HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/05/09
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
6:00 p.m.
U1 dedarn un~cr penalty 01 p.erjury that 1 am
'-." -f r"~_. '".. \,'0',..."'] 'n ""'.'\!:'l
em-'o'-e,J !-l'_! t""e t',l " 0 1,.,,'<.1:'d d":>'. !. tl.G
O~'i~~eJ o~ t~~:~ (~i'ty -'c.i;~:-~;, ~.:.l~!'j t>'?i> 1 ".:.,';:' ;yJ
this Agcn~13rjoUc:e on '~he S:.:i:~;~jl1 LL):.L";J 3t
the Public ~P~ic,..e~llUil;jin:, and ,at Cit}'2-H~I},~n
.-/ '-",' Of-- /(.,- .'l'
OA'fED:. -~/y 7. S1GNE ,,__ ..... c;:. - .--
Re1!ular Meetinl! of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Council Chamhers
Puhlic Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Alevy _' Moot _' Padilla _, Rindone _' and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 25, 1995, April 25, 1995 (Adjourned Special Meeting), and May
2, 1995.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office:
Housing Advisory Commission - Barbara A. Worth;
Resource Conservation Commission - Kevin B. Clark.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been nelV amendments to the BrolVn Act. The City COllncil mllst nolV
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjollrn the meeting.
Becallse of the cost involved, there lVill be no vitleotaping of the reconvenetl portioll of the meetillg. HOlVever,
final actions reported lVill be recorded in the minlltes IVhich lVill be available ill the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 throllgh 8)
The staff recommentlations regarding the following items listed lInder the Consent Calendar lVill be enacted by
the COllncil by one motion lVithout discllssion unless a COllncilmember, a member of the public or City staff
reqllests that the item be plllled for discussion. If YOll lVish to speak on one of these items, please fill Ollt a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and sllbmit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green fonn to speak in favor of the stoff recommentlation; complete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendatioll.) Items pulled from the Consent Calelltlar will be discussetl after Boartl and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items Plllled 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 deliherations that occurred in Closed
Session on 5/2/95, the City Council authorized settlement of the Daley Rock Quarry litigation
and the agreement will be availahle in draft fonn in the City Clerk's office prior to the
5/9/95 Council meeting. Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable
action taken by the City Council in Closed Session. It is recommended that the letter be
received and filed.
Agenda
-2-
May 9, 1995
6. RESOUITION 17887 DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO TRANSFER SEWER
BILLING FROM THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY TO IN-HOUSE
BILLING, APPROPRIATING $29,940 FROM THE SEWER SERVICE
REVENUE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL START-UP COSTS FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN BILLING SERVICE, AND
AMENDING THE BUDGET TO ADD ONE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
ASSISTANT III TO THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING SEWER
SECTION - The City currently contracts with Sweetwater Authority to bill
sewer service jointly with their water service. This is to finalize the steps
necessary for the City to take over the billing of the sewer customers directly.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance, Director of
Public Works, and Director of Management and Information Services) 4/5th's
vote required.
7. RESOLUTION 17888 AMENDING SCHEDULE II, SECTION 10.52.030 FOR SPECIAL STOP
REQUIRED - THROUGH STREETS AND STOPPED INTERSECTIONS -
CORRAL CANYON ROAD AND PORT RENWICK/THORTON ROAD -
A trial traffic regulation was established in August 1994 to install an all-way
stop at the intersection of Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road
for the promotion of public safety and to reduce traftic hazards and congestion.
The stop signs have been in efflXt for eight months and is hefore Council to
make the all-way stop permanent. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 17889 READOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-95-09) FOR THE "CIVIC
CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION (GG-148)" AND ACCEPTING
BID AND A WARDING CONTRACT THEREFOR - On 4/12/95, sealed bids
were received for "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion (GG-148)." The work
to be done includes excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, crushed
aggregate base, curb and gutter. planter curbs, construction of concrete curb
outlet and drainage channel, landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance,
parking lot lighting, striping and signing, traffic control, and other miscellaneous
work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green foml 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
intii vidual.
9.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-16; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON THE
SITE OF THE OT A Y WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK, LOCATED AT
THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET - AIRTOUCH
CELLULAR - AirTollch Cellular is requesting permission to construct an
unmanned cellular communications facility at the southwest comer of the water
tank pared located at the easterly terminus of Gotham Str~et. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning) Continued from the
meeting of 3/14/95.
RESOLUTION 17890 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-16, TO
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED
CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE EASTERLY
TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET
Agenda
-3-
May 9, 1995
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-26: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH
THE MOOSE LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET - LOYAL ORDER OF
THE MOOSE CHULA VISTA LODGE NUMBER 1927 - The project
consists of redeveloping a 2,25 acre site to establish tbe Moose Lodge at 25133
Naples Street in the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial zone district. The Moose
Lodge is an appropriate alternative use of the property and should represent a
welcome addition to the neighborhood in terms of upgrading the appearance and
security of the site. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning)
RESOLUTION 17891 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET
WITHIN THE C-N ZONE
10.
PUBLIC HEARING
11.
PUBLIC HEARING
INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01 PURSUANT TO
THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 - On 3/28195, Council approved the
boundary map for Assessment District 93-01. Council also approved the
Resolution of Intention ordering the installation of alley improvements from "J"
Street to Kearney Street hetwtXn Elm A venue and Second A venue pursuant to
the Improvement Act of 1911 and setting puhlic hearings for 5/9195 and
5116/95. Staff recommends Council: (I) open the puhlic hearing; (2) receive
testimony; (3) close the puhlic hearing; and (4) notify the puhlic that a second
public hearing will he held on 5/16195 at 6:00 p.m. (Director of Public Works)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mailer within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not inc/uded on the posted agenda.) If you wish ta
atldress the Cauncil on such a subject, please complete the yellow" Requestta Speak Under Oral Cammunications
Farm" available in the labby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and atldress for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Cauncil will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Cammissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staffrecommentlations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fom. available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
12. RESOLUTION 17892 APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF CHULA
VIST A, DALEY CORPORATION, AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - The City Council in
Closed Session on 5/2195 authorized the settlement of tbe Daley Rock Quarry
litigation and directed that the Agreement be ratitied at the Council meeting of
519195. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney)
13. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
Agenda
-4-
May 9, 1995
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
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
15. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
a. Appointment of Council representative to various Council committees. Continued from the
meeting of 4/18/95.
b.
Council designees for Multiple Species Conservation Program Committee. Continued from the
meeting of 5/2/95.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on May 16, 1995
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Meeting of the 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 othenvise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are pemdtted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and whicn the Council is advised should be dIscussed in closed session to best R~otect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of mal action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typicaL Length of time taken up y closed
sessions, the videotaping will be temlinated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of g,naL action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Never/heless, the report
of final action taken will e recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
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.
. City of Chula Vista vs. Fieldstone.
. City of Chula Vista (Otay Valley Road Assessment District) vs. Otay Valley Industrial
Partners.
Agenda
-5-
May 9, 1995
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee tor CVEA, WeE. Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chala Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WeE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Managemt:nt, and Unrepresented.
18. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
~~~
:~~
~.-...;:~-...;:
~~~~
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
May 3, 1995
To:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Re:
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 5/2/95
The purpose of this letter is to announce that as a result of
deliberations that occurred in Closed Session on May 2, 1995, the
City Council authorized settlement of the Daley Rock Quarry
litigation and the agreement will be available in draft form in the
city Clerk's office prior to the May 9, 1995 Council meeting.
Except for the foregoing, there was no other observed reportable
action taken by the City Council in Closed Session.
BMB:lgk
C:\lt\clossess.rep
Sa.-/
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
May 4, 1995
SUBJECT :
The Honorable Mayor and city counc~A
John D. Goss, city Manage~ ~y~
City Council Meeting of May 9, ~95
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City council meeting of Tuesday, May 9, 1995. Comments regarding
the Written communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter from the city Attorney stating that as a
result of deliberations that occurred in Closed Session on
5/2/95, the city council authorized settlement of the Daley
Rock Quarry litigation and the agreement will be available in
the draft form in the city Clerk's office prior to the May 9th
Council meeting. Except for the foregoing, there were no
observed reportable actions taken by the city Council in
Closed Session on May 9, 1995.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date Mav 9. 1995
~
ITEM llTLE: Resolution J 78"~'? Declaring the City's intention to transfer
sewer billing from the Sweetwater Authority to in-house billing,
appropriating $29,940 from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund for
additional start-up costs for implementing the change in billing
service, and amending the budget to add one new staff position
to the Public Works/Engineering Sewer Section.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works P
Director of Finance r-f ~ ,
Director of Management.\1~ Information Services!l/
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ \w{Q!!!\ 14/5ths Vote: Yes ---2L-No_1
The City currently contracts with Swe~J,ater Authority to bill City of Chula Vista
sewer service jointly with their water service. During the past few years, Sweetwater
Authority has notified the City that they intend to cease the joint billing arrangement.
While the City has been successful in postponing the date in the past, the current
cutoff date is September 3D, 1995. In the past City staff has presented City Council
with alternatives and recommendations for taking over the sewer billing. This agenda
item is to finalize the steps necessary for the City to take over the billing of the sewer
customers now billed with water service by Sweetwater Authority and to bill the
customers directly by the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize staff to transfer sewer billing from
the Sweetwater Authority to in-house billing, appropriate $29,940 from the Sewer
Service Revenue Fund for start-up costs for equipment, supplies and services
necessary to bill sewer customers, and approve the addition of one staff member to
the Public Works/Engineering Sewer Section. The costs to the General Fund for the
additional staff person are to be reimbursed from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Backaround During the past few years both Otay Water District and
Sweetwater Authority have notified the City of Chula Vista that they intended to
cease billing sewer for the City jointly with their water bills. While both had agreed
to postpone the cut-off date in the past, the water districts indicated in Spring 1994
that the latest cut-off date of June 3D, 1995 was firm. During the June 1994 budget
process Council accepted a staff report recommending the City bill residential sewer
customers on the County property tax bill and commercial sewer customers directly.
The County property tax bill is used to bill sewer services by several cities and
~/I
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date May 9.1995
unincorporated areas in the County, including the old Montgomery Sanitation District
customers in Chula Vista.
In September/October 1994 the City mailed over 38,000 letters to all sewer
customers explaining the proposal to bill residential sewer service on the property tax
bill and commercial customers in-house. City staff conducted a series of informational
meetings for interested citizens. At the October 25, 1994 City Council meeting
(ATTACHMENT B). Council conducted a public hearing on the various alternatives for
sewer billing. At that council meeting, Council postponed a final decision on sewer
billing and granted the Chamber of Commerce 30 days to address the issue of joint
billing with the two water agencies. Based on public input, Council also took action
at the October 25, 1994 meeting to remove property tax billing from consideration as
a sewer billing option. The Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce attended
the next board meeting of each water district and urged them to continue the joint
billing of water and sewer services. In November 1994, the Sweetwater Authority
Governing Board reaffirmed their intention to cease the joint water/sewer billing, but
they were willing to extend the June 30, 1995 deadline by a few months. The Otay
Water District Board indicated they were open to continue the joint billing, but delayed
a formal decision until they have an opportunity to meet jointly with the Chula Vista
City Council. City staff is currently working with the Otay Water District staff on
several issues including sewer billing.
Following the City Council direction to look at options other than property tax billing
for residential customers, City staff further researched the options of doing all billing
in-house or contracting out sewer billing to another company or agency. Based on
studies of billing options that considered cost, customer service, availability of
customer information, management information and future flexibility, City staff
notified Council in January 1995 (ATTACHMENT C). that it would proceed with the
steps necessary to transfer sewer billing from the joint billing now provided by
Sweetwater Authority to an in-house billing system.
While the City has not received official notification from the Otay Water District, we
anticipate the continuance of joint billing for the Otay Water District customers. There
have been no plans at this time to change the method of billing the customers who
are in the old Montgomery Sanitation District. The City will continue to bill their
sewer charges on the County property tax bill.
Current Status Staff has completed the investigation of the costs and steps
necessary to bring sewer billing in-house for the Sweetwater customers who are
currently billed jointly with water service. The in-house billing system that staff is
proposing would be able to handle all of the City sewer customers in the future if it
becomes desirable or necessary. The estimated cost to the City for transferring sewer
billing for customers now billed jointly by Sweetwater Authority is $26,500 for FY94-
95 and $11,000 of one-time costs and $137,230 on-going annual costs in FY95-96.
The annual on-going costs will be off-set by savings of approximately $162,000 in
billing cost currently paid to Sweetwater Authority . ATTACHMENT A summarizes the
tf,-2
Page 3. Item
Meeting Date Mav 9. 1995
~
initial costs and estimated on-going costs.
In order to accomplish a smooth transition from joint billing to separate City and
Sweetwater Authority billing, there are several steps to be taken.
1. Work with Sweetwater Authority staff to insure a smooth transition.
2. Hire and train necessary staff.
3. Acquire billing hardware, software and supplies.
4. Convert the customer data base and conduct trial billing tests.
5. Inform the customers of the changes.
6. Contract for printing, mailing and lockbox services.
7. Arrange on-going data base update with Sweetwater Authority, including water
usage for commercial and multi-family.
Work with Sweetwater Authoritv Staff City staff has met with Sweetwater
Authority staff to plan the transition. The two staffs are working on a time-table,
customer notification, data conversion, trial billing and on-going exchange of
information. Formal and informal meetings will continue throughout the transition.
Currently the joint water/sewer bill is sent every other month to residential customers
by Sweetwater Authority. Sweetwater Authority has requested that the City bill
sewer bi-monthly on the alternate month from the water bill for single family
residential customers. This would give the customers alternating smaller bills once
a month rather that both bills every other month. Since single family residential
customers are billed a flat rate for sewer, this could be done. Unless Council directs
otherwise, staff will proceed with this plan of alternating single family residential
sewer billing with the water bill.
In addition to working with Sweetwater Authority, City staff is also in contact with
National City staff as they assume in-house sewer billing and with the city staffs of
La Mesa and EI Cajon that took over sewer billing a few years ago. Staff has also
been working with the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego County
Apartment Association to ensure we are meeting the concerns expressed by them on
behalf of their members. The main concerns expressed last October dealt with the
transfer of sewer charges from tenants to landlords that would be necessitated by
changing sewer charges to the property tax bill. By billing the customers directly, we
can send the sewer bill to the current recipient and not affect the rental rates.
Hire and Train Staff Based on the experience of other cities, staff anticipates the need
for a minimum of one additional clerical staff member at this time. This new staff
t-3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date Mav 9. 1995
?
person will be an Administrative Office Assistant III and will work with a current
Administrative Office Specialist who will be assigned to also work on the in-house
sewer billing. The new position could potentially be filled by a transfer from an
existing City position.
Currently, the sewer section of the Public Works Engineering Division is in charge of
the sewer billing. This involves working with the water districts, monitoring the
contracts, answering customer inquiries, setting sewer rates, processing sewer
variance requests, and assigning sewer service charge codes. Sweetwater Authority
staff currently updates the customer data base, generates the bills, processes
payments, collects delinquent accounts and answers customer inquiries. With the
addition of in-house sewer billing for the majority of the Sweetwater customers, this
will mean City staff will be generating approximately 9,000 bills per month with the
additional tasks of up-dating the customer data base, handling the additional customer
inquiries, generating bills, posting payments, and collecting delinquent accounts. To
save costs and minimize the number of staff needed to produce and mail the bills and
post the payments, staff proposes contracting out the bill printing, stuffing and
mailing services and the bill payment lockbox services. The cities of EI Cajon and La
Mesa have found these to be cost-effective ways to keep down the high cost of
equipment and the need for additional staff.
Under the tentative schedule for generating in-house sewer bills, the first sewer-only
bills would be mailed by the City starting October, 1995. In order to train the new
employee, convert the billing data base, test the new billing system and prepare for
the initial billing, it would be desirable to hire the new employee by June 1, 1995.
The cost for one employee for one month would be $5,200. There are three days of
formal training provided by the company that developed the new billing system
included in the cost of the software. Additional variable costs associated with travel
expenses for the trainer during the three days of training are estimated to be $300.
Acauire Billina Hardware. Software and SUDDlies City staff has evaluated bids for
utility billing software that is compatible with the existing City microcomputer
network. The package selected is appropriate for billing small or large numbers of
customers. The billing system is a proven product that is used in more than 100
utility billing applications around the country including the County of San Mateo,
Capistrano Valley Water District, Caliveras Public Utility District and City of Hannibal,
Missouri. Two additional microcomputers and a printer will be needed for the new
employee and the existing employee who will be dedicated to sewer billing. While
specific supplies have not been finalized, estimates are based on preliminary
investigation of costs of bills, envelopes and office supplies for billing. For the
convenience of customers wishing to pay at City Hall, we propose installation of a
drop box outside the doorway of the Public Services Building. The costs for hardware
and software is $17,760 and for furniture, equipment, telecommunications and
supplies is $3,540.
& - 'I
Page 5. Item
Meeting Date May 9. 1995
~
Conyert the Customer Data Base and Conduct Trial Billina Tests Initial data base
conversion will be provided by the software company as part of the software cost.
There will also be conversion work to be provided by Sweetwater Authority staff and
City staff. City staff will provide data verification. Several parallel and trial billings
will be conducted in conjunction with Sweetwater Authority billing prior to cut-over
to in-house City billing. This is to minimize as much as possible any conversion and
billing errors.
Inform Customers of the Billina Chanaes All Sweetwater Authority customers now
receiving a joint water/sewer bill will be notified of the arrangements for sewer billing
by a flyer inserted in their final joint water/sewer bill sent by Sweetwater Authority.
Once we know the decision of Otay Water District, we will notify the customers of
either the continuation of joint billing or the separation of billing with the sewer being
billed direct from the City. The proposed flyer will be brought back to Council prior
to sending to the customers.
Additional customer notification will include letters mailed to property owners whose
tenants now pay for water and sewer. We will notify the property owner that we will
continue to mail the sewer bill to the tenant unless the property owner wishes
otherwise. We will include information on sewer billing in the Chu/a Vista Quarterly
and will send out news releases to the media. The new bill will have a message area
where short messages can be added to the bill.
Contract for Printina. Mailina and Lockbox Services To handle the high-volume
printing, stuffing, mailing and payment processing associated with 9,000 sewer bills
a month, staff proposes to contract out the printing, stuffing, mailing and lockbox
services. The cities of La Mesa and EI Cajon and the Helix Water District have found
this to be a very satisfactory and cost effective solution to avoid the initial cost of
expensive equipment and additional staff to process the volume. Staff will monitor
and continue to evaluate the costs and pros and cons of contracting out all of these
services to see if it would prove advantageous to bring some of these functions in-
house in the future.
Arranae on-aoina data base uDdate with Sweetwater Authority. includina water usaae
for commercial and multi-familv Since water usage is the basis for charges for
multi-family and commercial accounts, the City will need to receive water usage
information from Sweetwater Authority on an on-going basis. In addition, one
concern expressed by the Chamber of Commerce at the time of the October, 1994
public hearing was the ability of the City to cease sewer billing when the water has
been turned off for a vacant rental unit. To address these needs, staff is discussing
on-going cooperation between the City and Sweetwater as part of the meetings with
the Sweetwater Authority staff. Sweetwater staff has agreed to provide water usage
information and account maintenance information such as turn-offs, new services,
change of billing address, etc. Contractual costs are still being negotiated.
~-5
Page 6. Item
Meeting Date Mav 9. 1995
?
Alternative The City Attorney recently brought to staff's attention an alternative to
be brought forward for Council consideration. While the City has spent several years
delaying Sweetwater Authority's request to separate the sewer and water bill, all
indications were that there was no more room for delay. Under our agreement. either
party had the right to terminate the agreement and Sweetwater was choosing to
exercise that right. However, in December 1994 there was an appellate court
decision that recently came to the attention of the City that the City Attorney feels
could have a bearing on the City's ability to demand that the water districts bill sewer
services for the City. In that court case the court determined that a city has the right
to force a utility company to collect a utility users tax. While it does not cover service
fees, the City Attorney feels that an argument could be made that the City could pass
an ordinance that requires the water districts to collect sewer fees along with their
water fees.
One of Sweetwater Authority's major objections to continued joint water/sewer billing
is the growing size of the water and sewer bill with the joint bills often exceeding
$100. They have said that continued joint billing would force them to go from bi-
monthly to monthly billing. This would cause them to add staff and expand their
facilities to accommodate monthly meter reading which would add considerable cost
to the billing process.
Unless directed otherwise, staff will not pursue this option of forcing Sweetwater
Authority to continue the joint billing and will proceed with bringing the billing in-
house.
FISCAL IMPACT: The appropriation of $26,500 from the Sewer Service Revenue
Fund is needed in FY94-95 to bring sewer billing in-house. The on-going annual cost
to the Sewer Service Revenue Fund will be $137,230. Staff estimates an additional
onetime cost of $11,000 in FY95-96. The annual costs will be off-set by the
reduction of the fee now paid Sweetwater Authority of $1.50 per bill or an estimated
$162,000 per year. There will be a net gain to the General Fund of $1,870 in FY94-
95 and $22,370 in FY95-96 because of reimbursement of staff and overhead costs
by the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Estimated One-Time and Ongoing Sewer Billing Costs
Minutes from October 25, 1994 City Council Meeting
Memorandum: Update of Sewer Customer Billing
fin:usors\susanC\S8w509.113
t-~
RESOLUTION NO. /7~~7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO
TRANSFER SEWER BILLING FROM THE SWEETWATER
AUTHORITY TO IN-HOUSE BILLING, APPROPRIATING
$29,940 FROM THE SEWER SERVICE REVENUE FUND
FOR ADDITIONAL START-UP COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE CHANGE IN BILLING SERVICE, AND AMENDING
THE BUDGET TO ADD ONE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
ASSISTANT III TO THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
SEWER SECTION
WHEREAS, the City currently contracts with Sweetwater
Authority to bill city of Chula vista sewer service jointly with
their water service; and
WHEREAS, during the past few years, Sweetwater Authority
has notified the City that they intend to cease the joint billing
arrangement; and
WHEREAS, while the city has been successful in postponing
the date in the past, the current cutoff date is September 3D,
1995; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to finalize the steps for the
city to take over the billing of the sewer customers now billed
with water service by Sweetwater Authority and to bill the
customers directly by the City; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the FY 94-95 budget to
add one Administrative Office Assistant III to the Public
Works/Engineering Sewer section.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby declare the City's intention to
transfer sewer billing from the Sweetwater Authority to in-house
billing starting October, 1995.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $29,940 is hereby
appropriated from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund for start-up costs
for equipment, supplies and services necessary to bill sewer
customers.
&-7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council does hereby
amend the budget to add one Administrative Office Assistant III to
the Public Works/Engineering Sewer Section, with costs to the
General Fund for the additional staff person, being reimbursed from
the Sewer Service Revenue Fund.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
(1-,,-- /yv( A9-1_~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
C:\rs\sewer,SW
t~r
~
,
~
'-.... .
~
\
-
~
".
-;
-;
".
co
::r:
3:
rrl
:z
-;
".
ATTACHMENT A
ESTIMATED ONE-TIME AND ONGOING SEWER BILLING COSTS
1994-95 COSTS
GENERAL FUND
Administrative Office Asst. III
(Salary and Benefits for one month)
Reimb. to Gen. Fund for Staff Services
Total Cost to General Fund
SEWER SERVICE REVENUE FUND
FUTURE COSTS
ANNUAL RECURRING GENERAL FUND
$3,330
Administrative Office Asst. III Salary
Administrative Office Asst. III Benefits
Telephone
Office Supplies
Other Commodities
($5,200)
($1,870)
Reimb. For Staff Services
Total General Fund
One Time Cost for Billing Hardware and Software (1994-95)
2 computers, work station and assoc. hardware
Wide-Bed Laser-Jet Printer and Stand
Sewer Billing Software (Prev. Auth.)
Other Software
SubTotal
Telecommunication Equipment & Installation
Office Furniture and Equipment
Supplies and Commodities
SubTotal
Reimb. to Gen. Fund For Staff Servo
Sewer Servo Rev. Fund Total
SEWER SERVICE REVENUE FUND
$5,600
$2,300
$9,500
$360
ONE TIME COSTS (1995-96)
Printing, etc & Lockbox Startup
Data Conversion at Startup
Customer Notification and Mailing
Drop Box Installation
$17,760
$850
$2,540
$150
Total Transition Costs
ANNUAL RECURRING ITEMS
$3,540
$5,200
Reimb. to General Fund For Staff Services
Bill Printing, Stuffing and Mailing
Lockbox Contractor & Bank Services
Service Charges for Access By Water Co.
Software Enhancements
Annual Software Warranty/Maint.
$26,500
Sewer Service Revenue
Fund Annual Total
$29,160
$10,460
$240
$50
$100
($62,380)
($22,370)
$1,500
$1,000
$6,500
$2,000
$11,000
$62,380
$42,000
$28,880
$2,520
$500
$950
$137,230
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes
October 25, 1994
Page 3
c. Letter describing tbe benetits of the initiative, California Health Security Act (CHSA), and
encourllJ\ing the City to adopt resolution., formally supporting Proposition 186 - Californians tilf Health
Security, 5208 Claremont Ave., Oakland, CA 94618. It is recommended that Council receive and tile this requesl.
d. Letter of resignation from the Cultural Arts Commission - Oscar Arias, 44 East Rienstra SI., Chula
Vista, CA 91911. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed
to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6. RESOLUTION 17690 WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE
OF FOUR 3M SELF-CHECK WORKST A TIONS - The Fiscal Year 1994/95 Capital Improvement Project budget
contains funds allocated for tbe purchase of four self cbeck workstations. As 3M is the only manufacturer to supply
a workstation tbat interfaces with tbe Library's 1NLEX automated circulation system, the Library seeks to waive
tbe bidding process and purcbase four units. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director)
7. RESOLUTION 17691 APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000
TO THE TOBACCO CONTROL SECTION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERvtCES - The
grant proposal developed by tbe Parks & Recreation Department, on behalf of the Cbula Vista Youtb Coalition,
requests $200,000 over a 24 month period (1/1/95 - 12/31/96). Grant funding will be used to hire a part-time
project coordinator through the Parks & Recreation Department, as well as augment the youth newspaper project
sponsored by the City and Soutb Bay Community Services' KidzBiz Program, tbe Youtb ACTION Program, and
otber programs serving Chula Vista youth. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and
Recreation)
8. RESOLUTION 17692 AMENDING SCHEDULE VI, SECTION 10.52.340 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO PARKING TIME LIMITED ON CERTAIN STREETS; SHASTA STREET FROM
DEL MAR A VENUE TO TWIN OAKS A VENUE, A PORTION OF THE 500 BLOCK OF DEL MAR
A VENUE, A PORTION OF THE 200 BLOCK OF WHITNEY A VENUE -Pursuant to the provisions of Section
10.52.230 of tbe Municipal Code, the City Engineer has determined that in tbe interest of minimizing traffic hazards
and traffic congestion, and for tbe promotion of public safety, a resolution establishing a two-bour time limited
parking restriction be established in tbe 500 block of Del Mar Avenue, the 200 block of Sbasta Street and Whitney
Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
· . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' ·
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
9. PUBLIC HEARING BILLING RESIDENTIAL SEWER CHARGES ON THE COUNTY
PROPERTY TAX BILL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL SEWER CHARGES IN-HOUSE STARTING JULY I,
1995 - Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority notified tbe City that tbey wished to terminate the agreements
to provide joint water/sewer billing effective 7/1/93. The City was successful in postponing the separation of billing
for three years and in return for Sweetwater Authority agreeing to extend the deadline to 7/1/95; the City agreed
in writing to meet the deadline. Both water districts have expressed to the City that the 1995 date is firm. In June
1994, Council directed staff to proceed with plans to transfer sewer billing from Sweetwater Authority and Otay
Water District to tbe County tax rolls for residential customers and to in-bouse billing for business customers
effective 7/1/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works, Director of Finance
and Director of Management & Information Services)
RESOLUTION 17693 DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO TRANSFER SEWER
CHARGES FROM THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT BILLS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1,1995, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE STEPS NECESSARY
&, -II
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes
October 25, 1994
Page 4
ATTACHMENT B
TO BILL RESIDENTIAL SEWER AND STORM DRAIN CHARGES ON THE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX
BILL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MOBILE HOME PARK CHARGES IN-HOUSE
Susan Cole, Principal Management Assistant, gave a brief review of the staff recommendation. A public
information campaign was held to notify customers of the impending change in a timely manner and to discover any
problems in the metbod chosen so it could be addressed prior to the change in the billing method. Ninety-one
people attended the informational meetings held, 168 telephone calls were received, and 3 letters were received.
Out of 262 contacts, the majority had questions only with III expressing concern or complaints as to what the City
was doing. Following that information staff modified their recommendation to bill mobile home parks in-house
along with the commercial accounts. Staff would be working the San Diego County Housing Authority to see that
the major portion of the sewer bill that was switched from the renter to the landlord was not counted as a rent
increase on their rental caps. Staff would return to Council with a refund policy to recognize documented water
savings due to retrofitting.
Council member Fox referred to the letter to Council from the County Assessor in opposition to the staff
recommendation and questioned if the fee per assessment cost part of the annual on-going cost was reflected in the
staff report. He questioned if the Assessor was re-evaluating the fee due to possible action by the Chula Vista
Council.
Ms. Cole responded that was correct. Staff had no indication that it was being re-evaluated due to potential action
by Council. The County also billed their sewer charges on the tax roll and therefore, it would also affect them if
raised.
Councilmember Moore questioned if all of the County's sewer billing was done through the tax rolls.
Ms. Cole responded that it was the unincorporated areas of the County including industrial and commercial. The
cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach all billed on the tax rolls.
Councilmember Horton questioned why the City would receive such a letter from the Assessor if it was already
being done in the County and other cities.
Mayor Nader stated the Assessor had stated that he did not like the process and wished it was not being done that
way. The City had been notified that the water districts would not allow the City to continue billing on their
statements.
Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a legal problem or advantage with having the service fees on the
tax bill, i.e. a deduction for income tax purposes. He wanted staff to clarify that issue and whether it would allow
the taxpayer to utilize that as a deduction on their income taxes.
Robert Powell, Director of Finance, stated it was fairly clear that it was not tax deductible. There was pending
federal legislation that would require the county tax collector to segregate the information for the taxpayer as to what
was and was not deductible. That responsibility was being put on the county tax collectors.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the People's Lobby, stated the sewer fees
should be adjusted to cover the costs of the department and should not be a hank for the City.
He fell the collection of the sewer fees on the tax bill would be in direct violation of the City
Charter.
Councilmember Moore called for a point of order stating that the item before Council was the transfer of billing
to the laX rolls.
~ -);L.
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes
October 25. 1994
Page 5
Mayor Nader requested that Mr. Garcia focus his comments on that issue and he would be recogniZtXI regarding
his leller later in the meeting.
Mr. Garcia stated the Charter provided for the collection of tbe fees from tbe ratepayers and be did not feel it
should be transferred.
. Robert E. Severson. P. O. Box 1027, National City, CA, representing the San Diego County Apartment
Association, stated he was the owner of two single family residences in the City. He felt a cbange
in the billing would shift a $200 expense to him and a rent increase could not be until July and
Council knew the difficulty of trying to pass through expenses. He felt owners sbould be given
an option of a bi-monthly basis with a small surcbarge added to cover City expenses with property
owners to be held responsible if the renters did not pay. Options should be given. He felt
additional problems would arise when billing was for water consumption based rates. He had
been told that Sweetwater had offered to do a dummy billing for the City with the money being
mailed to the City.
Councilmember Fox questioned jf staff was aware of the Sweetwater offer.
Ms. Cole responded tbat one of tbe alternatives studied by staff was an option of baving tbe water companies do
tbe billing for tbe City and tbat option was more expensive tban doing the billing in-bouse. Staff bad not totally
looked at the option of billing tenants versus landowner, but felt it could be an administrative nightmare whicb
would result in a higher costs of in-house billing without the benefits of cost saving on the tax roll.
Mayor Nader questioned if the option to allow the landlord to have their tenants billed separately off the tax roll
would result in an administrative nightmare if the landowner was willing to pay the administrative costs. He
questioned whether the San Diego County Apartment Association had been polled to see what their feelings were
regarding the billing to the tenants with administrative costs being paid by the landlords. He questioned whether
there had been discussion regarding a separate bill in the same mailing as the water bills.
Ms. Cole stated the water authorities had indicated that they were not interested in that option.
Councilmember Rindone requested clarification of Item 3 in the Assessor's letter and whether that assumed that
governmental agencies would have to be billed separately.
Ms. Cole stated the governmental agencies would be billed in-bouse along with the commercial customers.
. Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce,
Broadway Association, and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, congratulated staff on tbe
outreach program. They recognized the action was not of the City's making but coming from the
water authorities, but they felt the current system worked well and should not be changed. He
requested a four week delay to give them an opportunity to reach out to the elected officials on
tbe two water boards and convince them that billing should be kept as it was. There concerns
were: I) cash flow to the City; 2) using liens as a method of collection; 3) tax complexity issue
for landlords; 4) impound accounts, i.e. it would take two years for the impound account to catch
up with the proposed action; 5) because it was on the property tax roll it would be treated as a tax
by lenders; and 6) tenant accountability.
. Micbelle Moreno. 1011 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, CA, representing the San Diego County
Apartment Association, clarified that Mr. Severson's comments regarding a surcharge was not a
position of the Association. They had not been directly notified regarding the issue. She felt the
request for a four week delay would be welcomed by their association.
. Mark Franklin, 620 "C" Street, San Diego, CA, representing the San Diego County Apartment
Association, stated under the current proposal there would be in-house billing for businesses yet
for tbe multi-family people that had to obtain a business license tbey were being treated as
residential. In their opinion they needed to receive the economic benefits of retrofitting at the
~-/.J
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes
October 25. 1994
Page 6
present time. They preferred to be billed directly every other month. He supported the four week
delay as recommended by the Chamber.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it would be preferable to delay the item for four weeks rather than offering other
options or moving the multi-family owners from the residential to the business category.
M r. Franklin responded that having time to discuss it with all involved parties would be appreciated. The
Apartment Association did not agree with the proposed surcharge by Mr. Severson as businesses and mobile home
parks were not having to pay it. They preferred the rate be increased from $1.67 to $1.70 and do all billing in-
house or have the water authority do the billing.
. T.A. Petermichel, 1300 Park Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated she was retired and, therefore, on a limited
income. She requested that it be left the way it was and if it had to be changed that a yearly bill
be mailed which would give the landowners the option of paying it all or bi-annually with a $5.00
fee. She felt that would allow those on fixed incomes to budget their money.
. Mike Turner, 9 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista, CA, stated he was opposed to the staff recommendation and
wanted to see some type of direct billing.
. Sid Morris, Sr., 862 Cedar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, stated the proposal would cost him between $200-
$225/month. He felt the City should keep the status quo.
. Carolyn F. J. Butler, 97 Bishop Street. Chula Vista, CA, stated if approved, her sewer bill could be more
than her house payment. She felt Council should take action to keep it the way it was currently
being billed.
Councilmember Horton requested that Mr. Reynolds explain why the billing could not remain the way it was
currently being billed.
. Dick Reynolds, 505 Garrett Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, General Manager, Sweetwater Authority, responded
that the work load for their billing section was increasing annually as the average bill increased.
Economic conditions were such that people were having more difficulty in paying higher bills
which led them to the conclusion that they would have to go from bi-monthly billing to monthly
billing which would result in a cost of $270,OOO/year. It would also create other problems such
as adding six staff members and staff space. Therefore, they did not want to have to go to
monthly billing. When the City raised fees their offices received on average of 100 calls per day
related to sewer for a 3-4 month period.
Councilmember Horton questioned whether they could have a message on the automated answering system that if
the call was regarding sewer billing that they should contact the City.
Mr. Reynolds responded that could probably be done by the end of the year. The difficulty in collecting bills in
the customer accounts area bad increased each year. They felt without the sewer billing they would be ten or more
years away from having to go to a monthly billing.
Councilmember Horton questioned whether a nominal fee increase could be charged which would allow the system
to stay the way it currently was.
Mr. Reynolds responded that would not solve the problem regarding the number of inquiries the staff received and
the personal attention it took for the accounts in arrears.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Council member Rindone felt the input at the hearing had been excellont and had brought forward issues that needed
further examination. He would not vote for anything that would place the billing on the tax roll.
~-/y
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Minutes
October 25. 1994
Page 7
MS (Rindone/Fox) to eliminate the option for con.-;ideration of placing the sewer charges on the annual tax
assessment.
Mayor Nader questioned if there was a requirement that all bills that went on the tax bill be liened if not paid or
was it something the City would tell the Assessor to do.
Mr. Boogaard responded that he would have to research it further and report back to Council.
Mayor Nader stated he was inclined to vote for the motion on the floor with one reservation, i.e. if the tax bill
option was ruled out and if the water districts did not allow the City to continue the present system it would result
in a small rate increase in order to cover two separate billings. He felt the consolidated billing system was the best
and most efficient and supported the four week delay. If tbe present system could not be continued he would be
inclined to agree that person could bave a lump sum payment on the tax bill or if they preferred separate billing.
His vote was Dot an endorsement of a mandatory rate increase to cover the cost of the bill if the City was not
allowed to continue witb the current system.
Council member Rindone felt a subsequent motion would be to provide a four week window of opportunity to work
with the water boards. The importance of the first motion was to send a clear message that Council was not going
to, under any scenario, transfer the sewer charges to tbe tax bills. Therefore, it would be very clear to the water
boards that Council would not change their position and, if it resulted in increased rates, it was due to the actions
of tbe water authorities.
Council member Fox stated he concurred witb Councilmember Rindone's approach. He did not feel the burden
should be shifted from one agency to another because one agency was inconvenienced by telephone calls or a
delinquency problem.
Council member Moore slated a single purpose utility had more control than a multiple purpose utility. Sewer was
about tbe only utility that could not be sbut off. If the City went alone in the billing tbey could not shut off the
service which could result in a larger loss of failure to pay.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
MSUC (RindonelNader) delay further action for at least four weeks to allow an opportunity for community
disclISSion with the two water boards to review the current billing system and avoidance of any change in
costs.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· · · Councilmemher Horton left the dias at 8:20 p.m. · · ·
. Carolyn F. J. Buller, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, requested that Council re-establish the City
transportation committee. She expressed her concern regarding the traffic at the trolley station
on Palomar. The Human Relations Committee did not have time to deal with transportation issues
and sbe felt if the transportation committee was not re-established it should be combined with the
Veterans Commissioo.
. James B. Martin, 1092 Torrey Pines Road, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the Daley Rock
Quarry. He expressed his concern regarding the increased truck traffic (185 trucks between 6:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) on their road.
. Alan Silver. 812 Cardamom Court, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the Daley Rock Quarry. If
tbe projections were correct it would result in a truck going past their house once every five
minutes. He questioned the EIR which stated there would be no environmental impacts. He felt
there would be an impact on air quality, noise, traffic volume, and damage to vehicles driving on
t:, -/5
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
MEMORANDUM
January 18, 1995
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA:
John D. Goss, City Manager .. /
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works If[
Robert Powell, Director of Finance ;v:f . .1 J
Louie Vignapiano, Director of Management and Information ServiceVV
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Update on Sewer Customer Billing
Over the past few years both Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority have notified the
City of Chula Vista that they intend to cease joint water and sewer billings for the City. While
they have agreed to postpone the cut-off date in the past, the current date of final billing for both
water districts is June 30, 1995. At the October 25, 1995 City Council meeting, Council
conducted a public hearing on the various alternatives for sewer billing. At that council
meeting, Council granted the Chamber of Commerce's request to postpone a final decision on
sewer billing, giving the Chamber time to address the issue of joint billing with the two water
agencies. The Council also took action at the October 25, 1995 meeting to remove property tax
billing from consideration as a sewer billing option.
As outlined to Council in the November 17, 1994 informational memorandum, Sweetwater
Authority unanimously voted to proceed with terminating the joint billing agreement. The Otay
Water District indicated a willingness to reconsider their decision to terminate joint billing.
However, they asked for more time to make the decision. They recommended a joint meeting
with the Chula Vista City Council. Because of the requested delay by Otay Water District, both
Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority are willing to extend the June 30, 1995
termination date a few months to allow the City time to make the necessary arrangements to take
over billing.
Since the October 25, 1995 City Council meeting, City staff has continued to investigate the
billing options of contracting separate billing with the water agencies, billing in-house and
contracting with a third party. As part of the investigation, staff has met with the Chamber of
Commerce staff, water district staffs, San Diego County Apartment Association members,
private vendors and EI Cajon and La Mesa City staffs. With information from these sources,
staff has been able to refine billing costs and issues.
While billing costs are a major factor in the billing method, other issues to consider are
customer service, collection enforcement, availability of management and customer information
and flexibility for future changes. Billing in-house provides the opportunity for the best
customer service, the best availability of management and customer information and the best
? -/7
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
Sewer Customer Billing Update
- 2 -
January 18, 1995
flexibility for future enhancements. The other areas to explore are cost to customer and
enforcement.
Refinement of costs since the October 25, 1995 meeting indicate that the only alternative to
billing in-house that could be less expensive than the in-house option would be a joint billing
arrangement with Laidlaw. For numerous reasons, staff feels that joint billing with Laidlaw is
not a viable option. The other factors of customer service, collection enforcement, availability
of management information and flexibility for future changes outweigh the small potential saving
from joint billing with Laidlaw.
. Preliminary calculations show the savings potential to be less than $3 per year per
customer. (In fact, total sewer billing administrative costs represents only 5 % of
the total sewer billing.)
. While turning off water for non-payment of sewer directly affects the delinquent
customer, discontinuing garbage service for non-payment of sewer affects the
neighborhood as well as the non-paying customer.
. People are now confused between the City and Laidlaw when they have questions
about their trash bill. The City Council office and the City Manager's office
receive calls now that rightly should be directed to Laidlaw. Adding sewer to the
Laidlaw bill would compound the confusion.
. There is an inherent connection between water and sewer systems. There is no
similar connection between sewer and solid waste disposal.
. Since customer and water usage information will still be needed from the water
agency, there would be a higher potential for errors with three agencies involved
(water, City, Laidlaw).
. There is not an exact match of sewer and Laidlaw customers. Not all sewer
customers subscribe to Laidlaw service and not all Laidlaw customers are hooked
to the sewer system. For rentals, there are cases where the landlord pays for
Laidlaw service and the tenant pays for water and sewer service.
. Sweetwater's main complaint about the current joint billing is that the combined
bi-monthly bill is too high. This problem would just transfer to the Laidlaw bill.
If the joint bill causes larger numbers of delinquencies as Sweetwater contends,
then adding sewer charges to the Laidlaw bill could adversely impact the number
of delinquencies on a joint sewer/trash bill.
. Joint billing could also complicate future franchise negotiations.
Based on all of these factors, staff is proceeding with further investigation of in-house billing
options. If Otay Water District is willing to continue the joint billing arrangement, the City
could transfer only the Sweetwater Authority customers to in-house billing. This would provide
the least amount of change for the customers at a cost effective price.' Billing in-house
eliminates the major concerns expressed at the October 25, 1995 public hearing. That is, it will
not transfer the billing to the property tax bill. It will allow landlords to maintain the same
billing arrangements as they currently have, i.e. billing the tenant directly if the landlord so
b-/~
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
Sewer Customer Billing Update
- 3 -
January 18, 1995
desires. Receiving service information from Sweetwater Authority would permit sewer service
billing to discontinue when water service is turned off when a residence is vacant. Alternating
a bi-monthly sewer billing with Sweetwater's bi-monthly water billing would give customers
twelve smaller monthly bills rather than six larger bi-monthly payments in a year.
Staff will bring this issue back to a City Council meeting in the near future as soon as Otay
Water District makes a decision or is ready to meet. In the interim staff is proceeding with the
research needed to obtain and implement a cost effective and customer service oriented in-house
billing system for at least those Sweetwater accounts that must be transferred.
fUl\Users\.usanc\scwccin6, mem
KY-081
~-/1 /&-f20
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item 7
Meeting Date 5/9/95
Resolution /7f!rt Affirming Trial Traffic Regulation #142 for
Schedule II - Special Stops Required - Through Streets and Stopped
Intersections - Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road
Director of Public Works ~
Ci" M~"", ~ ,~ (4150h. V.... V.. _ No Xl
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
A trial traffic regulation was established in August 1994 to install an all-way stop at the
intersection of Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road for the promotion of
public safety and to reduce traffic hazards and congestion. The stop signs have been in effect
for eight months and is before Council to make the all-way stop permanent.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution affirming Trial Traffic Regulation #142 for
Schedule II - Special Stops Required - Through Streets and Stopped Intersections - Corral
Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road and make the all-way stop permanent.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 13, 1995, the Safety
Commission voted 4-0-0-2 (Commissioners Cochrane and Liken abstaining due to conflict of
residence location) to recommend that Council make the Trial Traffic Regulation permanent.
DISCUSSION:
On September 2, 1994, staff sent to the City Council, a Trial Traffic Regulation to establish
an all-way stop at the intersection of Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road as
described in the schedule below.
10.52.030 Schedule II - Special Stops Required - Through Streets and Stop Intersections
Name of Street Stop Intersection Traffic Stopped On Signs
Corral Canyon Road Port Renwick/Thorton Road Corral Canyon Road 2*
* Stop Signs on Thorton Road & Port Renwick were already existing
The Safety Commission, at its meeting of June 9, 1994, voted 4-0-3 (Commissioners Matacia,
Pitts, and Smith absent) to recommend to the City Council implementation of the all-way stop
as a Trial Traffic Regulation. Said regulation became effective when the appropriate posting
of signs and pavement markings were put in place on September 12, 1994.
7~/
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 5/9/95
The regulation has run for a trial period of 8 months from the date of such posting, at which
time a review of said regulation was made to determine if it should be made permanent. There
has been no reported accidents at this intersection during the trial installation period. No
reported accidents have occurred as a result of the installation of the all-way stop on Corral
Canyon Road in either segment adjacent to the intersection.
A review of the traffic conditions by staff and the Police Department show that this Trial
Traffic Regulation is operating effectively. Therefore, staff recommends that the Trial Traffic
Regulation be made permanent.
All area residents have been notified of tonight's meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Attachments: Safety Commission Minutes 6/9/94 (excerpt)
Safety Commission Minutes 4/13/95 (excerpt)
Trial Traffic Regulation #142
Area Plat
Letter from J. M. Liken dated 3/9/94
m:\home\engmeer\AGENDA \corral.ttr
7-;).,
RESOLUTION NO.
/? g"yg/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING SCHEDULE II, SECTION
10.52.030 FOR SPECIAL STOP REQUIRED - THROUGH
STREETS AND STOPPED INTERSECTIONS - CORRAL
CANYON ROAD AND PORT RENWICK/THORTON ROAD
WHEREAS, a trial traffic regulation was established in
August 1994 to install an all-way stop at the intersection of
Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road for the promotion
of public safety and to reduce traffic hazards and congestion; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission, at its meeting of April
13, 1995, voted to recommend that the city Council make the Trial
Traffic Regulation permanent; and
WHEREAS, a review of the traffic conditions by staff and
the Police Department show that this Trial Traffic Regulation is
operating effectively, therefore, staff recommends that this Trial
Traffic Regulation be made permanent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend Schedule II, section
10.52.030 for Special stops Required - Through Streets and Stopped
Intersections - Corral Canyon Road and Port Renwick/Thorton Road to
add the following:
10.52.030 SCHEDULE II - SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED - THROUGH
STREETS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS
Name of stop Intersection Traffic Stopped Sig
Street On ns
Corral Canyon Port Renwick/Thorton Road Corral Canyon 2*
Road Road
* stop Signs on Thorton Road & Port Renwick were already existing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Police Department, city
Clerk and Director of Public Works are directed to maintain a copy
of the schedule on file and to make same available to the public
upon request.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
!LAt.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard City
Attorney
C:\rs\stopsign.II
7,3 /7-~
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, June 9, 1994
7:15 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Padilla, Commissioners Bierd, and Koester
Excused Absence:
Commissioners Matacia and Smith
Unexcused Absence:
Commissioner Pitts
Also Present:
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera Associate Traffic Engineer; Sgl.
Gene d' Ablaing; and Dolly Hicks, Ading Recording Secretary
2. Pled\!e of Alle\!iance/Silent Praver
3. ODenin\! Statement - Read by Chai r Thomas
Soecial Recoenition to Commissioner Bill Koester (this item was taken out of turn and presented after
Item 6)
Frank Rivera said Commissioner Koester had served the Commission for six years. It was Commissioner
Koester's last meeting and staff enjoyed having him as a commissioner. He was one of the enforcers of
disabled parking for the City. He presented Commissioner Koester with a gift from staff.
Commissioner Koester said it was a privilege and pleasure to work with staff, commissioners, and secretaries
during his terms. He believed that together, they accomplished many things and wished everyone good luck
for the future.
4. ADDroval of Minutes:
MSC (Koester/Bierdl to approve the minutes of April 14, 1994 as presented. Approved 4"()-3 with
Commissioners Matacia, Pitts, and Smith absent.
MEETING AGENDA
5. REPORT on All-Way Stop at Port Renwick and Corral Canyon Road
Frank Rivera presented staff's report and slides of the area. .
Vice Chair Padilla asked staff if one Dr two Caltrans warrants were met, were they added to the Chula Vista
warrant system.
Frank Rivera indicated that Caltrans warrants were incorporated in the all-way stop study and the points were
listed.
Hal Rosenberg said the Caltrans guidelines were used in the City's policy. The State warrant guidelines
indicated, even if minimum warrants were satisfied, engineering judgment should apply to determine whether
or not an all-way stop should be recommended. The State warrants did not use a point system. Staff felt the
point system gave staff a better evaluation from a technical perspective.
7-5
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
June 9, 1994
Page 2
Vice Chair Padilla asked if the warrant regarding "unusual conditions" was a subjective judgement or if there
was a judgement where some conditions would receive fewer points than another.
Hal Rosenberg said it was a judgement evaluation.
John Liken, 609 Forester Lane, Bonita, CA 91902, said at the last meeting he had been asked how much
support he had from the neighborhood. He walked his neighborhood and informed neighbors about the
meeting and circulated a petition. He placed notices in Eastlake for residents who might use the subject
intersection. He presented a petition with 209 signatures to the Commission in favor of the all-way stop sign
at the intersection of Corral Canyon and Port Renwick. He stood on the corner of Port Renwick and Corral
Canyon the morning of the meeting with a sign about a petition and had over 50 motorists stop and sign the
petition. The motorists that stopped to sign the petition were concerned about the left turn from Port Renwick.
The current staff report said the heaviest counts were before 9:00 a.m. which was when a school bus stopped
in the area on Corral Canyon. He felt it deserved more than two points in warrants for being a school bus
stop. It was a City bus stop as well. The intersection was at the upper limits of sight distance of 50 mph.
The report indicated a few vehicles over 50 mph. There was a potential for problems at the intersection if it
did not receive a control device. The Council Policy stated "the installation of an all-way stop control is
justified with the minimum 30 points unless anyone of the Caltran's criteria is met." He felt it meant if a
Caltrans warrant was met, that it could be used to justify the installation and the intersection evaluation met
warrant #3. Two intersections in the immediate area were controlled by all-way stops. Country Vistas
Lane/Corral Canyon Road and Rutgers Avenue/Gotham Street. Given the situation, the intersection at Port
Renwick and Corral Canyon had many more warrants for an all-way stop than either of those intersections.
Supporters werein the audience but did not wish to speak.
Steve Giles, 1981 Rue Michelle, Chula Vista, CA 91913, president of the Eastlake Homeowners Association
(HOAl said he was unable to bring the issue before the HOA Board of Directors. He spoke for the residents
of Eastlake and said a stop sign at the intersection was important. He personally had a few near miss accidents
at the intersection coming from either direction. The sight difference was a difficult judgement call due to the
road design. The bicycle lane added an additional element to be aware of at the intersection.
Vice Chair Padilla was concerned regarding the language of the warrant system which indicated that the point
minimum was flexible in light of any Caltrans conditions being met. The sight distance reflected in the report
was a minimum for the critical speed. There was room for more flexibility for warrant #2 "unusual
conditions." There were pedestrians, bus stops and a grade to deal with in the area. He would not be able
to support staff's recommendation.
Chair Thomas also agreed there should have been more points for the unusual conditions warrant which could
move the total points to 25, which was close the 30 point minimum.
MSC (Thomas/Padilla) to deny staff's recommendation. Approved 4-6-3 with Commissionen Malacia, Pitts,
and Smith absent.
MSC (PadillalBierd) for the Safety Commission to recommend to the City Council implementation of the stop
sign as requested and to include the possibility of a trial traffic if applicable. Approved 4-6-3 with
Commissioners Matacia, Pitts, and Smith absent.
Frank Rivera said staff would prepare an information item to the City Manager. lithe Manager's Office thought
there would be a problem, then the item would be sent to the Council for action.
Chair Thomas requested that the citizen petition be placed with any information that went to Council.
7~?
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Safety Commission Minutes
April 13, 1995
Page 6
9. REPORT Affirming Trial Traffic Regulation - All Way Stop at Corral Canyon/Port Renwickffhornton Road
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
MSC (Smith/Miller) to recommend that the City Council pass a resolution affirming the Trial Traffic Regulation
and make the all-way stop permanent. Approved 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Liken and Cochrane abstaining
due to conflict of interest with their resident locations.
10. Oral Communications ~ None
STAFF REPORTS
11. En2ineerin2 CIP Proiect Schedule - Distributed for Commissioner information.
12. Information Item - Safety Commission Granting Additional Authority
Frank Rivera reported that staff was working with the City Attorney to make the changes to the Municipal Code
as passed in the policy.
Chair Thomas said it was his understanding that the policy was in effect.
Commissioner Miller recommended a change to the Chair's opening statement regarding the appeal process.
Commissioner Pitts left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
13. Traffic Accident Summarv for lanuarv 1995 - Distributed for Commissioner information.
OTHER BUSINESS
14. Commissioner Comments
Vice Chair Smith: a) Review of other Commission A2endas
Vice-Chair Smith said he wanted to see agendas from the Parks & Recreation, Town Center, and Planning
Commissions as well as the Senior Patrol. He wanted to see agendas included in the packet and just take one
Commission per month.
Chair Thomas said he initially was for reviewing agendas and reports, but then felt he did not want to see any
other reports that did not come from Engineering staff. He did not want staff to spend additionai time preparing
items.
Commissioner Liken did not have any objection to seeing agendas on a trial basis. He suggested writing a letter
to other commissions making them aware that the Safety Commission was ready to review any safety items they
might have.
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
7-7
C-::.' //7
L/-7'~ ,/
.4 ~'. A
-C~ J~~...~.
:) ~i/. I
j
'j
:J
X~!,:QRMb:IXQ~
X:IEM
July 26, 1994
Pile: CY-027
SUBJECT :
:::::~::t::.::;:;~H .k./
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Work~ (~
Establishing a Trial Traffic Regulation
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
Pursuant to the prov1s1ons of Section 10.12.030 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 1625 on May 27,
1975, the City Engineer, with the concurrence of the Chula Vista
Safety Commission, has determined that in the interest of
minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion, and for the
promotion of public safety, there is hereby established:
10.52.030
SCHEDULE n - SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED - THROUGH
STREETS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS
Name of Street stop Intersection
Corral Canyon Road Port Renwickl
Thornton Road
Traffic stopped On Signs
Corral Canyon Road 2*
. Stop Sign on Port Rerwick I Thornton Road are .11"'8lld,y _1st1ng.
The City Engineer has determined the need to establish an All-Way
stop at the intersection described above. This is in response to
concerns from the area residents regarding sight distance at this
location and the speed of oncoming traffic at this intersection
The Safety Commission, at its meeting of June 9, 1994, after
hearing testimony from the residents of the area, voted 4-0-3
(Commissioners Pitts, Matacia, and Smith absent) to recommend
that an all-way stop be installed via Trial Traffic Regulation.
This action was in contradiction to staff's recommendation.
Staff's recommendation was based on an evaluation of existing
traffic conditions and existing physical characteristics of the
intersection. Specifically, staff found no reported accident
history, and determined that sight distance was sufficient for
the 35 M.P.H. posted speed limit.
Volumes on Corral Canyon Road are three times higher than those
on the cross streets of Port Renwick and Thornton Road. Based on
these conditions, the intersection received 15 points on the all-
way stop warrants. This is out of a possible 54 points where 30
points are required for the installation of all-way stops per
City Council Policy.
7-5/7-7
Trial Traffic Regulation '142
Trial Traffic Regulation '142
July 26, 1994
File: CY-027
The Safety Commission received a petition with over 200
signatures in support of an all-way stop at this location.
Additionally four (4) citizens attended the meeting and two (2)
gave testimony in favor of the all-way stop. Nobody spoke in
opposition to the stops proposed. The Safety Commission felt that
the sight distance at the intersection was marginal. The
Commission felt that although the City Council Policy warrants
were not met, special consideration should be given to the speed
of approaching vehicles on Corral Canyon Road and the limited
sight distance of Port Renwick and Thornton Road. The Safety
Commission recommended that the all-way stop be installed as soon
as possible by Trial Traffic Regulation.
Although the all-way stop does not satisfy the City Council All-
Way stop policy warrants, staff believes that its installation
would not have a negative affect on traffic safety. Because
visibility at the intersection is slightly restricted, staff
believes the all-way stop control would be in the best interest
of the neighborhood. Staff will proceed with a work order to have
the all-way stop installed. The installation is scheduled for the
first week of August, 1994.
Said regulation to become effective upon the posting of signs.
The regulation shall run for a trial period of 8 months from the
date of such posting, at which time a review of said regulation
will be made to determine if it should be made permanent.
Attachments:
Area Plat
Minutes:(excerpt) Safety Commission Meeting 6/9/94
Letter from John M. Liken dated 3/9/94
Petition from area residents
Trial Traffic '142
(C:\IlEIfIIS\ax:ASTOP.llOC)
7-1
~.. ~"".. .,
.' ....P
. . -----------
tt." . . . ./l1M
\\C~\ .".- .
~ ~ f , ~, \ 1 '._ \
~\.17 ~ I v,' . .
. \\u. I;; \ ~ r: __ -
\. Ii.... - ) _ ......
: ,", ~ ~;.) ,J"': Ir \ ~ ~~ST ill
.../ L r-...;J,r \~ 0. ] < '~{~C,j ....
_ L .J _ t""":::S\ ~""'J'':'' 'I .
ITT--.........'l\ ~~r__ ~--~ ~
~" ~ ~\ ' , l<<~~~ , - ~
I 1 ~ to .~ "" 'I- _~ 1\ I j
'-'1 "Jo.. --n.." ~ ~ ::::kS ~
=t1::'~~J ~~ l:h-,~ ~ / ~
T \J~ .." ('\~~,O".; ~f!!j . .,~ ~~
.., 1- [\ ~If{ .. \0-" . . ,:y: "
~ ,~ ~ ,r \.- . ....
/~ "' 1 ~. - .U~CT INTERIECTIC?"
\L/~ ~,~o .-'.tr
- \;> , J ~
. ~ .' ~ t;' ~ZI
: ~ ~ ~
Ii)
PLoAT'.'
TIT".
. .
. 'l~/tl
~
AREA
\ ~\
---~-----
. .
"_' J; ". _"~ -" - "
"":';" ~.,.
JOHN M. LIKEN
i3~i'i.iq' ~9 .~~~'?;-':;
609 Forester Lane
Bonita, CA 91902-4035
(619) 482-0241
Traffic Safety Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Traffic Safety Commission:
I am writinq this letter to voice my concerns on two traffic
matters in the area which I reside. I live in the Mariposa
development of Bonita Lonq Canyon in eastern Chula Vista. I travel
Corral Canyon and East H Street on a daily basis.
The first concern is that of the lack of traffic control at
the intersection of Corral Canyon and Thorton Rd./ Port Renwick.
It has become increasinqly danqerous to exit from Thorton Road,
especially durinq commute hours. The main problem is this
intersection sits atop a hill. The site/distance is poor,
especially for traffic drivinq southbound approachinq the
intersection. The site/distance in conjunction with the normal
traffic flow (85th percentile) leads to many near misses. I have
on several occasions, started my riqht turn onto southbound Corral
Canyon only to be forced into movinq into the bicycle lane to avoid
a fast approachinq vehicle from behind. It becomes even more
danqerous, attemptinq to turn left onto northbound Corral Canyon.
I understand that the intersection was studied for controls
and was suqqested for 4-way stop siqns. I would encouraqe the
commission to take a close look at this potentially danqerous site.
The second issue is more of a commutinq inconvenience than
that of a traffic hazard. It is reqardinq the current lane
desiqnations at the intersection of Corral Canyon and East H
Street. Durinq the later part of the morninq commute and while the
parents are drivinq their children to Tiffany Elementary School.
the southbound lanes at the intersection become very conqested.
The traffic siqnals are set to qive priority to the main artery of
East H Street. Traffic backs up on Corral Canyon and in the s/b 12
lane in particular. This is usually due to a parent. stopped at
the limit line. waitinq for the qreen liqht to proceed straiqht
throuqh the intersection. The result is sometimes six to eiqht
cars behind. with their riqht turn siqnals on, blocked from
movement because of one car.
My recommendation would be to desiqnate the s/b 12 lane a
riqht turn only lane. This would move the thru traffic into the 11
lane with over quarter mile in which to move over to make a riqht
turn onto Gotham Street. The intersection of Rutqers and Gotham is
much less travelled, but has a desiqnated riqht turn only lane.
7-//
The cost for this very effective traffic control is minimal as
a sinqle siqn and the paintinq of one arrow is all that is needed.
Thank you for your careful consideration into these matters.
Sincerely,
cJ-LNL
John M. Liken
!
cc: Honorable Tim Nader, Mayor
7;/.2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 5/9/95
ITEM TITLE: Resolution ) 7 8"'~'i Readopting Negative Declaration (IS-95-09)
for the "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion in the City of Chula Vista,
California (GG-148) and accepting bids and awarding contract therefor
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager.11 ~6~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
At 2:00 p.m. on April 12, 1995, in Conference Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion in the
City of Chula Vista, California (GG-148)" The work to be done includes excavation and
grading, asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, curb and gutter, planter curbs,
construction of concrete curb outlet and drainage channel, landscape planting, irrigation and
maintenance, parking lot lighting, striping and signing, traffic control, and other miscellaneous
work shown on the plans. The City Attorney has advised staff to readopt the Negative
Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution readopting Negative Declaration
(IS-95-09) for the "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion in the City of Chula Vista, California
(GG-148) and accepting bids and awarding contract.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for this project were budgeted in the FY 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program. This
much needed project was budgeted to help alleviate the existing parking space shortage for
City employees and others who use the parking facilities at the Civic Center parking lot. This
expansion will reduce on-street parking by employees and will free up those spaces for public
use.
The existing parking lot currently provides 114 parking spaces, 60 of which are for compact
cars. The compact spaces were installed in 1987 to increase the number of parking spaces
within the parking lot. The proposed design of the parking lot provides for 36 additional
parking spaces, and the sandblasting and re-striping of the existing lot to provide a total of 150
full-sized parking spaces, thus eliminating the small compact spaces which are underutilized.
The overall scope of the project consists of converting the property at 459 F Street into a
parking lot. This project is being done in two phases. The first phase, which has already been
completed, involved the removal of the existing structures, utility removals, filling of the
existing pool and excavation and grading.
7-)
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 5/9/95
The second phase of the project provides for the actual construction of the parking lot
improvements and includes parking lot paving, landscape planting and irrigation, lighting,
striping, re-striping and signing and other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the
parking lot.
Bids were received from eight contractors as follows:
Contractor Base Bid Additive Item Additive Item
Amount #1 #2
1. Basile Constrnction, Inc. - San Diego $80,047.75 $320.00 $970.00
2. Sim J. Harris, Co. - San Diego $86,200.00 $338.00 $1,696.00
3. ABC Constrnction, Co. - San Diego $87,822.00 $920.00 $5,600.00
4. Sonthland Paving, loco - Escondido $88,654.00 $700.00 $2,500.00
5. Angns Asphalt Co. - Santee $99,577.00 $925.00 $3,500.00
6. Hammer Constrnction, Co. - Chula Vista $99,657.85 $1,001.40 $3,079.00
7. Edward Zasueta, Co. - Spring Valley $100,659.50 $253.00 $680.00
8. Interwest Pacific, Inc. - San Diego $105,015.00 $880.00 $2,460.00
The low bid by Basile Construction, Co. for the base bid is below the engineer's estimate of
$106,405 by $26,375.25 or by 24.8%.
During the bidding process, staff requested contractors to bid on two additional items.
Additive item #1 includes removal of existing striping for compact spaces along the easterly
side of the existing parking lot and restriping as full size spaces. Additive item #2 includes
removal of all striping within the existing parking lot, placement of a sand seal, and restriping.
The intent of additive item #2 was to have the entire existing parking lot be restriped to
eliminate the existing compact spaces at a minimal cost. The apparent low bidder for this
project (Basile Construction, Inc.) bid $320 for additive item #1 and $970 for additive item #2.
The difference of $640 ($970 less $320) is considered to be insignificant (0.8% of the base
bid) and staff recommends that additive item #2 be accepted by Council.
Basile Construction, Co. has previously done some work for the city, and their work has been
satisfactory. One of the projects they recently completed, was the Rohr Park improvement
project (phase III).
Staff has reviewed their references, and verified their license and determined that the contractor
has the relevant experience and resources to complete the project and that the license is in good
standing. We, therefore, recommend that the contract be awarded to Basile Construction
Company, San Diego.
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy of the contractor's disclosure statement (Exhibit A).
~~:L
Page 3, Item c;r'
Meeting Date 5/9/95
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there will be no significant
environmental impacts associated with the project and, therefore, recommend approval of the
Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-95-09 (originally approved by Council on
March 21, 1995) attached as Exhibit B. Even though the Negative Declaration has previously
been adopted, the City Attorney has recommended that the document needs to be adopted, or
readopted, before Council can award the contract as this action is another step in the
implementation of the project and to avoid any risk that the project may have been changed.
At the time the initial study was prepared, the only impact that was identified as potentially
significant was the potential displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing.
It was determined that the City of Chula Vista has more than its fair share of low-income
housing and that the five low-income units that were lost as a result of the project were
replaced. Previous residents were relocated under the State Uniform Relocation Act.
Prevailing Wage Statement
The source of funding for this project is Development Impact Fees. Contractors bidding this
project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for work under
this contract. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as
part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the
sending of the notice to contractors to various minority trade publications.
Financial Statement
Funds Required for Construction
A. Contract Amount $81,017.75
B. Contingencies (5%) $4,050.89
C. Staff (Inspection and Surveying) $12,790.11
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $97,858.75
Funds Available for Construction
A. Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion (GGI48) $97,858.75
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $97,858.75
%'3
Page 4, Item r{'
Meeting Date 5/9/95
FISCAL IMP ACT: This is the last phase of the parking lot construction and will utilize the
balance of the funds budgeted for the project. After construction, only routine City
maintenance, mainly sweeping and periodical repainting of the striping, will be required.
AC:sb
m:\home\engineer\agenda\lotexpan.ac
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Disclosure Statement
Negative Declaration (18-95-09)
g'~1
RESOLUTION NO. / 7 ~ 1'7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA READOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(IS-95-09) FOR THE "CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT
EXPANSION IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA (GG-148)" AND ACCEPTING BID AND
AWARDING CONTRACT THEREFOR
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista has received sealed bids
for "Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion in the city of Chula vista,
California (GG-148)"; and
WHEREAS, the work to be done includes excavation and
grading, asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, curb
and gutter, planter curbs, construction of concrete curb outlet and
drainage channel, landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance,
parking lot lighting, striping and signing, traffic control, and
other miscellaneous work shown on the plans; and
WHEREAS, at the time the initial study was prepared, the
only impact that was identified as potentially significant was the
potential displacement of existing housing, especially affordable
housing and it was determined that the city of Chula vista has more
than its fair share of low-income housing and that the five low-
income units that were lost as a result of the project were
replaced; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there has been no
changes to the project originally reviewed by Negative Declaration
IS-95-09; and
WHEREAS, the city Council finds that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, Negative Declaration Is-
95-09 is readopted; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator concluded
that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated
with the project and recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration issued on Initial Study 15-95-09 (originally approved
by Council on March 21, 1995); and
WHEREAS, previous residents were relocated under the
State Uniform Relocation Act; and
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 12, 1995, in Conference
Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public
Works received the following eight sealed bids for "Civic Center
1
~,s
Parking Lot Expansion in the City of Chula Vista, California (GG-
148)":
Contractor Base Bid Additive Item Additive
Amount #1 Item #2
1. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego $80,047.75 $320.00 $970.00
2. Sim J. Harris, Co. - San Diego $86,200.00 $338.00 $1,696.00
3. ABC Construction, Co. - San Diego $87,822.00 $920.00 $5,600.00
4. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido $88,654.00 $700.00 $2,500.00
5. Angus Asphalt Co. - Santee $99,577.00 $925.00 $3,500.00
6. Hammer Construction, Co. - Chula Vista $99,657.85 $1,001.40 $3,079.00
7. Edward Zasueta, Co. - Spring Valley $100,659.50 $253.00 $680.00
8. Interwest Pacific, Inc. - San $105,015.00 $880.00 $2,460.00
WHEREAS, Basile Construction, Co. was the lowest bidder
and the base bid is below the engineer's estimate of $106,405 by
$26,375.25 or by 24.8%; and
WHEREAS, during the bidding process, staff requested
contractors to bid on two additional items: Additive item #1
includes removal of existing striping for compact spaces along the
easterly side of the existing parking lot and restriping as full
size spaces and Additive item #2 includes removal of all striping
within the existing parking lot, placement of a sand seal, and
restriping; and
WHEREAS, the apparent low bidder for this project (Basile
Construction, Inc.) bid $320 for additive item #1 and $970 for
additive item #2; the difference of $640 ($970 less $320) is
considered to be insignificant (0.8% of the base bid) and staff
recommends that additive item #2 be accepted by Council; and
WHEREAS, Basile Construction, Co. has previously done
some work for the city, and their work has been satisfactory and
staff has reviewed their references, and verified their license and
determined that the contractor has the relevant experience and
resources to complete the project and that the license is in good
standing and recommends that the contract be awarded to Basile
Construction Company, San Diego; and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is
Development Impact Fees and Contractors bidding this project were
not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them
for work under this contract; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents although
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
2
tf~~
of the notice to contractors to various minority trade
publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1. The city Council of the city of Chula vista
does hereby readopt Negative Declaration (IS-95-09) for the "civic
Center parking Lot Expansion in the City of Chula Vista, California
(GG-148".
Section 2. That the City Council does hereby accept the
bid of Basile Construction Company as responsive.
Section 3. The city Council awards the contract for the
civic Center Parking Lot Expansion to Basile Construction company
in the amount of $81,017.75 (Base bid $80,047.75 + additive item #2
- $970), the lowest responsible bidder which submitted a responsive
bid to the approved specifications.
Section 4. 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
Approved as to form by
l~ "YVL<}()-L ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, city
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\parklot.cc
3
8'~ 7 / 0- J
to-x+-'\b'~ "A"
~ ' lj
~#t
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You arc required to file a Statement of Oisdosure of certain ownership or finam:ia1 interests, paymeDlS, or campaign conttibutions,
, on all maners which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City COWlCil. PIannins Commission, and all other official
.
. - ~es. The following information must be disclosed:
I. US! the names of all persons having a fiDancial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the Conuact,
e.g.. owner, applicant. Conuactor, subcoDlractor, material supplier.
Basile Construction. Inc.
2. If any person" identified pursulDlto (I) above is . corporation or pII1Dmhip,lisI the IIIDICS of all individuals owning more
than lOll; of the slwes in the corporation or oWDina any putDmbip inrerest in the pannersbip.
Peter Allen Basile, President
Dawn A. Basile, CFO/Secretary
3. If any person" identified pursulDlto (1) above is lIOn-profit orl"n;7.0';on or . lnISl.1isI the _ of any person ICI'Vina IS
director of the lIOn-profit organization or IS UUS\ee or beDeficiary or trnstor of the trust.
NONE
(
.. Have you had more than S2SO worth of .....-.: t1W....~'.ed with 11II)' manber of the City iliff, Boards, r_;..;nn<,
CommiIteeS, and COWICiI within the pasllWeIve month? Yes _ No ~ If yes. pIeue iNti...... penoD(s):
5. Please ideDlify each and every person. iDcludini any qcnIS. aaploJees. _1.._, or ;."'v.- Coalraclors wbo you
IIave usipwl to represent you before the Ciry in dIis 1IIIlIer.
Peter Allen Basile, President
Dawn A. Basile, CFO/Secretary
6. Have you and/or YOll1 ofti=s or qcnIS, in the agrepIe, lXIIIUibuled more than S 1,000 ID . C.........I _I.. in the curmll
or pnceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, .. wbida ('.........1 ...- (rs(s):
Date:
· · · (NOTE: ........... addIl'-a' .... . ..... .,1 · · ·
~..---~ 18~~ e
li:ipo-'V"l: of c-.ctor/AppIicanI
Dawn A. Basile, CFO/Secretary
PriIIl or Iype DIme of Coaa......./App1iuDt
· lmfIl1 is dt/iMd as: "Any ind/vUIl1Dl. ftrm. ~P. joiN wrarru-e. tlll<<iatitm. IOdDl clIIb, fratemtJl Of'IG1/lZDtion,
corporation, _. trust. ncei_. syrr4/CIlU. this an.d any litho ~ dry,!r COIIIIlTy, city 1fIlIIIidpa1ity, distria, or litho poUtical
sllbd/v1s/on. Dr any othD ,rollp Dr combInDtion actin, as /Il111it. y.-1 f! - 7
Ap.,..;1 1? ,QQc;.
(
- This Page Blank-
~ ~rl{}
II
,. "
EXHIBIT 8
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Parking Lot
PROJECT LOCATION: 459 F Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
568-110-17
PROJECT APPLICANT:
City of Chula Vista - Community Development Department
CASE NO: IS-95-09
DATE: October 26, 1994
A. Proiect Setting
The project involves the expansion and redesign of the existing Civic Center parking lot
west of the Fire Station at 459 F Street. The site is presently developed with one single
family residence and five rental unit households.. The site is surrounded by muItiple-
family housing to the west and across F Street to the south, the Fire Station, parking lots
and City Hall buildings to the east and City Hall buildings, multiple and single-family
housing to the north.
B. Proiect Description
The project involves the expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the
Fire Station including the redesign of the existing parking lot and the elimination of
"compact" parking spaces. The existing dwelling units which are currently vacant will
be demolished. All residents previously residing in the dwelling units were relocated.
under the State Uniform Relocation Act. With the addition of a .52 acre area proposed
for expansion, the 60,770 sq. ft. lot will total 150 standard spaces. Perimeter lighting,
landscaping and pedestrian walkways are part of the proposal. The discretionary action
associated with this project is a Special Use Permit.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The General Plan Designation is Residential Medium and the Zone is R-3. A special use
permit is required for this unclassified use which fits the public-quasi-public definition.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
~
'"
S'-/j
~ (f.?.
-.-
~....._-~
....
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review ..clion
em OF
CHULA VISTA
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Mandatory Findinl!s of Sil!nificance
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not
have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be
prepared.
1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As the project is proposed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area,
there are no sensitive animal or plant resources on site.
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
This project will accomplish the long-term goals consistent with the Town Centre
II Redevelopment Plan goal to improve and construct public facilities and other
public improvements to improve the quality of the environment and work toward
the elimination of blighting influences, including: inadequate parking facilities.
3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
This project has the potential to reduce cumulative traffic impacts by providing
additional parking spaces to Civic Center employees and visitors who may
currently be traveling longer distances to find parking.
4. Will the environmental effects of a project cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project could reduce adverse effects on people by providing additional
parking at locations which do not require as much travel and potential pollution.
B:\ccpl.nd
"'&~ f5-/./-.
/'
Page 2
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Oreanizations
City of Chula Vista:
Barbara Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff 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.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development
Specialist
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: City of Chula Vista, Engineering Department
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Town Centre II (Amended) Redevelopment Plan, 1987
3. Initial Studv
This enviromnental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the
public review period for this Negative Declaration. The repon reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Funher information regarding
the enviromnental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Founh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
ENVIRON ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
B'\cqll.nd
~ <6~)3
<
Page 3
. APPLICA nON CANNOT BE. .2CEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO m INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER
A.
ll'J'ITIAL STUDY
.1:'~r()ffi~.ij~....Only'
CaseNo.lS,Cf5 c9
'DpSLAinnL~. . .
RcUlpiNo.
DatcRcc'd. '''f''rf
Accepted bi ,).J.
Proj~tNo.FA.'..~, .
DpSl. Nci.OO-f'I.4
CIP No;./.. .
~Cuc No. '.
'.' ;:::C..95-t!. -
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
BACKGROUND
I. Project Title Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion
2. ProjectLoca1ion(S~drcssordescription) 459 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No. 568-110-17
3. Brief Project Description Expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot
west of the Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existin9
parking lot and elimination of "compact" parking spaces,
4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Fax# 476-5310 Phone 691-5120
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 91910
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Lyle W. Haynes. Project Manaaer
Address Same as above Fax# Phone
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant Employee
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents ~uired by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals ~uired.
General Plan Amenclment
_ RezonelPrewne
_ Grading Permit
_ Tenlalive Parcel Map
_ Sile Plan &c Arcb. Review
....I- Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ TeDlative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Alency OPA
_ Redevelopment Aleocy DOl.
-L Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific PIan
X Cooditional Use Pennit
-
VIriaDoe
= Coastal DeYeIopment
Other l'amit
-
If project is a General Plan Amendmentlrld/or rezone, please indic:lle !be change in dcsignation from
to
b.
_ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
Precise Plan
= Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Repon
_ Hazardous Wasle Assessment
Enclosures or documenlS (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
Arcb. E1evatiOllS
- 1."(1....1'" Plans
= Teolllive Subd. Map
_Improvement Plans
_ Soils Repon
_ Geotecbnical Report
~ zr~JI
WPC;F:\HO~1NO\STOR.ED\I021.A,93 f'Rn In2('l em ,Rd ,.-(71) tm
_ HydroloJical Study
BiolOlical Sbldy
= ArcIIaeological SbIdy
Noise Assessment
= Other Ageocy Pennit
_ Other
P."e 1
7. Indicate other applications for pennits or approvals that are being submitted at this time.
a. PennitS or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
_ Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
--....... Annexation
_ Specific Plan
_ Cooditional Use Permit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage 22.765 or acreage
If land area to be dedicated. state acreage and pwpose.
.52
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings. or will existing structure be
utiliz.ed? No .
2. Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
c. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dediCation)
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rental price range
i. Square footage of structure
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or sauctures
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
1. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structures(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
V.'PC,f,IHOME\PLAIo'NINGlSTOREtl\I021.A.93 (Ro!. 1020.931 (R.I. I~ %..- 6
Page 2
d. Describe major access points 10 the structures and the orientation to 8djoining properties
and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift
Number of shifts Total
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
~ .
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day
i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
j. Type/extenl of operations not in enclosed buildings
k. Hours of operation
I. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential. commercial or industria1 complete this section.
a. Type of project Civic Center parking lot expansion which is an "unclassified"
use which needs approval of a Conditional Use Permit
b. Type of facilities provided Parking lot with perimeter fencing, light standard~
landscaping and pedestrian walkways.
c. Square feet of enclosed structures N/ A
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum N/A
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 145 total .standard" oarkino soaces.
g. Square feel of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional project characteristics Project contemplates the addition of approx-
imately .52 acres of land to expand and redesign the existing employee
parking lot to eliminate .compact" spaces and provide enhanced landscaping
and pedestrian walkways.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. Will the project be required to obtain. pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)?
~ 2"~)~
WPC,FIHOMiN'VJ','NlN0IST0Rm'IJ021.....9) (Rd. 1020.9)) _.1022.93)
Page 3
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated? Yes
If yes. complete the following: Unknown
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
A verage depth of cut
Maximum depth of fLll
A verage depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are pan of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning. electrical appliance. heating equipment. etc.)
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is pan of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
None
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jobs. Temporary construction jobs.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? No
7. How many estimated automobile aips, per day, will be generated by the project?
Undetermi ned
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project. and their points of
access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, c1ectric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedesaian and bicycle facilities. None
~ 15-/7
"'PCF,\HO~'lNGlSTORIDII021,".93 (1<c1. IOJ1l.93) (R,I. 1022.93)
Page 4
D. DESCRWTJON OF ENVrRONMENTAL SEITING
). Geolo2"V
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? No
(If yes, please attach)
2. HvdroJoe-v ~ .
. AIe any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site?
(If yes. explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No
b. AIe there any walercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
No
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic Waler supply.
lake. reservoir or bay? No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or silwion to adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their localion.
3. Noise
a. AIe there any noise sow'ccs in the project vicinity which may impaCl the project site?
No
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools. single-
family residences)? No
4. Bioloe-v
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegewion? No
b. Is the project site in a nlllUral or partially natural swe? No
c. If yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No (Please .<<ac:b . copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegewion on the site. Indicate location. height, diameter. and
species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the project. None
'~ ~-/~
PageS
wpc,nHOIolEIPLA.'",1NGlSTOR.ElN021.A.93 (ReI 10211.93) (ReI. 1022.931
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? No
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? No
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
No
d.
What was the land previously used for?
Vacant. previously residential
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Res i dent i a 1 -
one (1) SFR and five (5) rental unit households
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent propeny.
North one (1) rental unit
South one (1) SFR
East four (4) rental units
West none
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? No If so, how many'!
b. Are there any current employment opportUnities on site? No
If so, how many and what type'!
8. Please provide any other inforrnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
~ !5~)~
"''PC,nHO~C''STORDN021.A.93 (Rd 1020.931 CRd 10ll.f)1
Page 6
E. CERTIFICATION
I. as owner/owner in escrow.
Print name
'"
or
I. consultant or agent.
Prinl name
HEREBY AFFIRM. that to the best of my belief. the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
anachments thereto.
Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature
or
C\- '~.-'1'-~
Date
.If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
WPCF,\IlOME'oI'I.ANNING\STOREIN021.A.93 (R.r 1020.93) (ltd. 1022~ 0/.20
Page 7
.~u 111111 I I IlL....,... ..JI
.
: i: .~O~E~g
- t LOCATION ~
J...Lu.u I I I I r~ -
~ STREET
I I t I!J I
I~ I ,I
.- ---
.- W
-t-- i
-w
~.- >-.-
: c
-
... -
-
---
cz:
c
o
w
....
I I
~ ...
J 1...
j _r
__I.. .
-'--.... ~ ~--
___ L..__
LI 1 .
--""""",,,-
I ': r T -:- - ..
I I I 1 I i---
I I I I I
II
I
Ill--
II I--
'r~
. I
I W
T T ::l
Z
I W
>
Cl:
,
~
~ I I
!TR q
I
I J I
1
~
I I
-z
->
C
fERN ST.
-
~
'--
1
t-
I--
I--
II
a::
w
o
..J
..,
:>.
I Z
W
,_>
C
or
..~-.>
cr
I-.
C>
... -
. .-
..-
-----
~
';j
2
~
~
~
Z
>f-..
or
w
:>
z
_101
>
C
flAY/I'l!:I)N'
... ~ I II I , , I I
-.....J~.i..L ~.... I:>
--{ .--
---1 I
.J I
, I
!I;'R~~T
I
I
:>
z
w
>
c
D
I
,
CIVIC
CENTER
T -
- --'
- ---
--.-.
~ - ,
I f
I I
..1 --
~.L _~..._
...' I ,. I
. ,
-
IIF.Sl
STREET
,
I I
11
I I
,
, "
I' '. 1
, 'r-'-....-
~.J _"- .
. . ., I
I, , .
I I I ,
OIl
I--
I;I~
.J.iJ___
t io-
...., ~
(.-
.
.
I
h~--
:!....~
--I/.
>
..J
~-.=
~
.-
> -
I C
~ I __1:>,...-
-- --
~_.
--
- -
I . . .,'r' -:' ..lj'{', ;. ~ rt., ,.
"fRIENDSHIP PAR't<'
r .".,-,....., .. J" ..' ,. .' ~
"'f. f, (,':r_I~. /'C'f;;. ~
, .'C I, '\-', ,:,. " ~
r. I,' (" :..... .:, .,.' ,..~~ "." :z:
J. . l.-
...
..!;:!
~
...J
~
.
"--
"--
. , ---
. , ,
+' ,.--
~....--
CHUL.A VISTA
PUBL.IC L.IBRARY
c
T1
L71L{J
~\
:t f
:i: I I
~ ~'''''t. )':7..:...~:. ~ . . .
t.: ..'.r:~..~.,.:.,.:;.,r, r:.i ': -"Jo'-:';:;.f,l~
,;..,..t:o:..,.t;:t""..''{;'~!.' . .,J,...~r :1..:.A~r'r
...;;.~.,.~,; MEMORIAL PARK .":
,',., ~.,..,." "...~... .,..,., "'I'~"
1,.,~r""J..("""".P'~~"~".',' ,"...r.i'r':' ,":......
'A"k WAY
, . . , . . .
, . " I . .
.., .' ..
: ' E1- . . ' .
., : : : : .
I I I I I I " ...' I I I I I I
CHULA VI S T A PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR A"~ICANT:City or Cbula Vista '1I0JICT DI'CIIIPTION,
~ CommuDity Developmeat IN'ITIA1~ mmv
AODIIESS: .59 ",.. It-' ~Mlon eI BhIi... ...DIn.- ....td...
IDt.. CO~~ I:Dlllln' ....... Bl'ftlf!d
SCALE: FILl HUM'III: lI_tion tI ~MIOn ", ....E.;.. ...........
NORTH I" - 400' PCC-8S-12 ....triM Iftf
,~ !f~:2/
.
.
Case No, D. q5 0'1
APPENDIX III
CITV DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L
pllTtnt Zoninl1 on site~Orth 'K -~3 _ t[
South - i
East '-0
West R. S
Does the project conform 10 the currenl zoning7 ~A ~ l.MZI.. .-uu F-MoI...-t-
General Plan land use designation on site: '~~ - '1.:k. ti ~ .. ,6", "'"j;;{
North tbuIJJ~ .~~.L?d_V _J
South ~ :; ;--ff-
~~~t ~'-Z~~ ~ ~;;j~"i~'%~ ,
Is the project compalibJe with the General Plan Land Use Diagram7 ~
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent 10 an area 10 designl1ed7
~-
C'-o
D.
Is the project locl1ed adjacent 10 any scenic routes7 ~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used 10 protect 01 enhance the scenic quality of the
route). .
m. Schools -10/ A
Jf the proposed project is ~sidential. please complete the following:
SehooJ
CaD.cltv
EnrOllment
VallS
,.._-~
0IIIeratiIII
.~an
Students
0aIerate4
Pram Proiect
EJ--1Il'y
JtmiCl' Hilh
IIIliorHi&h
IV. Iemarb:
. .
.JO
.29
.10
.
-~~~
od" 2 ~_ l'i"~
DIle '
~:?'-~
.... I
Case No. J!j-C15-r;q
LANDSCAPE PLANJl.1NG
A. Does the project affect native plant c:ommunities7
If so, please identify which c:ommunities.
Will the project require native planting'? (please describe)
B. Please identify any imponanl or biihly visible hiIlsides on or IdjlCCnl 10 the project.
What landscaping conditions (if any)
C. Of the IOlal area I be devel ed, how much, and which areas are Cltpec:led to be replanted
walering'? (Please desaibe).
E. Are there any other landscape requirements or mitiption for the project'?
/'
'-- ~ ~~ _" ~.".,.L
City Landscape Ari:hilcc:t or Ilcprescnwivc
;0o/~~
DIre
WII"'.c.~.V\lIftJ"'__'_""J ,_,_,"J ,_..,
;eq3 '6~ c2.3
.....
Ken Larson, Building ~ Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec ~ EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks ~ Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (H.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, ~ate Shurson
Sweetwater union B.S. District, Tom Silva (IS ~ EIR)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Hatin Hiller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
other
FROu~ DOUQ Rei d
/1lJ
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-09/FA-BL/DO N/A )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-----1
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- )
The Project consists of:
DATE:
~
ROUTING FORM
R('.r.
S(',o ~'('/V('D
8. C11" ./.s 7"
'(J/{/)/ r 0;: . /.::1$1
/}'c... CIt//.
.. Ita l,</ "
'fIS/tyc/J/,</
/)e-PI:
September IS, 1994
Environmental Section
Expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the
Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existing
parking lot and elimination of "compact" parking spaces.
Location:
459 "F" Street
Please review the document and forward to me any cOJllJllents you bave
by 9/?Q/q4 ()/ J
D'::J- ~ 0 r,;2; ~
~ fJ~ ~f ~ ~ /If)A .A,uM~
~~s ~~~
.' ~~.J/A_
COllllDents:
.
Case No. /S-Q5-c9
FIRE DEPARTME"""
A. What is lhe distance to the nearest fire swion7 .&!.Q wtlll is the fire Department', estimated
reaction time? OM/lft - S~I;""-I iltp4>L'I l' WISr
j);fTt,t',...)j Ler- v
II
B. Will lhe rue Depary.ment be able to provide III IdeqUlle level of fire Jlr'*Clion for the
proposed facility withoullll inc::ruse in equipment or personnel1 YES
c.
Remarks ;\i1 u-...... 'M- ~
-J7~/>rl.<' r A-/l-(,4.
,
/1/97,.. -h,;" ~ rT "kuss
!2~ /~
v
Fire Marshal
C; - It - 94
Date
.
.
WI'C:F'~OIrT'l:am\Iml3 tIiII .~'.n'''.ID?_I3'
~
6"'025
.... 6
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
September 15, 1994
~ Ie:
/1&...:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
7T ~:
Douq Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-09/FA-BL/DO N/A )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR-____)
Review of Draft Reg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- )
The Project consists of:
Expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the
Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existing
parking lot and elimination of .compact" parking spaces.
Location:
459 "F" Street
please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave
by Cl/?9/Cl4
COllllllents:
~ ti~c2~
Case No. IS-95-09
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
2.
Lead Agenc~' Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue 691-5120
4. Name of Proposal: Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion
5. Date of Checklist: October 26. 1994
~ ';5/.2 /
Page I
,r .:cr! ch~'
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal
aj Conl1ict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conl1ict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project"
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g..
impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from
incompatible land uses)"
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Polr-nli.tl~
Sitllilkanl
Imp.tl
PDI.nlilll~
SI.nifiCUI
rnlns
Mitir:'Ir-d
'0
hIlP'CI
l... than
Si,nilicanl
IMpacl
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
Comments: The General Plan Designation for the area is Medium Density Residential and the Zone
is R-3. With the approval of a Special Use Permit. this project will be in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
II. POPl'LATJON AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal.
a) Cumulath'ely exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g,. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure )?
c) Displace existing housing. especially affordable
housing?
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
181
o
o
o
Comments: The parking lot expansion will service current and future employees of the City of Chula
Vista, The construction of the parking lot will not alter the distribution or growth rate of the
population. The expanded parking 101 will displace existing housing. However. the City of Chula
Vista currently has more than its fair share of low-income housing and the five low-income units that
will be lost as a result of this project have been replaced. Previous residents of the development have
been relocated under the State Uniform Relocation Act.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions. displacements. compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil"
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction. covering or modification of 0 0 0 181
any unique geologic or physical features"
It. "pi dl~' Page 2
POIt'nti.lh
POlfnl;.lI~ Si,nifiUIlI un lh.n
Silnificant l"nlt'" Silnifinnl ~n
Impact Milia.lt'd Impact Iml'RCl
eJ Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils. 0 0 0 ~
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181
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"
gl Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181
hazards such as earthquakes. landslides. mud
slides. ground failure. or similar hazards"
Comments: The project will not expose residents to any geologic hazards.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage panerns. 0 0 0 181
or the rate and amount of surface runoff'
bl Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves"
c I Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181
of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature.
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)"
dl Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181
WJter body?
eJ Changes in currents. or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of \\ ater movements. in either marine or fresh
waters?
1') Change in the quantity of ground waters. either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals. or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
exca\"ations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) I mpacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) A Iterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposal will not increase surface runoff. The amount of impervious surface will be
the same after the project as it is currently.
II' .cr! d\~.
~ ?~~?
Page 3
POltnliall~
Si,nifiunl
Impart
Potuliall>
Silniliunt
l"nltn
Mili,alrd
lrn thin
Si,nifiunl
Impacl
~o
Impllct
V. AIR Ql"ALlTY. Would the proposal
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation"
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants"
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
c) Alter air movement. moisture. or temperature.
or cause any change in climate. either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors"
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
e) Create a substantial increase in stationar) or
non.stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality"
Comments: The project will not produce substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality.
o
o
o
181
\'1. TRA,,"SPORT A T10"/CIRCULA TION. Would
,hI.' j7/'O{lOSI.l! result i11.
al Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion" 0 0 0 181
bl Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.. 0 0 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)"
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supponing 0 0 0 181
alternative transponation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts" 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: This project will reduce the present situation of insufficient parking.
Vl/. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered. sensitive species. species of 0 0 0 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing? "B~ 6"/30
- PaB:e 4
lr> t'T~ ,h~,
Pol'mljlll~
Polt'nlilll~ Silniliunt tntlhln
Si,nilitlnl l'nlt'u Si,nilitlnl So
hnpltl Mililltt'd Impul Impul
bl Locally designated species (e,g., heritage trees)" 0 0 0 181
cj Locally designated natural communities (e,g. 0 0 0 181
oak forest. coastal habitat. etc,)?
d) Wetland habitat (e,g.. marsh. riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181
pool)"
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: The project site is currently developed with single-family and multi-family housing,
There are no sensitive species on site.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: This project will not waste non-renewable resources, It could reduce the use of non-
renewable resources by providing more parking spaces in an easily accessible location to the office,
IX, HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve.
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (including. but not limited
to: petroleum products. pesticides. chemicals or
radiation)"
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush. grass. or trees?
Comments: No hazardous substances are associated with this project.
~ g--Yj
<
Page 5
I""pl,h;.i
Polp"li.lI~
POlpnti.lI~ Sl,nifinnl Len thin
Sl,nilinnl l'.lplI Sill!nifinnt .,
Imparl Mili,.IPd Impltt ItrlplCl
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 IllI
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 IllI
Comments: The existing noise level may change slightly during the construction period and as a
result of additional cars parking and leaving the parking lot. However, it will be within the acceptable
noise standards of the City.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have
an effect upon. or result in a need for new or
altered government services in an,l' of the following
arcus
aJ Fire protection? 0 0 0 IllI
b) Police protection" 0 0 0 IllI
cJ Schools" 0 0 0 IllI
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including 0 0 0 IllI
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 IllI
Comments: None of the above services will be negatively impacted. The project will improve the
maintenance of this public facility -- a city parking lot.
XII.
Thresholds. Will the proposol ad,'ersel\' Impact the
City's Threshold Standords?
o
o
o
IllI
As described belo\\. the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of
the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met,
since the nearest fire station is next door. and part of the west parking lot. An immediate
response time is expected. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
The Fire Department requires the maintenance of a 20-foot access throughout the area.
(t' "pi ch~J
"l>~ ?~ JoZ
./
Page 6
I!- "I': ch~ I
Pot.nliall~
st,nifitanl
Impatl
POI.nt;al1~
Sir:nifinnl
t;nlu~
Mili,al.d
~o
1m pac!
L.u than
Sillnilinnl
IlIIpatl
b) Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
c) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or bener. with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
1-80" 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. Intersections of anerials with freeway
ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project is not subject to the
Threshold Standards for Traffic.
d) Parks/Recreation
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 storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
1) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
Threshold Standards for sewerage do not apply to this project.
g) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during grO\\1h and construction. The proposed project is not
subject to the Threshold Standards for Water.
~ ~~J}
Page 7
Potfnli_lI~
POI.nli_lI~ Si.nifit.", L... 'n_a
Si.nifinal Unl... Si.nifinnl So
Impact Mili._l.d ImpaCI Imput
XIII. lTILlTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in Q need for new systems. or
substalllial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas" 0 0 0 I!lI
bJ Communications systems? 0 0 0 I!lI
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 I!lI
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks" 0 0 0 I!lI
e) Storm water drainage" 0 0 0 I!lI
f) Solid waste disposal" 0 0 0 I!lI
Comments: No new or altered utilities or service systems are required for this project.
XI\'. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.
a) Ohstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 I!lI
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
It) Cause tlte destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 I!lI
scenic route?
c) Ha\ e a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 I!lI
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 I!lI
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 I!lI
Comments: The proposal will add new light sources but they will be below a level of significance.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 I!lI
the destruciion or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site"
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 I!lI
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
bui Iding. structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 I!lI
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values" gr~3(
~~
It- .crl ch~, Page 8
d) \\:ill the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses v.;ithin the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
POlrnli.ll~
POlrnli.lI~ Si'Difitanl Lrss Ihan
Si,nifiunl l'lllrn Sirnifiunl
Impul ft,fitil!'a'rd "..pat'
0 0 0
0 0 0
So
Impa"
~
~
Comments: This site is already urbanized with no cultural resources or paleontological resources on
site.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Willlhe 0 0 0 ~
proposal resull in Ihe alleralion of or Ihe
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: See above.
XVII. RECREATlO:"ll. Would Ih" proposal
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~
regional parks or other recreational facilities"
b) A ffect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~
plans or programs"
Comments: No. The project will not create any new recreational opportunities or reduce any
recreational opportunities currently in existence.
XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negalive Declaralion for
mundalm:,' findings of significance. If an EJR IS
n"eded. Ihis secllOn should be compleled.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment. substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife 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 examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: As the project is proposed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area. there are
no sensitive animal or plant resources on site.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term. to the disadvantage of long-term.
environmental goals?
n, .:tr: dl~)
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
~ ?-ys
Page 9
'ocnd,U,
SiI,mUIIl
l.paCI
'....ti..II"
Spinc..at
v.....
Mitiplecl
N.
1....[1
Leu t.....
Siplrte...l
.."CI
Comments: The project will accomplish the long-term goals consistent with the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan to improve and construct public facilities and other improvements, to improve the
quality of the environment and work toward the elimination of blighting influences, including:
inadequate parking facilities.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individuaIly limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: This project, has the potential to reduce cumulative traffic impacts by providing
additional parking space to Civic Center employees who may currently be traveling longer distances
to find parking.
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which wiIl cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: This project could reduce adverse effects on people by providing additional parking at
locations which do not require as much travel and potential poIlution.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
o
o
o
IllI
o
o
o
IllI
The environmental factors checked below would be potentiaIly affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "PotentiaIly Significant Impact" or "PotentiaIly Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the foIlowing pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Water
o Air Quality
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o Transportation/Circulation
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(blCcplchk)
8
"B~ ?~J?
/
p.o 10
J find that although the proposed projecl could have a significant effect on the environment. 0
there will not be a significant effecl in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TJON
will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I flDd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) OD the environment. but at least 0
ODe effect: I) has beeD adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on allached sheets, if the effect is a .potentially significant impacts. or .potentially
significant unless mitigated.. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
If)'''ytL ~
Signature ,
t7c:f 'J..t, 1~'7~
Date /
D"L'~"A< 1)KC:IO
Environmental Review Coordinator
Cily of Chula Vista
(b:\c:qI/.cllkj
(b\cCplchl)
'B~ Y~3?
,r
-Pq" 11
- This Page Blank-
~1J3!S'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 05/09/95
'1
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing (Continued): Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-16; request
to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility on the site of
the Otay Water District water tank, located at the easterly terminus of
Gotham Street - AirTouch Cellular
Resolution /78'70 Granting Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-16 to
AirTouch Cellular to construct an unmanned cellular communications
facility at the easterly terminus of Gotham Street
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /;fit/
REVIEWED BY: City Manage0{ bw~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_KJ
1. AirTouch Cellular is requesting ~ conditional use permit to construct an unmanned
cellular communications facility at the southwest comer of the water tank parcel located
at the easterly terminus of Gotham Street. The locator map, site topography plan, site
plan and building elevations, cross sections and landscape plan are attached as Exhibits
Al to A5.
2. At its January 24, 1995 meeting, Council continued the public hearing in order to allow
AirTouch and City staff time to study and report on four alternate cell sites in the
EastLake area and one northeast of the City.
3. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 3(c)
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to ~ 15303 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
PCC-95-l6 subject to the conditions and findings contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On December 21, 1994, the Planning
Commission voted 4-0 recommending that the City Council approve the conditional use permit
in accordance with Resolution PCC-95-16.
DISCUSSION:
Alternative Sites
At the previous public hearing, representatives from AirTouch mentioned that several other sites
had been considered besides the one proposed in this application. As a result of these
comments, Council determined that a study of these alternatives sites was necessary before a
final decision could be made.
The alternative sites include the Costa Avenue water tank site, 2400 Fenton Street, EastLake
High School, 2351 Boswell Road and a site mentioned by a representative from the Baldwin
9- /
Page 2, Item '1
Meeting Date 05/09/95
called the North Reservoir site. The four sites located within the EastLake area were studied in
detail. However the North Reservoir site was not studied in detail because, according to
AirTouch, it is too far away to effectively propagate a signal to cellular users (please refer to
Exhibit B for the location of the first four alternative sites).
Slides of the alternative sites with the indicated cellular facilities superimposed will be presented
at the Council hearing.
I. A1tern~tive Site 1 - Cost~ Avenue W~ter T~nk Site
The Costa Avenue Water Tank Site, owned and operated by the Gtay Water Authority, is
located such that residences exist to the north, southeast, south and southwest. Holes 4
and 5 of the EastLake Golf Course are respectively located to the east and west of the
tanks. The antenna would be located along the northern fence line of the tank site and
would be 50 feet in height in order to clear the 40-45 foot high tanks. This is perhaps the
least desirable of the four alternate sites in EastLake as it would manifest a significant
presence on the surrounding occupied residential units, some as close as 150 feet from the
proposed location.
2. A1tern~tive Site) - )400 Fenton Street Site
This site is located at the eastern end of Fenton Street and contains the building in which
Covenant Christian School is located. The cellular facility would require a 100 foot high
monopole and would be located at the southern end of the property. Although located in
the EastLake Business Center and not directly adjacent to residences, the 100 foot tall
monopole would be highly visible from surrounding areas, especially from Gtay Lakes
Road and from residences viewing the site from the south in EastLake Greens looking
north. It will also be visible from other portions of EastLake, EastLake High School and
Telegraph Canyon Estates.
3. A1tern~tive Site 1 - R~stT ",ke Hip:h School Site
This cell site would also require a 100 foot high monopole and would be located along the
western edge of the EastLake High School campus in the southwestern most parking lot.
As with the other alternative sites, this site is highly visible from surrounding residential
development, particularly as seen looking west from EastLake Greens. The site is also
visible from Telegraph Canyon Estates and other areas of EastLake.
4. A1tern~tive Site 4 - Roswell Ro~d Site
This site would require a 125 foot high monopole and is proposed to be located in the
northwest corner of 2351 Boswell Road, a mini-storage facility within the EastLake
Business Center. Immediately to the north of this parcel is undeveloped land slated for
M:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\AIRTOUCH\9516A.113
9~:z
Page 3, Item 9
Meeting Date 05/09/95
residential development within Salt Creek Ranch. If this site were chosen, the monopole
would be visible from recently constructed portions of Salt Creek !, future Salt Creek
Ranch, as well as from the eastern residential parcels in EastLake and Telegraph Canyon
Estates.
5. AlternMive Site 'i - North Re<ervoir Site
This site is located north of Salt Creek Ranch, approximately 1. 5 miles north of the
EastLake Business Center. Although this site is surrounded by undeveloped vacant land,
it is too far away to effectively service the entire EastLake, EastLake Greens and
Telegraph Canyon Estates areas. According to AirTouch, placing the facility at this site
would defeat the purpose of cellular siting by not fully serving those it is intended to serve.
Although their preferred site is the Gotham Street location, AirTouch would be willing to establish
a facility at anyone of the other sites, except Alternative Site 5 - North Reservoir. If one of the
other sites is chosen, however, it may require that an additional site be developed at some time
in the future after more development takes place because the signal from these other sites would
not be propagated to as wide an area as the Gotham Street site, according to AirTouch.
To illustrate the height differences between the alternative sites verses the proposed site, AirTouch
has supplied the information shown in the table below. As can be seen, the facilities at the
Gotham Street site are substantially lower than any of the alternative locations because there is no
monopole involved. These relationships are also illustrated in Exhibits Cl and C2 attached hereto.
HEIGHT OF MSL **@ BASE MSL** @ TOP
SITE ANTENNA * OF FACILITY OF ANTENNA
Gotham Street Water Tank Site 33 feet 620 645
Costa Avenue Water Tank Site 50 feet 680 730
Fenton Street Site 100 feet 560 660
EastLake High School Site 100 feet 580 680
Boswell Road Site 125 feet 620 745
*This height indicates AirTouch's best estimate to the top of the whip antenna and not to
the top of the antenna panel.
**MSL = Mean Sea Level
Exhibit C 1 illustrates the varying terrain in the EastLake area and the height required above
ground level for each antenna in order for the facility to propagate its signal effectively. It also
M:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\AIRTOUCH\9516A.113
9~3
Page 4, Item 'I
Meeting Date 05/09/95
illustrates that the preferred Gotham Street facility is the lowest overall to the top of the antennas
of all alternatives.
Exhibit C2 compares the height of each facility to the others and shows the height difference
between the Gotham Street Site as opposed to the tallest at Boswell Road.
Gotham Street Site
The proposed Gotham Street facility would be located in the southwest quadrant of the water tank
site and would consist of a 2,500 sq. ft. fenced area containing a 360 sq. ft. equipment building
and a roof-top cellular antenna system holding up to 30 directional (panel) antennas, six omni-
directional (whip) antennas and two digital (dish) antennas.
The building would be 10 feet tall. Placed on top of the building would be the eight foot tall
antenna array to which the panel and whip antennas would be attached. The whip antennas would
extend as much as 15 feet above the antenna array. The digital dish antennas will be placed on
the east side of the array and will face northeast and southeast. The total height from the base of
the building to the top of the highest whip antenna will be 33 feet (see Exhibits Al to A5).
At present, the Wheeler residence, located at 2005 Gotham Street, does have a distant view to the
mountains looking to the southeast across the Otay Water District water tank site, as well as
virtually unobstructed views to the west, north and east. The view from the front yard to the
south consists of the water tank to the left, homes to the right, and an embankment and fence line
directly in front. Several of the structures constructed as part of the undergrounding of the Water
Authority's pipe line are also visible. From the second floor window one can see the mountains
in the far distance and the proposed location of the AirTouch facility approximately 300 feet from
the house and to the right of the water tank.
The cellular facility would be placed within the Wheeler's second-story south-facing viewshed.
However, the largest obstruction, including the electronics building and antenna array but
excluding the slender whip antennas, is 18 feet high to the top of the antenna array. This is
considered less of an impact than a standard 28 foot high two-story single family dwelling, and
is less visible than the 50 to 125 foot high monopoles which would be required at any of one of
the alternative sites.
In order to mitigate any visual impacts, AirTouch intends to plant additional landscaping along
the northern and western property lines. This will soften the impact to the maximum extent.
AirTouch has received permission from the Otay Water District and the San Diego County Water
Authority to install this additional landscaping (see Exhibit D). A conceptual landscape plan is
included as Exhibit A5.
M:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\AIRTOUCH\9516A.113
7'- i
Page 5, Item ~
Meeting Date 05109/95
The applicant was asked by staff to set up and photograph "story poles" in the same configuration,
height and location as the proposed cellular facility would appear at the Gotham Street location.
A slide of this simulation will be presented at the Council hearing.
An additional issue which arose at the last hearing was potential noise impacts from air
conditioning units on the equipment building. These units would be located on the east side of
the building away from the homes to the west and should create no greater noise impact than
would be created by home air conditioning units. However, a condition has been included
(Condition #10) which will require a report on the actual noise levels from this facility to be
submitted within three months of project implementation to ensure compliance with City
standards.
CONn ,lTSTON
Several people residing in the general area have complained to the City about the poor quality or
even lack of adequate cellular service in the EastLake area. Staff has received two letters (Exhibit
E) and one phone call about the poor service. Assuming that a cell facility is needed in the
EastLake area to enhance wireless communications for individuals, businesses and emergency
services, staff is recommending approval of the Gotham Street site for the following reasons:
I. The Gotham Street proposal does not require a tall monopole, and therefore is substantially
less prominent and less of a visual impact than the facilities which would be required at
any of the other alternative sites.
2. The Gotham Street site provides the optimum cellular coverage of all the alternatives and
will minimize or forestall the need for additional cellular facilities in the future, according
to AirTouch.
3. The Gotham facility will visually intrude upon the innnediate neighborhood the least of the
all alternatives. Given the landscape screening and the nature of the existing site
improvements (including the water tank, accessory buildings and other structures), the
visual impact will be minimal.
4. There will be no direct ground levelline-of-sight view to the facility from the eastern and
southern property lines because the equipment building will be over 400' from the eastern
property line and 90' from the southern property line.
5. From all available information, communications facilities such as that proposed do not
interfere with the reception of television or radio signals. However, in the unlikely event
that interference is experienced, the project is conditioned to be reconsidered and/or the
conditions of approval reviewed and modified as appropriate if this does occur and it
comes to the City's attention.
M :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\AIRTOUCH\9516A.113
9,5
Page 6, Item ~
Meeting Date 05/09/95
6. The site has adequate space for co-locating other cellular facilities and a condition of
approval requires such co-location where it is determined to be feasible and desirable,
and the City has the sole discretion to make this determination.
7. AirTouch will not have personnel present on-site on a permanent basis since there are no
living/ office spaces proposed as part of this project. The only time anyone will be present
is during construction of the facility and for periodic maintenance after the facility is
operational.
FISCAL IMPACT: The project applicant has paid for all costs associated with processing of this
permit.
Exhihits'
AI. Locator Map
Al. Site Topography Plan
A3. Site Plan & Building Elevations
A4. Cross Sections
A5. Landscape Plan
B. Alternative Sites Locator Map
C I. Comparison of Elevations of Antenna Above Mean Sea Level
C2. Comparison of Height of Facilities Above Ground Level
D. Permission for Additional Landscaping from Otay Water District and San Diego County Water Authority
E. Letters from area resident complaining about the poor cellular service
City Council Minutes from the 1/24/95 public heariug
Resolution PCC-95-16
Planning Commission Minutes from the 12/21/94 public hearing
Disclosure Statement
M :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\AIRTDUCH\9516A.113
9~t
RESOLUTION NO. /7Y9tJ
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-95-I6, TO
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TO CONSTRUCT AN
UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF
GOTHAM STREET
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel 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 APN 595-070-31, and for the purpose
of general description herein consists of 3.45 acres located at the easterly
terminus of Gotham Street ("Project Site"); and,
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on October 24, 1994 a duly verified application for a conditional use
permit (PCC-95-l6) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
by AirTouch Cellular (Applicant); and,
3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a 2,500 sq. ft. fenced area containing a 360
sq. ft. equipment building with a roof-top cellular antenna array holding up to 30
direction (panel) antennas, six omni-directional (whip) antennas and two digital
(dish) antennas (Project) on the Project Site (Exhibits Bl, B2 & B3); and,
4. Public Forum Record on Application
WHEREAS, a public forum was held on November 29, 1994 for area residents;
and,
5. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on December 21, 1994 and voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council
approve the Project in accordance with Resolution PCC-95-16; and,
9--- ?
Resolution No.
Page #2
6. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista January 3, 1995 to receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on December 21, 1994, and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 3(c)
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to ~15303 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator was reached 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.
E. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as
hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made.
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed cellular facility is necessary to provide and maintain a quality cellular
phone system in the Chula Vista area. The AirTouch Cellular system is used by many
public service providers including sheriff, police, fire and paramedics.
9~g/
Resolution No.
Page #3
The proposed facility will provide needed channel capacity in the area that will help to
ensure availability, not only for general users, but for emergency service providers. The
requirement for mandatory sharing will eliminate or reduce substantially the need for
future tower or antennae sites elsewhere in the City.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Cellular communications operate on low-power radio waves. Emissions from cellular
antennas have been shown to be below any levels that would cause hazardous biological
effects. In addition, cellular antennas emissions are so far below all recognized safety
standards that they constitute no hazard to public health or safety. The facilities will also
be appropriately screened with landscaping.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-16 is conditioned to require the permittee and property
owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards
specified in the Municipal Code for such use.
The conditioning of PCC-95-16 is approximately proportional both in nature and extent
to the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are
directly related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the
proj ecl.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting ofPCC-95-16 will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that
said project is proposed to be built on a site already containing public facilities (water
tank), said uses conforming with the General Plan.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-16 subject to the
following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owner shall:
1. Construct the Project as described in the application, except as modified herein
or to accommodate one or more similar uses, and/or as approved by the
Municipal Code.
9"'1
Resolution No.
Page #4
2. Submit a landscape plan to the Landscape Architect for review and approval
which shows landscaping that will minimize the visual impacts of the
communications facility through an aesthetically creative plant palette and
placement of plants at non-angular patterns. The landscape plan shall avoid
rectangular forms to just obscure the fence-enclosed area. Said landscape plan
shall be submitted and approved, and the landscaping shall be installed prior to
approval of any building permits.
3. Prior to submitting building permit applications, submit plans for review and
approval to the Zoning Administrator showing screening and architectural
integration of the digital (dish) antennas with the antenna array.
4. Cooperate with other communications companies in co-locating additional antenna
on pole structures and/or on the tops of buildings provided said co-Iocatees have
received a conditional use permit for such use at said site from the City.
Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other communications
companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give
rise to a substantial technical level- or quality-of-service impairment of the
permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the
event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised good faith in
accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at
the expense of either or both the applicant and complaining user.
5. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months after
the issuance of its occupancy permit, Applicant shall submit a project
implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of radio
frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas installed at subject site. The
report shall quantify the EMF emissions and compare the results with currently
accepted ANSI standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by
the Director of Planning for consistency with the project proposal report and the
accepted ANSI standards. If on review, the City finds that the Project does not
meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.
6. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of
area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City finds that the project
interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the conditional use
permit.
7. Improve the access road with an all-weather driving surface, to the satisfaction
of the Fire Marshal.
8. Provide one 2A: IOBC fire extinguisher at a location satisfactory to the Fire
Marshal.
9-/~
Page #5
Resolution No.
9. Obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista Building Department and Fire
Department. The design of the equipment shelter and antenna array shall comply
with the edition of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code in
effect at the time of issuance of any permit.
10. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months
of the issuance of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a report which
provides cumulative field measurements of facility noise. The report shall
quantify the levels and compare the results with current standard specified in the
Municipal Code for residential uses. Said report shall be subject to review and
approval by the Director of Planning for consistency with the project proposal
report and Municipal Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the
project does not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke
or modify the permit.
11. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after
advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the
Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in
exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or
deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in
the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
12. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with
Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
13. Applicant's failure to meet ANSI standards for EMF emisSions or City's
Municipal Code noise standards or the interference with area reception shall
constitute grounds for revocation or modifications of this conditional use permit.
G. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall
be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the
property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning
Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten
days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property owner/applicant's
desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business
license, be held in abeyance without approval.
CJ - Ij
Page #6
Resolution No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative of
AirTouch Cellular
Date
H. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
1. 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 and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(~_ rvl~lC~{rl.'--'--
v
M:\shared\attomey\airtouch
9"'/~ /9-1'1
/
/
PUBLIC HEARING OffiCI< LIST
PUBLIC HEARlNG DATE: .s / ''\ ( q 5
SUBJECT: (~ c~~ ~ (~T~ (.= r ~_JJ'&.J) t.v...L .
LOCATION:-f"'^...:J-,Pc.c-9S-II", .J" GQ.v,~ ,:>..,.. l)...,..v-- ,1. (.00..0... ~~
6~, e-~ .d~t,_.'.._ b ]y~~
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION n BY FAX ~; BY HAND ; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE 1..( l~q (CIS - -
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS '1:l-(A ~ NO. MAILED
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK .if / dll q s
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning V.
v
Originating Department
Engineering V
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
[/'
Lf/d,/QS
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
.55.
9//)
~~~
~~
~~.-..::--...;
....."'""'"......
--~~-
erlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering an application
for a conditional use permit, PCC-95-16. The application, submitted by Air Touch Cellular,
requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the southwest
corner of the water tank parcel located at the easterly terminus Gotham Street (see locator map
on reverse). The proposed facility will consist of a 2,500 sq. ft. fenced area containing a 360 sq.
ft. equipment building and a roof-top cellular antenna system holding up to 30 direction (panel)
antennas, six omni-directional (whip) antennas and two digital (dish) antennas. At its continued
1124/95 public hearing on this project, Council directed that alternative sites be studied. A plot
plan and legal description of the proposed site and information related to the alternatives are on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and that, therefore, the project is a Class 3(c) Categorical Exemption
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any petitions to be submitted to the City
Council must be received by the Planning Department office no later than noon of the hearing
date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this conditional use permit 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 Council at or prior to the public
hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, May 9,
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: April 26, 1995
CASE NO. PCC-95-16
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require
special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such
accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please
contact the office of the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041. California Relay Service is availahle
for the hearing impaired.
9, / ,/
276 FOURTH AVE"/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5101
<
~" )
0",,_,_
S'o',-. ~
~ .j ':.'.. '-'.~..J...
t.,
.. ~f ~,
r"-rr1=t,
~~
=:nJ
::-=
,.::::;~-:
~@~
;;/
~ ~~.
'~Q
V,>
,....-< ....S,
3 -~ 4. ~
mn =:
, f--';:
- c;&~.
..
-.
/
\
5 E
-
> T r-
c
'<."'~
(00 )....t-"'\
~J.- \\\ 1 \ '7
Ir- \l. J.~ ~\ ,,-12:
\ It ./- '" \ I I
>;(I~ .I. v;:::~ ~~I ~ - --, ~
X"( l;" \ \ . VI ~ I ~ "\ l<~_\\ '/ ~r-
"\ \ I ' \~ . -l.J.J
>~ -1r ~~~'<<; ~ ~jO
-' I ~ l.\"~ ~ ~ '<:"r'0
_ 1_ I C '\
,7
-- t-- LOCATION = "\l"[" "IL 'ILJ ~
__ _ \., r .;.
~ J--.J ~J ../
f-- I
L"fAVETTE PL.
- ""'"
-
-
-
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WCATOR APPLlCANT:AIRTOUCH CELLULAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
C) ADDRESS: Gotham Street Request: To install a 2500 sq. ft. communi-
(Water Tank) cations facUity with a roof top cellular ant-
SCALE: fILE NUMBER: enna system.
NORTH 1" = 400' PCC - 95 -16
0;'-/5/ CJ- 32
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering an application
for a conditional use permit, PCC-95-16. The application, submitted by Air Touch Cellular,
requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the southwest
corner of the water tank parcel located at the easterly terminus Gotham Street. The proposed
facility will consist of a 2,500 sq. ft. fenced area containing a 360 sq. ft. equipment building and
a roof-top cellular antenna system holding up to 30 direction (panel) antennas, six omni-directional
(whip) antennas and two digital (dish) antennas. At its continued 1/24/95 public hearing on this
project, Council directed that alternative sites be studied. A plot plan and legal description of the
proposed site and information related to the alternatives are on file in the office of the Planning
Department.
The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and that, therefore, the project is a Class 3(c) Categorical Exemption
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any petitions to be submitted to the City
Council must be received by the Planning Department office no later than noon of the hearing
date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this conditional use permit 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 Council at or prior to the public
hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, May 9,
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:
April 26, 1995
CASE NO. PCC-95-16
9/)~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIIA T TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Purpose of considering an application for Conditional Use Permit submitted by The
Chula Vista Moose Lodge requesting permission to redevelop 2.25 acres @ 25 & 33
Naples Street.
Purpose of considering an application by Air Touch Cellular for a conditional use
permit, PCC-95-16 to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the
southwest corner of the water tank parcel located at the easterly terminus Gotham
Street.
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,
May 9, 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: April 26, 1995
9//7
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
r . r , .{ 5950704000
t ". 8ALOWIN 8UI RS
0.< -ClOTHE 8 OWINCO
C G (.. (500 NE RT CENTER OR #700
.0. (,.1NEWP 8E:ACH CA 9Ztl60
e G (I: ,
O. (" ,
C . (J : '( ~X516~1300u
(.).:e. :'-1~ 91913
5951tl310UO
ALPIlAR JOHN
."- I". r. 91913
CHULA VI:>fA CA
5951631400
~TRUST
CHULA VI STA CA 91913
~ADL UUIL' rLL-~'-LO
ANTi CELLULARllAT THE EAST END
X XXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX xxxx xxxx X
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXX XX X xxx xxx xx XXXXXX XX XXXXXX X
X XXX XX X X XX X XX XX XX X XXX XX XX XX XX X
^^^^^^^A^^^^^A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
x xxx xx XXXXXXX XX XX XXXX XXXXXXXX X
X xXxXX XXXXXXX xXxXXXxX XXXX XXXX X
X xXX XX X XXxXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX xXXX X
X xxx XX XXXXXXX XX xX X xxx XXXX XX XX X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXX XlI. X XXX X Xx XX XX XXXX XX XX xXXX X
XXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XX xXXX XXXX XXXX
xxxxxXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5950703100
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
10595 J AMA CHA ROAD
SPRING VA~LEY, CA 92078
5950703900
BALDwIN BUILDERS
C/O THE BALDwIN CO
500 NEWPORT CENTER DR .700
NEWPORT BEACH CA 926tlO
:-." -
5 951631100
MARCINKOWSKI EUGENE JR/JEANETT
CHULA 1ISTA CA 91913
5951tl31Z00
LI EBST THO ~S E/DIANE G
CHULA VIST A CA 91913
C(JCOC '"
O.e. CC -
C () t.' (0 .,.....U:"".;;-.. J7,F,,"",r.r.rw-y-r.)>j '-:::.r)'J. F )... "J.
G. C. ~. co. ">;;.'(:'~C:.:~);~::C~ CJ C1 C), :;} CY:J!:JH r, ) ) 'j..
( (It . '" '. ....,,'...~,.).-".,..--,...--,...--,..-.....\ '--""--":').'. ),') i ~..
__ ~ '-.. /_"-.//" .l"~./~, ~,--"._j.",'- J J ...Y'-.I _.J _,I _ _ ~ '.
C . (" , , .. r.. r, ~ r~ .~,..,....,....""..--,.-. ..-,.C'\ ......"--,.- .),. ), ) I.)..
. \ \. ~.y :'''- J..'-. ,J", '" .......1. ......1. ... ~~:.~ JI~......J., .......1. . ",.., __ .J,.-._.J..... _ ..~ _ ,"
c.. () t" C ~)..: r>:c'>c).,::;.:::;:,C)/.~C) C)>, J'..J'~ "::J" Jf, . }~), ) I ....
c. ~ "-: '= c... C';:" ::..? '--'~ i..:::.:;c....)~..'"" ~., -.J'_TJ...J -.I c!J..
9,/ g
x xxxxx x xxx xxx xxxx x xxx xxxx xx xx x xx xx xx xxxx xx xx XXXXXXXX AXAA AA,
X XXXXX XXXX x xx xx XXXXXX XXXX xx xx x xx XXXXXXXX xx xx XXXX xxxx xxxxxn
x xxx xx XXXX x xx xx XXXXXX xx XXXX xx x xx xx xx xx xx xx XXXX xx XXXX XXXX xxx;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
x XXXXX XXXX xxx xxxx x xxx XXXX xx xx x xx XXXXXX xx xx xXXXXX xX xx XXXXXXXX
t
.
5951&..0900
.. R ES I DE N T
1978 KENT ST
C HUL A VIST A CA 91913
I
T'O: 5951730500
tel' .f" c RESIDENT
835 LE HIGH AV
0.. ::l C HUL A VISTA CA 91913
co (. .. .
(). : :0
eoo .. 59521b1000
o. ( r> .
"'-. I R ESIO"NT
( e (J : .: 837 WOOOSPR ING OR
o . b ;:'l C HUL A VIST A CA 91913
.
5952800200
. RESIDENT
805 CR EEKW 000 WY
C HUL A VISTA CA 91913
",
i4t
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
. 5951&53400
RESIDENT
199.. BUCKNELL ST
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
c C) r, C:;C
eee. CIt
.- O. ' ,F 5952100700
- ";.' RESIDENT
eel.. ((825 WOODSPRING DR
(0. ;<. CHULA VISTA CA 91913
ce~ (.lfC
CO"ell(
C e c:.. (:'( 5952102000
-RESIDENT
1971 SKYBROUK PL
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5952805000
RESIDENT
20"0 CROSSCREEK RO
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
9-/7
59510"1000
RE S I DE NT
1982 KENT ST
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5951751900
RESIDENT
1988 GOTHAM ST
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
59521blltOO
RE S I DE NT
8..0 wOODSPRING DR
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
59521100bOO
RE S I DE NT
8011 COLDBROOK CT
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
;:.:''C'" ......
-.................--...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ~
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ~
XXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ..
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5951b53800
kESIDENT
Ilb7 LEHI (,H AV
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
.
.
59521&08uO
RESIDENT
1129 WOODSPRING DR
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
.
.
59521b30UO
RESIDENT
1971 WILuBROOK PL
CHULA VI STA CA 91913
.
.
.
f"
rer.l(
0.. (
C 0 c. 11
,.0.: ..~.
e 0 c~ :: _ ~
O.(t:
c. e (J ::_
O.~l.. -
c OC~C)}(
cee IC..," -
.0(.('-
c.~ t:
((I( (J(. ::>
C.~C'
c. O('O(
cec;"t,r
"
5 954'900 'oDD
BALDWIN BUILDER
C/O BALDWIN C
500 N"WPOR ENTER DR 1/700
NEWPORT ACH CA 9ZbbO
..
.
5954900600
BALDWIN BUILDER
C/O BALOWIN C
5 CO NEWPOR ENTER OR 11700
NEWPORT ACH CA 92b60
-
....
5954901200
B ALDWIN BuiLDERS
C/O BALOW 0
500 NE T CENTER OR 11700
N EWP BE ACH CA 9Z6bO
f;;;.'
5954901600
BALDWIN BU
C/O BA L
5CO N ORT CENTER OR .100
NEWP T BEACH CA 92660
595490 ZOOO
BALD 10 I N B
C /0 BA L N
500 N PORT CENTER OR .100
NEWP T BEACH CA 92660
595490Z400
BALDWIN BUILD RS
C/O BALOWI 0
500 NEWP CENTER DR .100
N EWPOR EACH CA 9Z660
595490 Z 800
BALDWIN B LOERS
C/O BA IN CO
500 PORT CENTER OR .100
NE RT BEACH CA 9Z660
fJo
5954903500
BALDWI N BUlL S
C/O TH E BA IN CO
500 NEWP CENTER OR .100
N EWPO EACH CA 9Z660
5954903900
R OO~ _ROY /SU SAN M
SHELTON WA 98584 -
/J l 'J
C/ /..<-C
5954900500
BALDwIN BUILDE
cIa BALDWIt<
500 NEWPO CENTER OR 11700
NEWPORT ACH CA 92660
5954900900
8ALDwIN BUILD
C/O BALDwI
500 NEw T CENTER DR .100
NEWPO BEACH CA 926bO
5954'101300
BALDwiN BUlL
C/O bALDWI 0
500 NEWP T CENTER DR .100
NEwPO BEACH CA 92660
5954901100
BALDWIN BUlL S
C/O bALOwI 0
500 NEWP T CENTER OR .100
NEWPO BEACH CA 926bO
5954902100
BALDwIN BUI
C/O BALOW
500 NEWP T CENTER OR .700
NEwPO BEACH CA 92660
OERS
DR noo
CA 926bO
5954902900
BALOwI N LDERS
C/O BA I N CO
500 N PORT CENTER DR .100
NEwP T BEACH CA 92660
5954903600
JAVIER W PIP J
849 LEHIGH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5954904000
BARN~ILL RUSSELL W/EVELYN 0
- - """- .
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595'1900000
BALDWIN BOERS
cIa BA IN CO
500 PORT CENTER OR .700
NE RT BEACH CA 92060
595'1901000
BALDWIN BuI
cia BALD co
500 N aRT CENTER OR .700
NE RT BEACH CA 92060
,
(" e ( : t( 595<t90l<tOO
o. (,BALDWIN BUILDE
. . cia BALDWIN
C G (. i( 500 NEWPO CENTER DR 1700
c. : (.;NEWPORT EACH CA 92060
C' G (: : )(
0.( ()
( G tJ : i.( ~X~ti~n8g3I
o. ~ l..' cia BALOW
500 NEW T CENTER OR .700
NEWPO BEACH CA 92060
595't902200
BALDWIN BUlL S
cia BALOWI CO
500 NEWP T CENTER DR #700
NEWPOk BEACH CA 92060
595<t902ilOO
BALOW IN B UI L
cia BALOW CO
500 NE T CENTER OR #700
NEWP BEACH CA 92660
595'1903200
BALDwl N BUI R S
cia THE DWIN CO
500 NE RT CENTER OR #700
NEwe T BEACH CA 92060
595'1903700
iiJ,ERREZ FAMILY TRUST
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
C () C~ nJC
cee. c.
, 0(,' X
C .. ( ,595'190'1100
( 0 ('-( 'MCMURR\WYLVlA F
c. ~ ( Co( CHULA VISTA CA 91913
(0("1(:
C . ~ (;:'(
595'19007 uO
bALDwIN bUl
cIa BALOw
500 NEw
NEWP
ERS
co
T CENTER DR HOD
bEACH CA 92600
595'19011
BALOWI UILOERS
cia 0 ~IN co
50 NEwPURT CENTER OR .700
wPORT bEACH CA 926ilO
595<t9015uO
BALDwIN tlUI
CIa BALD
500 NE "RT CENTER OR .700
NEWP T bEACH CA 92600
595'1901900
BALDwIN bUI
cIa BALD
500 NE RT CENTER DR #700
NEWP bEACH CA 92600
595't9023uO
BALDWIN IlU
cia BAL N co
500 N DRT CENTER OR .700
NEWe T bEACH CA 92600
DERS
co
OR .700
CA 92600
595'1903'100
CITY OF tHU
PUBLIC AI.
595'1903800
MURNA~CHAEL W
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595'190'1200
NORTON LYNN M/MABEL B
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
--._ ..n... _'_ _
--_._~--.,---_.,.~ ---.-.---.--
-- -------~_._._--_.y--
-..-.-..---.-.--..------.... '---'-'~ .- ._-
-
(lc2)
l
1)
.
.
,
~
4J
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
5952805900
~
~3
OR 1700
CA 92660
5954505700
fl-HNSON ~OR~:Y ~
_-:!:CHULA VI TA 913
,el',c
o. ,.<:)
( 0 I. .: 5954506100
(}.: ()l~/PlAGDALENA G
C: 0(:. .. CHULA VISTA CA 91913
O. ( (1I
C eO.1I(
G.~(..ll
5954506500
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
S
5954507300
BALOWIN BUI
C/O BALOW
500 NEW T CENTER UR .700
NEWP BEACH CA 92660
r (),.~ C 0 ~X~~~y~ 100 LDER S
G e c. c( ~6g BA PO~~ ~~NTER 011 '700
0'. (: NE ORT BEACH CA 92660
cee u(
((I' ~)
eel' C I'( 5954508500
,-~()('..~.:~PlARTHA
Ce""''-''(;CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5954508900
SLUIS RUBERT R J
--.
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5954510300
BALDWIN BUI
C/O BALOW
500 NEWP T CENTER OR .700
NEWPOR BEACH CA 92060
1- 2}-
5952806000
~OMINCUEl LVIS fl~NOA G
CHULA VISTA CA 91~
59545054UO
STARR ~SE PI
CHULA VIsTA CA 91913
5954505BuO
~AROLINE
~913
595450b200
EVERETT TERRY S/WANDA S
CHULA V~A c! -.h913
595450b600
BALDWIN ~UILOE
C/O BALO~IN
500 NEWPuR ENTER DR .700
NEwPORT ACH CA 92bbO
DR .700
CA 926bO
59545074UO
~ALD~IN ~ OERS
C/O BAL N CO
500 uRT CENTER DR .700
NE RT ~EACH CA 926bO
5954507BOO
BALD ~IN LDERS
C/O BA wiN CO
500 PORT CENTER DR .700
NE RT ~EACH CA 926bO
595"508200
~
~3
5954508600
~
~3
5954509000
HILL DENIS PI/PACE~~A PI
CHULA ~CA 91~1
595"510"00 ~.
8ALOWIN 8UIL 5
C/O BALDd CO
500 NE.Pu CENTER DR .700
NE~PORT ACH CA 926bO
)
)
~
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
595"511500
BALDWIN B
C/O BAL IN
500 N DRT CENTER DR _700
NEWP T BEACH CA 92b60
lC
<.! 595"511900
>'. BALDWIN BUlL.
e.: f,> ClD BALDWI U
( Q (~ f( 500 NEW T CENTER DR noD
c. (.( )NEWP BEACH CA 92b60
ceo:ll(
o . :.: '-~ 595"512500
BALDWIN L.DERS
CID BA WIN CO
500 PORT CENTER DR .700
NEW RT BEACH CA 92b60
,er
o. >
, Qt.
595"510700
BALDWIN BUlL S
CIO BAL.OW CO
500 NEWP T CENTER DR .700
NEWPOR BEACH CA 92bbO
595"512900
BALDWIN BUI
C/O BAL OW CO
500 NEW T CENTER DR .700
NEWPD BEACH CA 92b60
ER S
CO
DR noo
CA 9ZbbO
595"60"000
BALDWIN B LDERS
C/O BA IN CO
500 PORT CENTER OR .700
NEW RT BEACH CA 92b60
595"60""00
~ a to r r B AL OW I N L.DER S
, :'-'- C/O BA IN CO
(_ e!.. C (500 WPORT CENTER DR .700
o t, ( '< NE DRT BEACH CA 92b60
ce:t:'4:
'at(l'('
(' e" ,(( 595"bO"800
. ' BALDWIN B ERS
Ot'( ,( ClO BAL N CD
C e C;L <.500 N DRT CENTER DR noD
NEWP T BEACH CA 92bbO
595"605200
BALDWIN DERS
C/O BA IN CD
500 WPDRT CENTER DR .700
NE DRT BEACH CA 92b6D
595<,700300
A M H B-1 L P
"621 TELLER AVE .100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92b60
7~5
'595"510
'bALD" bUILDERS
CIO L.D.IN CO
50 NEWPORT CENTER DR 0700
N PORT bEACH CA 92bbO
595"511200
bAL.DWIN L.OERS
LIO B .11'1 CO
500 WPuRT CENTER DR 0700
NE DRT bEACH CA 92bbO
595"511600
BAL.DWIN bUI OERS
C/O BAL. CO
500 oRT CENTER DR 0700
NE URT bEACH CA 926bO
595"512200
BALDWIN bUILDERS
C/O bAL.D.IN CO
500 NEwPuRT TER DR _700
NEWPDR H CA 92660
595"512600
bALDWIN bU
C/O BA N
500 WPoRT CENTER DR 0700
NEw ORT bEACH CA 926bO
595" 5130 00
BAL.DWIN b
C/O bAL .IN
500 N PuRT CENTER DR .700
NEW RT bEACH CA 926bO
DR 0700
CA 926bO
595"bO"100
BALDWIN bUILOERS
C/O BALDwiN
500 NEWP ENTER DR .700
NEWPO EACH CA 926bO
595"60"500
bALDwlN BUlL RS
C/O bALD.I 0
500 NEw T CENTER DR 0700
NEWP bEACH CA 92660
595"bO"900
BALDwiN bUlL RS
C/O BALD W CO
500 NEW T CENTER DR .700
NEWP bEACH CA 92bbO
DR noD
CA 926bO
5954700" 00
BALD,,!N bUI
C/O BUD
500 NE RT CENTER DR .700
NEWP bEACH CA 926bO
J
t
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
5954700700
GILSTRAP DANIEL J/A"AYA-GILSTR
AP SONIA T
1 - ._
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5954703bOO
BALDWIN BUlL RS
CIO BALOW I CO
500 NEWPO CENTER OR .700
NEWPORT EACH CA 92b60
5954704000
BALOWIN BUI OERS
CIO BALOW CO
lO..(", . (Il., ~~Sp~~WP BElc~E~IE~2~ O' 700
( CI (. I
0.: (.) 5954704400
C. CI (; . . BALOWIN
o. (0 ~6g ~AL
C ao: li( NEWP T
G . "'" <..:t
LOER S
IN CO
ORT CENTER OR .700
BEACH CA 92b60
5954B00400
BALOWIN B ILOERS
C/O BAL IN CO
500 NE ORT CENTER OR .700
NEWP 1 BEACH CA 92b60
5954BOOBOO
BALOWIN BU LOERS
C/O BALD CO
500 NE RT CENTER OR '700
NEWP BEACH CA 92b6U
5954B01300
BALDWIN BU
C/O THE
500 NE
NEWPO
ERS
OWIN CO
RT CENTER OR .700
BEACH CA 92b60
5954B01700
BALDWIN ILDERS
CIO THE ALDWIN CO
500 N PORT CENTER OR .700
NEWP T BEACH CA 92b60
r 0r.r)r,(15954802100
O.e. C(BALDWIN BUILDERS
Of ':< C/OTHEB DWINCO
. C.;' (. (500 NEWP. T nNTER OR 1700
'- NEWPOR BEACH CA 92b60
CO('"
O.l" (JI(
~ 0 (" I( I 5954B02500
c. c.. 0'(, BALDWIN B LOERS
CIO THE ALOWIN CO
-- . 500 NE ORT CENTER OR 1700
NEWPO BEACH CA 92660
5954802900
BALDWIN LDERS
C/O TH ALDWIN CO
500 N PORT CENTER OR .700
NEWPDRT BEACH CA 92bbO
5954900200
BALOWINAUILOERS
C/~B rDWIN CO
500 EWPORT CENTER OR .700
NE ORT BEACH CA 92b60
7~:21
)
,
59547037UO
BALOWIN bUILDERS
CIO BALOw CO
500 NE T CENTER DR .700
NEWP bEACH CA 926bO
~
':t
59547041UO
BALDWIN bUlL S
C/O BALO. CO
500 NE T CENTER OR .700
NEWP bEACH CA 926bO
.
.
5954BOOluO
BALDWIN ERS
C/U BA wiN CO
500 wPURT CENTER DR .700
N ORT BEACH CA 92bbO
.
.
5954B005UO
BALDWIN bUI RS
C/O BALD CO
500 NE RT CENTER OR .700
NEWP BEACH CA 92bbO
.
.
.
.
5954B014UO
BALDWIN BOERS
C/O TH ALDwIN CO
500 PUR T CENT ER OR .700
NE RT bEACH CA 926bO
.
.
5954B018UO
BALDwiN bU
CIO THE OWIN CO
500 NE RT CENTER OR .700
NEWP bEACH CA 926bO
.
.
59548022UO
BALDWIN bUI RS
CIO THE b OWIN CO
500 NEW RT CENTER DR .700
NEWPO bEACH CA 92bbO
.
.
5954802bUO
bALOWIN bU LDERS
C/O THE LOwlN CO
500 NE RT CENTER OR .700
NE T BEACH CA 9ZbbO
.
.
5 954BO 30 00 .
BALDWIN LDERS
CIO THE ALDwIN CO
500 N~PURT CENTER OR .700
NEWJaRT BEACH CA 92bbO
.
.
5954900300/
BALOWIN llUILOERS
C/O BALDwIN CO
500 NEWPURT CENTER OR .700
N~ORT bEACH CA 92660
.
"
59521b0800
... ~S/DAWN II
NEWPORT NEWS VA 23602
if
5 9521b 1200
II APATAN TOIIAS S/IIARITES 0
- I
Ct1ULA VISTA CA 91913
.
5952161600
.. .. LAYNO BENJAIIIN S/ANCHETA G
~1913
rer,8:'
0.. 0 .
(01. .
0.:0
C 0 I~ I( .
0.( (l
(eo l(
().~o .
C (I r, <:Ie
oe( CI .
O(,'ll(
cec( ,(
(O("IIL ,t
cel"(t(
c. () (" II(:
c e "" (.-'( 0
5952162000
~ARIA J
~91'111
5952162"00
GAYLORD GEORGE H/CARIIEN II
~913
5952162800
~NNA C
~913
5 952800100
~RUIII N
~13
5952800600
GUERRERO JOSE L/IIAGDALENA
~'115
~
03
595280 HOO
NEVE ALVARO R T/TORREBLANCA
~
~3
595280 "900
RICO ANY
"HULA VISTA
C A 9"13
5 952BO 5300
~ELEN C
~3./
q';2~
59521b0900
LOPE L IIARIA 0 S
u_
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5952161300
TABILIN FAIIILY TRUST
-
CHULA VISTA LA 91913
5952161700
KAIIFIROOZlE /lAJID
~13
5952162100
~lItLOA II
~913
5952162500
PIERCE JONES R III/IIARGARET W
~3
5952162900
~K
~
5952800200
~RIA
~O
C P
59521100700
~EIIIIA C
~13
5952801100
~
C~3
5952801500
IIA ~RILYN II
~3
re, rr
0.. (l
COl. .-
0.:(;
C 0 1% )( e
O. ( ()
ceu:)(.
() . ~ (..\
---::".-
r () ri C)C
oee. Cc .
0(.' K
G e ~ ('.4 :'"
; ct( .. ..
cet" (rt
~()("!I( ...
ce~~'( .-
~
5 ~51b31500
~EYR
mT"mn'"'CA ~1~13
,.
5951b41000
~ETM
~
\;.
5 ~51b53400
SAN DIEGO JAPANESE
~
. S~A ~2102
CHRISTIAN C
"
5 ~511l1800
~W/MICHAELA K
~~1~13
5 ~51720200
~M LIS JEANNE
CHtH.A VISTA CA ~1~13
5 ~51 730400
~
R/RACHEL E
9l~13
5 ~51740100
~JEANNE K
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5 ~51740500
~T
CHULA VISTA CA
L/REMA F
~1913
5 ~51 751400
~L1N L/80NNIE
~A ~1~13
5 ~5175180D
ifRRERA. R/HENRIETTA R
CHULA VISTA CA ~1~13
5 ~51 752200
BANCROFT EDWARD RISANDRA 8
~1~13
5 ~521bO~00
i6EOSY MtRYANN"
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
9.~2f
'5~51M0700
LAIRU MAGDALENA S
~A 91~13
5951041100
DORSEY MI HA L P/BEVERLY A
STA CA 91913
595171150D
~ATHY S
~1913
5951711900
SAN UIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHOR]
TY
~91913
5951730100
ROORIGUEZ FERMIN/YOLANDA
~ 91913
r.A K
5951 H02DO
~ISCO N/SANORA
~ 91913
5951751100
KA SLER JES SE M/BETTY J
~91913
5951751500
~.N EOGARIDO C/MERCY E
~ 91913
5951751900
~LES H
~CA 91912
59521bD100
~ERVA C
~
59 521b05 00
~/LYDIA 0
~13
59510~0800
CHE NE JHN C
~A
91913
5951b~ll00
~/ANA M R DE
CHULA' VISTA CA 91913
5951111000
MARTINEZ MARK/MAUREEN
-';::~91913
,erc4
0., .::.
(01-:. <<: 5951112100
().' ell REDON RDNALOICHRI ST INE
C~O.I~ .lll~/l913
ceo..
() . <.: (.1II
5951130200
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5951130000
EVANS WIL8ERT/EDNA fAMILY
T
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595 11't0 300
fLOCK DAVID R
CHULA V I~""'CA
91913
5951151100
~/MICHAEL S
~A 91913
c ct C <:0 5951151bOO
cee. C(~UDAINA K
, 0',' C;~91913
Qe~cJ(
c ct. . Cl
ce(" CJ(
co." (,5951152000 L
C e ~ ,-:'i~/COLLEEN
_~ CHULA VISTA CA 91913
59510~0900
~INAR
hONITA CA 91908
j
>>
5951b53300
~OSALVA N
~1913
'J
t
5951111100
DONOGHUE M~ARY L
CHuLA VISTA CA 91913
J
'J
5951720100
SAN OIEGU COUNTY WATER AUTHORI
TV
CHULA Vr5TA CA 91913
~
a
59517303UO
PETERS MYRON J/HISAYO
~91913
.
.
59517301UO
TRUS ALLEN LESLIE W/MARILYN J
~91913
.
.
59511~0~ 00
~YONG LI-YUN
~A 91913
.
.
59511513uO
BARRERAS YOLANDA
~A 91913
.
.
59511511UO
MATHEWS RICHARD J/SUZANNE PI
~91913
.
.
59511521uO
~/LAURENE E
~1913
.
.
59521b0200 59521b03uO
MARTINEZ MIGUEL M/GUYcOCHEA-MA ~UINTAS I 10DLORES L
~N K
CHUL A CA 91913
CHULA VISTA C 913
59521bObOO
~UDITH J
~913
c;'c2')
.
.
59521001UO
~R
~1911
.
.
5952101000
ZAVACK IIARK
N II
.. - - -
PONTE VEDRA
O/llCCARTHY KATHLEE
FL 32082
59521&l't00
AVILA VERNON L/PATRICIA G
1 -
JAMUL CA 91935 -
59521&1800
-,' ARO S THOMAi A/MAR I A
,.r '''-CHULA VISTA CA 91913
0.. ,(.
(01. .:
".::(ll
GOI.: Il (~~HeF~2MES P/CONSTANZA B
O. ( (ll l
C . (J : }( CHULA VISTA CA 91913
G.","c:..-
59521&2&00
KNOCK LINDA II
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
59521&3000
ROMERO JAIRO A(~EANNINE M
-- _, J . _
BONiTA LA 91902
5952800300
MONTES SALVADOR R/GUADALUPE C
I
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5952B00800
DEBOO RONALD K/LYNN
- -~
JAIIUl A 91935
M
"n
rocn/Cr
O. I: C<( 5952801200
:O(,'I(~
Gee ('(~13
CO('Il.;
cel"'(J{
c. 0 (' ( I( I
C. n. r 'c,5952801&00
'--' ""::.~ JONSON EDUAR~O B/ARMI E
CHULA VISTA CA 919~3
5952805100
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP
~(O_F~B.~fl~k!~_A~VISORS
TULSA OK 7"133
5952101100
iANCHEZ ALBA
CHUlA VISTA CA 91913
)
.
59521&1500
KRUPA JOHN A
CHUlA VI~TA CA 91913
,
'.
59521619UO
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
.
.
59521&2300
K/B FOAM INC
- -
CHUlA VI~TA CA 91913
.
.
59521&27UO
RODRIGUE. RAMON F/EVANGELINE F 4t
- 'f ...
CHUlA VISTA CA 'll913
.
59521&31UO
COMARDO KENNETH W/NANCY
-'!ft
CHUlA VISTA CA 91 3
.
4t
59528005UO
SULLIVAN PAUL E/ANOREA l
CHUlA V~~TA CA ~1913
4t
4t
59526009UO
MORISHITA ROBIN Y/COllEEN C
~13
4t
.
5952801300
~lEEN B
~3
.
.
5952801700
ALVAREZ JUAN C A
~3
.
.
5952805200
MOHAMED JE FF ER EY IBlE DSOE -MOHAM .
ED DONNA
CHUlA V S A
.
5952805500
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
5952&05&00
P ~D
_ ~~3
~/2o;
.
...,
re,B:
0.- {)
( CJ I. .
0.:0
C 01; .
0.((;.
ceo:l(
Q. 6- <..' .
r CJ r- QtC
o.e. L"l
r Qt. ' .\(
G.~ ( C
C CJt ':<<
C.(" ( c e
c. Qt" lC
C e '"" (.-'(
5 95~510500
. BALOWI N BUlL RS
C/O BALOW CO
500 NEW T CENTER DR 1700
N EWP BEACH CA 9210100
li.
.
5 Q54510900
B ALOWl N IlOERS
C/O B WIN CO
500 WPORT CENTER DR .700
N ORT BEACH CA 9210100
.
5954511300
BALDWIN B LDERS
C/O BAL N CO
500 N aRT CENTER DR 1700
N EWP T BE ACH CA 9210100
.
5 95~5123D
BALDWIN ILDERS
C/O B WIN CO
5 DO WPOR T CENTER DR 1700
NE aRT BEACH CA 9210100
5 95~ 512700
BALDWIN Bul
C/O BALOW
500 NE RT CENTER DR .700
NEWPO BEACH CA 9210100
5 95~ 513100
BALDWIN BU
C/O BALD CO
500 NEW RT CENTER DR .700
NEWPO BEACH CA 9210100
J
5 95~bO 3800
B ALDWI N BU
C/O BALD CO
5 CO NE ORT CENTER DR .700
NET BEACH CA 9210100
..
DR .700
CA 921010 0
5 95~bO~bOO
B ALDWI N BUILDERS
C/O BALDWl N
500NEWP
N EWP OR
5 95~b05000
BALDWIN BUILDERS
C/O BALDWIN
500 NEWP CENTER DR 1700
NEWPO BEACH CA 9210100
5 95~700100
A PI H B-1 l P
~b21 TELLER AYE .100
NEWPORT 9EACH CA 9210100
C1-.2C)
I /
I
595~510bOO
BALOwI N BU IL S
c/o bALDWI
500 NEWP CENTER DR .700
NEWPOR bE ACH CA 9210100
595~511000
BALDwIN B lOERS
C/O bAL IN CO
500 N OR T CE NTER DR 1700
NEwe T BEACH CA 92bbO
595451 HOD
BALDwIN BUl RS
C/O bALDwl CO
500 NEwP T CENTER DR .700
NEWPOR BEACH CA 92bbO
5954511BOO
BALDwl N BU IL OERS
C/O bALDwlN C
500 NEWPORT NTER DR .700
NEwPORT CH CA 92bbO
5954512400
BALDwiN BUILDERS.
C/O BALDwI N C
500 NEWPORT NTER DR 1700
NEWPORT B H CA 9210100
5954512BOO
BALDwiN BUilDER
CIO BALDWiN C
500 NEWPOR
NEwPORT ACH
DR .700
CA 92bbO
DR .700
CA 9210100
5954bOHOO
BALDwiN BUILD
CIO BALDwl
500 NEw T CENTER DR .700
NE WP BE ACH CA 9210100
59541005100
BALDwIN BUILD RS
C/O BALDwl
500 NEW CENTER DR .700
NEwP BEACH CA 92bbO
5954700200
A 1\ H B-1 L P
41021 TELLER AYE .100
NEwPORT BEACH CA 92bbO
.,.;~ ..
l e r ell
0.- <<: .
( 0 (. = II
(). : :J:.
G 0 (l :)( .
o. (t:
( eu: III
O. ~L .
r a r (')C
cec.cI.
. 0 t . X
cee ( I
, at . ~ .
C.("(J(
C.Ot"l(
C e c. ~'l 0
.i:
5952805700
MARSHBURN GREGORY W/GALE M
_ n_ _ ____..__" ".
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
....
5952806300
" EASTLAKE I COMMUNITY ASSN
c/o JIM HANSEN
..- ---
SAN DIEGD CA 92121
..
595"505500
L OlANO ~OiE A
__r"'... ...... _ .., .....
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595"505900
COLLYER KHLY M
h. ... .". - -'
C HULA VISTA CA 91'113
595" 506 300
DELACRUZ NORMAN A
~-
ITA CA 91908
595" 506 700
~
C HULA VISTA CA 91913
S
9266
A 92660
5954508700
~AR
~3
MAR IA K
595"510100
8 ALOWI N 8UI LDE
C/O BALOWIN C
500 NkWPORT ENTER DR .700
NEWPORT BE H CA 92660
- 9<3 tJ
5952BO 58 00
EBLACAS ROBERT W
. -
VOLCANO HI 96785
~
595"505200
HENDERSON BRYAN/DEBRA
- -- ---
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595"505bOO
VALDIVIESO OSCAR/lUZEMA L
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
595"506000
STEWART JOHN R III/TRICIA L
1. I -,
CHULA VISTA CA 1913
595"506"00
~D/JUDY F
CHULA VISTA CA 91913
92660
2660
~5954508800
BREKKE E A L
A CA 9191
595"510200
BALDwiN
C/O BA IN CO
500 N PORT CENTER OR .700
NEWP T BEACH CA 92660
r B r- (')C'
Oe(CI.
0(. . J(
ce:: ('(
C ~ ( .'
cet" (}'(
CO("I( ~
cec..(,.'( .'
,
92000
0,.
RS
OR .700
CA 92boO
5954802300
BALDWIN BUI ERS
cia THE B DWIN co
500 NEW T CENTER OR 1700
NEWPOR BEACH CA 92boO
595460270
BALOW ImLDER S
cia T ALDWIN co
500 OR T CENTER OR noD
NEW BEACHCA92&&0
5954B03100
BALDWIN BU DERS
CIO THE>> DWIN CO
500 NE WP T CENTER DR .700
NEWPOR BEACH CA 92boO
c;- ) /
5954700000
BERRY PLEAS/JOYCE M
~A-JISTA CA 91JI3
20bO
CA 92&00
92000
5954 BO 12 00
BALDwiN BU ERS
cIa THE LD"IN CO
500 N aRT CENTER OR 1700
NEWP T BEACH CA 92boO
5954801&00
BALDWIN BU ERS
cIa THE LD"IN co
500 N DRT CENTER OR .700
NE"P~ACH CA 92bbO
5954802000
BALDWIN ILDERS
cia TH ALDWiN CO
500 PORT CENTER OR .700
NEw T BEACH CA 92boO
5954802400
BALOWI N 8U IL
CIa THE BA
500 NEWP
NE wP OR
S
IN CO
CENT ER OR 1700
ACH CA 92boO
5954602BOO
BALDwiN BU DERS
cia THE LDwlN CO
500 NE aRT CENTER OR .700
NE7 BE ACH CA 92boO
5954900100 ,
BALDWIN BUILDERS
cia BALDwIN CO
500 NEWPORT CENTER OR .700
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92boO
/
/
..~
...
I.
. ,,'r""
T~tar-News
Direct Payments to: P.O. Box 1207, Chula Vista, CA 91912
t.r (619) 427-3000
INVOICE & STATEMENl'
18977
'!'
Mail Address:
835 Third Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
oeFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
276 FOURTH AVE.
CHULl~ VISTA, CA. 91910
Date:
Acct. No,
4-29-95
CV508900
t.r RE: CONIDIDTIONAL USE PERHIT
DESCRIPTION
t.r PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF STATEMENT WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
INCHES
COPIES
UNIT
PRICE
CHARGES
BALANCE
CV 5987
4/,29 . ,4.00
8.56
34.24
') /
11 I L
5:/ ,; ,,/1
/ I , 1//1/ 'I
'i', ,,/V} I /jv~ l/
'. /jIV"- : l/
yr~/pt Ii.
I 'i jf I' )( "1./
,r..i,i',v"'/" "!t,M - ,);,Y/!, Ji,v
(,/1., I)!' , 'I'"
L'I: I UI;"
~ L.--..' (7.ip/Y1. ,
{lC [1
PCC 95-16
34.24
9- J.2-
FORM so. 14
CHULA VISTA STAR-NEWS t.r NATIONAL CITY STAR-NEWS * IMPERIAL BEACH STAR-NEWS
;'""
\
t.
~:
r
~';,
,-.
E-:
"'.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015,S C,C,P,)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Diego:
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over
the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to or interested in the above-entitled matter,
I am the principal clerk of the printer of the
ST,A.R-NEWS, CHULA VISTA, a newspaper
of general circulation, published
TWICE-WEEKLY in the City of Chula Vista,
and the South Bay Judicial District, County
of San Diego, and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the
County of San Diego, State of California,
under the date of f>,pril 23, 1951, Case
Number 164327; that the notice, of which
the annexed is a printed copy ( set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,
to-wit:
4/29
all in the year 1995
I certify ( or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at CHULA VISTA
California, this' 29 day of A p r iI, 1995
S;g"al"~ t,.QCt'& S~ Lv':]
PRINCIPAL CLER
This sp20e is lor the County Clerk's Filing St2mp
I
CV ,05987
'.
Proof of Publication of:
'PUBLIC NOTICE
-------------------
------------~------
/') /?'-'
~j,.--l.J
.. .... I NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARINGBYJtlE,CHULA
VISTA-art,COUNCIL
C1iUtAYlST"~AtIFORNIA
I' NOT ....lCE.. 'IS. '" ~ REBY GIVEN
,THAT>J;HE,;;C ULA ,VISTA
erN 9QtJ~1L1 IIholOa. po-
i'=~'~~~rf~r~.,fol-
PUrpo6e,Of'"conslderlng; an
appll_.fIlfqondltianafU..
Permit submltte4!f Dy- ihaChula
Vlsta_ Loclgo _ting
penTlisslon '11:) r~elop 2.25
__~.~~~s~
".j.".~bt~". 'T~.' . .Uu-
" hir-_foneoncf , ,,'~'QlHmll.
pec..~f_6(:,c;to ,Construct, an
unman~:&llbrar-'communj;.
=o~A~~t
located.atih8.iUtadW~
GOtham:s.~~ 'i'.'.'.~^'1~'
Ify~wf$h,~geihe
CI'Y'''S-''aCtiOtt'' "IbI:a. matw In
coWit.iVoct:may;balrrnlbKtlDra-
Islng: ant,. th,C1S<<~U8S you or
someon881.~d_d"at the pu-
~~'-=~~~
"Oily
. Cled(, ID the
_ ~~ ~NG
'NIL .'. .' , E CITY
COUNCILon . eSdaYi,May 9"
1995 a.t6:OQ-pm.lrtd:ieCOUn-
~M~~~~PWbHc"=~~ I
rl.whl ~_:,~any "mat.' ~n _~Slr-
_. TED'ApI'l.24. .'~
'W05987 - ; - . - ",,'!+'29/95
May 9, 1995
Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
Public Service Building
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Re: Air Touch Cellular
Dear Chula Vista Council Members,
I am the owner of the house located at 835 Lehigh Ave. Lehigh Avenue, not labeled on the
Planning Dept map, is the street directly in front of and borders the proposed cellular site. Our
house was purchased, new, in 1976.
I am very concern and against the proposed Air Touch project for several different reasons. My
main areas of concern are as follows:
1. Why must an industrial facility be constructed within an existing and growing residential area?
A study was to be made on other more appropriate sites. What happened? I'm sure that a more
appropriate site could be found.
2. The present water site is an eye sore, as demonstrated at a previous meeting, and the cellular
facility will add to that eye sore. The present facility has the appearance of a junk yard. Just
because the facility is out of view from most of the home owners, is no reason that the area
should look like a dump site.
3. I don't believe that the long term health issue have been addressed or are completely known.
Potentially hundreds, maybe thousands of people may be harmfully exposed to health conditions
that might not be known for years.
4. As you mayor may not know, the Mexican alien problem in the area is very bad and
dangerous. Another facility or building would increase the alien activity in the area and cause the
rerouting of alien foot traffic into the near by housing areas. The water site is already being used
as a hiding place and meeting area for hundreds of aliens every day. I welcome any council
member to visit and observe the activity. Can any of you imagine living day and night with
hundreds of strangers in and around your fenced housing area. We do not need to encourage
added activity in the area.
I strongly urge that the Council denied the application for a conditional use permit,PCC-95-16, for
the proposed Gotham Street location. Please don't make the same mistake that the Council made
with the Water District.
Sincere ,
~
Anthony Villanueva
3676 Corral Canyon Road
Bonita, Ca. 91902
(619) 661-6400
9-37
G
The BaldwiD CGm.paIIY
Oqf/:wnansfdp In.bulIdbtg since 19S6
May 9. 1995
Chula VJSta ~ Council
~ ofChula VISta
276 FourthAvame
Chula VISta, CA 91910
Re: Ageacla Item Nn..~'
Dear Mayor Horton and Conncilmembcl:s:
The Baldwin Company would like to state our opposition to one of the sites proposed as
an a1temative location for the AirTouch Cellular Communications Facility. Specifically,
The Baldwin Company has serious concerns with the monopole altemative InMltNl in the
self stoIage facili~ in 'P_T "lq> Blw-" Pazk.
The Baldwin o-p.>ny is a joint venture partner with FN Projects on the Salt er=c
Ranch develol'.....:nt which is situated dixectly behind the self stoIage Dcility. Numerous
homes will be in direct line of site and in close proximi~ to the proposed~. The
monopole raises serious concerns since the visual i"'P"cts I'-.ciAt~ with this type of
structure are IIDDIitigab1e.
At the Council m.....nqg on January 17, 1995, I registeRd my conN'.t'n<l with the original
site due to visual impacts on our Telegraph Canyon Estates project. Howev1=r, due to
recent assurances made by the AirTouch Cellular, my.concelD" have been adequately
addIesscd and, Baldwin DO lODger opposes AirTouch's cm:rem application.
W1tb ~ to the two additional locations p~M as a1tematives to the CUP
application, Baldwin J'NrI"i..... nc:utra1.
yOur consideration oftbis Iequest is ~i..-t
Since1ely,
~tJ~
TJID.O'~y7
Vice President
TOGIcc
9- .J~~
l:/l: l!IfI""d
11975 F.I Camino Real. Spite 200. San o;oon. CA 92no. ItlICl\ ?~Cl_'Q(lll
'OJ 'WOHd l~'Sl SS-Be-AWN
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / j)
Meeting Date 5/9/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-26: Request to establish
the Moose Lodge at 25/33 Naples Street - Loyal Order of the Moose
Chula Vista Lodge # 1927
Resolution /7119/ Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a
Fraternal Organization Lodge at 25/33 Naples Street within the C-N Zone
SUBMfITED BY' D're,"" of PI,oo'", ~~t
REVIEWED BY: City Manager \1'. k. ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No L)
'-^1')~' /7
The project consists of redeveloping a 2.25 acre site to establish the Moose Lodge at
25/33 Naples Street in the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial zone district. A fraternal
organization lodge is considered an "Unclassified Use" which requires a conditional use permit
in any zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-15, of possible
environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and
comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be
no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-95-15.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution approving the conditional use
permit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On March 13, 1995, the Design Review Committee voted 4-0 to approve the site plan and
architecture for the project (see Attachment 4).
On April 12, 1995 the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council
approve the conditional use permit in accordance with Resolution PCC-95-26 (see Attachment 3).
On March 20, 1995, the Resource Conservation Committee voted 4-0 to recommend adoption
of the Negative Declaration for IS-95-15.
/~-/
Page 2, Item ) tJ
Meeting Date 5/9/95
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site is the westerly 2.25 acres of a neighborhood commercial center located
at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street within the C-N zone (see
Attachment 2 Exhibit A).
The site was previously occupied by a grocery store and a health club. The grocery store
was destroyed by fire several years ago and the health club building has been vacant for
some time. The 7,000 sq. ft. health club building, along with a 28 ft. high freestanding
wall from the previous grocery store, still remain on the site. The eastern 1. 9 acres of
the original neighborhood commercial center includes a liquor store, martial arts school,
beauty shop, coin laundry and a convenience market with gasoline sales.
The site is bounded to the north by single family dwellings located approximately 12 ft.
above the property, to the east by a retail commercial center, to the west by a
residentially zoned parcel belonging to the San Diego Country Club, and to the south by
single family dwellings across Naples Street.
2. Zoning and Land Use
Zoning
Existing Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
R-l
R-l & R-I-5-P
C-N
R-3-P-14
Vacant Structure & Paving
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Vacant property owned by San Diego Country Club
3. Proposal
The proposal consists of removing the remaining concrete slab and foundation of the
destroyed structure, retrofitting the 7,000 sq. ft. former health club building with a 1,300
sq. ft. addition, and establishing parking for 157 vehicles with landscaping and other
associated site and street improvements. The proposal includes an area to accommodate
a 4,000 sq. ft. addition at a later date (see Attachment 2 Exhibit B).
The Moose Lodge is a fraternal organization for members only, and features a lounge
area with capacity for 66 people (UBC maximum occupancy), administrative offices,
conference rooms, storage rooms and an assembly area with a capacity for 409 people
/tl"'^
Page 3, Item / t?
Meeting Date 5/9/95
(UBC maximum occupancy). The Lodge has 560 members of which approximately 150
are presently active.
The parking required for this facility is as follows:
Assembly area (2,862 Sq. ft.)
Lounge 66 seats (based on UBC max occupancy)
Total parking required
1/50 sq. ft.
1/2.5 permanent seats
= 57 spaces
= 27 spaces
= 84
The parking provided is 157, which allows 73 spaces for the future expansion.
The Lodge is open Monday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Typical daytime activities include breakfast on Sundays from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. (avg.
attendance 65), Senior Citizen lunches once a month from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. (avg.
attendance 185) and business meetings and conferences during different times of the day
(avg. attendance 20). Evening events include: bingo nights from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 (avg.
attendance 120), dance classes on Saturday (avg. attendance 20-25), live music
entertainment and dancing Fridays and Saturdays, and other similar events (avg.
attendance 90-100). Outdoor activities are very limited and include periodic barbecues
and special events at Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and so on.
4. Public Input
On March 9, 1995, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize the
surrounding residents with the applicant's request and the planning process. At the
meeting, the owners of two northerly adjacent residential parcels (32 and 36 Hilltop
Court) expressed their desire to retain the existing 28 ft. high tilt-up wall adjoining their
properties, and the owner of 40 Hilltop Court expressed the desire to retain the existing
wood fence adjoining his property in lieu of a masonry wall as suggested by staff.
In addition to the input received at the public forum, the Planning Department has
received correspondence from an area resident expressing concerns about traffic
congestion at the intersection of Hilltop and Naples Street, as well as the number of
accidents that have occurred along this segment of Naples Street (see Attachment 6).
5. Analvsis
Although the property is zoned for Neighborhood Commercial use, it has for several
years remained vacant and largely an eyesore for the surrounding neighborhood.
Apparently there has been been no interest in redeveloping the property with a new
Ijl, ;J
Page 4, Item j!)
Meeting Date 5/9/95
grocery store or other neighborhood serving commercial use. In fact, the site is too
small to accommodate a modem grocery store, which generally requires a site of about
4-5 acres.
It is believed the Moose Lodge is an appropriate alternative use of the property and
should represent a welcome addition to the neighborhood in terms of upgrading the
appearance and security of the site. It will also represent a suitable location to meet the
needs of the Lodge and the activities of its members in a pleasant neighborhood
commercial setting.
With regard to activity impacts, as noted above, the vast majority of activities are
conducted indoors, and the hours of the Lodge are consistent with the limitations
specified for uses in the C-N zone. Following is a discussion of the issues of fencing,
traffic and accidents raised by area residents.
An acoustician was consulted and determined that the eXlstmg off-site noise level
combined with the proposed use noise exposure will be well within the City's standard
of 65dB CNEL combined. However, to reduce any potential nuisance, he recommended
that a barrier (zoning wall) be installed along the north property line (see Attachment 8).
Also, pursuant to Section 19.58.360 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, a zoning wall
(6 ft. high masonry wall) is required along the property line abutting residential districts
(north side). The intent of the wall is to screen and buffer residential uses from the noise
and activities associated with commercial zones.
Three of the four northerly adjacent homes would be properly screened and buffered
from noise by the existing structures and the existing tilt-up wall, but the house adjoining
the northwest comer of the project site will not have the same protection. The owner
of this parcel, however, has expressed the desire to retain the existing wood fence in lieu
of the required zoning wall (masonry wall). According to the acoustician, the existing
wood fence would provide adequate protection from noise. For this reason and in
accordance with CVMC Section 19.58.360, the Planning Commission waived the
requirement per the attached Resolution.
A traffic study was conducted to analyze the expected traffic generated by the Moose
Lodge versus traffic from commercial development of the site (see Attachment 7). The
study shows that based on worst case conditions, the Lodge would be expected to
generate 80 average Daily Trips (ADT) at the PM peak hour (they do not have an AM
peak because the facility is not open until 10:00 a.m. during the week days). This is
about 60 ADT less than the PM peak for 12,000 square feet of typical commercial
development, and about 30 ADT less than would be expected to be generated from the
old Mayfair Market which previously occupied the site. Also, the intersection of Hilltop
Page 5, Item ) j}
Meeting Date 5/9/95
and Naples will continue to operate at LOS B at the AM and PM peaks. This is well
wiihin ihe City's threshold standard of LOS D for peak hours.
To address concerns about ihe number of accidents in ihe segment of Naples Street
between First Avenue and Hilltop Drive, ihe City Traffic Engineer reviewed four years
of accident history. Accident data is typically measured in number of accidents per
million vehicle miles (MVM) and compared to a State average.
The records for this segment of Naples Street show ihat in ihe past four years ihe
accident rate has been relatively low (1. 6/MVM) when compared to the State average for
a similar street (2.21/MVM). However, to improve safety, in 1989 the speed limit on
Naples was reduced from 35 to 25 MHP in order to compensate for atypical road
conditions and prevent potential hazards at the residential intersections (Tobias and Vista
Way).
6. Conclusion
For ihe reasons outlined above, staff is recommending approval subject to ihe conditions
contained in ihe Draft City Council Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid for all costs associated with ihe processing of ihis Conditional Use Permit
and associated Design Review application. The applicant, however, has filed an application for
waiver of fees which will be considered by Council at a later date.
Attachments
I. City Council Resolution
2. Exhibits
3. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution
4. RCC and DRC Minutes
5. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
6. Public Input
7. Traffic Analysis
8. Noise Analysis
9. Disclosure Statement
(m :\home\planning\\uis\pcc-9552.rpt)
/tJ~S- ! IO...Lf
RESOLUTION NO.
/? F'9 J
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT
25/33 NAPLES STREET WITHIN THE C-N ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 11, 1995 by The Loyal Order of the
Moose, Chula Vista Lodge # 1927; and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a fraternal organization
lodge at 25/33 Naples Street within the C-N zone; and
WHEREAS, A public forum was noticed and held on March 9, 1995 to inform
surrounding residents of the proposal and to receive their input prior to the public hearing
process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 12, 1995 and voted
5-0 (with one Commissioner absent to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-l5 and
to recommend that the City Council approve PCC-95-26 based on the findings, and subject to
the conditions contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said application and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
May 9, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES hereby
find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
1. Adoption of Negative Declaration. That the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-25.
II. CUP Findings. That the City Council makes the findings required by the City's rules
and regulations for the issuance of the conditional use permit, as hereinbelow set forth,
and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be
made.
JtJ,. 7
A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed land use would provide a centrally located and convenient facility
for the organization's members and would provide needed improvements to the
site to enhance its appearance and security.
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of tbe particular case, be
detrimental the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The proposal includes as conditioned measures to avoid potential noise impacts
to nearby residences and the site plan and building design solutions contribute
significantly to the betterment of the overall neighborhood.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Municipal Code for such use.
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations shall be required
prior to issuance of development permits and on conditioning basis thereafter.
D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of this project as conditioned is consistent with City policies and
The General Plan.
III. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The City Council hereby grants Conditional
Use Permit PCC 95-26 to allow a fraternal organization lodge, subject to the following
conditions, whereby:
a. The hours of operation shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m.
b. The project shall comply with the plan conditionally approved by the Design
Review Committee (DRC-95-26).
c. The project shall comply with all the requirements of the Chula Vista Uniform
Fire and Building Codes to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Director of
Building and Housing respectively.
d. A structural engineer shall certify that the existing tilt-up wall is safe to remain
or provide a reinforcing design to ensure that the wall is safe to remain as part
of the project.
1t7-8"
IV. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant.
A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions
imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance
written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this
reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprived the
Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
B. This conditional use permit shall be void and ineffective if the same is not utilized
within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional
conditions or revocation.
V. Findings re Relation of Exaction to Impact of Project
The City Council has individually and independently reviewed each of the exactions
imposed on the applicant contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that
the exactions are imposed to mitigate an impact caused by the project and are our
reasonably related to the project and the extent and degree of exaction is in rough
proportionality to the impact caused by said project.
V. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruref ~~ ~
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
(m:\... \luis\pcc-9526.ccr)
1t7~ 9 / 10-/2-
PUBLIC HEARING OlECK LIST
PUBLIC HEARlNG DATE: S IOf lq S
SUBJECT: ~~. it _0 u.... Q......4- ,R..~ q~. u...', ~b.,,:tr. jl I., T"-c LI/ rxm-A- '!-tr-
LOCATION: .~-<.uo-t~ ...,........:....,,;~ 1... ..~. ,0" 2.$ ~ e 2..$ ~ ~ ~
'Sh.J- ,..i;d.,' L'~~o,...&..'" ....t:.fo.L./.-J - ~t.......J. ~~ ~
~
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION.. BY FAX v"'; BY HAND_; BY MAIL
<<.i h..q fqS
PUBLICATION DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS~ ..J ~ L ,a NO. MAILED
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
'i 12.''!>/Q S
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning v'
./'
Originating Department
Engineering ./'
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
/'
~ /2.-,/0,5
,
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
-55-
/0-/)
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 an application for a conditional use permit. The
application, submitted by The Chula Vista Moose Lodge, requests
permission to redevelop 2.25 acres at 25 and 33 Naples Street
within the C-N Zone, and establish a fraternal organization lodge
(see locator). A plot plan, legal description and the description
of the organization's lodge typical activities is on file in the
office of the Planning Department.
An Initial Study, IS-95-l5, of possible significant environmental
impacts has been conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The Negative Declaration along with the Initial Study is on file in
the office of the Planning Department. Any petitions to be
submitted to the Planning Commission must be received by the
Planning Department office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this conditional use
permit 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 Council
at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE COUNCIL on Tuesday, May 9,
1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to
be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA, request individuals who
require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or
participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in
advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific
information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California
Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
DATED: April 28, 1995
CASE NO. PCC-95-26
pee-not.pc
/;J-/.,L
.-
I
':'!
:~
.r
1.
':.~rT';''''fr;l-"rt''' ; (~~ t ,
"r :'1~. .1"',....~r~.:"I.,.,.
,. ,',.,. '-' ("'~ " ;. . r "'.~ ,.
~~,.!':t..r'/)o-~.~r.:'..r',.r~ '~rt...:;."r.' 'I ~;,.r...:~...r'
7.;1 r..y,!;..r,:~ ,*',,-,.. f~ rF)';'t":.FI ~~~1:-'..r...rr,I';~.
.r.(.r'rr .r~:."..t" ;''l'..,,; r,'rr,:".;.r}:"(','rrt..,
-.,. -t.., ~.t~.I"r;...',. 'r,' ,..~r( (y.~;_:." ...;.:.,
/,.... r...':. ;.~!{;(';. ~i.r;. i~ ~ r ....;.- ..;r~r-'-"J 1:",-" r..:.; 'ro"',r'
r. :"J,.c.I'I"'Lr" (r'r- r...... . r~,r.',.;.r ..",.r. r,' '..'( ~"'f.
..( '"...J-.r( r,...! r/',. f.'r,rr~(rl(""r(,t;:.:-r.~':
:..'(t';!.I~:r.f~$.:#':~/":'r~f),.... fl.' -rr,lrF. ""'r',
6->"" ( ';r rr*' r.(r' ~ ... r r,. .'rf'......t '.-,
" r(",r;".,J'<.'"1;r~"rr..~;:'; ;~ r;. r.;.r,.,,.r,,... f'~,r;.~ {"
...lr"...or.Yc,.;.~rr,.- ..,.....,,' ,...~./I',.f.,t,r,;.I,.(r..r:.,-..f'r..
,..,..,,.1(.(. "/y~ ,'.-.'...JIo.....,..,.'r r r('
......,.....r ".,./I{~'" ,. r".' ',', (r ".. "- ~,.....r ;-.
1..' ....... 'rf~(.. r . ,:.' ~~,t".. r.r "''''f'''', ,. r........ r ~<._
.-( ~l-r,,.,...,,.J. 'r: ......... ,.~ _;- r rr~ ", sr. ~,. rr ~,~r.r~~
'r r,L'r.'f:.../~~f.<#"I"'f)rrfr( ':J ~',.." ~r't"".'r rrl'".r....;-.:.
.;.(...}~.~:r'~;. r~r .: r.,. ';: .~'..' ~,.,I'",.,-/": .t,'("'}~ ~:~:,..;',
'r ~ 'rr" '. ~~'.' .. ',. r..,rr.,..' " '.rr
"'~;r', ~ r' r.4:''--'~rr. ~. '..r ,~."r-' ,Tr r.. r. ~";r ,." r r.
,. -,,.' ..r.. 'I.." "'r ..., ~f ~ ,." /""" r:,..f ...
.rl',~~."Jrl';.. ~f"':,i ..,,...;"-,..1":." "f'r ~ .t'1:.""
r~r:1r~.;~~r ,. t(";r-~r-":!" 1;' "'.,r'f"f...J .-.r'''~,(
" - - - - . ~ - ,r'r 'r T f"
, ",I" (r 'rr,.
... .' r,._r r
;: """r!'."'~,.
~ PROJECT r:~'r'~'fI..;f
, r"~"
LOCATION ;. :.,'<'
..r, r;."..
I ...,.,"
., .
4 ..,",,~
-~.-.t:
~,.. .. .,...
..rf,';:,,"(!
~,.....'.. ~.,~~.
- - - ... 'V~
'- - - r
iii ~- -- I ~~~
-
_c C ---'" y~
-~=f::Ii
-
- -
- - ~(i
~
_. 'L~
- .. -
.-
-
~ -
- ~ lr::j
10- -~' &
'/....
- y, '\-
__IUI ~ :l
- ...J:\
1-,1 . - i l.fT \~
V T
I-- ----
~!;i~~i~li' / i ! : \ \.
~
I-- I
. "'....Pl~~ .a-.
p
I r I
IF . t
, >
, C
.
~ Ia.J
1- 1_____
::>>
i.
!i;j
~ >
i:.: ~ C
~
~ W... :T
l-- ~-~ }f::-
CASTLE '11I'1e
~ 3 - !
- - ; 1--
I-- "T I4ii
~ ~ l-
I-- .'
I I
fTITTRTl. TFf'I11 ~ ~.
'1 . P.
I "l I:
,
'.
w
:>
z
w
>
c
lITT1lTR rmTTUJ.,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR .......CMT: Cbula Vista Moose LocIle PIlOJECTDDCIlII"nON :
C9 ~ A J3 Nap'" Street Ramoda. and axpanalon of an
-,
axlatlng atructur.a for a propoaad
.e...., .... ....lIt 12,4g4 aq.ft. fratarnal organization
NORTH 1" - 400'
/f)~/3
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
r
.
c. (,,',( 5752''110300
c(). ~,1
e.\a, ,(CHULA VISTA CA 91911
C,. . 41' ~:-1
~.(l,::1.
C 041 ':15752910700
C . (J: ,.( LOZAN~E L/ANGELICA M
(: (J & ~ ....1 CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752920700
PITCHFORD R~T GIFRANCINE D
= CHULA VISTA CA 919pt
oecc (
C 0 (( 0
o. c ~'. ( 5752921100
G, 0'" : 1 STEARNS MAR ION R
~ . (' , (__. - . I
co,'-: ':JCHULA VISTA CA 91911
G e ~ <,(
C()~;;"d
- -,5752930100
LOFTON BAil.l. A/MAXINE M
- ---
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752911100
ELLSWORTH CURTJS W/URSULA R
CHULA~A CA 91911
5752911500
ifVELES Rf~R/ANA M
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752920300
REA R
ULA VISTA CA 91911
5752930500
RHOTEN RAY V/ULGA
tHULA V ISTA CA~911 /IJ/ J,/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5752910400
GRANT MAR
CHULA VI STA CA 91911
5752910800
BOTTORFF GERA /MARJOR IE M
A CA 91941
, I
5752911200
NAVARR-WE CT~/S ILV I A
CHULA VISTA 91911
5752911600
~AONESSA JOSEPH/TERESA
CHULA ~STA d 91910
5752920400
,ALCOM H/BARIlRA J
CHULA VI STA
5752920800
~AGO G/DELFINA C
~91911
5752921200
SCHMOKE RUOOLPH A JR/JOANN A T
RS
~ 91911
5752930200
~SARAH 0
~911
5752930600
~
~1911
,
r: . ( . -:I( .
( () Ie
c.<.',lI .
e,OI,{
~.cI ;::_
COI l..
C.<1::-
(()~~(..
o . c c.( (!I
C. o' :.:
aGe Cl1
co.' )(
8>GC (".
co....('
~
G.~O(
C 0 ~. ;,.,l'{..-:
lI.
L ABL 00733 IS-9~-I~
DRC; COML: AT 25 NAPLES STREEl
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXl
X XXX xx x XXXXXX xx xx x xxx xx xx xx XX l
X XXX xx x xxx x xx xx xx x xxx xx xx xx xx l
x xxxxx x xxx xxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx XX)
,
.c;..
x xxxxx x xxx xxx xx xxx xxx xx xx xx XX)
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
X xxx xx x xxx x xx xx xx x xxx xx xx xx xx>
x xxx xx x xxx xxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx XX)
x xxx xx x xxx xxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx XX)
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
..
5752910100
NIELSEN RICHARD .-TTY J
C I-ULA VISTA CA 91911
5752910500
TI-.OMP:)ON DONALD M/BERNADINE
C HUL A V 1ST A
1a
5752910900
BURGE THEOD
H LA VISTA
J
CA 91911
5752911300
~/CONSUELO Y
~91910
5752920100
S CHOL LE
CI- LA VISTA
5752920500
AGLlPAY ~
. -
CI-ULA VISTA CA 91911
.... 5752920900
.. ~ P/BLANCA R
C HULA VIST A CA 91911
.
5752921300
KEMP ALlCE P <AKA PALMER ALlCI
P>
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xx.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx xx xx xx xx xX XX XXXX XX XX XXXX xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xx x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
57 ~2 91 02 00
ERAZlM MARY A
~VIN REALTY
~CA 91910
5752910bOO
GO NZ AL I:Z
HU A VISTA CA 91911
5752911000
HOFFMAN E~ETH
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752911400
~
~7
5752920200
COwAN SAMU 1'1
CHULA ST A
5752920bOO
MAFFEI ~
CHULA ~ CA 9!91~
5752921000
.......
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752921400 .
~D/KATHY A
CH U L A V 1ST A CA 91911
5752930300
1'I00RE yAI'IES
L .. __
C I-UL A V 1ST A
5752930400
~RY ~ARMIUA A
CA 91911 jf) ~/_(" CHULA VISTA CA 'H911
5752930900
SAPP wILLIAM W/MARY E
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5752931300
~R/MAR~ARET M
~91911
5753701200
SALES CHARLES G JR/JA~ET L
CHULA VIST~1911
---~~~
(? . (J{
( 0.( J 57537011:00
C . ~ II STATE STREET bANK/TRUST CO TR
C, g. (.) C/O RYLAND MORTGAGE CO
I!' . II )( CO ""
CO, (l
(.<1 JI(
( G ~ "" (.) 575"310"00
DEGOUK-.JWROTHY H TR
. 8ULA VISTA C^191l
575 "310800
~
~1911
575"320300
URGO JOHN E JR/NOREEN A
~1911
575"320700
. ~8/SHU N
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
575"321200
_.. BUCKALEW WILLIAM M TR
C . (' C'(........-
~ 0.: ...;~11
0.': (ll{
c, 0 .. . JI( I
~ 0 (' (~575"3211:00
CO.' l("; GAMBLE JAMES REVOCABLE
c.~ (:-<~
C () L e"(.." ~191l
~7529310~0
~OMEI NATALIA I
~qlqll
)
~752931"00
~l/JOAN b
~91911
)
~
5753701300
~JR
~
)
>>
5754310100
~ JR/lETICIA
~91911
..
~
575"3105~0
~
~ 94114
.
.
575431l0~0
~UST
CHUlA VISTA CA 91911
05-21-90
.
"
57543204CO
~
~91911
.
.
5754320B CO
~lIZA V
~91911
.
.
5754321300
HA~SEN Hl:N~ING/KIRSTINE
~
~1911
RE VOCA .
.
5754321700
TRUST 0 VEGA ROBeRTO/ISABEL
~1911
R
5754330400
T RE JO J ES US
~AK
99b92
//J~/~
.
.
.
.
5754330500
~KATHERINE E
~1911
.
.
,
- 5752930700 5752930800
.. ~M ~1911
C LI F TO N Al 85533
.
... 5752931100 5752931200
M CDDNO UGH M IC HAEL E/BILL! E J ~
~91911 CHULA V A CA 91911
t
~- i 5753700100 5753700200
-'-.- .
a . C ;-C){ ~OLD JR/MOLLY ~RICIA Y
( (). )1(1 H L TA CA 91911 CHULA 9ll
C .<.'::. .
c... !C:.,
e.~ 01 .'~_.
C o. -.' . 5753701"00 5753701500
0.<1<- ~ ~
(a~<:;.c:.. HUL STA 911 HULA VIS A 911
.
575"310200 575"310300
CASILLAS RUBEN ~/SANDRA M S
~91911
CHULA VISTA CA 919ll
575"310600
CISNEROS CAES.AR V/CATALINA
~91911
575"310700
~ M/MARIA A
~91911
575"320100 575" 32 0200
~RMA R LYONS LEHNIS D/EDNA M FAMILY
~
C HUL A V IS 1911
, A VIS 919ll
575" 32 0500 575"320600
~DIANA L ~STR
CHULA VISTA CA 91911 HULA 919ll
O.c-Cli( --'
C (). OC
o. C..~;( ~ 575" 321000 575"321100
CO.' ;.- ~ ~L
~.C'1:~ CHULA VISTA CA 91911 SAN 01 92163
CO.'C.- ,.
o . ~< )(
CO~.o;;..liI(.-' 5 75" 32 HOO 575't321500
~1911 ~1911
575"321800
S CUTHERN GORDON/FLORENCE E FA'
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
575"321900
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
575"330200
~RTHA
~1911
/1) - / ?
575"330300
WOOSLEY PEGGY A <AKA ODERMAT-
~2b"3
575;330800
~A/J<A'NE M
~1911
8191001200
SAN OIEGO CUUNTRY CLU8 INC
CHULA V~A CA 91911
8191003000
CHUVILA PARTNERSHIP
~2123
8191511200
VALENCIA AUGUSTINE P/OORA
";.:: ~ 91911
O.C,_
(~. )'()
C...' .8191511800
c.... '(.) MFCLAIINy JTRAMUSES A8ROEV90CqA3"LE
e ... :. AM L T 0 - -
C o. :t.)~1911
0.<1'( .
'- .. ~ ..;(;.1
. 8191512000
. ~/OIMPLE 0
~ 91911
8191520;00
~CATHERI'E A
~ 91911
8191520800
~KAREN 0
~ 91911
8191521200
~V W/CA,OIE L
~1911
. .. 8191810200
o. c- C.c: KRACK RONALD M/OOROTHV E
C o. ~ CJ~ 91911
o. c ell:
co.'" -<<:1
8.(,1:'.
co..: :c 18191810800
a.1! (.Ii( ~RISILANGAN T
(. (I &.;.,. ~_\ ~ 91911
8191820;00
~L/BARBARA E
~;O
8191820800
JACKET ALBERT
CHULA VISTA CA
11
91910
'-
/6' /) Y
~7543309CO
.ILSON GKEGOkY J/MARIA G
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
81910022,0
SAN OIEGU COUNTRY CLUB INC
. --
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
819100;800
~AN OIEGU COUNTRY CLUB
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
INC
8191511300
"RIFFIN .ALLACE S TR
11 Y
CHULA VIS A CA 91911
1993
8191511700
GARCIA JuAN S/AURORA
~ 91911
8191520100
ESTABROOK EUGENE/RAMONA
~ 91911
81915205UO
FR Y JE RR Y LI SHE I LA H
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
8191520900
PROIA RICHARi.
1 ... _
CHULA VIOTA CA 91911
8191521300
LEOE SMA J~SE L/GLORIA E
CHULA VIS A CA 91911
81918103UO
~SEPH E/SOCORRO
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
8191820lCO
"EAUMONT MACK/MARY F
~91911
81918205C0
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
81918209UO
~F
~ 91911
)
)
~
~
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
I,
II
II
.~.
aec.c.
[ae: .:
ce~~.:::.
c;,.e. I.
~eii(_
C oe ..
Decr><-
<:~~ec..;
oec-c.(
COtC~
oeC<<:lll
COt'Cll:
8e(<<:.
COt'Cl(,
Qe~>c:,< .
c..... ~~,
. 515"330600
~MARCIA
~1911
575"330700
CURTIS K IKUE
f --
HULA VISTA CA .1911
.
.
575"331000
~CHELE
C~ULA YISTA CA 91Q11
6191001000
RAhCHO ASSOCIATES NO 2
C/O MITCHELL MANAGEMENT
-
SAt-. DIEGO LA 91101
.
i
b 191002'000
BRO~N DOROTHY L 1992 REYOCABLI
TRUST OB-20-92
C/O TH E SOUTH lA NO COR P
o ALLAS TX H221
6191002900
CHUYILA PAkTNEkSHIP
SAN DIEGO C~92123
C;
. b 19100'0700 6191511100
~CDUNTRY CLUB INC SE YEkANCE TERUKD
CHULA YI A CA 91911 ~HULA YIS~A CA 91911
.
_...,"_.,.,
. 619151HOO 6191511500
WOMACK THOMAS G/DDNNA J TRUST CRUZ ANTON 10 R/YICENTA R
~ CHULA YISTA CA 91911
. 91911
J b 191511800
~/RHONlA L
~ 91911
6191511900
CELICEO 1990 TRUST 01-15-90
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
.
6191520200
C HNOLER HARR Y C1P AIR ICIA A
C~ULA YISTA CA 91911
6191520300
GUIOO ROGELIO MIGENOYEYA A
L
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
6191520600
M ANTI JOHN/EI,.LAN
C~ULA YISTA CA 91911
6191520700
PETERSON CARL S/EONA C
-- -- --
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
6191521000
~
C~,ULA YlSTA CA
6191521100
HART TRUST 0'0-10-90
---
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
E TR
91911
'- b191521'o00
~NE
~911
6191610100
SANDERS RAYMONO O/ROBERTA M
.
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
.
.._ur;.'.: "''-.__
b 191 bl 0'000
ROMO JUVL
C~ULA YISTA
b19lbl0500
FLO~ERS OONALD 0 JR/BEYERLY .
.,
CHULA YIS A CA 91911
-
CA 91911
b 19lb2 0200
MAOklGAL IGNACIO/ISABEL
-
ChULA YISTA CA 91911
6191b20300
YILLAGOMEZ ANTONIO P/GRACIEL'
L
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
b 191620600
K LUEYE R JEROME
{HULA YISTA CA
6191b20700
PR IYA" MERWIN
CHULA YISTA CA
J
91911
J/GRACE G
91912
6191621000
l~RRANH !lii.E/MARY L
..... ~
CHULA YISTA CA 91911
1t1~J/
1 <.fl
~4t-(O
ATrACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
-)/ /1l.'.:2.0
~.,.
~ -
THIS PAGE BLANK
t.
~ )j}-;2l
~ /JJ--.2:l....
ATI'ACHMENT 2
EXHmITS
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ /t:J~,2,}
: .. . ,r'- ! t' .,> ~ ,~~.t"." ,.:" ~ 'r;. or t :~. ,. t;. r.,; ~;rf_ : ','.." .
:4
"
'f
- ,
'l.,rf"r.t';l~~r" I 'r.. t ..
'rr :'t" r'\..' r,.. .. . r ~
, .,',;,. '".t;.~" i-" .;"..~ "
.; r. y """, ;1.' " , r f r"" r '" ,
,_... '... .,fr';", ,"'" ."'r~ r.,;.. ^ ....... .~"'r
..'.(.r"t'," ;/"!',',,' ;tJ~ r!f'''!'''.;.''~'':.(r,~''f'I'~(
"~.;'; t...;:t: /~ .r./;..,'~',. r. f'. rr (Y r-"~" t -r'
- r' ".,.~,... ,.'. , .._,-.r",... ('I.,..,.... ".r,
... ...:. r..:: ..~. f r ,. ,.; f' . .. ~ " ,_... .... r
r.:,.....'(.~L:,;r..~~ .,.,.;.. ',r..:',." ~!"~"(";.'.-t.r.r(.
~(r,..:-,." "~i" r"~ ,,, 'orr f',.r 'c.',,,!" ~ ",r~,.f't.
~-.'.(f',!.I~'" .f.!S..#'r:~,,:.,..rr..( ~~ .'(1:' tr"r 1. (",..Fr~'
. ,. .. r r . ~ .. r t,.., .' ( ,
.. .. ....'.;r,.'/.,~... r ..': .".,. "'r"..,..r "- f'(' r....;r
,....... ~'~..~t',r,. "'4"'" .. ....-/4'...
:.,.,~,.I;...;..~... ..,..... 0' t"'.,.r "'f-',,,,,.-"';. /,...#':.~,."
'..~l.!r..t;; ~(-#r.;;:..~"r_.-,. ~r~.f'i" tJ ~...,. ,'('{Jr.."
(.... "',.:e.. r ~,"{.!"'r' r 'r"r,.,.",. ('.,. ",.:(.
'''!,'t;I.~,,:,;.'f;J._'!::''t';'..'''' ~ !"...rf'ot", fr.,f" "(.'{f~:,:":fI!
;', r~(~:~~~ SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB .~ l:"';~
',', .,r," '. r...... .. ',. .r'''''rf.r... .', 'Jr
""~r f' ~.r ,.I:'e'~r:;,~".,r ;~:;ff r, ,;F,"'..r r..~lf"
?'~';~"'f 'I'r-J;'i: r '- ~~~ ,{1 ';r.'r;l":';;Jr ;rF;..... : I:. f""
.. .. ..,...- .. .... , ..', . T .. t 'r f'"
. . . ..,.. 'r,.r ..
'.. 'f.t'f"'rf'p
.. . t t'..-r ,.
;: """,.,...,..~,.
7,' PRO IECT """'r:J""
V r~r~ ~,!l
LOCATION ';. :r,;~,
.'.. ',"
, -f"""
.'"-;'r .;
of..r
, .' ,iF!.
, ?" t. t r(,'
;. ...1" ~, f'
..... .. '.'~'
,
",
- I '\4A
- -
101 ~ '...., ~~
-~ C I ~~
..... i ~
-)1 ~'I ~- '"-I
~- ~
~ ~I
- _/
--J~ r-' f-
-.:
- ......
- ~
Ir
- '? ~-.:
~
, r-- y ,- ;:) -
"'); .1-
- ....... ,... - -<\
~ m r-- i!k1j~
I I
~;;I~~ll' - ~
I /. I \ '
~, COMMERCIAL - .... '
I CENTER
,? I J I -
WA"~~ .a-
r I
Ie ! l' >
~
~ ,
.. 1----.~1 ~
- ~
- :F[
-
101' -.
I[ .!iT
'-- t 'J-
--:.. -
--- CASTLE MItK :;1. ""
- ~ j
- i~
-
- I I J~
~,I
L
rTTTTPnl, fil'ffll 1 ~T. L -Y.
, [.
&AI
~
Z
&AI
>
C
1fll1TTR rTTTllU:L
CHULA VISTA PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR -WAin: aala Vista MOOIe lAdle MO.IICrr.CI'lIII_:
(1) Jot . S3 "-PIlI ..... R.mod.1 end ..p.n.lon o. en
-, ..,.tln, .tructur. '0' lI/ propo..d
Ie.....' IU_, 11,414 _Cl.ft. 'ret.rn.' or,enl..tlon
rR I" - 400'
~ Jtl,-,2'/
EXHIBIT
A
lZ61# iDOO' 7 ~I
y J.SI^ y,nH:l ~
"
noon 010 i _
1I1101l0 'Y AO' ; i
;". L
1 !
. ~"
& -
. ~
f 1$
I ~~
!~ !~
... .h Ii
.~ ~9 i~
I !~ 2~
~J& f~
,.:~ 5.-
" ..
UttlS
m~~
~:~l~ ~!:~~ ~
.... . i
\ltt i 'r
l~~ ~ !3! ~!:i!
1$ .,. "".. ..
~.."....~ ",';; ,j
= .. .
" - Hl~g it;-j:
to : 8.... Hit I,"...
:=. iils ' IS
~ .. = i ~hi
1 ~ ~ ~h ~ih mm~
f~ s ~ i ~L Ot......~1=l
j~ ~!u m~HU .. -I
.~..;
z: .,- -
" '
5" ............
. ~ .
H ~
---.3 · .
-I
,
.-:~~ .. 4
f~~{ ~_~i'
j~~; ;!~~
.t~'i! -.1: '
foes 'hi ~
Hl~ ~U
-I
~:
\
k~
l~~
e:i
, ....... ,\:.: "" "'"",,.........- "-
,<,'- ","""'" "-
. '\It~. , .... " "-
I~ I<-t. . I
,c. \'4.~ Jll.l .:,~!~_ ~I ~
". l'" 'C.'... l' ..t~ I
- j . 10. cll ;".'2. ....-..
~,.)::t~" .......... ~~ . .J
~ 'l...:' "~i..;d.. ~~___
.. ic) !!'~~--I-
Ii!; . I ,!~, t .".
"'~:C:.t'~')h.
. , ...,'.
'II!"::~ ~tr,B
~s r il "'c
'i .~. ~~j'
j7' 1u
-1, <l
~, 21
" .~.
t 1
\ :! ,rI ,.
3
~
to\:'
"
Ol
"\
,
.
It
:~
~!
;"
,I
"1 .
l.
"
:
!
.
.
..;
, I
I I' ..
'il
..... . <}"
[!li,
I si! I
I l_:
-- .,1.. i ..
~:.;) t1i
'-J "h
>..
,"
.1;
,,"
,"
.1'
-'I
H
l)Z "J:
"'S ~~ll
:,.1
~ I v:
if +r~.. 1
-, h
..
.
.-
iO;
i
;;
Sd
,~
..
,It
~
w
.-
..
~.
: - j. .
. il.
o t ol'
. . I: ~
. ) ~
\,.~
! ...
"
~
:":"~~'~..a
i.,
r' ~
,
!
"'1,
I .
{I i:!l
i~
:l~
)
.~/(}~2
EXHIBIT
!!
~.t
.~.
)' a~,
,~~ r. ; ~
."1 .
I _ ; J~ ~
, 'il ~
"
~
L
~
w
i
i~
{~f,[
-J-r
.,'~
,.f
!I~m
.~~m
I~~~
k !ht.t
~ iI~ c
II .. ~'!
. -...:!.
1 ~;;;'-=.
'Ir.: 3-.
\L ~ ~a~t
I sHl
tr~
.;"'J~J""
:1
n
,"
~
;;:
"
.
.
.
,
.
:.
"
:l.
.'
H
.
!:::
~
('
B-1
...-..... ---...
.- ----
......_... -.0'1_'. __I.
.---
"
~"'!""Y'Il'\N:I
UhUn"YNN
"~'
~O ~3a~o lY AOl
....
-
.
....
.. ..
. . I
i VI
. -' , ~ Z
CD . d >~
, . h ~. i I a:..J
CD .. . q " ~o..
. . . i
;, ~ I .. - I I h ~ ~ . ZW'
.... " . i!r I! -0..
!:Q '; i I ! ! i !. & I :E<
r II
...J I r i I' Ii I. .
I ... ! ~q r -IU
.... , r i ! i ! ; p! I' "ll I ri WVI
<: .d , , .p :: , Ii a:c
j J , i'",; 1,1 j I .1
~ , , i i .. I t ~ ..... J . :o..Z
. :: I .... S II : : : i!
...J q l <
0.. It ' l -, -I
~ '" I i ! Ii! : i I,
'"
l: , , .- r ' I I,
i:: . I . :1 !IL!nqnl I ' Ii
~ ... I :z: ; I' .: = ! If.. l ...: l i , B
,. , ~ :: i
'" ~ . CD1r:'I'I'" u
<: } iC s ti It I It! iihidP! ,i' .
l:: .. , I It , j' ... ! . .
/ .. , I I i i ; I E ~ ; i r ! i ~ ; I: , .
.
COcBb ~ Jll~l0l il e~ l ~U I ,
I @:
I
.
I I. .
I: ;
.. . ;""MII'~
I li~ I' I~' -
. -. ~ i
1 ij It'~
i ". ~.i i'!
i ..n .. :"1 II!
I , r~ ~~;s - ~!!
t~ i'
! -, E i!H
t~ . -
; . '"
1-' II III
=:.= Ii iii
II III
I' II.
.E)E) &€lf)
Ii
...""'....._,~.
L
i~
II
.
--.
IBIT B-2
I
fr. "
: Ie.
I I II
j I ! fI
I
:_,I~
,ls
,I i
- '
, I
.
~
I i ~~.
I I il~
I' l
~~I '(]
, .
"!:t:
!
, 1
I:
L~61" 1000' )J ~
...
... J.SI^ ...,nH:l ~ -
c \
~ 2
. ~
ISOOW :10 i _ i . ~
1110110 1YAO' ; : : :..,<1<1
i
.
!
'--
;.
,
B~
r
uti)
.} I
I
1
01
-' I
I
I
OJ
I
0:
1
I
I
D,
.=. ! ;il--:-j----l
I D ~ D I
.1. ' I
51. I ~ I
I I
:J!J Q DI
f-------l
.'lP_ _ _.Q___.t;J____d
~'"
~
.,-
2~
.6.:;"';' - -------
f
, n:'
;~ -- ~
I
z
,
i
~
I
,
~
~ i
I / I
/
L_______=_____,__-.l
I .'
I .
'. "
- ~
'.. 'l'i
, , "j S
.. .. It ....
. 2
@
JtJ~.;L7
,
~
EXHIBIT B-3
.J
'll
, '
I,
Ii.
1-
J
illl
'I I
' k
!~
~::
"'I
,
,
! -
I
,
"
.
,
.
'-
H61 ~ "!l001
't.LSI^ V1nH:l
ilSOOW ~O
!lilO!lO 1V";01
I ",."
. '
~ )
L
"
H~
~ilil
I"
C~t-
."
11"
.~
,
I'
,,",
)7
",
~ '~
~:
<\'"
i
!
"-
~
~
t~ ~
h
'-
1
/0- :2 Y
~
.
':
~
"
: .. -
- :: :
. - - =. <l<l<l
!i
Ii
~ ~~
1 t~
. iF ~i~
.c. ~~s
l3
.
.
g
;!S
H
;!~
:..r
:~~
i 3i _
..
~
:-
I
f,
"
~)'
..
~
.,
- )
~~~
:M~-l ~
:;.~; I
.-. j );
I . ;:
f:m
-I
I,
,-
"
!
;, I
I I l
liJ f~m
M' E ~
! t ~
I
~2:.
~
~
.'.
-:7}i
m
z:
~2
II'~
EXHIBIT B-4
"
.'
,
- .'.~. _~ 'I
"
.~.\,~
-II. ~ ,~. '.,ii,
,'.T.
?n.~"I, --
TIL( ,tU[N,
--- j
,,~..-:~ ;~'"''~~Jl:'''
,,- ,,~" " .,.. ,.
.
J,',
-f'I'iT p",l ;(
-r,
1\.1
. ,\"
~i I
.J
i-d' ~:'.
;__.1
w~sT
j,t" I":;'
[ L ~ ~ T.i..:.:Jl
T~" l
~;T ._~
"
',' "'V:I
1
)1
<-
-: _-11TH
I"
lLE,'JTI.;'N
t.,f,l.........
J"'-IN1
-Tt.-Wtl[l.- .:'.I...'~
*ll'ou [rjj :~-~ {~
'FJI h.Acj.'
~l~ ~~, '/fA.1.
..- tAI!"T ~.).1i.. T~'
M"U~ I'iH\..
("'Tuao./
Nr~lH ELEVHlC~1
II~'" 1-1-
~
/!l---~I
EXHIBIT B-5
<i",_
A'ITACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND
RESOLUTION
~ 1t!J-JO
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ /,tJ-JI
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-95-26
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET
WITHIN THE CoN ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 11, 1995 by the Loyal Order of the
Moose, Chula Vista Lodge #1927, and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a fraternal organization lodge
at 25/33 Naples Street, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional
use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty one days prior to the
hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April
12, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental
impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on 15-95-15.
WHEREAS, The Commission has found that three of the four northerly adjacent homes will
be properly screened and buffered from noise by the existing structures and the existing tilt-up wall,
and the house adjoining the northwest corner of the project site will be adequately protected by
the existing wood fence in lieu of a zoning wall.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby waives
the requirement for a zoning wall along the northerly boundary in accordance with CVMC Section
19.58.360.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that
the City Counci I approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-26 in accordance with the findings, and
subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Counci I.
~ /tfJ~3,)-
Resolution No.
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this day 12th day of Apri I, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS William C. Ttuchscher II, Susan Fuller, Jonh C Ray,Mary C. Salas,
John Willen.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank Tarantino
William C Tushscher II, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
M:\HOM[\PlANNING\luis\pcc-9526.pcr
~ 1&<;;>
Excemt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 4/12/95
ITEM 2:
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-26; REQUEST
TO ESTABLISH THE MOOSE LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET - Loyal
Order of the Moose Chula Vista Lodge #1927
Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report, noting that the land use was compatible
with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the project in accordance with the Planning Commission resolution and
subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council resolution.
Commissioner Willett asked if the parking was perpendicular or diagonal. He felt the diagonal
parking would allow easier backing, which would prevent accidents. Mr. Hernandez noted that
it was typically the decision of the applicant. Staff's basic concern was that there was sufficient
parking. In this case, there were 73 spaces in addition to what was required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Chair Tuchscher noted, for future projects, that the jury was still out relative to types of parking
as to ease of access, traffic flow, etc., and it was really on a site-by-site basis.
Commissioner Fuller stated it was now a requirement by the Department of Motor Vehicles that
a driver be able to park between the lines of a perpendicular parking space before getting a
license.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the project did go through the Design Review
Committee, and it was their responsibility to review both architecture and site planning. The
project had received site plan approval.
Commissioner Ray, referring to the Design Review Committee minutes which stated that anti-
graffiti paint was to be used on the north wall, asked why it would not be used on all walls.
Mr. Lee replied that it was the responsibility of the Building & Housing Department to review
all plans for graffiti paint on any large surfaces. Mr. Griffm stated that he had been in
attendance at the meeting and did not recall discussion limiting it to the north wall. Commission
members noted that it was part of the motion passed by the Design Review Committee, shown
on page 12 of the minutes.
Mr. Lee stated that it was a City ordinance requirement for the Building Department to review
all building plans including building walls and freestanding walls for purposes of looking at large
surfaces and requiring the anti-grafitti paint.
Commissioner Salas commented that she would be happy to see the Moose Lodge at that
location. She felt the fraternal organizations added a quality of volunteerism to organizations.
~ /t9-J'I
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Salas/Ray) 5-0 (Commissioner Tarantino excused) that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-26 in accordance
with the fmdings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council
resolution.
Chair Tuchscher stated he was happy that something that would benefit the neighborhood was
going in there.
~ /tJ~J.f'
ATI'ACIlMENT 4
RCC AND DRC MINUTES
~ /cJ-.J?
THIS PAGE BlANK
..
//tJ~J7
- .-t
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
.~'-rr-" I
Monday. Januarv 9. 1995
4:30 p,m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Duncanson and
Kelly
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Member Way, with notification
STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Acting Associate Planner Amy Wolfe
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler
B. INTRODl1CTORY REMARKS
Chair Speth man made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the
committee's responsibilities, He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally
for the tape when speaking.
C. APPRO" AL OF MIl\TTES
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1995 meeting as
presented.
D. PRESENT A TION OF PROJECTS
1.
DRC-95-24
Moose Lodl!e
25 Na,ples Street
Fraternal Orianization Lodl!e
Staff Presentation
Principal Planner Steve Griffin reviewed the project, which consists of the retrofitting of an
existing building shell and addition of 1,300 sq.ft. of floor area, as well as new parking lot
paving, lighting, landscaping, and associated site improvements. Mr. Griffin noted that although
the property appears as an extension of the easterly existing commercial center, the project site
is actually a separate parcel. He reviewed the proposed renovations and architecture, pointing
out that the redevelopment proposal includes an area to accommodate a 4,000 sq.ft. addition in
the future.
~ /ti-yg/
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-2-
j
.
,
,
MARCH 27 9. 1995
Applicant Discussion
Project Architect Roy Johnson questioned condition "CO of the staff report, stating that he saw
no benefit to adding an additional element at the transition point between the existing adjacent
commercial center and this site. He added that landscaping provides a clear separation between
the two properties. Mr. Griffin stated that this condition was a suggestion only, noting that the
existing center has no current plans to remodel and that these are in fact two separate properties.
Committee Discussion
Chair Speth man asked what would be happening at the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson
indicated that the adjacent center had a driveway easement at the rear, but that the lodge had no
plans to uses the rear for loading activities. He added that the adjacent residences were
approximately 12' higher than the project. and would not see this area. Members discussed the
proposed rear wall. In response to further questions from Chair Spethman, Mr. Johnson stated
that the only lighting at the rear would be a night light at the door. Member Rodriguez
questioned lighting to be utilized at the front of the facility; Mr. Johnson stated that it would
probably be recessed in the ceiling of the port cochere.
Member Kelly noted the size of the patio area and asked if it would be covered; Mr. Johnson
responded that it would not be, adding that this was not intended to be an active outdoor areas.
Chair Spethman inquired about the timing of the possible expansion; it was stated that this would
probably be in 3-5 years.
Member Kelly asked if the two properties were actually separated by a wall; Mr. Johnson stated
that this was correct, and there is no public access between the two properties. Chair Spethman
asked if a graffiti sealant was to be utilized on the rear wall; Mr. Johnson noted that this was
a good idea.
MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-15 and approve DRC-
95-24 subject to the conditions stated in the staff report, adding condition "f" - Anti-graffiti
sealant shall be utilized on the north wall.
2. PCM-95-01
Otav Ranch Villa~es I and 5
(Presentation of OlaV Ranch Overall Desil!n Plan)
Staff Presentation
Acting Associate Planner Amy Wolfe advised that a memo had been provided outlining a
proposed review schedule for the two required levels of design guidelines for the Otay Ranch
project, and introduced the members of the project team to review the project to-date.
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler summarized the processes that had resulted in the current approved
status of the Otay Ranch planned community. He outlined the three major parcels composing
-~ /t?~JI
A'ITACHMENT 5
INITIAL STUDY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
~ /CJ ~~O
THIS PAGE BLANK
y j~/rl
..
.
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Moose Lodge
PROJECT LOCATION: 33 & 25 West Naples Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 619-100-30 & 619-100-29
PROJECT APPLICANT: Loyal Order of Moose, Chula Vista Lodge #1927
CASE NO:
IS 95-15
DATE: February 22, 1995
A.
Proie'ct Settinq
"
The project site, 33 & 25 West Naples Street (280 feet west of
Hilltop Drive on Naples) is within an area of the city that is
zoned C-N(Neighborhood-Commercial? The 2.25 acre site was
previously used for a small commercial center. CUrrently, the
center consists of a vacant building (previously Lou's Gym )
and a fire wall, the remains to a structure which had burned
down (previously a Mayfair Supermarket). East of the site
there is a parking lot and a strip commercial center. Other
adjacent uses include single-family residences to the north
and south of the site. The parcel to the west is zoned for
multi-family residential, but is undeveloped. The average
graded slope of the site is 3%.
B.
Proiect Descrintion
The proposed project - involves two phases to allow for a
private membership fraternal Moose Lodge. The first phase
will involve renovation of an existing 7,159 sq. ft. structure
and a 1,320 ~q. ft. expansion to this structure. This phase
of development includes: a lodge room, ~ lounge and a kitchen
and a 6, 900 sq. ft. patio and lawn area. --
The second phase will involve the addition of 4,015 sq. ft.,
to the existing structure, reducing the lawn 'area by 2,400 sq.
The second phase will provide an additional assembly area.
The ultimate building area is proposed to total 12,949 sq. ft.
There are 145 parking spaces provided and 143 are required;
the proposed number of spaces comply with the zoning ordinance
for this type of use. Ninety six spaces will be provided
during phase I of the project and 47 will be provided during
phase II.
-~ ~/J~t/J- t~
C"r of oIlul. YIlt. pIa""lnl ClepartlMftt CItY 0'___
enwlrOflll\ont.. NYfow Met...., CiUI.A VISrA
------ --.......--------.--- ~. -------._-
The applicant proposes to retain an existing concrete
retaining wall along the northern property boundary. Also,
compliance with energy conservation requirements of the
building code will facilitate the use of insulation in the
proposed Moose Lodge. The insulation, along with the'
retaining wall will provide a buffer to noise, which will
ensure that nuisance noise is at a level below significant.
Nearby resident's have raised concern about traffic, safety,
congestion and nuisance noise. The aforementioned traffic and
noise analysis, coupled with the measures taken by the
applicant, as recommended in the noise review and traffic
study, ensure that impacts in these areas are at a level below
significant, addressing the concerns of the nearby resident's.
The applicant will be required to comply with the fire code
requirements.
The Sweetwater Authority has determined that the 1500 GPM fire
flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a two hour duration as
required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will be
available upon installation of an a-inch fire service to serve
the required on-site fire hydrant. The applicant will comply
with this requirement prior to issuance of a building permit.
School fees will be required by the C.V. Elementary School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District for the
additional square footage.
Discretionary actions include Design Review , a Conditional
Use permi t and a Building Permit. A soils study will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit.
c. Comnatibilitv with Zonina and Plans
The project site is zoned for CN and designated Commercial
Retail in the General Plan. The project is an unclassified
use, which is allowed in the CN zone with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
D. Identification of Environm~ntal Eff@cts
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista
(including the attached Environmental Checklist Form)
determined that the proposed project will not have a
~ignificant environmental effect, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
~ Jtl~Jj}
3. Does the project have possible effects which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As
used in the subsection, -cumulatively considerable- means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other currant projects,
and the effects of probable future projects?
The proposed project will generate 400 ADT. A commercial
use of the size sq. ft. of that of the Moose Lodge will
generate 1499 ADT. The Moose Lodge, an unclassified use
will therefore generate fewer ADT than a commercial
tenant on the site. The proposed project is also expected
impact the site in a lesser degree than that of the
previous user. All impacts, both individual and
cumulative have been found to be less that significant,
as the result of the applicant's compliance with the
City's Code requirements, therefore cumulative impacts
are not considerable.
4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause a
substantial adverse effects on buman beings, either
directly or indirectly?
The proposed project will not cause any significant
impacts and is in compliance with threshold standards for
fire, police, school, and other public services as
discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study.
The proposed Moose Lodge will not cause environmental
impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Oraanizations
City of Chula
Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff 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.
Erik Basil, Acting Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater union High School District: Tom Silva
- y Il?---t/t(
t . ii
~I l~! 'ii' !j~ I I :i ,II
J h~! !J~
"" ~ .. i ~ "4 "j I
i ~ dd I Jfll JIb
fP" i ~~IU
or' hIt =I~'"
I I . I
~
~ I ~ ~ :I ~
'f ~ I 88 J i ai, i II~J
~ ~ .1
Iii _=
If li8' '! '8 '~l ";f! " It!~
Is w;~l!~" ~Iifjf Ill, ~
::ltJj ~lltJj
fOlhi-di
.
~ J' ".
<C I ~ ',_ .
I ~ 8.8'1' iYl ..... ,
lr) ~ ~l:l'" . ~.; j. I
8 . "" ;;e' ..' I
! J;lffLillri!u
~ -:-~ ;::~$ I
~ ~ J~ljJ If
~! JfJ'I~1 'I!
~ _II dj .II!
== II
f: i ,ii
~ 'In
~lli
IIi i
'II I
II
, I
'J'I
wI- fR
e lill
I"" ~ f!jjl
I __R.
- . :
. . .
. . .
..I : : :
i "il'
, II
II
,Jf
:11
It~IJ III
JI!!I: J~!:
=IJlfJj RIJfj,
G .
I~ !II Ih
J- ,Of J_o
In i,J;. :f ii
1~-'1
I
JI;,~
,,-jJ
.. _ . III
-
.
1'1
J~8.
, 8,.
= -,
..~
.....tially
Potntially lipirltul ~1a.1"
lipiJinll U"'_ IipMic...' N.
_plCI N'lipll'd "plct l.plc1
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181
zoning"
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: The project site is zoned for CN and designated Commercial Retail in the General Plan.
The project is an unclassified use, which is allowed in the CN zone with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181
housing?
Comments: The proposed Moose Lodge will service the existing residents, thus will DOt placing an
additional demand on existing housing.
m. GEOPHYSICAL Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts irrvolving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0' 0 0 II
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 II
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 II
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 II
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 II
either on or off the site?
WPC F \HOME...'LANNI'NO\SJ'ORED\171.,.
~'7-- /?J-(t-
PIi' 2
PMnti.lly
....nd.lI) &pinUal ~I"an
&pitiuat "- ....iti~..l N.
..- Nhipled "plct I_pari
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 ~
c) A Iter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 ~
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ~
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 ~
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The applicant proposes a land use with lower traffic generation than the previous user
(please refer to Section VI of this checklist). The project will not require an NPDES permit. The
proposed project is not expected to impact air quality.
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TlON. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ~
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ~
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 [] 0 ~
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ~
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
WPC f \HOME\PLANNlNG\STOR.ED\J1I1 94
-~ Jt1l-~7
P...4
Pet,.tiall"
iipilitaat
I.,.tl
.....tiall)'
lipiracaat
UiaJas
Mililal,d
~llla.
ltpilic"'l
I_pact
N.
..,.Cl
Comments: The proposed project, the renovation of an existing structure and the expansion of the
structure to allow for a Moose Lodge, will not demand resources over that which currentl)' exists in
the area. The project is not in conflict with adopted energy conservation plans and the site is not
designated for mineral resource protection.
VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of D D D I!lI
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to; petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency D D 0 I!lI
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential D D D I!lI
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D I!lI
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable D D D I!lI
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed project will not create any health hazards or risk of upset.
IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? D 0 D I!lI
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D D 0 I!lI
Comments: A noise review by Hans Giroux, concluded that the off-site noise impact is 52 dB(A)
CNEL superimposed upon the non-project baseline. Based on Mr. Giroux's measurements of similar
traffic exposures as along Naples Street, combined project and non-project noise exposures will be
well within City standards (well below 65 db(A) CNEL combined).
Therefore, any noise issues are solely on-site concerns. Entertainment noise, ear door IIams, stIrt-ups
and tire squeal may be audible at nearby residences, especially late at night. 1be resiclences to the
south are far enough away to be little affected. Mr. Giroux would prefer that . barrier be maintained
along the northern site boundary to reduce any nuisance potential frop1 people lCCeSSing their vehicle
and departing the site during the evening hours.
The applicant proposes to provide a zoning wall along the northern properly boundary. Also,
compliance with energy conservation requirements of the building code will facilitate the use of
insulation in the proposed Moose Lodge. The insulation, along with the zonin& wall will ensure that
nuisance noise is at a level below significant.
X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
on effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) F ire protection?
D
D
D
I!lI
.~ /tP-1%"
P..e 6
wPC '\HOME'lPl....NNINQ\STORED\!711,94
P".dally
&;pine..,
..,.et
r.....1Ia11)
&pinea.'
V.....
Mitipttd
a-1t1u
Sp1nQ1I1
.."Cl
N.
I.pacl
b) Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority ] calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The police crime prevention unit has indicated that improvements to the parking lot area
lacks significant lighting and appears to be below minimum standards for security and has requested a
lighting plan for review. This issue will be addressed in the design review process to ensure that
crime prevention measures are taken on the proposed project site. The proposed project will not
significantly impact police services or calls for service.
c) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or bener, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
).805 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. Intersections of anerials with freeway
ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Comments: The traffic study determined that the intersection of HilItoplNaples currently operates at
LOS B for both peak periods. The applicant will be required to widen Naples Street along the project
frontage to half. width standards of Class II collector street with bike lanes.
d) ParkslRecreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,OOO population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Parks and Recreation are not impacted by the project as the project is not residential.
e) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows IIId volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will pro~de DeCess&ry
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master PJan(s) IIId City Engiueering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Tbreshold Standard.
Comments: Existing on-site drainage facilities consist of lIIrface flow to Naples Street IIId a 60"
RCP which flows from the northeast to the southwest through the proposed project Existing off-site
drainage facilities consist of downstrall\ continuation of 60" RCP, which dischups to .4' x 10'
concrete trapezoid channel. Project impacts are negliaible, thus the City improvements are not
required. A Capital Improvements Project is expected to address the issue In the ftJture.
WPC F 'MOME'lPLANNINO\STOREth1111 94
~ /bl---'1i
..... 8
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
....Iiall,.
..,.ti.II)' &pUit..1 ....tUIl
a,-mUDl "..... apUk.., No
..,.("1 Mitilll" 1.,.(1 I.parl
0 0 0 181
[J [J [J IBI
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
[J
[J
[J
IBI
Comments: The site currently is paved and consists of 7.159 sq. ft. structure, which is not to code.
The Moose Lodge proposes to renovate the existing structure, expand that structure IIJ1d provide a
lawn area and landscaping fronting the property. The existing site, as is, has been IIJ1 eyesore in the
communit)' for several years and this will greatly improve the site IIJ1d the aesthetic view of the area.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [J [J [J IBI
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [J [J [J IBI
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 [J [J IBI
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [J 0 [J IBI
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 [J [J 181
EI R as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project is proposed in an older. developed area of the City and there will be no
impact to cultural resources.
XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project is proposed in IIJ1 older, developed area of the City and there will be no
impact to paleontological resources.
o
[J
[J
IBI
XVL RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) I ncrease the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 IBI
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [J [J [J IBI
wpc , \HOME\PLAW'NINO\STOkED\I7II94
-~
jbJ- ->0
POI' J 0
El\"VIROl'iJ\fEJIo'TAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Water
o Air Quality
DETERMINATI01'l:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o TransporwionlCircuIation
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o CulturaI Resources
o Recreation
I rmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and 0
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I rmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent, 0
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attacbed sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I rmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect OD the eaviromnent, IIId an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) OD the eaviromnent, but at least 0
ODe effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document punuaDt to applicable legal
standards, and 2) bas been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on anached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I/J.l~" ~/
Signature
"2 )&~/9r
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Cbula V iSla
wPC F\HOME\PLANNIfr,,:O.srORED',1111,.
PII. 12
~ /t9-pJ
TRO~
711
SUB.:rECT: Application ror Initial Study (IS-95-15/I'A-664 /DQ- 141)
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /I'B- /DQ )
Revi.w of . Draft EIR (ZIR- I1'B- IDP )
Revi.w of Envir011lll.ntal R.vi.w R.cord (I'C- mm- )
Revi.w of Draft N.g Dec (IS- I1'A- /DQ-. )
2'he proj.ct consists or: The remodel and expansion of an existing structure
(previously a 9ym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional.5,lOO sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
DATE:
l(f,~
Location:
ROUTING FORM
RECEIVED
bEO 1 :1
CITy 7994
BlJllDINlF CHUlA
& HDlJs 1'1,),1/
'Ne DCP1.
December 13. 1994
.Ir.n Larson, Building 6 Housing
John Lippitt, Engin.ering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engin..ring (EIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Engin..ring (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engin..ring (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Ant City Attorn.y (Draft N.g Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fir. Departm.nt
Harty Schmidt, Parks 6 R.cr.ation
Crime pr.v.ntion, Police Deparblent (C.pt. .oll)
COl/l1llunity Development, R.dev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duan. Bazzel, Advanc. Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Archit.ct
Bob Leiter, Planning Dir.ctor
Chula Vista Elementary School District, .lrat. Shurson
SWeetwater Union B.S. District, 2'om Silva (IS' EIR)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Tinal EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - Ir annexation 1s involv.d)
Hartin Hiller, Project 2'racking Log (rout. rorm only)
Other
Barbara Reid
.!:nv.troDHnt.l S.ct10n
25 & 33 Naples Street
Pl.... review th. dOCWNnt and rorvartJ to _ any CIOaMDU you bav.
b~ 12123/94 .
tJM"J1~ I I. 'L'
J- ~4 ~ fc."lY ~-- <IP I"~.#r-"J
1.dMt~ ~~~
/C-..5<~ .~ ~ rz/:u.tff
C01lJ1lJents:
YS-b I ;L.
, . .
- - - l :..
ROOTING FORM
;~J; C:C 13 '\! 1(,. 03
1'.., .......
~
DATE: December Pt. 1994
~: --=
"T'l> : .an J .;
~en Larson, BullcUng A Hou.1ng
John Lippitt, Zng1neer1ng (ZIR only)
CHtt Swanson, Zng1neer1ng (ZIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Zng1ne.r1ng (ZIR only)
Roger Daou.t, Zng1neer1ng (IS/3, ZIR/2)
. R1chard Rudolt, bst CIty Attorney (Dratt .eg Dec A ZIR)
.Carol Gove, F1re DeparUlent
lIarty Schm1dt, Parks A RecreaUon
Cr1.e PrevenUon, PoHce DeparUl.nt (Capt. Soll)
COlllJllunity Dev.lopment, R.d.v. Zconom1c Dev. only
CUrr.nt Plann1ng
Duan. Bazz.l, Advanc. Plann1ng
Bob Senn.tt, C1ty Landscape Arch1t.ct
Bob Leiter, Plann1ng D1rector
Chula V.ista Zl...ntary School D1.tr1ct, ~ate Shur.on
Swe.twater Un10n B.S. D1.tr1ct, 2'0. S1lva (IS A ZIR)
Haur.en Roeb.r, L1brary (F1nal ZIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dr..tt ZIR - It ann.xat1on 1. bvolved)
lIarUn H1ll.r, proj.ct !'r"ck1ng Log (route 1OZ7J only)
Other
Barbara Reid
.l:nv1ron8ental .ecUon
.
SUBJECT: AppHcaUon tor InitIal Study (IS-9S-1~/FA-6~~ IDQ.:..J.llJ
Checkpr1nt Dr..tt ZIR (20 d..ys) (ZIR- 'I'B- IDO. J
R.v1." ot a Dratt ZIR (ZIR- 1,..- 'DP J
R.v1e" ot Znv1ronmental R.v1." R.core! (rc-. ~- J
Rev1e" ot Dr..tt ..g Dec (18- 'I'A- IDQ- J
!'b. proj.ct cons1.t. ot: The remodel Ind expansion of Inexistiny structure
(previously I gym. 7,159 sq. ft.) to 11 ow for
I Moose Lodge (I proposed total of 12.494 sq. ft.)
Ind In Idditional 5.100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
2S & 33 Naples Street
Loc..Uon:
Pl..... rev1." the dOCUHnt ~ lonrarcf = _ any -~-.elJU J'OU un
b~ 12/23/94 .
CoIIlIIents:
~ /tJ-5;]
, ~-W>I.L..
Case No. Is -"5" -(!!>
If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "e" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly.
:::~:~:::~-r;L ~::;:::.~-:/~a; :::~:$~~
U 1t-l--rl:>'P ~rh~.
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?Go:-"'-f__~"""l)F J./A,PUE..c.. Sr;i;eEr
If not, please explain briefly. A ,..~. rr- ~ _....'""~ I~ Ab"" ....."IE.
~v.. 1~~.....,t:aJ ~J: IIILI.:rl::J1:>>
/ '
lWI""rAlA....L ""..rrr- MIlY lie: '''''''tJE-
E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Sezvice (LOS) Il intersections adjacent to ~"re..
or in the vicinity of the project site? /h./v."",WiJ. AN IloJ'nuc~ CA"." ,~/, ..'t'!:L-Cf=-
If so, identify: Location ~4 9"A....c:I! ~..(.~S It: 1'<1U1IltE.D FiV 'THe.
Cumulative L.O.S. ~~ 11./........-1 LiF JI,1.I:t'P:tP ....,'Ifi( uA.PlE-S
F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Conaestion Management Program? (An STrrEtrr
equivalent of 2400 or more avenge daily vehicle bips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
bips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not c:reare an unrnitigatable advel1e impact, or that
all related traffic impacts arc not mitigated to I level of non-significance.
Yes )( No
The following questions apply if I TraffIC Impact Analysis is nOl required.
G.
Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffIC impacts thIl will resuh from implementation of
the proposed project? )( Yes No
If yes, please describeO)W'/flo....,/~ (>I:: NIt....... ~,,- ~~'7JIIE _A""'~~
elfb...a"""'-'l.~ -rz> IIMS-WJtI'r'H ~7S~~....L bJ:C~r r,..JJ' . .- "'Pr' WrnI Ria..
~Utt)A~W'~~__~
lhffrot&i CO!l~IS~ ~~. ID iIie ty . " . ID, ,S"-ET'.
Genelll Plan Traffic Element, IIId all other peninent traffic "'''';'''7 PIeae rd'&..~ any
other traffic impact ltUdiel for roadway IeJlllCDU Ihat may be L.~ed by Ibe poposed
project. YE~. A'PPl.J~..,.,- D1P,,~ -- "". I .....ta.. 17<1' Wtnr /1J,..,.# ~.. i=Ftc..
t:~/.h~J ~ TJIIE... r--, ......IlP"'t...'1_ "'__Ie... I............. USE.
H.
1 Is a traffIC ltlIdy required? Yes 1( No
J. Is there any dedicarlOll required? V~ ~-"':.. T7HE. --~ --~t!t"'" t#.'CtES 9r.
..
If 10, pJcasc specify.. .,.,11$ Clh iEA/'r Dt: I14/J1.6s 9llkE.' Ie' I .. <<~IIU) A~A
,.. ~c r "-,, -'-'AI ~rr W1TJf 81.. ~-. Ill.,.,. ~"'Itr~.,,-,.,~. I .
SU""""~ .Zll!!:Drr..tc'n.... /S ~vllCEl> ~ ~ 'T'ie: ~IfI/I:JIf7t._. ~.u>s &IF
S'A.lb 'b~~,~.&.u..,.,ILl.
WI'C:F:~02UJ u. IIDUJ) (IoI.103OJJ) -4. ..... 3
-- J ~- - Jt?-5>
Y>-~f.;J..
Case No. ;J:S-45-fs
VD. National Pollutant DischaTlle Elimination System lNPDESl Stonnwater Reauirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES StonnwarerPennit? ~.
. If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. N/A .
.
Will a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project?
Yes )( No
Additional comments N~.
vn. Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitiJation 1Ile8SIIreI, or other
issues. ~ EVISrfJJI: &'-"1Z.q:> L"Y/IAS~a.J~ TIlE c;,J.&.-rw~ CIIlOP~TV Ie.. IaU~ E
r:~ A 5t!J-Y~L PRJ:q~nJL:.Y~. ~tJiC"'~""#J'I.I-.a...,- ""~&. Ala-rk:
:::;~ :':lP:: =~~~i':r~~":~,:':,:.-:' :~:'" CP
-n> ~ c rrv 6': c,Nuu I/1C"1'2 _ -r:IIE' 7'W""'-"MtIC~ ......~..~..t,.,.. MlILL ~'VL -ntF 1!!.t'f'V-r'HE
1ZJ&.",- Tl) /!!,bAJ'!C'nII!lJL:..,.. MA-IA/"'1'alal -......--..".. ..... LI''1 ......_~ .~ &I'.a.,..:"rWE.
' r.. .
~..... ~"IA1 ~IJL''''' ..,.. IN 1.J""Al.IDII'.~ Aub A'6j-~ ~ G....~ ~.:T)'~
, .
no- At...S6 Q/t"~ ~ e.~ ~ 1t./tf:.#I'r. -r'!) e-&,..... ,~MJ ANb Ya"'~ ~
.~A"S5 ~# A..ll'>. ~l.elAJ& c..'b .m:..__...~~.. TJ.{fl6- ~ b'nf a -~V".~...~aJ1S.
~'eAJ~l~ ~~ ,.,.. A1r_~-11Ily......tr' ~~ S'~/~.--..... .uIIJ!!.Al6S
,41&#!!. .(.,Ii '- T 6V-D T>>E zr.4A.t.,....~.. .: ~- .~.. . .Ac..... ~ --- -- <JI!.o.... I' ~1I6'r_"'/ZJJE.
.
1;'.. _......~ nJ ~....,J"r'" ~~ I!J/IAJ _.~ Sf1"JE.. --...., I~ aJLV IA/flflll: '....t-J .,..., 1Dtt.
~ blCn..b: ~"Il...t:.P..vr Udr~~ TJI-tE. UL--~~r~ ~-YI!.AL... ...._-~a.1
.
~"r.u..~ CVCor'WrLl.
#'\ff!od
City En eer or Representative
t
I:J-!P-I; Cf4
. I
D.re
""""'~m""..lmUJ)(Iol.lmD.lJ)
.... 5
~v-:- /~~5
Case No. /.$- 9,,- /.-;-
FIRE DEPARTMEJII7
A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? ~ whlll is the Fire Department's estimated
reaction time? one and~ miles. three minutes.
B. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an ad~ulle level of fire proIeCtion for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or ptlSOMel? Yes
C. Remarks
'"'to<
~~ e. 1~
Fire Marshal
I'--/~ -qy
Date
WI'C~mn(U.lmU3)(W.I~~ /,t)-,~
....6
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
__... ~_v
J.Ji-c't. !',:: ,
. ' ,. .'.
I ",-
2'0: \ X.n Laraon, .u.tld!ng 6 Boudng DEl: 1 ~ 1;,~4
John L!pp!tt, Zng!n..r!ng (EIR only) . '. 'T
\ CH~~ Stlan.on, Eng!n..r!ng (EIR only) p1CV:: 'II v!;,-<,:Ilir. iJtrkilk,tN,
.al Roa.nb.rg, Eng!n..r!ng (EIR only) I\f"Ir",/"'. . -
\ Rog.r Daouat, Eng!n..r!ng (IS/J, EIR/2)
lticbard Rudol!, bat C!ty Attorn.y (Dratt ".g Dec 6 EIR)
'Carol Gov., F!r. Depar1:JD.nt
~ "arty Scbm!dt, Parlea . ..creat!on
\Cr!IH pr.v.nt!on,Pol1c. Departa.nt (Capt. .011)
Community Dev.lopm.nt, ..d.v. EconomIc Dev. only
\ Curr.nt Planning
\ Duan. .a%%.l, Advanc. Planning
Bob S.nn.tt, C!ty Landacape Arcb!t.ct
Bob Leiter, Planning D!r.ctor
\Cbula V!.ta El.mentary Scbool Di.tr!ct, Xat. Sburaon
:.StI..t....t.r Union ..S. D1atr!ct, !'om SHva (IS 6 EIR)
#I.ur.en Roeber, Library (F1nal EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dratt EIR - I~ ann.xati.on 1. 1nvolv.d)
#lart!n #lill.r, proj.ct f'r.cking Log (rout. rona only)
Otber
FROM:
Barbara Reid
.J:nv.troD.,.ntal ..ct10n
SUBJECT: AppHcation ror Initi.al Study (IS-95-1~ IFA-~DQ.~ 141 J
Cb.ckprint Dratt EIR (20 day.) (EIR- 1,..- IDQ. J
R.v!.... ot a Dratt EIR {EIR- 1,..- IDP J
R.v!.... ot Env1ronJHntal R.v1.... R.core! ('C- .J:RR- J
R.v!.... ot Dratt ..g Dec (IS- "A- IDQ- J
f'b. proj.ct con.!ata ot: The remodel and expansion of an .existing structure
(previously a gym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Locati.on:
P.1.... rev!.... th. dOCUllent and rorvanJ to _ any -wMllU J'DU un
by, 12123/94 .
Comm.nta:
tJO ~~ ~.~. '2--.'~.~q-.
~/t:l-57
, CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPAR1MENT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE: (r lo.,r& I (P ( {Cf q ~
TO: ~"CVr\.. V~\~l C-.tVI'r.~
VIA:
FROM: I U1\).;~ cL.-c:L:.., ~~PS
PROJECT: rr~ ~ ~ ~
r-......-.. .-::>
- . .. ... I
. - -~_... -
~1' ,.,,, i 1995
i~I.'-... ~ '- -.
Po' .. ',n
,,-~.l.. ~.j'\V
The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any conunenlS regarding this project at this time.
-
Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis,
Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
*
Comments:
l
(> ~ CD "_1' or or ~ r. ... '\ . , . - .-
~ ~ ~'--~!.. . -(3 l.UO\ Q 1,- (J...-v1-~V r>>f- ~_
(\ .QJy \ V.J2A1 ,I P /VI C.f _
cc: Brookover, SCA
CPTED Routin. Fonn
PD/cpu 06193
~ /fJ~~Y
.
J
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13. 1994
1'0: la-.n z.rson, ""11d1n~ A .ous1n~
John L1pp1tt, b2~1needn~ {ZIR only}
Cl1~~ Stian.on, b2g1needng {ZIR only}
Bal Rosenberg, Zn~1needn~ {ZIR only}
lCDger Daoust, b2g1n.edng {IS/!, ZIR/2}
R1cbard Rudol~,. A..t C1ty Attorney {Dratt .eg Dec A ZIR}
Carol Gove, ,J.n Departllent
lIarty Sc:bJUdt, ~ar1cs A .ecn.Uon
CrJ... J'revenUon, PoHce Departllent (Capt. Soll)
COJ/1l/lun1ty Developaent, ..d.v. Zconomc Dev. only
: CUrr.nt ~lann1n~
~"'lane .....1. ~~oe-.J..".h.g ~
lJob Sennett, C1ty Landsc.pe Arc:lUt.ct
lJob .Le1t.r, Plann1ng D1r.ctor
. Cbula V.1sta Zl...ntary Scbool DJ..trJ.ct,a-at. Sbur.on
......tw.t.r Un10n ..S. DJ..trJ.ct, 1'0. SJ.lva (IS A ZIR)
Maur.en Roeb.r, L1brary {F1nal ZIR}
1.AFCO (IS/Draft ZIR - If ann.raUon J. Jnvolv.d)
lIartIn 111ll.r, Proj.ct !'rac1c1n~ Z.og (zout. Ion only)
Otb.r
I"ROH:
Barbara Reid
.nvJ.~tal ..ct1on
6rJB.7ZC'1': Appl1c.tJ.on ror In1tJ.al Study (IS-~I"A-.iaJDQ.::...l!!J
Cb.ckpdnt Draft SIR (20 days) (ZIR- In- 11JQ. J
R.vJ..... o~ a Draft ZIR (ZIR- In- IDP. J
R.v1.... ot ZnvJ.rolJMntal ..vJ.......cord (7C-. mut- J
R.v1.... ot Dratt ..g Dec (IS- II"A- IDQ- J
!'b. Proj.ct cond.t. ot: The remodel Ind expansion of In ..xistin, structure
(previously I gym. 7.159 sq. ft.) to 11 ow for
. I Moose Lodge (I proposed total of 12.494 sq. ft.)
Ind In Idditional 5.100 sq. ft. patio Ind llwn lrea.
25 I 33 Naples Street
z.ocaUon:
~J.... ftvJ..... th. do=-nt ad loward to _ ay cr~-.au J'DU un
IIy-.12/23/94 " .
CoDent.: ~ A~CL. Pla-.. .~ - ~ J..q ~t ~~
(!Ie-.ro.O re, ~~'AO ~ +La ~t}os-.8 CA~ Us. ~:t-
~e,uJ ~ Li'fI .. ,. ". .
~. J > P"~ "'&I'~#, ~ t44l1~e.' I......,~ .'" rsl~
4.-" '" -fo it.... ~ ~ fo l.c c-.,~ "reef as ~ K" ~ la.-l ~
CA\A...~~ . ~ -::I:L. Il I II ~
..... ~r-:,.!o...\ ... S .9 f )po - , .
i.
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
2'0: Ken z.ar.on, Building 6 Housing
John Lippitt, Engin.ering (EIR only)
Clirr SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Bal Ro.enberg, Engin.ering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ricbard Rudolt, Ant City Attorney (Dratt Neg Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Park. , R.cr.ation
Crime pr.vention, Police Department (capt. .011)
COllJ1lJunity Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advanc. Planning
Bob Sennett, City Lands.cape Arcbitect
Bob Leiter, Planning D~rector
Cbula vista Elementary Scbool Di.trict, Kate Sbur.on
SWeetwater Vnion B.S. District, "om Silva (IS' EIR)
HaureenRoeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (Is/Draft EIR - Ir ann.xation is involv.d)
Hartin Hiller, Project "racking Log (rout. torm only)
Otber
>.
FROM:
Ba rba ra Rei d
.l:nvironmental s.ction
SUBJECT: Application tor Initial Study (IS-95-15IFA- 664 IDQ- 141)
Cbeckprint Dratt EIR (20 days) (ZIR- IFB- IDQ )
Review ot . Dratt ZIR (EIR- IFB- IDP )
Review ot EnvironJllental R.vi.w Record (FC- .I:RR- )
Review or Dratt Neg Dec (IS- ITA- IDQ- )
"be proj.ct consists ot: The remodel and expansion of an >existing structure
(previously a gym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Location:
Pl.... revi.w the dOCUll8nt and torvard "' _ any ClClIIIIents you bav.
by 12123/94 .
COJlllllents: ./ -'
// ':"';"_.~ /
C::::::::::.../
0~ - 'yi.. -
... r "/ . , ~
...,i ".:.-;/: _""",)1/_
/t:J -t 0
'.
SWEETWATER AUTHO'
-.-
~~~ ;,~,W...~~
-. )
(. 1;~!..
:V(f' ,,'4
1''''0f.'
505 GA~~ETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2329
CHUL'" VIST.... C"'LIFO~NIA 91812-2328
(8191 ~2o-"'3
F...X 1619) ~25-7~69
r .....
-.'" ....""
"'\:-.1
GOVERNING 10ARO
IUO "OCKLINGTON C~AIAlIil"N
GEORGE H WATEIIIS, VICE C"AIAMAN
SuE .IAIIII'ETT
EDWIN oJ STULl
.....G..,,!.., " WELSI'I
JAMES S WOl.JiljIEWICZ
e-,,,,,, WJtIGHT
WANDA AYEIII,+,
l1UASU"EIll
DIA,.,. J "liVES
IEefU'AIII'f.4C)MINISTIII"''',vE. A'OE
January 4, 1995
- _J
,'1. "-
':"4J"t ..
tJ I''l,,~
~... "
........
Mr. Douglas Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED MOOSE LODGE
25 AND 33 NAPLES STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-15
SWA Dev. File: Moose Lodge
Dear Mr. Reid:
This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the
subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area.
There is a 6-inch A.C. water main located on the north side of
Naples Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records
indicate that there is no water service to this property. Enclosed
is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 120 map which shows the existing water
facili ties.
At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing
system to provide fire protection for this project. However, with
the only fire hydrant on this portion of Naples Street being on a
dead end 6-inch main, providing the required fire flow without
upgrades to the water facilities coul4 be a problem. Aa plans
develop for structures, the OWner must submit a letter to the
Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow
requirements. Based on this requirement, this project aay result
iD the Deed for Dew water system. or sub.taDtial alteratioD to the
ezistiDg water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency
work with our. to determine if the existing water facilities are
adequate to meet the added demands prior to iSSUing a building
permit.
If the OWner provides the required fire flow information and enters
into an agreement for water facility improvements with the
Authority, water service can be obtained at a presaure ranging from
a maximum of 74 p...i. to a minimum of 59 p.s.i.
A P!.blic -Veney,
Servi"l National City, Chul4 Vista and Surrounding Al"eIls
/t1-~ /
-"fd~
.1
I
I
~...
I
I
I
1
I
)IE:,...=.4";.
I.
G 04-F
.1
I
t
I.
I
1
I
I
I
I
:
! f-
: ~
I j
t II
1 ~ I .
I ~ I 1
~b!
~~!2
I '..;r;,~C5
m g'....!i? g '.-
"r:!, ~ '1~
I ,_ .r;,::> "':
"C - 'l)
o
~H y 11)-
- ~ ~.~
It-
~~~~
;~r: "'.~.
'..,... ..::Ia'
C -
t. ,. ,,~
,
"
.....
..-i.
-.
. .......
-- l
....- -?'
~'...'~::!! .
Ii!'fi
-
-
..- tI
-.
a.ac. I-.~
..
-.r-. .... ~-
--
-
I 1_
- -
--
-..
-
~-
-
r
0' .
/1
I :.J
c:.:>u~..........
((Lj~~ .
"I " >>
:r\JV ':-
VI'~ Yj ~
1 :./
I "
,,. '-~~
~. . flJ
'I' ":"
.'
I
I
: .~
III)
I f)
.ltaT'iI"
ill
..owa
..
"
........
~
-
t:
,- ......
.....
-...
-
-....
"Mal
_It
~.
-..
-..
"".
.
.~_ _..M
f.-
.......
~.
.n
J
...
..,
~
~I
~I-' I .. ,. r- ,. ,. u
- 1- 'CI
..~"i .~.,. 1;W~. ~~ "-"z'-_'
~ - I _J
-a..,:;:~J n..w. 1'7."'_?; ~ .,... _~
~ J ~~J
~,J "_, ........ I-~
-4 ~n. ~
- !='I-~ -- <~.!I -- ,- f=
~ · , 4~
o. a:: -i "_ ......(/) I ~ __ .- ~~
I :;:;;I-t Die"'" . . ""11."
'-'="u II ZI > ....~_'..' .~O
.. ~~ .", W04..~ _I~
~1- ~ ~- --.. I
~ -'........- ..p..... I I I '--
/ i I~ IL - ~ ,e'l I i po
~n t\~w ~.<? o.;::~~~ ::~ _
,... ~'.t, lea,..
II W U(/
:, ,..,
~~ Ie
-- .... - ....-._-
.~ ,--
,-L.U=
me
~g
PROJECT SITE
I~
-
J'
,
D
J
.- -....
...... I .....
Iln. ~.. --~
: I c..........)
-.!:
~,.' ......
unl i~i, ...a
~ '
.
-z-' --
.. ..
- Vx-I:
II'
_O-f
~... 2 ' ,.............
,- . .,~
4'
0101. ...Clt
~ -J.1' ,,706
.'
AlD ...~
._ ~t
_. ,. I
,.~'1.;,-ClI,e.
_.
- -
-
,-
-
,... I
""..... 1-11
........ ~:
p~ '"~'
.
MAID 4:
1E1O'e "'0 I
;,
tt""tCe ~ I I
lo'
a::.. ,
in- rq;
. '
IIi,
...... IK.!.
II ,
~'!=;-)
-,! - -
-... y, - -
-. -
CL..\J~ -
- - -
....08
~-- _~IP~1 -
e~ I
0-.., .- -
--..at --
.1--
-- -C
.- ~!
-- IJ 5 fI
.- I-i
_..~.
4
-~.
.
- -;
I
(/)i
.
= ft, ~
-I-
.-....
.--.0 -
.-
"'lft7 '.u Ii
._._0 .
n_
..
na&'t~
tl
..-
..
..
NAPLES ST
I T
-
-
. ......._""i r- .....
...... .. I..
na-nnl--
-..1... ~
I.
-. 1.--
__.>;I-!
-~i
..... ~
-~~
.
_...1 .- A~l
, ,- t;
-
F=-"';'~l.- >1-
.~.
~~F-
..... -....I
,...,. -:I:-
....... i~~ -- -
....... ~ - -
-b"I:. - -
-- ..I.~ - -
II
~
.
o
J
~
4
Ii
'Ii
i
--
.....
--
-.,.,~
_....~
...... D
--rl 0
-'\
-F
-~
0
......
-
I-
--
)tJ'--d>~
'/3:::
-...... "
N :.
...
'-
\-..
In
I'"
-.
6
^
I
~
,.--
.
!II::-
"
"
. .
...
Case No. Is 9<7- IS-
APPEJI.'DIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Pmiod
/1) riP;;
.
WK:f:~0Z2."..,.llIZU3l(W.I_")
~/ "I ~
.~, , -
March 9,1995
I, Elizabeth Hoffman do hereby authorize Wayne Ellsworth to
represent my interests at the Chula Vista Planning Department meeting
March 9, 1995. I am the property O\vner of the address of 36 Hilltop
Court.
/
[,
<' /: :?-Iri '7 /7Qs--
~;&-; L III
'.
~ /I:J-;,r
DRRNELL & ASSOCIRTES TEL NO.619-233-4034
Rpr 3.95 9:58 No.002 P.02
. .
Darnell III ASSOCIATES, INC.
TIlAHSO>ORT AT ION P.ANNlNG .. TRAFFIC tNGINttAING
Janllal')' 18, 1995
Mr. Andrew Smitko.
AlIminislrallll
Loyal~derofMoole
Chllla Vista Lod,e #1927
26.'\8 Main Slreet, SlIite L
Chllla Vista, CA 91911
D&A Ref. N~l.: 950104
SlIbjca:
Traffic Impact Analys15 for New Mou,"c 1"K1&~ in Chula Villa
Dear Mr. Smitko:
In aa:ordance with yollr alllhClri7.ALIon. Darnell" Auoclalrl, Inc. (0& A), has lXlmpleted our namc
bDp&Cl analysIs relaLIve 10 the propc>>cd rcloc:atiun (lfthe MOOllC l.nd&e # 1927 10 Naple. Street nr.. T
Hilltop Drive In the City ot. Chili" Vista. This rellClrl addre""l exiltln, Cl1nllitions, aistill& pillS
projccl conditions, and Jdcntlflca any traMe aalKlClated Impacu.
INTRODUCfJON
The Loyal Order of Moose #192711 PmpclS1nlllo relOClle Ihelr c:xbrtin.operatiolls from Main Strut
In Chula Vilta to Naples Street near JUlltop Drive. PillUTe J dcpIt:b I acnc:ral vicinity map of the
projccllocatlCln. 1o'lIIre 2 deril.'tI the proposed sile plan for Ihe new Jodae. 11u: bufJdin& area is
comprised of aJ'(lrodmalely 12.500 SQlllrc feet llnee the final phase of CllpIIlIlOll .. complete.
IWSTlNG CONDITIONS
ClllrreDtIy, the proposed bulldin; .Ite houacs In ailltin, vaClnt builclill& and adjacent perkln; lot.
A1thoulh the bulldll\& abuts a small strip commercial cenlrr. there la cum:ntJy no traftie pIlerated
hnmedialelyon lite. The pn:vitMIlland use fUT the vacant t1ulld.in& was a Safcway supermarket. lbc
II'Ip leDeratloD patelltlal or the commercial use was 150 trip per 1,f.xJ "Ie 1eeI. The previous
Irlp &cDCratlon at tbfs IIle would hllYe bull approximatcJy 2.R50 dally Irtps.
Nap_ Street la a two-lane lI"'t onllCClar Mad with arrn1ldmateJy 40. pned aurl'aoc II Ihe pmjcc:l
CrolIta. and no tum pockets. The IIJICCd Hmlt llIl NarlCll11 25 mJlb. Future ...ncatlon nr the
road laa aw 2 Collector (three lane.).
Due to the prozImIty of the proposed lite to the Cltmc:T of Narlc:s !.'treet and HIJItop Drive. a JlCIk
hour trame onunt was conducted 10 delt.tmfnc tbe c:xilllna: uI"..ratfna dlaracteriltlca at tbIallpa1becl
fntenecdon. Count data WIA onllcc:t~" on a dear Tuelda)'. January n. 1995. from 7-9am and 4..
The alItIll& AMlPM peak hour traffic i. dc:pictcd lIn Fiaurc: 3. The &:OUDI data ahoct. arc Included
as an aaaehment to Ws repan. .
1202 KEnNER 'OU~EVAIlO . SUITt I. JAN DIEOO. CAlI'OllNIA 12101
!'HONk' "'.2;1).13/;1 . lAX, 'H"U~ 40)4
-//6 - //J~J./
C{ - /17 U..:/
,
l~
!
.~
.1.
.~! ~
. , i
~.
t
:;....
:
.,
I~
.'
~~
it
[h
=ii
i1:~
~l
.
. 5.
:-;.'
.':' at .
Z; :I:~
)
" t
.,
JI'
I~I
I~L
,~,
~
\
t
I ."
,
t
~
.' ;-
'y
~
~:
:
\
i
:
.
, i
I ti
,
L
~ !
i;
,
'"
.
i
~.~I
\ .
.
if::
;..1
~I'''". f'
I.
a!
5-
-,
...
~ $; L ~
~
/tJ-~;'
.
."
.
J,.....
.;JY.l..'A
...
Ht . J~
11"- -...uJ,.
(
NZ
<(
W-1
0::0....
::)W
S2I-
u.. -
(/)
~
~
I
ooC
..
~
~
Q.)
=
~
ctl
~
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
lAlyal Order of Moose
January ]8, ]995
Page 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which to measure the operating
conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection. Level of service is defined on a scale of A
to F, where LOS A represents free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering
Or operating speeds, low traffic volumes and high speeds; LOS B represents stable flow, more
restrictions, operating speeds beginning to be affected by traffic volumes; LOS C represents stable
flow, more restrictions, speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes;
LOS D represents conditions approaching unstable flow, traffic volumes profoundly affect anerials;
LOS E represents unstable flow, and some stoppages; and LOS F represents forced flow, many
stoppages, and low operating speeds. The City of Chula Vista encourages operation of LOS D or
better at existing intersections and roadway segments.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
The LOS for the signalized intersection of HilltoplNaples was analyzed using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) sofrware, consistent with City of Chula Vista analysis procedures. The existing
conditions analysis determined that the intersection of HilltoplNaples currently operates at LOS B
for both the AM and PM peak periods. The HCM worksheets are included in the attachment to
this report.
'...'
PROJECT RELATED CONDmONS
In discussions with Moose lAldge members as well as the shift bartender at the existing lodge, the
operating characteristics of the lodge was determined to be as follows:
1m
Hours of
Ooeration
Monday- Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
11am-11pm
11am-l2am
10am-11pm
, 7am-8pm
Every 2nd and 4th Monday of the month, the UJdge sponsors a lunch for senior citizens. The
majority of the seniors arrive in vanpools or by bus. The lunch serves between 150-200 persons.
Lunch on these days is served from 12-2pm. On other days, there is no lunch service.
Standard dinner functions occur on Friday nights from 6-7:3Opm, serving 70-80 persons. Special
function dinners (once per month on Saturdays) serve 150-200 persons.
Evening functions could include group meetings of up to ten (10) persons.
The Lodge is closed on Holidays.
~ /~-~ ')
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 7
Peak hour traffic can be quantified by determining approximately how much of the daily traffic
generated by the project occurs during the City's weekday AM/PM peak hours. The peak hour is
identified as the highest traffic volumes during four consecutive 15 minute intervals of the peak
period. As stated previously, count data was collected between the peak periods of 7-9am and 4-
6pm. Review of the existing counts conducted on January 17 identify the peak hour at the
intersection of Hilltop/Naples to occur from 7: 15-8: 15am, and 5:00-6:00pm.
The Moose Lodge does not conduct business prior to l1:00am Monday through Friday, therefore,
this project does not have a morning peak hour impact. The worst-case weekday evening peak
scenario identified above would occur on Friday. Assuming that the 80 dinner patrons all arrived
in individual vehicles prior to the 6:00 serving, this would account for 80 peak hour trips. For the
purposes of a worst-case analysis, 80 peak hour trips were distributed to the surrounding street
system. Fifty (50) percent of the traffic was distributed to the east and 50% to the west. Figure 4
depicts the project trip distribution and related PM peak hour traffic volumes.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The project related volumes shown in Figure 4 were added to the existing traffic at the intersection
.,~ _ of Hilltop/Naples. These volumes are presented on Figure 5. Again, it should be noted that the
project does not effect the morning peak hour traffic. These volumes were analyzed for intersection
operation using the HCM methodology _ The intersection of Hilltop/Naples will operate at LOS B
for both peak periods with the addition of project traffic. HCM worksheets are included in the
attachment to this repon.
CIRCULATION & ACCESS
The existing parcel provides two access points from Naples Street. The site plan proposes to remove
the existing IS' driveways to provide new 30' driveways adjacent to the existing ones. The 30'
driveways provide adequate width to accommodate ingress and egress traffic. However, the
westernmost access creates an offset with Tobias Drive. It is our recommendation this access be
moved fanher west to best align with Tobias Drive. thus reducing left turn conflicts entering the
project versus entering Tobias Drive.
The circulation within the proposed parking lot provides 24' wide roadways, which is consistent with
City policy and adequate for safe traffic flow. The turning radius beneath the pone-alChere at the
south of the building provides adequate clearance for cars, although trucks will not be able to
successfully navigate this movement. In discussions with Lodge members, there is one truck delivery
per week which oocurs prior to opening. The truck would not be required to negotiate beneath the
pone-cochere as the parking lot would be empty.
D&A would also recommend that the parking layout be restructured along Naples Street to aIlow
perpendicular slots. By pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at the end of
each row, the overall net gain of perpendicular parking will be 4-5 spaces, with increased circulation,
turning radii, and safety. Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of these recommended improvements.
11 -
-=::: 'f -
/tJ~t-r
.
:I:
~ ~ 1=
-4
0
-0
0
;:0
~
'" L
U1
...... VI '" 48/66
co'-...o
PROJECT SITE '-... '" '-... 152/199
'" (!) (!) ~
co U1 .p.
::::::.'::::::. 16/40
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ~ , l.. ,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
'\ :::::=::::;=::;=:::=:=:=:=::
~I NAPLES STREET ~ f I"
~ "I
\ 85/121
~ 138/257 ~ '"
U1 '" ......
0'1 .p. ......
~ 29/85 -. '-...'-...-t>-
......"''-...
~ o '" co
-t>- (!) .p.
FIGURE 5
Darnell. ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PillS PROJECT AM/PM PEAK TR ^FFIC
......".,,'............ .... "",,-,,-,-..."'-~
,........ "......"'....... ....'oo'~ ""'101'00'"'"
"j' "",,,,,-, oJ' -'\.,/ I'.... .....i"I.. r . \"I";
I~
.
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
JlInullry 18, 1995
Pagc ]]
IMPACTS
The proposed project does not hll\'" II morninll pe.ak hour Impart, The evening peak hour Impact
Itlhe Intersection ot Hilltop/Naples does nOI rausr. tht. ,'xisting levd uf ~l'rviC('. to decline from LOS
B.
MITIGATJON MEASURES
Thc project should be respun~ible {or sidewalk and half'lIoidth improvements a10nl !be project
frontage un Nllplcs Slreet.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS &: CONCLlISJONS
1. Thc inte~cetion of Hilllopil':a[lles currently operates II LO~ 1.1 for both pc:lIk periuds.
2. The previous commercial use CIIl the project lite gCnl"lIt('d Ipprodmalely 2.!l~1 daily
vehicles. The propo~ed [lrojCl.1 will generale a maximum of 4]2 trl)'l5 nn I weekday Ind 532
trips on a we.ekend.
3. The operating characteristics of tilt. pmpllscd Moose Lodge 110'111 not have a mnming peak
hour Impact. The wor~t.CltSC weekday l'venlng JlC'.l\k hOllr trllffic Impact o{80 trl)'l5 docs nOI
cause the LOS at Hilltup/Naples to dceJlne. brlow lu cxlltlng uperatlon.
.e. Access and circulation recommcndlltinns arc nOled on Figure 6.
If you have Iny questions or require Iddltlonllllnfllrmatinn, p\elllC {ecl frce to conllClthls office.
Sincerely.
DARNELL &. ASSOC1A'J '!:!.S. 1
....,. i.bSIUii~'}....,
. ..~ ........ ":'
. :;)~OAHf.ii;; ~~~
, ':'l'i>' rr \\
};..\. ;;.,':'$)\~1 !! j
" ..:'. CI"''' .f:~o/
..~. /.' . .,~.).~.;I"
~"rr~
~arnell. P.E.
BF.D/hh
et_.III'T/N-1
~ /Z/ ~70
I'll PEAK 1622
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
PM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILLTOPINAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 5.00 PM TO 6.00 PM
(E/W STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
..-..-...--------- -------------- -------..------ --------------- P..k
Ti.e L T R L T R L T R L T R E+w N+S 10tol _r
_...--...-... --- ---- ---- --_.. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ----
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<,
4:00 PM 29 54 15 10 33 9 12 85 9 15 78 29 150 228 378
4:15 PM 35 52 17 4 51 11 22 68 7 16 80 33 170 226 396 774
4:30 PM 30 54 14 4 31 11 6 12 5 12 80 34 1" 209 353 1127
4:45 PM 31 69 13 4 43 14 22 71 7 20 84 31 174 235 409 1536
5:00 PM 36 63 12 9 31 13 15 74 13 13 70 32 164 217 381 1539
5:15 PM 27 53 24 10 45 15 26 77 13 27 69 17 174 m 403 1546
5:30 PM 24 56 16 9 50 17 26 75 16 27 74 16 112 234 406 1599
5:45 PM 20 69 23 12 57 21 27 69 22 27 66 19 202 230 432 1622
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1241
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838 1622
PEAK
PERIOD
107 241
o 0
75 40 183 66
000 0
94 295
o 0
649427984
o 0 0 0
kl
:)~
/iJ~ 7/
..
:": SIGNAliZED INTERSECTION SU""ARV
01-18-1995
Center for ~icrocomputer$ In Transportation
a==========-===s====as====-==asaa==as==s=ss=--===--========-- -- --
treet~: (N-S) HILLTOP
~.lyst: DARNE~L BH
rea ': Other
C)/Iftle-, _. EXISTING CONDITIONS
(~-U) NAPlES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-'8-95 AM PEAK
_=-s--=
~==.s:ac=--
---- .-
-
-~-
O. Lanes
olUlle$
.ne ~idth
TOR Vols
I Mo.thbound I SOuthbound I Eastbound Westbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
I 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 138 291 16 152 48
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 101 21 31 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
'hese COfIIbinltion , 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
la Left . lEa Left .
Th.u . 1 Thru .
Right . I Right .
Peds . 1 Peds .
;a Left . Iwa Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . 1 Right .
Peds . I Peds .
:8 Right INa Right
,a Rlght Isa Right
ireen 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
(ellow/A-R 3.0 IVellow/A- 3.0
.o~'t - 3.0 ILost T;IIIO 3.0
:yclt. .th: 90.0 leesPhase combination order: '1 '5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interaection Perforaance Summary
Lane G!"QUp: Adj Sat v/e g/C App.oaeh:
"VIlts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Oetay LOS Detey LOS
'8 L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 6 10.6 6
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 a
;a L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 a 9.9 8
T 632 17a2 0.32 0.47 9.6 a
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 a
,a L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 8 9.7 8
TR all 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 a
Ja L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 8 9.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 8
Intersection Detey . 10.0 aee/yeh Interaection LOS . 8
.ost Tiee/Cycle, L E 6.0 aec CritiCIIl y/c(x) . 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
:6-
/tJ-7:L
C": SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For "icrocomputers In Transportltion
----
-=-=Z-=-=ZE======~:EE=======zac~=
,r..ts: (N-Sl HILLTOP
,0lYlt: DARNELL 8H
"el Type: Other
JeOent: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
(E-Wl NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
'-'8-95 AM PEAK
--- -------..-
-
" Lanes
JlUHS
Ine ~idth
TOR Vols
I Northbound I SOuthbound 1 E..tbound I WOstbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1-___ ---- ____
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I' 1 < I' , <
1 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 '38 291 16 '52 48
1'2.012.0 112.012.0'2.01'2.0 12.0 112.0 '2.0
1 101 21 31 5
.---------------------------------------------------------------------
Signll Operltions
,.se Co.bination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
3 Left . IE8 Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . I Rigl'lt .
Pods . 1 Peds .
3 Left . IWB Left .
TI1ru . I Thru .
Right . I Right .
Pods . I Peds .
, Right INB Right
, Right ISB Right
r..n 42.0A I Green 42.0A
ell~/A-R 3.0 IYeLLow/A- 3.0
,.tVi.. 3.0 ILost Ti.e 3.0
fole Length: 90.0 lecsPhue combination order: #1 #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Perforaence Su.mary
Lone Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approooh:
Mv_u Cop Fto.. Rltio Ratio Doloy LOS Delay LOS
a L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 a 10.6 8
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 B
a L 434 931 0.17 0.47 '0.6 B 9.9 8
T 832 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 a
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 8
a L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 8 9.7 8
TR 81' 1738 0.2' 0.47 9.2 B
I L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 B 9.5 B
TR 803 1n1 0.26 0.47 9.4 8
Interlection DeLay. 10.0 .ec/veh Inter.ection LOS . 8
)It Tiae/Cycle, L . 6.0 100 Criticol vlo(.) . 0.346
-------------------
A-Cj
~r
-ooe::::- -
+
.
/~-') )
MEMORANDUM
. ....1",....
... "., ~
"
,',
-'0,
'"
.~
February 1, 1995
File # YS-612
TO:
FROM:
Susan Vandrew, Planning Tech. II
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer~
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer~
Traffic Study for Chu1a Vista Moose Lodge
VIA:
SUBJECT:
I have reviewed the attached traffic impact analysis performed by
Darnell and Associates (January 18, 1995) for the proposed Moose
Lodge on Naples Street and concur with its findings and
recommendations.
Please note the report recommendations on page 7 regarding
circulation and access:
a. The westernmost driveway should be aligned with Tobias Drive.
b. The parking layout should be restructured as shown on Figure
6 of the report.
'Please forward two final copies of the traffic impact report to
Engineering Division for our files.
ZAO:dv
(':\HOME\ENGINBBR\TRAFPIC\MOOSB.ZAO
~ /&-7(
F,EB-~7-1995 17:01
GIROUX & ASSOC.
P.02
.
-2-
We do not believe that an acoustical atudy would au.bstantially
alter our conclusions. Pleaae call ae if you have any que.tions.
Sincerely,
~y () .4. ~.....{
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux , Associates
HOG:ai
~s-Z:. - ~tJ -)5'
TOT~ P.02
I
7. Indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are being submitted at this time.
a. Permits or approvals required.
L Design Review Application
_ Tenwive Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
:....-- CoDditiooa1 Use Permit
_ Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Pennit
-
General Plan Amendment
_ Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Permit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
_ Site Plan &. Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
,.-\..
Z.zs-
1.
Land Area: square footage erg, z z. Z. or acreage
H land area to be dedicated. state acreage and purpose.
a.
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings. or will existing structUre be
utilized? ,4j)p/no~ TO F^, ~(tN G 5"'T't<JcrviL(.
2.
Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Towrthouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
c. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rental price range
i. Square footage of structUre
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or strUCtureS
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
1. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commerciJJ or jndustrial. or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of strUCture5(s)
c. Type of construction used in the strUcture
r-1
~
/(J~7 ?
.... 2
WJlC:F:~ClI5TOIUi%ND21.""93 (Ilof. ID:ID.93) (Ilof. 11122.93)
2. Is any type ot ~rading or excavation of the propeny anL..lpated? No
If yes, complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavaled?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
A verage depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning. electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
I</i. CU/VOITIII,",IIJ6. (GLecrrl1c.) 4: {LltCIUN e"IJ/P~f~7'"(6Ar5 ,f~(fc)
4. Indicale the amount of narural open space thai is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
Nt1fJf...
S. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the natUre and type of these
jobs. YH. 2 SAi.n---v f?5 F I J A /'Jlro/Z. 7ZJTAt.. Ire Z4-
fI<Ivz. iJ7K-1VO.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive malerials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? No
7. How many estimaled automobile trips, per day, will be genenued by the project? ZOO
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, Ind their points of
access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, IIld sewer lines; cut IIld fill slopes; and
l'Odestrian IIld bicycle facilities. Nc, IV t:..
-n.- /~~??
WI'C:F:lIIOMEIPI..AIINllISTClRIilN021.A.9.l CW. IOlD.9.l) CW. 1022.9.1) .... .
,
S. Past Use of the Land
a. Ne there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? }../o
b. AIc there any known paleontological resources? N ()
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
No
d. What was the land previously used for? 12'i rAIL- '5"rv,zH
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site.
JA cA iJr 7,. Ie;&( .Yd. Ft; n-lvcrvU
b.
Describe all StruClUrcS and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North ~"'6.a FAM/l.., {ZlSI{J(,JCf5
South 57,.. C,lf P......,,'f' ~fsIPf,.n'
East C~"""'~,"fllf_ !?/J{(.v,-.FC'i5
West G II/.F ~...R.5E.
":...
7.
Social
a.
b.
AIc there any leSidents on site? Nt) If so, how many?
AIc there any current employment opportunities on site? No
If so, how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other infOnnaDon which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
~ S--'l- It}~? ~
WPC;f,'iIClNEII'I.AIOClISTOIlE17\I01I.U3 (lor. ID>>.") (lor. 1D22.") Paac 6
-
_..... .....lII.._n_
--Wmd'RnLnlIHJHV
p3nq:ue
~Te uosuqoJ AOJ
i:'
~ r L
" ~ ,
..
.
,; . - ~
; :: !, ="""
. "
J ~
~ i~
. i~
& I~;'f
I ,,'
"-
:r ,'i~
I I' -, .
;~m
I ~ - .i~~
., l S 3
:h Ii r:
59 f~
',! . . '3,c
~ - e~ t"!i!
tn IE 'L S~!:
,. .. -' ~__~l
sfH
!
/o..~
-I"J."IA
,
H6~" 30001
Y.LSI^ YlnHO
-,
F
asoow ~O
H30UO lY 10.01
utEIS
t! i~ C
;:!:"~.... ~
~~~J~
l~\\
! tJ""'_~
~ -
~ : 9...
~ l~l s
~ ~~m
~ ~ = if!
{~ =~:5l~ 21;::
z~ Q~'55iE
~ "I ..-
;;: !
Is
0'
WJllJJJJ
~
;.
"
i~'
,Ili~-
,"
,~ I
IJ ...or
1"
~
..::'~ ~ ~
g~~[ ~-;!
...~... -.....-l"
k ii!~'i iH ~
lh .1 · ~h
!:i.
... ' .'\.""\\,:""",,,-,,,-~
," .. <"""' , " "" '" , .
... ..;..,
J~, I ('
~,;;;r, ,I
.....!:I :1 ~
~,l.t. I It
........h:. '.J ~1i
_4e..____ oj'
i~
j~
I !
. 1...
! '\ \
U: H I
H
\"
~
IJ
\
.
.
:
I
; J
\~ i!t l
-'1
-.J
\.
. <<"
IU
.... .
\>tt i
tl~! s
\0".. -
,~;~ s
i ~ ,') ~
Hil
lilt
21-...._
~lil~iI~
gj::.l~ec:i
i:
~!:!:
.. '.
.,..i-~
'f" ,
, S"~ oJ
.S~ .
~'fS .
;,~~ !.
~t.i.lt
;.. "'''''1'
.'''.. :;
. -
\1
.'
,"
,\ ~
I I ~'~
! I I .
\. i t
. ;: i to' ~t"
t. .~ \ I ;:
.... ) '"
z:
.
.
!
_ ..,.,.2
~i
h
.... 6, {c - /tf)- 71
",
~
a
~
.
.
.
.
.
..
II
!!
i
"
-
, ...,
. - .,-I.'J.
(
I
()
t
100
.
too
/o-rtJ
Ttflf'tl6RAfll/CAL 144'?
EXf!/PIT Ib' .
,
100
-&'
I
-
'.
f'..
,
\
A. The City sh:lll have no U~bilily hereunder to the Applicant for the failure 10 process the AppUcanl's
Initi:ll Study appUcation, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estimaled by the City.
B. . By execution of this agreement, the AppUcant shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Inilial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shall use its
discretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement.
m. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition 10 all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City h~ the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Study which is the
subject mailer of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study wltich may be the subject m~aer of
any other Permit which AppUcant has before the City.
B. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the Cily shall otherwise have all law or equity.
the City h~ the right to coUect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees had costs.
-'t.
,
IV.
Miscellaneous
.~
.~
A.
Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permiaed 10 be given pursuant 10 this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices. demands and requests 10 be sent 10 any party shall be deemed to
h~ve been propeuy given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail.
addressed to suc'; p:u1y. postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested. at
the addresses identified adjacent to the sign~tures of the panies represented.
B. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and conslnled in accordance with the Laws of the State of
California. Any action arising under or relating to this Aar=ment shall be brought only in the
federal or stale courts located in San Diego County. ~tale of California, and illppIicable, the City
of Chula Vista, or as close thereto IS possible. Venue for 1Iti, qreement, IIld performance
hereunder, shall be the City of CfIula Vista.' "
C. Multiple Signatories
U there are multiple signatories to this agreement on beItaIf of Applicant, each ol,uch signatories
shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant', duties herein set forth.
D. Signatory Authority
The signatory to this agreement hereby wamnts and represents that it i, the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant 10 execute this Aar=ment on
behaIC of the Applicant. Signatory shall be penona1ly liable for AppIicant', Duty 10 Pay and
Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized 10 execute litis Apeement by
the ApplicanL -
~ &- 3 -;: /~--ffl
WI'C"'~ClISTORnN021.".9) IR.,. 1020.'3) (R.,. 1022.'3) Pace 9
"
THE cm OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of cenain ownership interests, payments. or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require discrelionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission. and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
I.
List the names of all persons bave a f=cial interest in the contract. Le., contractor. subcontractor.
material supplier.
L 00 IV)
L-OU&{;
l't], 7
2.
If any perSOn identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnersbip, list the lWIIes of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the sbares in the corporation or owning any partnership interesl in
the partnersbip.
IV.A'
.
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 trUstee of the trusl.
fiLL
/J/f<c-Cl'of2. 7
4. Have you bad more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards.
Commissions. Committees and Council within the past TWelve months?
ND
S. Please identify each and every person, including any agents. employees, consultants or independent
contractors wbo you bave,assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
goY V~ II... ~O ..1
19..e /~ 0 ,
6.
Have you andlor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed~re than 51.000 to a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No Y'" If yes. state which Council
member(s): .
"no. II d.rwd as: "AzJy iDcIi.idu&l. 1InD. ....parlDCl1bip. joiDI _". _Ialio., _ia1 club. _ ...aaizadoD. ...,....110.. _Ie.
Inl'~ ....i..r.l)'Ddiule. dli. WillY odl.r COUll!)'. .i!)' WCOUlll)'. cily. lDIIIIic:ipaliry. dls1ricl or odlc, polilical..bdivilioD, or uy odlcr,'roup
or comb_cion ICciD.& u a UDil. .
(Nom ......tb llIdillooaJ pa,.' as _ssary)
Date:~
6LL~
Signarure of contractor/applicant
ANORCt.J
Print or type lWIle of contractor/applicant
~/rA'()
,
-{ 7
WPC,F,IHOMElPLANNINOISTOIlED\I021'''''lRd. 1010.93)(Rd, 1011.93)
/?J ._g--,;;;....,
Pile II
THIS PAGE BLANK
--6+.: jtP-<63
..
.. t f'>tJ_ rf
ATTACHMENT 6
PUBLIC INPUT
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ 6d - ;~~?3
DOUGLAS D. REID
E. R. COORDINATOR
R.E. CASE # IS-95-15
R-,-.~-~, '-~
___t\, ":'.-1
JAt.JO 5 i3;-
PLANN:NG
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED MOOSE LODGE TO BE LOCATED
AT 25 & 33 NAPLES ST.
WE THINK IT WOULD HAVE A SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
* TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION:
NAPLES ST. HAS BECOME A MAIN STREAM OF TRAFFIC SINCE OPENING THROUGH
TO TELEGRAPH CYN. RD., COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, AND SOUTHWEST ~LLEGE AND
TRAFFIC IS ALREADY CONGESTED AND OVERLOADED AT PEAK HOUR~COMMUTERS TO
AND FROM WORK PLUS THE TRANSPORT OF CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOLS BY
PARENTS AND SCHOOL BUSES.
TO ADD TO THIS WOULD CAUSE GRIDLOCK ON NAPLES ST., ESPECIALLY BETWEEN
TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, AND HILLTOP DR.
THERE ARE MORE ACCIDENTS HAPPENING NOW ON NAPLES ST. AT THAT ADDRESS
EVEN WITH A VACANT LOT THERE. IT IS COMMONPLACE FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
AT THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS NOW AND WILL BECOME MUCH WORSE BY ALLOWING
SEVERAL HUNDRED MORE ADDED VEHICLE USAGE PER A D T STUDY
THAT ADT STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, NAPLES ST., AND
OTHERS AS WELL AS HILLTOP DRIVE.
* PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS:
THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THIS AREA AND THEY ARE ONLY A FEW
HUNDRED FEET FROM THIS SAME LOCATION, ONE IS AT EMERSON ST. &VISTA WAY
AND THE OTHER AT EMERSON ST. & CUYAMACA
MANY CHILDREN HAVE ONLY THE NAPLES ST. ROUTE TO WALK TO AND FROM SCHOOL.
THIS IS THE FOOT TRAFFIC ROUTE ALSO FOR THESE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS.
:HEY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO MORE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION THAT
WOULD ADDED TO THE COMMUNITY IF THIS LODGE IS BUILT HERE.
* DETRIMENTAL EFFECT:
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. A LODGE SUCH AS THE MOOSE PROPOSES
SHOULD NOT BE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THE LODGE WOULD BE A PLACE FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL AND FOR SOCIAL ACT1VITIES
OF A PARTY NATURE WHICH WOULD SURELY CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF NOISE,
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND GENERAL DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PEACE AND QUIET
THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF
BUSINESS COME INTO OUR MIB51.
THESE ARE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS IS-95-15.
THANK YOU FOR READING.
'.
MR. AND MRS. MACK BEAUMONT
1101 TOBIAS DR. .
-6 9-
.
.
/0- %'t-
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ hf -/cJ-F'?
..
ATTACHMENT 7
TRAFFIC STUDY
a t Y' - ...~
.JOJ -56
THIS PAGE BLANK
..
~~ - ~
~
/~,-T/
1.jM:-.I~C.LL C, rl~~Ul-J.H I t.~
I~~ I~U.Ol~-~~~-~U~~
H~I
':;,;;;:l') ;;;:l' ";'C' Iii.!. V....L r . V.;.
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PL...NNING & TRAFFIC tNG!N[ERING
January 18. 1995
Mr. Andr~w Smilko,
Adminislrator
Loyal Order of Moose
Chula Vista Lodge #1927
2638 Main Strert, Suite L
Chula Vista. CA 9]911
D&A Rtf. N".: 950104
Subjcct:
Traffic Impa~1 Analysis for New Moo.e I AlUgl' in Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Smitko:
In accordance with your authori7.ation, Damell & Assodat('s, Inc, (D&A), has completed our traffic
impact analysis relative to the proPOl>l'u rdocation of the Moosl' 1 Aldg~ ..] 927 10 Naples Strn.t near
Hilltop Drive in the City of Chula Vista. 11lis lel'orl addresses existing conditions, existing plus
prl)je.cl oonditions, and illenrifks any traftic assodated ill1pa~ls,
INTRODUCTION
"
The u'yal Order of Moose #]927 is propc>sing 10 relneale Iheir l'Xislingoperations from Main Slle~t
in Chula Vista to Naples Streel near Ililltop Dlive. Figure I d('pkts a general vicinity map of Ih~
project location, Figure 2 dcpil'ts the propos~d site plan fN the new lodge, The huilding llrea is
comprised of approximately 12.500 .quarl' feet olll'e the final phase of e,xpansion is complel('.
I!:XIS'J'lNG CON0I1'10NS
Currently, th~ proposed buildins sitl' houses an ,'xi sting vacant huilding and adjacenl parking 101.
Although the building abuts II small strip commercial eemer, ther(' i. "'urrently nl! trunk generat~d
immedialely on site. The Pfl'vjOUS lanu use for th,' \'lIeant huilding was a Safeway supermarket. Thl'
trip generation potential of the ecmmerclal use was 150 trips per 1.000 square feet, The pre\'ious
trip gcncratkm at this site would have been approl(imalely 2,llSO daily trips.
Nllplu Street i~ a two-lane light colleelor mad with appruximlllely 40' paved surface althe prnjeet
frontage and no turn pockels. The speed limit on Nllpks is 25 mph, Future classIfication of thl'
road Is a Class 2 Collector (three lanes),
Due to the proximity of the proposed site to thl' emncr of Naples Street and Hilltop Drive. a peak
hour traffic count was conducted to determine 111" exislin!: "perating c:halllcteristlC$ at this signali;cCd
Intersection. Count data was colleclI:ll on II clear Tuesday. January 17, 1995. from 7'9am and 4.flpm,
The existing AMIPM peak hour Iraffie is ucpieteu on figuT\' 3. nl~ e.Qunt data sheets arc includl'd
as an attachment to this report,
~ Jtl-9CJ
1202 KETTNeR BOULCVARD' SUITt B. SAN DIEGO, C^llFORNIA 92101
"HONk'l>111.2JJ.n/J . r AX: 611123~ 40~4
1-- :;OJ
\ .:..-JI t..i
:;,,', Z
,,,'d."l~~ -
'::\' i i rJi
t:SLH'" BLVD ; ~
-
I ~.T t,,;l
- -- CO
~ _.
I . en
en
J -. _i ii -c
"I ii olil
,
-
-
.'.. ~. (1.)
ovo .-:=; ~
-
5." Ai << ------. ~
,.r- e'::l
'""" /CJ -7/ ~
8 .,
. "
::WQ ~,; j~ ~7:O
;lyJ,USi -.: ~
... 'i~(7"'
"-U=i' .'
1';"",1 ) =i
i.y- -::;,
, C:~MOL.E'l' "''1,~
'* . ~ il.:..=
.l,\.BIJtf' - "II
'I ~:- ~'- 'I'! 1
I a'vo-...., I I
i ji ~l !NlNER i:::i All
i
.::;: I '
; iOE1.11'IOPri
~~.
.. 8-;'
- ~I,
~ ""-
~ <
8
"
.
i;i
~"
.:0
"
I"
~".
...
'"
=Qr~
..
- --- ' ,~
~~.,....;-;~:}:,.....~...~
,--;..~~, ~"jo
\.'~ ...' .
~' --
I
..
0...
.-<!.:
L
w
0::::>-
:::>1-
C:>Z
l.J...U
:::::-
-
."
,
, ,
: :
. ,
'.I
I ,
J I
I I.,
I
.~
I . "I"',-r-:-I- I I' ! II :."~: it i Ii! i n
' I, ~__~L-~~__
. - I
:is'''P.Z
.,
H
......$~
~13
I.
.,
'C.:.
.
..
.,
~.
-
/p- ;t;Z
I'
I
"I
,
)...;/l
..j ""!~IA
."
L
(
NZ
<C
W-l
Q::CL
=:JW
Gr-
l..J....-
(J)
to)
z
-
tf.l
E
Ei
o
~
-c
~
-
-
Q)
~
~
ctl
o
I
I
I ,'I,
-1 ~
~ ~ F V.
~
'I
CJ ,
;:0
~
N l_
(J1
-" VJ -.....j 48/66
en'-...o
PROJECT SITE '-...N'-... 152/183
0> l.D l.D ~
~ (J1 ~
............. " 16/40
, ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -J , ~ r-
.............
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
- .............
.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-I t
\ NAPLES STREET ~ "I I
85/107
~ 138/241 , N
~ N .....
\ (J1 ~ .....
~ 29/75 , O>'-...~
'-... N '-...
. l.D -.....j en
~ l.D ~
FIGURE 3
Darnell II ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING \MjPM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Mr. Andrew Smitko.
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which to measure the operating
conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection. Level of service is defined on a scale of A
to F, where LOS A represents free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering
or operating speeds, low traffic volumes and high speeds; LOS B represents stable flow, more
restrictions, operating speeds beginning to be affected by traffic volumes; LOS C represents stable
flow, more restrictions, speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes;
LOS D represents conditions approaching unstable flow, traffic volumes profoundly affect arterials;
LOS E represents unstable flow, and some stoppages; and LOS F represents forced flow, many
stoppages, and low operating speeds. The City of Chula Vista encourages operation of LOS D or
better at existing intersections and roadway segments.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
The LOS for the signalized intersection of HilIlOpINaples was analyzed using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) software, consistent with City of Chula Vista analysis procedures. The existing
conditions analysis determined that the intersection of HilItoplNaples currently operates at LOS B
for both the AM and PM peak periods. The HCM worksheets are included in the attachment to
this report.
PROJECT RELATED CONDITIONS
In discussions with Moose Lodge members as well as the shift bartender at the existing lodge, the
operating characteristics of the lodge was determined to be as follows:
Dav
Hours of
Operation
Monday-Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
llam-llpm
llam-12am
lOam-llpm
7am-8pm
Every 2nd and 4th Monday of the month, the Lodge sponsors a lunch for senior citizens. The
majority of the seniors arrive in vanpools or by bus. The lunch serves between 1S0-2OO persons.
Lunch on these days is served from 12-2pm. On other days, there is no lunch service.
Standard dinner functions occur on Friday nights from 6-7:30pm, serving 70-80 persons. Special
function dinners (once per month on Saturdays) serve 1S0-2oo persons.
Evening functions could include group meetings of up to ten (10) persons.
The Lodge is closed on Holidays.
- '7 ~;- /Cl.-17
Mr. Andrew Smitko.
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18. 1995
Page 6
During regular business hours described above, the Lodge bar and game tables are open for use.
On an average weekday. the Lodge may receive up to 40 persons for these uses. On a weekend, it
is expected to be approximately 60 patrons.
Staffing at the Lodge includes one (1) manager and one (1) bartender on the premises at anyone
time. Kitchen help is voluntary and may include up to four (4) people for food preparation during
special events.
TRIP GENERATION
Due to the very specific use of the proposed project, there are currently no published trip generation
rates for this type of facility. Therefore, utilizing the discussion above on operating characteristics,
the following table quantifies the potential daily trips generated by this project on various days of
the week.
TRIP GENERATION FOR MOOSE LODGE
Worst-Cu. Dally Patrol1llg.
Monday Friday Seturday Sunday
EmployeesNolunteers 6 6 6 6
Bar/Games 40 40 60 60
Dinner 0 80 200 0
Senior Crtizen Lunch 200 0 0 0
Breakfast 0 0 0 70
Evening Meeting 10 0 0 0
Total Patronage 256 126 266 136
Daily Trips' 512 252 532 272
Sr. Crtizen Ride Share' (100) 0 0 0
Average Daily Traffic 412 252 532 272
1 Daily trips are calculated as one inbound and one outbound per patron or 2 trips per patron
, Sr. Citizen ride share reduction assumes 2 persons per vehicle
~ 7b .= /?J~?S-
Mr. Andrew Smitko.
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18. 1995
Page 7
Peak hour traffic can be quantified by determining approximately how much of the daily traffic
generated by the project occurs during the City's weekday AMIPM peak hours. The peak hour is
identified as the highest traffic volumes during four consecutive 15 minute intervals of the peak
period. As stated previously, count data was collected between the peak periods of 7.9am and 4-
6pm. Review of the existing counts conducted on January 17 identify the peak hour at the
intersection of Hilltop/Naples to occur from 7:J5-8:15am, and 5:00-6:00pm.
The Moose Lodge does not conduct business prior to 11:00am Monday through Friday, therefore,
this project does not have a morning peak hour impact. The worst-case weekday evening peak
scenario identified above would occur on Friday. Assuming that the 80 dinner patrons all arrived
in individual vehicles prior to the 6:00 sening. this would account for 80 peak hour trips. For the
purposes of a worst-case analysis, 80 peak hour trips were distributed to the surrounding street
system. Fifty (50) percent of the traffic was distributed to the east and 50% to the west. Figure 4
depicts the project trip distribution and related PM peak hour traffic volumes.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
. .
The project related volumes shown in Figure 4 were added to the existing traffic at the intersection
of Hilltop/Naples. These volumes are presented on Figure 5. Again, it should be noted that the
project does not effect the morning peak hour traffic. These volumes were analyzed for intersection
operation using the HCM methodology. The intersection of Hilltop/Naples will operate at LOS B
for both peak periods with the addition of project traffic. HCM worksheets are included in the
attachment to this repon.
CIRCULATION & ACCESS
The existing parcel provides twO access points from Naples Street. The site plan proposes to remove
the existing 15' driveways to provide new 30' driveways adjacent to the existing ones. The 30'
driveways provide adequate width to accommodate ingress and egress traffic. However. the
westernmost access creates an offset with Tobias Drive. It is our recommendation this access be
moved farther west to best align with Tobias Drive. thus reducing left turn conflicts entering the
project versus entering Tobias Drive.
The circulation within the proposed parking lot provides 24' wide roadways, which is consistent with
City policy and adequate for safe traffic flow. The turning radius beneath the pone-cochere at the
south of the building provides adequate clearance for cars, although trucks will not be able to
successfully navigate this movement. In discussions with Lodge members, there is one truck delivery
per week which occurs prior to opening. The truck would not be required to negotiate beneath the
pone-cochere as the parking lot would be empty.
D&A would also recommend that the parking layout be restructured along Naples Street to allow
perpendicular slots. By pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at the end of
each row, the overall net gain of perpendicular parking will be 4-5 spaces. with increased circulation.
turning radii. and safety. Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of these recommended improvements.
- 71.::
/t:? -, "
,,-...
~
:J:
t=
d
"U
<:)
<!!
~
~
'----'"
PROJECT SITE ~ (20%) 16
-"" ~
.............
..............
............. l-
.............. ~ , r-
.............
..............
. . . . . . . . . - . . . .
..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ..............
..............
.............. NAPLES SlREET
..............
..............
..............
~ (50%) 40 ~ L (50%) 40~ (17.5%) 14 ~ I t r
~ (20%) 16 ~ ,,-...
-"
, N
~ (12.5%) 10 --. (J1
"J ~
. '----'"
~
0
LEGEND
(TRIP DISTRIBUTION %) PM PEAK VOLUME
NOTE: PROJECT HAS NO AM PEAK TRAFFIC
Darnellllc ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 4
PROJECT RELATED PM PEAK TRAFFIC
--.J
(J1
L
,
~ :r:
~ t F
-t
0
-u
<:>
;;u
~
N L
(Jl
...... 0J -..J 48/66
CXl"'-.O
PROJECT SITE "'-. N "'-. 152/199
'-l 1.0 <D ~
CXl (Jl -t>-
............. 16/40
. .............
............. -J , ~
.............. r-
.............
..............
..............
..............
~ ..............
..............
............. .
..............
..............
..............
.............. t
NAPLES STREET ~ I I
85/121
~ 138/257 ~ N
U1 N -"
Ol -t>- -"
\ 29/85 -. "'-."'-.-t>-
"'C -"N"'-.
~ o '-l CXl
-t>- <D -t>-
FIGURE 5
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM /PM PEAK TRAFFIC
I
tg , 't..,.. II' , , I'--J"I U'I I I.! I' 1
.. . l.' _ ;: I~:' ~ I I
:;.:~;: ~ ....? 1 ',:1 \Li, I I ..'
,........ '" ~ -: ~i . \ I
!~._'<~--' I \\ \ .
""':' ... \ \ \ :1
~~i;;;i '\\ \ ,
I;: !!tf ~_~~~ .~ ~_.._c- \~,.\ i r 1 I I
".., ~- ,.....-.,.~~-'\; 0..:: , I I
F%' u___ ". Yk',~ ': .:' ii, I
. ';"f" ",,' '~"'-.' "'.,', . , IJv r;.'~;.:'.";
II" .. '," . ',' " "___...: ..._ \ I ,~,
1. ': . ,.~,_ - , , =.... 1..:1 \ ~\" \1
I! ~.. _ "._____..__ ! '\
'i~ ;:::_-_ . i;: \',\:1\
lr;;. ;..0:;..; "'::1 '~~. \\'1\
.,', g~n~= - "(i' I 'I ,:~", i
~o;, = -- ~....~ .;- ;.: ,I I ! \'\ 1\ I
;~~--il-~~:---~;; I' ~i ,,' C.._
,8: / ~ .
' ,-
. , ""
: I;)
I",'
"
"
;
!
. -
~~
~ ~;:
.. \-.1'"
~.,
., ... \
-- ,;rsn
'-
....,.....
;,."
~' . "'"
I ~
:: ::; :
; ~!
,
.
';
1'-
i-.'
I 1:;,
"'I Ii!: .';'
I' -,
.1 C
:l I r
, .
" ,
II " (
II ~ it ..,
" .. ~, I ".,
J '...: i \
! ~ ; ~ \
:., I,."" I "-~:f~
,I '--.:"
" I
! i
i~
I:
't-
(1!
iL-... II
I.'~''''
'~ i
ji; '-:';:";::
~i, ~...~ U 'I
lV o.:.'.'~
..-'!
...:..
..:.,
:~
i I
, I
:... ! :
....'--:!.......,...
;1 i
~I
.
i
_.~
I
f'
i:
, i :- I I
i" , I
\.... : j
\ ~~~ '~.
\~:; "
i.'
,'~
Ii
"
"<Cj "'l'l......ru
'\'1
'l
~I
- I
kii 'I i II i I i n ~Ti i
I-II ,=1. !...!.--..;...
-:- ..
-
" ..,.....-., .
j I i , , I I I
,I .i I ! ! ,
I
"
.. -
~ .
..,.,.2 ".
~Cc~
.
~
' 'I .
titl' . ,-"'!:
II . --:": ...... #"
,~-
I
("
I ,
,
I ! I
! I
n
:g"~
~I=
ii~
'I
eo fv- //.9 ~fC;
;'.''-
.~
T'.!'irIJ,
I
I
I
I
i
L
U.
I-
Z
W
~
W
>
o
0:::
CL
~
ill Z
o
w-
0:::1-
=><(
0-1
-=>
LLU
0:::
U
C
Li...
o
Z
W
~
~
o
U
w
0:::
c.)
is
~
Cl
!
.-s
-
-
Q)
=
~
c:tl
c:l
...; ;""....~i... V ri"......_... ,..,
'i...i... "'-'......~. _ -'",; .......,...
"I'"
v' _ _ -' . _.''-' "'-'. '-""'... , . '-' v
,~
.
Mr. AndrN Smitko,
Loyal Onkr of Moose
January 18, 1995
Pllge I)
IMI'ACTS
The proposed project does not haw l\ morning peak hour impart. The cwning peak hour impact
at Ihr intrrsection l.lt Hilltop!Naples docs not e.a\lS~ tlu' existing kvd of stTviee. to dedine from LOS
B.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The projr('t should be responsible for sidewalk IInd halt.\\iutb improvements along Ihr project
frontage on Nark" Streel.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS &. CONCLlISIONS
1. The intw,ection of HilltopJl\aplcs currently operal('s at LOS 11 for both peak pl.'Tiods.
2. The previous comml'rl'ial use on thr project silc' lwnnall'd approximlltrly 2.850 daily
vehicles. Thr proposed project will gennal(' a maximum of 4J2 trips on II weekday and :'32
trips on a weekend.
"
3.
The operating characteristic> of the proposed M(l(ISe Lodge will not have a morning peak
hour impact. The worsH:asc weekday evening peak hour traffic' impac'! of 80 trips docs not
cause the LOS at Hilltop/Naples to decline bdow its nisting operation.
4, Aca:ss and circulation recommL'nualions an' n(llc~d on Hgure 6.
If you have any questions ()f require additional intllrmatit>n, pka,,' fed frc,' to Cl)ntacl this office.
Sincerely,
DARNELL & ASSOCIATI::.S. I
-- ~W-~
ill E. Darnell, P.E.
BFD/hh
O'_OOS~PTIU.l
g'
---. I
-
//Y--- /?/?J
Attachments
. Count Data Summaries
. HCM Worksheets
-gJ.-
/t:)~/?/ )
P" PEAK 1622
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SU""ARY
P" COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: (HULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILLTOP/NAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 5.00 P" TO 6.00 PH
(E/V STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound l.Ies t bound Northbound Southbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peak
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+V N+S TotaL Hour
-------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ----
3:30 P" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 P" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.1')() PM 29 54 15 10 33 9 12 85 9 15 78 29 150 228 378
, P" 35 52 17 4 51 11 22 68 7 16 80 33 170 226 396 n4
4:30 PH 30 54 14 4 31 11 6 72 5 12 80 34 144 209 353 1127
4:45 PH 31 69 13 4 43 14 22 71 7 20 84 31 174 235 409 1536
5: 00 PH 36 63 12 9 31 13 15 74 13 13 70 32 164 217 381 1539
5: 15 PH 27 53 24 10 45 15 26 n 13 27 69 17 174 229 403 1546
5:30 PH 24 56 16 9 50 17 26 75 16 27 74 16 172 234 406 1599
5:45 PH 20 69 23 12 57 21 27 69 22 27 66 19 202 230 432 1622
6:00 PH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1241
6:15 PH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838. 1622
PEAK
PERIOD
107 241
o 0
75 40 183 66
o 0 0 0
94 295
o 0
64 94 279 84
o 0 0 0
kl
0:3
o ~ /?J--/tfJ..;z
AM PEAK 1203
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
AM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: MILLTOP/NAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 7.15 AM TO 8.15 AM
(E/~ STREET) (N/S STREET>
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound SOuthbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peek.
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+~ N+S Total Hour
-------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ----
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 17 22 7 2 39 11 15 43 3 7 35 18 98 121 219 219
7:15 AM 38 29 12 7 52 16 17 71 6 10 66 29 154 199 353 572
7:30 AM 25 40 6 4 35 15 12 71 4 24 75 31 125 217 342 914
7:45 AM 9 26 4 2 33 6 15 54 2 7 44 35 80 157 237 1151
8:00 AM 13 43 7 3 32 11 26 57 6 15 39 19 109 162 271 1203
8:15 AM 33 33 11 4 47 13 26 64 9 13 54 34 141 200 341 1191
1;30 AM 25 37 5 6 49 17 7 50 15 14 48 25 139 159 298 1147
8:45 AM 25 18 7 5 39 12 15 59 3 5 44 22 106 148 254 1164 1203
PEAK
PERIOD
85 138
o 0
29 16 152 48
o 0 0 0
70 253 18
000
56 224 114
000
A~v
~'B~
/~~/t?;J
,eM: S;GI<ALlZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
======;================================================================
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
AnaL' DARNELL BH
(E-Wl NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
"rea .et: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
=======================================================================
~o. Lenes
'''oLumes
_ane IoIidth
~TOR Vols
I Northbound Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T 0 I L T 0 I L T 0
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
1 56 224 1141 70 253 181 65 138 291 16 152 48
112.012.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 101 21 31 5
SigML Operations
Ohase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
'jB left . IE8 Left .
Thru . 1 Thru .
Right . 1 Right .
Peds . I Peds .
58 Left . IWB Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . I Right .
Peds . I Peds .
EB Right IN8 Right
W8 Right 158 Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
YeLL()l-"'~R 3.0 IVolLow/A- 3.0
Lost 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle length: 90.0 secsPhese combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie g/C Approach:
I1vmts Cop Flow Ratlo Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
"B L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 B 10.6 8
10 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 8
S8 L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 B 9.9 B
T 632 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 8
0 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 B
EB L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 8 9.7 8
TO 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 8
.B L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 8 9.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 8
Intersection Delay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS s B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/cCx) II: 0.346
k7-;
.g.""-
v .-
/j}~/P'f/
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
===============z=======================================================
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
(E-"> NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXP.HC9
1-18-95 PM PEAK
==============....~..KZS;==.=======az=.-=--....a.==........=---=-=...==
No. Lanes
ljolumes
L.ene Width
RlOR Vels
I Northbound I SOuthbound I Eo.tbound I "e.tbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 < I 1 1 <
I 94 279 841 94 295 641 107 241 751 40 183 66
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 81 61 71 6
Signal Operetions
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
NB Left * IEB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
SB Left * I"B Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
EB Right INB Right
"B Right I SB Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
Yellow/A.-R 3.0 IYeLLow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 stcsPhl!lSt' combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approacn:
Mvmts Cop Flo.... Retio Retio Deley LOS Deley LOS
NB L 416 B91 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.9 B
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 B
SB L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.1 B
T 832 1782 0.37 0.47 10.1 B
R 703 1506 0.09 0.47 8.6 B
EB L 508 1088 0.22 0.47 10.9 B 10.5 B
TR 803 1721 0.41 0.47 10.4 B
"B L 450 964 0.09 0.47 10.2 B 9.B B
TR 799 1713 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
Intersection DellY = 10.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS . B
Lost Tie/Cycle, L = 6.0 lec CriticIl v/c(x) . 0.435
A~4-
<::':' J?l- /CJ -/cJ5
HCM: llGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
=======================================================================
StrHts: (N-S) HILLTOP
Ana I DARNELL BH
Are~ e: Other
Comment: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
(E-W) NAPLES
File Neme: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
==============.a====================================================--==
No. Lanes
Volumes
Lane IoIidth
RlQR Vols
I Northbound I Southbound Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R 1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
1 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 138 291 16 152 48
112.012.0 112.012.012.0112.012.0 112.012.0
1 101 21 31 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
N8 Left * IE8 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds . I Peds *
58 Left . IW8 Left *
Thru . 1 Thru *
Right . I Right .
Peds . I Peds .
E8 Right INB Right
WB Right ISB Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
YeUawIA-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Los' 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle ...ength: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sot vie g/C Approach:
"vmts Cop Flow Ratio Retio Delay LOS Deley LOS
NB L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 8 10.6 8
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 8
SB L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 8 9.9 8
T 832 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 8
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 8
E8 L 549 11n 0.16 0.47 10.5 8 9.7 8
TR 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 B
WB L 5n 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 B 9.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 8
Intersection Delay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS z B
Lost TilllelCycle, L :II: 6.0 see Critical v/c(x) . 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
A-'i
f1
-/c;-/CJ,I,
HCM; SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
====::======:==:=::=======::=========::=======:=:===:==================
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING PLUS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Neme: HILNAPPP.HC9
1-18-95 PM PEAK
PROJECT CONDITIONS
============~."...=============.===-======.E&:====:C====z=a.========
No. lanes
Volumes
L.ane Width
RTOR vols
I NortMbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < I 1 1 <
I 104 279 841 94 295 781 121 257 851 40 199 66
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 81 61 71 6
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
Na Left . lEa Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . I Right .
Peds . I Peds .
S8 Left . IW8 Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . I RigM .
Peds . 1 Peds .
E8 R'ight INa Right
W8 Right 1 sa Right
G~n 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
'olllN/A-R 3.0 IYollow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cye Le Length: 90.0 secsPhast combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approach:
Hvmts Cop Flow Ratio Ratio DeLey LOS Delay LOS
Na L 399 855 0.27 0.47 11.2 8 10.9 8
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 a
SB L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 a 10.1 a
T 832 1782 0.37 0.47 10.1 a
R 703 1506 0.11 0.47 8.7 8
Ea L 494 1059 0.26 0.47 11.1 8 10.8 8
TR 802 1719 0.44 0.47 10.6 8
wa L 428 917 0.10 0.47 10.2 a 9.9 8
TR 802 1719 0.34 0.47 9.9 a
Intersection Delay = 10.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS. B
Lost Time/Cycle, L . 6.0 see Critical v/c(x) . 0.452
.-------------------------------.--------------------------------------
A,l/
~ 'If
-
/6?-/GJ 7
ATTACUMENT 8
NOISE ASSESSMENT
~ /t}-/tJY
THIS PAGE BLANK
,tj'r -
//J--/P 7
..
fEE-3--19?~ 1-:01 G]FJ~. ~ ASSOC.
lilfOUX 4!It ASSOCI: 'S
Environmental Con8ultaDts
r~_." . """ ..-.-
,.?-,':::-
/ ... ,.,
P.Ol
To
lIa_ ..
February 7, 1995
City of Cbula vista ?lanningDept.
Attn: Ms. Susan Vanarew
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Re: Moose LOdge Relocation
Dear Susan,
We have reviewed the materials that you sent regarding this
project. We utilized the traffic data from Darnell' Associates to
estimate any site access/egress traffic noise impact potential. We
utilized the CNEL metric relative to the City standard of 65 dB(A)
CNEL as a measure of impact significance.
Our assumptions were:
Fraction traveling:
Before 7 p.m. . 1/3
7 p.m. - 10 p.m. . 1/3
After 10 p.m. . 1/3
EastjWest Split on Naples . 50\/50\
Travel Speed . 35 IIph
The off-site noise impact is 52 dB(A) CNEL superimposed upon the
non-project baseline. Based on our .easurementa of similar traffic
exposures as along Naples Street, combined project and non-project
noise exposures will be well within city standards (well below 65
4B(A) CNEL combined). .
Any potential noise issues are solely on-site concerns.
Entertainment nois., car door slams, start-ups and tire squeal may
be audible at nearby residences, especially late at night. The
residences to the south are far enough away to be little affected.
We would prefer that a barrier be aaintainea along the northern
site boundary to reduce, any nuisance potential from people
accessing their vehicle and departing the site during the late
evening hours.
:;- 9/
/() -//tf?
/7744 SI;r Puk Clft:k. Suite 210. JrviIIt. ~ 92714 . I'boDe (7/~ '51-M1J9 . Fu (714) '.f1-8612
~EB-~7-139: 17:01
G I ROU': a HSSOC.
P.02
-2-
We do not believe that an acoustical atudy would substantially
alter our conclusions. Please call ae if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~?/ 0. _~, ...........{
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HOG:ai
,
~(j~/~-III
TOTF'lL P.02
'.
ATTACHMENT 9
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
-13-- Jo~)J:J.-
11iE Crn' OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STA'TEMENT
..., ore n4uireu 10 rile I SI~lemenl of Disclosure of ccllain ownership or financial inlerc.\ts, paymenls, or camplign
, ,,":I,.,ions, on all mailers which WIll require discrclionary Iction on the pall of Ihe Cily Council, Planning Commission, In
, .~,c. .,IflLial hodies, The following informalion must he discloseu:
List Ihe names of all persons h~ving a financial inlerest in the propelly which is Ihe subjeel of Ihe Ipplication or Ihe
conlracl, e.g., owner, Ipplic:lnl, COntraclor, suhcontr~clOr, malerial supplier.
t..c/'rAt.. CJ,PH!!. IF ).(PO'S 1 Gvt..,A Vf5TA [PPG-f.. #- Icr2 7
If ~ny person' idenlified pursuanl 10 (I) ahove is I corpora lion or partnership, lisllhe names of III indiviuuIIs owning
more Ihan 10% of Ihe shares in the corpor~tion or owning any partnership inlerest in Ihe partnership.
NjA
.
.1. If any person' identified pursuanl to (I) Ibove is non.profil orglnizalion or a Irusl, listlhe nlmes of Iny person
serving ~ector of the non.profit organizalion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of Ihe lrUSt.
IJ/.)."" I t.- }&1"""k/ ~ ~
4h~ e-((/ , ~n7/ TA-CJ
4 Have you had more Ihan S250 worth of business trans~cted wilh any member of Ihe Cily Ilarr, Boards, Commilllons,
Commillees, and Council wilhin the past Iwelve months? Yes_ No15.. If yes, please indicale person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents, employees, consultanls, or independenl conlractors who
you hive assigned 10 represent you before the City in this malter.
?c-y . / cH ....r"~/.,Ltl(.f/rCcr-
1>. Have you and/or your officers or agenls, in Ihe aggregate, conlribuled more Ihan S 1,000 10 a Councilmembcr In Ibe
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No_ If yes, IlIle which Councilmcmbcr{I):
~~~ "~"'"-"27.2::;U
- Signalure of conlraelor/appUcanl
/~i.II'REIJ 5,n, .I~
.J~ - / ~ r <( (~ . Print or Iype name of contrlclor/appUcanl
. !l!.J.!!!! II defilled QJ -A,I)' Mldi,_II1, fi"", cfI.ptvrllt:"lu'p, joUu t'trlAltt, AJ.S(lCill';tHl..lOCi", clMb, ".,mllll or~UUl';"'&' t'''1'''"",iOlI, UMk,....... rltftt1cr, 'JNfic-.
IJ". will tlII\' ,,,Ist, ...141111)'. city GI,d tOlUl")', rity m..mwptJl,ty, 4umc4 Uf OIlItr fH~.urlll..btJ,,,VitH" IN ."Y mJtrr "'HlP,,, tOl"""'''OII <<U"till. _iii..
Dale:
~J;;N. 10-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 5/9/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing on the Resolution of Intention to form Assessment District 93-
01 pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~f
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~;\tt~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
On March 28, 1995, Council adopted ReiJution No. 17849 approving the boundary map for AD
93-01. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of Intention No. 17850 (see
Attachment A) ordering the installation of alley improvements from J Street to Kearney Streets
between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (also known as
the 1911 Block Act) and setting public hearings for May 9 and 16, 1995. The public hearings are
being held to receive public testimony on the proposed district improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I) Hold the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony;
3) Close the public hearing; and
4) Notify the public that a second public hearing will be held on May 16, 1995 at 6:00 pm.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
On November 23, 1993 the City council accepted a petition signed by the majority of the affected
property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of the
alley improvements between Elm and Second Avenues from J to Kearney Streets. The Act is a
financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefited property
to finance the construction of public infrastructure facilities. In the past, the City has normally used
the 1911 Block Act to finance the installation of public improvements along developed residential
lots. The public improvements proposed to be financed through Assessment District (AD) 93-01
include pavement, speed humps, pedestrian ramps and miscellaneous appurtenant structures.
Completion of the improvements is projected for the end of 1995.
All owners of property within the proposed assessment district (see Attachment B) have been mailed
notice of the public hearings including the estimated assessment to their properties. The boundary
map of AD 93-01 was filed in the County Recorder's Office on April 4, 1995. Also, as required by
the Act, the Resolution of Intention was already published twice in a newspaper.
In compliance with the Act, each property owner within the proposed district was also notified to
construct the public improvements fronting/abutting their property. The notice also indicated that if
said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after the notice is given, the City shall
//-)
Page 2, Item ) /
Meeting Date 5/9/95
proceed with the construction of the improvements and the cost of said construction shall then be
assessed as a lien on the property. If the assessment is not paid upon confirmation, City shall collect
the unpaid balance of any assessment semiannually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes.
In accordance with the Resolution of Intention said balance shall be paid over a period of ten (10)
years at an interest rate of 7 % per annum. The assessments are based on the amount of frontage on
the alley. Assessments range from $3,043 to $7,093 (see Attachment D).
All property owners were invited to anend a meeting on February 16, 1995 at which details of the
project were discussed. Six out of sixteen property owners anended the meeting. Those property
owners who were unable to anend the meeting were notified by phone or registered mail. The major
issues discussed were: 1) paving material selection (cement vs. asphalt); and 2) need and location
of the speed humps. As of April 25, 1995, no "wrinen" protest as required by the law has been
received, though two property owners have "orally" expressed their opposition to the project. None
of the property owners has applied for a construction permit to install the improvements.
Estimated Assessments
The estimated project cost is $96,000. The City will finance the construction of the improvements
estimated at $72,000 and will be reimbursed by the property owners to the City through the
formation of AD 93-01 and the collection of assessment installments with their property taxes.
Design, inspection and district formation costs estimated at $24,000 will not be reimbursed and will
be absorbed by the City in accordance with Council Policy 505-1 (Attachment C)
As mentioned above, the proposed total assessment amount is $72,000. The estimated amounts to
be assessed to each of the parcels in the district is presented in Attachment D.
Future Actions
The second public hearing has been set for May 16, 1995. At that time, staff will request Council
approval of resolutions making certain findings on the district proceedings and directing the
Superintendent of Streets to proceed with the construction of the improvements. Bid results and
award of the construction contract would be submined to Council by mid-July 1995.
Pursuant to the 1911 Block Act, the actual formation of the district and confirmation of the
assessments will be brought before Council after the improvements are constructed (by the end of
1995).
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will finance the construction of the improvements ($72,000) and will
be reimbursed by the property owners over a period of ten (10) years. The estimated cost for design,
inspection and district formation cost ($24,000) will be absorbed by the City. Fund are available in
STL-220 to cover the project cost. This type of assessment district does not fall within the guidelines
of Policy 505-02 for payment for an origination charge because it is not a developer initiated district.
Assessment districts formed for the benefit of existing residential properties are exempt from the
policy. ./
Attachments: A. Resolution No. 17850 ,.,J ~
B. Boundary Map D.
Council Policy 505-1
Estimated Assessments
LDT:A Y -999
//-..2
M: \home\engineer\agenda\pubhrg2.jef
11-+-1-4 ~ ~-+ A
RESOLUTION NO. 17850
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ORDERING INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN
ALLEY FROM J STREET TO KEARNEY STREET BETWEEN ELM
AVENUE AND SECOND AVENUE, ORDERING THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO GIVE NOTICE AND ORDER
CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
93-01 PURSUANT TO THE BLOCK ACT OF 1911
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA. is desirous
to institute proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act
of 1911", of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for construction of
certain authorized improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
Assessment District 93-01 1911 BLOCK ACT affecting properties fronting/abutting alley from
J to Kearney Streets between Elm and Second Avenue (hereinafter known and designated as
the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, Sections 5875 and 5876 of said Streets and Highway Code authorize the
legislative body, upon its own motion. to order the installation of authorized improvements
in front of or abutting properties with the costs thereon to be assessed as set forth under the
provision of said Chapter 27.
WHEREAS, Section 5131 requires a resolution of intention to form an assessment
district to perform such work and Section 5132 requires public hearings to hear objections by
those affected by the district formation.
NOW, THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3.
That the above recitals are true and correct.
That the public interest and convenience requires, and this legislative body
hereby orders the construction and installation of certain improvements to
an alley by installing PCC pavement in the special assessment district,
including speed humps, pedestrian ramps and appurtenances where
required. excepting acceptable improvements in place in the City in what is
known as the Assessmant District.
All of the above mentioned works of improvement shall be generally
constructed at the grades, along the lines, between the points, and at the
places and in the manner as shown on the plans for said work designated
by the number and the name of the Assessment District, which said plans
are hereby approved and adopted. For all particulars as to the alignment of
the works and a full and detailed description, reference is hereby made to
said plans and specifications as on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
//-3
Resolution No. 17850
Page 2
SECTION 4.
SECTION 5.
SECTION 6.
SECTION 7.
SECTION 8.
That the works of improvements, in the opinion of this legislative body, will
benefit the abutting and fronting properties within said block, and this
legislative body hereby makes the expenses of said improvement chargeable
upon the property or properties within the boundaries of the Assessment
District, which District is declared to be the area and abutting properties
benefitting by the work and improvements for a general description of the
Assessment District and area of benefit, reference is made to a map of said
district previously approved and said map identified by number of this
Assessment District, and said map shall be kept on file with the transcript
of these proceedings and open to publiC inspection.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5875 of tha provisions of Chapter 27
of the "Improvement Act of 191 1", it is hereby daclared to be the
responsibility of the owners of the lots or portions of lots fronting/abutting
the public alley where this legislative body, pursuant to said Section. by its
own motion, orders the installation of the improvements, and the property
owners shall have the duty and responsibility of constructing or causing the
construction of said improvements fronting\abutting their properties to
commence within sixty (60) days upon notice so to do by the
Superintendent of Streets. If the work is not commenced by the property
owners within said period, the Superintendent of Streets shall proceed to
cause said work to be completed.
That all of the work and improvements herein proposed shall be done end
carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of
the "Improvement Act of 1911". ofthe Streets and Highways Code ofthe
State of California. For all particulars, reference is made to said "Act". and
the provisions contained therein.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON TUESDAY, THE 9TH AND 16TH OF
MAY 1995, AT THE HOUR OF 6:00 P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING
PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PUBLIC
SERVICES BUILDING, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CA.. ANY
AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED WORK
OR IMPROVEMENTS OR THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED HEREIN SHOULD
APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID WORK SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED
OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS RESOLUTION.
If the work is done by the City. and if the assessment cost is not paid upon
confirmation of the assessment. the City shall collect payment of the
assessments, annual installments, and interest in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5895 of Chapter 27 of the "Improvemant Act of
1911". of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The
number of annual installments shall be 10 and the interest rate shall be 7
percent per annum.
//-'1
SECTION 9.
SEC110N 10.
SECTION 11.
Presented by
I
Resolution No. 17850
Page 3
The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to notify the owner or
person in possession of the properties fronting/abutting that portion of the
alley in the block where work is to be constructed and directing them to
construct or cause to be constructed the improvements within sixty (60)
days after notice is given, and to diligently and without interruption
prosecute to completion said work.
A. Notice shall be given by mailing a letter, postage prepaid, to the property
owners at their last known address as the same appears on the last
equalized assessment roll used by the City for tax collection, or to the
name and address of the person owning such property as shown on the
records of the City Clerk.
B. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of the proposed boundary map to be
filed in the Office of the County Recorder within fifteen (15) days after
the adoption of this Resolution setting dates, time and place for the
public hearings.
C. The City Clerk shall cause the Resolution of Intention to be published
twice, with the first publication occurring at least ten (10) days prior to
the second public hearing.
The estimated cost to the City of the works of improvement as proposed
under these proceedings, is estimated to be $72,000.00.
For any and all information relative to these proceedings, including the
information relating to the protest procedure, your attention is directed to
the person designated below:
Donna Snider, Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista
P.O.Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone: (619) 691-5266
,..
ohn P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
ruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~
/l5
Resolution No.1 7850
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
YES: Council members:
Fox, Moot, Padilla, Horton
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Rindone
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
None
/;,' //?~.
~"'/"J f/ i J('- . ." / 1"\'
Shirley Horton, Mayor I
,
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. 17850 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 28th day of March
1995.
Executed this 28th day of March, 1995.
/)~t
T
i
i
--+
i
i
: I
I ~ i
i ~ i
if::
jtr.l
I
,
!
I
i c
i~
,
i .
,
~
I I
Ii i
.
I
i
. tJ..u. c..J,...,.~ ~ 0
PROPOSED BOUNDARIES
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01
.
1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
--r..,-r....T--r....T-...- 1 -
i~ I~ It! i It! It! 'It!
I ~ j... '''' I...! I... ''''! I'"
i 7a t a I a i a a i .a ~;:lt;A:. ~~~~A;;.I:
: ~. 1::" r=:.
r-lF----';: ;: .. I:! "I:!
1J"-iS'-'.!I J I I
'" rsr. , . i
----_.~.L&-J_..- I - I ._. I - '" _ '. . __
.'-'-~J""~~+-~~~":':"I~ . ,', ."... .. ~. ...
.-.t~":nir'-""'-I,-.,:':':"'i~-w---T--w"i w .;........ ':." "j . ;;. .. '.. ..:..;._t..:...~.:;.;
16"7'.:'I_~'_D.!I" . : ,'I . ..""_.4'_"1 "
I.. rsr. I I ,. 1flWUIn'rr.
"'" ~i~ ~i~ ~ ~
11 Ii ! Ii Iii 'Ii Ii Iii
i: i t I! ! I I !
.. I' _ i _
L_ ._____________________
I ELM
. f-.------
,
A VENUE
-
-
-
,
SECOND
A VENUE
I
~ I
1 ...,. CDftPT 1IIA'T '11II wmIIIf II&P .....-0 JIlC.I.l.1ID ,--........
or 111I . '""T IIInM:T an or CIRIIA. -. COVlm or MIl _.
ftAft OP CoWPOIIIIA, ... ~ rt 111I em COIIIICIL ", 111I CI!Y
", CIIIIIol. WIItA A7 " _UIola IIIZ!IIIO _. ~ . ~ au'
", a.. II! IDOIUIIIlII 110.
LEGEND
,
,
I
i
~
I I
i
+-
--
~
~.
~
tr.l
>-.
~l
~I
.. ..
,
,
. ,...
I ~,
- -- - Dnici~ IMIf
an-'Cl!Yar__
.,:e..... ;.,.. ~.
_~i....~ ...... .~..:J. ":l ....~b... -
.' .. . :"..,..,.,~.
-__ _ ar_ CIrJ_",_ ClrJar___
--JolT ", . a..
CIrJ ..... CI!Y ar _ _
,
__ "'TOP _.__ ",p_
. W',. VI" . """"If'J ~CTIi .. 111I 0PnCI .. 1III1iiUII.-TI rv- FIII..1"
. IIoa llDUIf!Y or MIl _. ftl.ft Ill' -.
. .... .......w. . ....,. IIIDI . till CIIIlIGIftY IF IUf ~
ft"ft lIP _ _. p_.,....__
~,,- or _mDIW. PAICa.I.
aauwrr ~
IDUlITr or IAII _
//-7
0725-10AD83-01
w.o. NO. AY081
It -I-f It ~A.1Yl t:.J -+- c..
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY WE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOO< ACf PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 1 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
BAO<GROUND
There are properties within the City limits that do not have full street improvements. In the past, Council has
directed the owners of critical unimproved parcels to install their missing public improvements. The 1911
Block Act Proceedings were utilized in most instances. As an encouragement for property owner participation,
the City has contributed funds for the completion of certain items of work (i.e., grading, pavement
installation, etc.). Also, the City consistently has contributed engineering inspection and administrative
services at no charge to the property owner(s). However, there is no Council adopted policy regarding City
participation in 1911 Block Act improvement construction proceedings.
This policy is designed to encourage the installation of missing improvements along develooed residential lots.
It specifically sets City participation goals for the improvement of comer, non-comer, and double frontage
residential lots. The policy reaffirms City Council intent to require the installation of public improvements
adjacent to undevelooed property (residential, commercial, and industrial) through the formation of 1911 Act
Assessment Districts or through the subdivision and building permit approval procedures.
(
This policy shall only apply to areas incorporated on or before this policy's effective date.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for participation by the City in the construction of public improvements via the 1911
Block Act Proceedings (Chapter 27, Street and Highways Code of the State of Ca1ifornia).
POUCY
The City Council establishes the following policy for City participation in 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings:
1. General Particioation
a. The City, at no cost to the property owner(s) shall provide all engineering, inspection and
administrative services necessary to install missing improvements via the 1911 Block Act Program
proceedings.
b. It shall be the City's responsibility to relocate all existing public improvements found to be in
conflict with the proposed street improvement construction. Such improvements shall include, but
not be limited to: street lights, traffic signal standards, drainage structures, fire hydrants, etc.
c. Engineering staff shall meet individually with each property owner prior to the program's public
hearing to hand deliver initial correspondence and to explain the plans, proceedings and this policy.
Final engineering plans and project specifications shall reflect as close as practicable, the property
owner(s) concerns provided they reflect standard engineering practice.
))-~
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECI': PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF QiULA
VlSTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECI'IVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 2 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
d. Prior to the end of each fiscal year, the City Engineer shan submit to the City Council for approval
under this program, a recommended list of projects for scheduling in the ensuing fiscal year.
Funding for the program shall be determined annually and shown in the Capital Improvement
Ptogram.
e. City participation in this program shall be limited to developed parcels that cannot be split into lots
or building sites.
2. Develooed Residential Lots
a. Non-Comer Lots
It shan be the City's responsibility to overlay or reconstruct the roadway travelway adjacent to
non-comer lots when the travelway is already improved and needs an overlay or reconstruction to
accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements.
The City's responsibility described above is shown on Figure 1 (anached).
b. Comer Lots
For the purposes of this policy, the comer lot front lot line shan be defined to be the shorter of the
two adjacent street lot lines. In this case of a non-rectangular comer lot, the front lot line shall be
the average width of the lot. (See Figure 2).
It shan be the City's responsibility to:
(1) Install curb, guner, sidewalk and pavement (if non-existent) adjacent to 1/2 the comer lot's side
street frontage.
(2) Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street's travelway when needed to accommodate
drainage or traffic safety requirements.
(3) In the event that there are improvements already existing along the comer lot's side property
frontage already existing, these improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be
removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed.
The City's responsibility described above is depicted on Figure 3 (anached).
3. Dual Fronta2e Lots
It shall be the City's responsibility to:
/J/7
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
i
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF OiULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOO< ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY:
Resolution No. 11373
505-01 08-30-83 3 OF 6
I DATED: 08-30-83
a. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement (if non.existent) adjacent to the entire lot's rear street
frontage.
b. Overlay or reconstruct the lot's rear street travel way when needed to accommodate drainage or
traffic safety purposes.
For purposes of this policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having frontage on two parallel or
approximately parallel streets, none of which is an "alley".
4. Developed Industrial/Commercial Lots
The City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to developed
industriaVcommerciallots shall be limited to:
a. The overlay or reconstruction of existing roadway travel way areas when found to be required for
drainage or traffic ~afety purposes.
Undeveloped Residential. Industrial and Commercial Lots
s.
This policy shall reaffirm the City Council's intent to require the installation of missing improvements
adjacent to undeveloped lots (both corner and non-corner with and without double street frontages)
through:
a. 1911 Act Assessment District procedures.
b. subdivision requirements, and
c. building permit approval requirements.
There shall be no City contribution towards the construction of improvements adjacent to undeveloped
residential, industrial and commercial lots. In the event that an owner petitions the City for inclusion of
his/her undeveloped parcel in a 1911 Block Act Program, all expenses shall be borne by said owner.
6. Applicabilitv
This policy shall be applicable to areas within the Chula Vista City limits on or before its effective date.
JJ-JI/
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
( JUBJECf: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF OiULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
505-01 08-30-83 40F6
DATED: 08-30-83
e
0
-
., ..
.. ~i
-
-
- -;1
Z>
- g ,.
'"
8.1 ... ..
I ...
.... '" t ...
~ "' ..~
co:
~ 0"-
., '"
... .,-
VI - .. ..
... i:"'
~ ,...
00
;::
~
l(
...
e
I -
e '"
~ '"
. E
~ ..
.. - -
..- -
e "' ..
f e ..
:: - '"
.... - e
- .. -
- .. "'
~ .. .. 0
- e ...
- .. ..
'" e ... ...
I .. .2 t
.. -
'" of .. f
: ..
oM ..
.. - ...
.. i 6- of
A .... i
- 0
:: .. ....
1 ... 0
.. -
J - i .
. ~
.. ..'"
... ~ -...
.... li
... .
6- .. ...
Ie
:l ...,.
. Iff
. of ..
- =t
fl :.~ .-
. . .
- N ...
"'~.ww~
".cee-cUI...
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
~
~
~
...J
-
II>
-
VI
Z
~
VI
( ...
co:
~
z
!f
...:1:
>c
~c:
i~
-'"
~~
...C
C...J
wco:
15~
E!5
...
- .
D:i5
-z
(
""'\ II
.., II
II ~ I
II 8~
II ~
II ~~
II l::~
~o... II ~"'IU.
II/Ili
II
II ~
II
I' I
II
II
...--
I ,,; III I N ><<
I ~ t L._.., :>0
I ~ ~
L..____-J
I 11
I II I
I II
I
I i~(
. I
.. , II ~~
I
I II tls
~H~
I II
~I II I
J)-//
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJEcr: PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF OiULA
VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM
PROCEEDINGS
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
. POLICY
NUMBER
505-01
EFFEcrIVE
DATE
08-30-83
PAGE
50F6
DATED: 08-30-83
u 9
II UJ
~IN ~; I d
0';
ct I I,
u. I I,
>- II I 'I
..... t.> I
- "
....
.., I : I
- I
Vl ...
Z '"
0 t
...
Vl
.., ..
'" z ..
~_E ""< ..
zo..... .,
..,~o<< ..,
'" z ..J ,:
..,"'- ...
> w.J:!:
~Z'" '"
"'.., ~ ..
" 0.....
:: '-'~ ...
.., -
'" ., '"
.....0<<.., -~
'-' -'z ....,
c:: :>- ~e
~-'
><z ...
~C::..... '"
.....0 -i
~ '-'-'
..,.., ..,...
"'..... ...
-'~ ..J ....,
;:~'" ...,:
-z.... rJ e:
-
- ....0
-------
-------
-------
d
\
()
/FJ,;L
'-....
"-
\
"-
W
~ l:Il
~
0 =
~ ....
t'1
g
t:l
~ "'S~
:>:'",
~)!~
_0
::d Z~
" z:02i
'"
0 G)_-
= ",_0
tlllZ
e. t""tlll
0 0-<
to R5l
z
9 >tol
qo
- ;g~
-
V>
-J 00
V> G)'"
~g
~
t,
f~ 1911 BLOCK ACT IHPROV[r~NT R[SPONSIBILITY
O~ (OR"[R Lor PROGRAM
~ .
~'
~
~
~
..
9 r"---------..
.. I ,
() I EXISTlNt;- I
.. I HOUSE ,
~L---, I
~ I I
to. L____J
:JIDE OF lOT
E)USTlAJG- IMP1f?OVEMElJrs
/-
--
--
Frontage Is defined as the narrowes
of the two fronts.
6.5
.
/ Vz. L I. Cu~(j r sorTER
- / - ~-S1DE srREEr
f
R S
o T
" R
T [
A [
G T
[
Property Owner Responsibility City Responsibility
I. curb. gutter. s/w and 6'. feet wide parking Z"Il
lane along parcel's front lot line length I. overlay or re-constructlon of Ul C::O
(If non-exlstant). 0
existing pavement to accommodate Ul ::t"'
2. pn_nt frOlll parking hne to roadway's center- drainage & traffic safety. . tIl-
0
line If non-exlstant prior to Block Act. - rrlQ
3. .11 other It~ of work required to Install 0 llIl
_!5slng laprov_nts. ~
rrl t'l
I. ....... ....Her. slw & 6't feet "ide pavement (If ~
0 "'1
nUll .ant) .long ~ the parcel's side lot 1. curb. gutter. 51" & pavement 00 0"'1
. >t'1
Hne length. Thls Includes the curb return along '. the parcel's side lot 0 V>
00 0 t;J~
.nd wheelch.lr raMP. lloe leogth. . .
... 00
2. pnelll!nt frOlll parking lane to roadway's center- 0 V> ~
.
line If non-exlstant prior to Block Act. 2. overlay or reconstruction of 00
V>
3. .11 other It~ of work required to Install ellstlng pavement to accammo-
_Isslng laprovelll!nts. date drainage & traffic safety. '" ::
0
"11 C1
'" rrl
S
I S
o T
[ R
[
[
T
(")
-
~8
oc::
"'1Z
(")Q
::r::t""
~."
5:0
t""
:;;-
l:IlQ
;;!
Assessment District No. 93-01
f/++f' '-0.4 f'1~T
o
Frontage Estimated
No. APN Name (ft) Assessment
1 573-351-03 Marrufo 115 $6,999
2 573-351-04 Hirtzel 60 3652
3 573-351-05 Huggins 60 3652
4 573-351-06 Miller 60 3652
5 573-351-07 Monge 60 3652
6 573-351-08 Gilman 60 3652
7 573-351-09 Iwashita 60 3652
8 573-351-11 Vega 116.54 7093
9 573-351-13 Marrufo 100 6086
10 573-351-16 Unger 50 3043
11 573-351-17 Murphy 50 3043
12 573-351-18 Hall 50 3043
13 573-351-19 Norton 50 3043
14 573-351-20 Artiche 50 3043
15 573-351-21 Janiec 50 3043
16 573-351-22 King 100 6086
17 573-351-23 Ochoa 91.55 5572
TOTAL 1183.09 $72,006
m:\home\donnas\adelmpr.wq 1
JJ~/'1
(J,J-?rl- .7f/ /
Il'lay 8, 1995
The City Council
City of Chula vista, California
Council Chambers, City Hall
Chula Vista, CA 91910
subject: Assessment District NO. 93-01 (Alley Improvements),
protest to
I am an 83 year widow who lives alone at 717 Second Avenue in
Chula Vista. I have a large back yard, the back border of which
would abut the alley in question if it were built. I strenuously
oppose and rigorously protest the formation of Assessment District
No. 9)-01 for the following reasons:
a. Such an alley would open the area to unauthorized and illegal
aliens, the homeless. unwanted drifters, and the like and put
me unnecessarily in danger and at physical risk.
b. Where now there is only private property and peace and quiet,
the pUblic alley would generate noise from passing cars and trucks,
barking dogs, possible street gang incidents, etc thereby causing
anxiety and undue mental strees upon me and others.
c. An alley would provide easy access to my property and personal
furnishings in my back yard eneouraging and act~ally inviting
theft.
d. I am on a small fixed income and an assessment of oyer $3000
would decrease my monthly income and meager saYings to a critieal
point that could result in the loss of my property.
e. My husband built this home tor me many years ago and I would
like to continue living here until I die. Creation af a "back
alley" would, I believe, cause me so much anxiety that I would
have to moye.
In addition to the above, I do not believe that an alley would
serTe any useful purpose to the people who live there or to the
public in general.
Sincerely, ~V
..3~,~ "h7' ')7=:rk.~cr-~
Susie Huggins Ul
717 Second Ave.,
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
(019) lj.22-/t.6)O
//-/5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
/.2.
MEETING DATE: 5/9/95
ITEM TITLE:
17'1''1.)..
Resolution Approving Settlement Agreement among the City of
Chula Vista, Daley Corporation, and County of San
Diego, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Same
^ ';\\:,
City Attorney\~
SUBMITTED BY:
4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~
The City Council in Closed Session on May 2, 1995 authorized the settlement of
the Daley Rock Quarry litigation and directed that the Agreement be ratified at
the Council meeting of May 9, 1995.
The Settlement Agreement is now before the Council for their consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution which will approve the Settlement
Agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSION ACTION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Variable, based on trips which occur in a calendar year, Daley shall pay $1.10
per trip for 1 to 10,000; $1.75 per trip for 10,001 to 16,000; $2.50 per trip for
16,001 to 22,000 and $3.50 per trip for over 22,001.
/.J. - /
RESOLUTION NO. ) 78"9.:<
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AMONG CITY OF CHULA VISTA, DALEY CORPORATION,
AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAME
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Settlement Agreement
among the City of Chula Vista, Daley Corporation and County of San
Diego.
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 and Approved as to form by
BrUC~B~~~AttorneY
J;(-~
...
MAY ~ '95 lil4:B3PM 691 696 7419 SAN DIEGO L & W
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT
AMONG
CITY OF CIillLA VISTA. DALEY CORPORATION. AND
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAY 2, 1995
/DMPT VE1lSl0N a PrepIDW by Chrlslop/ler GarmtJ
/J-' .J
P.3/13
~y 02'95 i:34:tl:::I""M b~l b~ -(41~ ::i-I'1 lJ.J.t..bU L e.: N
'--o""tr.L-'
SE'I1LEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among the City ofChulB
Vista (nCbula Vista"); Daley Corporation, a California corporation ("Daley"); and the
County of San Diego ("County") as of May 2, 1995, in consideration of the mutual
promises set forth below, on the terms and conditions as set forth below:
Recitals
A. Daley, along with other affiliated persons and entities, has gained
approval for an expanded quarry operation at a certain location on its property in the
unincorporated area of the County to the east of Chula Vista, which will be operated
by the Daley Corporation (the "Daley Quarry"). The County Board of Supervisors
approved the Major Use Permit Modification for the quarry on October 19, 1994.
Daley believes this quarry operation will provide an important source of rock materials
for construction in southern San Diego County, including construction planned in Chula
Vista. Daley believes that all significant impacts of the project have been mitigated,
and that there will be no adverse noise, traffic congestion or road wear and damage
impacts from the Daley Quarry. Daley believes the Daley Quarry will have a beneficial
impact on Chula Vista by eliminating traffic fi:om other rock material suppliers that
would otherwise transport material in and through Chula Vista.
B. Chula Vista has filed suit against the County and Daley concerning
the County's approval of the Major Use Pennit Modification, City of Chula Vista v.
County of San Dice<>. ct. al.. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 682942. Chula Vista
believes that the Daley Quarry will cause several unmitigated impacts within the City
of Chula Vista, including noise, road wear and damage, and traffic congestion. Chula
Vista believes the current conditions of approval fail to adequately limit or monitor
truck travel through the City and further fail to ensure the level of funding intended to
mitigate traffic related impacts is reasonably related to actual truck trips, rather than a
projection that may or may not be correct.
C. Daley disagrees with Chula Vista concerning the environmental
impacts of the Daley Quarry. However, Daley has decided to make periodic monetary
payments to Chula Vista, ("settlement payments") in order to avoid the cost, expense,
and delay of continued litigation, and because this settlement agreement will end the
only litigation pending against the Daley Quarry, and Daley believes all statute of
limitations on claims to challenge the Major Use Permit Modification have expired.
Daley is also willing to enter into this Settlement Agreement on the understanding that
it will not be used to aid or assist any other group or entity in mAldng any further
claims against Daley or the Daley Quarry, based on the City of Chula Vista's
representation that there are no intended third party beneficiaries to this Settlement
Agreement, and Chula Vista's agreement to indemnify Daley for any claims by
/,,1-1
~y 02'95 04:04PM 691 6~ 'f'u.~ :::IiI-I'I UJ.t..\::lIU L. ex ....
attorneys claiming to have represented or assisted Chula VISta in its litigation.
D. County believes that its actions in approving the Daley Quarry
project fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. However, the
County is willing to take the actions contemplated by the County in this Settlement
Agreement to allow the project to proceed free of further litigation.
Al!l'eelI1ent
NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth
below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Basic Terms of A21'CCIIlent
~ set forth below, Daley bas agreed to make settlement payments and
Chula Vista has agreed to d;~mi~~ this action with prejudice, based upon Daley's
agreement to make settlement payments, if the County Board of Supervisors agrees to
amend Conditions A2 and A20 to the Major Use Permit by deleting the existing
language and rep1acing it with the language set forth in Exhibit "A".
2. Slipulation Re Entry of Order
The parties, using the form set forth in Exhibit "B," shall immediately
stipulate: to, and request the entry of an order by the Superior Court:
(I) remanding the matter back to the Board of Supervisors, for the sole
purpose of allowing the Board to consider whether to approve amendments to
Conditions A2 and A20 to the Major Use Permit in order to implement the terms
of this Settlement Agreement;
(2) providing far the return of the case to the Superior Court should the
Board of Supervisors decide not to amend Condition A20 in aecordance with this
Settlement Agreement; and,
(3) providing that all applicable time limitations and statute of limitations
in this Case No. 682942, (with respect to Daley, Chula Vista, and the County,
but not with respect to any other person or entity not a party to this Case No.
682942), shall be tolled until such time as the case is dismissed or returned to the
Superior Court for further litigation pursuant to this Agreement.
3. Action Bv Board Of Sunervisors
Upon the remand to the Board, the Board shall consider whether or not to
/,) -5
MAY 1::Ji:. r~:> t:I'l~t:J;X-T1 C:;IIJ,. 0:;110 1"tJ,.;:;1I ;:)1""111 .....L'-....v L...........
approve the proposed amendments to the MUP Conditions, to implement the tenns of
this Settlement Agreement, based upon Daley's and Chula Vista's agreement to make
and receive settlement payments pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. If the Board:
(1) fails to take action to approve the proposed amendments within 60 days of the
Superior Court's order of remand, (2) disapproves the amendments; or (3) takes any
other action except that which is expressly set forth in this Settlement Agreement, then
this Settlement Agreement shall be void and of no further force and effect, no dismissal
shall be filed in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 682942, the matter shall return to
the Superior Court, and the parties shall plOcced with the litigation.
By consenting to a Superior Court order remanding this case to the Board
of Supervisor.; solely for the purpose of consideration and implementation of the tenns
of this Settlement Agreement, Daley and Chula Vista do not consent to any change,
reopening, reconsideration or modification of the Major Use Permit except for the
amendment of Conditions as set forth in this Agreement.
4. Dismissal With Prciudice
If the Board amends MUP Conditions pur.;uant to this Settlement
Agreement, then Chula Vista shall immediately file with the Court a dismissal with
prejudice of San Diego Superior Court Case No. 682942.
S. Settlement PaYments
Provided the Board shall make the amendments contemplated in Section
3. this lawsuit has been dismissed as set forth in Section 4 and the other conditions of
this Settlement Agreement have been satisfied, commencing with the operation of the
Quarry and continuing until such time as the Quarry has operated for a period of 20
years pur.;uant to the amended Major Use Permit or any subsequent amendment or
extension thereto or any new permit for the same location, Daley shall malee the
following payments to the City ofChula Vista for "Loaded Through Trips" (defined lIS
follows: trips from the Daley Quarry by trucks loaded with rock products from the
Quarry, traveling through the current boundaries of the City of Chula Vista, to
destinations outside the current or future boundaries of the City ofChula Vista, with the
exception of those trips using a roadway. freeway or toll way completed in the future
in the right of way reserved for State Route 125 for the trip):
a. For Loaded Through Trips ("LTT") I to 10,000 which occur in a
calendar year, Daley shall pay $l.l 0 per trip;
b. For LTT 10,001 to 16,000 which occur in a calendar year, Daley
shall pay $1.75 per trip;
I..<-?
MAY EI2 '95 04: Im'M 691 696 7419 5F'tl DIEGO L & W
t"'. (/J.~
c. For LIT 16,001 to 22,000 which occur in a calendar year, Daley
shall pay $2.50 per trip;
d. For LIT 22,001 and over which occur in a calendar year, Daley
shall pay $3.50 per trip.
Unless Cbtila Vista and Daley agree in writing, no subsequent amendment
or modification of the MUP for the Daley Quarry shall relieve Daley's obligation to
make the payments required by this section. Further, Daley's obligation to make the
payments required by this section shall be binding on its successors ami assigns.
6. Adius1ment To Settlement Payments Based On Intlatlon or Deflation In
Con~ooon~Mm~For~~~~
The settlement payment rates set forth in Section 5 shall be adjusted.
starting on February I, 1996, and each February 1M thereafter for the term of this
Agreement, based upon the one year change (from January to January) in the 20 City
Average material prices recorded in the National Engineering News Record
Construction COM Index For ~k Products for the four products described below.
The 20 City Average shall be used, based upon the composite index of
rock products set forth as follows: the sum of the prices for the following products: (1)
asphalt paving AC-20 - one ton; (2) gravel 1-1/2 inches to 3/4 inches. one ton; (3)
crushed stone base course - one ton; and (4) concrete ready mix-3oo0 psi - one cubic
yard; (hereinafter referred to as the "Composite Index").
Each calendar year, the settlement payments shall be increased or
decreased by a percentage equal to the change in the Composite mdex from one January
to the next.
Solely for purposes of illustration, an example of the calculations an
adjustment to settlement payments, based upon the changes in the prices from January
1994 to January 1995 for the products which comprise the index, is set forth in Exhibit
"C." The parties do not intend to modify the settlement payments based upon changes
in prices for calendar year 1994, and this example is set forth as an e.v"'"ple only, to
guide the calculation of the index for calendar year 1995 and each succeeding calendar
year.
7. No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement is not intended to inure to the benefit of any third parties.
8. Entire Agreement Of The Parties
/;<-?
1-1r11 ~ -'oJ .........-..........,., "",..",6. .......,,"'" . ,,6._ --..-----
This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the City ofChuJa Vista,
on the one hand, and Daley or the County, on the other hand concerning any and all
matters related to San Diego Superior Court Case No. 665444 and 682942, or the Daley
Quarry, and with the exception of the stipulation among the parties in Case NO.
665444, this Agrccm.ent replaces all prior discussions, agreements, representations or
understandings among the parties on this subject. There exist no other agreements,
representations, or undemandings among the parties on this subject.
9. Limited Release
Except for the rights and obligations created by and arising under the terms
of this Agreement, and the matters specifically excluded from the scope of this
Agreement, each of the parties hereto does hereby fully, completely, finally and forever
release each one of the other parties hereto and their officials, officers, commissioners,
directors, employees. agents, successors and assigns, and attorneys, of and from any and
all claims and causes of action of every nature arising directly or indirectly out of San
Diego Superior Court Case Nos. 665444 and 682942, or the claims asserted therein.
including any claims for attorneys fees under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5
or otherwise, by attorneys who represented, aided or assisted the parties in Case No.
665444 and 682942. All other past, present and future claims or rights which are
unrelated to these cases are excluded from the scope of this Agreement and are retained
by the parties.
10. Aveement Not To Challen~ Proiect In Future
During the term of this Agreement (to wit 20 years from commencement
of operations), ChuJa Vista covenants that it shall not challenge or oppose, through
litigation or administrative proceedings the current operations as approved under the
M~or Use Permit of the Daley Quarry, including any permits required from other
agencies for the construction or operation of the Quarry under the Major Use Permit.
In addition, during the term of this Agreement, Chula Vista covenants that it shall not
oppose through litigation any future renewals, extensions, modifications, or changes in
the Daley Quarry or the Major Use Permit granted by the County for the Quarry, or
other permits granted for the Daley Quarry, provided that any modifications in the
Daley Quarry or permits do not involve modifications which might resuh in new or
expanded "environmental impacts" as that term is defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21166, which might have an effect on Chula Vista.
The Bole remedy for the City's breach of this Section 10 shall be the
termination by Daley of the settlement payments set forth in Section 5 above.
J:2 - g-'
1'R'l' elZ '95 54:09PI1 691 696 7419 5fWi DIEGO L IS< W
r.;}I'.L.:l
II. No Admis~ion of Liabili~
The parties intend that the dismissals with prejudice operate as a full and
final termination of the claims asserted by the parties to those cases. Nothing in this
agreement shall be an admi!l.qion of liability by any party.
It is Dalcy's position that it bas entered into this settlement agreement
solely due to the nuisance value of the lawsuit filed by Chula Vista, and that the claims
asserted by Chula Vista were wholly without merit.
It is the City of Chula ViSta's position that its legal claims are valid and
that it bas entered into this Settlement Agreement in order to avoid the cost of further
litigation and to provide additilll181 mitigation of envirorlmP.l1taJ effects resulting from
the Dalcy Quarry project.
12. Claims By Attornevs Pm:porting To Have Rcnrescnted Or Assisted The Parties
In Their Liti~tion Or Settlement Alp'CCII1ents
Chula Vista covenants that Chula Vista will not aid or IISSist any other
entity, (including an entity known as the Quarry or Jamul Action Committee, formerly
represented by D. Wayne Brechtel), in making claims for money or attorneys fees
against the County, Daley or the Daley Quarry, as a result of the County's processing
or approval of the Major Use Permit Modification for the Daley Quarry.
Chula Vista agrees to indemnifY and hold Daley and the County barmless
from and against any claims by any attorney or group, which seek recovery of attorneys
fees or costs for claimed representation or assistance to the City of Chula Vista in Chula
Vista's litigation against the Dalcy Quarry in Case Nos. 665444 and 682942.
13. Annroval Bv Government A2CIlcics
The Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors must approve this Agreement within 45 days of the date of this Agreement,
or any approval of this Agreement by Daley shall be null and void. By giving its
approval to this Agreement, the Board of Supervisors is agreeing only to review and
consider the amendments to Conditions set forth in Section I above, but is not obligated
to approve those amcndmcots.
14. Costs And Attornevs' Fees For LitiDlOt;on
Except for the payment of attorneys fees provided for in the Stipulated
Judgment in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 665444, each party shall bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees related to any past or pending litigation, or this Settlement
);2. -7
l'V'ly l!l2 . 95 Ej4: 11ilPM 691 696 7419 SI'tt DIEGO L & W
P.10/13
Agreement, and on behalf of itself and any attorney who may have rcprcscn1cd or
assisted any party, hereby waives any claim against any other party for such costs and
attorneys' fees.
15. PaYment of Settlement PaYments And Insncction Of Trip Records
Daley shall pay the payments provided under this agreement on a quarterly
basis, by the 15th of the month following the close of each calendar quarter. Chula
Vista shall have the right to inspect Daley's records concerning truck trips from the
Daley Quarry, and their destination, upon reasonable terms and conditions.
16. Use Of SR 125
Daley shall be required to utilize State Route 125, or any future public or
private road located on the proposed right of way of SR 125, provided that the use of
SR 125 is economically reasonable, in that the benefits of using SR 125, (including the
met that no settlement payment is required under Section S above, if the truck uses SR
125, and the savings in time from such usage), are greater than the benefits of not using
SR 125 (including the benefit of avoiding a toll fce.)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures
below:
CrIY OF CHULA VISTA
By: Its
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By: Its
DALEY CORPORATION
By: Its
/;2., -It)
EXHIBIT A TO SETILEMENT AGREEMENT
REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE FOR CONDmONS A20 AND A2
[to be supplied]
/;2-//
MAY 12 '95 04' llP11 691 696 7419 SFti DIEGO L & W
P.1Vl:3
EXHIBIT B TO SE'ITLEMENT AGREEMENT
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RE REMAND OF CASE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
[to be supplied]
/..<-).2
EXHIBIT C TO SETILEMENT AGREEMENT
EXAMPLE FOR CALCULATION OF ADJUSTMENT
TO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS
[to be supplied]
/;(-/3
II
I
1
May 9, 1995
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manage~
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning ~t
California Fish and Game Commission Hearing to Consider State Listing of
California Gnatcatcher as an Endangered or Threatened Species
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
On Friday, May 5, our staff learned that the California Fish and Game Commission, at its
meeting on Thursday, May 11, will consider a request to list the California Gnatcatcher as a
threatened or endangered species under the State Endangered Species Act.
As you know, the gnatcatcher has been listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The City is currently involved with
Federal and State agencies, along with other local jurisdictions, in preparing plans and
implementing the interim 4(d) rule for the gnatcatcher. We have serious concerns that an action
by the State at this time would at best duplicate regulations currently in place at the Federal
level, and at worst could create conflicting regulations and jeopardize existing and pending
permits granted under the 4(d) rule.
Therefore, we would request authorization from the City Council for City staff to forward a
letter to the State Fish and Game Commission, requesting that they postpone consideration of
the requested action on the Gnatcatcher for at least one month, in order that these issues can be
further evaluated.
(FS\sIlllCfS.cm)
ji/CL -/
DATE: April 14, 1995
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk ,
SUBJECT: Councilman Fox's Committee Appointments
This memo is to inform Council that Councilman Fox was appointed as the Council's delegate
to:
Metro Sewer Task Force;
LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee;
Otay Ranch Subcommittee;
ICLEI Council alternate; and
Board & Commission Liaison to GMOC, Interagency Water, Southwest PAC,
Human Relations, Civil Service, Resource Conservation, and Castle Park
Revitalization.
Attached is a copy of the Fact Sheet which lists all the appointments made to date.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
attach.
/~-/
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL FACT SHEET
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SHIRLEY A. HORTON Elected Mayor 6/94 11/98 1993.94 Bayfront; Economic Develop Council $3738.70/mo--$44,864.42/yr S30/meeting
Mayor Alt; Interagency Water TF; LAFCO Bd; (Rl6893) plus$400/moexpens- (R31)
League of CA Cities Ex Com; Legislative es (RI5939)
Com; Otay Valley Regional Park; SAN-
DAG Board; SANDAG Byshore Bikeway
Policy Com
JERRY R. RINDONE Elected 11/90 (1st teon) ] 1194 1992.93 MTDB Board; SANDAG Board All; $149S.48/mo--$17,945.77/yr S3G/meeting
Seat No.1 Elected 11/94 (2nd teon) 11198 ] 994.95 ICLEI Council Delegate (R16893) plus$160/mo expens- (R31)
es (R15940--40% of mayor) <'(
STEPHEN C. PADILLA Elected 11/94 (1st term) 11/98 MTDB Alt; Interagency Water TF; S.D. $1495.48/mo--$17,945.77/yr S30/meeting \
Seat No.2 Service Authorityfor Freeway Emergen- (Rl6893) plus$l60/mo expens- (R31) '\!
des; Abandoned Vehicle Service Au- es (R15940--40% of mayor)
thority; ADAPT "
JOHN 5. MOOT Appointed 12113/94 (to fill 03/96 Economic Development Council; Bay. $1495.48/mo--$] 7,945.77/yr $30/meeting
Seat No.3 Horton vacancy) front Alt (RI6893) plus$160/moexpens- (R31)
es (R15940--40% of mayor)
ROBERT P. FOX Elected 11192 (lst term) ]1/96 Metro Sewer TF; LAFCO Cities Adv; $]49S.48/mo--$17,945.77/yr $30/meeting
Seat No.4 ICLEI Council A1t; Otay Ranch Subcom- (R16893) plus$160/mo expens- (R31)
mittee es (RI5940--40% of mayor)
Charter Amendments:
. Limiting terms to two consecutive terms (4/73)
. Majority of votes cast required for election (11182).
. Numbering Council seats-no Districts represented (4/74).
CfIY COUNCIL MEEflNGS
1st Tuesday @ 4:00 p.m.
2nd, 3rd, 4th Tuesdays @ 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Incorporated:
Population:
Square Miles:
11/21/]911
149,347 (1/1/94)
35A
REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY MEETINGS
1st & 3rd Tuesday following Council meeting
City Clerk:
Rev. 4/95
CfIY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEEflNGS
When called on 4th Thursday @ 4:00 p.m. Council Conference Room
'lo<~.:f:F[$.6
April 27, 1995
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council , C .
John Goss, City Manager J~ ~~
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning ~
City Council Appointment to Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Policy Conunittee
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
It is requested that the City Council appoint a representative to the MSCP Policy Conunittee,
to replace former Councilman Fox.
Background
The City of Chula Vista is partIcIpating in the Clean Water Program Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP), which is developing a regional plan for habitat and open space
conservation. In conjunction with the preparation of this plan, a Policy Conunittee has been
created, which includes elected officials from the City and County of San Diego, as well as the
Cities of Chula Vista, Poway, and Santee, which are the main participants in the MSCP Plan.
(In addition, the North County cities which are preparing a similar regional plan have been
invited to participate on this conunittee). The purpose of this conunittee is to provide policy
direction and allow for interjurisdictional coordination in the preparation and adoption of the
MSCP Plan. Councilman Bob Fox was appointed as the City of Chula Vista's representative
to this conunittee, and Mayor Horton was appointed as the alternate.
The Conunittee will be meeting on Friday, May 5, at 10 AM (see attached agenda), and
normally meets every two months, although additional meetings may be required during the next
few months, due to the fact that the draft MSCP Plan is currently out for public review, and is
generating significant discussion (see also attached City Council Agenda Statement, dated March
28, 1995.)
(F8\mscppol.cm)
/5"); -I
~/I/;
EXPANDED MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
POLICY COMMITTEE
Friday, May 5, 1995
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
Location:
County Administration Building, Room 358
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
AGENDA
1. Introductions
2. Discussion of the Draft Multiple Species conservation Plan
. Severability
. Preserve Design
. Assurances
. Financing
3. Discussion of Issues Raised by the Public at SANDAG Board
Meeting on April 28, 1995
4. Public Comments
Attachments - Minutes from March 3, 1995 meeting
*****************************************************************
Please bring your copy of the Draft Multiple Species Conservation
Plan. The plans were sent to each elected official in all of the
affected jurisdictions. Due to the high cost of reproduction, the
replacement of the plans is not possible. If you desire additional
copies, please send a check for $35.00 payable to the city
Treasurer, c/o Draft MSCP, 600 "B" street, Suite 500, San Diego, CA
92101.
/" /5b--~
EXPANDED MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
POLICY COMMITTEE
Minutes of March 3, 1995 Meeting
Attending:
Supervisor Slater, Chair
Supervisor Jacob
Mayor DuVivier, City of Encinitas
Council member Harmon, City of Escondido
Commander Huntzinger (ex-officio member)
Council member Mathis, City of San Diego
Mayor McMillan, City of Del Mar
Council member O'Harra, City of Oceanside
1. Introductions and Announcements
Mayor DuVivier and Council member Mathis reported on their trip to Washington D.C.
for FY 96 appropriations. They met with Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and other
members of Congress. The Cooperative Engandered Species Program has been allocated
$28 million to be spent rationally on multi-habitat plans.
Supervisor Jacob gave a summary of her trip to Washington D.C. as the representive for
the County Board of Supervisors. She met with Secretary Babbitt, and feels modification
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will allow the San Diego region more flexibility
in habitat planning.
Supervisor Slater introduced Kathryn Cresto as her new Land Use Aide.
2. National Wildlife Refuge Study
Andy Yuen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) gave a summary of the Fact
Sheet attached to the agenda packet on the proposed Otay-Sweetwater National Wildlife
Refuge in San Diego County. He announced that a draft environmental assessment for
the Otay-Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge will be distributed for public review in
August 1995. The USFWS has a separate acquisition budget for multiple specieslhabitat
programs that are nationally ranked. Therefore, the Otay-Sweetwater project will be
requesting separate funding from the MSCP/MHCP plans.
3. Public Outreach Program
Janet Fairbanks of SANDAG presented a report on the progress of funding for the public
outreach program. The scope of work will be presented to seven private foundations as
/ /5'};>
proposals for public outreach funding. The ZOOlogical Society has volunteered to take
the lead in educational tasks to define "what is habitat" for media, billboards, and school
programs. SANDAG will take the lead on the information component. Eachjurisdiction
will provide information to their community on the habitat conservation plans. The
Nature Conservancy received funding from the Hewlett Foundation to begin national
polling of how people feel toward the general environment.
4. Open Space Implementation Issues
Janet Fairbanks summarized the Open Space Implementation Issues report, which focuses
on implementation functions that jurisdictions need to perform individually, and together.
Staff will be discussing the implementation functions and presenting input to the
SANDAG Board in April, and the Expanded Policy Committee in May.
5. Discussion on extendin~ membership to Camp Pendleton
A motion was made by Council member O'Harra to extend an invitation for Policy
Committee membership to Camp Pendleton as an ex-officio member. A second was
made by Supervisor Slater and the motion was unanimously approved.
6. Report on the Draft MSCP Plan
Meryl Balko distributed the Draft MSCP Plan, Executive Summary, a new schedule and
described the review process. Notices are being sent by the jurisdictions to owners of
vacant land in the proposed preserve area. Three regional public workshops are
scheduled to provide information to the public. Each jurisdiction will also conduct public
workshops for their own communities. The Expanded Policy Committee concluded that
the Committee will continue to act as a coordinating body and the members will report
back to the committee on input from each jurisdiction's workshops or hearings.
Meryl Balko and Jerre Stallcup described the contents of the Draft MSCP Plan and the
costs and benefits associated with the proposed Multi-Habitat Planning area. Jerre
announced that the Navy is conducting their own Multiple SpecieslHabitat Management
Plan in coordination with the MSCP, MHCP and MHCOS.
7. Information Items
Janet Fairbanks explained that the Regional Conservation Coordination Committee (RC3)
is able to serve as a technical committee and provide information to the Expanded Policy
Committee. RC3 consists of staff from all jurisdictions, consultants for the regional
habitat plans, business and environmental representatives and is open to the public. It
provides an opportunity for all representatives to coordinate and share information.
Bob Asher and Tom Oberbauer presented the completed vegetation maps for the
MHCOS. A combined vegetation map of the whole San Diego region should be
. completed by the May meeting.
7/5);-f
The minutes of the January 6, 1995 meeting were approved.
8. Public Comment
Jim Whalen, representing Alliance for Habitat Conservation.
% /5d ~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 3/28/95
ITEM TITLE: Report on Review Process for Public Review Draft of Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan and Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.1O
The City of Chula Vista has been participating in the development of a draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program Plan, which is being prepared by the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Department for its regional sewerage service area, including Chula Vista and several
other jurisdictions. The City of San Diego recently released a public review draft of the MSCP
Plan, and has published a schedule for review of the draft plan and accompanying Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), which will be released in May. The
following is a status report regarding the MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS process, as well as discussion
regarding public noticing and public information efforts which are being undertaken in the City
of Chula Vista in regard to this program.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the attached report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
received copies of the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent for the draft MSCP
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement at its meeting on March 20, and
will be providing comments to staff regarding these documents.
DISCUSSION:
Schedule for Review of MSCP Plan and EIRIEIS
On March 1, the City of San Diego released the draft MSCP Plan (see Attachment 1, Executive
Summary) as well as a draft schedule for public review of the draft MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS
(Attachment 2). This schedule calls for a 90-day review period for the draft Plan; a 30 day
review period for the "Notice of Preparation of the EIR/EIS;" and a 45-day review period for
the draft EIR/EIS. In addition, the City has scheduled three "regional public workshops" to
discuss the draft Plan, one of which is scheduled to be held in Chula Vista on Saturday, April
8, at 9 AM at Castle Park High School.
Our staff has provided input into this schedule, and we feel that overall it provides adequate
opportunity for public input on the various components of thiPl . However, we wish to
/5 h-/
.~ /5b~t
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 3/28/95
highlight the fact that the 45-day review period for the EIRJEIS is the minimum permitted by
State law, and the City of Chula Vista has provided extended review periods (60 days or more)
for EIR's for major projects which involved possible public controversy. While we feel that the
45-day review period will be adequate for our staff to prepare comments on the draft EIRlEIS,
we are recommending that the City of San Diego extend the review period to at least 60 days
to ensure adequate opportunity for public input regarding the draft EIRlEIS and avoid future
legal challenges on this issue.
Public Noticing and Public Information Efforts
The City of San Diego on March 14, 1995 mailed out an information brochure (Attachment 3)
to owners of property within the City of San Diego which is located within the Multi-Species
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) boundary designated in the draft MSCP Plan. The County of
San Diego is planning to distribute a similar brochure to landowners within the unincorporated
area, as are other cities within the MSCP study area. Our staff will be mailing a copy of the
City of San Diego's information brochure, along with a cover letter, to the owners of property
within the draft MHP A boundary within the city limits of Chula Vista during the week of March
23, 1995. A telephone line for interested parties to call to obtain information about the program
is in place.
The information brochure includes invitations to residents and property owners in the planning
area to attend one of three public information workshops. As noted earlier, one of the three
workshops will be held on Saturday April 8, 1995 at Castle Park High School between 9:00
A.M. and 1:00 P.M. The workshop will feature an open house format. Following a brief
introduction of the MSCP and the content of the draft plan, members of the public may talk with
individual program planners in small group discussion settings. City staff will be participating
in this workshop. The information brochure also publicizes the fact that the Draft MSCP Plan
may be reviewed at the City of Chula Vista Library and the Planning Department.
In addition, our staff will be requesting the City Council to schedule a Council workshop in the
near future to receive a staff presentation on the draft MSCP Plan and other related open space
planning programs, including the Otay Valley Regional Park Plan, and the proposals of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Otay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay National
Wildlife Refuges.
Comments on "Notice of Preparation" and "Notice of Intent" for EIRIEIS for MSCP Plan
As part of the environmental review process for the MSCP Plan, an environmental document
will be prepared. Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is being requested to adopt this
Plan along with the local jurisdictions, the environmental document will be designated as a joint
"Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRlEIS), " in order to comply
with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy
,~)
'/ l-5}-l
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 3/28/95
Act (NEP A). Attached are the "Notice of Preparation" for the EIRlEIS which was prepared by
the City of San Diego (lead agency for the EIR) and "Notice of Intent" for the EIS which was
prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Attachments 4 and 5). Our staff is in the
process of reviewing both of these documents, and will be forwarding comments on both
documents prior to the April 2 deadline for the NOP. If Council wishes to direct any specific
comments regarding either the process or content of the EIR/EIS, they should be communicated
to staff and forwarded as part of the response to the NOP and NOI being prepared by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT: Chula Vista staff costs and other processing costs associated with the
current phase of the MSCP Plan are being supported by the City General Fund.
Attachments:
I) Executive Summary, Draft MSCP Plan
2) Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan and Joint EIRlEIS Schedule for Completion
3) City of San Diego Information Brochure on MSCP Plan
4) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Joint Environmental Impact Repon (EIR)/Environmentallmpact Statement
(EIS)
5) Notice of Intent and meeting - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(F,IHDMEIPLANNINGlMSCPDRFT .AII)
7 /S}-~
ATTACHMENT 1
MULTIPLE S cms CONSERV A: ON PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
% /5P-J
DRAFI'
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 1, 1995
Table of Contents
lm
1. Introduction and Objectives 1
2. Study Area Biology, Ownership and Land Uses 2
3. Conservation Plan S
3.1 Plan Description S
3.2 Biological Conservation 6
3.3 Preserve Assembly and Operation 10
3.4 Implementation Process and Structure 14
4. Compatible Uses and Preserve Management Guidelines 16
S. Economic Impact Analysis 18
6. Statement of Assurances and Implementing Agreement 20
7. . Planning Process and Participants 21
~ /~~/O
DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 1, 1995
1. INTRODUCI10N AND OBJECTIVES
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation
planning program for 581,649 acres in the southwest portion of San Diego County. The intent
of the program is to plan for habitat preservation to protect our region's biodiversity, create an
interCOMected open space system of native habitats and allow for economic development. The
program objectives are as follows:
a. Efficiently and effectively comply with the Endangered Species Acts through a
regional and habitat-based approach to protect endangered, threatened and rare
species and to preclude the need to list more species as endangered or threatened.
b. Enable and facilitate economic development of the region, including development
of public and private proj ects, on lands not designated for habitat preservation.
c. Achieve a workable balance between preservation of natural resources and
regional growth and economic prosperity.
To achieve these general objectives, the draft MSCP Plan contains the following elements:
1. The plan defines a proposed Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which
preserve planning is focused, or in some C&SelO, within which a preserve boundary
is defined for future dedications and acquisitions. This MHP A conserves
sufficient habitat to protect an identified list of species and provides for wildlife
use and movement to permit self-sustaining populations.
2. A partnership is proposed between federal, state and local agencies of government
and with private property owners to cooperatively implement the plan through
local project review and approvals and through public commitments of lands and
money for acquisition.
3. The plan provides a framework for development of subarea plans (more specific
habitat conservation plans) anellor project plans to directly implement the MSCP,
and provides guidelines on land use regulations and project mitigation for local
jurisdictions to develop their own implementing tools.
4. A financing and acquisition strategy is presented which equitably spreads costs
among all beneficiaries and provides an affordable program.
~ /5}~//
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 2
5. Recommendations for long-term management and for monitoring of the system
build-out and success are provided, along with guidelines for compatible land uses
and activities within and adjacent to the preserve.
2. STUDY AREA BIOLOGY, OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES
Biolol1:Y
The MSCP study area occupies approximately 900 square miles (581,649 acres) in southwestern
San Diego County and includes the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County
of San Diego and 10 additional city jurisdictions. The area is bordered by Mexico to the south
and the San Dieguito River Valley to the north (see the map on the following page).
Approximately 41 % of the study area is developed or disturbed by urban development, and 5 %
is in agriculture. The rest (54 %) is vegetated with 18 native habitat types. These vegetation
communities, with the exception of chaparral and non-native grasslands, are considered to be
sensitive or rare or have state or federal regulatory protection. Three habitat types make up the
majority of the vegetation in the study area: coastal sage scrub (37%), chaparral (35%) and
grasslands (9%). The remaining habitat types each occupy between 1-3% of the study area.
Many of our area's native vegetation communities have experienced significant losses from
development. As a result, San Diego County has a greater number of threatened and endangered
species than anywhere in the continental U.S. Over 200 plant and animal species that are
federally and/or state endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed or are candidates for listing
occur in the County. Over half of these species occur in ;he MSCP study area, although the
area comprises only 20% of the County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) selected
93 of these species (48 plants and 45 animals) as target species to aid in developing a viable
habitat preserve system. This plan designates 43 of the 93 target species as .priority" species
if they are state or federally listed, proposed for listing, category I candidates for listing or state
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) target species.
NCCP. In 1991, the state of California established the Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP), with a pilot program to preserve coastal sage scrub habitat. In March, 1993,
the California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened by the federal government, with a unique
opportunity to ensure the protection of this species through the state-established NCCP or
through an equivalent program like the MSCP. Because the California gnatcatcher occupies
coastal sage scrub and related vegetation communities in areas of the County subject to
development pressure, the adequate protection of this particular species has been a priority of
the MSCP.
Bioloiical Core Areas. A key step in developing the MSCP Plan is prioritizing the most critical
biological resource areas for preservation. An extensive Geographical Information System (GIS)
data base has been created with vegetation communities, species locations, topography, soils,
~ /5P ~/2
'->4
, ,
Lt:. ,-'-
,..-................ l
t.-pl
.
LEGEND
D MSCP Study
Area
~ Unincorporated
Iv Jurisdictional
Boundaries
/'V' MSCP Sludy ArA IcIIIldIry Q
/'v' rlWWlYS 1.5
0
..' ....... , Major sn.ns ,
MUS
Source: SANDAG
.sIN
.....
.k..I.dl.: d<,. within MSCP Study /Ina
3 ~ I>> --/;3
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 4
drainage and other physical factors. These factors have been used to develop a Habitat Map of
Evaluation Map which ranks each quarter-acre parcel with Very High to Low rankings of
potential habitat value. This map can then used as a regional tool to identify biologically
important areas (core areas) and habitat linkages between the core areas. Sixteen (16) core
biological resource areas and associated linkages (202,800 acres of habitat) have been identified
by the draft MSCP Plan. The core areas and linkages serve as a basis for designing the preserve
system boundaries; unfragmented core resource areas and linkages are recommended by the plan
to be maximized in the preserve.
Ownership. The study area contains over 300,000 acres of habitat, with two-thirds (64 %) being
privately owned. Over one-third of the habitat land within the MSCP study area is in public
ownership; the federal government owns 41 % of the public habitat lands and the state owns 6%.
Because so much of the habitat in the study area is privately owned, the ability of the region to
equitably preserve portions of this land and to develop an affordable preserve system is a critical
issue.
The location of habitat by jurisdiction is illustrated below. A majority of the habitat in the study
area (62%) is in the unincorporated portion of the County; however, this 62% includes lands
owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the City of San Diego (Otay Lakes, San Vicente,
Marron Valley). Approximately 22% of the habitat lands in the study area are in the City of
San Diego's jurisdiction, excluding the Miramar Naval Air Station.
2lIO.000
PUBUC AND PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP OF HABITAT
(MSCP Study Area)
201.192
· OC"AnON OF HABITAT BY
.JURlSDlCTlON
(MSCP Study Area)
100,000 lee 130
10,000
10,000
150,000
110,000
HAlllTAT
c--I
112,"8
loo,DOO
100,000
ClIIIIIO,m
HAlllTAT
c--I
o
PIaJC ........
~ ........
o
l; /' / ,l,/ ./
<f .JU~SDlcnON
OWNERSHIP
~
/~~/'1
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 5
Land Uses and Re2ional Growth
In 1990, the population in San Diego County was 2.5 million. According to a recent growth
forecast by the San Diego Association of Governments (Sandag), the region's population is
anticipated to grow to 3.8 million by the year 2015, with civilian employment increasing from
1.1 to 1.5 million. To accommodate this growth, it is expected that the region will need
approximately 457,000 additional housing units. The existing general and community plans
(unaffected by the proposed MSCP) would accommodate residential growth up to around 3.3
million persons, which is forecast to be reached in the year 2005. A regional land use strategy
is being developed to accommodate this growth while maintaining quality of life objectives. The
MSCP Plan can assist in developing this strategy by more clearly establishing areas for
preservation and for development and in streamlining the development process once preserve
areas are delineated.
Giij) Analysis
A "gap analysis" is the process of overlaying data layers describing biological resources,
ownership and land use to identify where resources are currently protected and to determine gaps
in eonservation protection. The currently protected areas serve as building blocks for designing
the preserve.
A gap analysis has been completed for the MSCP and reveals which habitat lands are already
permanently protected and managed as habitat and which habitallands are designated in land use
plans as parks or open space. Approximately 71 % (80,388 acres) of all public lands with habitat
and just under one-fourth (47,401 acres) of all private habitat lands in the study area are either
protected or planned for protection/open space (as of 1994). Approximately 45% (91,623 acres)
of the total core and linkage habitat areas is currently dedicated open space or planned as open
space in General/Community Plans, while only one-fifth of the linkages are protected (as of
1994).
3. CONSERVATION PLAN
3.1 Plan Description
The lands proposed for open space and habitat preservation are located within the draft Multi-
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The draft MHPA has been cooperatively designed by the 12
participating jurisdictions in consultation with the USFWS/CDFG staff, major property owners
and environmental groups, based on biological, economic, ownership and land use criteria.
Planning staff from the five jurisdictions with the most habitat (County and cities of San Diego,
Chula Vista, Poway and Santee) developed focused planning area lines, within which the future
preserve would be sited or considered for inclusion, or "hard line" preserve areas.
The County's proposed focused planning area calls for 70% of the habitats within the lines to
be conserved. The actual conservation boundaries will be developed through the preparation of
~/5P-//
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 6
subarea plans. Subarea plans are more specific habitat conservation plans which define habitat
preserve boundaries and implementation measures. In addition, public lands and mitigation lands
for large developments and a linkage area are shown for 100% or 90% preservation. The
County's portion comprises 110,030 acres of habitat, or 67% of the MHPA (including 24,306
acres owned by the Bureau of Land Management). The City of Poway is developing a subarea
plan which designates publicly owned, open space areas and other lands conserved as mitigation
for 100% conservation; areas zoned for low density residential for 80% conservation; and
prioritizes areas for acquisition as additional 100% lands. The cities of Santee, Chula Vista and
San Diego have proposed "hard line" preserve boundaries, within which 90-100% of the habitats
are proposed to be conserved. City of San Diego lands comprise 37,167 acres of the MHPA,
plus additional lands owned by the City outside its jurisdiction. City of San Diego lands
comprise 23% of the MHPA and 55% of all habitat within the City's jurisdiction.
3.2 Biolo2ical Conservation
The proposed MHPA conserves 164,326 habitat acres, over half (52%) of the habitat in the
MSCP study area, including 60% of all coastal sage scrub and 73% of the core biological
resource areas and linkages. Almost three-fourths of the habitat conserved are coastal sage scrub
and chaparral, with wetlands and grasslands comprising another 17%. It is assumed that 100%
of all wetland habitats will be conserved within the MHPA (i.e. no net loss). Approximately
66% of all Very High value lands and 52% of all High value lands in the study area are
proposed for conservation as well. The preservation of vegetation communities and habitat
values are summarized in Table 3-3.
Much of the coastal portion of the MHP A is comprised of smaller habitat patches which are
completely or nearly isolated by development. As much as 17% of the total MHPA area
(27,455 acres) could be subject to existing and future edge effects (adverse impacts from
development), based on the assumption that edge effects extend 200 feet into the preserve.
Appropriate management techniques for these and other potential impacts are addressed in
Section 4 of the plan.
Fifty seven (57) target species will be conserved by this draft plan, if adopted, including 29
priority species, and 28 other target species. Two NCCP target species, the California
gnatcatcher and the orange-throated whiptail, are included on the "covered species list", as are
17 other NCCP species. Each jurisdiction will receive permits to take listed species which are
adequately protected by the plan (referred to as "take authorizations"), under the condition that
all other implementing actions, as described in this plan, are fulfilled.
/ /~-/j
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 7
Protection Status Elan1s Animals ~
Federally listed (1) 3 10 13
State listed (2) 10 1 11
Federally proposed 2 1 3
Federal candidates(Cl & C2) 18 10 28
Other (no status) 0 2 2
Total 33 24 57
(1) may also be state listed
(2) may also be federal proposed or federal candidate)
In determining adequate conservation of species, the analysis focused on the percent of major
populations that would be conserved in the MHP A; percent of appropriate habitat conserved was
used for those species with few or spotty documented occurrences in the study area. Each
species was also assessed on the level of risk, including edge effects, degree of protection
outside the MHPA afforded by state and federal wetlands regulations and topographic
inaccessibility .
W.t1ands
11%
Grassland
6%
Chap.rral
32%
Coa.ta' Sag.
Scrub
42%
Composition of Vegetation Communities
Conserved in the MHPA
~ /~p--)7
.~rlW<
TlIIs Ihft I1IlIp dIpk:lS IIIIS wIlhln wIlIch
IIIbI1at P/IIllMS may be c:na1Id, I/ld Is
Intende1l !Dr N11l1\1l1ng IIabIlat proK1Ion
IlId COlIS flIr 1IIe Ihft MuItiDIe SoecIes
eonselYlllon PnIaram (MSCP). Tbe biD-
IaglcaI dIla '- ~g IOUn:eS IIld
IIDJI1CY; lIle-specIlIc dIla IllaJI upcla1e
1IIe dIla 1lIse, IIld may mocIIy lhls drill
map. It II not manded llIat III lands
WIlIlIn 1IIe lines beP/l&erved (some
dMIopment wIU be 1I_d), IIId IOme
IIIIli lIUlIlde 1IIe IRes may ullIma1rly .
be h:luded In 1IIe praeM. Tbe MSCP
Plan must be ~ by tie CllUndls
IIld Ioanl 01 SuPeMsors for 1IIe cllies
IIld caun1Y befDlI 1hIs Infol1llltion Is
IIIId III ..... 11III ...
DRAFT
_ 100% Hlbltat PIIstM
~",;j 809lI Hlbltat PmeMl
_ ~ Habitat PllseMl
~ 70% Hlbltlt PmeMl
Pln:ent preservatlon
-:ell: ~ to
,:;. ---
~
~
/"-.... ."".
};:-;:::".::::" ::.;. ::';
",.,..
MSCP S1udy Area Q
IIoundIIy
f-.ys
Major Slrums 0 1.1
. ,
LaIcIs IIIcl Lagoons MUS
IXIIN
.....
Multi-Habitat Planning Area
. .': -
M.....
/5P~/~
8
Table 3.3
VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACRES PRESERVED WITHIN
MSCP MULTI-HABITAT PLANNING AREA (MHPA)
Total MSCP MHPA % of MSCP
Study Area Total MHPA Conserved Veg. Comm.
Vegetation Communities (acres) (acres) (acres) Conserved
Beach 1206 627 602 50%
Saltpan 235 212 212 90%
Southern Foredunes 188 140 139 74%
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 198 144 130 66%
Coastal Sage Scrub 115,636 80,323 69,782 60%
Maritime Succulent Scrub 1,804 1,000 924 51%
Chaparral 110,191 59,047 52,475 48%
Southern Maritime Chaparral 1,777 1,196 1,076 61%
CSS/Chaparral Scrub 3,878 1,721 1,431 37%
Grassland 28,400 11,546 10,389 37%
Southern Coastal Saltmarsh 1,870 1,732 1,732 93%
Freshwater Marsh 817 523 523 64%
Riparian Forest 1,328 1,102 1,102 83%
Oak Riparian Forest 5,382 3,053 3,053 57%
Riparian Woodland 731 588 588 80%
Riparian Scrub 5,395 4,278 4,278 79%
Oak Woodland 5,622 3,098 2,604 46%
Torrey Pine Forest 169 152 137 81%
Tecate Cypress Forest 5,696 5,615 5,531 97%
Eucalyptus Woodland 1,631 440 370 23%
Open Water 5,726 5,222 5,222 91%
Disturbed Wetlands 928 754 754 81%
Natural Flood Channel 860 731 731 85%
Shallow Bays 9,581 412 412 4%
Pacific Ocean 4,888 0 0 0%
Other" 756 143 131 17%
Subtotc" Habitats 314,890 183,798 164,326 52%
Disturbed 22,984 5,993 0
Agriculture 28,594 5,267 0
Developed 215,181 2,048 0
Subtotal 266,759 13,308 0
TOTAL 581,649 197,106 164,326
· Distwbed, Agriculture, md Developed areas with babiw value.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total as shown. due to rounding.
Source: 1994 MSCP GIS data base.
9
110921()()().Pltm
~ J5/J ~//
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 10
3.3 PreselVe Assembly and Ooeration
For planning purposes, there are three principal groups of participants and beneficiaries in the
conselVation program: 1) federal and state governments; 2) local governments; and 3) private
landowners. These three groups will 1) commit and manage for habitat use certain ~ds they
currently own and 2) acquire additional lands in private ownership inside the MHPA. These
actions are summarized in Table 3-9 as management or dedication of lands and funding of
habitat acquisition and maintenance.
The more private lands preselVed as open space or habitat lands through local land use
regulation or dedicated as habitat lands through mitigation, the less need for acquiring habitat
within the MHP A through other sources. The plan recommends that local jurisdictions establish
encroachment limits for habitat conselVation on private lands within the MHPA, and establish
other land use regulations and resource protection guidelines to help implement the MSCP. In
this plan, two cases are analyzed to illustrate acquisition costs if high rates of conselVation are
required on private lands (Case A, low acquisition program) or if lower rates of conselVation
are required on private lands (Case B, high acquisition program). The two cases assume that
all habitat acquisition will be accomplished by purchase, and none by alternative methods such
as land exchanges.
Case A
(Low Acquisition Prosrram)
Case B
lHieh Acouisition PrQsrram)
Total Acquisition Costs
$271 million
$513 million
Financing cost (interest)
for local government
$ 17 million
$ 88 million
Operation, maintenance &
management (1st 30 yrs)
Total 3D-yr program costs
$145 million
. $150 million
$433 million
$751 million
Federal and State. The combined federal and state share of the total program costs is estimated
to be $153 million in Case A and $282 million in Case B. It has been assumed that the federal
and state governments will together fund one-half of the habitat acquisition cost, based on the
standard approach of federal and state funds matching local funding. Federal and state sources
of funds are ell.ye..1ed to include the federal Land and Water ConselVation Trust Fund, Section
6 of the federal Endangered Species Act and state bond measures. Additionally, the federal and
state governments will conselVe and manage approximately 31,861 acres of habitat they currently
own in the proposed preserve.
l.Qs;al. The local share of the 3D-year program costs in 1994 dollars is estimated to be $165
million (38%) in Case A and $357 million (48%) in Case B, with the difference due to
fr J~ ~02C)
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 11
additional habitat acquisition and the cost of debt financing. The local share may be financed
through a variety of sources, any of which could be subject to voter approval. The costs range
from $7 to $9 per household per year under Case A, and from $15 to $20 per household per
year under Case B. Potential local sources of public financing include:
Parcel taxlbenefit assessment (Assembly Bill 2007)
Habitat maintenance assessment district (Senate Bill 445)
Mello-Roes community facilities district
Ad valorem taxlgeneral obligation bond program
Annual fee on water or sewer rates
Regionwide utility tax
Sales tax
As part of the MSCP, local jurisdictions and special districts will preserve and maintain the
natural habitat they currently own in the MHPA, which amounts to approximately 39,875 acres.
Most of these lands are already protected in open space preserves and passive parks.
Private. Private projects are anticipated" to acquire habitat inside the MHPA as off-site
mitigation and to fund a portion of the operation and maintenance cost. The plan assumes that
future development's impacts to habitat outside the MHPA will be mitigated through
conservation of habitat inside the MHP A. For all private parcels containing at least some habitat
inside the MHPA, the averaee land value is estimated to be $17,800 per acre, with a median
value of $10,300 per acre. It is estimated that future private projects requiring off-site
mitigation will purchase 10,000 acres of habitat at the median price of $10,300, at a total cost
of $103 million. The MSCP Plan provides flexibility in h'lW future development impacts are
mitigated by each jurisdiction, and provides for options such as mitigation fees.
Varying land use regulations and mitigation for future projects ~ the MHPA also affect
acquisition costs, as shown in Cases A and B. For habitat inside the MHPA, land use
regulations are assumed to emphasize avoidance by limiting encroachment onto sensitive
biological resources. For illustrative purposes, the encroachment allowed for private
development inside the MHPA was based on a "base development area" of 40% (Case A) and
60% (Case B) of gross property area. That is, each property was 'assumed to have the
opportunity to develop habitat as necessary to achieve this area of development. For each
property, a minimum of 2 acres was also assumed to be available for developed uses. Any
habitats impacted beyond the encroachment limitation are assumed to be replaced with habitat
of equivalent acreage and value. Table 3-18 presents the two illustrative cases of preserve
assembly based on low and high acquisition programs. The total amount of habitat acquired in
Case B exceeds Case A by 16,500 acres.
A case assuming a 20% base development area was also analyzed. In this case, the total acres
of habitat conserved on-site (without compensation) would exceed the conservation goal for
private habitat, though some public acquisition (2,300 acres) may be needed to improve
coMectivity and configuration. This case is a less conservative estimate of costs of the MSCP.
~ /5b-c:J/
Table 3.9
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ACTIONS FOR PRESERVE ASSEMBLY
AND OPERATION
Responsibility
Acres of Habitat to Be
Conserved in MHP A
1. Federal and State Governments
a) Manage and maintain =ntly owned natural habitat
located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines.
b) Establish a long-term program to purchase privately owned
habitat in MHP A. Manage and maintain natural habitat
acquired with federal or state funds. Alternatively, provide
funding to panicipating local governments to acquire and
maintain the equivalent amount of habitat in MHP A.
2. Local Governments
a) Manage and maintain =ntly owned natural habitat
located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines.
b) Acquire priVately owned habitat in MHPA by purchase or
by other non-financial methods such as land exchanges and
transfers of development rights. Manage and maintain
natural habitat acquired under the local program.
c) Assure conservation of natural habitat on privately owned
land in accordance with local land use regulation,
environmental review, and resource protection guidelines.
3. Private Landowners
a) Conserve on-site natural habitat currently in private
ownership in accordance with local land use regulation,
environmental review, and resource protection guidelines.
Maintain habitat in accordance with MSCP guidelines.
b) Provide off-site mitigation through purchase of privately
owned habitat inside MHP A. for impact to habitat outside
MHP A. in accordance with resource protection guidelines.
Total to Be Conserved in MHPA
31,860 acres
11,300 - 19,100 acres
39,870 acres
2,700 - 11,400 acres
See below.
52,100 - 68,600 acres
10,000 acres
164,326 acres
Source: Onaka PlaJllliDg &: Economics; Tlbles 3-11 and 3-13 through 3-16.
Figures have been rouDded except for tolaI to be CODSerYed in MHPA.
11 0921000.Pltm
12
/1' /5), -.2cJ-
Table 3-18
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF PRESERVE ASSEMBLY BASED ON
LOW AND HIGH ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
Case A Case B
Low Acquisition High Acquisition
Source Program (acres) Program (acres)
Federal and State Governments
. Maintain cl.lITentl y owned habitat 1 31,860 31,860
. Acquire additional habitat 11,300 19,100
Local Governments
. Maintain cl.IITently owned habitat 2 39,870 39,870
. Acquire additional habitat 2.700 11,400
Private Landowners
. Conserve =ntly owned habitat located in
Pending private projects 3 31,100 31,100
Future private projects which impact
habitat inside the MHPA 4 37,500 21,000
. Net off-site mitigation obligation by all
private projects (excluding on-site 10,000 10,000
conservation) 5
Total habitat in preserve 164,330 164,330
Acquisition Summary
Total habitat acres acquired by all sources 6 24,000 40,500
Total acres of paroels acquired 7 24,800 42,500
Total acquisition cost ($ Million) 8 $271 M SS13 M
Source: 0naIca Planning &. Ecooomics; 1994 MSCP GIS daIa base (Ogden, SourcePoint).
FiguRS have been rounded.
I Table3-1!.
2 Table 3-13.
3 Table 3- 14. Low estimate is used in bolh cases.
4 Estimated habilal conservation by fUlUre projeclS which impact habilat inside Ihe MHP A. See
Table 3-15 and discussion in texL
S See Section 3.3.5.
6 Total privlUely owned habiw acquired by fedeml. Slate. and local govemmenlS and private projeclS
which impact habilat oUlSide the MHP A.
7 Total aaes of private parcels which COO\8in the habi\8t noted (see text for a discussion of potential
acquisition).
8 In 1994 dollars.
J J092JOOO-Pla.
/ /52> -.23
'"
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 14
Operation. Maintenance and ManalZement Costs. The average cost of preserve operation and
maintenance is estimated to be $36.50 per acre per year, or $6 million per year for a 164,300-
acre preserve. Program management and administration are estimated to cost $7.50 per acre per
year, or $1.2 million per year for the preserve, plus an additional amount for preparing planning
documents such as subarea plans. Total costs of operation, maintenance and management are
approximately $45 per acre per year.
3.4 Imolementation Process and Structure
Implementation of the MSCP will occur through land acquisition by the federal, state and local
governments and through land use review and approval actions of the local jurisdictions.
Federal, state and local commitments of publicly -owned lands to the MHPA will also serve to
build the preserve system. Therefore, the proposed implementation structure for the MSCP
relies on existing institutions to implement the MSCP, primarily the eleven cities and the
County. These jurisdictions will use the MSCP Plan as a framework or subregional plan to
guide the preparation of subarea plans and development project plans, which are the basic
building blocks of MSCP implementation.
The MSCP will be incrementally implemented by: a) review of projects for consistency with
"hard line" preserves and recommendations of the MSCP, or; b) through the preparation or
approval of subarea plans by local jurisdictions and subsequent review of projects. This process
maintains local jurisdiction flexibility. Regardless of the process chosen, the end result will be
an approved "hard line" preserve before taking of the habitat and species may proceed.
This plan proposes a new process for implementing the state and federal Endangered Species
Acts (ESA) in that local jurisdictions will obtain authorizations from the state and federal
governments to take listed species, and the jurisdictions will then exercise their land use review
and approval powers in accordance with the MSCP Plan and each jurisdiction's implementing
agreement with the wildlife agencies. Each jurisdiction will enter into an implementing
agreement with USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to obtain
permits to take listed species, to obtain pre-listing agreements and assurances for unlisted
species, and to specifically outline the responsibility of each jurisdiction and the agencies in
implementing the MSCP. The 5% limit on interim take of coastal sage scrub, imposed as part
of the state's NCCP program, will be replaced by the conditions of each jurisdiction's
implementing agreement. The MSCP approval and implementation process is summarized in
Table 3-21.
'Jlnd Use Re$pOnsibilities of Local Jurisdictions. Each local government is expected to adopt
the final configuration of the proposed MHP A within its jurisdiction and adopt the
recommendations of the MSCP Plan through amendment of its General Plan or other applicable
plans. Zoning would be retained or properties rezoned, as needed, and zoning regulations
amended to reflect the MHP A and to achieve consistency with the MSCP Plan. The MSCP
guidelines for compatible land uses in and adjacent to the MHPA are also expected to be
incorporated into the General Plan, zoning regulations, and approval process for projects,
~ /5b-..2(
Table 3.21
MSCP APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENT A TION PROCESS
1. Local jurisdictions requesting take authorizations submit draft MSCP Plan to
wildlife agencies.
2 . Wildlife agencies review plan within 90 days.
3. Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies agree on contents of final MSCP Plan.
4. Local jurisdictions adopt MSCP; jurisdictions and wildlife agencies cenify
CEQA/NEPA documents.
5. Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies sign implementing agreements.
a. Agreements convey take authorizations to local jurisdictions.
b. Local jurisdictions incorporate MSCP Plan into general plans and, if necessary,
zoning ordinances.
c. Local jurisdictions apply protection to habitats covered by MSCP Plan.
6. Local jurisdictions panicipate in a subregional or regional open space acquisition
program.
7. Local jurisdictions implement MSCP Plan incrementally through local project
review and approval process.
a. Local jurisdictions prepare subarea plans ifneeded.
b. Applicants prepare project plans and local jurisdictions process project plans.
8 . Local jurisdictions certify projects in compliance with MSCP.
9. Wildlife agencies review subarea plan during 3D-day comment period.
10. Wildlife agencies issue lener of concurrence on subarea plan. For project plans, if
no comment or letter of concurrence is received from wildlife agencies. local
jurisdictions may issue permits.
11. Local jurisdictions report fmal project or subarea plan impacts to entity responsible
for regional monitoring. Jurisdictions monitor permit compliance.
See also Section 3.3.4 for a discussion of planning and adminislralive actions by local jurisdiclions.
JJ092/000
15
/ J>> -25
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 16
including adoption of appropriate mitigation guidelines. Procedures and regulations for interim
controls are also necessary to address activities that would potentially impact sensitive habitats.
The current method of individual wildlife agency review of public and private projects will be
streamlined by the fact that take authorizations will be issued in advance to the local jurisdictions
through the signing of implementing agreements.
Plan Monitorin!!. Monitoring ofMSCP Plan implementation involves two separate components:
a) annual accounting of the amount, type and location of habitat conserved and destroyed
(taken), and; b) biological monitoring by surveys and other data collection to assess the success
of the preserve system in conserving plant and animal species, with reporting expected every
three years.
Institutional Structure. I.ocaljurisdictions are currently discussing a local structure to coordinate
plan implementation. Tasks which must be fulfilled by the responsible jurisdictions or other
entity, or through shared responsibility, include:
A. Fund raisin!! & aCQJJisition (fund acquisition, establish mitigation banks)
B. Plan coordination (maintain data base, coordinate with other regional habitat
plans, monitor preserve system implementation, conduct public outreach)
C. Preserve mana~ement (prepare management plans, manage preserve areas,
conduct biological monitoring, oversee restoration or revegetation)
The local jurisdictions should select the groups and agencies who will provide coordination and
implementation during the MSCP Plan adoption proce~. Though establishment of a
conservancy to perform acquisition or management is being considered, the creation of a new
Joint Powers Agency (JP A) is not being recommended.
4. COMPATIBLE USES AND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The purpose of the proposed MSCP preserve system is to conserve biological diversity and
maximize preservation of target species, while providing open space for public recreation and
other land uses, as appropriate. A general land use compatibility chart is provided in Table 4-1.
Uses are categorized as either compatible, conditionally compatible or incompatible with
preserve, linkage or buffer areas. Land uses are considered conditionally compatible where
impacts are reduced or eliminated by specific activity restrictions, design, or management
practices.
Core areas and linkages within the preserve system are to be managed primarily for biological
resources. Buffers may be inside or outside the preserve, depending on ownership and land use,
and would be managed for potential indirect impacts on the adjacent preserve. Buffers may be
in private or public ownership. Buffers should generally be maintained at least 200-600 feet
from the borders of the preserve, with buffer width dependent on the sensitivity to disturbance
/' /f/?--~?
Table 4.1
GENERAL COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO PRESERVESl,2
Land Use Core Preserve Linkage Buffer
Active Reacalion I I CC
Passive Recreation CC CC CC
Agriculture I CC CC
Grazing CC CC CC
Low Density Residential3 CC CC CC
High Density Residential3 I I I
Commercial I I CC
Industrial I I CC
Utilities CC CC CC
Landfills I I CC
Water Facilities CC CC CC
Transportation I I CC
Mineml Extraction I I CC
Active Miliwy Use I I CC
Worker Camps I I CC
lCC .. Conditionally Com!'atible Use. some restrictions consislent with biological goals; however. lhe
level of intensity 8' , umulative impacts should be addressed.
I .. Incompatible Use
2Site-specific exceptions to compatibility designations may exist within any land use
C8legory; refer 10 leltl for specific ~
3Low Density Residential .. So I dwelling unit per acre
High Density Residential .. > I dwelling unit per acre
17
y /~/;-d?
J/0921000.PIDn
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 18
of the species being protected, the type of vegetation within the buffer, topography, and the type
and intensity of adjacent human activity. Zoning and development guidelines will be the best
means of achieving biologically compatible uses in these areas.
Linkages connect preserve areas and allow for wildlife movement, recruitment and colonization.
Linkages are crucial to the functioning of the preserve system, particularly for large mammal
movement and for sustaining certain sensitive species populations. Greater use restrictions and
more intensive management practices are expected in narrow linkages and those constrained by
development.
Guidelines for Preserve Land Uses. The MSCP Plan and the MSCP Resource Document
provide guidelines and suggestions on how to reduce impacts of several land uses including
recreation, agriculture, different forms of development, mineral extraction and itinerant worker
camps. It is assumed that planned and current park uses will continue and, in existing
recreational areas, existing ownership and management will be maintained. Both passive and
active recreational activities are anticipated within and adjacent to the preserve.
Guidelines for Preserve Mana!!ement Activities. The MSCP Plan provides guidelines for fire
management; grazing; restoration of vegetation; hydrology; insects and disease; fencing, signage
and lighting; predator and exotic species control and other factors. The plan requires that long-
term preserve management plans be prepared to address habitat management and land use issues.
These preserve management plans should be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG,
and should be annually reviewed and updated by the responsible local jurisdiction. Each plan
should identify operational needs, issues, problems and strategies for a five-year period.
Preserve management plans can be prepared for portions of the MHPA (such as a single
jurisdiction), though coordination is needed to ensure that the overall needs of species and
habitats are met on a rangewide basis.
S. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
An economic impact analysis is a comparison of an economy under different sets of assumptions.
For the MSCP Plan, Case A (the low acquisition program discussed in Section 3.3) and Case
B (the high acquisition program) are each compared to the No Preserve alternative. The No
Preserve Alternative would occur if the MSCP Plan is not adopted and conservation of the
region's native biological resources would result entirely from compliance with existing federal,
state and local laws, including the Special Rule (developed under Section 4(d) of the federal
Endangered Species Act) to conserve the California gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub.
The economic impact analysis shows that a multiple habitat preservation program (either Case
A or B) will ensure the region's economy against large and persistent developments disruptions.
Under the No Preserve alternative, the region will continue to be threatened by and experience
large and persistent development disruptions, which will be costly in terms of fewer jobs and
less income for residents.
?7/s;6 -.2~
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 19
Either Case A (low acquisition program) or Case B (high acquisition program) would provide
the region with an additional 5,000 jobs, with over 46% of those being in the construction
industry. These additional jobs would increase personal income in the region by $180.0 to 184.8
million (in the year 2010). Over the first 15 years of the program, the cumulative value to the
region, measured by annual net increase in aggregate personal income, would be $1.2 to $1.3
billion. The estimated increase in household income is $78 per year, exceeding the estimated
cost impact of $7 to $9 (Case A) or $15 to $20 (Case B) per household per year, associated with
public financing of the two alternative acquisition programs.
The region's opport.mity for economic growth hinges on new public and private investment in
capital and technology. In the absence of a regional habitat conservation plan, businesses and
investors probably would view San Diego as a risky destination for investment dollars, given
unresolved environmental conflicts and the prospect of regulations restricting development each
time another species is listed.
The median price of a new house in the San Diego region would also be higher without a habitat
conservation program. Under the No Preserve alternative, nearly 6,000 additional households
would no longer meet the minimum income requirements to purchase a home with the median
price (nearly six times the number of households affected by Cases A or B).
Impacts on Planned Land Use
Implementation of the MSCP would place into conservation some lands that are designated for
potential active use by general and community plans, including potentially 37,550 housing units
and employment uses for 32,260 persons within the MHP A. Some of this planned development
could take place inside the MHP A or some outside. It is highly unlikely that development would
be eliminated from the region.
Publicly Owned l.ands. Approximately 27% of 74,781 acres of publicly owned habitat in the
MHP A (20,228 acres) have general plan designations for active use. If low density residential
uses are excluded, public lands designated for active uses total nearly 9,200 acres. This plan
assumes that 4% (3,045 acres) of the publicly owned habitat in the MHPA would be lost to
development and approximately 96% would be conserved. In order to limit the loss to this
amount, it is anticipated that only essential public facilities would be constructed.
Privately Owned Lands. Nearly two-thirds of the privately owned habitat inside the MHP A have
general or community plan designations for active use. Inside the MHPA, about a third of
privately owned habitat lands are currently designated by local general or community plans as
preserves and open space, and nearly half are designated for low density residential uses (1 unit
per 20 acres to 1 unit per acre). About 10% are designated for urban uses. According to this
plan, approximately 85% of the 109,018 acres of privately owned habitat in the MHPA would
be conserved, and 15% (16,428 acres) could be lost to private development. The total number
of housing units that could be built in the MHP A through buildout, as envisioned by current land
use plans, is 37,550 units; 31,970 of these are shown on lands to be conserved.
~ ~5P--c2/
'.
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 20
6,0 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
Assurances. A goal of the MSCP is to achieve certainty in the private and public sector
development process while conserving our region's biodiversity. The following are taken from
a list of assurances developed with the other two habitat conservation planning programs in the
County and with the wildlife agencies. The statement of assurances outlines the ~or policies
and procedures upon which implementation of the MSCP can depend.
1. A list of species adequately protected by the MSCP Plan and for which take
authorizations can be granted (Covered Species List) will be agreed to by USFWS
and CDFG. The wildlife agencies will not require the commitment of additional
land or financial compensation beyond the level agreed to in the plan, provided
the plan is properly functioning and in the absence of extraordinary
circumstances.
2. The wildlife agencies will issue take authorizations (permits) and other assurances
for listed and unlisted species; the permits will cover significant time periods to
provide predictability to public facility and private project development.
3. If additional species are listed in the future, take authorizations will be expedited
for species on the Covered Species List.
4. The wildlife agencies agree to phased implementation if interim protection of
habitat is provided by jurisdictions and monitoring demonstrates compliance with
the MSCP Plan and implementing agreements.
5. Jurisdictions will ensure implementation through local land use plans and local
codes and ordinances, conserving public lands as identified in the MSCP Plan and
ensuring exactions and mitigation for private and public projects.
6. Federal and state land contributions shall focus on the implementation of the
MSCP Plan.
7. Subregional plans shall incorporate a uniform severability guarantee that protects
local jurisdictions and property owners from noncompliance by another
jurisdiction or owner.
Implementine Aereement. The implementing agreement is the vehicle by which USFWS and
CDFG will issue permits to take species ("take authorizations") and to provide pre-listing
agreements and assurances for unlisted species. The implementing agreement will be a binding
contract between an individual jurisdiction and the USFWS and CDFG, and will be an
agreement on specific actions between the parties to implement the MSCP. These actions would
include but not be limited to: the process by which local land use authority will be exercised to
create the preserve system through land use policies, project approvals and interim controls; the
~ /Sb -Jd
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 21
monitoring of conservation and take of species; preparation of subarea plans, if needed;
coordination with neighboring jurisdictions; participation in regional financing; and management
and maintenance of habitat. A model implementing agreement is provided in the MSCP Plan
to serve as a template for local jurisdictions in preparation of specific agreements.
7. PLANNING PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS
The MSCP began in July, 1991, with the formation of the MSCP Working Group, comprised
of state and federal wildlife agencies, local jurisdictions, special pwpose agencies, and
representatives of development interests and environmental groups. In addition, an
Implementation Strategy subcommittee was formed to provide review and expertise to
development of the finance and acquisition plan and overall implementation strategy. This latter
committee joined with staff from the North County MHCP and the County's regional habitat
conservation program to propose implementation measures for the entire County.
The Working Group and subcommittee have met at least monthly throughout much of the course
of the development of this plan. The Working Group addressed such topics as mitigation,
preserve design, subarea planning, equity, coordination of interim permit activities, and plan
implementation through the review and discussion of 12 Issue Papers. Additionally, four finance
papers were developed for input to the acquisition and financing strategy.
A Resolution of Intention (ROn was developed in 1993 for approval by the twelve local
jurisdictions within the study area. The ROI was prepared to confirm the voluntary commitment
by local jurisdictions to participate in the development of the MSCP Plan by identifying a
schedule and responsibilities. The ROI was approved by 10 local cities in the study area.
Relationship to Other Planninl! Efforts. In addition to the MSCP, two other subregional habitat
planning efforts are underway in the San Diego region: 1) the Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program (MHCP) covering the nine jurisdictions in the northwest part of the County (managed
by Sandag), and; 2) the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Program for the unincorporated lands east of the MSCP and MHCP. Regular coordinating
meetings have occurred with agency, local jurisdiction, developer and environmental interests.
In 1994, the MSCP Policy Committee of elected officials, originally formed to address preserve
boundary and financing issues for the MSCP, was expanded to include elected officials from the
MHCP and, therefore, cover all three programs.
The MSCP Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as envisioned in Section 10(a) of the
federal Endangered Species Act. The MSCP is also prepared as a Natural Community
Conservation Plan in accordance with California law. Based on the definitions in the .Southern
California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Draft Process Guidelines (July I, 1993),. the MSCP is an
Ongoing Multi-Species Plan and may be accepted as an NCCP. This relationship was
established by the signing of an Ongoing Multi-Species Planning Agreement in July 1993.
~ /S'P/ J/
ATTACHMENT 2
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
MULTIPLE SPECIES CO:\"SERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
A."I,"D JOINT EIRIEIS
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION
March 1, 1995
03/01/95
Draft MSCP Plan distributed for public review.
Begin 90-day public review period.
03/02/95
Publish Notice of Preparation of a Joint EIRlEIS in the Daily Transcript
(CEQA requirement). Begin NOP 30-day public review period.
03/02/95
Present Drait MSCP Plan to the MSCP Working Group.
03/03/95
Present Draft MSCP Plan to the MSCP Policy Committee.
Early March
Local jurisdictions notify the public of the availability of the Draft MSCP
Plan; where the documents can be seen; and dates, times, and locations
of the regional public workshops.
03/08/95
Present Draft MSCP Plan to the San Diego City Council
Natural Resources, Culture, and Arts (NRC&A) Committee.
03/15/95
Conduct public scoping meeting (NEPA requirement).
04/01/95
04/08/95
04/22/95
04/02/95
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, northern location
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, South Bay location
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, eastern location
End NOP 30-day public review period.
04/12/95
Discuss the Draft MSCP Plan with the City of San Diego NRC&A
Committee.
Early May
Notice of Availability of the Draft Joint ERIES published in the Federal
Register (NEPA requirement) and in the Daily Transcript. Notice of
Completion released (CEQA requirement).
Early May
Local jurisdictions notify the public of the availability of the Draft Joint
EIRlEIS; where the document can be seen; and dates, times, and locations
of the regional public hearings.
?-1 /5;I>-;J~
05/08/95
Draft Joint EIRIEIS distributed for public review.
Begin 45-day public review period.
05/18/95
City of San Diego Planning Commission workshop on the Draft MSCP
Plan and Draft Joint EIR/EIS.
05/30/95
End 90-day public review period for Draft MSCP Plan.
06/07/95
06/14/95
06/21/95
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIR/EIS, northern location.
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIR/EIS, South Bay location.
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIR/EIS, eastern location.
06/22/95
End 45-day public review period for Draft Joint EIRIEIS.
07/05/95
Final MSCP Plan distributed.
07/13/95
Final Joint EIR;'EIS distributed.
Mid July
NOA for Final Joint EIR/ElS published in the Federal Register (NEPA
requirement). Begin 30-day public review period.
07/27/95
City of San Diego Planning Commission hearing on the Final MSCP
Plan and Final Joint ElR/ElS.
08/08/95
San Diego Cit). Council hearing on the Final MSCP Plan and
Final Joint EIR/EIS, consideration of certification of the Joint EIR/EIS,
adoption of the Plan, and approval of reiated community plan amendments.
Notice of Determination is filed, if the Final Joint EIR/EIS is certified.
08/13/95
End 3D-day NOA public review period for Final Ioint EIR/EIS.
August
Record of Decision (ROD) on Final Joint EIR/EIS published in Federal
Register.
,2r /52-:1;1 15fr 3f
ATTACHMENT 4
February 28, 1995
city of San Diego
Development Services Department
Development and Environmental Planning Division
1222 First Street; M.S. 501
San Diego, CA. 92101
(619) 236-6532
NOtICE OF PREPARAtION OF
A DRAFt JOINt ENVIRONMENtAL IMPAct REPORt (EIR) /
ENVIRONMEN'XAL IMPACt StAtEMENt (EIS)
tHE CIty OF SAN DIEGO AND tHE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE will be Co-Lead
Agencies and will prepare a joint draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for the following project:
PROJECt:
DEP No.93-0287; SCH No.93121073
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCPl. APPROVAL OF A MSCP
PLAN to establish a program for the conservation and management of
self-sustaining viable populations of federally listed and key
candidate species and their habitats. the objectives of the MSCP
are to 1) Develop a program for the maintenance of biological
diversity and the conservation/protection of self-sustaining viable
populations of federally-listed endangered, threatened, and key
candidate species and their habitats. 2) Define a Multi-Habitat
Area (MHPA) within which preserve planning is focused, or within
which a preserve is defined, and implement a preserve system which
conserves viable habitat and provides for wildlife use and
movement. 3) Reduce the human-related causes of species extirpation
within the KSCP study area. 4) Establish a partnership among state,
federal, and local agencies of government to facilitate mitigation
and approval of public and private sector land development and
construction projects by expediting acquistion of federal and state
permits. The Proposed MHPA conserves 164,326 acres of habitat
within the 581,649-acre KSCP study area. The Plan includes a
covered species list of 57 plants and animals including 24 species
that are currently federally or state li~ted, 3 species that are
proposed for listing and 28 that are candidate species for listing.
Applicant: City of San Diego
Based upon an Initial Study, it appears that the project may have potential
for significant environmental impacts.
For more CEQA environmental information, or to provide comments on the scope
and content of the draft EIR/EIS, contact John Kovac, Senior Environmental
Planner with the City of San Diego Development Services Department
(Environmental Analysis Section), at (619) 236-6268. For project scoping
meetings/public' hearing schedule, contact R. David Flesh, Senior Planner with
the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department at (619) 533-5262.
Written comments on the scope and content of the draft joint EIR/EIS must be
sent to John Kovac of the City's Development Services Department at the above
address by no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ARE REOUESTED TO INDICATE THEIR STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJEct WHEN RESPONDING.
AN ENVIRONMEN'XAL IMPAct STATEMENt (EIS) SCOPING MEETING PURSUAN'X TO THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENtAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) WILL BE BELD ON WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 15, 1995, FROM 7PM TO 10PM AT:
Attachments:
SCOTTISH RITE CEN'XER
1895 CANINO DEL RIO SOUTH
MISSION VALLEY (SD 92108)
Distribution List
Regional Location Map
DEIR/EIS Scope of Work
/)5b-J~
DISTRIBUTION
MSCP Working Group
Karen Scarborough, City of San diego Mayor's Office
James E. Whalen, J. Whalen Associates
Craig Adams, sierra club
Karen Bartlet-Adams, citizens Coordinate for century III
Meryl Balko, City of San Diego
Cameron Barrows, The Nature Conservancy
Jerry R. Boggs, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Rob Cameron, The Baldwin Company
Constance Clover-Byram, McMillin Communities
Diane B. Coombs, San Dieguito River Park.JPA
Larry L. Eng, California Department of Fish and Game
Leonard S. Frank, Pardee Construction Company
Niall Fritz, city of Santee
Nancy Gilbert, u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris White, CALTRANS
Kevin Knoles, The Trust for Public Lands
Robert Leiter, city of Chula Vista
Michael McLaughlin, SANDAG
Dennis Moser, Alliance for Habitat Conservation
Jim Nessel, city of poway
Philip R. Pryde, Audubon Society
Larry Purcell, County Water Authority
Robert E. Asher, County of San Diego
Robert Robenhymer, San Diego MTDB
Don Rose, San Diego Gas and Electric
Executive Director Construction Industry Federation
Daniel Silver, Endangered Habitats League
Jeffrey Opdycke, San Diego Wild Animal Park
William Whitman, San Diego County Farm Bureau
county water Authority
SANDAG
SDG&E
San Diego Audobon Society
citizens Coordinate for century III
Federal Agencies
Southeastern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NAS Miramar
Army Corps of Engineers
u.s. Border Patrol
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
u.S. Department of Agriculture
u.S. Bureau of Land Management
State of California
State Clearinghouse
CALTRANS
Department of Fish and Game
Park and Recreation Department
Resources Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Native American Heritage commission
Y)~~;J!,
state of California (continued)
Department of Conservation
State Lands Commission
county of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
Department of Public Works
Department of Parks and Recreation
County of San Diego (continued)
Agricultural Department
Environmental Services Unit
city of San Diego
Mayor Susan Golding
Council Districts 1 through 8
Planning Department
Park and Recreation Department
Engineering Department
Real Estate Assets Department
Water utilities department
Wetlands Advisory Board
General Services
Metropolitan Wastewater
cities of
Chula Vista - Robert Leiter
Coronado
Del Mar
EI Cajon
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National city
poway - Jim Nessel
Santee - Niall Fritz
Solana Beach
Association of Environmental biologists
Environmental Law Society
San Diego Audobon Society
California Native Plant Society
San Diego State University Biology Department
Community Resources Panel
Ellen Bauder
Biodiversity Project
Community Planners Council
Archaeological Institute of America
San Diego county Archaeological Soci~y
Mission Trails Regional Park
San Dieguito Planning Group
San Pasqual/Lake Hodges Planning Group
~/fJ~J?
_ 100% Hab~at Preserve
E 80% Hab~at PllseM
~ 80% Hab~t Preserve
~ 70% Hab~t PllseM
Percent pllservaUon
appfies only to
habitat lands
;r/~
Tl1Js dl2lt map deplcls areas wllltin whch
IIabllat PllseMS may be Cllated, and Is
InlBnded lor eS1lma1lng habI1a1 prol!C1lon
and costs for 1l1e dr3tl Multiple Species
Conserva1lon Pl1lg13l11 (MSCP). lbe biD-
IoQlcal da1a have varying sources and
accura::y; slt!-speclftc da1a shan update
lI1e dala base, and may modlfy 1I1is dr;tt
map. It 'S not InlOnded tllat all lands
wl1l1Jn 1Ile Unes be pr..erved (some
deYllopment will be allowed), and some
areas DUlSiIle Ihe DIles may ulllmately .
be Included In Ihe preserve. lbe MSCP
Plan muS1 be approved by the Councils
and Board Of Supervisors for 1I1e eIlies
and county before 1IIIs Inform;tion Is
used 10 1I~1a1a land use.
.
DRAFT
)
~-
---
,....,..
MSCP Study Aln
Boundary
FlleWlyS
Major Snams
Lakes and lagoons
Q
u
.-,~<-::::.::::::.:<::::::~:::...
.- ..-....-....-.,........
-....-.......-......._...............
o
,
MILES
~
FI GURE
.....
Multi-Habitat Planning Area
A....-...--.tlo--..
....11.-1
y /5P~ J~
........
DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK
MSCP DEIR/EIS
A previous Notice of Preparation of a DEIR which included an EIR
scoping letter was distributed in December, 1993. Since that time
the proposed has changed, and the required EIR has changed from a
programmatic CEQA document which would require subsequent project
specific environmental review to a hybrid joint-CEQA/NEPA document
which includes project specific analysis for the areas within the
jurisdiction of the City of San Diego as well as conceptual
analysis for the cities of Chula Vista and Santee and the County of
San Diego. A revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been prepared
and distributed to Responsible Agencies and others who have
expressed an interest in the environmental process for this
project. The input received during the NOP review period of 30
days may result in further changes to this scope of work.
I . BACKGROUND
The MSCP study area covers approximately 581,649 acres of
land ranging from the San Dieguito River Valley in the north
to the US/Mexico border to the south and from the coast to
the community of Alpine to the east. (See attached location
map.)
The city of San Diego is developing a Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) for approximately 900 square
mile area in the southwestern portion of San Diego County.
The objective of the program is to develop a plan for the
longterm conservation and management of self-sustaining
viable populations of federally listed species and key
candidate species and their habitats. Implementation of the
program will initiate a mechanism to mitigate impacts from
future public capital improvements and private sector
development. The MSCP study area includes all or part of
land within the jurisdiction of eleven cities as well as the
County of San Diego.
As part of this program, a geographic information system is
being used to map vegetation communities and land uses
within the MSCP study area and to conduct a "gap analysis".
A network of biological core areas and linkages will be
identified; the large scale, potential preserve boundary
areas within lands owned by the city of San Diego will be
mapped. Other cities (poway, Chula Vista, and Santee) and
the County of San Diego will be developing criteria which
would subsequently allow them to draw preserve boundaries
within their jurisdictions. Financing strategies and public
policy are being developed to guide acquisition of
properties and dedication of lands for conservation, and
land management programs are being developed with
consideration for compatibility of various public uses.
~J3p/J/
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 2
The project has been designed to assure that all affected
organizations, member agencies, and state and federal
wildlife agencies are involved in the development and/or
review of the plan.
The MSCP plan describes conservation of the habitat and the
target species and focuses on acquistion and financing
options, compatible land use and activities, management of
the proposed preserve system, and an economic impact
analysis.
The MSCP plan will also describe how implementation will
occur over time and the relationship of the MSCP to other
longterm habitat/species conservation plans in the region.
California law (Section 2800 et seq. of the California Fish
and Game Code) establishes the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program "to provide for
regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife
diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate
development and growth. These goals will be achieved
through implementation of a Natural Community Conservation
Plan."
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the
California Resources Agency have prepared the "Southern
Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning
Process Guidelines" (September 1, 1992). Based on the
definition established by these State guidelines, the MSCP
is an "Ongoing MUlti-Species Plan" and may be accepted as a
equivalent NCCP. Therefore, it is the intent of the City of
San Diego to enter into an Implementing Agreement with DFG
and the FWS "to acknowledge approval of the Final NCCP plan
and declare that the NCCP meets the requirements of a state
Management Agreement or a federal Habitat Conservation Plan,
respectively, to allow issuance of appropriate permits for
target or other named species should those species become
listed."
Pursuant to the forthcoming Implementing Agreement by the
City of San Diego, the USFWS, and the CDFG, a joint EIR/EIS
for the subregional NCCP (MSCP study area) will be prepared
for the proposed preserve planning on publicly- and
privately-owned lands within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area
(MHPA) shown on the attached Figure 1. The draft joint
EIR/EIS will be prepared jointly by the City of San Diego
and the USFWS pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for consideration for the approval of the cities and
the County within the MSCP study area and of the federal and
state governments.
/1' /52> .- <7tJ
HSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 3
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The draft joint EIR/EIS will discuss the qoals and
objectives of the project and specifically, how this project
would interact with existinq and planned projects and the
relationship to NCCP. The joint document will describe all
discretionary actions needed to implement the MHPA including
the city of San Diego's "hard-line" preserve. The document
will also describe actions needed by member cities and the
County to approve the conceptual preserve areas within their
jurisdictions. The joint document will list all actions
required from other federal, state, and local agencies. The
project "study area" and the
preservE areas within the city of San Diego which shall
include all areas either directly or indirectly affected by
the MSCP shall be defined and mapped. A site location map
(aerial and USGS Quadrangle map) to identify the qeneral
location of the "study area" and the MHPA shall be provided.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
A. Land Use
1. Issue:
Would the proposed project result in a land
.use which is inconsistent with the General
Plan or community plans within the "study
area" and existing environmental plans of
the cities and portions of the County,
within the MSCP study area, participating
or other agencies or policy
including propositions?
agencies,
mandates,
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss how the MSCP could affect
implementation of the general plans of the cities and the
County. Important factors include growth patterns, housing
affordability, mineral resources, and recreation.
Would the proposed project conflict with
adjacent existing and planned land uses and
adjoining approved/proposed subsequent
development?
The joint EIR/EIS will describe the distance to and nature
of adjacent land uses to the proposed project, potential
conflicts, and measures to alleviate conflicts. The joint
document will discuss any impacts. on projects and associated
mitigation already in-progress. Sufficient buffer areas
2. Issue:
~ /5}-y/
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 4
between the
conflicting
disclosed.
proposed core preserve areas and potentially
adjacent land uses shall be analyzed and
B. Biology
1. Issue:
Would the implementation of the proposed
project effectively protect sensitive
terrestrial and biological resources?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the effectiveness of the
proposed MSCP to:
maintain viable populations of rare
endangered species and candidate species;
b) maintain biodiversity, and
a)
and
c) maintain habitat linkages between biological
core areas in the MHPA.
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the probable effectiveness of
the proposed MSCP plan in attaining the project objective of
protecting sensitive habitat/species. The amount of
sensitive habitat and number of rare, endangered, and
candidate species expected to be preserved by the proposed
MSCP plan will be quantified. Com~arison of the amount of
preserved habitat and number of protected species to MSCP
guideliness for a longterm, viable habitat and assured
continuance of species populations shall be included. The
implied, acceptable further loss of habitat/sensitive
species due to planned growth/development in the MSCP study
area shall be disclosed. The joint document will
distinguish proposed preserved habitat and protected species
in the biological core areas in the MHPA versus those
expected to survive in isolated but viable, large urban
habitat.
2.
Issue:
Would the implementation of the proposed
MSCP affect the movement of any resident
or migratory wildlife species?
The joint EIR/EIS will identify all critical habitat
linkages for biological core areas in the MHPA. The
physical dimensions/requirements of viable linkages and the
implementation/acquisition status of these areas will be
discussed. Criteria for strategic bridge and culvert
placements will be included.
y J>> -1/c2
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 5
C. Regional Transportation/circulation
Would the proposal substantially impact
planned regional transportation systems?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the potential effects of the
proposed MSCP plan on regional transportation systems.
Specifically, the joint document will discuss the potential
project effect on planned/proposed alignments of regional
roads through the proposed biological core areas.
conversely, the potential effects of planned regional road
alignments on the biological core areas of the MHPA and
identified habitat linkages will also be discussed. The
effects of proposed State Routes "90S, 56, and 125 on the
proposed MSCP plan will be considered.
1. Issue:
D. Public Services/Utilities
1.
Issue:
Would the proposal have an effect upon
need for or the provision of governmental
services?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the effect of the proposed
MSCP plan on the need for services such as fire protection,
police, schools, and parks. The effect of the proposed
MSCP plan on the need for and siting of new public service
buildings, solid/liquid waste facilities, schools, and parks
and the placement of public utility corridors for water,
sewer, power, fuel, and communication will be analyzed.
E. Housing/Population
1.
Issue:
2.
Issue:
Would the proposed MSCP plan affect
planned/existing housing in the region and
in adjacent communities or limit the supply
of additional housing?
Would the proposed MSCP plan alter the
planned location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the population specifically
within the MSCP study area and, generally,
within the region?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the net effect of the
proposed MSCP plan on housing within or adjoining the
proposed MHPA boundaries. The potential for shifts of MSCP
y /5/J~ij
'oJ':'._':\.J .:'...:> u.........:"~:. '..,).~ ~v.:\..:\.
;:"l.)..,::r.:' I;)
population due to the proposed project will be considered.
Specifically, the potential effect of any immediate MSCP
acquistion/inclusion of the privately-owned lands in the
MHPA which had been designated to add a wide range of
available housing types will be discussed. The effect on
undeveloped land designated for residential development by
the acquistion/inclusion of adjoining land into the MHPA
will be considered. Potential effects include unit yield,
density, and coverage due to any buffer requirements.
xv. MXTXGATXON MONXTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation measures shall be clearly identified and
discussed and their effectiveness assessed. In addition, a
monitoring and reporting program for each mitigation measure
must be included. As a minimum, this program should
identify:
a) the agency and/or department responsible for the
monitoring;
b) the monitoring and reporting schedule, and
c) the completion requirements.
V. CUMOLATIVE IMPACTS
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the impacts of this project
together with other planned or reaso~ably foreseeable future
public and private projects in the study area. The
discussion shall evaluate the potential cumulative effects
on public facilities, land use, and biological resources.
The joint document will discuss the cumulative effect of the
proposed MSCP plan with habitat conservation plans being
developed by adjoining jurisdictions in San Diego County.
VX. MANDATORY DISCOSSION AREAS
In accordance with CEQA Section 15127, the joint EIR/EIS
shall include a discussion of the following issue areas:
1. Any significant irreversible environmental changes
which would be involved if the proposed action
should be implemented.
2. The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
The joint EIR/EIS should place major emphasis on
ff /5b -:/:/
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 7
alternatives which avoid or mitigate the project's
significant impacts. These alternatives should be discussed
in equal detail, clearly assessing the relative level of
impacts and feasibili ty. Preceding the detailed
alternatives section should be a section entitled,
"Alternatives Considered but Rejected." This section should
discuss preliminary alternatives which were considered but
not carried forward for further analysis and the reasons for
rejection.
The "no project" alternative is required to be discussed.
In addition, analyze a range of other alternatives which
have the potential to reduce impacts.
As a minimum, the following alternatives should be
discussed:
1. No proieet - No Preserve Plan
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/
socio-economic consequences of not adopting and
implementing the proposed MSCP plan. The No Project/No
Preserve Plan alternative assumes that the impact on
sensitive habitat/species will be evaluated and
mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
2. Bioloaieallv Preferred/Core and Linkaae Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discus~ the environmental/
socio-economic consequences of a biological resource
driven alternative (scenario). This alternative
assumes the preservation of all large core biological
areas and critical linkages regardless of ownership,
public or private.
3. Coastal Saae Scrub Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/
soei-economic consequences of a plan which places major
emphasis on the preservation of coastal sage scrub.
4. Public Lands Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/socio-
economic implications of a plan which places major
emphasis on the preservation of existing publicly-owned
lands with habitat.
~ /5J-~~
--
ATTACHMENT 5
(Federal ~e9ister: March 6, 1995)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.z.........~.=c........................................................
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife service
Endangered and Threatened species Permit Application
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife. Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent and meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in Anticipation of
Rec.iving a Permit Application to Incidentally Take Threatened .nd
Endangered Species in Association with . Multipl. Speci.. Conservation
plan for Southwestern San Diego County. California.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has under
consideration for approval the draft Multiple Spec i.. Conservation
Program (MSCP) plan submitted by the city of San Di.go. California.
Thi. long-term plan. prepared by the city of San Diego and 11 other
participating jurisdictions. will accompany a future application to the
Service for a permit under section 10(a) of the Endangered Spec i.. Act
that would authori~e incidental take of li.ted .peci... Additionally.
the applicant. will reque.t pre-li.ting agreement. for .pecie. which
may b. li.ted in the future. In re.pon.. to the plan. the Service
int.nds to pre par. . joint programmatic .nd proj.ct-level Environment.l
Impact St.tement/Environment.l Impact Report (EIS/EIR) pur.u.~t to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .nd the c.liforni.
[[Page 12247)) Environment.l Quality Act. The MSCP plan cov.r. an
.pproximately 900-square-mil. .r.. of rapid growth in .outhwe.t.rn San
Diego County. The plan .ddr..... numerous s.n.itive pl.nt .nd .nim.l
.pecie. and thei~ habitat.. The MSCP cr..t.. . proc... for the i..u.nc.
of permits .nd other authori~ation. und.r the Feder.l ESA. c.liforni.
ESA. .nd the California Natur.l Community Con..rv.tion Pl.nning Act.
Thi. notice de.cribes the propo..d .ction .nd po..ible .It.rn.tive.. .
notifi.. the public of . .coping me.ting. invit.. public p.rticipation
in the .coping proc... for prep.ring the joint EIS/EIR. .olicit.
writt.n comment.. .nd id.ntifie. the Service offici.l to whom qu..tion.
.nd comment. concerning the propo..d action and the joint IIS/EIR may
be dir.ct.d.
DATES: A public .coping meeting will b. h.ld from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
March 15. 1995. .t the scotti.h Rite Cent.r. 1895 Camino d.l Rio South.
San Di.go. California 92108. Or.l comm.nt. will be r.ceiv.d during the
.coping meeting. Written comment. are encour.ged .nd .hould be received
on or before AprilS. 1995. .t the eddre.. below.
ADDRESSES: Inform.tion. comment.. or que.tion. rel.t.d to pr.p.ration
of the joint EIS/EIR .nd the NEPA proce.. .hould be .ubmitted to Mr.
Gail Kob.tich. Fi.ld Supervi.or. U.S. Fi.h .nd Wildlife S.rvice. 2730
Loker Av.nue w..t. Carl.b.d, California 92008. Written comm.nt. al.o
m.y be .ent by f.c.imile to t.l.phon. (619) 431-9618.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M.. N.ncy Gilbert. supervi.ory Fi.h
.nd Wildlife Biologi.t. at the above Carl.b.d .ddr.... telephone (619)
431-9440. per.ons wi.hing to obt.in background materi.l .hould cont.ct
the City of san Diego. D.velopm.nt Servic.. Division. Environment.l
~ /53 -~~
ysiS Section, 1222 First Avenue, 5th Floor, San Diego. California
_i~l, telephone (619) 23~-626B. Documents also wi~l be available for
ublic inspection by appo~ntment during normal bus~ness hours (B a.m.
:05 p.m., Monday through Friday) at the above San Diego office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Back'i/round
The MSCP .tudy area occupies portions of the unincorporated County
of San Die'i/o and 10 .dditi~nal city juri.dictions. The .outhern
boundary of the MSCP .tudy area is the int.rnationa1 border with
M.xico. National for.st 1.nds form much of the .ast.rn boundary, the
Pacific Ocean 1i.. to the west, .nd the north.rn boundary is the San
Di.'i/uito River Valley. Conservation planning to the north of the MSCP
study .r.a is being conducted by the San Diego A.sociation of
Governments, and a coalition of 8 north county cities .nd San Diego
County. San Diego County is r.sponsib1. for conservation planning in
the .ast.rn portion of the county.
The diversity of topography, .oi1., and climate in the study .rea
combine to influence vegetative .ssociations, which in turn .upport .
high div.rsity of p1.nt .nd .nima1 .peci.s. Topographic f.ature. in the
.tudy .rea include broad f1.t va11.y., d.ep canyon., per.nni.11y
flowing riv.r. .nd intermitt.nt cr..k., moderat.1y .loped t.rr.in .nd
.t.ep hi11.ides, rolling foothill. .nd nearly 1.ve1 m..a., coa.ta1
bluff., .nd a .eri.. of coa.ta1 bay., inlets, and lagoons. E1.v.tions
r.ng. from mean ..a l.vel (m.1) .long the coast to .pproximate1y 3,738
f.et .bove msl.
Th. obj.ctives of the MSCP .r. to:
1. D.velop . program for the maint.nanc. of bio10gic.1 div.r.ity
.nd the con.erv.tion/prot.ction of .e1f-.ustaining vi.b1. popul.tion.
of f.d.rally-1i.t.d endanger.d, threat.n.d, .nd k.y c.ndid.t. .peci.s
.nd th.ir habit.ts.
2. D.fine . Multi-H.bit.t Pl.nning Ar.a (MHPA) within which
pr...rv. planning is focu..d or within which a pr...rv. i. d.fin.d, .nd
imp1em.nt . pr...rv. .y.t.m which con..rve. vi.ble habit.t .nd provid..
for wildlife u.e and mov.m.nt.
3. R.duc. the human-r.1at.d c.u... of .peci.s' .xtirpation within
the MSCP .tudy area.
4. Estab1i.h . partn.r.hip among St.t., F.d.ra1, and 10c.1 agenci..
of gov.rnment to f.ci1it.t. mitig.tion .nd approval of public and
priv.t. ..ctor land d.v.lopment and con.truction proj.ct. by expediting
.cqui.ition of F.d.ral .nd Stat. permit.. Thi. .ction would provide a
, 10ng-tarm .conomic b.n.fit.
Th. biological go.l for the pre..rv. d..ign i. pr...rvation of a.
much of the COre biologic.1 r..ourc. .r... .nd linkag.. a. po..ib1..
Th. .conomic goal i. for the u1tim.t. pr...rv. to b. .fford.bl. and for
the co.t. to b. .har.d .quit.bly among the participant..
Th. pl.n propo... . n.w proc... for wi1dlif. and habit.t
con..rv.tion, and for imp1ement.tion of the F.d.r.l and St.t. of
C.1ifornia ESA., which r.1i.. on exi.ting local .g.ncy l.nd u.. r.view
.nd .pprova1 .uthority. Th. new proc... pl.c.. con..rvation
r..pon.ibiliti.. on 10c.1 juri.diction., b...d on th.ir .bi1ity to
implement . ..gm.nt of the MSCP for th.ir juri.diction. In ex chang. for
th... coordinat.d con..rv.tion pl.n., 10c.l juri.diction. will r.c.iv.
from the S.rvic. permit. for the t.king of f.d.r.11y-li.ted .peci.s and
will .nt.r into pr.-1i.ting .gr.ement. for prot.ction of oth.r speci..
of conc.rn. A 1i.t of cov.r.d animal .nd p1.nt spec i.. is incorporat.d
in the MSCP Pl.n, including .peci.. th.t ar. f.d.r.11y or st.t.-list.d,
propo..d for 1i.ting, and c.ndid.te. for listing.
Th. 1.nd. id.ntifi.d for open .p.c. and h.bit.t pr...rvation ar.
loc.t.d within the MHPA. Th. MHPA w.. cooper.tiv.1y d..ign.d by the 12
p.rticipating juri.diction. in the KSCP .tudy ar.a, in con.ult.tion
with the S.rvic. .nd C.1iforni. D.p.rtment of Fi.h ~nd Game, major
property own.r. and .nvironment.1 group., b...d on biologic.l,
owner.hip, .nd 1.nd u.. crit.ri.. P1.nning .t.ff of the 5 juri.diction.
th.t have the 1.rg..t .mount. of rem.ining h.bit.!;.: in'th. MSCP .tudy
.r.a (COunty of San Di.go and citi.. of S.n Di.go, Chul. Vist., pow.y,
.nd S.nt..) .pent ..v.r.l month. d.v.loping ".oft lin....d.lin..ting
.r.a. within which .pecifi.d perc.nt.g.. of land would b. pr...rv.d and
"h.rd lin.s" d.lin..ting 100' pr...rv.tion .r.... Th. oth.r local
juri.diction. within the MSCP .tudy .r.. w.ra a.k.d to comm.nt on a
pr..erv. d..ign b...d .01.1y on public owner.hip .nd g.n.r.1 p1.n open-
.p.c. d..ign.tion.. Th. r..ulting MHPA cov.r. 164,326 .cr.. of habit.t.
fr /J3 - Y'?
~e ~abitat conservation described by the MHPA is approximate. The
,~'may be modified during the course of subsequent land use and
~:ject planning, as long as the changes are consistent with MSCP
;ojectives6 Preserve boundaries, approved through either the MSCP plan
or subsequent land use plans, may be adjusted without the need to amend
the MSCP plan, or applicable land use plans, when the new preserve
boundary results in a preserve area that is equivalent in biological
value to the original configuration or is of greater biological value.
Although the city of San Diego will prepare the draft EIS, the
Service will be responsible for its content and scope. In addition, the
City of San Diego will act as the lead agency for the preparation of
the EIR.
Project level environmental documentation will be included in the
joint EIS/EIR for amendments to a variety of planning documents for the
cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and Santee. The proposed amendments
would incorporate the preserve boundaries of the MSCP plan into adopted
land use plans. Actions [[Page l2248JJ proposed by these 3 cities that
will be addressed in the joint EIS/EIR include, but are not limited to,
amendments to progress guides and general plans, local coastal
programs, community plans, precise plans, and zoning ordinances.
Th. joint EIS/EIR will consider the proposed action (issuance of a
section 10(a) ESA permit for the MSCP plan), and a rea.onable range of
alternativ.s derived from .cenarios considered during development of
the MSCP plan:
Alternative 1: Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario. This alternative would
focus on preservation of the highest quality coastal .age .crub in the
planning area with less emphasis on pr.serving other habitat types.
Alternative 2: Biologically Preferred/Core and Linkage Area
Scenario. This alternative would attempt to preserve those lands with
the highest conservation value in the planning area, including multiple
habitat. and habitat linkages. Thi. alternative is based heavily on
biological criteria rather than other land u.e i.sues that determine
the feasibility of pr.servation.
Alt.rnativ. 3: Public Land. Sc.nario. Thi. alternative reli.s more
heavily than the proposed plan on public lands and open .pace
associated with exi.ting or proposed development.
Alternativ. 4: No Project (No pre.erve) Scenario. Thi. alternative
assume. that conservation practices throughout the .tudy .rea would
occur on . project-by-project basis as occur. under exi.ting
condition.. Under the no project .lternative, a region.l pr..erv. would
not be established at this time within the KSCP .tudy ar...
Environmental review of the KSCP will be conduct.d in .ccord.nc.
with the requirem.nt. of the 1969 NEPA, as .mended (42 U.S.C. 4321 .t
.eq.), NEPA regulations (40 CFR part. 1500-1508), other .ppropri.te
regulations, and Service procedures for compli.nce with tho..
regul.tions. Thi. notice i. being furni.hed in .ccordance with ..ction
1501.7 of the NEPA to obtain .ugge.tions .nd information from other
agenci.s .nd the public on the .cope of i..ues to be .ddr....d in the
joint EIS/EIR.
comment. and participation in the .coping proc... .r. .olicit.d.
Th. primary purpo.e of the .coping proce.. i. to identify r.th.r th.n
to d.b.te the .ignific.nt i..u.. r.l.t.d to the propo..d .ction.
Inter..ted person. .r. .ncourag.d to att.nd the public .coping me.ting
to id.ntify .nd di.cu.. i..u.s and .It.rnativ.. th.t .hould be
.ddr....d in the joint EIS/EIR. Th. propo..d .gend. for this
facilitat.d me.ting include. . .ummary of the propo.ed .ctionl at.tu.
of .nd threat. to .ubject .pecie., end tentative i..ue., concern.,
opportunitie., .nd .ltern.tive.. Additional public meetings will b.
conducted on later d.t.. to provide more opportuniti.. to comment on
the draft EIS/EIR.
Dat.d: Febru.ry 28, 1995.
Thorn.. J. Dwy.r,
D.puty Regional Dir.ctor, R.gion 1, portland, Or.gon.
[FR Doc. 95-5380 Filed 3-3-95, 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
ff /5P -~r