked funding
National city $587,000 No earmarked funding
Oceanside $561,000 $35,000 for visitor center
operations; some promotions
San Diego $56 Approx. $16.5 million to
mil1ion2 CONVIS & Chamber
San Diego County $1. 6 $1.3 million to Community
million Enhancement Programs
Santee $49,000 No earmarked funding
vista $161,000 No earmarked funding
Discussion of Visitor Coalition's Proposal
As previously indicated, the Chamber of Commerce and the Motel
Association are forming a Chula vista Visitor Coalition. In their
February 7, 1995 letter (Attachment 3), they proposed that the
2 Chula vista and San Diego figures are FY 1994-95 revenue
estimates.
/3-?
Item
Meeting Date
/3
, Page 7
3/21/95
visitor Coalition receive half of the increased TOT revenue from
raising the rate from 8% to 10%, which would be the same as 10% of
the total TOT revenue. In subsequent discussions, representatives
of the Chamber and Motel Association indicated that the visitor
Promotion funding was intended to be primarily for:
* cooperative City/business advertising campaign
* Hiring of a contractual staff person for marketing and
advertising coordination
* Back-lit photo displays and other improvements at visitor
Center (consistent with a design layout currently being
finalized by in-house City staff)
* OTC signage along freeways and city streets
* Electronic message-board freeway signs
(NOTE: Signage issues would require additional design approval
by Caltrans, the OTC and the city. In the case of electronic
signs, this would also entail an ordinance change. Although
these items have been discussed, they are not formally
recommended at this time since they would require a major
change in the City's sign control policy).
An attached chart (Attachment 4) details overall promotional items
already funded by the city which total $1. 31 million.
Additionally, this exhibit identifies proposed items totalling
another $75,000, potentially bringing the total to approximately
$1.39 million of which part but by no means all is directly related
to visitor development. In discussions with the Chamber, several
items from this list have been identified as appropriate to fold
into the visitor Promotion Budget proposed by the Chamber and Motel
Association. These items, that the City is either already funding
or is seriously considering funding, include:
* visitor Center operation/subsidy
* Staffing portion of Chamber information service3
* CONVIS membership
* San Diegan magazine advertising
* Proposed displays/improvements at visitor Center
* Proposed displays at the OTC and San Diego Convention Center
* Printing and distribution of visitor brochure
3 Staffing for the visitor Center and Chamber of Commerce
General Information Services (currently providing similar services
under a combined contract) would be consolidated under the
Coalition. The result would be an $18,100 staff cost reduction in
the current visitor center/General Information contract, with an
offsetting $20,000 increase in the Coalition budget to fund the
marketing support staff shown below.
J.J-?
Item
Meeting Date
13
, Page 8
3/21/95
Proposed Council policy: Funding for visitor Promotion
Based on the discussions described above, staff has drafted a
proposed Council Policy (Attachment 2) to provide support for
visitor Promotion, subject to annual approval of a budget and
related contract with the Chamber. In drafting the proposed
Council Policy, staff has attempted to meet the major objectives of
the Chamber and Motel Association while also protecting and
promoting the City's own financial interest.
The proposed Council Policy indicates a direction to staff to
prepare and submit a proposed visitor Promotion Budget for the
following fiscal year for Council consideration during its annual
budget process. The funding for these activities would be
centrally placed in a new "visitor Promotion" division under the
community Promotions budget.
The Policy provides direction to staff to prepare a proposed FY
1995-96 Visitor Promotion Budget of $150,000 for Council's
consideration in its budget deliberations. For future years'
budgets, the Policy would set forth Council's direction for staff
to prepare and submit proposed budgets for Visitor Promotion funds
in relationship to the amount of TOT revenues collected in the most
recent one-year period for which TOT revenue data is then available
(April through March). These budgets would be prepared with the
input of the Visitor Coalition and be formulated in conjunction
with negotiation of an annual contract.
The proposed guidelines for the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
submittals are:
For annual TOT revenues
Up to $1.5 million...
visitor Promotion budqet
Funds equivalent to 10%
of TOT revenues
In excess of $1.5 million,
up to $2.5 million...
$150,000 plus funds
equivalent to 5% of the
TOT revenues above $1.5
million
(e.g. for TOT revenues of $2 million, the proposed budget
would be equivalent to 10% of the first $1.5 million, plus the
equivalent of 5% of the next $500,000, for a total of $150,000
+ $25,000 = $175,000)
These guidelines would result in a maximum proposed annual budget
of $200,000, (if the TOT revenue collected in the prior year was
$2.5 million). If the TOT revenues in a year exceed $2.5 million,
the city would review the Council Policy, including discussing it
J3-ff
Item
Meeting Date
/J
, Page 9
3/21/95
with the Chamber of Commerce and Motel Association, to determine
whether it should be revised to provide any guidelines for
addi tional proposed Visitor Promotion funding. Staff and the
Chamber concur that the Policy should be set for review
approximately five years after its adoption.
The City Attorney has advised that in order to avoid the risk that
a 2/3rds vote of the public might be needed, the proceeds of the
TOT. increase should neither be set aside nor "earmarked" for a
special purpose such as visitor promotion. Therefore, the proposed
Council Policy provides that the visitor Promotion Budget should be
funded from General Fund sources other than the TOT.
The proposed Policy also indicates that some projects in the
visitor Promotion Budget are anticipated to continue to be
administered by the City or be for services for which the city has
previously contracted with the Chamber. A significant portion
(probably the majority) of the visitor Promotion Budget would be
for specified services for which the City will execute an annual
contract with the Chamber, on behalf of the visitor Coalition.
These issues are further addressed in the next two sections.
General Contract Terms
Although staff and the Chamber have reached conceptual agreement on
a proposed contract for FY 95-96, the text of this contract will
not be completed for several weeks. At this time, staff is
requesting Council authorization to proceed with negotiations, with
the resulting contract to be brought back to the Council for final
approval.
Among the provisions generally agreed upon, this contract would
provide that:
* In any joint City/business advertising conducted by the
Chamber on behalf of the visitor Coalition, participation be
open to all tourist-relevant Chula vista businesses,
regardless of membership in the Chamber of Commerce or Motel
Association.
* In no case would the visitor Promotion subsidy for such joint
advertising exceed 60% of the total cost, with the remainder
to be paid by the business (es) participating in the
advertising.
*
All items funded by the visitor Promotion
publication, display, signage, etc. be reviewed
by the Public Information Coordinator, and where
Budget for
and approved
appropriate,
)]-1
Item
Meeting Date
/3
, Page 10
3/21/95
obtain all necessary design review or other discretionary city
approvals.
* The existing Chamber of Commerce contract for provision of
visitor and Transit Information Services should be amended to
remove the staff-services portion of the base contract. This
action would be in recognition of certain economies achieved
via the Chamber taking over operation of the visitor
Information Center. This funding ($18,100) would be replaced
by new spending in the proposed visitor Promotion Budget
($20,000, see below) for contractual marketing/advertising
services.
proposed FY 95-96 Budget
Based on these discussions with the Chamber and Motel Association,
staff prepared the following proposed FY 95-96 visitor Promotion
Budget, with a total appropriation of $150,000.
Part A represents discretionary or stand-alone programs. These
funds would be paid to the Chamber, as contracting agent for the
Coalition, prorated on a quarterly basis. The first payment would
be made by July 15, 1995. The Chamber would provide quarterly
reports to the City, to be specified in the annual contract,
including appropriate accounting data.
Part B represents items which are budgeted elsewhere in the City
budget or are already being expended by the city in connection with
the Chamber taking over the visitor Information Center contract in
January. The funding for these items would thus be credited to the
City in terms of the proposed overall $150,000 visitor Promotion
Budget. In future years, as one-time items such as the visitor
Center's initial inventory are paid off, that portion of the total
visitor Promotion Budget would be freed up for consideration for
other discretionary programs, such as an expanded advertising
campaign or signage, subject to Council approval in the next annual
budget.
/.:3 ~/tJ
Item
Meeting Date
1;3
, Page 11
3/21/95
Part A - Stand-Alone Items: To be contracted with Chamber for
Coalition:
Marketing Staff (Contractual $20,000
Services)
CONVIS Membership $11,025
Chula vista Display at u.S. Olympic $3,000
Training Center
printing of visitor Brochure $10,500
(including newly-opened OTC)
Distribution of visitor Brochure and $2,900
Nature Center Brochure
Advertising Budget (incl. San Diegan $26,639
Magazine, sunset, travel or RV
publications, etc.) and potential OTC
signage
Additional office costs (marketing $1,000
efforts)
Total $75,064
Part B - Interim/Joint Items: To be Administered by city:
Chamber of Commerce - visitor Center $15,000
Subsidy
Visitor Center - Initial Inventory $10,000
(t-shirts, post cards, etc.)
Visitor Center utilities $12,580
Visitor Center Basic Improvements $3,550
(painting, carpentry)
visitor Center Phase I Major $20,000
Improvements (back-lit photo
displays, etc. )
San Diego Convention Center Display $2,782
Chamber Information Services - Non- $6,024
staff component (50% funding of
$12,048)
Public Information staff time $5,000
TOTAL $74,936
/3-//
Item
Meeting Date
/3
, Page 12
3/21/95
The Chamber and Motel Association agree that there would be a 90-
day delay from the date of the TOT increase (April 1, 1995) to the
date initial visitor Promotion funds would be provided. This would
also serve to make a year's funding coincide with the FY 95-96
fiscal year.
However, since the visitor Center improvements are a priority and
the San Diego Convention Center display space is available now,
these items are proposed to be funded by the city in FY 94-95, with
credit provided in the visitor Promotion Budget in FY 95-96. These
improvements and displays are estimated to cost $22,782. Providing
this funding now, as requested by the Chamber, will therefore
reduce the proposed FY 95-96 visitor Promotion Budget from $150,000
to $127,218.
Public Hearing Process
All 31 properties subject to TOT were mailed notice on March 10 of
this Council meeting and staff's recommendation (See Attachment
#5), with additional legal notices placed in the Star News.
Other than the statements indicated at the beginning of this report
in the Board/Commission/Business Community Recommendations section
regarding conceptual approval by the leadership of the Chamber and
Motel Association of a draft of this staff report, the only other
input staff has received as of March 16 is from the Chula vista
Marina and RV Resort. A representative of that organization has
raised a concern about whether RV and trailer parks should be
charged the TOT but indicated that they would not be opposing the
overall staff recommendation because they support visitor
promotion.
Alternatives
Among the alternatives to the staff recommendation that the
Council may want to consider are:
Allow the TOT rate to increase to 10% without formalizing
a policy to support visitor promotion. This alternative
could be implemented by adopting Resolution A and not
adopting Resolutions B or C, or simply by taking no
action.
Abate the TOT rate from 10% to a rate not less than 8%
for the remainder of calendar year 1995. This
alternative could be implemented by adopting a resolution
prior to April 1 abating the TOT rate from 10% to a rate
specified by Council between 8% and 10%.
/;]-/..2
Item
Meeting Date
;3
, Page 13
3/21/95
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 1994-95 and FY 1995-96 budget estimates for TOT revenues are
approximately $1.2 million per year at the current 8% TOT rate. If
the staff recommendation is approved, Council will take no action
to abate the scheduled increase in the TOT rate, thereby allowing
it to increase from 8% to 10% on April 1, 1995. As a result,
revenues would be projected to increase by $75,000 to a total of
$1.275 million this fiscal year, and by $300,000 to a total of $1.5
million next fiscal year.
The first-year FY 95-96 $150,000 visitor Promotion Budget proposal
would be equivalent to 10% of the total TOT revenue or half of the
projected $300,000 annual increase; some of this $150,000 would,
however, likely have been spent by the City or Redevelopment Agency
on visitor promotion even if the TOT rate were not increased. A
portion of this $150,000 is recommended to be spent in the current
fiscal year under the interim appropriation ($22,782) for displays
and visitor center improvements detailed above.
visitor Promotion budgets in future years would vary in
relationship to a measurement of the amount of TOT collected, but
would be subject to a current proposed maximum of $200,000, as
described in the proposed Council policy. The net result of the
additional TOT revenue and the visitor Promotion funding is
projected to be a minimum of $150,000 additional net General Fund
revenue per year. The more successful the visitor development
activities are, the more positive the net effect will be for both
the city and the local visitor-oriented businesses.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions
2. Proposed Council Policy
3. Letter from Chamber of Commerce and Motel Association,
February 7, 1995
4. FY 1994-95 city Expenditures for Promotional Activity
5. Hearing Notice to companies collecting TOT
6. city Council Minutes, November 22 and December 20, 1994
7. Economic Development commission Minutes, December 7, 1994
8. Economic Development commission Marketing Plan
9. Municipal code, Chapter 3.40 - Transient Occupancy Tax
JY\tot316
JJ;/3//8-~
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTACHMENT 2
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECf TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACf
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
PAGE
10F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
BACKGROUND
Particularly given the imminent opening of the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, the City desires to
promote tourism and the City's visitor-oriented attractions and facilities. Visitor promotion and funding has
also been discussed in the context of considering whether to abate the Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) on
April 1, 1995 from 10% to an amount not less than 8%.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the amount and use of visitor promotion funds.
POLICY
1. During the annual budget process, the City Council will consider the adoption of a Visitor Promotion
Budget for the following fiscal year. It shall be the policy of the City that the Visitor Promotion
Budget should be funded from General Fund sources other than the T.O.T., in an amount addressed
in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. In implementing this policy, the T.O.T. revenues collected may be a
measure of the amount of the appropriation, but not the source of funds used for the appropriation.
2. It is the policy of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a proposed FY 1995-96 Visitor
Promotion Budget, for Council's consideration during its FY 95-96 budget deliberations, in an
amount of $150,000.
3. For FY 1996-97 and the three consecutive fiscal years thereafter, it shall be the policy of the City
Council to direct staff to prepare proposed Visitor Promotion Budgets, for Council's consideration in
its annual budget deliberations, in amounts measured by the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected in
the most recent I-year period for which data is then available (typically April through March) based
on the following guidelines:
If the annual T.O.T. revenue is $1.5 million or less, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be an amount equivalent to 10% of the T.O.T. revenue collected.
If the annual T.O.T. revenue is more than $1.5 million and less than $2.5 million, the
proposed Visitor Promotion Budget would be $150,000 plus an amount eqnivalent to 5% of
the T.O.T. revenue in excess of $1.5 million. This gnideIine would thus result in a maximum
proposed annual Visitor Promotion Budget of $200,000.
If the annual T.O.T. revenue exceeds $2.5 million, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be $200,000. The City would then review this Council Policy, including discussing it
with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chula Vista Motel Association, to determine whether
the policy should be revised to provide any additional guidelines for proposed Visitor
Promotion funding beyond the $200,000 maximum proposed annual amount provided in this
policy.
/
JJ-/;-
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECf TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACf
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
PAGE
20F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
4. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and the Chula Vista Motel Association are forming a Chula
Vista Visitor Coalition, and representatives of those agencies and the City will be involved in
formulating a proposed Visitor Promotion Budget to be considered by the City Council each fiscal
year. It is anticipated that some projects included in the Visitor Promotion Budget will continue to
be administered by the City or be for services for which the City has previously contracted with the
Chamber of Commerce. It is also anticipated that a significant portion (probably the majority) of the
Visitor Promotion Budget will be for specified services for which the City will execute an annual one-
year contract with the Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of the Visitor Coalition. The Chamber will
provide quarterly reports to the City to be specified in the annual contract, including appropriate
accounting data.
5. This policy shall be set for review approximately five years after its adoption date. That review
should include, but not be limited to, the appropriateness of continuing to establish Visitor Promotion
budgets in relationship to the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected, the guidelines for such
relationships, and the appropriateness of the Chamber of Commerce continuing to act as the
contracting arm of the Visitor Coalition compared to other organizational arrangements such as thetestablishment of a stand-alone Visitors Bureau.
7
J"J-/t-
.
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ACCREDITED
~............
.................
........91...091.
ATTACHMENT 3
February 7, 1995
.John Goss
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CIty Manager
PrMldent CIty of Chula Ulsta
JIm W_ 276 Fourth Ruenue
Chula Ulsta, CR 91918
Prwldent EJect
Greg Cox
VIce PrMldente:
Renee Bule
Steve CoIIIn8
ChriII lewis
Deve Werd
Membere:
PeIrIc:Ie Bemea
JoAnne Clayton
Mike Green
Sunn HeIney
Ter_ Hickok
Tom McAndrewa
SCOll Moeher
Gery Nordstrom
Roben Pemer, MD
Ben Rlcherdaon
Frenk Scall
MIllY Anne Stro
Bob Thornu
Brad WIlaon
Put PrMIdent
D~ FIInl
Executlve Director
Rod Devia
Dear .John:
.1 apologize for taking so long to reply to your letter of 21
December 1994 requesting clarification on the current TOT Issue. Things
haue been unfolding at such a rete that not until today did I feel I
could respond with out a major change coming the neHt day. For ease
of reference for eueryone, I haue Included a back ground section.
Baelcllraund
Transient Occupancy TaH Is that charge a city leules agaInst
hotel/motel and camp site ulsltors. This taH Is the only taH leuled by a
city gouernment, which Is not leuled on the citizens of the city. Chula
Vista currently has a TOT rate, which Is at 8~. Most of the county Is at
18~ with the City of San Diego at li.5~ and Coronado at 6~. Coronado
Hotel Rssoclatlon Is preparing a plan, which almost mirrors our
suggestion. Coronado Is going to ask for an Increase from 6~ to 8~,
which Is a 55 1/5~ Increase In TOT. One percent of the 8~ will go to the
association to aduertlse the City. The second 1~ of 8~ will go to pay
for the new Golf Course. Our proposal Is uery similar. We want the TOT
to go from 8~ to 18~, and we want one percent of the 18~ to be
auallable to the Chamber and the Motel Association acting as a Ulsltor's
Coalition to aduertlse the City. The second 1 ~ of the Increase to 18~
would go to the City as Increased reuenue to the general fund.
SDBelfll:.
In 1994 the total TOT collected was $ 1,848,888.88 at the rata of 8 ~;
had tha rate been 18~ then the TOT collected would haue been
$1,588,888 an Increase of $268,888. Half of that would haue baen
$158,888. That Is the amount, which would haue baen auallable to be
spent In order to draw tourists to Chula Ulsta. The Rrco. TrainIng
Canter, Harbor EHcurslons. and the Rmphltheater all combine to make
Chula Ulsta a tourist de.stlnatlon. The City of Chula Ulsta staff
eHpressed a conern that with the new hotels/lodges, which we are
working to bring to town, that thIs formula was too open ended.
.
2 II F 0 U R T H A V E N U E . C H U LA V I . T A. C A L I FOR N I A I' I' 0 . TEL: .(1' II 420. I 10 I
-..,._---.-".~..__.. -. -.-
4" /3-1;
.
this formula could produce more reuenue than the Ulsltor Coalition could
Intelligently plan for and affectluely use. In response, the Ulsltor Coaltlon
came up with a formula, which hall a floor of SI5B,BBB per year, (we already
know that the TOT reuenue for this year will be higher) plus a percentage of the
Increase. for eKample, a TOT In a gluen year of $2.5BB,BBB. The Coalition would. '
get $15B,BBB piUS SIBB,BBB for the IB" of the Increase. The City would get
$2,25B,BBB. If the TOT were to remain et .", the.Clty would get only S2,BBB,BBB.
If the TOT were to go to 55 Million, the C;oaltlon would get $15B,BBB floor plus e
SI5B,BBB of the Increase the city would get $2.7 million. The City would get only
S2.4 million If the TOT were to remaIn at .".
PrDs
The Chamber operllltlng es the business erm of the Coalition can negotiate. The
city, because of all the constraints placed on gouemments and because the
perception that Its pockets are endlessly deep, does not haue the IUKUry of
negotiating. So. we can do It faster and less eKpensluely than gouemment can.
There are many things, which can be taken ouer by tha Coalition that the city
now does or will haue to do, such as slgnage for the training center, which can
come from the TOT.
Administration
The flrst use of the TOT would be to hire a full time Ulsltor Coordinator at
S26,5BB Including a fringe package. A budget would be submitted for tha neKt
quarter, and a full double entry system would be used with reports proulded
quarterly.
IIDlnlDn
We are already tlma late on a motel display for the Ulsltor Center and on
slgnage for the Olympic Training Center.
Hopefully this letter, signed by both the Chamber and the Motel Association,
will proulde sufflclent Information for our dialogue to continue.
Sincerely,
Chula Ulsta Chamber of Commerce
...
Patrick Mandas
Presldent
.
.__< /;:k-lr. - .______-H -_.- -.---.- "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~:i~~
f.I') f.I') ~ f.I') (fl
1'l
II)
~
....
...
@ 8 ~ 8 0 ~
0"1 \() II) In ~ ....
\IS \IS r:-"' 1./:)"' &'7 {fl
N ....-l (fl &'7
... ...
~
00
II)
...
ATTACHMENT 4
~ ~
~ N '"
~ ~
.... ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
.... ~ ....
~ " .S '" ~
N' .~ .S Cl
~ ~ ~ -
~ e .... "'
~ 8 ~ " '" ~ ~
~ ~ ;.:J '"
~ ~ ~
~ " .... ~
" ~ 8 ~ II ~
0 ~ = g .:; ~
.... 0 8 .... . ::iE .g ~
" .... ~ "'
~ "' "" u 8 'C .~ .. Cl
0 -= .e- o l>.. ~
~ ~ 'C l>.. ~ '" l!l ~ ~
= = . ~ ~ "' .';:
'" .... 0 ..., >> ] ~
Cl &l '" ..... " 'a ....
" 0 0 ~ = ~ ~ ~ " ~
....
0 0 '" -= .... s ,!l e
of .... .... "" ~
= = !3 ~ s " '0 S' .~ !3
0 '" ~ ~ &: ~ ci 8 ~ rii
::r: '" '" ::r: 0 '"
~ i:iS ~ i:iS ~ 0 0 ~ N 0 8 ~ 0
II) II) ~ N (2
II) II) '" II) .... '" II)
V) vi' '" 0' ,..." 0' '" <'i 0' ~f 0' 0' ,..." vi'
'" .... .... .... '" .... ... .... '" .... .... ... 00
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
'"
>-
""
~
....
>
.... II)
t; ":'
..; ....
'"
:;l ::iE
,
'"
z .... ~
0 >> ~ "
.... :5! ::iE ~ z 8 II
f-< "' E=: ~ .... 'Z -
0 .0 '" "
= , E=: 8
::iE ~ "
'" .... ~ '"
0 .. z .S " '"
0 " ~ '"
~ " i:t .9 'a .S
0.. .9 ~ ~ ,g
~ ~ E ~ :l ~ ~ .!
~ ~ "' - ....
0 ~ ~ :> .... !>'
8- "' ~ .B 0
"" ~ Z d .>l '" "" ~
0 .... " ""
'" ~ ~ 0 .... "" " =
~ ~ .S ~ ], '" ~ "
.... ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ !>' f-< " .S
i2 " ~ e 0 0 .9 :.a N
g S g ::iE 8 i ~ ~
.... S '" ~ "" S ~
Cl .... " e- e ~ 0 .B ::iE
'" 8 ~ $:l ..; '" .... ~ 8 = 'S !Xl
Z .... ~ .... 0 :::l
> " ~ > d :E ~ 0.. d '5 8 ." ~
~ ..... ~ ..... "
0.. 0 .... ~ 0 . 0 g, ::iE gJ,
><: '0 .... ....
~ .5 "" !Xl = "
~ .~ .... rZ 0 ~ :.a " .~ g
~ .~ f-< .... is :l Cl
~ :E ~ " '" .g
'E !Xl !Xl .... " !Xl
'" " ~ ;;j .~ ~ a ~ "' " = '" ~
0 ~ - rZ 'a :> '" !Xl
...: ~ ~ '"
U en .... !Xl en en . en
rEf /)-//
g gg g g gg 1i6 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
""
.... .... ! V"J .... r-
0 '" '" 0 V"J' r-' ...; ~. ...; 1'f '" gg"
N ... ... V"J r- "" V"J ~ ....
... ... ... ... ... .... "" "" ""
... ... ... ...; .....
... ...
:E
'/) a
~
~ 1i6 0 0 1'l ~ 1i6 gg ~
~ ~ V"J (g
V"J V"J "1- V"J ....
,.: ",,' .,.; ;:!i 00 '" .,.; gg"
- "" .... ~ V"J 8i r-
0 ~ ... ... .... ... ... "" '"
z ... ... ...; =
~ ... .9
~ ~ ~ .~
~ i5.
'" :c:
...:i e. ;:I
~ 0 j
~ j!J ....
= !i,
~ " -
- "
~ " = .... ....
!i i5. 8 OJ) 0
.... ~ 0 "-
0 .~ B \0 .... "-
0 0 = = ~ "- "
e:.. ....
"- 0 8 g, 13 '"
[il s ~ .~ A -
E " = =
- OJ) :g OJ) ,:g ~
'/) .... .9 ~ = A ~
0 " - 'S " -E .~
E 0 8 :E !i '" '"
~ s '.. '"
0 8 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 " 'C
~ .... ~ ~ '" "
.... ~ z ~ "-
~ ,g u ~ .>l ~ '"
" 's..
- Ci OJ) :c: '/) .~ '0
~ ~ .; .S ~ ~ ~ u 0 ~ ~ ;:I ~ '" =
:> :> "
;j s ~ ~ Ii .c "
.... .!:l 0 .... =' '0 '"
0 '/) .E ,g = =
.'" " @J @J .... ~ .9 " .S
:E ..c: " ::> I - -
~ u ~ '/) " oli "
"- .S 'il
S ....
8 .E "
~ .... '8
.g " t
'0 >
= .~ '0 s '.5
" " ~
'" '"
.f.l B t "
g 8 0 ~ ~ 0 0 8 8 1i6 ~ '6
~ 00 .... .... ,:g G
\0 r- .... V"J V"J V"J V"J " ~ 0 "8
0 ...; ~ ~ ~. ..... '" ... ...; g ~ ..c: 'il
N ... ;:l; ... ... .~ :g ~ .... '5
... .... " '"
... ... ... ... .9 '0 '" '"
'0 " "
- l:: .... ..=
~ " "- .~
=
oil .... " ...;'
oJ B .S B =
~ .S u - .S
"
1:: oil ..: ~ 1 .$
=
0 oJ ~ ~
"-
"- ~ ~
" = =
'" .S " .9 .'::> =
~ tt:: ~ "6h - .... ....
" .S = B "
- .... '" " .... -g
~ '" ] " 0; "
:> ~ '" .... " ;:I
- ;:I - 0 '" 0 .'::>
t; ~ i5. " .s
.... .... ~ " 5
~ = ~ '0 .~
~ .S tt:: 0 .~ = .~
~ ~ " ~ '';:: '0 B " .9 :> l::
ti5 V"J 0 - "
~ Ei = 0 .c "
= .!:l '6 " u
= '0 tt:: e .9 = >> :s! :(l ,; 1:
~ ~ = -
0 = " 0 " :g ~ '0 ..c:
Ei " - l ~ ..;:: U '"
- '/) .~ ~ :g "
E-< 0; '" tt:: - Ei 0 = u '" 8
.... g, '0 Ei ~
0 00 OJ) ,:g = Ei 8 .S "
'0 0 '0 '" " e ~ "- '0 'E
:E '/) ~ .... ;:I
;:I .... ;:I - = 8 ~ '0 .E E u
0 ~ ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ = ~ 1;l
= '6 " .S
~ '" = " E - G '" = -g
~ = .~ - ~ ;:I ~ Ii .... " = .9 "- =
.9 '/) g, ~ Ei < - '0 .9 " 0 .S "
~ 15 ~ ;:I " ] j!J
~ ">> '0 "- = ~ "- u ~ "
s ~ " 0 .9 .Q 1l .S "- Ei ~
[5 ll'l ~ , il :g '0 8
0 ~ " ~ ~ .~ 0 ....
.... .... - 8 '[ ~ j!J .E .E:-
o ~ '" E " ~ ~ ~ '" .... 8 u
.E:- o 0 ~ 8 '" 's ..s 'C
.... .E .... "-
.~ ~ 8 u 8 u - - .... .... 0 .>l -
= 's ..s .~ j :E .S = 0 .g = '"
" 0 Ei ~ :g ;:I
s - " ~ ~ .'" = 8 ~
~ .... 0 .>l ~ 0 u :E ::>
s " = :g = ;; .~ ll'l ~ ~
- ~ ~ ::> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 " ~ 0 ~
~ ll'l Z :E .... N "" .... V"J \0
" ~ '/) '/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ /3-.,20
~M~
....
~~~~
em OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CIlY MANAGER
ATTACHMENT 5
March 10, 1995
On Tuesday, March 21, 1995 a public hearing will be conducted to
discuss options for abating the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate
for the remainder of Calendar Year 1995 from the rate of 10% set in
the ordinance, to a rate which is less than 10% but not less than
8% rate at which it is currently set. TOT rates have been set at
10% since 1991 but have been abated to their current 8% level (the
rate they have been since 1978) by resolution of the City council
in 1991, 1992, and 1993, and 1994.
Staff is recommending that Council take no action to abate the tax,
thus allowing the tax to increase to 10% on April 1, 1995. Staff
is also recommending the establishment of a Chula Vista Visitors'
Coalition for advertising and visitor promotion. The Coalition
would have an annual budget of approximately $150,000 with the
actual appropriations above or below that amount being dependent
upon annual transient occupancy tax revenues
If you desire to attend, the City Council meeting begins at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Public Services Building at 276 .
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista.
If you have any questions, need further information or have any
comments, please contact either myself or Gerald Young at 691-5031.
All comments received by March 15 will be passed along to the city
Council as part of the staff report. A copy of the staff report
will be available on March 17; if you would like us to mail you a
copy then or if you would like to pick up a copy, please call 691-
5031.
S ncer~
/ [. WI-
Jim Thomson
Deputy City Manager
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5031 . FAX (619) 585-5612
. @-_... .::7'/:;3--d/
Minutes
November 22, 1994
Page 14
ATTACHMENT 6
on the actions mmended by the OMOC. Staff has com eled thaI follow-up and is returning to Council with
a work progra report. Staff recommends Council: ( Adopt the 1993 OMOC Annual Report and
recommendalions ntained therein; (2) Direct staff to impleme the recommendations in accordance with the work
program responses and, (3) Approve the Statements of Concern d cover letters for signature and issuance by the
Mayor regarding th Water and Air Quality Thresholds. (Direct of Planning)
Councilmember Moo referred to page 71 regarding traffic and s ed 'H' from Hilltop to Broadway wu a key
area of concern. It w 's opinion that there were a 101 of left-hand ms off of 1.805 to go south of "H" because
Ihe next 1.805 exit was " and it did not ha",e a left.hand turn. He ~ I someone should review that. 'H' Street
as it proceeded to the w from Hilltop to Broadway could be marked 0 parking' on the curb and chanlle it to
five lanes or have reversib lanes to accommodate the peak traffic hours He felt those two thinlls would help to
reduce the pressure at Hilll and "H" Streets.
MS (MoorelRindone) to a
t the report and approve the staff rei:
Mayor Nader stated he was con med that if it was said thaI water and air qua 'ty thresholds were not being mel
that the only remedy under the p was to write a letter of concern. He ho that at some point consideration
would be given by the Commission d Council to determine at what point the Ihre olds were sufficiently far from
being met thaI the Commission and ouncil would go beyond expressing concern state that actions that caused
further impacts on those threshold s dards would be abated until such time as a leve of comfort was reached with
those standards.
VOTE ON MOTION:
21. REPORT ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX In 1990 Council
established a maximum Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of ten percent and provided for annual abatement hearings
at which time the maximum lax could be lowered to nolless than eight percent. In each subaequent year, Council
has abated the TOT rate to eillht percent, the same rate it has been since 1978. The purpose of the annual
abatement hearinll is to consider abating the TOT rate to a rate below ten percent. If Council takes no action the
TOT rate would increase to ten percent on 1/1/95. Staff is recommending that Council take no action and allow
tbe TOT rate to increase to ten percent, effective 1/1/95. (Director of Finance)
Mr. Goss stated that staff was recommending that the TOT not be increased, but that staff be directed to meet with
tbe Cbamber of Commerce, tbe Hotel & Motel Association, and interested motel owners to discuss various options
for abating the increase in the TOT for 1995.
Councilmember Horton questioned whether the staff recommendation also included that a public hearinll be
scbeduled on or before December 20, 1994.
Robert Powell, Director of Finance, responded that was correct.
MS (Horton/Moore) to accept the starr recommendation to: accept the report and instruct starr to meet with
the Chamber of Commerce, the Hotel & Motel Association, and interested motel owners to discuss various
options for abating the increase in the TOT for 1995 and schedule a public hearing on or before December
20, 1994.
Mayor Nader questioned whether COuncil could vote to abate the tax at the present meoting or whether a public
hearing would be required. '
Cheryl Fructer, Revenue Manager, stated it was ber understanding that the TOT ordinance allowed COuncil to pass
a resolution to abate without a public hearing.
Mayor Nader requested that the item be trailed to allow the City Attorney time to review the ordinance.,
Mayor Nader stated the City Attorney had advised COuncil that the TOT could be abated without a public hearing.
RESOLUTION 17738. APPROVING ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX FROM A
RATE OF TEN PERCENT TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995 . OFFERED BY
COUNCILMEMBER FOX.
;;r /;J --;2J
.
!
Minu....
November 22, 1994
Page IS
. Rod Davis. 233 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA. representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated
representatives of the Chamber and Hotel &. Motel As,cx:iation were not preunt becaw;e they aI;'iUmed Council
direction would be 10 have staff meet with their representatives and that there would"" no v.)te taken by Council.
He stated there was some interest in the possible increase in the TOT, a Jllt,rent splil on lbe. fun.ling to provide
a mechanism for better advertisement of the City, some mitigation in the surcbarge methodology tor police Ilnd fue
calls based on the number of calls per month to a hOlel, and other ideas lhey wanled to be able to review with staff
before a final decision was taken.
RESOLUTION 17738 WITHDRAWN BY CbUNCILMEMBER FOX.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
22. RT UPDATE 0 CHILDREN'S SAFE HAVENS PROGRAM - On 7/19/94. sJaff
was direct to develop recommondations regar g coordination of a Children's Safe Havens Program with bcal
churches an other organizations. Staff has ma presentations on a basic Safe Havens concept to a number of
_ groups and 0 anizations, including the Child Ca Commission, Youth Commission, Youth Coalition, .mlthe
Commission 0 Aging. Presentations are also 1'1 ed for the Chula Vista Human Service.. Council ."d the
Ecumenical Co ncil. The intent of tbe report is to iscuss the organization of a Safe Havens Program. Slaff
recommends Co cil accept tbe report. (Director of rks and Recreation)
MS (NaderlHorto ) to acCept the report and approv the staff recommelldation.
questioned wby it was so difficu to have a "safe haven", i.e. due to all the services
ive program.
23. REPORT BALDWINBUD..DERSREGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING A COMMUNITY PURPOSE FAC ITlES OBLIGATIONS INCLUDING
REQUESTS TO AMEND COND nONS OF THE TENT A TIVE MA P SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT RELATING TO AME - Council directed staff to nego -ate an agreement with Baldwin which
would provide for the provision of 7.2 low-income and 17.2 moderate-i ome housing units and I.S acres of
Community Proposed Facilities. )/ er substantial negotiations. staff and aldwin have reacbed inlpasse on
significant issues in sucb an agreemen. Staff requests Council provide direc 'on regarding further negotiations.
(Director of Community Development d Director of Planninll)
David Gustafson, Deputy Director of Co unity Development, informed Counc that a proposed agreement bad
been placed on the dias whicb reflected ac rd between Baldwin and staff.
Mayor Nader atated it was his understandinll st the agreement substantially maintain the previous conditions and
IlIreementa the City had in terms of acqui I the dedication for affordable hOllSi for a minimum of three
buildable acres in the Otay Rancb project a as part of the affordable bousing req . rement for the Telegrsph
Canyon Estates project. The intention of the 'ty to convey that to a viable non-profi organization was still in
effect.
were many different definitions of "aafe baven".
re it was the criteria set by tbefederal government
the community grass roots entities where a child
1_ Valenzuela, Direct of Parks &. Recreation, responded tb
In the "..fe haven" de iOll referred to by Council member M
for federal funding. Som of tbe "safe baven" prollrams could
could seek refulle.
VOTE ON MOTION:
Mr. Gustafson responded ibat was correct. Coun iI reserved any options they wanted re rding the holding of
property. leasing it. conveying it in fee to a non-pr It, etc.
Mayor Nader questioned wbether Habitat for Hu
l'OlIardinll the time frame.
Mr. Gustafson responded that staff had not contacted one regarding tbe time frame.
discussions with Southbay Community Services regarding he viability of the project.
d been initial
)e---
/1 ~.2'1
II
"
.'
Minutes
December 20, 1994
Page 5
JhulJ~rs li,r puym~nt anJ th~r~ had ht:.:n no deht ..,rvice
IONS 17769 AND 17770 OFFERED DV C NCILMEMDER PADILLA, r""dinl( of' the te.t was
sed und upproved unanimously.
15. I 17771 REMOVING HISTORIC~ PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED A 44 SECOND A VENUE. The owner of 644 ""onJ Av~nue has requ~sted lhat hislorical site
permil conlrol of y modification to the struetore h~ re"lOved WI the site d<signation remaining. 11,e R<f.,-Al,.oe
Conservation Co . ssion has "",om mended approval of the ""lues Staf'f recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Plannin
.
16.A. REPORT A~fENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN F R THE EASTLAKE MAIJIo'TENANCE
DISTRICT. ZONE "0" Annual ass<ssm~nts in EastLak~ Maintenanc District Numher On~, Zone 'D" were
reduced to provide a nalura land""ape plan Ii" the slo~s adjac~nt to SR- 5 and provide the necessary erosion
control. EastLake Landscape aint~nanc~ District Numh~r One is now r~ lor acc~ptance from the developer
and a contract for landscape ma t~nance is nuw r~'luir~J. Staff recommenJs uneilaeeeptthe report and approve
Ihe resolution. (Di""'tor of Par . and Recr~atitln and Dir""tor of Puhlic Wor .)
B. RESOLUTION 17772 CCEPTING DID AND AWARDING LA: SCAPE MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTTOR.C. LANDSCA . COMPANY TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AINTENANCESERVICES
TO ZONE "0" OF THE EASTLA~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRI l' NUMBER ONE
Councilmember Rindone stated staff had one an ~x~ll1plary joh on a very diftieult an nnlroversial'project.
17. REPORT "NOTIC
LOSS PERMIT" (CS.95-04) FOR THE WI NING OF WUESTE ROAD AT THE OL fPIC TRAINING
CENTER - Lasl year Ihe Federal Department o' the Int~rior adupted the Special 4(d) rule re ulatin, the' hahitat
'loss' of the California Onateateher. The Spec II Rule links protection nf' the hird to the Iifornia Natural
Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) pmeess. Prinr to the preparatinn of' an nverall NCCP Ian; the process
allows the 'loss' of' up to live percent of the C,,,,sta Sage Scruh (CSS), which is the hahital for I Onatcatcher.
In August 1994, Council adopted an alllendment to the 1unicipal Cod~ which implements the Fede SpeciaI4(d)
rule at a local level. The proposal for the loss of .20. ~s of Diegan CSS as a result of the wideni ' of Wueste
Road at the entrance to Ihe Olympic Training C~lll~r is t e third such ~rmit he fore Council. Staff ommends
Council accept the loss permit as drafted. (Director of PI' ning)
· · END OF CONSENT ALENDAR..
PUDLIC HEARINGS AND REI.ATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
18. , PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING ABATEMENTOFTIIETRANSIENTOCCUPANCVTAX
RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS TIIAN EIGIIT PERCENT DURING CALENDAR
YEAR 1995 . On 10/25/90, Council adopted Ordinance 2407 ~stah1ishing a muximum Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOn rate of ten pen:ent, Mnd provided lilr annuli I ahat~ment he"rings at which tim~ Ihe maximum tax could be
10WCRd to not less than the eurr~nt r.te of ei!!ht pcrc~nl. C"uncil has held puhlic h~rings and ahated Ihe tax to
eight pen:~nt for calendMr years 1991 thrml~h 1994. the ,",Ille rate it hus ht:.:n since 1978. On 11/22/94, Council
direcled ataff 10 meet with the Chamber of C"mOl~rce, Ih~ Hold/Motel """leiation and interested molel owners
to dilC\lls various options for at>atinll/increasing lhe TOT rKt~s tilt cul~nd"r yeur 1995. Preliminary discussions with
representatives bave resulted in their request to aho.te any incr~s~ fur atl~ast ninety days, or until 4/1/94, in order
to allow further dialogue. Stall' "",ommends Council: (I) ConJuct th~ puhlic hearing and approve the resolution;
(2) Direct staff to continue discussions with th~ Chamber of C"mm~rce, the Hot~IIMolel Association and interested
motel owners regarding various opti"ns for ahating/incr~sinll the TOT rates for the period of 4/1/95 througb
12/31195. (Director of Financ~)
,rr /:J-.)~
Minutes
December 20, 1994
Page 6
"
RESOLUTION 17773 APPROVING ABATEMENT OF TilE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY I, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31,1995
This being the time alld place as advertis.,.], the public hearin~ was declared open. There ""in~ no puMic testimony,
the public bearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 17773 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reudinll of the text WIIS waived, pllSSed und
approved unanimously.
PCS-95-03: CONSIDE TION OF TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
OWN AS YENTANA, TRACT 95-03, I VOLVING 109 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE 0 SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE, SOUTH OF "
CLUBHOUSE lYE, AND SUBMITTED BY BREH~I C IMUNITIES -Brehm Communities ha. submiu.,.]
a Tentative Subdiv ion Map known as Ventan.. Tract 95-03, in, der to suhdivide 13.7 acres inlo 109 single family
lots and three open pace lots. The prop'orty is desigmltod as reel R-20 within Iho EaslLake Greens Planned
Community. and is ocated on the west side of South Greens w Drive, south of Cluhhouse Drive. Staff
recommends approval I' the resolution. (Director of Plannin~)
7 APPROVING AND IMPOSIN CONDITIONS ON THE TENTI\TIYE
SUBDIVISION MAP R PARCEL R-20, KNOWN AS VEN NA, TRI\CT 95-03, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDING AND READOPTING TilE MITIGAT" MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR IS-94-1
Councilmember Rindone stated a patte had developed early in EaslLuke which pro oted the development of cui-
de-sacs and hindered a good flow oftra c. He question.,.] whether Ihat was a posilion aken hy a previous Council.
Robert Leiter, Director of PlaMing, respo d"'] that part of the lotlllyoull"r Ihe pr'!iect titre Council was because
it was a golf course community. In looki 'at new pruiecls stafT was prnmolin~ the use If a ~rid paUem.
Councilmember 'Rindone slated if staff WKS ncerned wilh pressure from developers they 'hould hring the issue
back to Council for a policy decision.
mino Del Rio South, San Diego. CA, repre, nting Brehm Communi tie., stat.,.]
ommendalion. The project was their lifth EaslLake.
This being the time and place
. Scol Sandstrom, 2835
they were in support of the staff
There being no further public tesli
20. PUBLIC HEARING ACQUISITION
On 7/18/91, Council approved the lenllltive subdivisio mup litr Rllneho del Rey SPA III. Tract 90 2. In order
to comply with Ihe tentatiVe map condilions, Rancho del ey Partnership is re'luired 10 construct an 01 site portion
of East "J" Street. It requires street right-of-way across roperty owned hy Susie Mary Bennett. The roperty is
located between Paseo Ladera and River Ash Drive and nsists of IIbout 1.07 acres. The efforts of ncho del
Rey Partnership to obtain the property by negoliation ha e failed. Due to time constraints, Rancho el Rey
Partnership cannot wail any longer and eminenl domain I' eIllIings must hegin. Starr recmnmClftds app val of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17774 OFFERED BY COUNC MEMBER FOX, r~udinllllf the l~xt ",us \ UiVl'll, pu.'lsed and
approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION 17775 DETERMINING AND 0 CLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY :TO
ACQUIRE CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EAST I .. STREET AND AUTHORIZING T E
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQU
SAID RIGlIT-OF-WAY
P /')-..2?
,~,
}
MINUTES ,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CllY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 7
Wednesday, December 7, 1994
12:00 Noon
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon,
PRESENT:
Commissioners: Chair Patty Davis, Vice Chair Ty C9mpt9A ~reitei'; Members William
Tuchscher, Edward Martija, Geoffrey Bogart, CR\lsk Peterr.~~ii1\U4tj:ii!(Don Read, Liz Lebron
~%*~WL~~~
ABSENT:
Ex-C>fficiis: Ken Clark, Leonard Moore, John Munch, Marcia Boruta, Art Sellgren
Staff: Cheryl L. Dye, Jeri Gulbansen, Gerald Young
Commissioners: Brene Patrick (excused)
Ex-Officiis: Chuck Sutherland (unexcused)
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 2, 1994
11~. .:. ,::.. .:". : ;':'.' ;'~'..; .'.... .... .....;.. .<<~..",. .:' .... ~itil~~mmlNa!1l'~"fD1I1~" ""~J~'.:; 'B>:.6 ':_lllilir1j;."l~l;l~r""'llflilie!i';:
'.....~. ,". M ...... ....'M.. .. 'vW" . ......._..:.:..,':,.,....:. ;v;""...,:-."!'}.,wJ;~~.....:.v.::,......,:.:.:.:..;-:.:.:.w.~:....~.. . .:.... ...~::;:.. '..' ',';-.. ..::;-.,.,.,.,.,::.:.:.:~.""-.,.:<~.:<............<.,......{~,.w. .'.:...u..t~~:.:....~.....J_............="
.. ..y . N~ ""....'... ~~.'" .."'. .'_,. '''''= ~w. ..J.""':0:~,,,,~^,^^V"""'^V^....'W.d.... ,.. ,....~.~ "-W'''' . "-.,.=.,.v.vX'>.~v..v,.....w.."'........w.w.......__........^.,.,.,.,. ...."-...".,."-.'^.'..n.~.
2. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion regarding potential disposition of City property adjacent to Municipal golf course
on Bonita Road and status of Joelen Enterprises and the development of a resort hotel.
Member Tuchscher abstained from the discussion due to a potential conflict of interest
Member Bogart and Ex-officiis Clark and Sellgren arrived at this time,
Chair Davis commented that the EDC voted three years ago to support the concept of the
development of a resort hotel on the Bonita Road site. She continued that the developers
were not able to finance and move forward with their project In November, a project to build
apartments on this site was brought to Council's attention, Chair Davis attended that meeting
and reported to Council the position that the EDC voted three years ago. She stated that the
new proposal will be on a Mure Council agenda at which time Council will decide whether
to consider an alternative plan.
Ms. Dye commented that a retail project and an apartment project have been proposed. She
explained that there had been a formal agreement executed between Council and Joelen
Enterprises which has now expired due to Joelen being unable to obtain financing. Joelen
has renewed their commitment to the project and staff will be meeting with them to draft an
informal agreement outlining a timeframe to present to Council for their adoption.
Ms. Dye further explained that presently there are three acre.s available adjacent to the Bonita
Golf Course on Bonita Road. Joelen proposes to level the present banquet facility and
expand the area to approximately 7 acres upon which they will build an upscale hotel with 250
rooms and banquet facilities,
~ /]-:2?
.....
}
. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 2
December 7, 1994
In response to an inquiry as to whether Joelen has obtained f!!1ancing, Ms. Dye reported that
Joelen is presently in discussions with lenders that Joelen feels look very promising.
General discussion ensued among Commission members indicating that American Golfwould
commit $1.5 million to upgrade the golf course if the resort project proceeds. It was also
pointed out that the banquet facilities and conference capabilities would be beneficial to the
community. It was further noted that this type of facility could generate approximately $1
million a year in revenues to the City in addition to improving the City's image. It was
suggested that, since the site is owned by the City, the City should wait for the hotel as the
highest and best use. Another observation pointed out that a res9rt hotel would generate
substantial TOT tax.
Ir~i1111111i"""%
b. Discussion regarding chamber request for Economic Development Commission support of the
ChamberlMotel Association proposal to receive a portion of the increased Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and operate the existing Visitor Information Center.
The Commission discussed the Chamber's letter to the EDC dated November 28, 1994,. The
letter requested support for the following:
. An increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 8% to 10%.
. That 50% of the TOT increase be earmarked for the Chamber's
operation of the Visitor's Center (1-5 and E Street) and to 'sell the City".
The Commission asked staff if any information was available regarding the current amount
. ofTOT received and whether' any of it is currently earmarked for promotion of the City. Staff
responded that a preliminary review had been done and approximately $1 million is received
annually from TOT. Further, staff indicat3d that the City does not earmark General Fund
revenue sources for specific activities; however, the General Fund currently supportS from
$1.3 million to $2.4 million in promotional activities such as the Nature Center, the Chamber's
existing contract, and special events such as Harbor Days, and miscellaneous economic
development publications, etc.
Staff explained that after the Chamber came to the City Council and Council directed staff to
start negotiating with the Chamber to operate the Center, the City received a proposal from
another source, which staff is also looking at, offering to pay the City for the proposer to
'manage the Center rather than receiving a subsidy. Concerning the Chamber and
HoteVMotel Association, staff is presently negotiating regarding the Visitor Center and TOT.
Member Read stated that in the past the Chamber had looked at how the Visitor Center was
run and that many other enterprises who have tried to run the Visitor Center find it is not cost
effective due to a low volume of customers and that most people do not spend a lot of money
at the Visitor Center. The Commission asked staff to characterize the level of foot traffic
experienced by the Center. Staff reported that a SANDAG study had revealed an average
of 300 persons per day visit the Center and a peak of 400 to 500 can be expected in the
summer months. Roughly, 40% of the visitors are transit-related buying mainly transit passes,
using the public restrooms, and sometimes purchasing food and small retail items.
Discussion took place regarding the likely revenue made possible by the 2% increase,
estimated at $260,000 year.
~ JJ-;;V
--
}
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 3
December 7, 1994
Commissioners Lebron, Tuchscher, and Bpgart expressed concern about the EDC supporting
a tax increase given the limited amount of information they have thus far received. A question
was raised about the ordinance which would increase the TOT to 10%. Staff clarified that on
December 20, the ordinance provides for a 2% increase unless some action is otherwise
taken. In response to a question raised as to, how we fare compared to other cities, staff
responded complete figures were not at hand, but believes that most cities in the area have
a 10% TOT.
Member Martija believes Chula Vista is at a crossroad and is having to change their mentality.
\lVith consideraticm to the U.S. Olympic Training Center, he maintains that Chula Vista will
become a destination rather than a city that is between destinations and he wants to ensure
that whoever runs the Visitor Center has the City's best interest at heart. He feels the
Chamber is the most indicated for that position.
Member Read hopes thlot the motel owners are becoming .more unified and that they realize
to stay in business they will have to do some marketing and contribute some dollats rather
than letting the City contribute in taxpayers dollars.
Member Compton feels the businesses involved should support the TOT because he feels
it is taking taxpayers money and using it to produce more money. He pointed out that the
four previous operators of the Visitor Center have been a disaster and the Chamber is now
asking for volunteers. He stated the City should be advertising to create an image. However,
when it comes to spending the money for that purpose, everyone starts to balk.
Member Read pointed out that the City image is a priority for the EDC in 1995:
Chair Davis suggested that the EDC look in the direction of supporting the TOT and having
the City earmark the funds for marketing the City. She pointed out the EDC Marketing Plan
and perhaps funds could support that However, she feels the EDC should not get too
bogged down in the details.
Member Tuchscher feels he does not have enough information to support TOT and would like
to know where the other, cities in the surrounding area are relative to TOT, average rates for
this City vs. other cities and how it would affect our hotels.
Member Peter endorses the concept idea of the Chamber running the Visitor Center;
however, the City should also look at private enterprise offers. He feels the Chamber with
volunteers would be a great way to promote the City, and that the Chamber and MoteVHotel
Association working together is a positive beginning. He suggested the total increase in TOT
be earmarked for promotion of the City, and a portion of the amount should be negotiated to
subsidize the Visitor Center.
In response to an inquiry for clarification as to what Council is asking, Ms. Dye commented
that Council directed staff to negotiate a contract to operate the Visitor Center with the
Chamber and bring the item to the December 20 Council meeting; however, there have been
some new proposals submitted and negotiations are ongoing to work out questions and
issues with the Chamber.
Ms. Gulbransen described the issues staff is considering: should TOT be abated or allowed
to increase automatically; if TOT is raised, how will the funds be distributed; and the issue of
the Visitor Center. She continued that there are a number of proposals concerning the Visitor
--tj
/7/;2;
I
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 4
:-1
Deceml)er 7, 1994
Center and the City has received two or thr:ee proposals from the Chamber since Council's
direction. Staff is continuing to work on the negotiations.
M (Tuchscher) that we generally support the increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in accordance
with the Economic Development Commission's plans for promotion of the City.
Motion withdrawn.
M (Read) to postpone 'action on this item until further information can be received.
Motion dies for lack of second.
Ganeral disc.ussion occurred regarding thEr time sdnsitivity of thiS issue and the areas of
support the EDC wishes to address.
M (Lebron) to support the proposal from the Chamber to operate the Visitor's Center, but that Councii
carefully evaluate where current TOT revenues are goi'ng.
Motion dies for lack of second.
Illlr.@!I[m~ml~~!jJ!}j:;tlli~1i!I~B'I_.11!jlJnjll~!If1IP!Pm!l~1;I[I
Discussion regarding the possibility of directly referencing the EDC's marketing and
promotional plan as opposed to generically saying "promotion of the City".
Ms. Dye provided clarification regarding the EDC's marketing plan. She indicated that the
Commission directed staff to create a comprehensive, proactive marketing and promotional
plan. She explained "at 0\ er a period of six months staff produced an informal plan dealing
with image enhancement and promotion. It also deals with business retention, advertising,
trade shows, media exposure, and media campaign. The EDC adopted the plan. The
Commission suggested the EDC attach this plan as a reference during Council's
consideration.s.
M""""..... M' .......E...""~... .""'._..w '~"".="'~i!,-'~wl
w""." . J.. '""Dii4. ':."~^ '.:M"'.<. .. ,""i;';". .
>>;Oh.-<<';~~;~' ~:..o;.;,w '. v ";*;.;.W.0;~.w.::::: . .... .~ @." . ~w~<<<<< '::; '. ".m. M>:;:.}:-:.}~;.J!l.
__t.I1DIl~"'.~._.I!1i~.!tIl.gllB;.m~J~
General cflScussion about the process which was used to secure proposals and whether the
RFP process was used or required in this case.
l~llg!!Jjg-l..;1'tm:~!l_9_.I~t!l'I!~IRelll!~;:j.MUlj>>!fi!~!!I1
c. Notification of upcoming City meeting, January 26, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. for new Chairpersons
and members of Boards and Commissions regarding meeting structure, policies, conflict of
interest, and the recently revised Brown Act.
Chair Davis noted the letter that all the members received regarding the January 26, 1995
meeting, and hopes to see everyone there.
~ J}-)'tl
r-; i J
. ... <:-~"-
'->-.-'
.--
ATTACHMENT 8
~ -(
I f
~ I
1 ~ 1
I 1
~Ul
t III
ij !~ 1
!iJ ~i i
r 1 g~ !
'!I ! F; ~ .!!.
all :~ J
1"1 ~! !
f~ ~~ 1
! ! l
~i ~
I~ . ~
~ 1. t
<~ 11 !
i ~
a !!I I ~
i' . il
~i. ]
f
1
. -I i
~ ~ol j
11.~ lls 1
';8;l l~J t
~]! Ih a
. 8]1 1-5 f
] J I
\ !
I. li 1
. HiI~I'
f Ifil] ~
] 1]11[1
'1 . i1j~J~
"1 j I
1, of ..
I,ll
'j
.11
~J ~
it ll11J
f:g,.u ~
· . u--
1....1 -g~.M1
lUll
.cu=';l
... G.l S t:
. . . .
~
! ill
~ ~.s~
f~ ~j~
1 B l~~
If I;~
':I: I""
., '311)
*,-i jt
ii
'1 ~t
~~ :6~
j-e 1!
1~ ~1
~J ~jJ
II le:~
J 2
Yr JJ-.Jj
~ !;c ~ ..
"'iiJ~ ""' be 6 .:::
~6~ 1 ~ i
ilf 1~ J 1
i l~Jj "~~ ~~ - 6 h
~ ~rii i:~t ~~~ f "iG 1 rt
;!j a,s "':I "~" all;!!';;"'" -ll - a
i ]l!JI~~~' ]j[Jf ~ll ~ ]]
i f~"t~~~~t~ fj~l!l~~~j~ f]
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ -<
10:
l!!D
..8] .
1 ~ ~ tl
" ~-5 1'~
..!! ll~ ".8
Ii ~s E.~
~ II ~l! ~'i3
iH!Hn
I,~ ~M ~,s
~ ~ ~
~ ~ -<
,
.!! 'E'
t ~ j
~,f ~ ]
~.!! ~~~.f
...g lii~.
v~ s II
ii "I~:
)~fl mil
ll~~ .
'B ll"O IJ II
.. ....
rr /; -- 3;2
..".,,-J.-
....':..'T>
.:~;}l~
"'>,;';'Ci
,i.t?'-':i<;.
~~
'il,
I
",4iJ
J~~'t:
.:f
_:~~.;
'-,.ie.>:.
.,..~.
..1~:
'~.JE:
,':.
-~'"
...
':~,i;-
:;'-.....
~i:
:1-'
;
.~,
N
",--,.,,:.
'~
;:~
'r.~:
'-~
.:_'.J_'';'"
~'.'''''=
~1I
"~
>~1
,;ti
,11
-:ii;,
n
-~,
,I
';:"1',',;2,"
. ,",
.~ ."
":1'-;. .
~..t'"
'~
m
]
~
1
:f
j =
s
~ I
i 1
l
I
1
I
1
~
f
5
l
{
]
l
I
I _~ . ~
f ~. ~fl 11 11~gl ~ :~
Ia ~71 ]j~ ~EBil ~ f~
~~ i! ~ ~ OJ IrE jIi~] ~g i~
~l ~ fi j U jll flllf ~l ~IJ
.:J ::>::>
or
0;
.5
~ ~
"It
~ a.r~
8pf~rJ
..~E~
.So].fl iil ~
;J1ll>._t-
2'>=l!l~
]..511..
;~IU
!, E "oS II
~ehm.
~
~ g
l"~
]1
i Jli
.. J~e
." jll
'*-
'It
'-
::t:.
~
~ )'J---Y}
,-Co""".
:i~lr
:::.:j.~
.:-9E-
~~.
~:.~
".~..:..
'.~i:;.
'::.1
~.i..r
".'"..
~;~
.~,
:;:';;y;;
.i,7(~~
. ...~~:
:i;.,:_~
->;-..:,
-:",J,
'}~:.
.",.::~
:;if"
'"
,..:J:i
}J
.."",
.~~.;
:~~
.i1.)
"....,~~
-Lo.".:
.:..;if~.
";;;yt~ .
.'~
"'r<l.
::::<i,"
<.:.:~
;1
~:;~...
. :"'~
}j
...f€
.,"',
if
'--...i.~
-~
~-.ll
~~:I!
{~I':'"
:-~/~:
.:......:~.
.w.,.."7.".
"~
'::::,~~.
....~~..
.S;if
;il
.f:fi
'J
i
{
]
1
~
.s
i
1
f
i. 1!
" ..
's fo
:;; ....
Ii .iLs
1 -...
f. i jl
.!!Iii 1
... IS ",,'"
i l~~lU
]
t ~ ~
j ~
i i'-
t I ~ ~
1 -i~ ~ ~i
il J =]k [~fJ~l]
...~.~~iils~ l~ Niiloi>
ps f.l!<ll' i - fi~.!!.
il J~iiilt J!lhls-;;
~l Jl'.lJ~ JleJiJ11
~
6 ~ ~ ~~
i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 11 ~~
fo l'J:I'il tiC ; j 'il U
:h ~ ~ : ltjft :~~IJ~
I ~. !~.a 1 !~1~ &'~~Il~d
~'~fM:~l! i f~~~tl~1~~11
ii.5,]lh~ .~. ,,- ~~~',~u.!l
ih~~~ f J ~i]. ~ ~kl~~1 J
~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
fi ~-!i ~
~~:hll ~~ .1 i u~
[f la.s ] ~ . ....q~
~~ll~i!ill IJ~I' i
'i! ilios 1Il'S.u.i e os ~ lii .,,-
~ ~'H1B:~J a'5oS d &H)
~J~ 'S I!P foos!iE...
jHUI: huH'1 liJ
~ 1}~Ji
'~"
;.:'!ti-;
,,,(;to
':'<~
"~
"-'i;
r..:.g~'"
"
:~~:.
j
..:..-.;:;~~
'J
.."".c-.
....:-~5.
iB
~;..
':",;;:.!.
~~~
'-~lfi~
';$.t:~
,-,:-j;
.,~
~l:"::::~,
:';1
~~I
........
i
.~..I..
.g:.;:: .
.....- .,
:~t11
'f~
.hI"" -;
, ~("-~.
~:"'.~'
..:.:.:.....,.,~
II
i~
."it
It
i~f1
II
,~1.
~i
~I
~?
'E'"
13 :ij t
h~'a.H
~.tJsj
~~ 0 1 ~
r~fa
~}~ ~
lhb
~
~
.... II
,~ll 'S
~-5 !l
j!Jil ]I
~!!.1 d
~ j~ ..H
s ii 0l8%!
! ii,li '0 'Ill fj
tJ'a,niilllll ~
] E] I'o~] ~ ~
8 "1' ~-~ ?-: ~
~
u
'il ~
I~
!!i
U
:8....-
."H
; .....
..,.!Ill
." ~
z.",J!
i.
~
%!
IJ ~J l f ~
,H~ i H
i UlH H
~ l~
~~ sz ~~
:g ~ .;
t:! p.~
~ .. ~ ~ ~~
~ 5- .fl t-::e ..
iJ ~ ~ U'~~
~ E~,e l ~'U.;
~lt~ ~ ;S~il'tJ
. I ~ll~i l~fE
~ .I.l! .~ .2 ,t-I ;1 ~ J ~
I"''''~] ~ 1]
11 bO"ii s: "'C'oo
~$~<? a; ~
~ ..
~ ."
~.s L
!l~ Ii
CQ=8~
iUi
l .. 8 '60
'" ~'il ~
.c.-."J!
:!lEI!!
.Q"'l."'\ '"
!~ ~
~
~
01
J
.5
:!l
~!
]~
1i!=
JloO
~$
.s.~
is
'0 ~
u.
...
J ~
'1 'J
~ E f
J 1:1
~
~t .~ ~
~~ ~'J
{J f
.U ~
j.. :a
!!d ~
il ~ e. '"
1~ !E
1~ , ~
I~ I J
1~ ~
~~ ~
'ii .. l;j
d .f
1~ 1
Ii 1
~ .~
I~ '~
.;:r f
~1' f
...c,.....;;-
'II
~I
.?f,"
I
.;~}wt
.~~
~~:.
"'I'
j~'
!J;~"
'\1
"~
1:~;:~~
......:a;,r
"
;.:~l?:
!'''J'
~~~~
~t.
,...\
!Ji
;'il.
.'-".<C
'i!'"",
....t~
~
.t~
~'.
:~~..:;.,~.
v:'.
~:]i
<i';
:;:::~i
~.~ '
.",~.
;1
.::JI
'"';-
.,.;!;;~
:'~~if
,~
,';11
-iiY
-'x:;.
J~;
" ,;: "
~ /]---)5'
~~
~;!~
of! iii 01
j~'i
~8~
" t~
1)1
l!~ls]
00 lhlll!
. . .
~~l!
~ 'll~
.!l".; !.
li .t oj
€!k~
~:::i~O
c:
:a
II
~ t
" U ~
~:8u. ~
~hl ~
iUj i
;; Los '"
i]r~f ~
:f.8~~ ~~
~a!"'''' 6
il '~H."
JI IJ:> 'S: l!
.. .
-ll
'&,
1
,f
1
l
,~ ~
'S:
'~
1 2
t 'f
i j
... 1
'; f ~
'a 1
I j
:1 !
lil 1 .a
i Sl~ .a t
u j 81 ~ ~t1 i ~
1 J i~'f ~ ,) t;~ I !
~ ~ ~~ ~ c~ 18~ ~
t% ~tJ~i~ J i~ ffl j !
~ fa tJ" '0 3 ~;a ~ If' r .. of! J I
-i S~~!8i ~. n -;li~
~t-~~ttfjl~~11 ~il j' ~
]...] I I I I 10 ill' il
. . V) o!
:i~
'22:
-..
t~
co~
'.'" e
",Via!
!oil u
__ "'U::
.u"O "0
U:
...
~
jJ.
_ t
~o-
o ~.5
~ 0 ...
o~: ~
.5 ~ Iii
.i~~i
u8~,g
of ~ 11'1
ca12~
~~sS
0""0 Vlftl
19l!l;oc
~... c 0
.9 a &o'~
~
!i
.8]
~.~
.~ .s
~~lJ
id
lit il
. t
of!~
01;;
~
~
13
."
'S:
'~
~
"'1"
: ~ ,. ",
..~
I
;,~!
;'::'~rl
:'.'~
.~~i.
bO
,5
'i
...
"
,,~
bOS
,t~
-Co
.5...
.2, Iii
~~
g,.g
~Co
e'i
""-a,
h
'"
'~r
:;,~
'l~
.....'.~
",,"N.
"f.$.
l~
~ ;..:'2.
(if,
.~'"
.c,,,-*.a.
,;OZlO
-;.!E.
-,.::)}
!kiii
"..
..
'':If..
:1%
, ,'.~'.
.",. .~-'
~I
'~;
JI
~.
::J:~..:'
<'I
'it
~ /J<]~
~
~ ti
'1 1
I J
ii c
... ~
j~ -i
~ 'h .5
If h ]
1 j l f
~ ~
1
Q'C' ...
'~.g i Ii,
B i fti
Ii ~ ~ j,j]
~ ~ :f~ :1 ~'p
f~~ilUiil ~'ft
.!lFi'i!!let:~" j. ..
~o is..=.E.s:s] J .!.
-~. ..... ~
Ii ." .i :ll
~~ {~f ~ r ij i r
"t~ '1)1$1) ~J lIE '0 Ol
~." 15.-.8." tl.g ~ 'e
8.'~ ~.~ ..~ ... .... I .'1! to!>
Vol" ::l.-c,.c;! PI C.c'"
~ t ~ ~.~ : ~ t'~ ~ .,.2 . U :;
~ Iii i!ltl J II ]1 I i i~i:
1 Ii! ji~~j 11 Jl ,i t I I!'~
~ ~ ~~tl ~
~ ~ I ai
i 1'1 fl;!
I ~ ~jji~ ! j fs j E~
~j![~;j o~~ ~j! t ~
]f .'hi~d Id U.; ! t j~
11i~c5-l!>rdi ~~liltlt5lile l il. ill
s III!~I ]Jillll~ i H l
~]liI.:!~~ ~"il~;;fiH:! . I ~Ii
j ~~~~~~~ j~~l~~tl~ ~ ~].2
~ IJ-y?
I,
$,1
,:':.;~~::
':h~:~
~~::~~~;
~:e;;
:: -',:' .~..
':.'_C~.
.:tri
~~.
., ~'.'
;:~'.H
',:~r;'
";.':;".:1.-
-;,{'::':f
-'.~~.
......:
<,~-
"::-i.
......;.
.-....::.;;..
.frt.:
.',;;
"'~!~,
"
.-~
u
ir:
!
:,.:;r../.
~~.
~.:~!f
/:>~
.J?
..~
~.~
..1
'"",
:~4:
...~.
. ,!ft~
<I
,":i
f~:'
,~ '~2<'
..,~flt
l!!'
'C
~
Ii! ~
j t
!l ~ ~ ~
w ".......
~~ .u~
..,:a .5'p.~
] is. lli ~
~.g fi]
~j l~~
~
lr
~ III
.Il~ '~'li
J! t1 1.0 c
~}~ ]11
iJHm
~ ~
ft.... ~ '*'
~ L.
G U
I 1!
'll~ ~oi>
Do! ]~
lJ IiI
.." 'C.~_
-~ ]00I0O 0
.;; .8
1 i
'0 l'l
!.
i .5
~ ~
f i
~ ti
~ ~t:
.f :rf
o :f IS
~ '!!it
1 H
; :i[
.. ~ ILr;
'~'E ~:
c. ill .! f!
n B~
~ ... "
tll ~&.1 CO
1I:a Ie 1ll'5
:U~ ~:C
.~]~ I;'~ ri
.'ii"]~ ~~:~
:~d~ g I .r.!l'~
'i'O:~:;; loa (t!
IlUi 1 s'~
~'C ";;b"" :Sjl.!!l
.~~] ~n ! i~
~ra l'~.!!.Nfj:g ~
~18)tll~lIU
IS ISl~.llfll ~~
~ . ';JJS 0': ~21!
~=h! ~~~'O
njllllil"~~.g
J~~:U~'~iii
J! IE l!'~ ~ l"'1l 8
!jHUt:lli
Wuum
~ ~~! ".dU-dh~
~
...iricwi
-.iari
fll]'- yy
.,.;:1:
:.:t;:
'~t1
..;.:.;9;;,
;-'c.':--'
,-...'",
~J
Y<.~
-ff.~
;1~.~.
.,;..l.
.. ;~:';~,
;~.~j
.-::u.-...
,;"tl./
. ':~f~:
ti~~~i
.:~..
~~:;r...
,
'.)~
!
::'1
'"
.....'>=.
,J
<:jit
tfi
<~t~
,'if
.;:~~
":<IE'
~,~
....~
.::,~
:~.'~~
.:::.!f
;1
,.;:.,::-.~~.~
.~lJ
,/,:l!f
.r,.::..jf;..
:~~
':iff
t!
""'if'
.W:.
.:~~-:~-
iiil
:t.""...
...-........,.
... elQ
'" ~si
'"
- 8-..
~ Gi :2:
N ~T;j i;~ i
.-
u.. .
cc .0 .2 ~ iii ~
a:CI1 L:-
c u.. I~ t~ ii
CT~ ~tl 6-6-
WCl
c: ~- ~ CT l!
_Ill .0 -1
~<<;>> ..~:g
u c: bg
j!O b~=
-'5 ~ Jil~ .sg'
.!'c: iU ti
f2 I CT~
. 1il g> g>
::> ill ~i
.a..5
~e c: l .~
c: .2' 8 .e c: ~6 "'15-
.- ~.! i= 0 0 ~b .s~ tile
a:: = w._
!1 fd-
ill!
i~ ~ e
!i ;~
.!!~ ;=
_A.
.a_ j~
j::>g
li- 0._
",-
.!Is'&. c: lI!
::>'10 .i lQ
~'f~ -~
u. 11)0.
li~.t: a:
~iJ ~~
u -= ~~
8"2:
I: i~
,2.@ ~.I!
~o. e~
11).
at e~
f~
w
0-
u'5
Ii
it e
g> "E e _
; .- l!! 0 '" [.~.~ ~
8.E 1i::>ii I ~
'tl ~~~~e ~ltil1il5"
-= ~I
.I!~ ~ . e r~ ~
I II) lil II) ~= 1ilj ~
~'e ~ g>- II) K '"
.- 'tl J2.- ~K 5" ... "! _11)0.
!i! .l!lij5" Ij .>0: =
"'''' ~~I si~~~1 .mij .!!! leof
g> I . i~ .c:5'
.~. ~ .!!! A. ~J/! ~l~Q. 0. leQ. eo.9!~O
II) ~ - ;.ll! '" ~N g~ fa; - Q)o't:!Q) _
-. a. ui-ElI!
;eee 1il. ~ .~;
"8.~:5' "8.;~~~:5' ~:c lij~~ .g
~~ i ~..._'e
::l Q. ::l e ._ E 5.Q. Q.Q. l!! ~o LTI~Q."'til
. . 0.--
. . .
~ l:> - YJ
c: ~
Ol J::
Cl c: it
e: m
'E 0
E 0>
8 tG - -
~ ~
l~ Ol i Ol
E t::
'"
l :> :>~
-.- CT
~~ CTOl
~= '0 fili
",'" '0 ~ ~~ i ~ l;:: :>
:>i; Ol ~.g
CTO e: lit!!
'Eo E E 5-0 Is I .~ 8
-(/) ; ;
=~ fi8- fi 'COl
.so 0 '0 '0 ~~ l;:: '0 e:"'
e:t- 1l 1l ",J::
'e;,0 .so 1l Ol:!l
i' -1:.0
Ole: {2 {2 i'o {2 3:5-
III 0 Ill_ Ill.
N
'5 c:Sl '0
e: ~.!.!'i Iii
Cl Ol'~ '8
1ii j5 c. 15 c:e: J::
.!!!..,. .. c. -EE KG> ~ ~.!2' .!/l
'i= .e fii ~5E! .e"' i~
EI e: ()ll; I; ..8-
'" CllD .c",c. - Cl 2E 'Os;
.- c ~c: 1~ c: ~ oE '" e: ~B
lSJ:: '5 8- GO ~!~~ '5ce: Iii"'
!.~ -Ol 1ii.!2' OlE
~fiio tGo I~~~E' ~=8-..,. .o~..,.
~ Cl~ ...== ~-
~. = ~..,. .2. Iii = "'''' =
.0" - ~it!!1 ='CE-
~25' .- Cl E.E; t6 ~ ~ I .oe:B5l - G> l:i I
lQe:cl c.so", "leG as BlilQ
",2- Ol'- co caCD_s:. 3: 6'0 J:: OlC:~J::
-1i~.s:: o~~ c:~f o 'OJ::
CD! Gl~ A. 20"'lL .c~51lL -Gl lL ..:._ Gl lL
;:> - lL ~c~~.r iEliicD e>'"
c",.. _ t).!.! . .!!! c(') ~ Cl .
-ECi.tO :> Q,ID fil ""c t;j . ii~8.:6' "lii cCO caea-co
~I ~c:E:5" -2-.c OlS.c CI)- ~ .
'0 E . cl!!1iiC:i5' Sl.E~8
6~:i5' liiOl"'O \l!lil~o Ci.l!!0
tG - ~O 8.&;:t:.eB wt-l!!-
0.2.0- 002- w~ - .E:-- a:.o...-
(/) << ... <<
~ IJ-f/t?
, .
"
~c i ~ .5 0
8i 1 -
<II.!!! 8 '" E
",no
>'-1:~ - - :>
~ ~ Ol !
~~5'15 ~ ell
i e:
1il =
i 8-i ~ <II "i
:> :> 'Ai
~r~i CT CT 'Ii
€ 'E &. iii
.:l!cuo :> :c "i
,g -
_.2j~ ~ .5 .!!! ~
i~ ~ 0 1: !
'E ~ ~
.58 III :5 !!J.
Ew&.:::E Co is. Ol
'" fe: .5 .S! I B
ti'15' ~ ell ~
'D",u i 'Ii
Btil:iO 'D
&. .5 i 1ii
~g.so~ u g' ~
If) III .~
..
&. 'D
-
'C e:
e: .2
<II di
'Ii e:
'E oj
1ii .- e
Ol -ell
e: oj ui~
Ji ~ ~i
lil .-.>0:
<II e",
'5 e: Co.e:
<II ii
'" u
e: co t: '
.!!! .~ :> e:
Co ..,0
~ e:
Ol ~Ol
~ e: ._ e: M
ljij N'-
.- e:
1: 1: .-
~ 1ii .S!~
i ~ ..
:> Co~
.., til eell
&. '8. 'SSl
~
~ :> o&.
&.-
i e: ~'5
co ~ 5
~ ..
'" .2: i.-
e: ~ &.til
8 .!2 ::J
il
III ~
i 8:!r
g lil~
1: W !~
e: .. ~
~ .S!~ :2 ~I~
1i ~ tillll i
e: .:
S r= 1:-..cn :> rl,Q
- ~&.- 8
'5 Ol~ ",Ill
1.2 J ell - .. ~ eo!!!
ei is.&.til f... t
l5 OlD.. :>~~ .5-ge ~ il~
&.ai e &. 'CCOOl al"~
] -ui e:colllS" ell
it:: . lii~.5 S" ~ 'fi .>0:-
~:c ~~~I ~~t~J i -!!2
_I 0 .>0: ~ ~o
~ ~i o--~ .~ .
~~2lD.. i!eE~D.. ~8i ljij <pc
tigj1: &.'5.e:"":- lll&.U"":- Sl 1ii e:W
0"
"'~~:& illlco I <- = z&.
H8e8 o :>0 ~ :Q'C.c -
o co_ c'5.cliiQ.
. .
u. - N
~ /J-,//
~
Sections
3.40.010
3.40.020
3.40.030
3.40.040
3.40.050
3.40.060
3.40.070
3.40.080
3.40.090
3.40.100
3.40.110
3.40.120
3.40.130
3.40.140
3.40.150
3.40.160
3.40.170
3.40.180
3.40.190
3.40.010 Tide.
C1apter 3.40
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX!!
ATTACHMENT 9
Tide.
Definitions.
Imposition-Rate-Payment-Annual Abatement.
Ezemptions.
Operator-Collection duties generally.
Operator-Registration lI11d certificate requiad-ContenlS-Posting.
Operator-Returns, reports and payments requiad when.
Delinquent ,.......i....n<<. fraud or audit deficiency.penalties designated.
Failure to collect or report tD-Determination procedure-Notice.
Failure to collect or report tD-Public hearing when-Procedure.
Appeal Procedure.
Operator-Record keeping duty.
Refunds.
Actions to collect.
Finance director regulation prescription audtority.
Successor to business-Duty to withhold tu.
Successor to business-Liability for failure to withhold- Duration of liability.
Disposition of revenues-Utilization.
Violation deemed misdemeanor-Penalty.
This article shall be known as the 'transient occupancy tax ordinance of the city of Chula Vista.' (Ord.
1471 ~1 (part). 1973; Ord. 1339lil (part), 1971; Ord. 986 ~1 (part), 1966; prior code ~7.301).
3.40.020 Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this section govern the
constrUction of this chapter:
A. 'Hotel' means any strUcture, or any portion of any strUcture, which is occupied or intended or
designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes and is held out as
such to the public. 'Hotel' does not mean any hospital, convalescent home or sanitarium;
B. 'Campsite' means any area which is occupied or intended or designed or improved for occupancy by
transients utilizing recreational vehicles, motor homes, or mobile trailers for dwelling, lodging or
sleeping purposes and is held out as such to the public. 'Campsite' does not include any mobile home
park;
C. 'Occupancy' means the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession of any room or rooms
or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes;
chapter and shan have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions
of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be
compliance by both;
E. "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization,joint stock company, corporation, estate, trUst, business trUSt, receiver, trUstee, syndicate,
or any other group or combination acting as a unit;
F. "Rent" means the consideration charged for the occupancy of space in a hotel or campsite valued in
money, whether to be received in money, goods,labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits
and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever;
G. "Transient" means any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of
concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty consecutive
calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any person who in fact
exercises occupancy or is in fact entitled to occupancy for a period of thirty-one days or more,
counting portions of calendar days as full days, shall be deemed not to have been a transient with
respect to the first thirty days of occupancy or entitlement to occupancy.
(Ord. 1804 U (part), 1978; Ord. 1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 U (part), 1971; O~d. 986 U (part), 1966;
prior code fi7.302).
3.40.030 Imposition-Rate-Payment-Annual AbatemenL
A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel or campsite, each transient is subject to and shall pay a
tax in the amount of ten percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed
by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The
transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel or campsite at the time the rent is paid. If the
rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The
unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel or campsite. If for
any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel or campsite, the director of finance may
require that such tax shall be paid directly to the director of finance of the city.
B. Notwithst~nding anything else to the contrary in this section contained, the City Council is hereby
authorized, but is not required, to lower the tax, or the rate of tax imposed under the authority of this
Chapter, but to no less than what the tax would be at a rate of eight percent, for no more than one
calendar year. if, within three months prior to the commencement of a given calendar year, it conducts
a public hearing at which it publicly deliberates on the advisability of doing so, notice of 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 abate all or any portion of the tax herein imposed.
(Ord. 2407 U, 1990; Ord. 1804 fi1 (part), 1978; Ord. 1471 fi1 (part) and fi2, 1973; Ord. 1339 fi1 (part),
1971; Ord. 1159 fit. 1958; Ord. 986 fi1 (part), 1966; prior code fi7.303).
3.40.040 EemplioDs.
Except as may be otherwise provided by law, there shall be no exemption from the imposition of this
tax for federal, state or local officers and employees traveling on official business; provided, further, that this
(R 11/91)
246
)/y /;J--Yf/
(
tax shall not be imposed for any accommodations where the rental thereof is at the rate of five dollars a day
or less. (Ord. 1804 Al (pan), 1978; Ord. 1471 AI (pan), 1973; Ord. 1339 Al (Pan), 1971; Ord. 986 AI
(pan), 1966; prior code A7.304).
3.40.050 Operator.eonection duties generally.
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time
as the rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount
of the rent charged, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator. No operator
of a hotel shall advertise or state in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, that the tax, or any pan
thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the operator, or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, if
added, any pan will be refunded, except in the manner hereinafrer provided. (Ord. 1804 AI (pan), 1978;
Ord.J471 AI (pan), 1973; Ord. 1339 AI (pan), 1971; Ord. 986 AI (pan), 1966; prior code A7.30S).
3.40.060 Operator-Registration and certificate required-Contents-Posting.
Within thirty days afrer July 23, 1971, or within thirty days afrer commencing business, whichever is
later, each operator of any hotel or campsite renting occupancy to transients shall register said hotel or
campsite with the director of finance and obtain from him a "transient occupancy registration certificate"
to be at all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. Said certificate shall, among other things,
state the following:
A The name of the operator;
B. The address of the hotel or campsite;
C. The date upon which the certificate was issued;
D. "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the face hereof
has fulf1lled the requirements of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance by registering with the
Director of Finance for the purpose of collecting from transients the Transient Occupancy Tax and
remitting said tax to the Director of Finance. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct
any unlawful business or to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner, nor to operate a
hotel without strictly complying with all local applicable laws, including but not limited to those
requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of this City. This certificate does
not constitute a permit."
(Ord.1804 AI (pan), 1978; Ord.1471 Al (pan), 1973; Ord.1339AI (pan), 1971; Ord. 986 Al (pan), 1966;
prior code A7.306).
3.40.070 Operator-Returns, reports and payments required when.
A Each operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the close of each calendar
quaner, or at the close of any shorter reporting period which may be established by the director of
finance, make a return to the director of fmance, on forms provided by him, of the total rents charged
and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. At the time the return is f1led,
the full amount of tax collected shall be remitted to the director of finance. The director of fmance
may establish shorter reporting periods for any certificate holder if he deems it necessary in order to
insure collection of the tax, and he may require further information in the return. Returns flled or
taxes remitted and actually received by the director of finance on or before the last day of the month
247/ /;-Y3
(R 11/91)
following the close of each calendar quarter shall be deemed timely rued or remitted. Rerums filed
or taxes remitted by mail shall be deemed timely rued only if the envelope or similar container
enclosing the returns or taxes is addressed to the director of flI1ance, has sufficient postage and bears
a United States postmark or a postage meter imprint prior to midnight on the last day for reporting
or remirting without penalty. If such envelope or other container bears a postage meter imprint as
well as a United States post office cancellation mark, the latter shall govern in determining whether
the fIling or remittance is timely.
B. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes
collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the city until
payment thereof is made to the director of fInance. All returns and payments submitted by each
operator shall be treated as confidential by the director of finance and shall not be released by him
except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction or to an officer or agent of the United States,
the state of California, the county of San Diego. or the city. for official use only.
(Ord. 1471 ~1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 II (part), 1971; Ord. 986 II (part). 1966; prior code ~7.307).
3.40.080 DelinqueDt .....ltI2nN>, fraud or audit deficiency-Penalties designated.
A. Original delinquency: Any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter within the time
required shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the
tax.
B. Continued delinquency: Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance within thirty days
following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquent
penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax and the ten percent penalty first imposed, provided
that the director of fInance has notified, by certifled or registered United States mail, the operator of
the delinquency and the ten percent penalty fll'St imposed, such notification to be given within the
thirty day period of the initial delinquency, and provided that the operator has not paid the tax and
penalty due within fourteen days after notification or within the thirty.day period of the initial
delinquency, whichever is later.
C. Fraud: If the director of fInance determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this
ordinance is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty.five percent of the amount of the tax shall be added
thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subsections A and B of this section.
D. Audit deficiency: If, upon audit by the city, an operator is found to be deficient in his return or his
remittance or both, the director of flI1ance shall immediately notify the operator of the net deficiency
and the original ten percent delinquency penalty. If the operator fails or refuses to pay the deficient
amount and applicable penalties within fourteen days after the date of the director of fInance's notice,
the penalties prescribed in subsection B above shall apply, using the fifteenth day after the date of the
director of fInance's notice as the date when the continued delinquency penalty fll'St applies.
(Ord.1471 II (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 ~1 (part). 1971; Ord. 986 ~1 (part), 1966; prior code ~7.308).
3.40.090 Failure to coUect or IepOJt tax.Determination procedure-Notice.
If any operator shall fail or refuse to collect the tax and to make, within the time provided in this
chapter, any repon lUld remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this chapter, the director
of fInance shall proceed in such marlI1er as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to
base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the director of fInance procures such facts and information as
(R 11/91)
248
? /J-Y~
~
he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and payable by
any operator who has failed or refused to collect same and to make such report and remittance, he shall
proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax and penalties provided for by this chapter.
In case such determination is made, the director of finance shall give notice of the amount so assessed by
serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the operator
so assessed at his last known place of address. (Ord. 1471 !il (part), 1973; Ord. 1339!il (parr), 1971; Ord.
986 ~1 (part), 1966; prior code ~7.309(1)).
3.40.100 Pailure to collect or report tn-Public hearing when-Procedure.
The operator described in Section 3.40.090 above may, within ten days after the serving or mailing
of such notice, make application in writing to the director of finance for a hearing on the amount assessed.
If application by the operator for a hearing is not made within the time prescribed, the tax and penalties,
if any, determined by the director of finance shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and
payable. If such application is made, the director of finance shall give not less than five days' wrinen notice
in the manner prescribed herein to the operator to show cause at a time and place fIXed in said notice why
the amount specified therein should not be fIXed for such tax and penalties. AI such hearing, the operator
may appear and offer evidence why such specified tax and penalties should not be so fixed. After such
hearing the director of finance shall determine the proper tax to be remined and shall thereafter give wrinen
notice to the person in the manner prescribed herein of such determination and the amount of such tax and
penalties. The amount determined to be due shall be payable after fifteen days unless an appeal is taken
as provided in Section 3.40.110. (Ord. 1471 ~1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339!il (part), 1971; Ord. 986!il (part),
1966; prior code ~7.309(2)).
3.40.110 Appeal procedure.
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the director of fmance with respect to the amount of such
tax and penalties, if any, may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within
fifteen days of the serving or mailing of the determination oftax due. The council shall fix a time and place
for hearing such appeal, and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to such operator at his last known
place of address. The fmdings of the council shall be fmal and conclusive and shall be served upon the
appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall
be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice. (Ord. 1471 ~1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 !il
(part), 1971; Ord. 986 ~1 (part), 1966; prior code ~7.310).
3.40.120 Operator-Record keeping duty.
It is the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the city of any tax imposed by
this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine
the amount of such tax as he may have been liable for the collection of and payment to the city, which
records the director of fmance shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times. (Ord. 1471 !il (part),
1973; Ord. 1339 !il (part), 1971; Ord. 986!il (part), 1966; prior code ~7.311).
3.40.130 Refunds.
A. Whenever the amount of any tax or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once or has been
erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter, it may be refunded as
provided in subsections B and C of this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under
penalty of peljury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the director of
249 ~ /]-J/7
(R 11/91)
finance within three years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the
director of finance.
B. An operator may claim a refund or take a credit against taxes collected and remitted, of the amount
overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established
in a manner prescribed by the director of finance that the person from whom the tax has been
collected was not a transient; provided however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed
unless the amount of tax so collected has either been refunded to the transient or credited to rent
subsequently payable by the transient to the operator.
C. A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid or paid more than once or erroneously or illegally
collected or received by the city by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection A of this
section, but only when the tax was paid by the transient directly to the director of finance, or when
the transient, having paid the tax to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the director of
finance that the transient has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the tax.
D. An operator who has remitted an amount in excess of the amount required to be paid by this chapter
may receive a credit to the extent of the excess. If the excess is discovered as a result of an audit by
the city, no claim need be flied by the operator. Such credit, if approved by the director of fmance,
shall be applied to any deficiency found or any further tax payments due under the rules prescribed
by the director of finance.
E. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant establishes his right
thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto.
COrd. 1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 ~1 (part), 1971; Ord. 986 fi1 (part), 1966; prior code ~7.312).
3.40.140 Actions to collect.
Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to
be a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which has not been paid
to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city
under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the
recovery of such amount. (Ord. 1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord.1339~1 (part), 1971; Ord. 986 fi1 (part), 1966;
prior code ~7.313).
3.40.150 Finance director regulation prescription authority.
The director of finance may prescribe reasonable regulations to implement the provisions of this
chapter. Such regulations shall become effective upon approval by the city council. (Ord. 14 71 ~ 1 (part),
1973; Ord. 1339 fi1 (part), 1971; prior code ~7.314).
3.40.160 Successor to business-Duty to withhold taL
If any operator who is liable for any tax or penalty under this chapter sells or otherwise disposes of
his business, his successor shall withhold a sufficient ponion of the purchase price to equal the amount of
such tax or penalty until the selling operator produces a receipt from the director of finance showing that
the tax or penalty has been paid or a cenificate from the director of finance stating that no tax or penalty
is due. If the seller does not present a receipt or certificate within thirty days afrer such successor
commences to conduct business, the successor shall deposit the withheld amount with the director of finance
(R 11/91)
250
X IJ-J/Ir
(
pending settlement of the account of the seller. (Ord. 1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 fi1 (part), 1971;
prior code fi7.315).
3.40.170 Successor to business-Liability for failure to withhold-Duration of liability.
If the successor to the business fails to withhold a portion of the purchase price as required, he shall
be liable for the payment of the amount required to be withheld. Within thirty days after receiving a wrinen
request from the successor for a certificate, the director of finance shall either issue the certificate or mail
notice to the successor at his address as it appears on the records of the director of finance of the estimated
amount of the tax and penalty that must be paid as a condition of issuing the certificate. The time period
within which the obligation of a successor may be enforced shall commence at the time the operator sells
or otherwise disposes of his business or at the time that the determination against the operator becomes
final, whichever event occurs later, and shall expire, in the absence of fraud, three years thereafter. (Ord.
1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord.1339 fi1 (part), 1971; prior code fi7.316).
3.40.180 Disposition of revenues-Utilization.
All revenues collected by the city under this chapter and remaining after payment of the costs incurred
in the administration of this chapter shall be deposited in the general fund and the council may, from time
to time, by resolution, specifically designate the purpose for which these revenues may be utilized. (Ord.
1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 fi1 (part), 1971; Ord. 986 fi1 (part), 1966; prior code fi7.318).
3.40.190 Violation deemed misdemeanor-Penalty.
(
Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable therefor by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail
for a period of not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any operator or other
person who fails or refuses to register as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be made, or
who fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the director of fmance, or
who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as aforesaid.
Any person required to make, render, sign or verify any report or claim who makes a false or fraudulent
report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter
to be made, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as aforesaid. (Ord. 1471 fi1 (part), 1973; Ord.
1339 fi1 (part), 1971; Ord. 986 fi1 (part), 1966; prior code fi7.317).
(
251
~ JJ-Y~
(R 11/91)
~
"J,.
"..,'
'",'
..~~~~~~;
""
"
,'"
"J,'
',.','
,'"
'.".,'1,':
",,.,
.,.
"'K')
,
'.":",
"
"','
, ':'
,'"
'".'
'I'"~
"~'
..' ~.","'M':~~~~~~:::~~\Jri.~.'..'"
.,c.'!:^"
),; ,: :~: :,,;,',",
", .~ ~JiiJ"'~t~. . ..... .... "'h.
.........cOPI~-r~: ,...,..... ... c......:'.:::,:":.:..'.....,.'..
~till....(4l
" ""I'"", 'I" ",iJ;1!" ",,'" '!'"
.......~~....:.!:.
I. .~
Oti~::';:'':''';;';''-~t. .....
, "QI":"'-,.~'4.q;'~~~~ \"~ ,r',
:'Rin;.~'i;:"':: ".'" ""!' :J.:'",.:,./,,,
'~"",,_:.' '''''''''''/'." '""~'i""
"'., '",,;, "':,';",, '" "', "
~> .
"":i"""
":;~~.'
.
"~ "
,.I':,,'
'f' ,.
',;, ".:'"
I:"
",:" ,
,"r'
','
, ,,;, ~
" ".,
.", .,'
1
".'
,','\
,.,'
". ~ c,
"',"
. ".:
',,'
"", "
'",'
'.
,
',"
.'
,',I'.':'
"!;l',
,',;'
',' ','
",,:',,:
C' i"
.,,'.
',r'/"
"'. ,:~:.I\<'" ,"
,,\ ~'~"
.,"
',,',1
'".!'"
,
'...1.'
>...)" ,"
"""
,',,1,.
,,'
',,'
:,.,-,;"
'I':,
",r.:
;" '.'"
. ,.,-" ,~
""".,1
','
",' , ,:,
,,\
: '~,.'.'"
"'.",
',,""
,e,:
~ " '
!~ ''..-',
.,f:,"
'. ~~'
"
','
''',
;",
"r:" ..,:.',
'%'"
.;,.
",.
.~~: .
;".:'
'I"
,,~ "\:' i
",<"
, . , . ,I
I,:"
:c.,
',',
'J,
'""
'''',,'
,,,,' ,
'r,' '
,'.'"
.:" ";:,.:,'<':::",:'.:
,',."
'. ~~J ()fJk.(~
" I'OST~~i{~~;~uri~,
, ,..,' ,"'" ~~:~,
" , "',' ", '"
. . '. "$>~_"t1i~:'..'. .
\" 1'.,'
~t1J,~:
,;'.;,.,; ':'\:'
.\.,'
':1 ,~.,
"'.,
"',-:
.c'
.:~
",:"
""'-:,
,j,'
".'
,'"
,',
~ ,'" ."
"',-,'
, ,,~
" ,',,'
.
,',.'
',,'.
.
..!"I"
,".
, '
:,'1,r
: '~" I
'.",'
"
.'"f"
'"~,,
, ,~,
, .. ~,< '
, , . , . '
,,'
"1,'
'..',
"'.',
".,.
'.'
,,,,,
",,:,
":,",
.
,)
".' "
"t~3' ,
,,:
..
. '$S-,&i.'~//l"
"Y'~"", ~C~."
",' , '" " ", ,," '
,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Purpose of considering the adoption of a new element to the text of City's
General Plan establishing policies which address the provision of child care.
Purpose of considering an application for Conditional Use Permit/Special Use
Permit submitted by Community Development requesting permission to
expand existing Civic Center parking lot west of fire station @ 459 F Street.
~
Purpose of considering taking no action to abate the scheduled increase in the
transient occupancy tax, thereby allowing it to rise from 8% to 10% effective
April 1, 1995.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter 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 TIlE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
March 21, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: March 8,1995
.v 9 ~
~~,!)
~:~ \<;~~
J- \\ ~
\-9Y y\~.-
V. OJ- .
~ v--Y
~
JJ~->'/
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:
Purpose of considering taking no action to abate the scheduled increase in the
transient occupancy tax, thereby allowing it to rise from 8% to 10% effective
April 1, 1995.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter 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,
March 21, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: March 8,1995
.~
\~~
A~60
d ~~ \""0... <-
W ,S,
V--W-J-
/J~5df-,
.
.
.
:zr / ;J
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ATTACHMENT 2
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACT
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
10F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
BACKGROUND
Particularly given the imminent opening of the Olympic Training Center in Chula VISta, the City desires to
promote tourism and the City's visitor-oriented attractions and facilities. VISitor promotion and funding has
also been discussed in the context of considering whether to abate the Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) on
April 1, 1995 from 10% to an amount not less than 8%.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the amount and use of visitor promotion funds.
POLlCY
1.
During the annual budget process, the City Council will consider the adoption of a Visitor Promotion
Budget for the following fiscal year. It shaIl be the policy of the City that the Visitor Promotion
Budget should be funded from General Fund sources other than the T.O.T., in an amount addressed
in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. In implementing this policy, the T.O.T. revenues collected may be a
measure of the amount of the appropriation, but not the source of funds used for the appropriation.
2. It is the policy of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a proposed FY 1995-96 Visitor
Promotion Budget, for Council's consideration during its FY 95-96 budget deliberations, in an
amount of $150,000.
3. For FY 1996-97 and the three consecutive fiscal years thereafter, it sha1l be the policy of the City
Council to direct staff to prepare proposed VISitor Promotion Budgets, for Council's consideration in
its annual budget deliberations, in amounts measured by the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected in
the most recent I-year period for which data is then available (typicaIly April through March) based
on the following guidelines:
_ If the annual T.O.T. revenue is $1.5 million or less, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be an amount equivalent to 10% of the T.O.T. revenue collected.
_ If the annual T.O.T. revenue is more than $1.5 million and less than $2.5 million, the
proposed Visitor Promotion Budget would be $150,000 plus an amount equivalent to 5% of
the T.O.T. revenue in excess of $1.5 million. This guideline would thus result in a maximum
proposed annual VISitor Promotion Budget of $200,000.
If the annual T.O.T. revenue exceeds $2.5 million, the proposed Visitor Promotion Budget
would be $200,000. The City would then review this Council Policy, including discussing it
with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chula VISta Motel Association, to determine whether
the policy should be revised to provide any additional guidelines for proposed Visitor
Promotion funding beyond the $200,000 maximum proposed annual amount provided in this
policy.
J:J-ff
~
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR VISITOR PROMOTION,
SUBJECl' TO ANNUAL APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AND
RELATED CONTRACl'
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07-01-95
I DATED: 03-21-95
PAGE
20F2
"""
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No.
4. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and the Chula Vista Motel Association are forming a Chula
Vista Visitor Coalition, and representatives of those agencies and the City will be involved in
formulating a proposed Visitor Promotion Budget to be considered by the City Council each fiscal
year. It is anticipated that some projects included in the Visitor Promotion Budget will continue to
be administered by the City or be for services for which the City has previously contracted with the
Chamber of Commerce. It is also anticipated that a significant portion (probably the majority) of the
Visitor Promotion Budget will be for specified services for which the City will execute an annual one-
year contract with the Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of the Visitor Coalition. The Chamber will
provide quarterly reports to the City to be specified in the annual contract, including appropriate
accounting data.
5. This policy shall be set for review approximately five years after its adoption date. That review
should include, but not be limited to, the appropriateness of continuing to establish Visitor Promotion
budgets in relationship to the amount of T.O.T. revenue collected, the guidelines for such
relationships, and the appropriateness of the Chamber of Commerce continuing to act as the
contracting arm of the Visitor Coalition compared to other organizational arrangements such as the
establishment of a stand-alone Visitors Bureau.
~
J:J~
AN
1NVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
.
CRULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AttAEDITlD
e::;." -..u.
................
..,..............
ATTACHMENT 3
February 7. 1995
.lohn Goss
BOARD OF DIRECTORS City Menager
..,....nt City of Chula Ulsta
.llmW_ 276 Fourth Ruenue
Chula Ulsta. CR '191'
.,...,. EJect
Greg Cox
va Prellldenta:
.....BuI.
__ CoIIin8
Qwle Lewla
OWe Wen!
......bIre:
P8IIIcIe e-
&~
....._ HIckok
'1bm McAndrfta
SclllI Moeller
GeIy NordelrDm
ADbelt P_. MO
Ben RichenIaon
FIri SCClIl
M8Iy AnM 8ttD
IobThomu
8rad WII80n
Pat PrMIcIInt
~f'"
a-lIIIve Dnctor
f'od Devil
.
Dear .lohn:
.1 apologize far talelng sa long to reply to your letter of 21
December 1994 requesting clarlncatlon an the current TOT Issue. Things
haue been unfolding at such a rate that not until today did I feel I
could respond with aut a major change coming the neMt day. Far ease
of reference far aueryone. I haua Included a bacle ground section.
.Rek'flraund
Transient Occupancy TaM Is that charge a city leules against
hotel/motel and camp site ulslton. This taM Is the only taM leuled by a
city gouemment. which Is not leuled an the citizens of the city. Chula
IIlsta currently has a TOT rate. which Is at .". Mast of the county Is at
11" with the City of San Diego at 1'.5" and Coronado at 6Y,. Coronado
Hotel Rssoclatlon Is preparing a plan. which almost mirrors our
suggestion. Coronado Is going to asle far an Increasa from 6" to .".
which Is a 55 1I5Y, Incraase In TOT. Dne percent of the ." will go to the
association to aduertlse the City. The second 1 Y, of ." will go to pay
far the new Golf Coune. Our proposal II uery similar. We want the TOT
to go from ." to 1'''. and we want one percent of the 1'" to be
auallable to the Chamber and the Motel Rssoclatlon acting as a Ulsltor'.
Coalition to aduertlse the City. The .econd lY, of the Increese to 1'"
. would go to the City a. Incr~aled reuenue to the general fund.
SDRelflea
In 1'94 the total TOT collected wel 11..4........ at the rate of . Yo;
had the nte beiln 1.." then the TOT collected would haue been
11.5...... an Increale of 1268..... Half of that would haue baen
SI58..... That II the amount. which would haue been auallable to be
spent In order to draw tourl.ts to Chula Ulsta. The Rrcoe Training
Center. Harbor EHcunlons. and the Rmphltheater all combine to malee
Chula Ullta a tourist destination. The City of Chula Ulsta .taff
.Mpressed a conem that with the new hotelsllodges. which we are
working to bring to town. that thl. formula was too open ended.
.
. II , 0 U " T " A V E N U E . C" U L A V II T A. C A L I , 0 " N I A . , . , . . T I L : .( I , II . I 0 . I I . ·
. J3~?'
.,. .------.-....--..-. '-. . - .--. . 5"" . .. .
---- .-.-.....
.
lbls formula could produce more reuenue than the Ulsltor Coalition could
Intelligently plan for and effectluely use. 1n response. the Ulsltor Coaltlon
came up with a formula. which has a floor of $158.888 per year. (we already
know that the TOT reuenue for this year will be higher) plus a percentage of the ""
Increase. for eHample. a TOT In a gluen year of $2.588.888. The Coalition would. .
get $158.888 plus $188.888 for the 18~ of the Increase. The City would get
$2.258.888. If the TOT were to remain at 8~. the City would get only $2.888.888.
"if the TOT were to go to 55 MIllion. the r;oaltlon would get $158.888 floor plus a
$158.888 of the Increase the city would get $2.7 million. The City would get only
$2.4 million If the TOT were to remain at 870.
Prlls
lbe Chamber operating as the business arm of the Coalition can negotiate. The
city. because of all the constraints placed on gouemmentl and becaule the
perception that It I pocketl are endlessly deep. doel not haue the IUHUry of
negotiating. So. we can do It faster end less eHpensluely than gouemment can.
lbere are many things. which can be taken ouer by the Coalition that the city
now does or will haua to do. luch as Ilgnage for the training center. which can
come from the TOT.
Rdmlnlstratlon
lbe first use of the TOT would ba to hire a full time Ulsltor Coordinator at
$26.588 Including a fringe package. R budget would be lubmltted for the neHt
quarter. and a full double entry system would be used with reports proulded
quarterly.
IInlnlan
We are already time late on a motel display for the Ullltor Center and an
elgnage for the Olympic Training Center.
Hopefully this letter. signed by both tha Chamber and the Motel Rlloclatlon.
will proulde sufficient Information for our dialogue to continua.
""'"
Slncerelu.
Chula Ulsta Chamber of Commerce
...
.
'atrlck Mandas
'relldent
.
--.,
_._._._.________ _..__ _. _.._ - .-__0...
1.3' ~t
..~.. ._____.,....... . .___.._._r.' --". -.,...... . -.
e
e
.
on
c:>;'
~
i;:
.
~
;;
~ ~
~ ~
z ....
o
~
~
o
co:
....
co:
~
'"
ILl
co:
E
c:l
Z
ILl
....
X
ILl
>-
I-
o
~~~~~
~~:6~~
.., .., .,., 6'"t .,.,
~
~
~
....
.S
N' ;t
- ~ 1:
~ ~.r.l 8
~8f~~
! Ii: is.
~ ~.;ee
.. 'E " ....
,.., (U U'J .... >.
.... CQ "6
... e .g -s .c
~ :s ~ ~ ~
u :i! ~ ~ &: ~
~
....
~
~
~
z
o
G
ILl
co:
~ ~ ~
.... ........
'" '" '"
~
~
'"
i
"
11
co: 1 ~
g ~ ..
fa 8 ~ Ii
> ~ c:
'0 ~ ~
~ '; ,~ .~
N i> :5 :0
<o.e.:5~
~
"l.
~
'"
<(
~
~
CQ
;:l
'"
l'l
on
~
....
'"
!i 8 12 8 12 l'l
o>on"l.on..~
.0.0.....0"'...
N _ 60ilt M
'" '"
~
oQ
on
'"
U
....l
~
~
iii
~
~ :::
~ ~
ILl ..
t ~
z ':'
;:l ;f
~ "
~ :5!
o .. ~
u .... '"
~~
'8 (i
" ::
e I;
e ii
ci 8 :i
~ ~
o
- ~
'"
~
ILl
~ ~
I:;: ~
ILl ...
Z .5
Q. ~
~~ ~;-
.... Ii
.S e
co: ~ ~
g .e. ...
'" e-!
:> s .~
~ 'li
- ~
! ~
<j '2 'iQ
..... - CQ
"" i;'
,S c:l
~ ~ ~
::l e @
8] I!l
E - ~
~ t2 <<S
~ ~ .. i
i;' e ;f e
:5! = ,..,.~
'0 '3 CI:I
::c u 0 &i
c:l
....l
~
~
CQ
;:l
'"
~ ! ~ l'l
a a~~
o
z 8 _I;
Cii 'E
!= Jl ~
~,g ,r ~
~! ~ ~
~ ~ "
o - '6.. ~
~~~i!.~
"" e e ' ii
N 0 e oS! e ~
<( e<: 8 := " ..
....:i ....,o~~..8
i5 .. Co ~"
o " '. CQ
Fo ~ ;:; g Ci
CQ CI:I = O:;j =
iii III 0 ~ :> Jl
/ ;J ;".-59
....-
~ ~
o r-:
.... '"
...
""
c:
:l1l
1:: 1::
8. ~
go <(
l!1. "
c.. .5
'. N
.c: fo
j ..
e ~
~ c:
-: ~
e Ci
" c::
CQ Jl
.
ATTACHMENT 4
~
"l.
~
...
CQ
I
;:l
'"
~ gg ~ ~ gg ~ 0 ~ ~ ~. ~. 00
<"l ~
.... .... ~ ~ ~
'" N 0 vi .... ..... 1'l <"l
N ... ... Vl t;; <"l Vl ~ ....
... ... ... ... .... <"l <"l <"l
... ... ... ..... ....
... ...
::> ~
::E
'" B
tlJ
~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ gg ~
i2 ,.J Vl N
~ Vl t Vl ....
~ '" ~ 00 g ~ ~
- <"l .... Vl
Cl 12 ... ... ... .... ...
Z ... ... ..... '"
"
tlJ Cl ... .S
"" ~ .~
>< .. ~
tlJ C.
,.J '" :0
e "
<( I:) .e-
1= :l ... '"
" ~ e
z u u
C .. t:
~ e .. ...
~ c. 8 ... ~ tJl 8-
0 '" 9 e e Q..
~ e is " " Q.. "
Q.. .S 8 ... !l '"
e 0; ~ g, ,..:.. c
" u "
- .S tJl .. tJl .. ~
'" ... " " ,..:.. .. ;;
0 u <; " 'c .. -E ...
"" c e 8 ~ ::E ~ 'i:l 0;
0 8 '" ~ .. '2
~ e 0 ~ "" ~
... Co. :!' z Q..
Co. fa " ,.J .s.!
.. '6- "" " '"
'v; ;; is tJl ~ :0 [j 'v; "0
e " <( N c:l U Cl tlJ "" " "
:> :> 's "
" ,.., ~ <( Co. ~ ..
... .. Jl <5 ... c Ii "0 '"
0 .E "
'00 :; @) @) .S .g " .2
(3 ... ;J "
::E ~ - - -
u.: '" ~ 8- .. ..
" "E
E :!
8 "
~ ... :g
"0 U ~ V .-.
" "0 "0 i
.. 'r; " ',5
0 ~. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ Xl B 'i '"
<"l ~ ... s :J :s
>0 .... Vl Vl Vl "1 .. 0 '8
~ - ~ ~ ..... '" ... ..... i Co. ..l!i. .:: "E
... .... ... ... .~ 0; '" ]
... - ... " u ~
... ... ... .2 "0
~ "
- == 05
" ...
" c 'r;
cO ... .:
.; u .S B "
~ .5 v ;:; .2
- C ~ ~ .;
... cO
0
Q.. .; ~ ~
... ~ ..!!! u
"
" " u " ,..,
'" 0 .. .S "
~ ~ '0'0 C -;: ...
~ " u
" u u
;; ... 'v; u t: -g
~ ~ u i! "
8i '" 05 " " "
t> ~ " fa ~ 0 ~
- .... c. u .S
~ .~ "0 .. C
<( .S ::: ~ ''; " .-;
" 'v; ~
,.J S ~ - "0 .S ;>
~ Vl 0 .E! " "
<( '" ~ e " 0 OJ ~ .. "
" ::: " .. :s "
z ~ "0 e 0 " ~ " ~ :!;! rl :; !!
0 " .. :~ .S :g "0 .::
E .. il5 IE ~ "0
~ - " U ..
g, ~ ::: g, "0 g, E ~ i :0 l!! 'V rl ~
.. " ~ " 8 .S
::E "0 e il5 "0 .. :1! e ~ Q.. "0 .~
" " ... c "
0 c:l "" -g c:l - Co. "0 .E 'V
5, ~ i :s " u
~ '" .. c -g - il E " " E .S
" " "0
Co. .S en g, ~ i u u " .S Q.. " "
c:l E ~ "0 .2 0 .S "
~ <; <( " ~
tlJ ",.., "0 Q.. " {:. ... 'V ;; ~ ;; :l
15 E ~ " 0 .S 0 il Q.. '"
e c:l ~ - , ~ .S :g "0 E 8
"0 ... ~ - 'e- II ~ tlJ 'v; ...
0 "" .. u ~ :l " .E ~
e 3 !! j ,.J '" ... "
~ c.. 8 .. 8 's " '0
'c c:l " .E C " l .... ~ Q.. - -..
fa 's " 8 .~ .S C ... II 0 .s.! 0;
" - ~ 0 "
E !! 0 .s.! ~ ~ .~ "0 ~ :0 "
~ i " " " v
e " " :0 " g .~ ::E ::> " <(
.. OJ ~ ~ " Co.
III 8 c:l z " {:. ::E ~ ;J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" c.. '" '" .... l::\. .<"l ~ Vl '"
~ ~ ~ ~
%' );1-t/l
e
e
e
~~~
~
~~u
CI1Y Of
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENT 5
Karch 10, 1995
on Tuesday, Karch 21, 1995 a public hearing will be conducted to
discuss options ~or abating the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate
~or the remainder of Calendar Year 1995 from the rate of 10' set in
the ordinance, to a rate which is less than 10' but not less than
8' rate at which it is currently set. TOT rates have been set at
10' aince 1991 but have been abated to their current 8' level (the
rate they have been since 1978) by resolution of the City Council
in 1991, 1992, and 1993, and 1994.
Staff ia recommending that Council take no action to abate the tax,
thus allowing the tax to increase to lot on April 1, 1995. Staff
is also recommending the establishment of a Chula Vista Visitors'
Coalition for advertising and visitor promotion. The Coalition
would have an annual budget of approximately $150,000 with the
actual appropriations above or below that amount being dependent
upon annual transient occupancy tax revenues
Xf you desire to attend, the City Council meeting begins at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Public services Building at 276 .
Pourth Avenue, Chula Vista.
Xf you have any questions, need further information or have any
comments, please contact either myself or Gerald Young at 691-5031.
All comments received by March 15 will be passed along to the City
Council as part of the staff report. A copy of the ataff report
will be available on March 17; if you would like us to mail you a
copy then or i~ you would like to pick up a copy, please call 691-
5031.
S ncerel)'.
~ ./
I t:. Wf-
Jim Thomson
Deputy City Kanager
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHUl.A VISTA. CALIFORNIA 81810 . (618)6111-5031 . FAX (618)585-5612
- . @--- /1 J;>--d/
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
% )J~j,~
Minutes
November 22, 1994
Page 14
ATTACHMENT 6
.
on the actions mmended by the CiMOC. Staff has com eted that follow-up and ia retumingto Council with
. work prog.. report. Staff reconunends Council: ( Adopt the 1993 CiMOC Annual Report and
recommendations tained therein: (2) Direct staff to impleme the reconunendalioDS in accordance witb tbe work
program responses and, (3) Approve the Statements of Concem d cover letters for signature and iulWlce by the
Mayor regarding Water aDd Air Quality Thresholds. (Direc
referred to page 71 regardins traffic aDd s oHo from HilllOp 10 Broadwal, was a key
area of concerti. It w 's opinion that there were a lot of left-band rns off of I-80S to go south of HO beeauae
the nut I-80S exit was 0 aDd it did not ba..e a left-baod Nm. He ~ t someone should review that. oW Street
as it proceeded to the w from Hilltop 10 Broadway could be marked 0 parkiDgO on the curb and cbaoge it 10
five laDes or have reversib lanes to accommodate the peak traffic hours He felt those two thinga would belp 10
reduce the preasure at Hill aDd oW Streets.
MS (MoorelRindoDe) 10 t the report and approye the ICafI' rec dation.
Mayor Nader stated he was con rtled that if it was said that water and air qua 'ty thresholds were nol being met
that the only remedy under the p was to write a leller of concern. He ho that at some point consideration
would be given by the Commission d Council to determine at what poinlthe th olds were sufficiently far from
being met that the Commission and ouncil would go beyond eXp'ressing concern state that actions that caused
furtber impacts on those threshold s dards would be abated unlll such time u a lev of comfort wu reached with
thoae standards.
.
VOTE ON MOTION: approyed
ollSly.
.
21. 'REPORT ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX ID 1990 Council
established a maximum Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of tell percent and provided for annual abatement heariDgs
al which time the maximum tax could be lowered to notlw than eight percent. ID each subsequent year, CoUllcil
has abated the TOT rate to eigbt percent, the same rate it has been since 1978. The purpose of the annual
abatement heariDg is 10 COIlSider abaling the TOT rate to a rate below ten percellt. If Council takes no action the
TOT rate would increase 10 tell percent on 1/1/95. Staff is recommending that CoUllcil take DO action and allow
the TOT rate to iDerease 10 tell percent, effective 1/1195. (Director of Fioaoce)
Mr. Cioss slated that staff wu recommending that the TOT not be increued, hut that staff be directed 10 meet with
the Chamber of Commerce, the Holel &. Motel Aasociation, and interested DIOtel owners 10 discuss varioua options
for abating the iDerease in the TOT for 1995.
Couneilmember Horton questiooed whether the staff recollllDCilldation also iDeluded that a public llearing be
aebeduled 011 or before December 20, 1994.
Robert Powell, DireclOr of Fioaoce, nsponded that was correct.
MS (HortonlMoore) 10 accept the Slarr recommendation to: accept the report and Instruct starr to meet with
the Chamber of Commerce, the Hotel &. Motel Association, and interested motel owners to discllSS variOIlS
options for aball. the increase In the TOT for 1995 and schedule a public beari. on or Wore December
10. 1994.
Mayor Nader questiooed whether Council could vote 10 abate the tu at the ptWaIt -'in, or whether a public
heariDg would be required. '
Cheryl FNcler, Revenue Manager, alated it wu bet understanding that the TOT ordinance allowed Council to pasa
a resolution 10 abate without a public bearing. '
Mayor Nader requeated that the item be trailed to allow the City Altomey time 10 review the ordillaDce.,
Mayor Nader alated the City Attomey bad adviaed Council tbal the TOT could be abated without a public hearing.
'RESOLUTION 17738 _ APPROVING ABATEMENT OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX FROM A
RATE OF TEN PERCENT TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995 . OFFERED BY
COUNCILMEMBER FOX.
/
~
)'3~ t;J
Minu....
November 22. 1994
Page IS
-"""'\
. Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA. represenling the Chamber of Commerce, stab.
representatives of the Chamber and Hotel &. Molel Association were not prest-nt becaw;e they al<mmed Council
direction would be to have staff meet with their represenlatives and th., ther. woul~ "" 110 y.}'e tlll<en by Cnuncil.
He stated there was IOme mte"",t m the possible increase in the TOT. a 4111trtnl split an tbe fun,iing to r.!'ovlde
a mechanism for belter advertisement of the City, some mitlllation in the surcbnr~e melhodolo~y lor pc>lice alld fire
calls based on the number of caUs per month to a hotel, and other ideas they wanted to be able to revi~-w with staff
before a final decisioD was taken.
RESOLUJ10N 17738 WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
22. UPDATE 0 CHn.DREN'S SAFE HAVENS PROGRAM. On 7/19/94. s;.ff
was direct to develop recoDUnondations reaar g coordination of a Children's Safe Ha..ens Progrom will> heal
churches an other organizations. Staff has ma presentations on a basic ~are Havens concept to a number 01
. groups and 0 anizations, includina the Child Ca Commission, Youlh Commission, Youth Coalilion, H"I the
Commission 0 Agiog, Presentations are also pI ed for the Chuls Vista Human Services Council lJld th.
Ec:umenical Co ncil. The intent of the report is to iscuss the organi6lltion of a Safe Havens Progran,. Staff
recommeads Co cil accept the report. (Director of rks and Recreation)
MS (NaclerlHorto ) 10 acCept the report and approv the stall' recommendation.
questioned why it was 10 difficu to have a .safe havea.. i.e. due to all the services
ive prognm.
23. REPORT STA11JSOFNEGOTIATIONSW BALDWIN Bun.DERSREGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING A COMMUNITY PURPOSE FAC ITIES OBLIGATIONS INCLUDING
REQUESTS TO AMEND COND :nONS OFTHE TENT A T1VE MAP SUBDIVISION IMPROVEME"T
AGREEMENT RELATING TO AME. Council directed staff to nello 'ate an agreement wilh Baldwin which
would provide for the provision of 7.2 low.income and 17.2 moderate.j ome housing units and I.S aCres of
Community Proposed Facililies. '" er substantial negotiations, staff and aldwin have reached impasse on
IiJDific.ant issues in such an agreemen. Staff requests Council provide direc . on regarding further negotiations.
(Director of Community DevelopJllellt d Director of Planning)
David Gustafson, Deputy Director of Co unily Development, informed Counc thai a proposed agreement had
been placed on the diu which retloacted ord between Baldwin and staff,
Mayor Nader stated it WIS hi. undentanding at the agreemenlsubstantiaUy maintain the previous eooditioDllDd
..reemeall the City bad in lerms of acqui g the dedication for affordable hous' for a minimum of three
buildable _ m the Otay Ranch project a IS part of the affordable housing req . remenl for the Telegnph
Canyon Estates project. The inteaticm of the 'ty to convey that to a viable non-profi organization was still m
effect.
Mr. Gustafson respooded ibat was correct. Coun il reserved any options they wanled re rding the holdina of
property. leasing it, cooveying it in fee to a non'pr II, etc.
Mayor Nuler questioned wbether Habitat for Hu
RgarcIiDg the lime frame.
Mr. Gustafson responded that staff had not contacted one reaarding the time frame.
discussioDl with Southbay Communit)' Services rellarding he viability of the project.
were DWly different definitions of .safe baven..
re it was Ihe criteria set by the federal rovef'lllllent
the cOllUDunit)' grass roots entities wber. a child
"""
less Valea.zuela, Direct of Parks &. Recrealion, responded th
In the .ufe haven. de iOll referred to by Councilmember M
for fedenl funding. Som of the .safe haven' programs eould
could seek refuge.
VOTE ON MOTION:
d been initial
)if /3 --j, 1
1-
.
.
,J
.'
Minutes
December 20. 1994
Page 5
nJhulJe'" Iilr fllIyment anJ thero had """n no dehl ..rvice
IONS 1771i9 AND 17770 OFFERED BV C NCILIltEMBER PADILLA. readinll of Ihe texl was
ed llnd llppruved umll1hlluusly.
IS. 777 REIltOVING HISTORICA: PERMIT REQUTREME/I.'T FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED A SECOND A VEl'iUE - The owner of 644 oconJ Averiue h... requested Ihat hir.toricLl site
permit conlrol of y modification to the structure... removed WI th. site de.illnotion remaining. 11,e R'''''llfot
CoIIservation Co . ssion has rcomlllt!nded approval of Ihe rcque. Staff rocommends approvlll of Ihe resolution.
(Director of Planoin
.
IIi.A. REPORT AIltENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN F R THE EASTLAKE MAl]I,"TEI~ANCE
DISTRICT. ZONE "D" Annual a.....sments in Eo"Lake Mainlenllnc Di.tricl Num"'r One. Zone 'D' -....
reduced to provide a natura land<cape pion fur Ihe .lnpe. adjacent tn SR. 5 and provide the nece5Sllry erosion
control. EastLake Landscape aintenance Di.trict Num"'r One i. now rea for acceptance from the developer
and a contract for landscape ma lenance i. nuw mluired. 51:111 r.commend. uncil accept Ihe report and approve
the ruolulion. (Director of Par . and Rcc,,"tion and Directllr of Puhlic Worl/ .)
B. RESOLUTION 17772 CCEPTING BID AND A WARDING LA: SCAPE IItAINTENANCE
CONTRACTTOR.C. LANDSCA . COMPANVTO PROVIDE LAl'iDSCAPE AJJI.'TENANCESERVICES
TO ZONE "0" OF THE EASTLA~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRI NUMBER ONE
Councilmember Rindone stated staff had one.n exemplary joh on a very difficult an
17. REPORT "NOTIC
LOSS PERMIT" (C5-IIS-04) FOR THE WI NING OF WUESTE ROAD AT THE OL IPIC TRAINING
CENTER. Last year the Federal Department . Ihe Inlerillr adllpted th. 5l""'i.1 4(d) rule rc ulatin, the babital
.Joss. of the Califomi. OlUllcatcher. The Spec I Rule links prolectilln of Ihe hird 10 Ihe Iifomia Natural .
Communily Conservalion Planninll (NCCP) process. Prillr to Ihe pre""rulion of an overall NCCP Ian; the proceu
allowa the 'Ioss. of up to live percent of the Co".llI 5al1e 5<:ruh (C55). which i. the habitat for t Gnatcatcher.
In Aupst 1994. Council.dopted an .mendmentlo Ihe lunicipal Code which implements the Fede 5peciaI4(d)
nale at a local level. The proposal for Ihe lo.s of .20 a os uf Diellan CS5 as . re.ult of the wideni of Wucste
Road at Ibe entrance to the Olympic Traininll Center is e third such permit "'fore Council. Staff ommends
CouDCi1 accept the loss pcrmit as dralled. (Directl" of PI nin~)
.'
PUBLIC HEARINGS 4NI'l RF.I.ATEI'l RESQUITIONS 4NI'l ORI'lINANCES
18. PUBLIC HE4RING CONSIDERING ABATEMENTOFTIIETRANSIENTOCCUPANCVTAX
RATE FROM TEN PERCENT TO A RATE NOT LESS THAN EIGIIT PERCENT DURING CALENDAR
YEAR 1llllS . On 10125190. Council adopled Ordinance 2407 cstahlishioll. maximum Transient Occupancy Ta.
(TOT) rate of ten pcn:cnt. and rmvided for annu,d .hIllement bCllrin~" at which lime the madmum lax could be
lowcnd 10 DOl less than the currenl rate of ..i~ht pe",enl. C"uncil ha. h.ld puhlic ....rinlls and ahaled the tax 10
.iabl percenl for calend.r yea". 1991lhnlu~h 1994. Ihe ...me rute it ha. """n .in... 1978. On 11/22194, Council
eli_led ataff 10 meel wilh Ih. Cham"'r of Comme...... Ibe HolellM"lel A.."eialion and inlera.1ed molel ownera
to diicusa varioul option. for ahalinlllincrcasinlllhe TOT rates Ii" ...Iendar year 1995. Preliminary lIiscuuions wilh
repNKntativel bave _ulted in Iheir rcqUCllIIO .hale any incrca.. tilr .tl....t ninely clay., or unlil4/1/94. in order
to allow further dialo~'I1e. Staff recommend. Council: (I) C"nducllhe puhlic bcarinll and approve Ibe resolution;
(2) Direct staff 10 continue discuuiOllll with Ibe Cham"'r 01' Commerce. Ihe Hutc\/MotcJ Association and inlerested
IIIOIeI ownera ~Ilarding varioul oplillll' for ahatin~/inc~..sin~ the TOT rates for the period of 4/1/95 throullb
12131/95. (Director of Finance)
x
) ;>--1.5'
Minutes
December 20, 1994
Page 6
'\
RESOLUTION 17773 APPROVING ABATEMENT OF TilE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
TO EIGHT PERCENT FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY I, 1995 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1995
"'"
This being the lime and place as advertised, Ihe public hcarin, was d""l.red open. The.... ""in, no puMic I..timony,
the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 17773 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reudinll of the texl \I'Wl waived, pussed Ilnd
.ppro9ed unauimollSly.
PCS-95-ll3: CONSIDE TlON OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
OWN AS VENTANA, TRACT 95.03, I VOLVING 109 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE 0 SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE, SOUTH OF .
CLUBHOUSE lYE, AND SUBMITTED BY BREHM C I~IUNITIES -Brehm Communi lie. h.. sUhmillod
a Tentative Subdiv ion Map known.. Venlan.. Tr.ct 95.03, in der to suhdivide 13.7 acres inlo 109 sin81e r.mily
101S and three open pace lots. The prop'erly is de.iMnllted .s reel R-20 within Ihe Eastuke Greens Planned
Community, and is ocaled on the wesl side of South G....ens w Drive. ""uth of Cluhhou~ Drive. Staff
recommends app f the resolution. (Direclor of Planninl!)
APPROVING AND IMPOSIN CONDITIONS ON THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP R PARCEL R.ZO, KNOWN AS VEN NA, TRACT 95-03, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDING AND READOPTING TilE MITIGATE MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR lS-t4.1
mino Del Rio Soulh. San Die!:o. CA, ",pno. ntinl! Bnohm Communitie5, stalod
mrncndation. The projecl was Iheir lit'lh Easluke.
""""
This being the lime and place
. Scol Sandstrom, 2835
the)' were in support of the staff
There beiog no further public lesli
Councilmember llindoae staled a palle hsd developed carly in E.stLlIke which pro ,ted Ihe developmenl or cui-
de-lIIICS aod hindered. JOOd flow of Ira c. He queslioned whether Ihat was a posilion ken hy a p",vious Council.
Robert Leiter, Director of PlaMing. "'"po ded Ihal part of the lotlayoot "" Ihe projecl I..no Council WIIS because
il was . iolf course communily. In looki . al new pr~iecl' .Iaff was prumolinl! Ihe u: If a ,rid pallern.
Councilmember "llindone staled if staff was "rn.... wilh pressure fn>nl developers Ihey 'hould hring Ihe i..,ue
back to Council for a policy decision.
RESOLUTION 17774 OFFERED BY COUN MEMBER FOX, reudinll of Ihe lext WUS' lived, pu.sscd and
approved unanimollSly.
20. PUBLIC HEARING ACQUISITION
On 7/11191, Council approved 1"'= lenlalive suhdivisill mal' ,." R.n~ho del Rey SPA III. T....cl 90 2. In order
to comply wilh the _talive map condilion., R.n~ho del ey Partnership is ""Iuired III conslru~t an 0 sile portion
of East 'J" SIreeI. II requires SINeI ri,hl-of-wayacro.s roperty IIwned hy Susie Mary Bennell. The roperty is
localed between Paseo Ladera and River Ash Drive and sisls of ahnul 1.07 ac..... The effllrts of ncho del
!ley Partnership 10 obtain the property by ne\lolialion ha e failed. Due 10 lil1lll ~on.lrainls, Rancho el Rey
Partnership _01 _it an)' lonier and eminenl domain I' dings mu.1 hegin. Staff rectlml1lllllds app val of
the resolutiOll. (Ditector of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17775 DETERMINING AND D CLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY :TO
ACQUIRE CERTAIN RIGHT.OF.WAY FOR EAST ' " STREET AND AUTHORIZING T
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQU
SAID RIGHT-OF.WAY
--.
~ J3/'tf~
,.
..
..2.
.
.----
i
',.
MINUTES .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 7
Wednesday, December7,1994
12:00 Noon
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL
The meeting was celled to order at 12:00 noon.
PRESENT:
~~:~~~~":~;h~~~:%~::y ~:a~~~~;~k~~~:rri,.~~~ ~:~~,e~~~~~
Ex-orliciis: Ken Clark, Leonard Moore, John Munch, Marcia Boruta, Art Sellgren
Staff: Cheryl L Dye, Jeri Gulbansen, Gerald Young
Commissioners: Bre", Patrick (excused)
Ex-Officiis: Chuck Sutherland (unexcused)
ABSENT:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 2, 1994
.~..~mllrA.VAyj~1.HEBD!!!9JSi~It!l!It!!!t!!1
NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion regarding potential disposition of City property adjacent to Municipal golf course
on Bonita Road and status of Joelen enterprises and the development of a resort hotel.
Member Tuchscher abstained from the discussion due to a potential conllict of interesl
Member Bogart and Ex-ofliclis Clark and Sellgren arrived at this time.
Chair Davis commented that the EDC voted three years ago to IUpport the concept of the
development of a resort hotel on the Bonita Road lite. She continued that the developers
ware not able to finance and move forward with their project In November, a project to build
apartments on this site was brought to Council's attention. Chair Davis attended that meeting
and reported to Council the position that the EDC voted three years ago. She stated that the
new proposal will be on a future Council agenda at which time Council will decide whether
to consider an alternative plan.
Ms. Dye commented that a retail project and an apartment project have been proposed. She
explained that there hed been a formal agreement executed between Council and Joelen
Enterprises which has now expired due to Joelen being unable to obteln financing. Joelen
has renewed their commitment to tha project and staff will be meeting with them to draft an
Informel agreement outlining a timeframe to present to Council for their adoption.
Ms. Dye further explained that presently there are three acres available adjacent to the Bonita
Golf Course on Bonita Road. Joelen proposes to level the present banquet facility and
expand the area to approximately 7 acres upon which they will build an upscale hotel with 250
rooms and banquet facilities.
~_:}-t?
"'I
. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. PAGE 2
December 7, 1994
In response to an inquiry as to whether Joelen has obtained fir'ancing, Ms. Dye reported that
Joelen is presently in discussions with lenders that Joelen feels look very promising.
General discussion ensued among Commission members indicating that American Golfwould -"'"'\
commit $1.5 million to upgrade the golf course if the resort project proceeds. It was also
pointed out that the banquet facilities and conference capabilities would be beneficial to the
community. It was further noted that this type of facility could generate approximately $1
million a year in revenues to the City in addition to improving the City's image. It was
suggested that, since the site is owned by the City, the City should wait for the hotel as the
highest and best use. Another observation pointed out that a res9rt hotel would generate
substantial TOT tax.
1~~~lill'fllm_'".l_'~itll~RI&~~liWll~:l;PPIL~m!~l~g
b. Discussion regarding chamber request for Economic Development Commission support of the
Chamber/Motel Association proposal to receive a portion of the Increased Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and operate the existing Visitor Infonnation Center.
The Commission discussed the Chamber's letter to the EDC dated November 28, 1994,. The
letter .requested support for the following:
. An increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 8% to 10%.
. That 50% of the TOT increase be eannarked for the Chamber's
operation of the Visitor's Center (1-5 and E Street) and to "sell the City".
The Commission asked staff if any infonnation was available regarding the current amount
. of TOT received and whether any of it is currently eannarked for promotion of the City. Staff
responded that a preliminary review had been done and approximately $1 million is received
annually from TOT. Further, staff indicat3d that the City does not eannark General Fund
revenue sources for specific activities; however, the General Fund currently supportS from
$1.3 million to $2.4 million in promotional activities such as the Nature Center, the Chamber's
existing contract, and special events such as Harbor Days, and miscellaneous economic
development publications, etc.
........"
Staff explained that after the Chamber came to the City Council and Council directed staff to
start negotiating with the Chamber to operate the Center, the City received a proposal from
another source, which staff is also looking at, offering to pay the City for the proposer to
'manage the Center rather than receiving a subsidy. Conceming the Chamber and
HoteVMotel Association, staff is presently negotiating regarding the Visitor Center and TOT.
Member Read stated that in the past the Chamber had looked at how the Visitor Center was
run and that many other enterprises who have tried to run the Visitor Center find it is not cost
effective due to a low volume of customers and that most people do not spend a lot of money
at the Visitor Center. The Commission asked staff to characterize the level of foot traffic
experienced by the Center. Staff reported that a SANDAG study had revealed an average
of 300 persons per day visit the Center and a peak of 400 to 500 can be expected in the
summer months. Roughly, 40% of the visitors are transit-related buying mainly transit passes,
using the public restrooms, and sometimes purchasing food and small retail items.
Discussion took plaCl!. regarding the likely revenue made possible by the 2% increase, """""
estimated at $260,000 year.
Y J;>-t,r
.....
I . }
ECONOMIC DEvELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 3
December 7, 1994
.
Commissioners Lebron, Tuchscher, and Bpgart expressed concern about the EDC supporting
a tax increase given the limited amount of information they have thus far received. A question
was raised about the ordinance which would increase the TOT to 10%. Staff clarified that on
December 20, the ordinance provides for a 2% increase unless some action is otherwise
taken. In response to a question raised as to how we fare compared to other cities, staff
responded complete figures were not at hand,but believes that most cities in the area have
a 10% TOT.
Member Martija believes Chula Vista is at a crossroad and is having to change their mentality.
With conslderaticm to the U.S. Olympic Training Center, he maintains that Chula Vista will
become a destination rather than a city that is between destinations and he wants to ensure
that whoever runs the Visitor Center has the City's best interest at heart. He feels the
Chamber is the most indicated for that position. .
Member Read hopes thlot the motel owners are becoming -more unified and that they realize
to stay In business they will have to do some marketing and contribute some dollars rather
than letting the City contribute in taxpayers dollars.
Member Compton feels the businesses Involved shouid support the TOT because he feels
it is taking taxpayers money and using it to produce more money. He pointed out that the
four previous operators of the Visitor Center have been a disaster and the Chamber is now
asking for volunteers. He stated the City should be advertising to craate an image. However,
when it comes to spending the money for that purpose, everyone starts to balk.
.
Member Read pointed out that the City Image is a priority ~r the EOC in 1995.
Chair Davis suggested that the EOC look in the direction of supporting the TOT and having
the CIty earmark the funds for marketing the City. She pointed out the EDC Marketing Plan
and perhaps funds could support that However, she feels the EDC should not get too
bogged down in the details.
Member Tuchscher feels he does not have enough information to support TOT and would like
to know where the other. cities in the surrounding area are ralative to TOT, average rates for
this CIty vs. other cities and how it would affect our hotels.
Member Peter endorses tha concept idea of the Chamber running the Visitor Center;
however, the City should also look at private enterprise offers. He feels the Chamber with
volunteers would be a great way to promote the City, anet that the Chamber and MotellHotel
Association working together is a positive beginning. He suggested the total incraase in TOT
be earmarked for promotion of the City, and a portion of the amount should be negotiated to
subsidize the VISitor Center.
In response to an inquiry for clarification as to what Council is asking, Ms. Dye commented
that Council directed staff to negotiate a contract to operate the Visitor Center with the
Chamber and bring the item to the December 20 Council meeting; however, there have been
some new proposals submitted and negotiations are ongoing to work out questions and
issues with the Chamber.
.
Ms. Gulbransen described the issues staff is considering: should TOT be abated or allowed
to increase automatically; if TOT Is raised, how will the funds be distributed; and the issue of
the VISitor Center. She continued that there are a number of proposals concerning the Visitor
/ 3 --~ 9
.~
-,
-
,
"'- ....
I
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 4
Deceml)er7,1994
Center and the City has received two or thr:ee proposals from the Chamber since Council's
direction. Staff is continuing to wor1< on the negotiationS.
""'"
M (Tuchscher) that we generally support the increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in accordance
with the Economic Development Commission's plans for promotion of the City.
Motion withdrawn.
M (Read) to postpone :action on this item until further information can be received.
Motion diEts for lack of second.
G.aneral diswssion occurred regarding th6 time s.lnsitivity of thi!; issue and the areas of
support the EDC wishes to address.
.M (Lebron) to support the proposal from the Chamber to operate the Visitor's Center, but that Council
carefully evaluate where current TOT revenues are going.
Motion dies for lack of second.
II~piJ!m!!!III9Tej>Bm!!i!!iiI~!!;iti;!bI1:QI;;~X~;!~l!Yi!~~!R~~f9tPtpi'r\9~<i1:iCi!
"""'.<<^.~
Discussion regarding the possibility of directly referencing the EDC's mar1<eting and
promotional plan as opposed to generically saying "promotion of the City".
Ms. Dye provided clarification regarding the EDC's mar1<eting plan. She indicated that the
Commission directed staff to create a comprehensive, proactive msr1<eting and promotional
plan. She explained :hat 0\ er a period of six months staff produced an informal plan dealing
with image enhancement and promotion. It also deals with business retention, advertising,
trade shows, media exposure, and media campaign. The EDC adopted the plan. The
Commission suggested the EDC attach this plan as a reference during Council's
. considerations.
........
kQlIgf4Jlmsgj~1~tt!sgrtt9fip.!mJ
1i1~'~",~"lJJP~mI.'1!.~~t;9.~mI!q;m!!Q!!i!dlZi!~9r
General dscussion about the process which was used to secure proposals and whether the
RFP process was used or required in this case.
lQ,nQN,;gl!ls~J~l;ffLV9!isfi!!;m!~~SI!li!lpRl?~t~~mKiJ1KnP1:P:i!!!m)
c. Notification of upcoming City meeting, January 26, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. for new Chairpersons
and members of Boards and Commissions regarding meeting structure. policies, conflict of
Interest. and the recently revised Brown Act.
Chair Davis noted the letter that all the members received regarding the January 26, 1995
meeting, and hopes to see everyone there.. ""'\
.
~ /3-?Z?
.'r,; '/
. ....-.;.
,',
.e.
.
.
/
ATTACHMENT 8
I l f
! f . ti I
j ~ I It! Ii! t 11 IJ
i . III 1 I . I J~
I ~i f ] J J t
I~ nil \
I Ii i -l~ i 1
I.! ii I i 1!~ . fl'lf'
8 1 ~ J 11 i.~ f 1: 1\ I
Ii i ) 1r h j !
I t \1
; j} t Ii
I iilt!
/:3 ~ ? /
I ~ ___
.;~J! ./lil, i ./l
-h-i if J" i
lr je H
;~! ' ; fj II p
llii.~l :r:r" li~./l fi IIi
t l~f'i~llf ljl)i ii i 11
f il,f}~;~f~ll1k!I~~~j~ II
~ ~ ~
-{ ~ ~
It:
l~ oJ
S. Ii
j H f~
./l ~l fl
i ~1 ~U ~]
t ~ II -II
}I jl.i 1J!
~ ~ ~
'"
j ~ I
~f ) 1
l~ 11'1
.It ifS
1ff'III}
1ft :I k
.. ....
]
J~r
.......:;~
!rtI '.
:.._(!;
k*;!J;
,~{f.
..'\'
.~.
.."dk
~:'~'A
"'..;.&~.f'
'.H
:..*t~
:.:~lt
5~
:'~
.:;.~~~
~~~
ii'
...~.{:
.t.
.....
.'
\1
;"";.
'}
t
",T*~f
"
..
".c ""'"
,,~ ,
:;.,:t
".~"
'L~
ii$
."~'I~'~"
-
.4~"':;
'.h...
":";;;,.,
::'1
':'ft
"lJ
-."
AI.
"',
.:Jii
I.,~;
.,~-. ""
"" "
.~
. {.,
'i."~'
"~"1 "'"
..~
:-;j,l;;
..,./.....
4f' );J-?;2,
j
I 1
f i f.il
i .~EI
" -tl~....'E
.. 2'~fl~
~ lfl [1
'I f I i=i I
I ~
I Ji
i JI
1 i i~r
f lid
I ~
I ~
I
.
f
iI
--
.
.
.
t If-' 1 ~i! J
f I_l J1 11 g[) 1
II ~d IU H 8). I~
II III Iii Illtt II :11
. ,11 13-7J
.~~:t.~-J
"'."~'
{,;!1t~':
....'.'..
,"d, ~
;,~~
~I
.{1.J.
i
l
'>6.
;~,:t
"..ii.,...
.,.
;t~.
. .;'r:'
..i
;;~:.:.,
...
~
..:.'=;:f
"'ft
t#.
~.~~
it
<l
.-it!.~
"it
-'._i4:
,,~
".,:~
"1:
...'i' .
..f
;~Z{j
.t4
.,...iI::
/~
'-.4t
.:~
""i~
~.
'.l"~l
.~
.'~"
~ ,'~
il
II
;;~
;'~."'..;
'~:'Jt
11
I R
i ~ Z j I!. i ~ 1~ IJ
1 t ~ 01 0 h f j j~ I
]J 1; i ~~jf olll!!
1
'1 j ~. ~~l 'S1Hlljl~~$
f i~fMlli j f~li.] J~lt!
1.9]] "i foe S II ~mZl f
lf~~~l. J ~li.'S ~l~'61
.s
t ~ !~ ~
{
I 1! I~ JtJthi fllff
1 . - rU u. . ..l
1>.. j;il~i!lfl {J!i1
'2 ..Ii-Iii
1 '6- ...
t I~ 1 ~ 11'6 Pjl ~ '6 J idJ
f
lfll.1 ~lJ 1'!ll
jl~llJ
j~jtjjJl1lJjjj jJ
f
~ ~
t
j
"'l\I.
t II i I I j
I,
I 11 f ~1]
~I~!M. f~ tlt~
fl
fh!yf lHilij
j~
,$.1$). IIi j _
liJIIJ! 11 jljft
J
..~ ~,
-Jf'
".i~
t"
-.:-'i""
!;.f.
....d'
~~.
:~~}:.
:~~.
...~.:
~t~i
...,.,~:
,.~...:.'
Uif
..;F.
'-
:1
':':':'''-;,*,-
it!:7:.;;t
:~;!l'~
.~'"
;....:1
;-'.at
~1 ~
I".'
'.' .'
.f
,',:.,.~
~~I;~
;:....
iil
.L
. ~~:;:Io
~:I
'.'.iL
ljt~
."tt
~lJ
... 'lit
'.""'fl
~~:~~
.-t.It:
&.,....
".
1.:.: ..
:~?~~
,;..,'" '
~:'. ~
~.,
~:f'::':1
,,'{l
.,~~
;"",,.,~
,...';;;;.
y.~.-
.::~~~.
~ /J~7,/
".
.~t#.
"~"'l" .
.., .~
,.
.'~.:_:;i';.
':4'&.',
"f.: '.
.r.t.~'
.'~.
,..~.
I
....;....
',.'.~" :
t~
'~~I
j
.1. :.
. .
'.;"'1: A
~:., t
:t.r.. ;
"'r.~
':':~',,:
..",....
:y~
',~;"
,i'
..~-'~.~
.:J..,'
.~.~..
"'~.~."
~'~i~
::..1:'"
.. ..;
.. "
\J
It
$tit
}I\ '
:."'"
$"t" :
;.'':-1'/'
~.: :
11'P':
'~"". . .
':'..~.
:.....c:!'i
.'~
',~
:~:~.~ .
"S'.
--"~
'lj.
-""'::t
. -'-:.;k.
'''i>.
.,:~,~~
..tt"J'
"
..~
.";11
~~
J ~
1 .j
~ f
j i
i..:.
.j 1
If f
~. l~ i
~j~t I~ ·
iiJi ~J i ~
[.oS"r 1j t J
ifji j
!Oi - 11
~ t~ ~
j f1
! f~. ~
II f~ f
i, If I
U Ii I
Ii jf f
. fJ
fl!il {I l lUJ
li€IS ] I i
I!~ i 11 _ jl !1
fi~l~ js i ~i= ~Ii
IJIJI jflJ~jlJI jlj
~ ~ ~
.
Illl -
I] l] l J J
f!m ]1
j diU fJ
~ i~
~~ g~~
I j j
J t ! ~ II
I ~ ~ 1JJ'~
1-1-- ; -J i
flUd lil~
1~~~Jl 11]1
.
.~;':.
J~~7~:
,.;:~
----
};J- ?..->
,Z/
-I
.~
~
~
t
1
J
1
~ l
i I
1 s
t 'J
I J
.~ ~ '"
I .,
II
l i' J t
7i: ~ x~ 11 :; -I
i 1 f ~] ~ .. ~ j {
,~It ~ u ]~ ~8~ 1 !il J ~
~i!l ~ 1. ~ j]IJ !)~ i]~ 1 t
~jiM $ ~~ J~ J~ ] M3 If' ] j
II:j$) it fJ~J t ~f!! :. t J I
IJfij, fJ~i~'~fJtf~il {il i i
IS
.lit
j.~
li
~~i
.Hi
Ji!
~
~
J
J t 1
'So;: .
1;- 1:,""
~--~ .H
i I jj Ii
._ 8 "" _ (:;;
1;-g~~ 6.
~~ il.!! ei
I~U l!
gll u: .la
vj~I
~1;;
jf~ I~
~ t!'i 11 z
f~'i~ t~
~~ .s.IE
'lll 1 i E ~
l fi....!!." ~~~
'6 s.~~~ ~.!:...
~
~~!!
i8~
Mdfi.
:(]Jf
I il~l
€'6k.ll
i~d
'~~,
'&1 "
'~I'
'~EI
"14
, ;t
. ".~~~:'
f;r;'
:.t~:.t
:'::{~"
: .'''f;'
f~
II")!!-'
[I"
tI!
.'1\'"
-,"'~:'.
,,~;j~..
.~t,~
~,.
-{aj}.
'.:~"
",:
~
..;;:
"':'~:
...
".;"
~.
tj' .~.
:-:~~
~'.'i!.
~
.:i'~
.~~.
1.&":
.r;:.~..
;i~
,;.~
._".t.1
1"*
.r
....If
.;~.'
......~.
. -:.~~"
f.:.~''''
~,~,
,
)"'1);;
;;" .
.-:.~- .
'<S.
..~:
-~' """'\
~~I
~ JJ-7?
.
i~ 1 i I
Ii III
il. 1ft 1 J
1] fE . Ii! I~ ]
ii i Ml ]j1 l~ f
5~!i'iUj I'" 11
l~~~~~~~ . ~ J f
~ ~ ~ ~~
i!~ 1 eo ~ ~
! ~ ~ ~.~ ~ 18. ~
if ltlt ~J it 11 t !
~! E!II 8.1 ~:, jl l 1];
;;.~.[ ~f- 1 to :r 1 l~ 0-
li~ ll!ll t1 11 J~ i l!.~
~ ~ ~~~f ~
~ ~ I
i I ~
I ldlnJ II il t f n
j "fJHJ If ]I j t t jl
s
~
:'$
,~h
;.~
~~k'~{
''J
(~
~l~:
.,.,it
;' ~;'<
c;,
"""'":
":'i
.&
'~:~l
'#..
:~
""<V
..r.;
.
.
l":"
7 ;'~l!'::
.,-~
.;.':~
7,"
:-....~
.::7..
.'~
-',:~
.:It
~ "
j:
.)t;
,,~
:t
;~~::
. :IF
.,;~):;
~::;
;~.
1
:.j~;
i
"i.
.;~
.1):
,I
/"~:tl
.;t,
'i~.
.:}~
.;.-
..'1>
$ ;J-?7
~
.=
J.!
} ~
II ~"
!! ......t
-.; IiO"
SI iH
l:l "':e 8-
"2& ll~
h ~.~]
.U ~~i
~
1-
! ]f
ji l!i
I "i tl:E
~B .ir;
I li1 l:a1
!~"2 111
it h
.
~ ~
~ !~
f I...
I 11
'15_ I"
II :r~
! ll~
.} it!
~j j:a'15
j .8
i 'i
1 I
i I
-! ti
'" ~t:
l if
I J!l
lil !!I]
1 :B
~ "
lil :a ~
. ~ ~'i
lJ 1~
,,~ h
;;~" 'l!.~
Il~~ "=
:l!l~ J:=
:;1~ I....e.
- ..11 ~ ~:E
lillc;;~ ~!:E
:=l1ii j I lili
l'15 g!i'5! 1'~ f!-i
e tii;; .!!l", S il
lPitli~ti
~ l~lr'll! I ~1
]e~~~ rl~~i
hill '~Jf I.I!
Ij=' r~1i .U
.I ml=!.! i( ltf
jf]fU~ to'is
jl]l-!~ l}JJ
J m!H!!IJ
.
.
A JJ /7~
,~ """\
~,~.
-, r.
T
.....,
.'
...,$",
",7_
,;...:
~~.
i;:;;
",~
~""
. .t?""$.
:'l
":.:"i:
;~..:.;
..
.j,
7.:~;;;'
..;iiJ;
.~,..'tti
.}..~
.~ ii
. .:d:
.iI
l~
:4
....:.......,
;;~
:".. ........
{4' 1
,~
.t:..!
~~4
,#
,l~'~
";;:',;
il
.<'"
~,
<,~;":~
.,....tJ
.-\:'~~
'.",!
.f~
i~
. ';t
rf.~
..~
. 71'14
.-:': .
VIt""'-
~.
... .~
,~~A.}
~ '.''''
.1
...."
._.t"~
:;;i --
..
0\
0\
.-
~il
Q ...
Ii
11
~i
~g
it
!" t F i j
1 Xl-
lill .
I: i =
i Ii l i
. !ii U
i I Ii
C li,g
If il
i Ii
...: !
1~
11 .~ ilii I i Illj"
. Ii I fi" Ifill" I" i" ii~l!
. . III ~ il! ililt! I! Ii! 11tll
. .
~ il~~!
if ~! ~ 1
I) ! - i!
~g ~~i i.e
hI Ui U
n~ In II
~ )]-79
i ~ -,
i i ~ ~
E
1i .. ..
I a;
~~ E 1::
'"
":0 ~ 5- 5-t
t.!!! I 1!!ti
II I i ~~ i ~5-
]8 I II t5 i 11
.UJ ~f 11
-<. ~ ~
So 'E.
Sb .! .! S .! '"(/)
11).-
15 ~"C S' i:25
~ ~ IDS ID ~ ~a.
~..,. ~
~I .~l&
-e f. 'IS I- 1:
J. f8ae-
i~ Jffl
Ie iit-:r
II ~ ii~
~ B
1< flI Ii
II Pi Q
I~J _~~~~
i!~-Rlif1!;
!e.. ~l1~se..
rn
i
i it
;f~ i u
~ l!...,. iiE'
~!J ii~j JtJ
ii ui~ ~I B~ Ira:;
'" ~ '2' ~ Ji.... E'2'
m~ 9. ~ 19. _jg~
.. ..
~ /3-JrO
N
~
Ii
i~
11 Ie-
["'6J
.c~111;.
~'" Ul
~i zl"
a:O 9-
.
.......
· ,~J ~
nn I
:ifl~ i
.
~ ler
It:~
. JII~
Jill
~
....
I
5-
t!
:c
-
.E
I
i
m
} Ii
;;~ I~I
i tl- i i ~ r s:
!~ f 1>>I~jl
.6 . a!~CL.
Iii li~t:
. '8ICD~
.
.
.E S
I i
r 'i
"I ~
, liS
i !
I i
l r~
r .Ii fli-
t i Ii
'8 CD i~
i I B I
1 r fir
! u 11
, i i!
1: Ii '1'8
I i j
I , t
I ~!l
~ ~ II~
l i ~I
i t if
I I~ i 1~
~ l- ~ il
11..': l\i
2?r /3-7/
M
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
..zt JJ-J"c2
'te
Sections
3.40.010
3.40.020
3.40.030
3.40.040
3.40.050
3.40.060
3.40.070
3.40.080
3.40.090
3.40.100
3.40.110
3.40.120
3.40.130
3.40.140
3.40.150
3.40.160
3.40.170
3.40.180
3.40.190
(.
3.40.010 Title.
~pter 3.40
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY'TAXll
ATTACHMENT 9
Tide.
Definitions.
Imposition-Rate-hymmt-Annual Abatement.
IlRmptions.
Operator.couectioD duties ceneraDy.
Operator.aeptration a.ncI certificate nquirect-Contents-Posting.
Operator-R.eturns, reporu me! payments nquirect when.
De1inquent ....._n<<. fraud or audit de1iciency-Penalties designated.
PaiI\Ift to collect or nport tu-DetenDiDatiOD procedure-Notice.
FaiI\Ift to collect 01' nport tu-Public hearinJ when-Procedure..
Appeal Procedure..
Operator-Record keeping duty.
R.efunds.
Adions to COUecL
Finance director regulatioD pn:scriptiOD authority.
Succeuor to business-Duty to withhold tu.
Succeaor to busineu-LiabDity for faiI\Ift to withhold. Duration of liability.
Disposition of ftftI1ues-UtilizatiOD.
Vlolation deemed misclemeanor-Penalty.
This article shall be known as the "transient occupancy to ordinance of the city of Chula Vista,. (Ord.
147111 (part). 1973; Old. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.301).
3.40.020 Definitions.
Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions liven in this lection govern the
constrUction of this chapter:
A. "Hotel. means any strUct\Ift, or any portion of any strUct\Ift, which is occupied or intended or
designed for occupancy by transients for dwellin,. 10dBinl or sleepinl purposes and is held out as
such to the public. "Hotel. does not mean any hospital, convalescent home or sanitarium;
B. "Campsite. means any area which is occupied or intended or designed or improved for occupancy by
transients utilizinl recreational vehicles, motor homes, or mobile trailers for dwellin" lodBinI or
sleepinl purposes and is held out as such to the public. 'Campsite. does not include any mobile home
park;
c. .Occupancy" means the use or possession, or the ri&ht to the use or possession of any room or rooms
or portion thereof, in any hotel for dwellin" 10dBinl or sleePin& purposes;
D. 'Operator" means the person who is proprietor of the hotel, or manaler of the campsite, whether in
the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortlalee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity.
Where the operator performs his functions throulh a manaBinI alent of any type or character other
than an employee. the manaBinI alent shall also be deemed an operator for the purposes of this
.
Jg./ }]--73
T/ 245
(R 11/91)
chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions
of this chapter by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be
compliance by both;
E. "Person" means' IIJ1)' individual, firm, partnenhip, joint venture, association, aocial club, fraternal
organization.joint Itock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, ayndicate,
or any other pup or combination acting as a unit;
,
F. "Rent" means me consideration charged for the occupancy of space in a hotel or campsite valued in
money, whether to be received in nioney, goods,labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits
and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever;
G. "Transient" means IIJ1)' penon who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of
concession, permit. right of access, license or other agreement for a period of thirty consecutive
calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full clays. Any penon who in fact
exercises occupancy or is in fact entitled to occupancy for a period of thirty.one days or more,
counting portions of calendar days as full days, shall be deemed not to have been a transient with
respect to the first thirty days of occupancy or entitlement to occupancy.
(Ord. 180411 (pan). 1978; Ord. 1471 II (part), 1973; Ord. 133911 (part), 1971; O~d. 98611 (part), 1966;
prior code 17.302).
3.40.030 Imposidaa-Rate-Payment.ADnua1 Abatement.
A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel or campsite, each transient is subject to and shall pay a
tax in the amount often percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constiNtes a debt owed
by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The
transient shall pay me tax to the operator of the hotel or campsite at the time the rent is paid. If the
rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The
unpaid tax sball be due upon the transient'a ceasing to occupy space in the hotel or campsite. If for
any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel or campsite, the director of finance may
require that such tax shall be paid directly to the director of finance of the city.
I
'"')
B. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary in this aection contained, the City Council is hereby
authorized, but is not required, to lower the tax, or the rate of tax imposed under the authority of this
Chapter, but to no less than what the tax would be at a rate of eight percent, for no more than one
calendar year, if. within wee months prior to the commencement of a given calendar year, it conducts
a public hearing at which it publicly deliberates on the advisability of doing so, notice of which public
hearing is published in a neWlpaper of general circulation at least twice not sooner than 20 days and
not later than 5 clays prior thereto. of its intent to deliberate upon ..id 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 abate all or any portion of the tax herein imposed.
(Ord. 240711, 1990; Ord. 1804 11 (pan), 1978; Ord. 147111 (pan) and 12, 1973; Ord. 133911 (pan).
1971; Ord. 115911. 1958; Ord. 986 II (part). 1966; prior code 17.303).
3.40.040 Enm~c
Except as may be otherwise provided by law, there ahall be no exemption from the imposition of this
tax for federal, state or local officers and employees traveling on official business; provided, further, that this
~
(R 11/91)
246
Y)J-J--Y
'.
(
tax Ihall not be imposed for any accommodations where the rental thereof is at the rate of five dollars a day
or less. (Ord. 1804 11 (part), 1978; Ord. 147111 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 i1 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611
(part), 1966; prior code 17.304).
3.4Q.05O Operator<.ollecticm dutles poenIIy.
Each operator Ihall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time
as the rent is collected from every transient. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount
of the rent charged, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator. No operator
of a hotel .haII advertise or .tate in any manner, whether directly or indirectly. that the tax. or any part
thereof wllI be assumed or absorbed by the operator. or that it will not be added to the rent. or that. if
added, any part wllI be refunded, except in the manner hereinafter provided. (Ord. 1804 i1 (part). 1978;
Ord. 1471 i1 (part). 1973; Ord. 1339 i1 (part). 1971; Ord. 986 il (part), 1966; prior code 17.305).
3.4Q.06O Operator-Registration and certificate nquirecI-contents-PostiDg.
Within thirty days after July 23. 1971. or within thirty days after commencing business. whichever is
later, each operator of any hotel or campsite renting occupancy to transients shall register said hotel or
campsite with the director of finance and obtain from him a "transient occupancy registration certificate.
to be at all times posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. Said certificate shall, among other things.
.tate the following:
A. The name of the operator;
(e
B. The addre" of the botel or campsite;
C. The date upon which the certificate was luued;
D. "This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the face hereof
bas fulfilled the requirements of the Transient Occupancy Tu Ordinance by registering with the
Director of Finance for the purpose of collecting from transients the Transient Occupancy Tu and
remitting said tax to the Director of Finance. This certificate does not authorize any person to conduct
any unlawful business or to conduct any lawful business in an unlawful manner, nor to operate a
botel without strictly complying with all local applicable laws. including but not limited to those
requiring a permit from any board, commission. department or office of this City. This certificate does
not constiNte a permit..
(Ord.1804 i1 (part), 1978; Ord. 147111 (part),l973; Ord. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part). 1966;
prior code 17.306).
,
3.4Q.07O Operator-ReNnls, rep.oIU and payments nquirecI when.
A. Each operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the dose of each calendar
quarter, or at the dose of any shoner reponing period which may be .established by the director of
finance, make a reNm to the director of fmance, on fonns provided by him, of the total rents charged
and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. At the time the reNm is filed,
the full amount of tax collected sha11 be remitted to the director of finance. The director of finance
may establish shoner reponing periods for any certificate holder if he deems it n\cessary in order to
insure collection of the tax. and he may require fwther information in the reNm. ReNms tiled or
taxes remitted and acNally received by the director of finance on or before the last day of the month
7<f JJ-g'~
24~'
(R 11/91)
following the dose of each calendar quarter shall be deemed timely filed or remitted. Returns flied
or taxes remitted by mall shall be deemed timely flied only if the envelope or similar container
enclosing the returns or taxes is addressed to the director of finance, has sufficient postage and bears
a United States postmark or a postage meter imprint prior to midnight on the last day for reporting
or remitting without penalty. If such envelope or other container bears a postage meter imprint as
well as a United States post office cancellation mark, the latter shall govern in determining whether
the filing or remittance is timely.
~
B. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes
collected by operators punuant to this chapter shall be held in trUst for the accounl of the city until
payment thereof is made to the director of finance. All returns and payments submitted by each
operator shall be treated as confidential by the director of finance and shall not be released by him
except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction or to an officer or agent of the United States,
the state of California, the county of San Diego, or the city, for official use only.
(Ord. 147111 (part), 1973; Ord. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.307).
3.40.080 Delinquem ......i~ bud or audit deticieocy-PmaIties designated.
A. Original delinquency: Any operator who falls to remit any tax imposed by this chapter within the time
required shall pay a pma1ty of ten percent of the amount of the taX in addition to the amount of the
tax.
B. Continued delinquency: Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance within thirty days
following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquent
penalty of ten percent of the amount of the taX and the ten percent penalty first imposed, provided
that the director of finance has notified, by certified or registered United States mail, the operator of
the delinquency and the ten percent penalty fll'St imposed, such notification to be given within the
thirty day period of the initial delinquency, and provided that the operator has not paid the tax and
penalty due within fourteen days after notification or within the thirty-day period of the initial
delinquency, whichever is later.
"""'\
C. Fraud: If the director of finance determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this
ordinance is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty.five percent of the amount of the taX shall be added
!hereto in addition to the penalties stated in subsectioDS A and B of this section.
D. Audit deficiency: If, upoD audit by the city, an operator is found to be deficient in his return or his
remittance or both, the director of finance shall immediately notify the operator of the net deficiency
and the original ten percent delinquency penalty. If the operator fails or refuses to pay the deficient
amount and applicable penalties within fourteen days after the date of the director of finance's notice,
the penalties prescribed in subsection B above shall apply, using the fifteenth day after the date of the
director of finance's notice as the date when the continued delinquency penalty first applies.
(Ord. -147111 (part), 1973; 0rcL 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.308).
3.40.090 Pailure to caIIect ... Jeport tax-Determination ptoeedure-Notice.
If any operator aIWl fail or refuse to collect the tax and to make, within the time provided in this
chapter, any repon ud remittance of said taX or any portion thereof required by this chapter, the director
of finance shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to
base his estimate of the taX due. A5 soon as the director of finance procures such facts and information as
..........
(It 11/91)
248
~ /;J/'~.?
~.
he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and payable by
any operator who has failed or refused to collect same and to make such report and remittance, he shall
proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax and penalties provided for by this chapter.
In case such determination is made, the director of finance shall give notice of the amount so assessed by
serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the operator
10 assessed at his last known place of address. (Ord. 1471 11 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 it (part), 1971; Ord.
986 11 (part), 1966; prior code 17.309(1)).
3.40.100 Failure to collect or report tax-Public hearing when-Procedure.
The operator described in Section 3.40.090 above may, within ten days after the serving or mailing
o( such notice, make application in writing to the director of finance for a hearing on the amount assessed.
If application by the operator for a hearing is not made within the time prescribed, the tax and penalties.
if any, determined by the director of finance shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and
payable. If such application is made, the director of finance shall give not less than five days' written notice
in the manner prescribed herein to the operator to show cause at a time and place fixed in said notice why
the amount specified therein should not be fIXed for such tax and penalties. At such hearing, the operator
may appear and offer evidence why such specified tax and penalties should not be so fixed. Mer such
hearing the director of finance shall determine the proper tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give wrinen
notice to the person in the manner prescribed herein of such determination and the amount of such lax and
penalties. The amount determined to be due shall be payable after fifteen days unless an appeal is taken
as provided in Section 3.40.110. (Ord.1471 it (part), 1973; Ord. 133911 (part). 1971; Ord. 986 it (part),
1966; prior code 17.309(2)).
i.
3.40.110 Appeal procedure.
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the director of flllance with respect to the amount of such
tax and penalties, if any, may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within
fifteen days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place
(or hearing such appeal, and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to such operator at his last known
place 0( address. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the
appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall
be immediately due. and payable upon the service of notice. (Ord. 147111 (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 11
(part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.310).
3.40.120 Operator.Jlec:ord keeping duty.
It is the duty of every operator liable (or the collection and payment to the ciry of any tax imposed by
this chapter to keep and preserve, (or a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine
the amount o( such tax as he may have been liable (or the collection o( and payment to the city, which
records the director o(flllance shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times. (Ord. 1471 it (part).
1973; Old. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.311).
3.40.130 ReI'uDds.
.
A. Whenever the amount of any tax or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once or has been
erroneously or nIegally collected or received by the city under this chapter, it may be refunded as
provided in subsections B and C o( this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under
penalty of petjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is (ounded. is filed with the director o(
249~
I:J -ff?
(R 11/91)
finance within three years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the
director of finance.
,
"""'\
B. An operator may claim a refund or take a credit against taxes collected and remitted, of the amount
overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established
in a manner prescribed by the director of finance that the person from whom the tax has been
collected was not a lransient; provided however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed
unless the amount of tax so collected has either been refunded to the transient or credited to rent
subsequently payable by the transient to the operator.
C. A transient may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid or paid more than once or erroneously or illegally
collected or received by the city by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection A of this
section, but only when the tax was paid by the transient directly to the director of finance, or when
the transient, having paid the tax to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the director of
finance that the transient has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the tax.
D. An operator who has remitted an amount in excess of the amount required to be paid by this Chapter
may receive a credit to the' extent of the excess. If the excess is discovered as a result of an audit by
the city, no claim need be flied by the operator. Such credit, if approved by the director of flllance,
shall be applied to any deficiency found or any further tax payments due under the rules prescribed
by the director of finance.
E. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant establishes his right
thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto.
(Ord. 147111 (part), 1973; Ord. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (part), 1966; prior code 17.312).
3.40.140 Actions to collect.
""",,'
Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to
be a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator whiCh has not been paid
to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city
under the provisions of this Chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the
recovery ofsuCh amount. (Ord. 147111 (part), 1973; Ord. 133911 (part), 1971; Ord. 98611 (Part), 1966;
prior code 17.313).
3.40.150 Finance cIirector regulation prescription aUlhority.
The director of finance may prescribe reasonable regulations to implement the provisions of this
chapter. SuCh regulations shall become effective upon approval by the city council. (Ord. 147111 (part),
1973; Ord. 133911 (pan), 1971; prior code 17.314).
.3.40.160 Successor to business Duty to withhold tax.
Jf any operator who is liable for any tax or penalty under this Chapter sells or otherwise disposes of
his business, his successor shall withhold a sufficient portion of the purchase price to equal the amount of
$uCh tax or penalty until the selling operator produces a receipt from the director of finance showing that
the tax or penalty has been paid or a certificate from the director of finance stating that no tax or penalty
is due. If the seller does not present a receipt or certificate within thirty days after such successor
.commences to conduct business, the successor shall deposit the withheld amount with the director of finance
11
(R 11191)
250
X /:; ~ yr
-
pending settlement of the account of the seller. (Ord. 1471 iiI (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 1i1 (part), 1971;
prior code 1i7.315).
3.40.170 Successor to bllsiDess-Liability for faillII'e to withhold-Duration of liability.
If the successor to the business fails to withhold a portion of the purchase price as required, he shall
be liable for the payment of the amount required to be withheld. Within thirty days after receiving a written
request from the successor for a certificate, the director of finance shall either issue the certificate or mail
notice to the successor at his address as it appears on the records of the director of finance of the estimated
amount of the tax and penalty that must be paid as a condition of issuing the certificate. The time period
within which the obligation of a successor may be enforced shall commence at the time the operator sells
or otherwise disposes of his business or at the time that the determination against the operator becomes
final, whichever event occurs later, and shall expire, in the absence of fraud, three years thereafter. (Ord.
1471 iiI (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 iiI (part), 1971; prior code 1i7.316).
3.40.180 Disposition of menues-Utilization.
All revenues collected by the city under this chapter and remaining after payment of the costs incurred
in the administration of this chapter shall be deposited in the general fund and the council may, from time
to time, by resolution, specifically designate the purpose for which these revenues may be utilized. (Ord.
1471 iiI (part), 1973; Ord. 1339 Ii1 (part), 1971; Ord. 986 iiI (part), 1966; prior code 1i7.318).
3.40.190 VIOlation d_ed misdemeanor-Penalty.
.-
Any penon violating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable therefor by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail
for a period of not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any operator or other
penon who fails or refuses to register as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be made, or
who fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the director of fmance, 0':
who renden a false or fraudulent return or claim, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable as aforesaid.
Any penon required to make, render, sign or verify any report or claim who makes a false or fraudulent
report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this chapter
to be made, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as aforesaid. (Ord. 1471 iiI (part), 1973; Ord.
1339 iiI (part), 1971; Ord. 986 iiI (part), 1966; prior code 1i7.317).
-.
251 fi JJ~&/
(R 11/91)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
SUBMITTED BY:
Public Hearing: GPA-94-05; City initiated proposal to adopt a Child Care
Element to the General Plan
Resolution I 78"'i..sAdopting a Child Care Element to the General plan
Director of Planning,;:flt ()
Director of Parks and Re1\~ti~
City Manager J~ ~ tM;1
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On March 1, 1994, the City Council approved a work program which called for staff from the
Parks & Recreation Department and Planning Department to coordinate with the Child Care
Commission to review current City policies and regulations relating to streamlining the
permitting of child care facilities and to develop a comprehensive Child Care Element to the
General Plan. On November 15, 1994, the Child Care Commission and staff introduced the
draft Child Care Element to the City Council and requested that authorization be given to
proceed with a public workshop for review of the draft Element, conduct appropriate
environmental analysis, and return to Council with a General Plan Amendment for Council's
consideration and adoption.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendment will not
have a significant impact upon the environment, and has issued a Negative Declaration 18-95-19
(please see Attachment 4).
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Adopt Negative Declaration 18-95-19, and
2. Adopt the attached draft Child Care Element in accordance with the attached draft City
Council Resolution and direct staff to return to them with a detailed work program for
implementation of policies contained therein.
/'1 -i
Page 2, Item-4-
Meeting Date 3/21/95
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On October 26, 1994, the Child Care Commission voted to recommend the adoption of the
attached draft Child Care Element to the General Plan.
On February 6, 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission recommended the adoption of the
attached draft Child Care Element.
On February 16, 1995, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed draft Child
Care Element and voted unanimously to recommend adoption.
On February 22, 1995, the Planning Commission voted 5-2, to recommend adoption of the Child
Care Element (please see Attachment 3)
DISCUSSION:
The City Council, in authorizing staff to prepare a Child Care Element to the General Plan, also
directed that the Child Care Commission conduct a review of the City's current regulatory
process for new child care facilities in the City, as well as a comparison of local regulations with
State requirements and regulatory approaches of other local jurisdictions. The Child Care
Commission forwarded recommendations to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Advisory
Committee, appointed by Council to streamline and simplify the current City procedures relating
to the permitting of child care facilities. It is expected that a report from the CUP Advisory
Committee, containing these modifications, will be forthcoming to the City Council in the near
future.
1. Prooosed Child Care Element
The draft Child Care Element, which will constitute a new chapter within the Community
Development Section of the General Plan (Chapter 5A), is organized into the following major
components (please see Attachment 5 for complete draft Element):
i. 0 introduction - This section provides an overview of the community's need to address
the provision of child care, the purpose of the Child Care Element, and a background
discussion describing the efforts of the Child Care Commission and Chula Vista 2000
Task Force in the promotion of child care as a high priority.
2.0 Existing Conditions - A needs analysis, conducted by staff, examines the estimated
number of children in the City, the number of those children needing child care, and the
number of available licensed child care spaces. Included in this section is a discussion
Ii! -:{
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
and description of various funding methods available for child care facilities, and a
description of various available family assistance programs. Current zoning regulations
and locational criteria are discussed, including Community Purpose Facilities and new
child care master plan requirements of master planned communities such as the Otay
Ranch.
3. 0 Issues - A discussion of the key issues related to the provision of child care that are
addressed in the Element.
4.0 Goal, Objectives & Policies - This section of the Element contains goals, objectives,
policies and implementation measures that reflect the City's desire to achieve quality
child care services for those persons residing and/or working in the City, and addresses
the following:
a) the quantity and location of child care facilities in the community; including
-
ongoing evaluation of child care needs in the community;
locating new child care facilities;
regulatory reform and permit streamlining;
incentives for new development to provide locations for child care
facilities; and,
the City's role as employer in providing child care services;
-
b) affordability of child care services; and
c) maintaining high quality and safe child care services.
5.0 References - A listing of twenty-one references, including local agencies and recent
publications, which provide support for the [mdings and discussion contained in the
Element.
2. Public WorkshoD
On January 25, 1995, a public workshop was held to address the contents of the draft Child Care
Element. This workshop, attended by approximately 20 people, focused on the contents in the
draft Element. Many of the questions and/or concerns raised at the workshop (see Attachment
6) will be addressed through subsequent implementation action of policies contained in the draft
Element.
;1..-3
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
3. Analvsis
The Child Care Element examines the existing number of licensed child care spaces in Chula
Vista. The number and general location of licensed child care providers located within the City
of Chula Vista were examined for three age groups of children: Infant (0-2 yrs.), Preschool (2-5
yrs.) and School Age (5-12 yrs.). The following table quantifies the current status of child care
within the City.
CURRENT SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR LICENSED CIllLD CARE IN CHULA VISTA
AGE CATEGORY TOTAL # OF CHILDREN TOTAL#OF SHORTFALL AND
CHILDREN' NEEDING SPACES PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN
CARE.. AVAILABLE FOR WHICH LICENSED CHILD
CARE IS NOT AVAILABLE....
INFANT'" (0-2) 5.853 2,354 646 -1,708/73%
PRESCHOOL (2-5) 7,085 2,590 2,794 +204/7% (surpius)
SCHOOL-AGE (5-12) 17,865 8,818 i.920 -6,898/78%
TOTAL 30,803 13,762 5,360 -8,402 / 61 %
* Based on 1990 Census of Population and Housing (Rpt. STF1A), and adjusted 9.04% to reflect SANDAG population
estimate of 1/1/94.
** Calculations computed using method outlined in, Child Care and DeveloDment in San Die~o County bv San Dieflo CounfY
Commission on Children and Youth. February 1994.
The methodology employed is number of children from census, multiplied by the number of children with working parents
(given as 85% per Childcare Resource Service), less number of children that are not using licensed or licensed exempt
child care for any number of reasons. Reasons for not using 'formal' child care include,' parents' choice not to use child
care, employing 'nannies' (live-in or visiting),' using informal child care such as relatives, friends and neighbors; lack of
funds or; parents give up looking for space or facility after not being able to find a convenient facility or time arrangement
to suit their work schedule.
.*. Includes children in licensed toddler programs.
**** Shortfall determined by comparing WTotal # of Spaces Available W column to "Children Needing Core W column.
Staff research indicates that there is a total of 200 Small Family Day Care providers, 55 Large
Family Day Care providers, and 60 Child Care Centers in the City totalling approximately 5,360
licensed child care spaces, This total represents approximately 61 % of the number of needed
child care spaces. However, the greatest shortfall occurs in the Infant and School Age children,
As a comparison, research indicates that the City of Oceanside, which has a similar population
to that of Chula Vista, has a total shortfall range of between 60-70% of child care spaces.
/2j~r
Page 5, Item )'/
Meeting Date 3f2ti95
5. Planning Commission Concerns
Although the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the proposed Child Care
Element, concerns were expressed by some members of the Commission. The following is a
response to those concerns.
Issue: Is it appropriate to structure a General Plan Element that contains policies which require
subsequent analysis and implementation strategies?
ResDonse: Many of the Elements contained within the General Plan, including the Housing
Element, Growth Management Element as well as others, state policies which require subsequent
coordination efforts with the development community and outside agencies in order to properly
implement the goals and objectives of the Elements. Typically, detailed work programs are
developed, which outline priorities, staffmg costs and time lines before Council authorization to
proceed. The Child Care Element has been structured consistent with other Elements of the
General Plan.
Issue: Why is staff using formulas obtained from groups outside of the City of Chula Vista
to determine what the child care needs are in the City? What methodology was used to arrive
at numbers that represent the local child care need?
ResDonse: Staff has done extensive research throughout the southern California region to
determine the best methods to assess the child care needs within the City of Chula Vista. The
best information was obtained from a report entitled "Child Care and Development in San Diego
County," February 1994, prepared by the Child Care and Development Committee for the San
Diego County Commission on Children and Youth. The Committee responsible for the
preparation of this report, totalling 35 in number, consisted of notable representatives from the
following organizations: YMCA, County Department of Social Services, City and County of
San Diego Child Care Coordinators, Childcare Resources Services, and various school districts.
The report utilizes 1990 Census data for the entire San Diego County, as well as a formula
utilizing this information that was derived through extensive research. In determining the child
care needs for Chula Vista, staff has applied the latest local Census data (amended to 1994) and
the number of licensed child care spaces located within Chula Vista to a formula that estimates
the percentage of children needing child care (ref: Childcare Resource Services). The figure
represented in the proposed Child Care Element is the result of this effort, however, is only
being used to give some idea of the importance of providing necessary child care facilities.
Policies contained in the proposed Element call for annual updating of child care needs within
the community.
/1/-/
Page 6, Item ~
Meeting Date 3/21/95
6. Imolementation
The draft Child Care Element to the General Plan sets out policies which, when and if
implemented, should provide comprehensive policy direction to promote and guide the provision
of adequate child care facilities necessary to serve the existing and future developed areas in the
City in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. It should also be recognized that each of these
policies and measures cannot be implemented innnediately and that staff availability, funding and
existing work program priorities will be determining factors in their timely implementation.
Because this document will become an element of the General Plan, the City will be required
to make findings that certain discretionary actions on individual projects are consistent with this
element, along with other adopted General Plan elements. In order to recognize that policy
implementation will occur over time and still assure consistency with the General Plan, the
following statement has been included in Section 4.0 (page 5A-17) of the draft Element:
"Because actual implementation will occur over time, individual projects should be analyzed on
the basis of how closely they meet the intent of the Child Care Element. "
A number of the policies can be implemented in the short term; however, most will require
extensive coordination with the development community as well as school districts and other
regulatory agencies. Staff will return to Council with a detailed work program, outlining a
phased implementation approach. This phased work program will identify areas of responsibility
within City departments, staffing commitments and a program of interaction with outside
agencies and developers.
FISCAL IMPACT: The implementation of policies contained within the Child Care Element
will be outlined in a work program to be brought forward to Council in the future. Direction
on the work program will be obtained from Council based on other Council priorities and
staffing considerations. Fiscal impacts of implementing actions will be reported to Council at
that time.
Attachments
1. Draft City Council Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Planning Commission, RCC and Parks and Recreation Minutes
4. Environmental Document
5. Draft Child Care Element
6. Questions/Concerns from Public Workshop
7. Correspondence
(m: \home\planning\childcre\childcr2.cc)
J sf--"
RESOLUTION NO. /7 r' '15
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ADOPTING A CHILD CARE ELEMENT (CHAPTER SA)
WHEREAS, on March 1,1994, the City Council approved a work program which
called for staff from the Parks & Recreation Department and Planning Department to coordinate
with the Child Care Commission to review current City policies and regulations relating to
streamlining the permitting of child care facilities and to develop a comprehensive Child Care
Element to the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in response, City staff, in cooperation with the Child Care
Commission, prepared the Child Care Element containing policies addressing the provision of
child care facilities; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1994, the City Council directed the staff and the
Child Care Commission to hold a public workshop to solicit comments regarding the draft Child
Care Element, with said public workshop being subsequently held on January 25, 1995, at Hazel
Goes Cook Elementary School; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
amendment and determined that there would be no significant environmental impacts and thereby
issued the Negative Declaration (IS-95-19).
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered said amendment at a duly
noticed public hearing held February 22, 1995, at which they considered the Negative
Declaration (IS-95-19), and voted (vote: 5-2) to approve said amendment and recommend their
adoption by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March
21,1995, to consider the Negative Declaration (IS-95-19), and the proposed Child Care Element
to the General Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows:
1. That the proposed Child Care Element to the General Plan will have no
significant environmental impacts, and adopts Negative Declaration IS-95-
19.
2. That the proposed Child Care Element is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan.
1'/-7
'I' '
,,' "
","
,",' ,
, ' '
,,"','
".'
. ." ,. " '.,',' ,,', .
" "'.m~~~i~~~~'
",t~ ~~~=*"'
" ,."'" """,'i"",,"'.'l,~<
:~~~Or,~,,~~~:~i~\~J:!~~ '.
",." LOCATlOlf'\ ,~"'~.~';;~~~~ ~~~lq~;~,;J!., ';'~r
,!.U;': < ~.. '~ jt' '~' :lif:, '~Ji;' ~ ' , '
, ~.""""'J~:r;"fl:{y.~::.:",~io!~,,\.\t>\ ,I~~., '~"":"".~."~" ,~' ,,' '''';'<",:
"",',v.
, "',
. ,:!'.
,"
"",
caPlES TO:. "
",', .'
:'\'," ,
. , - ,
. """ ,,< \,
. 1" "
Othm
" ","
.', ,',
, ','. ".' id;i'
, ',' ,~~$~:(2)",,',.,,'.,'. '~f~{~s'".".'"",'"
'PO~~BUl,l..ETJl'l~ > ',," .."", ,.,',
'Sffi~~S:raU~Ns; , ',i.
7/93"
" '
., ,', '
.s~. J t/ ..;' ?
, ~ ' ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
CITY COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering the adoption of
a new element to the text of the City's General Plan establishing policies which address the
provision of child care.
Copies of the proposed element are on file in the office of the Planning Department.
An Initial Study, IS-95-19, of possible significant environmental impacts has been conducted by
the Environmental Review Coordinator. A finding of no significant environmental impact has
been recommended to the City Council and is on file, along with the Initial Study, in the office
of the Planning Department. Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received
by the Planning Departtnent office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this General Plan amendment, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public
hearing. Any person desiring to be heard may appear at the hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, March
21, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
A venue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACf (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk's
office at (619) 691-5041 for specific information, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
DATED:
CASE NO.:
March 7, 1995
GPA-94-05
[CHLDCRCC.NOT]
/t/~jtl
'\
Child Care Element
Ms. Paula Rindge Leard
Child Care Resource servic..
~
Ms. Barbara Webb
Mr. Dajahn Blevin
San Diego Urban Lea
Ms. Gerlinda Topzand -
County of San Diego
Dept. of Social Services
Ms. Marti Tucker
City of San Marcos
Community Services
Ms. Karen Josephson-Reed
City of Escondido
Community Services Dept.
Ms. Deb Ferrin
City of San Diego
~~
Ms. Constance C. Byram
. ani es
. Mr. Allen Jones
r
Eaton
for Education of
Ms. Linda Lowe
..... Dare
Ca re Assn
Ms. Tina Williams
YMCA
~1910
~
Chil dren
200
McMIllin Communities Inc.
Ken Baum artner
Ms. Terri Carilio, Mail Code6013 /U~/' /
Director So. Bay Home Support -/ /
Vista' .
, ,
('Child Care Element)
"
..
(
.
~ Care
. ~1910
Day Care Centers
o
Cummins
o
.
Hernandez
/7- / ~
Hunter Family Day Care
~ 91910
(Child Care Element)
Tiny Town Play School & Day
o
Care
43
~ome
~910
Day Ca re Centers
~ Care
~19lb
I ~ay Care
~A 91910;
o
Osuna
~
2
91'0
Porras Family Day Care
~910
Richie Family Day Care
'~910
10
.~are
:.~91910
.
I~-I J
Sandoval
,
(Child Care Element)
Sensbach Family Day Care
I
.
, . .
. .
1910
,
~y Care
~91910
Shannon Family Day Care
~ 91910
~~
~91910
Torres, Ana
Triesch Family Day Care
Voelker, Patricia Family
Da
Day Care Centers
re
~y Care
~ 91910
Allen, Rosa
Wischstadt-Fortado Family
Da a
Avalos, Cenovia
~ourt
~919!1
'.,
Baxter,
Beauchamp
IL/-li
Brattland-Medrano Family
Day Ca re
,
(Child Care Element)
911
1
~are
~11
Day Care Centers
Chuquimia Family Day Care
911
Contreras. Imelda Family
i Day Car.e
Cortez Family Day Care
Coulson. Gertrude Family
, Day Care .
~91911
911
11
"I
Perez
L
Care
:~e
~11
Dreesen.Family Day Care
Future
Esparza Family Day Care
Estrada Family Day Care
. Wadsworth Fami ly Day Care
i~1911
Evans
Ii-IS
Flores
,
(Child Care Element)
Flores Family Day Care
~11
Flores F~mi1y Day Care
~Home
~91911
~re
~11
~re
~11
Garibay, Eva Family Day Care
Garibay, Yolanda Family
Day Care
Gautier, Carmen
~ 91911
Gladfelter Family Day Care
Day Care Centers
Gonzales/Baltazar Family
Da
Care
Fami 1y
I
5
91911
"0'
Jewett Family Day Care
Jimenez, Sandra Family
Da
Kenniston
Care
Knight, E1ria Family
~:
~911
Ji-/~
.
(Child Care Element)
Day Care Centers
Leal Family Day Care
~11
~re"
~911i.
1
.
11
Machen
Nissen Family Day Care
11
01 i veri
Beary Lovin9 Day Care
~911
,
Olson Family Day Care'
1
1911
t
~Care
~1911
Pavon,
Ramos, Amelia
1
Randolph Family Day Care
~ 91911
/'/-/?
.
(Child Care Element)
Rohrer Family Day Care
Romero/Arechiga Family
Day Care
1
Family
1
Saunders, Mary Family
: Day Care
7
Day Care Centers
~car;
~91911
e
Stewart Family Day Care
~1911
Vi sta, CA 91911
Torres, Carmen
~911
Woods
1
911
~
Barreras
3
J~-/ Y
~re
~911
Fami ly
(Child Care Element)
Day Care Centers
Lety's Home Day Care
Home
Doria
13
re
Fernandez
Wi 11 iams
Bonita
Educational Ctr
Age
~Care
~1913
Child Development Center
Southwe
~
Quijada Family Day ~are
8
t
C. V. Community Church
PreSchool & D re Center
,Communi ty Congregat i ona 1
Preschool
~ 91910
Cottontail Preschool
~1910
First United Methodist
Preschool
~10
Four Seasons Preschool
~1910
/1-/ (
H Street Nursery School
~91910
. '
(Child Care Element)
I Corner Educare Children Ctr
'School ~ge Pro~ram
I ..~~~ 4
Chula Vista, CA 91910
&
Montessori American School
Mueller Extended Day Care
~
~910
Park Way Head Start
\ ~1910
\~reschool
~1910
~l
~91910
. ~sery School
l ~1910
School for Young Children
~910
Day Care Centers
~YMCA Sunshine Co
~A 91910
So. Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Co
Tiffany School
So. Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Co
Halecrest S h 1
So. Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Co
,Hillto 1
So. Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Co
ClearView School
'~910
So.Bay YMCA Sunshine Co.
Discover~ School
o
9
Temple Beth Sholom .Preschool
~ CA 91910
~eschool
l ~91911
~eschool
,~11
Co
Cook Child Care/Development C.
!
Orange Avenue Preschool
11
911
001
S.D. County 4-H
~1911
.
.
(Child Care Element)
1
YMCA Sunshine Co
So. Bay YMCA Sunshine Co
Par .
So. Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Co
Ball's Family Day Care
Careaga, Gloria Family
Day Care
Day Care Centers
Day Care
by Pam
Devoss Fami ly
Holehouse
10
Bom ta, CA 91902
Milstead, Ilene & Jeffrey
Fami 1 re
Bonita, CA 91902
Murphy Family Day Care
Witherspoon Family Day Care
......,
/I;-rl- /
Labonville-Smile Center DayCare
. -,,,'v,, ~ ~
-mQnita, CA 91902'
,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby adopt the proposed Child Care Element to the General Plan, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela
Director of Parks and Recreation
LA
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce Boogaard
City Attorney
(m: home\planning\childcre\gpa-9504 .ccr)
I'I~~ //4-22
.
.0
.
~~
RESOLUTION GPA-94-0S
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
ADOPTION OF A CHILD CARE ELEMENT (CHAPTER SA) TO THE
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, on March I, 1994, the City Council approved a work program which
called for staff from the Parks & Recreation Department and Planning Department to coordinate
with the Child Care Commission to review current City policies and regulations relating to
streamlining the permitting of child care facilities and to develop a comprehensive Child Care
Element to the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in response, City staff, in cooperation with the Child Care
Commission, prepared the Child Care Element containing policies addressing the provision of
child care facilities; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1994, the City Council directed the staff and the
Child Care Commission to hold a public workshop to solicit commf!ltt~ regarding the draft Child
Care Element, with said public workshop being subsequently held on Jauuary 25, 1995, at Hazel
Goes Cook Elementary School; and,
WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator bas reviewed the proposed
amendment and determined that there would be no sigJDkaJd en..ho-l impacts aDd thereby
issued the Negative Declaration (lS-95-19).
WHEREAS, the Planning Ctmuniuion considered said ~ to the Chula
Vista General Plan at a duly noticed public hearing held at the time aDd place as advertised,
namely February 22, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council r.hamhers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW mEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 11IE PLANNING
COMMISSION does hereby adopt Negative Declaration 1S-95-19. and recommends the adoption
of the proposed General Plan amendment by the City Council in accordance with the att...1tM
draft City Council Resolution and the findings C(Uttllilll'.d therein.
~Lj /.)3
--
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 2200 day of February, 1995, by the following vote, to-wit:
.........
AYES: Commissioners Fuller, Martin, Salas, Tarantino, Willett
NOES: Commissioners Ray, Tuchscher
ABSENT: None
A'~~
W..... C. - """" n, """""'"
Attest:
,,-+.~ jJs(}l~
Nancy . ley, ecre ry
(m:~IcIIiIdcreIDo-9S04,pcr)
---,
/;1/ -- ~ I-
"""'\,
.
.
.
n ~I'\"~,",:"';,,,r--.:~ I". "1 [.z\::::.r;:J F7iS{l!!
\JiiJ\./'W-.. .. !J\.;,;liJ..-'-_.,. "......\,:I.;.I L; ti,i.'"
Excerot from Planninl!: Commission Minutes of 2/22/95
ITEM 2:
PUBUC HEARING: GPA-94-05: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION
OF A CHILD CARE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
Principal Planner Bazzel presented the staff report, noting that the Element was intended to
provide a policy framework for adequate childcare facilities within the City. A public workshop
had been held in January where the Child Care Commission and staff received comments. The
Parks & Recreation Commission had fully endorsed the Element. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend to the City Council the
adoption of the proposed Child Care Element. Mr. Bazzel noted that the Planning Commission
had received a letter from Mr. Bruce Sloan of the EastLake Company, who was in attendance,
and he stated also that members of the Child Care Commission who were actively involved in
the preparation of the Element were present.
Commissioner Ray, referring to a table in the staff report regarding current supply and demand
for licensed child care in Chula Vista, asked if the table represented the total number of children
within the City or only the number that needed child care, and also the definition of child care
need.
Mr. Bazzel pointed out the total number and the number of children needing child care. At
Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Bazzel explained that it was done on a statistical analysis
rather than a survey. The 1990 Census was prorated to 1994, factors were applied through
documentation of other child care reports to determine the average number of children, and then
applied to the estimated number of children.
Commigsioner Ray asked if that formula would be used until a new formula was deemed
necessary. Mr. Bazzel answered affmnatively. He also noted that the ftgll1'Cs would give a
general indication of what staff has found to be the C!ltimllted need. Some of the policies in the
Element dealt with annual updating of the demand for child care facilities.
Chair Tuchscher asked who developed the formula-the Pen:entage of children needing child
care.
Mr. Bazzel replied that it was drawn out of the Child Care and Development In San Diego
County by the San Diego County Commission on Children and Youth Report, dated February
1994.
Chair Tuchscher asked how the County got their formula. Mr. Bazzel did not have that
information.
Commissioner Ray asked the definition of "need. "
Mr. Bazzel replied that the range of need not only included those that were not being dealt with
at all, but also those being dealt with in a substandard condition-.perhaps left with a teenaged
sister or brother or in an unlicensed daycare situation.
~ /r'-~~
PC Minutes
-16-
February 22, 1995
"""
Commissioner Ray asked if the children reflected on the chart would be those being taken care
of by someone who was not an adult and not in a facility that was currently licensed in the City
of Chula Vista, of the total population.
Mr. Bazzel answered affIrmatively. He said staff considered the actual number of licensed
spaces in the City in all three categories, determined the number of spaces, and compared that
to the estimated number of children, applying a factor based on the experience of others to
determine the actual number of children making up that need.
Commissioner Fuller reiterated that the question of need was also determined on some studies
done on the number of licensed day care facilities or small family day care facilities who were
providing good service and have waiting lists. That was definitely a need. The families who
would like to get into a known small family day care facility, and there is not enough room,
cannot go without. Someone had to take care of the child, but there was still that need to fmd
good licensed day care.
Commissioner Salas added that possibly need could also mean that a parent took the option of
,
~ not working because there was not affordable day care. While the need was still there, it was
not economical.
Chair Tuchscher stated he could see a difference between need and demand. He felt the fact that
there are waiting lists at certain day care facilities which do exceptionally good jobs or have ~
exceptionally reasonable costs because they are non-profit or church-oriented, or are convenient
was not a good measure of need.
Commissioner Willett commented that he had sub-chaired during the .CV 21. Committee. One
of the elements was child care. He stated that several means were used to determine the number
of children needing child care. As a result of discussions with several agencies, including the
School District and the Parks & Recreation Department, as well as with staff during the past
week, he had concluded that the figures were quite accurate, considering single parents, both
male and female, and the needs within the 2-5 range.
Commissioner Tarantino asked the difference between policy direction and policy. If something
was listed in the General Plan, did it not become policy? Mr. Bazzel could see no difference
between policy direction and policy. The policies in the Element were crafted to demand
additional evaluation; they were not mandates.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned whether being in the General Plan made something
mandatory. If that were the case, there was no money or staff to implement it.
. Mr. Bazzel replied that policies in the General Plan were typically mandates, but in some cases
\required further implementation. The language in the proposed Child Care Element stated that
it would require further evaluation, that they were guiding policies, and if the language did in
fact mandate it, they would be specifically required. ""'"
-/
J'I/.2c;
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-17-
February 22, 1995
Commissioner Tarantino asked if the streamlining of the permit process had an impact on the
screening process done by the State to check out the character references of the people who
would be doing the child care.
Mr. Bazzel stated that it did not impact the State licensing program or the County licensing
requirements. What the policy advocated was better coordination of the local permitting
agencies of examination of facilities in order to cut down on time and staffmg costs.
Commissioner Salas questioned the location of the smal1 family day care providers, and asked
if any thought had been given to whether small family day care providers could be provided in
the newer developments with smaller lots; or if staff was going to work with the State to see if
they would regulate Ii smaller area for those kinds of neighborhoods.
Mr. Bazzel said they had not talked to the State about any reduced requirements. Staff had
discussed with the Child Care Commission the need in the new communities to provide child
care-ready houses and what difficulties that might cause. As part of the planning process on the
Otay Ranch, staff was requiring a child care master plan, and intended to do so on any future
master plans. It did, however, raise an issue with regard to State requirements and size
requirements with the downsizing of the future single-family lots, and the ability to provide child
care.
Commissioner Salas asked if facilities with recreation rooms had been explored as to the
possibility of their being used as day care areas during the day when people are typically at
work.
Mr. Bazzel stated that in the Policy, staff had encouraged further evaluation of new development
to provide facilities in the appropriate locations. These types of issues would be dealt with the
Child Care Master Plans of communities.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the Community Purpose Facility zoning allowed non-profit child care,
but not for-profit child care. Mr. Bazzel concurred, stating that it was not-for-profit child care
as an accessory use to a primary community purpose facility.
Chair Tuchscher asked how the CPF zoning could be broadened to allow child care without the
restriction.
Mr. Bazzel replied that the CPF is a policy in the Municipal Code that dealt with providing an
amount of acreage for social service-type land uses in master planned communities, based on
a formula created through an interactive process with church groups, social service providers,
etc. to provide acreage for those types of uses. The formula established dealt with uses which
involved non-profit child care. The for-profit had the resources to acquire facilities, and there
was concern by the non-profit providers that they would not be able to compete for that
property. At that time, the for-profit child care was not included in the formula. To include
for-profit child care, the prior discussion that established the CPF factor would have to be
reopened and the for-profit would have to be integrated into it.
~ 11/-,30
PC Minutes
-18-
February 22, 1995
........
<: Chair Tuchscher thought it was interesting that a land use was allowed in CPF for a non-profit,
but the same land use would have to get a conditional use permit if it was for profit and would .
have to go onto a commercial or residential lot. He felt it was something that should be
pursued.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MS (MartinlFuller) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-19, and recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached Child Care Element in accordance with the draft City Council
resolution.
Commissioner Ray was concerned about how the need was determined; he would like for the
Element to logistically state the requirements in terms of acreage for facilities; how the formula
used equated to square footage per child along with play area, which would equate to an acreage
requirement; and the ratio required for child care for the portion of the CPF parcel required to
be approved.
Mr. Bazzel stated that the Element had not gotten into the division of for-profit versus not-for-
, profit in terms of actual provisions. There is an umbrella of "need" over both. The Element
did not discuss what was actually provided in the field between for-profit and not-for-profit. The
CPF was the result of an evaluation process to implement an acreage total based on population. .........,
f
The Child Care Element was envisioned to come up with a formula for determinil1g the adequate
amount of land area that might be required for new development for child care facilities. Mr.
Bazzel noted there was a policy in the Element which dealt with that.
"
In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Bazzel said the policy generally stated that there would
. be an evaluation to determine a factor for child care needs. It did not stipulate whether it would
, be for profit or not for profit. As part of the interactive process for the development community
and providers to come up with an equitable formula, both would be considered, including the
CPF.
Commissioner Ray noted that the not-for-profit area, which was not yet determined, would have
a ratio that would be applied to a CPF. He thought this would be the proper time to have those
ratios defined.
Mr. Bazzel felt that before a ratio could be applied, the CPF aspect of that formula needed to
be included. If a percentage of the CPF acreage was to be targeted for child care and it was not
established that a certain part of that formula was just for child care, that would have to be
extracted from the remainil1g acreage which was to be provided for for-profit or additional child
care.
. Chair Tuchscher said staff should take into account the CPF zoning to make sure there was not
double zoning, or zoning properties for the same uses. .........,
~')'-/-31
.
.
.
PC Minutes
-19-
February 22, 1995
Mr. Bazzel questioned whether the best approach would be to determine a fixed acreage formula
for child care because child care. covered a wide range of private homes in the form of small and
large-family day care as well as centers. He felt they were probably focusing more on centers
when they were talking about acreage in master planned communities.
Commissioner Tarantino commended the members of the Child Care Commission, the Resource
Conservation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their hard work. He
said the first step to problem-solving was to recognize there is a problem, and that by placing
this in the General Plan ot would legitimize the concerns of many parents in the area. He hoped
that the Council would allocate the dollars and the staffmg to see that it was implemented..
Chair Tuchscher had reservations about the ratios and the establishment of need. He said he did
not understand how a policy could be drafted or proper planning action could be taken when it
was unsure whether the ratios were valid or how to extrapolate the numbers. He did not know
how the County Commission on Child Care established their numbers, whether it was by survey
or by a consultant. He supported putting a Child Care Element into the General Plan, but
questioned the source. He could not vote for the motion as it stood.
Commissioner Fuller stated she saw part of the source as the State of California Department of
Social Services Community Care Licensing, which she felt was a legitimate source.
Chair Tuchscher was not comfortable with how the County arrived at their information and how
it related to the City's jurisdiction. Relative to CPF zoning, he was of the opinion that the plans
currently coming through the system were very much out of scale relative to the need for
acreage associated with those particular land uses in ChuIa Vista. It was creating planning
problems. He did not want to accept someone else's ratio.
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there was no urgency to take action. If the Commission
desired more information, the item could be continued and the Commkcion could be provided
with more data.
Chair Tuchscher stated that he did not like to delay things; he personally felt uncomfortable with
it, but it would be up to the Commission.
Commissioner Salas commented that whether or not the ratios were pinpoint accurate, there was
a great need for child care in the community and in the nation. She would vote for the motion.
Commissioner Ray stated he would abstain because the Element did not adequately cover the
equation of the amount of acreage to the number of children, and what that meant to the General
Plan or the impact of the facilities.
Commissioner Fuller commented that that was only one part of child care provisions. The vast
majority of child care was done in smaller, unlicensed or.in licensed homes. The portion
dealing with the current zoning regulations and the loCatlonal criteria defmed that. She saw
defIDing the number of dwelling units too specific in this General Plan for overall child care.
~ J'I-'J~
PC Minutes
-20-
February 22, 1995
~
Those areas could be worked out within the commes of the issues defmed in the proposed
Element.
Commissioner Ray still believed this was more of a policy than a General Plan issue and should
be addressed as a policy and not part of the General Plan.
Commissioner Tarantino again questioned the difference between policy direction and a policy.
If it is in the document, does it have to be followed; and if so, how could it be put in without
a funding mechanism.
Commissioner Fuller stated that the issues defmed in the Element were already areas that were
defmed as policy within the City. The for-profit facilities within the City had not been
addressed, so it could not be defmed in the Element since it did not exist.
Commissioner Ray felt it was global, and wanted to know what it equated to in real impact in
terms of acreage or units. Even though there. is a need, he did not feel this was the proper
vehicle to be placed in the General Plan at the present time.
Chair Tuchscher echoed Commissioner Tarantino's earlier comments relative to the hard work
of the Commissions and staff. It was clearly a need, but he did not feel comfortable voting for
it.
"""\
VOTE: 5-2 (Commil<goners Ray and Tuchscher against)
""'\
~ JLj~ 33
.
.
.
4S206Ei2
EXPRESS SECRETFlR I AL
832 P02 FEE 15'95 12:36
.
EXCERPT FROM RCC MINUTES FOR MEETING OF 2-6-95.
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR. MEETING
Resource Conset'\'ation Commission
Clwla Vista, California
6:30P.M.
Monday. FebNlry 6. 1995
Conference Room ##1
Publie Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDBllIROLL CALL: MeetiDs was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chair
Bumscano. City StaffEnvironmerUallleview eoordiJlator DouS Reid called ron. Present:
Commissioners Hall, Marquez, FISher. It was MSUC (MarquezJHall) to GCUIe Commiaaioner
Ghousassian who is out of the country. The absence ofGuerreiro will be referred to the Caunell',
Subcommittee as he is now unable to achieve the 75% atteDdance requirement at this point.
APPP.OV AL OF MINUI'ES: It was MSUC (HalIIMarquez) to approve the minutes of the
meetina ofJanuuy 9,1995; vote 4-0, motioncarrled.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: NOlle.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. It'eYiew of Nesative Declaration for 18-95-19, Child Care PJement. lleid pmentod a brief
overview of this item. Hall stated Ihc would 1iIce to tee a policy that these cbild care
locations be away from trolley uacb and other high traflie areas to CI1IU1'C the ufety of the
children beiDa dropped d and pickecl up. 'Ihia Itated policy would aIlcviatc any potemial
problems; vote 4-0, motion carrlecl.
2. The City CoWlCil policy reprdins OOI""'i.m.-.r'a abIeDce- was moiewecl. No lCtlon taba.
3. The memo from the City Ma1lap:r reprdina ex..nJ.,iuiond. business carda was handed out.
No action taken.
STAfF REPOR.T:
A acbedule was handed out as to the timebme in which bistoricaI sites will receive their plaques.
Diacupion was held on chaDging the IlIlltt llCC mer". date to nMfiW the EIll Sphere of
Jducnee. lleid will coordinate with the pruentera for poaaIb1e elates. Burraacano will be _lent
on Febnwy 20.
CHAIlUdAN'S COMMENTS:
Febnwy 5-11 is declared South Bay EnviroDmeDUl Week, A proclamation will be made by
Mayor Horton. The hiah-tech Biotech Zone item haa beert presented to the City Council.
Information was requested on the Ba)'lhorc Bib Way Committee of SANDAG.
~/;j<J1-/
Excerpt from draft minutes of
Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting
February 16. 1995
~.
.
B. auld Care Element
1. George Harman, C1airman of the C1iId Care CoDllllission and Duane Bazzel,
Principal Planner of the Planning Department, attended the Parks and
Recreation CoDIIIIission meeting to present the new C1iId Care Element.
2. Mr. Bazzelltated that the Element would go into the City of C1u1a Vllta'l
General Plan; (C1u1a Vista is the only city to have a C1iId Care Element in
the City's General Plan).
Motion to endorse the C1iId Care Element.
MSUC SaDdovaII Carpenter 7.0.
~
,
,..
~
-/ ;7'--:J5
, negative declaration
.
.
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
PROJECT APPLICANT:
CASE NO: IS-95-19
Child Care Element
Citywide
CitYwide
City of ChuIa Vista
DATE: Janwuy 9, 1995
A. Proiect Settin~
The project setting is Citywide.
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project is the City of QuIa Vista General Plan. nuIlI r.- Element.
(CCE). Although child care is not a state-mandated element of the General Plan, the
City has included this policy doc:uDient to address the powiDa "iIeed for child care
facilities." The CCE provides comprebeDsive policy dQection for 1be provision of
adequate child care facilities Jlet,..~ to IC1'Ve the ex.lfli.. lIIId fbture developed eras
in 1be City in a coordiDatcd and COIl-eft'ec:tive "'-ner.
.
The CCE describes the IIature aucr extent of the -'lIti.. and plopoted Child care system
in the City, and identifies trends, iIIues ad public policies 1"'1~ to 1be City
Council's goal that a balanced child" care deliVCl')' system be developed for the City.
The long-term goal of the Child Care Element is to make hiah quality child care
ICrVices available, affordable aDd ~sible to 1boIe perIODS who either live or work
in the City and who desire Or Deed such IIlVices. III pursuit of this loal, the City of
ChuIa Vista supports the principle of palenul choice for child care and Deed for a
variety of options available in the commUllity. and fui1ber lIICOUI'IIes die paticipation
of puents, providers, public officills, ad employers ill the decisiOD-"""'Iri.. ploccss
relatiDg to the provision of child CIte facilities.
-1- ~{~
-.-
~~
"~ .f ell. wIIta p1a1lllln1 .,.,tlMllt CIIY (If___
" envlrolllllellta' ...... MctIoIl" 0tUlA VISTA
~ /9-3'/
-
The document identifies the number of children. that are in n~ of currently W18vailable
licensed child care as 8,046 or 61% of infant, preschool and school-age children in
Chula Vista. "'""
The goal and objectives of the Chula Vista Child Care Element reflect the City's desire
to achieve quality child care services for those persons in need residing or worjdng in
the City. The Element's comprehensive needs analysis and identification ofissues form
.the basis from which Cbula Vista developed the goals, objectives and action plans to
address child care needs. The goals and objectives presented in this section detail
specific statements of policy regarding what should or should not take place during the
course of the City's development.
The policies and implementation measures in this section baye been established to
promote and guide the provision of Child Care facilities within the City of Cbula Vista.
It should be recognized that none of these policies and measures may be implemented
immediately and that staff availability and funding considerations will be determining
factors in their timely implementation.
~
The Goal of the CCE is to encourage safe and affordable good quality child care that
is available and accessible to all economic segments of the community. The objectives
include encouragement of the provision of adequate child care facilities and services to
meet the existing and future needs of the community, to locate child care facilities near
homes, lCbool$ and work places, to provide quality child care that is available to all
families who. need it, regardless of income. and to promote the safety and welfare of
children in cbi1d care facilities that are of the hiah~ quality.
""'"'\
c. C'.nmrurtibilitv with ZoninS! and plan!!:
The adoption of the CCE is con.;.- with the City', General Plan. When specific
impl--ml1g actions are proposed for adoption, such as . Municipal Code ImeDdDtent
living special consideration to child care facilities wishing to locate in exiJril1l. under-
utilized lCbool-c1iSlricts or municipal buildings, c:onsistcnc:y with the City', General Plan
will need to be determined.
D. Id~r.Mion of F.n";M1'lmental Effects
AD initial Itudy conducted by the City of Cmla Vista (includina the fHlI'ehed
Enm......-tA1 CberJclist Form) determined that the proposed project will DOt bave a
aiguificant environmental effect, and the plC;JMltdion of an Envirnnmental Impact Report
will not be~. This Negative Declaration bas been plepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines
~
-2-
-~ /'1~3~
.
.
e
E. MandatoTV Findinl!s of Siiclficance
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantia!ly reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlift 6pecies, couse a fish or
wildlift population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important camples of the major
periods or California history or prehistory?
CommcDts: loB the project is the adoption of policy, there lire DO site specific
impacts. Th~fore, the project does nQt have the potential to reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species.
b. Does the project have the potential to ochieve llhort-tmn. to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
a.
c.
CommcDts: The adoption of the proposed project could be a "first step" in the
achievement of both short-term and long-term environmental goals. ODe of the
objectives of the Child Care Element is'to locate child CIU'e facilities near homes,
schools and work places. This objective, ifmet could remove IOJDe 8Uthomobile
1raffic from the Ilreets IS residents utilize options of child CIU'e closer to home.
Does the project have Impacts that are lndiviJ:lually limited. 6Ilt CllmJllativeIy
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the IIIcremental ejJects
of a project are-considerable when viewed in r:t>>rMCtian with 1M effects ofptlSt
projects, the effects of other CIlI'rInt projects, II1Id the ejJects of proWle jidun
projects.)
ComIDCllts: The adoption of the Child Care Element will DOl have f"Ip&di that
are individually limited but cumulatively coui.derable. Specific Jmplementina
actions that may be propoJed in the tulurc IUCb IS .....1"1 oriIl.....(!t!
amendments will undergo IIdditional envb~RI,.....1 review IS is zequired..
d. Does the project have mvironmental ejJect whkh will t:tIIISe ~ tldverse'
effects on human beings, either direetly or Indirectly?
CommCllts: The adoption of the' Child . Care ~t will pot~.tI.Jly have
beneficial cD"h,)rl".-1 effects on In_ MI"". If it is Wemmted more
edequatc child CIU'e facilities IIld ICl'Viccs will be provicIed to meet the existing
. and future .-cis of the commUDity. Child care will be made available to all
fimilies who IMlCd it nprdless of incoIM IIDd the ),iaJ-t quIlity of IIfcty and
welfllre of children in child care facilities will be pomoted.
-3-
_~ 1,/,,;7
-
F. Consultation
......"
1. Individuals and OrlZanizations
City of Chula Vista: Barbara Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
- Clift' Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building " Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks" Recreation Dept.
Bruce Booguard, City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate ShlD'SOn
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: City of Chula Vista pllmn;1\g Department
2. Documents
f
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Citv of pula Vista General..llan r.hjJ4 r"... IDement. City of Chula Vista
(1994)
-,
,
,
3.
~
lbis euviroDmental determination is based em the -........ Initill Study, lilY
ClOJDDlents received em the IDitial Study IIld Ill)' -ats received during the
-. public review period for this Neptivc Declaration. The report nf1ects the
iDdependent judgment of the City ofChuIa Vista. Further information regarding
1he euvironmental review of this project -is available fiom the ChuIa Vista
PJ......;ng Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~/ ~V)~1~1
ENVIRO :AI. VIEW 00 INATOR
~
.-...,
004-
~ JL/~JjO
-
APPUCATION CANNOT BE^...."CEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO F1T INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER
.
.
.
A.
".:..":,,,. ,'"",:"..,":
:~st~~;'~~;;:
'. Dpst;ADinL~ '
mn=S1UDY ~~~~
City of Quia Vistai~~~*' -':
Appw:ationFonn ".~Nl{"'" '. ........;..
BACKGROUND't'l~jed'&:No.',,;;
~;:n:<}::.\A~KclM:::HrMF?t::~:<.:< . .'
1. ProjectTitle C,"ULOCAQt. 1U.e.~ GPA,f ....i . .... ..
2. Project LOcation (Street Iddzess llI' description) NOT" $ITL f:PFO P.~
.Assessors Book. Pap A PIICd No.
3. Brief Project Description Apoe1lDU OF ,toN ~ot)ln~ ~ 'IJ2.IWf.
CoM'( .6tJUIoa;. P~'At:oussI~ ~D"l'SloN dallL.O (!A Pf
FllGIu-ne.Sltol AU A~ eF ~.
.t. Name of Applicant C.11'r' OF CM-l.lA \/1....... AJ..""fI1~& DE.Pr:
Address -:t7t. fb~ ~. FIlt'~JIbCllle~"l-~IOl
City eLk.JI..A. \/.c.-nl Stile ,....... %Jp ..!JICIIO
5.' Name of~parer/Aaent t>\l~... ~j,,'Z."&L
Address '1.'''' FO~ ~. Fad Pbone
City Cu..&.tr ,",\~n. Stile t:A %Jp~.." 0
Relation to Applicant ~e-f
6. lndirMe III pennits or IIppIimls IIId ----.. ar'" .....AI. RqlIiIecI by tile &.~hj)j,meoa1
Review Coordinator.
L Pwlldts ar ...~.ot'IJs nquired.
L 0IDenI PIIII Am-"-t
_ D..,-nr_
_ GrIdlq PIlrmII
_ TeDtative PIrceI Map
_ SIte PIIIIll Arch. Review
_ 8pecIa1 u. PermIt
_ DeIIp Review App!iloJI_
_ 'hDlalIve SubcI. Map
_ltede-, .-. Apac)'OPA
..-.Redevt'y---' Apac)' DnA
_ PlIbIlc: Project
..&.....MINI
-
_ SpecIfIc PIIII
_ CaIdIdcIIIl Ute PermIt
_ VariIDce
_ Coft~1 DevtIoJ,..~t
_ Otber PamIl
J(project is . General Plan ~ IIId/ar .... pIeue Iov"__ tile ...... ID cIeIIpIIiaD from
~~~~ ~. ~A .
b. P-llJdourel ... "'''nd'~ (. ~.drecI by tile ......~~."'-_,I.d Rniew O"".,.....nI').
_ 0rIdIna PIIII _ An:h.1lIenIdtas Jf)401o11C11 Study
PIn:el Map · -'''' tpe PIIIIa - BioIoJIc:al Study
= PrecIse PIIII = TealIlIve SubcI. NIp = An:IIieaIoIIeal Study
SpecIfIc Plan . lmiltoVlllleDl PIIIIa NoiIe An- -'"
= TrIfJlc Impact Report . = SoDs Report = ~ ApDl:y PIlrmII
_ Hazardous Wille AI",,--' _ 0e0I~ hl'lll Report _ ........
.... 1
"Of, --~-ID2I_lItI.__)~I_) -y-::. /f/~ i /
-
E. ~ER1JFICA nON
\-
"""
,
I, IS owner/owner in escrow.
PrlDt IWJlC
ClI'
1, COIISUhant or agent.
b\J~ L. & \ 1: ~4.c......
fla,..ltoSc..,Q-..t.,. ~.(...
Print JWDe
~y AfFJRM, that to the best of my beJief, the IWelDel4S and information baeiIl cantained lie in an
respectS true and comet and that an known infOllllldon c:oncemina the project IIId lis IeUin& bas been .
included iD 1his applicalion for 11\ Initial SllIdy of p"".lhl,e IllvinlameD111 impIct IIId .Y enclosures for
....,.h~ thereto.
~
-j
0wIIer/0wDc:r iD Escrow SipIlure
Ill'
('~,n1t.'It ..
SipaIme
'-L/"L I I 'L~
Date . ,
. acdna for a COlpClrI!ion, incJu!Se capacity IIId c:otJljlIIIY 1IIIIIe.
"""
~
) Jj - 1/.;2
....7
-.::.t....... -"'.JINIIllNrllIIIlWoA.JJ ~ ID.II) ~ UlIUJ)
Case No. /s, - 9S - 1'1
.PLANNlNG DEPARTMENT
APPENDIX UI
CITY DATA SHEET
L porrent Zonini on lite~orth ~~"r-l. '..0: (\~ ":N ~~'~i C'
South ..
East 00
West "
Does the project confonn to the current zonin.? ~ $,
D.
pe.teral Elan land use desiplltion on site:
North
South
Eut
West
~r '\S ~ C.I""~~."'"
..
..
01
O'
Is ~ pro~ compatible wiIh the ~ Plan Land Use DiIpam? . ~~ ~~\e..
-
Is the pro~ IleI designated for CClIIIeI'VIdon or 0JIeII space or adj~ to .. IleIIO deaiFated1
f'I4 ..~ t'Vft. tIt\~ S(>-~.l~1"
.
.
Is the project Jocated IdjlCent to lilY scenic routes? '-, , ..
(If ,es. describe the desianlleCbniquea beina used to proleCl or Ifthance Ibe aceaIc q1II!ity of the
1OUte).
m.
JmsU
If Ibe pu;pOSed project is ruidendal, pJeue compte Ibe foUowm,:
~1
OID1dlY
l!nmllment
VDIIJ
"._~ltYIA
~
o..radDI . 0eD&ftIe4
FII:tOn Pmm ProIecl
'-'ny
haIor JIiab
..... JIiab
lV. Itemarb:
NI'"
.30
.29
.10
~~~';~ve
. ~ ~/~<r
DIt& .
Mtlf:'~__'IlDI.llJIN-")_~ 1'I.--tjJ
..... 1
APPENDIX J
IbckgrouDd
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
1
'.
J.
2.
3.
<t.
S.
Name or Proponent: Citv of Chula Vista PlanninR DelWtment
Address IIId Phone Nwnber of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue, Chala Vista. CA 91910
Date of Checklist: Januarv 9. 1995
Name of Proposal: Citv of Chala Vista General Plan Child Care Element
Initial Study Nwnber: 18-95-19
.........
.-..
.'-...)
~ /'/-L/~
.... I
.
-..,.
-. __ a.._
-- .- .....' ...
~ ......... ..- ......
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cantlicl with. JeueraI plan desiJnation or 0 0 0 III
aaaing?
b) CcInfIict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 III
policies Idopted by agencies with jurisdiction
_ the pojeCl?
c) Affect agricuIlural ftIOlII'CCS or operations (e.I., 0 0 0 III
illlpacts to lOils or farmlands, or impacts from
iacompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arianpmenl or 0 0 0 III
an established commllllily (includil!l a low-
iacome or minori1y community)?
c-mntl: The poposed policy Is consiSlenl wi1h the City of Cbula Vista's 0eneraI Plan. Future
1mp1CJDl;;.~ actions which miaJU be nr~(/ IIICh as IlIIeIIdmen1S to the zonln& ordinance
will receive additional environmental nview.
D. POPVLADON AND ROUSING. WDIIld tIN
p.-I:
a) Camul8tively exceed oftlciaI reJional or local 0 '0 P III
. . ,..,..IMiOll projections?
II) IDduce IUIlIlantiaI poWlh In an ana either 0 D D III
6ec:lIy or Indirectly (e.l-. dtrou&h projec:1S In
.. undeYeJaped area .or exleIlSion 0( ~or
iaIiasIruclun)?
c) Displace __""1"1 -.." llpetially dl:..dabIe D D D III
. 1Iol.hl&?
.
~J7 .....~ The j)loposed policy will IICIl Induce JI'OWlb.
m GEOPHYSICAL ff'DIIld ... JI'lII1I1IIIl NaIl .. ~
UlJ-,... ", pt1ImIilI1 iIIIpoctIlIwoM1Ig:
a) UDstabIe .-dI ~ or .......... ill D D D III .
plio&lc 1UIlIlruI:Iures?
II) Db....,tIum.. tfllp1al:tm" .1... c---,.&etioa or D D D II
--1Dt afdte soli?
c) "-'9 ID .........-.Av or poIIIId _... relief D D D III
1Ia!ures?
'd) The desb..dicm, \lCIlo~'A. ClI'modificatIon or 0 D D III
any lIIIiquepolo&ic ClI' physlcaI feamres?
. c) Arty Incr-- In wind ClI' water erosion or lOlls, D D D III
aIdter 11II or off the aile?
.- I,/-q~ .... 2
-~
""-
......., -..... ... ....
-...., tw- -...., ...
..- ......... .....' ......
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 B ""'\
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any .
bay inlet or lake?
&> Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 B
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
CommeDts: The adopti.on of the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Child Care Element will not
cause any geophysical impacts.
IV. WATER. Would tht propt>>ll1 n6UIt In:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 B
or the rate and amount of surface nmom
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 B
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 B
of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of IIII'face water in any 0 0 0 B
water body? """"'.
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 B
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
1) Change in the quantity of pound waters, either 0 0 0 ID
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through intereeption of an aquifer by culs 01'
excavations?
&> Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 B
groundwater?
h) ImpIcts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ID
I) Alterations to die coune or.fIow of flood 0 0 0 ID
waters?
j) .SubstantiaI reduction In die amount ofwater 0 0 0 III
CIlbeJ wile available' fOl' public water aupplies?
c......tJ: The adoption ofdle above cited policies will IlOl_ any IpeCific impIcts to water.
"""\
.._"'J
-y ;f-f/;
'ap 3
-
- -- --
-- - .. '........ fl.
...... ......... ...... ......
. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
.) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to C C C B
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) ExpoH _itive receptors to pollutants? C C C B
c:) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, C C C B
or c:ause any change in c:limate, , either locally or
resionally? '
d) Create objectioUble odors? C C 0 B
.
e) Create . IUbstantiaJ Increase In ll8tionary or 0 0 0 B
1IClIHtationary sourc:es of air emissions or the
deteriOration of ambient air quality?
Cemmnts: The projec:t which is the adoption of. polley will DOllmpact air quality or transponation.
VI. TRANSPORTAnONICIRClILAnON. WOIIld
the proposal ruwt 111:
.) Increased vehicle trips or traff'ac: conaestion? 0 C 0 B
b) HazIrds to af'ety from deslan features (e.I., 0 0 0 B
Ihatp c:urves or danprous iIIlenec:tions) or
. ........~ble uses (e.... farm equipment)?
c:) Inadequate emerpncy access or access to 0 0 0 B
aearby uses?
d) Ib..uftlc:ieat patina capIdty 0Hite or oft'.? 0 0 0 B
.} HazIrds ar bcrien far pedestrians ar bIc:ycIlIls? 0 0 0 II
1) Confiicls whh adopled poIlc:les a.ww Ibe 0 0 0 B
aItemative 1I1llSpoltBtlOII (e.a. bus tumouls,
b1cyc:1e racIcs)?
a> JtaIJ, '-Aobon1e ar air traftIc -.,.-, 0 D 0 II
b) A..... project" IIIIder the ~'XI 0 D 0 II
~ ,",-,..Ii? (An equlvalent of 2400
ar IIICIft averap daily wbIc:Ie trips ar 200 or
_ peak-hour whIcIe trips.)
0IIut..u: See ~ .........lIIlIIIder V above.
VB. BIOLOGICAL IlESOtJRCES. WOIIld the
proposall'Ulllt 111 iItIpIICI6 to:
.) F~ IellSltive 1pCCles, 1pec:1es of C 0 0 B
. -.cern or 1pec:1es Ibat aie ClIIIdicJates for
Iistina?
.....~ ~ /tf-~? .... 4
-.
-. -..... ---
__, - -..... II.
...... - - ......
b) Localiy designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? C C C IllI ........
c) Locally designated natural c:ommllllities (e.g, C C C IllI
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian IlId vernal C C C IllI
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? C C c. IllI
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning C C C IllI
efforts?
CommeDta: The approval of the Child Care Element will not creaIe illY eJIv1ronmental Impacts.
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) .Conflict with adopted energy c:onservation C C C IllI
pllllS?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefulllld C C C IllI
inefficient mIlIner?
c) If the site Is designated for mineral resource C C C IllI
protection, will this project Impact this
protection?
c-mata: There would be no impact fiom the adoption of the Child Care ~Iement. ........
.
IX. 1LU.ARDs. WDIIId 1M JIf'DPOIal i1n1oIve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion 01' reIaR of C C D ID
. hazardous IlIbstances (lncludin&, IIUt not limited
to: petrolelDll products, peIlicides, ........1.."1' 01'
radiation)?
.
b) Pom'ble interference with an emeraency c D D II
response plan 01' emerpnc:y evacuation plan?
c) The creation of anY beaJth hazard 01' 1""-_1 D D D II
beaJth hazlrd?
d) Exposure of people to exIstin& _ of C C D II
poleIItial beaJth hazards?
e) IncreasecI fire hazard in areas with flammable D D D II
.brush, srass, 01' trees?
c..mCllta: The adoption of the above cited polley wi1IlIOt aate beaJtb hazards.
-.,.
.-....)
~ 1~-'1 Y
.... 5
-
-.. ...... ...-
......... .- ...-. ...
. ...... .......... - -
. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 .0 III
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 III
Comm'Dts: The adoption of die above cited policy will not expose residents to Increases in noise
levels. .
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal Nzve
"" '.!Ject 1IpOII, or result in a /lted lor IItW or
lIltered govemmellt .ervices in Q/I)' of the following
.eas:
a) Fire protection?
o
o
o
o
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, lncludlna
roads? .
.) Other aovemmClllal services?
. CGmmnts: Not applicable.
o
xu. nndaolcls. Wi/I the J1IY1POIal odHruly iIIIpact the
City S TIrresha1d E/QndQ;ds?
o
o
.0
o
'0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
As dacrlbed below, die plopoeed JIIO.leCt is _subject 10 III)' of die 11e1111nIboJcl
Standards.
a) Flre/EMS
As die project Is die adoption of policy, die Iha.uld IlaDdards do Dot appl)'.
III
III
III
III
III
B
11) Police
The 1bresho1d StaDdIrds nquIn"" poIlce.... must NIpOIId 10 14~ ofPrlv.il) 1 calls
within 71PJtmtf- or'" and ...._Ift III'" JUIIo- time 10 all Prlorit)' J calls of
4.5 minutes or.... PoIlce units IIIUSt fapoDd 10 62.JCM of PriorIty 2 calls within 7
lDiDutes or ... aDd ...._Ift III averIp "Ill a DIe time 10 all PriorIty 2 calls of 7 ...""-
or ....
As die project is die adopllDII of policy, die tbresbold IlaDdards do DOt apply.
.
.,....
y
J(-'/l
-
....'
--
........
......
--
........
-
. ......104
a- ....
-.
..-
N.
......
c) Traffic
""'"
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized lntmeetions. Intersections west of
I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS
"E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Jntenections of arterials with freeway
nmps ale exempted from this Standard.
As the project is the adoption of policy, the threshold Ilandards do not apply.
d) ParkslRecreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I.OOO population. The
. proposed project is not subject to the Threshold Standard for Parks.
e) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that Itorm water flows and vollDDes IIlll exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide nec:es5IJ)'
improvements eonsistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City J:.naIneering
Standards.
"""'"
As the project Is the adoption of policy. the threshold IlIIIldards do IIlll applY.
f) Sewer
The Threshold S1andards require that -. flows and volumes IIlll exceed CIty
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide III r r "'I'Y Improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and CIty EnaIneeriD& Standards. The
Threshold Standards for seWeraae do DOt apply to 1bIs project.
As the project Is the adoptlon of policy. die 1bresho1d IlIIIldards do DOt Ipply.
a> Water
. . The Threshold S1andards require that adequaIe ......., lreaUDeDt, and ........-011
facilities are eonstruc:ted _umntIywith planned IPowIh and that water quality
alandUds are IIlll jeop8f dizecI durln& IPowIh and COIISlnIction. The ........-d project Is IIlll
mbject to the Threshold St-...4-ds for Water. .
As the project Is the adoption of policy. the threshold Ilandards do DOt Ipply.
........,
li,.-50
.'-oIok)
~
,.,
-
-. ....- ...-
......... - ....IIcu' ""
...... ~.. ..- -,
. .XDI. 1.JTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
6UbstDnIiallllterations 10 the following utilities:
a) Power 01' JI&tW'aI ps? 0 0 0 III
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 III
c) Local 01' n&ionaJ water treatment 01' distribution 0 0 0 III
facilities?
d) Sewer 01' Ieplic tanks? 0 0 0 III
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 III
f) SoUd waste disposal? 0 0 0 III
Com.au: No DeW or altered utilities 01' service systems are required for Ibis project wblch is the
adoplion of policy.
XIV. AEll.IUo. .cs. Wauld 1M proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista 01' view open to the 0 0 0 III
public 01' will the proposal result in the creation
. of an astheticaJly offensive lite open to public
view?
. b) Cause the deslrudion or IDOdification of a 0 0 0 III
xenic route?
c) Have a cIemoIlItI.ble nepliYe IeIlhetIc effect? 0 0 0 III
d) Cftate Idded IlaJtt or aJare IOIIfCeI tbIt could 0 D D III
lncreue the level of sky &fow in an area 01'
cause this project to flil to comply with Section .
19.66.100 of the CbuIa Vista Municip&i Code,
Title 191
e) ,.....- an ldditionaJ __ of IpiU Ii&ht'1 D D D III
"'-.au: As 1be project iI the edoptI- ofpolicy,1ben wDI be DO 1111I1etIc I~
XV. CUL'I'VRAL RESOURCES. ff'auld 1M proptIIai:
a) wm 1be propouI nsuJt in the aheration of or D D D III
1be ~ or a pehlslaric or IIisIaric
mdIaeoIo&Ical lite?
b) Will the propouI nsuJt in advene physical or .D D '. D III
,aesthetic effec:ls to a prehistoric or bIstoric
. buildiJl&, 1lr\ICIUIe. or object?
/L/-57
.,_Mol -~ .....
-..
-.
..-
-..,.
--.
'-
-..
a.._
.........
..-
N.
..-
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical c:hange which would affect unique
ethnic c:ultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 IllI
sac:red uses within the potential impact _?
e) Is the _ identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 IllI
EIR as an area of high potential for
arc:heologic:aJ re5O\D'Ces?
Commnts: As the project is the adoption of policy, there will be no c:uIturaJ or paleontologic:aJ
impacts.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 IllI
propcnal result hi the alteration of ar the
destruction of paleontological resol/1'ces?
CommeDts: See above.
o
o
o
IllI
,
XVD. RECREATION, Would the pl'opcnal:
.) Increase the demand fot nei&hborhood ot 0 0 0
regional parks ot other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational oppotlunities? 0 0 D
IllI
IllI
c) Interfere with recreation parks A recreation 0 0 0 IllI
~ plans or pt08rDIIlS?
,c-mnts: As the JlrO.iect is the adoption of policy, there will be DO ~'111O _.don.
~
,
xvm. MANDATORY PlNDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative DecllratUm for
lIIIlNlQtary lindinp of significtl1tCe. q"" DR u
Meded, this section should N completed.
.) Does the project have the potentiaJ to dearade 0 D .0' IllI
the quality of the environment, IUbstantiaJly
reduce the babitat of. fish or wildlife spec:ies,
cause . fish or wilcllife popu\ation 10 drop
below .If...,,,,,I..I''1 levels, tbreaten to
elimiDate . p1aitt or IIIlimaI COIIUIIunlty, reduce
the nlDDber Ill' restrict the range of. nre or
eDCIanprecI plant or IIIimaI or elimiDate
" important examples of the ~or periods or
Califom1a history"or prehistory?
Commnts: As the project is the adoption of policy, there are DO site specific impacts. Tberefore,
the project does IIOl have the potential to reduce the babitat of .,fIsh or wildlife spec:ies.
b) Does the project have the potentiaJ to achieve
shon-term, to the disadvantap of long-term,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
II
........
/ '1-:.5;2
.,_...)
~
Pt&e 9
.
.
.
-
_ ...- --
...- --- ...
...... ....... ...... ......
CommeDts: The adoption of the proposed project has the potential to lehieve both short-tenn end
IonS-tenn envirolU1lental soals. One of the objectives of the Child Care ~Iement Is to locate child
c:are fleilities near homes, sc:hools end work plac:es. This objec:tive, If met could remove some
automobile traffic from the Itfeets u residents utilize options of child c:are closer to home.
c) Does the project have Impacts that are C celli
Individually limited, but clUDulatively
considerable? ("ClUDUlalively considerable"
melDS that the Incremental effects of I project
are considerable when viewed In c:onnection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, end the effects of
probable fiIture projects.)
CommeDts: The adoption of the Child Care Element will not have Impacts that are iniIividually
limited but clUDulltiveiy consid.erable. Specific implementation measures that may be JlI'OIIOS'd in the
fiIture SlICh u amendments to the zoninS ordinanc:c will.1IIICIerao additional envinmmentaI nview.
d) Does the project have environmental effect C celli
which will c:ause substantial Idverse effects on
human belnp, either diJectJy or Indirectly?
Cemmatl: The Idoption of the Child Care Element will ,...-.Ily have beneflc:ial_b....h-I
effects 011 human belnp. It it is Implemented more Idequate cbIJd CIre facilities lilli_filii will be
. provided to meet the existina IIlII fiIture needs of die commlll1ity. Child CIre wiD be made available
" to all families who need it reprdIess 0( Income IIId die hlaJ- quality 0( afety IIlII welfare of
children ill child c:are flellitles will be promoted. .
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS I'01'EN1'IA1LY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors cheeked below would be polentiaIly aft'ec:lId by 1bis projec:t, tavoJvIaa at Iwt
_ iIIIpact that is . -PotentIally SianlrlCll1l ImpIc:t" or "J'otentI.1ly SIplflc:ut UnIeu MItI......." u
iluIl"-4 by die chec:kJ1st 011 die foIIowiDa paaes. .
o l.mt VIe II1II p1~
o ,.".,1-II1II HOUIiq
o GeopIayaIc:aI
OW_
o AIr QualIty
o 'IRaIportIIIoaf
o ~Ia.-._
o IlDeqy II1II Mi1IerII L-._
o Hans
o Nolle
o .......""'1)' PiDdIDp of Cill'1~
DETERMINA110N:
j1-;j';J
-y
.-...)
o Public .....
o UdlitlllIIIII ServIce I)......
OAMbedcI
o Cldtura\ L-._
OR ~
.... 10
DETERMINATION:
On Ibc basis of this initial evaluation:
I find !bat the proposed project COULD NOT bave a IiplificaDl effect on the ellvironmeul. and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
J find !bat a1thouab the proposed project 'could have alipificaDl effect on the ellvironmeul.
Ibm will DOl be a lipificanl effect in this ease because the mlliplion measures describe\! on 811
IllaCbed sheet bavebeeD added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
J find !bat the proposed project MAY bave alipificant effect on the eDVirODmeIIl, and 811
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fIDd !bat the proposed project MAY have a olpifi..... effect(l) on the ezr.h............t. but at Ieut
ODe effect: I) bas beeD adequately analyzed in 811 earlier .......-. pamtlIIlt to applicable Ie'"
1ItaIIdaids. llIId 2) bas beeD addreased by mlliptlon __ baed on the culler analysis u
described on attacbed sheets. if the effect is a "poteDiIa1ly IipificaDt Impacts. or "pot_tl.l1y
a1pificant lIIIIess mllilated.. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but It
III\I$t analyze only the effectl that raDain to be addressed. '
~ 'f'" :J!..f>'-/J/f :.~I
I,A,/f-"
Date'
Douglas D. Reid
EDvho........ta1 Review CoordiDalor
City of CIula Vista
. ~
.
.,-
)J/-~~
-~
"""
.
o
o
o
.'
'"""\
~
'.... II
.
...
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 22, 1994
!'O: ..an Larson, .ulleflng "' Bouslng
John Llppltt, Engln..r1ng (EIR only)
CHU swanson, Engln.er1ng (EIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Englneer1ng (EIR only)
.,Itoger Daoust, Engln.er1ng (I8/3, EIR/2)
JUe:haref Ruefol!', Asst Clty Attorney (Dra1't "eg Dee: "' EIR)
...carol Gov., Flre Depe.raent
--<<arty Se:hm1eft, 'arks", Bec:reatlon
...crl.. J'rev.nUon, Jtol1ce Depe.raent (Capt. .011)
..eoJlllllun1ty Dev.lopment, ..ef.v. EcoaOJUe Dev. only
~rrent ,lann1ng
.....ouan. .a..el, Mvuce 'lun1ng
....~b S.nn.tt, C1ty Lanefse:.". .ArcI11tect
.ob Le1t.r, 'laM1ng D1ree:tor
..chula Vlsta El...ntary School D1.tr1ct, ~.t. Sbur.on
.........tw.t.r Vn10n B.S. D1str1ct, !'oa S1lva (ZS "' EZR)
Ifaureen Roeber, LJ.brary (F1nal EZR)
LAFCO (I8/Dran EIR - Z1' annexaUon 1. 1nvolv.ef)
.....art1n 1I111.r, IToj.ct rrac1c1ng z.og (route ~ont only)
Other .
. FltOH:
.
Barbara Reid
bv.tron.entel ..ct1on
1IU&1EC"l': App11eaUon .1'or Zn1Ual stuefy (ZS--ti:J1IFA- 668/DQ: f1/A I
Cb.e:kpr1nt Dra1'tEZR (U dayS) (EZa- In- IDO. J
. Bed.., 01' a Dran EZR (EZa-. In- IDP. J
Bev1.., 01' Zndronll8ntal Bed_ .ecord (Fe-: KRR- I
R.v.i.., 01' Dra1't "eg Dee (Z8- IFA- IDO-. J
rbe ~j.ct condsts 01': Adoption of an additional .l...nt to the City
&eneral Plan addressing the provision of child care
facilities in all areas of the City
z.ocaUOl1 :
City-wide. not site specinc
'1.... rev1_ U. dOCUll8nt anef 1'orwarcf eo.. any cco--."ts you ben
by. Januarv 5....J.l25 . ,
COJaIDents:
,
_~. JLjr5~
\
~
ROUTING FORM
. ..
4 i. "....
....... _ ~r
.... .~
~ .... ......
I.,t;..... '-.-
....r
... V In
Pi. 1,' ;;J'94
))'''''''M
'It., ~(l
>:l
~
DMZ: December 22. 1994
~
..&M/tt-
Jf.n z.arson, .ulld1ng . Bous1ng
John L1pp1tt, Zng1n.edng (EIR only)
t;llrr Strfanson, Eng1n..dng (EIR only)
B.l Ros.nberg, Eng1n..dng (EIR only)
Itog.r D.loust, zng1n..dng (I8/3, EIR/2)
R1ebard Rudolr, Ant C1ty Atto.m.y (Dr.rt "eg Dee . EIR)
I"" carol t;ov., 71re Depart:llent
.arty Sebm1dt, Parks . Reen.Uon
. Cd.. Prev.nt.lon, Pollee Depart:llentJc.pt. .011)
COJlllllun1ty Development, It.d.v. EC0110 e /)ev. only
curr.nt Plann1ng
buan. .....1, Advanc. Plann1ng
Bob S.nn.tt, c1ty z.andsc.pe Arcb1t.ct
:Bob Le1t.r, Plann1ng D1nctor
Cbula v.tst. El.J/I8ntary Scbool D.t.tr1ct, Jfat. Sburson
Strf..tw.t.r Vn.ton B.S. D1.tr1ct, S'O.II S1lv. (IS . EIR)
..un.n Roeber, L1brary (F1nal EIR)
LAFCO (I8/Dr.n EIR - 'zr anne" olv.d)
~ .0 ng Log (rout.
~
Oth.r
Barbara Reid
~~tal ..ct1on
S'UUEC'J': AppllC.Uon ror In1Ual .tudy'(ZS-..n:J1!'A- fifiH 11XJ:. MIA J
Cb.ckFut Dr.rt EZIt (2D d.ys), (EZIt-. 1,..- IDO J
..dew or . Dr.rt EZR (EIIt- 1,..- IDP. J
R.d.., or Env.tronMntal "v1ew"cord (ft:-. mtlt-. J
It.v1.., or Dr.rt ".g Dee (ZS- "A- IDQ-: J
I"be Iroj.ct cou1.ts or: Adoption of an additional element to the City
General Plan addressing the provfsfon of child care
facilfties fn all areas of the City
z.ocaUon :
Cfty-wfde. not sfte specfffc
PJ.... %Wv.tew 'the dOCUll8l1t and 100000ard eo .. any c:.-..nts J'OU b.v.
by_January 5. 1U5 .
.-.....i ~ Per lR
. .
~
-YjLl-~'-
..........
......,;J~~,u. ,-,- 7'~-'f
.
jilt PEPARTMENT
~
Wbal is the distance to the nearest the station? .AD4 what is the Fue Department', estimated
lUCtion time?
~ ~ Q.a)~ IJ (1/ ). t II...P Jr
.
B:
Will the Fue Department be able to provide an adequate level of the ~otadon for the
propDl1 facility without ~ equipment or peuonnel?
~dJ.) 'J.1TMA ,
I
c.
~~~~LA~
.
~D)
Fire NarshIl
1~~919f
Date ·
..\., 'p.s ~ ~ ~ .s.,)~\\~ck '\0 ~\-.t- ~<<'e tf\o4o~\\
~"(o.p.~ ~\-e. ~CO'l\",-1cb\'Qol:I" -\~ C~,'ol. Gt.Ie Co~~t)et\
~ ~C\~~ ~~..\c ~ ~~ ..s~~
~..\, ;?~C'\ C~ '" 'cC'~ a.td ...s~ ~:.J~
&.1IIlW1UIINDflN1QIIINmIS ~.IlDI.nI~ -'1
_y ;,/-'57
....'
YS-613
ROUTING FORM
""'"
t.ct
DATE: December.N. 1994
f~:JPd:
Jr.n z.ar.on, .u11d1ng I Bou.1ng
John L1pp1tt, Eng1n..dng (EIR only)
Cl1~~ Stran.on, Eng1n..r1ng (EIR only)
lid Ro..nberg, Eng1n..dng (EIR only) .
lk>ger Daou.t, Eng1n..r11lg (ISI3, EIRI2)
R1cbartJ Rudol~, .a..t C1ty Attorn.y (Dr.~t B.g Dee I EIR)
carol Gove,F1.r.. DeparUellt
Narty Sebm1.dt, Park. I It.ere.Uon .
Cd.e Prev.nt101l, Pol1ce DeparUent (C.pt. Soll)
COJDJDun1ty bev.lopment, It.tJ.v. Eeonomle Dev. 01111'
CUrrellt Pll&1ln11lg
Duan. .....1, Advane. Pll&1ln11lg
bob senn.tt, c$.ty LlintJ.e.". Arcb1t.ct
.ob z.e1ter, Plann11lg D1reetor
cbul. V1..t. El.mentary scbool D1.tdct, Jret. Sbur.Oll
Str.etlfeter Un1.on B.S. D1..tr1.ct, !'o. S1.1v. (IS I EIR)
lIeur..en Roeber, z.1brary (F1.lld EIR) .
IJiFCO (ISIDr.n EIR - I~ l&1lnueUon 1.. l1lvolv.d)
lIarUll 11111er, Proj.ct !'r.ck1ng Log (rout. ~ora 01111')
Other .
.
-T'>: .Mft!JIf:
Barbara Reid
.lrDv1zol::auutal ..ct.ton
.......,
6D&:1ECf': Appl.tc.Uon ~or II1.fUal study (Is-..25.:J1/I'A- 668/DQ: N1A J
Cb.ckprl1lt Dr~t iIR (20 dey.) (EIIt-. In- IDO J
lied.., o~ . Dr.~t EIR (EIIt- In- ID~ J
It.v.te" o~ Env.trcmHlltal llev,te""cord (~ Jl'1tR- J
Red.., o~ Dr.~t Beg Dee (IS-". II'A- IDQ-. J
!'he Project ~.t.t. O~I Adoption of an additional el_nt to the City
&eneral Plan addressing the provfsfon of chfld care
facflitfes fn all arels of the City
z.ocaUon:
City-wfde. not site specific
Pl.... rev.t..,~ dOCUll81lt cad ~orvard eo .. MY ooa_pb J'OU bav.
by, Januarv S. 1995 . .
Couental GHlc.o w.. Fi(ilO',",T"l1!6 D......... '61~ -- ... ,....... : '""""
. .-....... . - ... .....IEA "I"M~IC. ___toN.
Nil> S:-&.Ib MI._.... l'bIw'fU T'16itHT7HE. uSe's T'ffl!~ ...... J ,
kiSuU WI"," IJE~ _ . 11'<<'" ~. TJtUE
f Y . Be A-~~~ eN A ~S.-BY_ t:.4M: ~fS.
) -~ ~ .~~ 1~'/'1
~
.
ffOU'l'ING FORM
DME: December 22. 1994
ii~
't,
.-~
/'10
~: AppUe:atlon lor ZA1tlal study (1'S-.2i:J1!'A- j~8 IDQ: If/A J
Cb.e:kpr.tnt Dralt ~1'R (~O day.) (~1'Jt-. In- IDQ. J
Redew 01 a Dralt ~1'R (UR- In- IDP. J
Redew 01 ~v.troDHDtal R.dew Rec:ord (~ JrM- J
R.dew 01 Dratt ".g Dee: (1'S-' 17A- IDQ-. J
I'be Proj.c:t cou.t.t. ot: Adoption of an additional .l..nt to the City
, " &eneral Plan addressing the provision of child care
facilities in all areas of the Ci~
,.1.... "dew tb. doc:uMDt aDd lorvard eo - aDY nm-"ta J'OU Jaave
byjlanuarv 5~5 ,-
RECEIVED
DEe 27 1994
z.oc:at1aru
.
coaeDta :
Ir.n ~.on, -.i.f.ld.tng . Boudng .
John ldpp.f.tt, Bng.f.n..r.f.ng (E1'R only)
cHtt swanson, Bng.f.n..r.f.ng (EIR only)
B&1 Ro..nberg, Eng.f.n..r.f.ng (EIIt only)
Rog.r Daoust, ~g.tn..r.f.ng (I8/3, BIR/2)
R.te:bard Rudolt, Aut c.tty Attorn.y (Dratt ".g Dee: . B1'R)
Carol Gov., '.tre DepartBnt
"arty Sc:bm.tdt, 'arles . Rec:re.tlon
er.t.. 'r.v.ntlon, JIol.tc:e DepartBnt (Capt. Boll)
COJlll/lun.t ty Dev.lopll8nt, It.d.v. ~c:onClll1e: Dev. Ollly
CUrr.nt p.1ann.f.ng
Duan. .....1, Mvanc:e plann.f.ng
Bob S.M.tt, c.f.ty z,andse:.pe Arc:h.f.tac:t
.ob Le.f.t.r, Plann.f.ng D.trec:tor
Cbul. v.tsta El...ntary Sc:bool D.t.tr.f.c:t, Irat. Sbur.on
sw..twat.r Un.f.on B.S. D.f..tr.f.c:t, ro. s.f.lva (1'S . EIR)
"aure.n Roeber, z..f..brary (,.tnel E1'R)
JJ.FCO (1'S/Dratt BIR - 1't ann.xat.f.on 1. 1Dvolved)
Hart.tn Hill.r, Proj.c:t rrac:k.tng z,og (rout. Ion Ollly)
otb.r
.
Barbara Reid
Jrnv.tJoouental ..c:t.f.on
Ci~-w1de. not site specific
~~,.
}J~-
,
CITY OF CHULA ~I,)IA
BUILDING & HOUSING DEPT.
---
ROU'l'ING FORM
"""
DATE: December 22, 1994
!'I'O :
..
'Mil :
Xen Larson, .u11d1ng ~ Bous1ng
John L1pp1tt, Eng1needng (EIIt only)
Cl1LL Stranson, Eng1neer1ng (EIIt only)
. Mal Ros.nberg, Eng1needng (EIIt only)
Itog.r Daoust, Zng1neer1ng (IS/:J, EIIt/2)
R1cbanJ RudolL, bst C1ty Attorney (DraLt .eg Dec ~ EIIt)
Carol Gov., '1re DepartJDent
lIarty scbJU.dt, 'arks ~ Rec:natlon
Cd.e 'rev.ntion, 1'o11c. Department (Capt. Soll)
COlIJIIJuli1ty Dev.lopINnt, R.dev. Economlc Dev. only
CUrr.nt 'lannlng
>'Duan. .a%%.l, Advanc. 'lann1ng
Bob B.nn.tt, Clty Landscape Arc:blt.ct
Bob Lelt.r, 'lannlng D1rector .
Cbula "lsta Elementary Bchool Dlstrlct, Xat. Shurson
Slf..twat.r Vnlon B.B. Dlstrlct, !'om Bl1va (IS ~ EIIt)
lIaureen R~b.r, Llbrary (,1nal EIIt)
LAFCO (IS/Dran ZIR - IL ann.%ation 1. 1nvolv.d)
lIartin 11111.r, 'roj.ct S'rack1ng Log (rout. lorm only)
Other
"""\
Barbara Reid
JrnvlrMMntaJ ..c:t1on
/lUA3'EC'l': Appllcation lor In1tlal study (IB-.Ji::J1/'A- IiliB/DO:. MIA)
Cb.ckpr1nt Dran EIIt (20 day.) (EIIt- In- IDQ. t
R.d.... oL a DraLt EIIl (EIIl- In- IDI' .
R.v1.... oL Znv1ronmentaJ Rev1.... Record (Fe-. JrU- ' )
Revl.... oL DraLt ..g DeC (IB- I'A- IDQ-. )
rbe Proj.ct cona1.t. oL: Adoptfon of an additfonal element to the Cfty
General Plan addressfng the provfsfon of child care
facilfties fn all areas of the Cfty
i
.r.ocat1on:
Cfty-wide, not site specific
'1..... red.... ~. docu.ent and lorward ~o .. any ~ta J'DU _va
by, Januarv 5...l225 .'
~O CetlJ...VJ- ,:Q, .
C'o.uIent.:
"""
~
('l. - '2."1- 9 ~
-
- fr Jf-~Cl
~
.
.
.
JfOr1'l'ING mRH
DA'J'Z: December 22. 1994
!rO: ~en z.ar.on, Bu11ef1ng 5 Bou.1ng
John Z,1pp1tt, Zng1neer1ng (EIR only)
C11~~ Swan.on, Zng1neer1ng (EIR only)
Hal Ro..~rg, Zng1neer1ng (EIR only) .
Roger D.ou.t,~g1n..r1ng (IS/J,ZIR/Z) .
Jticberef Rllefol~, ....t C1ty Attorn.y (Dr~t .eg Dec 5 EIR)
carol Gove, ,1re Depertaent
Ifarty scbJD1eft, Puk. 5 ...cr..Uon
Cr1.. pr.v.nUon, J'ol1ce Depertaent (C.pt. .011)
CO&lllun1ty Development, ...ef.v. Zconwc Dev. only
CUrr.nt plann1ng
. Duane .....1,. Advanc. Pl.nn1ng
.Bob s.nn.tt, C1ty SAnef.C.pe .Arcb1uct
Bob Le1t.r~ plann1ng D1r.ctor
Chul. V1.t. El...ntary School D1.tr1ct, ~.t. Shur.on
Sw.etw.t.r Vn10n B.S. D1.tr1ct, I'0Il ..119'. (ZS 5 ZIR)
-If.ur.en Roeber, z.J.brary ('1nal ZIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dr.~t EIR - U annu.UOI1 J.. Dvolnef)
Hart1n 1f111.r, hoj.ct !'r.ck1ng IIIOf/ (%'OUt. Ion 01111')
Oth.r
'1lOII :
Barbara Reid
Jr:nvlZ'"I"-Itte1 ..ctlO11
II11&nCS'I Appl1ceUOI1 lor ZI11t1al study (ZS-..n:J1/'A- 668/~ MIA J
Cbeckpr1nt Dr.~t ZIR (20 dey.) (ZZIt-. 1,..- IDO. J
.Red.., o~ . Dr~t ZZR (ZZIt-. 1,..- IDP. I
.ReY1.., o~ Jrnv,trO",_Itte1 aed.., ae~ (I'C-. JrU-: J
.Red.., o~ Dr.n ..g Dec (ZS- . 17A- IIJO-. I
!'he hoj.ct crau1.t. o~: Adoption of an additional .l....nt to the City
&eneral.Plan addressing the provi.'on of child care
facilities 1n all areas of the Cit1
z.ooaUon :
City-wide. 1I0t site specific
I
1'1.... red.., ~ dOCftlll8J2t anef lozvucf to - any nPll7fJ)u )'011 ban
bY.3anuarv S.-1US
co-uU: (:A-'~Uu'~~r~ ~~ -/L--~?
~,t e.v.IL~~ e~t . ~ /... I,,.c~/l.r .
_ ~~ /~__~/ >--~"f'u.,-'#
~... - //?/'S-
-
~
~
ROUTING FORM
~
DMB: December 22. 1994
~: ~en Larson, Building 6 Bousing
John Z,ippitt, Engineering (BIR only)
Cl1~~ Stran.on, Engineering (BIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Engineering (BIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
1t1cbard Rudol~, As"t City AttOniey (Dra~t .eg Dec 6 EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Depertllent
.lIarty Sc:1ua1dt, . PUks 6 llecreation .
cr1.e .Prevention, 1'o11ce DepartHnt (Capt. .011)
co_unity Development, Itedev. BCon01d.c Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Ba..el, Advance Planning
.Bob sennett, City l.andscaIie Arc:b1tect
.Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Cbula V1.ta Ble.entary scbool D1.tr1ct, ~ate sbur.on
_SIieetwater Union B.S. D1.tr1ct, ro. silva (IS 6 BIR)
"aureen Itoeber, Library (Final BIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dran BIR - I~ anne%ation 1.. Bvolved)
lIartin "111er, Project rracking Log (route IOnt only)
Other
7IIDII: '
Barbara Reid
JrJIv.tro.n.ental ..ct1on
~
IJUBJ'BC'l'I App.U.,.tion lor ID1tia1 stu.dy (IS-...D:l1I'A- 668/DQ: MIA J
Cbeckprint Dr~t nR (2D day.) (BIIt- 17'.8- IDO J
Redew 01 . Dran BIIt (BIR-: 17'.8- IDP. J
Rede., 01 .Bnv1ronHntal lledew llecord (I'C-: JrU-: J
Rede., 01 Dra~t .eg Dec (IS- IFA- IDQ-. J
!'be h'ojec:t COM1.u oIl Adoptton of an additional .1_nt to the City
General Plan addressing the provision of child care
facilities in all areas of the City
.
z,c,c-t;jon:
City-w1de. not site specific
Pl.... zwv1.., th. dOCDll8nt aDd lortfard &0 .. any OOIIHJlU )IOU bave
by, Januarv 5. 1995 .' .
~nu:
.
-...
.
t-O ~t\i:J~
. .
Fs. ' (.~.q4S /'/-/2-
-y
Cue No. /.,S- 9s-/9
APPENDIX IV
.
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
.
..L No Comments Were Received Durina die PllbUc Be'" Period
.
/y--~ Y
.
wrc.r"W.~03Ul~._)..,.___)
-~
_....0 __ .~. ___,.._ _... _......
--
4t
DRAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN
CHILD CARE ELEMENT
"
Recommended by the
City of Chula Vista
Child Care Comml..lon
February 1995
-~-
1'I-j.5
~
CHAPTER SA
CHILD CARE ELEMENT
CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................... 5A-1
1.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5A-1
1.2 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A-3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................... 5A-4
2.1 Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A-4
2.2 Funding Methods ......................................... 5A-8
2.3 Family Assistance Programs ................................. 5A-9
2.4 Current Zoning and Locational Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A-11
.3.0 ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A-12
4.0 GOAL, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SA.16
4.1 Quantity and Location of Child Care Facilities ................... 5A-17 ~
4.2 Affordability of Child Care Services ........................... SA-23
4.3 Maintaining High Quality and Safe Child Care Services ............ SA-24
5.0 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SA-26
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Child Care Element of the Chula Vista General Plan describes the nature and
extent of the existing and proposed child care system In the City, and identifies trends,
issues and public policies relating to the City Council's goal that a balanced child care
delivery system be developed for the City. The long-term goal of the Child Care
Element is to make high quality child care services available, affordable and accessible
to those persons who either live or work In the City and who desire or need such
services. In pursuit of this goal, the City of Chula Vista supports the principle of
parental choice for child care and the need for a variety of options available In the
community, and further encourages the participation of parents, providers, pUblic
officials, and employers in the decision-making process relating to the provision of child
care facilities. .
1.1 Overview
The provision of child care remains a significant social issue as evidenced by parents,
employers, and public officials alike attempting to grapple with the problems facing ~
-~- JI--~?
.
Child Care Element
families today. Today's families are increasingly two wage eamer households, or in
many cases households headed by single individuals, women primarily. The increasing
number of children whose parents both are in the work force have created a greater
demand for public policies and a multitude of services that make it possible for parents
to eam a living and raise a family.
.
The City of Chula Vista recognizes that children represent the future. Studies have
definitively shown that children enrolled in quality child care and youth programs at an
early age are more apt to be well-adjusted and perform better in school. The City also
recognizes that the existing child care services and facilities are not adequate to meet
today's demand, and that this demand is Increasing. To ignore this fact jeopardizes the
long-term quality of the City's social, physical and economic well-being. Compounding
the problem are the increasing limitations on financial resources for services. The public
sector is allocating less money to address the growing service needs, and the non-profit
sector is unable to fill the gap created by the loss of public funds. It is not possible for
anyone city, county, or organization to address these challenges. It will require the
collective effort of parents, schools, business and community leaders, and the local,
state, and federal govemments to address the Increasing child care needs. Moreover,
only through cooperative and coordinated efforts can these actions succeed.
It is, therefore, the purpose of this Child Care Element to provide comprehensive policy
direction for the provision of adequate child care facilities necessary to lerve the
existing and Mure developed areas In the City In a coordinated and cost-effective
manner.
The City of Chula VISta believes it can best accomplish this goal through the adoption
of policies that promote the City'. role a. an educator, employer, and facilitator, to act
as a catalyst towards attaining the goal of Nadily accessible, and lIffordable, good
quality child care that Is available to thOle persons who either work or live In the City
of Chula Vista and who are in need. There is also a great need to Increase the publiC
awareness of the acute shortage of child care and the consequences of such shortages.
In addition, the City can address child care needs by using Its land use and regulatory
authority to encourage the provision of a variety of child care IeMceS In a variety of
areas where compatible with adjacent land uses.
.
Although child care is not a state-mandated element of the General Plan, the City has
Included this policy docu!"8nt to address the g~ng need for child care facilities. The
City Council, through the work of the Child Care Commission, and the Chula Vista 2000
Child Care Task Force before that, recognized that child care is an Important city-wlde
service and an Integral part of the city fabric. As growth continues and more families,
children and employers move to Chula Vista the availability of adequate, affordable
good quality child care becomes a greater city-wlde concem. It is clear that child care
Is as important to growth and prosperity as other" essential lervices like police, fire,
..nitation, water and schools, and is a cost.tfective method for reducing some social
5A-3
_~ IL/--t?
Child Care Element ~
problems that often affect communities lacking adequate, good quality child care. The
planning for and implementation of child care throughout the city should be recognized
as providing an essential community service and should be considered in all related
decisions.
1.2 Background
In July 1990, the Chula Vista City Council created the Chula Vista Child Care
Commission and later directed the Commission to pursue the preparation of an Element
to the General Plan. As a result, the Commission has endorsed this document, a
statement of policies to be implemented throughout the City.
Enormous changes to the family structure and the economy are causing changes to the
relationship between the family and society as a whole. Three factors signal the growth
in demand for child care facilities in the area: (1) an Increase in the population of
children under the age of fourteen; (2) an increase in the number of working mothers
and; (3) changes in the composition offamilies, Including an Increase in the number of
single, working parents and dual income families. As a result, larger numbers of
workers must make arrangements for the care and supervision of more children during
work hours.
~
.
I
In a large majority of homes both parents work and the number of single parent
households have doubled in the last decade. The number of children in Chula Vista
under 14 years of age has been increasing at a dramatic pace as well. A survey
conducted in 1989 by the National League of Cities showed that child care was the
most pressing concern of families and 91 % of cities responding placed child care as the
top need for children of all ages. Local data, depicted on Table SA-2, shows that Chula
Vista currently has a substantial shortage of available child care spaces and that this
shortage, approximately 60% of needed spaces, will most likely become more acute in
the near future.
The Child Care Commission has determined that the child care supply has been limited
by a combination of different factors. Some of the factors which have been discussed
!:Iy the Commission include complicated and restrictive zoning regulations, l1tlatively high
permit and application costs, obtaining financing, high start-up coats, affordable sites,
inadequate labor pool, high child care Insurance costs, and a need for application
materials, information and processing assistance to be available In languages other than
English, especially Spanish. The Commission has found that all of these factors singly
or as a whole have definite Impacts on the availability, accessibility, affordability and
quality of child care in the City.
As an example, regulations relating to child care permitting should be easy to
understand for all citizens wishing to operate a child care facility such as a Day Care
Home or Child Care Center. Regulations that allow child care facilities of a variety of ~
SA-4
_ y )~tJ,~
.
.
.
Child Care Element
sizes to locate in a variety of zoning districts, at the same time safeguarding child and
neighborhood concems, are necessary if adequate, safe and affordable child care
facilities are to be developed throughout the City.
It is the policy ofthe City of Chula Vista to encourage, assist and support the provision
of good quality, affordable, available and accessible child care In the Chula Vista
Community. There is no question that providing good quality child care Is a cost-
effective investment that can minimize long-range social problems in the community that
will be far more costly to repair later. Zoning regulations should be uncomplicated,
straightforward, and relatively unrestricted In order to encourage and guide the
development of child care adequate to meet the needs of the community in the present
and the future.
2.0 EXISTING' CONDITIONS
In order to address the existing need for child care facilities and services, as well as
those which will arise in the future, it Is necessary to quantify the existing child care
facilities and implementation programs. The following analysis of these resources
includes an identification of constraints relative to the City's ability to meet the identified
need. The following discussion examines the local supply and increasing demands for
child care In the City.
2.1 Needs Analysis 1
,
, Child care Is presently provided In Chula VISta by non-profit and for-profit providers.
The two principal types of facilities are Family Day Care Homes and Child Care
Centers. Licensing for both is under State regulation and administered by the California
Department of Social Services, Community Care Ucensing Division. Family day care
homes are licensed to care for a maximum of either six or twelve chlidren, and provide
this care in the child care provider's own home. Although these facilities can serve any
age child, they most frequently serve children between the ages of birth and five years
old. Child care centers, however, are larger facilities that are licensed to care for
between 13 and 250 children, and are required to meet a host of State minimum health
and safety standards, such as certain indoor and outdoor square footage requirements,
teacher-to-student ratios, educational training, etc. set by the State. Child care centers
exist In both residential and non-residential areas, and typically ..rve chlidren between
the ages of two and twelve. However, they are not limited to this age group.
'Refe,.nce Chule Vis,. DemoalaDhie8 & ChIld ea,. Needs Ane/vsis (CIty d ChuI8 VI8ta PlannIng DepaI1ment,
1m). This ,.pod ptOvldes comptehensive analysis documanI8tion dthe damogrephJc, aocial. and public nctor
Itands and /mpIicalions summerlzad In this c:hepter.
5A-5
-Y-
)L/--I-1
Child Care Element
---
In 1993 there were an estimated 13,762 children in need of child care in Chula Vista.'
Included are children needing before and after school care. These numbers, however,
do not account for children being served by unlicensed facilities. As of March 1994 there
were 315 licensed child care facilities of all types with space for approximately 5,360
children. Based on estimated needs this leaves a shortage of approximately 8,402
spaces. The shortage in school age availability is most acute, with 6,898 occurring at
that age group. Table 6-1 documents the availability of child care in Chula Vista and
Table 6-2 shows the estimated need and the current number of child care spaces
available as of March 1994. Interestingly, most child care facilities in the City are found
in areas west of the Interstate 805 freeway. The generally older housing characteristic
ofthe Montgomery and Central Chula Vista Planning Areas is often less costly, and the
generally larger average lot sizes can more readily accommodate state mandated space
requirements for child care facility operation. The provision of child care in a family
home setting is most frequently the source of a second or supplemental income to the
provider family rather than a primary one. Persons that provide child care are often
mothers who are supervising their own children and take in other children to help
generate a small amount of income to offset income lost by not being in the away-from-
home work force. Family Day Care is seldom profitable and sustaining as a "business".
-."
.
,
'"
· State of California, Department of Social Satvicas, Community Calli Ucensing, Management Information
Request Usting, March 9, 1994; and
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, :Sen Diego County Populetion and Housing
Estimates Jenuery 1,1994.
~
5A-6
_ y 1,/-?cJ
II OF FRANCHISEiFOR- 6
PROFIT
II OF EMPLOYER 0
. PROVIDED
II OF NON-PROFIT 3
.
.
Child Care Element
TABLE 5A-1
LICENSED CHILD CARE IN CHULA VISTA
CHILD CARE CENTERS AND FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES BY ZIP CODE
ZIP CODE
91902
91910
91911
91913
TOTAl
SMAlL FAMILY DAY CARE 17 61 107 15 200
.HOME (SFDCH)
LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 5 15 24 11 55
HOME (LFDCH)
CHILD CARE CENTER 9 36 13 2 60
(CCC)
12
2
o
20
o
o
o
o
24
11
2
40
SMAlL FAMILY DAY CARE
HOME (SFDCH)'
LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HOME (LFDCH)
ll60
~~l~~Jt,i~:~t~i~~f.f~~illllitltJ!U.~~tlll.,t:~~:::
INFANT" 46 86 12 N1A 148
(0-2 YEARS)
PRESCHOOL 362 1,379 553 N1A 2,294
(2-5 YEARS)
SCHOOL AGE 288 902 230 N1A 1,420
(5-12 YEARS)
SOURCE: StMe ofc.llfomil, t"l~ th_4 01 Sc\ItaI ServIcII. CarrIIutIy c.. ~ DMIiOn, MIn::h I, IBM
. - Licensed space f'Bpaclties a/8 QIven as a /8rtge In tha SFOCH since Stats licensing crltarla
Includes licensee's chHd/8n under 10 )l8alS of age /hat a/8 /8s1ding In tha home. Infanl ca/8
dec/8ases tha number of chHd/8n /hat can be f'B18d for In tha home even /hough tha license may
be for a specJflc number of chHd/8n.
- - Includas child/8n In licensed toddlar prog/8ms.
5A-7
-y
Jt/- ? I
Child Care Element
.-.,
TABLE 5A-2
CURRENT SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR LICENSED CHILD CARE IN CHULA VISTA
AGE CATEGORY TOTAL II CHILDREN TOTAL II OF SHORTFALL AND
OF NEEDING SPACES PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN
CHILDREN" CARE"" AVAILABLE FOR WHICH UCENSED CHILD
CARE IS NOT AVAILABLE
INFANT*"" (0-2) 5,853 2,354 646 1,708/73%
PRESCHOOL (2-5) 7,085 2,590 2,794 +204/ 7%
SCHOOL-AGE (5-12) 17,865 8,818 1,920 6,898 / 78%
TOTAL 30,803 13,762 5,360 8,046 /61 %
"
Based on 1990 Census of Population and Housing (Rpt. STF1A), and adjusted 9.04% to reftect SANDAG
population estimate of 111194.
.~
-
Calculations computed using method outlined In, Child Care and Davelooment in San Dieao County bv San
Dieao County Commission on Children and Youth. February 1994.
""'"
The methodology employed is number of children from census, multiplied by the number of children with
working parents (givan as 85%), less number of children thet are not using licensed or licensed exempt
child care for any number of reasons. Reasons for not using 'fonnar child care include; parents' choice
not to usa child care, amploying 'nannies' (live-In or visiting); using Informal child care such as relatives,
frlands and neighbors; lack of funds or; parents give up looking for space ar facility after not being able to
find a convenient facility or time arrengement to su~ thair work schedule.
':;I"
-
Includes children In licensed toddler programs.
5A-8
""'"
-y;(/?2
.
.
.
2.2
t
Funding Methods
Many child care facilities are funded through the use of private capital (loans, franchises,
partnerships, etc.). There are, however, altemative funding options for some child care
providers. Federal and state grants, foundation grants, public-private partnerships and
special assessment districts are other tools that are available.
GRANTS
Federal and State grant programs are available to non-profit child care providers (family
day care homes are viewed as for-profit). Federal grants can be used for both start-up
costs for future new facilities and for the renovation of existing structures. Currently,
Federal and State grants are primarily used for subsidizing the cost of child care for
parents and to fund maintenance and operation costs, rather than the establishment of
child care facilities. Existing grants Include Community Development Block Grants
(COBG), federal, as well as state grants for special populations and facility expansion.
State grants are not available for start-up, for maintenance or for operation costs, as are
some federal grants, but primarily for subsidizing the cost of child care. States must
spend 75% of their federal COBG allocation to subsidize low-income families through
certificate (voucher) programs. The remaining 25% Is available for contracts to provide
early childhood education, school-age child care programs, and quality Improvement
projects.
FOUNDATIONS
Private foundations provide various grants for the funding of child care programs and
facilities. Each grant specifies the uses for which the grant may be used. Some of the
grants may be used for the payment of tuitionlfees only, while others can be used for
transportation costs, extended child care hours or other purposes. Grantor can specify
specific requirements to be met for each grant.
PRIVATE SECTOR
Many private sector employers enter into partnerships with child care providers to
establish child care facilities for their employees. Employers can finance construction,
make available space for the operation of a child care facility or can subsidize the child
care facility in other ways.
5A-9
~ /7-73
MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT
.......,
The Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act permits the formation of special
assessment districts to fund the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement or
rehabilitation of child care facilities with the vote of two-thirds of the district's property
owners.
2.3 Family Assistance Programs
Many assistance programs are available for financing of child care for families in need.
Below is a listing of just a few of these types of programs. State child care and
developmental programs are the main source of subsidized care in the State. These
programs are designed to assist in the growth and development of children while at the
same time helping parents achieve financial stability through employment or education.
For most program types, family eligibility is based on income and need. Income must
be at or below 84% of the state (Califomia) median income ($2,246 per month for a
family of 3 in 1992-3). The family however remains eligible until it reaches 100% of
median income ($2,674). The need for child care may be based on parental
employment, enrollment in school or ajob training program, or incapacity. Children who
need protective services are eligible regardless of family income or parental status and
receive first priority for available spaces. All families contribute to the cost of child care .......,
on a sliding scale, unless their income falls below 50% of the state median income. A
few program types do not charge fees.
.,2.3.1 Types of Programs
General Child Care and Development
General Child Care and Development Programs primarily serve low income families,
most of which are headed by single, working parents. There are three types of general
child care and development programs:
. Public School Programs - located on public school sites and are operated by
school districts or other non-profl1: agencies.
. Community Programs - proVide same services as pUblic school programs but are
contracted through other public or private agencies, such as cities, universities
and local community agencies.
.......,
5A-10
-Y Ji/-?{
.
.
Family Child Care Systems - networKs of family child care homes operating
under an umbrella agency that provides training, consultation, resource materials
to providers and enrolled families.
Campus Child Care
. Primarily for the children of students attending classes on the campus. Some
of these centers operate as lab-schools for the training of students currently
enrolled in child development classes. These are funded by a combination of
state funds, student body fees, "and parent fees.
School-Age Parenting and Infant Development (SAPID)
. SAPID provides services to infants and toddlers of teenage parents who are
continuing to worK towards high-school graduation.
Severely Handicapped Programs
.
Provide supervision, care, therapy, youth guidance, and parental counseling to
families who have children with severe disabilities, until the child reaches the age
of 21.
.
Children with Exceptional Needs
. Exceptional children are "mainstreamed" where they are provided integrated
services with both handicapped and non-handicapped children.
Protective Services
. Short-term child care services for families in crisis. Children must be identified
as being neglected, abused, exploited, homeless or at risk thereof.
School-Age Community Child Care ("Latchkey") Programs
. Provide care before and after school and during vacations to children in
kindergarten through grade 9. Priority is given to younger children, in grades K-
3. Equal numbers of subsidized and non-subsidized (fee paying) children must
be served. The sites are usually near or on school sites. M~st programs are
operated by non-profit agencies.
.
-?' ILl - 7 S"
5A-11
2.3.2 Public Pre-schools
~
. HEAD START - Federal program for low-income families with children ages 3
and 4 available to very low income working, unemployed and parents job-
searching, training or attending school. Parental participation is required and
funding is directly by the federal govemment to the schools and non-profit
agencies that provide the service.
. STA TE PRESCHOOL - Part day programs for low-income with children ages 3-4
available to working, unemployed and parents job-searching, training or
attending school. These programs are modeled after Head Start but are funded
by the state rather than the federal government.
. STATE SUBSIDIZED PROGRAM - Child care provided to families based on
qualifying income and need for working, unemployed and parents job-searching,
training or attending school.
.
EVEN START - Federal literacy program for children and their parents.
Designed to break the cycle of illiteracy in families, it integrates adult basic
education and ear1y childhood programs. Services are operated by schools and
community based organizations.
'""
.
GAIN - (Greater Avenue for Independence) Child care assistance to families who
receive Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and participate in
education and job-training and those that completed the program and are now
working.
'.
. NET - Child care assistance to families who receive AFDC and participate in
education and job-training who are not in GAIN.
. Title IV-A. Child care assistance to working families at risk of becoming eligible
for AFDC. Under Title IV-A,. the federal government will match state costs for
AFDC-Iinked child care services, dollar for dollar. However, no federal money
is provided for child care costs that are above 75% of the regional market rate.
2.4 Current Zoning Regulations and Locatlonal Criteria
The City of Chula Vista currently requires permits for many Large and Small Family Day
Care Homes, however, a distinction is made regarding particular zones and structure
types in the regulating process. The Child Care Commission forwarded
'""
5A-12
-~ /L/~J?
.
.
.
recommendations to the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Advisory Committee for
proposed modifications ofthe current zoning regulations. The CUP Advisory Committee
will be, in turn, forwarding recommendations to the City Council which may result in
modifications to the current zoning requirements.
Large planned residential communities (over 50 contiguous acres in size) are required
to reserve acreage and/or facilities for the provision of Community Purpose Facilities.
These facilities consist of non-profit secular and non-secular land uses which provide
social needs to the community (e.g., YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, religious institutions,
etc.). Child Care is considered an accessory land use to Community Purpose Facilities,
and therefore permitted in conjunction with each.
Within the Eastern Tenitories of Chula Vista is a portion ofthe 23,OOO-acre Otay Ranch.
One of the requirements of the Otay Ranch development will be a Child Care Master
Plan. This master plan will proVide an action plan for the provision of Child Care within
the project which currently does not exist in any other project or area of the City.
'3.0 ISSUES
^
As stated previously herein, the purpose of the Child Care Element is to provide the
overall direction for the provision of adequate child care facilities necessary to serve
existing and future developed areas of the city in a coordinated and cost effective
manner. This will be accomplished by identifying the key issues that should be
addressed in the Element, and establishing goals, objectives, policies and
implementation measures in response to each issue. The issue statements may be
either opportunities or problems that the city will encounter in providing adequate child
care facilities.
1. The San Diego County region needs a proactive child care polley and more
collaboration among various councils, committees, agencies, and
Individuals.
Discussion: There is a need to educate the community-at-large to the fact that
quality child care is critical to children's health and well-beIng. Research clearly
shows that children who participate in quality child care and early childhood
education programs have higher achievement scores, reduced need for special
education classes, reduced high school drop out rates, and higher ratei of
employment compared to children with similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
2.
There are Insufficient facilities available for Infant and schoolage care.
5A-13
~ P!-??
Discussion: In Chula Vista the highest priority child care needs, by age of child,
are for infants (birth through one year of age) and school age children (ages 5
through 14). Most providers prefer to offer preschool care for children between
the ages of 3 and 5 because the hours are more regular for this group and the
equipment and staffing are not as costly as for infant care. Affordable,
subsidized spaces for child care are the highest priority for all age children,
including preschoolers (ages two through four). Specific problems within each
age group are noted below:
"""'\
. Infant Care - High quality infant care costs more. Decreased
childladult ratios (less children per adult) translates to higher
costs. These costs can not always be covered by the tuition fees
paid by parents alone. Employer parental leave policies usually
only allow for short leaves often causing parents to retum to work
soon after birthing. Since so many parents are retuming to the
workplace so soon a great demand is created for a service that
is in very limited supply.
Infants are especially vulnerable to poor quality programs which
typically focus on physical tasks, ignoring the social and emotional
development of the child at a time when this attention is most
necessary. Many care-givers, especially in the family day care
setting are untrained and often do not have access to current
information relating to infant development and group care.
-..
High employee tumover rates due to low wages, stress and lack
of benefits like health care also make a consistent program and
relationship difficult to provide.
. School Age Care - Funding, staffing and facilities are all areas of
major concems in all child care, but is especially acute in the
school age care segment. Sufficient funding is not available to
subsidize care for low income families . When families are forced
to make decisions based on finances many are left unattended
and "latch-key" children are the result. Staffing at school age
programs is problematic because services are required only
before and after school and have to be adjusted for various
schedules making it difficult to recruit and maintain staff to work
these irregular hours. Additionally facilities located close to
schools are in short supply for child care use.
......,
~ J'I-?~
5A-14
.
.
.
3.
The high costs of establishing and maintaining child care centers are a
major factor Inhibiting the provision of sufficient child care.
Discussion: The obstacles that providers encounter in establishing child care
centers are: obtaining financing, high start-up costs, locating affordable spaces
to lease or buy, ongoing maintenance and operation, inadequate labor pool, and
high child care insurance costs. Due to these limitations, many facilities are
never opened, are not situated in the most optimal location, or do not have
economical rates. Government funding to help finance or renovate non-profit
child care centers has substantially decreased in recent years, further inhibiting
the establishment of affordable child care facilities.
4. There Is a significant lack of child care spaces available In child care
settings for children with special needs and/or exceptional needs.
.
Discussion: Using various sources of local data, including 1990 Census data it
is estimated that approximately 25,000 children in San Diego County would
qualify as having special needs'. l/IIhile local statistics on the number of special
needs children cared for in family day care homes and centers are generally
unavailable, inquiries with some child care operators suggest that children of
special needs are severely under-provided for in child care settings throughout
the County. San Diego County reports 13% ofalllive births have special needs
or are at risk of developmental delay. There is only one working model in the
County (Special Care Center) providing care and education for the most
medically fregile children. Locally, there will continue to be increases in the
number of medically tregile children. There will be a near constant 10-12% of
all children in the County who will qualify as having special needs. There needs
to be a growing awareness of, and subsequent compliance with, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, resulting in increased early integration, and in some cases,
full inclusion for children with special needs in child care settings.
6. Currently there are no universally accepted criteria that define quality child
care programs.
.
The Ce/ifomia Depertment of Education delfnes children wIIh epeeIel needs es limited EngUsh ptoficjent
chlldl8n, childl8n wIIh exceptionel needs, end childl8fl tINJt e.. aeve18ly hendlcepped or et risk of neglect,
ebuss or exp/0it8tion. Exceptionel needs chlld..n heve been determined 10 be eligible for epeeIel edueetion
end I8/eted sslVic8s by en Indlvlduel 8duc8tion progrllm teem es per special educationel tBquil8ments.
Souroe: Child Cel8 end DeveloDTnflnt In 8en DIeoo Countv. FebllJerv 1994.
-y )1- 71
5A-15
Discussion: Locating good quality child care can be a fonnidable task for
parents, even with the assistance of a resource and referral agency. When good. ~
quality care is found, it often has a lengthy waiting list, or is not conveniently
located or affordable. The fact that there is no national child care policy in effect,
affording all children and their families high quality, affordable, convenient child
care, has resulted in such a patchWOrk child care system that, more often than
not, misses the mark. Califomia regulations, which are based largely on meeting
the minimum Health and Safety Code standards, do not address issues relating
to excellence and quality in child care programs. The lack of cohesive child care
policies has not only led to fragmentation of services, but to the lack of
consistent application of standards regarding quality, health and safety; a lack
of subsidized child care and a shortage of quality child care.
6. With the changing work force and shift in demographics, transportation
and child care can have a significant impact on commute patterns.
.,
Discussion: Today, major transit organizations are considering child care as a
key link in plans to relieve congestion, gridlock, air pollution and to promote
ride-sharing and transit use. It is now recognized that wise planning considers
the transportation needs of transit-dependent parents, by locating child care near
transit centers. Employers, who support child care options at the work place,
realize satisfactory child care, reduce absenteeism and tardiness, and increase
recruitment and longevity of employment. The City of Chula Vista has provided
two telecenter locations (centrally-located work stations, in-lieu of long-range job
commuting), and contacts have been made with area child care providers,
making child care spaces available for telecenter users if needed.
.......
7. The lack of uniformity In the zoning, planning, and Inspection processes
within the region, In relation to proposed child care facilities, can pose
significant difficulties for child care providers and development teams that
deal with the approval process, permits, reviews, and final Inspections.
Discussion: In order to establish a child care facility, would-be providers must
wind their way through state licensing requirements for providers, design and
safety standards for buildings, fire regulations, and special staffing and
curriculum requirements. On the local level, zoning and special pennit policies
must be achieved for parking, lot coverage, fire safety, etc. Regulations may
easily be listed in as many as eight different state and local codes and
ordinances. When development teams, for child care centers, are faced with
different zoning and planning policies for each city in the region and the County,
-~ ;'/--00
5A-16
~
.
.
.
4.0
GOAL:
ambiguity is created as to specific criteria that must be met to establish a child
care facility. This ambiguity, coupled with the complexity of the regulations, the
cost of meeting all of the requirements, present formidable obstacles to
expanding a community's supply of child care. Furthermore, because of
variation in code interpretation by state, fire and city personnel, as well as the
timing of approvals and final inspections, some codes, regulations, and
inspection processes can negatively impact design quality and facility costs.
8.
Increasing child care needs are created by demographic changes and by
new development
Discussion: Demographic changes such as the increase in working mothers and
the changing composition of families are the main factors contributing to the
increased need for child care facilities. Population and job opportunities created
from new residential and commercial development add to the number of children
in need of child care facilities. Demand is increasing faster than supply.
GOAL, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
The goal and objectives of the Chura Vista Child Care Element reflect the City's desire
to achieve quality child care services for those persons in need residing or working in
the City. The Element's comprehensive neecls analysis and identification of issues form
the basis from which Chula Vista developed the goals, objectives, and action plans to
address child care needs. Thus, the goals and objectives presented in this section
detail specific statements of policy regarding what shoulcl or should not take place
during the course of the City's development.
The policies and implementation measures In this section have been established to
promote and guide the proVision of Child Care facilities within the City of Chula Vista.
It should be recognized that each of these policies and measures cannot be
implemented Immediately and that staff availability and funding considerations will be
determining factors in their timely implementation. Because actual Implementation will
occur over time, individual projects may be analyzed on the basis of how closely they
meet the intent of the Child Care Element.
ENCOURAGE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE GOOD QUALITY CHILD CARE THAT
IS AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY
5A-17
-y )tj;-YJ
OBJECTIVE 1:
ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE CHILD CARE
FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO MEET THE EXISTING AND FUTURE
NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
'""\
OBJECTIVE 2:
LOCATE CHILD CARE FACILITIES NEAR HOMES. SCHOOLS AND
WORK PLACES.
OBJECTIVE 3:
ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF QUALITY CHILD CARE FOR ALL
FAMILIES WHO NEED IT. REGARDLESS OF INCOME.
OBJECTIVE 4:
PROMOTE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN IN ALL
CHILD CARE FACILITIES.
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS:
4.1 QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Objective 1: Encourage the provision of adequate child care facilities and services to
meet the existing and future needs of the community.
Objective 2: Locate child care facilities near homes schools and work places.
~
4.1.1 Policies
1. The City shall support and assist efforts that ensure the availability of a variety
of child care facilities and services in appropriate quantity at the time and place
of need.
2. The City shall support and assist in efforts to define the role that new
development plays in the demand for child care, and the role it should play in the
supply of child care facilities.
3. The City shall encourage the development of child care space within residential
and commercial development projects, including new construction and reuse, to
meet the needs of residents and employees by adoption of employer/developer
program incentives.
4. To effectively meet local demand, the City shall examine opportunities for
amending its zoning ordinance to encourage the provision of child care in all
areas of the City.
5A-18
........
- ~ )1 .-'~.J.,
.
.
.
4.1.2
5.
The City shall consider the location of child care facilities at employment centers
and along transit routes to increase the accessibility of services to working
parents and low income transit-dependent families.
6. The City shall work in partnership with the Chula Vista Elementary School
District and other public and private school systems to evaluate opportunities for
establishing child care facilities and programs on or near existing and planned
schools.
7. The City shall strive to maintain its role as a model employer by aggressively
and comprehensively exploring options available to meet the child care needs
of its employees. The City should actively seek to demonstrate that employer-
sponsored child care has a positive, beneficial and cost-effective influence on the .
work force. ( , ~,~ c.l0JJI
'1\', oC.-(c(. lOu-L,', >'~'c'" t U.A-\'I' ,~U \j..JN. <f')-"~t < tr"'flr0:i..\J,<;~
Implementing Actions \ "rt,J 1.d cooL. ( "',' '-"0" .I
Onaolna Evaluation of Child Care Needs
While the Child Care Element provides an excellent foundation for understanding
existing and future child care needs in the community, the City should establish an
ongoing process for evaluating child care needs and ensurinQ that local child care
programs and policies are geared toward meeting the real needs of the community.
The following have been identified as possible components of such an evaluation
process:
1.
Evaluate community needs on an annual basis to gauge the amount and type
of child care needed; and make recommendations through the Child Care
Commission that are based upon City policy and the gaps between demand and
supply.
2.
Establish, as a target, the desirable number of available child care spaces, both
public and private, that should be located in the City; and coordinate the
evaluation of community needs on an annual basis with the Chula Vista Child
Care Commission.
3.
Advocate that a centralized regional data collection system be established to
more accurately analyze the supply, demand and utilization of child care, and
further determine specific needs.
5A-19
~ ;J-j-?"J
4.
Develop a formula for use in assessing the child care needs created by new
development.
-....
5. Consider the feasibility of requiring developers of major residential, commercial,
and industrial projects to use the adopted formula to assess the impact of their
projects on child care supply and demand in the community as part ofthe project
environmental impact report.
6. Conduct commuter surveys to assess the proportion of workers with child
transport responsibilities, and to better quantify the child careltransportation link.
Locatina New Child Care Facilities
The City should evaluate various means by which it can ensure that child care facilities
are allowed in locations which are convenient to residents and workers in Chula Vista.
This evaluation should include further review of City zoning regulations which may
unnecessarily restrict the location of child care facilities, as well as considering the use
of schools, churches, public buildings, and other facilities which could be adapted to
provide convenient child care locations. Specifically, the following options should be
evaluated:
Land Use and Zoning Regulations
""'
1. Consider a Municipal Code amendment which will give special consideration to
child care facilities wishing to locate in existing, under-utilized school-clistrict or
municipal buildings, or proposing adaptive re-use of such facilities for child care
programs.
2. Consider modifications to present Municipal Code standards that would permit
child care centers in mixed use projects that include residential development.
.
3. Examine the existing spatial distribution of child care facilities located within the
City, and respond, where necessary, with recommendations that ensure such
. facilities can be developed within different land uses.
4. Evaluate the potential for expanding the number of zoning districts to allow the
siting of child care facilities in zones not currently allowed. Particular
consideration should be given to opportunities that may exist in the Central
Business (C-B) and Limited Industrial zones (I-L), as well as residential zones
and areas designated for public and quasi-public land uses.
""'
5A-20
-y )2/,r1
.
.
.
1
5.
Review zoning requirements to ensure that child care is an acceptable land use
along transportation routes, and at major employment and housing sites.
Schools
6. Explore the establishment of a joint powers agreement between the City and the
Elementary School District to facilitate cooperative and coordinated actions
geared towards providing on- or near-site child care.
7. Establish partnerships between public, private, private non-profit and parochial
schools to offer a safe environment with age and developmentally appropriate
activities using subsidized, licensed-exempt locations where possible.
8. Develop and utilize a facilities checklist to assure that Mure school buildings are
designed to accommodate child care, whether in specifically dedicated or
shared-use classrooms.
Other Public Facilities
9.
Consider the inclusion of child care services in new and existing City buildings,
such as community centers, if compatible with existing and planned programs.
10.
Evaluate the potential for siting relocatable modular units designated for child
care use in public parks. Special consideration should be given to before- and
after-school programs in parks located near schools, particularly when the school
has insufficient space to locate the structures.
11.
Where feasible, make vacant or under-utilized City property available to child
care providers; lease under-utilized City facilities to non-profit child care
providers for a nominal charge.
12.
Utilize a facilities checklist to assist in the design, construction and planning of
capital improvement projects providing child care space, and in the retro-fitting
of existing structures to accommodate shared-use classrooms.
13.
Include child care facilities as an amenity to major transportation hubs and origin
and destination points by siting facilities at multi-modal stations, park-and-ride
lots, trolley stations and other locations accessible to public transportation.
5A-21
-~ /'1-%5"
Reaulatory Reform and Permit Streamlinina
"'"
In addition to reviewing policies and regulations dealing with the location of new child
care facilities, the City should also continue to review and simplify its regulations and
procedures for permitting of child care facilities. The Child Care Commission has
already completed a preliminary review of City permitting regulations, and has
recommended changes that would simplify the process for many types of child care
facilities. These recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible. In
addition, the City should evaluate the following additional measures which could further
simplify the permitting process:
1. Conduct studies to simplify and streamline the development review and approval
processes for large family day care home permits by standardizing the siting
criteria in certain zoning districts to allow the processing of non-discretionary
permits.
2. Consider the designation of an existing staff member in the Planning Department
or other development service department as a City "child care specialist" to
conduct early review of plans for child care centers.
,
3. - Develop guidelines and a procedural handbook that outlines the criteria to be ""'""
used by both staff and the applicant in streamlining the permit and development
review process.
"
4.
Consider staff participation on the San Diego County child care advisory
commissions to assist in establishing acceptable development standards and to
identify sources of money for child care.
5. Consider the feasibility of waiving fees for small family day care providers that
wish to expand from six to twelve children.
6. Coordinate with state regulatory agencies to review and revise state licensing
and local requirements to allow for more flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
Incentives for New Development to Provide Locations for Child Care Facilities
The review of policies and regulations addressing the location of child care facilities, and
permit streamlining measures, as described above, should provide greater flexibility in
the siting of new child care facilities, both in developed communities and in new planned
communities in Chula Vista. In addition, the City's Community Purpose Facility
""'""
5A-22
-~ )'1-'i'~
.
.
.
,
Ordinance requires developers of new planned communities to designate a certain
amount of land to be utilized only for community facilities such as churches, private
schools, community centers, and the like; these sites could also accommodate child
care facilities. However, the City should consider establishing a program which would
provide ~t!1er incentives for establishment of locations and/or facilities for child care in
new develoiii'nenClnaevetoping' soeh"aprografn, tfie following types of incentives and
activities should be considered:
1. Develop a marketing / media campaign for residential, business and commercial
and shopping center development to include child care facilities.
2. Grant priority processing for development projects that include an on-site child
care facility.
3. Consider a program that evaluates an incentive program that offers a bonus in
density or intensity of use for commercial, industrial, and residential projects that
provide child care facilities.
4.
Integrate child care needs with the local transportation planning process by
coordinating efforts between land use and transportation planners.
5.
Include the provision of child care facilities as a transportation control measure.
6.
Consider the adoption of an ordinance establishing developer Impact fees or in-
kind contributions of land, facilities, information and referral assistance and/or
subsidy vouchers to be used to reduce child care costs, and reconciliation of
child care licensing requirements with City requirements and standards.
The CItY's Role as EmDlover In Providlna Child Care Services
The City should consider the development of a child care program for its employees,
which could include the foliowlng components:
1.
Review and publicize City personnel policies and programs related to child care,
such as maternity/paternity leave, job-sharing, and negotiated employee benefit
plans that use pre-tax dollars for child care reimbursement, such as flexible
spending accounts.
2.
Offer child care referral services, .lunch hour programs and other assistance to
- employees with child care needs.
5A-23
-y J'I-~?
I-l,}JC(
) lL
./
3.
Establish a task force to evaluate child care alternatives for City employees.
This task force may coordinate with the City's Child Care Commission on
appropriate issues when necessary.
.........
4.2 AFFORDABILlTY OF CHilD CARE SERVICES
Objective 3: Encourage the provision of quality child care that Is available for all
families who need It, regardless of income.
4.2.1 Polley
The City supports the concept of affordable child care and shall, as funding becomes
available, direct child care assistance programs to those who have a demonstrated
need and live and/or work in Chula Vista.
4.2.2 Implementing Actions
In addition to the programs described above that are intended to encourage new child
care facilities in the City, there is also a need to pursue measures which would bring
affordable child care to those who are in need of it. The City should evaluate the
following pOSSible actions: .........
1. Pursue grants at the federal, state and local government level to fund capital
Improvement projects and start-up and operational expenses for child care
centers.
2. Advocate state and federal legislation that will support affordable child care.
3. Encourage employer contributions towards employee child care costs.
4.
Evaluate the potential 'of fund raising programs that target corporations,
foundations, individuals and government sources to implement the City's child
care strategies, and designate a percentage ofthese funds for low and moderate
income families.
.
5. Publish a list of public subsidies available for child care providers and funding
help resources for families in need.
6. Evaluate the potential for reducing or waiving the fees for new child care projects
where the City has simplified permit requirements and review procedures.
......."
5A-24
-y J~~JJ?f
.
.
.
.
7.
Consider rent free use of park fields to non-profit organizations such as the Girls
and Boys Clubs and the YMCA through a joint powers agreement with school
districts.
8. Evaluate the potential for funding low interest loans for expansion of city child
care programs.
9. Evaluate opportunities to attract subsidized child care providers or grant monies
to Chula Vista.
4.3 MAINTAINING HIGH QUALITY AND SAFE CHILD CARE SERVICES
Objective 4: Promote the safety and welfare of children In all child care facilities.
4.3.1 Policies
1. The City shall encourage and participate in efforts that increase the quality of
child care such that all facilities are responsive, interactive, nurturing, and
developmentally appropriate.
,
2.
The City shall support and assist in the development of before and after school,
and holiday and vacation coverage for "latch key" children, as part of the overall
child care program.
"
4.3.2 Implementing Actions
In addition to ensuring that child care is accessible and affordable to the community, the
City should also assist in efforts to ensure that child care programs offer ufe and high
quality programs to meet a variety of needs. While it is recognized that a variety of
other agencies and organizations are addressing these needs, the City should evaluate
the following possible actions in this area:
1.
Advocate the development and adoption of state legislation that maintains
adequate minimum standards for the operation of child care facilities and local
standards which exceed the state licensing requirements.
2.
Encourage efforts at national accreditation as an effort to improve quality in both
center and in-home based facilities.
5A-25
~ /Lj'--Yi
.
3.
Participate in efforts to coordinate child care resources in the City by developing
a strong network of child care providers, including proprietary, and nonprofit
centers, in-home providers and children's service agencies to:
.-.."
a) promote professionalism and quality,
b) pool staff resources for staff development,
c) create a substitute teacher pool,
d) improve buying power for goods and services, and
e) act as a voice for the child care industry.
4. Petition the local community college to provide training and education
opportunities for child care teachers and providers.
5. Make available to the community information and referral assistance
relating to child care.
6. Prepare a brochure for public distribution summarizing available child care
services, and state and local application and permitting processes.
-.."
t
"""\
y ;2j-9tJ
5A-26
.
.
.
.
5.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, Gretchen Lee. Removina Barriers to Childcare Facilities Develooment. A
Project of the School of Communication, Health and Human Services, California State
University, Northridge in joint venture with The Community Design Center at the
University of California, Berkeley. 1993.
California Department of Education. Estimatina the Need for Child Care in California.
1993.
Chula Vista, City of. General Plan Uodate. July 1989.
Irvine, City of. Child Care - The Irvine Solution. February 1989.
Los Angeles, City of.
San Diego, City of.
San Diego, County of.
Palo Alto, City of. ~hil~ Care Ma.~ter Plan. Palo Alto Child Care Task Force and Palo
Alto Community Child Care. July 1989.
California, Assembly Office of Research. Carina For Tomorrow: A Local Government
Guide To Child Care. August 1988.
Child Care and Development Committee, San Diego County Commission
on Children and Youth. CPild Care And Develooment in San Pieco County. February
1994.
YMCA Childcare Resource Service and Child Care Coordinator, County
of San Diego, Child Care and Develooment Fundina Resources. 1993.
State of California, Department of Social Services, Community Care
Licensing Division, About Licensees for Child Dav Care Facilities. June 1992.
YMCA Child Care Resource Service, Child Care Re,source Service and You, May 1991.
5A-27
_y FI-7/
.
State of California, Department of Social Services, Community Care ~
Licensing Division, Licensina Information Svstem. Manaaement Information Reauest.
Listina. March 9, 1994.
SANDAG/Source Point, Summarv of Pooulation and Housina. Summarv Taoe
File 1. 1992.
San Diego Child Care Coalition in cooperation with the County of San Diego and the
City of San Diego. Child Care and the Workolace: A auide for Emolovers. Summer,
1992.
Santa Clara Intergovernmental Council, Child Care Committee, Child Care in Your City:
A Guide for Planners. April 1992.
International Child Resource Institute, Child Care Feasibilitv Studv: Oceanside Transit
Center. Chula Vista Bavfront Trollev Station. April 1991.
California Child Day Care Act, Evaluator Manual, January 1992
State of California, Department of Social Services, Community Care
Licensing Division, Manual of Policies and Procedures: Child Dav Care. July,
September, November 1993.
-..
Cibulksis, Ann and Ritzdorf, Marsha, Zonina for Child Care.
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 422.
December 1989.
<W:'Ilome\plonnlngldlildaelelement4.L TF)
eDmON: FobnJllry 14. 1995
'.
~
5A-28
-y /L/-9d.,
QUESTION~CONCERNSFROM
PUBliC WORKSHOP
. ) '/- 9 J
.
.
.
.
COMMENTS RECORDED AT A PUBLIC WORKSHOP
HELD ON JANUARY 25, 1995
REGARDING THE DRAFl' CHILD CARE ELEMENT
WHERE:
Hazel Goes Cook Elementary School
PRESENTED BY: Child Care Commission
Planning and Parks and Recreation Department Staff
. ~&~~:~.~ .. ...
mf.
mm
The following are the questions and comments received at a public workshop, sponsored by
the Child Care Commission and City staff, and held on Wednesday, January 25th, at Hazel
Goes Cook Elementary School. The workshop was attended by approximately 20 citizens,
many of which are currently child care providers.
OUESTlONS I CONCERNS:
. There are a larger number of K-3 enrolled in YMCA Child Care.
.
Older children do not want to be with younger children. We need to look at
alternatives.
.
Does the City have a preferrence for one type of child care (e.g., small family vs.
center)?
Would the City lower barriers for family day care?
Are any centers in Chula Vista open past 6 p.m.? Many parents work later.
Could a plan be developed so that duplication is avoided in site checks (e.g., County
licensing and City permits).
.
.
.
.
Are there vacant sites or facilities in the City available for non-profit child care?
.
Are Co-ops included in the Element?
Licensing differs for child care on school grounds. No City permit is required.
Would the City provide a facility and interpreter so that information can get out?
Many people do not know of the child care crisis.
Is the City willing to be involved in a referral service?
.
.
.
- y )'I~~j
.
Child Care Element Workshop January 25,1995
Wx:;;~::;:m::::r:M:::::;:&~:mmm:~:::;mw.;::~n:@!l.~:%{;*~,;:;~,*~ .. :":m~=*W"4mm.~,~~:m*m:f~wm:~W"--',',:.o.z:>'*'AA~~.;:~mm?;w.$;:: ~
. The YMCA Child Care Referral Service will open an office here in the South Bay
soon.
. There is as much federal money coming in which can be spent in family day care as
in centers (parent choice).
. Why not increase spaces by easing licensing? Existing small family day care could
expand.
. Could the City adopt a "deferred payment" plan for fees if a small family day care
wanted to expand?
. Could master plans include development standards that call for equiping some
strategically located homes with hardware to make them "child care ready," thus
reducing the cost to retro-fit if a provider should purchase? These homes could be
located near the comer of development.
. There is a strong need to get the information out to link the providers with those
needing child care.
COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE
.~
. Most of the Hispanic child care providers in the City of Chula Vista are licensed to
provide care for six children. They would like to apply for the Large Family Day
Care license to take care of twelve children, however, the City of Chula Vista's fees
are too high. The fees are the highest in San Diego County.
. Inadequate transportation is an issue for some families that need to take their
children to child care.
(.\ 1 . '._e)
.
2
_y- /'1-9/
""'"
ATTACHMENT 7
CORRESPONDENCE
) Lj -J ?
.
.
.
.
II
February 22, 1995
Mr. Duane E. Bazzel
Principal Planner
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Subject:
Draft Child Care Element to the General Plan
Dear Duane:
Thank you for providing EastLake Development Company the opportunity
to review the City's proposed Child Care Element to the General Plan. I
understand that the Planning Commission will convene a public hearing
regarding this matter at tonight's meeting. Your help in getting the
following EastLake Development Company comments entered in the public
review process is appreciated.
1. The Element should focus on the implementation and revision of City
policies/ordinances which enhance the ability of the community at-
large to provide adequate child care services without mandating
additional fees and exactions on the business community.
2. The Element should recognize and support those agencies already
providing child care services rather than creating new institutions to
address the problem.
3. We would request that the statistics regarding child care availability
provided in the draft Element be substantiated. Additional research
at the local level would insure that the City has a clear understanding
regarding the need for added facilities.
I look forward to reviewing the subsequent draft Child Care Element as the
public review process continues. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate. to contact me.
~~
Bruce N. Sloan
Project Director
BNS:sb
_y Ji-9?
..
..
....
E'ASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
QOO lone Avenue
Suite 100
Chulo Vista. CA 91914
(619) 421.0127
FAX (619) 421.1830
To: Mayor Horton and Council
From: IFC, Larry Breitfelder, Vice Chair
Re: Ussuriysk Sister City Relationship
Date: March 7, 1995
At our meeting of Feb.22, the IFC voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council
formally request Sister Cities International to designate Ussirysk Russia as Chula
Vista's Fourth Sister City.
The Commission vote was based in large measure on satisfaction in regard to three
issues:
1) That there is a significant number of people in the community who are interested in
a successful relationship with Ussuriysk.
2) The existence of a group that has demonstrated organizational strength in matters
such as accumulating a paid membership.
3) That the "Friends of Ussirisk appear to moving toward a program of self supported
activities that would benefit this community.
The city of Ussirysk has already taken all the necessary steps and the matter is time
sensitive in that their Mayor is planning a visit to Chula Vista in June at Mayor
Horton's invitation. On the basis of the merits and the fast approach of the June visit,
the Commission encourages the Council to agendize and come to a decision at its
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
<7
Larry eitfelder
Vice Chair, IFC
/y/
Sister Cit ies
I, ~:)r
In t ' 1
e'
ID:7038364815
I ~ q
FEB 14' 95
17:56 No.016 P.05
A/lMUHHr.TP411Ull
rOPOJtA ~t:C),IIHff(;KA
DPl1MtH'(,:lWrO KPAR
Du2t>.:Oj I. Y':'),'"tl~l(, t1f~pIloIOI)ClI IG
TIA'tllu ...44-&6
(h ... "_ Hi
F.Dpu&pv ~1. 199t
"I". All1x.nde~ OQIIWV. Mana..r
li.'.~ tit!.. Internationll
130 South P.~. Itp..t
Atex.nd.t.. Yt.Qt~11 2~t4
U.8.A.
"
n.." HI". Gorevl
Aa ~aVD" 01 U..urllllk. I tully .upport an oftictal p.rt~.I".h~p
wtt~ . U.S. c~unt.l'IP&"t.
'l'k. votuat..... C:CllIlIlit_ ...l"on.I&I. 'Or> the sfst... Cltv JlPOW"lIIII
wtth & sister city I~ t~. U.Q.A. iftclud~. t~. 'attONlnQ
Indlvldualal 8v~t.I.n. ".wn~t.. 01.. Kr.v.vlltl, fUlra Zalkina,
L.na K~v'oun, Anatall Rea.noy, and Albin. A'.~.and~ov..
Iv.U.na '811i1tl\.t. tHlll .'.I;tlll:% ttl c:hal., UIII c_iU...
Erl.c:lg..CS, pI.... Ilnd lol.. compt..ttld ~....tlt. Ptl.... w. 10,,1;; to.,..
wa.d to h.arlD. ,~. vau at FOUl" .<<I"liest Ccnv8nt.aC..
IilU'c::...h~.
Aftatole V..v~~Jeh
"_V01"
J ,5'"',:<,
-_....,--_.~............
Sister Cities Int'l
ID :7038::',611815
FEE 14'95
l(:~b NO.U~O r.uo
POCCIHI
nPHMOPCI<.HA KPAA
rAaBa aAMHHHCTpa~HH ropo~a YccYPHAcKa
Town Administration
66 Nekraeov Street
Uasuri;yalt 692500
Rue El 1 a
O. I. S.
13th of January. 1994
l.JCHl:' ~)1.:.1;":
I am moat delighted to b(l en~i o:llng tlH~ opportunity to be addreseing
you now on behalf of all rcsia,mt;.; of UumriY'(ik. Herewith I am convey-
ing our joined wish for you !;;.nd ove:('y cit:i,2;!Jl'j ot your tOWll - old and
young, male and female - to live :i.n peace UrHl prosperity.
l]ssul'iysk is a middle-sized t()vm I'd.tll uppro:dlnately 170,OOO-lltrong
population. 'It is situated 1.n ni"Jut 100 kilolHaters to the Xlorth of
Vladi vostok, H.ussia I a maj or port 1n tlw J'aa:\' fie. Though the town of
l1seuriyak W8S founded, in 18G6 by :i{Uf:lIJ:lcm o()~Hi'acka and peEtaant who came
hare from European Huesia aftc'l' tbilil lunel hud beoome a part of the
Russian Empire under foal' AleXLYJ<]cl' II j.11 1Ei;i6, our town lr.lght be re-
ferred to ae being older them l.':O!;COW i 'tt.,,,,,):!. J::r we trace the history
of' tlLie place baok to the 12th C>C'llt1Jr;;' A.l'!., we ehe.ll find O\!t thut
there was nbig oity here nt thnt tj,nle. :rt l:'elonged ~o the ao-called
Golden Empire. They said Emp;i,):'o :l1lCJ,l1ded what, io now 'k.nown 8e lItari time
(;Pr:l,morye) and KhabarovBl( Regim}B of Huod(:J. und a considerflule part
of China (even J3eij ing). The tovllJ tlw. t wa~l Usouriysk pre~eoeseor and
the E.tnpire as U \1hole ceeDed to QXiHt cluC;! to the horrific ,Mongol in-
vasion in 126013. The town was b1)):')'lt to CH,hof.l, its temples we:r'e deat-
royed, Borne 0:1:' its 'inhabitant!: W,'"'(:l kj,lJe<). otbel'8 we:L'e made slaves Il.nd
dri ven tar away to the oi ti ee tl! Gh:lna una the steppcs of lIIoneolit1.
'l'he few rerllliining fled &nd hid "thcmoelvCl'l in forests, and their des-
cendants gre\~ quite wild. Civi1:i:U,UOll OUlile back to this land, which
WaB then next to uninhabited, 1"':1 (,))1 in t:l.t:ON' and Chinese band1 ts, on-
ly when firet Russilme settled ]J(,J,'e in 1n60. Russian arohaeologists
/5~J
a... III
have heen at worl{ here ever s:ll1lJO am1 ,r',~cov("l:'ed a lot of ancient ob-
jects, though they haven't [;ottcn enough :c.\clc to find the legel1dary
gold bOl'se. 1'hoee fox'gotten P()DplE: lwud to wOT'ship the 01'e&tul'e. and
a huge gold statue of it io SH1,(1 to lmve bQn:n hidden in e. sooret pla-
ce by the priests when MOl1go1B lmd overwhelmed the defenders of the
city in the last battle.
At pl'esent, UssuriYllk 18 Hl1 :i.lnpo::.'tant :lnauotrial oenter. Ita biS-
gest factories and plants m:>e tile fmgux' ref'jll()l'Y. the spirits dietil-
lery t the aewing faotory, tho l:JhOe-l~1Il.Jdng i\\C'liory, the automobile re-
pair and engineel'ing plants. Thl; Jast, bu ~ not the least. there is
the refrigerator trains depot, which is oon8idered the best in Ruseia
from the point of view 0:1' its perfo~:'li1Cll1Cn. UO:;~1uriyek ie a ma.jor juno,..
tion on the Moacow - Vlo.di Vostok ;j;'I.liJ.J.'oC'.d (the Great ~'rane-Sil:ierian
Railroad).
Our town is looated in tlH) 111.:1 ddle 0:(' t\ lurge agricultural provinoe.
Cucumbers and tomatoes, carrota fiJl1d potatcHHJ, rice Iillid soybeans. cab-
bage and wator-melona are grOWl] b:ra. On SOl'll!J plots our farmere grow
even tile famous Ging-Seng - the;) plant, wHh the help of which Chineae-
style dootors al'e l'eported to bo heu1j.11[; tin;\' malady. A Bood many of
1i vestook (oattle, pigs, oheep, mini: u,m'\ door) o.1"e also kept and brell
near bere. Bee-keeping is 111,,10 hii~hly de\l'<:lopnd, and a oonBiderable
amount of honey and ita b~'-p:t'od\lot(:l ill p:r'oduocd.
UOGuriyak is aleo a cul tU:r'nl cente,,!' of nome impOJ:>tal1ce. It has three
institutes (or higher GducationH:" liJetablinllmonta). Those are Teachers'
Training (Pedagogical) Inot:l. t\lto, Agr:i cllltul't,l Institute and Armed
Forces College of Higher l~duca.tj,()n. 'l'h€;;r-o Il:t'tl also :3 technioal colle-
ges, a dozen or E10 speoiali?',ed high uohoo18, nnd )2 ordi.nary high
schoele. Two drama theaters Ell1d tV,IO CilH,llil.'lf.l aro worth mentioning, too.
One can find two mueeun1s ue well. The:,'c, j,f) aleo a prominent solar ob-
eervato:r~', but it i8 not in tho I; own pl'Ope)~'.
Since October 25th. 1922 (thct waf~ the do,y when the Bolshevik tro-
ops oushd the \'I1111e Guards 'IInd Japc,ncrw ;('~:'Olll this town) US citizens,
to put it mildly, had not beon :f:I.'(,qt:LClllt gueohl 01' Ues'uriyok until Mr.
Gorbaohov launohed hia pel'et:roilw campaign. In recent yeare our town
has been vis! ted by several Chrir;t:tan oelegations from tho USA. along
wi th aome American business peopl€, 6nd tl:'C.wcllers. Now 6 US Peaoe Oorpa
activists work in UB6uriyek p;r'ov1cling expertise in the field of buei-
nese ol~ganization. Thore are eJ,so 2 Am(;~~'icr.\1l ladies teaching English
at Foreig.n Languages Faculty of th(J l,r.dncosicrlJ. Institute. One of them,
Mrs. Debra Nud,i, gave hel' kind COIHlent to convey this message to you.
'rho vast majority of US6ur1ys!; reaiuontc 11111J. the reoent i~provement
in the relatione between the lJS and lhHwi~~. MOElt of 11.S, and espeoially
/5-Y
the younger genel'ation. are interested :i.l'l lClfU'l1ing more about the Ame-
rican culture and way of life.
SUllIllIing uP. I s'uggeat hereby, we mo.h~) botb our towns what we call
SISTEll TOWNS.
Our future mutual aotivi tieD could i.Delude:
(1) the exchange of cultural (,lelego.tiorJoj
(2) viei to by aporta teams €\~ '~hel't' (n'El n good many of eports fans
hel'e (aap. those of baflketh[~J.l, voll eyball. football. table
tennis, chese, boxing, Wl;t-ahu and lmrB,te) I
0) the establishing of dil'6t;t links betwoon your lJusirjesamen and
ours. whioh may prove benni'icial bo,~:tl to
(a) us business people b(!CUltE'C lhlo\u'j.yok is 60 tal' an almost
boundless market for COrlf;l!.UIlOI' gooc1fl, and espeCially those
of highel' qual1 ty, and
(b) to their Ussuriysy. Quuntcrpf.:t:l"tf.: bc:cauae they' lnay Elupply
your oonSUDlcrs with fl 0);1 ,l gooclH .you cannot :rind elsewhere
in Russia. e.s. hiGhest gI'ude hon~)y', drugs made ot ging-
sang. deer horns Elm] otlwr cxo'l;;l.c i:'OW materials as well
as they said raw lllwLeriClla themf-l"l vea, delioious brands of
vodka,eto;
(4) your inveatl1l.ell.t in cr'lla t:Lnr~ tow'4. st fseili title hore ae Uesu-
riyal\: surrounding a wi th th,.d),' wild bu&utiful natul::'e are poten-
tially gr'sut tou:\.'iat attraction; :l,f Eloma money oame f:..'om you.
we could arrunge evel'ything imGgillfll.lo. even bear hunting in
tho depth of the !!taiga" (tllc 10(;(\:1 for "p:r.imeval fOl'eat");
(5) atudenta exchange;
ll.Ild whatever ,v'ou'd like to auggeflt.
I am grateful for your g:tvinL( llind l~.t;t(llJt:i()n to thia letter.
Ood bless youJ
Sincerely yours.
Anatoly M. Vaayanovich.
~~.
.I
I
I
I
.~.
I
I
I
I
L
~
SISTER CITIES
PROG S
:
~
~
"Sister Cities Programs are an important
resource to the negotiations of governments
in letting people give expression to their
common desire for friendship al1d
cooperation for a better world for all. "
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower
A [filiations between cities throughout the
world began after World War II. They
became known in the United States as Sl:~t(!f
cities. The U.s. program was launched when
President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed the
People-to-l)eople idea at. a White House
20nference in 1956. His idea was to involve
)eople and community organizations in
.>ersonal diplom!!cy.
To promote sister cities on a national scale,
he Civic Committee of People-to-People was
stablished. At the request of the Civic
:ommittee, the National L~ague of Cities,
:?presenting more than 15,000 cities, towns
I)d villages in the U.s., agreed to serve as a
earinghouse to expand sister cities through its
,embers.
Initially, a dozen active affiliations began.
I the early 19605, the number of sister cities
creased rapidly. It became clear that a new,
,tional organization, devoted exclusively to
e SUpport of the Sister Cities Program, was
~ded.
93
SISl'llR CITIES INTERN....TIONAL
120 SOUTH I'A'i'NB STRlll!T
ALHXANDklA, v.... 22314
TilL: 1.103.836-3535 FAll: 1-103-836-4815
The Town Affiliation Association of the U.S.,
Inc. was incorporated on June 12, 19678s a
nonprofit, membership organization to foster
iJ)lernaUonal cooperation and understMding
lhrotlgh sister cities relationships.
The organi:.:ation is governed by a board of
directors. Voting membership is held by cities,
counties, st/\tes, associations of municipalities,
the National League of Cities; and local sister
cities organizations that pay annual dues and
are responsible for carrying out an affiliation
with a community in another country.
Sister Cities International rsct] is now widely
used and recognized as descriptive of the U.S.
Sister Cities Program, Set programs and
services Me handled by a professional staff under
the lni'lnogement of an executive director and
divisioll directors. A network of state
coordinfllors-all volunteers-assist individual!!,
coml1ltlllilies or organizations interested in the
Sister Cities Program.
Today, oVt!r 900 U.s. cities are linked with
1,500 {oi'eign cities in 110 different countries.
The global growth of the Sister Cities Program
is creating environments in which people learn,
work, and create together. People are reaching
out to gra!lp new challenges and are solving
some of societies' problems together. They
are resp(lIlding to the growing need for
international cooperation and understanding.
They are doing it all through Sister Cities
Programs.
jY'?-
Sister Cities Int'j
ID:7038364S15
FEB 14'95
17:53 No.016 P.02
~.
;A.mr,,y.A'T"'f{';\N'-DR'Or'iY"JSS' :,r.:;'.,~. ~~: ,";::<"'.:~ :f.'.V -.:'': "-::: h'
1['HE~'1.~J..~J...\J 'j.\:. ~C ~.t::,..',~<;,\..~j;"Ct:-,'''^~'' ~t';"l--::':'~";1j"~_:("~;1' J
,""!;' . -
[This process applies to arzy jurisdictiorz-
municipal, countyorstate. The sister cities
organization works with the appropriate
re]'resentalives-mayor/council, cOllnfy
board of supervisors/council, or governor,]
Before describirlg the process, let' s f.\11swt!r
the most often asked question: How long
does it take to get a sister city? It can take up lo
two years to go from the decision to have a sister
city to the final step of an o{fjcial ceremony. Your
choice of country, whether or not there is a
Mtional association that works with SCI, how
long communicatiol's take, who makes the fintl 1
decisions, how and when those decisions arC'
made and other factors all affect how long it
takes to find an appropriate match. Sel
recommends that you avoid premature publici ty
about your choice in the evel,t it does l'1ot
materialize. .
· First, colltact SCI for iJ,formation and 3
membership application, SCI will put you in
touch with yourSisterCities state coordinator
for additional assistance, If your community
already has a Sister Cities Program, you will
be asked to contact the existing 10('3]
organization, as it may have guidelines and
procedures for developing additional sister
cities and experience in gaining the
cooperation of local elected officials.
· Next, the concept of the program should be
discussed with friends and community
leaders. The key to success is broad, local
support and citizen participation. This comes
from organizations, businesses and
institutions in the community. Ask friends
and community leaders to inform their own
organizations about the idea. This helps to
assess the kinds and levels of support for an
affiliation. Educators might agree to develop
school-to-school links; port authority
representatives may want to develop porl~(o-
port links; hospital administrators could
generate hospital-to-hospitallil,ks.
· If these actions confirm community support,
form an ad hoc committee of the broadest
community representation possible. Appoint
or elect a chair. This committee requests
appropriate elected officials to support a
pmposal to start a sister cities program. Also,
this committee researches partner choices
worldwide. SCI has an outline of criteria for
selecting a partner.
Note: Before makingdedsionsaboutthe choice
of a partner, contact SCI to learn if the
community is available. Your choice may
already have a partner in the U.S. or may be
working with another U.S. community. Refer
tothe SCI AffiliationsPolicyin this publication.
· At thb point the ad hoc committee sends to
SCI:
a. 3 letter from your chief elected official
st.\ting support and endorselnent for a
sister cities program;
b, a letter from the chair of the committee
slating that a group of citizens will be
responsible for the program;
c. a completed SCI Community Profile
Form with materials describing your
commUnity; and
d, iI completed SCI Membership Applica-
tiOI' with payment for your annual dues.
You can become a member sooner in the
process.
· The next stage-researching al,d identifying
an appropriate match-varies in the way it
happen!; and how long it takes. On behalf of
meritbers, SCI communicates and networks
with appropriate organizations and agencies.
While Sel does this, your committee also
should be researching and identifying
resources and links in your community that
can assist in finding a partner. During this
stage, there should be continuing communi-
/y?
",.,.
Sister Cities Int'j ID:7038364815
cation between your committee and SCI to
avoid duplication of effort. REMEMBER. . .
this stage can take np to two years.
. When an appropriate partner is identified
and there is confirmation that both <He
seriously interestedh1 each other, an exchnnge
visit Sh01.tld occur. Both parties Cal1 look ot
each other and meet to discuss mutual
expectations, goals and objectives. This first
delegation should include local elected
officials, members of the committee, and key
community or civic leaders. This visit is not
for the purpose of signing formal documents
sealing the relationship. It is n1eant os an
." exploratory" visitto ensure that the mutuality
needed for a successful and long-term
partnership is evident.
. Following a successful exploratory visit,
offidalletters and resolutions of invitotion
and acceptance are exchanged and plans are
made for the official ceremony. SCJ has
samples. Letters and resolutions should be in
English and the language of your sister city.
FEE 14'95 17:54 No.016 P.03
v,
l.etters and resolutions can be initiated by
either community.
. The official ceremol1Y takes place in either
community. The ceremony includes the joint
signing of a document stating the long-term
goals and objectives. This document is often
termed a Memorandum of Understanding or
a Protocol of Agreement.
. One copy of all the official letters and
resolutions of invitation and acceptance and
the Memorandum of Understanding or
Protocol of Agreement should be sent to:
-Sister Cities International
/.U.S. Embassy in the country of your partner
~ Foreign country Embassy in the U.S.
. When sct receives all of these documents, it
will add your relationship to the Directory of
Sisler Cities, Counties and States if the
relationship is in accordance with Sel's
Affiliations Policy. If your membership is
current, you will receive official charters
rccogniLingyournew sister cities relationship.
[NOTE: Sample letters, resolutions, protocols are available to members]
SCI AFFILIATIONS POLICY
TIme and experience have proven thal
the strength and stability of sistercities
relationships depend heavily on the
uniqueness of tIle one-lo-one
relationship.
JI" -..;1 -...... J".' _...................~. ..... .................,'~.,' VJ)'.L..fL~.1
links UJith foreign jurisdictions that already halle an
actil'e and recogtlized U.S. sister city, COUllty or state
UJil1not be recognized by SCI.
Efforts by jurisdictions abroad to create multiple
sistcrcity, COU/1ty 01' stale affiliations in tire U.S. will
not be recognized by SC1.
Efforts by a U.S. jurisdiction to initiate more than
one sister city, county or state affiliation in the same
foreign COl/ntry will flat be recognized by SC1. If a
U.S. community can support more thall one
a(mialinn.. it shnuld hmanpl1 it~ Jrn..j"".,c nw~ ':'tf~~!!'
. . -... ~ u "
establish duplicate or multiple Iillks will not be
recognized by 5CI and will not be eligible for any
services or gl'ant programs from SeI,
This policy does not preclude other kinds oflin~s,
slich as universities, chambers of commerce, service
clubs, etc., but refet.s only to official sister. city,
cOlmly or state affiliations.
JS,r
-
l'
r
Sister Cities Int'l
ID:7038364815
LOCAL PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
AND MANAGEMENT
When a community wants to develop a
diverse, substantive and mutual
friendship with a commul,ity in a110ther
country, the two can form an official
partnership-a Sister Cities Program. In both
communities, the Program should involvc large
numbers of citizens and organizatiol's and
should be inclusive. The foundatiol' of a Sister
Cities Program is a solid structure and active
volunteers.
From the beginning, it is important to have
a plan. A plan ensureS the viability of the
program and lays the groundwork for a long-
term partnership. In both communities, the
local sister cities organization needs to
determine purpose and methods by which it
will achieve its purpose. What does the
community want from the program? Where
does the community want to go with the
program? Whatresources will it need. ? Planning
and foresight enable sister cities organizations
to take into consideration present as well as
future needs. Local program structure should
allow for expansion. Communities that
anticipate only one sister cities partnership
limit their future possibilities.
FEB 14'95
17:55 No.015 P.04
contributions from individuals and organiza-
tions, Local sister cities organizations need the
endorsement of their governmental jurisdiction
as the official community sponsor for current
alid future sister cities partnerships. Local orga-
nizations should develop guidelines and proce-
dures for adding future links.
Communities just starting on their first sister
city, should begin to work on organization al,d
structure during the "exploratory stage"
described in The Affiliations Process section of this
publication. This stage can take up to two years.
During lhis stage, volunteers can be working on
orgal,iz,ntion, as well as conducting research and
networking.
Although anyone can initiate a sister cities
program, it is vital to secure the cooperation of
1I)cal elected offic;:ials. The partnership between
local o[[icials al,d the volunteer organization is
key to the program's success and to its recogni-
tion abroad. From the outset, the public-private
partnership is demonstrated whel' the elected
officials and program leadership participate by
vi&iling 01' hosting an official delegation from the
potential partner.
SisterCitieslnternationalrecommendsthnt When a community determines it wants to
local sif.ter cities programs incorporate. start a sist.er cities program, the organizers should
Incorporation helps ensure program continu- ((mtad Sister Cities international to request
ity. allows for expansion to include additional in(ormaliOl' and a membership application.
sister cities, and encourages tax deductible ,,-/ .
/v --~
,,,,,,,_,~,._"'_'_'''''A'.,...,..~.= _.,.._
Historic Friendship Protocol Signed!
Successful trip for our Chula Vista friends
B.\' Eduardo C. Serrano
Being am()Jlg~t the first American
delegate~ 1<> visit the Russian Far
East after tl1(' Cold War, I am over-
whelmed ,11 the myriad of events
that occurn'd on this business trip.
Not only did we achieve a hfstoric
friendship protocol signing, we did
so whik' e'peril'ncing a wonderful
Russian hospit,llity.
Perhap~ till' bl'~t way to narrate this
tale is in a chn>noh>gical manner.
After departing from San Diego to
Alaska on schedule, Wl' boarded our
flight to Vladivostok from Anchor-
age without incident. After five
hours in the air, we were informed
that icy runways and crosswinds
prevented us from landing in Rus-
SIa.
After four days of waiting in An-
chorage, and with the threat of
mayor Nader's visa expiring soon,
we finally arrived in Vladivostock.
Day 1 in Russia
We arrived at 9:00 PM and were
greeted by Tamara (aid to Mayor
Litvinov). We were quickly es-
corted through customs by armed
security personnel. With all the air-
port people staring, we were put
into a waiting Land Rover, part of
a security convoy, and taken to
Ussuriysk for dinner. In a beauti-
fully decorated hall we dined and
experienced our first evening of
Russian hospitality. After dinner we
were taken to our hotel and given
adjoining suites. The suite had a
basket of chocolates and fruit,
stuffed refrigerator, television, and
other gifts.
Mayor Tim Nader and Mayor
Nikolai Litvinov sign Protocol
The staff also provided us with
bathing suites. It turns out that they
had kept the outdoor pool heated
for us. After swimming we relaxed
in the sauna and then slept a restful
sleep.
Day 2 in Russia
After breakfast we were greeted by
an assembled group of media wait-
ing outside our restaurant. News-
paper and TV reporters were eager
to interview and record the activi-
ties of our day., We met with mayor
/5~//
Nikolai Litvinov, and were intro-
duced to the top regional business
leaders, scholars, and other VIP's.
Without exception they conveyed to
us their hopes and expectations of
their future cooperation with
America. They were eager to learn
more about Chula Vista, and we
were only to happy to accommo-
date them.
The day continued with a tour of
TROIKA, a chain of commercial
stores, The Ussuriysk Vodka distill-
ery (a must in Ussuriysk tradition)
where we saw over 20 different
kinds of vodka, and the University
of Ussuriysk which discussed with
us their eagerness to commence an
academic member exchange with
our Southwestern College.
Dinner was in a grand dining room
with all the day's participants.
Day 3 in Russia
Signing of official Protocol papers.
This historic event was carried live
by two TV stations. The Protocol is
a document which commits our two
cities to the idea of increased eco-
nomic, cultural and personnel ex-
changes, this is an outlined friend-
ship agreement The signing was
culminated with the mayors ex-
changing gifts. Mayor Nader pre-
sented (Continued on page 4)
Who said you could do this ?
By E. Martija
Who would have thought just a few months ago, that we would be involved
in so much activity with Russia? This trip by former Mayor Tim Nader, and
Eduardo C. Serrano to Russia, has served to create a reality greater than any
one individual's agenda. The economic opportunities that we hoped would
result from a future sister-cityhood, have transcended the sister city issue
completely, and taken on an urgency of their own. At once we are experienc-
ing the globalization of business, and not reading about it in a celebrated
futurist's book. This phenomena is made real by people, individuals like us,
who are seizing the opportunity. It has been said that the only companies
that will sun'ive in the future, are small companies, or large companies that
act like small companies.
We are pleased that Mayor Shirley Horton, t\lavor Susan Golding's office, and
Mr. Robert Plotkin, Director of the San Diego World Trade Center, have
supported our efforts. But we did not anticipate the tremendous response
from individuals and groups on both sides of the Pacific. We will be forming
various committees in the Friends of Ussuriysk Group, if you would like to
participate, please let us know. The only answer we can give to the question
asked at the top is :
No one said not to do it !
First economic wagon train heads for Eastern Russia
In the early days of our wild west, wagon trains where the main transportation
used when sending goods to the west. Today's equivalent of a covered wagon
is the sea container.
On March 8 1995, a forty foot container will sail to Vladivostock from the port
of Long Beach. This container will carry several i terns including thousands of
jeans that are being shipped to Ussuriysk by Industrial Fishing Equipment of
Chula Vista. (See wagon train on page three)
Attention Students:
This picture shows the continu-
ous day and night activity of
unloading containers from the
many foreign flagged vessels
that enter Vostochny port.
The Youth Educational Diplomacy Foundation will be holding it's second annual DISCOVER RUSSIA program in
. Moscow and St. Petersburg this summer. This is an opportunity to experience first "hand the actual historical
changes occurring in the New Commonwealth of Independent States. Students in this
American delegation will meet with distinguished scholars from Moscow State Univer-
sity, diplomats from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and with Russian stu-
dents.
You will participate in conferences addressing global issues, privatization of the Rus . _
sian economy, and experience the world renowned Bolshoi theatre, Kremlin Ballet':"~4
Hemutage Museum, the Moscow CIrcus, and other cultural events. :,.{~ -.:0<.
rrfian/(you
Spwar recognitums 6estowed 071 tfu for~Wlng Inail"aua" for tlim generous ana visuma,,!
finall{;wr support. 'lfus tnp wouW not have 6een possi6fe Wlthaut tfuir eontri6unons.
'Don 'Ieofilo Cuevas Paur Catanzaro
Sam ~ufmi Carofine Vysart
Sfurfcy Jiorton 'Davuf Mau:dm
'LiwaraMamia 'Don LeCompte
'Liuarao Serrano II j(p.<e M. Serrano
Susan Snyaer Lowerr Strom6eei(
./~ / e:<
~
Announcements
.
Russian Business Workshop Series
Theme: How to ~ do business in Eastern Russia
The purpose of this meeting is learn how to take advantage of the many emerging business opportunities
in Eastern Russia. These opportunities can lead to handsome profits if costly and unforeseen
avoided.
Topics that will be discussed:
-Business culture in the Russian Far East
-The hard currency myth
. How to avoid Russian bureaucracies
- Market acceptance for my products
-Question and answer session.
Noon Break
. Business and organized crime
-A safer approach m exporting
-Export assistance from the state of Califorma
-Investing in international trade
-Membership advantages trom the San DIego World Trade Center
-Question and answer session.
This workshop will be conducted in an informal session with ample time to answer
your specific questions and concerns Spanish translatIOn will be provided for all
sessions.
Workshop date: To be announced.
Noon lunch break for 1 hour at the Spaghetti Factory.
Place: San Diego-Vladivostok Sister City Society.
Cost: $ 70 includes continental breakfast, lunch and parking.
For additional information please call (619) 470-3165
Anatole Pridatko Chief of Economic Links
City of Ussuriysk and Eduardo C. Serrano
(Wagon train, continued from page two)
Universal Grocers of Chula Vista is also sending
some food items. Other businesses from the sur-
rounding region including some from Mexico,
are sending sweets and clothing apparel.
Eduardo C. Serrano will meet the container in
Russian and assure that the final transaction will
be wired to a local bank in dollars.
If you or your company would like information
on exporting goods to Eastern Russia in one of
these containers, please contact Eduardo at (619)
470-3165.
Russian Connection
Editors and Publishers
Edwud Martija and Eduardo Serrano.
Russian Connection is published monthly as a newsletter of the
Frimds of Ussuri)'sk
4050 Bermuda Dunes PllIce, Bonita CA
SubscriptiOl'l is frft to members of tht Friends of UnurlYslr. (lIMual
membership fH 15 $3Ol
1he entire contents of Russian COMecllon are copyright C 1995 hv
Edward Martlla, and EduardoC. Serrano
No part of this newsletter may be reproduced or fransmitted in an~'
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical. Including
photocopying, recording, or AllY information stonge-and -retrieval
'ytlem, withoul prior permission of the publilher. For pt:rrniuion ~JJ
(619)427-7974,
Published in the USA. All rights reserved. .
Publisher encourages the contr",ution of ;Irticles. Publisher will not
be responsible for any unsolicited maferials and will return only those
accompanied by a stamped self addressed envelope
Mayor Litvinov to visit us in June
Preparations are underway in Ussuriysk for a visit by Mayor
Nikolai Litvinov to Chula Vista, in June of this year. The pur-
pose of this trip would be to further strengthen the ties between
Ussuriysk and Chula Vista. It is expected that a group of busi-
nessmen will accompany mayor Litvinov, looking for potential
trade opportunities. We will provide more specific information
as it becomes available.
Friends of Ussuriysk
The next Friends of Ussurivsk meeting will be:
Date: Saturday, February 25,1995
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: 4050 Bermuda Dunes Place, Chula Vista
RSVP: (619) 470-3165
/S~IJ
(Historic, continued from page 1)
several gifts from Chula Vista city
departments, and businesses.
Chula Vista's generosity was obvi-
ous to all, and in particular to the ~ '. "
Friends of Chula Vista Sister City ...~~t~.
Society, who are redoubling their ef- !co:"; .
forts for full sistercityhood. '. --: '
After the ceremony the chief of po- ?-. '. ::
lice outfitted us in military camou-; -::;.,...
flage, and gave us double barrel
shotguns. We boarded Russian
military jeeps and traveled to ~he
Ortiom region, which is 16 miles
from the Manchurian border. This
is a prime pheasant hunting area.
We split-up into two hunting par-
ties, and quickly bagged some
pheasants and rabbits. ThIS area is
virtually untouched by civilization
and full of wildlife. We endured
camp in a fully laden military RV,
which had been parked there for
our use. Lunch consisted of roasted
wild boar, red caviar, wild mush-
rooms, and an assortment of salads.
One may think that it is a bit of an
overkill (pardon my pun), to hunt
pheasant from a military vehicle.
Our guides and drivers were con-
cerned that we should not wander
off unescorted. This region is the
home of the famous Ussuriysk ti-
gers. Afterwurds we were taken to
mayor Litvinov's country home or
"dacha". There the conversation
identified the next steps necessary
between our two cities. After din-
ner, we swam in the indoor heated
pool, and sauna. A physician gave
us a head-to-toe massage, then we
returned to the sauna where we ex-
perienced a herbal kinestesia (a
unique form of massage). This was
unfortunately, the end of Mayor Tim
Nader's trip. I continued in the re-
gion for two more weeks. But that
as they say is another story.....
.
5-/~
Ussuriysk Li<!uor ,1nd Vodk,l distillery-
Purveyors of spirits
-
Public Agencies
. Children and Youth Creati\'e C<'nter
<l.; Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Russian
" ~.: Federation, Ivan Parxitko President of the
United Trade Union Committee
Anatoly Pridatko Ussuriysk City Admin-
istration Chief for EcoTIllmic Links
Institute of Marine Biolo;.,,!, Academy of Sci-
~ ence of the Russi"n F.u East
<: The Committee of the Russian Federation
--
.;:.S\;,..,.~" ~ for Food Redistribution
Eduardo and his trophies
These organizations have ex-
pressed an eagerness to con-
duct trade between us,
Private Entities
TROIKA AO - Retail dt'partment
storl'~
RL;SSKY VOSTOK CO LTD. - Im-
port-export, restaurant:;, and tour-
Ism.
- Chain of nine pharmacies.
VOSTOK lJ"NESTROY -Construc-
tion company
PRIMORSKY SUGAR CO- Sugar
distributllrs
CHEVOK PRI"''TING CO- Graphic
printers
SEMIA UTOMA TIC SPECIALIZED
RAILWAI REPAIR-
Ru~si(ln Llr Edst Tinlber Industries
- Lumber
Ussuriys Health Resort-Holistic
health resort operators
DIAM01':D GOLD RUSSIA- Gold
and diamond mining group
RUSSIA SPACE LTD,-High tech-
nology communications
OTDI]A HOTEL GROUP- Private
hotels
Oriental School-Private sellooI
East-Asia COM- Communications
The FTORDRIOV Industrial Park
The bUSiness members of the
Vladl\'ostok Rotary club
The Primorsk y regIOnal admirals
Vladivostok Port Authorities
All seven commercial banks in Us-
sUrJvsk
The Primc)rsky professional hunt-
ing society
CALUi\G ALl. HliNTERS !
We have recl'ind an exclush'e license
to' arran~l' huntin~ trips to the
I'rimorsky re~ion.
The Mayor 01' (!ssuriysk. an :I\'id
hunter, is happy to host a huntin~ l'X-
pedition. with experienced profl's-
sional guides. These huntinJ.: eXiled i-
tions can he drh'inJ.: hnnts. chasin~
hunts, or huntinJ.: with trained hirds
of prey', usinJ.: J.:olden eagles_ Some or
the wildlife availahle includes:
Grey wolf
Russian saiga
I'ersian goitered gazelle
Hears of various types
Wild hoar
I'heasants
If you han an interest in participat-
ing in a future hunting expedition
please call (619) 470-3165
Typical Russian Mall
sister cities in Argentina from General Roca to Carcarona as he had met with
the Mayor twice and the Mayor said he was interested in a sister city
relationship.
The Mayor sent some things to the City of Chula Vista and they were presented
to the Vice-Chair, a banner, 2 plates and a clock.
June 30th to July 11, 1995 a group of 20 kids and 8 or 9 adults will be coming
to Chula Vista. The Mayor expressed an interest in coming but would need a
more formal invitation like a mayor to mayor invitation. The people that helped
support the team that went to Argentina will be hosting the group while they are
here. They could use what ever help is available.
This matter will be placed on the April agenda.
C. Russia - Carol Dysart gave a report on the progress of the Friends of Ussuriysk
and the desire to establish a sister city relationship between Chula Vista and
Ussuriysk.
A Friends of Ussuriysk party to be held on Saturday, February 25th at Eduardo
Serrano's house and all the commissioners were invited.
Eduardo Serrano also gave a report on the trip he and Tim Nader took to
Ussuriysk, Russia. Eduardo and Edward Martija published a paper called
Russian Connection.
A forty foot container will sail to Vladivostock from the port of Long Beach on
March 8, 1995. This container will carry several different items including food
to Ussuriysk. They are being shipped by Industrial Fishing Equipment.
Tim Nader expressed his desire to establish a Sister City Relationship between
Chula Vista and Ussuriysk.
MSU (Taboada/Catanzaro) Move that the IFC recommends to the City Council
that Chula Vista enter into a Sister City Relationship with the City of Ussuriysk,
Russia and that all documentation relevant to the City of Ussuriysk be attached
with the recommendation.
After much discussion the vote was taken.
Vote: Yes: Baker, Breitfelder, Catanzaro, Dysart, Taboada, Thomas
No: None
Abstain: None
/.5"/5/
Absent: Ramirez
Motion passed.
Carol Dysart will put the package together for the City Council and will give a
copy to the secretary.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Paul Catanzaro - Lets get others involved with all our Sister Cities.
Nancy Taboada - We have a balance of $348.18 at La Bella's.
NEXT AGENDA
Brochure - Russia
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Connie Graves - Ms. Graves may be interested in helping the Commission where ever
she can. She is fluent in Japanese and could be a lot of help to the Commission.
Meeting adjourned at 6:02 P.M.
o(~
Lorraine Alexander, Secretary
/~/t-
AGREEMENT
On establishing fraternal relations between the city ofUssuriisk (Russian Federation) and
the city ofChula Vista (United States of America).
There will always be good neighborly relations between Russia and the United States of
America. The development of mutually beneficial cooperation between the city ofUssuriisk and
the city of Chula Vista meets the best interests of the inhabitants of both cities.
Taking into consideration the desire of both sides to establish close, friendly, mutually
beneficial cooperation between Ussuriisk and Chula Vista and the fact that the establishment of
friendly cooperation will contribute to the cause of peace and mutual understanding between our
peoples: the city of Ussuriisk (Russian Federation) and the city of Chula Vista (United States of
America) establish fraternal relations
Having signed the agreement the sides express their readiness:
. to strengthen mutual understanding on the basis of broad cooperation and on the basis of
exchanges in economic, cultural and other fields;
. to help to get a better knowledge of the structure and the activities of the institutions of
local government;
. to aquaint the inhabitants of the cities with the history, culture and modern life of these
twinned cities;
. to promote the exchange of official, social, cultural, sports, youth and other delegations;
. to promote the development of mutually beneficial economic, trade and educational ties
between the cities;
. to promote different social functions aimed at broadening friendly ties between the cities
and strengthing peace;
The sides have come to an agreement of drawing up protocols to organize different social
functions in the cities ofUssuriisk and Chula Vista annually and in turn.
The Mayors of the cities confirm the agreement by signing and sealing the document.
flY of Chula Vista
.~
Tim Nader
Mayor
~ #.Yt'if?'
City ofUssuriisk
/5-1 j;~-J7
i'
f..\.)'
. \
4D.:),
'",'''
. f'r. '!Ii
":lo;~tt~~H"-l {~t,,~:~Hi
... ,_fe. .
.' r.. v:'-t..A
t'npc.,r;.... ;q
fJj,JJ1.,4~u~;t."'!:) t,
;\ ;..t~ ~~
;!,,~ {'.4<,
'.;
,> "., ; ;j'" .J,.~:
"'0;: ~t:'I\ .... ~4.ff,
(1, .~
.....
~..:.lri"i:A'f'~ ~~.. l.:\i-_
< Al:Zi%Iif,"': !';;,;,. -Vi j,t.~'~~t:-~'J'
Ii." ~t.,.. r ~ ", ~ 't. !t. tel-y.n.:: ".; Gt~:f..l
:2: ~~ut~ ~ai~1 ;t\.rt
II'..,,,,,,," dt" ~, V, ',d:;;"
U.S-A-
.,......- "
. . ~""~. '1
-]:41:~& f" !."!y... C.:; r.~, :
~i
5;-~/:'::' ,..r
',", ,t;;. ';J. l""".
;,!;;:-" I,;;:' ~ 'II), ~
t" <.; I;""~tli- p*.1"li
,
'i
,,-:;; I.-tt,"~n,,,.. ",,.,ij I't,.,"
ft;~ ~ +~.ti:'r ;~:/
:Y~ ,".r,..,"~I,",' S' J,tlt'_,~"Ij;j
_, ";";~;':"U: \ t~~,,"r~' i
~ . r. i . ;'. ~ "he~" ~" n,,, ': t ~~'~
': ""k {' ':" . f-,
: ~, '.;j-.?; 7,J.
;-"""~;' ~,*.
r.h", ," rl~~"~' ~
.: '1 ai',. ~ 4"!"
t-;.Wl'~ ~.~w.;.,;,t! f ." it1\? -~ '!:i ! 1 fl..:)
"v,~..~tJ, ,~' "';' "" \li::","", ~,;." ,r ;"~:':,,,',' '~> ,J
,m~~
"
; ~..
~',;>. '.
~ " riC:.,." 11) .
"::.:'>If.~<:"'
!1i<.ili1'
~ '!>' ~iJ ';'\.J....-
-h
ptt'/:.;' ~:S:~;;
Ilf; F"
(I
/'
..~
\.J\:i'f',
;J ! ~~~, ""r:-
'... ;",'~!
~
.'h""
;';~,-,! r;"
~.ij,:'"
., .....-
~ ..~:~~'..~
\.-,'
n,,'.,
,1' f..
-, ~',.
,",.;.
;'"' '~r":
; -.
~'r\,.! ~',':,~;.f"r' ~,f,t.'1 ..
; t:.C' ~ j~;,:!~"c t:hillt f't.,-11
,. 'i. "E'V!f\ ~" ';.t\''':~'';:t 'Z:IL
'irt; J1~'\~;:;;;'V,iJ''''C'\1...
{\ ,', ';..""'",. ~ "t-b;iH'4.
:~ ~
; 1 w ;'t ~"n'j:' t;,.'\~ . ::~;:q...
;:..;' '-!"Y'i);. '~~';'"c:, ~
.......
15---;g/
.,t"'
r
';t',\
r"a.8:J
.,~
P(iCCHH
n I' Hi" (J P (, i\ Ii n
;{--"MlfHP('TD,TlfrHrr
~--. j. ~ 1
-_..'.-............".- - ._--_._,--.,..
" ,:.1./:"
~~l '"l
I'.
f;.,; .);;.~ f
on.
<..I !..-
'); r:-::,IJ .. '."
.'
, " ~.
',,I'
"
,)
r
"',
f
.,.
~ .; j
::..
".,'., C;-" "'- I'
r'"
.(.1, I 'l.~'
..i;'; J;l-IJ;3
i.~ 1 '. '
UI'J'
[1-
,/
,',
e,
i-.j "","?
.,
" ~"
"
-J ,i.
o J'~;
,1);."
"
.;
F
>
"
i':j."
i'"
r ....
c..
r
,1 ~
','"
,
.'),'
, f~
, "
:1
i
,'oj
J'lt~
'"A,
"
......',. .~-!'<
,.......-., _.,,_<o-_'~~.,..._..___,
"
, ,
,
>
l"_,
.,
;1/
.1.1
(, ~ '"
".
,
,
"
, '
, ,
"'_;) >"'; ~_J""'
~,
l~ t, l ~i
'0
!"t'
't~
'.
~ , ,'.
"
l'
:',i
,j, n
I['c~,,:
.OJ.
l'
;.
"
~~ ;-
"
"
'."1:'{
"
,
"
>'
.t ~" ';.:.Ir.
\
"
',.'
l~ i
l,
""
...~. ;n\
.
iH..'
,
,
" !)
~<' '
"
, t
^,
il':!
')
:1
"
,",
/Y/7
~
'I.
--
-.)0':_
",PAf!
.r
~lD_
_.~,~~,w.,
rLpl.l:4a
'r ~ /"~_'- 'if t ~J( ~t ',"'> U a
:I - 'J~" ."
::~~.::::~:.
Toy'
---..".. "'- ....,............
..... . ..~"1";......_...,
/, i"h..,:.. ~" -l "~l '1;.1 4 t i '","~)
"
\
i,lt!
;f,'".;.,'U,'C"V" ,~3i'1'e,,::::
.9::~,o~'
;'.;.' I, :~
H U l) t1 \1 '3.
"
tq. 1."
."'..........~,
,
,
,.r,
.)y :,l.1,~,j
, "
{~ .;c'
:i ,/,;
1)...
:Ji,,'lj
I'."
,-.).',
i ~'
. .
,'..'TC'j.
Oil"
.,
.,C.l.C
~~_'1' ,
~,
cc
. ;
V' ~:
'J ~
',-",
,...n. ~',~, J
>..
.f
;..
"
,,"',i
C'l
.'1'
!
{I
.,
."J
" '
,..:"4.
"
<
:; r.. ,
,
~-' ' .
~ (:'
ccT
"
.'
.:.j,,,
~
.'
^
,--,
i..)"",',
1 "I;
"
f-.l:,
...'"
v
~~,' '.
-'.<'
!, ~
, ,
~i
, ~ .i
~, 'L ~,
,;...
d_
~.:
"
-'j
....::.';
':',::--::,
" ""-'
,/'
)
;:,
(;'.. ~)r'
"
.'
~..!.
0"',
"I... 211
lv.:,," \,\
-
I.;':' ;,[.
~ ':" c'1; c.
.A,',
.: 1
Y~"f.: '
),. l:i;g(: ,:oJ
~ \:;
'1', .'l{~
",,y
,
..'
,~j L.:;r
.
.l.,,1
tL/,
At
p.:
sc
1...;.(::",1.
.:' ~,1, ('~ {') :r'.~ i~~ D
'j ,;: ;~', tJ ~ ':' h ;" L.
;\;
1~ '_t'Ji': .C~'l" .11,"
"e,f':"~:.C?~ "a t
)., \ '.i';'! ", 1'!( ~j1)" "j 'I,
,~~ ,",
't~ "'.' :. :,l ~_I:,)
".'\.1 ol.1'.--'n<.:.' ~
c"".,.
.~'u;
L (..' ;;;.1
<
..<
,;i_,1
"1, ..lJ.~
13;J,
(~.;. t ,.> ,~.
',i ~,!, '
lt~:,
i~"(;'L~ ,,, (".
:, ~;," ,
,.
"
\",
.,
,.",
, ~:
~'~:~ :>~;" y
'".C
.L./ ,~.}
l. ~
i-~ C'
'(':" ;~'J:~' <..
.,'
c;.,!,
~'~ :
"~ .
i',
" ,
~.) ,
~) 'I- '1'\.
,J'J. ;~.!. r,
"/I>', ;,:L;..
;jj U',_ f; :':)~~ ,; ,',~).~
, , ~:l ~,
,1..l ~.,
r""
;)"
.j
fr..';
; 't, ~ 1: ."1 \:
~.'l f
','c,.
d.
f:...., r"
~ r
~ t"
'.v1 ",
,-, ',/Il"
Ai,. ....1..
:".."'1.": '~.rj :" i~": ,"i.:1, ~
',I':,'
c"
: .1~,,~ :{.;__ ..
J.t ":~...,.."
","1'
.,
',.;'<..
,,,:,...,-,!,.
;r't";
"i:
1':..(, '\, ~~1~1 ~~:" ,""
l;',t~ "~:::.lt1
"
G i,
, .
,J. t.,~
1:-:1 '
,
c
,.
,
,;'
r
'.'
'~, l~
'i
,;-;.
.' 1.: ~
!"r
':u;-
~; : ,
t. .~'. ..i. )",
t,;-i
~ . f;'
b
i. t !
;'';f;;
'--'j
']EJ'
CJ, tc<,
f' ',J;:l ~it'
''\-'
,.....,'
..
.'!
"--:l
..,'
,~... -
..:
'.'
,
;1
I' i:
,. 1'"
'".
:.:~ {.. ,
;.1.,
1
('.,1:'
I.
.j~~, t-
\1 ~
L
(.~
...,1',
"! ,- ,. }'1
,:
,/,,'
~
::.c1i
..
"'5.
'" t f" '~
, ,.,
"
i'J)
"",,",
"",
,,1
l"i;':;
~ ~ ~,: ".;.1',
n
; 1~;,
,.
,
1 ",i,:.."
c'..."
,r);
i'iJ: ,,"
'tl,'-~) :,
")
':'('1."
r";
['.Y ct
..r
. ';'lff
~!1 ; 'I
,
..,
~ . 'J I. .
.'t,
.
"'';,
I j_.
.'
;,
j:
,r,'
,
"
~';: . 'r
'J
"
,
'r'
:d
,'."
,,'
c'
.J
,.
'J 0
'.,'
)
;.:1'
["-""..
,
;.."
'.
!'; ,
':"1;.
,I
.\
C'
, t",,'
t.
,.
;",
".
J:;
..1
'"I;'
!.
!
,:;,
",'
I'it
;-,
;~ ,
,'J.
'1
"
<c'
/S'~~
"
'-~ ' , :
"
I,;!';
u. ~; ')"j
t.:'
t, :. '~d
',~:..::1 :::j.:'
I."
J."
"_~' 'I
v
~ ,.
,', I ~t
('1
,:.
.C
--",t
r::L
'I'
;E'L
,(,
-"
t...,
,
(' f ~
'.
,
,
,-
. ~.,.
J,j
:b
,"':>:,
j~, '( i'
(I'
....\.
"
i ~J ,..
',:
'.,,,l
i.'..l.
...,...
,
."F
".',
" ,',.~,
",,1'
j' L:n
'."
d .; c<
"
: ~ ~
"t~ :/
"".
"
~)
, >
..J,,'
g
"';" ./-
"~\.) 'I
nf
~.
,.;'.1
'~. iJ t.;
'''.j. >';" ~' i' ~, i: U..l,. {;.
"
"r:C,g't.
;", ,; f.=t -~,
1::.
'!' ;-~ ~
'-i,{"
~"l,~
,~
y
':',"- C!\'i
,} C
'J-iI'- './ f
y::
...tc1
. :.:.',\ '~. '!.::~;:
.. ..
if)
:r'l
->"'->0".
.t'
" .
.:'i
,"','"
'.
,c (-
",'1'
',' ,~
"I:"
'r'
"
- r:.
01-
\'
.,
~~
b
.,.- ~
, Le.
;t,_,'..
,.
"
'(,;-<"
",.
')::'1,
'....._,
~ ,. .i
~.. .
~. L~.
1" c~,
'~', <1.:."[ ~L~;~. ;., '~)- I. ":.;;)1.
<'
"
, , ~ .
~xnci (~nt
01.;,-
1 cgeJ".\db:"Y
.nt~
"
":1;
\,.,. .t
,t
~J _"
\, )~~-
tJ
1
d:l ,..d;;j
'.'J
Ie
.(';...
1';<;):'
.
,+.;..
~.~ tf
.i), Iff.) ,,'";11<
\ ,.,
JL
tJ
"i. (,-:;.; .l~'
-(~~
,. ~ (
,
;- ~
'h'~.:'
'.'
p."
,:'
;~'.J
..'"
. '; )' ~
-:':.::,:
", .i' ~
i.~ :I
-.- ',.. ~
'~ .",
!~:(. '1.J
;"'''-
, ~) 1
'~J,"4
, ,
:. <.. ~
i~ ~
.i.:
..
;-i.~ '
,j",;"
". ,'"
; ; J ~
[i,~
L,!.j,
"'(~
i\:.
" . ~
'.01... ;):
-:......:.:
; ~"
"
J;;~ >.... '.
-'I..
"
, ,:;~
"
~ ,,-1;.'
':1[;......
~
.... '.~ >,,' G
i:~J ';f.,i: '?8~"':;J,.11~'
,
, :s:
','
,
:..11
\,.l,.', .:' ~
Sr',;~"'_int. uv
C:, \ ,.::I'~:EH ;:-01/;:.9"
OUJ' ft: + '~~.t
(1)
tl",
(;;l,: V,Ltd r.
h;c,;:rt.;
'~. ('n:-~_~ ~,
\
~,' , .
"H\::'
.it..l:CH Ji \,"j "~
~.. )
" ,
I.'i)
, ,
."
J~
..,
.,..
'-.
,
G
t.1 '~ll.
#t-, l..:() '1
to}",
)
., t
.'.H;:l
.,
,.,i~ r, T e 'I C,:.
. 't{ ';
".
"
, '
i', \::';\';
d
v
"
..
,',';,
',tl'
r >..:!~.~.!- ;f" 1;.
Wi
r;:< .;)f;
f~' .:: :;...~
I . ~ . , (0
. -,I:,>
1
"
.~ "
'-
"j;~ '~'. ",,, ,'\.. Ie
\';
tio'!
, .
.,
.-
'''^ . ~
;..;:';
"'.n
>,;"'
;~;f
". (~,
1-,.
:, ~.,
.);\:
.\r~H
.l:t~ ' .' l...
s -
.~ j
.'
"..
: Lr:,. ~.
>'lV!
'.,',
,t",
:~.~.'- "..
'1:1
,',,'[
,"'-."I.' ')
"
,
...v:
.
~ ~..
~,nt.<.;..t'f-J;; 4':' ',j;.'U~
t. LJ'
li~
.. ~~S->t'ti(;-);
.il"
'N'/,\
:~r 1"4..
~ JI)f'" ,
:i:.;
h.,;
. 1~ ~
:-"
!j,
','j\ 'j,.".
t,lJ
'J".
~,t\L.,'-
1" _,
. \
0."
,::f
!l'
:,j.P'
;::.;v.
.,'.:}'
1'1
,
(.1
';
"
~' .~
. ;'f
,.
..)
.'.l
:T'
:~ r. \ I}'
i..>r h;. ,,:,.
.'!
<,
J
, ~. "'" "
" If..
...
,
f',"
, .
.,1.
\.','
r
..;
e- ~J
fri,'r
.1
r~ t,. .t I
~-' :
.C
.f'
r: .
~~'
,~r.': 'i
tf:;, .,,,,,
.fo'f
f':t :'
t,~;,"
':',t.
~ \' ,
\"
'....:.;. q'
('.:
Ll
r
, ~
~:;
.'
'.'
.,
"
,.
li,
"
,\
; I"
.'
.\'::",;....
.,':.t..,.,,},
i;rk~.(':
~;{<'~
-",.,
'(
.,'
. "
':)
...."" ;"...""
~ J't J ....
, '
!y
.' ~ (,
J
,
, ~ .
,.'
.-"
/ }:-,z I
,-~Ji:f
-
'~,\,;rJ(~
:;ttJ' ,"'
":)ot\ d,~;
"
"
",.
'.
i<(
1;'
"
,,:"
. ;,
Hh';\ut
;".?
".\- "
~ Ti'
1,'
th,;
.Ame-
eel:
l:[" ,,;'tl~1 fb.nt~
vi)
e
,~~( ., I,;
c'
."
r
SISTER 011ES
PROG S
-
"""j'
-- ~ 1.~.-,,-__'~ ",_..",...,..._ ..
~ .~
"Si:;tr!r Cities PrvSICI/i:" !If;; ;:1'1 impO"f':lIf
i'l'S('l,rre 1'<) the negni;afio' is Ijf~:m)er 'url/:'! Is
in letfing neD/vie );he ( 'rftt: ';101: to flit II'
' ~, .
({\nll(!on deStre t'cr ij-ieudshiv a~,!l
" ,
('c.)pemtiOi; fm libeller ,,:'olid fai Ill!,"
-'Pre~!dent Dw,i:>;ht :), Fiq"nhuw(';'
...
.........'----.....
-
.."..- .-............--,--".....~-_......
A FiH~(:on~ be'w(:en d',"'3 llunugi.,ou; tho
. '''Orh1 I)c-gem "H",;' \tV,.dd 'Nilf il. J hE')
L ,'\ an'fi k~own in the [Inite,.J St"les ;IS ,;~;Ie.
"ih'S. The U.S. program was l;WHCht!d hhc!\
;'l','"idenl rlwigH D, Eiscnhm':er p'op, ",(',; ~hc
F\",'ple.{n..rC'ople ide(1. ;"~t ~ \^lhite F-I[:'\~~e
("o'l{erer,ce in 1956, His ide;! Wll', to bVtl;"C
1 ~~cpjC? ('1l1d c0n~lnLnh;, or6~lnL'nUo:ls i;)
; '(~r,,'-'n(\l ::iip!:.lJtlii V.
'r t' ". t' J. ,
10 l'JI\.!~'''~O (' :1U:;;.~.,;r c!,;,es ~ 'n il lla,Elt'Hi ":';C~\d"',
,j" Ci~'k C:()II~~ni~,('e pi p,., pkw-P::op!,. W,I.,
>lfilhJished, ,IJ the lCq, "'st elf the ('ivi'
..\i!r;lnitt~(1, t]ie f';.J,atl\"na.1 Lea,:;ue of C~ltie~,
'(}~'\t't:.'~ent ing r;,~ore thn n 15.f)Oe cHL;3, tOy\7n~.;
1'.~ \,"lae',....,.. l'j' 'hc. U f:. a. g,'"!,,d 10 ;;.'rve ;1., ,..
J _,4. ..L .c'~'~ ,t .' ,___ . ~ ........,.. ~....
~e::rlnghol.~se tc. CXF,1nd :')hH::r Clh(?s tni \,Hlg.:" ib
~el~\hers.
I;'iti.;:,H)" i;; dO?f"n a...~tiv:.; af.!';lj,~tiOl'l.'" hegr:tn.
} 'he e"1rjy ,960,; 'hI numb... of sistc; ci'jes
H:t{:~seJ rapidly. It b~>c,<\n'!e (!(;~~r that ~ lil'-h',
, , , " 1
~lll~";al tl.rgan;,~ftt"""lnl 'l:...\;)t~(:l t.~>iCU,:1J\';.~y ,'I
.. ~ . '-'''', ,'J, ".'
.~\;.' ~~.1I:rl!)rt c.:;: tHE ~:,,'lS~t.; t ;~.Ie;:; ;' {n,~.:'aJ!', \0\\ s
, i
'.', .
.. t .1/.='" .
93
S!~tn::r.: crrm.., ~NT~ ,.:.\iATk'1\.!t\L
It'O ~,,'.)un! PAYt~L 5TRt:ET
.~!.r,XANC)1-:lA, VA ~2)ll
'r~!: 147113.a-.16-:\!US fA" 1~70. J.16-48):.
:..:..
:.....
The '1:\W/I Affiliation A,%OcLU;;m of the V.S
'In'c. '"\,,'.tS };lCOrp,4:rah.~".l on tl~n<: 12.. 1967 as ;'"
l"!\-'llpr:._lfiC ;1~C"inbership O:tft:il',jzilUon to fO;.-;;ter
.. 'lo.,'
'. . . 1 " >"'.;'
Ilj'j~~rn::,~lo.P.,';" c(~~~pera~t:.)~ aI~(~ U!'i'AerS~dnc,l.ng
l]." "I"", ",'0',," Clh.',~ r".i.t'~j"'''lp<
.i... '- ...~..,}, ~ c.q,. ~ u\~t:? ~...,.., .n.} '~i';, '-;0,
''''/1.' "1'g''''I''''a.. t'[""11'" ""\'''' "'P':! ~ l""",~,'.rd, IJf
> ~. > "" - . .'..~' \, ..r... . ..... - '-' t":,'" .....:.... ~,.~ " . ,{J ... ..
.:!',.,,-.t'r \l''''hng~..';r.,,,,...k,'-''J.~t~~f' I' Ij.' --Il" ,.\t,~:'t'~
ll..-, d.1': ~l...'\~. j..,e"'~.H."'~ ",Jtol. . ~~:. -ti<:'\, ',' "'~"'~.:'I,
topnth'~: ~;tHt~~S.. as:..:.oci,ll':on,& o{ n' :':lii(li,-'J)iL.l,~:~~
thi..' 'JaLul1<11 LeagUE:: of ('Hi(':, .11!ti lat~'\' '.')i;-.I..,~
cit:(:, ol~;ani::-:;ltion:~ that, ~,)~~", .':.'n:;~)l Chii,"'5 i.': ,I
'-' ~
,He It'Sj." ,nslhc fe-I' carry'ng ,( a:. ,,,ffii ,<. '. i
' '[ " ,
\VH", i1 (\"d1.!'1.1U.dl Y ,t~ anp,!'"\cr, ,;Ul"\.!\'.
Si[<[l'I C:;ti~:s lliiern.1'ional ;SC [J i$ nV8 'fieldy
~ 1 ., d ., ,', 1'1 C
.~l...t.'U i.;'!l. !".~('og~,lzec~ ;i,S' f:.:.cn}.,t'!ve u[ t.ntJ.\.,
(,is;'\', Cii ',.s I':Ol':F<"'Jl1. S(:I prugr"ms ,md
~'~'H""': " '. "I":> '1~n{] ::'_f...) 'b',: ;:, n~n (t--:>C"-,, "'1"' '1.1 sf":iftl1'1'.~e"
~~.,'., \'l( '..,~ l.r;,." ,<.. ".....~..l .' ""i"'~J.. '~""~""'"'''''l. '.'. J.~. "l .4
tl1\' ii' ""(>:;11"'11( of ';!" e"ecclth.c dit'f:cror ,md
d.l";Sl~";i ,'~ifeCL)rs./\ r;~;t'\lvork of sttltu'
\J..h ;rdinl~~on '"'~all volu.n~(~~rs-""'".".assi:it iI1C~1.\.dd'l~JSf
. . '.. ~. f'
cOH:n'.~,i; :ILIe':" 01" (.ll'ganl7.dtl0J'~ L';.ereste~11t' ,nt~
51!';>',;/. ( ; ~lcs ?rogrnrn.
" , 9 ',.\ r, C 'to 1",,,
InG;~-:, 0\ I...-:{ 0t U<...~' \':1 h'~ at:' d~H:l'::l \,71U':.
'1 /:;[',', fr,. "':I'll .-itie., in : 10 d"ierc,:t co;:ntri,.'s
1- .. c--"
[h, ::bi: l!bL;wtLofth( 'Sj5('-', Ci""51"1''',';I'"m
;:~~ n t:,.~t;n~) ('1'1 v; t'urd't";i'"~nts 1,1 \.vL.;.ch peaI'll-' learn"
i,^,I("I-j :<I'll l 'T""',,~~{' !cHtel,:Le:, P.c'('t)!e are reiH.J'tinf?:
,~.., " ''\.. '- ... C' -1- 0'
. "(' "r"" ""'\' (l'll~,'\,,>s 'tv1 "''(> L)h';"g
I '~l,,- ;.:" f-j' I,' "'I~: Y ",q t.;""'I' ',..... ,_. _ ... '. ...."
,Ollk :~t.,.;, h.:IJeS' Fl'ObJ,,~'m;; t\'gd'hel'. '1'11<')'
,tit'- r~-::_po)1jil)L" to !-h(~ f_~l'OV\fi..ng nt~~fiJ .fel'
n:(';'II 'iiii',,! c"'''''j'eretionl1td '.l];dersti\n~hng,
T~".J-" ,",-., ~ '.". ~t ".11 t\'l"'()\.'1r.l~ S''''t.::T ( ltl<'H~
... '/ .....; , .i ~. \~.1 ."\,, I,. '. I{, J I ~.... ,'..... ......, " ,::)
Pn/\,',lllrn:-;
'.
/5-,).. J
:.. if I"'
];
"
-= I'..j,._;, U oJ. i,. i;. l~.i.:..
~.
._ U" ."< ~,..,. " ~" ~ . ~ '4
. .
'~HEAFElI.lATlt.1N"PlloaS'5 ': :<:~ ',; ''l'>' . ~'f: . >, ".
':I':", ' . ,l;W" '~'f' ","", '
~' "'" .
1']'L;~ '1'" i' ,." "'j-j'! ~,,! , ""':1'" ~r-1.'r';I' ,'/.
tlt.::'- :'fO~ l "~ Ii' 'In.,, 'I ~;'~~l./.... ".),,;~"' .
""::""1"',"'01''''/< '/11" -,',...::/',-7" "'r'I')~:'~ "'f';.1 :(>.~
, I. ',r. . t-' ;." ~ ;.' ... ~:J ' ,,'"'' J1, '. .~ .'- \. '. .
"jt"_~'~1ii~f.I/-'n1 c'rk 70ifl 1].1;' l)ni :}y, (
"...... ....., ...L ,. ., '. , ,. ~ ,f '!". .
iL,'~fC;~i.~I.;tr:i iU~?S-~-1111: ,';Jr,' :1~4ncir' ('; .'{J,lJ l:
lJ; :rd t:(s~q",),("tS~\!'<'-' ur!~ i.f, or :';";1(1,1 -,,)}', ,
Bt~i,_'T".::(L"s~'ri:'in,('."'t'; "')Ci "L '.,.",''"\\.-\
1.-' .
n',,~ n~i.}SI ,,ft~, \ ~l,.) , .~ JV. i;'ii~ !
do~s i'I' ta:k.t't~, ~1.f.t.. '1iS~x
"
br. ,} ye,~~'~ tt- ~;(i 1',10 .1'(\ i:~;'lL. :~;.,jt;'\ t;., j, '1 '. i "I'll
, " .'. of' [' ,~ t.. "",( ,,)t': I I'
~ ~I.) l,l)",.ut.-llt\""S l (.....l 1'~" l.t" .ttl\ t.. t "',:"n
".UH.(;'; 01 CiJllrLr},\.vni 1h~\ ':n .1,..t r: H--l' ,~,
~'\.(:,tlnlH1.J il~C,f'l\.i,\~::on t}~;j~ '\."\,.)l~,<;; \t.... h ~'j:'.1 ........
!',\llt.,;('~rnBho.i::a1.,~'fl.. .~k.~.., ..Jv.'rn;~~7..{:-'stl:t)f" i:
o. -:i~'i\!ns, ~'l{,I\..,r ;;.:U. \ \'\. L~"n : n'-::'t:if" ,J~~(; ")01"'; ,',
rntl:~e. 'Ht~J ~_,the.r fa.; l\:fi{ ;p elL'eCl L(H' H~ '.L';;.
!.;;k.e:~, v) ii.nd 11 'I ;):':ol\.;'>r;,de tH;;'\hi~i ,,('r
.. .
~'_ ,'.(', fn("i,d~';',1.'at'.":~,lJ' '\iil ::!'(~n~,itu~"F l>~li(
at.; ".t~ YO~J i)'1 ),kc "Ii ~'l(~ l;.~.;nr,.'! it ~t)C:": c..:,
ma!f:ri"lize.
, .: ~:< \ ;..... \ I '
\fF;-cs1-. (ont.\\.:t t.:,I,~'I 1'.-0(' 'i[G,;~1.~~i'~('.i'1 ;In''':1
.}: ~'1 (\b'..''r'~hiV apt :t,'i'; iu!.! "~'~(~l' '-'iH j'~ : '1'
"J-P. hV~:l;n\l.. lH'S,;t(;-,;-. it.t;.,:":-U1L, (:-:::': ;~lj:'<d~:....
:. .," ~,)dHU.~;1~d ~iSh~,.;/!~'I\.'t.' h './' ~nr' nj'I~')H1; :~}
.\, ,.'} i ..1", !:II~: '.'~;'" j'l'" ~I'\'-("r'" i.... )(\ 1 '1
;}Ul.."'(()' ~,d:' ':l,-,l (O,,-,j 1.\..' i'..:,i,..,_, . '.
hi; dsk" d tp C:..,,:d..:.,; t:(" eY!~L;;6 ;,!~.
I ("""'~\\;'l'A~")1'" ,. It 'X'"Y,' l'la\H' ,'t" ~c1 ~';<'",., r~",
6" "".,.~""i.l"""I' " .. ... ~"f..,.\. ~. ">.'
J f 1 I' . .. ,
F::\IC(~\.;'~j.ft:;.. ~)~' :".ei.> (~l;li'g ~'~:I(j!~"ln,}; :)l
ciri~';" ,',ad '::~'~rL.t ;.i(~C jn (,~1'-~i. ~.II;.', t1
1 l' . ,.....,
Jh)}..'n:~'fiti;.Hl -.:'; iO~.;'t;, t" '~ h:,~J oln~'ti.U'-'
.. (\,l~","t ~}lt'" .,lil'....'-,t' ,:' Il--;~', l','f\;'.~';'l' ~\." ~tL~ \ ""
'Y...." '... ,,,-" ...,,~__ . l.1". '::"~'~J."~-'-
d~s~ ;..U."I"r.) ;\'i~j, fr~, 'dd [Hi,: :,',:n"ti!:!lil
L'\.Ht,,''r':). Tnt' k,~.: in , '..\C(\:";~ i..; t'1r~),HI, ~"\
! "f'" . .' "
;,; 'lpr~ 't' ~<.IHj t~ t,. e> ~ l r~a 1 (j t,; lp ,1,THJ1' "~"~'j ~;. (\y, l~
[':H1,l ('1....' i'1J,j:';,yL ,(:~. htJ"';JH :.:.~;~
in:~::tu1. ';,,-Ir.~ :n L.~,',;~ (. : r",j'i'"ln1 I V, I\~--:,k ti'Wi"l: "..
,\nd
;')n',ln~tLifv ;~\n':~l.
, ;~ ~, , 1nh,,; ;":.", ~. ).....1; i \',\"
'. ''''''''')''' r..{ 1'1""1" 1..)" .t....: '-,..'. '.,,-' ",,'j . '1"1.::;;, 1,....ln I,;
l"'r..."ll,,~~~t:,l.,:- " ,:....'~" ..,'J-'.....".'I.
tl.L~~i.;:c~5 \.h.c i ;~'!...-j.~~ ,~nd k'\h ;:. 01 ~'~'Urp Jfi ;'ur
,.'~(j1k~I(\(":, E\.~L~::.l~;,):'"":)- 'ie': ~'IS..'i:'-" r.c 'J\~. 'I.;;,
~.~<..l....';\.,l.-L) :~(h,). c] ;". ~ ,~. ,)'Ft ~l\., 1 1:.
.... -, ... " , :'. ~
~'. l)r^'";.~,!,l:i;\ .:<O\,;,"'J",,). ,,"01';-)\,: f,\j l,\r,..
. ."~':' -, .,,,. ~_ "".' ,.~ ,.',J .~
'..Y~ '
1'11...<:-"1. }q,,-,.s: hut; i(~\, ,dii"'f)!" ,.y;. ,'~
l' ',".' 'j'}" -
b::'fl'.:---~; (' ~iljf-:p~'H;- !,,-fl .sl>n t. Ht~'<J.
I./l'
lJ.,......u..., ,')'c""""')"ll""~'" '''tll "l~'l'< <"po.".
.F.....l~., 'i.L..-~~..,.\"All,. .It \., ~J ..... C\,..i.,-
n~ ":l. n ~hJ h~..ic h")inlHH'~e\,:~ (,f tile bro~:\(k:st
, q"" ,,.... tv "~"'J''''';;'." 'fl'! J~(1'1"'~' ~,,',.~.:hli~. A "'no')" J l~,
,~,J.' .. H..,.J c.,".... ..~, U,,' . c' '.... ~ '.I: I- .
"" . 1 .-!- ('~' -~.,.. -"li"'j"cyr"Y'''''',';'(''''' '..~r"\;'>Q:t^
~L. t!!..t. d ..',' ~'''- :~ ';0 1..'.....~".I.,.,'",\:,.\. ~~'''j '-...;:,
., . I ' ", -] . ,
..\;~1': );.j) 11: e \.,:t,-!?C dJI.-I, ;;,1,8 ," $ETJPOf( a
; '1' '1-' ";al t, J .:.i.l!'t " :;iB~ ::'! (: i,~~':" Pi "grf~xn f\h;t' f
1',1., I, ,il'fJ."':I:....'C ;~,'.~i.:'~i. "h.'-:.'l~"l :"l(,-\:i'\<l('r 1.!"';Ct::;
v' ,rki'" :d.(-:. <;~f h:~, :3)i,;' J~b:<' (;f ' :Htt' '\ for
. .
'.1"');", 1l1"'\V..1 1)~1") ~T'":er.
. tJ r .
'"
,
!\>' . B k" 1 ,. . ~ ^ I'~ . ~ . ""
'",0;.. )-clurcrL-L'Tn:,.~ltX'!,,1 .n....,di..h,,\li dl'=-tnOt;"I,~
(. .' p;\,nntE"r, '~O:faL-.t,. i S( l' to leal ,'~ if the
~'d.:t),H;,nil\, 10. 4t\:,li!nL-;p. Yt)tL~" thoirl' n'~lV
, ,
,1If'.. id\- jl;Jv{-~;: pa.~'f~,eJ ;1 H'!f {,:,S.- '\: ,~,; }:':;:
-V.T()i':.:;g 1\1Hh ~j~:.oH'd~(lj.t;~ f-U~',,\"',U; :-"'~~~:"
.., . ('~T "f"I' !' r\ f' 'th. I . '~l.,e".
(;;HH"" J....).",tr;.ftJ_ :'~I,';;l" Jf'.Ii-~;"tH,1',~1:;' f'",~ ','Il,
. \ tl1! l)(Jjnl '1", d hl." .',"
,
~')( f'
, :j
,',
)el. ,,'1' fn dO.
~. .'
. .<:"'1
,. ,," .,f
y<,l.1' 1~! Ii ';
. j ,,; ,.. -... .,-- -".r . .
:"~'c;;.n5 ;.'loUl'l"h)'~, .,3,,"'1.
. "
SiSti .,' (.Jh~',:: p; ~gran i
r,;! \' ~f }1"P;;, ,! ~t;
~: !
(
'.1
it'lit':' fr-'I"'1 iL~: ,':
\ I:'
,.
,iyrn,;
.'
S' i ~ Ling thtit ~";
t(";l'}\')n~H.!t.) fv'
, . ~ ~ ,;
".
'\;'110
gr~ ~: ~p ..:i :,.; ,
'.':'!":;" 'J ..--.,
~ ~." (i 'hI ..., \"
;i
(~'l..pkcd ",::'J
fc'nn i,,ritl1 ;'j'"'F~ti!
"''''',' '1')lt'iT(:t'~I': .,JI 'lC1
".....' '.. .". .,. ) I " . .
rf \' ,'I !"-y1,-;.{, j St.,.' ~ 1'-\,1I.f, ~ bt_~
,} .~, "1 -~\-:- .....
tJ-l" ",,\'ith (', .'V'llf":l' f{i; ",\J~..!:
. . '. r' ,1' "'J' .. - .."., .I
)'1)', ;,:.3f';. "b~~t\~",...(, ;~" ,:i:C:.n:lC'!
',' "!).i~\..'" p-., "
Pl:\.,:a("
C. ;,10' ,:nil}
"11,; ,1,'5,.dbj,
.
-Q )'~'
,~ ;.
,. '\..,,"
,"t, 1'" '.'
"r '"1 ,,'
i.1'!.Yn\, ~1 tLi 's.~
J
prt........:...,'s.
..f> 'fl,. ~ ....'.~..~ 'r" .~..,.,~ ~',:, . ....1' '..H'\"{'ll'""
,."l. :1\"': '"! .~\.1l-1!~... ~ ,.,.. q,'-_t, "F"i {, ",.1 ., ,".l".,o J 4.\;
. +,' ,,~ ,,, co;.'., ,,! . "': ':'>1' . , t' .a 'I'~ 'i
<Ill Qf'}.1fl..ll'L ,att; ''''~' *,-,,-,,;tc~ ~1, \~ '~ V\ .~y 1..
. , '1 ......"".,.. j
1\ 'Plh It-';' AnJ 1t';V-' ,,),H,;, Ii z;,.\i" ~..:;;\ \,,jr~ ,,:l?rldLO
Ilh-rnlh:r-.;,. St. : i."(\(!:n"u.. ,,\tf,;'" ,...n,~ :nt~'t\.-..!tii
.,,'-
,'''/i): 1 'n1 ie'; coO .,)~ l"',ni/' ~ r H,)!l' )1H.J :tge,i' ide~.
i~' .:: ~ . ~,
(""C, 1 3D(::', i his v( ;~..t, ~x,~)';'!nitt(~e; ,..dso
b~ f'Ht" "'l:h~'-it~ " .') id~fi1.i{vi: V
'...., . . ,/ V
1,,-.' :rn..; Un];;$ n }<:,u (,;(nln init:, that
{L~diHg '1 F" !!ne C}\Hing In,,
1 ,.... '\"1' L" , ..., ".'.::t. r'(-'I" 011.'..,.:-
,1eJ.' "t'Ul, !.';.. {d,',,~ <vU.I_t"! ,-,.,.\! t.--l~tJ.
~: hil(
';:;.i ,_ j ~J .
;-(";"
, . i .'" ~ J (..;
"
J~.,2,/
.
1- : i. T r -. ' 1
dtl(/it bftv\'(~e{; 1;/1)1 ~~
,\'C";'] dl",I:"il' . ," 'I.'
.'~ -, . ~t. l........~, J_
"'I' ~ "~I ,"'.. "tl i' ".,
.1, ~ ''''~;'o''' ,.,f .:t'\"~~
. ,
~ L "
COf' Lrnlu :-.F ,J >' ,~
Af.- I Hf:'\lE',lBFF,
f if,.! ;:~t) j!pa1.,
.. \ \lhcr; .iI 1 ,q:tpr; q~~.
1(,:
1,/ll1(, ,~
I, ii; ;C"n ,; ~ ,t
'.H l"l,_,[hc' .;r. ~
"
,--Hi,
;~!\d
t~ ',,-re
"
t~ {I'd
c~
,,;t':.;;_'}t~~.;v in;' -fi...:),',.;-'
H:'~
B
",
"..
hl:
Vl::;lt
, I'
sri; ':.Ll,l
,
.1:1\
,.~jdh>
:'i(O
-:-";ll'j, ('j .i'~ el
'1d r"'.
I'
d:
'~:\' 'n to , : ~ , I
i:,'
"J."1.l"
,./~ .
,j,!;
'I'
~hl{
Ch)' :',lHS. j' ~i- n,;,
"
,h'jai' ";1 ~, o',i'~i
11:-;. :;i.f.::~!:':H;'l' r
1.1",
~ yn:!irUj' ir~v < ;)" 1';'"
:,)t U;e r\ ~l'r'l ~ ~ If
;~""r:,t. ~\ " ..I 1j~~H'
~" . .~, 'I. H
[};
..",I,
"
1, ''-
;n 1: ('"I~ i)'i.,I.-" t.
,-' V
.;~1.~!. -,) ~t': r;."'~',
\.1
';"1)' r.,,;;. ',) "y
n',~,.~d ',":11 ,;'
iSli 'I'(:~"' ,1~~i,"~l'
:;,Uf'~' : \
,.,.
'n ,;',~~h' ~ h
,
:,~q.: '" " :',d ;~;d i~)t
'J('"
,,~~ .. .'
F'"l~,~~, '~~b
, rJ !', !,'t I -~ (.t' f ',,'
,I
("X. ,i:ll,:;
,
~HYi' Dr
. ~-\..',
:-: ~~ nJ
','. .
:;",,:
\ (',...;
;nd ~\(:
-,t'e t,..' (r,;-::'~g("
;~,n(l
,
r'! ~ -'
,C.Y'
I'
,
,,-.h",~ l' l' j ~ ~
rfl,
'flY
r"",
"
1, j l... ~ 't::-;t',.,
'I" '.,1 c,
,,' , , \
":.,i
"', ~;. ~.i(~~' ,- ';L,
1..
""
C. ;..t'..
.lH\; 'he
'~r L
l-' r'~ "
~S 1,
;)1 ,;'elf
;''',lv
"i)".,
i '0';
c, ;,;,~pl", \A"..~';~ l
i....", '1.\
__""V"'~_'''''____",,,_
- ,,,~..........- '--..--
Ii-I.
;";;1
',::.:
"
;. ~ [
J...
d'
iitll
'" ~ " ,.'
!\
I:;..,
,,'
1 ("Len: ,:lnJ
::..Oh:_:H'Tb
e';U;i'i {!'intLuJ"tily.
"" Th:_
:1fr '~al ;'~~t",~ln\: ~'J :'
..,1}
"
,,!'!(.tl"i ~y. 'J~,. ~\:"H:,t!,
~nf "a,j. :i1!'1("~ ~<
",Y';;
"
('n ')l};;";
'it "i \i'12J:n
,
, :~ f~ 1,. ;
;;\ e~;
"
tl..
-'n
.\ j': !")(u ,Jf'-\~'1r"-,,,,;-f:' .:rt
,
,)
1<, :, )r,
':.. '-
/\1 ., I
,"() I,
. ,
, ,_I '....~
co! i ~\,' iL~'" . ,"
, i ~ ! t! ;',
11,"
, ;, ~:> ,:' ~
);'1r:, '.I;"
"
,
~) I ,,,
.. "
,'\,.
"0'
"'J ",>1' C',j,~,,- [ '.crr:,~ It,);(,-
"
F,I',.,;-, ""y'
- ~.' :-~'
'; ,11"
, Fc-
/"
"
'1'1\!
~gr;, 1 '".
~. \
~~C] it ,,-:~~1\',
"
~:,:!
tlt"l
"j
j,
, ,
:;; yo 'r
_, ; li ~c;;
~ ~i ~1! i" (i
rHi, :~;!
f'.~
\- ~
.
",.,
J ~ ;,t~, .;:l~}hij.
~, f it,.! 1~'H':
L~,.. ~1(
l"oH rr
'-.1. ,":',-:',:
YC'll.;
\1':'\ i. i ~ (:
"
,-
';_ in~-: \" :';.~l:
~ .
"; ~
"g"
~ ('
," ;
h1,
-,',' /j'in
",-,^"-,,. ,,,'-,._,...... ",,-""'.--".. ..".-1
s.",; ,,'r r ) A "I )No r, (.to' L"IC'~Y
<., \ .. , ,':ur i.,,; ..1 1 1. . ~ J '
-rj!;.."
~. ,L
t,."
~'r!~ ,;1,. ,1 '~i't"'; nn ,'0; ;~;
1 t. J , ' f, ': -j .. '1' h'
"~~'.';tlvi,: rl..;',."~'- ~t';\1.-':1
;.
,U"
"iJ"
1
~ 'I
'end
it, ")
t':' , ";1," \- '''.:' ,I",
,t' '~i " ,',
j'
~ ; ~
" ) ~ ",
f ' f -; f' ". l ! ~ . \ ", '"L' ~
.'
, , '. ~ ~'"
_,; U'
!.!!r.
, , J :, ~ .-
,1,',.
,
,
'"
,If !,
,
'." "<
"f,::
if;
"
.,'.,
('!'
j
,.:.
.
, e"
,,'
,
,j),'
"
,.:\
, ,
if
/"
.(j
:'L
~ I;
'1:
"
'f(
'" ,"~Ui::
--.'j,.
---- ~_.' ~~',*"" ".".............."..--.-... ~-<._~_.. -~.......-~.,.,,,..._....... .._-.~."
,'J"
't,'
f,:;'
r ";<!~: h "f LJ.... '{"T'-',
,: _' : i :"~ ,
;.;
"
r(;:, "f:y "
!.'t.!:l
.'.
: it ' i/ '~.:.
u;
;, /,"
'ii'j!/"j'l!h,
.,'1 ~;
'it
'"J
,:,111.,'
'ni"
. ~ '
'7)/,'
d<";n,"'af~>
:~'
"
1/1.1/
tj"
'J,,'
":'/ :'''
-l13 :,,.,:I111.!
SC}
iff r:
'_,,1"'71 ir!
,)....,
';(
,.
c
('
it,'f'-"~ "
i"f, 1';;; J I,
i' .
'ijfi!i~': t i(ir;,::
lit
,~ .~--
/...:? ".. ,,2..!J
".f
111 t ',:
F ': ~
....J
titHed by
- " .'.... '.' " .", ~~-r
~. l::'.... r;['l,~: "'1 '~..
;;'1ch..: ".'(,:,~ ih:; iI, ';'1t
,
ThL
, :~ I ~
lh,
:nr.: t1
v
.
.~"\:'CL: 1.
~ T <
'.
.{
<""'\.:r'
(),
jlt
,I'
" :r ~'{ ;
" .,.
'! ~ :!
',,;.
"
'I
",~ , ,
tJt,
5('1
;)!h.
'2 In: - v-(. 'rnl
,,'
i.;.n~ C~!l~n
'I'
., dli~f If
,
,u "
, r",
"'F'
7' \-~:q:
...~~
,J. l'~!
'L11,
,., -,
Df
,0 .
, . ;~t ~.
,';:t: rot tU
v~,
, 11,...1...
.~
J_ I ~,
1.:
~~ d~ ,CUi 1
:!
(")T.
, . - . ,
"
,
"I,
,
"
-.,.... .",<,'~
'itr!t ,'-"'Jlt. : 11.',U~
'f! [, f}ir" ,7111f;
j 1"",.
~Cl" If (~
'rl:.:
iI-;;-! ~J~U'
,
.-1 q' "i-'~,
/i.!;
u. '..;
~1 bo"
g:i:--
,}tn
1,.;..-
('(;-', '1ft';' I;',. ~~ ,r-"':icf
,".
,I,; n~ :fl1ks
. j
Jffj,;I".;tcr ciiy,
I"
],
-~'...-.~._,.~'-"......
~-,~_.-...........'.... _...._"...,~..."'"..............
ll'CAt 1
. ,"., ".. . 'r
."~~~4 t~ ~:l;.5
~ ,,' ," '," ,.1>
....... '."" ...~.t..-.1io:.
(""l." ';'"
I:..,~i:
''\ ; "('''\! '.....,," "'- ,,'
1;, J '"", '," it' ~<, '.' :~, .' !.k r('
" l,. '. .., I " ' . '\i'
.."" ..../"'i, ',,~ ....1.0: I '
,.,..,,,, ."
,~\
., ,.'
""" '...."Il~
",'
'" J
,..f'
,~"\I ,
',"
l." ~
1-1
.~ ,
,:1
'_~ i: '
.
,'\
~..., .
",..'
'\ I"'-..."t
'!, j~ '!i::)'
".... ..
"'" fr"
~ t' J
j'
, .~ ..:..
f--
'A
"t'
I
:
,,":..,
~~ 1
"
; ~;;. (
,
',1
.,-.
'"
\.
~' }
'!l
:, .~ '
\.'
,
, .:l.;
.,)!'
j,
Hi,
....; ., ':--~ ~ '1 I:.. J
,
,'"
lit,
,"~I
:}" J,
',Ii
'v
,.. ,; t.
, - ~ ,
,~,' _ . ,4' f}', ';';)
V;';d
"1
'l..
f)'" 'v,'
,~ '- .
';[\
"
- ". ~ "
"
" ,',
-, ! ~
.'
"
"
,
, ~, ' ,
.'l.
.:
\ ,,1
";j,
.. "1
:',1 1
"
"
","
,
.~ '
:'1, >;.
,
,\
; ~
"
..;,'
r ~
"
"',1
" f.> l~'
'L'j '~.l i I
-!'
\:,
',I
"
I
,\
1"
t ~
'.j
"
~ ~ \
.\'"
,,',
.,'
..' ~ '- J"'
..
,'"
"
"
,
"',
.:' Ii
,"'
:It
,:' I ,~ ':,
L I
((/~~,
" ) I / "
< .;.'~>/ ,"'.' \ ( I,J
... I -;'''(;' ~
~'/.. ...:~,..,! .,h",
I"" ,0..',)/ ;'"
J~/..') r #/ ~ r./
....... .,/ ~..... r"
\ ;:';r~,'~:;~"~~;"
L(:~J
I .~ : )
,1,;, I ~
~ '. 1...'
i -:~ :)
,,'1'.
[ "l
",t b '\ (, ""~
"
.- ~ ~'" '
'::i;i.
'" ~
.
I'"
,J h:
" ~
",~'~~;
'!t'
,j.
. .
'" ,j
,
I ,
~ r~ 1
"
,,'
;;"'t.
'"
~" , ',C
",'
:; 1" ~ '<\
l' '
, i ">,~~~n
, '
~',\ f"i; g
"
<
i.
,"i,
1,
'",
: l (~ .
"
.
"
,., ....,
.1,
;;1
", I,
,i'
t.,-
"'; \,
;
'''';
j...., "1 ."
I i . .
'.
'.' 0,
" q
;
i '.' ,
, "
L'
I, , i, .
" j~
/S~,2?
1: i)'
i"j,
"-
'\
I
.
,r'
...._e-/
,;:',d
.c:
'.1 ;;: ~
;..',.J
'I'
,;.,
,.
~'. '
~ ,.,
.0,.:, -..;~\...J:~:.;d.
~r',
'""1'-1
I"f, , '.~ est
:lC'..l,'('lh.
~{f.t-
-.-
"'~""";;;;1I/ii;:
......- -
"'-
PI:)
01Y Of
CHULA VISTA
MEMORANDUM
March 16, 1995
TO
VIA
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager &
Dawn Herring, Budget Manager~
International Friendship Commission for Additional Sister City
FROM
SUBJECT
The International Friendship Commission is recommending to the City Council that the City of
Ussirysk, Russia be added as Chula Vista I s fourth sister city. Staff has discussed the issue
with the IFC and, while we may be supportive of the addition of this sister city, we have some
concerns about the costs associated with this change.
Discussions with IFC indicate that at this point they have not identified any costs associated
with this request. The IFC believes that the "friends of Ussirysk" group is designed to be self
supporting, and should financial assistance be required, that group would take a major role in
providing that funding.
At this point, staff is willing to work with IFC to ensure that any future funding needs can be
met by using current year budget, and if it is determined that future needs cannot be funded, a
request will be forwarded to Council at that time.
.
'. .
B:\(DH)\SISTER.CI'Y
;5--- ~?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
/~
3/21/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution) 7 Y Lj ? directing the City Manager to begin proceedings
for the formation of a reimbursement district for 260 Plaza Bonita Road
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public of wor~ ~
REVIEWED BY' C;~ M""", J;.. ~~ (415" Yore' Y~.lL No-l
At the November 24, 1992, Council meeting, Council approved the Pier 1 Import project at 3001
Bonita Road. As part of that approval, Council directed staff to complete street improvements from
Plaza Bonita Road to the 1-805 northbound on-ramp. This required street dedications from Pier 1
and the adjacent vacant parcel at 260 Plaza Bonita Road. The right-of-way (ROW) has been
dedicated by Pier 1, but all attempts to obtain the right of way from the owner of 260 Plaza Bonita
Road through voluntary dedication have failed. This ROW must be obtained to properly construct
the improvements. The street improvement plans are complete and waiting on final permits from
the Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Staff is requesting
authorization to form a reimbursement district to recover all City costs associated with the acquisition
of the right of way.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution directing the City Manager to begin
formation of a reimbursement district to recover all costs associated with the right-of-way
acquisition.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS: Not applicable
BACKGROUND:
As part of the approval process for the Pier 1 Imports development at 3001 Bonita Road Council
required that an exclusive right turn lane be installed on Bonita Road from Plaza Bonita Road to the
northbound 1-805 on-ramp. It was agreed that the developer, Robinson-Pacific would have the plans
prepared and processed and dedicate the necessary ROW across their frontage. They were also
required to pay Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) with credit given towards those fees
for the cost of design (see Exhibit "A "-Resolution 16901). Acquisition of additional ROW from the
adjacent parcel to the east (260 Plaza Bonita Road) is also necessary in order to construct the
required improvements (Exhibit "B").
The property located at 260 Plaza Bonita Road was purchased by Jaime Bonilla and Jose A.
Gonzalez from the County of San Diego in 1992. The property became solely owned by Jose A.
Gonzales on August 31,1994.
Jb'/
Page 2, Item J ?-
Meeting Date 3/21/95
Staff has met or had contact with the owners/owners representatives of 260 Plaza Bonita Road a
number of times since November, 1992. Following is a list of those contacts:
1. August 31, 1993, meeting with City staff and Mr. Bonilla in which the situation was
explained to Mr. Bonilla in both English and Spanish. (Exhibit "C")
2. Letter from Jaime Bonilla dated November 16, 1993, requesting four items as
conditions to his granting the street easement.' (Exhibit "D")
3. Letter dated March 31, 1994 addressing the issues in Exhibit "D". (Exhibit "E")
4. Phone calls to Mr. Bonilla's assistant Mr. Eugene Yee between April, 1994, and
Mid-July, 1994, to determine if Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Gonzales would grant the street
easement.
5. Letter dated August 31, 1994, sent after then Councilwoman Horton had personally
contacted Mr. Bonilla relative to dedication of the street easement. Prepared
easement and subordination documents were included for execution. (Exhibit "F")
6. Contacted Mr. Yee on September 22, 1994, relative to receipt of the easement
documents. Mr. Yee indicated that he had seen the documents but did not know
where they were or if they had been executed. Said he would get back to the City
with the information.
7. Phone calls to Mr. Yee on October 14 and 27, 1994, and November 30,1994. From
the October 14 phone call it appeared that the easement would be granted if the City
included three to four PVC pipes under the proposed sidewalk for future utilities.
Staff indicated to Mr. Yee that we would include those the PVC pipes on the plans
and that they needed to indicate where they wanted them. The November 30, 1994
phone call by staff requested information as to where to contact Mr. Gonzales since
the ownership of the property had changed to him. No response was received.
8. Letter dated December 1, 1994, sent to Jose A. Gonzales with another set of
easement and subordination documents for execution by Mr. Gonzales and the County
as holder of a trust deed (subordination). This was accomplished after staff received
an updated title report showing that the property had been transferred to Mr.
Gonzales as sole owner on August 31, 1994 (Exhibit "G"). Staff sent the letter to
the address obtained from recently revised assessor records. No response has been
received.
9. Phone call to Mr. Yee on December 6, 1994, to find out if the documents were sent
to the correct location. Mr. Yee indicated that he had not followed up on the
November 30, call, but that Mr. Gonzales was willing to grant the easement. He
Mr. Bonilla in his November 16, 1993 letter had requested that the TDIF be frozen at the rate in effect on December 1,1993 and
that the dollar amount be mutually agreed upon prior to the dedication of the ROW. Staff indicated in our letter dated March 31,1994 that
the City had consistently not allowed fees to be paid early in order to pay a lower fee and that this was contrary to the roIF ordinance.
/1-,2.,
Page 3, Item / t-
Meeting Date 3/21/95
indicated that he would check and get back to staff that day. No response was
received.
10. A letter sent to Mr. Gonzales dated January 27, 1995, in which the request for
dedication was explained along with staffs' proposal to request a reimbursement
district if the ROW had to be purchased through negotiations or acquired through
condemnation. The letter requested that the documents be returned by February 15,
1995. (Exhibit "H")
II. A discussion on February 15, 1995, with a representative of Mr. Gonzales occurred
at the Engineering counter. The situation was again explained in detail. The
representative indicated that Mr. Gonzales didn't understand why he had to dedicate
the land. It was explained that the ROW would have to be dedicated with any
development of the property. This request was in advance of development because
the City CIP project would be installing the street improvements at no cost to Mr.
Gonzales. It was explained that TDIF and SR-125 fees would be collected at time
of building permit issuance, however. It was also explained that the improvements
along the property frontage would also have been a requirement of any future
development of the parcel. The representative indicated that Mr. Gonzales was out
of town for a week but would probably grant the easements. No further contact has
been made.
Given the lack of progress in obtaining ROW dedication from Mr. Gonzales, staff will begin the
process of purchasing the ROWand recomends that a reimbursement district be formed to recover
City costs. Purchase of ROW involves conducting an appraisal and negotiating a purchase price, and
if necessary, condeming the property.
IMPACTS IF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NOT AWARDED BY JUNE 30,1995:
The City must award a contract for this project by June 30, 1995, in order to receive an estimated
$90,100 in reimbursement from the State under the State/Local Transportation Partnership Funds
(TPF). This project is included in that programs cycle 5 and all projects in cycle 5 must be awarded
by June 30, 1995, or lose the funding under the TPF regulations. Projects under TPF cannot be
carried over to the next year. The City must acquire the ROW prior to start of work. The contract
can contain a clause delaying the start of work for a couple of months in order to obtain the ROW
after the contract is awarded. A short delay in the start of work, up to three months, is not
anticipated to increase the bid amount. Any further delay could jeopardize the TPF monies.
Consequently, staff can no longer wait for Mr. Gonzales to voluntarily dedicate the street easement
without jeopardizing the TPF funds and increasing the cost of the contract. Since Council approved
contracts with Anderson and Brabant, Inc. and Ryals and Associates to provide appraisals and
acquisition services for City projects on AprilS, 1994 by Resolutions 17412 and 17413 (Exhibits "I"
and "J "), staff has directed both firms to begin the process to acquire the ROW. Staff will attempt
to obtain the right-of-way through negotiations based upon the appraisal. If a negotiated settlement
fails, staff will return to Council to obtain authorization to begin condemnation proceedings.
/J~J
Page 4, Item It
Meeting Date 3/21/95
STEPS IN THE PROCESS, COST, LENGTH OF TIME
Following are the steps necessary to obtain the ROW, and the estimated costs and timing:
1. Hire the appraiser (Anderson and Brabant Inc) and a consultant to provide acquisition
services (Ryals and Associates). Since both have a standing contract with the City for
services this can be initiated with a letter and purchase order.
2. Appraise the property (estimated cost of the appraisal is $3,000 - $3,500). The appraisal will
take approximately 30 days to complete.
3. Negotiate with the property owner to purchase the ROW (estimated negotiation cost $3,000).
The proposed acquisition (ROW) is 5369 square feet (SF). The estimated purchase price
(value) of the ROW is between $30,000 - $60,000 ($5.50 - $11.00 per SF), but we believe
it will be nearer the lower end of this range. This process requires 30-60 days. If the
negotiations are successful, the process ends. If the negotiations come to an impasse, staff
would then return to Council to request approval of a resolution of necessity necessary to
commence acquisition of the ROW through the condemnation process (Eminent Domain).
4. Hire a contract attorney (subject to Council approval of of condemnation proceedings) to
acquire the ROW through Eminent Domain and file for an Immediate Order of Possession
(estimated cost for attorney services $10,000 - $25,000). This process will take
approximately 60-90 days.
As indicated by the time frames listed above, the entire process could take up to 180 days to acquire
the ROW.
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION:
Staff proposes to form a reimbursement district to recover the cost of obtaining the ROW, including
the cost of attorney's services, payment for the ROWand staff time to form the district. Staff
believes that it necessary to do so for the following reasons:
1. Subject to further evaluation in the Engineer's Report we believe there is sufficient
cause to spread the right of way costs to the property within the proposed district
because of a peculiar local benefit received by that property.
2. To not require the City to be reimbursed for the cost of acquiring the ROW would
be unfair to all those developments that were required to dedicate the easements at
no cost to the City. The adjacent parcel (pier 1 Imports) dedicated the ROW at no
cost to the City as have many others in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to hire consultants to negotiate with the property owner and appraise
the property is estimated at $6,500. That cost includes obtaining an updated title report. The cost
of right-of-way is estimated to be between $30,000 and $60,000. The total estimated cost to acquire
the right-of-way is between $36,500 and $66,500, if a negotiated purchase can be reached. Funds
are proposed to be obtained from the Transportation DIF, Fund 621. If a negotiated settlement
/# - 'i
Page 5, Item It?
Meeting Date 3/21/95
cannot be reached, staff will return to Council for authorization to begin condemnation proceedings,
estimated to cost an additional $10,000-$25,000 in attorney's fees. These expenditures would be
reimbursed to the TDlF fund through the reimbursement district when the property is developed.
In addition, the City will receive an estimated $90,100 in reimbursement from the State for this
project if awarded before June 30, 1995.
Exhibits
A Resolution 16901
B Plat showing location of ROW
C Letter dated August 31,1993
D Letter dated November 16,1993 from Jaime Bonilla Valdez
E Letter dated 3/31/94
F Letter dated 8/31/94
G Letter dated 12/1/94
H Letter dated 1/27/95
I Resolution 17412
J Resolution 17413
STM.312
M:\homc\engineer\agenda\condemn2. wan
/~ -,5'
RESOLUTION NO. 17~it
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
BEGIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF A
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR 260 PLAZA BONITA
ROAD
WHEREAS, staff proposes to form a reimbursement district
for 260 Plaza Bonita Road to recover the cost of obtaining the ROW,
including the cost of attorney's services, payment for the ROWand
staff time to form the district; and
WHBREAS, staff feels that it necessary to do so for the
following reasons:
1. If a district is not formed, other property owners
may attempt to wait for the city to condemn the
property rather than dedicate. This could add
additional cost to future city projects if it
became a practice by those with undeveloped
property. In addition, acquisition of ROW often
delays project implementation.
2. To not require the city to be reimbursed for the
cost of acquiring the ROW would be unfair to all
those developments that were required to dedicate
the easements at no cost to the City. The adjacent
parcel (Pier 1 Imports) dedicated the ROW at no
cost to the city along with many others in the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby direct the city Manager to begin
proceedings for the formation of a reimbursement district for 260
Plaza Bonita Road.
~
(I Bruce M.
Attorney
form by
J
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
//, -1,,/ /u- /0
e.
e
e
.-
"
. \\ I'
E~"I&IT A.
-...J."C.,,,jt-1 b
RESOLUTION NO. 16901
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN
KNOWN AS BONITA GATEWAY GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
2.23 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF BONITA ROAD AND
1-805
~HEREAS, Robinson Pa~ific, Inc. filed duly verified applicatfons.for a
General Plan AMndlllent and adoption of a Specffic Plan (the "Project") were ffled
with the Planning Departient of the City of Chula Vista on ~ury 15, 1992i and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan _ndHnt application requested that 2.23 acres
located at the northeast quadrant of Bonfta Road and I-B05 (the "Property") be
redesignated from "Visitor Co.mercfal" to "Retafl COInercial";and.
WHEREAS, said SpeCfffc Plan applicatfon requested that I Specfffc Plan.
known as "Sonita Gateway Specfffc Plan" ..rked Exhfbft "Co. known as docUlllent
number C092-182. a copy of whfch is on ffle fn the offfce of the Cfty Clerk,
(Exhibits "A" Ind "B" Ire Ilso on ffle in the Cfty Clerk's offfce). be Idopted
governfng the developllnt of the Property; Ind. .
WHEREAS, the Pllnnfng CQalfssfon held I publfc hearfng on October 28, 1992
Ind voted 5 to 0 reco.mendfng that the Cfty Council Ipprove the General Plan
_ndment Ind Idopt the "Bonftl Gateway Speciffc Plln" for the PropertYi and.
WHEREAS. the Cfty Couucfl set the tille Ind pllce for I IIelring on safd
applfcation and notfce of s'fd hearfngi together~th its purpose. WIS given.by
fts publfcaUon in I newspaper of gener.l cfrculltfon in the cfty Ind its ..iling
to property owners wfthfn 500 feet of the exterfor boundlries of the property at
least ten days prfor to the helring in Iccordlnce ~th Governllent Code Sectfons
65358, 65090 Ind 65091 (I) (1) Ind (2) Ind Chul1 Vilta Munfcipal Code Sectfon
19.06.010. 19.07.010. Ind 19.12.070; end.
WHEREAS, an InfUal Study (Clle No. JS-92-35). was prepared for the
proposed project; Ind. . .
WHEREAS. the Environllental Review Coordinltor recGllends the Idoptfon of
a Negatfve Decllrltfon for the proposed project; Ind.
WHEREAS. the Generll Plln his not been _nded .ore thin three (3) tflles
this calendlr ,elr Ind the City Council intends the Generll Plln _n_nt
Ipproved thfs Iction to be helrd. consid.red. consolidat.d Ind treated IS one
Generll Plln AMndlllent Ilong ~th the Rancho del Rey G.nerll Plln AMndllent for
the Susiness Center; Ind.
WHEREAS. the hearfng WlS h.ld It the tille Ind pllce II Idvertised. n...'y
6:00 p... Novtlllber 24. 1992 in the Council Chlllbers. 276 Fourth Avenue. before
the City Council Ind Slid helring WIS thereafter closed. '
.Y/j - /
Resolution No. 16901
!>age 2'
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT fro. the facts presented to the City
Council, the Council finds that this project would have no significant
environmental impacts which have not been .itigated by the conditional approval
of the project in the following ~nner .Occupancy Restriction Condition',:
Developer and City enter into an agreement which:
1. The owner of the Property shall uke an irrevocable offer of
dedication of sufficient land on the south side of the Property to
permit Bonita Road in front of the Property to be widened by one
additional lane with standard curb. gutter, sidewalk and parkway
improvements (the .Project'); and, .
Developer to prepare a set of road widening improvement design plans
('Plans.) and to obtain approval therefore from CalTrans ('Approved
Plans'), and to deliver to City a set of .Approved Plans' in a form
acceptable for construction bid docu.ents. City shall cooperate in
obtaining expedi~ious processing fro. CalTrans. .
The DIF to be amended to include the Project and the boundaries of
the DIF are to be expanded to include the area of the Specific Plan,
or ;f not amended, Developer shall pay fees to the City as so
included and expanded.
Occupancy shall be restricted until the .Approved Plans. are
delivered to City in the form required by this agreement or.
Developer delivers a bond in a fona, with a surety and in an allOunt
equal to 125% of remaining costs of developing the Plans and
Obtaining approval thereof, ~ich bond shan be released with
delivery of the .Approved Plans..
Developer to pay Transportation DIF at the updated rate, which is
proposed.to be $3,600/Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
Transportation DIF to reilllburse Developer for all reasonable design
costs incurred and paid by Developer upon delivery of the .Approved
Plans. if included in the DIF.
3.
4.
5.
6.
,
"""""
2.
~
7. Developer to cause its engineer to provide design consultation
services during construction administration at City's option.
i. Transportation DIF shall bid and pay for the construction of the
Project, and Develojler shan have no responSibility therefore other
than the payment of Transportation DIF charges.
As so .itigated and conditioned, the Council adopts the Negative
.Declaration issued on 15-92-35.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the uendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan designating the Property .Retail Commercial.
as amended by the Occupancy Restriction Condition. .
~ /t-V
~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the flcts presented to the City Council,
the Council detel"llines thlt the -Bonitl GltewlY Specific Plln-, IS IlIInded by the
Occupancy Restriction Condition, is consistent with the General Plan of Chula
Vista IS currently -.ended by this recolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby Idopt the -Bonita Gateway Specific Plln- IS .-ended by the Occupancy
Restriction Condition. . ~
Presented by . Ap~rO~e IS to 10 J
~/f~ / fU
R~~r~ A. [~~ ter ~ruce H. Boogaard
Director of Pllnning City Attorney
.
.
.
.
~ /?"I.
oj
,
Resolvtion No. 16901
Page 4
-'
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 24th day of November, 1992, by the following vote:
YES: Council.Glbers: Horton, Malcol., Moore, Nader
NOES: Council.Glbers: None
ABSENT: Council.Glbers: Rindone
ABSTAIN: Council.Glbers: None
.
""",,'
".-:- - ./?;'... ,1, .
~ /' LA':/~~;-
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
~J&i rl !2,i{tZi
Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk
"'""\.
STATE JF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16901 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 24th day of NoveGlber, 1992.
SSe
Executed this 24th day of NoveGlber, 1992.
.
~t1a7/1~
Bever y . Authelet, City cferk
,
"""'"
~ 1;j-/tJ
. .
,
...0
'Ol~
. '1&1 tt
ea:Z
~-2
o
~ i
8
~~
""-
,
cD
~
t-
-
d)
-
:x
~
W
'l'Q a:'
. ~ f~.
I! 0 J #i
$ . ..si
'tJQ N 1
$
~\i
~
~~
,f~
l
o
..(
a
~
-
J
fQO~
~/
~
/~~//
,
\
\
~,('Jp..~
L ....-'tr'
--< "
./
"""\
,I
/"
ge Blank -
-.
..
-...,
~/j-/d--
.
.
.
EXHIBIT
"c"
MEETING MINUTES
BONITA ROAD
LANE WIDENING
).a.UGUST 21, 1993
..............................................................................
Attendees:
Roberto Saucedo
Muna Cuthbert
Bill Ullrich 't7
Scott Robinson (WrittiCi
Bob Kennedy
Alex Alga
Jaime Bonilla
...........**.................................................................
A) Roberto Saucedo indicated there are five (5) issues rdating to this project:
1)
Dedication of Rir:ht of ~
a) There was some question as to where the Robinson Dedication was located.
Staff to locate and advise Scott Robinson.
b) Still some question as to whether BonillaIGonzales will participate in the
dedi~tionimprovement process.
2) Submittal of Plans
a) Must be expedited and submitted ASAP.
b) Bob Kennedy indicated plans would be completed by Friday 9/24/93.
c) Plans will need to be submitted to utility companies.
3) ~fications
a) Bob Kennedy to let sample from Alex Alp.
b) Bob Kennedy to develop final let of specitications.
4) Fundinr
a) Should be sufficient funds in DIF. .
b) Still a question as to whether Bonilla will elect to participate.
S) Occqpanc:y of Pier I BuUdiI\l
a) Robinson t() post bond for remaining portion of design w6rk.
b) Bill Ullrich to prepare short Agreement for posting bond.
~ Jj-13
MEETING MINUTES
BONITA ROAD
LANE WIDENING
August 21,1993
~
B) Roberto Saucedo indicated that the Engineering Department will send letter to City
Council in response to letter from Scott Robinson of September 16, 1993. This letter
will state that Amson Roth &. Associates did not respond in a timely manner with the
plans.
C) Bill Ullrich to generate a list of items (with costs) so Bonilla/Gonzales will know
complete scope of what is required.
D) City of Chula Vista to provide Amson-Roth with a letter of authorization to expedite
process with Cal-Trans.
The above meeting minutes will be considered accepted by all parties listed above,
unless a written response to the contrary is received by Robinson Pacific, Inc. within ten
days of the date of these minutes.
cc: . Attendees
Leonard Moore
-...,
W?IlOCI\IION.OATIIIIotDIOO92I
~
-...,
~ /'~/Y
YoAR-SA-94 ~Rl 89:S?
\,. ,
,
eXHIBIT -D
P.82
"
.
...
+)'.w !!l.""f~' ~
.
Bovember 16, ~'93
Honora!:>le ;rohn Go.s, C1ty Kanagar
city Of Chula Vista .
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA uno
!)ear ;rohn:
Thill letter 18 in reference to your city project fA'1'-050 regarding
firading and improvement plans for ~nita Road. I recent:ly attendeCS.
a .e.ting involving your angina.ring atatf and an adjacent
developer regarding the roeCS i.prov..ent plans at tha intersection
of Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita Road' Where I have property. Your.
.ngine.ring .taff w.. to prepare a letter to .e dbou..ing the '
poss1>>ll:l.ty of certain city d.dr.s end possibla accommodations to .
allow .e to b~~ to prepare for developing the prop.rty and allow .
tbe city to .o~_ ahead with its i.prove.ent plans ~or th. entire .
.etch of Bonita Road on the northern sicse b.twe.n Plaza Bonita
d w.stbound to Int.rstate 805. I have not rec.iv.d eny such.
1:ter from the engineering .taff although they provided .e with a.
copy of the improv...nt plana, which I have. r.viewed. . .
~
As a r.sult of aIf revi.w, I understand th. savings that the city
would incur by doing th. antire project at this tiJu rath.r than
doing the western portion now and doing th. ea.t.rn portion at a'
future tima when I might decide to improv. ~ property. I also
recognize the ..afety tactors that should J)e improved with thi.,
i.prove..nt of Bon! ta RoaCS heading toward the treeway. !'he city of
Chula Vista stands to gain a lot fl'OII\ the iaprov_.nta ot this
project, and I u pl....d and willing to aid th. City !n this
project. .'
. .' 4
loa a re.ult, I would be Wl1l.ln~O otter to dedicate the property
call.d for in th. grading and rov_ent plan. tentatively drawn
at this time for Bonita Road as t =0.... the face ot IIY prop.ria'
frol1l Plan Bonita RoaCS baad!n; ve.t toward Interstate 105 subject
. to certain conditions. !!'he.. conditione would inolude.'1:be
followingl
, .
fte Ci'ty would a9ree to ~n..e the development iiRpac't...~ee.
~or 'this property at the ra'te in ettec't j)n December 1, 1583.
The dollar uount of the future iapact ~e.. wou14 be .utually
. a;reed upon prior to 'the decUcation of ~e zo1.ght. of way..
~e dedication of th. right of way would be 8ub~ect 'to our
zoe..1"Ying the ri9ht: to place thre. to four ..- JIVe eonduit:~
underneath tbe surfac. of the 8idewalk cro.~g out 'to
~ I"---/J
.
.
~
"A~-le-94 FRS e9:1B
.
,
.
+~__g&,.i~T/~
.........
,
Benita Road a~ various looa~ions 80 that we could us. tha~
to bring serving utilities in the fu~ure to our property
without having to dig up a freshly constructed sidewalk or
street.
I
I
;
I would reserve the right to have a curb cut a~ the city.
standard placed in the construction en Boni~a Road by
the City during its construction ef the improvemen~s en
the newlY dedicated property to allow for my ingress and
egress to the property from Bonita Road at a looa~ion
that I would determine.
The city will allow me to improve and repa1n~my
building a~ the sputheast corner of 'rhird and "H" street
in a color green which ia similar to that which was approved
by four City i. existing in the new building west of me on
Bon ta Road. I will be happy to provide you with a color
&le of that green and aince it is similar to other
permission. already granted by the Ci~y, it should help to
continue the improvement of my properties in the ~ity while
maintaining my corporate logo of lireen.
Xf this is agreeable to the City, 1 would appreciate it if you
could have your City Attorney prepare a draft of documents that I ~
could review to allow for the dedication of this right of way and
the preparation of these conditions so that we might move ahead in
a fashion to allow the city to cons~ruct and complete its grading
and improvement plans for this part of Bonita Road all at one time,
and thereby save the city and the taxpayers a substantial portion
of money as compared to doing this in two amaller part..
I will be happy to m.et with you at your convenience.
.
.
. I
.
,
JBV:ifc
co:
Hr. John J,J,ppit, city Manager
Ing. Roberto SaucedO, Sr. Civil Engineer
Hr. William Ullrich, Sr. civil Engineer
,
""""
~ It-II
,
.
.
.
~~~
:: ~~-=-~
~~~~
CI1Y OF
CHUlA VISfA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
,\ "
. E~MIB'T e.
,March 31, ~994
File AT-050
Ing Jaime Bonilla Valdez
296 "H" Street
Chula Vista, Calif. 91910
STREET DEDICATION FOR BONITA ROAD
In your letter dated November 16,1993, you requested four
conditions be met before you would be willing to dedicate right-of-
way for Bonita Road necessary to construct a city/developer
widening project adjacent to your property on Bonita Road.
Following is a response to each of your requests:
FREEZE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(TDIF) AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1993.
The City has eonsistently not provided for fees to be paid
early in order for developers to pay a lower fee. Preezing of
the fees has only been done in circumstances where the
Redevelopment Agency has entered into a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) due to the project providing a
large financial benefit to the City on a long term basis.
DDA's are usually entered into on projects that either
generate high sales tax or provide a significant number of
jObs to the ccimmunity or both. Those agreements often include
provisions that require or guarantee items such as: second
stores in the City to remain open for specific lengths of
time; occupancy of vacated buildings to be utilized by
certain types of uses; requirements for training through adult
schools or the Junior Colleges; educational programs; up front
cash to the City or payment of taxes even if the proj.ect was
abandoned. In your case, it appears to be premature to
consider such an agreement at this time. However. Council
action taken on December 7, 1993 did freeze the" TDIF at
current levels U?til January 1, 1995.
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
INSTALLATION OF PVC PIPES UNDER THE SmEWALlt
We will instruct the design engineer to show the installation
of pipes at the locations you desire on the illprovement plans
for the project in return for your dedicating the right of way
at this time. You will need to supply the information to the
City by April 15, 1994 for us to incorporate the items in the
plans.
~ Jt -J?
271"FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 120101(118) 181-5021
Ing. Jaime Bonilla Valdez
March 31, 1994
Page 2
""'"
ITEM 3
CURB CUT ON BONITA ROAD INSTALLED WITH THE PROJECT
The Specific Plan for your parcel and the Pier 1 Import parcel
designated only one access to Bonita Road. That access is to
be a joint access for both properties. Staff can not
authorize another access. In order to provide the access that
you have requested, the Specific Plan would have to be
modified and the modifications approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Please see enclosures from the
Specific Plan relative to circulation.
ITEM 4
PAINTING OF YOUR BUILDING AT THIRD& "H" STREET
Apparently you have painted your building, therefor this
appears to no longer be an issue.
As has previously been discussed with you, you will be required to
dedicate the right- of-way upon development of your parcel similar
to the requirements placed upon the Robinson Pacific project (Pier
1 Imports). Typically, TDIF credit is not given for the value. of _
dedicated property. The dedication is considered a standard ,
requirement of development across the projects frontage.
Hopefully with these answers you can consent to sign the right-of-
way dedication so that we can move ahead with this project. We
believe that the completion of these improvements will benefit not
only the City and the motorists, but you and the adjacent property
owner as well.
If you have any further question, please contact Bill Ullrich at
691-5261.
L. SWANSON
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/
ENGINEER
cc: John Goss, City Manager
WAU/B5BONILLA
,
"""'"
~/'~I/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
IV.
CIRCULATlONIPARKING ELEMENT
.
A.
:;UMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Because of the history of the planning 8lQ, and the past and future traffic impacts, parking
and circulation must be addressed as a part of this specific plan.
1. Traffic Impacts
a. On January 22, 1991 the City Council adopted a resolution indicating that traffic
impacts on Bonita Road would no longer effect the development of the site. This
Resolution provided that development of the planning 8lQ would be subject to
further street improvements by addirig a lane on Bonita Road in front of the
planning 8lQ.
b. The City Engineer determined that any access to the site from Bonita Road
to be ingress only, and egress would not be permitted.
. B.
c. Access to the parcel now exists via Plaza Bonita Road and Bonita Road, through
the use of easements granted to R.C. Bradley pursuant to legal action in February
1983; (See figure 3 & 4) .
CIRCU~ATlON
Given the small planning 8lQ, the opponunity exists for establishing a comprehensive circulation
scheme that addresses primary movement modes, and coordination of the parking facilities
within the site.
1. Vehicular
The following guidelines reflect consideration of the automobile c:in:ulation system.
These improvements will be provided in compliance with appropriate ltandards and the
following concepts and guidelines.
a. Provide complete access for Emergency (police, fire, and ambulance) services to
structures as required by the City of Chula Vista safety codes.
b. Minimize the number of driveways to one on Bonita Road and one on Plaza
Bonita Road, as per the development plan for parcel A. This sha11 avoid breaking
the continuity of the pedestrian sidewalk areas. Textured paving materials used
within the public right of way are subject to approval by the City Engineer.
,
,
.
14
~ /~-11
2. Service
The surface parking area shall be interconnected upon the development of parcel
B thereby expanding the options for those looking for a parking space. In
addition, this permits a more efficient use of the overall parking stock,
accommodating peak loads in areas that are not being used at capacity.
The cost of interconnecting these parcels shall be borne by the developer of parcel
B. The developer of parcel B shall be responsible for any remediation grading
and/or demolition of retaining walls in order to effectuate the interconnection of
the parking layout. .
e. The developer of parcel B shall submit for approval a comprehensive grading and
remediation plan to the City of Chula Vista and to the then owner of Parcel A.
The City and the owner of parcel A shall each approve the plan for remediation
and interconnection of the parking areas. No permit for construction shall be
issued until such approval is obtained.
c.
d.
f. Large parking expanses shall be visually screened wherever feasible. Exposed
vehicular use areas shall include a minimum of 10" of the total area in
landscaping.
The easements for ingress/egress currently held by the Owner of parcel A, shall
continue in force, and shall inure to the benefit of the owner of parcel A so long
as the parcels remain under separate ownership.
h. The off-street parking requirements shall be in conformance with City of Chula
Vista parking standards as defined in the Municipal Code for the underlying
zoning within the planning area. Such parking requirements shall only be subject
to modification by action of the planning commission.
g.
a. Use of public right of way for lerVice loading/unloading shall be avoided.
Adequate on-site service and delivery areas, including a provision for circulation
shal1 be provided.
b. Service areas shall be separated from entrances and public a~ss areas where
possible.
"
15
~
I ~ ";2-0
~
.
'""'"
~
. v.
.
.
(
'.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the Bradley Plaza Specific Plan will be done according to city policies
loveming development within the city, u defined by the General Plan and Municipal Code for
the City of Chula Vista. The proposed methods of processing and review, u well u
development phasing of the project, are described below.
A. PROCESSING AND REVIEW
1. Process and ~rlure for the SpecifiC; Plan
a. . The process and procedure for the amendment of the text or gmphics of the
Specific Plan are provided in sections 19.06.030 and 19.06.040 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. .
b. No land use shall be established, and no structure shall be constructed in the
absence of its approval under the project plan process and procedure, or through
the amendment or modification of an approved project plan.
c.
All proposed project plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and action.
For the purposes of this Specific Plan, a modification to a project plan is defined
u a minor change which results in the project maintaining substantial conformance
to the original project plan.
e. All projects reviewed under this specific plan shall be required to receive input
from the Sweetwater Community Planning Group.
d.
B. EJ]~LI~ IMPROVE~ENTS
Implementation of the required public improvements will be accomplished thrOugh the
development and review process. These will be u listed below.
J. Bonita Rrnttl
a. As the resolution passed by the City Council on January 22,1991 indicates, there
wIJI be a lane added to Bonita Road to provide a melJe only lane to Sale Hiahway
80S.
,
,
16
~ J~./;2.j
..
,
I
,
"
b.
These improvements may be deferred until such time as the box culvert to the
west of the planning area is improved by CaI-Trans.
.........
c. Upon issuance of Occupancy Permits, the developer of each respective parcel shall
submit to the City of Chula Vista a cash deposit in die amount of the
improvements for the respective frontage of the parcel to be developed. The
amount determined for such submittal shall be determined by a licensed Civil
Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer.
d. Said cash deposit shall not be subject to any increases or changes during the
period prior to the actual construction of said improvements.
e. Deferral of such improvements shall not unreasonably delay the approval or
construction of any project within this planning area.
f. Bonita Road shall maintain a 5.5' sidewalk width and 4' franchise utility easement
upon fmal buildout.
2. P]~7::l1 Bonita Road
a. The improvements for ingress/egress shall be shared by the developers of parcel
A, and parcel B respectively..
b.
The developer of parcel B shall reimburse the developer of Parcel A for one-half
of said improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City of
Chula Vista. The developer of Parcel B shall obtain release documentation from
the owner of parcel A providing evidence of such reimbursement.
"'"'"
d. There shall be no changes made to the sidewi1k along Plaza Bonita Road other
than a curb cut for ingress/egress.
C. DEVF.I.OPMENT PHASING
Phasing for the Bradley Plaza Specific Plan shall occur with the development of.parcel A
(Bradley Parcel), and subsequently with the development of parcel B (Bonilla Parcel).
;
17
"'"
~ /i--;22
::l
"
~
-,
.,
:-
-I t)
=1. ~
~ Ul ~.
" I.iJ "
... (Ill ~
J.. a' ~.
t;~'"t... I ''''''''''. .
" , . I ..."..,.
"'!. ~ ..
tlI". .0.
l'.
,
lIt .
'Ill". .
1,1'1
@W~:;~ ~. :P~L -Pt
.., 14 ...1 'i. 1'...
1\', ~ 't. .
. ~,
~ t.. '.'
, ~ '~~'.
I~' ::'"
'. "''''..
a,. ".
1\ ",~.; j';!'"
, .../
I, ...... ' '.' ;..
. .,;... ." : .;....r. . .
, ..""; '/ ~~'''''~'l':'-'' .......... J " .
. . . . '0 . .,.. '"
,~ I', '~r'!"""'~"'w ....
.... '. .~ '0 :..... ".
l~ " '. ........... . 'v..,
'.. .!. . .....~.,~/...: '0 ~'I
.. ~ "" ....c.. ." ~ "0 ", . 0;'.,
I .'" .,' '. '~....~.',' "....... 1~'
fIIJ~"i .. .....,"" >r' "001;' \
"""": ". ". .."....
I "I",~ . .. ~ 00
~ ~""..' '".~ :...'. ~ -:~' '.
.. "'.I., r~.')/. .. ~:..~ '0 )J"....o.
'.:~", .... '''.~''.,o ,..,.- ~> -'0 ~-"..S
''''~ '(~. .",.,. ...... '0 "
. El -": . .., ..~ , ..) " . h t Ii
. I : , ':'~ ',<: ':'" ',' ;",V /.,. ...... r.~~';'" ,,2I.U
". ,. \.. .,........, 1'1 ~"'"..... ... '" '0 1")0: ~.
I r 't., ~- . . ..,..~,.. .. . ......~ 0",-......
Nt ,I "~ ~"" '., "
~~. \ ;"',.../ ,.::." -.:. ..... ":'.,
I HWY. c:~ '\.1Ii I~O!r/~"'" i () . ......
I II.SD.GO~ ~'~l :~.':~
I ~,., .. . ~
I ,. /lv/Y Or' ':'~(',~\
. " . "...~:. ..., 'iJ\;.;"I
IINTEH:;;~I.\Tt:. Ct;:;' . .r~I;:;""~'
I . ro u"',r~ ~:
I. . . , . ,: (y~,c,~\ ~\i'::-r"'"
II. . . . . 'J." \
~ W 1/4 c.oo ~SEC 911 'J-..
I .~
. c.
. "
'O",~..
'.,
Of
e.
--e
.
.
\ j' .:; , .1 \; I J:i. \".O\,-f-\ !:'.:'T'I.tl' U~\_\_ ff'
I . ..:. ..; .::' ..... i : i ' I ::j'.! '1,' 1..1\--'\__. _ _ _ _
C' ,: ":. :'-~','-" '-'1 . 1 :' I. .\
I I, . I' '. I , .
," 'I "!'\:;" ",'j'" :,'j _ .__. ~
I\~ . :>;I:,\:.\:.::\'./\\~:\'X',i~r~.;jjJ/;r.[\.___ _'.___ _'_I~ (.~;:
. .. . .. .. ." " I I\.'
" . .', ',1 t,',. .... ," :. ': . . .. _ . _' .~.....'.;?...J ,
, '. .. ,\; l"\~" ,. ". I ..I..\J 1.1..l.... ...-II.,,....~'~..> I.....,....
-. ": .I.~,.~ :;...-......- ,,' . . ~:-lIJ'- ,rs .ft'\~- ~ r.,~~...p;
...-.. ." ..~ . 16~-
.~ @,...... .\.:,I......~'....,.
, " ....(N. ." "'" i~ ~'V'_~.
'o' r..:. ..,- ,.",1, ,. '\'" ..1'''',,,.....,. :,./.' .
.... ", t .~, '. ..,~ -..-r-....,
f ,-..", .. f. ....
'- '-I" 'I:. ~,;....;....,
"'.....,.
........,,/t
>0.......".,
..;" J.
~>.. ,
/::) ...
(</
"... "", <-<I
o. '",
". 1\..
~'Il"
J.
\.
...
Ii'
0$'
<G
,> r.. ('>
"\,V O~ ...
/>.
.
'Y
~L
8
.,)
"
...
.,hl....~V.t.
.t).~
fLINWOOD
on.
E9
Mt'"P
Mf.\P
nOtl
"
,....-
C. " =)
.' ' . ."
.. ..'
\AII Ol!l;o) rOUNI,
AS~I ~Sl):1 \ LIAP." . .
n-.' '''~11'1 ~"iT. 10: .. . . ~.... .
BOOI\."",,,v . .. ~~,.....It' 1""lr."~'
".""111 II'" .. .
.
o
/~ " ;2 J
FIGURE 1
- This Page Blank -
~ /J/.2Y
/
L
~{~
~
01Y OF
OIUlA ~
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
~
.
ctJll51T \j: II
.
AuJUSt 31. 1'*
FlleftM-312
IDa Jaime BODilla Valdez
296 'H' Street
Chula Vista, Calif. '1'10
STREET DEDICATION FOR BONITA ROAD
AI )'OU bow. the City has a road .,w..,1"I project proposed adjaceat to )'ClUJ' property ClIl Baaita Road.
In order to CODS1rUCt tbose improyt!".....~, we Deed riIht-of-way ~~ClIl frlD)'OU. AI hvIl..1tel/ to
)'OU in your recent meetiDi with ColmcIJwoman ShIrley HClItOD, if )'OU .....1..- tbe riIht-of-way to &be
City 1J'Itis. you will DOt be required to pay for any of tbe IpIICific improY.........,f. tbe City .-.. to
iDstalI.
.
1be City is desipiD&. and will be c:cmstructiDi. tbe .....",...- 4tI tbrouJh our ClpkaJ ImplO'.~II"-Jd.
P10J1D1 (CIP) gtlli7i"1 Transportation DcveJopmeDt Impact Fee (lD1F) fuDda. WhiIe)'OU will DOt be
required to pay for &be improYrrne"h to BoIIita Road. )'OU will. bc,.....er. be reqaJred to pay tbe TDJF
app1icab1e to all properties in tbe eastenI area of Chula Vista III11Ch time II )'OU obtaiD build!", permits
for )'ClUJ' parcel.
'Ibe _ement d()l'l1- and a nbordiDation lI1-no....t lane beeD pnpII'IlIS II part of tbe CIP project
and are eaclosed for )'ClUJ' r~ClIl. PJeue IIOl& tIIIt each IIIUIt be JlI'CIIlII'I)' aofUWd ill arder far tbe
........-. to be ncorded.
We loot to. ....d to receJviDa tbe ate'....... do... ..I. bIct IlIOClIlII paalbJr 10 tIIIt we 11II)' CClIIStrUCt
dlIs YitaI project. We believe tIIIt tbe CClIIIpletiClll of dlIs project II DO COlt to )'OU will a1ao _h.- tbe
Yllue of)'ClUJ' property II it _h._ tbe ttaftic flow ClIl dlIs .....c.B 1I'lIria11Ueet. 1f)'OU lane IDY
rpstIoas. pleue free to call eItber me II 691-5021 ar Bill UUricb II 691-5261. TbaIIt)'OU for your
..in""". .
.
RD L SWANSON
DEPUI'Y DJRECrOR OF PUBUC WORKSI
CTY ENGINEER
F
.-
IlIIlD 0-, CiIJ u.......
f':' - _ .....
..:t....
'-'to ..-....-... - I....
y
/~ ---:2..5
__ .ftI........ .,..... .."...,." . ute'l"a ,... ICI'YtU.. .....""... ......",.
/'
- This Page Blank -
~ /6--02?
.
.
.
..
r.
~Vt.-
~
,~~~
em OF
CHULA VISTA
.- .
\\ II
EtUI81T '6
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
JOSE A. GONZALEZ
P.O. BOX 120985 .
CHULA VISTA, CA
91912
December 1, 1994
File No. PF-196
DEDICATION OP STRJmT BASJ:MENT ALONG PRONTAGB OP PROPERTY AT TBB
NORTBWBSTCORNER OP BONITA ROAI) JUm PLAZA BONITA ROAI) (Address: 260
Plaza Bonita Road, APN 570-170-53)
It has been brought to our attention that you' have recent.ly
acquired sole ownership to property at the northwest corner of
Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita Road. As you are aware, the City
requested that an easement for street purposes be dedicated along
the subject property so that the improvement project to widen
Bonita Road from Interstate 805 to Plaza Bonita Road may go
forwax:d. The documents previously sent to Ing Jaime Bo.nilla are no
longer valid since they were set up for signature by both yourself
and Mr. Bonilla (see attached letter dated August 31,1994).
Enclosed are new documents for dedicating the street easement to
the City, along with a Subordination Agreement which must be
executed by the lienholder ~f the deed of trust. Please execute
the enclosed easements at your earliest convenience (note that all
signatures must be pr~erly notarized). If you are unwilling to
grant the easements. to the City, please contact me as soon as
possible. .
We will be happy to explain any aspect of the documents that you
may have questions about, as well as providing you with information
regarding the widening project. .
Please feel free to contact .me at 691-5261.
.
tY~~
. WILLIAM ULLRICH
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
ac.t.' t; z.c.tu dated Auguat 31, 1".
1I.\DlE\_nm:a\,.........o\PF-U.
~
/~-2 7
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5021
- This Page Blank -
~ /~~oZ-~
.--
I
.
.
.
-../
-
c..)C '" , PJ\ T "
~1f?
~
~~~~
env OF
CHULA VISTA
,
.......
H"
...
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
January 27, 1995
File: PF-I96,ST~-312
Mr. Jose A. Gonzales
P. O. Box 120985
Chula Vista, CA 91912
DEDICATION OF STREET EASEMENT ALONG FRONTAGE AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND PLAZA BONITA ROAD
(Address: 260 Plaza Bonita Road, APN 570-170-53)
According to our title reports and the Assessor's current information, you are the owner of the
subject parcel. having recently acquired full title from ~r. Jaime Bonilla, in partnership with
whom you apparently acquired the property from the County. As indicated to you in a letter
dated December I, 1994, the City is in need of a street easement across your property in order
to widen Bonita Road to provide a right turn lane for traffic entering the freeway to relieve
congestion on this section of street. The project has been designed and is awaiting fmal permits
from the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Once those permits are obtained, the City intends to advertise for bids for the work. The design
included improvements on the street adjacent to your parcel because that was the only way an
effective project could be implemented. Since we have neither received the executed documents,
nor a reply to our December I letter, we will be proposing to the City Council that the property
be acquired either by negotiated purchase or condemnation, and to set up a reimbursement
district to recover the acquisition costs when you develoj)..Your property.
Staff will be proposing to contract with an appraiser and a farm to perform acquisition services
to obtain the street easement. Once the property is appraised, an offer will be made to you to
purchase the easement. Should a negotiated purchase price not be agreed upon, staff would then
continue with eminent domain proceedings which would require hiring an attorney to conduct
the process. Pursuant to the authority set forth in Chapter 15.50 of the Chula Vista ~unicipal
Code, staff will also propose that a reimbursement district be formed under which you would
be required to repay the City for all costs associated with the acquisition and the formation of
the reimbursement district. The district would include the total cost of acquisition plus 7 percent
interest from the date of formation of the district to the time you develop your parcel.
~
The total estimated cost to acquire the easement and set up the district is between $40,000 and
$95,000 depending upon the need for condemnation. Of that amount, the estimated appraised
value of the property is between 530,000 and 560,000. The exact amount could be more or less
~ Ji,.:<j
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CAL!FOFlNIA 92010/(6191 ecl1-5()21
..)
I
....I
Jose Gonzales
-2-
January 27, 1995
........
,
than this estimated value:" The breakdown of the additional cost is as follows: $3,500 for an
appraisal and title report, S3,OOO for acquisition services, $10,000-$25,000 for attorney fees,
and $3,500 for staff costs to set up the reimbursement district. These are estimated costs only,
and the actual costs would be included in the reimbursement district. Consequently, if the City
Council approves the reimbursement district, you will be required to pay back the City more
than you receive for the easement plus interest at 7 percent per year on the entire cost. In
addition, you will be required to pay the Transportion Development Impact Fee (TransDIF) and
Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee (SR-125 DlF) when you develop the property.
As indicated in our previous correspondence dated March 31, 1994 (enclosed), if y,ou dedicate
the street 'easement at no charge to the City at this time, you will only be required to pay the
TransDlF and SR-125 DlF fees when you develop the property. In other words, by dedicating
the easement at no cost now you will be able to avoid the estimatedSlO,OOO to $35,000 in
additional out of pocket costs to you if the City must proceed with purchase or eminent domaion
and reimbursement district procedures. As we also indicated, the project immediately adjacent
to your property was required to dedicate the street easement with development of that property.
Dedication of street easemeots are required of all new projects where existing right-of-way does
not meet current standards.
Staff proposes to place an item on the Council agenda in the near future to authorize hiring an """"
appraiser and consultant to perform acquisition services and to begin formation of a
reimbursement district to recover the cost of acquiring the street easement if we do not receive
a response from you. If Council directs staff to form the reimbursement district, you will have
an opportunity to voice your concerns at a public hearing required prior to establishment of the
district. The public hearing will be conducted after all the costs are known, with the exception
of fmal staff costs.
We believe that dedication of the easement by you at no cost at this time is the most economical
process for both you and the City. If you decide that to be the case, please execute the attached
documents and have the subordination agreement signed and returned prior to February IS,
1995. If you have any questions, please contact Bill UHrich at 422-7299.
Clil . Swanson
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
Enclosures
,
.:.......~. .dadD\tOllD'OW.wau
""""\
~ Ii ;- JtJ
CITY OF CHU~ VISTA
r-.c .~-.
f
.
.
.
-
.~
,..1
Exhibit '7 II
T
RESOLUTION NO. 17412
RE~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VI TA APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH ANDERSON .
BR BANT, INC. FOR PROVIDING APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, several capital improvement projects are currently budgeted which require
additional right-of.way for construction: end,
WHEREAS, to expedite the acquisition process, staff must first appraise the value of
the property; and,
WHEREAS, staff proposes to contract for property appraisal services for a period of
one year with a renewable clause for an additional year; and,
WHEREAS, staff has evaluated the proposals for providing profesalonel appraisal
services and recommends that the City/Agency approve an agreement with Anderson .
Brabant, Inc. to provide these services through Merch 15,1995, which will also include a
renewable clause for an additionel year through Merch 15, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tha CIty Council of the CIty of
Chula Vista does hereby approve City en agreement with Anderson . Brabant, Inc. for
providing appraisal eervlces for various capital improvement, economic development end
redevelopment projects, known es document number C094-038, . copy of which Is on fiI8'
in the office of the City Clerk. .
,
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Meyor of tha CIty of Chula Vista ia hereby
authorized and directed to execute said egreement for and on behalf of tha City.
Presanted by
LMO_
City Attorney
-,
ohn P. Uppitt
irector of Public Works
'..
~
It. / ;J I
_u..
Resolution No. 17412
I
Page 2
:)
:-)
. .
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chura Vista,
Califomia, this 5th day of April, 1994, by the .following vote:
""'"
YES: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Council members: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
~~~
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
1
,
. STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
t' COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ...
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Autheret, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17412 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a joint City CouncillRedeVllopment Agency meeting held on the 5th day of April,
1994.
Executed this 5th day of April, 1994.
<
,
""'"
~ )t-}2
"
1 (.' tJ.
1=)( h i b ,...,.. .. J"
.
/
RESOLUTION NO. 17413
I
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH RYAl.S & ASSOCIATES
fOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION SERVICES IN CONNECTION
WITH VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN
THE ACQUISITION AGREEMENT(SI
WHEREAS, leveral cepital improvement projects are currently budgeted which require
additional right-of-way for 'construction; and,
WHEREAS, to expedite the acquisition process, staff proposes to contract for property
acquisition services for a period of one year with a renewable clause for additional year; and,
WHEREAS, staff has evaluated the proposals for providing professional appraisal
services and recommends that the City/Agency approve an agreement with Ryals &
Associates to provide these aervices through March 15. 1995, which will also include a
renewable clause for an additional year through March 15, 1996.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby approve City an agreement with Ryals &I Associates for property
acquisition services in connection with various capital improvement, economic development
and redevelopment projects. known as document number C094-o39. a copy of which Is on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
. I .
BE IT fURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee i. hereby authorized. .
to aign the acquisition agreement(sland make payments for right-of-way needed for projects .
approved in the City's current CIP Budget. where the cost of each right-of-way Is .... then .. ·
U5,COO for construction of budgetad projects.
n P. Uppitt
.rector of Public Works
Presented by
;
.
~ )j-);J
-...."".
.""'~--' ...
"
E.
~
Resolution No. 17413
pege 2
'.)
~
""'"'
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chuta Vista,
Celifornia, this 5th day of April, 1994. by the following vota:
YES:
Councilrnernbers: Fox, Moore, Rindone. Nader
1.
NOES: Councilrnembers: None
ABSENT: Councilrnernbers:' Horton
ABSTAIN: Council members: None
-+-:- III ~~
Tim Nader. Mayor
--
ATTEST:
"'"
Beverly A. uthelet. City Clerk
. '. STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
. . COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I sa.
. ... CITY OF CHULA VISTA I
I. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California. do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17413 was,duly passed. approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a joint City CouncillRedevelopment Agency meeting held on the 5th day of April,
1994.
,
.
,
Executed this 5th day of April. 1994.
'......
,
...
"'"
~
~ /t-3f